BETITANDFORGETIT LONG TERM CAPITAL PLAYS 01-31-2007

[formula_2002]

TRACK DATE RACE# PGNO NAME ML POST MODEL
LRL 20070131 3 9 KING MONARC 12 1:31 pow
BEU 20070131 4 2 QUITE A NIGH 3 2:33 N204
BEU 20070131 4 5 UNEXCUSED 8 2:33 pow
TP 20070131 3 3 SLEWPY BE Q 8 6:22 N116
TP 20070131 3 3 SLEWPY BE Q 8 6:22 N204
TP 20070131 3 1 BETTER THAN 2 6:22 N66-N3

[formula_2002]

new addtion (model) wins 1st time asking.
beu r4 # 2 pays $7.80

[formula_2002]

2 wins in 6 plays for a small overall profit.
full recap tomorrow..
The <=4-1 tote board odds horses are simply doing all the work..Very big profits!!

[PlanB]

FORMULA .......... Let me just ask you, "DO YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO BEAT THIS GAME?" this is not a trick question, I'm merely making it general enough for you to share your thinking as it has evolved from data-mining. ps, I reserve the right to ask you future questions, but for now, Can One Beat This Game?

[formula_2002]

Personally, I don’t think this game can be beaten, long term.

I think it’s probably impossible to statistically prove one is a long term winner.

I’m sure that statistically you can demonstrate what it takes to prove a long term winning method.

I know it’s easier to get lucky playing short price horses than longer price horses.
(it’s easier to get lucky playing the pass line in craps, basically a 50/50 proposition with a 1.41 take, than it is playing a 1-1 shot at AQU with a 15% take)

I know that one method of play can return an roi of .91 in 1482 plays and then .78 in 4750 plays and then .67 in 2361 plays (no back fitting).

[ryesteve]

I know it’s easier to get lucky playing short price horses than longer price horses.
I'm wondering how you reconcile the fact that almost all people who show a profit do so by *avoiding* short price horses, and/or playing exotics (ie very low % bets). That would seem to suggest that "luck" is not responsible for their success.

[formula_2002]

I'm wondering how you reconcile the fact that almost all people who show a profit do so by *avoiding* short price horses, and/or playing exotics (ie very low % bets). That would seem to suggest that "luck" is not responsible for their success.

If you win with a 10-1 horse, you could be profitable for a longer peroid of time (providing you always bet the same amout) :)

In a 15% commission game a true 10-1 shot wins 9.1% of the time. Within 1 standard deviation, he could win 11.97 % of the time for a 1.12 roi.

A true 1-1 shot wins 50% of the time. Within 1 standard deviation, he could win 55% of the time for an roi of .94.

There is a 34% probability (1 std deviation) of showing a 1.12 roi in 100 plays when playing 10-1 odds, compared to showing a .94 roi when playing 1-1 odds.
Base on the above, at one time I interpeted that to mean it's easier to be lucky playing longer odds .

I have attached an excell chart which goes into greater detail.

Sorry for the flip flop, but up until a week or so, thats how I always presented the chart,"it's easier to be lucky playing longer odds ."

I think I talked myself into looking at it differently, but the numbers stay the same.

after 1000 races the 10-1 odds return a .94 roi, the 1-1 odds, .88 roi.

after 10,000 races the 10-1 odds return .88 roi, the 1-1 odds .86.

So after a few hundred plays at 10-1 you could still be ahead, but eventually you head for a loss.

The following is the tread when I eventually flip floped the 1st time.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33807


Joe M

[BIG RED]

So after a few hundred plays at 10-1 you could still be ahead, but eventually you head for a loss.


http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33807


Joe M

This baffles me, and is a simple observataion. I play longshots, and of course they are not all 10-1, maybe that's the key?

Say Suff started playing six months ago playing the 10-1's. He has been on the eventual downfall to get to the loss end. Now I enter, playing same 10-1's. So, you are telling me I am starting at a smaller proffit and quicker end? I'm trying to follow what this statement means. How can 'all' 10-1 players start from the beginning at 1.12 roi, whenever they start, and all head to the level then the loss column.
I hope I worded this right?

[formula_2002]

FINALS:
6 PLAYS, 2 WINNERS.
$12.00 PLAYED, $12.40 RETURNED

EXPECTED WINNERS =.96, ACTUAL WINNERS =2 :jump:

WHEN ODDS<=4-1:
2 PLAYS, 2 WINNERS. $4.00 PLAYED, $12.40
RETURNED. :jump:
----------------------------------------------------------
eight DAY TOTALS
FINALS:
111 PLAYS, 25 WINNERS.
$222.00 PLAYED, $154 RETURNED
(PLACE BETS RETURNED $192.00)

EXPECTED WINNERS =25. ACTUAL WINNERS =25 :jump:

WHEN TOTE BOARD ODDS<=4-1:
56 PLAYS, 24 WINNERS. $112.00 PLAYED, $142.00
RETURNED. :jump:
(PLACE BETS RETURNED $128.00)

EXPECTED WINNERS =20.3, ACTUAL WINNERS =24 :jump:
__________________

[formula_2002]

This baffles me, and is a simple observataion. I play longshots, and of course they are not all 10-1, maybe that's the key?

Say Suff started playing six months ago playing the 10-1's. He has been on the eventual downfall to get to the loss end. Now I enter, playing same 10-1's. So, you are telling me I am starting at a smaller proffit and quicker end? I'm trying to follow what this statement means. How can 'all' 10-1 players start from the beginning at 1.12 roi, whenever they start, and all head to the level then the loss column.
I hope I worded this right?

If you start playing the same 10-1 shots that Suff is losing with, then you are winding up on the left side of the normal curve.
1 std =34% (good or bad)probability. To the right side of the mean is good. But you and Suff are playing on the left side of the curve which is bad..
http://www.music.miami.edu/research/statistics/normalcurve/normalCurve.html

[maxwell]

Why does everyone worry about the takeout rate? If the takeout is 5% and you're getting 10/1, it's the same as getting 10/1 when the takeout is 30%. I realize you would get better odds if it were lower but you're still getting what you want if you were playing 5/1 -> 12/1. It's right up there with death and taxes ( more taxes ) so we have to deal with it by learning to 'cap a little better. :)

[ryesteve]

Why does everyone worry about the takeout rate? If the takeout is 5% and you're getting 10/1, it's the same as getting 10/1 when the takeout is 30%. I realize you would get better odds if it were lower but you're still getting what you want if you were playing 5/1 -> 12/1.
No you're not getting what you want... you're getting 5/1 instead of 8/1, 6/1 instead of 10/1, etc., etc.

This kind of thought process ("it doesn't matter, just deal with it") is exactly why the people in charge think we're a bunch of suckers and will never lower the take.

[formula_2002]

This kind of thought process ("it doesn't matter, just deal with it") is exactly why the people in charge think we're a bunch of suckers and will never lower the take.

I'm doing my part. I'll not make any major bets until they lower the take to 10% or less. :)

[levinmpa]

Just to put the takeout into perspective, let's do a comparison to wagering on a football game. We all know that with most books, you have to lay $1.10 to win $1 or 10/11. The theoretical hold is about 4.5%. If you wagered on a football game with racing's takeout, you would have to lay in the range of $1.40 to win $1 or 5/7. I don't think the bookies would be taking much action if they had a theoretical hold of 15 - 20%. The takeout is the single biggest detriment to the growth of the game because it continually takes dollars out of circulation. Instead of the money being churned back through the pools, it's gone. If one State had the balls to lower the takeout to 12% or 10%, they would see a huge increase in hande. Not only becuase they would attract larger players, but because more money is being returned to the bettors, more money is available to be wagered into the pools. It's such a simple concept. Unfortunately, legislators just don't get it. If you follow the Pinnacle Sports model, it's better to hold 2% of $10,000,000 than 5% of $2,000,000. Give the players a good deal, and they'll bet with both hands.