That's certainly an interesting approach. Feel like it would need quite a big bank roll though.
Quite the opposite Chris. As you are staking most if not all of the field the strike rate is high. You are effectively betting the winners odds-on so the profit/loss on each race is low. You virtually always have some money coming back so downswings are short. If your estimates of the horses' chances is reasonably good, the gains outweigh the losses.
You can bet a high percentage of your bank using this method so you are 'churning' your money over. indeed, the method is a form of Kelly staking for multiple selections. Betting multiple selections (all contenders) reduces volatility. If you have an edge and you are staking in line with this you will make a profit.
Apologies in advance for all the questions
So a very high strike rate but a lower return on investment?
Does it take a lot of time to identify the right race and the correct staking for each horse?
Yes, this is often the case in betting, you trade-off strike rate against the percentage profit on turnover.*
Backing more horses in a race reduces your effective odds. However, your strike rate increases which means shorter losing runs. This in turn means you can stake more of your bank on each bet. This increases your turnover (total stakes) so although 'profit on turnover' as a percentage decreases, the total profit hopefully increases or at least remains the same. Some people even tolerate a slight decrease in total profit as they prefer the shorter losing runs psychologically.
The point I think we were all making is that there is a logic to betting more than one horse in a race. You acknowledged this when you said you would be comfortable with dutching. By dutching I mean staking to return either the same amount or the same profit (there is a difference).
However, you said you're not comfortable with backing ALL contenders. I may have picked this up wrong but I took it to mean you were not sure about backing all those horses indicated by your base strategy/criteria. Let's call these the 'contenders'. This is quite normal. Most people do a 'sense check' by looking in more detail at contenders' form and preferred race conditions just as RA advocates then eliminating one or two to leave the 'selections'.
I just wanted to point out that rather than eliminate these 'contenders' (apart from the absolute lemons of course) it is possible to adjust the stakes in your dutch bet so these horses return the total stake (a saver bet) or even a small loss. There are calculators that help you do this but just putting the calculations in a spreadsheet and tinkering with the stakes would work just as well. Using the perceived edge on each selection to calculate your stake uses more complicated maths and requires more faith. Generally, races that lend themselves to this approach are handicaps with 'false' favourites (i.e. underpriced favourites - those that are favourite due to hype & column inches/tipsters rather than form).
My suggestion would be to 'paper trade' a few ideas. Continue reducing the field using whatever strategy/method/criteria you have chosen. Then play around with staking ALL the remaining horses to return one point (including stake). So for example, decimal price 3 would be .33 of your total stake decimal 4 would be 0.25 of your total stake etc.
Then do some variations on this so the ones you think might be fairly priced stay the same stake, those you feel are slightly over-priced have a little more on them and those with bigger question marks have saver stakes or return a small loss.
Keep records and compare the results to those where you look in more detail and eliminate some contenders to leave fewer selections. You could even play around with some historic results to get the hang of it.
* I prefer the term 'Profit On Turnover' to 'Return On Investment as I consider my 'investment' to be my bank and the total stakes to be my 'turnover'.
Thanks for such a detailed response. I have started to do more dutching when there are multiple contenders that survive my filter. I guess my main issue is that psychologically it seems a bigger risk as more money will be lost if none of the horses win. However I guess that I just need to be a bit more comfortable that the odds of winning are higher as I have a stake in more horses.
I have started to dutch more though and will review these bets regularly. Hopefully then being able to see the success from these technique I will be more comfortable
more money will be lost if none of the horses win.
How are you dutching them Chris? Are you wanting the same profit irrespective of which horse wins?
You can fix your stake total stake on the race to the same as you would bet on a single selection. Obviously, the return then varies and would be lower with more selections but it would remove that psychological issue.
yes this is what I am doing at the moment and just splitting my usual base bet. Once I see it delivering I will be more comfortable staking 2 or 3 times my usual bet based on the contenders