speed figures analysis ?

[Lefty]

Formula, on that craps bet the pctg never changes. You can't pick a spot cause the odds are fixed and you will never get an overlay. You are looking the racing pctg BLINDLY> Say at Bel you have a 42% chance of winning with a 1-1 shot. That's an avg of all the 1-1 shots. But say you're picking your shots and several times a season you scope out a 1-1 shot that should be 2-5. Then you should be a winner at this type of bet. You just CANNOT equate racing pctgs with craps. At craps the odds are static and they are not at racing.

[formula_2002]

gj

This has nothing to do about hot air or even money favorites.

The game is impossible to beat.

True, if I can not beat it , I would say that the probability of anyone beating it is extremly remote.

But dont let me stop anyone from trying.

Have fun.. I'm saving my big bets for the Bellagio. It's easier to get lucky there.

Joe M

[anotherdave]

Formula, why are you here then? Why are you spending all this time on an impossible game? Clearly you can't beat it (and then logic follows that no one else can). What is all that stuff on your website? As a person with a very strong statistical background, I see this game can be beaten. I do it. What is your educational background to make such a statement?

There are two things involved in a gamble:

1. Probability of winning.

2. Odds

For a gamble to have any possibility of winning, there has to be some variability or uncertainty in one or both of those factors.

Craps has variability in neither. No chance for long term winning.
I know the probability of getting a 7 and knows what odds I will get if I win (set by the house).

Horse racing has variability in both. There are not many gambles like this. The probability is unknown-completely up for debate (as in sports betting) AND the odds are set by the bettors. Bettors do a decent job of this overall, but make serious mistakes in individual cases regularly. Difficult, but not impossible.

Blackjack, poker, and sports betting have variability in one of them.

The high take-out at the track makes it a difficult proposition, but certainly not impossible.


AD

[Lefty]

Formula, wow, a man such as you, inundates himself in racing stats, and now hopes to get lucky at Bellagio. You have looked at the stats too long and have failed to see the "little picture" the subsets of those stats. Anyway, good luck at craps; you're gonna need it, no overlays.

[formula_2002]

Just one example why no one can beat the track take-out.

For many years I have seen about 20% of the exacta pay offs as overlays.
Simple math will calculate the expected exacta pay off based upon the win pool odds and the win pool take-out.

Just compare that calculation to the actual payoff and you should also find 20% of the races are won by exacta overlays.

There is gold in them hills.

So I proceeded to write some programs that would spot these overlays by down loading online exacta probable tables into the program.

So what did I find?

10 minuets to post, the programs is spitting out many overlays.
5 minuets to post, fewer overlays
2 minuets almost no overlays
1 minuet to post, nada.

After the races, I find that once again, about 20% of the races were won by overlay exacta combinations.

So what happened?

In the smallest amount of time, the public is adjusting every win odds and exacta payout based on what it sees happening to the odds boards. Handicapping is over. It's now a matter of arbitrage, and last minuet heavy betting

Sharks in a mad feeding frenzy.
In that short period of time, without any one being able to fully adjust to the odds boards, they over bet the win pool, which then creates the exacta pool overlay.

So if you bet into a race that produces no exacta overlays, the take-out beats you.

If you bet into a race where the winning exacta combination is an overlay, not only did the track beat you, but that owner (or owners) that put in a $30,000 win bet just killed you. He turned your 2-1 horse into 9/5, or worst yet, 8/5.

Joe M

[cj]

None of which has a damn thing to do with today's 8th at Belmont...trust me, I hope you stop betting less, I'll miss your money in the pools.

Perhaps its not "the more I know, the less I bet" but "the more I lose, the less I bet!"

CJ

[formula_2002]

anotherdave writes

"For a gamble to have any possibility of winning , there has to be some variability or uncertainty in one or both of those factors. "


Assuming, and i'm sure you do, mean winning at a profit,
I agree, but the variability or uncertainty must exceed the take-out.

The betting public is just not that stupid to allow that large a variability or uncertain to exist.


Joe M

[formula_2002]

CJ

dont get upset..betting requires a clear head.
Even when it's on the body of a rooster

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by formula_2002
anotherdave writes

"For a gamble to have any possibility of winning , there has to be some variability or uncertainty in one or both of those factors. "


Assuming, and i'm sure you do, mean winning at a profit,
I agree, but the variability or uncertainty must exceed the take-out.

The betting public is just not that stupid to allow that large a variability or uncertain to exist.


Joe M

I am a statistician and I only use the computer to do calculations. You seem to use it to handicap. I still handicap the old-fashioned way, but use technology to speed the process. I'd lose if I used a computer to handicap. For me handicapping is not running numbers through a data base (I've never even used a data base. My brain is my data base I guess), it is visualizing the running of the race and looking for the mistakes the public makes. As cj says they happen regularly. I don't find all of them, but I find enough of them to make a profit.

AD

[sjk]

formula_2002

I'm sure I'm not the only one that takes offense at the idea that one cannot bet races in a profitable way. I would agree that trying to make an arbitrage between the win pools and the exacta pools will not get you far. I bet mostly exactas, but I know that when my horses do not offer value in the win pools the exacta prices will not hold up.

I bet thousands of races each year and have been in the black each of the last 6 years. I will admit that my ROI has decreased over that period of time. I wonder if the game is getting tougher or if it is me failing to keep up. Anyone have an opinion?

[Dave Schwartz]

SJK,

I think your assessment is accurate.

The issue is the proliferation of electronic information and software programs. With everyone using (basically) the same information, we are all pretty much in agreement on who the best horses are. That is why it is nearly impossible to find value in low-priced horses these days; they are so overbet because we all agree.

My experience is that profit is generally found by taking the "prime contenders," eliminating the favorites, and betting what is left.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[hurrikane]

unbelievable.

I guess we won't be hearing the 'go to my website' mantra anymore. There is always a bright side.

Joe, you have spent the last 2 months telling everyone what they have to do to win, to make the right selections to make any money as if you were some kind of friggin handicapping god. Then we have to put up with this 'go to my website' bullshit.
Then you come up with this
to paraphrase....'If I can't beat it no one can. '

what a pompus ass.

I'm going to miss taking your money in particular buddy.

[Tom]

So just 'casue YOU can't win, nobody can??
Wow!
Thanks for clearing that up.

[Lefty]

I can't do a heart transplant. So, obviously, it can't be done.

[dav4463]

Trifectas have the highest takeout, but if played right, can definitely make a profit.