the eternal search for the automatic bet

[Elliott Sidewater]

In one of his older books Mark Cramer found that betting 5 year old geldings showed a flat bet profit; I recall it being somewhere around 20 cents on a dollar. I took a couple of 2011 racing programs and went through them to see if it still "worked". Here were the results:

52 winners in 351 races (14.8%)
amount bet $702
winners returned $584.20
ROI ($1 basis) $0.832

16.8% loss.

The largest mutuel was $52, and there were only 8 winners that paid $20 or more.

Cramer's research samples were larger than mine, and spanned 2 consecutive years. Both of those years were profitable. That was then, this is now. It looked too good to be true and it is. Here's a prediction - within 5 replies someone will blame these poorer statistics on drugs, and within 15 replies, someone else will blame it on Obama. Someone might be right:)

[Overlay]

It's hard for any bet (based on a spot play or other fixed set of circumstances) to remain "automatic" over time, because it will inevitably lose profitability as more people pick up on it and play it, or as overall conditions of the game change. To me, the only bet that could potentially qualify as being "automatic" would be a variable one that would be based on a horse being an overlay under the conditions of a specific race, and against the competitors that the horse faces in that race.

[mistergee]

I seem to remember another one that I think was in the same book that said to play a horse after he had won 2 of his first 10 races in every one of his races thereafter. I dont know how this one has fared over time or if anyone has tracked it lately

[vegasone]

As soon as someone publishes a sure thing that sure thing would cease being profitable in most cases(applies to horses where you are competing in the mutuel pools). Assuming that he was a very giving person and was correct. Hard to believe anyone would give out a great winning system unless he could make more money selling the book than making the plays. Just my pessimistic side.

[davew]

I remember paying a good chunk of change on a system 30 yrs ago


went something like this
- bet all gray horses that finished out of the money in the last 3 races

as you can imagine, the winners usually paid HUGE


if you look at DRFs, and look for the grays running that would be bets, it worked out alright

when implemented in real time, it did not work so well

apparently horses that lose 10-15 times in a row, stop racing
and looking for systems off of results, is a statistical no no

[Dave Schwartz]

Look for a definitive answer to the "5-yr old Gelding" question on December 25th. That is one of the factors in my new book.

regards,
Dave Schwartz

[PaceAdvantage]

Here's a prediction - within 5 replies someone will blame these poorer statistics on drugs, and within 15 replies, someone else will blame it on Obama. Someone might be right:)Political talk is outlawed in the horse racing section, so that wouldn't be possible. I predict you will be wrong (and if it happens, it will disappear into the night... :lol: )

[Elliott Sidewater]

Thanks for the replies. Looking forward to hearing what Dave Schwartz has to say on the topic in his book. I would not be shocked if some subset of the 5 year old gelding population is profitable, perhaps the subset that has at least x prior wins, or between y and z career starts..........

[Robert Fischer]

have to go beyond superficial examples like 5yoG

[bob60566]

This came up last year,In the book the angle was to bet first time gelded 5 year olds.
They have FTG listed in the Socal overnights.

Mac:)

[rastajenk]

Here's a prediction - within 5 replies someone will blame these poorer statistics on drugs, and within 15 replies, someone else will blame it on Obama.
Takeout!

:D

[pondman]

because it will inevitably lose profitability as more people pick up on it and play it, or as overall conditions of the game change.

The average player is more herd conscious today than in the past, and becomes concerned if the odds on their horse is too high. It's common to hear statements such as "the connects," or "the big money" isn't on their horse. Therefore, if you've got a little knowledge that doesn't involved published ratings and the crowd makes a mistake, the ability to hit a home run is still very high. If you got a few green flags to look for that doesn't involve stellar past performances, you can load up on a single. If you've got a few green flags with awfull looking horse, such as with some class drops, you can make some money.

I don't have any automatic single variable, such as 5 year old geldings that don't include a class variable, but I do have a number multi-variable green flags that I'll bet if the odds are high enough.

[Overlay]

I don't have any automatic single variable, such as 5 year old geldings that don't include a class variable, but I do have a number multi-variable green flags that I'll bet if the odds are high enough.
That's the key.

[Elliott Sidewater]

BOB60566: What book were you referring to? I remember Cramer mentioning "the ultimate equipment change" in one of his books, but not in association with 5 year old geldings.

[dansan]

damn its about time one of my longshots come in

[Elliott Sidewater]

I wasn't satisfied with the initial sample size so I expanded it. The second sample showed a miniscule profit.

here are the combined stats:

98 winners in 667 races (14.7%)
amount bet $1334
winners returned $1229.10
ROI (on $1 bet)= 0.921

This is a 7.9% loss - pretty close or better than break even with rebates. All members of sample are 5yo geldings in 2011. There was a $72.60 winner in the second sample, but it was not overly loaded with longshots.

[Robert Fischer]

good stuff

[jdhanover]

About 15 replies later so....


There is a 57.9% chance it is due to the use of drugs
There is a 19% chance it is due to Obama

And, statistically speaking, a 4.3% chance it is due to Obama being on drugs

I crack myself up sometimes... :lol: :lol:

[bks]

The issue is a fascinating one. I would cast it in terms of whether simple, yet profitable, betting strategies exist [e.g. bet any 5 year old gelding]. In a self-regulating betting market, one would think that, over time, there would not be any that persist for long.

In sports betting, apparently they do exist over multiple seasons. The simplest of them is: bet on big underdogs to cover the spread. Dogs of 12.5 or more in NBA games over a long period of time covered slightly above the 52.4% break-even point. Home dogs of this kind so so even more often. See the work of Jonathan Gibbs on NBA point shaving for confirmation of this.

economics.stanford.edu/files/Theses/Theses_2007/Gibbs2007.pdf

He concludes that this fact is consistent with the existence of point shaving. Ultimately it supports a claim that over the 14-year sample he looked at, "roughly five games per season are influenced by point shaving."

In horse racing there is no direct equivalent of point shaving, since margin of victory is never a determinant of cashing a bet. Cheating will take other forms, and the existence of simple yet profitable betting strategies [if they exist] could be an indicator of the kind of cheating that is going on.

[wonatthewire1]

I seem to remember another one that I think was in the same book that said to play a horse after he had won 2 of his first 10 races in every one of his races thereafter. I dont know how this one has fared over time or if anyone has tracked it lately

The book is Thoroughbred Cycles published 21 years ago!