proportional show betting negative pool = guaranteed profit??

[ribjig]

Most important = PROPORTIONAL

e.g. 100K show pool after takeout last toteboard change before race:

:1: 86K show
:2: 4K show
:3: 3K show
:4: 3K show
:5: 2K show
:6: 2K show

Your bets, depending on how deep your pockets:
(guessing ratio -- what exactly is correct ratio??)

:1: $86 (or x10 or x100 etc)
:2: $4 (or x10 or x100 etc)
:3: $3 (or x10 or x100 etc)
:4: $3 (or x10 or x100 etc)
:5: $2 (or x10 or x100 etc)
:6: $2 (or x10 or x100 etc)

Guaranteed profit per race will be higher
at tracks with $2.20 minimum, e.g. CT

Why "guaranteed" -- because track loses on negative pools, right?

Follow-up: are some bridgejumpers also betting proportionally
& therefore NOT bridgejumpers at all?!!!!!!!!!!!

If true, this, to me, seem ultimate reason for
syndicate of bettors who understand & band
together to purposely create negative pools
for the few percent GUARANTEED each & every bet race...

[green80]

I think your figures are off. If the favorite shows you bet $100 and get back 94.60 if the horse pays 2.20.

[Actor]

I think your figures are off. If the favorite shows you bet $100 and get back 94.60 if the horse pays 2.20.But two other horses will also show and you could still make a profit on the race.

Interesting idea! I'll have to play around with it.

[ribjig]

Interesting idea! I'll have to play around with it.

The "degree" of negative pool or track takeout
may play role in determining proportions? Also
whether payoff are per 10 cents or 20 cents??

But since there are much smarter people out
there & there is no regular negative pool events,
especially at same track, same day, that, IMO,
evidences there may be hitches...?

One I can think of is last moment larger show bet
on longshot(s) that comes in after proportional
bets, but still, that would be very occasional &
still result in nearly full return of single race investment...

William Quirin mentioned this scheme in ?WinningAtRaces?
briefly, but IIRC, did not give specific proportion formula...

[Clocker]

But two other horses will also show and you could still make a profit on the race.

That's assuming the chalk finishes in the money. If it doesn't, you don't have a negative pool. In the example, you have to collect $100 on 8 or 10 dollars worth of show bets to break even.

[ribjig]

In the example, you have to collect $100 on 8 or 10 dollars worth of show bets to break even.
That would be GUARANTEED by betting proportionally correct.
(OP example was guess, could be off $1 or more per longshot)
No matter what horses show, one realizes same guaranteed profit.
It will be some small percentage of total investment per race...
And if others are also betting proportionally correct, then no
one loses but track...?

Its not necessarily about having negative pool,
its about lowest show payout relative to lowest
proportion required of biggest show bet...?
(mathematicians, wake up, help needed!!!)

[Ocala Mike]

ribjig, the short answer is that yes, there are certain races wherein the heavy show favorite has a certain huge proportion of the show pool bet on him (95% or more?) allowing a guaranteed profit no matter the finish if the correct amounts are bet on each runner. Although it will work, in theory, the problem with it working in practice is purely logistical, i.e., EXACTLY how much to bet on each runner with the calculation having to be made IN REAL TIME, and while the pool figures are constantly changing. Don't quit your day job!

[ribjig]

...the problem with it working in practice is purely logistical, i.e., EXACTLY how much to bet on each runner with the calculation having to be made IN REAL TIME, and while the pool figures are constantly changing
But what is formula & why wouldn't it be near instant
via iPad or similar? A correct formula must be
established before resolving other issues, IMO.

The situation is created by minimal show payouts
of $2.20 or $2.10 rather than, say,
$2.02 or $2.05 or $2.08 true show payout.

[green80]

But two other horses will also show and you could still make a profit on the race.

Interesting idea! I'll have to play around with it.

yes, and you will pick up another .40 or .50 cents, you are still in the neg.

[castaway01]

But what is formula & why wouldn't it be near instant
via iPad or similar? A correct formula must be
established before resolving other issues, IMO.

The situation is created by minimal show payouts
of $2.20 or $2.10 rather than, say,
$2.02 or $2.05 or $2.08 true show payout.

Because you could figure out the formula but you don't know what other people are going to bet until after the race is already underway, so you'd never be able to get the exact right proportions of money.

[Actor]

yes, and you will pick up another .40 or .50 cents, you are still in the neg.Not with the numbers the OP gave and assuming the favorite showed. You would suffer a big loss if the favorite failed to even show.

[Actor]

That's assuming the chalk finishes in the money. If it doesn't, you don't have a negative pool. In the example, you have to collect $100 on 8 or 10 dollars worth of show bets to break even.Right. The idea does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Basically you are handicapping to predict a negative pool. One failure to do this ruins your roi.

[ribjig]

You would suffer a big loss if the favorite failed to even show.
False, false, false.
Look at real world show payoffs in this thread & elsewhere.
Betting PROPORTIONALLY correctly guarantees no loss at all.
There is also some breathing room for very small last second
show bets by public. The greatest risk is last second big bet
on longshot show. Last second big show bet on heavy favorite
has no effect on $2.20 or $2.10 minimum & would actually boost
longshot show payoffs if heavy favorite runs out of money...

[Robert Goren]

False, false, false.
Look at real world show payoffs in this thread & elsewhere.
Betting PROPORTIONALLY correctly guarantees no loss at all.
There is also some breathing room for very small last second
show bets by public. The greatest risk is last second big bet
on longshot show. Last second big show bet on heavy favorite
has no effect on $2.20 or $2.10 minimum & would actually boost
longshot show payoffs if heavy favorite runs out of money... The greatest threat is that so much late money comes against the bridge jumper(s) that you no longer have a positive expect value event. In my thread on "betting against bridge jumpers", that popped up several times.

[ribjig]

> The greatest threat is that so much late money comes against the bridge jumper(s)

Yes, but where's the data that, in reality, it happens
to a degree & often enough that it cancels guaranteed profit?

What I envision is an individual or syndicate led by individual
bettor that has a bankroll of, say, $100K, that visits the right
sized tracks on a day where there are minimum 2 or 3 horses
that are certain to be odds on favorites, & in final seconds as
horses are being loaded into gate, the proportional bets are made;
that last moment technique will nearly always prevent counter
big bets on longshots, right?

Say, $100K/race invested = 2% profit/race = $2K profit per race
2 races = $4K, 3 races = $6K, expenses = ?$300-500 airfare+hotel+meals?

Maybe two or three racetrack visits weekly nationwide?

2.5 tracks x 2.5 races/track x $2K/race = $12.5K gross
minus 2.5 tracks x $400/track expenses = $11.5K net weekly!!!!
:jump: :jump: :jump:

(assumes tracks with $2.10 minimum show payout, if $2.20 tracks
included, then profit ~3%/race...?)

One question: when one goes up to window to bet all entries
proportionally totalling $100K, does $$ need to be counted by
teller in advance of revealing-placing bet??????????

[green80]

One question: when one goes up to window to bet all entries
proportionally totalling $100K, does $$ need to be counted by
teller in advance of revealing-placing bet??????????


Yes, the big bets would have to be made online in the last seconds. There is no way for the bettor at the track to know about these last minute bets as it would not show up on the toteboard until the horses have left the gate.

[green80]

But two other horses will also show and you could still make a profit on the race.

Interesting idea! I'll have to play around with it.

not really, suppose your other horses pay 2.20 or 2.10 to show also.

[Prairie Bettor]

Say, $100K/race invested = 2% profit/race = $2K profit per race
2 races = $4K, 3 races = $6K, expenses = ?$300-500 airfare+hotel+meals?

Maybe two or three racetrack visits weekly nationwide?

2.5 tracks x 2.5 races/track x $2K/race = $12.5K gross
minus 2.5 tracks x $400/track expenses = $11.5K net weekly!!!!
:jump: :jump: :jump:



:lol:

Wow. There are so many holes in that 11k profit. lol

I'll just throw out just one. You mentioned airfare. You are planning on flying with 100k on you? OMG! You do realize you will have to take it out to get through security, right? I took 5k to Vegas a few weeks ago and got questioned a little. 100k? idk. Plus people will see you take it out, you now have a target on your back. Where you going to hold it? Won't fit in your billfold.

[Actor]

False, false, false.
Look at real world show payoffs in this thread & elsewhere.
Betting PROPORTIONALLY correctly guarantees no loss at all.
There is also some breathing room for very small last second
show bets by public. The greatest risk is last second big bet
on longshot show. Last second big show bet on heavy favorite
has no effect on $2.20 or $2.10 minimum & would actually boost
longshot show payoffs if heavy favorite runs out of money...You're right. :ThmbUp:

not really, suppose your other horses pay 2.20 or 2.10 to show also.If there's a negative pool then a lot of money has been bet on one horse to show. That will drive the payoff for the other horses up, probably north of $3.

[baconswitchfarm]

:lol:

Wow. There are so many holes in that 11k profit. lol

I'll just throw out just one. You mentioned airfare. You are planning on flying with 100k on you? OMG! You do realize you will have to take it out to get through security, right? I took 5k to Vegas a few weeks ago and got questioned a little. 100k? idk. Plus people will see you take it out, you now have a target on your back. Where you going to hold it? Won't fit in your billfold.. The airport is quite possibly the smallest of the problems that this plan possesses.

[Some_One]

A couple of examples assuming using the final Show% totals (I know it'll be slightly different when making the bet at 2 MTP, but I only have final data).

First the SB CT Classic where SB ran out with 89.8% of the show pool, if you proportional bet to show based on the final percentages, returned a loss of 16%.

Secondly, AP's Ark Derby where AP won with 73.8% of the show pool returned a loss of 5%

[TucsonGreyhound]

A couple of examples assuming using the final Show% totals (I know it'll be slightly different when making the bet at 2 MTP, but I only have final data).

First the SB CT Classic where SB ran out with 89.8% of the show pool, if you proportional bet to show based on the final percentages, returned a loss of 16%.



You're doing it wrong.

[lamboguy]

i don't know how you figure or predict what is going to be in or out of these show pools at the end of the race.

my advice is to either play the horse with all the money on him, or handicap the race and bet against the money. i do both. also what i have found is that often times there is a horse that is the second best in the race that is more likely to show than the horse with all the money. since there are plenty of hedgers in the pools these days going against the bridge jump money you can get great show prices on the second best horse even if the top horse reaches the board. if he doesn't you get a bonus.

[therussmeister]

A couple of examples assuming using the final Show% totals (I know it'll be slightly different when making the bet at 2 MTP, but I only have final data).

First the SB CT Classic where SB ran out with 89.8% of the show pool, if you proportional bet to show based on the final percentages, returned a loss of 16%.

Secondly, AP's Ark Derby where AP won with 73.8% of the show pool returned a loss of 5%
Both of these examples, the favorite does not have enough money bet on it. You need a large enough negative show pool for it to work. You probably need the favorite to have about 95% of the show pool.

I used to have a spreadsheet that calculated show prices, although it was not 100% accurate due too unknown factors that affect net pool wagering prices. If I can find it I could play around with it and see when proportional betting would work.

[Some_One]

Both of these examples, the favorite does not have enough money bet on it. You need a large enough negative show pool for it to work. You probably need the favorite to have about 95% of the show pool.

I used to have a spreadsheet that calculated show prices, although it was not 100% accurate due too unknown factors that affect net pool wagering prices. If I can find it I could play around with it and see when proportional betting would work.

Ok, I think I understand, you're trying to take advantage of the fact that extra money is put into the pool because of the min price rule, if you try doing this with an ADW (and maybe a race track would do this too), they'll probably shut down your account since the ADW that accepts the minus pool causing bet has to pay the difference. Mark Cramer found that out when his ADW threaten to shut him out after making a bridgejump a couple of years ago.

[ribjig]

Formula for betting each entry may be something like:

100 - (100 - % public-bet-on-entry)(NPF) = % you bet on entry

e.g.,
entry with 99% of public bet
100 - [(100 - 99)(NPF)]
entry with 1% of public bet
100 - [(100 - 1)(NPF)]

NPF = negative pool factor = don't know if NPF is combination
of factors specific to race, e.g., #entries, track takeout, etc.,
or just a number;
In one real-world result in other thread
NPF = 1 was too low when only longshots in money,
NPF = 2 showed profit whether $2.10 all or only longshots in money

MATHEMATICIANS? STATISTICIANS??

[baconswitchfarm]

Ok, I think I understand, you're trying to take advantage of the fact that extra money is put into the pool because of the min price rule, if you try doing this with an ADW (and maybe a race track would do this too), they'll probably shut down your account since the ADW that accepts the minus pool causing bet has to pay the difference. Mark Cramer found that out when his ADW threaten to shut him out after making a bridgejump a couple of years ago.


Correct. No one will eat the minus for you more than a couple times. So even if you figure this out you won't be able to do it. Maybe shut this idea down and jump over to the thread where the guy dreams the winner. That idea has more promise.

[ribjig]

> First the SB CT Classic where SB ran out with 89.8% of the show pool, if you proportional bet to show based on the final percentages, returned a loss of 16%.

=====
Yes, bridgejump-proportional-bet = entry-proportional-bet doesn't work.
Or (see post#27 this thread suggested formula) NPF = 1 doesn't work.
That's why I suggested NPF = 2, which did work in one real-world-results case.

Another point: the reason one can talk about this openly without fear
of others immitating, is because AFAICT, the more similar bets, the better.
More of the same kind of bets, strengthen -- only track loses...
Those that bet against it via longshot-only bets, will be profitting rarely
per race, & ultimately not in long run, IMO. See historical data for 1/2 or
less running out of money -- 1 in 18??

In fact, a group of bridgejumpers with, say,
$1m collectively could, theoretically, turn
EVERY RACE ON CARD
into profit-making negative pool event!!!!
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Of course that would financially destroy racetracks so they
would be forced to make rule changes...

[ribjig]

> (see post#27 this thread suggested formula)

correction, see post #26 this thread...

[castaway01]

> (see post#27 this thread suggested formula)

correction, see post #26 this thread...

You're acting like you're the first person who ever thought of this idea. You're not. It doesn't work. You've got theory that doesn't work in practice. If it did work and tracks were eating minus show pools, that would be the end of show betting in short fields with heavy favorites.

The fact you asked if the money would have to be bet through the windows shows me you're new at this, and that's fine. This idea is a waste of time though.

[ribjig]

It doesn't work.
Evidence please.
Its guaranteed to work with correct proportional betting.

[Prairie Bettor]

Evidence please.
Its guaranteed to work with correct proportional betting.

:bang:

Sweet. So go do it and report back. Plenty of chances this weekend.

:jump:

[Dave Schwartz]

Ok, I think I understand, you're trying to take advantage of the fact that extra money is put into the pool because of the min price rule, if you try doing this with an ADW (and maybe a race track would do this too), they'll probably shut down your account since the ADW that accepts the minus pool causing bet has to pay the difference. Mark Cramer found that out when his ADW threaten to shut him out after making a bridgejump a couple of years ago.



Correct. No one will eat the minus for you more than a couple times. So even if you figure this out you won't be able to do it. Maybe shut this idea down and jump over to the thread where the guy dreams the winner. That idea has more promise.

As these learned players have explained, it simply will not be permitted by an ADW for very long.

BTW, you left something out of your equation: namely, how often will the bridge horse fall into the water?

When you are receiving those $2.10 payoffs, it does not matter who your money is on because they will all pay $2.10 (or very close).


1. $86 (or x10 or x100 etc) $2.10 = 90.30
2. $4 (or x10 or x100 etc) $2.20 = 4.40
3. $3 (or x10 or x100 etc) $2.20 = 3.30
4. $3 (or x10 or x100 etc)
5. $2 (or x10 or x100 etc)
6. $2 (or x10 or x100 etc)

So, you are in $100. Logically, you will get back $98 maximum.

So, while you are expecting a big cash day... and you will get a handful of those, it ultimately depends upon the handicapping.

That is, how often is the #1 going to run out of the money per 100 races?

If it happens:

1 time: You're down $198 going in. (99 losses x $2 each)
2 times: You're down $196 going in. (98 x $2)
3 times: You're down $194 going in. (97 x $2)

(3 is probably reasonable in a 6-horse field.)

Thus, when the big guy does run out, you will have about $9 on show bets you cash.

Your break-even point is to get back about $194 / 4.5 = $43.

The questions then, become:

1. What will the EpicFail-rate be on the big horse?
2. What will your average return be?


BTW, you have assumed a 6-horse field. As the field size expands, the potential for 3 medium-odds horses coming increases (without a proportional increase in EpicFails), resulting in a show-pay-per-horse of far less than $43.

IMHO,
This is not anywhere close to FREE LUNCH.

[ribjig]

Some are either NOT getting it
or NOT reading entire thread...
Stuck in Land of Habitual Assumptions??

It DOESN'T MATTER which entries
come in the money, ANY combination
will result in profit IF betting
proportionally correct!!!!!!!!!

Previously suggested approximate formula:
100 - (100 - % public-bet-on-entry)(NPF) = % you bet on entry
(see post #26)

Unfortunately this thread has not, thus far, brought
any authoritative mathematians or statisticians
to forefront making AUTHORITATIVE comments...
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Patience pays....

[Prairie Bettor]

Some are either NOT getting it
or NOT reading entire thread...
Stuck in Land of Habitual Assumptions??

It DOESN'T MATTER which entries
come in the money, ANY combination
will result in profit IF betting
proportionally correct!!!!!!!!!

Previously suggested approximate formula:
100 - (100 - % public-bet-on-entry)(NPF) = % you bet on entry
(see post #26)

Unfortunately this thread has not, thus far, brought
any authoritative mathematians or statisticians
to forefront making AUTHORITATIVE comments...
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Patience pays....

Is that a question? Or a statement, you seem to have it all figured out.

Why are you not doing it?

I kinda lost you when you said you needed 100k to make this work. Then you decided that maybe $1 million was needed. um, ok... Do you have said bankroll? In Cash? LOL... If not, who cares if this will work or not?

For some reason, you seem to be stuck on the math of the betting combos. That to the rest of us is the easiest piece of the puzzle. Rounding up $1 million sounds a little harder. Finding a place to take the bet (track or ADW that books the bet eats the loss) sounds a lot harder. Getting home with all that cash in a briefcase without getting stabbed seems harder... etc...

I would suggest researching "Dutch Betting" as that is what you are trying to do.

[Dave Schwartz]

I am not saying it won't WORK. I am saying it is too much WORK.

Since your so-called "proportional wagering" is done before the tote is finalized, your wagers on the other horses will not be as accurate as you think. Because of the rule of this age that says, "The greater the edge, the greater the likelihood that a pool edge diminishes after the gate is open," your wagers will most often be proportionately incorrect.

You will see in the end that your show dutch is similar to what the rest of us face in the win pool: inaccurate to the point of winding up with short payoffs.

Go make a couple of hundred of these wagers over (say) the next 3 years, because that is what it will take, you having to be at a live betting facility and all (after your ADW bounces you), and at the end of the day (sorry decade) tell us that you made more than Walmart money.


Go forth with peace and understanding.

[castaway01]

Some are either NOT getting it
or NOT reading entire thread...
Stuck in Land of Habitual Assumptions??

It DOESN'T MATTER which entries
come in the money, ANY combination
will result in profit IF betting
proportionally correct!!!!!!!!!

Previously suggested approximate formula:
100 - (100 - % public-bet-on-entry)(NPF) = % you bet on entry
(see post #26)

Unfortunately this thread has not, thus far, brought
any authoritative mathematians or statisticians
to forefront making AUTHORITATIVE comments...
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Patience pays....

All I can say is I hope your money is actually in the pools someday...

[Some_One]

All I can say is I hope your money is actually in the pools someday...

ditto, please let us know so we can take it, lol

[therussmeister]

As these learned players have explained, it simply will not be permitted by an ADW for very long.

BTW, you left something out of your equation: namely, how often will the bridge horse fall into the water?

When you are receiving those $2.10 payoffs, it does not matter who your money is on because they will all pay $2.10 (or very close).


1. $86 (or x10 or x100 etc) $2.10 = 90.30
2. $4 (or x10 or x100 etc) $2.20 = 4.40
3. $3 (or x10 or x100 etc) $2.20 = 3.30
4. $3 (or x10 or x100 etc)
5. $2 (or x10 or x100 etc)
6. $2 (or x10 or x100 etc)

So, you are in $100. Logically, you will get back $98 maximum.

So, while you are expecting a big cash day... and you will get a handful of those, it ultimately depends upon the handicapping.

That is, how often is the #1 going to run out of the money per 100 races?

If it happens:

1 time: You're down $198 going in. (99 losses x $2 each)
2 times: You're down $196 going in. (98 x $2)
3 times: You're down $194 going in. (97 x $2)

(3 is probably reasonable in a 6-horse field.)

Thus, when the big guy does run out, you will have about $9 on show bets you cash.

Your break-even point is to get back about $194 / 4.5 = $43.

The questions then, become:

1. What will the EpicFail-rate be on the big horse?
2. What will your average return be?


BTW, you have assumed a 6-horse field. As the field size expands, the potential for 3 medium-odds horses coming increases (without a proportional increase in EpicFails), resulting in a show-pay-per-horse of far less than $43.

IMHO,
This is not anywhere close to FREE LUNCH.
In the era of net-pool pricing when a bridge jumper wins the other horses do not pay $2.10 I would guess they average about $2.50.

Also there is almost never a bridge jumper in fields larger than six being interests.

[ribjig]

> I am not saying it won't WORK.

Ah, at least a twisted admission it works, by cracky!!

> I am saying it is too much WORK.

~$6K gross profit per day at track "too much work"???!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Also, multiple posts wrt ADW not allowing big negative-pool place-show bets:
WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DOES ONE BLOODY NEED THAT
PROPORTIONAL SHOW BETTING WORKS!!!!!?
WHY ELSE WOULDN'T ADWs ALLOW IT -- THEY
KNOW ALLOWING IT WILL RUIN THEM, GAWBLIMEY!!!!
:bang: common :lol: sense :bang: common :lol: sense :bang: common :lol: :bang: sense :lol:

As to advice from I'm-not-smart-enough-so-you're-not-smart-enough on proceeding... :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:
IMO, a smart way to proceed:

a. determine a PRECISE proportionality formula;
my 100 - (100 - % public-bet-on-entry)(NPF) = % you bet on entry
is a guess; NPF = 1 doesn't work, NPF = 2 worked for (1) real-world result;
am hoping AUTHORITATIVE post will advise as to exact formula!!!

b. practice with small bankroll determined by largest place-show bet
ADWs do allow, letting others be the bridgejump-market-maker; one need
only do this 10-30 times, including a couple of favorite-out-of-mondy to see that ALL result in 2-3% profit & that formula is proportionally correct

c. go to parimutuel tracks will smaller pools on days where there will be 3 very heavy favorites (say, 3/5 or heavier), where only a $10K-20K bankroll is needed to make oneself the "Negative Place-or-Show Pool Market Maker" & in final seconds before start, bet proportionally to create negative pool; have access to live toteboard AND online toteboard, & be prepared to fine-tune
proportions with follow-up last second betting, if needed, e.g., if race delayed...

d. repeat (c) at next-step-up larger tracks with larger bankrolls until
eventually one is comfortable attending any size track where one's
bankroll will MAKE negative place-show pool on heavy favorites three
times per visit (or 2 times, if willing)...

[baconswitchfarm]

> I am not saying it won't WORK.

Ah, at least a twisted admission it works, by cracky!!

> I am saying it is too much WORK.

~$6K gross profit per day at track "too much work"???!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Also, multiple posts wrt ADW not allowing big negative-pool place-show bets:
WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DOES ONE BLOODY NEED THAT
PROPORTIONAL SHOW BETTING WORKS!!!!!?
WHY ELSE WOULDN'T ADWs ALLOW IT -- THEY
KNOW ALLOWING IT WILL RUIN THEM, GAWBLIMEY!!!!
:bang: common :lol: sense :bang: common :lol: sense :bang: common :lol: :bang: sense :lol:

As to advice from I'm-not-smart-enough-so-you're-not-smart-enough on proceeding... :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:
IMO, a smart way to proceed:

a. determine a PRECISE proportionality formula;
my 100 - (100 - % public-bet-on-entry)(NPF) = % you bet on entry
is a guess; NPF = 1 doesn't work, NPF = 2 worked for (1) real-world result;
am hoping AUTHORITATIVE post will advise as to exact formula!!!

b. practice with small bankroll determined by largest place-show bet
ADWs do allow, letting others be the bridgejump-market-maker; one need
only do this 10-30 times, including a couple of favorite-out-of-mondy to see that ALL result in 2-3% profit & that formula is proportionally correct

c. go to parimutuel tracks will smaller pools on days where there will be 3 very heavy favorites (say, 3/5 or heavier), where only a $10K-20K bankroll is needed to make oneself the "Negative Place-or-Show Pool Market Maker" & in final seconds before start, bet proportionally to create negative pool; have access to live toteboard AND online toteboard, & be prepared to fine-tune
proportions with follow-up last second betting, if needed, e.g., if race delayed...

d. repeat (c) at next-step-up larger tracks with larger bankrolls until
eventually one is comfortable attending any size track where one's
bankroll will MAKE negative place-show pool on heavy favorites three
times per visit (or 2 times, if willing)...


It seems you have it figured out. Go do it and enjoy your riches. Come back in a year and tell us how it worked out. We will still be here because we have all been around a long time and moved past things that don't work already. People are trying to help you , just let them.

[therussmeister]

> I am not saying it won't WORK.

Ah, at least a twisted admission it works, by cracky!!

> I am saying it is too much WORK.

~$6K gross profit per day at track "too much work"???!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Also, multiple posts wrt ADW not allowing big negative-pool place-show bets:
WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DOES ONE BLOODY NEED THAT
PROPORTIONAL SHOW BETTING WORKS!!!!!?
WHY ELSE WOULDN'T ADWs ALLOW IT -- THEY
KNOW ALLOWING IT WILL RUIN THEM, GAWBLIMEY!!!!
:bang: common :lol: sense :bang: common :lol: sense :bang: common :lol: :bang: sense :lol:

As to advice from I'm-not-smart-enough-so-you're-not-smart-enough on proceeding... :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:
IMO, a smart way to proceed:

a. determine a PRECISE proportionality formula;
my 100 - (100 - % public-bet-on-entry)(NPF) = % you bet on entry
is a guess; NPF = 1 doesn't work, NPF = 2 worked for (1) real-world result;
am hoping AUTHORITATIVE post will advise as to exact formula!!!

b. practice with small bankroll determined by largest place-show bet
ADWs do allow, letting others be the bridgejump-market-maker; one need
only do this 10-30 times, including a couple of favorite-out-of-mondy to see that ALL result in 2-3% profit & that formula is proportionally correct

c. go to parimutuel tracks will smaller pools on days where there will be 3 very heavy favorites (say, 3/5 or heavier), where only a $10K-20K bankroll is needed to make oneself the "Negative Place-or-Show Pool Market Maker" & in final seconds before start, bet proportionally to create negative pool; have access to live toteboard AND online toteboard, & be prepared to fine-tune
proportions with follow-up last second betting, if needed, e.g., if race delayed...

d. repeat (c) at next-step-up larger tracks with larger bankrolls until
eventually one is comfortable attending any size track where one's
bankroll will MAKE negative place-show pool on heavy favorites three
times per visit (or 2 times, if willing)...

ADWs Don't allow repeated betting into negative show pools because they lose money regardless of whether it is a winning strategy for the bettor. In this country the bet takers expect to turn a profit on every single pool in every single race, and anything else is not acceptable to them.

[Prairie Bettor]

> I am not saying it won't WORK.

Ah, at least a twisted admission it works, by cracky!!

> I am saying it is too much WORK.

~$6K gross profit per day at track "too much work"???!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Also, multiple posts wrt ADW not allowing big negative-pool place-show bets:
WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DOES ONE BLOODY NEED THAT
PROPORTIONAL SHOW BETTING WORKS!!!!!?
WHY ELSE WOULDN'T ADWs ALLOW IT -- THEY
KNOW ALLOWING IT WILL RUIN THEM, GAWBLIMEY!!!!
:bang: common :lol: sense :bang: common :lol: sense :bang: common :lol: :bang: sense :lol:

As to advice from I'm-not-smart-enough-so-you're-not-smart-enough on proceeding... :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:


You do realize this is not the kiddie pool, right? The posters on this forum and in this thread make REAL MONEY betting horses. They have seen it all and done a lot of it.

Go back and re-read your posts and the replies you've gotten. All of the advice you've received has been rock solid. Honestly, you are coming off quite rude.

The answers are all right here in this thread already.

[traynor]

You do realize this is not the kiddie pool, right? The posters on this forum and in this thread make REAL MONEY betting horses. They have seen it all and done a lot of it.

Go back and re-read your posts and the replies you've gotten. All of the advice you've received has been rock solid. Honestly, you are coming off quite rude.

The answers are all right here in this thread already.

Not so. What is being sought is an exact formula from some "stat whiz" (or, failing that, from someone who fancies himself or herself a "stat whiz.")

Always analyze what seem superficially to be demeaning comments, but are in fact veiled requests for the keys to the candy store--from someone who can't pick the lock. A little way from "I demand proof of how you are doing this (what I think is an) impossible thing (so I can do it,too)." Only a little way, though.

"a. determine a PRECISE proportionality formula;
my 100 - (100 - % public-bet-on-entry)(NPF) = % you bet on entry
is a guess; NPF = 1 doesn't work, NPF = 2 worked for (1) real-world result;
am hoping AUTHORITATIVE post will advise as to exact formula!!!"

[castaway01]

Not so. What is being sought is an exact formula from some "stat whiz" (or, failing that, from someone who fancies himself or herself a "stat whiz.")

Always analyze what seem superficially to be demeaning comments, but are in fact veiled requests for the keys to the candy store--from someone who can't pick the lock. A little way from "I demand proof of how you are doing this (what I think is an) impossible thing (so I can do it,too)." Only a little way, though.

The pompous following the blind....

[ribjig]

> The pompous following the blind...

The withered & bitter promote private messaging rather than forum posting...
Sad, since this scheme is strengthened by each additonal participant betting
same successful way!!

Ultimately, migration to a math forum might be required
in search for perfected proportional formula...? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[davew]

this will not work

the tracks do not necessarily lose with negative pools, the source of the big bet causing the negative pool loses when the bet comes in

'net pool pricing' has changed the calculations and pay-offs
when the big bet wins and pays the minimum, frequently the other show prices will be over $3 when there are a few runners

why would you need $100K for this? Not many tracks have show pools that large, and frequently $10K is enough for a bridgejump pool

there a few dog tracks with usually less than $50 in show pool, you should be able to test your 'theory' for a couple hundred bucks

[traynor]

this will not work

the tracks do not necessarily lose with negative pools, the source of the big bet causing the negative pool loses when the bet comes in

'net pool pricing' has changed the calculations and pay-offs
when the big bet wins and pays the minimum, frequently the other show prices will be over $3 when there are a few runners

why would you need $100K for this? Not many tracks have show pools that large, and frequently $10K is enough for a bridgejump pool

there a few dog tracks with usually less than $50 in show pool, you should be able to test your 'theory' for a couple hundred bucks

And abandon it, as most greyhound bettors did way back in the Dr. Z era when major greyhound tracks had healthy handles--and lots of less-than-astute bettors pumping up the pools.

[ribjig]

> the tracks do not necessarily lose with negative pools

Agree! My previous "track loses" incorrect.

But what does happen in negative pool,
tracks takeout gets "eaten into", right...?
18% may become, say, 15%...?

You stated, "it won't work"
Why? It can't fail if negative pool & proportions are correct???
As someone else said, it may require "strong" negative pool,
e.g. 97% or even more...but that's not a problem if one is
the negative pool market maker, right?

Dog tracks as test ground, sure!
Need correct proportional formula first!
A report of it being tested by others, even better!!!

[elhelmete]

> the tracks do not necessarily lose with negative pools

Agree! My previous "track loses" incorrect.

But what does happen in negative pool,
tracks takeout gets "eaten into", right...?
18% may become, say, 15%...?

You stated, "it won't work"
Why? It can't fail if negative pool & proportions are correct???
As someone else said, it may require "strong" negative pool,
e.g. 97% or even more...but that's not a problem if one is
the negative pool market maker, right?

Dog tracks as test ground, sure!
Need correct proportional formula first!
A report of it being tested by others, even better!!!

Which is it...are you so certain this works that you belittle other members offering a critique or are you asking others to confirm it for you (i.e., glom on to others' work)?

[Some_One]

> the tracks do not necessarily lose with negative pools

You stated, "it won't work"
Why? It can't fail if negative pool & proportions are correct???
As someone else said, it may require "strong" negative pool,
e.g. 97% or even more...but that's not a problem if one is
the negative pool market maker, right?
!

It is a problem if the fav isn't truly a 95%+ chance to finish ITM.

[ribjig]

> Which is it...are you so certain this works

Absolutely. By definition. By correct proportional formula.
Speed bumps? Absolutely:
a. getting last seconds ( = more hidden) multi-bets placed correctly, in time
b. bad luck of someone else's last seconds big longshot place-show bet
COMBINED with heavy favorite out-of-money
(1 in ~100 races, but could still be +ROI to < -5% ROI that race, IMO)

> It is a problem if the fav isn't truly a 95%+ chance to finish

False, false, false! Where favorite finishes matters NOT!!!!

Also, as to rude responses, all those do is cause some
positively interested in this scheme to PM back & forth --
the Rudites get "locked out"...a shame, since this scheme
may be the ONLY betting scheme where more winners strengthen scheme...

[Some_One]

> Which is it...are you so certain this works


> It is a problem if the fav isn't truly a 95%+ chance to finish

False, false, false! Where favorite finishes matters NOT!!!!

Also, as to rude responses, all those do is cause some
positively interested in this scheme to PM back & forth --
the Rudites get "locked out"...a shame, since this scheme
may be the ONLY betting scheme where more winners strengthen scheme...

Yes it does matter if the fav finishes out as if it does, there is no free money added to the pool and if you own the pool (say betting 10K at a noname greyhound track), then you'll be losing the takeout everytime the fav runs out. And if you're betting everyrace, then there is noway to get the hit rate on the fav and its free money to offset the losses when it runs out.

[elhelmete]

Yes it does matter if the fav finishes out as if it does, there is no free money added to the pool and if you own the pool (say betting 10K at a noname greyhound track), then you'll be losing the takeout everytime the fav runs out. And if you're betting everyrace, then there is noway to get the hit rate on the fav and its free money to offset the losses when it runs out.

I could be wrong, but isn't he talking about making a horse the favorite in the show pool? As in some no-hoper?

[davew]

> the tracks do not necessarily lose with negative pools

Agree! My previous "track loses" incorrect.

But what does happen in negative pool,
tracks takeout gets "eaten into", right...?
18% may become, say, 15%...?

You stated, "it won't work"
Why? It can't fail if negative pool & proportions are correct???
As someone else said, it may require "strong" negative pool,
e.g. 97% or even more...but that's not a problem if one is
the negative pool market maker, right?

Dog tracks as test ground, sure!
Need correct proportional formula first!
A report of it being tested by others, even better!!!


If you make these bets through Xpressbet or Twinspires and the 95% entry cashes, there will be a negative pool. If the 95% misses, there will not be a negative pool and prices will be boxcars. Xpressbet or Twinspires will not like you if they are forced to eat $10K on your $100K bets - after a couple times, they will probably tell you to stop or close your account.

You must be missing something in your theory - like someone else already bet 95% on an entry in the pool.

[Some_One]

I could be wrong, but isn't he talking about making a horse the favorite in the show pool? As in some no-hoper?

Well it definitely doesn't work in that situation.

[ribjig]

> you'll be losing the takeout everytime the fav runs out

Correct proportional betting -- a balance between favorite in-money
or favorite out-of-money scenarios, guarantees profit both cases. It overcomes
takeout if out-of-money but still offers small profit if in-money...
(see post#26: that's why NPF=1 didn't work, but "2" did in one sample)

Also, upon further reflection, avoid very small track testing, IMO;
too small show pools too unstable, a $10 last second bet on longshot
to show could raise that entry's show percentage several points...
Then again, a very big show bet on favorite reduces instability of
ALL longshot show percentages...

[Robert Fischer]

If it worked, then you would find stable, boring race-scenarios with quiet, predictable late-money.

Then, you would be the only knucklehead betting significant late money, and you'd control the pool driving it into a negative pool scenario.

[Robert Fischer]

If you make these bets through Xpressbet or Twinspires and the 95% entry cashes, there will be a negative pool. If the 95% misses, there will not be a negative pool and prices will be boxcars. Xpressbet or Twinspires will not like you if they are forced to eat $10K on your $100K bets - after a couple times, they will probably tell you to stop or close your account.

You must be missing something in your theory - like someone else already bet 95% on an entry in the pool.

This is true. Such wagers would need to be orchestrated 'on-track'.

I made a very modest profit with a series of relatively small (ranging from several hundred to a couple thousand dollars) spot-play wagers on certain negative pool opportunities, and one of my ADWs quickly sent me a cease and desist letter.

http://oi58.tinypic.com/2zofzw9.jpg

[Dave Schwartz]

The more I thought about this, the more I realized that it would *work!

"*" means provided:

1. The show pools do not swing as violently as the win pools after bets have to be made. (I have no knowledge in that arena, but am of the impression that they, too, swing to a big degree in the wrong direction.)

2. You have the patience to wait for the opportunities. (Again, having not studied this, I have no idea how often they actually come up.) As someone I greatly respect once said to me, "There is such a thing called 'The Speed of Money,' which (essentially) means that it is wonderful that you have developed a winning system, but if you get 50 plays per year and have to sit in your seat 5 hours per day, 5 days per week to find those opportunities, you're making Walmart wages at the end of the day.

3. Your ADW doesn't cut you off, which, as Robert Fischer illustrated with a real-life example, is pretty much guaranteed. Of course, you could relocate to your local track/OTB, but then you would (probably) have limitations on opportunities (not all tracks available) and a serious increase in workload if you have to enter those pools by hand.


So, once again, I re-iterate to the OP that I wish him well in his endeavor. However, in my (truly extensive) experience at this game, I would remind him that there is...

No Free Lunch!

[ribjig]

> The more I thought about this, the more I realized that it would *work!
"*" means provided:...

Eliminate your: #1-partially #2 completely #3 completely -- as caveats:
a. the bettor aka NPMM (Negative Pool Market Maker) bets ONLY at track windows at very last possible moment to inhibit reactionary-longshot bets
b. NPMM goes only to tracks where there are certain to be multiple
very short favorites (say, 1/2 or shorter) in one race card

Summary: not betting via ADWs, betting last seconds AT track, very short favorites only... :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

:cool: Hey Rinaldo, Mikey, Chico, Marco, Franco, Rico, Emilio, is he getting it?

:D yes :D he :D is :D starting :D to :D get :D it

AND KEEP IN MIND ITS THE DOUBTING COUNTER-LONGSHOT
BETTORS WHO ARE HELPING US WHEN HEAVY FAVORITES ARE
PAYING $2.10 & $2.20 IN THE VAST
MAJORITY OF INVESTING EVENTS!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: despite their intentions...

[Some_One]

> The more I thought about this, the more I realized that it would *work!
"*" means provided:...

Eliminate your: #1-partially #2 completely #3 completely -- as caveats:
a. the bettor aka NPMM (Negative Pool Market Maker) bets ONLY at track windows at very last possible moment to inhibit reactionary-longshot bets
b. NPMM goes only to tracks where there are certain to be multiple
very short favorites (say, 1/2 or shorter) in one race card

Summary: not betting via ADWs, betting last seconds AT track, very short favorites only... :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

:cool: Hey Rinaldo, Mikey, Chico, Marco, Franco, Rico, Emilio, is he getting it?

:D yes :D he :D is :D starting :D to :D get :D it

How long do you think it will take to do the data grab, make calculations and place the bet? Good luck to you if you think you can do it as they start loading. Which leads into the next problem, getting your short favs, you do realize that a vast majority of the money comes in very late, so you can try to wait to the absolute last second to make your decision, but you'll never get your bet in, or you can make your decision at 1 or 2 MTP but of course those odds are effectively place holders only at smaller tracks. You'll get stuck on horses that are high favs and thus really bad bridgejumping bets with high -EV's

[ribjig]

> How long do you think it will take to do the data grab, make calculations and place the bet?

6 entries & an iPad, baby!!!
20 seconds + 20 seconds, baby... :cool:
Maybe less!!

Also, multiple NPMM's at same track will NOT be
hurting each other, they will be reinforcing 99%
show $$ on heavy favorites!!!

[therussmeister]

How long do you think it will take to do the data grab, make calculations and place the bet? Good luck to you if you think you can do it as they start loading. Which leads into the next problem, getting your short favs, you do realize that a vast majority of the money comes in very late, so you can try to wait to the absolute last second to make your decision, but you'll never get your bet in, or you can make your decision at 1 or 2 MTP but of course those odds are effectively place holders only at smaller tracks. You'll get stuck on horses that are high favs and thus really bad bridgejumping bets with high -EV's
Whenever I see bridge jumpers it has never taken less than three minutes to get all the money in. I assume that is because logistics dictates it can't be done any faster.

If your calculations are correct that this system guarantees a profit, it doesn't matter which horse gets the lion's share of the show bet. It doesn't have to be a heavy favorite. The only important thing is one horse gets a sufficiently high percentage of the show pool, whatever you determine that percentage to be. So your only dilemma is figuring out what total show pool will be to determine how much needs to be added to make the bet a guaranteed profit

[ribjig]

Do major tracks have advance pay system?
(make deposit in advance, then use credit to bet)
Or are there upgraded lounges where bigger bets
are common & tellers are fast with big bankrolls??

[Dave Schwartz]

Do major tracks have advance pay system?
(make deposit in advance, then use credit to bet)
Or are there upgraded lounges where bigger bets
are common & tellers are fast with big bankrolls??

You betting as much money as you do, I would think that you already knew those answers.

[elhelmete]

You betting as much money as you do, I would think that you already knew those answers.

DISAGREE
WITH WHAT
I SAID?
THEN YOU
MUST REREAD
THE THREAD...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Track Collector]

I only skimmed this thread, but here is what I know/believe to be true. Please excuse where I duplicate correct points already made.

-- The concept (that once and a great while the show pools are so skewed towards an extremely heavy favorite that one can bet proportionately in such a way as to guarantee a profit regardless of the race outcome, perhaps up to 2%-3%) is COMPLETELY TRUE.

-- The reason for this mathematical possibility is based on the requirement that tracks must meet minimum payouts on winning wagers (i.e. $2.10 or $2.20), even if the true calculated payout is something like $2.0047!

-- When horses which cause a minus pool to occur come in the money, the track or ADW booking the wager loses money. (In the very rare cases where a huge favorite runs out, they do not lose money, because the in-the-money horses are always above the minimum payout values).

-- While this should be obvious, a bettor can only take advantage of this "guaranteed win" situation, but never cause it in the first place.

-- Just a wild guess and not based on any empirical data, subject situation might occur from 1-6 times a year, so "opportunities" are next to nil.

-- In order to cash in on this when the situation does occur, one must:
--> Be able to place their wagers very late and be relatively assured that the current wager ratios do not shift far enough to mess up the originally calculated wagering "proportions".
--> Be able to place their wagers at the HOST track and be in position where the track will "accept" the wagers. (I know of no ADW that will accept the risks of losing money from large wagers made into a minus pool).

-- Surprisingly, a person can do this with a lot less money than imagined, but will not do it because the absolute amount of money to be won is considered not worth the effort. (I.E. Wager $1100 to win $16).


So, theoretically the OP is correct that "guaranteed win" situations can and do take place. Finding a way in practice to take advantage of them is a whole new ballgame and perhaps not even worth the efforts.

[ribjig]

1. COMPLETELY TRUE
2. In the very rare cases where a huge favorite runs out
3. a bettor can only take advantage of this "guaranteed win" situation, but never cause it in the first place

"Two out of three ain't bad"
Meatloaf says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s
(c) :1: :9: :7: :5:


If one bettor with proper bankroll can cause it,
ANY bettor with proper bankroll can cause it!!
Supporting evidence to the contrary, PLEASE...

[traynor]

"Two out of three ain't bad"
Meatloaf says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s
(c) :1: :9: :7: :5:


If one bettor with proper bankroll can cause it,
ANY bettor with proper bankroll can cause it!!
Supporting evidence to the contrary, PLEASE...

What is it that you lack that prevents you from doing (rather than talking about, writing about, or conjecturing about doing)? Seems simple enough. If you can do it, do it.

[therussmeister]

Do major tracks have advance pay system?
(make deposit in advance, then use credit to bet)
Or are there upgraded lounges where bigger bets
are common & tellers are fast with big bankrolls??
Many tracks have on-track smartphone/tablet wagering. This is an advance pay system. The only potential problem would be if there is a maximum amount you can bet on one ticket necessitating having to bet too many tickets to get all the money down.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

RibJig, the fact that bettors can play TODAY in the occasional negative show pool tells me that the minor obstacles to your plan must be more significant to overcome than your posts indicate. Otherwise, this theorectical loophole would have already been exploited and rules changes would have occurred (i.e., min payout of $2.01).

But at least this thread provided a couple of laughs....:ThmbUp:

[elhelmete]

Anyone have numbers:

1) frequency of minus show pools at US tracks
2) " " broken down by total pool size
3) #1 and #2 frequency of the fave running off the board?

In my estimation, #2 would answer how "worth it" this experiment would be.

[castaway01]

Anyone have numbers:

1) frequency of minus show pools at US tracks
2) " " broken down by total pool size
3) #1 and #2 frequency of the fave running off the board?

In my estimation, #2 would answer how "worth it" this experiment would be.

The OP is saying he could create those minus show pools himself and win by betting the right proportions on each horse, so he claims these issues don't apply to him. Apparently in his world no other bettors exist, and he can bet $100,000 in one flash right at the bell.

[ribjig]

> What is it that you lack
See post #26.
Need precise proportional betting formula.
Also needed is ability to test precise proportional formula against
precise payout calculation formula, the latter appears to be here
under "Example": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting
Especially testing rare last-moment-longshot-proportional-change scenarios to
determine degree of +ROI flexibility...
(all this testing does NOT require actual betting, just imaginary-but-plausible scenarios, including "worst anticipated" scenarios...)

> Many tracks have on-track smartphone/tablet wagering. This is an advance pay system.
Yeah baby!!! Last-moment-betting issue undeniably...
...R :jump: E :jump: S :jump: O :jump: L :jump: V :jump: E :jump: D!!!?

[elhelmete]

> What is it that you lack
See post #26.
Need precise proportional betting formula.
Also needed is ability to test precise proportional formula against
precise payout calculation formula, the latter appears to be here
under "Example": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting
Especially testing rare last-moment-longshot-proportional-change scenarios to
determine degree of +ROI flexibility...
(all this testing does NOT require actual betting, just imaginary-but-plausible scenarios, including "worst anticipated" scenarios...)

> Many tracks have on-track smartphone/tablet wagering. This is an advance pay system.
Yeah baby!!! Last-moment-betting issue undeniably...
...R :jump: E :jump: S :jump: O :jump: L :jump: V :jump: E :jump: D!!!?

1000% guaranteed lock to cure California's drought forever.

Just build a pipe from the great lakes.

RESOLVED. Disagree?

So...can someone tell me how to do it and where to place it and how much it costs and how long it will take and and and?

[Robert Goren]

It looks good on paper, but.........Too much of the money does not show up until after the gates open. Your calculations even you were able to bet at last possible will be off because in these negative pool situations at least 20% of the final pool will not be there for you to see as the gates open. The next time you see a bridge jumper, check it out. You will be amazed how much of the pool is being bet so you won't see until it too late. In my thread of a couple of years ago where I keep track of a 100 bridge jumpers race, I saw at least 2 times when well over half showed up at the quarter pole. I am guess on the average bridge jumper race, about a third of the money was there until after the gates opened. The bigger the favorite, the more very late money shows up.

[castaway01]

It looks good on paper, but.........Too much of the money does not show up until after the gates open. Your calculations even you were able to bet at last possible will be off because in these negative pool situations at least 20% of the final pool will not be there for you to see as the gates open. The next time you see a bridge jumper, check it out. You will be amazed how much of the pool is being bet so you won't see until it too late. In my thread of a couple of years ago where I keep track of a 100 bridge jumpers race, I saw at least 2 times when well over half showed up at the quarter pole. I am guess on the average bridge jumper race, about a third of the money was there until after the gates opened. The bigger the favorite, the more very late money shows up.

Me and several other people told him this already, he says it doesn't matter. The guy didn't even know you could bet other ways than at a racetrack betting window until today, so trying to explain when the money enters the pools might take him a few years to grasp (and you'll just get told off if you try to explain it).

[ribjig]

> at least 20% of the final pool will not be there for you to see

Hello? ~98% (stay with me)
of the final -- typically show -- pool is in (here it comes)
the marketmaking proportional show bettor's-bettors'
$$pocket$$!!!! <== :cool: got it?

> the fact that...blahblah...tells me...this theorectical
loophole would have already been exploited

The fact that no one else is reporting they spent time
AUTHORITATIVELY researching it,
CORRECTLY tried it & failed
(or even incorrectly tried it & failed)...
...TELLS YOU SOMETHING, TOO, DOESN'T IT NOW :eek: :eek: :eek:

Niche betting = kinds of betting a very small subset only can make...

[Hoofless_Wonder]

...The fact that no one else is reporting they spent time
AUTHORITATIVELY researching it,
CORRECTLY tried it & failed
(or even incorrectly tried it & failed)...
...TELLS YOU SOMETHING, TOO, DOESN'T IT NOW :eek: :eek: :eek:

...

Yes, I believe it tells us you are an amazing, one-of-kind, out-of-the-box, on-the-bleeding-edge approach niche horseplayer who has found the secret to early retirement, and will never post again here on PA for fear of putting the golden goose at risk. :rolleyes:

Or, it tells us you live in a fantasy world where somehow the responsibility to prove or disprove your theory has shifted to others, because of course your duty is simply to be more clever than the rest of us. :p

But...blah,blah,blah.....I'm.....blah,blah,blah... ..no....blah,blah,blah.....authority.....blah,blah ,blah....on....blah,blah,blah....these.....blah,bl ah,blah.....things......blah,blah,blah......

[Track Collector]

"Two out of three ain't bad"
Meatloaf says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s
(c) :1: :9: :7: :5:


If one bettor with proper bankroll can cause it,
ANY bettor with proper bankroll can cause it!!
Supporting evidence to the contrary, PLEASE...

A bettor can not both cause the huge pool imbalance and then take advantage of it in such a way as to extract a small profit from it.

Here is an example, which while not correct in regard to the absolute math, still illustrates the concept:

Let's say the pools are:

Horse A = $990,000
Horse B = $2,000
Horse C = $1,000
Horse D = $1,000
Horse E = $2,000
Horse F = $4,000

and that the correct proportional wagering calculated to give one a guaranteed very small profit (perhaps 1% to 3%) comes out to:

Horse A = $10,000
Horse B = $100
Horse C = $50
Horse D = $50
Horse E = $100
Horse F = $200

OK, one found the right pool conditions, then took advantage of it by (proportional) wagering in such a way as to guarantee themselves a small profit. As I opined earlier, I agree that this "guaranteed win" situation is a mathematical possibility and has occurred in the past, albeit extremely rarely. One such time happened years ago, and I recall someone (Andy Beyer?) actually writing a column about it. I can not remember the year, but it involved a promising 2-year old horse named Salt Lake.

Now let us say that instead of the above, Horse A originally had $50,000, which makes the pool unbalanced, but to a much lesser degree. Under your assertion, one would first make a very large wager (say $940,000) to make the pool very unbalanced, then wager additional money in the required proportionate way ($10,500 in this example) with the hopes that all possible race outcomes would still guarantee them a small but real profit. One only has to consider the outcome where the favorite runs out of the money. Assuming a takeout rate of 18%, the total amount available for distribution to those with winning tickets is ($1,000,000 + $10,500) = $1,010,500 * 82% = $828,610. Since this amount is LESS than your total wagers of ($940,000 + $10,500) = $950,500 you obviously lose big money. Common sense told you this would not work.

Three out of the three is better! ;)

Now back to your TROLLING.

[ribjig]

> one would first make a very large wager (say $940,000) to make the pool very unbalanced, then wager additional money in the required proportionate way

Effort appreciated, but no no no!
Do NOT make large wager first!!!!
ALL wagering done in proportionally correct manner.
One can create negative pool AND wager proportionally correct at same time &
realize small profit REGARDLESS of race outcome...

An insane huge huge (show-place) bet on longshot as
starting bell sounds would be the only caveat -- an event
so remote that one is more likely to be hit by a diamond-studded
asteroid shaped like a commode first...

[elhelmete]

Effort appreciated, but no no no!
Do NOT make large wager first!!!!
ALL wagering done in proportionally correct manner.
One can create negative pool AND wager proportionally correct at same time &
realize small profit REGARDLESS of race outcome...



So why do you ask others to do the math...the heavy lifting...to back up your claims?

What is YOUR math to overcome takeout?

Do you know how much of an average pool is shown at the bell (we do)?

[ribjig]

> why do you ask others to do the math...What is YOUR math to overcome takeout?

a. seeking authoritative mathematician proportional formula angel**,
not asking anyone who is NOT that to do anything!! :bang:
b. see bottom post #26 for my suggested APPROXIMATION;
actual formula probably requires additional variables...

...all which can be spit out in seconds on an iPad
& allegedly bet in seconds via AT-THE-TRACK advance pay!!!!

:confused: Why should they be your angel???

:mad: yeah, why should anybody be your angel!!!

:cool: because angel & a few others realize additional strength in numbers,
unlike all other parimutuel betting, in which every bettor is every other
bettor's ENEMY!!!!!!!!!

[traynor]

Proportions are contingent on distribution. The whole point is that the distribution is unknown at the time the wager must be made. Precise proportioning requires precise knowledge of distribution. That information is not available, and no amount of number crunching is going to alter that fact.

[ribjig]

> Precise proportioning requires precise knowledge of distribution.

A precise formula will describe precise proportional betting
that maximizes +ROI for ANY negative pool event;
perferct proportioning yields the greatest +ROI per event,
say 3%, but there will be "headroom" for less than perfect
proportioning that will yield 2.5% or 2% or 1.5% or
1% or 0.5% per event, too...

In one day, visiting one track, market-making (3)
negative pool events in (3) races with (3) heavy favorites
& 6 entries per race, one might typically realize, say,
2% + 1% + 1% net profit on 3 events or 4%+ of
one's market-making bankroll that day... :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[elhelmete]

> Precise proportioning requires precise knowledge of distribution.

A precise formula will describe precise proportional betting
that maximizes +ROI for ANY negative pool event;
perferct proportioning yields the greatest +ROI per event,
say 3%, but there will be "headroom" for less than perfect
proportioning that will yield 2.5% or 2% or 1.5% or
1% or 0.5% per event, too...

In one day, visiting one track, market-making (3)
negative pool events in (3) races with (3) heavy favorites
& 6 entries per race, one might typically realize, say,
2% + 1% + 1% net profit on 3 events or 4%+ of
one's market-making bankroll that day... :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

If you're asking others...angels...to actually show the math, where are you coming up with your "headroom" net profit? Just making them up? You truly have no idea if such "headroom" exists or if you're just positing "well 3% is perfect but I should be able to get at least 1%" with no basis in mathematical analysis.

It's like saying, "well i KNOW I won't be able to jump up and touch the moon 100% but I should at least be able to get 5% close."

I'll stick with my investments in cold fusion.

[ribjig]

where are you coming up with your "headroom" net profit? Just making them up? You truly have no idea...

:( "There goes Moanie McMoaning again."

:mad: "No, that's Lazy Lazyton, the one who never reads the whole thread!"

:eek: "Yeah, the one who didn't read about William Quirin & Andrew Beyer
already authoritatively confirming the indisputable +ROI each & every
time offered by proper proportional negative pool betting!!!"

Wake up, moaners & doubters:
WILLIAM QUIRIN + ANDREW BEYER CONFIRMED
PROPORTIONAL NEGATIVE POOL BETTING WORKS!!!
THEIR REPORTED EXPECTED +ROI IS 2-3%.
THEREFORE THERE IS UNDENIABLY 2-3% HEADROOM
BETWEEN BEST POSSIBLE & 0 NET GAIN...

[Track Collector]

Unending claims of a great wagering strategy.

No willingness to substantiate claims or to intelligently respond/reply to logically presented criticisms.

Name calling of poor, unintelligent critics who just don't "get it".

ribjig behavior similar to Attention-seeking TROLL

:sleeping:

[Clocker]

Unending claims of a great wagering strategy.

No willingness to substantiate claims or to intelligently respond/reply to logically presented criticisms.

Name calling of poor, unintelligent critics who just don't "get it".

ribjig behavior similar to Attention-seeking TROLL

:sleeping:

You aren't going to give him partial credit for the briefly amusing ransom note typography? :p

[traynor]

> Precise proportioning requires precise knowledge of distribution.

A precise formula will describe precise proportional betting
that maximizes +ROI for ANY negative pool event;
perferct proportioning yields the greatest +ROI per event,
say 3%, but there will be "headroom" for less than perfect
proportioning that will yield 2.5% or 2% or 1.5% or
1% or 0.5% per event, too...

In one day, visiting one track, market-making (3)
negative pool events in (3) races with (3) heavy favorites
& 6 entries per race, one might typically realize, say,
2% + 1% + 1% net profit on 3 events or 4%+ of
one's market-making bankroll that day... :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Where did you get that idea?

[ribjig]

OP never claimed creation of scheme.
Previously reported Authoritarian Sources for scheme:
a. William Quirin (don't come back with his "other error" = disproof)
b. Andrew Beyer

A bunch of whining Negatory ROI'ers
≠
disproof of scheme...
no objective concrete disproof offered, just opinions...
+ a sprinkling of "yes it will work" posts being ignored by whiners!!!

Proportional Formula Angel, are you out there...?
(lack of angel ≠ disproof either)

[Dave Schwartz]

If we all agree that you are going to get rich from this will you stop pounding us and just go do it?

[thaskalos]

If we all agree that you are going to get rich from this will you stop pounding us and just go do it?
Maybe he needs a backer...

[Poindexter]

I do not pay much attention to bridge jumping races since I rarely see them. But I am puzzled by the fact that ADW's will not allow you to capitalize on a bridge jumping situation. I understand that they do not want you creating one by betting say $400,000 to show on a horse because they are held responsible for the minus pool and have to foot the cost. But why does it cost them money if I bet $1000 to show on 2 other horses in the race? These bets are not creating the minus pool.

By the way what is the current formula they use to determine show prices when the bridge jumpers horse finishes in the money.

[elhelmete]

Maybe he needs a backer...

A backer, a mathematician or two, and a tech expert. Other than that though...

[traynor]

OP never claimed creation of scheme.
Previously reported Authoritarian Sources for scheme:
a. William Quirin (don't come back with his "other error" = disproof)
b. Andrew Beyer

A bunch of whining Negatory ROI'ers
≠
disproof of scheme...
no objective concrete disproof offered, just opinions...
+ a sprinkling of "yes it will work" posts being ignored by whiners!!!

Proportional Formula Angel, are you out there...?
(lack of angel ≠ disproof either)


That is all you have?

[ribjig]

:liar: > "That is all you have?" said Vague E. Vaguerson

Near Indisputable Proof Negative Pool Proportional Betting
can ALWAYS produce small profit:

a. find historic real-world negative pool final toteboards
(several are presented in another related thread)
b. find just ONE in which it was IMPOSSIBLE to have
proportionally bet all entries & NOT have shown a small profit
using the same formula in all events...

hint: try 100 - (100 - % public-bet-on-entry)(NPF) = % you bet on entry
as formula with NPF being somewhere around 2...

Best formula will be found by mathematically-minded,
distraught gamblers step back & watch!

Indirect indication of scheme being employed:
a. what was rate of negative pool events before this thread started?
b. what is rate of negative pool events since this thread started?!!!!

What some might want to do:
contact your nieces & nephews at MIT, CIT, Ivy League math majors...

[Prairie Bettor]

I do not pay much attention to bridge jumping races since I rarely see them. But I am puzzled by the fact that ADW's will not allow you to capitalize on a bridge jumping situation. I understand that they do not want you creating one by betting say $400,000 to show on a horse because they are held responsible for the minus pool and have to foot the cost. But why does it cost them money if I bet $1000 to show on 2 other horses in the race? These bets are not creating the minus pool.


They only care if your horse is part of a minus payout. Easiest way to know if your safe with this rule is that your bet pays more than the track minimum. 2.10 at most tracks, 2.20 at a few. It is possible to receive the track minimum payout and not be a minus payout. Due to breakage rounding your bet might compute to a payoff of 2.17. So you get 2.10 and are fine. But if it figures to 2.07, your going to see 2.10 on the tote board and trigger an email from your ADW or track that you bet through.



By the way what is the current formula they use to determine show prices when the bridge jumpers horse finishes in the money.


The easiest way is to forget the minus pool horses entirely. Remove their bet from the pool and figure the remaining finishers the normal way. Please remember, after removing the largest dollar bet horse from the pool, the same rules apply to the remaining horses. It is possible to have 2 or even 3 minus pool horses in one show pool. In that case they would all pay less than 2.10 and would trigger the mentioned email from your ADW.

Another FYI, the sending track simply collects a flat percentage from the ADW. So when a horse pays 2.17, the ADW collects 2.17 from the track and credits your account 2.10. That is why the sending track doesn't foot the loss on negative pools.

Yet another FYI, Any pool could technically be a negative payoff if someone bets enough on one combo. Often mention is show, but place and even win have been negative payoffs. I don't remember if I've seen exacta pays of 2.10.

[Some_One]

CJ, PA, ffs please shut this thread now, we have someone acting like a holocaust denier who refuses to believe any evidence that doesn't support their view. It's just comical now.

[ReplayRandall]

CJ, PA, ffs please shut this thread now, we have someone acting like a holocaust denier who refuses to believe any evidence that doesn't support their view. It's just comical now.
I'm in full agreement with SO......Enough already, way past expiration date.

[castaway01]

The fact the guy has nastily ripped everyone for not being able to prove his formula wrong, then spent recent posts in the thread asking for someone to provide him with the formula MAY show a lack of logic at work...

[Poindexter]

They only care if your horse is part of a minus payout. Easiest way to know if your safe with this rule is that your bet pays more than the track minimum. 2.10 at most tracks, 2.20 at a few. It is possible to receive the track minimum payout and not be a minus payout. Due to breakage rounding your bet might compute to a payoff of 2.17. So you get 2.10 and are fine. But if it figures to 2.07, your going to see 2.10 on the tote board and trigger an email from your ADW or track that you bet through.




The easiest way is to forget the minus pool horses entirely. Remove their bet from the pool and figure the remaining finishers the normal way. Please remember, after removing the largest dollar bet horse from the pool, the same rules apply to the remaining horses. It is possible to have 2 or even 3 minus pool horses in one show pool. In that case they would all pay less than 2.10 and would trigger the mentioned email from your ADW.

Another FYI, the sending track simply collects a flat percentage from the ADW. So when a horse pays 2.17, the ADW collects 2.17 from the track and credits your account 2.10. That is why the sending track doesn't foot the loss on negative pools.

Yet another FYI, Any pool could technically be a negative payoff if someone bets enough on one combo. Often mention is show, but place and even win have been negative payoffs. I don't remember if I've seen exacta pays of 2.10.

Thank you for the explanation.

I just want to make sure I have this correct. There is a race with the following bet.

1) 10000
2) 2000
3) 2000
4) 2000
5) 2000
6) 2000


the take is 15%. $20,000 bet $17,000 paid out to the top 3 finishers-we will call it 1-2-3

$17,000-$14,000(bet on 1-2-3)=$3000/3 horses or $1000 per horse. So the payout is $3.00 to show on the 2 and 3.

So let's say hypothetically somebody tosses in $190,000 to show on the 1 at the bell. The 1 will pay $2.10. The remaining horse have $10,000 to show on them. 15% is removed, so they are paid out $8500-4000 bet on the 2 and 3 or $4500/2 horses or $2250 per horse. So because a big bet was made on the chalk, my show bet on the 2 or 3 went from paying $3.00 to show to $4.50 or $4.40 with dime breakage(and of course a tremendous amount more if the 1 finishes out of the money).

[Track Collector]

This TROLL has been quite mind in his/her name calling, so I do not think it warrants closing the thread.

TROLLS love attention and to stir thing things up. That is how they get their jollies. They will go away after EVERYONE ELSE stops replying to this thread. They usually don't go away easily, so expect them to continue to post, making the same outrageous claims, baiting people to respond by calling them names, etc. in hopes of seeing new posts.

We (collectively) effectively get in the last word when the TROLL checks this thread day after day, then week after week, until they come to realize no one else will play their game.

I'm out of here...........hoping others follow my lead. :)

[Prairie Bettor]

Thank you for the explanation.

I just want to make sure I have this correct. There is a race with the following bet.

1) 10000
2) 2000
3) 2000
4) 2000
5) 2000
6) 2000


the take is 15%. $20,000 bet $17,000 paid out to the top 3 finishers-we will call it 1-2-3

$17,000-$14,000(bet on 1-2-3)=$3000/3 horses or $1000 per horse. So the payout is $3.00 to show on the 2 and 3.

So let's say hypothetically somebody tosses in $190,000 to show on the 1 at the bell. The 1 will pay $2.10. The remaining horse have $10,000 to show on them. 15% is removed, so they are paid out $8500-4000 bet on the 2 and 3 or $4500/2 horses or $2250 per horse. So because a big bet was made on the chalk, my show bet on the 2 or 3 went from paying $3.00 to show to $4.50 or $4.40 with dime breakage(and of course a tremendous amount more if the 1 finishes out of the money).

I did miss type how to figure the payout. lol

Your horses would pay 3.40. What I forgot is you need to put an equal weighted bet on the negative pool horse. So toss the 200,000 that is on the 1 and change it to 2000. Then compute your payouts. I'm usually close to correct on what the will pay. I may be missing something because it is off a bit sometimes. I'll look into it more, using real life results.

When I say equal weighted, I mean weighted to the other 2 finishers.

Hope this makes sense.

Out of the money? Each of the three finishers would get $59.00

[davew]

most tracks are now with net pool pricing, taking into account track takeouts of bet source and foreign exchange. manually calculating is not possible without knowing sources of bets and their takeout/exchange rate

http://blog.twinspires.com/2011/03/net-pool-pricing-revised.html


ribjib, most tracks have some sort of automated teller, allowing you to place your own bets. These are funded by winning tickets or cash vouchers purchased at mutual teller windows. Putting down100K would take awhile to count and the paperwork for large cash transactions.

What would limit you to 3 races per card?

[ribjig]

What would limit you to 3 races per card?
Thanks for sane response! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
As posted earlier, considering:
a. one must be at track
b. airfare, lodging, meals, & other expenses of getting to tracks nationwide
c. one probably wants minimum of 2 or 3 negative-pool-market-maker
races per track visit
d. so 2 or 3 races minimum with anticipated odds-on heavy favorite
& no more than, say, 10 entries per race, with all other entries anticipated
being longshots, say, ?6?/1 or higher
e. these perfect proportional storm conditions (hopefully) show up
2-3 times weekly, or 2.5 x 2.5 = ~5 bettable events per week nationwide...?
(preference for $2.20 show minimums, with larger bankroll one might be
willing to make negative pools more often at smaller tracks, knowing it
is very unlikely with last moment betting, that someone will come in behind
with very big show-place bet on longshot...)

Those with closed minds calling OP "troll", ruining thread for truly interested:
no worries, all future posts by OP will be ONLY
in response to sane & or mathematical comments...
no more energy devoted to educating The Baffled...

[Half Smoke]

very interesting (to me).it's very rare but it does happen. found a 1995 column by Andrew Beyer claiming you can guarantee a win in a minus show pool when the big horse has 96.6% (my calculation) of the money in the pool bet on it.

a couple of points:

because of the change to net pool pricing from standard pool pricing when the article was written the bettor gains. in Beyer's article the other 2 horses only paid $2.10 when the big horse showed. Bellafina created a minus pool at Santa Anita on 2/9, she showed and the other 2 horses paid $2.40 and $3.20 because of net pool pricing.

But the more interesting point is that Beyer is actually wrong. You can't guarantee a win because if 2 horses are longshots in the show pool and they don't come in you may not have a profit. Unless you could make some pretty difficult calculations from looking at the totals in the show pools very late, and make different size bets on the entries and they still might not be 100% accurate.

here is his formula:


"While the big plungers load up on a horse such as Cigar, they create the chance for other players to guarantee a profit in the same race. Anyone who seeks to do so must understand how to calculate show payoffs:

1. From the total show pool, first deduct the track's "takeout" -- which in New York is 15 percent.

2. Subtract from the remainder the total amount of money bet on the first three finishers. What is left is the profit that will be paid to winning ticket holders.

3. Divide this figure by three. This is the amount that will be distributed in profit to ticket holders on each of the top three finishers.

4. To calculate each horse's odds in the show pool, divide the amount bet on him into the figure in Step 3.

Suppose, for simplicity's sake, that in a six-horse field the show betting looks like this:

* Cigar $1,450,000

* Horse A $10,000

* Horse B $10,000

* Horse C $10,000

* Horse D $10,000

* Horse E $10,000

* Total pool $1,500,000.

We start by subtracting the track's 15 percent takeout from the total pool, which leaves $1,275,000. If Cigar finishes in the money, there won't be enough money in the pot to pay all the winners, so the track has to make up the difference -- what is called a minus pool. Therefore, each horse returns the minimum $2.10.

But what if Cigar finishes out of the money, with A, B and C running 1-2-3? We subtract the $30,000 bet on them from $1,275,000, leaving $1,245,000.

Dividing this figure by three, we find that $415,000 will be paid in profit to the bettors on each of the top three finishers.

We divide the $10,000 bet on an individual horse into the $415,000, and find that the horse will pay odds of 41.5 to 1 in the show pool. A single ticket returns a profit of $83 for $2, plus the original $2 bet -- a whopping $85 show price.


If we bet $2 to show on Cigar's five rivals in this example, we would invest $10 and collect three $85 show payoffs -- a net profit of $245 if Cigar finishes out of the money. By betting just a little bit less than this amount on Cigar, we will have a profit no matter what happens. Suppose we play the race this way:

* Cigar $230

* Horse A $2

* Horse B $2

* Horse C $2

* Horse D $2

* Horse E $2

* Total $240. If Cigar finishes in the money, we collect our wager on him plus 5 percent, or $241.50. We also get a pair of $2.10 payoffs on the other top two finishers, for a total return of $245.70. That's a profit of more than 2 percent on our investment. If the favorite finishes out of the money, we do even better. This may not sound exciting, but when U.S. treasury bonds are paying annual interest of less than 6 percent, there is nothing wrong with making a certain 2 or 3 percent in a few hours."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1995/10/03/heavy-bets-offer-a-little-show-and-tell/e1b7679e-4200-44f6-abe6-573696a9db26/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5fa8e6046615

[davew]

It is my understanding that the 25 year old loophole described by Beyer has been partially closed. Now rather than the originating track covering negative pools, the source of the bets causing the negative pool does. Beyer himself described having an ADW account closed because he was using it for just large show bets.


There is a bridge jumper situation that I have seen occur a few times in the past. It comes on the first race back for a WINNER of a Breeders Cup race after a lay-off of 3+ months. These horses are frequently in races that are just tighteners for something bigger later on. The horse is very valuable and mid-late winter sometimes have off tracks. Any bad step or traffic situation and the jockey slows down, while everyone else in the race is trying to beat him. Good situation for huge show pay-offs.

[castaway01]

It is my understanding that the 25 year old loophole described by Beyer has been partially closed. Now rather than the originating track covering negative pools, the source of the bets causing the negative pool does. Beyer himself described having an ADW account closed because he was using it for just large show bets.


There is a bridge jumper situation that I have seen occur a few times in the past. It comes on the first race back for a WINNER of a Breeders Cup race after a lay-off of 3+ months. These horses are frequently in races that are just tighteners for something bigger later on. The horse is very valuable and mid-late winter sometimes have off tracks. Any bad step or traffic situation and the jockey slows down, while everyone else in the race is trying to beat him. Good situation for huge show pay-offs.

Breeders Cup horses in general are usually good bet-againsts in their first race back. Even if they win, they're usually 2-5 in that tuneup race anyway so you don't lose out on much.

[Half Smoke]

the West Virginia tracks at Charlestown and Mountaineer have regulations requiring a minimum $2.20 payout or 10% profit.

this attracts a lot of jumpers and a lot of opportunities to bet against

this is a twitter feed that tracks opportunities for the jumper and those who want to bet against the big horse



https://twitter.com/bridgejumper?lang=en

[AskinHaskin]

very interesting (to me).it's very rare but it does happen. found a 1995 column by Andrew Beyer claiming you can guarantee a win in a minus show pool when the big horse has 96.6%


Twas much easier to guarantee a profit in the show pool in the 7th race at Portland Meadows on January 3, 1979.

No time-consuming calculations needed, and a minimum $2.20 return.