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 09-11-2009, 10:37 PM   #31
ryesteve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by pktruckdriver
I am just curious here as I have proposed doing similar here on this site, playing exotic's and I get slammed as an idioit
Since you're curious, I'll explain that I don't think anyone called you an "idiot", and the critical responses you got had absolutely nothing to do with playing exotics. And it doesn't surprise me that you can't tell the difference between the OP's description of picking his spots, playing 4 to 6 days a month vs. your "how high can I roll my bankroll in one weekend" or "how can I get rich betting on horses" posts.
ryesteve is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2009, 11:54 PM   #32
Track Collector
Horseracing Fairs Fan!!!
 
Track Collector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamboguy
all a rebate does is help you win more or lose less. it doesn't make you a winner if you have nothing else going for you. maybe one has better sheets or better numbers, or better infor than the other guy. all iam saying is that 99.9% of all people betting horses these days lose even with a rebate. i have the highest rebates on shore and my guys don't win.
What a person has to have going for them (pre-rebate) is a minimum ROI proficiency of 0.87 to 0.91 (pending your wager type). Then a rebate can push you into the profit zone.

The primary goal is to make the most money, not have the highest ROI. Without rebates one has to be much more selective in which races one plays (which means fewer betting opportunities), and if they try to improve the absolute amount of money they hope to win by increasing their wager size, pool dilution can become a very serious and detrimental issue. Instead, it is much easier and more profitable to include wagering opportunites which yield slightly less ROI, say in the 0.90 to 0.99 range.

By the way, having the highest available rebates does not excuse one from intelligent and responsible handicapping, and even with good to excellent selection criteria, one most still endure those painful losing streaks which exist within long-term profitable plays.
__________________
! This claim of Election Fraud is disputed by Big Tech, who stand to lose $trillions if Biden and company are unsuccessful in stealing the election.
Track Collector is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 12:28 AM   #33
Track Collector
Horseracing Fairs Fan!!!
 
Track Collector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBedo
This begs the question (which I have pondered with no real conclusions):

Is is better to bet a 25% takeout and get a 15% rebate, or bet the same race with a 10% takeout and no rebate? Are there any structural differences?

My first thought is that there could be a difference in how the public plays, since the difference between 10% and 25% takeout will affect the odds of favorites, possibly changing the attractiveness, and obviously, the impact on longshot prices would be seen as well. I'm interested in what others think.
An interesting question, CBedo!

One's individual decision would seem likely based on a combination of their own ROI at that particular track and the available rebate (as constrained by the track take).

Another random thought.....higher takeout tracks take lesser successful handicappers out of the game quicker, as it grinds down their bankrolls down quicker. If those players are not replaced with equally or less skilled handicappers, would this not imply that the remaining pool players will tend to be on the sharper side, thus making it harder for us to win?
__________________
! This claim of Election Fraud is disputed by Big Tech, who stand to lose $trillions if Biden and company are unsuccessful in stealing the election.
Track Collector is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 01:10 AM   #34
CBedo
AllAboutTheROE
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track Collector
An interesting question, CBedo!

One's individual decision would seem likely based on a combination of their own ROI at that particular track and the available rebate (as constrained by the track take).

Another random thought.....higher takeout tracks take lesser successful handicappers out of the game quicker, as it grinds down their bankrolls down quicker. If those players are not replaced with equally or less skilled handicappers, would this not imply that the remaining pool players will tend to be on the sharper side, thus making it harder for us to win?
Interesting things to think about. I'm definitely not talking about differences to the individual bettor; I'm thinking about structural differences in the overall betting of the race itself.
__________________
"No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking" -- Voltaire
CBedo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 01:13 AM   #35
Track Collector
Horseracing Fairs Fan!!!
 
Track Collector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBedo
Interesting things to think about. I'm definitely not talking about differences to the individual bettor; I'm thinking about structural differences in the overall betting of the race itself.
Sorry but I'm clueless here. I'm not sure what you mean by structural. Perhaps if you explain this another way I can understand.
__________________
! This claim of Election Fraud is disputed by Big Tech, who stand to lose $trillions if Biden and company are unsuccessful in stealing the election.
Track Collector is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 02:00 AM   #36
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 15,093
Quote:
And so is the takeout. Maybe my question wasn't clear. Why is a 15% rebate on a 25% takeout bet better than a 7% rebate on a 17% bet? It seems that either way, you're more or less betting into an effective take of 10%.
Check out Rutgers' answer. I didn't look at it real closely but he seems to have it right.

But permit me to simplify...

Suppose we asked the question differently... Suppose we asked the question, which is better? A 10% takeout or a 20% takeout with a 10% rebate?

The answer is that you only gain with the lower take% when you win. You gain with the rebate on every bet.


Dave
Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 02:00 AM   #37
CBedo
AllAboutTheROE
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track Collector
Sorry but I'm clueless here. I'm not sure what you mean by structural. Perhaps if you explain this another way I can understand.
Maybe structural is a bad term. I just mean that for the sake of this discussion, I'm not interested in differences in the individual's betting decision. I'm just wondering if overall, the odds end up differently for the favorites, longshots or any other odds group due to the difference in takeout & rebate structures that have effectively the same net takeout.
__________________
"No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking" -- Voltaire
CBedo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 02:36 AM   #38
racingplanet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 24
I think specialization and selectivity are key to betting with an edge.

Specialization
You should specialize in race tracks (ST) or race types (SR), and this should be based on your historical data. It shouldnt be too hard if you have a years worth of data to eliminate areas which are draining your bank.

Selectivity
On a given day producing a shortlist (SL) by making a prediction for each your SR's, and then reducing this list to Playable Picks (PP).

So if you have 6 x SR's on a Saturday with which to work (eg. graded stakes races), you assess each and have 6 predictions (could be win bet or tricast, whatever your thing is). You then must reduce the SL to your PP's, and when you have them that is it for the day. No going back in if the first 2 go down, but you could allow your self to reinvest profits in further picks from the SL if you think you have found an angle on that day that is worth milking.

If you want to nail this down as a blueprint foir suceess then I would add the following, SPECIALIZATION-METHOD-SELECTIVITY

The Method produces the SL from the SR's, and if you like systems then you are sorted as the Method will automate the process to produce a SL. You can then sit down and use your racing nous to assess and generate your PP's considering the variants of the day eg. weather, track bias, jockey bookings etc.

I hope that makes sense.

GOOD LUCK

Last edited by racingplanet; 09-12-2009 at 02:38 AM.
racingplanet is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 08:56 AM   #39
ryesteve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
Check out Rutgers' answer. I didn't look at it real closely but he seems to have it right.
Well. maybe you should, because I could swear that his conclusion is that it IS a wash.

I do understand that if a player is unprofitable, the lower take / lower rebate scenario is preferable, but since we're talking about whales, my assumption is that we're not talking about losing players, since someone betting 7 figures a week who's not a winning player, is going to exhaust their bankroll pretty quickly under either scenario.
ryesteve is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 09:43 AM   #40
nobeyerspls
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Florida/Southern Ontario
Posts: 653
A Racing Form reader

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamboguy
you have just retooled yourself into making sure that you don't win at this game. you have just eliminated the only type's of races where you might find a possibility of an edge. most people are like yourself not having any idea on what is going on with a baby race. in this day and age you are betting against people that have the same or better computer program's to come up with your selections. i happen to be in the "rebate selling business" myself. all a rebate does for you is helps you lose less when you lose or win more when you win. its true that if you play those high takeout wagers without a rebate you will get killed. most of the rates are something like 25% out. there aren't enough people out there that get their picks by reading the racing form these days or playing their lucky numbers to overcome the chop.
You equate reading the Form to picking lucky numbers. I do my handicapping with a print version of the Form and I continue to have reasonable success. I ignore jockeys, weight, and Beyer speed figures. Pick4's are my most profitable wager, especially when turf and/or maidens are in the sequence.
I am an investment advisor and find that the computer is a useful tool for conducting fundamental research. I won't ever need it for handicapping though.
nobeyerspls is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 10:10 AM   #41
ddog
Registered User
 
ddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Monkey
Ddog, thanks for the advice. Betting value picks within my 4 race play for the day is my "saver" bet. I've reached a point in my wagering career, that I can't accept picking that killer 15-1 shot and not getting anything for it when my 3 or 4 horses in the last leg don't come in. I've smashed too many clipboards over the rail, chair backs, walls in my day. Its not good for my BP I'm also not an "all my eggs in one basket" type of player.
good luck.

saver bets are losers
don't see where I advocated all eggs.
if you are smashing chairs and afraid to miss "something" , then reduce your eggs to just the ones you can afford to lose.

anyway, to each their own.
ddog is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 12:26 PM   #42
Rutgers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The State of Rutgers
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgers
"And so is the takeout. Maybe my question wasn't clear. Why is a 15% rebate on a 25% takeout bet better than a 7% rebate on a 17% bet? It seems that either way, you're more or less betting into an effective take of 10%"



Short term, if you win, it is actually much better to get a 7% rebate on a 17% bet. Long term, with wins and losses, it does not make a difference.

Assume at Utopia Downs, with have a 10 horse field with $10,000 bet on each horse. Total pool amount is $100,000. Also assume a bettor made a $100 win on the horse that won.

With a 25% takeout $75,000 goes back to the winning ticket holders. At $10,000 bet on each that means there were 5,000 winning $2 tickets. So, $75,000/5,000 = $15.00 Mutual payout for each $2.00 wager. So our bettor collects 50 * $15.00 = $750. Plus, he gets 15% of his wager or $15. So he ends up, with $765.

With a 17% takeout, $83,000 goes back to the winners. The winning mutual is now $16.60. So the bettor is now getting back $16.60 * 50 = $830.00 plus $7 rebate for a total of $837.00

But has we all know, we don't win them all. After losing the next 9 races while betting $100 a race with a 15% rebate(on a 25% takeout) the bettor would get back $135. Adding that to the $765 you end up with $900 (after wagering $1,000). With a 7% rebate(on a 17% takeout) the bettor would get back $63. Adding, that to the $837 you end up with the same $900.

I know this is a rather simple made up example, but the math is the same in the real world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryesteve
Well. maybe you should, because I could swear that his conclusion is that it IS a wash.

I do understand that if a player is unprofitable, the lower take / lower rebate scenario is preferable, but since we're talking about whales, my assumption is that we're not talking about losing players, since someone betting 7 figures a week who's not a winning player, is going to exhaust their bankroll pretty quickly under either scenario.
Actually, a profitable player wants the lower take/lower rebate. The profitable player wins a larger percentage of the pool (or everybody's money) with a lower takeout. A higher rebate just gives you back a larger percentage of your own money.


In my above example, if the player continues to lose, the bettor is better off with the 15% rebate (but 25% takeout). He will not be winning but losing less then if the got 7% rebate(with 17% takeout) Hitting 1 out of 11 races leaves $915 for the 15/25 split and $907 for 7/17 split after wagering $1,100.

If the bettor wins more than 1 out of 9 races, he will be better off with the lower rebate/lower takeout. Hitting 1 out of 8 races races gives $870 for the 15/25 split and $886 for the 7/17 split after wagering $800. Profitable for both structures, but more profit for the 7/17 split.

If he hits at 1 out of 9, he breaks even with both rebate/takeout structures.

Keep in mind, 1 out of 10 is the "natural odds" in our example.
Rutgers is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 12:54 PM   #43
markgoldie
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 928
As someone involved with this on a daily basis, a quick comment. Some poster (forgive me for not scrolling back to see who it was), mentioned that maybe the "sharp" money plays into the pools with lower takeouts.

I believe this is generally true. Many good players are not receiving "sliding-scale" rebates and hence gravitate to the tracks with the lower takeouts. I realized long ago that assessing your betting competition is a necessary key to success. So, I personally prefer to play into larger-takeout pools (since I get a sliding rebate), as long as the pool size is reasonable.
markgoldie is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 01:23 PM   #44
ryesteve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryesteve
lower take / lower rebate scenario
I meant higher take / higher rebate scenario... too late to edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgers
Actually, a profitable player wants the lower take/lower rebate.
You're right, I was typing faster than I was thinking...

Last edited by ryesteve; 09-12-2009 at 01:24 PM.
ryesteve is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2009, 02:41 PM   #45
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 15,093
Steve,

Whales are rarely winning without rebates. If they are, then they should spread more so that they lose and increase volume.

Of all the organizations I am aware of, only one is reputed to win before rebate.

Dave
Dave Schwartz is online now   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
preferred pick 5 type
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2021 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
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.