 |
|
05-05-2015, 12:24 AM
|
#46
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 114
|
> The pompous following the blind...
The withered & bitter promote private messaging rather than forum posting...
Sad, since this scheme is strengthened by each additonal participant betting
same successful way!!
Ultimately, migration to a math forum might be required
in search for perfected proportional formula...? 
|
|
|
|
05-05-2015, 01:36 AM
|
#47
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,629
|
this will not work
the tracks do not necessarily lose with negative pools, the source of the big bet causing the negative pool loses when the bet comes in
'net pool pricing' has changed the calculations and pay-offs
when the big bet wins and pays the minimum, frequently the other show prices will be over $3 when there are a few runners
why would you need $100K for this? Not many tracks have show pools that large, and frequently $10K is enough for a bridgejump pool
there a few dog tracks with usually less than $50 in show pool, you should be able to test your 'theory' for a couple hundred bucks
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2015, 10:04 AM
|
#48
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davew
this will not work
the tracks do not necessarily lose with negative pools, the source of the big bet causing the negative pool loses when the bet comes in
'net pool pricing' has changed the calculations and pay-offs
when the big bet wins and pays the minimum, frequently the other show prices will be over $3 when there are a few runners
why would you need $100K for this? Not many tracks have show pools that large, and frequently $10K is enough for a bridgejump pool
there a few dog tracks with usually less than $50 in show pool, you should be able to test your 'theory' for a couple hundred bucks
|
And abandon it, as most greyhound bettors did way back in the Dr. Z era when major greyhound tracks had healthy handles--and lots of less-than-astute bettors pumping up the pools.
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2015, 12:43 PM
|
#49
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 114
|
> the tracks do not necessarily lose with negative pools
Agree! My previous "track loses" incorrect.
But what does happen in negative pool,
tracks takeout gets "eaten into", right...?
18% may become, say, 15%...?
You stated, "it won't work"
Why? It can't fail if negative pool & proportions are correct???
As someone else said, it may require "strong" negative pool,
e.g. 97% or even more...but that's not a problem if one is
the negative pool market maker, right?
Dog tracks as test ground, sure!
Need correct proportional formula first!
A report of it being tested by others, even better!!!
Last edited by ribjig; 05-05-2015 at 12:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2015, 03:15 PM
|
#50
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,736
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ribjig
> the tracks do not necessarily lose with negative pools
Agree! My previous "track loses" incorrect.
But what does happen in negative pool,
tracks takeout gets "eaten into", right...?
18% may become, say, 15%...?
You stated, "it won't work"
Why? It can't fail if negative pool & proportions are correct???
As someone else said, it may require "strong" negative pool,
e.g. 97% or even more...but that's not a problem if one is
the negative pool market maker, right?
Dog tracks as test ground, sure!
Need correct proportional formula first!
A report of it being tested by others, even better!!!
|
Which is it...are you so certain this works that you belittle other members offering a critique or are you asking others to confirm it for you (i.e., glom on to others' work)?
|
|
|
|
05-05-2015, 03:22 PM
|
#51
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,911
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ribjig
> the tracks do not necessarily lose with negative pools
You stated, "it won't work"
Why? It can't fail if negative pool & proportions are correct???
As someone else said, it may require "strong" negative pool,
e.g. 97% or even more...but that's not a problem if one is
the negative pool market maker, right?
!
|
It is a problem if the fav isn't truly a 95%+ chance to finish ITM.
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2015, 05:40 PM
|
#52
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 114
|
> Which is it...are you so certain this works
Absolutely. By definition. By correct proportional formula.
Speed bumps? Absolutely:
a. getting last seconds ( = more hidden) multi-bets placed correctly, in time
b. bad luck of someone else's last seconds big longshot place-show bet
COMBINED with heavy favorite out-of-money
(1 in ~100 races, but could still be +ROI to < -5% ROI that race, IMO)
> It is a problem if the fav isn't truly a 95%+ chance to finish
False, false, false! Where favorite finishes matters NOT!!!!
Also, as to rude responses, all those do is cause some
positively interested in this scheme to PM back & forth --
the Rudites get "locked out"...a shame, since this scheme
may be the ONLY betting scheme where more winners strengthen scheme...
Last edited by ribjig; 05-05-2015 at 05:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2015, 07:42 PM
|
#53
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,911
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ribjig
> Which is it...are you so certain this works
> It is a problem if the fav isn't truly a 95%+ chance to finish
False, false, false! Where favorite finishes matters NOT!!!!
Also, as to rude responses, all those do is cause some
positively interested in this scheme to PM back & forth --
the Rudites get "locked out"...a shame, since this scheme
may be the ONLY betting scheme where more winners strengthen scheme...
|
Yes it does matter if the fav finishes out as if it does, there is no free money added to the pool and if you own the pool (say betting 10K at a noname greyhound track), then you'll be losing the takeout everytime the fav runs out. And if you're betting everyrace, then there is noway to get the hit rate on the fav and its free money to offset the losses when it runs out.
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2015, 08:28 PM
|
#54
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,736
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Some_One
Yes it does matter if the fav finishes out as if it does, there is no free money added to the pool and if you own the pool (say betting 10K at a noname greyhound track), then you'll be losing the takeout everytime the fav runs out. And if you're betting everyrace, then there is noway to get the hit rate on the fav and its free money to offset the losses when it runs out.
|
I could be wrong, but isn't he talking about making a horse the favorite in the show pool? As in some no-hoper?
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2015, 08:36 PM
|
#55
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,629
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ribjig
> the tracks do not necessarily lose with negative pools
Agree! My previous "track loses" incorrect.
But what does happen in negative pool,
tracks takeout gets "eaten into", right...?
18% may become, say, 15%...?
You stated, "it won't work"
Why? It can't fail if negative pool & proportions are correct???
As someone else said, it may require "strong" negative pool,
e.g. 97% or even more...but that's not a problem if one is
the negative pool market maker, right?
Dog tracks as test ground, sure!
Need correct proportional formula first!
A report of it being tested by others, even better!!!
|
If you make these bets through Xpressbet or Twinspires and the 95% entry cashes, there will be a negative pool. If the 95% misses, there will not be a negative pool and prices will be boxcars. Xpressbet or Twinspires will not like you if they are forced to eat $10K on your $100K bets - after a couple times, they will probably tell you to stop or close your account.
You must be missing something in your theory - like someone else already bet 95% on an entry in the pool.
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2015, 10:54 PM
|
#56
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,911
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elhelmete
I could be wrong, but isn't he talking about making a horse the favorite in the show pool? As in some no-hoper?
|
Well it definitely doesn't work in that situation.
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2015, 10:39 AM
|
#57
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 114
|
> you'll be losing the takeout everytime the fav runs out
Correct proportional betting -- a balance between favorite in-money
or favorite out-of-money scenarios, guarantees profit both cases. It overcomes
takeout if out-of-money but still offers small profit if in-money...
(see post#26: that's why NPF=1 didn't work, but "2" did in one sample)
Also, upon further reflection, avoid very small track testing, IMO;
too small show pools too unstable, a $10 last second bet on longshot
to show could raise that entry's show percentage several points...
Then again, a very big show bet on favorite reduces instability of
ALL longshot show percentages...
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2015, 10:47 AM
|
#58
|
|
clean money
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,558
|
If it worked, then you would find stable, boring race-scenarios with quiet, predictable late-money.
Then, you would be the only knucklehead betting significant late money, and you'd control the pool driving it into a negative pool scenario.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2015, 11:16 AM
|
#59
|
|
clean money
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,558
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davew
If you make these bets through Xpressbet or Twinspires and the 95% entry cashes, there will be a negative pool. If the 95% misses, there will not be a negative pool and prices will be boxcars. Xpressbet or Twinspires will not like you if they are forced to eat $10K on your $100K bets - after a couple times, they will probably tell you to stop or close your account.
You must be missing something in your theory - like someone else already bet 95% on an entry in the pool.
|
This is true. Such wagers would need to be orchestrated 'on-track'.
I made a very modest profit with a series of relatively small (ranging from several hundred to a couple thousand dollars) spot-play wagers on certain negative pool opportunities, and one of my ADWs quickly sent me a cease and desist letter.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2015, 12:33 PM
|
#60
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,909
|
The more I thought about this, the more I realized that it would *work!
"*" means provided:
1. The show pools do not swing as violently as the win pools after bets have to be made. (I have no knowledge in that arena, but am of the impression that they, too, swing to a big degree in the wrong direction.)
2. You have the patience to wait for the opportunities. (Again, having not studied this, I have no idea how often they actually come up.) As someone I greatly respect once said to me, "There is such a thing called 'The Speed of Money,' which (essentially) means that it is wonderful that you have developed a winning system, but if you get 50 plays per year and have to sit in your seat 5 hours per day, 5 days per week to find those opportunities, you're making Walmart wages at the end of the day.
3. Your ADW doesn't cut you off, which, as Robert Fischer illustrated with a real-life example, is pretty much guaranteed. Of course, you could relocate to your local track/OTB, but then you would (probably) have limitations on opportunities (not all tracks available) and a serious increase in workload if you have to enter those pools by hand.
So, once again, I re-iterate to the OP that I wish him well in his endeavor. However, in my (truly extensive) experience at this game, I would remind him that there is...
No Free Lunch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
