why does your £2 bet on a 16/1 shot win

its called sods law and happens frequently

the annoying thing is, without knowing the price you may well have fancied them equally.

on that note, bar the obvious ricks/ massive drifters sometimes you see a tissue that looks a bit wrong but prices will hold, is it the wisdom of crowds or people are just TOO influenced? From watching social gamblers I think the latter.

it shouldn't be as evident on here, but bookies won't lay decent stakes so all the £5 and £10 punters who want a decent 'chance' in every race(like at a day at the races) and all those small stakes add up I guess.

Why are you only betting £2 on the 16/1 shot?

The pain never ends, mate. I've had a good year and it still pricks me off. Too much rubbish and playacting in the system.

Even worse when a £100 bet on an odds on steamer loses but a £1 bet on a 50/1 shot wins.

I thought you said Steamers never lose

odds on steamers lose 25%, unlayable.

Sep 10, 2024 -- 7:26PM, UnluckyForSome wrote:

Why are you only betting £2 on the 16/1 shot?

because its 16/1?

Still learning, I think what's being suggested is that the price is influencing how much you stake, rather than your own perception of it's chances
On the other hand, it may be that you stake according to wanting to win a certain amount... IE 20 quid at 2s,10 quid at 4s,5 quid at 8s,etc
If either of the above applies it's no criticism
I know very few people who will stake the same amount on a 16/1 shot as they would on a 2/1 shot
It's human nature... The shorter price is confirming that many others think the same as you, whereas the bigger price can get you doubting yourself

I remember reading a book years ago (think it was called Braddocks?) people smarter than me will correct me but I belive the suggestion was the bigger the price the larger the bet.

that needs deep pockets and strong nerves though.

It's amazing how many punters turn a level stakes profit, yet how few punters actually bet to level stakes.

I manage both (just) but my level stakes are tiny.

Level staking takes out an added layer of uncertainty. You still need to assess if the price offered makes a bet worthwhile but once the answer is yes, a bet is a bet is a bet, Just let the prices do the work once you've decided to play and leave the staking decision out of the equation. Less navel gazing, no self flagellation about having too much on losers and vice versa, and make the bank work efficiently. It also makes profitability (or lack of) more straightforward to evaluate.

People are overcomplicating it. Just bet according to the kelly criterion. Nothing wrong with betting bigger on odds on shots.

I think the best way is to have a cwertain minimum bet level, mine is a pony. This level should be high enough to mean something to you if it loses. This will make sure that you put in the study required and dont bet aimlessly. If I go racing, usually Ascot I will have a £5 fun bet on every race, but that it. Be disciplined enough to say as Eddie Freemantle does, that 'he's happy to see it win at that price'.

The way I look at a race where I haven't bet because the price is too short, is PRE-RACE i have zero risk on the result. Post race is irrelevant.

I always increase my stake if a selection drifts in a (good quality race only). unless its playing up at the start , being a boy etc.
Take the needle out of betting.

"People are overcomplicating it" he says - so just do this,
​Kelly %=W−[R(1−W)​]where:Kelly %=​ Percent of investor’s capital to put into a single trade​ W=Historical win percentage of trading system R=Trader’s historical win/loss ratio​,

Err... hang on ... damn the 15/8 has gone!

oh if only someone could make a calculator for steerforth!

in seriousness, the problem with kelly is that, in order to make it function optimally, you need to know the bets chance of success, which isn't readily available for most. So assuming an edge of something like 5% is probably necessary to avoid overstaking.