Can't get my head around this; I have never bet to prices, always believing that level stakes is the way to go, but I was doodling really tonight with some results of a place plan, and came across something strange:

Betting overlays only:

Today 21 bets 13 hits returns = 22.83 = 8.75% POT this is fairly average

ok, so just for an experiment I queried backing all selections to return 100, you know basic stuff if the nag was paying 1.70c (BF) so place $59 on it etc etc

Ok so outlay to do this on 21 selections was $1095 (Hypothetically) and as there was 13 hits so the return would be $1300

Which is a profit of $205

Which is a massive 18 .72% POT

Needless to say I feel I must have done something wrong in the calculations, but have been over and over it and it seems to be correct,

What are your thoughts?

Party,

When Mark Read provided his ratings to my local TAB I was showing a profit betting to prices.

Over about 100 races I was showing a POT of 5%. Out of interest I hypothetically bet on the same 100 races with level stakes. In spite of Don Scott's urgings not to bet this way the POT was almost unchanged. So I always assumed this would also apply to Place betting.

However, I've now done some calcs, which suggests that betting to prices increases the POT on a winning Place system, but conversley also increases the LOT on a losing system.

Don't know what you did Party but it makes little sense.

Do a simple calculation like, place divi = $2.00
you bet a dollar, return $2.00 - 1 = $1. POT = 100%

Bet $50.00 return $100 - 50 = $50.00 POT = 100%

You can't add up ALL the individual odds and bet to $100, you have to do it separately.

Good luck

ok Lomaca, know exactly what you are saying, this is what I did.

there was 21 bets, all differing prices , I hypothetically bet each individual one to win 100 so...

paying 1.5 bet = 67

paying 2.4 bet = 42

paying 1.89 bet =53

etc etc etc.

now all those 21 bets added up to 1095,

there were 13 successes so 1300 returned i.e. profit of 205

whereas at levels 21 bets returned 22.83


I sat bolt upright at about 3am convinced the reason was just that particular set of selections, i.e. on another day if more of the failures were paying say like 1.23, 1.34, etc etc then the situation could be reversed.

In other words on this particular set of selections, most of the failures were paying $2+ so the amount bet was less than 50% so you lost less on them than you would have done at levels, so I got some sleep, BUUUUT,

going over it again, it appears that that is wrong cos the amount won on the winners was more than at levels overall as the amount bet was greater....... shucks I'm still confused!

The concept of value betting will apply to place betting as well. If using your method you can make an evaluation as to the horses 'value' place price, and don't bet on the underlays, it could take your place betting to a whole new level.

As said Party, you can't calculate the average POT like that.
Doesn't matter if you bet to return a $100 or to win a $100.
You must work on average return/bet if you want to work out your POT like this.

What's happening is that the outlay on your non winning bets and the winning bets are not equal and are distorting the the POT.

If you really want see that it is so, do a running tests like you just did, calculated with new selections and results added on every day.

You will see that the POT will change from day to day despite the fact that you bet to the same $100 return, it simply depends what price runners happen to win.

If you calculate all the individual POTs and add them up and divide them by the number of bets you will find that it will be the same, (virtually the same, because of some rounding off effect by not betting fractions) no matter whether you bet level stakes or to set return.

I know it's hard to conceptualise because we calculate POT on money out money in but trust me, in the long run you will find that it will come close to the sum of (POT/number of bets) of the individual runners.

What you can do is to find the price range where the return is negative and eliminate them.

I am 99.9999% sure I'm right in this but if some one can prove me wrong I cheerfully admit it.

Good luck

raven, all those 21 bets were assessed price 1/4 win odds x 50% as min accepted, all were matched.

Party, in the examples you've given you're betting to collect $100 not win $100. There is a difference which I'm sure you're aware of. Try running your results to win $100 to see if there's a different POT again.

eg 1.5 bet 200
2.4 bet 71.42
1.89 bet 112.36

Can be dangerous when the shorties lose.

Mark will do, gotta collect the young bloke right now so will post later!

Party, you like Place betting, just like I do.

For the past three weeks I've been Place betting using a mechanical system on the U.K. races. From 170 races it's had a strike rate of almost 70% and a POT of about 3% (better than losing).

Out of curiousity I looked at yesterday's Oz racing using a somewhat similar Place method.

1) 8 to 11 starters.
2) Bet the NSW TAB Win fave to Place.
3) No Maidens.

Even though there were only 32 qualifying races yesterday the results are encouraging.

Win. I'm not really interested in Win betting.
17 winners.
Return (NSW TAB) of $44.20.
Strike rate of 53% and a POT of 38%

Place Betting
27 placegetters
Return $41.20
Strike rate of 84% and a POT of 19%.

This is a much better result than the U.K in both the strike rate and POT, but 170 races would be expected to be more accurate than 32 even though they are different countries with possibly different methods applying to their style of racing. I have no records how Win betting in the U.K. has fared.

If I was prepared to sit at my computer most of the day I'd probaly give it a go. With U.K.racing I normally get my bets matched around 10 p.m. I take the current price, provided there's not an unacceptable gap between the buy/sell price.

I only checked yesterday with our racing, but as the U.K. is showing a profit I would not be surprised if our racing does not fare too badly in the future.