Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 03-01-2018, 10:54 PM   #1
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 14,109
Rep Power: 35 Dave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really nice
Beating the Lottery

Here is a very interesting article about how some lotteries were beaten with some math and a big bankroll.

Has my wheels turning.
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-01-2018, 11:32 PM   #2
AltonKelsey
Registered User
 
AltonKelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,282
Rep Power: 4 AltonKelsey will become famous soon enough
A little long, but interesting.

There's always an angle, that's why, if I don't know what the scam is, I don't play.
AltonKelsey is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-02-2018, 10:48 AM   #3
HalvOnHorseracing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,574
Rep Power: 7 HalvOnHorseracing is on a distinguished road
David Baldacci did a book on fixing the lottery in 1998 called The Winner.

Isn't that the gambler's dream? Being 100% sure you're going to hit the big one?
HalvOnHorseracing is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-02-2018, 12:11 PM   #4
Saratoga_Mike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,775
Rep Power: 18 Saratoga_Mike will become famous soon enough
The Winner was a work of fiction. This guy (Dave's article) was actually beating the lottery by only playing into "carryovers."
Saratoga_Mike is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-03-2018, 09:18 AM   #5
Mulerider
Registered User
 
Mulerider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: East Texas
Posts: 627
Rep Power: 6 Mulerider is a jewel in the roughMulerider is a jewel in the roughMulerider is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike View Post
The Winner was a work of fiction. This guy (Dave's article) was actually beating the lottery by only playing into "carryovers."
Interesting how the MIT group "forced" the carryover.

Mule
Mulerider is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-03-2018, 11:07 AM   #6
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 14,109
Rep Power: 35 Dave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really nice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike View Post
The Winner was a work of fiction. This guy (Dave's article) was actually beating the lottery by only playing into "carryovers."
Yes, the logic is very sound. Just like progressive slot machines. (Oh, the casinos hate those guys. Actually the same principle as why the tracks should hate winners: they take money out of the pool -- then they can't win it).


Quote:
Interesting how the MIT group "forced" the carryover.

Indeed! Back in the 80s I was mildly involved with a "slot team" for a short time. They'd watch progressives that were approaching the point of profitability and jump in when it went positive.

Unfortunately, there was competition and sometimes the other teams would get there first.

The head genius figured out that if they moved a little early, they'd have a losing proposition for a short time but get the seats.

BTW, actually knew a team who went broke on a progressive. Found out that "under-capitalization" was a big deal in that "industry."


Dave
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-05-2018, 04:56 PM   #7
Saratoga_Mike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,775
Rep Power: 18 Saratoga_Mike will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz View Post
Yes, the logic is very sound. Just like progressive slot machines. (Oh, the casinos hate those guys. Actually the same principle as why the tracks should hate winners: they take money out of the pool -- then they can't win it).





Indeed! Back in the 80s I was mildly involved with a "slot team" for a short time. They'd watch progressives that were approaching the point of profitability and jump in when it went positive.

Unfortunately, there was competition and sometimes the other teams would get there first.

The head genius figured out that if they moved a little early, they'd have a losing proposition for a short time but get the seats.

BTW, actually knew a team who went broke on a progressive. Found out that "under-capitalization" was a big deal in that "industry."


Dave
Dave, could you please elaborate on your slots comments? I'm basically asking your approach/edge? Thank you.
Saratoga_Mike is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-07-2018, 09:51 AM   #8
RunForTheRoses
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,793
Rep Power: 17 RunForTheRoses is a jewel in the roughRunForTheRoses is a jewel in the roughRunForTheRoses is a jewel in the roughRunForTheRoses is a jewel in the rough
Very good read, I spread it out over a few days and just finished. It pays to pay attention.
RunForTheRoses is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-07-2018, 10:11 AM   #9
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 14,109
Rep Power: 35 Dave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really nice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike View Post
Dave, could you please elaborate on your slots comments? I'm basically asking your approach/edge? Thank you.
Not much to it. (And it isn't "mine.")

The idea is that progressives build up a pot. There is some point at which the player has a positive expectancy. (My limited experience was with video poker progressives but I heard that there were slot teams as well.)

Video poker was easier because, given a specific rule set, one could compute the exact point when the progressive was large enough to produce the positive expectation.

I recall years ago that the local newspaper here in Reno would list all the positive-play progressives. Well, they didn't call them that. They called them big jackpots, but from that list one could do the math.

I'd bet there are others here with more knowledge on the subject than I.

Dave
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-08-2018, 02:42 PM   #10
ultracapper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,836
Rep Power: 8 ultracapper is on a distinguished road
Nothing more than mandatory pay out day at the track. Cash in, cash out calculations. I was going to call bullshit if they had come up with a "number selection" system. Just like a coin flip, previous results in a lottery drawing have no bearing on future drawings, yet every now and then somebody claims a selection system that wins the big one.
ultracapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-11-2018, 03:14 PM   #11
tanner12oz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,449
Rep Power: 10 tanner12oz is on a distinguished road
This Couple Found a Math Error in the Lottery and Made $27 Million (Playing Over and Over for 55 Weeks)


"Oh, I knew it would work," the wife said. "I knew it would work."

By Bill Murphy Jr.




Executive editor of operations, Some Spider, and founder, ProGhostwriters.com@BillMurphyJr








WRITE A COMMENT




CREDIT: Getty Images



(Update: If you thought this story was something, check out the Stanford PhD who reportedly gamed the Texas lottery and walked away with $20 million.)
The lottery is usually a lousy return--but for a husband and wife team who figured out a math error in games run by two states, it became a wildly profitable investment strategy.
Meet Marge and Jerry Selbee, owners of a "party store" in Evart, Michigan that sold cigarettes, liquor, and lottery tickets. After watching thousands of customers, Jerry figured out how to hack the odds in a certain type of lottery: called Winfall in Michigan, and later Cash WinFall in Massachusetts.
Play a dollar here and there, and you might win occasionally. But play thousands and thousands in particular weeks, when the prize accumulated in a certain way, and Jerry realized you could almost guarantee a profit to the tune of five or six figures.
So that's what the Selbees started doing, to the point that playing the lottery became a full-time job at times. Over the course of nine years, it worked, to the point that their estimated total lottery haul was almost $27 million.
The work

The math is explained at greater length in a recent, 10,000-word article on The Huffington Post (which I highly recommend). But the really hard part, once the Selbees figured it out, was simply the process of actually buying and examining thousands of lottery tickets.
This required physically going to stores in person, standing in front of machines for hours, buying the tickets, and printing them out.
Selbee started on his own in 2003, spending a few thousand dollars a week, while keeping the whole thing a secret from his more risk-averse wife.
After two weeks of betting, during which he made $6,300 after buying $3,400 worth of tickets--and then grossed $15,700 after buying $8,000 worth of tickets, he came clean.
She bought in.
"Oh, I knew it would work," Marge said later, given her husband's propensity for code-breaking and math. "I knew it would work."
The MIT gang

After first few hundred thousand dollars in profit, the Selbees started a company to fund and organize the whole thing.
Then, Michigan closed down the game they were playing, and they focused on Massachusetts, where the stakes were higher. This also required a 12-hour drive each way to play--standing in convenience stores, for days at a time.
The Selbees took on investors, and then faced another challenge: a group of students from MIT who had also figured out the odds, formed an organization, attracted investors, and started making millions.
Like big bettors at the racetrack or in Las Vegas, each big group started to interfere with the other's strategy.
But in the end, it was the Boston Globe newspaper that brought the whole thing crashing down.
The investigators

There was nothing illegal about what the Selbees or the MIT group were doing, but there was a perception that they were juicing the odds in their favor--and away from the "little guy" player, who might picking up a couple of lottery tickets on the way home from work.
It didn't matter, as the Selbees would later argue, that their out-of-state money was pumping millions of dollars into the Massachusetts lottery's coffers--and was ultimately distributed to the state's cities, towns, and schools.
It just didn't look right.
And, there was also the fact that lottery officials in Massachusetts had started to figure out that the Selbees and the MIT students had identified an advantage, but had done very little to combat it.
"How do I become a member of the [Selbees'] club when I retire?" one lottery official joked in an email that later became public.
The Boston Globe stories, written by the same Spotlight team that had exposed child sexual abuse in the Catholic church (and served as the basis for an Oscar-winning movie)--foretold the end of the story.
The Massachusetts Lottery shut down the game. And the Selbees made their final trip back to Michigan, after their 55th week of playing.
Still: $27 million gross

They'd been vilified in the media, Jerry Selbee felt, even after he'd sat for interviews himself with the Globe reporter. Still, he seemed to think, it was a small price to pay--and well worth the cost.
The Selbees "grossed nearly $27 million" all together, netting $7.75 million, according to the Huffington Post report, which culminates with a more recent interview with the couple.
Besides, they're back in Michigan now--hundreds of miles away from the Massachusetts media. And they doubted too many people would have given up the opportunity they'd taken, if they knew it existed.
"If you figured it out and you could do this, would you do it?" Jerry Selbee said in the Huffington Post article, "I'm just asking. Would you?"



Like this column? Sign up to subscribe to email alerts and you'll never miss a post.
The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

Published on: Mar 2, 2018
tanner12oz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
To Compete with Sports Betting must lower takeout/breakage on higher churn wagers?
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2018 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved -- Best Viewed in a modern browser @ 1280x720 Resolution Or Higher
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.