55.96% ROI (Return on Investment) Through 520 Greyhound Races

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I'm not pounding....except on the My Pillow which my wife isn't using and won't share.

Actually I have a My Pillow too....love it to death...

A little secret.....up in the closet beyond eyes and reach is another My Pillow still in the cry-o-vac package....

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

Actually I have a My Pillow too....love it to death...

A little secret.....up in the closet beyond eyes and reach is another My Pillow still in the cry-o-vac package....

That's great. Anyone who believes Overkill's blarney might need a "My Pillow" to cry into.

[Zman179]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

9th post. I shudder to think what the other 8 were like. Hate to break the bad news but I'm the stupidest person on this forum and I know you're a tool. Therefore I'm not liking your chances. Just think with the time it took you to compose this drivel. You could have found 2 cans in a dumpster. Now that's ROI.

So you’re saying that his post has gone to the dogs?

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Zman179

So you’re saying that his post has gone to the dogs?

even with a mypillow, the eventual long ride home on greyhound will not be fun

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Overkill

I have never bet on Hong Kong. I mainly look at past performances and try to use those to predict future winners on paper. I havent bet on a dog or horse race in 30 years.

I have integrity. I am considered by loved ones to be 'overly' honest or rigidly honest. I am in recovery and will have 20 years sobriety in 2 months. I cannot afford anything less than complete transparency.


Don't you all have families? How can you post insults one minute and then go hang out with your family the next? Are you the same folks that teach your children to be kind and respectful - the same folks that smile at people in the grocery store? I don't get it.

Yes, there are scammers. But please show some restraint of keyboard in the future. Contempt prior to investigation is just not good.

Thanks to the thoughtful, considerate individuals who replied.

I have to say, it does take some special chutzpah to start your first post with "I'm taking a break from Hong Kong", start your second post with "I have never bet on Hong Kong", and then in the next paragraph claim to be rigidly honest and completely transparent.

Then you also go on to guilt us about your 20 years in recovery, and top it off by saying we must all be bad parents.

Plus, you posted the same system in 2017. You'd think you'd be rich by now. If I had a system that for many years was showing a 55.96% profit, I'd be posting from my yacht of the Amalfi Coast.

[Overkill]

I indicated I was taking a break from Hong Kong because there were some nice folks on here who took the time to answer questions I had about Hong Kong, and I feel kind of guilty that I never applied what they taught me with actual betting.

I never called anyone a bad parent. And I don't have the power to 'guilt' anyone into anything. Heck, I don't even have the power to get you guys to take me seriously!

If anyone is feeling guilty, maybe she/he needs to examine their behavior to see if amends are in order. Feelings of guilt sometimes can be helpful in motivating us to make things right with someone we have harmed.

I have notebooks full of hypothetical gambling - I call it 'poor man's gambling.' Before I spend money on gambling, I want to be relatively sure I can make money long term. To say I am obsessive is an understatement.

What I posted is sincere. What I was hoping for was mature, intelligent feedback. When, in my original post, I asked how should I proceed, I wasn't clear that I have a reservation about my 'system.' Almost all of its profit came from an outlier, very high-paying Trifecta. But I did not overlay my strategy on a time period of 520 greyhound races (which, by the way, covers a few months, not years, as someone suggested) that I knew a priori contained the high-paying Trifecta.

I am sorry I did not disclose that information about the outlier. That kind of information is definitely something that needs to be disclosed before selling the strategy. Bottom line, regardless: the ROI is accurate.

Does this nullify any soundness that I thought my system has? For example, do folks discount, for example, large stock market fluctuations or outliers as not being reliable or valid? And again, how easy would it be for any of you to create a strategy (with no knowledge of a forthcoming outlier or not) with such a high ROI?

I suppose the best thing is for me to continue taking the system through its paces and backbet 500 or 1000 additional races. I just got excited when I surpassed 500 races as I believe Mr. Benter indicated 500-1000 races is usually a large enough sample size.

A final apology: I should not have indicated Mr. Silverman was talking disparagingly of Mr. Benter. I apologize for that as I don't know that to be the case.

And, again, I am sorry I did not say upfront that my system's profit was due virtually entirely to an outlier.

Can we be friends?

[Onesome]

a 10% ROI on a 100-1 average payoff would require a sample size of 100,000 races to produce a +3 standard deviation result, +50% ROI its only 5500 races (compare to a 4-1 average return which would only require 4000 races to produce the same SD result for example)

[iamt]

Originally Posted by Overkill

I indicated I was taking a break from Hong Kong because there were some nice folks on here who took the time to answer questions I had about Hong Kong, and I feel kind of guilty that I never applied what they taught me with actual betting.

I never called anyone a bad parent. And I don't have the power to 'guilt' anyone into anything. Heck, I don't even have the power to get you guys to take me seriously!

If anyone is feeling guilty, maybe she/he needs to examine their behavior to see if amends are in order. Feelings of guilt sometimes can be helpful in motivating us to make things right with someone we have harmed.

I have notebooks full of hypothetical gambling - I call it 'poor man's gambling.' Before I spend money on gambling, I want to be relatively sure I can make money long term. To say I am obsessive is an understatement.

What I posted is sincere. What I was hoping for was mature, intelligent feedback. When, in my original post, I asked how should I proceed, I wasn't clear that I have a reservation about my 'system.' Almost all of its profit came from an outlier, very high-paying Trifecta. But I did not overlay my strategy on a time period of 520 greyhound races (which, by the way, covers a few months, not years, as someone suggested) that I knew a priori contained the high-paying Trifecta.

I am sorry I did not disclose that information about the outlier. That kind of information is definitely something that needs to be disclosed before selling the strategy. Bottom line, regardless: the ROI is accurate.

Does this nullify any soundness that I thought my system has? For example, do folks discount, for example, large stock market fluctuations or outliers as not being reliable or valid? And again, how easy would it be for any of you to create a strategy (with no knowledge of a forthcoming outlier or not) with such a high ROI?

I suppose the best thing is for me to continue taking the system through its paces and backbet 500 or 1000 additional races. I just got excited when I surpassed 500 races as I believe Mr. Benter indicated 500-1000 races is usually a large enough sample size.

A final apology: I should not have indicated Mr. Silverman was talking disparagingly of Mr. Benter. I apologize for that as I don't know that to be the case.

And, again, I am sorry I did not say upfront that my system's profit was due virtually entirely to an outlier.

Can we be friends?

Yes, pretty much, yes.

[lefty359]

If you take away that big Trifecta and the system is not profitable, then you need to go back to the drawing board. I once showed a nice profit from an exacta method. But the realized all he profit came from one big exacta. Back to the drawing board...

[Overkill]

can you tell me how you arrived at those numbers? (i.e., what is the formula or equation). What you are bringing up is exactly what I am looking for. For example, I have another 'system' that is showing a ROI in the 20s AND is growing STEADILY (i.e., not rapidly as due to an outlier). So, a formula would be helpful. The blackjack experts keep telling me I need to take my blackjack systems through 1 billion hand sims even though I have exceeded 3 standard deviations with my manually dealt (i.e., not computer simulation) hands with a much smaller sample. (My systems dont work with non-manually shuffled (random) cards.).

Secondly, can you please elaborate about your use of average return, average payoff, and ROI in your example. You lost me when you mentioned 100-1 and 4-1 mixed in with ROI. Doesnt 10% ROI mean if I 'fork over' $100, then my average profit will be $10? How does, for example, 4-1 figure into that?

[elhelmete]

"I have a statistics background and a masters degree and am not a degenerate gambler."

And you ask for others' formulae?

[Track Collector]

Overkill,

The fact that your study was done on paper rather than with real money means you probably overlooked, or discounted altogether, the impact of "pool dilution". This is a reduction in the payout that would have occurred had you wagered real money.

Without giving precise calculations, let me try to illustrate with a simple example:

--- Gross trifecta pool is $1200. Track takeout rate is 20%, so net pool to be divided up among the winners is $960
--- The winning trifecta consists of nothing but longshots, and a person (who is NOT using your methodology to make selections) has the only winning ticket combination with a base value of $1.
--- Consider too that your methodology would have selected the winning combination had someone been using it.
==> The $1 tri payout is then $960

Now consider the same example above, except with the following change:
--- Both you and someone else (whom purchased your methodology) each have a $1 trifecta on the winning combination.
--- That results in the net pool being shared equally by 3.
==> The $1 tri payout is then $320.

Notice how big the dilution is? Instead of $960 the payout is $320, which is a difference of $640. This is a reduction of 67%!!

Of course the above example may be extreme, but remember that EVERY winning ticket in you paper study would have some amount of reduction associated with it if there had been an actual wager on it. And when one adds up the accumulation of all those reductions, it can significantly lower the ROI, even to the point where it becomes negative.

[Overkill]

This area intentionally left blank.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

Thanks guys....

I'm usually the guy that pounds on these A-holes first...
Then I get hit by PA for being a nasty person..

Anyway its good to see others do it for a change...

poor poor baby