A general question to all. Whatever your method of selection, be it ratings, system or throwing a dart, at what field size does your particular method start to reduce the ROI. Generally speaking as fields get bigger, strike rates decrease but are offset by larger average dividends, however there must be a point at which the actual return on investment as a percentage starts to significantly reduce.

Well if you checked my tips,you would see that mine would be a field size of 2 or more!

I reckon the question should be "below what field size do you start to reduce ROI". Don't know if it's the rounding effect or what but small fields (less than 5 certainly) don't work for me with quinellas which is what I'm betting at the moment.


KV

What I have found is the profit starts to kick in with fields of 9-15 runners .
Anything less & one will find that the selection SR may be the same but the value just aint there to show a profit.

If one wanted to test this , target all races with exactly 8 runners .
One will be supprised to see that no matter what one tries to do to filter the edge , the race will be won by really short payers or really long payers, frustrating stuff.
One will also notice is that the real inform horses will often not perform up to expectations.
There could be a number of reasons for this
e.g. the race could possible have an uneven pace to it ,which allows anything to swamp the field from the rear.

One may devise a system for these 8 starter races , but one will see that it changes dramaticly month to month & thats not really what one needs if one is trying to target some consistancy into their punting strategy.

Cheers.

__________________
Cheers.

Thanks for the replys guys. I spent a lot of time today thinking about what the answer would be and I guesses that as the field size got bigger in most cases the pot would decrease. This then leads me to ask the question at what field size would return you the most $ in actual profit rather than pot. Obviously you may have a method that produces50% pot in fields of 4 but only 2 % in fields of 16, the 50% looks better on paper, however if thhere is only 5 bets for a year as opposed to say 300 for fields larger fields then the actual $ amount you win may be lower with the reduced turnover, so at the end of the day is it POT or actual $ that matter more, and in what size field does your actual $ return reach its peak. I hope you guys understand what I am trying to get at. ITs been a long day and I'm very tired.

p.s I cant believe some of the times that people post at, I've noticed a few from around the 3 am mark recently???

One will find that it varies month to month because there is ususally one big payer that changes the average for that field size group.

If one wants a general figure for field size, the answer is 10 ,because there are more of them, than say 11 only or 15 only.

One will note that there will be some months that show a loss , then a month with some strong payers , it becomes a patience sort of thing.

Cheers

__________________
Cheers.

Thanks for the input Bhagwan, I guess i was hoping for those who keep a record of every bet they make in a spreadsheet would be able to go through their records and say , my best actual profit comes from races with x number of runners. Maybe there arn't too many people who keep such detailed records of their bets.?? I would assume that people who don t keep records of every bet dont really want to knowthe truth about their betting? And then when asked whether they win or lose can honestly say they dont know.

Dr Ron,

I tried to post a table of results of number of runners against ROI but it looked so crap in the preview I gave up. Someone told us the tag to stop the silly software reproportioning your text a few days back (could have been jfc but I'm not sure) but I can't find it. If they could tell us again I'll try to post the table.

KV

Hi Dr Ron,

OK Found it.

These figures aren't actual bets but returns by my ratings system over past years. They are percentage returns betting my best rated horse to win with various field sizes on races since 1994. Strike rate is about 29% if it is of any use to you.

Runners   <=7     8     9    10    11     12    13    14     15     16    <=17

WA        96.2  108.3  92.7 104.6 104.2 105.0  91.0  104.0  116.3   94.9    -

NSW      101.8  100.3  99.7 101.1 106.8 105.1 105.6  107.1   97.7   100.3   65.3

QLD       97.1   98.0  98.4 105.0 110.8  98.4  90.6   97.5  113.2   98.0   114.3

This includes about 8000 races overall for WA and 32000 for NSW so it's quite a significant sample. I can't see any great correllation between field size and success rate but I have to say I didn't expect to. I would expect less wins but at a correspondingly higher price in larger fields.

KV

Hi Kenny

Only by anecdotal evidence...as i dont break them up into various elements to analyse..(i just use three columns...output..returns..profit.)....in my experience the better class races especially melbourne and sydney offer the greatest profits. In the last 10 Melbourne cups, my ratings have had 8 winners on top and they are definately big fields. Do you by any chance break down your figures by class?