Gambling maths.

In total the only scheme that worked that I know of was the Blackjack scheme that the MIT people came up with.  All games are in favor of the house math wise.
So by the theory of large numbers the more you play the more likely you are to lose.  So play and if you get ahead then quit.

I think games like Texas poker where your skill level is against other players skills would give you the best chance to win.  Unless, you have special knowledge that isn't public knowledge - you could take advantage of that.

@ dhsindy
I would like to know all aspects of winning but it is horse racing that interests me, and a way or staking plan that could make a bookie at least worry.

@robind
I know that each race is in a bookies favour, hence the name bookie. But there must be something out there to make them worry a litte. I mean this is the science and maths forum, put the brains together and something might come out of it.

I have a good one myself but it isn't infalable. I will say what it is but I will wait for a more scientific formula, if there is such a thing. Hope there is. :-)

Are you very rich and wiling to risk a small chance of losing a lot in order to get a good chance of beating the bookie by a little?

0zo

YES!

The best way is given already
----------------
"The only guaranteed way I have heard of is to double your stake each time until the results fall in your favour. This will always work."
----------------------------------------------
Except it will not always work. The difficulty has been given before.
Look, you said that the big brains here surely would come up with a plan. Ha. If the big brains had come up with a plan nobody would be here, They would all be out making money or at least selling the plan.
RobinD gave you the plan which will alow you to  play for a long time without going broke. However in any finite time the amount that you would make in any usual betting place would take so long that you would not make minimum wage.

If you want to maximize the chance of beating the bookie by at least a little, and are willing to risk a small chance of losing by a lot in order to do it, then the best strategy is to start with as large a stake as possible, and keep betting until you either come out ahead or can no longer bet, while never making a bet that would enable you to get ahead by more than the minimum amount by which you can get ahead.
The doubleing strategy mentioned above is one example of this, and since it makes
the fewest number of bets, it would be the best strategy when each bet is biased against you.

Ok! I have heard of the double strategy, Crap! Come on all you scientific brains out there. Is there a way. :-) :-) :-)

If you are willing to lose to one bookie in order to beat another, you can make opposing bets with each

@0z0
Chi!

In other words SHIT.

Come on the Sientists.

You are great at all things, but you can't beat a common bookie, Hah

So nolagable

Gambling where a deck of cards is used is arguably the best way of beating the bank.  However, the caveats are (1) you must have an infallible memory for cards that have been played (2) the cards must not be shuffled at the end of each game - I think the BlackJack success mentioned previously was due to the memorising of cards that had been played and working out statistically the probability of cards remaining in the deck.  (3) Of course the deck has to be a "fair" deck.

Shuffling cards is not totally random in the way it is done, even using a shuffling machine.  Someone, someday will write a program which will analyse the cards in a pack after shuffling.  The program will take as its' input the cards that have been played - now the problem is that played cards will be picked up from the table in an unpredictable way, and inserted into the pack in an unpredictable way, and then shuffled.  But then, if the same dealer is on the table for a while the characteristics of his pickup of cards and insertion into the deck probably isn't that random.  All those cards that have been played will be grouped together in the deck.  Another problem is that if the length of game is just a few cards it is going to take a long time before knowledge of the entire deck is built up.

Found this site which has various references to Shuffle Tracking

http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/S.htm

Here's a link to the scheme mentioned by dhsindy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Blackjack_Team

Fix a reasonable amount you want to win, say £10.

1st Race.

  Bet enough on the favorite in a race to win £10.

  The horse doesn't win.

2nd Race.

  Bet enough on the favorite in a race to win £10 + the stake you lost on the 1st race.

  The horse doesn't win.

3rd Race.

  Loop
 

http://www.thegamblingdiva.com/my-tips-on-how-to-beat-the-bookies/
http://www.bookiebeater.co.uk/downloads/Beat-The-Bookie.pdf
http://www.rawcomputing.co.uk/beatbookies.html
http://www.cormactech.com/neunet/horses.html

Remember this: even in fair bets, the richer player has an advantage.

How to beat bookies? First get richer than them, by several orders of magnitude. Then you can have fun (without risking your home or your kids college fund). Nothing new here, we are all telling you the same.

(°v°)

I thought of another way, run a book yourself. This way you can stack the odds in your favour. I believe the way to deal with large bets that you don't wish to handle is to lay them off with another bookie.

or...
You could maybe start betting on the horses as soon as the race is announced. Watch the prices and try to get them while they are high, hoping that they will move in and that others will move out. I doubt there is much advantage to this, but you could play the idea without actually betting to see if it works at all.

or...
Taking the starting price of all the horses in a race to get a guaranteed win of a fixed amount usually loses you about 10%. You could take a little risk with this and only back some of the field.

actual prices from Wincanton 2:20 March 31, adjusted slightly to make the example clearer.
1:3 bet 90 to win 30
3:1 bet 10 to win 30
15:1 bet 2 to win 30
30:1 bet 1 to win 30

Total bid 103 to guarantee a win of 30. If you take a huge risk in this case and ignore the favorite then the total outlay is 13 and if Marodima fails then there is 30 to be won. It's actually an advantage if the second favorite wins as you get your higher stake back as well. Lets pretend we backed the other three and look tomorrow. It won't scare the bookies much though.

How to win when gambling?

*Be* the bookie.

14:20 - Betfredcasino Novices' Chase (2m)
1st Marodima S Thomas 1/2 f
2nd Muhtenbar Paul Moloney 11/4
3rd Charming Oscar D Jacob 10/1
F Kirbys Glen R Greene 20/1

Ah well.....
Now we have to bet to guarantee getting 13 back, or 43 if we want to be greedy.

Strategically, you need to find a flaw in the bookie's reasoning about the games (or races or whatever), determine which games best highlight this flaw, and bet those games.  If this flaw is not large or reliable enough to overcome the bookie's odds advantage that he gives himself, then you're not going to have a successful strategy.

Betting on events where the gambling public get it wrong is one way. If many people back something that has little chance the bookies balance their books to reflect this, shortening the odds and, in theory, lengthening the odds on others. This should lead to "good value" bets ie better odds than their real chances.

An example of this would be betting against England for the World cup in an english book maker.  A disproportianate number of bets will be placed by the English and somewhere there should be good odds to be found on other teams.

The internet and global bookmaking probably spoils that theory though.

>How to win when gambling?

>*Be* the bookie.

Just buy 599,957,000 shares and it's all yours

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=LAD.L

Really, don't you only need 299,978,501?

Yes, I suppose you are right - I didn't want to look even sillier trying to divide by 2, particular with all those odd digits in there.  (Why not use a calculator?  I didn't want to look even sillier trying to divide by 2, particular with all those odd digits in there, using Microsoft's Calculator).

;-))

If you start with infinite funds and infinite time, you can eventually beat a bookie with probability 1.
If odds in horse racing are set by the bets of other, you might beat a bookie by getting enough other people to make unfavorable bets so that you can take more favourable bets.
You can also "beat" a bookie using a cudgel.  (this may be dangerous if the bookie has friends)

If you can find two bookies that, for some reason, have widely different odds on the outcome, then there's a slight chance that there is a set of bets you can make that is guaranteed to win. Of course, they probably keep in contact so that they can keep their odds similar, so it may be tricky to pull off. If you can convince two very rich people to make opposing bets at opposing bookies, they may be able to swing the odds in opposite directions long enough for you to make your move.

There goes another £60, bye bye. There must be a good way to cut down the odds on horse racing. For instance an 8 horse race.
Horses SP
4-1 £2 bet
5-1 £2 bet
6-1 £2 bet
7-1 £2 bet
Forget the outsiders.

Now I have cut the field in half, only betting on the favourites. as long as an outsider doesn't win then I would win at least £2. £2*4+£2stake=£10 and that is if the Fav wins. Now as you can see sometimes an outsider will win and I will lose £8 but can you see what I mean, there has to be a good way to cut down the option of losing. HELP!

>a good way to cut down the option of losing
You've just done it, forget half the field. And it's quite common that the 2nd favourite comes in so forget the favourite as well.
In the example I posted the favourite probably would have won if it only had three legs, but if the odds were closer then the 2nd favourite has a good chance. I picked that example because it only had 4 horses to worry about and I didn't want to have to do all the maths for a bigger race.
You do need to remember that it only becomes the favourite because most money has been placed on it, lots of this will be down to people studying the form, the weather and the other prices. It won't affect the horses chances of winning, just the bookies chances of losing money.
If you lose, just stake a little more next time until you do win.... Or pick a race like the one I posted and put everything you own on that favourite. NOt really a guarantee, you'd get a great adrenalin rush if you actually did it though, I didn't see the race and it's possible that it only won because of a jockey error on a very close second.
There is no mathematically safe way to bet on horses, no way to state which will definitely win, that's why it is such a popular betting sport and why it has been for many years.

Right then, why don't you do a real-life run with this.  Using whatever formula you like, make a list of the horses you would put money on in the morning, post them on here (in the morning, before the race, yes - no cheating now), and in the evening, or next day work out how much money you would have made/lost if you had been brave/foolish enough to have stumped up the real-life cash to do it.  Imagine you have £200 to spend.  Next day your starting money is what you ended up with the previous day, repeat until broke, or you make £1000.

> you have £200 to spend.  
> repeat until broke, or you make £1000.
With perfectly fair bets, the chance of losing £200 would be 5 times the chance of making £1000 regardless of what formula you used

You would have a better probability of success if you start with  £1000.
and repeat until broke, or you make  £200

The trade off is that you'd stand to lose more if you don't succeed and gain less if you do.

@moorhouse
I don't know if you are asking me or robin, but the one I posted I know can be flawed thats why I need a better one.

ozo:

The figures I used were plucked from thin air.  

£200 starting money: I was just trying to think what an average punter might be prepared to spend if he/she were to go to the races for the day.  Whoops, the use of the word "spend" there indicates pessimism, scrub that and put "invest" - sounds better.  

£1000 finishing point: divdove is after some quick money by the look of it (aren't we all), so we're after a methodology which gets results quickly, no sneaking off down the building society and putting it in there for a few years/decades to accrue.  

divdove:

This is the acid test to whoever wants to participate in this Q.  No use everyone pondering the theory, let's put the theories into action.  It's imaginary money, so noone gets hurt.  

>let's put the theories into action
Good idea and I'll be happy to watch and participate occasionally.
Usually though a suggestion like this would be expecting someone to prove that their theory will work in practice. All the comments above suggest that there is no way of winning by betting on horses, so the proof would be that we lose?

How about this?
Vegas bookies sometimes have a different set of odds then other gambling avenues.
While the odds are in their favour no matter which way you bet, you can occasionally find two sets of odds that would enable you to to win regardless of who wins.

Crude Example. Chicago Blackhawks vs the Ottawa Senators
Bookie A is giving odds of
Chicago 1:2
Ottawa 1.5:1

Bookie B is giving odds of
Chicago 1.5:1
Ottawa 1:2

By betting a dollar with bookie A on Ottawa, and a dollar with bookie B on Chicago, you will always win $.50 regardless.

Of course in real life, the odds are a more tighter, and do not vary as much.
The proportions of money that you would have to bet on each team would also be different.

trying again...
20:20 Wolverhampton 04- April (10 runners)

To collect 100 (including stake), bet:

2-1 Oceana Blue (GB), bet 49
7-2 Fujin Dancer (FR), bet 27.57
6-1 Love Cat (USA), bet 15.67
7-1 Ricci de Mare (GB),  bet 13.28
8-1 Yakama (IRE),  bet 11.5
10-1 Scientific (GB),  bet 9
12-1 Bahamian Blue (IRE),  bet 7.33
20-1 bar bet 4
20-1 bar bet 4
20-1 bar bet 4

Total staked if all bets are placed =145.36, but we're not backing the favourite as it's not so outstanding as the last one I tried.

So if we ignore the outsiders as well, we will just have:

7-2 Fujin Dancer (FR), bet 27.57
6-1 Love Cat (USA), bet 15.67
7-1 Ricci de Mare (GB),  bet 13.28
8-1 Yakama (IRE),  bet 11.5
10-1 Scientific (GB),  bet 9
12-1 Bahamian Blue (IRE),  bet 7.33

A total bet of 84.36 and a possible chance of collecting 100.
A modest profit, but remember we need 13 to make back what we lost last time.

I'll stick the other 100 on Bahamian Babe  in the 14:20 Southwell 04- April

There are 5 runners:
11-8 Bahamian Babe (GB),
5-2 Red Cell (IRE),
3-1 Hartshead Flyer (IRE),
10-1 Kings House (GB),
20-1 Dispol Bertie (GB)

(might win me 37.50)

Is this the Science and Mathmatics zone. :-(

I did Ok today, To tell the truth I have a good way of beating the bookie. It is not infalible but it is brilliant. I must say I made it myself. I would like if there any scientific way of beating the bookie, but obviously not.

Think of the law of averages.

>if there any scientific way of beating the bookie
As I said in my first post "If it was possible to 'beat the bookie' in a guaranteed way then it would have been found by now and everybody would be making money for free."

moorhouse asked for a demonstration and so I have posted the two above. I apologise if you don't think this is appropriate in this question, but I thought it would be an interesting test.

It doesn't really matter if you back one horse or a selection of horses. the "book" covers 100 + x % where x  is the bookies profit margin. so providing the bookie has done his job (it is his livlihood) all odds should be x% worse (for the punter) than the probability of it winning. So you might win, you might not.

Having said that, there is an argument for your formula.

1 Punters back favourites so there odds may fall lower, to a lower fraction of their probability, and therefore the rest of the field represent better value. This take away some of the bookies margin.

2 Some races have horses that will never win in a million years. Or in your example, at 20/1 represent appauling value. Removing these takes a little more of the bookies margin. Not much.

So in a way you are doing what I mentioned earlier; getting on the better value bets ie you consider the probabilty of horse A winning to be 25% (3/1) and you can get 4/1, back it. Here you rely your knowledge being than the bookmakers'. A dangerous thing.

Bookies can be beaten. That's why you get professional gamblers, but you'll never beat them on luck alone. There has to be some degree of skill. Poker is a good one (although you're technically beating another gambler). Boxing & golf often have odds that not truly representative of someone's changes. At the end of the day, you have to decide whether any given bet gives 'good value'. If you decide that Ricky Hatton would beat Mayweather once in every 4 fights, then the odds of 6 - 1 would be good value. If you always make bets that are better than actual chances, then you will always profit. The same can be said for horseracing. Study form and decide not whether the horse will definitely win, but whether the odds offered are 'good value'.

Good luck...

Oh dear, I 'proved' my theory and disproved my belief.

my second favorite
7-2 Fujin Dancer came 1st so I paid out 84.36 and collected 100, profit = 15.64

and my deat cert
11-8 Bahamian Babe came in 1st as well, winning me another 37.50

moorhouse, I put theory into action and it seemed to work. I'm not going to continue here with it though.
My belief is still that it is a gamble, a lottery, a game of chance, where having a lucky rabbits foot keyring will do you as much good as reading a book of the form over the last season. Maybe what I just did was an example of andycroft's 'dangerous thing'. Perhaps almost enough to encourage me to bet real money on something. Not this year though, last time I put a fiver on a horse it fell and they had to shoot it.

>I'm not going to continue here with it though.

It's off to the Bookies is it? ;-))  
Good luck with the Grand National tomorrow - must be one of the most analysed race events of the year??

It strikes me that even though you may be using a formula it is being applied selectively - it is the knowledge that you have that needs to be encapsulated in rules.  One way to do this might be to put all the parameters into a program that learns.  The skill here is to know what parameters are important, and which aren't, and how to "weight" each of the parameters for scoring purposes.  Trouble with learning programs in this context is that you probably need 100's of races to get the results to converge - the number of combinations is too great, and a horse's performance is going to vary over such a time span.  If measurements were "absolute" then this may work - it took horse A X minutes to complete J course, it took horse B Y minutes to complete the same course on the same or another occasion, but there is competitive interaction between the participants which will artificially bend the results.  Of course there is the issue of whether it has been raining or not, etc., but these things can be quantified in the rules.  

P.S. Whatever happened to Horace Batchelor of Keynsham?  Almost as famous as the lousy reception we used to have to put up with on Radio Luxembourg.

Let me share this with you all. Try this without putting on real money, see what happens.

Now check out the results of each meeting, when was the last time all the favourites win every race at an indiviual meeting, probably a long time ago. Now here is my system.

First join an exchange site like betfair.
second pick any meeting of the days racing, just one meeting. stick to this one meeting only. [I have discovered if you go to the next race of another meeting this might not work.]
third lay a bet on the favourite of the first race of nominated meeting. Lets for talking sake say £2, if fav gets beat you just win £2 less commision. if the fav wins go to the second race of nominated meeting.

Now add together £2 for the first race, £2 for the second race, and what was lost in the first race. Place this on the favourite in the second race, if the fav gets beat you win back what you lost in the first race plus £2 for the first race and £2 for the second race you are up £4 less commision. if the fav wins just repeat for third race. I. E. Add £2 for first race+loss in first race, £2 second race+loss second race, £2 for third race. add put on favourite on third race, if fav gets beat you win back what you've lost + £6.
There is a risk after all maybe every favourite will win in the meeting that day, but if you look back at results this is very rare. A couple of points don't be scared to lay favs that you think is a dead cert to win, there is no such thing as a dead cert. Also remember only do one meeting, I have seen like 6 faves in a row winning if you go race for race, stick to one meeting your choice.
Try it first on paper for a good while to see if it works for you then if you like it try it. remember though there is always a risk only gamble what you can afford to lose.

I think you may be falling into the Roulette system trap, and assuming that results either before or after the material bet have any bearing whatsoever on the outcome.

>> "There is a risk after all maybe every favourite will win in the meeting that day, but if you look back at results this is very rare" >>

This is like saying that the last 6 numbers on the roulette were black, so the 7nth is bound to be red. It's a 50/50 (excl green) chance regardless.

In your example you might as well pick 6 random races from accross all cards, or indeed, all races on all cards !!

Or better still, try and imply some intelligent selection process. It doesn't require a huge amount of racing knowledge. List all of the favourites on a particular day, referring to a decent newspaper who predict starting prices. Disregard all favourites who have won in their previous outing. Disregard all favourites who have odds longer than 4-1. Disregard all favourites who have ever won in a higher class of race (class A winner running in a class B race).

Whatever horses still remain after applying these rules (or any other sensible rules) you can put through your staking plan. I think you're profits would treble when compared to a random selection.

Good luck !!

Jell

Good point jell. That sounds quite good too, although the risk is still there. But thats where the excitment comes in. :-)

Beating the bookies is not quite the same as beating the rest of the betting public.
To beat the other bettors can be as much psychology as maths, since you may want to look for times when many people make systematic errors in evaluating probabilities.

>you might as well pick 6 random races from accross all cards

Wasn't that what I did?

£20 Bye bye, Cherio.

Why did I not stick to what I preach. Arrrhh. (race for race) don't do it. :-(

Any more idea's are most welcome. :-)

>>Let's pretend, how would you beat the Bookie

Let's pretend!
You're not supposed to go and actually do it, that changes all the rules :7)

There are numerous explanations above of why you can't get rich by gambling and very few that suggest that you can. 'Professional gamblers' don't make a living by taking risks any more than people in business do, it's their job and they will only bet where in their estimation there is a very high likelyhood that the gain outweighs the risks. Leading up to the point where they could be described as professional will be a lifetime of studying the subject, not just a couple of lucky wins that got them rich.
Keep your gambling theoretical and when you can show that you can make money from it, sell your system to other people. This way you are taking very few risks, you still get the excitement and you will have an income from it. Just get people to sign up for a regular fee and send them between one and three  good 'opportunities' every week.  

RobinD: I have been there done it. Everybody has a system just pay £50 and you will make £2000 a week. Its a load of crap, if somebody had a system that was infalable then they would keep there mouth shut.
The thing is when I posted this question I didn't want a gambling system, I was hoping for a non gambling nerd scientist that would come up with a half decent formula to beat the bookie. I must say I am very dissapointed. After all the only poeple that has come up with any idea's is me and you. Without taking anything away from the brains of this zone, they really have came up with crap.
Its a 500 point question and I am thinking about paq it.

The experts havn't taught me anything, as a matter of fact I think I have taght them something.

>if somebody had a system that was infalable then they would keep there mouth shut.

>The experts havn't taught me anything

Hmmm

You can tell people things and even get them to repeat it, but this does not necessarily teach them. Perhaps the only way to really learn this subject is by taking real money and winning or losing it. It's not an experiment I wish to try for myself.

Robind: You are about the only person that has made any sence on this topic. Wierd.

I must say I was expecting amasing things, or at least some kind of formula, but the bookie even seems to do the scientists. Isn't it ironic though, a small bookie from wherever can outwit the great scientists.

The bookies win because of science (mathemtics) it is not a case of science versus the bookies They don't practise a magic art.

The mathematics are that if you set the odds so that the probabilities add up to more than one and cover those odd in the correct proprtions you are more than likley to win.
on the other hand as a punter, if you always take odds that are always worse than the actual probabilty, you will more than likely lose. That is the maths of gambling like it or not.

I know that, when I started this question I wanted to know of any stratiges that can at least cut the odds the bookie has, so far the only person that has gave any kind of stratagy is robin. everyone else has just told me what I already know and that is the bookie can't be beat.
LOOK AT MY QUESTION.

>a small bookie from wherever can outwit the great scientists.

I was responding to this stuppid statement.

You are asking for a solution to a problem that by your own admission does not have a solution then slaging us off for not providing you with a solution.

No Iam definetly not slaging you's off. Well maybe Iam in a way. When I started this question I knew the bookie could not be beat as the bookie will doctor the book. What I wanted was at least some kind of scientific aswer that might reduse the odds of the bookies book.
Now I have had to provide on 2 occations my own methods, and apart from me the only other person that had provided a way of cutting the bookies odds was robind.
Now when I say cutting the bookies odds, what I mean is a scientific way to cut down the odds. What I don't wan't to here from scientists is that you can't beat the book. I know that, shit a 6 year old knows that. I want formula, I want to at least have a slight chance with all the shit I learned from the EE Scientists. But alas the only person that has came across with any kind of formula is Robind. and I even sort of new that one. I mean this is the math and science part of EE.

But what you are saying is you want a scientific way to beat the book when you know (shit a 6 year knows) that you can't beeat the book.

... And btw I have sugested a way of maximising your chances by selecting odds you believe to be more in your favour than the bookies. Also the staking strategy of staking enough to win a target amount has been sugested which works until you run out of funds.

If you have your own answer go to CS and ask for your points back.

I must give a big thanks to andycrofts for widening this subject, maybe now we can have some inpute into the question, hopfully. Come on lets beat the book. :-)

Reverse Labouchere system

http://gamblershandbook.net/gamble/roulette/labouchere.html

It's for roulette but you could adopt it for race bets and using 50/50 odds.

>only person that has gave any kind of stratagy is robin

Careful with this. I suggested a strategy and accidentally showed that it can work in two races.
My intention was to show how a carefully planned stragegy can fail. I failed in this by picking winning horses, but please don't take those examples as any sort of suggestion that you can make money by gambling.
The bookie carefully works out the odds between different horses and different races so that he will make a small profit and still remain in business. He wouldn't take many bets tomorrow if he didn't pay out on anything today, there wouldn't be any customers.
The odds he offers have much more to do with the amounts of money bet on the different horses and much less to do with the horses actual chances of winning. He just needs to ensure that whichever horse wins, he has taken enough money on the losing bets to cover the wins, and make himself a small profit. This is why when you try to cover all runners in a single race you will make a loss - that's his income. If a lot of money is being taken on a favourite he will shorten the odds on it and to encourage betting on some of the others so he can take some losing bets he will lengthen the odds there to make them seem more favourable. You can improve your payout by not betting all the horses, and increase your risk at the same time.
The thing to look for is where the actual chances of winning is not accurately reflected in the odds that are being offered. andycrofts explained this in ID:21246072 03.31.2008  04:10PM

Thanks for the namecheck :-)

Robin don't panic, I never came up the Clyde in a banana boat. But ypo are the only person with any idea's out of this si-fi zone. I am being a bit on the downward scale here. But I did expect a bit more from the brains. It just goes to show you.

divdove, there is no staking plan, no science, and no math that in isolation that will beat the bookies.

It's fairly elementary to see that bookies adjust their odds according to the amount of bets being taken. This is so that they are never at risk at any given sporting event. Casino's are your worst problem. You can't beat them unless the game is skill based. For example, roulette. Red/Black - Even/Odd = Evens. But there is 0 & 00 (in US) that beat these bets and so over an infitite amount of goes, you will lose all of your money. The same goes for blackjack, craps, slots etc. etc.

Games of skill like poker & sports betting can be beaten, but not by a staking plan alone. A staking plan is simply a method to look at your available funds; the required frequency of bets; and the likelihood & value of winning. The plan is designed around these factors so that your profits are maximised with the lowest risk possible of losing all of your money.

The ONLY way to beat the bookies is to have a good staking plan, a couple of which can be seen above, AND to use either skill or a skill based system for picking which bets to put your money on. My post second post above re: Horse Favourites refers.

Good luck !

Jell

I've worked out the races for Beverley tomorrow. The aim is to collect 100 from each race.
The prices are as advertised on http://odds.gg.com/horse-racing/uk-thursday/beverley/2-00
I have made minor roundings to the odds as the small variations vary over the different ones offered.
Here's a list of the runners and my suggestions, but please don't follow them with actual cash.
The plan is to cover everything except the favorite and only bet if the cost of the rest of the field will bring a reasonable return.
If the favorite's price is very far ahead of the rest then accept the majority vote and just bet the favorite (there are none like this at Beverley tomorow).


                 
Aiming to collect to collect: 100                        

meet      runner      odds      to      stake      actual      
Beverley 2:00      
              rons princess      2      1      33.33            
      talulah bells      5      2      28.57
      dazzling dust      5      2      28.57
      kheley            4      1      20.00            
      quadrifolio      8      1      11.11            
      dispol diva      11      1      8.33
            
Missing the favorite we need to bet 96.59 for a return of 100.
As the second favorite is close to the 1st and 3rd this is too high a risk so leave this one out.


Beverley 2:35
      Duke of Touraine      3      2      40.00            
      Chaenomeles      3      1      25.00            83.86
      Highland Love      5      1      16.67            
      Fairfield Flame      13      2      13.33            
      Azure Mist      13      2      13.33            
      Si Belle      7      1      12.50            
      Natural Rhythm      32      1      3.03            

Missing the fav. I need to bet 83.86 for 100. fair return and so I'll risk this one.

Beverley 3:10
      Albaqaa                    2      1      33.33            
      Atabaas Pride      2      1      33.33
      Joinedupwriting      5      1      16.67            
      Thunderstruck      6      1      14.29            
      Toto Skyllachy      7      1      12.50            
      Royal Applord      7      1      12.50            
      Dhhamaan      11      1      8.33            
      Peter's Storm      14      1      6.67            

Joint favourites here, so if I miss one the other might win - don't know which so I'll miss this one.
If the two were miles ahead of the rest I would bet just the two favourites.

Beverley 3:45
      Rowan River      7      2      22.22            
      Karmest            4      1      20.00            
      Our Kes            5      1      16.67            
      Lady Valentino      6      1      14.29            
      Prelude            6      1      14.29            
      Lunar River      7      1      12.50            
      Stringsofmyheart      7      1      12.50            
      Lauro            12      1      7.69            
      Grethel            17      1      5.56            
      Mozayada      24      1      4.00            
Almost joint favourites here as well, so if I miss one the other might win - don't know which so I'll miss this one.
If the two were miles ahead of the rest I would bet just the two favourites.



Beverley 4:20
      Franksalot      5      1      16.67            
      A Big Sky Brewing      6      1      14.29
      Moonstreaker      8      1      11.11            
      Bert's Memory      9      1      10.00            
      Wisdom's Kiss      9      1      10.00            
      Cornerstone      9      1      10.00            
      Emperor's Well      9      1      10.00            
      Grey Gurkha      10      1      9.09            
      Crow's Nest Lad      10      1      9.09            
      Shaftesbury Avenue11      1      8.33            
      Only A Grand      12      1      7.69            
      Scutch Mill      13      1      7.14            
      Apache Nation      14      1      6.67            
      Regal Dream      15      1      6.25            
      Nufoudh      18      1      5.26            
      Ensign's Trick      38      1      2.56            

Missing the favourite I still need 127.49 to cover the field, I'm not betting for a guaranteed loss of 27.


Beverley 4:55       14 runners, similar spread to the 4:20 so not this one either.                        



Beverlay 5:30
      Greyfriars Abbey      1      1      50.00            74.94
      Mighty Moon      7      4      36.36            
      Rosbay      5      2      28.57            
      Ursis      9      1      10.00            

Looks a nice risk. Favorite not too far ahead and only 74.94 to get 100 back. I'll bet this one.

************************************

Summary:Betting the 2:35, all but the favourite for 83.86 and the 5:30, all but the favourite for 74.94.
(Still only pretend mind! Don't actually do this)

In the 2.0 at Bev, if you take away the 2 Donkey's quadrifolio and dispol diva this would increase your winnings. Same with Natural Rhythm in 2.35. Same with ursis in 5.30.
As it is only pretend I will try your sysem but take away the Donkey's too. Just to see what would have happened. The 2.0 without donkey's would be £77.15 so I will pretend bet this too. :-)

What I am trying to do is identify the variables I use when deciding whether to bet a race or not. There are a number of things involved which I believe it should be possible to put a value to, but I do need to test the result. As I had typed most of the Beverley meet into excel I thought I'd share.

2:00 Beverley: 1st Dispol Diva (GB)  17-2

16.14 up :7)


 but Greyfriars did it in the 5:30 so I have a loss there of 74.94

This is why I don't gamble.


 

Well I would have discounted Dispol Diva, so it would have been worse for me on that one.
I can see what you are getting at, maybe the meeting was the wrong one. But thanks for at least trying robin, I know that professional gamblers make a good living out of it but what do they know that we don't.
I thought that on the science and maths forum maybe there could be a not bad strategy, I will leave this open for now and look with interest.
Oh £35 Ta Ta, good bye it was nice knowing you. :-)

oops, just noticed I had the wrong race. I said I would bet the 2:35 and miss the fav. Duke of Touraine won so I lost both attempts not just the second.
I think trying to find a 'system' of any value from these expensive mistakes would be pointless - it was fun trying though.

>professional gamblers make a good living out of it
I'm sure that what they do is not gambling. Betting money at the bookies may make it look like it, but if they study the form, the weather, talk to their friends in the racing trade and watch the horses run they probably have a very good idea of when they are onto a sure thing. They just won't bet any risky ones.
Think of it as a business, you buy or make things to sell with the hope that they will make you a profit - at least enough to live on. You are not going to risk all your available company cash on a lorryload of something that just might sell if you get lucky, you will only buy something that you know will sell or you have a very good idea of someone who is likely to buy it.
Betting this way probably takes the fun out of it, it's just the way that some people like to make their living.