Stupid Questions

[Odin]

Split my bank into 200 points this year, but it's been an absolute arse to work out for the purposes of this forum, so I'm going to switch to an easier system next year, which will still be based on 200 units, but might mean my smallest unit jumps from 0.1pts to 1pt. Yet to decide this yet.

I agree with Zachx02 that it's just about betting what you're comfortable with/comfortable with losing, but the whole point of this forum and using points systems is that the 'real' number doesn't matter, so don't worry too much about the fact you're only betting 3pts here and there.

[Faugheen_Machine]

For me personally I use a 1-10pt system but very rarely go all the way up to a 10pt bet, think the highest bet ive had this year is 5pts on a single horse and my max pts for the fez is around 300pts. Everybody has their own way of it working for them but yeah you do see the odd 50pt bet or whatever which makes it hard to understand how much some people 'fancy' that particular bet. Each to their own though i guess.

That's the same for me. I probably have no more than five 10 point bets across the year.

In terms of a betting bank, I keep my money completely separate in its own bank account and have around 750pts to play with.

[ComplyOrDie]

Hi chaps. Lurker turned poster, so thought i'd throw this in as a starter for 10.

Always wonder how people denominate their betting points? I had always worked on the basis that my betting bank was 100pts. So a 1 pt bet would be 1/100th of my betting bankroll. As an example, I staked what i would call 87.7 pts on Cheltenham last year,. I made an assessment at the start of the season what i wanted to staek in total pounds, and then allocated that out . As it happens, I staked in total a bit less than I had thought.

But i see some posters who bet 500pts+ on a festival (in fact, sure i've seen some in excess of 1,000...?). How are you allocating points. Surely one point i not a "normal bet" if you are staking 1,000? I suppose you might say it is if you are having 1,000 bets...

I guess its not massively important, but it's sometimes hard for me to guage how strongly people feel about a bet - if someone puts up a 5pt bet, for me thats a big bet, but from someone staking 1000 pts on Cheltenham, it is not.

Just interested really, i guess. Maybe i should change my bank to equate to 2,000 points and throw around 20pt bets left, right and centre so I feel like a big dog, bit boring betting 3pts per race

Firstly, welcome to the forum The Tank

It's an interesting set of questions, that I think a lot of which has been done before, but nevertheless it is always good to recap on these sorts of things, as I know it can confuse a fair amount of people.

For me, 1pt equates to what I would call my normal stake for a bet, this will range massively form person to person depending on circumstances, some may do 10p a pt, some may do ?10 a pt and others even higher than this, it literally is down to each individuals circumstance, but under no circumstance should any individual stake beyond what they can afford, just to 'keep up with the Joneses' as they say.

When I first started backing ante post for the Cheltenham Festival, some many years ago now, I was staking between 30-50pts in total across the whole festival, however, once realising there is a way to make some proper profit from it, almost regardless of outcomes, I have steadily built up my bank balance from profit over seasons gone by, and last season, for the first time ever I breached 1000pts in total, I also incurred my heaviest pre-festival losses of just over 230pts, which was a scary thought, but I trusted the process after years of it working, and it duly obliged.

In comparison, my day to day betting has eased considerably the past 5 or 6 seasons, mostly thanks to this forum actually, as I soon realised I was pissing money down the drain when it could go towards something that yields me a decent level of profit year on year (I'm hoping this season is no different). I'm much more selective on bets on a day to day basis now, although I will have the odd day where I'll do a couple of singles, or possibly a multiple of some sorts when a decent meeting or two are on at the weekend, but even so, my 1pt value has remained the same. I know some on here have increased their pt value over the past season or so, but this is yet something I am comfortable to do.

My main bit of advice for anyone looking at taking the festival on, the way I do at least, besides not over committing yourself, which, as said previously, should never be done, is to have reserve funds and be ready to be reactive to situations, as things can happen fairly quickly in the world of ante post betting. Of course, in an ideal situation we would have already been proactive and backed plenty ahead of the market to get ourselves in a decent enough position.


I hope this helps a little, and explains how I go about things at least. There are other ways members on here go about 'attacking' the festival, some very interesting ones too, who I'm sure will post up, if they haven't already.

[Lobos]

Great reply COD.

[Quevega]

I normally have a bank of around 1000 pts, which is five figures in real money.
Which puts my antepost risk in perspective. If you see my diary.

I do bet almost every day, and especially at weekends and regularly stake around 150- 200pts per week, mostly on weekends.
I should really reduce this, but I have nothing better to do, and enjoy it.
My basic throwaway bet is about 2pts, but once or twice a month I'll go 10pts or more if the bet looks right.

I know Cheltenham is profitable and the regular stuff is not in the long term as I don't have the discipline, but I must do reasonably well as I haven't had to properly fund the Bank for a few years.
Except when the wife gets a look in.
I made the mistake of drawing most funds out when the first lock down started as I though the world might end.
Big mistake, as the wife seen it all, and bagged most of it.

I've had to re fund surreptitiously the Bank since, but almost back to normal.

[Spectre]

My approach is very similar to CoD. 1 point is equal to a standard stake. With my book approach I have a target return for each race and adjust as the season develops so I stay within parameters I set myself to control the outcome. I base my target for each race partly on historical performance, ie my likelihood of getting the result I want based on what my historical results have actually been, and also on the likely make up of the race. Plus in a couple of instances I may try a slightly varied approach to what I've done previously, to try and keep moving forward. Essentially I have 28 books that make up in to 1 big book.

Three key components of my strategy are the use of the exchange to maximize and lock in profits, cash out wherever possible, even at the expense of a few points, and good use of no runner no bet when it comes. All of these are important to the decisions I make about how many points I invest, and what I think I can achieve from a race.

In terms of betting bank, I'd be one of those you pinpoint at the larger end of outlay, and I'm fortunate enough to work with a bank that doesn't really create any limitations. That said my bank has been built over many years, and hasn't been topped up with outside funds. It's been built solely as a result of betting activity. On the flip side though, if I had some heavy losses I would reduce my staking plan to stay within my betting bank. Touch wood that hasn't happened for a very long time, but each year I always consider that it could happen. The key thing is that my points approach is within what any successful betting activity allows, and I don't ever allow my betting activity to be funded from anywhere else.

My approach to multiples is probably for a different day.

[Quevega]

My approach is very similar to CoD. 1 point is equal to a standard stake. With my book approach I have a target return for each race and adjust as the season develops so I stay within parameters I set myself to control the outcome. I base my target for each race partly on historical performance, ie my likelihood of getting the result I want based on what my historical results have actually been, and also on the likely make up of the race. Plus in a couple of instances I may try a slightly varied approach to what I've done previously, to try and keep moving forward. Essentially I have 28 books that make up in to 1 big book.

Three key components of my strategy are the use of the exchange to maximize and lock in profits, cash out wherever possible, even at the expense of a few points, and good use of no runner no bet when it comes. All of these are important to the decisions I make about how many points I invest, and what I think I can achieve from a race.

In terms of betting bank, I'd be one of those you pinpoint at the larger end of outlay, and I'm fortunate enough to work with a bank that doesn't really create any limitations. That said my bank has been built over many years, and hasn't been topped up with outside funds. It's been built solely as a result of betting activity. On the flip side though, if I had some heavy losses I would reduce my staking plan to stay within my betting bank. Touch wood that hasn't happened for a very long time, but each year I always consider that it could happen. The key thing is that my points approach is within what any successful betting activity allows, and I don't ever allow my betting activity to be funded from anywhere else.

My approach to multiples is probably for a different day.

I have a question for you and anyone else who does similar.
I understand the essence of having a target in mind and how this can work with a book, and I know you have your own separate fun bets, aside from the book.
But aside from your Naad thing.
Do you not find it limiting to have a target on each race, and how disciplined are you with this.

I'm asking because I've seen others stake on horses more than they would normally just in case that wins and to ensure the target amount is reached in that eventuality.
I'd find this hard to do psychologically, and would simply be more protective and cover losses in this kind of scenario.
I wouldn't be able to get away from the feeling that backing horses I didn't believe could win, especially with larger stakes, on most races would over the long term not be profitable.
Better to allow the odd one to catch you out and make more money on other races, cos you've saved on over compensating.

For example, if Champ did end up in the Gold cup and his best price was 10-1 and you had a target win return of 100pts - a stake of 10pts would be required, and this type of event could be repeated in other races. If I'd laid out 20pts already I'd be inclined to firstly leave him and let him win, or at the very most I'd play 2pts to cover my outlay.

Essentially I'd be willing to back my judgement a little more over the long term. And accept the odd kick in the teeth.
Your knowledge is obvious, so I wonder why you wouldn't do this.
You probably do on occasions and obviously do on handicaps,which is why I'm asking.

Hope you get what I'm asking

[jono]

I do things slightly different. I have a 'bank' that has been built up from returns.
But my points don't relate to a percentage of my bank. I only use points when it comes to the forum, so not to put a monetary value on my bets.
Though I wouldn't be happy about it, if I lost it all, it's all money that has been built up and wouldn't have any impact on my life. Would absolutely be an absolute kick in the teeth, but i'd rebuild, work my way back up and go again (on the basis that i've had profitable years every year since i started, so would take the hit as a one off / anomoly)
I have a max bet figure that generally I won't go above. It's taken a while to determine but it's the max amount i'm willing to back - one where if it loses I can cope with and move on but then also not rue having more on. It's very rare i'd go to that figure though. And has no correlation with my points. So there's no 1-10pt scale for example.

I also aim for a specific return per race, if I can. This is not concrete, but is what I aim for when I go into most of the races fresh.
And I fully admit it's probably not the most logical thing to do. And can be optimised no doubt.
It hasn't really materialised this season but I really should vary this per race, and not have a blanket 'same return' for every single race.

For example, if Champ did end up in the Gold cup and his best price was 10-1 and you had a target win return of 100pts - a stake of 10pts would be required, and this type of event could be repeated in other races. If I'd laid out 20pts already I'd be inclined to firstly leave him and let him win, or at the very most I'd play 2pts to cover my outlay.

This instance, in my case would depend on a few things...

- One would be how much I have currently staked in the race already.
- Secondly how strong are his chances. In comparison to others.
- Thirdly my other bets in the race look

The Supreme for me is a good example of this. I've staked 10points already. Have an aim of 33pts But don't have Jonbon backed. At his current price i'll have to back him for 10pts to get that return.

If I did so. I'm then looking at a total of 20pts staked, and not betting EW means my profit then becomes a max 13pts in the race, at best.
The risk then likely (given there will be other horses unbacked in the race who could still win) outweighs the return.

But if I really fancied his chances. (just say the race suddenly turned into last season where AI was head and shoulders above the rest, and already beat his main rivals)
Or the current 10pts staked were no-hopers / already in the bin. If i'm already looking at a loss, I may try and salvage it. But would be heavily linked to the second point on how likely I think that is.

Still unsure how i'm going to play Jonbon in the race. Most likely i'll end up having some on. Say 3-4pts - enough to cover the total stakes in the race, maybe with a small bit of profit.

Again, it's unlikely to be the best approach by any means. Steady accumulative profits, across the 28 races will add up. But essentially, for me to bet months in advance this is the figure, each race in isolation that interests me as a return. No other reason really.

Though I back several in a race.
I don't create a book. If I did then I don't think i'd have the same aim (for a set return).
And would have to alter my approach. As i'd need to cover my tracks and fill in the holes. And to still do that, and achieve a set return everytime is just either unachievable or very very lucky. (imo)

[Saxon Warrior]

I have a question for you and anyone else who does similar.
I understand the essence of having a target in mind and how this can work with a book, and I know you have your own separate fun bets, aside from the book.
But aside from your Naad thing.
Do you not find it limiting to have a target on each race, and how disciplined are you with this.

I'm asking because I've seen others stake on horses more than they would normally just in case that wins and to ensure the target amount is reached in that eventuality.
I'd find this hard to do psychologically, and would simply be more protective and cover losses in this kind of scenario.
I wouldn't be able to get away from the feeling that backing horses I didn't believe could win, especially with larger stakes, on most races would over the long term not be profitable.
Better to allow the odd one to catch you out and make more money on other races, cos you've saved on over compensating.

For example, if Champ did end up in the Gold cup and his best price was 10-1 and you had a target win return of 100pts - a stake of 10pts would be required, and this type of event could be repeated in other races. If I'd laid out 20pts already I'd be inclined to firstly leave him and let him win, or at the very most I'd play 2pts to cover my outlay.

Essentially I'd be willing to back my judgement a little more over the long term. And accept the odd kick in the teeth.
Your knowledge is obvious, so I wonder why you wouldn't do this.
You probably do on occasions and obviously do on handicaps,which is why I'm asking.

Hope you get what I'm asking

I like that question Q,

Mainly because I would only back something that I believed could win the race, not because I was compelled to cover it for Xpts if I were making a book.

I enjoy the jeopardy of winning or losing races, based on faith/hope in my race selection(s), beating the mass of runners I havent backed.
To me that makes it a contest, and I'm backing my selections to beat the rest.
Thats what sport is, and should be, for me.

Thats why the book approach wouldnt work for me, I want to watch sport that has jeopardy, not certainty.
Particularly as I am on the racecourse in March watching it.

The thought of watching eight or ten horses I've backed to win a similar sum in a race, would blow my mind, and kill my enjoyment for any victory that comes along.

I prefer to try and make as much profit/return on investment I can, on the stakes I've made.
That means sometimes no bets in some race (Champion Hurdle may be one of those this year, and the Hunter Chase)
In others, one, two or three to try and beat the field.

Hedging horses back into the exchange doesnt work for me either, as trying to lay 20, 30, 40 or 50 horses still entered for the races, that I no longer fancy, to cover all my stakes on them, at 33/1, 25/1, 16/1 etc, would cost an absolute fortune pumping money into Betfair, to cover those big liabilities.
Also its entirely possible that I wouldnt be able to lay it all off, at prices I could accept.

My main aim is to make a profit on single bets (inc winning/losing rollovers, and binned singles), taking into account any pre-Festival losses, as fast as possible.

I think my overall stakes on singles/rollovers including pre-Fez losers was 110pts and 100pts in the last two Festivals
I covered this and went into profit by the Cross Country (Weds) in 2020, and the Ballymore (Race 1 Weds) in 2021.
Thats more my plan rather than to win each race.

My points units are probably larger than some on here, hence why only 100-110 points for the Fez (excluding multis).
Ive got no intention of reducing my unit stake and looking like I am having more units bet - to look like Billy-Big-Balls as someone commented on here, that bigger unit players may look like, with 10pt and 20pts bet.

A 1pt unit is a standard bet for me (if anyone wants to know what that is - Message me), because of that unit value not being an easier figure ie: a tenner - its fiddly at times with parts of points, but thats what happens given my 1pt value.
That unit has probably been standard for me for 15 years.

Anything I have backed with 2pts or more are horses I fancy particularly strongly, its not often I go further than around that figure.

I would rather back a horse I strongly fancy for a race, with a second 1pt, rather than cover another horse in the same race, that I fancy much less or not much at all.

This year I am already at 92 points active (from singles and winning rollovers) and 100pts stakes (net of losses/cashout profits).
Thats before handicaps kick in, so I think I may be closer to 130pts staked by the start of the Fez and hopefully still have 100+ active and not lost.

Three decent winners 40pts-50pts won on each, should get me into breakeven/profit - or 4 or 5 smaller winners.

Thats the plan for me.

Profit on the week as quickly as possible, doesnt matter what races are complete losers or moderate or heavy winners, just as quickly as possible.

Preferably by the end of Day 2 (or even Day 1 if Run Wild Fred were to win the NHC).

I use a separate betting bank too, topped back up to 150pts after each Festival (from Fez winnings normally), with the rest won over and above that put into my main savings account, or shared with family.

Theres been no need to fund from anywhere else for a few years now, I count that as being lucky with the betting choices I've made.

[Spectre]

Yes I think so Q.

Whilst I set my stall out for each race pretty much after the previous Festival, I'm flexible enough to adjust to the make up of the race and the markets as they evolve. Things change and you have to change with them.

The Arkle is possibly the best example this season where I've needed to re-assess and re-think a race. Appreciate It was a fairly big hit, with 31 points gone because I wasn't quick enough to get out. My original target was instantly no longer realistic unless I increased my stakes on all of the main contenders to chase it. I don't intend to do that, and have simply calculated the losses in. With a book approach you generally have good cover with horses that step in and fill the shoes of the short priced favourite that you take a hit on. I currently expect a 65 point profit after the result including trading the win part of some of my bets. Prior to Appreciate It's setback I'd targeted for a 125 point profit (107.25 points last year from the race and 13 points from trades achieved) which was a small increase on last year, and my book looked in good shape to achieve it and perhaps a bit more. I could potentially still target a 100+ point profit now, but that would mean chasing the race by increasing stakes at shorter prices. That has the affect of increasing the possible downside on the race though. So my view is I don't need to chase the race when there's 27 other races, and I'm confident of a healthy profit anyway. Far better to re-set my sights to something more realistic, and be satisfied with it if it happens.

On the other side of that I have considered stepping up my original target for the Champion Hurdle. One very good favourite, and only 3 or 4 horses that should realistically place. I haven't so far, but I may consider doing so when I see the nrnb prices. The make up of the race is now about as good as it gets for a book approach and it would feel like an opportunity wasted. With nrnb in play and so few horses to consider upping stakes feels like an obvious thing to do, and if something unfortunate happens to Honeysuckle prior to the day I still have a big position remaining on the alternative horses.

With all these things in the mix, it's obvious that any of my targets are only achievable if things go smoothly. And I know from experience that I may have 3 or 4 races each year that I might need to or want to respond to because of negative and positive factors. Usually I take a more cautious approach by re-balancing rather than chasing, because I'm naturally cautious with these things, but at the same time I'm not adverse to running with an opportunity if I think things are stacked in my favour.

In terms of staking, if you take a look in my diary you'll see fairly distinct patterns around returns for different types of horses, and the difference in the returns for the better horses are a good indication of which races I'm attempting to take more out of. Some races lend themselves to that, whereas others mean I have to work much harder at them, and I'll target a smaller return from a larger pool of horses. Always with the back up of cash out and the exchange is I got it wrong or if I need to react. All the time with horses to step straight in if a horse is out or underperforms, essentially de-risking the downside, and making it unlikely that the book will make a loss.

Also to specifically address your question about backing horses you don't think can win, my approach means I'll back several that would fit that mould, but it's likely I'll either lay them back for a profit, or at least lay the win part, again for a profit, and then leave a bet running on the place. I think given your blockage with this you could possibly start using the exchange to take out the element of risk? Maybe play around with a couple of races that naturally lend themselves to the approach. Too late for this season, but maybe one to add to your repertoire next season?

Outside of the handicaps and the Foxhunter it would be very rare for me to make a loss in any of the other races. When it does it usually takes a few large slices of bad luck for it to happen. Last year there were three races I made a loss on bets (not on trades), and they were the Boodles, Coral Cup and Foxhunter. The other 25 were all profitable on bets alone, and all 28 were profitable when trades are taken into considerations. That's not always the case, but it is mostly. The handicap hurdles and the Foxhunter tend to be my up and down races each season, and there's a case to be made that I should just trade in them rather than try to make a profit in them from bets. But I like the interest and the challenge, and I'll continue with current approach to them.

What I don't like doing is trying to retrospectively work on too many races, because that's when I'm likely to make mistakes. With the handicaps coming up mid-Feb I want to be able to focus on them, rather than still be tinkering around with the other races. So between now and then I'll do any adjusting around the edges and very little else. Clearly we've got Trials Day and the DRF, plus a small handful of other races to consider, but even so I don't expect too much to change now.

I hope I've answered what you're looking for? If not let me know and I'll try and answer more succinctly.

[TiggerRoll]

Saxon Warrior i may have misconstrued but has your unit stake - in monetary amount - stayed the same for the last 15 years? Some really intriguing wisdom shared by you all here that’s so valuable.

Teach a man to fish etc…

[Saxon Warrior]

Saxon Warrior i may have misconstrued but has your unit stake - in monetary amount - stayed the same for the last 15 years? Some really intriguing wisdom shared by you all here that’s so valuable.

Teach a man to fish etc…

Yes it has.

I just back it more often now, than I did 5, 10 or 15 years ago.

Its the level of bet I generally put on horses I fancied, when on-course at Newmarket, when I was a member there for around 15 years.

Any bet had to pass the test of being worth that 1pt unit. If it didnt then i just watched the race and enjoyed the race for the sport, without a bet.

I love going to the races, and often used to go to those newmarket meetings and have 1 bet all afternoon, evening, or sometimes no bets.

I knew as a Member I would probably get to around 25 to 30 meetings out of the 38 in the Annual Members season, so if I didnt fancy anything enough to have the 1pt bet on, then I always knew there would be another day. Sometimes the very next day, or maybe a week or two later.

[YoungHustler]

Hi chaps. Lurker turned poster, so thought i'd throw this in as a starter for 10.

Always wonder how people denominate their betting points? I had always worked on the basis that my betting bank was 100pts. So a 1 pt bet would be 1/100th of my betting bankroll. As an example, I staked what i would call 87.7 pts on Cheltenham last year,. I made an assessment at the start of the season what i wanted to staek in total pounds, and then allocated that out . As it happens, I staked in total a bit less than I had thought.

But i see some posters who bet 500pts+ on a festival (in fact, sure i've seen some in excess of 1,000...?). How are you allocating points. Surely one point i not a "normal bet" if you are staking 1,000? I suppose you might say it is if you are having 1,000 bets...

I guess its not massively important, but it's sometimes hard for me to guage how strongly people feel about a bet - if someone puts up a 5pt bet, for me thats a big bet, but from someone staking 1000 pts on Cheltenham, it is not.

Just interested really, i guess. Maybe i should change my bank to equate to 2,000 points and throw around 20pt bets left, right and centre so I feel like a big dog, bit boring betting 3pts per race

It's difficult to gauge how confident some people are when we don't know their staking plans. My max stake is 3pts and I like you, can find it odd when I see bets of 10 or 20+ points staked. But each to their own and as long as you are comfortable with your staking, you should not let what you see other's stake, affect you. Someone's 20pts could equal your 3pts in financial terms.

I generally increase my average stake every year after taking into account the previous year's winnings(basically reinvesting my winnings to have a bigger bank). Increasing my average stake helps me question myself whether I want to place a bet or not as the risk of losing hurts more.

[TiggerRoll]

Yes it has.

I just back it more often now, than I did 5, 10 or 15 years ago.

Its the level of bet I generally put on horses I fancied, when on-course at Newmarket, when I was a member there for around 15 years.

Any bet had to pass the test of being worth that 1pt unit. If it didnt then i just watched the race and enjoyed the race for the sport, without a bet.

I love going to the races, and often used to go to those newmarket meetings and have 1 bet all afternoon, evening, or sometimes no bets.

I knew as a Member I would probably get to around 35 to 30 meetings out of the 38 in the Annual Members season, so if I didnt fancy anything enough to have the 1pt bet on, then I always knew there would be another day. Sometimes the very next day, or maybe a week or two later.

Makes a lot of sense, thank you. Would you be tempted to keep the old philosophy of meeting a certain threshold - albeit a higher one to keep in line with 15 years ago - and reducing the number of bets or do you prefer the current method?

[Saxon Warrior]

Makes a lot of sense, thank you. Would you be tempted to keep the old philosophy of meeting a certain threshold - albeit a higher one to keep in line with 15 years ago - and reducing the number of bets or do you prefer the current method?

I do the racecourse 1pt method every time I go racing.

If I don't like anything enough to bet the 1pt I dont back them.

I probably back a couple of smaller stake Doubles or a Trixie instead.

For Antepost Cheltenham bets I probably backed more than I would normally do this season and I've consciously cashed out on a few now the form is becoming clearer or race targets are known.

There will be a bit more cashing out to do before the DRF and after and my horses backed in races will drop down to 0, 1, 2 or 3 max in most if not all races.

Then the handicap entries come out on 22nd Feb.
That's a big day.
NRNB should be in place, and I may end up backing 10 horses or do in those handicaps, whilst trying to assess what the UK capper might do with Irish horses ratings.

The Handicap weights are announced on 2nd March - another Big Day for deciding whether to add a few more NRNB or cash one or two out.

Should end up with 1, 2 or 3 in each Handicap after that with the team largely being completed 2 weeks before the Fez.

That can change a bit, late on, at 5-day entries and 48-hour decs when the shape of the final fields are known.

I dont bet much during Fez week, the odd one here and there, and maybe one Multi bet a day, to try and bag a bigger payout.