I think as a theoretical rule you should look at the degree of edge you have and the probabilty of winning. You then should weigh the two. You certainly want to bet more when you have a bigger edge, but you have to balance that against the bankroll and psychological risks that come with lower probability horses going off at big odds.

Now that I've told what I think is theoretically correct, that's not what I do.

When I used to do that I used to break even, win a little, or lose a little.

Experience taught me that I had little or no edge on high probability short priced horses that I thought were overlays. I was just spinning my wheels winning/losing a few cents on a dollar each year. All the profits were located on 3-1 shots and higher.

Personally, I believe it is more difficult than people think to find solid overlays among short priced horses even if you are fairly skilled at making an odds line. If more people studied their results by odds category I am certain others would find the same thing.

The second lesson I learned is that it RARELY IF EVER makes sense to make saver wagers when you find an overlay at a decent price. Putting underlay horses over live long shots with saver exactas may allow you to cash a few extra tickets from time to time, but it almost always destroys value.

I make flat win bets on overlays at 3-1 and higher and keep the bet level low enough so that a long losing streak will not impact my bankroll or head. I only play exactas/doubles when I am hooking up two overlays. Sometimes I bet 2 horses to win in a race and hook them up. (when I dislike the favorite for instance).



Post Edited (12-26-04 10:14)