 |
06-05-2021, 04:27 PM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1,287
|
Scholars tackle the fave/longshot bias
...................
pretty interesting stuff - their analysis included data from almost 6 million races
they also discuss exotic betting
although, I must admit my eyes started to glaze over after awhile
might want to jump to the conclusion
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
*
__________________
believe only half of what you see.....and nothing that you hear..................Edgar Allan Poe
Last edited by Half Smoke; 06-05-2021 at 04:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
06-06-2021, 01:59 AM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 245
|
Useless data.
1992-2001?
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2021, 04:46 AM
|
#3
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1,287
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onesome
Useless data.
1992-2001?
|
I seriously doubt the 20 years have changed things much
Barry Meadow's book of 2019 "Skeptical Handicapper" showed basically the same thing - it just wasn't in as much depth as this and did not provide explanations as this does
here is what he had from about 862,000 races
*
__________________
believe only half of what you see.....and nothing that you hear..................Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2021, 10:38 AM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA.
Posts: 7,464
|
None of this really means anything because no one bets every favorite or every 20-1 shot. Sure, if you bet every favorite and every 20-1 shot you'll lose more money betting the 20-1 shots. But that doesn't mean that chalk bettors are more successful than longshot bettors.
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2021, 12:40 PM
|
#5
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1,287
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy
None of this really means anything because no one bets every favorite or every 20-1 shot. Sure, if you bet every favorite and every 20-1 shot you'll lose more money betting the 20-1 shots. But that doesn't mean that chalk bettors are more successful than longshot bettors.
|
I basically agree with you but I wouldn't say it means nothing
to me it means that if I bet against a fave, which I often do, I need to double check on that fave - and make sure I'm satisfied with what I'm doing
I want to make sure I didn't miss anything about the fave
I'm going to have some respect for the public's top choice
*
__________________
believe only half of what you see.....and nothing that you hear..................Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2021, 01:02 PM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,598
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
to me it means that if I bet against a fave, which I often do, I need to double check on that fave - and make sure I'm satisfied with what I'm doing
I want to make sure I didn't miss anything about the fave
I'm going to have some respect for the public's top choice
*
|
I agree.
When you bet against a "legitimate" favorite you are wading into very dangerous territory. Those horses will lose less that the track take as a group. That means the other horses in those race will lose more than the track take as a group. You are playing a very tough game trying to find an overlay against a legit favorite. You better be sure. What you want to do try to stick to betting against favorites you really dislike.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
Last edited by classhandicapper; 06-06-2021 at 01:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
06-06-2021, 03:00 PM
|
#7
|
|
what an easy game.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,096
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
...................
pretty interesting stuff - their analysis included data from almost 6 million races
they also discuss exotic betting
although, I must admit my eyes started to glaze over after awhile
might want to jump to the conclusion
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
* |
with studies like this, I immediately look for the "conclusions".
Generally, i need to read them a few times.
I'm not certain its concluding anything different from the papers I have read in the past, but i'll take another look.
It's been long shown that the rate of return on win bets declines as the risk increases.
what interest me would be an in-depth study of the comparison of a favorite win bet return to the exacta return. i have not found a definitive study of same.
actually, i did a word search on "exacta". it appears over 50 times. something to look further into
__________________
Peace on earth, good will to all
GOD BLESS AMERICA
" I pass with relief from the tossing sea of cause and theory to the firm ground of result and fact"
Winston Churchill
Last edited by formula_2002; 06-06-2021 at 03:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
06-07-2021, 05:43 AM
|
#8
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,176
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
...................
pretty interesting stuff - their analysis included data from almost 6 million races
they also discuss exotic betting
although, I must admit my eyes started to glaze over after awhile
might want to jump to the conclusion
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
* |
Looking at the data points on page 7, it appears that ROI betting in the UK, is better than the US at odds under 10-1. Could that be from fixed odds/bookmakers' odds? Australia which has access to both pari-mutuel and fixed looks worse than the US at above 5-1. With the huge betting /race in Hong Kong, it would have been interesting to see how they stack up.
No data breakouts for field sizes either. My WAG is that the betting market has probably improved on hit rates with a field of 5, versus a field size of 8-10. But the ROI, may have declined slightly.
__________________
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| 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
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
