The Saturday before last we backed three horses in the first race at Caulfield. We rated Smokin Joey at $3.50, Instinction at $8.00 and Spacecraft at $16 and all were overlays.
We were very happy when Instinction got up at $15 since that was close to a double overlay, but immediately on our live page a new subscriber to our service posed the question, “Why would you ever back 3 horses in a race?”
I was a little surprised at first but soon realised that it was actually a good question from a casual punter.
Backing two, three or even four horses in a race is an approach used by most professional punters and there are a number of reasons why.
If you think about each race as a betting event on its own, then backing multiple horses isn’t really that different to betting on one shorter priced horse.
For example if we have rated two horses as $4 chances and both are at our price or better, then we outlay 1.25 units on each (5 divided by the rated price). So on a race like this we outlay 2.5 units (representing 2.5% of our bank) and will get at least 5 units back. That is a very similar scenario to backing an even money shot, but the difference is we have two horses running for us.
Going back to the Instinction race from October 13th, we outlayed a total of 2.36 units and got 9.30 back. So looking at the race as one transaction (rather than 3 separate individual bets) you could say it was basically the same as backing a $4 winner.
Backing multiple runners enables us to get involved more often than if we were to only focus on races where we had a standout selection. There aren’t many races where there is only one strong winning chance and we don’t want to be limited to just those events. One important thing to note though is to still be selective in your approach. Don’t get involved in races you shouldn’t just because you believe you have good coverage. That on its own is not enough, you must also be getting good value and we have discussed many times that you can back plenty of winners and still lose.
One approach that can work well is identifying races that we assess as being almost a ‘race in two’. Going one out in this situation would be unnecessarily risky, so backing two horses (or a back and save strategy) is a better approach.
Another positive is that you have less losing races. Not less losing bets necessarily, but fewer losing races than betting one out all the time. Betting only on single selections means more volatility for your bank on a race by race basis and this can affect even the very experienced punters’ psyche.
No matter how many years you have been at it and how confident you are in your approach, a sustained losing run hurts.
It’s often better to have multiple win bets in a race instead of one each-way, since 50% of that wager is a place bet where it is notoriously difficult to find value. The TAB takeout and round down does the place punter no favours whatsoever.
Having more than one runner going for you can also help reduce the luck in running factor. For example you might be desperate to take on the odds-on favourite as you rate it a true $3.50 chance. So you back the 2nd favourite at what you consider to be a value price, but it misses the kick by 2 lengths and gets beaten in a photo finish. The odds-on favourite runs unplaced but all you have to show for your analysis and effort is a losing ticket. However if you’d also backed the 3rd favourite (and eventual winner) since it was an overlay based on your numbers you would be all smiles.
Money management is important for any punter, but especially one backing multiple horses in a race. At Champion Picks we limit our outlay to a maximum of 2.5% of our bank per race, with the average being around 2%. So if we are backing a horse we’ve assessed to be an even money chance we won’t back any others in the race, even if they are an overlay.
We never suggest level staking in any circumstances because it makes no mathematical or logical sense to outlay the same amount on a short priced favourite as you do on a longshot, since their likelihood of winning is dramatically different. Again that applies to backing more than one runner in a race, because you need to vary your stake according to the percentage chance of that horse winning the race.
There are plenty of advantages to backing multiple horses in a race so if you’ve never seriously tried this approach I strongly suggest you give it a go.
Good punting
David Duffield
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Why was #10 in R8 Geelong left out of your dangers yet was mentioned in the notes and put in the Q numbers, cost me the Quaddie as not mentioned as a danger..
Sorry that you didn’t get the quaddie John but members following the Metro Mail did.
We generally list just the one danger in the the tips, but our quaddie recommendation is in the Metro Mail that you get with your membership so refer to that each Wednesday and Saturday.
Good luck today,
Dave
There was a time when due to work commitments the only live racing I had access to was Moonee Valley and Canterbury night racing. I used a system that revolved around the favorite of the race. I would decide whether the favorite was fair value or not and would either back it or oppose it with as many chances I could fit into 40 to 60% of the market. This was a very effective play for these type of meetings which often have small fields and short priced favorites, it provided plenty of action and rarely played worse than break even but does limit ones ability for large wins. I think the best I achieved was to have 6 runners going for me against a shorty in a 8 horse field and rolling it. Its a fun play and can easily be done on $50 a race.
Nowadays I suppose people would just lay the favourite on Betfair.
Hi David,
I like your approach, but you always have to be careful in putting your case as it all depends on on how you arrange your prices to make your point. You are a great critic of Level takes betting and go to great pains to show it is no good, basically by your price arrangement. An old punter, who unfortunately is no longer with us, explained level stakes this way. Firstly, don’t back odds on and most probably don’t bet in these races.
Now my friend said your pick is your favourite and has nothing to do with price. So if your are betting $10 a race and you like a horse at say 15/1 you have your $10 on it. It wins, your $150 up, your next selection is $3/1 it loses you have only lost $10. Now having been a bookies clerk over the years I have seen many punters line up they would have $2 each way on the 15/1 pop because of the price, but would shell out $10-20 on the shorter priced horse just because of the price. Of course if the 15/1 chance wins the chances they will over extent on the next short one, again because of price. So always remember, what you select is your favourite and the longer prices become your overlays. If you dont believe your selection is your favourite, then why in the hell back it. More people are influenced by the price of a horse rather than its form and ability and that is one of the reasons punters lose. But I do support you in backing multiple selections and hear you must adjust you stake to the price.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on a lot there Wildchild.
Odds-on can definitely be value. I mean if you were offered $1.90 for Black Caviar at set weights would you take it?
Betting with no regard to price is crazy. There is no way you can win long term if you disregard price.
And you say only back horses you consider as your favourite, but again I can’t see how that makes sense. If you get your staking right you can back horses that you don’t expect to win, but enough of them will get up for you to finish in front.
If you are betting an average of 2% of your bank on your selections are you not then “Level Staking”? If you are betting to take out 2% of your bank then that would make more sense. Your article is confusing and a mish mash of ideas. Since when does the market price represent the actual winning chance of any horse in any race? You were right to say that the market represents the “popularity” of each horse but then you say that level staking makes no mathematical or logical sense because the prices represent the horses winning chance and it is nonsensical to have the same bet on an odds on chance and a long shot. Is that not what you are doing when you place your 2% on an even money chance? Nowhere in your article did you mention that most savvy punters bet to “take out” a fixed amount, usually a percentage of their bank and usually at 5%. In your above example of two horses you rated as $4 chances and you could get the same price or over then if your bank was $2000 and you were betting to take out $100 then you would have bet $25 on each horse.. However, you are not betting to take out anything, you are just level staking, putting on your 2% no matter what the price which is exactly what you tell your poor readers not to do. I doubt if you could cite any study or analysis to back up your derision of level staking. Wildchild was on the right track when he said that with a level staking plan your outlays remain constant and your income fluctuates according to the odds you receive. When betting to take out a fixed amount your outlays fluctuate according to the prices you receive but your income stays at a flat level. I know which staking plan I would rather use
If you are betting an average of 2% of your bank on your selections are you not then “Level Staking”?
That 2% mentioned was merely an average Peter. Sometimes we bet 1%, or 1.5% or 2% or even 2.5% but the average is around 2%. And our outlay is based on our rated price. And we often back more than one horse so all in all it is nothing like level staking.
Since when does the market price represent the actual winning chance of any horse in any race?
It doesn’t represent the actual winning chance but it is an excellent guide. Horses starting at $2.50 win more races than those at $2.80, who win more than those at $3 and so on right through the market.
In your above example of two horses you rated as $4 chances and you could get the same price or over then if your bank was $2000 and you were betting to take out $100 then you would have bet $25 on each horse.
The only time we outlay the same amount on two horses is if our rated price is the same for each. That’s not level staking (ie. flat betting regardless of price).
I doubt if you could cite any study or analysis to back up your derision of level staking.
I mix with serious punters on a daily basis and in all my years in the industry I have never met or heard of any professional racing punter who level stakes and wins. That’s not a case study, that’s the real world. If you have examples to the contrary I am all ears.
Thanks for your input.
Cheers
Dave
David,
Enjoying your newsletters with articles around staking plans and how the professional punters place their bets. One Enquiry that I have is about 2 very good articles that I enjoyed but differing slightly that have been in the newsletters, first is an article where you suggest betting to win 5% of your bank the other was around where you say that you will only bet up to 3% of your bank and normally only 2.5%.
Enjoying your sight
Regards
Just to clarify Eddie – we bet to collect 5% of our bank (not win 5%).
So if we’ve rated a horse at odds of $5 we bet 1%.
At rated odds of $10 we bet 0.5%.
And you are right in saying we wont outlay more than 3% per race. The average is more like 2%.
Cheers
Dave