What % of racehorses retire with a positive ROI on win bets?

[davew]

I am curious what the group thinks are the number of positive ROI horses on win bets.

would it be near 5% or much higher or much lower?

[cj]

Good luck finding that info. Most horses don't "retire", they just vanish from the racing scene.

[Jay Trotter]

So, I guess we likely wouldn't be able to figure out Jimmy Hoffa's ROI either?

[sjk]

I'd say 2% or less
.

[Capper Al]

I'd say 2% or less
.

I concur. Once a horse is hot, it is bet down by the fans.

[BarnieClockerbigal]

Well bred horses <1%

Obscurely bred horses by lesser known sires 5%

Allan

[thaskalos]

I am curious what the group thinks are the number of positive ROI horses on win bets.

would it be near 5% or much higher or much lower?
I would say lower...and they are probably among the worst horses on the track.

Every 99-1 winner is virtually guaranteed to "retire" with a positive ROI.

[FenceBored]

I would say lower...and they are probably among the worst horses on the track.

Every 99-1 winner is virtually guaranteed to "retire" with a positive ROI.

Hmm, every horse who has a single win at X-1 where X > (# of lifetime starts) - 1 is guaranteed to be positive ROI. For example a horse who had 5 lifetime starts and won one at decimal odds of 4.01 to 1 or higher would return greater than the $10 total bet.

[thaskalos]

Hmm, every horse who has a single win at X-1 where X > (# of lifetime starts) - 1 is guaranteed to be positive ROI. For example a horse who had 5 lifetime starts and won one at decimal odds of 4.01 to 1 or higher would return greater than the $10 total bet.
Math is not my strong suit...but even I can see the logic in your example above.

What I meant to imply was that these "career" positive ROI horses would be most likely to be found among the worst - rather than the best - horses on the grounds.

Exceptional horses like Zenyatta and Peppers Pride excluded, of course...:)

[FenceBored]

Math is not my strong suit...but even I can see the logic in your example above.

What I meant to imply was that these "career" positive ROI horses would be most likely to be found among the worst - rather than the best - horses on the grounds.

Exceptional horses like Zenyatta and Peppers Pride excluded, of course...:)

Let me generalize my earlier statement and say that if the sum of the odds of a horse's winning races is greater than the number of lifetime starts minus the number of wins the lifetime ROI is positive. And I don't think that this is as limited as we might at first think. Here's Court Vision who, prior to last Saturday, was 8 for 30 and had never won at 9-1 or greater.

30 starts * $2 = $60 lifetime wagered.

8 wins:
Odds - Paid
2.1 - $ 6.20
8.8 - $19.60
0.8 - $ 3.60
2.5 - $ 7.00
3.8 - $ 9.60
4.8 - $11.60
0.9 - $ 3.80
7.3 - $16.60

Summing the odds gives 31 and a return of $78 dollars.

Lifetime ROI is positive.

I'm not assuming my brain is working right, so where's the hole in the logic? Anybody?

[Robert Fischer]

don't know about win bets, but Mr. Ed. was pretty good when they had quinellas

[davew]

FenceBoard, I see nothing wrong with your analysis

and feel that a couple of groups of horses would be a large group of the positive ROI subset

- bottom level claimers that are inconsistent but pop a win every 5-15 races with boxcar results

- high win percentage horses (25%+) that are frequently taking shots at the top races, and occasionally hitting


even those rare repeat winners after raising condition frequently pay well

[sjk]

When I posted the other day I did a quick calculation and must have misplaced the decimal point when I looked at the results.

Another quick calculation gives me the answer of 17%. Hope I got it right this time.

[skate]

I am curious what the group thinks are the number of positive ROI horses on win bets.

would it be near 5% or much higher or much lower?

Dave

for the most part, we have two kinds of race horse that come close to answer your Question.


Breeding and racing would be the two, for the most part.

the only stats to give you an answer were taken in early 1990s, '90 or '91.

thoroughbred times did a survey, not on the horse itself, nor the trainer, nor the owner, but on the people who the owners paid to find them good horse.

not what you ask for but, something that might interest you.

What the Times was looking for was which techniques were best and the people that use them. In other words, some owners were intwerested more in Breeding, while others were more interested in Purse/winning tickets.

The Times made the distinctions in their survey.

The very Biggest farms/owners, who for the most part were looking for Breeding did not come close to a profit on Purses/Winning Tickets.

But one guy , Mr. Seaman, did show a Good Profit. he is still in the business.

He did not rely on sight, but he took Measures of the Horse.

I'm sure that others now follow his methods somewhat.

Funny, but he is the best, he had ideas that say "terrible Confirmation might run the Best".

The Times used 25 buyers with 100 plus purchases, six were a Positive ROI's, Seaman was plus 69%.

Spent on horses in the survey was $8,837 Million on 215 yearling

Race earnings were $14,954 Million.

Coolmore, looking at /for breeding . farms spent $86,473 on 106 horses and had a ROI's of $12,287 Million for a -86%.

Makes for interest, because people will tell you all they know about being able to LOOK at a horse and then tell you how ready that horse might be.

Always exceptions.

But... Seaman would tell you that a Comparison Between Mass and Leverage would be crucial to how efficiently the horse will move.

He measured with a tape

[davew]

Skate, thx for your in depth analysis on ROI for ownership of horses as an investment - buying a racehorse and going for purses with the least expense as possible

I am looking at starting my own 'fantasy stable', and not worrying about the training, feeding, trucking, entering, testing, vaccinating, other horses or riders in a race, crappy weather....

just horses that I can bet to win on when they enter a race in North America


I am just curious on what percentage of the racing horses fit the group I hope to select from

[lamboguy]

what i have found with horses are that the good ones do everything right as a baby in training and keep on doing things right throughout their racing careers. the real good ones train even when they are sick. i have found with young filly's you have to take them to the track every single day, otherwisee they will tie up on you and you not only lose time but they tend to go backwards. the toughest part of racing today is that when you have a young horse there aren't that many races for them and sometimes you are waiting to long between races. what i generally do is if the horse breaks his maiden early in the spring and the horse is not stakes caliber, i send the horse back to florida and train him with other horses and wait to send him back to the track when his races start to go in the fall.
that is why this business is tough, it gets very expensive to do it right and that doesn't guarantee you get paid at the end.