The Gambler Who Cracked the Horse-Racing Code

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

who can't fathom that smart folks with computers can absolutely make a killing at this game.

I can fathom it and this article just reinforces what everyone is up against (probably hundreds of these syndicates now).

For the casual player though, why even bet into these pools?

Sounds like your saying "you can beat them, if ya join em". Certainly a value model of playing is dead for the casual player?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

He's profitable because of the enormous rebates he gets. My understanding that without the rebates he would have lost about 2% on average. I could be wrong but not mentioning the rebates in the article was malpractice IMO.

So he was getting rebates when he was printing betting slips and physically walking them to the track?

He's a better handicapper than we are. He used powerful statistics to produce an edge. Meanwhile, on this board we discuss small sample meaningless stuff like the Curse of Apollo.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

So he was getting rebates when he was printing betting slips and physically walking them to the track?

He's a better handicapper than we are. He used powerful statistics to produce an edge. Meanwhile, on this board we discuss small sample meaningless stuff like the Curse of Apollo.

I don't know what he was doing in the beginning.

[Denny]

Originally Posted by Tom

No one has proved to me that money is not pouring in after the gates open.
Or pouring out after.

This, I WOULD have problem with.

This would be cheating.

But, is distinctly different than being a better player - like the guy in the article.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

I don't know what he was doing in the beginning.

certainly as the statistical edge has lessened with more syndicate competition and dwindling non professional players in the pool the rebate has had to make up for the loses.

I would imagine its much easier to write a algorithm to break even than it is to ensure say 10% profit.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

So he was getting rebates when he was printing betting slips and physically walking them to the track?

He's a better handicapper than we are. He used powerful statistics to produce an edge. Meanwhile, on this board we discuss small sample meaningless stuff like the Curse of Apollo.

I'm not so sure he won all that money because of his handicapping skills. These syndicates have a lot of advantages over the average bettor, a big one being that they bet a ton of leveraged combinations in each race that they wager on. I know at the Meadowlands (harness) one syndicate bets about $400,000 a card, or an average of $40,000 a race. Once their program identifies one or more horses that are going off at favorable odds, it automatically scans all of the various exacta, trifecta, and superfecta pools and looks for overlays, then makes a whole bunch of "weighted" wagers including hedge bets that not only gives them a lot of chances to cash multiple tickets in the race, but also has big money on certain combinations that appear ripe. So if we wanted to try the same thing using our own handicapping skills and just using the odds board, we would have to have several people sitting at computers to try and get all the bets in at the last second and we would have to have at the very least several hundred thousands of dollars to start with. And if we started off with a few bad days, that would be the end of it.

So what I'm saying is, he has several big advantages, one, he has a huge bankroll, two, he's using a computer that places a ton of bets just in the last seconds.

Another advantage, he doesn't care if he has the winner. The problem most of us have is that we don't want to have a string of losers, we can't afford it, mentally, or financially. The syndicates are in it for the long run and so well bankrolled that they can get killed for a week or so and they'll just keep betting. Plus, since they play so many combinations, and bet a lot of higher odds horses, they have built in hedge bets. Most people can't afford to spread that much.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

This should be required reading for anyone who ever comes on here again and tries to tell us these whales are myths or that nobody can beat the game with an algorithm (they must be past posting), or whatever other nonsense people like to spout who can't fathom that smart folks with computers can absolutely make a killing at this game.

Is that how you define Benter...as just a "smart guy with a computer"?

William Quirin and Dick Mitchell were also "smart folks with computers"...but they found the game too tough, and gave it up. And I dare say that 99.99% of the "smart folks with computers" are a lot closer to Quirin and Mitchell than they are to Benter...when it comes to "betting smarts".

I think it's unwise to use the few gambling geniuses out there as examples in the broad statements that we make. As the above article states...Benter would have probably made more money in the financial markets. No mere mortal he...

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Is that how you define Benter...as just a "smart guy with a computer"?

William Quirin and Dick Mitchell were also "smart folks with computers"...but they found the game too tough, and gave it up. And I dare say that 99.99% of the "smart folks with computers" are a lot closer to Quirin and Mitchell than they are to Benter...when it comes to "betting smarts".

I think it's unwise to use the few gambling geniuses out there as examples in the broad statements that we make. As the above article states...Benter would have probably made more money in the financial markets. No mere mortal he...

He didn't make money in baseball.

I am convinced the average gambler significantly overestimates the actual number of profitable gambling opportunities.

There is very substantial evidence that in fact it is extremely difficult to "beat" the financial markets long term absent arbitrage or insider trading, and that people who do either don't advertise how they game the system or are just on the right side of the variance curve.

Hong Kong racing, as I think of it, is the perfect storm for this. I have gone to the races there. The pools are astronomical and there is tons of "dumb money" in the pools because Hong Kong is so wealthy and the culture is gambling-crazy.

I think this guy found just about the perfect outlet for his talent.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

He didn't make money in baseball.

I am convinced the average gambler significantly overestimates the actual number of profitable gambling opportunities.

There is very substantial evidence that in fsct it is extremely difficult to "beat" the financial markets long term absent arbitrage or insider trading, and thst people who do either don't advertise how they game the system or are just on the right side of the variance curve.

Hong Kong racing, as I think of it, is the perfect storm for this. I have gone to the races there. The pools are astronomical and there is tons of "dumb money" in the pools because Hong Kong is so wealthy and the culture is gambling-crazy.

I think this guy found just about the perfect outlet for his talent.

Yes, I would imagine that the field and pool size at most North American tracks would make it tougher for him to profit, certainly compared to Hong Kong. Although there are similar syndicates here. I'm sure his computer system ranks the contenders and I would bet that it's top pick isn't much better than a good handicapper who uses pen and pencil. But it doesn't have to be good at picking winners, it just has to be good at spotting contenders who are exceptional value in the exotic pools. Again, any good handicapper can do the same thing, but you would have to have a large bankroll and a team to help you put the bets in quickly.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

He didn't make money in baseball.

I am convinced the average gambler significantly overestimates the actual number of profitable gambling opportunities.

There is very substantial evidence that in fsct it is extremely difficult to "beat" the financial markets long term absent arbitrage or insider trading, and thst people who do either don't advertise how they game the system or are just on the right side of the variance curve.

Hong Kong racing, as I think of it, is the perfect storm for this. I have gone to the races there. The pools are astronomical and there is tons of "dumb money" in the pools because Hong Kong is so wealthy and the culture is gambling-crazy.

I think this guy found just about the perfect outlet for his tslent.

Yes, Benter made no money in baseball...but another much-publicized betting outfit was so successful in sports-betting that the entire sports-betting industry was shaken to its core as a result. Even "genius" has its limitations.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by pandy

Yes, I would imagine that the field and pool size at most North American tracks would make it tougher for him to profit, certainly compared to Hong Kong. Although there are similar syndicates here. I'm sure his computer system ranks the contenders and I would bet that it's top pick isn't much better than a good handicapper who uses pen and pencil. But it doesn't have to be good at picking winners, it just has to be good at spotting contenders who are exceptional value in the exotic pools. Again, any good handicapper can do the same thing, but you would have to have a large bankroll and a team to help you put the bets in quickly.

He doesnt have to profit though, he can even lose a little bit and still come out way ahead.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes, Benter made no money in baseball...but another much-publicized betting outfit was so successful in sports-betting that the entire sports-betting industry was shaken to its core as a result. Even "genius" has its limitations.

And Dave Singleman died the death of a salesman.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I am convinced the average gambler significantly overestimates the actual number of profitable gambling opportunities.

The "average gambler" is misguided about MANY things. Are we talking about "average gamblers" here?

[ldiatone]

plug his name on you tube and some videos about his work is shown.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The "average gambler" is misguided about MANY things. Are we talking about "average gamblers" here?

I mean most people who regularly gamble, whether or not they think of themselves as successful or skilled.

Most games are either unbeatable or not worth beating due to long variance curves or insufficient upside to justify time invested.

Those that are beatable are only beatable by a very small cadre of brilliant elite players with extensive mathematical knowledge, whose edge is often under constant erosion.

And one of the main attributes of that small cadre is they know better to assume their knowledge of the game that they beat will translate into an edge in a different game.

Finally, many people who believe they are in that cadre eventually go broke, sometimes multiple times.