frames

It's just mental arithmetic, what you need to be able to do before betting : Field Book is 100% - back 3 horses at 5/2 (29%),4/1 (20%), 7/1 (13%). Total stake 56%, total return !00%, profit 44%. Each field is different so each race has be calculated to find enough of margin to be worthwhile. This is betting, not selection - everybody has their own way of choosing horses to back. It's work, you have to be able to add the field percentages up quickly so you can take advantage of price fluctuations. You choose how many horses you back against the field depending on price and percentage takeout.

I understand the confusion, but the overround, or underround, are not applied - that is the situation regarding the field book. Which race is it that equal fair odds are on offer ? The field book operates on 100% take out, calculated on price percentage : 7/2 is 22%,11/2 is 15%, 8/1 is 11% and so on for every price available. Every book on every race is overround i.e the take out is more than 100%. The only advantage the bettor has over the bookmaker is that the bookmaker has to bet in every race, the bettor doesn't - so, in a field of 8 or 10 runners, depending on the book takeout, taking 3 or 4 against the field for a total of less than 100% guarantees a profit - and, if that is a 10 runner field, that means that instead of having one horse running for you and nine for the bookmaker you have three or four running for you, which 60% or 70% of the field. This seems to me to be fairly basic.

I think the only way to break even, or make a (small) profit by backing all runners in a race is if the book is under round - I can't remember that ever happening.

A long time ago (decades, probably) there was a vogue amongst gamblers for being dismissive of 'systems' and then saying that what they did was to use 'methods' for selection. In the end I suppose you pay your money and make your choice, but the difference between the teeth of that fine comb of definition escaped me then, and still does. Each gambler has their own likes and dislikes - and their taboos. My personal taboo is never to back each way - it only takes a moment to calculate that the 1/5 offered on a 33/1 shot that finishes 2nd or 3rd is not 6.6/1, but 3.3/1 - and you are still trying to find a 33/1 shot to place. One of the 'methods' that was popular for a while at least used current form as a basis - look for horses that put up improved speed figures in a better race LTO - 'better' was defined by value of race e.g improved figure in 30k race LTO, now running in 20k race. It was a starting point, and was useful. It had some success then, and is probably a good yardstick still. At the time it was known as the Van Der Wheil method - apparently named after a gambler.

Personally I think the takeout in pool betting is so high that it's almost impossible to win The percentage takeouts vary, so it's a matter of opinion, I suppose. I think it also depends on how you calculate field book percentages - which are fixed.

I'm new here so maybe I'm going over old ground, so apologies if that's the case. I do think all the ideas expressed have value but for quite some time now I've stopped doing things like compiling a list of horses to watch - experience has taught me that all you end up with a list of horses that have been beaten, and that's not a good start to selection. I think the real money is in pool betting, so I have concentrated on that,

Hi, I'm new here - name is Dave. I've been backing horses and dogs since, well, let's say far too long.