The Punting Fund

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Curious as to how much actual thought process is invested into each Quad ticket, or is it more or less a fairly automated process?

For instance, Stony Creek yesterday saw (roughly, only had a quick skim) $475 of your total $2,704 outlay (18% of ticket) invested on 8&1 winning first two legs. "8" was a $1.80 fave in a 5-horse field and "1" was a $1.50 fave in a 7-horse field.

I'm really struggling (in all seriousness) seeing how this type of approach lends itself to making money - remembering the terms "investment", "strategy" and "fund management" were being thrown around early days.
 
Jan Juc said:
Curious as to how much actual thought process is invested into each Quad ticket, or is it more or less a fairly automated process?

For instance, Stony Creek yesterday saw (roughly, only had a quick skim) $475 of your total $2,704 outlay (18% of ticket) invested on 8&1 winning first two legs. "8" was a $1.80 fave in a 5-horse field and "1" was a $1.50 fave in a 7-horse field.

I'm really struggling (in all seriousness) seeing how this type of approach lends itself to making money - remembering the terms "investment", "strategy" and "fund management" were being thrown around early days.
Click to expand...

A program creates the combinations, but the program is programmed by me, so it just follows my rules. Each combination staked to what I assess it's chances at.

RE Stony Creek - you've got those figures wrong. The listed amount was on each tote, of Vic and NSW, so there was $950 of $2704, or about 35%, of our money through those two. I priced them up very short on top, so we had lots through them, then needed to find some value in later legs. Didn't manage to.
 
Second, beaten a half head, in the last leg of both the Wyong and Sandown late quaddies!!

Bad couple of weeks, and the Fund is losing now after we had a big lead a couple of weeks ago -

BETS 173
WINS 66
S/R 38.2%
OUT $348,069
IN $338,698
NETT -$9,371
ROI 0.97
BANK $90,629


Disappointing result in the end, given where we were.

We'll possibly take one quad tomorrow, and that will be it for this practice fund, before starting the real thing on Saturday, and hopefully that signals the end of this bad period.
 
Duritz said:
Second, beaten a half head, in the last leg of both the Wyong and Sandown late quaddies!!

Bad couple of weeks, and the Fund is losing now after we had a big lead a couple of weeks ago -

BETS 173
WINS 66
S/R 38.2%
OUT $348,069
IN $338,698
NETT -$9,371
ROI 0.97
BANK $90,629


Disappointing result in the end, given where we were.

We'll possibly take one quad tomorrow, and that will be it for this practice fund, before starting the real thing on Saturday, and hopefully that signals the end of this bad period.
Click to expand...

Got many signed up?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Watts4Dinner said:
It's not like Jan Juc to sniff around a rotting carcus. He must have been mightily annoyed he had to wait two and a half months...
Click to expand...

Not at all champ. My questions was genuine in nature, valid (to my eyes) and am happy to debate it further.

My point being backing two odds-on faves (in small fields) in the first two legs, "hoping" for value in the remaining two, then when the $51 shot lobs not a sheckel was on it. It could be argued Cam "rated" the $1.80 shot $1.50 and the $1.50 shot $1.33 thus 'claiming' OVERS but that's another tangent.

The crux of my question is how much is thought-based/nuanced, and how much is just spitting out numbers. I don't play Quads anymore, but if I was to see two legs with $1.50 and $1.80 faves - I'm looking to oppose one or both of them, there's no way in a million years I want both of them running for me. If I can't mount a case to bet around one/both of them, I'm leaving my powder dry for another day. In this, I'd say knowing when not to bet is more beneficial to one's P&L than a myriad of other 'factors'.

And to your 'sniffing around' / 'rotting carcass' / 'mightily annoyed' jibes - I reckon that speaks more to you than me.
 
Jan Juc said:
Not at all champ. My questions was genuine in nature, valid (to my eyes) and am happy to debate it further.

My point being backing two odds-on faves (in small fields) in the first two legs, "hoping" for value in the remaining two, then when the $51 shot lobs not a sheckel was on it. It could be argued Cam "rated" the $1.80 shot $1.50 and the $1.50 shot $1.33 thus 'claiming' OVERS but that's another tangent.

The crux of my question is how much is thought-based/nuanced, and how much is just spitting out numbers. I don't play Quads anymore, but if I was to see two legs with $1.50 and $1.80 faves - I'm looking to oppose one or both of them, there's no way in a million years I want both of them running for me. If I can't mount a case to bet around one/both of them, I'm leaving my powder dry for another day. In this, I'd say knowing when not to bet is more beneficial to one's P&L than a myriad of other 'factors'.

And to your 'sniffing around' / 'rotting carcass' / 'mightily annoyed' jibes - I reckon that speaks more to you than me.
Click to expand...

I do understand your point but most of the time quads are a matter of chipping away, fishing and waiting for the next decent outcome.

As regards the stony creek one - I had those two faves slightly shorter than the market so it's worth keying a lot through them. It was legs 3 & 4 that cost me, not 1,2
 
Duritz said:
I do understand your point but most of the time quads are a matter of chipping away, fishing and waiting for the next decent outcome.

As regards the stony creek one - I had those two faves slightly shorter than the market so it's worth keying a lot through them. It was legs 3 & 4 that cost me, not 1,2
Click to expand...

Do you think it would be worth reducing the strike rate for increased ROI?

Would seem to be a fair amount of combinations used up with short priced horses you're likely risking?
 
Last edited:
I disagree on both counts - the chipping away/fishing line as well as the 'multiple odds-on/searching for value play' paying out well in the long term.

But if everyone agreed on a forum it would be a boring place.

Same as a betting market, if everyone agreed it would be impossible to make money and I'd have to get a job.
 
FallingLiefs said:
Do you think it would be worth reducing the strike rate for increased ROI?
Click to expand...

Every time he plays a Quad he's paying tax, and at 22.5% or 25% or whatever it is (I've actually forgotten) it's not exactly the cheapest game in town. He's turned over $350k and donated $80/90k tax from the start.

I'm just of the firm belief that Quaddies and a 'scatter-gun' approach isn't ideal.
 
Jan Juc said:
Every time he plays a Quad he's paying tax, and at 22.5% or 25% or whatever it is (I've actually forgotten) it's not exactly the cheapest game in town. He's turned over $350k and donated $80/90k tax from the start.

I'm just of the firm belief that Quaddies and a 'scatter-gun' approach isn't ideal.
Click to expand...

Can make the tax excuse with every bet though. isn't he really doing 4 legs at close to effectively best available SP multied together.

My only thought on the raw system itself would be to make them skewed more towards your good results rather than getting the quad.
 
The thing about quaddies is that they have three immature legs in them. A quaddie "should" pay what the normalised final tote price of each winner is, multiplied, then adjusted down for the take (20% I think it is). However, they pay more than this. On average, quaddies pay 1.3 to 1.35 x more than this div that they "should" pay. This is because of the three "immature" legs in the pool.

It is this that makes quaddies a good play. If you could look into the future and have the final tote price ahead of time, you could stake every combination in the quad and make a profit. However, this is obviously impossible because we can't know final tote in advance. And to save you the research time - it doesn't work using the bookies early prices.

However, this 1.3 to 1.35 multiple means if your prices are any good, you can stake them to at least break even. It's this reason I don't mind taking "unders" combinations that are high in my list, because they will pay more than they should long term. Yes, I could reduce the combinations, just look for the absolute value ones and get maybe one quaddie in ten or so, and certainly get a higher ROI out of what I outlay, and TBH those combinations are the ones that make up the profit in a profitable period, and I probably only break square on those highly rated but "unders" combinations, but they do keep the collects ticking over and help reduce the stress in runs of outs.
 
Duritz said:
The thing about quaddies is that they have three immature legs in them. A quaddie "should" pay what the normalised final tote price of each winner is, multiplied, then adjusted down for the take (20% I think it is). However, they pay more than this. On average, quaddies pay 1.3 to 1.35 x more than this div that they "should" pay. This is because of the three "immature" legs in the pool.

It is this that makes quaddies a good play. If you could look into the future and have the final tote price ahead of time, you could stake every combination in the quad and make a profit. However, this is obviously impossible because we can't know final tote in advance. And to save you the research time - it doesn't work using the bookies early prices.

However, this 1.3 to 1.35 multiple means if your prices are any good, you can stake them to at least break even. It's this reason I don't mind taking "unders" combinations that are high in my list, because they will pay more than they should long term. Yes, I could reduce the combinations, just look for the absolute value ones and get maybe one quaddie in ten or so, and certainly get a higher ROI out of what I outlay, and TBH those combinations are the ones that make up the profit in a profitable period, and I probably only break square on those highly rated but "unders" combinations, but they do keep the collects ticking over and help reduce the stress in runs of outs.
Click to expand...


if market movers inwards cause 1.3 to 1.35x overs surely the drifters pay 0.7 to 0.65x unders? so backing any horses you expect to drift is 0.675 + tote take.

i understand the reasoning behind taking the wide approach just in that example at stony creek i would have thought it would be much preferred to have a lot more through the faves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top