The Truth About Progression Betting
Before the
more scholarly handicapping authors like Tom Ainslie, Andrew Beyer and Steve
Davidowitz came along in the 1970s and 1980s, most racing literature featured
two prevailing qualities:
1) It was
poorly written.
2) It was
gobbledygook, often espousing theories only slightly crazier than those
proffered by the Flat Earth
Society.
Take, for
example, a recent gem I came across entitled “Picking the Winners with
Systology.” Published in 1933, “Picking Winners with Systology” is a
compilation of selection and betting methods that, according to the (wisely) unnamed
author or authors, “fills and completes the cycle of information which has long
been a pressing want of turf players.”
“Using any one of the eight workable and tested systems contained herein, players may be sure that only misfortune and the failure of horseflesh and blood to do that which could be confidently expected and figured, will result in a loss,” the book claims.
“Using any one of the eight workable and tested systems contained herein, players may be sure that only misfortune and the failure of horseflesh and blood to do that which could be confidently expected and figured, will result in a loss,” the book claims.
So, in
other words, if you lose, blame the horse.
Still,
although “Picking Winners with Systology” is rife with crazy notions that the
more sophisticated players of today could easily spot — how about a parallel speed
chart that equates five furlongs in 56 seconds with six furlongs in 1:09? — the
book also contains some ideas that aren’t as easily dismissed (although they
should be).
I fear
that far too many bettors still believe that progression methods actually work…
because, theoretically, they do.
For
instance, the Quadru Methods detailed in “Picking Winners with Systology” combine
several fairly simple and straightforward selection approaches — none of which
are profitable, by the way — with a well-known progression betting system.
“Play is
based upon the sum necessary to recoup losses and show profits. If the choices
in three races have lost, the sum lost, plus profits sought, are added together
and the player wagers enough to bring back that total. Thus, if the player had
lost $12 on three previous races and wishes to show a profit of $10, he would
wager $6, presuming that his choice in the fourth race was quoted at odds of 4
to 1,” the book notes.
On the
subject of odds, the player is warned that he “should never back a horse at
less than even money.” (Presumably, this is to keep the amount wagered in
check.)
So, with
all this in mind, I decided to run a simple test.
Using my
database of more than 14,000 races run during 2012-13, I first looked at the stats
on sole favorites (no entries or ties)
that went to post at even odds or greater. I chose race favorites for my test
for two reasons: 1) They win more often than most — if not all — one-factor methods
on the planet, thereby providing the consistency that progression betting systems
need; and 2) They produce an ROI similar to, if not in excess of, what the
methods outlined in the book can achieve.
SOLE FAVORITES
AT EVEN ODDS OR GREATER
Number:
10,451
Winners:
3,303
Win Rate:
31.6%
$2 Net
Return: $1.66
ROI: -17.01%
Now comes
the fun part: Using the same horses listed above, I sought to make a profit of
$10 per race. If I lost, the $10 was added to the amount wagered, along with
another $10 in desired profits. All bets were rounded down to the nearest dollar
and, of course, the $2 minimum bet was always observed.
The overall
results were, well, fantastic. As I mentioned previously, in theory,
progression betting works. After 10,451 bets, profits stood at $99,808.70 — a sizable
chunk of change.
However,
before you rush to cash out your 401(k) and start betting progressively on
favorites, take a stab at what the maximum wager amount in this sequence of
10,451 bets was?
If you
guessed $403,080, give yourself a gold star and move to the head of the class.
And it
gets worse.
After
accumulating a little over $39K in profits in 4,265 races, the wheels came off,
as 23 straight losses led to a capital deficit of — are you sitting down? — $726,242.65.
Add that to the subsequent $403,080 bet to recoup profit and losses and it
becomes apparent (at least to those with a calculator) that one would have needed
a bankroll in excess of $1.1 million to proceed with this progression.What’s more, my test doesn’t even begin to address what a $403K bet would do to the pools at most racetracks in the country. In fact, in a comical twist, the horse that broke the 23-race skid in my test was Gin Shot and he won the 7th race at Mt. Pleasant Meadows, a track that no longer exists.
There was
$456 in the win, place and show pools combined.
So, the
next time you read about a progression betting system guaranteed to show
profits, go search for Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster instead. It’ll be about
as fruitful — not to mention a whole lot less expensive.
2 comments:
2 download s128
3
4 cbet hondablack
5 m.918kiss
6 daftar osg777
7
8 daftar game slot joker
I’m really amazed with your posting skills as well as with the layout on your blog site. We are top Mobile App Development.
Post a Comment