 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#11
29th September 2005, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
\ always had more success with tri's. I find far too often get two legs up in trebles. Usually dont box tri's though so mainly have tri's when confident of getting 1st place right thengo for value in the next two placings. Got the manikato tri doing this. Tho got done when i had dea, timbourina and just a tad stood out for first and second but left out catscan. Tri paid seven grand. In regards to all up's taking your divy, it's just the same as backing each individual using your winnings. If you have 4 win bets on a saturday, your losing 14.5% takeout on each bet just as you are in the all up. If you have a quadie or treble then you are only subject to one 20% takeout but your unsure of final payout because it is pooled. cheers 
|
|
#12
29th September 2005, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just to clarify my all up bet it was actually Derby day told you I have a bad memory
And the 4 Horses were Choisir, Miss Zoe, Rubitano & Delago Brom.
|
|
#13
29th September 2005, 08:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
RAW INSTINCT, many moons ago I used to play the trifectas, this was when minimum bet was $1. I used to box 9 runners ($504 per bet). my turnover was quite high but landed numerous $5000- $10000 payouts, as soon as they introduced 50 cent units it knocked the stuffing right out of the divies. I think now with flexie betting this is more so the case. I now tend to bet Trebles more now, & as Hammers said there is not the multiple TAB takeouts as with allups & parlays.
|
|
#14
29th September 2005, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
xanadu,
Are you a professional gambler? you certainly sound like one. if so what sort of percentage of profit per outlay do you get on average? Do you outlay bigtime? Percentage punting takes the fun out of gambling because it takes away the chance of having a really big win
|
|
#15
30th September 2005, 08:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks Xanadu for the info...never had a parlay bet nor tried the dutch style of betting (altho I might have a saver on an ew if going hard on a relative fave)...can you combine place and win bets or do they have to be all place or all win on a parlay?
|
|
#16
1st October 2005, 12:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hammers is spot on with his logic there.
Pure mathematics dictates savings on TAB take-outs when playing exotics. Always gets me why punters give up when they have selected the winner. Usually the weight/formlines that have pointed you to a winner have got you a long way down the track, to picking second and third placegetters as well. Most punters do the form in the last 5 minutes prior to a race, and consequently the eventual winner gets backed in noticeably. Doubles etc lock you in at a fixed price an hour earlier. Trebles versus trifectas- They say it's easier to pick 3 winners in one race than 3 different races, however if your selection is likely to be heavily backed late then trebles etc offer value. Try 'em both and stat. the long term effects. I'll average over 300 bets daily aiming for a single digit percentage profit. The crux of the matter is then to "slice and dice" your betting history so that you know your best weekdays, months, classes, bet types, tracks, states, agegroups, odds range, even hours of the day.
|
|
#17
1st October 2005, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
G'day percentage players:
Hammers-you make very good points and they are logical and warrant further scrutiny. Desi-it's just like all-up betting, the punter can take win or place options. Yozman- as I said earlier, I am principally a form student who employs a professional approach to my wagering. I stress that I am nowhere in the league of some of the leviathan punters we read and hear so much about. I make the point that even if you are a modest or small punter if you employ these solid betting methods your ROI will improve giving you the option of increasing your wagering stake. As far as taking the fun out of betting I believe the opposite is true for me. Don't you get a great sense of satisfaction if you get "overs" about a particular runner? Also, to be in control of my wagering at all times means that I do not panic when the inevitable losing streak is encountered. When I have a losing day I do not necessarily attempt to recoup all losses in one bet. I gradually win back the losses bit by bit sticking to my strategy. As I stated earlier, when I am losing I usually diminish my wagers-don't you think this has logic-increase wagers when you are winning and decrease wagers when in a losing sequence? Patezza-similarly, I input all my betting activities on a spreadsheet and analyse the results. This proved helpful to me as I identified that my wagering on the greyhounds was costing me money. The result is that now I rarely wager on the dogs unless there is excellent value. Hope you are all successful today and can begin to implement those bank-building strategies. Cheers.
|
|
#18
2nd October 2005, 09:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Xanadu,
I have never been able to grasp the logic of betting less in a "losing streak" and more in a "winning streak". The questions I pose are these ... 1. What is a winning streak? Is it showing higher than average profit over a certain period? Is it backing three winners in a row? You may be "winning" over a period of 100 bets but losing over a period of 25. Similar logic applies to losing runs. 2. How do you know when a losing/winning streak is going to end? Betting less would indicate you expect the losing run to continue and therefore I ask, why bet at all? 3. Why put more on a horse you rate an even money chance simply because you are having a good trot as opposed to a smaller bet on a horse you also rate evens because you are experiencing a losing trot? The only time this logic would apply would be if there were insufficient funds in your punting bank. If that is the case, then the bet size as a whole should be reviewed or your bank increased to accomodate losing runs. To bet less simply because you are down on your luck smacks of gimmicky punting, not professional. I operate two banks for two different bet types I have. One is high strike rate, the other low but with excellent average win prices. I bet 1% of my bank on Bank A where my strike rate is around 29% and 0.5% on Bank B where my strike rate is 19%. At the end of each month I take profits and start again with the same bank level thus ensuring the same bet percentage and size. The bank is sufficiently large to accomodate even the worst expected losing runs and there is never a need to make irrational or emotional decisions. If I started making decisions on the run and adjusting bet size, I would immediately question my approach and stop betting.
|
|
#19
3rd October 2005, 12:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hammers,
You may have misinterpreted what I said. I certainly do not adjust the size of my wagers "on the run." As I invest a certain percentage of my betting bank the amount of available funds determines the size of the next bet. Therefore whether I am in a winning or losing sequence is reflected in the increasing/decreasing balance of my bank and logically the size of my next bet...this takes the emotion out of wagering and keeps everything on an even keel...no panic when things aren't necessarily going to plan. Similar to you I may take dividends at regular intervals if I so desire although I review my betting weekly from Sunday to Saturday. As i input all my activities onto a spreadsheet I am able to monitor if a losing trend is being experienced- it is similar to charting on the stock exchange which is my other pastime/vocation. As for your Point3 that would be a ridiculous proposition wouldn't it....where did you get that from? Cheers. Last edited by xanadu : 3rd October 2005 at 12:48 PM.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
which has been my biggest problem in doing up some type of ratings system or anything, I simply don't have the time to do it. I am a big fan of Trifectas, Trebles, Quinellas and All Ups in my exotic betting, However I will only have the treble if there looks to be tough races (maybe 2 legs where there are 15 horse fields or something to that degree) or even better when there looks to be a horse which is very short in a decent sized field that looks vulnerable. It doesn't always work out well and god knows I have seen the photo go the wrong way plenty of times and even the odd protest leaving me gutted and scratching my head.
Linear Mode
