Handicapping vs Money Management

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'd venture to say that you may also be a fan of my betting strategy.

I take $50 to the track, and put $15 into the machine and get a betting voucher. I then spend the other $35 on beer.

Then, I bet that I am going to be completely wasted.

It's a no-lose situation, because even if you drop the other $15 on bad horses....who cares? You're already too drunk to be mad about it.

I think you need to publish a book with this strategy

it's simple

BET THE OVERLAY

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

it's simple

BET THE OVERLAY

No schit
????do you understand the risk vs reward assessment and return on investment??? exotics have greater rewards but also have greater risks...speading in the exotics reduces the risk but also lowers the ROI...
I was looking for comments on different stategies for better ROI over the long run...

Ok, guys, he's not asking HOW to pick a winner(s). He's asking what to do after he's done that. Stop telling him to bet an overlay.

I've been around here a short amount of time, but it seems like most guys around here play multi-race wagers and reduce their level of risk by covering. There's a good thread on multi-race wagering that BTW weighed in on called SA Pick 6 carryover, or something to that effect. There are some good lessons in that.

As far as money management goes, from a basic level what I would suggest is figuring out exactly what your bankroll is and exactly how much you can afford to wager when you do play. So, if you have $10,000 per year bankroll and you play 100 times a year, you can plan on having, on average $100 every day you play. This is helpful because it tells you what types of wagers you can play consistently and, realistically, have a chance of success. If one has $100 to play when he/she wagers, they are not pick 6 players most likely...more like rolling Pk 3 and Pk 4. Maybe not even that depending on the aversion to risk a player has personally.

Also, what I think you might be hinting at with money management is the notion of changing the amount bet depending on your position as you go along. For instance, some folks say if you're losing you should bet more to make up for what you lost when you eventually do win. This is suspect, but some folks subscribe to the theory that, at some point, they're "due." I say baloney, every race is a new set of circumstances, you could go on forever and keep picking a number based on handicapping and still have relatively little success. In other words, I don't think it's as analogous to flipping a coin and, over time, having heads and tails come up an equal number of times.

My latest money management strategy?? Quit when I'm ahead!! And play within my bankroll. Or at least, when I'm ahead, don't bet it all back. If anything, I've learned that betting back most or all of the amount that I'm ahead using aggressive bets usually ends up being unprofitable. For what it's worth...

I've heard BTW say before that it's one thing to be a good handicapper and another thing to be a good horseplayer. So, I know he's got "opinions" on the topic. Should be a good thread.

[hockey2315]

In reference to the bankroll comment. . . I've read that you should play 2% of your bankroll on a given race. . . That might not work for everyone though

[SentToStud]

I'll make one comment and ask one wuestion.

If you look to bet horses whose actual odds exceed your "fair" odds, that's the right thing to do. That's not enough. you must wager more as the actual exceed fair by a greater margin. For example, if you think a horse's fair odds are 5-1 and it's going off at 7-1, you may make your standard wager, say $10. But if that same horse is going off at 8-1 or 10-1, you really need to wager more, perhaps $12 or $15. What's important is that when you have a perceived advantage, you really need to wager more as that advantage grows.

Why does anyone ever bet to place?