some one had a good day . aqu 11/22/03

[formula_2002]

Aside from the fact that a bet on every horse on the race card returned a profit of 35%. (There was a winning 73-1 shot), any bettor who was able to keep pace with the win pool (losing 14%) would attain the following;

Improve his profit in the 1st race DD to 5%.

Improve his profit in the 8th race DD to 4%.

Worsen the 2nd race pick 3 loss to -23%

Improve the 3rd race pick 3 to +10%

Worsen the 4th race pick 3 loss to -15%

Worsen the 5th race pick 3 loss to -43%

Improve the 7th race pick 3 to +26%

Improve the 6th race pick 4 to +3%

Over all, on the day, these pools returned a profit of 4 ½% even though a winning bet on each individual win pool, would statistically, return a long term loss of 14%

[Suff]

Joe, in english please?

Could yea splain it for the knuckleheads like me?

Follow the win pool?

Improve the 3rd race PIK3?

If you don't have the time today.. could you find a minute this week to break this down for the average joe?

[formula_2002]

Suff, it’ about determining the expected fair pay-off of a DD or any of the pick races.

Example:
If a horse is 3-1 in the win pool of a 14% tack out track, its true probability of winning is (1/ (odds+1)) x (1-.14) or 21.5%

So if two 3-1 shots win the DD, the expected fair would be .215*.251=.0630 which translates into odds of about 15-1.

If 3-1 shots win the pick 3 then it’s .215*.215*.215 =.01 or 99-1.

All this is a generalization of the win pool odds being true. Base upon the results of many empirical studies, including my own of over 200,000 horse, horses win in accordance with their odds, with a bias towards short price horses..

In AQU 1st race daily double the actual pay-off was $375.50 compared to an expected fair pay-off of $ 359.00 . If those conditions were repeated 1000’s of times, you would make 5%, even when the win odds (22.30 -1 and 4.70-1) would represent a 14% loss in the win pool and I would start to be seriously!!!

Hope this helps.

For further reading on this see "Commonsense Betting" by Dick Mitchel and "Money Secretes At The Race Track" by Barry Meadow.

Joe M

[sq764]

I have just realized something after reading your thread.. My college degree really was worthless, cause I didn't understand anything in there :-)

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by sq764
I have just realized something after reading your thread.. My college degree really was worthless, cause I didn't understand anything in there :-)

Perhaps I'm stumbling in my explanation, but these calculations have to be recognized by any serious player who is seeking a long term future in this game. (Unless ofcourse they are VERY VERY lucky).

This stuff is pre-horse racing 101!!;)

[sq764]

We will have to agree to disagree on that one Joe.

An overlay to me is getting more than I think is fair, plain and simple.

[Suff]

Originally posted by formula_2002
. (Unless ofcourse they are VERY VERY lucky).



Thank God! I thought I was doomed. I admire anyone that sticks a stake in the ground and says "it all lands here"

[Larry Hamilton]

What I find annoying is your presumption that based on your experience (as a losing player-your words) that you are capable of defining both a serious player and a winning player!

Your experience and abilities make you capable of defining in some personal part what loses, but in no way establishes your credentials of defining a winner.

The overwheling truth is, you dont know what winning is or you would be doing that !

[Suff]

Larry Makes a Good point Joe.

But don't you guys go off half cocked at each other...as these "scientific" topics do frequently.

I'm the official " go off half cocked" member.

[Larry Hamilton]

BLUE RESPONSE ALERT!!!

I apologize to the group for running around with a half a cock. I'll look for the rest of it after the races

[Suff]

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
BLUE RESPONSE ALERT!!!



lol.. maybe thats a Regional Phrase inappropiattley placed...translated it means....

Good discussion...don't blow it up.

[Larry Hamilton]

You're right...sorry all

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton

The overwheling truth is, you dont know what winning is or you would be doing that !

Larry, the note was all about the math of the game.
There are plenty of people you can take issue with on the subject, many more qualified then me.

And, based upon the math, and for the record I will say again that I find the game most impossible to beat.
But to stop the storm of protest I have witnessed in the past I will happily accept that any one who says he is a winner is indeed a winner.:rolleyes:

Joe M

[sq764]

Joe, I think your math is fine.. I take issue with this comment:

"but these calculations have to be recognized by any serious player who is seeking a long term future in this game"

I know several people who make a good living off of this sport and it is their full-time job. And I know for a fact none of the 3 bothers with the calculating you are referring to.

I don't think luck is the driving force behind their success either. Maybe this information would sharpen their game, maybe not.. But to say that this is a 'must' for every serious handicapper is just simply not true.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by sq764
Joe, I think your math is fine.. I take issue with this comment:

I know several people who make a good living off of this sport and it is their full-time job. And I know for a fact none of the 3 bothers with the calculating you are referring to.



Sq

great! Makes things much easier for them..

Joe M

[sq764]

Why wuss out? Defend your comment.. Nothing wrong with that!!

[Suff]

Originally posted by formula_2002
Sq

great! Makes things much easier for them..

Joe M

as I've stated many times... Idescribe myself as a Break even Horse player. i'm all ears when someone talks about making Money. I'm ope minded. I'd like to get better. If someone says "This is the key to profitability"... Then Im sure as hell going to exam it. I don't want to speak for anyone.. But I am sure we have our share of Profitable Players here...but by and large we're mostly Break even or at a loss..

I'm not in agreement or disagreement with Joe's Position.. But I do respect him as an informed player and a bright player...and I'll listen to anything he has to say with an open mind..

It does'nt get me agitated to read his stuff... it makes me curious.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Suff

I'm not in agreement or disagreement with Joe's Position.. But I do respect him as an informed player and a bright player...and I'll listen to anything he has to say with an open mind..

It does'nt get me agitated to read his stuff... it makes me curious.

Thanks Suff for the comments and the open mind.

Let me suggest Barry Meadows "Money Secrets At The Racetrack"
It will explain everything in my first note .

Joe M

[Brian Flewwelling]

Originally posted by formula_2002

Example:
snip....
In AQU 1st race daily double the actual pay-off was $375.50 compared to an expected fair pay-off of $ 359.00 . If those conditions were repeated 1000’s of times, you would make 5%, even when the win odds (22.30 -1 and 4.70-1) would represent a 14% loss in the win pool and I would start to be seriously!!!

Hope this helps.

Joe M

This confuses me. Not the math, the conclusion. The estimated payoff was 359, and the actual was 375. Seems well within the parameters of the First Law of Statistics: "Shit Happens"

If the experiment were repeated many times the Average Difference would be expected to disappear.

Your initial calculation of the expected pay-off assumes that the same bettors were involved in both pools and that is not necessarily true, so close is good!

Fleww

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Brian Flewwelling

If the experiment were repeated many times the Average Difference would be expected to disappear.


Fleww

And approach what?

Joe M

[formula_2002]

SQ, I'm assuming you are talking about the following.

"but these calculations have to be recognized by any serious player who is seeking a long term future in this game".

Let me see if I can explain in terms of something you might have already read.

To that extent, tell me what horse racing books you might have read that deal with "odds" and their development in part-mutual betting.

Joe M

[Brian Flewwelling]

Originally posted by formula_2002
And approach what?

Joe M

If your initial assumptions are correct, the Average of the Actual Payouts will approach the Expected Payouts, that would make for a Zero Difference.

On the other hand, if you can find a population of bettors where the Win bettors think differently than the Double Bettors, there may be a profit potential ... but i doubt it. So i guess i am agreeing with the reasonableness of your initial assumptions.

The Key point is that the Average Payout can only be expected to approach the Expected Payout for a large number of trials. One trial, like any single day, would be expected to show a difference.

Fleww

[formula_2002]

[i]

The Key point is that the Average Payout can only be expected to approach the Expected Payout for a large number of trials. One trial, like any single day, would be expected to show a difference.

Fleww [/B]

Brian, I AGREE 100% and that lies at the root of so many "profital systems". The "profitable systems" cannot be proven without rigior analysis of a large sample at.

I would appreciate what you think how many horses would represent a "large sample"

Many bettors see patterns, produced by randomness, that they mistake for , for lack of a better word, non-randomness.

Joe M

[JustMissed]

Joe, I would not doubt or challenge your data or results but I think your conclusion(relevant to any "serious horseplayer) is faulty because you have failed to include the MOST significant horseplaying factor/ability known by the winning player community.

I think that if you would include a caveat in your conclusion to the fact that your test results do not include this factor/ability....your conclusion would not appear to be so inflaming.

JustMissed

[Larry Hamilton]

Said nicely, that was exactly my point. I have no trouble with your numbers and techniques, and would love to discuss them. Your conclutions are without foundation and that drives me nuts.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by JustMissed
faulty because you have failed to include the MOST significant horseplaying factor/ability known by the winning player community.

ming.

JustMissed

Justm

what is factor/ability ?

[JustMissed]

Joe,

I will answer your question as to what is" the MOST significant horseplaying factor/ability known by the winning player community."

First, I would like for you, and other members if they choose, to say what each of you think is the most significant ability a winning horseplayer has.

I'll even give you a little hint, this ability is prominent in the movie ROUNDERS and equally apparent in each of the World Poker Tour shows seen on ESPN and the travel channel.


JustMissed
;)

[sq764]

Sunglasses?

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by sq764
Sunglasses?

now thats funny!!

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Joe,


I'll even give you a little hint, this ability is prominent in the movie ROUNDERS and equally apparent in each of the World Poker Tour shows seen on ESPN and the travel channel.


JustMissed
;)

I don’t attempt to answer your question, but I’d like to mention the following;

1. Bet not on what you have but what to can scare the other guy into thinking what you could have. And of course LUCK.
2. When you have a good hand, bet as if you don’t and let the other guy go “all in”
And of course luck.
3. With 6 to 4 guys in the game keep you eye on coming in 2nd or third (let the other sob die for his country.) And of course LUCK.
4. All Luck. And of course sun glasses.

[JustMissed]

Joe,

I can't believe you mentioned "luck" in your 'no answer'.

No upstanding poker player would ever mention luck, those guys win because they understand probabilities.

I'll give you another little hint: Poker players and sports bettors have this ability, but blackjack players, crap shooters and roulette players do not.

Joe, not to toy with you but once you understand what the most significant ability a winning horseplayer has, it will rock your world in respect to data base studies.

JustMissed

[cj]

I'll try...

For me, the most important ability is knowing when to bet, and when not to bet.

[Suff]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Joe,

I will answer your question as to what is" the MOST significant horseplaying factor/ability known by the winning player community."


;)

Just for the record... I have spoken a fair amount with Larry Hamilton about Thoroughbreds Wagering and Using Systems to break down Pool and Race data. I know that Larry has a HUGE results Database...and he has MASTERED how to reach conclusions based on 100's of thousands of proven models.

I also know he has generously and freely offered anyone assistance in dupilicating his efforts or helped them in understanding his work. I had two people at the Saratoga trip go out of thier way to tell me how intelligent and Generous Larry is.
I also have traded e-mails and PM's with Joe (formula) and he's the same way... Very Intelligent and very Generous...
If you consider that Either of these Guys or BOTH of these guys are dead on correct...or even partially correct.. They're out here giving it away!

I believe I am a Very Good Handicapper. A Daily Racing form feels like one of my hands...Its part or me. Give me a Daily racing form and a pencil and 60 minutes....and I'm as good as anyone.

But as far as Playing and wagering on Thoroughbreds for PROFIT... I'm a child.

I'm listening to Joe or Larry...and anyone else because I have Much to learn.

[Brian Flewwelling]

Originally posted by formula_2002
Brian, I AGREE 100% and that lies at the root of so many "profital systems". The "profitable systems" cannot be proven without rigior analysis of a large sample at.


As others in this thread are trying to point out, Wining systems are proven by the wallet size.

And in stats issues, 100% is just a 'wish'


I would appreciate what you think how many horses would represent a "large sample"

This tread is mostly a pissing contest, and not the best place for an introduction to statistics. But here is an attempt at an answer that you can find in any introductory stats book.

Since you can never be 100% sure, select a maximum Error you are happy with, and a degree of confidence you require. Suppose you want to be 95% sure the answer lies withing E of your result.

then n= (1.96 * S/E) ^2 where S is the standard deviation of a sample of size at least 30 . If you want more, register in an introductory stats class at your local college.


Many bettors see patterns, produced by randomness, that they mistake for , for lack of a better word, non-randomness.

Joe M

reality is better word

Fleww

[Suff]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
The King and I

Its Good to be the KING!!! Lol.. made my day seeing that. Good times up there...

Like I always tell the boys....if I'm lucky enough to make it into the old age home... I want to have some stories to tell!!

Toga 2003 is a story that'll be worth telling!

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Joe,


Joe, not to toy with you but once you understand what the most significant ability a winning horseplayer has, it will rock your world in respect to data base studies.

JustMissed

And your answer is ?

[sjk]

Brian,

With the inherent variability of either cashing (usually exactas) or not, it takes a lot more races than I might have guessed to be 95% confindent that my historical return is within 5% of my expected return.

The std dev of my sample is 4.13 which indicates a needed sample size of 26210 races. Have I applied the formula correctly?

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Brian Flewwelling
If you want more, register in an introductory stats class at your local college.



Fleww

Or you can just go to my web page and use my interactive "SIGNIFICANCE TESTING" or you can use this interesting web site;

http://www.ubmail.ubalt.edu/~harsham/Business-stat/otherapplets/SampleSize.htm

[Brian Flewwelling]

Originally posted by sjk
Brian,

With the inherent variability of either cashing (usually exactas) or not, it takes a lot more races than I might have guessed to be 95% confindent that my historical return is within 5% of my expected return.

The std dev of my sample is 4.13 which indicates a needed sample size of 26210 races. Have I applied the formula correctly?

The formula i gave applies only to Estimates of the Mean of a large sample, not to fractions or percentages.

The factors S and E must be in the same units, so if you express S as 4.13 you can't use 5% as the error. Is 4.13% the standard deviation?

If you are dealing with Percentages, the formula is a little different. If i assume you are targetting a 5% return, give or take 5% i get n=73 by the other formula.

But is this really a of interest in this thread? There are some good stats types on this board who could contribute more than I to a thread on these matters, but i doubt they have read this far on this thread. If you want to get such a discussion going start a new thread and i will be there.

Fleww

[formula_2002]

TO DETERMINE 95% CONFIDENCE FOR 10% PROFIT WITH AN ERROR OF 5% YOU NEED TO LOOK AT 37610 HORSES


IN ODDS RANGE OF 1-1 THROUGH 10-1 (ASSUMING 1 BET PER RACE)

FOR THE BACK-UP TO THIS STATEMENT, YOU ARE WELCOMED TO GO TO MY WEB PAGE AND OPEN THE "SURPRISE" LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE


Joe M

[sq764]

Ok, I worked all day and the last thing I want to do is hear about math formulas..

So the real reason you win the power world series is... a cool last name!

I mean how could Chris MONEYMAKER lose??

[stgeorge]

Originally posted by JustMissed
I'll give you another little hint

Why are we being coy about this? What is it (according to you)?

[Larry Hamilton]

Knowing who and what to ignore, otherwise called NOISE. The more noise you can remove the better you focus.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
Knowing who and what to ignore, otherwise called NOISE. The more noise you can remove the better you focus.

Larry, I know that one. Just go to my last 7 sessions of picks in the SELECTIONS FORUM. In those sessions I limited my selections to but 3 picks per race. Generally covered two to three tracks a day (about 60 picks) with the following posted results;

1. 4% profit
2. won 6 of 9 races, missed the pic 4 and pic 6 by 1 race
3. $13 profit in 27 picks
4. 77% winning races
5. $1.50 loss in 63 picks
6. $13.90 profit in 30 picks.

To the untrained eye this looks very impressive however lets see what trully happened.

594 picks 21% winners 17% loss. Not much better then random selection.

A winner in 64% of the races returned a loss of 17%.
But if you just bet the the top three public choices you would have a winner in 74% of the races and lose but 11%.

It's no easier eliminating noise than it is picking winners at a profit.


Joe M

[JustMissed]

Joe,

I saw your Aqueduct selections for 11/21. If I read your sheet correctly, it looks like you picked three horses for each of the nine races on the days card.

If that is correct, did you actually take cash out of your pocket and bet on each race. If so, what kind of bets did you make and did you bet on each race?

Thanks,

JustMissed
:)

[formula_2002]

JustM..the last time I placed a bet was a few weeks ago at the AQU on track two day contest.
Previous to that was the Bel on track contest in June.
I try not to bet to often.

I can be dangerious to one's health.


Joe M

[Amazin]

Formula

I may be missing something,but you say you have bet very little recently,but I do see you make quite a few predictions in the selections area. Can you clarify this dichotomy. If it is true,(that you rarely bet your picks)why would you offer selections that in your practice are not worth betting?

[formula_2002]

Because I'm 99.99 % confident I will do no worst, in the long term, then anyone else that post, regardless what method they may employ.
And mostly, I enjoy picking them...

Joe M

[JustMissed]

Joe, That may be the reason people are confused or become inflamed by your data base conclusions.

No need to restate the history of data base handicapping but it started out as a tool to idenitify common attributes between similiar events. Wonderful handicapping angles have been identified like days since last race, blinkers on, first time lasix, drop in class, etc. You could probably name hundreds of these angles that have been identified via data base query.

Somewhere in the past some guy was looking at his list of horses that won or lost with blinkers on, for example, and he decided to write down win amounts by each horse. When he added up the payoffs and divided that total by the number of winning horses, he announced to the world that blinkers on won 43% of the time but only paid a mutuel price of $2.80 or some such figure. Handicappers, always eager for a new angle, took this information to heart and drew the false conclusions that blinkers on were good bets, bad bets or something in between.

The problem with the above example is that the conclusions are based on the assumption that a bettor would bet each and every race that a blinkers on horse runs in, which is absolutely false.

In one of your post above you gave out your conclusion based on the results of a series of races and then you turn around in a later post and admit that you did not bet all those races. This is where you are running into trouble because you are ignoring the fact individual bettors have the ability to pass or play each of those races in your example and consequently would have different results and draw a different conclusion of those events.

I obviously don't know this to be true, but for those 11/21 Aqueduct races, somebody like Jim Lehane may have only bet 4 of the 9 races, in various amounts and using various types of bets and probably(hopefully) won hundreds or thousands of dollars. How could Jim have different results than you, simply because he used effectively his ability to play or pass races. The winning horseplayers greatest weapon is his ability to pass races.

Next time you watch championship poker on TV, write down how many times the winner antes up and plays or doesn't play(folds his hand). The way you present your results and conclusions you would say Johnny Chan anted up 100 times and lost 62 times so Chan only won 38% of the pots and is a loser. I think Mr. Chan might have something to say about that.

Joe, it would be helpfull when you post your conclusion to your results instead of saying as a rock solid fact, you would say something like "if a player played all nine races at Aqueduct he would lose $X.

JustMissed

:)

[cj]

Hey JM,

No props for me? I guessed what your secret was a page back, because I learned it the hard way.

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Hey JM,

No props for me? I guessed what your secret was a page back, because I learned it the hard way.

Right on CJ and you were very quick to identify that ability.

Funny game isn't it, seems like 99% of our effort is devoted to picking the winner and hardly no effort is devoted to knowing when to keep your hand out of your pocket or bet structure.

JustMissed

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Joe,

I can't believe you mentioned "luck" in your 'no answer'.

No upstanding poker player would ever mention luck, those guys win because they understand probabilities.

JustMissed

Except for the 2mc's on last nights BRAVO broardcast of the
professional poker contest in Las Vegas.
They must have said it 10 times in 60 seconds that it took luck to win the contest.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
Formula

I may be missing something,but you say you have bet very little recently,but I do see you make quite a few predictions in the selections area. Can you clarify this dichotomy. If it is true,(that you rarely bet your picks)why would you offer selections that in your practice are not worth betting?


Well, these are free picks and worth every penny!;)

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by formula_2002
Except for the 2mc's on last nights BRAVO broardcast of the
professional poker contest in Las Vegas.
They must have said it 10 times in 60 seconds that it took luck to win the contest.

Joe, they were paid by the casino to say "luck".

Do you think the casinos would still be in business if the patrons didn't think that by the grace of God and lady luck, they, too, would have a chance to win a $2.5 million dollar poker tournament.

You do know that hundreds of people pay $10,000 to enter those tournaments and all but one loses every fu*king penny of that $10,000. Do you think the casino could get enough people to enter if that did not interject the element of luck.

Joe, you do know that most people don't have enough sense to balance their own bank account much less set the clock on their VCR. What the hell would happen if the general public poker gamblers were told that in order to win they would have an intimate knowledge of:

1. Card odds
2. Investment odds
3. Edge odds
4. Psychology

If too many people knew what it took to win a poker tournament you couldn't get them within three hundred miles of Vegas, LA, or Tunica if you gave away free lodging , food, and lap dances.

Joe, professional horseplayers, track owners, trainers, jockeys, etc. are the same as casino owners, the more money the suckers put in the pot, the more they put in their pocket.

Do you think the winning horse players, software vendors and data resellers want you to know what it takes to beat the races, I don't think so. They are just like the casino owners, the less you know the better, the more you know wrongly, the more you put in the pot(pool)even better.

Joe, just something to think about.

JustMissed

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by formula_2002
Except for the 2mc's on last nights BRAVO broardcast of the
professional poker contest in Las Vegas.
They must have said it 10 times in 60 seconds that it took luck to win the contest.

Joe, they were paid by the casino to say "luck".

Do you think the casinos would still be in business if the patrons didn't think that by the grace of God and lady luck, they, too, would have a chance to win a $2.5 million dollar poker tournament.

You do know that hundreds of people pay $10,000 to enter those tournaments and all but one loses every fu*king penny of that $10,000. Do you think the casino could get enough people to enter if that did not interject the element of luck.

Joe, you do know that most people don't have enough sense to balance their own bank account much less set the clock on their VCR. What the hell would happen if the general public poker gamblers were told that in order to win they would have an intimate knowledge of:

1. Card odds
2. Investment odds
3. Edge odds
4. Psychology

If too many people knew what it took to win a poker tournament you couldn't get them within three hundred miles of Vegas, LA, or Tunica if you gave away free lodging , food, and lap dances.

Joe, professional horseplayers, track owners, trainers, jockeys, etc. are the same as casino owners, the more money the suckers put in the pot, the more they put in their pocket.

Do you think the winning horse players, software vendors and data resellers want you to know what it takes to beat the races, I don't think so. They are just like the casino owners, the less you know the better, the more you know wrongly, the more you put in the pot(pool)even better.

Joe, just something to think about.

JustMissed

[JustMissed]

Somebody jumped in with a BS post and I wanted your post to be Number One.

JustMissed
:)