14% TAKE VS 19% TAKE

[formula_2002]

The tracks may offer take-outs in the range of 14% to 19%, but there is no apparent benefit to the common bettor.

I looked at favorites and horses in the odds range of 5/2 to 3.4-1


Another award goes to the bettor.

Although the tote board may say 5/2, the bettor is adjusting for the various take-outs when making his bet, thereby eliminating any benefit due to a lower take-out.

Joe M

[Whirlaway]

I tested Aqueduct and Belmont vs. Penn and Philladelphea:

All horses going to post at less than 10-1:

NYRA: -16.34 ROI
PEN: - 19.80 ROI

All horses going to post at less than 5-1:
NYRA: -15.40
PEN: -19.20

Conclusion: Takeout Matters!! Duh.

[so.cal.fan]

Exactly right, Whirlaway.

If you collect 100K with an additional 5% takeout....it is an additional 5K OUT OF YOUR POCKET.

LOWER TAKEOUT!!!
LOWER TAKEOUT!!!
LOWER TAKEOUT!!!

Simulcast players......PLEASE support tracks with lower takout!

[formula_2002]

how do the results look for favorites and odds range of 5/2 to 3.4-1.

In over 50,000 horses, odds<=10-1
16 to 17 cents loss on the dollar when take is between 14% to 19%.


My cals are based on the take-out and breakage in any particular race regardless of track.
That is, the sum of 1/(odds+1) for a 14% take out track will be 1,16
and for a 19% take-out track its 1.23

Joe M

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by formula_2002
The tracks may offer take-outs in the range of 14% to 19%, but there is no apparent benefit to the common bettor.


Oh man...


Let's say the track collects $1000 in win bets.

If the takeout is 19%, they return $810 to the winners (forget about breakage for this).

If the takeout is 14%, they return $860 to the winners. $50 more.


The winners get the benefit of that extra $50 (split among them) NO MATTER THE ODDS. Odds are not part of the equation here.

[formula_2002]

GT, there is no "lets say" here. It's empirical data.

The bettor is simply playing into the odds.
It appears they will bet the horses up and down until they are certain to lose the same % regardless of the take (within the take-out range we are talking about).

Of course they are not looking at it that way. To them, I'm sure they are making the optimal bet.

Joe M

Odds are EVERYTHING!!
It's what the bettor is looking at.

[GameTheory]

Joe,

More money is coming back to the winners NO MATTER WHAT if the takeout is lower. No one can stop it -- it is coming back.

It is too silly to even argue about. If you have data that shows otherwise, your data or your math is wrong. Period.

[ranchwest]

That's why I only bet on horses wearing blinkers. They can't see the tote board.

[formula_2002]

gt..ok lets do it your way.

200 guys betting $1.00 will share in the $1000 win pool.

$810/200= $4.05 returned in a 19% take out

$860/200 = $4.30 returned in a 14% take out.

Just as you calculated!!

But suppose, the 14% tracks attracts a few "smarter bettors" and the 200 bettors become 212 bettors and the total pool remains the same (fewer "loosing” bettors.).

Now $860/212= $4.05 returned in a 14% take-out.

That would appear to justify the real data.

Joe M

[Show Me the Wire]

Formula:

What would happen if you kept all things equal. Say at the same time the 19% track attracts the same amount of winnining bettors as does the the 14% track. What happens then?

Speaking about reality even in your example about the extra 12 bettors isn't in total more money being paid out by the track from the win pool?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[ranchwest]

My first time at Santa Anita, many years ago, my first selection was 16-1. Being naive at the time, I figured that those wise folks at SA just couldn't be that wrong about my selection, so I reduced my wager. The horse won by 10.

Reducing the take may attract more people and more money, but the losers will still dole out their share of money.

There's only two considerations. Can you pick winners at that track? Can you pick winners at that track? Hmmm, guess there's only one consideration.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by formula_2002

But suppose, the 14% tracks attracts a few "smarter bettors" and the 200 bettors become 212 bettors and the total pool remains the same (fewer "loosing” bettors.).

Now $860/212= $4.05 returned in a 14% take-out.



Extra money is extra money -- you can't just make it disappear. If you lower odds on one horse, the odds on the rest of the field go up. It still all adds up to 100%. Everyone will win more (or lose less) because the prices on ALL the horses go up.

[formula_2002]

gT..In the odds range 2.5-1 and 3.4-1 (the most populated odds range)

Same time periord.

average take-out and breakage 14% to 16% (rounded off)
Bel 14 cent loss on the dollar (696 horses)
Aqu over 21 cent loss on the dollar (1104 horses)
SAR 8 cent loss on the dollar (345 horses)

average take-out and breakage 15% to 17% (rounded off)
gpx 20cent loss on the dollar (735 HORSES)


average take-out and breakage 17% to 19% (rounded off)
pha 17 cent loss on the dollar. (647 HORSES)


Perhaps after 1 million horses, things may come out the way you think they should.

[BillW]

Joe,

The thing you are missing is that the distribution shifts upward toward the higher odds range with lower takeout.

Bill

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Formula 2002 actually makes a good point here. In considering the effect of the tote takeout you must take into account the quality of the opposition or other players in determining how hard or easy it is to win.

Formula is right to point out that a lower takeout might attract better quality players and so the average "mug" player might be not much better off with a 14% takeout versus a 19% takeout. You see winning players are an effective tax on the "average" player. The extra money returned might be unevenly distributed. Winning players are more price sensitive in general and likely to be attracted to the lower 14% takeout.

It is interesting what might happen if the Betfair model really takes hold. It might attract a completely new class of people to trade the races who might use very sophisticated methods. With the Betfair model the average player will be better off than under the totes now as the takeout/commission is so radically different. But the mugs will be no closer to winning.

I am all in favour of lower takeouts and do all I can to bet with people who offer lower takeout products. With Formula's 14% to 19% example I suspect the "average" player might lose a little less under 14% versus 19%. But I doubt the mugs do 5% better. And I would not be completely surprised if Formula was right and the mugs were in the same position under both takeout scenarios.

[kenwoodall]

Not there YET?!
2002- you must be great at eliminating false favorites!!!
Ranch- great line about blinkers!!

[hurrikane]

This thread is probably the stupidest thing I've read here in a long time.

Joe, I thought you were going to play craps.
Be sure to play into the hard 10s on every roll...since the take doesn't matter.

[formula_2002]

hurrikane@HTR

Ah, to be so comfortable in our own certainty....
How blessed are you!!

At times I do wish I was a child again!!

[hurrikane]

One thing I am certain of...any kind of takeout matters.
You put money in, someone takes a chunk and then gives what's left over back.
How can you possibly say how much of a chunk they take doesn't matter? Of course it does. Unless you are a democrat.

To try to prove anything different, and then relate it to odds...well, lets just say, that would Joeish.

And you can't win being Joeish. Just ask Joe. :rolleyes:

[hurrikane]

I gotta tell you Joe, You actually seem like a nice guy. A little full of yourself, but a nice enough guy.

I just don't understand. You seem somewhat intelligent, you have a lot of useful data,.
The best you can do is come up with ways to lose.

I just don't understand and, as hard as I try, I guess I never will.

[alysheba88]

I agree with Seabiscuit and the earlier posters point. While lower takeout is of course preferred, and much props to NYRA for being a leader in this area, as a bettor one has to take into consideration the quality of the competition. Is it more profitable to play at a 19% track against squares or a 17% track against sharps? There is on easy answer. Most of us tend to follow certain circuits.

I will say also that the disparaties in takeout really grow more evident in the exotic wagers. There can be 5-10% difference easy in the payoffs. On payoffs that pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars thats a huge difference.

[hurrikane]

I'm not so sure the 'sharpies' are just concerned about takeout. They are likely more concerned about pool size. With what they are betting the pool has to be able to handle their action.
If MNR goes to a 5% takeout I don't think you're going to find a lot of 'sharpies' dumping in their pools.

I agree the biggest effect is in the exotics. When some tracks went to 14% P4 takeout the payouts significantly rose. I wish they would follow with the other exotics.

[karlskorner]

Everyone is of the opinion that the Track is reaping huge
profits from the "takeout"
Where does the takeout money from Thoroughbred and harness tracks go ? This is how the "takeout" monies are distributed for some or all the tracks.

Administrative costs, agricultural fairs, breeding and development funds, capital improvement, charitable uses. city government, county fair and recreation boards, county governments. education, equine research, equine drug research, health and retirement funds, Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Associations, horsemen's education, municipalities, owners funds, pension funds, promotion funds, purses, racetracks, racing commissions, simulcasting expenses, Sire STakes, stable-vanning funds, state auditors and inspectors, stallion awards, veterinary school research etc.

Which of the above would you like to see eliminated in order to "reduce" the takeout

[Racehorse]

The difference in the players between 14% and 19% will have an effect in a longer time frame in the redistribution of the "free money" ... *(the gap between 14 and 19)

A goodly portion of the posters seem to be quick to jump on Joe for expressing "a different outlook" without considering a lot of parameters other than their own bias.

I'm NOT casting stones at anyone.

I'm NOT saying that Joe is right.

But, I find myself thinking and considering altering my perspective when I read a view that is "strange", rather than lashing out.

I, myself, find it laughable that Joe puts up wth the ridicule and scorn, as well as Karl, and some others.
Not having read ALL the posts on this forum, nor intending to, and not having been here for multi years to form opinions of who is whom and who knows what and which posters are to be ignored most everyone starts out on an even footing with me.

I came here to PA to learn something, I do and have and hope to continue.

NOW ...
as to the sentence with which I started off this post

the players WILL make a dif, in the long run.... for themselves.

example

I'm going to Vegas this weekend, no dice, no gambling, just eating, looking, and betting on horses ...
BUT
and I repeat
BUT

some of the tables in Vegas have altered the payoff from 3/2 to 6/5 for a blackjack....
I've spoken to more than twenty folks who've been and played and there has only been two who've noticed.... or if they noticed moved their play to another location
and those TWO are the consistent winners......

now, that gives me pause to consider that the predominance of gamblers who shoot dice at Vegas just "might" be immune to a takeout move of such magnitue .. as well as the dif between 14 and 19 at the track ....

so, it appears to ME that Joe can be correct on his postulation and the others who have violently disagreed with him could be correct, also.....
but
in the long run the "good gamblers" will garner the "free money" into their coffers and the "mugs" won't even know the dif.

[alysheba88]

Karl

I am not trying to put words in your mouth and if I have misinterepreted, please accept my apologies.

But you seem to be suggesting that reducing takeout would reduce distributions to those organizations. Nothing could be further from the truth. NYRA's reductions have been a win-win for everyone. Players stay in the game longer and plow more money back into the product. NYRA has MADE MORE money since they reduced the takeout, not less. That money gets distributed in turn to the various organizations you cited. Reducing takeout was a great business decision. Obviously you can only go so low before it becomes counter productive, but we aren't close to that yet.

In short, reduced takeout HELPS not hurts those organizations. Unfortunately the short sighted hacks who run these organizations, and tracks in general, are too short sighted to realize. Thats why NYRA has the best management in the game

[GR1@HTR]

Karl,

Maybe you don't understand what a reduced take out does...
1) Increases handle
2) Gives more money back to the better
3) Gives more money back to the track cause a handful of betters will bet all they have. The better will "recycle" their dollars back into the track.

Tracks increase their handle and income when betters can stay in the game longer and put more dollars back into the system.

Why do you think slot machines are such money makers for the casinos. They have such a low takeout, but folks will continue to recyle thier dollars back into the machines till they are "done". The gambler feels better cause their bankroll goes further and the casino gets all their money.

A win/win situation.

[BIG HIT]

Racehorse i know you are a winner handicapping take's one thing for sure a open mind.Reguardless of how out of the way it maybe.Something can be learned from everyone or spark a new idea in yourself.Most of the hdcpr on this board are probably better then i.But there not all open mind i'am sure there were skeptic when somebody started talking pace in begining.?

[karlskorner]

I am aware the NYRA has had success with reduced takeout. But NYRA is a standalone and then there are the other 80 or so tracks. NYRA is the creme dela creme of thoroughbred racing, the big money goes there, always has, always will. A good portion of the 80 or so other tracks are gasping, they need help, I don't think slots are the answer. As I said awhile back, we in the near future may wind up with only NYRA, the South Calif. tracks and maybe GP. and a lot of simulcast locations.

[alysheba88]

I agree that NYRA has more interest and money behind it. But before Schwartz took over it too was being run into the ground. California took the lead as far as better quality racing and takeouts too. But all that has changed under current NYRA management. They were not afraid to challenge all the "you can't do that" naysayers. Because they are true racing people.

When you have racing people involved in management you will get a better product.

There are too many tracks right now. Racing takeout to usurious levels did not save Hialeah. I am sure other tracks will close. That is not necessarily a bad thing. There is too much racing right now.

The smaller innovative tracks will survive. Those who think gouging the public and treating their customers with utter disdain is their univeral right, will fall my the wayside. Good riddance.

[alysheba88]

I think slots are a great short to medium term solution. If you look at Delaware its hard to argue otherwise. But I agree its no long-term solution. There will be a saturation point. There are other things tracks and states can do to increase racing revenues. Increasing takeout is not one of them. Again, you need some creative minds addressing these issues, not dinausaurs from the w/p/s only past. Remember it wasnt that long ago that NYRA tracks didnt even have colorized silks!. The out of touch elites wanted "uniformity", betters be damned.

[GameTheory]

Let's get a couple of things straight:

-- With lower takeout the ROI of the public as a whole is BY DEFINITION higher. Therefore to argue that the ROI of all the individual members of the public remains the same is like arguing that 2 + 2 = 19. It is impossible.

-- There may or may not be "sharper" players attracted by lower takeouts. The question is whether the pools become that much more efficient with lower takeout. That can be determined, by not by Joe's method.

-- There is no way to tell to how exactly how certain individuals fare differently under different rates unless you track the bets of those individuals. There is no such thing in reality as an "average" bettor. The average is a mathematical construct -- not a real person. You have to track real people to find out what happens to them individually.

-- If you compare the 5/2 horses at 19% to the 5/2 horses at 14% the comparison is flawed because the 5/2-14% horse actually has a higher probability of winning (on average) after adjusting for takeout. This is what BillW was talking about. Since Joe's whole religion is based on the idea that horses run to the probabilities established by the odds, I would have thought he would have noticed that.


What does it all mean? With lower takeout, SOMEONE is making more money. If you think it is the "sharper" players make a disproportionate percentage of the increase, then you might be right -- that's why they're sharper.

But you can't tell that by looking at the "most populated" odds range, especially since we're comparing takeouts here and equal odds between the two ranges represent unequal probabilities.

I will run a query on my own database and see if I can determine if there is a significant difference in market efficiency.


Now then, about takeout rates and revenue. All takeout rates in North America, even NY, are certainly above optimal. The optimal point is the peak at which the tracks generate the most NET revenue. It is a single point. For all other points of revenue, there are TWO takeout rates that will acheive that same level of revenue -- one higher than the optimal & one lower. The optimal point is probably between 5-9%.

Note that to increase revenue by lowering takeout DOES NOT require that the track attract new players (although it inevitably will). The existing players will automatically recycle their money through the pools because they'll have more money to do so.

[hurrikane]

GT, why don't write congress on the tax bill. :D

[Larry Hamilton]

There are few people on this board who are worth listening to every time they post. GT is one for them. Well done, a cogent economics essay.

[Racehorse]

this is just a thought off the top of my pointy head which has NOT been mulled over and ramifictions considered ...
just a quickie thought so to speak with the idea of furthering a polite discussion ...

the "mug" and the "sharpie" ... lets say that is the entire universe of our population at the track .. no others

the mug has gone to have a good time
the sharpie has gone to increase his bankroll

now, these two ideas are not mutually exclusive .. for both ideas can be had and done by both types of player

the mug has gone with the conception that IF he loses, say a hundred bucks, he is relatively content and should he lose less he thinks he has done better
or WIN .. well, he has had a fabulous day

and with a lower takeout
he is gonna pour the dinero which he brought "to lose" through the windows with more abandon because he is getting more of it back when he cashes a ticket DUE to the lesser takeout

but with a higher takeout
he is still gonna go to the windows, just with not as much "total wagers"

and our sharpie *(a group into which I'm sure ALL the readers of PA are numbered <ggg>) he is gonna leave the track with a bit less money in his pocket because, after all it is paramutel gambling and the "profit avaialbe to him" is slightly lessed by the higher takeout ****(when compared to the lower takeout)

as I said, this is not well concieved in my head ...
but the way I see it ...
the resultant higher handle which seems to be achieved by lowering the takeout is a direct reslult of the mug betting more due to his having possession of his money more times before leaving it to be distributed to the lucky temporary winning mugs, and our ideal folks, the sharpies .... <ggggg>

so .. the things which are funded by the takeout ... already delineated .. have more money to "use"
and
everyone lives happily ever after

horse

btw .. I don't have a thin skin, so any remarks which are unkind will be disregarded ... I'm here to learn how to make MY bankroll increase with more rapidity at the track so, fire away ...
I can learn from dissent as well as from polite instructions <gggg>

[karlskorner]

Frank Stronch and CRC buried Hialeah, not the takeout. If Hialeah opened next year (which I doubt) the same players would be there in person and simulcast. The overall revenue of Del. is greater because of the slots, how much was the wagering on horses increased because the slots were in place ? The little old lady sitting in front of her machine is probably unaware that there is a horse race going on the other side of the wall.

[alysheba88]

Brunetti killed that place long long before Stronach came along. Worst individual to ever run a track.

[formula_2002]

using my interactive bankrool testing chart on my web page, I got the following results in 10 sets of 100 races.


based on 0 edge (effectively no take-out), average winning odds of 5-1.

5 of the sets were positive
5 of the sets were negative

after 10 sets of 100 bets the bankroll was -14%.


The table is an exel file and will allow you to see the formulas in each cell. Let me know if I have made any errors in the cell formulas.

Thanks

Joe M

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Let's get a couple of things straight:

-- With lower takeout the ROI of the public as a whole is BY DEFINITION higher. Therefore to argue that the ROI of all the individual members of the public remains the same is like arguing that 2 + 2 = 19. It is impossible.

-- There may or may not be "sharper" players attracted by lower takeouts. The question is whether the pools become that much more efficient with lower takeout. That can be determined, by not by Joe's method.

-- There is no way to tell to how exactly how certain individuals fare differently under different rates unless you track the bets of those individuals. There is no such thing in reality as an "average" bettor. The average is a mathematical construct -- not a real person. You have to track real people to find out what happens to them individually.

-- If you compare the 5/2 horses at 19% to the 5/2 horses at 14% the comparison is flawed because the 5/2-14% horse actually has a higher probability of winning (on average) after adjusting for takeout. This is what BillW was talking about. Since Joe's whole religion is based on the idea that horses run to the probabilities established by the odds, I would have thought he would have noticed that.


What does it all mean? With lower takeout, SOMEONE is making more money. If you think it is the "sharper" players make a disproportionate percentage of the increase, then you might be right -- that's why they're sharper.

But you can't tell that by looking at the "most populated" odds range, especially since we're comparing takeouts here and equal odds between the two ranges represent unequal probabilities.

I will run a query on my own database and see if I can determine if there is a significant difference in market efficiency.


Now then, about takeout rates and revenue. All takeout rates in North America, even NY, are certainly above optimal. The optimal point is the peak at which the tracks generate the most NET revenue. It is a single point. For all other points of revenue, there are TWO takeout rates that will acheive that same level of revenue -- one higher than the optimal & one lower. The optimal point is probably between 5-9%.

Note that to increase revenue by lowering takeout DOES NOT require that the track attract new players (although it inevitably will). The existing players will automatically recycle their money through the pools because they'll have more money to do so.

SHOW ME THE DATA....REAL WORLD STUFF..REFUTE MY FIGURES WITH YOUR'S OR ANYONE ELSE'S. I'M A WILLING LISTNER TO NUMBERS.

[Dave Schwartz]

Game Theory,

>>>-- With lower takeout the ROI of the public as a whole is BY DEFINITION higher.<<<

I recall one fall meet at Hol park a number of years ago that had so many $150+ horses that you could have bet every horse in every race and made a profit!

Theoretically what he says is possible... it depends upon the subset of horses you are betting.

However, I agree with you on this subject, but I disagree with this statment.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Game Theory,

>>>-- With lower takeout the ROI of the public as a whole is BY DEFINITION higher.<<<

I recall one fall meet at Hol park a number of years ago that had so many $150+ horses that you could have bet every horse in every race and made a profit!

Theoretically what he says is possible... it depends upon the subset of horses you are betting.

However, I agree with you on this subject, but I disagree with this statment.



By "as a whole" I mean the whole pool -- as if one person had bet the whole thing. The amount coming back is fixed even before the race is run, and more is coming back with lower takeout. So you have to bet on every horse, but also in the same proportion as the public.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by formula_2002
SHOW ME THE DATA....REAL WORLD STUFF..REFUTE MY FIGURES WITH YOUR'S OR ANYONE ELSE'S. I'M A WILLING LISTNER TO NUMBERS.


Re: your figures

What figures? Show me some figures.

[hurrikane]

go to my web site.

[formula_2002]

The answer to all this lies in the volatility of the game and the lack of understanding by some here, for the impact of the odds.


Regarding the simple flipping of a coin, according to John Allen Paulos, “ ..it’s considerably more likely that one could be ahead (or behind) more then 98% of the time, say, than one be ahead between 49 and 51% of the time.
And that is for a fixed 1-1 odds with no take-out.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Re: your figures

What figures? Show me some figures.

GT, just read the data i posted in this thread...
Gezze, what are you talking about if you haven't read the notes!!!

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by formula_2002
GT, just read the data i posted in this thread...
Gezze, what are you talking about if you haven't read the notes!!!

I've read them. You've made some statements that don't make sense, and can be shown to be wrong analytically (no data required). I think I've done that, and once again you dodge the questions by constantly parrotting "show me the data". What data do you need to see exactly for me to prove that 5/2 in a 19% takeout pool represents a lower probability than 5/2 in a 14% pool? Given that fact, don't you feel any need (in the name of intellectual honesty) to justify your comparisons of the same odds interval in two different pools with two different takeout rates? Do you need some data to show that a larger percentage of the pool is returned to the winners with lower takeout? Do you need to see the definition of the term "takeout"?

You've given some vague stats but I don't know what position they're supposed to support. You started this thread with the statement:

Although the tote board may say 5/2, the bettor is adjusting for the various take-outs when making his bet, thereby eliminating any benefit due to a lower take-out.

Maybe we agree after all, and all you were really getting at is that in a higher takeout pool, 5/2 horses win less often than they do in lower takeout pools? In which case we could have concluded this thread after the second post in which Whirlaway said:

Duh.


But it sure sounded like you were saying takeout doesn't matter, which is of course absurd and that's what we've been discussing. Are you saying the takeout doesn't matter *ONLY* in the 2.5-1 to 3.4-1 odds range?

[formula_2002]

gt.. unless you can support your claims with extensive hard data, as I have...case closed!!

don't be like hem and haw..be more like skippy and sniffy....

get out there and do the work....

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by formula_2002
gt.. unless you can support your claims with extensive hard data, as I have...case closed!!

don't be like hem and haw..be more like skippy and sniffy....

get out there and do the work....

WHAT CLAIMS?!

5/2 in a 19% pool represents a lower probability than in a 14% pool. It is a simple fact! RIGHT?

^^^^^ non-rhetorical question alert! ^^^^^^


For more non-rhetorical questions, see my last post. Just what are you claiming exactly? You are extremely vague...

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by GameTheory
WHAT CLAIMS?!

5/2 in a 19% pool represents a lower probability than in a 14% pool. It is a simple fact! RIGHT?

^^^^^ non-rhetorical question alert! ^^^^^^


For more non-rhetorical questions, see my last post. Just what are you claiming exactly? You are extremely vague...


GT this is Vague?

AGAIN...SHOW ME YOUR DATA!!!!

gT..In the odds range 2.5-1 and 3.4-1 (the most populated odds range)

Same time periord.

average take-out and breakage 14% to 16% (rounded off)
Bel 14 cent loss on the dollar (696 horses)
Aqu over 21 cent loss on the dollar (1104 horses)
SAR 8 cent loss on the dollar (345 horses)

average take-out and breakage 15% to 17% (rounded off)
gpx 20cent loss on the dollar (735 HORSES)


average take-out and breakage 17% to 19% (rounded off)
pha 17 cent loss on the dollar. (647 HORSES)


Perhaps after 1 million horses, things may come out the way you think they should.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by formula_2002
gt.. unless you can support your claims with extensive hard data, as I have...case closed!!

don't be like hem and haw..be more like skippy and sniffy....

get out there and do the work....

Please play into the inefficiencies of the high takeouts. Best wishes.

Now, that said, get me out of this thread! If this is what it takes to be a good handicapper, there is no hope for me!

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by formula_2002
GT this is Vague?

Yes, it is vague. There are some stats there. I'm interesting in the claim you are are making that is based (apparently) on those stats. Such a claim would be in English. I *think* I may have highlighted your claim in my earlier post, but I'm awaiting confirmation.

Is the following statement your claim?

Although the tote board may say 5/2, the bettor is adjusting for the various take-outs when making his bet, thereby eliminating any benefit due to a lower take-out.

Yes or no?

Is that the claim you are backing up with your data? If so, do you not find the fact that the odds interval you are examining has a different meaning probability-wise depending on the takeout rate?

I will state this simple, unrefutable fact, again:

5/2 in a 19% takeout pool represents a lower probability (a lower percentage of the total pool bet on that horse) than a 5/2 horse in a 14% takeout pool. This is a simple fact. Do you agree that it is a fact?

Yes or no?

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Yes, it is vague. There are some stats there. I'm interesting in the claim you are are making that is based (apparently) on those stats. Such a claim would be in English. I *think* I may have highlighted your claim in my earlier post, but I'm awaiting confirmation.

Is the following statement your claim?



Yes or no?

Is that the claim you are backing up with your data? If so, do you not find the fact that the odds interval you are examining has a different meaning probability-wise depending on the takeout rate?

I will state this simple, unrefutable fact, again:

5/2 in a 19% takeout pool represents a lower probability (a lower percentage of the total pool bet on that horse) than a 5/2 horse in a 14% takeout pool. This is a simple fact. Do you agree that it is a fact?

Yes or no?



DISMISSED OUT OF HAND,, NO DATA, NO COMMENT

[GameTheory]

You may have also noticed one of my questions earlier was, "What data do you want do see?" Another question you did not answer.

I think my mistake was in pursing this and other discussions with you as if you were an honest person in legitimate pursuit of the truth. I now see that you are what is commonly known on the internet as a "troll", and have no interest other than getting a rise out of other people.

I would like to apologize to the rest of the members of the board for taking so long to realize this (why didn't anyone tell me?), and you can all be rest assured I won't be fooled into the trap of responding to any more bait that Joe might leave festering on this board. No matter how wrong the statements are, no matter how tempted I might to correct the lies & misinformation; I now recognize that since Joe is not interested in the truth, the truth will not resolve anything.

I trust I have the support of the board, and one of you will be there to steady my hand and talk some sense into me should I succumb to the temptation at some future point to take the bait.

Sincerely,

GameTheory
founder & president, Formula_2002 anonymous

[formula_2002]

gt ,,words, words, words,,,,

SHOW ME THE DATA...

I thought you had more on the ball...

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe this isn't the same Joe M. I used to know from the old days? Could it be an imposter?? The Joe M. I used to know was no troll.

But this new Joe M....I don't know....seems a little strange to me...

Is there no method to the madness, or is it just madness in the method??? What am I saying????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Maybe this isn't the same Joe M. I used to know from the old days? Could it be an imposter?? The Joe M. I used to know was no troll.

But this new Joe M....I don't know....seems a little strange to me...

Is there no method to the madness, or is it just madness in the method??? What am I saying????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

stupid, vague, dishonest and now a troll!!

Wow..how to attract a crowd!!

(troll?):rolleyes:

[kenwoodall]

I like less sharpies! What is the takeout in France?

[JustRalph]

But...... in 90% of the posts by Formula 2002 they lack context and I stopped trying to make sense of them a long time ago. I just thought that he was posting info for insiders. I believed it was just information outside of my purview. Apparently not so, from some of the stuff in this thread. Am I wrong here?

It takes all kinds to fill the freeway.............

[diablogger]

Originally posted by GameTheory
I now recognize that since Joe is not interested in the truth, the truth will not resolve anything.

Nope, truth never does. It has to be accepted before it resolves anything.

Just like data never says anything by itself. It has to be interpreted. Which is why scientists disagree so often.

But then, there's no mathematician that would disagree with your point about probabilities. It has nothing to do with data whatsoever.