Dutching Win Bets

[formula_2002]

thanks for filling in the blanks Jeff

[formula_2002]

here is the excel file I was talking about.
let me know if you find an error.

I used GP r4 as an example. its not a typical result. I picked it out as random

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Nitro

...
I dare anyone to suggest that at face value its "probability of winning" as the original 8/5 M/L favorite is the SAME as another entry @ 3/1 that had a M/L of let’s say 6/1.

...

We could spend a while discussing what the root causes of obvious irregularities and fluctuations in money flow and those changes to the O.A. odds picture of any given race.

good ideas
interesting stuff

Would love to discuss...


The use of Public Tote Odds is going to be different, relative to the perspective of the user.

e.g. You (Nitro), may be someone with a competence in Odds/Probability/$moneyFlow$..., but another player may not have that specific specialty, and may want to use heuristics to place a fairly reliable general value on Public Odds.

You may be discussing the same thing, from different perspectives.

[davew]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

here is the excel file I was talking about.
let me know if you find an error.

I used GP r4 as an example. its not a typical result. I picked it out as random

the numbers don't correspond to GP4, but I am not sure exactly what you are showing.

why do you feel the win pool is more accurate for determining true probability than the exacta or daily double pools?

have you ever seen a race where a horse is 3/1 when they start entering the gate and after it wins it is 3/2? what would be the true probability of it winning?

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by davew

the numbers don't correspond to GP4, but I am not sure exactly what you are showing.
why do you feel the win pool is more accurate for determining true probability than the exacta or daily double pools?

have you ever seen a race where a horse is 3/1 when they start entering the gate and after it wins it is 3/2? what would be the true probability of it winning?

here are the gp r4 races odds I used.

I don't have any data that compares the efficiency of the exacta and dd pools, so I can not say.

But I have thousands of races for the wps and exacta pools and have a lot of fun() with that

3/2

here is something I found surprising
using the 1% level of significance and a 17% track take out, here are the $1 returns for that famous 3-1 horse

if your wins were significant in 50 race the $1 return would be $1.39.
100 races $1.23 return on the dollar
500 races $1.01
1000 races $0.96
10000 races $0.87.

which if correct, it proves the more you bet the greater your chance of losing

[davew]

what messed me up was you had them ordered by finish position, rather than post position

you also used official closing odds, rather than anything that could be used before the start of the race, when bettors have to place their bets

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by davew

what messed me up was you had them ordered by finish position, rather than post position

you also used official closing odds, rather than anything that could be used before the start of the race, when bettors have to place their bets

I have data generally.4,3,2,1,0 minutes to post. I used the final odds because that's what the payouts are based upon. Anything else requires a different study. All the references i made to win pool odds are final odds

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

good ideas
interesting stuff

Would love to discuss...


The use of Public Tote Odds is going to be different, relative to the perspective of the user.

e.g. You (Nitro), may be someone with a competence in Odds/Probability/$moneyFlow$..., but another player may not have that specific specialty, and may want to use heuristics to place a fairly reliable general value on Public Odds.

You may be discussing the same thing, from different perspectives.

It is somewhat interesting, but I never refer to the Tote board as providing “Public” odds. Yes, sure their viewable by the public and probably public domain, but keep in mind (as I’ve mentioned numerous times in the past) the general public is not the only group that makes up the betting population.

The use of these odds generated by the Win pool in each race could certainly be applied differently by those viewing them. However, the bottom line especially when Dutching is the odds value being applied to the selected entries. I generally view the odds only as a value barometer to determine playability no matter which type of bet I want to make.

My competence is dependent upon a tote analysis which looks at all of the available betting pools. That’s my primary source to simply determine what I believe to be the actual contenders in a race. The analysis relies on when, where, and how much money is being bet on each entry in a race during a typical betting cycle. (Yes, the Flow of Money). I believe it's the most objective and reliable pre-race information that’s available. Why? Well unless players are just intentionally choosing to throw their money away, the true value of their betting has substantial significance if you know how to interpret the O.A. betting scenarios.

You might have misunderstood my reference to statistical “probability”. I have no use for these sorts of things.
I prefer to rely on my personal on-going betting records as far as determining the probability of how well the analysis does with specific race conditions. My confidence level is based on how well I’ve done in the past (hit frequency %) with certain races. It's NOT on how well the odds on a tote board have proved to be right or wrong in terms of determining the probability of winning based on just a specific odds value. As far as I'm concerned there are huge holes in that way of thinking and its not a very successful approach to this game.
.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Nitro

It is somewhat interesting, but I never refer to the Tote board as providing “Public” odds. Yes, sure their viewable by the public and probably public domain, but keep in mind (as I’ve mentioned numerous times in the past) the general public is not the only group that makes up the betting population.

The use of these odds generated by the Win pool in each race could certainly be applied differently by those viewing them. However, the bottom line especially when Dutching is the odds value being applied to the selected entries. I generally view the odds only as a value barometer to determine playability no matter which type of bet I want to make.

My competence is dependent upon a tote analysis which looks at all of the available betting pools. That’s my primary source to simply determine what I believe to be the actual contenders in a race. The analysis relies on when, where, and how much money is being bet on each entry in a race during a typical betting cycle. (Yes, the Flow of Money). I believe it's the most objective and reliable pre-race information that’s available. Why? Well unless players are just intentionally choosing to throw their money away, the true value of their betting has substantial significance if you know how to interpret the O.A. betting scenarios.

...

Those are some significant models, that occasionally reveal an edge.



"Public Odds" - I use that as a common term to refer to the tote odds, not to imply who is driving the action.
I like your argument here. I do not disagree.



Some common terms in racing like 'wiseguy' horse, or 'public' odds, etc..,. can be interesting to debate specific meanings/usage.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Those are some significant models, that occasionally reveal an edge.

"Public Odds" - I use that as a common term to refer to the tote odds, not to imply who is driving the action.
I like your argument here. I do not disagree.

Some common terms in racing like 'wiseguy' horse, or 'public' odds, etc..,. can be interesting to debate specific meanings/usage.

As far as I'm concerned the tote analysis certainly does provide a significant model for making all types of bets.
When used properly the edge provided is available on numerous successful occasions.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...=156080&page=2

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by Nitro

As far as I'm concerned the tote analysis certainly does provide a significant model for making all types of bets.
When used properly the edge provided is available on numerous successful occasions.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...=156080&page=2

Interestingly enough, when the quantitative analytics team at STATS Perform was developing STATS Race Lens, they used odds as an additional factor in creating the algorithms for win probabilities, as their multiple regressions found value in creating a set of probabilities which adjusted as live odds adjusted based on those models.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

Interestingly enough, when the quantitative analytics team at STATS Perform was developing STATS Race Lens, they used odds as an additional factor in creating the algorithms for win probabilities, as their multiple regressions found value in creating a set of probabilities which adjusted as live odds adjusted based on those models.

That is interesting! Here's what Bill Benter had to say in his report:

“Computer Based Horse Race Handicapping and Wagering Systems:” A Report by William Benter

INTRODUCTION
The question of whether a fully mechanical system can ever "beat the races" has been widely discussed in both the academic and popular literature. Certain authors have convincingly demonstrated that profitable wagering systems do exist for the races. The most well documented of these have generally been of the technical variety, that is, they are concerned mainly with the public odds, and do not attempt to predict horse performance from fundamental factors. Technical systems for place and show betting, (Ziemba and Hausch, 1987) and exotic pool betting, (Ziemba and Hausch,1986) as well as the 'odds movement' system developed by Asch and Quandt (1986), fall into this category. A benefit of these systems is that they require relatively little preparatory effort, and can be effectively employed by the occasional race goer.

The complexity of predicting horse performance makes the specification of an elegant handicapping model quite difficult. Ideally, each independent variable would capture a unique aspect of the influences effecting horse performance. In the author's experience, the trial and error method of adding independent variables to increase the model's goodness-of-fit, results in the model tending to become a hodgepodge of highly correlated variables whose individual significance's are difficult to determine and often counter-intuitive.

Additionally, there will always be a significant amount of 'inside information' in horse racing that cannot be readily included in a statistical model. Trainer's and jockey's intentions, secret workouts, whether the horse ate its breakfast, and the like, will be available to certain parties who will no doubt take advantage of it. Their betting will be reflected in the odds. This presents an obstacle to the model developer with access to published information only. For a statistical model to compete in this environment, it must make full use of the advantages of computer modeling, namely, the ability to make complex calculations on large data sets.

The odds set by the public betting yield a sophisticated estimate of the horses' win probabilities.

It can be presumed that valid fundamental information exists which can not be systematically or practically incorporated into a statistical model. Therefore, any statistical model, however well developed, will always be incomplete. An extremely important step in model development, and one that the author believes has been generally overlooked in the literature, is the estimation of the relation of the model's probability estimates to the public's estimates, and the adjustment of the model's estimates to incorporate whatever information can be gleaned from the public's estimates. The public's implied probability estimates generally correspond well with the actual frequencies of winning.

.
.

[BCOURTNEY]

Claim that your estimated cumulative probability of both horses winning is X (Let's say 30%), show that the odds offered when combining both are likely to reflect X (20%), suggest weighted win bets for each. This demonstrates a positive EV bet. Argument done.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

Claim that your estimated cumulative probability of both horses winning is X (Let's say 30%), show that the odds offered when combining both are likely to reflect X (20%), suggest weighted win bets for each. This demonstrates a positive EV bet. Argument done.

Would you weight based on the estimated probability of winning or use the volatile odds shown on the toteboard just before the race starts?

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Would you weight based on the estimated probability of winning or use the volatile odds shown on the toteboard just before the race starts?

The weight of the bets is roughly your estimated probability versus what is offered this could be determined individually on a per horse basis or as a set of probabilities versus set if odds offered. I said roughly because you can introduce factors to account for odds shifts, longer odds horses are more sensitive to price changes. How one executes on a positive EV after that depends on personal preference / goals, although it is important to have a approach which leverages the strengths of the selection process. You will hear various varieties of Kelly, partial Kelly style, fixed percentages, etc.

I don't believe the odds are that volatile at all, I think that perspective at this point (after years of awareness) players not adopting their play to the environment and utilizing technologies or simple worksheets solutions available or they are simply lazy. Yes the tote technology is antiquated and needs upgraded as well.