View Full Version : Horse racing odds vs. Natural odds.
formula_2002
12-09-2004, 06:20 AM
Horse racing odds vs. Natural odds.
Based on my data;
Horses that run at 1-1 odds with an average track take-out of 15.6% win 42.5 % of the time.
In groups of 10 races each, there were 93 of 420 groups where the number of wins exceeded the number of losses (22% winners).
Testing for natural odds of 42.5% with a random number generator for groups of 10 trials, 97 of 420 groups “won” for an average of 23% winners.
In this single test, it would appear that there is little or no separation (deviation) between natural odds and track odds. I would propose that with little or no deviation between natural odds and track odds it would be impossible to achieve a profit at the track that would meet any meaningful significance test
Post the significance test so that we can try it out.
formula_2002
12-09-2004, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by sjk
Post the significance test so that we can try it out.
There is a test on my web page.
http://globalwinningpicks.homestead.com/GLOBALWINNINGPICKSX.html
My apologies to you and the others out there that are know statistics. The total of my knowledge of statistics came from reading a textbook to test out of a course 20 years ago.
It seems to me there is a simple formula for the following calculation (maybe Joe can post it instead of me fishing through his website).
Suppose the population I want to test is all of the bets my program has or will direct me to make for all time past and future. The sample is the bets I have made so far. I have a sample size N, a sample mean return m and a sample std deviation s.
I want to find the probability that any past success was due to dumb luck or chance, i.e. that the population mean return is <0.
I believe this can be easily computed in terms of N, m and s which would give me the probability that I might someday have to agree with Joe's post.
formula_2002
12-09-2004, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by sjk
It seems to me there is a simple formula for the following calculation (maybe Joe can post it instead of me fishing through his website).
scroll down about 4 inches. there is a BIG BLUE STAR next to the interactive file.
I get a confidence level of 11.00. Assuming I am applying your formula properly (horses=32139, avg odds = 7.75, win % =.1338), I am highly confident that I disagree with your initial post.
formula_2002
12-09-2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by sjk
I get a confidence level of 11.00. Assuming I am applying your formula properly (horses=32139, avg odds = 7.75, win % =.1338), I am highly confident that I disagree with your initial post.
AS STATED IN THE TABLE, KKEP THE ODDS RANGE SMALL.
formula_2002
12-09-2004, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by sjk
I get a confidence level of 11.00. Assuming I am applying your formula properly (horses=32139, avg odds = 7.75, win % =.1338), I am highly confident that I disagree with your initial post.
AS STATED IN THE TABLE, KEEP THE ODDS RANGE SMALL.
example, if you are testing ave odds of 7-1, test in the range of >=6.5-1 to 7.4<1
The smaller the range, the more accurate it the results.
Try that and let us know what you get.
I see no reason to do this. The formula should be valid for the dataset as a whole. When you break up a sample into subsamples you throw away the significance of your results to no purpose.
I have already admitted to my ignorance of statistics. Maybe someone else who knows about such matters can help me understand why it would be useful to subdivide the dataset.
formula_2002
12-09-2004, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by sjk
I see no reason to do this. The formula should be valid for the dataset as a whole. When you break up a sample into subsamples you throw away the significance of your results to no purpose.
every meaning full test I have read test in that manner, not the least is;
B. FABRICAND'S "HORSE SENSE"
D. MITCHELL'S "COMMONSENSE BETTING"
DR. W. QUIRIN'S "WINNING AT THE RACES"
hurrikane
12-09-2004, 12:16 PM
sjk, I'd just let it go if I were you. Joe has been selling his losing ways for about a year now.
It's really not worth the effort.
I'm not sure why Joe doesn't do something else with his time. This is a horse racing board. If you do not play the horses and do not believe that they can be beat then why do you come here and post Joe? I just don't get it.
formula_2002
12-09-2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by hurrikane
.
I'm not sure why Joe doesn't do something else with his time. This is a horse racing board. If you do not play the horses and do not believe that they can be beat then why do you come here and post Joe? I just don't get it.
There may be some new, current or future PA members that might welcome an alternative and creative view of horse race betting.
This stuff is based on 40 years of analyzing and playing the sport.
I would hope more then a few find value in my post.
Believe it or not hurrikane, loosing is part of any game.
Originally posted by formula_2002
Believe it or not hurrikane, loosing is part of any game.
Its losing, and I HATE to lose at anything!
formula_2002
12-09-2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by cj
Its losing, and I HATE to lose at anything!
Thanks cj. I use to have trouble with "wining".
Now I have it all together. Losing and Winning.
formula_2002
12-09-2004, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by formula_2002
Thanks cj. I use to have trouble with "wining".
Now I have it all together. Losing and Winning.
Curious, I was one "n" short in "winning"
and one "o" too many in "losing"
Also, it seems one other member uses "loosing", and his initials are also JM.
See how it works? Always looking for cause and effects ;)
kenwoodallpromos
12-09-2004, 02:45 PM
I like your posts when they show comparisons!
Are 1-1 odds final odds? Maybe you can do a test of win % when favs odds move greatly up or down between last race and final.
Do you have the stats for tracks with takeout of 14% or the other takeouts?
Thanks.
From Ken-"Loosing ang whining"- sometimes.
JustMissed
12-09-2004, 03:28 PM
Joe, you have tried horse playing and craps, why not Russian Roulette.
Maybe you could test 6 bullets, then 5, then 4, etc. and let us know what the odds of getting past 6 bullets are.
Hey, don't bother having your family post your results.
Your silence will be proof enough you were a 'loser' at that game also.
JM
formula_2002
12-09-2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by JustMissed
Joe, you have tried horse playing and craps, why not Russian Roulette.
Maybe you could test 6 bullets, then 5, then 4, etc. and let us know what the odds of getting past 6 bullets are.
Hey, don't bother having your family post your results.
Your silence will be proof enough you were a 'loser' at that game also.
JM
Curious you mention Russian Roulette. I just finished reading "The Gambler" by Dostoevsky.. try it.
formula_2002
12-09-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
I like your posts when they show comparisons!
Are 1-1 odds final odds? Maybe you can do a test of win % when favs odds move greatly up or down between last race and final.
Do you have the stats for tracks with takeout of 14% or the other takeouts?
Thanks.
From Ken-"Loosing ang whining"- sometimes.
Ken, I dont have "win % when favs odds move greatly up or down between last race and final."
I have mayor east and west coast and some not so major tracks.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.