BJ,
Its wrong to assume by backing every runner in every race that the money return equals the total less Takeout.
Try this exercise, total the number of runners at each meeting then total the Payoff for each winner, then do this for a number of meetings an see what your results tell you...this is an important subject when one studies the Market Efficiency of Wagerers at each track(if you take it a step further, you can do it by each day of the week).
On your other query,
If you produce ratings that show individual Standard Deviations based on LTD performances, it will become apparent that races that have a tigher overall average STDev are Golden, it doesn't matter on the races actual Classification, its the runners ability to be consistent, the STDev is your tool in this cluster type of analysis

The problem with your theory woof43 is that if you are basing the payoffs on tote dividends then the affect of rounding down has more impact in races where the favourites win or place.

Hi La Mer,
Yes i would hope most people would understand the difference between Natural odds an Tote odds.
But there is more then just knowing that, this is more about how you design wagering strategies from track to track

Would you care to elaborate on this Woof? I'm not sure exactly what point you are making.

If I bet on every horse in a race on the tab, I would need to spend $117 to return $100. That is why there markets add up to 117%. If you decrease that outlay to $100, you return $85.5. I know I am not wrong about this. I can only assume that you are talking along similar lines as on another post, where you are talking about betting patterns of other punters(trifecta thread), and punting to beat them as opposed to beating the bookies. Whilst making an interesting read and obviously worthy of some thought, I don't see how it applies here...
As far as standard deviation goes, I don't have the same type of setup as you so I really don't understand what you mean. I know that consistant horses are better permanent betting propositions, but really don't see how it ties in with anything I am saying.

My point is: If 30% of favourites win paying $2.9-$3, you lose 10-15% of your money.
To turn this into a profit, you either have to increase the dividend to greater than $3.34 or increase the strike rate to greater than 35%.

As the favourites are determined by thousands of punters, I don't beleive for a second that I can increase the strike rate, leaving me with aiming for a greater dividend.
If I were to study the form and pick who I thought was going to win, there is no guarantee that I am gaining an edge. Yes I might be winning, yes this might last for a long time, but there is no proof that you have an edge. The only proof is your opinion and the fact is you are just gambling still.

I am not saying that you cannot gain an edge like this, I am just saying that you cannot prove that you are...
Whereas, if you bet on every $2 favourite and could back it at $4(wishful thinking), well I think you all know my point...

Hi,
Maybe I wasn't too clear, here it is again if you place $1 on every runner in every race at one track then sum the winners payoffs.

I just did a quick look at yesterdays dog races here are the results as per above;
The Meadows Outlay 94/ Return 68.8
Bulli Outlay 79/ Return 68.4
Gold Coast Outlay 75/ Return 52.4
Angle Park Outlay 62 / Return 45.5
Ballarat Outlay 76 / Return 65

Now do you really think the win payoff will equal monies invested less Take Out.

Which win market is the most efficient. This is your starting point prior to wagering at any track.

I am betting to return a figure, not betting level stakes....
A $2 runner would have $50 on it...
A $5 runner would have $20 on it...

Now if you do the same as what you have done, but this time bet to return $100... you will find that you will be spending $117 to return $100.

The tab market is 117% so this will happen every race at every meeting.........

If it was as easy as betting $1 on every runner in a race, then there would probably only be 1 or 2 people that have heard of the tab. The ones that bankrupted them.....

Sorry, still not clear.
I assume you mean sum the potential winners payoffs and this is what you would get back for a dollar bet on each dog at that meet. If so this means The Meadows only returns 73% odd of our money and Bulli nearly 87%. I thought (excluding rounding) the Tab bet to 117% ish on all tracks on the horses (I don't follow the dogs - maybe they're different). If this is what you mean, why the difference?

Or do you actually mean sum the winner's payoffs i.e. what you would have got back on the winner of each race. If so I still need elucidation.
Hope you can spare the time to educate us.

KV

Guys it's really quite simple except that you're both talking from different standpoints. I'll explain them both:

WOOF43

Is saying that if you put $1 on every runner at the meeting, you're return will be less than 85% of what you outlayed. Think of it this way - 8 races at Flemington this day, all the favourites get up, ranging in odds from $1.50 to $3.20. Your total collect, with $1 on each of them, was $11.40, and your total outlay was $102 because there were 102 horses at this meeting and you had $1 on each. Incidentally there was a meeting at Caulfield one carnival years ago where roughies got up i think every race, that day $1 on each would have WON on the day. Sometimes (rarely) that will happen, but averaged out you will lose. When he says "the efficiency" of the market (I assume) what he means is how good it is at finding the winners, so the smaller your total return, the more "efficient" - or accurate - that market is.

BJ

Is saying that if you VARY your stake, and have whatever amount on them it takes to COLLECT $100 no matter which horse wins, then you will lose 15% per race, betting on the tote. This is TRUE. Example -

Race 1

A - $3.30
B - $2.00
C - $2.70

On A you have $30 (100/$3.30) to collect $100 should it win. On B, $50, again, collect $100 should it win. On C, $37, collect $100 should it win. Your outlay is $117, and whichever horse wins you collect $100, losing $17 or 15% of your money.

That's just an example of what happens because of the tote take. If the tote took nothing, then using that method you'd outlay $100 and collect $100 every race.

What he is further saying is that if you can therefore get BETTER ODDS than the tote, you can theoretically reduce the race % from the 117% that it is because of the tote take, to somewhere below 100%, at which point you begin making a profit.

Using the example from above, had you scrounged around the various betting agencies etc and obtained the prices below about your selections, this is what would happen:

A - $4.50
B - $2.50
C - $3.50

You wold have $22 on A, to collect $100 ($22*$4.50), $40 on B, and $28 on C. Total outlay = $90, total collect = $100, profit = $10 no matter which horse wins, or 11% on turnover.

Good job. Problem is getting those prices.....