Backing Two in a Race

Prices are checked at bookies' SP and have been varied for the winners, with a few over 10/1 which make a difference.
The majority seem to be about 11/4.

I think anything  2/1 or over is OK, provided one of the two wins.

So far, the bigger priced winners have covered the fruitless races ( where both selections fail).

Don't level stake unless you genuinely think both horses are an equally good bet. Have more on the stronger selection.

Yes, I'd like to do that, BB, but

how do I know which is the "stronger" selection?

Maybe, look at forecast price or btfr price, but
records show that, with this dumb method ( I have no imput in the selections; all I do is write down the names, time of race etc),
a 22/1 shot was a winner and an odds-on was unplaced.

Age old conundrum, I suppose.

I could try dropping the selection with the most perceived negatives in its "form", but
the beauty of this nonsense method is that I don't have to look at anything in depth. In fact, I know nothing about most of the winners.

--

Btw, is it confirmed that with a minimum of 2/1 about either of two selections in a race, a slight profit is guaranteed should one of them win?

Thanks for your help, btw.

At level stakes, that is. ?

Couple them .

Keep a record of the price of all selections and see what price band, if any, is the most profitable....then stake accordingly.

OK.

So far, backing  all above 11/4 has produced a profit of sorts. It's wasteful, and I base the trial on SP, though bf prices can be better, especially on the losers.

Maybe the experience will show me when something is a "solid favourite", if nothing else.
That end of the market was not something that ever interested me, so perhaps it will be a good education.

I am trying to keep my intervention to a minimum.

If the method were to become a "system" it would have to automatically stand or fall on its own merits - without my jiggling the prices and stakes.
Asking a lot, I know.

Thanks for the replies!
All comments welcome - negative or positive.

Can't really answer that question, Sean. As am an opinion based punter myself and don't really do systems.

The same as that, BB, in all honesty, but my way gives only a few bets per month, so I have time to play with this nonsense.
And, who knows what will come to light?

So far today, the cr ap method has thrown up three winners from five races. At poor prices.
However, my normal betting would struggle to give me two winners per month.

I hope I don't become addicted to this sort of thing: shaving a slender margin.

I did a bit of btfr watching today. The method duly threw up four winners. Prices at SP were not great, though one was 6/1.

Sorely tempted to intervene as I noticed most bad drifters lost. This happened in the failure races where both selections went down.
Losses would have been cut

a) by eliminating these races

b) cashing out on bad drifters, if bets already struck.

Already tampering, I'll be more selective with the races tomorrow, and see if that makes it more profitable.

Even today, it shaved a slender profit overall.

Onward and upward.

I taught myself a good lesson yesterday: thinking I knew better than the "daft" method; I messed about trying to be selective.
In doing so, I missed a 7/1 winner (sp).
The "method" scored 5 winners from the meeting and made a profit; I didn't, with all my tampering.

At present, I conclude that only a "live control" "stop at a winner" method would improve this thing, until I ever get to grips with some sensible dutching.

Switching to a "stop at a winner" method cost me dear today!

At SP ( bit bigger on btfr) the first race threw up a winner at 7/1. So I stopped. Profit made of six points ( subtracting the losing bet in the race).

However, the "daft method" went on to score four winners: 7/1, 9/2, 5/4, and 16/1!

Yesterday, at Kempton, it only produced two winners at much lower prices. As Kempton has not been giving adequate returns, I'm dropping that meeting from the scheme.

Early succes for the daft selection method at olver yesterday, so stopped the betting.
Nearly paid for my loss on jp Spencer, where I backed the wrong one!

Checking Lingfield, I see the same success would have ocurred. I don't really understand it.

at Wolverhampton.

why do you continue to tamper with it. let it run and see what happens, its proving profitable

Greed and efficiency , Macsys.

Sixteen losing bets in one afternoon  - as happened yesterday at Newcastle - is a hit.
I realise losing runs are inevitable, but this thing - daft as it is - was notable for not having long losing runs.

As a punter who normally gets about one winner at six week intervals, this thing seemed interesting. I wanted to see if I could make anything of changing tactics and betting in every race ( something I'd shunned for decades).

Luckily, I did some damage limitation yesterday by cheating and doing any long-priced selection "Place only".
Sometimes, this chicken-hearted approach has backfired, as this thing has thrown up winners with decent prices ranging from 16 to 22.

As you say, to work properly, the method should be allowed to run, without or fear or favour.
Discipline.

its worth trying for a while anyway... did you come across this yourself or are you paying for the selections?

stop at a winner is the biggest load of rubbish i ever heard..what if u back a winner and the next race theres an absolute cert on your system?  leave it til "tomoro??

Macsys:

Just a daft thing I happened to notice. Something I was almost trained NOT to look at or consider. Trialled it casually for a bit - as I have long waits between my normal bets - and was surprised at the results.
Didn't bother with it yesterday, but checking later shows it scored right in the first race.

This brings me on to kavvie's point.
yes, I've heard that view a thousand and one times.

Imo, there are NO certs. Even with this daft method, I've tried to use my thinking to steer me off the method selection and onto to some "more sensible" odds- on thing, and, know what, the method outperformed the "good things".

There used to be a guy on one of the racing fora years ago. Plenty of crap on there, but some experienced old punters. One guy was "steady away" and did alright. He said his dad was a bookie at the dogs and what he always told his son was that most punters lose bc they don't know when to stop and they over do it or start chasing.

Yes, ye are right for pure system players: they want turnover and volume. That cannot be my way bc
I wouldn't have the requisite funds tied up in it
and
I wouldn't want to commit my time in such a large way.

Life balance and all that.

This casual method is fine for somebody like me to fill in between serious bets. At one stage I thought it might even end up being way better than my normal ways; however, a few total loss meetings brought my feet back down to ground level.

I'll keep investigating, but I won't be dedicating my whole life to it.

OK, the daft method keeps on churning out winners, but I'm stopping the search for a good dutching or staking system.

Thanks for the suggestions and comments.

I think the best way forward for me with this is to do what I did today: I "evaluated" the 16 selections thrown up by the system, and then just picked the one I thought was "best".
It worked today - Cadland Lad, newc 6.45 - though SP was slightly bigger than the Exchange price I took.

If these single selections flop, the losses will feel lighter, even if I step up the stake.

That's it for now. I'll continue to puzzle how the hell the thing works at all!

keep us looped

Macsys,

      I just cannot fathom whether the whole thing is just random; when trying to use "logic"( ahem) or even stated negatives to filter out pure "daft method" picks, the results have favoured the method over me!

Because of these big-price shocks it throws up, I do not know how to proceed with it.

Today, I'll leave the method unbacked as I have one of my own selections going for a proper bet.

I'll not be greatly surprised if my bet goes down and the method produces cracking results.

If you base your expectations for this method on self delusion you won't be disappointed when the inevitable happens.

Thanks, Baron.

This "daft method" is really nothing to do with me; I'd base any expectations on what the results tell me in a year's time.
To date, it has done much better than expected. I don't know why and I have found no good way to tweak it.

I tried plenty of methods even random ones that show good returns but everything turns to shit eventually....just give it time,

That's life, Baron.

We have to try make the best of it.

Didn't play at all yesterday, but the daft system had an 8/1 and a 3/1 winner ( from 14 runners).

To the OP its all about relative value of the selections.

eg: you fancy two in a race they are 11/4 and 12/1 but in your mind their real chances are 5/2 and 5/1 respectively. Whilst the 11/4 has the bigger chance of winning the correct bet is to bet much more on the 12/1 as per kelly criterion.

At a pinch, I can continue to back each runner evenly ( two per race and every race in the meeting) and scrape a profit, but it seems wasteful.

If you can do that on a regular basis then you should be giving advice not asking for it.

Still battling away with this, sean?

An update would be interesting. No probs if not.

Good luck anyway.