In most publications devoted to winning at the racetrack, when the issue of bet amounts is discussed, the authors usually recommend either a flat-stake betting method (the same amount on each bet) or a percentage bet as the bank rises or falls, or minor variations of both.
Consequently, the idea of target betting, or due column betting as the Americans call it, is presented as the worst way to bet because, according to the writers, a long run of outs eventually will cause the bets to rise to an uncomfortable level and a loss of the betting bank WILL occur.
Sadly, the case they present gives target betting a bad name when, in fact, used properly, this method has every chance of winning as much as, if not more than, their preferred staking plans.
In this article I shall attempt to balance the staking debate by outlining how the much maligned 'bad boy' of racing should actually be treated.
Firstly, we need to take a backward step and consider the case presented by the authors mentioned earlier in context with themselves, the professionals, and the target of their case, the average punter.
Most of their assertions are, quite naturally, based on their own betting and, as professionals, it's assumed that they win on flat stakes. But that usually isn't the case for the average punter, who would mostly lose at level stakes.
Clearly, then, another method of attack must be used by the average punter. This usually revolves around progressively higher bets as more losers occur, in an attempt to 'win back' lost amounts (thus clearing all losses) and make a profit. This is target betting tackled in a fairly primitive and brutal way.
When average punters first attempt a systematic method of target betting they begin with the sensible premise that all they want to win is a few dollars each week which, after a few weeks, could become many dollars and after a few months, many more dollars.
As the dreaming increases, they lose sight of the ONE major reason why they WILL lose using target betting and thus prove the authors correct: they will attempt to win too much per race in relation to their bank. It is worth repeating: THEY WILL ATTEMPT TO WIN TOO MUCH PER RACE IN RELATION TO THEIR BANK.
Assuming they will bet each Saturday and on public holidays, plus a few midweek meetings, a total of 20 bets per week might be the norm and, considering $2 per race, or $40 per week, to be a sensible target they accumulate a betting bank of $400 and begin with great confidence as, after all, they think they are not being greedy because their objective per race is a modest 1:200 ratio or 0.5 per cent.
There is an unwritten racing law which decrees that each time a punter starts some new way of betting, a losing run will occur immediately. I suspect this happens because the initial bets are so minor in relation to the bank that some degree of complacency sets in and frivolous bets are made that would not be made for larger amounts.
The punter may weather that initial storm but, eventually, a really bad run occurs and the punter either weakens mentally due to the bet size increasing, or he fights his mental worries, continues betting and loses his bank. So, why did he fail?
When asked, the answer usually revolves around excuses like, "I ran out of money", which actually means he never began with enough in the first place. It's my recommendation that the ratio should not be 1:200 but at least six times that 1:1200 with a preferred 1:1500 or even higher.
At a minimum, to win $2 per race, the punter should have $2400 as a starting bank if attempting target betting; any less is courting disaster. Relatively, if $2400 is too much, then a conservative $600 bank and a 50 cent target per race is the same ratio.
Assuming the punter does have $2400, what is the best way to achieve the desired $2 profit per race? In the rare articles where the author actually does advocate target betting, the plan most often recommended is the Six Point Target Plan which decrees that you set an objective of 6 units to be won each time you strike a winner or winners whose odds total 6.
To do this you set the objective at $12 and the divisor at 6 and begin by dividing the divisor (6) into the objective ($12) to arrive at your first bet of $2. This plan also asks you to deduct the winner's odds from the divisor (but you are never to divide by less than 3 because dividing by less can cause the bets to rise dramatically during a losing run), and to deduct the winnings from your objective after each winner.
Even by not dividing at less than 3, the bets can still escalate so another option could be to never divide by less than the original 6. Another safety brake is to add 1 to the divisor after every 3 losers.
The staking process could go like this:
BET No. | TARGET | DIV. | BET |
1 | 12 | 6 | 2 |
(loses, add 2 to the target) |
2 | 14 | 6 | 2 |
(rounded down: safer approach, again) |
3 | 16 | 6 | 2 |
(rounded down) |
4 | 18 | 7 | 2 |
(add 1 to divisor, 3 losers in a row, rounded down) |
5 | 20 | 7 | 2 |
(rounded down) |
6 | 22 | 7 | 3 |
(rounded down) |
7 | 25 | 8 | 3 |
(rounded down, add 1 to divisor, 3 losers in a row) |
8 | 28 | 8 | 3 |
Won at 2/1, wins $6, deduct profit from objective, deduct 2 (winner's odds) from divisor |
9 | 22 | 6 | 3 |
10 | 25 | 6 | 4 |
Won at 9/4, wins $9, deduct profit from objective, deduct 2 (winner's odds rounded down) from divisor |
11 | 16 | 4 | |
As the divisor is now below the original 6, and it's been decided that dividing by less than 6 is too dangerous, a brand new target of 12 is added to the outstanding target of 16, thus totalling 28, and a brand new divisor of 6 is added to the divisor, totalling 10. Therefore, we now have bet 11 looking like this: |
11 | 28 | 10 | 2 |
(rounded down) |
12 | 30 | 10 | 3 |
Won at 4 / 1, wins $12, deduct profit from objective, deduct 4 from the divisor |
13 | 18 | 6 | 3 |
Won at 3/1, wins $9, deduct profit from objective, deduct 3 from divisor |
14 | 9 | 3 | |
At this stage there have been 13 bets for 4 winners for an excellent strike rate of 30.7 per cent and bets totalling $26, for returns of $36, which is 37.1 per cent profit on turnover. I have purposely shown a profit which is over 30 per cent of the outlay to highlight another safety factor: if you are showing a profit of over 30 per cent, play safe and take the profit and start again.
This does not have to be adhered to at all, and you may keep going, or perhaps a 50 per cent profit may be more acceptable. Perhaps just any profit ... the choice is to be exercised by the individual punter.
What happens is that somewhere down the track a winner is struck at odds way over the required divisor and the profit is far greater than the target, thus counterbalancing this 'take the profit and run' recommendation, where you do not profit as much as was desired.
Remember at all times when target betting: you will NEVER go broke taking a profit.
So far, I have presented a scenario where a winner, or series of winners, arrives at the right time but what happens if you start with a really, really bad run of outs of 30 losers in a row? Rather than detail all the 30 losers, let's come in at bet 31 where the situation is like this:
BET No. | TARGET | DIV. | BET |
31 | 168 | 16 | 10 |
for a total loss of $156 |
This bet, FINALLY, won! At a juicy 7/1, to boot, to win $70. |
32 | 98 | 9 | 10 |
Won at 7/2 (lightning does strike twice!) to win $35 |
33 | 63 | 6 | 10 |
Won at 13/2 (when you are hot!!) to win $65. |
At this stage, $186 has been bet for returns of $200, providing a profit of $14, thus clearing the initial objective of $12 plus an additional $2 which comes about due to the rounding-down of the bets over the series.
Admittedly, I have 'doctored' the finish but in doing so I am trying to show that the total amount bet ($186) has been sensible in relation to the starting bank ($2400) after a pathetic strike rate of 3 winners from 33 bets (9 per cent).
Punters on level stakes would have bet 33 units for returns of 20 units - a loss of 13 units. This is a loss of 39 per cent on turnover.
In comparison, the target bettor has won $14 on an outlay of $186: a profit on turnover of 7 per cent.
Here we have a turnaround of 46 per cent against the level-stakes loss!
The level-stakes bettor has a big job to do in recovering the still outstanding 13 units to break square and then has to win more units to match the +7 per cent the target bettor has already achieved.
Surely target betting is showing SOME value under this set of figures? Its detractors will rightly say that I have 'fiddled' the figures and the profit comes from three timely winners. However, the fact is that the level-stakes bettors cannot do better than lose 39 per cent of their turnover while the target bettor can.
The sceptics would ask: "What if the winners were the first three and then 30 losers followed: wouldn't the target bettor be losing more than the level-stakes bettor?"
I would reply, "Yes", but isn't that where I have come in with my example: after 30 losers.
In this article I have presented a case for target betting which shows the average punter who loses at level stakes has a CHANCE (not a guarantee, there are NO guarantees in horse-racing) of winning by escalating his/her bets during a losing streak, relatively painlessly, to hopefully clear all ledgers when the losing streak breaks and the winners arrive.
The adapted Six Point Plan, as I have outlined it, is based on the punter betting on solid form selections where the odds of 6/1 or 7/1 a winner is not an outrageous ask, an occasional double-figure 10/1 or 12/1 winner is selected and most winners come from the favourite to the 4/1 or 5/1 range. In other words, a realistic spread of winning prices.
As I rest my case, I finish by asking: Is target betting as bad as some of its opponents will have you believe ... or has the past shown that too many target bettors have violated the golden rule?
NEVER ATTEMPT TO WIN TOO MUCH PER RACE IN RELATION TO THE BETTING BANK.
Punters, I ask you to consider your verdict.
By Roman KozPRACTICAL PUNTING - FEBRUARY 1999