place & show market efficiency

[Half Smoke]

_____________


I believe Charlestown, Mountaineer and Prairie Meadows still have a minimum pay of $2.20 to show

because of this it's possible to guarantee a win in a 5 or 6 horse field where there is a huge amount bet on one horse

example - 6 horse field

bet $1K on fave to get a $100 profit if fave shows


bet $18 on the 5 other horses to show


you will either win $12.60 if the fave shows or much more if the fave doesn't show

I'm assuming that $1K is not considered too large a bet for the tracks to accept in a minus pool
I have a read that they refuse big bets but I don't know what they consider to be a big bet

but if I was going to do this I would do it at 2 different ADWs


.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Light

Odds don't cut it. You have to watch the show pool. A quick way to estimate what your show payout will be is to look at the ratio in the show pool between your horse and the show pool. You want your horse to have a maximum of 1/4 of the show pool. So if the pool is 40K, you don't want your horse to have more than $10K on it. Otherwise pass the race.

What this does in general, is assures you get at least $2.60 in return regardless of what comes in. This is the minimum I will accept. Small fields can return less than $2.60 if the 3 chalk hit the board.




95% of my show bets are strong closers. Hangers are usually not strong closers. The 25-1 shot I picked to show at SA was the best closer in the field. The hanger turned out to be the favorite, who I estimated would bounce off his last race.

Any horse @ 5-2 or more in the final DD probables will surely result in average payoffs no different from what you're looking at and far more reliably. It's just a matter of doing the research and calibrating it to whatever avg payoff you want. 3-1 or more, 7-2 or more, pick your desired minimum avg show payoff odds and it can be done that way. Average payoff is the key word of course. Any given payoff is going to be higher or lower but the avg is what's important, other poster earlier in the thread is missing that point.

It sounds like what you're eyeballing is simply 25% of the show pool or less and at a point that's well before the money comes in. That's no different from people betting 4-1 shots because they're making them 2-1 at 1 MTP. We all know that for win betting that doesn't work anymore due to the avalanche of late money. The result is we end up inevitably landing on too many underlays like that. Maybe it works well enough for you somewhere though for show pools. There may be some larger tracks with enough stability in the pools for it to be working.

[classhandicapper]

Anyway the other 'moving part' to it is that some horses just hang and win less so there are imbalances in the place and show pools that will reflect that ratio but may not be entirely visible (until the end when it's too late anyway).

I've looked at that. The pools tend to take things like "he's a hanger" into account. The horse will get bet heavier in the place and show pool than win pool.

I also checked first time starters going off at short odds. Those tend to win or finish off the board more often than the average horse, but they correctly get bet less in the place and show pool than win pool.

The place and show pools are far from perfect. In fact, I'd still argue they are less efficient than the win pool, but they are still pretty efficient including all sorts of angles like that.

When I was betting to place a number of years back, I had a 3% edge plus a 7% rebate for 10%. Net Pool pricing lowered my return by about 3%, my rebate dropped to 3%, and the pools started getting a little more efficient (most likely CAWs). So if did now what I was doing back then, I'd probably just be churning money and going nowhere. I'd have to reduce my bets a lot searching for the much rarer edge in that pool.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

_____________


I believe Charlestown, Mountaineer and Prairie Meadows still have a minimum pay of $2.20 to show

because of this it's possible to guarantee a win in a 5 or 6 horse field where there is a huge amount bet on one horse
.

Prairie Meadows is now at a $2.10 minimum.

Mountaineer does not do show wagering in 5 horse fields. (Charles Town does.)

[wisconsin]

Originally Posted by Light

I suggest that Show betting beats Win betting. Here's how.

A decent win better can hit 25% of his bets @ an average mutuel of $8.00. Over 100 races that is 25x8= $200 return from $200 bet (100 races x $2 each). By breaking even in ROI, this win better does better than the majority of horse players in win betting so this is a realistic example.

A decent Show bettor can hit 75% of his show bets @ an average mutuel of $3.00. That is a return of 75x3=$225. An Roi of 12.5%.

ROI score: Show better 12.5% Win bettor 0%

The high hit rate in show betting also protects you psychologically because there are no long droughts as in win betting which can cause you to make unwise "desperate bets" and further reduce your ROI.

There seems to be an archaic concept when discussing show betting that it returns some measly payouts. People who believe that know nothing about show betting.

Yesterday at SA 5th I played a horse to show that paid $12.40 to show. No I don't get these a lot but I certainly get $4 or $5 to show enough that more than makes up for a $2.60 return I sometimes get.

If you think that playing show betting is about betting the favorite to show and being happy with your $2.20 to $2.40 to show and not going outside your box, then of course show betting doesn't pay. But your understanding of show betting is outdated.

Which tracks are the best for this, and which tracks do you avoid? I don't intend for you to list all tracks, but of the more well known ones.

Thank you in advance.

[Light]

Originally Posted by wisconsin

Which tracks are the best for this, and which tracks do you avoid? I don't intend for you to list all tracks, but of the more well known ones.

Thank you in advance.

It's not the tracks,its the type of races. I try to stay away from more volatile races like 2yo's, races for 3yo's only, most maiden races, very competitive high class fields etc and off tracks. I don't play Turf races where half the field has never run on the Turf. I might play these type of races for other bets where I have to like P6's or P3's etc, but not for a serious show bet.

For this reason I'm usually relegated to B level tracks. Parx probably offers me the best cards. Lots of claiming and allowance races, decent size fields, with a minimum of the races I avoid. The A level tracks usually put too many races not conducive to my style of show betting. But I will scan all tracks and make a note of potential races for show betting.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Light if you average $3.00 to show with a 75% hit rate(i know you do slightly better) I would strong suggest you use round robins

Break your show bets into a series of 6 races (can be multiple days). Parlay races

1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-5, 1-2-3-6, 1-2-4-5, 1-2-4-6, 1-2-5-6, 1-3-4-5, 1-3-4-6
1-3-5-6, 1-4-5-6, 2-3-4-5, 2-3-4-6, 2-3-5-6, 2-4-5-6, 3-4-5-6.

15 parlay at say $20 each. Investment $300

If you hit just 3 of 6 show bets you lose your entire investment of $300.

If you hit 4 of 6 races(29.7%), you hit 1 parlay for $101.25 and lose about $198.75

If you hit 5 of 6 races(35.6%) you hit 5 parlays for for $506.25 and make $206.25

if you hit 6 of hit 6(17.8%) you hit all 15 parlays for $1518.75 or a profit of $1218.75.

Risk amount $300.

Expected return

.297*101.25 ($30.07) plus
.356*506.25 ($180.22) plus
.178*1518.75 ($270.34)

For your $300 investment you have an expected return of $480.63 or about a 60% roi.

A show bet by itself is .75*$3.00 or $2.25 or a +12.5% roi.


Or another way of looking at it is as follows:

4 of 6 0.297 -198.75 -59.02875
5 of 6 0.356 206.25 73.425
6 of 6 0.178 1218.75 216.9375
<3 of 6 0.169 -300 -50.7
180.63375 expected profit


You are at 77%. Also just imagine when you hit the show bomb and nail 6 straight winners.

I don't understand your math. My math says there is no difference in ROI with a RR or straight.

To simplify, bet 4 show bets straight =$8 investment. Hitting 3 of 4 (75%) @ $3 each returns $9. A 12.5% ROI.

Playing a 4 race RR means a $12 investment. Getting $3 on 3 of the 4 races (75%) returns 4.5+4.5+4.5 = 13.5. Profit is $1.5. ROI is 12.5%

No difference between the two betting strategies if the variables are constant.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by Light

I don't understand your math. My math says there is no difference in ROI with a RR or straight.

To simplify, bet 4 show bets straight =$8 investment. Hitting 3 of 4 (75%) @ $3 each returns $9. A 12.5% ROI.

Playing a 4 race RR means a $12 investment. Getting $3 on 3 of the 4 races (75%) returns 4.5+4.5+4.5 = 13.5. Profit is $1.5. ROI is 12.5%

No difference between the two betting strategies if the variables are constant.

Give the Binomial Theorem some consideration from Discrete Mathematics. This is the greatest non-77% admission of all time.

[Light]

English please.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by Light

English please.

You need to understand the derivation of Poindexter's calculations. If you cannot calculate how he/she arrived at those numbers, it does call into question how you can achieve a 77% hit rate in the show pool.

[Light]

My lower jaw has dropped to the floor with your assertion that I have to understand a mathematical formula in order to report my hit rate percentage.

Chew on this. Not only is my hit rate 77%, but my average return in ROI is NOT a mere 12.5%. That's the minimum required if YOU want to play show betting. My ROI has been as high as 100% ROI flat betting to show without parlaying over the course of 100 races. I've won show betting contests too.

And chew on this part 2. My own mathematical strategy in show betting is superior to RR's. I can make 200% ROI or more with my mathematical strategy while missing many more races that in a RR would be a major loss.

But I don't tell anyone what it is nor that they need to know mathematics to be a successful show bettor. Nor do I care if anyone believes me.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Light

I don't understand your math. My math says there is no difference in ROI with a RR or straight.

To simplify, bet 4 show bets straight =$8 investment. Hitting 3 of 4 (75%) @ $3 each returns $9. A 12.5% ROI.

Playing a 4 race RR means a $12 investment. Getting $3 on 3 of the 4 races (75%) returns 4.5+4.5+4.5 = 13.5. Profit is $1.5. ROI is 12.5%

No difference between the two betting strategies if the variables are constant.

By the way for what it is worth I forgot the math on binomial distribution almost 40 years ago. But fortunately I can read a chart . I just go to google, type in Binomial distribution and what I am looking for. In this case I type P=.75.

which stands for probability =.75. I then find a chart that has the right number of trials I am looking for. The other variable is n that stands for number of trials. x stands for number you hit. So if x=3 and n =4 and you look under the .75 column you come up with the chance of hitting 3 of 4 when you have a .75 % chance of winning. You just want to make sure you are using a chart that is showing individual probabilities and not cumulative (so that the probabilities of say 0 out of 3 plus 1 out of 3, plus 2 out 3 plus 3 out of 3 equal 1).

So the appropriate chart/table for this discussion is right here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=...AAAAAdAAAAABAD


So when I came up with the probabilities of hitting 3 or less out of 6 or 4 out of 6 or 5 out of 6, 6 out of 6.....it is right on that chart. These charts are actually pretty useful when you are devising/contemplating pick 4, pick 5, pick 6 strategies.

So let's go back to the quoted post. You used a round robin strategy of 6 2 race parlays over 4 races (1 to 2, 1 to 3, 1 to 4, 2 to 3, 2 to 4, 3 to 4). Now first off by parlaying only 2 races(1.125*1.125), I was parlaying 4(1.125*1.125*1.125*1.125), you will not see a 60% expected roi you will see a 26.56% roi. It is like compounding interest. I you have a mutual fund that makes 10% a year, you take your initial $1000 investment. Your proceeds after 1 year are 1.10* that investment. After 2 years it is 1.1*1.1*that investment. The math is the same. The difference is you are claiming 12.5% roi per race, the mutual fund is claiming 10% per year. I like your investment vehicle better. This is why in the past I have posted the term print money. If you reach a certain proficiency in this game or any other beatable gambling game, you can print money. You can use my approach, you can use your approach you create another approach. You can mix it up and do a little bit of evertything. There are a lot of options. I brought up an approach I would use with your capabilities. FWIW, I take folks at their word on posting forums, because I am not invested. Doesn't cost me anything to believe that you are capable of doing what you claim are you are capable of doing. I will keep your approach of hitting 75% itm with a typical payoff of $3.00 plus in mind. Maybe somewhere in the future a lightbulb will ignite in my brain and I will figure something out for myself. I like the fact that you are in the show pool because I think that many sharp horse players are not. I also realize that when playing small tracks we are limited in how much we can bet without crushing our own odds. That factor must be considered.


So let's go back to your example and see where you miscalculated. You made the assumption that when you made your 6 parlays involving the 4 horses that you would hit the expected 3 out 4 races. But you can hit 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 of 4. To calculate the roi (in this case we already know each horse is 12.5% and I calculated above the 26.56% roi.

The proof is a as follows

If we hit 4 of 4 horse we hit all 6 parlay. 4.50 * 6. or $27.
I we hit 3 of 4 (as you posted) we hit 3 parlays of 4.50*3 or $13.50
If we hit 2 of 4 we hit 1 parlay of $4.50.
IF we hit less we get back nothing.


So using that handy, dandy, binomial distribution table I linked about we know the chances of hitting

4 of 4 is 31.6% (.75*.75*.75*.75)
3 of 4 is 42.2%
2 of 4 is 21.1%

Thus for our $12 bet (6 horse $2 per parlay-2 horse parlay round robin)

we can expect .316* $27 or $8.55
plus .422* $13.50 or $5.67
plus .211*4.50 or $ .95

Thus are expected return on our $12 bet is $15.17 or a profit of $3.17/$12 bet or a 26.42% roi. There is a .14% difference from the correct amount of 26.56% roi. Either I made a tiny mistake or more likely it is round off error.

Anyhow that is the correct math and the general gist of round robin betting. When you have a positive expectation you can use round robins to increase the roi but you alter the risk profile in doing so. You have to find something you are comfortable with.. Long run I like the idea of working on a 60% roi and not a 12.5% roi. Of course there is a lot of variance in all of this. Some of you horses will pay $7.00 to show other might come back $2.40. Also of course you don't want to be making big show bets at small tracks, so maybe you might decide to save the rr approach for the bigger circuits.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

So using that handy, dandy, binomial distribution table I linked about we know the chances of hitting

4 of 4 is 31.6% (.75*.75*.75*.75)
3 of 4 is 42.2%
2 of 4 is 21.1%

Thus for our $12 bet (6 horse $2 per parlay-2 horse parlay round robin)

we can expect .316* $27 or $8.55
plus .422* $13.50 or $5.67
plus .211*4.50 or $ .95

Thus are expected return on our $12 bet is $15.17 or a profit of $3.17/$12 bet or a 26.42% roi. There is a .14% difference from the correct amount of 26.56% roi. Either I made a tiny mistake or more likely it is round off error.

Thanks, I hear you. But I use a more "comfortable" method that doesn't put as much pressure on me to "hit" in order to complete a RR and is more profitable.

The mathematical strategy I use for show betting is this. Take $20 (for example) with intention to double it for a 100% profit, CONSISTENTLY, not from a one hit wonder but from skill. I want you to be able to do it EVERY TIME, not 31% of the time as in RR.

What I do with the $20 is to put it in a "bubble" and let it rise till it doubles like bread dough. When it doubles I can remove it from the bubble, cash it in, and put another $20 in the bubble. Whats making the dough(dual meaning) rise in the bubble is my show betting. Like a baby in the womb it is also being protected till it grows to maturity, (doubles).

As you know ROI=profit/investment. In my method, the profit part of the equation is not FINALIZED until it doubles.

I'll give you a clue as to what this "bubble" is. When you put your $20 into the bubble, the $20 becomes fragmented.