4 weeks completed of spot win/place bets

[the_fat_man]

Getting a bit serious lately (albeit a LAZY MAN's type of it) and wanted to see if I could show a profit betting win and place. Minimum win odds are 6:1 presently (might up that to 8:1). I've come to the conclusion that accepting lower odds (or LOW odds) is really not the way to go as too many things can go wrong for the RIGHT horse in a given race. So, at >= 6:1 odds I can at least hope to double my outlay when my horse runs but doesn't win. Moreover, I've learned some good self control by refusing to bet horses whose odds I thought were not worth their chances of winning.

These results are for 4 weeks of play at Belmont. I looked to play everyday but didn't wager on all days, given the constraints outlined above.

NBR OF WIN BETS: 28
(AVERAGE ODDS: 12.8:1)

NUMBER of WINNERS: 4

WIN RETURN: 94.60

WIN PERCENTAGE: 14

AVERAGE WIN PRICE: $23.70 (low 21.60 high 27.40)



NUMBER OF PLACE BETS: 28

NUMBER of PLACERS: 10

PLACE RETURN: 85.40

PLACE PERCENTAGE: 36

AVERAGE PLACE PRICE: 8.5 (low 4.80 high 13.80 --- 5 photo finishes)


total bet 112

total return 180

ROI 1.61


Too good to be true, I think. Then again, after losing photos with 6:1, 10:1, 20:1, and 36:1 shots, it'd have been ridiculous.

[cj]

Getting a bit serious lately (albeit a LAZY MAN's type of it) and wanted to see if I could show a profit betting win and place. Minimum win odds are 6:1 presently (might up that to 8:1). I've come to the conclusion that accepting lower odds (or LOW odds) is really not the way to go as too many things can go wrong for the RIGHT horse in a given race.

Nice job. The part in bold is the key for me in my play.

[bigmack]

Nice job. The part in bold is the key for me in my play.
With late scratches & track conditions caused by weather how are you able to put in wagers and walk away with any certainty that they'll go at what you'd expect them? Sitting having to nurse off odds is lucrative but too time consuming.

[cj]

I put my bets in early, and not all go off as long as expected, but I have a pretty good margin for error. I could do better monitoring odds, but not well enough to justify the time spent.

[bigmack]

I put my bets in early, and not all go off as long as expected, but I have a pretty good margin for error. I could do better monitoring odds, but not well enough to justify the time spent.
I completely agree with a previous post of yours when you stated that the justification of the amount of time it takes to nurse bets is out of the question. It's taken a long time for me to adjust but that's what I've adopted as well. I occasionally run into the expected 5+ that go at <2, but I guess that's life in the big city.

[the_fat_man]

This is all good when you're making MUCHO bets daily. But if you're only following a single track, making spot bets only and, assuming the above returns can stay consistent, monitoring the odds makes a huge difference, IMO.

[Fastracehorse]

Getting a bit serious lately (albeit a LAZY MAN's type of it) and wanted to see if I could show a profit betting win and place. Minimum win odds are 6:1 presently (might up that to 8:1). I've come to the conclusion that accepting lower odds (or LOW odds) is really not the way to go as too many things can go wrong for the RIGHT horse in a given race. So, at >= 6:1 odds I can at least hope to double my outlay when my horse runs but doesn't win. Moreover, I've learned some good self control by refusing to bet horses whose odds I thought were not worth their chances of winning.

These results are for 4 weeks of play at Belmont. I looked to play everyday but didn't wager on all days, given the constraints outlined above.

NBR OF WIN BETS: 28
(AVERAGE ODDS: 12.8:1)

NUMBER of WINNERS: 4

WIN RETURN: 94.60

WIN PERCENTAGE: 14

AVERAGE WIN PRICE: $23.70 (low 21.60 high 27.40)



NUMBER OF PLACE BETS: 28

NUMBER of PLACERS: 10

PLACE RETURN: 85.40

PLACE PERCENTAGE: 36

AVERAGE PLACE PRICE: 8.5 (low 4.80 high 13.80 --- 5 photo finishes)


total bet 112

total return 180

ROI 1.61


Too good to be true, I think. Then again, after losing photos with 6:1, 10:1, 20:1, and 36:1 shots, it'd have been ridiculous.

I've always wanted to do a study to see if I would be more profitable betting double to win or win/place.

Keep up the great 'capping.

fffastt

[cj]

This is all good when you're making MUCHO bets daily. But if you're only following a single track, making spot bets only and, assuming the above returns can stay consistent, monitoring the odds makes a huge difference, IMO.

No argument there. In my case, the difference isn't worth the time, but as you say, I'm "buying in bulk". If I only played one track, it would be a different story.

[Wiley]

I've come to the conclusion that accepting lower odds (or LOW odds) is really not the way to go as too many things can go wrong for the RIGHT horse in a given race.

I think this says tons as far as overcoming the elemental risks in racing inherent to all participants and like your approach, the results are impressive and you minimize take with the win/place over exotic wagers. I personally have never had the discipline for spot plays but it looks like you are finding a little over one bet a day that meet your criteria so you are not sitting on your hands for days to find these plays.

[Jeff P]

...Moreover, I've learned some good self control by refusing to bet horses whose odds I thought were not worth their chances of winning...Props man. IMHO, you've hit the nail on the head with the above post. Discipline (self control) in play or pass decision making is key. Very few non winning players realize that.




and...Too good to be true, I think...Disagree with you here. You have a unique selection method: noticing things in replays/trip analysis etc that others don't see. The things you notice have a demonstrable historical win rate or base. Once you know what that base is and so long as you continue to use discipline in play or pass decision making there's no reason, IMHO, to think results like what you posted can't be replicated going forward.


-jp

.

[Tom]

Nice hitting.
Cramer suggests that to validate your sample of longshots, look for twice as many places as wins....your results fit that.

At 36% place, my win/place betting would seem to fit your play - 1 unit W 3 units P. When your run close, you still can make a profit.

[Niko]

Nice Fat Man....I don't think your approach is exactly the lazy mans' way...lol.


The problem I find with betting longshots at about 20 minutes to post or in the beginning of the day is that if a couple people do it with the same horse the odds open low and many people will jump on board. There was a longshot player on the board who noticed that happening. A few people like a 12-1 ML and it opens 3-1 due to a few hundred on the horse and it maybe goes off at 5-1 or 6-1 as opposed to 15-1. Or maybe it's coincidence...but I doubt it. If possible, unless it's a big day I like to wait until at least 10 minutes to post. (my bets aren't nearly big enough to affect big or even medium tracks so not a concern of mine yet)

[DanG]

Excellent Fats;

Don’t forget to list the ‘photo wins with the tough beats to avoid the turf player’s straight jacket.

4 weeks of 180 Belmont races and you playing about 16% of the races. I’m assuming you’re only playing grass (which they have been running in bunches).

To me your % of overlays found is almost exactly what one meet yields when you stick to your odds restrictions. It’s the very reason why I went to horizontal bets (pic-3’s and 4’s) because I just couldn’t find enough juicy action following two meets.

I hope you keep it up through the summer. Should be fun reading your posts with all the wild trips the inner at Saratoga yields. :eek:

All the best.

[the_fat_man]

Excellent Fats;

Don’t forget to list the ‘photo wins with the tough beats to avoid the turf player’s straight jacket.

4 weeks of 180 Belmont races and you playing about 16% of the races. I’m assuming you’re only playing grass (which they have been running in bunches).

To me your % of overlays found is almost exactly what one meet yields when you stick to your odds restrictions. It’s the very reason why I went to horizontal bets (pic-3’s and 4’s) because I just couldn’t find enough juicy action following two meets.

I hope you keep it up through the summer. Should be fun reading your posts with all the wild trips the inner at Saratoga yields. :eek:

All the best.

Very interesting/illuminating feedback from the group. I appreciate it.


Dan

Actually, 3 of my winners (and half or so of my placers) were on the dirt. Although, I certainly much prefer watching/handicapping turf over dirt.

And your point about photo wins is well taken. The last thing I want to do is lose objectivity.

This will be a drawn out process for me. I won't be convinced/confident unless I can do it for an extended period of time and for increasingly more money bet.

I'll update periodically.

[badcompany]

This system is tailor-made for exotics. IMO, it's a lot easier to find a $20 exacta than a $20 horse.

[SMOO]

In terms of win/place betting, it has always seemed to me that I get a higher ROI in the order of win-place-show. Of course backing up your wagers will result in more consistant returns, but it seems that you pay a price for that "insurance" in the long run.

[KingChas]

Fat Man , you stated you lost some races with bombs losing the photo.Wouldn't you have scored better by making a win bet and then hedging an exacta "all/your pick" than a place bet.I have found this more satisfying than a place bet.Of course speaking you like a horse 6/1 or higher.

[stu]

Nice hitting.
Cramer suggests that to validate your sample of longshots, look for twice as many places as wins....your results fit that.

At 36% place, my win/place betting would seem to fit your play - 1 unit W 3 units P. When your run close, you still can make a profit.

How well would have the 'cramer exacta' performed in your sample? That is would you have made more money back-wheeling your choice to the post time favorite in an exacta than betting him to place?

When I am allowed to play, I bet to win and back it up with a cramer exacta.
It works for me.

Stu

[befuddlem]

weeks of play at Belmont. I looked to play everyday but didn't wager on all days, given the constraints outlined above.

NBR OF WIN BETS: 28
(AVERAGE ODDS: 12.8:1)

NUMBER of WINNERS: 4

WIN RETURN: 94.60

WIN PERCENTAGE: 14

AVERAGE WIN PRICE: $23.70 (low 21.60 high 27.40)



NUMBER OF PLACE BETS: 28

NUMBER of PLACERS: 10

PLACE RETURN: 85.40

PLACE PERCENTAGE: 36

AVERAGE PLACE PRICE: 8.5 (low 4.80 high 13.80 --- 5 photo finishes)


total bet 112

total return 180

ROI 1.61


Too good to be true, I think. Then again, after losing photos with 6:1, 10:1, 20:1, and 36:1 shots, it'd have been ridiculous.

How do you come to any conclusions off of this ridiculously small sample?? Come back after you've made 2800 win and place bets, and we can talk.

[K9Pup]

How do you come to any conclusions off of this ridiculously small sample?? Come back after you've made 2800 win and place bets, and we can talk.

I have to agree this is a very small sample especially when you are talking about such a low hit rate. But the results so far are at least encouraging enough to continue.

I would suggest talking to a true statistican (or someone who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night) to discuss confidence intervals and levels. I THINK I know a little about them.

Confidence interval is the +/- range you can expect in future predictions based on the known sample. In this case if you want to know how this will perform in say the next 1000 races the confidence interval would be something like 12. Which means actual results could be 14% +/- 12, a really broad range. If instead you had a sample of 100 races then the range would drop to 14% +/- 6%.

[DanG]

How do you come to any conclusions off of this ridiculously small sample?? Come back after you've made 2800 win and place bets, and we can talk.
I’m guessing a future in diplomacy is out. :rolleyes:

[delayjf]

I’m guessing a future in diplomacy is out

He might do well as the Ambassador to Iran.:D

[the_fat_man]

:lol::lol:

This will prove interesting. Be back in 4 weeks.

[Bill Olmsted]

How do you come to any conclusions off of this ridiculously small sample?? Come back after you've made 2800 win and place bets, and we can talk.

Bingo. At last, the voice of reason. befuddlem may not be a candidate as ambassador to some third rate country, but as far as handicapping and statistical validation are concerend, he is right on the money.

[BillW]

Too good to be true, I think. Then again, after losing photos with 6:1, 10:1, 20:1, and 36:1 shots, it'd have been ridiculous.

Bill and Bef,

Exactly what did you get out of this quote to start the thread that TFM was claiming his plays to be statistically valid? Or did you accidently post in the wrong thread?

[Bill Olmsted]

Bill and Bef,

Exactly what did you get out of this quote to start the thread that TFM was claiming his plays to be statistically valid? Or did you accidently post in the wrong thread?

Good point!

[befuddlem]

Bill and Bef,

Exactly what did you get out of this quote to start the thread that TFM was claiming his plays to be statistically valid? Or did you accidently post in the wrong thread?

I didn't post in the wrong thread. TFM says he sees no reason why he can't continue on at his present hit rate, and with larger bets. He has no way of knowing whether or not his hit rate will be the same, and he shouldn't speculate in this fashion until he has the proof. It's very dangerous to bet this way. How do you think people get hooked on roulette?

[Bill Olmsted]

There's your answer.

[singunner]

It's also important to note that while he was likely thrilled by his positive results to the point of posting, the act of posting itself suggests that he has confidence in his technique. If he was truly speculative about the possible future ramifications of his technique, he would likely have not posted.

Telling someone coldly to be wary of the small size of their sample is a service. Hopefully it'll bring them back down to reality and logic before they mortgage the house.

[Bill Olmsted]

It's also important to note that while he was likely thrilled by his positive results to the point of posting, the act of posting itself suggests that he has confidence in his technique. If he was truly speculative about the possible future ramifications of his technique, he would likely have not posted.

Telling someone coldly to be wary of the small size of their sample is a service. Hopefully it'll bring them back down to reality and logic before they mortgage the house.

Amen to that.

[ryesteve]

I didn't post in the wrong thread. TFM says he sees no reason why he can't continue on at his present hit rate
I don't see where he said that either. What I did see him say was, "I won't be convinced/confident unless I can do it for an extended period of time", which is exactly what you guys are saying.

[Bill Olmsted]

Then I suppose we all agree that it takes a very large sample of wagers to validate a methodology.

How large?

A lifetime of betting is the only sane and logical answer. Anything else is just dust in the wind.

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." SAUL BELLOW

[bigmack]

Before you statisticians fall all over yourself trying to bring Chubs back to earth remember his first post when he said:
Too good to be true, I think.
I rather suspect he has little intent to "mortgage the house" after his sampling.

Every discourse carries with it a system of rules for producing analogous things and thus an outline of methodology.
Jacques Derrida

[befuddlem]

Before you statisticians fall all over yourself trying to bring Chubs back to earth remember his first post when he said:

I rather suspect he has little intent to "mortgage the house" after his sampling.

Every discourse carries with it a system of rules for producing analogous things and thus an outline of methodology.
Jacques Derrida

OK Big Mack, Perhaps he won't mortgage his house, but is he prepared for the huge losing streak that is inevitable, when requiring odds of 6/1 or higher?

[DanG]

Then I suppose we all agree that it takes a very large sample of wagers to validate a methodology.

How large?

A lifetime of betting is the only sane and logical answer. Anything else is just dust in the wind.

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." SAUL BELLOW
Point taken Bill / Befuddle,

However, if you take that to its logical conclusion methods could only be discussed through a séance.

[ryesteve]

Before you statisticians fall all over yourself trying to bring Chubs back to earth
Don't use such a broad brush... this one was defending him...

[Bill Olmsted]

Point taken Bill / Befuddle,

However, if you take that to its logical conclusion methods could only be discussed through a séance.

lol...two times.

[Bill Olmsted]

The Fat Man is OK. Anyone who invests the time and effort to learn more about this great game is to be commended and should be encouraged, not dinegrated. But a little honest skeptism is always in order.

[befuddlem]

The Fat Man is OK. Anyone who invests the time and effort to learn more about this great game is to be commended and should be encouraged, not dinegrated. But a little honest skeptism is always in order.

I agree. It was not my intent to rain on his parade, but you have to be a realist, or this game will eat you up.

[Tom]

Then I suppose we all agree that it takes a very large sample of wagers to validate a methodology.

How large?

A lifetime of betting is the only sane and logical answer. Anything else is just dust in the wind.

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." SAUL BELLOW

So what happens when, at the end of your life, you find out your methodology was not validated?

As for large samples, should TFM not grow any more in his handicapping skills? Is where he is today the level he should stay at? If he improves his handicapping, the sample is no longer valid because the newer samples (races) are coming from a different population.

If you were driving to California from Maryland, would you drive 3,000 and then see where you end up? What if you were drivng north, eh? (:lol:)

And if on his deathbed, he realizes he should have been betting a hell of a lot more,I wouldn't blame him if he took somebody with him!

[K9Pup]

Then I suppose we all agree that it takes a very large sample of wagers to validate a methodology.

How large?


How valid do you want it to be?

[GaryG]

TFM is one of the most knowledgeable posters on this board. Plus he has a passion for the game. I also like his style of objective analysis. Go get em TFM...:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Bill Olmsted]

TFM is one of the most knowledgeable posters on this board. Plus he has a passion for the game. I also like his style of objective analysis. Go get em TFM...:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Knowledge, passion and objectivity are all admirable traits. Go get TMF!

[Bill Olmsted]

How valid do you want it to be?

Valid enough to make a six figure annual income.

[K9Pup]

Valid enough to make a six figure annual income.

Hmmm. Well betting $4 a race and making 60 cents per dollar I think he would need to play about 42,000 races to make $100k. To be really confident over 42k races he would need 3785 races in his sample. He MIGHT have to increase his base bets. :D

[Pell Mell]

I've been a spot player for more than 50 yrs and here's my experience. After I make my selections I play the long ones, 8/1 or better to win and backwheel it in ex. The shorter priced ones I key on top and in the 2nd slot in tris and supers.

I have been a consistent winner for many yrs but there are pitfalls, some of my own doing. I find that I go in streaks even though I play the same kind of horses with the same qualifications all the time. Sometimes a winning streak will last for months and then, phoof! On average I would say that the streaks, winning and losing, last about 3 months.

The dangers; In Dec. 2001 I started a streak that was un-real. Everything I bet was winning and my confidence just got higher and higher. In fact, I ran out of 10 percenters to cash my tickets. About the middle of Mar. I realized things were turning around but before I caught myself I had given back almost a hundred grand.

Spot plays run in streaks so one must be very careful. My solution for losing trends is that I take time off and go fishing.

[cj's dad]

Fat Man , you stated you lost some races with bombs losing the photo.Wouldn't you have scored better by making a win bet and then hedging an exacta "all/your pick" than a place bet.I have found this more satisfying than a place bet.Of course speaking you like a horse 6/1 or higher.

Betting a horse to win/ place obviously means that you are hedging your win bet. Why not ration your bets with exactas that are somewhat heavier on the horses you think MAY beat your horse and lighter on the bombs that COULD beat your horse. I've hit some very nice ex's this way, most recently a 7/1 that I wheeled under a 8 horse field ( total wager $32- 4x$5 and 3x$4) and the exacta (with an 18/1) paid $270 x 2 bets for $540. Tough to collect that amount on a $32 Place wager on a 7/1 shot!

[KingChas]

Why not ration your bets with exactas that are somewhat heavier on the horses you think MAY beat your horse and lighter on the bombs that COULD beat your horse.

Exactly, agree 100%. :ThmbUp:

[befuddlem]

Spot plays run in streaks so one must be very careful. My solution for losing trends is that I take time off and go fishing.

I've come to the same conclusion. It seems that different types of horses win at different times throughout the year.

[Robert Fischer]

Good job Fat Man

keep up the effort. be consistent and focus on value from the best races.

What is nice about your approach is that although there is a subjective human element, if you do a good job, you should actually continue to improve as you begin to really know these animals better than the public.

:ThmbUp:

[Kelso]

OK Big Mack, Perhaps he won't mortgage his house, but is he prepared for the huge losing streak that is inevitable, when requiring odds of 6/1 or higher?


By "losing streak," are you writing of a declining success rate (number of successful wagers per unit of total wagers), declining ROI, or something else?

If you mean ROI, is there an odds level at which a losing streak is not inevitable ... or at which one is even substantially less likely?

Thank you.

[Kelso]

most recently a 7/1 that I wheeled under a 8 horse field ( total wager $32- 4x$5 and 3x$4) and the exacta (with an 18/1) paid $270 x 2 bets for $540.

CJ's Dad,

I read this to mean that you put 4 "likely" runners on top at $5 each, and 3 "less likely" runners on top at $4 each, all with your 7-1 shot on the bottom. (4+3+1 = 8 total runners.)

If this is correct, how did you collect twice on the 18-1 winner? (I apologize if I'm missing something obvious here.)

Also, how much did you bet on the 7-1 horse to Win, such that you would still show a worthwhile profit in light of risking/losing the additional $32 of exactas ... or was your exacta play not intended as a "backup" to a 7-1 Win wager? (Wondering here in terms of risk-reward comparability. The exacta play seems a leap from a simple $4 bet/backup.)

Thank you.

[cj's dad]

CJ's Dad,

I read this to mean that you put 4 "likely" runners on top at $5 each, and 3 "less likely" runners on top at $4 each, all with your 7-1 shot on the bottom. (4+3+1 = 8 total runners.)

If this is correct, how did you collect twice on the 18-1 winner? (I apologize if I'm missing something obvious here.)

Also, how much did you bet on the 7-1 horse to Win, such that you would still show a worthwhile profit in light of risking/losing the additional $32 of exactas ... or was your exacta play not intended as a "backup" to a 7-1 Win wager? (Wondering here in terms of risk-reward comparability. The exacta play seems a leap from a simple $4 bet/backup.)

Thank you.

Simply put, I palyed the exacta this way: 4 horses that could beat my guy @ $5 per exacta= $20 and three (3) that are less likely to beat my pick @ $4 per exacta = $12 for a back up wager of $32, ergo when the 18/1 won and my pick ran 2nd I had the wager 2x as in a $4 exacta. I had a $32 win wager so effectively had a win/place wager that I gambled would pay off higher for an exacta than a $32 place bet !!

[befuddlem]

By "losing streak," are you writing of a declining success rate (number of successful wagers per unit of total wagers), declining ROI, or something else?

If you mean ROI, is there an odds level at which a losing streak is not inevitable ... or at which one is even substantially less likely?

Thank you.
I'm not talking ROI here.
I'm talking about the number of bets made where there is zero return. And yes, as I'm sure you already know, the lower the odds go, the liklihood of a prologned sequence of zero return is minimized. The Fat Man has to be prepared to go a long time between drinks. I don't care how good his method is. Is he prepared to lose 30 bets in a row? I've seen 20% jockeys go longer than this without a win.

[melman]

befuddlem----You sound like a REAL player to me and I agree with your post 100%. If your going to stick with 8-1 and above then IMHO there is NO way to avoid some run outs. I also like cj's Dad method of using the longer priced horse I have found it to be very effective.

[Bill Olmsted]

I'm not talking ROI here.
I'm talking about the number of bets made where there is zero return. And yes, as I'm sure you already know, the lower the odds go, the liklihood of a prologned sequence of zero return is minimized. The Fat Man has to be prepared to go a long time between drinks. I don't care how good his method is. Is he prepared to lose 30 bets in a row? I've seen 20% jockeys go longer than this without a win.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Anyone even remotely familiar with the concept of standard deviation will understand. Read Barry Meadow in "Mony Secrets at the Racetrack" if you need further convincing. Then there is the favorite-longshot bias which states that horseplayers overbet lonshots and underbet short priced favorites. I get bashed for playing shorties all the time and I love it! That means less money to depress the prices on my beloved 4-5 shots. I say uncover solid chalk, bet heavy, take your 5%, and get the hell out.

[Hank]

What win% is required to make a steady diet of 4/5 profitable?

[singunner]

55.5% will break even.
Anything above that will get you a profit, but I don't think anyone would seriously suggest you can ever predict a horse to have a greater than 55.5% chance of winning a race.

[K9Pup]

What win% is required to make a steady diet of 4/5 profitable?

56%
4/5 pays $3.60. So for 100 races at $2 a race you would spend $200. To get ahead you would need to hit 56 of those 100 ($201.60).

[K9Pup]

55.5% will break even.
Anything above that will get you a profit, but I don't think anyone would seriously suggest you can ever predict a horse to have a greater than 55.5% chance of winning a race.

Isn't that what the crowd is doing when they make it 3-5??? And I doubt EVERY horse he plays is 3-5.

[singunner]

He said "on a diet of". And I bet if you asked anyone whose money went into that 3-5, they'd tell you they don't think the horse has a greater than 60% chance of winning.

[bobphilo]

55.5% will break even.
Anything above that will get you a profit, but I don't think anyone would seriously suggest you can ever predict a horse to have a greater than 55.5% chance of winning a race.

Why not? Short price horses generally win in accordance with their odds. There’s no reason to think that a horse that so stands out from its field that it is made odds-on cannot have a 56% chance of winning.
Unless some great liability is being missed, it would take a very uncharacteristically poor performance or some very bad luck for such a horse to lose. The chances of this should be considerably less than 44% so a win probability of 56% or better is very reasonable.


Bob

[singunner]

Looks like somebody forgot the takeout... The odds of an odds-on favorite already have the cash taken out. If it's 4-5, you need over 55% wins, but the public has realistically bet it to have a lower percent chance winning than that.

Then again, if you want to think like you've suggested, betting on the odds-on favorite will only help people who bet more intelligently, so go to town.

It's not that you may not have had a point, but your very first sentence was patently false. "Short price horses generally win in accordance with their odds" is only right if you include the phrase "after factoring back in the takeout".

[DeanT]

Fabricand had ROI broken out by odds for a gazillion races. That was many years ago.

Are there any database guys willing to share some info? That is, something that shows win percentage and ROI for horses 1-9 through 6-1, with a fairly big sample size? Maybe even WPS?

Someone was asking me recently what "error" figure, or trouble percentage I put on a horse race. What is the true odds of a 1-9 with takeout to WPS would help me decide a little bit on that.

Sigunners line "I don't think anyone would seriously suggest you can ever predict a horse to have a greater than 55.5% chance of winning a race." made me think again about that. I have made horses over 55% many times in my fair odds lines.

[bobphilo]

Looks like somebody forgot the takeout... The odds of an odds-on favorite already have the cash taken out. If it's 4-5, you need over 55% wins, but the public has realistically bet it to have a lower percent chance winning than that.

Then again, if you want to think like you've suggested, betting on the odds-on favorite will only help people who bet more intelligently, so go to town.

It's not that you may not have had a point, but your very first sentence was patently false. "Short price horses generally win in accordance with their odds" is only right if you include the phrase "after factoring back in the takeout".


Sin,

Yes the take-out does change the odds, which is why I stated that "short price horses GENERALLY win in accordance with their odds"
Obviously, due to the take-out, the odds will always be somwhat lower than the horses chances of winning, at any price.
The point I was challenging was that your statement that you doubted ANY horses chances of winning could be greater than 55.5%. Whether or not the odds justify the bet is another question, but there are clearly cases where the horse's chances of winning are greater than 55.5%.

Bob

[K9Pup]

Looks like somebody forgot the takeout... The odds of an odds-on favorite already have the cash taken out. If it's 4-5, you need over 55% wins, but the public has realistically bet it to have a lower percent chance winning than that.

Then again, if you want to think like you've suggested, betting on the odds-on favorite will only help people who bet more intelligently, so go to town.

It's not that you may not have had a point, but your very first sentence was patently false. "Short price horses generally win in accordance with their odds" is only right if you include the phrase "after factoring back in the takeout".


With a 21% takeout a 4-5 horse has a 43.8% chance of winning (based on the crowd's opinion).
prob = (1-take)/(odds+1)

So if I feel the horse has a 55% chance of winning isn't that bet still an overlay. Why shouldn't it be played? Of course I need to be right, that the horses I pick like this really DO win at 55%.

[singunner]

This is where Bayes Theory comes in nicely. The thought that a horse has greater than a 55% chance of winning a race (with at least 6 horses in it) is pretty ridiculous. I could see a single horse easily having a 55% chance of beating any other single horse, but when a single horse is fighting against several other horses, the one would have to be so astronomically better than the rest, it's unfathomable.

Let me try and break it down. Horse A has a 90% chance of beating any other horse in the race. That's 9 times out of 10, horse A wins in a two horse race.

In 100 races involving A through F, A beats each individual horse 90 times. So, out of 100 races, A loses to B 10 times, loses to C 10 times and so on and so forth. That's 50 places away from 100 for the 100 races. It could be that A wins 50 races and gets second 50 times, giving a 50% win rate. At the very best, A would win 90 races and be dead last 10 times. If it was a 7 horse race, the max would be 88 times out of 100 with 12 in dead last or 40 first place finishes with 60 second places.

Now how many races do you have where one horse is going to be that much better than EVERY OTHER HORSE IN THE RACE? The actual probability of even a fantastic horse beating a bunch of losers is never that amazingly high.

[singunner]

With a 21% takeout a 4-5 horse has a 43.8% chance of winning (based on the crowd's opinion).
prob = (1-take)/(odds+1)

So if I feel the horse has a 55% chance of winning isn't that bet still an overlay. Why shouldn't it be played? Of course I need to be right, that the horses I pick like this really DO win at 55%.
You're betting against the odds, not the public's opinion. The public says it's 43.8%, so the odds are 4-5. For you to make money on that horse, you need 55% as dictated by the odds, unless you just get a warm fuzzy feeling from beating the public opinion.

[K9Pup]

You're betting against the odds, not the public's opinion. The public says it's 43.8%, so the odds are 4-5. For you to make money on that horse, you need 55% as dictated by the odds, unless you just get a warm fuzzy feeling from beating the public opinion.

Yeah, isn't that what I said? If MY probability of the horse winning is 55% AND that horse and others like it actually DO win at 55% then I'm fine.

I can't speak for horses, but I know for dogs there are dogs that have a greater than 55% chance of winning. It doesn't happen EVERY race, but it does happen.

You can't just play every horse that goes off at 4-5. But if your handicapping says the horse has a 55% or better chance of winning then it should be played. Of course I would prefer to play horses that go off at 5-1 and have a 55% chance of winning.

[DeanT]

This is where Bayes Theory comes in nicely. The thought that a horse has greater than a 55% chance of winning a race (with at least 6 horses in it) is pretty ridiculous.

Sounds like you'd never bet a race :)

Over 10,000 races studied by Fabricand win percentage of 2-5 shots are 71%.
So horses do have a better than 55% chance of winning over time, at certain odds levels.

As odds drop, the market becomes more and more efficient.

Barbaro in his maiden race, against horses that were soon to be 5 claimers at a track near you most certainly had a better than 55% chance to win. These races happen every day.

[singunner]

Sounds like you'd never bet a race :)

Over 10,000 races studied by Fabricand win percentage of 2-5 shots are 71%.
So horses do have a better than 55% chance of winning over time, at certain odds levels.

As odds drop, the market becomes more and more efficient.

Barbaro in his maiden race, against horses that were soon to be 5 claimers at a track near you most certainly had a better than 55% chance to win. These races happen every day.
Is that 10,000 2-5 shots or just checking 10,000 races, and when there's a 2-5 shot, it wins 71% of the time?

Also, how many horses were there in those races? I by no means eliminated the possibility of a high percent win rate, just said it wasn't as obvious as it seems. ALSO, 71% winning on a 2-5 race means that the people betting that horse didn't bet it low enough. 71% on 2-5 is practically breaking even. It should be lower given the takeout.

ALSO!!! I wouldn't bet a 2-5 shot, even if it had a 71% chance of winning. It requires 71.4% just to break even.

[K9Pup]

Is that 10,000 2-5 shots or just checking 10,000 races, and when there's a 2-5 shot, it wins 71% of the time?

Also, how many horses were there in those races? I by no means eliminated the possibility of a high percent win rate, just said it wasn't as obvious as it seems. ALSO, 71% winning on a 2-5 race means that the people betting that horse didn't bet it low enough. 71% on 2-5 is practically breaking even. It should be lower given the takeout.

ALSO!!! I wouldn't bet a 2-5 shot, even if it had a 71% chance of winning. It requires 71.4% just to break even.

It really doesn't matter how many horses are in the race. If the horse is 4-5 it will pay $3.60 to win no matter if there are 4 horses in the race or 14.

The point is there IS a group of horses that wins more than 55% of the time. And if you have a horse that you have as a 2-5 shot but the board has it at 4-5 then you SHOULD play it.

[singunner]

My point about the size of the race was that it will change the probability of a single horse in it winning. The fewer horses, the better chance every horse in the race has of winning. In a race with three horses, you can easily get above 50% for one of the horses. Do you see what I'm saying?

And do you really have a technique that can put a horse at 2-5? That'd require an awful lot of confidence in the consistency of your numbers to bet something you give 2-5 when it's going at 4-5.

[bobphilo]

ALSO!!! I wouldn't bet a 2-5 shot, even if it had a 71% chance of winning. It requires 71.4% just to break even.

Sin,

Your changing the issue from your original statement that no horse can have a greater than 55.5% probililty, to the question of is it profitable to bet short odds horses.
Yes, the take-out does make the odds about 17% lower lower than their true probablities, but it is absurd to say that the take-out reduces a 1-9 shot's 90% win probababilty to less than 56%. In fact, at very low odds it becomes an efficient market and if anything, the effect of the take-out is reduced and the horse's win probiblity is very close to it's odds.
The numbers clearly support this. If you are aware of any study that contradict this, I'd like to see it.
If what you are saying was true and odds-on horses were so grossly underlayed,you could get rich from merely playing the rest of the field against these horses?

Bob

[bobphilo]

This is where Bayes Theory comes in nicely. The thought that a horse has greater than a 55% chance of winning a race (with at least 6 horses in it) is pretty ridiculous. I could see a single horse easily having a 55% chance of beating any other single horse, but when a single horse is fighting against several other horses, the one would have to be so astronomically better than the rest, it's unfathomable.


You are totally miss-using Bayes theory. The numbers you are coming up with only apply if one has no knowledge of the individual horse's differing abilities and you assume that each has an equal chance of winning.
What you are doing is like saying that in a 8 horse-field, no horse can have a better than 1 chance in 8 of winning. Horse racing is not like dice where all combinations are equally likely.

Bob

[singunner]

So what about when I stated the A horse had 90% chance of winning? If you think adding more horses to the field will not lower the chance of a certain horse winning, your Bayes seems a little off to me. It won't change every horse equally, but it will change them all in the same direction. Unless you're now claiming there's a possibility of a horse with a zero percent chance of winning?

[singunner]

Incidentally, I never really meant to imply it was impossible to beat 55% probability of winning for a horse, just that it was very rare. For the last 16 months, my program identified 171 horses with above 50% chance of winning and odds that were higher than or equal to those stated by my program. Out of that, 87 won.

If we look at ALL my 50%+ horses, it's 160/284.

So I'm not saying it's impossible, but that's out of 65,000+ races. Living on a diet of these horsese would have you betting on about 10 horses per month by my program. I'm not saying that's the final word, but I think it's pretty difficult to identify a horse with that high of a percent chance of winning.

And yes, both of those had positive ROIs, 17 and 7 percent respectively.

[Kelso]

$4 exacta.

D'OH!! :bang:
Right there in front of me! :blush: I gotta start reading these posts earier in the day, when I'm still semi-awake. Sorry ... and thank you.




I'm not talking ROI here.

Thank you, Fud. Wondered (hoped?) if you were suggesting that there is an optimal odds level from an ROI perspective. (Much chance that a "long" losing streak is already nestled within Fats' 4 wins/month experience?)

[K9Pup]

My point about the size of the race was that it will change the probability of a single horse in it winning. The fewer horses, the better chance every horse in the race has of winning. In a race with three horses, you can easily get above 50% for one of the horses. Do you see what I'm saying?

Sure I understand your point here.


And do you really have a technique that can put a horse at 2-5? That'd require an awful lot of confidence in the consistency of your numbers to bet something you give 2-5 when it's going at 4-5.

Like I said before, I'm a dog player who may someday be a horse player. But for the dogs, yes I do have a process that puts SOME dogs at 2-5.

But again I wouldn't go looking for 4-5 dogs to play, but if MY selection happens to be 4-5 I don't automatically stray away from it.

[bobphilo]

Incidentally, I never really meant to imply it was impossible to beat 55% probability of winning for a horse, just that it was very rare.

I'm glad that you are backing away from your original statement that "I don't think anyone would seriously suggest you can ever predict a horse to have a greater than 55.5% chance of winning a race."

No one here is saying that horses that have a better than 56% chnce of winning are common. The point that you are missing is that in those cases where horses are odds-on, they do win more than half of their races, roughly in accordance with their odds minus take-out.

Bob

[chickenhead]

This is where Bayes Theory comes in nicely. The thought that a horse has greater than a 55% chance of winning a race (with at least 6 horses in it) is pretty ridiculous. I could see a single horse easily having a 55% chance of beating any other single horse, but when a single horse is fighting against several other horses, the one would have to be so astronomically better than the rest, it's unfathomable.

Let me try and break it down. Horse A has a 90% chance of beating any other horse in the race. That's 9 times out of 10, horse A wins in a two horse race.

In 100 races involving A through F, A beats each individual horse 90 times. So, out of 100 races, A loses to B 10 times, loses to C 10 times and so on and so forth. That's 50 places away from 100 for the 100 races. It could be that A wins 50 races and gets second 50 times, giving a 50% win rate. At the very best, A would win 90 races and be dead last 10 times. If it was a 7 horse race, the max would be 88 times out of 100 with 12 in dead last or 40 first place finishes with 60 second places.

Now how many races do you have where one horse is going to be that much better than EVERY OTHER HORSE IN THE RACE? The actual probability of even a fantastic horse beating a bunch of losers is never that amazingly high.

What are Carl Lewis' odds in a foot race against you straight up, 100 yards? What about against you and 10 of your friends? 20 of your friends? 50 of your friends?

I think its easier to think of it as a probability of running a certain time vs. beating a certain horse. Carl Lewis has a very high probability of running a time that is much faster than you or any of your friends can run. It does not matter how many friends you have with you, unless one of them is a world class Olympic sprinter. Adding more and more slow friends doesn't change his odds. The only time he will lose is if he pulls a hammy, which will happen a fixed percentage of the time.

In horse racing of course the field size does influence a horses chances, as trouble trips and bad pace scenarios increase, but thats not what your talking about. You're saying its mathematically dictated that they are significantly reduced...I don't think that's true.

[bobphilo]

So what about when I stated the A horse had 90% chance of winning? If you think adding more horses to the field will not lower the chance of a certain horse winning, your Bayes seems a little off to me. It won't change every horse equally, but it will change them all in the same direction. Unless you're now claiming there's a possibility of a horse with a zero percent chance of winning?

Sin,

Of course field size effects the odds. However the final odds reflect field size this so it is incorrect to futher adjust them for field size. In addition, you are not applying the laws of probability correctly. If a horse has a 90% probability of beating any of his opponents, his probability of defeating all of his opponents in a 7-horse field would be 1 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 = .5315. He would probably go off at about even money or slightly less allowing for take-out.
If his win probability over his rivals was 95%, his win probability in a 7 horse field would be 1 x .95 x .95 x .95 x .95 x .95 x.95 = .735. His fair odds would be about 2-5 and roughly 1-2 after take-out. Even in a 10-horse field his win probability would still be an impressive .6302. His fair odds would be about 3-5 but closer to 1-2 after takeout.



Such low odds favorites are not very common but all the studies show that when they do occur, it is reasonable to expect them to win roughly according to what their odds indicate, and a correct application of the laws of probabilities does not contradict this. That means that one can reasonably expect odds-on favorites to win more than 56 % of their races if their odds and take-out indicate this.



As I stated earlier, I’m glad you retracted your statement that it is not reasonable to expect any horse to have a greater than 56% chance of winning, since the laws of probabilities, as well as all the study data, do not support this claim.



Bob

[K9Pup]

What are Carl Lewis' odds in a foot race against you straight up, 100 yards? What about against you and 10 of your friends? 20 of your friends? 50 of your friends?


Hey these days I think I could take him!! Oh wait, you said 100 YARDS, not feet, nevermind ..................

[ranchwest]

I just love these threads like this. You know, the ones that assume:

1) All handicappers are of equal ability and therefore their accomplishments will match the capabilities of all other handicappers.

2) Being selective in wagering is of little consequence.

3) Horses read the tote board and know their own capabilities.

4) All horses have a capability that correlates to their odds in all races.

5) Jockeys and trainers make no difference and always perform mechanically.

6) Horse racing and roulette are analagous.

7) I'll stop at 6 because there should be some consideration for brevity over levity.

[chickenhead]

you're right, these sorts of things should never be spoken of, ever. Every single post should contain a disclaimer list at the bottom specifically stating what assumptions are made where and in what circumstances which things apply, and a seperate disclaimer asking the reader to please not read the post in the first place, as it doesn't possibly contain all the nuance that must be included to make said post worth reading.

That sounds like fun.

[ranchwest]

you're right, these sorts of things should never be spoken of, ever. Every single post should contain a disclaimer list at the bottom specifically stating what assumptions are made where and in what circumstances which things apply, and a seperate disclaimer asking the reader to please not read the post in the first place, as it doesn't possibly contain all the nuance that must be included to make said post worth reading.

That sounds like fun.

You read me wrong. I love disinformation. It makes parimutuel wagering more fun.

[chickenhead]

when math becomes disinformation the Sun will explode.

[ranchwest]

when math becomes disinformation the Sun will explode.

I have no problem with math.

The problem is in its application.

[chickenhead]

no argument there

[singunner]

The "Carl Lewis" analogy is just goofy. Nobody would put me in a race with him to start. Secondly, there's no jockeying for position in a 100-yard dash. No chance of him getting trapped in the back. No chance of someone running as fast as they can at the start and wearing him out.

Hell, if we were both horses, I probably wouldn't even be a thoroughbred.
But replace Carl Lewis with the fastest person I've ever spoke with (probably Otis Nixon). If we ran a half mile, he'd probably beat me, but put in a few of my faster friends who might give him an overly fast pace to start, and I've got a decent chance of coming into the lead in the last 200 meters. Now go ahead and throw in a couple hundred chaotic variables.

[chickenhead]

In horse racing of course the field size does influence a horses chances, as trouble trips and bad pace scenarios increase, but thats not what your talking about. You're saying its mathematically dictated that they are significantly reduced...I don't think that's true.

The "Carl Lewis" analogy is just goofy. Nobody would put me in a race with him to start. Secondly, there's no jockeying for position in a 100-yard dash. No chance of him getting trapped in the back. No chance of someone running as fast as they can at the start and wearing him out.


If all you are going to do is repeat what I said this isn't going to be very productive. You said something very goofy earlier in this thread, you've been called on it. Bayes Theorom doesn't know anything about pace, or trouble trips.

And you would never outrun Otis Nixon, even though he must be about 80 by now.

[ranchwest]

If all you are going to do is repeat what I said this isn't going to be very productive. You said something very goofy earlier in this thread, you've been called on it. Bayes Theorom doesn't know anything about pace, or trouble trips.

And you would never outrun Otis Nixon, even though he must be about 80 by now.

You're obviously wasting your fingers typing.

These folks don't remember when Easy Goer beat older horses and then came back two weeks later against three yo's. There was one chance he'd lose -- major physical calamity.

I've also seen the reverse, though few will acknowledge this possibility, either. I've seen horses that clearly had major physical maladies but were shoved into the starting gate anyway. Their only chance of winning is if every other horse in the race fails to finish. I'd assess their chance of winning as zero, but granted there is that possibility of a spill that wipes out all the other horses and this horse goes from last right around the spill to win. Okay, 0.01% chance of winning.

There are legitimate 2/5 horses and legitimate 300+/1 horses.

[Fastracehorse]

This system is tailor-made for exotics. IMO, it's a lot easier to find a $20 exacta than a $20 horse.

Problem is,

If U only look for $20 x's that's all you will find.

fffastt

[demaloot]

long-term you always make more money betting to WIN