View Full Version : Betting Pool Inefficiencies
Overlay
05-14-2006, 05:54 AM
What people forget is that the betting public approximates the odds to a T. That is, an even money horse wins 50% of the time. 2-1s win 33% of the time. That's why I'm cautious for underlay/overlay comments, because outside of the derby, i think it's difficult to expose win market inefficiencies, generally because in the long run they don't exist. The only truth is that longshots are overbet, and favorites are underbet ...
Thankfully we don't have to bet against the long term, only on each individual component. They average out over time, but any given instance can be, and almost by definition is, wildly off.
You're dead wrong.
You are.
Do you want me to explain?
sure, if you want to. I'm not sure what you disagreed with on my statement.
I don't dispute LemonSoupKid's original statement that win bet odds/probabilities are very efficient and accurate in the long-run aggregate. But is he also saying that every horse in each individual race is always bet by the public in a proportion corresponding precisely to its actual chance of winning? Perhaps he'd care to elaborate on that. Is there a reference or source for that statement? If it's true, then horse racing is the same as casino games like roulette or craps (except with a much larger disadvantage for the bettor), and anybody who plays long enough must lose money due to the effect of the take and breakage.
You have to be 19-20% better than the avg. bettor just to break even.
It's hard to approach this topic, overlay, as simplified as you do. On one hand, no, horse racing isn't at all like casino games. On the other hand, it is, for this reason namely:
The pari-mutuel system makes it that way. Obviously, like in other sports, you can't lock in on a price for a horse. If that were the case, I would definitely believe your supposed position that racing can be beat. This is an interesting conversation. If over the long run the price of a horse is reflective of its chances to win, yes, in the short run that happens to be true as well. It's tough to think of it this way, but is there any way to do it? Otherwise, you get caught in a math trap: You'll say something like, "Well, this even money shot has a better chance at winning today than that one did in the Belmont 2 years ago" which essentially means he's not REALLY 1-1 (objectively). By empiric evidence over many many years you'll find that the actual win % of horses at a particular price is in fact what its expected price was. Crazy, i know, but empirically true. There are slight edges with longshots being overbet and odds-on horses underbet, but I don't think enough so you can make a demonstrable profit. I would seriously doubt anyone being profitable long term in horse racing without employing mathematical means to exploit inefficiencies. So, yes, track take and breakage ARE too much to overcome.
If you can legitimately explain the long term aggregate vs. short term thinking in an objective, factual way I'm here to hear it. What I suspect you'll do though is create new categories of different priced horses according to "knowledge", which is not what the evidence says is true in the long run.
If I understand you, part of what you're saying is, that if it were possible to lock in fixed odds on a horse, then the player might have a chance of overcoming the take and breakage. But by the time each individual race is run, the public has eliminated inefficiencies in the betting pool to such a degree that there is no such thing as an overvalued or undervalued horse in any race. Each horse is going off at pre-take odds that correspond precisely to its true chance of winning, which makes it impossible for anyone to realize a long-term profit after take and breakage are factored in. Do I have that correct?
But, after saying that finding wagering value is impossible, you then seem to contradict yourself by qualifying your statement with the words "without employing mathematical means to exploit inefficiencies". Isn't that precisely what value players do, such as through the use of performance statistics? Do you dispute that there are patterns of thoroughbred performance that repeat themselves with sufficient regularity (and have done so for years), that they can be of use in predicting the probability of future performance (not an iron-clad guarantee that any one horse will win a particular race, but a statistically valid estimate of the winning chances of a horse with a particular set of performance attributes, when compared with the other horses it will be facing in that race)?
The take and breakage are formidable barriers to long-term success. But, because the toteboard odds have already had the take and breakage factored in, if you can accurately gauge (through mathematics, intuition or otherwise) when a horse's probability of winning is greater than indicated by its toteboard odds, and then confine your win wagers to those instances, you'll be betting with a positive expectation that can overcome even those obstacles.
The above discussion has been transplanted from the Triple Crown Trail board (at PA's request) for any further comments.
spilparc
05-14-2006, 03:24 PM
The above discussion has been transplanted from the Triple Crown Trail board (at PA's request) for any further comments.
The "public" makes mistakes in setting the odds. This happens every day at every track. Very often I'm left shaking my head at how the "public" could have made such and such the favorite when I tossed the horse as having no chance.
If you can eliminate a 2 to 1 favorite as being false, then 33% of the money bet on that false favorite can be distributed to the other horses in the race.
In an 11 horse race, eliminating a 2 to 1 shot adds 3.3% to each of the other entrants chances. With a $10,000 win pool (with a 15% takeout) a 25 to one shot on the board would have 3.3% of the money bet on him to win. If you add 3.3% (because you eliminated the favorite) to his already existing chances of 3.3% he now has a 6.6% chance of winning the race. His new odds become 14 to 1. You are now getting 25 to 1 on a 14 to one shot. This can be carried down to all of the remaining horses.
Horseracing is an elimination game. The more horses you can eliminate because of your handicapping prowess, the bigger the overlays you'll receive on the remaining contenders.
There will be many cases where it doesn't matter which horse you bet because they will all be some kind of an overlay.
This is the skill. I haven't perfected it by any means. I'm learning new things every day. But as I see it my goal is to eliminate the short price horses that are mismatched in today's contest.
Deciding which of the remaining horses to bet has always been the most difficult part of the game for me. So these days I tend to go with the value.
LemonSoupKid,
You have A valid point and then a non-valid one. Yes 3-1 shots (for an example) are roughly fairly bet by the public so you'll lose approx. the track takeout betting them blindly. What your saying that is not proveable is, that it's impossible for any player to select the overlays from among all 3-1's to get a return that beats the takeout. You're looking to prove a negative which is impossible.
Your point is nobody can beat the takeout. Even if you had knowledge of every human's results that ever bet long-term and could substantiate that none made a profit long-term, that doesn't mean that boy genius won't be born tomorrow that will have and apply the brainpower necessary to accomplish this feat.
Can you please explain in a clear manner why no one can possibly handicap wel enough to beat the takeout and make a profit? You have provided no evidence to support that point yet, and frankly I'm convinced your point can't be true, but I would like to have you attempt to convince me otherwise.
PaceAdvantage
05-14-2006, 05:15 PM
The above discussion has been transplanted from the Triple Crown Trail board (at PA's request) for any further comments.
I appreciate this very much...thank you!
Dave Schwartz
05-14-2006, 05:22 PM
If you can eliminate a 2 to 1 favorite as being false, then 33% of the money bet on that false favorite can be distributed to the other horses in the race.
Not all of it can be re-distributed. After all, the favorite did not become a zero-chance horse because of our determination that he was over-bet.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
kenwoodallpromos
05-14-2006, 06:50 PM
It is the racing industry's job to approximate odds with win % and to have as few inefficiencies as possible. Therefore statements about "generally, average, overall" means nothing to me because I do not bet every bet the "general public" bets.
Like casinos, racing has to be set up to insure overall losing or the industry would fold; in casinos it is done by setting machines and games so the % take is very predictable because the games are always set up the same way.
In racing, the industry has to always be tweaking the rules or race conditions in order to produce something other than negative pools.
If racing did not care what % the public bcorrectly it would not need any race conditions or restrictions, period.
The only reason for anything you read in any race's conditions is to lessen the chance of predictability.
My reason for constantly inventing or tweaking angles and systems is to stay ahead of the public and the racing industry. That is why I do not bet every race, every track, every favorite; because my payoff would be too predictably negative!
LemonSoupKid
05-14-2006, 07:56 PM
LemonSoupKid,
You have A valid point and then a non-valid one. Yes 3-1 shots (for an example) are roughly fairly bet by the public so you'll lose approx. the track takeout betting them blindly. What your saying that is not proveable is, that it's impossible for any player to select the overlays from among all 3-1's to get a return that beats the takeout. You're looking to prove a negative which is impossible.
Your point is nobody can beat the takeout. Even if you had knowledge of every human's results that ever bet long-term and could substantiate that none made a profit long-term, that doesn't mean that boy genius won't be born tomorrow that will have and apply the brainpower necessary to accomplish this feat.
Can you please explain in a clear manner why no one can possibly handicap wel enough to beat the takeout and make a profit? You have provided no evidence to support that point yet, and frankly I'm convinced your point can't be true, but I would like to have you attempt to convince me otherwise.
IF we take the premise of win % and market approximation of win odds as true, then by definition we have set up a scenario where people who can beat the track have that advantage every time they bet. I find it hard to believe that if for 25 years 1-1s win 50% of the time that anyone who bets over 25 years can significantly beat that margin. In the same long run, this particular bettor is bucking what the empirical evidence stipulates to be true! In the long run (which is the only way it works, bettors are "good" because they exploit these inefficiences over and over again or they would have no basis for being "good"), then, you are saying that you're better than the market. But the market has proven to be efficient, empirically! How can you overcome this? It's not possible.
For this reason, and using the market as a win %, the only way you can win is if you can exploit REAL inefficiencies, namely the pool bets, which are obvious and NOT SUBJECTIVE (and this is only because the win % of market horses IS efficient, so you can calculate odds to place and show, and therefore judge place and show bets taking into consideration track takeout).
Again, sports betting where you lock in prices, I'll buy that as being a way to beat the casino and therefore other bettors. No way you can beat the game, WHEN they essentially take away underlays due to the pari-mutuel setup. Basically, you're telling me that you agree to a price that is unknown when you bet it, and you're going to claim that you have full awareness of value. Sorry, guys, it's quite obvious that that logic doesn't fly.
LSKid
chickenhead
05-14-2006, 08:23 PM
It is fairly easy to come up with an odds line that is accurate over time, over thousands of races.
Take any given distance at any given track, and take a look at post position winning percentage. Collect a very large sample. Now create an odds line based solely on post position win percentage, every horse coming out of the 1 hole gets X odds, 2 hole gets Y odds, etc.
Its going to turn out to be very much correct, the horses will win in correlation to the odds you've set, exactly. You will lose your ass if you actually bet it, but it will be 100% empirically correct over a large enough sample, because it is accurate at a certain scale.
But, it is never accurate in any given instance, unless totally by chance. Any single race you look at, there is no way you could think it made sense. This is just an example I'm giving, if you haven't thought about it, as to why something that is accurate at a certain scale is not necessarily accurate at a different scale. One thing doesn't have a whole lot to do with the other.
LS Kid,
It seems to me a couple things are off in your analysis. First of all, let's presume that even odds horses give you a mere 5% loss when bet blindly. No one said that they have a way of magically making blind bets on all even odds horses lose them less than that 5% or even turn a profit. The point is that not every even odds horse in every race is going to correspond to that rate of return, as a whole they are. Therefore, if someone can select those even odds horses as a subgroup, that acually win at a substantially higher rate, they can indeed, obviously dramatically affect the rate of return to a point where they can turn a profit. Are you denying that there are people who can handicap well enough to turn a profit from such a scenario? If so, you're dead wrong.
Your second point is irrelevant. If I consistently bet horses that go off at 12-1 odds, that my long-term results show win at a 13% clip, and when I put my bets in 3 minutes to post the average odds on my horses is 14-1, I'm still quite profitable. No, I don't know whether my 14-1 shot is going to be bet down to 3/5 by post time, and yes, if I knew he would be, I'd certainly not want to make that bet.
The reason I, and others can with confidence make those bets without such a concern, is that history has shown us, that the odds of those horses being bet down "substantially", beyond the 3 minute mark (to pick a point in the betting period) is about as slim as getting hit by lightening when walking out of my house, therefore I can walk out of my house without constantly worrying about such a possibility.
When I make these bets 3 minutes to post on a 14-1 shot, I'm well aware it's not totally unlikely that the horse will go off at 12-1 or perhaps 10-1, and based on the cushion I require when making these bets, that still leaves value in that bet, obviously not the value it would be at 14-1 but enough to predict a profit long term. By the same token, it's quite possible that just as often the horse I bet at 14-1 goes off at 18-1, or 20-1, so why wasn't that circumstance figured into your equation, that the unknown final odds could actually bring a better price than expected?
LemonSoupKid
05-14-2006, 09:18 PM
I remain skeptical, however, that people can do this significantly enough to overcome 15-20% takeout. Also, I definitely don't believe that people would be profitable in the long run betting on longshots as you have mentioned.
In any case, the method that I am employing (which can be manipulated too, towards handicapping prowess) is one that doesn't rely on subjectivity. It relies on evidence that is tested time and again and that shows profits and expected returns as well as any human angle one could possibly undertake. This method of place/show pool inefficiencies is far more legit than any individual. I haven't seen these handicappers that you guys keep talking about anyway. Until I do, I remain a skeptic.
Good luck on the Preakness.
LSK
LSK,
Fine, you don't believe that there are players that can consistently find 12-1 shots that prove to be worth 8-1. Is that everyone, is it easy are there many ego, temperment and bankroll management issues to be dealt with in order to do so successfully, absolutely, but to suggest that an individual can't be 25% smarter than the crowd on a consistent basis is giving the crowd way to much credit. There are plenty of players who consistently lose far more than the takeout, therefore there have to be players who at least beat the takeout just by being somewhat sharper than the less sharp members of the crowd.
Sure, your Dr. Z style method can be bet profitably with confidence, but you're not going to make a killing with it. Now let's suppose something for a moment. Is it not entirely possible, that due to insider betting patterns, that the very horses that are lightly bet in the place and show pools to the extent that you see value in those pools, are the very even odds horses that underperform the average performance for even odds horses. That part of the equation you've left out.
I'm sure you understand what I'm saying, but let me explain using an example in case it's not clear.
100,000 Even Odds Horses return a -5% when bet blindly in the win pool.
50,000 of those which are more heavily backed in the place and show pools actually return 2% profit when bet blindly in the win pool.
50,000 of those which are underbet in the place and show pools and thus, are the horses which you'll bet to place and show return a -12% when bet blindly in the win pool.
That very real possibility could very well negate some of all of your expected profit from your Dr. Z style approach.
Some toteboard reading authors have suggested that horses not well backed up in the place pool are not such good bets as their low odds would suggest, I can't speak to any major study of this phenomena.
LemonSoupKid
05-15-2006, 05:04 PM
From my experience, Koko, that does not happen. In 5 recommendations this year in derby preps, the system nailed the winner and the horse paid substantial to show (go back and look at the pools for SNS in the IL Derby, Showing up in the Lexington, Strong Contender (3rd) in the bluegrass, Brother Derek in a couple of his races, etc.).
The crazy thing I've noticed more often that not is that (and this is probably artifactual due to high odds horses being bet on to place or show) the Dr. Z recommendation wins the race outright.
Now, I've done this at regular tracks and it really isn't worth your time, comparative to the big races. The horses aren't as good and neither are the payouts. But it's a fun way to see if your place or show bet is worth it.
In summary, in derby preps and big races (like Breeders Cup and Triple Crown), the system has had PHENOMENAL results, and this year is no exception.
I look forward to more stimulating conversation. I might even talk to Dr. Z and see what he says. If he says it's OK, I'll post his comments regarding short term odds and long term odds, and pool inefficiencies. Later, guys
LSKid
Dave Schwartz
05-17-2006, 10:43 AM
LSK,
This method of place/show pool inefficiencies is far more legit than any individual. I haven't seen these handicappers that you guys keep talking about anyway. Until I do, I remain a skeptic.
So, you believe there are inefficiencies in the place and show pool but the win pool is somehow much more efficient?
Understand I am not attacking your approach. Neither am I doubting your ability to make it work. I am just trying to point out that the fact that you believe one way or another has no impact on reality.
Since I have personal knowledge of more than a few winning players who are profitable in the win pool (me being one), I know beyond a shadow of doubt that the win pool is not near as efficient as you give it credit for.
The fact that it is efficient enough from your perspective to produce profit in the other pools is wonderful.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
LemonSoupKid
05-17-2006, 08:31 PM
LSK,
So, you believe there are inefficiencies in the place and show pool but the win pool is somehow much more efficient?
Understand I am not attacking your approach. Neither am I doubting your ability to make it work. I am just trying to point out that the fact that you believe one way or another has no impact on reality.
Since I have personal knowledge of more than a few winning players who are profitable in the win pool (me being one), I know beyond a shadow of doubt that the win pool is not near as efficient as you give it credit for.
The fact that it is efficient enough from your perspective to produce profit in the other pools is wonderful.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
First, to answer your post, Dave. From a philosophical point of view, you lose credibility by saying you know certain phenomena. You've experienced trends that lead you to believe in them (very strongly)? Fair enough. But that is a semantics game, so I digress ... it's just interesting that you use an absolute and then you say "from my perspective" things can be OK or true. I will soon set that record straight, just so you understand.
In any case, I'm just skeptical of what people claim, although generally I'm not a skeptic at all. I'm an outstanding NFL player, but it's an entire different entity than racing. Or baseball, for that matter. The value on the Chicago White Sox is astronomical right now (7-1) for the world series. Clearly a place where the market is wrong. And as I've said, that's why it makes more sense to me that you can beat it. Now, there of course is a part of me that's always believed in the gauging of lines and odds comparison to what one thinks is fair for a given race. I just don't want to mix gut feelings with stats. I did recently talk to Ziemba and he told me about a few consults he's had where in the UK a man was way ahead of the game employing his own lines. I've no reason not to believe him. So I will retread a bit in my former argument and say it's possible. It's just not provable will have to be my conclusion ... (which of course doesn't mean it doesn't exist, clearly)
Now, with regard to your first statement, this is a crucial point. The whole point is that relatively there are most assuredly inefficiencies in the pools. And in the long run for sure, these can be gross and obvious. The reason for this is obvious: We KNOW what it will pay to win, but we don't know what it will pay to place or show. Without knowing, how could you possibly even guess at value? Well, if the betting public is right on in the long run, you can set lines and relative values. And that's exactly what I do. I could manipulate this on a given race (use my own win odds for horses), but then it's not really a system, it's me picking, and I shouldn't even be talking about that, because it's my OWN knowledge, not an objective system.
I insist, too, that my perspective has nothing to do with it. In the long run it is THE perspective, NOT MY PERSPECTIVE, because in the long run it's RIGHT ON. That's why it's been so successful on the triple crown and derby preps over the years, including 5-5 this year. I've done it both ways. But whenever I want to "know" the odds are on my side, I employ the mathematical analyses.
Any more questions? My best wishes to all on the Preakness. It should be a helluva race with those boys out of the 5-6-7 holes.
Lemon
Dave Schwartz
05-17-2006, 09:04 PM
I am not quite sure what you said. I think you said that you know that you win but don't really believe that anyone else can unless they do what you are doing.
Did I get it wrong?
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
LemonSoupKid
05-17-2006, 09:12 PM
I don't doubt you win. I don't know. I leave for the possibility that it's possible. I was trying to get you to see how different win bets are from place and show, because by your last post you didn't seem to understand that.
In any case, who are you selecting this weekend? Do you think Barbaro is an underlay?
LSK
JPinMaryland
05-17-2006, 10:08 PM
I would say Barbaro is an underlay as far as I can tell from looking at video and looking at the PPs of all the horses.
If so, then what I am supposed to be looking at in the show and place pools at Pimlico in order to bet or not bet him? (i.e. according to Dr. Z). If Barb is say 1-2 w/ 5 min to post, and if the place pool he has less than 66% of the money, then what is the play?
Same question for overlay. If I think SNS is overlay at 5-1 then I guess I should play him to place if he commands less than 16% of the place pool?
thx. Nice thread here.. :jump:
LemonSoupKid
05-17-2006, 10:22 PM
Unfortunately it's not that easy. You have to consider the less added risk of finishing 2nd/3rd, which takes lots of calculation (condensed conveniently into a logarithm of formulas). Fortunately, there will be 9 starters so a place/show payout could be OK ... but in the end it's all about who comes in and if one of the big 3 isn't in the money, then it could be solid. I totally agree with you about SNS. 5-1 is overlay status. Barbaro's even money is a fair price considering history and all the happenings to this point. BroDerek is a tough one.
I would post what the recommended bets are, but I'll be at Arlington Park with no ability to post on the internet. What I would do is run the numbers and see what the expected return is (as close as possible to POST). The cutoff is usually 10%. Then, if I felt that the horse in question's odds to win was better or worse than the win pool (used to calculate the show exp. return) I'd react accordingly. Sorry, it's too hard to say whether or not %s of the pools will be recommended bets ...
LSKid
Dave Schwartz
05-17-2006, 10:36 PM
LSK,
My personal belief is that there are gross underlays in almost all pools in almost all races. If there is enough underlaid money then the pool becomes profitable. (That is why I can play almost every race.)
I can only assume that this would apply to the place and show pools as well as the win pool.
I could not possibly make a prediction about who will be an underlay before close to post time. (Although my best guess would be that Barbaro will be significantly overbet. Is he that good?)
I will post my picks in a few minutes before post.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
PaceAdvantage
05-18-2006, 04:35 AM
In any case, who are you selecting this weekend? Do you think Barbaro is an underlay?
LSK
Is this not a question for an entirely different thread? Please try not to take a thread off topic.
Thanks.
LemonSoupKid
05-18-2006, 05:42 PM
I just wanted to use a real life example in regards to how people judge efficiencies ..
the kid
Lemon Soup Kid,
You've gone through a remarkable transformation in this thread. You start out trying to convince us that no one can win betting anything but place and show pools because the win pool is too efficiently wagered on. Now you're telling us how well the system you're using to pick winners has worked.
Maybe I misunderstood your earlier post, maybe what you were telling us was that it wasn't possible for any of us to profit making win bets, but that only you could.
You might want to get your story straight before going before the grand jury.
You have no credibility at this point.
formula_2002
05-19-2006, 10:52 AM
Betting Pool Inefficiencies
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonSoupKid
What people forget is that the betting public approximates the odds to a T. That is, an even money horse wins 50% of the time. 2-1s win 33% of the time. That's why I'm cautious for underlay/overlay comments, because outside of the derby, i think it's difficult to expose win market inefficiencies, generally because in the long run they don't exist. The only truth is that longshots are overbet, and favorites are underbet ...
Exposing win pool inefficiency.
Very simple
1.Take a large data base (about 200,000) horses.
2. Set up an incremental odds range. Keep the range small as pratical.
3. Establish sets of races , set 10,20,40,80,160…..
4. Calculate the ROI for each odds range in each set (I also like to track actual wins/expected win)
100% efficient will show the roi for each odds range set to be exactly the same.
Anything less is, of course inefficient.
I would think that the difference between the roi in each odds range set will help indicate the inefficiency and its value.
I mention this, because I did something similar and found that in some large number of races, betting on a 3-1 shot produced profits!!
I posted that on this board.
Unfortunately, many thought I was suggesting that betting on only 3-1 shots will produce a profit!! :rolleyes:
LemonSoupKid
05-19-2006, 05:52 PM
while my tone changed, there is no such transgression as you suggest, Koko, in trying to malign me. Read it again, or don't, and understand that I've been skeptical of anything not mathematically based with inefficiencies being the best angle. To be a superb capper is possible, but there are few with time or money to withstand it, unlike the system I employ
Cheers,
LSK
Maligning yourself. And being a non-bully, most of the time, I'll refuse to pick on the intellectually unarmed. Why don't you re-read your own words to see how utterly contradictory your statements are? I only needed to read them once to figure out that you're all over the map from post to post.
You stated you have a system that selects winning horses even though you're convinced (naturally because you can't out-handicap the public in the win pool) that the win pool is far too efficient to beat. Please spare yourself any further embarassment with nonsensical statements.
Why don't you show your posts to Dr. Z and see how enlightened he thinks you are?
LemonSoupKid
05-20-2006, 11:07 AM
why you are trying to make a fight of this? I never said anything antagonistic to you. In recap, I've posited these positions:
The betting market in the long run is right on, and therefore in the short run it's pretty good too.
The win pool is assuredly efficient enough to produce profits when there are relative inefficiencies in the place and show.
I exploit these.
Then, I did have a turning point, you are right, because I allowed for the ability of some exceptional individuals to expose their "expert edge". I was harsher on these (read: VERY skeptical) earlier because it can't be proven like my stats can be in the long run, but I was open minded enough to change my tune and say they could in fact do this, it's just very scarce to find these expert guys. So, you're basically mad at me now for a)being humble enough to retread somewhat on my argument and b) incorporate new ideas into the fold.
All I know is that based on math my system works and it can be proven. The others can't, that's why I was so skeptical at first. I won't defend myself further. Let what I've said stand. Whatever works, do it. My system works, certainly. Good luck.
LSK
LemonSoupKid
05-20-2006, 11:09 AM
So, this statement doesn't really show your true aims?
"You don't need help maligning yourself. And being a non-bully, most of the time, I'll refuse to pick on the intellectually unarmed."
Do you even know my education level?
LSKid
From my experience, Koko, that does not happen. In 5 recommendations this year in derby preps, the system nailed the winner and the horse paid substantial to show (go back and look at the pools for SNS in the IL Derby, Showing up in the Lexington, Strong Contender (3rd) in the bluegrass, Brother Derek in a couple of his races, etc.).
LSKid
Lemon Soup Kid,
You keep misrepresenting your previous statements. Now you admit to the fact that you said that perhaps others CAN take advantages of win pool efficiencies.
What you've refused to acknowledge is that your statement above, strongly implies (unless it's meant to be quite confusing) that you're using a system that doesn't just attempt to take advantage of perceived inefficiencies in the place and show pool, but actually tries to handicap and select winning horses.
This after telling us that we're all fools for trying to do the same thing. A rather pompous statement if you ask me, especially considering the lack of a vast compilation of stats. and logic you've used to buttress your argument.
Nobody including me, is picking a fight with you, simply asking you to back up your nonsensical and contradictory statements. You stuck your foot continually in dog mess and I'm simply pointing that out while you vainly attempt to convince us that it's mud.
Do you even know my education level?
LSKid
In terms of horse wagering knowledge, you've made it quite evident.
MichaelNunamaker
05-20-2006, 04:03 PM
Formula makes a good point that totally efficient pools would show the same ROI across all odds. I believe this historically has been called the "longshot bias"
On a sample of 3.9 million horses, I measured the following Win ROIs.
Odds < 1 ROI=-18%
1 <=Odds <2 ROI=-18.5%
2 <=Odds <3 ROI=-19%
3 <=Odds <4 ROI=-20%
4 <=Odds <6 ROI=-20%
6 <=Odds <8 ROI=-19.5%
8 <=Odds <10 ROI=-19.5%
10<=Odds <20 ROI=-21%
20<=Odds ROI=-36.5%
Mike Nunamaker
ezpace
05-20-2006, 08:42 PM
The dough FLOW is the key. Simulcasting flow goes into "HUBS" first to co-miingle the dough... then distribution of price. I think much Chicanery happens at some hubs .....much.. This is another reason why I am getting a very very bad taste in my mouth re: gambling on horseracing after 35years one doesn't have to be a genius to see it in the pools and in the horses and trainers EYES.(eli lilly)
IF we take the premise of win % and market approximation of win odds as true, then by definition we have set up a scenario where people who can beat the track have that advantage every time they bet. I find it hard to believe that if for 25 years 1-1s win 50% of the time that anyone who bets over 25 years can significantly beat that margin. In the same long run, this particular bettor is bucking what the empirical evidence stipulates to be true! In the long run (which is the only way it works, bettors are "good" because they exploit these inefficiences over and over again or they would have no basis for being "good"), then, you are saying that you're better than the market. But the market has proven to be efficient, empirically! How can you overcome this? It's not possible.
For this reason, and using the market as a win %, the only way you can win is if you can exploit REAL inefficiencies, namely the pool bets, which are obvious and NOT SUBJECTIVE (and this is only because the win % of market horses IS efficient, so you can calculate odds to place and show, and therefore judge place and show bets taking into consideration track takeout).
Again, sports betting where you lock in prices, I'll buy that as being a way to beat the casino and therefore other bettors. No way you can beat the game, WHEN they essentially take away underlays due to the pari-mutuel setup. Basically, you're telling me that you agree to a price that is unknown when you bet it, and you're going to claim that you have full awareness of value. Sorry, guys, it's quite obvious that that logic doesn't fly.
LSKid
I strongly disagree. If 33% of 2/1 shots win, 66% lose. If you can eliminate half of those losers, you are there, because you will have a 50% strike rate for 2/1 shots and a ROI = (1 - 0.15 /take out/) * 2/1 * 50% - 50% = 35%.
Consider my ROI over the last 6 quarters from a certain strategy I employ:
0.187244
0.079369
0.08945
0.125688
0.057168
0.267241
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.