This thread is about finding filters that eliminate races less suited to Dutch Back than others. Can we find an edge? I would appreciate your thoughts, confirmations, stats but please, no sales pitches!
Bhagwan was a great fan and mentor of Dutching. Reading old threads I've sourced some of his edicts:
1/ Target <= 10 runner races. Fact or Fiction?

Now longshot winners (BF >$30 Back prices) are the enemy! From my 'DNA of Longshots' I found that the average field size for longshot winners was 12. There were 24% of winners in <=10 runner races. However how many, as a percentage, are there <=10 runner races per day?
Today there were 84 races and 27% were <=10 runner races. Of those some were 7 horse fields and had no $30 runners anyway. So they cancel each other out. A: Fiction?
Now this is a Saturday with bigger than normal fields so maybe there is something in this theory. Maybe you blokes with searchable databases could confirm some of these stats?

There's plenty more to come so feel free to contribute for a mutually profitable outcome perhaps.
Cheers RP

Another thought is - do we have to dutch. How do you think it would go with level stakes - leaving out the short prices? I know I hate it when I get a good priced winner, but get very little for it because it was dutched.

Don't forget Clive, "small fish are sweet" pick the right races and back horses with a total 90% chance of winning, you'll get many small pays. I only had to dutch 3 races today for 40% of liability profit and I was able to enjoy the outdoors the rest of the arvo.
Don't think betting on every race is a way to make money. The less time you're betting, the less chance of losing! At last count today there were 3 longshot winners today, the enemy of Dutchers and Layers, you never know when or where. The "DNA of a longshot" filters show us where they lurk. Hopefully, the filters we learn about in this thread will cut down the threats further.
RP

If you back 1 or two selections per race, I find betting to price a little harsh as well. But 3 or more, I think dutching is he way to go.

Having said that I use a 3/2/1 unit scale for my system selections now. The morning price dictates how many units each selection gets. This is based on expected strikes rates of each unit group. Because in reality you don't want to have the same bet size on a $2 shot as you would on a $20 shot.

2/ Races with First starters are races to AVOID. Fact or Fiction?

A: FACT

I think some people just bet for something to do between shouts at the club/pub? How can you risk your hard earned on horses with no form? There was $154,000 wagered in total on the two races shown in the attachment.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Races with horses resuming from a spell and a price > $30 are races to AVOID? Fact or Fiction?

A: FACT

Can anyone be sure what a fresh horse can do? Especially young maturing horses.

You might ask, "why do this excercise, $30+ horses hardly win.."
From my limited database I believe the strike rate of horses with a BF SP of $30+ is 5% (happy to be corrected) So if we're Dutch Backing horses < BF $30, provided we can achieve a 8 -10% profit for the dutch, let's do the sums based on $100 liability:

1000 races, win 95%, equals 950 x 'say' $9 profit = $8,550 less commission = $7,994 nett. Lost 50 races (5%) = $5,000. Total nett profit $2,994 or 2.99% POT.
Now with what we can learn about races to avoid betting on, if we were able to filter out 20% of losing races our results look like this:
1000 races, win 96%, equals 960 x $9 profit = $8,640 less commission = $8,078 nett. Lost 40 (4%) = $4,000. Total nett profit $4,078 or 4.08% POT.
Our POT has increased a massive 33% for a 1% increase in strike rate or 20% less losing races!
The power of 1%, how it can make a difference.
RP

Attached Thumbnails

 

These one's only come round once in awhile, races where the TAB 1st fav has a fixed price > $6.90. there was only one yesterday, Flemington R5. Ist fav TAB Fixed price $7.50.
The stats I have suggest that the winner has NEVER been outside the top 8. The BF Back prices were:
8.8, 9, 10, 10, 10.5, 12.5, 13, 14

The winner was the $9 horse

Dutch these for a 34% profit.
RP

Using what ever method, with one bet, do you think you can make a profit of about one quarter of one per cent per day? I can hear you all the way back in Canberra, "I can make heaps more than that...!!!" The money in your savings account is making a hundredth of one percent per day.

It needs to be a very safe bet, you could Dutch the field to 99.97%. You could Lay a 350:1 shot each day. The object is to make just .028% nett profit each day.
Can you allocate a reasonable sum to this first stake, something that will feel like a pinch if you lose it but won't hurt for more than 5 minutes?
No more losing, you have to achieve this with one bet every day for one year!
Say you've got a lazy $1,000. Win your first bet, you've now got $1,002.80. Your stake tomorrow is now $1,003, you win and make $2.81. Add that to the stake and bet again and again, keep adding your winnings to the stake for the next days bet.

At the end of one year what are you going to do with the $1,800 profit you've made? The power of compounding or All Up betting. THINK about the possibilites? After you've made your first $1000 profit you could split your stakes and start running two bets a day and so on & so forth.
RP

The problem is ... You will hit a loser as it is inevitable so you need to make enough to cover your 0.28% and also make up for the inevitable loser which will come every 350+ bets if you lay at 350:1)

Well UB, you've got the big database, when was the last time a $350 BF Lay or SP was hit. Interesting to know.

The purpose of this post was more to highlight how powerful compounding can be and then splitting stakes to reduce risk. As well as not increasing stakes with NEW money, instead using what you've already made so your original capital is preserved. Now I know these methods are used by yourself as you have always been concerned when someone on a supposed winning streak just doubles their stake!
Thanks RP