Gotta Luv the Numbers

[Brian Flewwelling]

Again i have been playing with my numbers --- Profiling tracks.

Again SA has interesting results: for Odds this time

for this year and last flat bet profits on horses going off at odds below 1-1, and in the range of 7-10.

odds in the range of 4-5(/1) are generally the 'worst'

so i guess favs don't always burn money :)

i am not going to use this information, just share it.

Brian

[Hosshead]

Brian, What was the ROI (and how many plays), for horses going off at 3/5 and under on the tote board ? (3/5 on the tote board also includes 7/10) Sounds like you're saying that 4/5 showed a loss?
All bets straight win? Did you/can you check Golden Gate and Bay Meadows?

[Brian Flewwelling]

Originally posted by Hosshead
Brian, What was the ROI (and how many plays), for horses going off at 3/5 and under on the tote board ? (3/5 on the tote board also includes 7/10) Sounds like you're saying that 4/5 showed a loss?
All bets straight win? Did you/can you check Golden Gate and Bay Meadows?

all the odds mentioned are "to 1" , the 4-5 refers to 4-1 and 5-1 were lower returns than expected

GG runs pretty uniform ... loss at about take out

i did more tracks and found that numbers in the region of 8-1 often gave positive ROIs, but usually just one of 7-1, 8-1,or 9-1 but not the others in this group ... demonstrating the basic law of statistics "shit happens"


Brian

[ranchwest]

Brian,

I'm not sure why you are sharing information that you won't even use.

Many statistical studies of odds have been done, all revealing that horses win more or less at the frequency suggested by their odds.

It is doubtful that anyone betting less than whale amounts is going to make much, if any, money wagering on horses at below 4/5. The whales probably either make a lot or lose a lot.

[Brian Flewwelling]

Originally posted by ranchwest
Brian,

1. I'm not sure why you are sharing information that you won't even use.

2. Many statistical studies of odds have been done, all revealing that horses win more or less at the frequency suggested by their odds.

3. It is doubtful that anyone betting less than whale amounts is going to make much, if any, money wagering on horses at below 4/5. The whales probably either make a lot or lose a lot.

1. As i said i like the numbers and these seemed to contradict my assumption that low odds horses are a guaranteed loss.

2. right! this just seemed like a case where it was less, rather than more!

3. Right, but if the ROI is positive they are not losing either!!!

I re ran the query for all races at SA since 2000.

Dirt-Rtes: odds < 2-1 give an ROI of -5% which is a loss, but be careful about tossing the fav.

odds between 5/1 and 6/1: ROI +3% (remember the lesson on Faeces happens --- here 4/1 to 5/1 returns low!!)

odds between 9/1 and 10/1 ROI - 1%(that is a lot of the take-out looked after!)

Dirt Sprints:
odds between 0/1 and 1/1: ROI -17% (kinda ordinary)
odds between 8/1 and 9/1: ROI +6%
odds between 9/1 and 10/1: ROI -1%

Turf Rtes:
odds between 0/1 and 1/1: ROI -9%
odds between 7/1 and 10/1: ROI small positive.

So maybe i will use this, just not in a positive way. I won't be tossing odds-on favs at SA, unless i have a hot 9-1 horse to beat him. :D

I also ran the Maidens, thinking they may be the cause of the good numbers for the $20 winners... wrong!! They support the positive results for low odds, but NOT for the higher odds

Good Luck,

Brian

[acorn54]

it has been well documented that there is a longshot/heavy favorite bias
horses at very long odds win less than their fair share and very heavy favorites win slightly more than their .
i think there are studies of this phenomena in william ziemba's book and william quirin's book

[ranchwest]

Yes, low odds horses certainly win a lot. Never doubt that fact. Unfortunately, they lose a lot, too.

How are you going to fit the low odds horse into your wagering strategy?

Each race is a different puzzle. Is the favorite legitimate? Is there another legitimate horse with the same running style? Is the race filled with "junk"? What would it take for the favorite to lose? How difficult does it apper to be to find the winner? Would it be just as likely to hit a multi-horse exotic as it would be to play a single horse to win? Is this a race for a max wager? Is this a chaos race?

[maxwell]

One problem with these stats. is that they are based on final odds ? The horses that show a +6 ( 8/9-1) may have been 6 or 11-1 walking into the gate?

We all know that horses @ 20-1 and up lose the most $ per start, that layoff horses are shaky, and it's hard to make $ on Bailey/Mott.

In the end, we still have to put in grunt time and hope we can lose "only" 80 % of the time and show a + :cool:

[raybo]

<Yes, low odds horses certainly win a lot. Never doubt that fact. Unfortunately, they lose a lot, too.>

I think the numbers here are approximately: 30% win ratio for favorites going off at over 1/1 odds and 50% win ratio for favorites going off at 1/1 or less. I my opinion, if you bet these types of horses you had better be very, very selective concerning which ones you wager on. A good handicapper with a 30% win percentage must wager on horses with average payoffs of 3/1 or higher in order to make a profit , on win bets alone. So, in the long run, it appears favorites, as a whole and exclusively, are losers. Favorites offer a false feeling of confidence for the unsuccessful horse player who knows little about horses' abilities, especially during long losing streaks. If betting favorites is the best one can do, maybe one should find another pastime that is less costly.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by raybo
<Yes, low odds horses certainly win a lot. Never doubt that fact. Unfortunately, they lose a lot, too.>

I think the numbers here are approximately: 30% win ratio for favorites going off at over 1/1 odds and 50% win ratio for favorites going off at 1/1 or less. I my opinion, if you bet these types of horses you had better be very, very selective concerning which ones you wager on. A good handicapper with a 30% win percentage must wager on horses with average payoffs of 3/1 or higher in order to make a profit , on win bets alone. So, in the long run, it appears favorites, as a whole and exclusively, are losers. Favorites offer a false feeling of confidence for the unsuccessful horse player who knows little about horses' abilities, especially during long losing streaks. If betting favorites is the best one can do, maybe one should find another pastime that is less costly.

While that's true, you better be selective about when you bet AGAINST those 50% odds-on horses, too. Automatically losing 50% of your 3/1+ horses is bad news.

[raybo]

<While that's true, you better be selective about when you bet AGAINST those 50% odds-on horses, too. Automatically losing 50% of your 3/1+ horses is bad news.>

Correct.

Selectivity is required in both directions. I don't bet against the favorite just because he's the favorite. I bet against him when I think he can't win. And I refuse to bet on the favorite if the "risk/reward" ratio is "unfavorable". However, I don't bet "win" bets anyway so I can often overcome a favorite's low odds with higher odds in the other "money" placements. Nobody's holding a gun to my head forcing me to bet anyway. I've spent hours and hours at the track or online and never placed a bet, because I couldn't get the odds in my favor.