Kelly Horse Race or Ziemba Roulette

[jfdinneen]

In the spirit of the New Year, I offer the following thought-provoking argument:

Betting is often described as a competition between you and the "Crowd" (i.e. Pari-Mutuel) on which of you can better estimate the true distribution of odds in a particular sporting event. In that context, a good starting point is to ask Bill Benter's fundamental question of handicapping: what additional variables (if any) explain a significant proportion of the variance in results to date that is not already accounted for by the public odds (Wisdom of Crowds)? By keeping records, it is possible to determine whether or not you have been successful over time in so doing. However, it is not possible to know (in advance) if you have an overlay in an upcoming event. This is the fundamental flaw of handicapping and, eo ipso, the flaw of fundamental handicapping.

The alternative approach is technical trading and an often underestimated strategy is "Bold Play" and its variants. Bold play is recommended for subfair games (i.e. p < 0.5, assuming even money bet; see SEER (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41763) to calculate p for other prices) and, given the high-level of taxation, one can argue that horse-racing qualifies. Without going into the mathematical details and assuming a little "poetic licence", bold play reduces to an algorithm comprising two rules:
__a) Bet amount to reach target bankroll in single event (e.g. one race); or
__b) Bet amount in current event to reach bankroll level from which it is possible to attain target bankroll in next event.
You will no doubt immediately recognize that it is possible to iterate rule b) over many events (e.g. complete racecard) but, ideally, you want to minimize the number of iterations. This technical trading approach only requires information on current bankroll, target bankroll, number of remaining events, house limits, and access to the public odds.

In summary, the advice to use fundamental handicapping to find overlays which you then exploit using edge-based staking (Kelly, 1956) assumes a superfair game but if, in fact, the game is essentially subfair then technical trading is recommended using bold play (Ziemba, 2002) or one of its variants in as few iterations as is feasible given whatever constraints are in place (e.g. maximum stakes).

John

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

Is this your blog?
http://vendire-ludorum.blogspot.com/2010/01/kelly-horse-race-or-ziemba-roulette.html


I find your post both illuminating and timely. At the very moment of refreshing PA and seeing your post, I had just completed an hour-long brainstorming session with my wife. (I lecture, she listens until I understand the solution.)

The topic of this session, as well as many recent sessions is, "How to make a value assessment when final odds do not exist[/i]" coupled with a good dose of "How to overcome the whales when they are right so often."

What I have been working on for the last several months (though it seems like decades) is to find a way to use the whales rather than be used by them. A lesser but not altogether bad alternative is to nullify the impact of the whales on my selection process.

The strength of my own handicapping is that it picks great contenders. Not good, but great. So great, in fact, that I can wager 3-4 of them per race flat and come within 4.5% of even. When all is said and done, one finds that profit begins with the 3.5th public choice.

Of course, that is all hindsight - as one cannot truly discern which horses will be what odds with any degree of certainty before the race is run.


In the very end of my lecture I had just reached the point of targeting which contender(s) to bet - the point of the whole exercise I am sure you will agree. (One can only assume how much love it takes to listen to MY lectures willingly on a regular basis.)

That was when it hit me... Pick the contender that you need in order to put yourself in the best position to win the "game!"


The approach you are outlining here is - effectively - a due column approach to wagering. Yes?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: Thanks for the great links.

[Overlay]

I agree that a "maximum boldness" betting strategy is optimal in an unfair game. But if pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing were unfair in the same sense that casino games of pure chance are unfair, I would cease all handicapping activity today.

I disagree with the basic premise that it's not possible to predict (in terms of probabilities of occurrence, rather than with absolute certainty) the various outcomes of future events in racing. Are you saying that horse racing does not contain detectable performance patterns that repeat themselves over and over? Or what would be the use of keeping the records to which you refer, if not as a means, not just of knowing to what degree you have achieved overall success in the past, but of being able to improve performance through distinguishing handicapping/betting actions that produce positive results, or that offer an edge to the player, from those that do not?

[Robert Fischer]

If pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing were unfair in the same sense that casino games of pure chance are unfair, I would cease all handicapping activity today.

I disagree with the basic premise that it's not possible to predict (in terms of probabilities, rather than with absolute certainty) the likelihood of various outcomes of future events in racing.
Exactly.


the OP starts out strong including:
In the spirit of the New Year, I offer the following thought-provoking argument:

Betting is often described as a competition between you and the "Crowd" (i.e. Pari-Mutuel) on which of you can better estimate the true distribution of odds in a particular sporting event. In that context, a good starting point is to ask Bill Benter's fundamental question of handicapping: what additional variables (if any) explain a significant proportion of the variance in results to date that is not already accounted for by the public odds (Wisdom of Crowds)? By keeping records, it is possible to determine whether or not you have been successful over time in so doing.

[jfdinneen]

John,

Is this your blog?
http://vendire-ludorum.blogspot.com/2010/01/kelly-horse-race-or-ziemba-roulette.html
...
In the very end of my lecture I had just reached the point of targeting which contender(s) to bet - the point of the whole exercise I am sure you will agree. (One can only assume how much love it takes to listen to MY lectures willingly on a regular basis.)

That was when it hit me... Pick the contender that you need in order to put yourself in the best position to win the "game!"
...


Dave,

Happy New Year!
__a) Yes, that is my blog.
__b) You are absolutely correct that winning war is what counts, not any specific battle. That is why you should set goals (interim targets) and then project how to reach those goals as quickly as possible.
__c) Not recommending system betting, simply reflecting two basic conceptual approaches (i.e. fundamental and technical) to same end result.

John

[gm10]

In the spirit of the New Year, I offer the following thought-provoking argument:

Betting is often described as a competition between you and the "Crowd" (i.e. Pari-Mutuel) on which of you can better estimate the true distribution of odds in a particular sporting event. In that context, a good starting point is to ask Bill Benter's fundamental question of handicapping: what additional variables (if any) explain a significant proportion of the variance in results to date that is not already accounted for by the public odds (Wisdom of Crowds)? By keeping records, it is possible to determine whether or not you have been successful over time in so doing. However, it is not possible to know (in advance) if you have an overlay in an upcoming event. This is the fundamental flaw of handicapping and, eo ipso, the flaw of fundamental handicapping.

I don't think I agree with the last two sentences - unless I misunderstood. Why would you not know whether you have an overlay or not? Your input variables must be known at the time of the race, so you can calculate your own odds and compare with the public's odds.

There is the problem of getting fixed odds, but that is definitely a local, American problem - and not an insurmountable one either.

As a side remark: Benter mixes his own probabilities with the crowd's probabilities. This is not the best way to measure how much variance you are explaining. This measures how much variance you and the public combined, can explain.



The alternative approach is technical trading and an often underestimated strategy is "Bold Play" and its variants. Bold play is recommended for subfair games (i.e. p < 0.5, assuming even money bet; see SEER (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41763) to calculate p for other prices) and, given the high-level of taxation, one can argue that horse-racing qualifies. Without going into the mathematical details and assuming a little "poetic licence", bold play reduces to an algorithm comprising two rules:
__a) Bet amount to reach target bankroll in single event (e.g. one race); or
__b) Bet amount in current event to reach bankroll level from which it is possible to attain target bankroll in next event.
You will no doubt immediately recognize that it is possible to iterate rule b) over many events (e.g. complete racecard) but, ideally, you want to minimize the number of iterations. This technical trading approach only requires information on current bankroll, target bankroll, number of remaining events, house limits, and access to the public odds.

In summary, the advice to use fundamental handicapping to find overlays which you then exploit using edge-based staking (Kelly, 1956) assumes a superfair game but if, in fact, the game is essentially subfair then technical trading is recommended using bold play (Ziemba, 2002) or one of its variants in as few iterations as is feasible given whatever constraints are in place (e.g. maximum stakes).

John

I wasn't familiar with the concept of Bold Play. Thanks for the post.
Can you post a link that contains more mathematical details?

[jfdinneen]

...Are you saying that horse racing does not contain detectable performance patterns that repeat themselves over and over? Or what would be the use of keeping the records to which you refer, if not as a means, not just of knowing to what degree you have achieved overall success in the past, but of being able to improve performance through distinguishing handicapping/betting actions that produce positive results, or that offer an edge to the player, from those that do not?
Overlay,

Happy New Year!
You are correct that, using fundamental handicapping, one can detect repeatable performance patterns and make reasonable estimates of the probability of the future occurrence of those same patterns. The problem is that, as more handicappers acquire knowledge of these patterns, you lose the advantage (mutual information as measured by Kullback-Leibler distance) with respect to the public odds (semi-strong market efficiency).

John

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

I have tried to reconcile that with Tsun Tsu's Art of War where he discusses retract while losing and advance when winning. However, that is based upon the idea that you can make/conscript more soldiers while retracting.

It would seem that with a finite number of soldiers a better plan is to constantly put your enemy in the position of fearing a total loss, or as you have eluded to, two losses in a row cost the enemy his kingdom.

This is especially true in a skirmish-within-a-battle-within-a-war. That is, a session that one can play very aggressively, knowing that there are many more sessions to be played.

Are you aware of any warfare strategies that effectively "parlay?"

Are you familiar with http://vptruth.com/?


Dave

PS: Happy New Year to you. How's the weather?

[jfdinneen]

Robert,

Happy New Year!
Not sure if you had a specific question?

John

[jfdinneen]

I don't think I agree with the last two sentences - unless I misunderstood. Why would you not know whether you have an overlay or not? Your input variables must be known at the time of the race, so you can calculate your own odds and compare with the public's odds.
There is the problem of getting fixed odds, but that is definitely a local, American problem - and not an insurmountable one either.
As a side remark: Benter mixes his own probabilities with the crowd's probabilities. This is not the best way to measure how much variance you are explaining. This measures how much variance you and the public combined, can explain.
I wasn't familiar with the concept of Bold Play. Thanks for the post.
Can you post a link that contains more mathematical details?

gm10,

Happy New Year!
__a) I agree that you can make necessary calculations (see reply to Overlay).
__b) Benter and Variance: You are inadvertently mixing two separate issues, identifying valid variables (fundamental law of handicapping) and aggregating one's own odds distribution with that of public, Benter did both. Maybe, I misunderstood your point!
__c) Mathematical background
_____1) Classic: L. E. Dubins and L. J. Savage (1965). How to Gamble If You Must: Inequalities for Stochastic Processes. McGraw-Hill.
_____2) Recommended: S. N. Ethier (2009). The Doctrine of Chances: Probabilistic Aspects of Gambling. Springer.
_____3) Various: Kulldorff (1993), Ziemba (2002)

John

[Robert Fischer]

Robert,

Happy New Year!
Not sure if you had a specific question?

John

Happy New Year

[jfdinneen]

...Are you aware of any warfare strategies that effectively "parlay?"

Are you familiar with http://vptruth.com/?
...


Dave,

__a) Not sure I fully understand your question on Parlay. Can you clarify or give example?
__b) Not familiar with Rob Singer - does not appear to respect mathematical rigor so I should probably avoid comment!
__c) Respectable 0C / 32F, but no snow for last few days.

John

[Overlay]

Overlay,

Happy New Year!
You are correct that, using fundamental handicapping, one can detect repeatable performance patterns and make reasonable estimates of the probability of the future occurrence of those same patterns. The problem is that, as more handicappers acquire knowledge of these patterns, you lose the advantage (mutual information as measured by Kullback-Leibler distance) with respect to the public odds (semi-strong market efficiency).

John

John,

Happy New Year to you as well!

I certainly recognize what you say. It's especially prevalent in cases where betting decisions are made on the basis of an individual variable or angle that is designed to isolate a single horse, and that then gets overbet into unprofitability on a stand-alone basis as public awareness of the effectiveness of the variable or angle increases. The same could theoretically happen to full-field odds-lines based on a properly weighted and balanced/distributed mix of fundamental factors, but I regard it as much less likely that the public (despite having more aggregate information than any individual) would ever reach the point of sending every horse in every race off at odds that offered no discernible value to the bettor on any entrant.

[jfdinneen]

Overlay,

I agree that the doomsday scenario is not very likely but the golden rule is that once you have a discernible advantage you must both NOT share it with others and exploit it to the hilt until the market assimilates the pattern (which it will, eventually). Then, you must just as quickly drop it and move on!

I disagree with those who claim to religiously follow any particular, publicly available strategy (e.g. speed, pace, form cycles, trainer patterns) as these approaches will most likely be baked into the public odds. Yes, they can successfully predict winners but it is very unlikely they will be profitable long-term.

John

[sjk]

I have been doing the same thing for 15 years and have not seem any degradation of my results.

The only thing I use is the information in the charts I download daily.

[jfdinneen]

sjk,

Happy New Year!
In other words, you have some "information" that is not currently assimilated into the public odds!

John

[sjk]

Happy New Year to you John and to the others as well.

SK

[Overlay]

Overlay,

I agree that the doomsday scenario is not very likely but the golden rule is that once you have a discernible advantage you must both NOT share it with others and exploit it to the hilt until the market assimilates the pattern (which it will, eventually). Then, you must just as quickly drop it and move on!

I disagree with those who claim to religiously follow any particular, publicly available strategy (e.g. speed, pace, form cycles, trainer patterns) as these approaches will most likely be baked into the public odds. Yes, they can successfully predict winners but it is very unlikely they will be profitable long-term.

John

John,

Yes, having to continually find new angles or approaches is a hallmark of "pick-the-winner" type systems, since (as you point out) as information about the system gets out, and the market assimilates that information, the horses selected by the system lose their value.

However, I don't believe that the public (while remarkably accurate in the overall, cumulative setting of odds) will or can ever perfectly reflect the relative influence of each handicapping factor for every horse in every race.

It is in those individual cases where (for whatever reason) the public has underestimated the chances of success of a horse or combination, that an advantage can be gained, without the customary worry about "the word getting out". As long as you're considering the chances of each horse in the field, as the odds on one go down, odds on one or more others must go up, potentially turning them into favorable betting propositions -- barring (as I indicated) the theoretically possible but (in my view) highly unlikely case where the public accurately assesses the true chances of success for each horse and combination in the race.

This allows the handicapper to get off the treadmill of continually having to "re-invent the wheel" or stay one step ahead of public by finding new angles that haven't been discovered yet. It also means that the handicapper no longer has to play his cards close to the vest, or worry about sharing information with others.

[therussmeister]

I have been doing the same thing for 15 years and have not seem any degradation of my results.

The only thing I use is the information in the charts I download daily.

I too, in my 25 years of handicapping can think of no situation where the crowd seemed to learn anything on their own.

The only change in how the crowd bets has been caused by the publishing of new handicapping books, or articles, or more information added to the Form.

That's why I consider handicapping writers to be my mortal enemy.

[TrifectaMike]

In the spirit of the New Year, I offer the following thought-provoking argument:

Betting is often described as a competition between you and the "Crowd" (i.e. Pari-Mutuel) on which of you can better estimate the true distribution of odds in a particular sporting event. In that context, a good starting point is to ask Bill Benter's fundamental question of handicapping: what additional variables (if any) explain a significant proportion of the variance in results to date that is not already accounted for by the public odds (Wisdom of Crowds)? By keeping records, it is possible to determine whether or not you have been successful over time in so doing. However, it is not possible to know (in advance) if you have an overlay in an upcoming event. This is the fundamental flaw of handicapping and, eo ipso, the flaw of fundamental handicapping.

The alternative approach is technical trading and an often underestimated strategy is "Bold Play" and its variants. Bold play is recommended for subfair games (i.e. p < 0.5, assuming even money bet; see SEER (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41763) to calculate p for other prices) and, given the high-level of taxation, one can argue that horse-racing qualifies. Without going into the mathematical details and assuming a little "poetic licence", bold play reduces to an algorithm comprising two rules:
__a) Bet amount to reach target bankroll in single event (e.g. one race); or
__b) Bet amount in current event to reach bankroll level from which it is possible to attain target bankroll in next event.
You will no doubt immediately recognize that it is possible to iterate rule b) over many events (e.g. complete racecard) but, ideally, you want to minimize the number of iterations. This technical trading approach only requires information on current bankroll, target bankroll, number of remaining events, house limits, and access to the public odds.

In summary, the advice to use fundamental handicapping to find overlays which you then exploit using edge-based staking (Kelly, 1956) assumes a superfair game but if, in fact, the game is essentially subfair then technical trading is recommended using bold play (Ziemba, 2002) or one of its variants in as few iterations as is feasible given whatever constraints are in place (e.g. maximum stakes).

John

Happy New Year to all!

John brings up a topic in Chance Probability which is not widely discussed. This subject matter is only tangently related to overlays or an ensemble of subjective probabilities which gives rise to the the tote odds.

Bold Play( or goal stretegies ) are optimal strategies for unfair or nearly fair games, which horse racing can be considered as such a game. As often happens with certain aspects of probability the solutions frequently are counterintutive.

Without getting deeply into the the mathemetics, the basic idea is as follows:

Let's play any game, and let us define a goal.

Grow $100 into $150 (p[Win] = 48% not too unfair)

If we bet $1 at a time: P[reach $150] approximately X% (X is very small).


If we bet $5 at a time: P[reach $150] approximately 1,000's times more likely to reach $150 than $1 bet.


If we bet $20 at a time: P[reach $150] approximately 10,000's times more likely to reach goal than $1 bet.

A goal or target for Bold Play can be set for a singular event or a series of events.

I personally use a form of Bold play since I view a race as a singular event and always attenpt to maximize my profit for that event, and have no interest in averages.

Mike

[gm10]

gm10,

Happy New Year!
__a) I agree that you can make necessary calculations (see reply to Overlay).
__b) Benter and Variance: You are inadvertently mixing two separate issues, identifying valid variables (fundamental law of handicapping) and aggregating one's own odds distribution with that of public, Benter did both. Maybe, I misunderstood your point!
__c) Mathematical background
_____1) Classic: L. E. Dubins and L. J. Savage (1965). How to Gamble If You Must: Inequalities for Stochastic Processes. McGraw-Hill.
_____2) Recommended: S. N. Ethier (2009). The Doctrine of Chances: Probabilistic Aspects of Gambling. Springer.
_____3) Various: Kulldorff (1993), Ziemba (2002)

John

Thx for the reference - I will check them out.

Wrt b), I know Benter did both, but I didn't agree with his statement that he could use the mixed model to measure how much he was adding to the crowd's wisdom. Variance of a sum = sum of variances + covariance. If the covariance was 0 his statement would be true (but it isn't).

[Track Collector]

Bold Play( or goal stretegies ) are optimal strategies for unfair or nearly fair games, which horse racing can be considered as such a game. As often happens with certain aspects of probability the solutions frequently are counterintutive.

Is racing really an "unfair" game with regards to ALL players? If a person has demonstrated a nice edge over a long period of time, have they then not turned the game away from unfair for themselves? Having a confirmed edge dictates a MINIMUM boldness strategy vs. a MAXIMUM one, does it not? The purpose of a minimum strategy is to protect one from tapping out or crippling a bankroll during short-term normal variation loosing streaks (that are naturally found within long-term, profitable wagering activity.).

[markgoldie]

Is racing really an "unfair" game with regards to ALL players? If a person has demonstrated a nice edge over a long period of time, have they then not turned the game away from unfair for themselves? Having a confirmed edge dictates a MINIMUM boldness strategy vs. a MAXIMUM one, does it not? The purpose of a minimum strategy is to protect one from tapping out or crippling a bankroll during short-term normal variation loosing streaks (that are naturally found within long-term, profitable wagering activity.).
Good point and key to this discussion. Very few (if any) of us here have pressing goals for our wagering such that we MUST make X amount of dollars in a given period of time. Were this the case and assuming a capitulation of ability such that we recognize this as an unfair game, then if we needed $1000 to pay the rent and we had $100 to our name, then picking any race at random and betting the $100 to win on the horse who closed at 9-1 would be the optimal strategy for paying the rent. The Bold Play strategy is not germane to many, if any, bettors on this forum, since as a group we (a) do not agree that even with selective-angle betting there exists an unfair (ie. negative expectation) game and (b) even if we did admit that despite all efforts, we were unable to garner an edge, it is doubtful that we would subsequently depend on playing the races for needed capital. In short: Bold Play is interesting and clearly correct under the proper circumstances, which thankfully do not apply to those of us here.

[TrifectaMike]

Is racing really an "unfair" game with regards to ALL players? If a person has demonstrated a nice edge over a long period of time, have they then not turned the game away from unfair for themselves? Having a confirmed edge dictates a MINIMUM boldness strategy vs. a MAXIMUM one, does it not? The purpose of a minimum strategy is to protect one from tapping out or crippling a bankroll during short-term normal variation loosing streaks (that are naturally found within long-term, profitable wagering activity.).
I agree. It is not an unfair game for all players. If one is in the minority has positively proved to themself that they have a real edge, then there are numerous ways to wager... which they are "comfortable" with. However, for the vast majority horse race betting is not a positive expectation game. The purpose of my post was to describe Bold Play in general terms, and why it is appealing to some.

There are positive attributes to goal setting or session play. Actually too numerous to explain here. Minimum boldness retards growth. Do you think Kelly is a mimimum boldness approach? I don't believe so, unless you are dealing with averages and fractional Kelly. Even with a postive edge there is a significant probability of ruin. Sure in in the long term capital will grow indefinitely. Unfortunately, we play in a finite world. And yes, under Kelly the expectation of capital grows exponentially and so does the standard deviation, which in fact increases faster than the expectation.

Kelly when interpreted and used in the strictest sense ( not according to averages, but for singular events) is a Bold Play approach.

Addressing something Dave said about battles and wars in relation to wagering, I partly agree with his view, expect I don't "fight" battles. Instead I view each race as a war. This distinction may appear subtle, but it is not. My intent is to maximize returns from a single race, and not from a time series of plays. As I said I disdain averages, and most distributions distort the true nature of racing, from odds distribution to fundamental factors.

Mike

[lansdale]

I agree. It is not an unfair game for all players. If one is in the minority has positively proved to themself that they have a real edge, then there are numerous ways to wager... which they are "comfortable" with. However, for the vast majority horse race betting is not a positive expectation game. The purpose of my post was to describe Bold Play in general terms, and why it is appealing to some.

There are positive attributes to goal setting or session play. Actually too numerous to explain here. Minimum boldness retards growth. Do you think Kelly is a mimimum boldness approach? I don't believe so, unless you are dealing with averages and fractional Kelly. Even with a postive edge there is a significant probability of ruin. Sure in in the long term capital will grow indefinitely. Unfortunately, we play in a finite world. And yes, under Kelly the expectation of capital grows exponentially and so does the standard deviation, which in fact increases faster than the expectation.

Kelly when interpreted and used in the strictest sense ( not according to averages, but for singular events) is a Bold Play approach.

Addressing something Dave said about battles and wars in relation to wagering, I partly agree with his view, expect I don't "fight" battles. Instead I view each race as a war. This distinction may appear subtle, but it is not. My intent is to maximize returns from a single race, and not from a time series of plays. As I said I disdain averages, and most distributions distort the true nature of racing, from odds distribution to fundamental factors.

Mike

Hi Mike,

You seem to think of Kelly as 'bold' strategy, but it's worth remembering that Kelly assumes that one is playing with an edge. As you correctly point out, the vast majority, likely more than 99% of players, are playing with no edge. I would venture that wagering without an edge, effectively throwing one's money away, is a far 'bolder' endeavor than using Kelly with an edge.

I know several blackjack players who are in the process of tallying their typical annual ca. 100k wins. All use fractional Kelly for bet-sizing, as did William Benter. Their risk-of-ruin is in the range of .005 to .01. Too bold?

Cheers,

lansdale

[TrifectaMike]

Hi Mike,

You seem to think of Kelly as 'bold' strategy, but it's worth remembering that Kelly assumes that one is playing with an edge. As you correctly point out, the vast majority, likely more than 99% of players, are playing with no edge. I would venture that wagering without an edge, effectively throwing one's money away, is a far 'bolder' endeavor than using Kelly with an edge.

I know several blackjack players who are in the process of tallying their typical annual ca. 100k wins. All use fractional Kelly for bet-sizing, as did William Benter. Their risk-of-ruin is in the range of .005 to .01. Too bold?

Cheers,

lansdale

You've made my point...All use fractional Kelly for bet-sizing

Why don't they proceed with full Kelly?

Mike

[Robert Goren]

Is it just me? or does reading this thread give you a headache too?:)

[jfdinneen]

Happy New Year to all!
...
Bold Play( or goal stretegies ) are optimal strategies for unfair or nearly fair games, which horse racing can be considered as such a game. As often happens with certain aspects of probability the solutions frequently are counterintutive.
...
Mike

Mike,

Happy New Year!
You will agree that the most interesting but not often quoted statistic is that less than 1% (maximum) of bettors make a "living" salary from professional sports. If this is so, then it is reasonable to conclude that, for the majority of handicappers, the markets are semi-strong efficient and consequently they do not have a positive advantage over the crowd (public odds). In that light, it is pointless recommending to them that they use edge-based staking as they will continually lose their bankroll ((-expectation) * turnover > bankroll). Negative expectation guarantees ruin with probability of one as number of plays increases but, in the short-term, volatility dominates!

As you know, Bold Play "exploits" the standard deviation of final outcomes to push a certain percentage of bettors into profitability. Therefore, setting daily, weekly, or monthly goals and working out the shortest path to that goal in line with the following constraints may be a more reasonable strategy:
__a) Minimize expected loss per session (e.g. -$0.02);
__b) Maximize volatility of final outcomes (e.g. $55);
__c) Maximum bankroll drawdown limit (e.g. 20%); and
__d) Minimum number of events (e.g. 10).

Subjecting the strategy to both a) and b) above means that you can set a reasonable number of trades per session as it will take some time before the expectation will "swamp" the volatility.

In summary, the goal is to find the longest "short-term" path to the target bankroll within which the standard deviation of final outcomes continues to dominate the expected loss per session!

John

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't one of the concepts here based upon the fact that the worse your advantage (to the point of being a disadvantage) the better "bold strategy" is for your game plan?


Dave

[TrifectaMike]

Mike,

Happy New Year!
You will agree that the most interesting but not often quoted statistic is that less than 1% (maximum) of bettors make a "living" salary from professional sports. If this is so, then it is reasonable to conclude that, for the majority of handicappers, the markets are semi-strong efficient and consequently they do not have a positive advantage over the crowd (public odds). In that light, it is pointless recommending to them that they use edge-based staking as they will continually lose their bankroll ((-expectation) * turnover > bankroll). Negative expectation guarantees ruin with probability of one as number of plays increases but, in the short-term, volatility dominates!

As you know, Bold Play "exploits" the standard deviation of final outcomes to push a certain percentage of bettors into profitability. Therefore, setting daily, weekly, or monthly goals and working out the shortest path to that goal in line with the following constraints may be a more reasonable strategy:
__a) Minimize expected loss per session (e.g. -$0.02);
__b) Maximize volatility of final outcomes (e.g. $55);
__c) Maximum bankroll drawdown limit (e.g. 20%); and
__d) Minimum number of events (e.g. 10).

Subjecting the strategy to both a) and b) above means that you can set a reasonable number of trades per session as it will take some time before the expectation will "swamp" the volatility.

In summary, the goal is to find the longest "short-term" path to the target bankroll within which the standard deviation of final outcomes continues to dominate the expected loss per session!

John

Let me make it clear. I am not an advocate for playing negative expectation games. I am merely presenting information.

With that said, the critical item is (d). Although playing a negative expectation game at a level stake (without strategy) will lead to ruin, the number of events (races) can be approximated with an associated probability of 1 for ruin.

However, the more aggressive Bold Play which increases the the probability of winning under volatility events (races played) are greatly reduced to maximize the winning probability.

To put it more simply. The expected loss of Bold Play is much less for each session and that without Bold Play (Strategy) the expected value is about 0. However, with repeated use of Bold Play one will lose much, much more by the time the player without strategy loses their bankroll.

Determining (d) is not a simple matter. It is not obvious to me. Increasing the number of events reduces the probability of winning the session, but decreases losses. Decreasing the number of events increases the probability of winning the session, but exposes one to greater losses.

Mike

[jfdinneen]

John,
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't one of the concepts here based upon the fact that the worse your advantage (to the point of being a disadvantage) the better "bold strategy" is for your game plan?
Dave
Dave,

You are correct in concluding that the "Bold Play" strategy is predicated on facing a negative expectation event. To counter the negative impact of expectation, bold play deliberately increases the standard deviation of final outcomes so that, with equivalent starting bankrolls, some bettors will become profitable and others will go bankrupt more quickly! Note that most handicappers overestimate how quickly expectation will dominate volatility.

John

[jfdinneen]

Let me make it clear. I am not an advocate for playing negative expectation games. I am merely presenting information.
With that said, the critical item is (d). Although playing a negative expectation game at a level stake (without strategy) will lead to ruin, the number of events (races) can be approximated with an associated probability of 1 for ruin.
However, the more aggressive Bold Play which increases the the probability of winning under volatility events (races played) are greatly reduced to maximize the winning probability.
To put it more simply. The expected loss of Bold Play is much less for each session and that without Bold Play (Strategy) the expected value is about 0. However, with repeated use of Bold Play one will lose much, much more by the time the player without strategy loses their bankroll.
Determining (d) is not a simple matter. It is not obvious to me. Increasing the number of events reduces the probability of winning the session, but decreases losses. Decreasing the number of events increases the probability of winning the session, but exposes one to greater losses.
Mike
Mike,

Apologies, if you believed that I was suggesting you recommended playing negative expectation games.
As you know, "Bold Play" falls under the heading "How to Gamble If You Must?" when faced with negative expectation games. What I was trying to get across (unsuccessfully - my fault) was that if the majority of handicappers do not have an exploitable edge over the "Crowd" (Public Odds) then is it wise to continue advising them to use edge-based staking (unless someone repeals the laws of mathematics, they will go bankrupt).

John

[TrifectaMike]

The strength of my own handicapping is that it picks great contenders. Not good, but great. So great, in fact, that I can wager 3-4 of them per race flat and come within 4.5% of even. When all is said and done, one finds that profit begins with the 3.5th public choice.

Of course, that is all hindsight - as one cannot truly discern which horses will be what odds with any degree of certainty before the race is run.


So, your question is

Is it possible to develop a predictor for the 3.5th public choice plus some acceptable error?

Does an adequate predictor exist? Maybe or maybe not. I actually don't know. It is an interesting exercise. However, I can suggest a starting point for you.

The odds distribution follows a power law.

Mike

P.S. Dave, you are an interesting fellow. You're always thinking outside the box. Always exploring, thinking, adapting concepts, and quite often right.

[ReplayRandall]

I'm BUMPING this nearly 6 yr. old thread because it truly is worth a read, from start to finish.....Trust me on this one, you'll find some real nuggets here.

[overthehill]

yes this is a fascinating discussion. trying to predict final odds based on information that you have say with a the toteboard reading 1 minute to post time.

That could be the subject of a dissertation. In general, i would say that final odds of horse over 10-1 are pretty impossible to predict. as a general rule . if a horse is an obvious favorite the odds are going to be from 4/5-6/5 and not usually bettable. in races where there is an obvious odds on favorite everyone looks like an overlay. so the key question becomes how likely is this odds on favorite to win. and how easy is that to evaluate. in general I believe that if you arent keyed on a horse that isnt among the first two morning line favorites and isnt the actual favorite, it is likely that the odds you see are goiing to be about what you get or better.

[lansdale]

This thread is a discussion on the merits of whether 'bold play' can be a profitable strategy for the 99+% of horseplayers who are effectively playing a negative expectation game. For those who have followed his posts, this seems to be the strategy suggested by Delta Lover, who, like jd, doesn't believe it's possible to achieve a long-term edge over the betting public. jd is a very smart man, but I think his conjecture was effectively refuted here by Overlay, TM, and sjk.

[Magister Ludi]

yes this is a fascinating discussion. trying to predict final odds based on information that you have say with a the toteboard reading 1 minute to post time.

That could be the subject of a dissertation. In general, i would say that final odds of horse over 10-1 are pretty impossible to predict. as a general rule . if a horse is an obvious favorite the odds are going to be from 4/5-6/5 and not usually bettable. in races where there is an obvious odds on favorite everyone looks like an overlay. so the key question becomes how likely is this odds on favorite to win. and how easy is that to evaluate. in general I believe that if you arent keyed on a horse that isnt among the first two morning line favorites and isnt the actual favorite, it is likely that the odds you see are goiing to be about what you get or better.

There is a simple, yet accurate method of predicting final pari-mutuel odds. My final tote model uses that method plus two other submodels. Average error <1%. No further information forthcoming.

[steveb]

There is a simple, yet accurate method of predicting final pari-mutuel odds. My final tote model uses that method plus two other submodels. Average error <1%. No further information forthcoming.

it always intrigues me when this happens.
may i ask what was the point of your posting anything then?

[thaskalos]

There is a simple, yet accurate method of predicting final pari-mutuel odds. My final tote model uses that method plus two other submodels. Average error <1%. No further information forthcoming.

Please don't think that your display of secrecy isn't appreciated. :ThmbUp:

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I'm BUMPING this nearly 6 yr. old thread because it truly is worth a read, from start to finish.....Trust me on this one, you'll find some real nuggets here.

I read this entire thread, and came away with these nuggets:

1. If your handicapping stinks, an advanced betting method ain't gonna help....much.
2. Contrary to popular opinion (on this forum), some edges in horse racing do NOT disappear over time.
3. Advanced betting strategies (i.e., Kelly or Bold Play) are nice in theory, and perhaps have their merits, but are not easily adopted by the average player without the computer assisted tools.
4. Almost six years have gone by, and I imagine The Detective still has a headache.
5. I'll agree that predicting final odds is not that difficult, though within 1% is pretty extreme.
6. I'll state that predicting final odds without tote input is very, very difficult.
7. I won't be expecting to find a good book to help with my handicapping (unless Thask comes through) or a good book to help with final odds prediction any time soon.
8. While I may be giving away a couple of percentage points of ROI without using an advanced betting method, until my handicapping improves I've got bigger fish to fry.

BTW - RR I do appreciate the thread bump. Not totally applicable to me, but interesting.

[lansdale]

I read this entire thread, and came away with these nuggets:

1. If your handicapping stinks, an advanced betting method ain't gonna help....much.
2. Contrary to popular opinion (on this forum), some edges in horse racing do NOT disappear over time.
3. Advanced betting strategies (i.e., Kelly or Bold Play) are nice in theory, and perhaps have their merits, but are not easily adopted by the average player without the computer assisted tools.
4. Almost six years have gone by, and I imagine The Detective still has a headache.
5. I'll agree that predicting final odds is not that difficult, though within 1% is pretty extreme.
6. I'll state that predicting final odds without tote input is very, very difficult.
7. I won't be expecting to find a good book to help with my handicapping (unless Thask comes through) or a good book to help with final odds prediction any time soon.
8. While I may be giving away a couple of percentage points of ROI without using an advanced betting method, until my handicapping improves I've got bigger fish to fry.

BTW - RR I do appreciate the thread bump. Not totally applicable to me, but interesting.

Very understandable response to this thread. Just wanted to add, jd was posing Kelly as the opposite of Bold Play here, not something similar. Kelly is for those playing with a known edge-per-race, Bold Play is for those playing a negative expectation game with specific limits. As you say, very few can make use of Kelly (but it does work), and Bold Play doesn't seem to apply to the conditions of horseracing.

[erikeepper]

Bold Play doesn't seem to apply to the conditions of horseracing.

TrifectaMike: "I personally use a form of Bold play"

Well, form of Bold play....

[lansdale]

TrifectaMike: "I personally use a form of Bold play"

Well, form of Bold play....

The manner in which TM may be using BP has nothing to do with what is being described by jd. As TM made clear, he is playing with a sizeable edge - when last mentioned, somewhere in the mid-20% range. If he's using BP, you can be sure that it's only to enhance an already existent advantage. jd is talking about the average losing (net negative) horseplayer doing this. Difficult to distinguish this in practice from ordinary gambling.

[classhandicapper]

That's why I consider handicapping writers to be my mortal enemy.

There is another way to look at it.

If all the books are saying the same things and more players are switching their thinking because of it, they might be creating value somewhere else.

[erikeepper]

I was just answering to your post where you said:
"Bold Play is for those playing a negative expectation game with specific limits..." and
"...Bold Play doesn't seem to apply to the conditions of horseracing."

I was just pointing out that you can use a form of bold play even if you have an edge and play horses. Of course your need the expertise of TM to do it and that is another story :)

[lansdale]

I was just answering to your post where you said:
"Bold Play is for those playing a negative expectation game with specific limits..." and
"...Bold Play doesn't seem to apply to the conditions of horseracing."

I was just pointing out that you can use a form of bold play even if you have an edge and play horses. Of course your need the expertise of TM to do it and that is another story :)

Agree.

[thaskalos]

The manner in which TM may be using BP has nothing to do with what is being described by jd. As TM made clear, he is playing with a sizeable edge - when last mentioned, somewhere in the mid-20% range. If he's using BP, you can be sure that it's only to enhance an already existent advantage. jd is talking about the average losing (net negative) horseplayer doing this. Difficult to distinguish this in practice from ordinary gambling.

That's a tall order, IMO. In an ultra-competitive game with a heavy takeout...this sort of edge is impossible to maintain. Unless, that is, we confine our wagering to 60 bets a year.

[flatstats]

I read this entire thread, and came away with these nuggets:

1. If your handicapping stinks, an advanced betting method ain't gonna help....much.
2. Contrary to popular opinion (on this forum), some edges in horse racing do NOT disappear over time.
3. Advanced betting strategies (i.e., Kelly or Bold Play) are nice in theory, and perhaps have their merits, but are not easily adopted by the average player without the computer assisted tools.
4. Almost six years have gone by, and I imagine The Detective still has a headache.
5. I'll agree that predicting final odds is not that difficult, though within 1% is pretty extreme.
6. I'll state that predicting final odds without tote input is very, very difficult.
7. I won't be expecting to find a good book to help with my handicapping (unless Thask comes through) or a good book to help with final odds prediction any time soon.
8. While I may be giving away a couple of percentage points of ROI without using an advanced betting method, until my handicapping improves I've got bigger fish to fry.

1. Agree. And similarly if your your handicapping is sound an incorrect betting (staking) method will make you stink.
2. Absolutely. This is something I can never get agreement on. Systems and methods never get overbet "because everyone knows about it". Punters keep on doing what they have always done and that means any method will stay profitable because the masses won't believe it.
3. It's too complicated for average Joe and it relates to 1. above. They won't stick to a plan and tend to stake on how they emotionally feel at the time of the bet.
5. + 6. There is not much need in calculating final odds. If your method (is sound) and tends to find overlays in general then it doesn't matter what the final odds are.

[steveb]

1. Agree. And similarly if your your handicapping is sound an incorrect betting (staking) method will make you stink.
2. Absolutely. This is something I can never get agreement on. Systems and methods never get overbet "because everyone knows about it". Punters keep on doing what they have always done and that means any method will stay profitable because the masses won't believe it.
3. It's too complicated for average Joe and it relates to 1. above. They won't stick to a plan and tend to stake on how they emotionally feel at the time of the bet.
5. + 6. There is not much need in calculating final odds. If your method (is sound) and tends to find overlays in general then it doesn't matter what the final odds are.

how can you get 'overlays in general' if you do not assign probs?
the ONE thing that will distinguish those that do and those that wish they could do, is that the former will be better than the latter at allocating probability.
that's if the latter even tries to begin with.
the other thing is 'how do you stake' if you don't allocate probs to the runners
if there is one person/group that wins and does not allocate probs, then i would be extremely surprised.

[erikeepper]

how can you get 'overlays in general' if you do not assign probs?

the other thing is 'how do you stake' if you don't allocate probs to the runners
if there is one person/group that wins and does not allocate probs, then i would be extremely surprised.

Not to put words into Flatstats mouth but I guess he is meaning you have a profitable angle that you will exploit. You are not trying to win with one specific horse but from a group of horses that belongs to the system. For example playing horses with X and Y factors (and these are NOT your typical handicapping factors) in situation Z has produced a profit in the past and the system is sound, not datamined, so you will play each and every horse this system brings up. No matter what their odds. I think Traynor also spoke about this in the past (might be wrong though). And staking, you can flat-bet these. You can turn a profit with this kind of system at least in Europe. Maybe US is harder, probably it is.

[flatstats]

Yes that is pretty much it erikeepper. I am talking more about spot plays than handicapping a complete race and producing an odds-line. If you find an angle that is profitable then it doesn't really matter what the odds are; the public will underbet this condition time after time and that's why you don't need to worry about the true odds.

Price Bias
There is one exception to this - Price Bias. This is where an angle is biased towards a particular price range and any other price range would not produce an overlay condition. Examples would including gambling trainers who only win "when the money is down" (that itself creates it's own paradox). Other examples include jockeys who are brought in for a win. They may not be profitable with horses in the bottom third of the betting, but are if the horse is priced in the top third.

Ratings, Odds Line
As for handicapping a complete race, producing an odds-line, and then picking the value from the Prob% vs Live Odds that is the traditional way to do things. And traditional ratings methods were (and most still are in the UK) based on beaten lengths or the finishing position and thus the formula is used to predict finishing positions in future races.

But I suggest being different, by making the handicapping process have value at the core. This would result in a list of horses that would tend to be good value at the top of the list and poor value at the bottom. You would then not need to know the market price because your method should have already identified horses that tend to be value or not.

Suppose you have a ratings method that examines specific stats for the trainer, sire, jockey, owner, stall bias, whatever. If your method then identifies those stats that are overlays, and those that are underlays, and then quantifies it then ultimately your "Sheet" for the race would be biased to find overlays at the top and underlays at the bottom.

In this instance you are automatically identifying the horses that the market would tend to ignore (because they don't know how strong the trainer is underbet in this race condition), and the horses that the market would tend to overbet. There is now less need to fret over the market, and what the price is or what the price will be. You just focus on the top few rated and back them regardless of the price.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Interesting post Flatstats. The issue of calculating final odds refers to the challenge of PROPERLY allocating wager amounts in a world (at least in NA and Hong Kong) where odds can drop dramatically at the post. Since I use a very simplified version of Kelly, there are some races where I know the juicy overlay I see on the board as the horses begin loading into the gate are is going to hold up - thus lowering the amount bet. There are other races where I feel the price will hold up, and so I stick to my guns.

I agree the formula for success is to take a non-traditional path to finding profits, but to completely ignore price seems a bit perilous. It would seem you would end up being trapped on your stats holding up long-term, which may not be true for some "spot play" angles. I must have a minimum price for my selections to roughly stay ahead of my strike rate.

It's probably worth repeating that the average handicapper should probably achieve a certain skill level that shows profits with flat or static wager amounts, and perhaps independent of price, before attempting to incorporate an advanced wagering method. Just the simple tracking of plays and the basic stats of method selection are enough to get pointed in the right direction.

[flatstats]

Don't forget it is so much easier for us here in UK. We have the exchanges and we have bookmakers that offer us fixed prices. So if we want 3/1 and the price is currently 4/1 we take that 4/1 and that is the price we will be paid out on. Our bet will be accepted at the time (as long as the punter is not restricted) and thus once our bet is placed it will never influence the final return.

It should therefore be so much easier to work out a Prob% vs Live Price type forecast here because the Live Price can be fixed. The only variable then is the handicappers own Prob% figure, which could be way out of line for whatever reason.

The method I suggest is to forget all known market prices and just focus on a method that tends to identify value / overlays / underbet horses and ranks them all by a value metric. The task is therefore not to identify horses that are likely to win (and then bolt on another procedure where you have to find out if that likely winner is a good price), but to find horses that are likely to run better than their odds suggest they do regardless of the price they are right now.

There are times where the method could state that a 500/1 shot is the "best value" but common sense would tell you not to play that horse because there is clearly a mistake or a rogue element in there. But having to fret over something like this:

Forecast = 5/1 Live Price = 4/1 = NO BET
Forecast = 5/1 Live Price = 6/1 = SMALL BET
Forecast = 5/1 Live Price = 8/1 = BIG BET
Forecast = 5/1 Live Price = 18/1 = HUGE BET

will create an extra problem for punters to wrestle with.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Actually, Flatstats part of the intent of my last post was to remind you that we suffer the late odds plunges, and can't bet fixed odds prices.... :D

I agree that the punter should focus on finding overlays, but those of us who have to wager here in the uncivilized part of the world have to be concerned about the 4-1 horse that plunges to 8/5. And I also agree that calculating bet size can be too distracting - that's why I think a flat bet size is the way to go for most of us.

[steveb]

Don't forget it is so much easier for us here in UK. We have the exchanges and we have bookmakers that offer us fixed prices. So if we want 3/1 and the price is currently 4/1 we take that 4/1 and that is the price we will be paid out on. Our bet will be accepted at the time (as long as the punter is not restricted) and thus once our bet is placed it will never influence the final return.

It should therefore be so much easier to work out a Prob% vs Live Price type forecast here because the Live Price can be fixed. The only variable then is the handicappers own Prob% figure, which could be way out of line for whatever reason.

The method I suggest is to forget all known market prices and just focus on a method that tends to identify value / overlays / underbet horses and ranks them all by a value metric. The task is therefore not to identify horses that are likely to win (and then bolt on another procedure where you have to find out if that likely winner is a good price), but to find horses that are likely to run better than their odds suggest they do regardless of the price they are right now.

There are times where the method could state that a 500/1 shot is the "best value" but common sense would tell you not to play that horse because there is clearly a mistake or a rogue element in there. But having to fret over something like this:

Forecast = 5/1 Live Price = 4/1 = NO BET
Forecast = 5/1 Live Price = 6/1 = SMALL BET
Forecast = 5/1 Live Price = 8/1 = BIG BET
Forecast = 5/1 Live Price = 18/1 = HUGE BET

will create an extra problem for punters to wrestle with.

i am in australia, where it WAS far better than anywhere else, UNTIL the pommie corporate 'bookmakers'(and to call them bookmakers is an insult to the old time bookie that are basically all gone theses days)started operations here.
and what a joke they are
win a couple of bob($) and you are either banned or severely restricted.

your examples of bets are fantasy land, because you win one and unless you are a proven long term loser, then it's....."oh we will let you have 5 bucks max on that, but at these odds only",or...."bye joe, we are shutting your account."

fixed odds are ONLY worthwhile is the firm offering them legally HAS to stand to lose 'X' amount of dollars.
but of course even it that happened, the slimy weasels would find some other way to prevent you getting set......UNLESS you are a proven loser.

[flatstats]

Yes that sort of happens here too. But it mostly happens to filthy arbers and Pricewise type sheep followers.

Basically, the bookies do not like punters who take prices that are then plunged on. It scares the hell out of them and that's why they restrict you near enough as soon as you join. But the first restriction is usually the loss of Best Odds Guarantee.

No such problems with the exchanges. Bet as much as you want if the liquidity is there.

A couple of years ago I did get banned from Betfair's SP Multiples market but I can still bet with the exchange and at Sportsbook prices.

[Dave Schwartz]

i am in australia, where it WAS far better than anywhere else, UNTIL the pommie corporate 'bookmakers'(and to call them bookmakers is an insult to the old time bookie that are basically all gone theses days)started operations here.
and what a joke they are
win a couple of bob($) and you are either banned or severely restricted.

your examples of bets are fantasy land, because you win one and unless you are a proven long term loser, then it's....."oh we will let you have 5 bucks max on that, but at these odds only",or...."bye joe, we are shutting your account."

fixed odds are ONLY worthwhile is the firm offering them legally HAS to stand to lose 'X' amount of dollars.
but of course even it that happened, the slimy weasels would find some other way to prevent you getting set......UNLESS you are a proven loser.

Indeed. Such is the story with anyone who plays with a bookmaker long term. And, frankly, why should the bookiie continue to take the bets from someone who beats them like a drum?

I mean, if that were YOU, would you keep losing money to the same guy(s)?

Of course, I get your meaning - that they don't even want the marginal players. They only want the suckers.

Casinos were a lot like that when I was in the gaming industry. LOL - I recall one place I worked in calling me over every time a guy varied his bet size a little. The boss would ask, "Is he a counter?"

After watching a while I'd say, "Sure, but he's not very good. You'll eventually get the money." But that was rarely good enough. They'd just run him out the door because long-term profit was not good enough.

As one boss said to me once, "When a player walks in to bet serious money, there are 3 things that can happen. He can win, he can lose or he can break even. In other words, there are 3 things that can happen and 2 of them are bad."

All the wanted was a roomful of $5 players, each betting and playing the same - preferably stupidly - so they could just grind out a steady profit.

Wait... That sounds like me as a horseplayer.

[steveb]

Yes that sort of happens here too. But it mostly happens to filthy arbers and Pricewise type sheep followers.

Basically, the bookies do not like punters who take prices that are then plunged on. It scares the hell out of them and that's why they restrict you near enough as soon as you join. But the first restriction is usually the loss of Best Odds Guarantee.

No such problems with the exchanges. Bet as much as you want if the liquidity is there.

A couple of years ago I did get banned from Betfair's SP Multiples market but I can still bet with the exchange and at Sportsbook prices.

i have never been an arber, nor had i ever layed a horse to lose(other than inversely like all that back a horse to win do).
i have never had a bet with those gutless wonders, and never would, as i know what would have rapidly happened.
they simply don't like winners, regardless of how they win.
the big pity is that those parasites were ever given licences to operate here.
if their useless wizz kid price assessors were any good, they would not need to ban.
not only do they cheat and rob the punters, they also get large rebates from the pari-mutuel operators when they bet back, thus inflicting a double whammy.

[steveb]

Indeed. Such is the story with anyone who plays with a bookmaker long term. And, frankly, why should the bookiie continue to take the bets from someone who beats them like a drum?

I mean, if that were YOU, would you keep losing money to the same guy(s)?

Of course, I get your meaning - that they don't even want the marginal players. They only want the suckers.

Casinos were a lot like that when I was in the gaming industry. LOL - I recall one place I worked in calling me over every time a guy varied his bet size a little. The boss would ask, "Is he a counter?"

After watching a while I'd say, "Sure, but he's not very good. You'll eventually get the money." But that was rarely good enough. They'd just run him out the door because long-term profit was not good enough.

As one boss said to me once, "When a player walks in to bet serious money, there are 3 things that can happen. He can win, he can lose or he can break even. In other words, there are 3 things that can happen and 2 of them are bad."

All the wanted was a roomful of $5 players, each betting and playing the same - preferably stupidly - so they could just grind out a steady profit.

Wait... That sounds like me as a horseplayer.

on course bookmakers HAVE to let you on for a certain amount...they are remnants of the real thing.
if the pretend bookmakers could frame a market then they would have to win, as they have the vig remember.
nsw has enacted a law where the corporate bookmakers are legally obliged to set you to lose 'x' dollars, but of course very few of them from my information do the legal thing.
we are not talking big punters here by any means, they will even ban the $5 mug punters that may have just had a little luck once.
and then they pretend they set punters for a million and more.

when betfair australia was taken over by by mariah carey's beau(packer), then they automatically opened an account for me with crown bet.
as i never had a bet with them, they kept offering me inducements to bet, UNTIL they asked why i had not.
I simply told them i was part of a betting syndicate that was financed by the previous owner of crown bet, when it was called beteasy or something similar, and why would i bother knowing they would shut me down.
then just to test their reaction...i tried to put some funds in and have a bet....guess what happened?

[Dave Schwartz]

if the pretend bookmakers could frame a market then they would have to win, as they have the vig remember.

In THEORY, they have an edge but balancing the books can be very difficult. That's why the Nevada casinos could not wait to co-mingle and just take a "sure thing" commission.

Anyone who has ever had knowledge of any illegal bookmaker can tell you, more horse bookies went broke because of scams than any other kind.

[steveb]

In THEORY, they have an edge but balancing the books can be very difficult. That's why the Nevada casinos could not wait to co-mingle and just take a "sure thing" commission.

Anyone who has ever had knowledge of any illegal bookmaker can tell you, more horse bookies went broke because of scams than any other kind.

we are not talking about illegal bookmakers, we are talking about 'corporate bookmakers' that are weak as piss.
if you can't balance the book then you lay off with another betting agency, or limit the bet in that case.
nobody is suggesting they should let you on for however much you want, but to restrict like they do in some cases to 17(or less) cent bets is laughable
bet365 is not known as bet.365 or betzero for nothing.
you are in usa so you would have no knowledge of what happens with these parasites.

[ReplayRandall]

You are in usa so you would have no knowledge of what happens with these parasites.

No Steve, we have a very good idea of how bet365 operates. Their former employees give a more reliable and accurate assessment than you:

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Bet365-Reviews-E385984.htm

[steveb]

No Steve, we have a very good idea of how bet365 operates. Their former employees give a more reliable and accurate assessment than you:

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Bet365-Reviews-E385984.htm


that has exactly NOTHING to do with how they operate, insofar as accepting bets, or limiting, so it is irrelevant.
give me some reviews from customers???

[ReplayRandall]

that has exactly NOTHING to do with how they operate, insofar as accepting bets, or limiting, so it is irrelevant.
give me some reviews from customers???

Your critique of bet365 is correct, briefly shown below:

Cons of bet365
1.However, there is a limited size of horse racing bets available on bet365.
2.It is quick to severely limit or factor winning accounts; sometimes, it even suspends the accounts of successful punters.
3.It does not offer live online betting to punters in Australians. These punters need to phone in when they wish to bet live.

As I said, we here in the US know what's going on outside our borders. Bottom-line, what is it that your trying to show us?.....I don't think Dave, Delta or I need your help, but others might, just please watch your TONE from now on.....It's a bit disrespectful.

[steveb]

Your critique of bet365 is correct, briefly shown below:

Cons of bet365
1.However, there is a limited size of horse racing bets available on bet365.
2.It is quick to severely limit or factor winning accounts; sometimes, it even suspends the accounts of successful punters.
3.It does not offer live online betting to punters in Australians. These punters need to phone in when they wish to bet live.

As I said, we here in the US know what's going on outside our borders. Bottom-line, what is it that your trying to show us?.....I don't think Dave, Delta or I need your help, but others might, just please watch your TONE from now on.....It's a bit disrespectful.

don't know what has bitten you on the arse, and i don't care.
what is your bold supposed to infer?

[ReplayRandall]

don't know what bitten you on the arse, and i don't care.
what is your bold supposed to infer?

Since you have all the answers, you should know.....This ends my conversations with you.

[flatstats]

Here are some typical articles, which gives insight into how bookmakers now operate in relation to banning customers:

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/aug/02/betting-horses-gambling-bookmakers-accounts-closed

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/irishnews/article4549543.ece

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34550617

The truth is, that if you are being banned like this then you are indeed a filthy arber, a sheep follower or even a semi-pro lone wolf. You are not a whale at all and you just don't know how to operate an effective organisation.

This is detracting from the thread though, and worthy of a thread on it's own for those in a country that does not have a PM monopoly.

[steveb]

Since you have all the answers, you should know.....This ends my conversations with you.


you chose to start not me, but you have figured it does not mean what you though it did, so you choose not to answer.
your right i guess.

[steveb]

Here are some typical articles, which gives insight into how bookmakers now operate in relation to banning customers:

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/aug/02/betting-horses-gambling-bookmakers-accounts-closed

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/irishnews/article4549543.ece

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34550617

The truth is, that if you are being banned like this then you are indeed a filthy arber, a sheep follower or even a semi-pro lone wolf. You are not a whale at all and you just don't know how to operate an effective organisation.

This is detracting from the thread though, and worthy of a thread on it's own for those in a country that does not have a PM monopoly.

well i don't use them, so i am not a 'filthy arber' and no i am not a whale and never said i was, i don't even bet(well very rarely).

so test me out.....what do you think time levene's job at alan woods syndicate was?
what did alan take levene to court for?
who runs the syndicate now do you think???

[steveb]

Since you have all the answers, you should know.....This ends my conversations with you.


so i will answer for you as you are too scared of losing face.
it means betting when the event is in progress, and that, at one time was illegal in australia(don't know about now), although it is possible to bet on races in running here these days(at least through betfair).

now i know you are not talking to me now, because you have desisted!!! :kiss:
but you whacked it in bold to prove a pointless point......well done

[ReplayRandall]

Here are some typical articles, which gives insight into how bookmakers now operate in relation to banning customers:

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/aug/02/betting-horses-gambling-bookmakers-accounts-closed

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/irishnews/article4549543.ece

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34550617

The truth is, that if you are being banned like this then you are indeed a filthy arber, a sheep follower or even a semi-pro lone wolf. You are not a whale at all and you just don't know how to operate an effective organisation.

This is detracting from the thread though, and worthy of a thread on it's own for those in a country that does not have a PM monopoly.

Spot-on post, Flatstats.... :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[steveb]

Spot-on post, Flatstats.... :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

well there you go, you are going to agree with all that disagree with me.
well done sir.

[NorCalGreg]

Here are some typical articles, which gives insight into how bookmakers now operate in relation to banning customers:

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/aug/02/betting-horses-gambling-bookmakers-accounts-closed

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/irishnews/article4549543.ece

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34550617

The truth is, that if you are being banned like this then you are indeed a filthy arber, a sheep follower or even a semi-pro lone wolf. You are not a whale at all and you just don't know how to operate an effective organisation.

This is detracting from the thread though, and worthy of a thread on it's own for those in a country that does not have a PM monopoly.

I'm not following you, flatstats.....are you referring to the anonymous "punter" in the Guardian article in England? What has he done to incur anyone's wrath, except win--what really isn't even a large amount of money?
We have the same going on here, only it's called the VIG, JUICE, TAKE-OUT, etc....with one caveat. Win too much, and the Govt gets involved, and takes even more out. Damn them to hell.

[steveb]

Your critique of bet365 is correct, briefly shown below:
I don't think Dave, Delta or I need your help, but others might, just please watch your TONE from now on.....It's a bit disrespectful.

i just read this nonsense again.
why ever would you invoke 'dave' & 'delta'?
i am sure they don't need YOUR help either!!!:lol:
thus i have no disrespect for either of them, but you are another matter.
little boy takes his bat and ball and refuses to talk, and that's after you were the instigator.
now lets start again....what's the bit in bold supposed to infer?? :kiss:

[flatstats]

I'm not following you, flatstats.....are you referring to the anonymous "punter" in the Guardian article in England? What has he done to incur anyone's wrath, except win--what really isn't even a large amount of money?

He is the semi-pro lone wolf. He tripped algorithms, which have changed in recent years to catch more punters and place them on the restricted list. When the first email arrived he should have changed his method when betting with the other bookies rather than then tripping their algorithms too.

That Irish Times article, which is behind a paywall states things like:

"Customers were tracked from the moment they registered and that the information was used to build a profile.'"

"They use algorithms and they can literally tell after four or five bets, 'Hes X type of customer'"

This is the issue. They now employ spotty faced programmers rather than traditional bookmakers and market analysts. These program aware beancounters come up with figures such as "there is a 62% chance that X customer will win £xxxx from us in the next 5 weeks - we should ban him now."

So the lone wolf needs to change their tactics; to stay under the radar.

[lansdale]

That's a tall order, IMO. In an ultra-competitive game with a heavy takeout...this sort of edge is impossible to maintain. Unless, that is, we confine our wagering to 60 bets a year.

Hi Thask,

Just came across this post. I think you realize that I was just using this an example to make a point - the edge could have been 2%. But it's obvious that this notion of someone of having a double-digit or larger edge is something of a hot button for you. As you say, only an extremely small percentage of players is likely to achieve this with high-volume play - but some have proved that it's possible - Benter and Woods are two. Dick Schmidt (maybe he can confirm, if he stills lurks here) claimed that he and Brohamer were at that level and higher when they were playing professionally. An academic guy using a technique allied with TM's hierarchical Bayes has documented a 38% edge for a large sample of play in HK. In every area of endeavor, I think it's safe to assume that there are always at least a few people performing at a very high level - higher than most might imagine is possible.

Cheers,

lansdale

[whodoyoulike]

Yes that sort of happens here too. But it mostly happens to filthy arbers and Pricewise type sheep followers.

Basically, the bookies do not like punters who take prices that are then plunged on. It scares the hell out of them and that's why they restrict you near enough as soon as you join. But the first restriction is usually the loss of Best Odds Guarantee.

No such problems with the exchanges. Bet as much as you want if the liquidity is there.

A couple of years ago I did get banned from Betfair's SP Multiples market but I can still bet with the exchange and at Sportsbook prices.


He is the semi-pro lone wolf. He tripped algorithms, which have changed in recent years to catch more punters and place them on the restricted list. When the first email arrived he should have changed his method when betting with the other bookies rather than then tripping their algorithms too. ...

So the lone wolf needs to change their tactics; to stay under the radar.

So, let me get a better understanding of where you're coming .... you do agree with Steveb that bookies will cut you off if you're a winning player.

But, why do you call them filthy arbers and Pricewise type sheep followers?

I'm unfamiliar with those terms but they both appear to be derogatory comments towards the bettor who just wants to get a price on their wagers.

Is it because the bookies's algorithms were able to suspect and act on the bettors play and one needs to always be one step ahead of them?

[flatstats]

But, why do you call them filthy arbers and Pricewise type sheep followers?

I'm unfamiliar with those terms but they both appear to be derogatory comments towards the bettor who just wants to get a price on their wagers.


I think you have (what we say here) got the wrong end of the stick there.

Maybe I should have put "filthy arbers" in quotes because those terms are what bookies use to justify banning punters. They don't like arbers and they don't like punters who manage to beat the prices or plough onto horses that will take a lot of money and cause price drops.

And I only agree with steveb that bookies will ban winning punters. But they also ban losing punters and they will quite happily allow some winning punters not to be banned. You just have to not "piss them off" and "keep your nose clean" if you want to keep using them.

[thaskalos]

Hi Thask,

Just came across this post. I think you realize that I was just using this an example to make a point - the edge could have been 2%. But it's obvious that this notion of someone of having a double-digit or larger edge is something of a hot button for you. As you say, only an extremely small percentage of players is likely to achieve this with high-volume play - but some have proved that it's possible - Benter and Woods are two. Dick Schmidt (maybe he can confirm, if he stills lurks here) claimed that he and Brohamer were at that level and higher when they were playing professionally. An academic guy using a technique allied with TM's hierarchical Bayes has documented a 38% edge for a large sample of play in HK. In every area of endeavor, I think it's safe to assume that there are always at least a few people performing at a very high level - higher than most might imagine is possible.

Cheers,

lansdale

Hi landsdale,

Yes...there are "geniuses" in every endeavor...so the assumption must be made that there must be geniuses in gambling too. But we still must endeavor to separate rumor from fact, IMO. I can't comment on Benter or Woods, or even the "academic" guy with the huge edge in HK...because these guys operated in a locale that I know nothing about. I know NOTHING about the game as it's played in other parts of the world...and have no idea whether or not the methods that Benter and Woods used could be profitably applied today.

But I do know a little something about the game as it's played in THIS country...and am reluctant to accept that such a huge edge is attainable in this part of the world. Can you imagine what an edge of that magnitude would amount to in "dollars and cents"...with the number of races that we have at our disposal here on a daily basis? You mention Dick Schmidt and Tom Brohamer. I have diligently read the work of BOTH these gentlemen...and have been dutifully impressed. But I couldn't help but notice that they are both entirely out of the game...and I can't bring myself to believe that anyone with this sort of edge would ever leave the game...and search for "greener pastures".

Our game has CHANGED in recent years...and the profit margins have shortened considerably. But the rumors of "huge edges" still persist...even as horse racing's most "renowned" players flee our game for "greener pastures". This somehow makes little sense to me.

Please don't misunderstand me. There isn't a jealous bone in my body...and the mere THOUGHT that such a huge edge is possible is enough to motivate me to apply myself in the game with renewed vigor. But rumors run wild in gambling...and, at this advanced age that I find myself, I need something a little more substantial to hang my hat on.

Best regards,

Thaskalos

[whodoyoulike]

I think you have (what we say here) got the wrong end of the stick there.

Maybe I should have put "filthy arbers" in quotes because those terms are what bookies use to justify banning punters. They don't like arbers and they don't like punters who manage to beat the prices or plough onto horses that will take a lot of money and cause price drops.

And I only agree with steveb that bookies will ban winning punters. But they also ban losing punters and they will quite happily allow some winning punters not to be banned. You just have to not "piss them off" and "keep your nose clean" if you want to keep using them.

Okay, you're coming across a little clearer. I thought that was your opinion(s).

A new question, what situations or why would bookies ban losing punters?

I get the stay under their radar idea but why is it necessary if that's the business model of being a bookie (a rhetorical question)?

[flatstats]

They would ban losing punters because their algorithm told them to.

There is an example of a punter who opened an account with one of the Big Four bookies. Soon after opening the account he was assigned 'platinum status' (high roller, VIP type). In the next 3 months he had a few big losing bets, which resulted in him having a net loss of £37,000. He then lost that platinum status and then shortly after he got totally banned.

This is an unusual example because the punter was at a net loss with the bookies so they should have courted him. But they chose to drop the concessions and then stopped him from betting with them. From what I gather the punter was bona fide and not crooked so it seems that an algorithm had identified the punter as a threat to future profits and thus got him banned.

We do not know the extent of these algorithms. We do not know if they are now detecting 'sleeper accounts', which are setup to try and fool the algorithms. It could be the case that the £37,000 loss punter exhibited patterns that the beancounters had seen before and thus determined that he would be back for his money plus much more.

[whodoyoulike]

They would ban losing punters because their algorithm told them to.

There is an example of a punter who opened an account with one of the Big Four bookies. Soon after opening the account he was assigned 'platinum status' (high roller, VIP type). In the next 3 months he had a few big losing bets, which resulted in him having a net loss of £37,000. He then lost that platinum status and then shortly after he got totally banned.

This is an unusual example because the punter was at a net loss with the bookies so they should have courted him. But they chose to drop the concessions and then stopped him from betting with them. From what I gather the punter was bona fide and not crooked so it seems that an algorithm had identified the punter as a threat to future profits and thus got him banned.

We do not know the extent of these algorithms. We do not know if they are now detecting 'sleeper accounts', which are setup to try and fool the algorithms. It could be the case that the £37,000 loss punter exhibited patterns that the beancounters had seen before and thus determined that he would be back for his money plus much more.

It would seem to me that they would ban a loser if they didn't pay up or something similar. Difficult for me to believe they would ban a consistently paying loser.

[flatstats]

Yep. Difficult for a rational, human mind to ban someone under those circumstances. But this is the age of the algorithm, where programmers type the code, the computer spits out the report and the suits "follow suit" and take the appropriate action.

It's not just bookmaking where this phenomenon exists. Call up your credit card company and they already know why you are calling them and you are thus put through to the right person to maximise / deal with your situation.

"if you want to know if you are heading for a divorce" then call your credit card company because they already know.

[thaskalos]

If the bookmakers are so scared...shouldn't they get into another line of work?

[lansdale]

Hi landsdale,

Yes...there are "geniuses" in every endeavor...so the assumption must be made that there must be geniuses in gambling too. But we still must endeavor to separate rumor from fact, IMO. I can't comment on Benter or Woods, or even the "academic" guy with the huge edge in HK...because these guys operated in a locale that I know nothing about. I know NOTHING about the game as it's played in other parts of the world...and have no idea whether or not the methods that Benter and Woods used could be profitably applied today.

But I do know a little something about the game as it's played in THIS country...and am reluctant to accept that such a huge edge is attainable in this part of the world. Can you imagine what an edge of that magnitude would amount to in "dollars and cents"...with the number of races that we have at our disposal here on a daily basis? You mention Dick Schmidt and Tom Brohamer. I have diligently read the work of BOTH these gentlemen...and have been dutifully impressed. But I couldn't help but notice that they are both entirely out of the game...and I can't bring myself to believe that anyone with this sort of edge would ever leave the game...and search for "greener pastures".

Our game has CHANGED in recent years...and the profit margins have shortened considerably. But the rumors of "huge edges" still persist...even as horse racing's most "renowned" players flee our game for "greener pastures". This somehow makes little sense to me.

Please don't misunderstand me. There isn't a jealous bone in my body...and the mere THOUGHT that such a huge edge is possible is enough to motivate me to apply myself in the game with renewed vigor. But rumors run wild in gambling...and, at this advanced age that I find myself, I need something a little more substantial to hang my hat on.

Best regards,

Thaskalos

Agree with almost everything you say here. No question the game in the U.S. is tougher than ever, and many have dropped out. As Dick Schmidt as made clear, he's moved on to currency trading after his edge began to decline. However, I think the 'large edge' issue owes less to foreign tracks than the use of mathematical models; after all players like TM, Rook, and sjk, who have all claimed a double-digit edge, are using such models to play only U.S. tracks. I think what you're really saying is that possibilities for traditional handicappers, who comprise the vast majority of all players, are more limited now - I think this is true.

But edge isn't everything. Ernie Dahlman claimed an edge of 3% *including rebate*, and an income of ca. $750,000. As I've said before, I know blackjack players who have built a net-worth of low eight figures, starting from nothing, based on the typical 1% BJ edge. It's possible, but certainly not easy. The same is true for poker, which, as I think everyone agrees, is much easier than horseracing, but still far from easy money.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

..."if you want to know if you are heading for a divorce" then call your credit card company because they already know.

How right you are - though data analytics is still in its infancy, and not always being properly applied.

This offshoot of the thread demonstrates the limitations of fixed odds wagering if and when it ever gets to the U.S., and adds to the sequence of actions - handicap/find overlay, calculate wager amount, find mechanism to offload wager.

[steveb]

here is something i read on another forum today, about those parasites.......
this one though i think is home grown(not pommie)
sorry that format is wrong.

just happy that my day is done.

........


HERE’S A CLASSIC(BET)! The NSW Government licensed Classicbet really do hate winners. Here’s what they are asking for if they suspect that you might be somehow inclined to back more winners than losers: —————– After consideration we have decided to re-open your ClassicBet betting account subject to the satisfactory completion and return of important probity requirements. In accordance with this, your account has been temporarily suspended pending the receipt of these documents required by the ClassicBet Compliance team. Please complete the attached terms of trade with a Statutory Declaration as to the bona fides of your betting account. The completed Statutory Declaration must include the following information and documents all of which must be verified by an authorised party: a. Your full name, address, date of birth, and occupation; b. ClassicBet pin or account ID; c. Details and supporting documentation as to whether you operate your betting account for yourself only, or on behalf of someone else; d. Details of how you are funding your betting account; e. Certified copies of the evidence of the source of funds deposited to your ClassicBet betting account; f. Certified copies of your last three tax assessments; g. Certified copies of documents evidencing your current income e.g. your last 3 employee payslips; h. Printout of the IP address(es) for the computers used to operate your betting account; and i. Details of the mobile phone numbers used to operate your account. Where a certified copy of a document is required to be attached to the Statutory Declaration, you will need to have those documents certified by a Justice of the Peace, Solicitor or Commissioner for Declarations. Upon receiving the above information your account will be unsuspended and available for betting. Kind regards, ClassicBet Compliance team

[steveb]

and another, and this one does not and never has arbed.
and how does one 'arb' anyway on a horse race, unless they use a betting exchange for the lay side?
.....

I re-joined Ausrace for the day to post on BET365,"One of the worlds leading online gambling companies" with holdings of around £20 billion per year (is that really $A35 billion?). I opened a BET365 account 2 weeks ago and I made 260 $50 place bets in 11 days out of 509 races; most of the races I did not bet had <8 runners (83 races) or BET365 did not offer early markets. I bet on every meeting on which they offered early markets, every day, although not on every race. Almost all bets were placed between 9am and 11am, before the first race anywhere and always for the level stake $50, whether the price was $1.06 or $21.00. If BET365 opened their market after 11am, I sometimes noticed that and bet then. BET365 employs many young, clever whiz-kids to set their racing odds; I am an age pension-aged man living out my twilight years in Indonesia; I have no "inside information", collaborate with no-one, take no notice of what anyone else tips, keep my own counsel, make my own decisions and don't place bets on anyone else's account . Yet after just 11 days, BET365 restricted my bets to Mickey-Mouse amounts, as if $50 was not Mickey-Mouse enough. Eg today I am allowed to bet $3.13 on Stawell Race 3, Xaar Hawke for the place, and 38c on Mackay Race 1, trifecta 1-2-3, which I figure will pay about $10. Saying 38c @ $10.00 is Mickey Mouse demeans the rodent. (I did not bet on a trifecta, I was just checking what restrictions have been placed). I am apparently too good for their young, clever whiz-kids! They should hang their heads in shame; and BET365 should get some balls or decent analysts. They put their cue in the rack after 260 small bets from an aged lone punter. Then their pathetic mealy-mouthed wording: "….. we regret to inform you that we are no longer able to offer you our telephone betting service and whilst our online service remains available to you, betting restrictions will be applied on any future bets placed." If one made a decision after careful consideration, one should have no regret. If one has regret, one should reverse the decision. I thought all decent people operated that way, but I'm living in the past I guess. BET365 are so pathetic that rather than allow me to say they closed the account, they restrict me to 38c bets, thanks to the corrupt NT government's contemptible new minimum risk law. Still, better to make a little from them than nothing I guess. Will they cut me back to $2.05 the place and 23c the trifecta? And how magnanimous of them: " ….. it does not affect your ability to play and claim bonuses in our Gaming products".

[erikeepper]

It would seem to me that they would ban a loser if they didn't pay up or something similar. Difficult for me to believe they would ban a consistently paying loser.

They would not ban if they knew for sure he would be a loser IN THE LONG-RUN. But when they don't know it for sure they listen to their algorithm.

For example let say you played only 5 games, lose all of them, but make big bets, and in all of those 5 games you placed a bet for the team who's odds had to be dropped because of the late money -> you were "in the right side" in all of those matches -> you are one sharp cookie even though you happened to lost -> you are a pro -> BAN!

[erikeepper]

But edge isn't everything. Ernie Dahlman claimed an edge of 3% *including rebate*, and an income of ca. $750,000.

Exactly! I think players in general focus too much on ROI. $$ (or euros in my case) are all that matters. If you have positive edge, you can make a fortune if you make enough bets, keeping your volume high.

I think that if you indeed had a 38 % ROI, you might be leaving lot of value to the table and could probably make more money with lower ROI, higher volume :confused:

[Hoofless_Wonder]

here is something i read on another forum today, about those parasites.......
this one though i think is home grown(not pommie)
sorry that format is wrong.

just happy that my day is done.

........


HERE’S A CLASSIC(BET)! The NSW Government licensed Classicbet really do hate winners. Here’s what they are asking for if they suspect that you might be somehow inclined to back more winners than losers: —————– After consideration we have decided to re-open your ClassicBet betting account subject to the satisfactory completion and return of important probity requirements. In accordance with this, your account has been temporarily suspended pending the receipt of these documents required by the ClassicBet Compliance team. Please complete the attached terms of trade with a Statutory Declaration as to the bona fides of your betting account. The completed Statutory Declaration must include the following information and documents all of which must be verified by an authorised party: a. Your full name, address, date of birth, and occupation; b. ClassicBet pin or account ID; c. Details and supporting documentation as to whether you operate your betting account for yourself only, or on behalf of someone else; d. Details of how you are funding your betting account; e. Certified copies of the evidence of the source of funds deposited to your ClassicBet betting account; f. Certified copies of your last three tax assessments; g. Certified copies of documents evidencing your current income e.g. your last 3 employee payslips; h. Printout of the IP address(es) for the computers used to operate your betting account; and i. Details of the mobile phone numbers used to operate your account. Where a certified copy of a document is required to be attached to the Statutory Declaration, you will need to have those documents certified by a Justice of the Peace, Solicitor or Commissioner for Declarations. Upon receiving the above information your account will be unsuspended and available for betting. Kind regards, ClassicBet Compliance team

This looks like the government is trying to prevent money laundering.

[steveb]

This looks like the government is trying to prevent money laundering.

i doubt it has anything to do with that, or it would be a requirement wherever you bet in australia, and it's not.
it's simply their way of shutting you down, as who in their right mind would agree to such onerous conditions.

there was certainly nothing like that in my day, and i have been betting for a long time until fairly recently.
also if that was the case then there would be no reason for it to have been a forum topic to begin with, as it would be common place.
but it's the first i had ever heard of it.

'austrac'(australia's money laundering authority) may get involved with cash payments of 10k and more, but i had never had any bother, even with them.

[Dark Target]

Its absolutely nothing to do with money laundering.

Its designed to stop bowlers accounts, most non punters will be willing to let you use their name (if you are good friends with them) in return for a percentage of your winnings if they dont have to do anything. Once they are told they have to provide tax returns, payslips, credit card copies, etc etc etc all certified they are much less likely to let people use their name.

[steveb]

Its absolutely nothing to do with money laundering.

Its designed to stop bowlers accounts, most non punters will be willing to let you use their name (if you are good friends with them) in return for a percentage of your winnings if they dont have to do anything. Once they are told they have to provide tax returns, payslips, credit card copies, etc etc etc all certified they are much less likely to let people use their name.

makes sense to me dt, and i can't pretend to know, as have never been a client of any corporates.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Its absolutely nothing to do with money laundering.

Its designed to stop bowlers accounts, most non punters will be willing to let you use their name (if you are good friends with them) in return for a percentage of your winnings if they dont have to do anything. Once they are told they have to provide tax returns, payslips, credit card copies, etc etc etc all certified they are much less likely to let people use their name.

Sorry. Should have said the obvious problem of tax evasion. That's the motive behind the books wanting to identify "problem" accounts. Extra scrutiny from the government for any reason is something they want to avoid.

I don't believe this is a problem in the UK though, were gambling profits are tax free.

[steveb]

Sorry. Should have said the obvious problem of tax evasion. That's the motive behind the books wanting to identify "problem" accounts. Extra scrutiny from the government for any reason is something they want to avoid.

I don't believe this is a problem in the UK though, were gambling profits are tax free.

it's tax free in australia too, well for most it is anyway.