Fixed Odds Wagering

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

When a natural 2-1 shot scores at 6/5, we often can attribute the "underlay" to computer programs and rebates. Or, then again, was the horse actually a legitimate 6/5 chance which somebody identified as such? I know which version MY ego and precious equanimity prefers.

And what about the consternating flip side of surprisingly low favorites? The horse we like, that is, that drifts much higher than expected in the betting. One guy's overlay is another's "dead on the board," and knowing when to duck and when to stand your guns (slightly mixed metaphor?) makes all the difference.

And again, the ego stands close at hand. It's one thing, after all, for a likeliest winner to get pounded below our expectations, quite another when the mysterious "they" contemptuously ignore, to the tune of 10-1, a runner we expected about half that price on. That dilemma hits closer to home.

I think one of the best ways to deal with this problem is to NOT bet a horse simply because it looks like an overlay.

It's better to be able to explain WHY the horse is being incorrectly overlooked.

If you can't explain it, it's more likely it's YOU that's missing something or working with incorrect information.

If you can explain it, you have nothing to worry about other than making sure your insight about the horse is correct to begin with.

Of course first you have to get past the ego problem of thinking you are always right and know everything about everything.

This game is so humbling, that should be the easiest part, but some people have trouble with that and others love action too much. Passing was always the easiest part of the game for me.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by the little guy

The girl at the bar is a friend of mine.

How cool to even witness Paul Newman doing a scene-much less to actually appear in the movie.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This game is so humbling, that should be the easiest part, but some people have trouble with that and others love action too much. Passing was always the easiest part of the game for me.

Yes, we know...you are very uncomfortable pulling the trigger on a bet. And yet, you consider yourself to be a "heroic figure" at the betting windows. I remember when you once compared yourself with Audie Murphy.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes, we know...you are very uncomfortable pulling the trigger on a bet. And yet, you consider yourself to be a "heroic figure" at the betting windows. I remember when you once compared yourself with Audie Murphy.

Hi , Gus. “B” westerns have always held a special appeal for me , and Audie Murphy’s charisma and likability easily stand up to decades of repeat viewings. But until Shane and I watched a youtube video on his military exploits I had just a vague realization that the guy had won some medals.

Suffice to say I was floored at the man’s heroism. His courageous exploits truly defy belief. I don’t think I will ever wrap my mind around the little baby-faced dude with the big girly butt (or maybe western fashions from the 50’s were just THAT unflattering?) single handedly taking out entire enemy battalions.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes, we know...you are very uncomfortable pulling the trigger on a bet. And yet, you consider yourself to be a "heroic figure" at the betting windows. I remember when you once compared yourself with Audie Murphy.

I'm very far from heroic at the windows. I did go "all in" on horses in my 20s. I had better ideas and more guts in my 20s. Now I have a burnt out nervous system and more sense. Anyway, betting your entire bankroll or paycheck on overlay longshots while in your 20s is not quite the same as earning the Medal Of Honor on the battlefield.

[TrifectaBox]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm very far from heroic at the windows. I did go "all in" on horses in my 20s. I had better ideas and more guts in my 20s. Now I have a burnt out nervous system and more sense. Anyway, betting your entire bankroll or paycheck on overlay longshots while in your 20s is not quite the same as earning the Medal Of Honor on the battlefield.

Adjusted for inflation, I bet 50X in my 20's what I do now. And I knew 1/50th what I do now.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by TrifectaBox

Adjusted for inflation, I bet 50X in my 20's what I do now. And I knew 1/50th what I do now.

Ditto and ditto. I would add also that the competition back then knew 1/50 of what it knows now (at least if you're my age). When I saw, for instance, the final price on today's 8th race winner at Mvr, I wanted to cry like I'd lost a loved one.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by BarchCapper

TLG brought up a very relevant point about purse structure in UK and fixed odds bookmakers not contributing enough, hence smaller purses overall. Structure there appears to fund purses with ~1/3 from the racecourses themselves (admissions, etc.), ~1/3 from the media rights, and ~1/3 from wagering.

Australia is a country whose model I'd like to know more about (always have, going back to the great Ray Kerrison when he was brought to the NY Post by Rupert Murdoch right around the time I started high school and started getting that paper on my way home from school in Manhattan). The country appears at first glance to have struck a healthy balance between parimutuel and bookmakers. Purses seem to be solid there and on the upswing, and not just at top level. Bettors have some protection on the bookmaking side with "minimum bet" laws in the various Australian states - bookmakers being required to accept wagers from any individual bettor up to a certain amount of potential payoff. For example - a $1,000 minimum bet law means a bettor could wager $100 on a 10-1 horse, and the bookmaker is required to take the wager. Regular winners don't see their accounts closed, although they don't get any of the promotions bookmakers frequently offer. If these things are all the case, I would love to see this model expand beyond that continent.

I hardly bet, but this article probably says that racing here is not going well.

https://www.racenet.com.au/news/tops...ustry-20240225

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by steveb

I hardly bet, but this article probably says that racing here is not going well.

https://www.racenet.com.au/news/tops...ustry-20240225

Thanks for sharing the article - I will be following that writer as he completes his series this week with rest of the wagering operators.

It looks like a mixed bag "down" there. Seems like some of the same legislation the UK is working through (addressing problem gambling/affordability checks) has already been enacted in Australia. There appear to be some advantages for the "regular punter" but still some bettors having accounts cut off.

Was a bit of a challenge to understand some of the bookmakers' issues without knowing the nature of some of the taxes they are subjected to.

Australia, though I'd venture to say most of us here think of it as one big country, is unlike the UK (one overall BHA) and more like the U.S., it appears, with regard to individual states within the country regulating/taxing differently.

Good stuff!

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi , Gus. “B” westerns have always held a special appeal for me , and Audie Murphy’s charisma and likability easily stand up to decades of repeat viewings. But until Shane and I watched a youtube video on his military exploits I had just a vague realization that the guy had won some medals.

Suffice to say I was floored at the man’s heroism. His courageous exploits truly defy belief. I don’t think I will ever wrap my mind around the little baby-faced dude with the big girly butt (or maybe western fashions from the 50’s were just THAT unflattering?) single handedly taking out entire enemy battalions.

You guys know that there's footage of Audie Murphy riding on the Del Mar track?

(This should be cued up.)

YouTube (Short URL)

[Poindexter]

Classic example of the vulnerabilities of bookmakers in fixed odds betting. Santa Anita race 4 Monday. Based on the double probables going into the 4th, the 4 was .74-1 (less than 4/5) and the 4 was 1.35-1 (almost 7/5). The tvg guys were talking about how the odds never moved from 15 minutes to post time with the 4 at 4/5 (I believe) and the 3 at 2-1. I watch the 3 win the race look up at the closing odds. 3 was 3/5 and the 4 was 9/5. That would have been a fixed odds walloping on the bookmakers.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You guys know that there's footage of Audie Murphy riding on the Del Mar track?

(This should be cued up.)

https://youtu.be/XAxH1JG-9pY?t=1245

Great stuff! He rode like he was chasing Dan Duryea. But one obvious question arises: Did they have him "on the lead" ?

[Onesome]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Classic example of the vulnerabilities of bookmakers in fixed odds betting. Santa Anita race 4 Monday. Based on the double probables going into the 4th, the 4 was .74-1 (less than 4/5) and the 4 was 1.35-1 (almost 7/5). The tvg guys were talking about how the odds never moved from 15 minutes to post time with the 4 at 4/5 (I believe) and the 3 at 2-1. I watch the 3 win the race look up at the closing odds. 3 was 3/5 and the 4 was 9/5. That would have been a fixed odds walloping on the bookmakers.

Yep the bookies that would have taken that bet would have lost, but it only happens once as that person gets limited right away to making no more then dollar bets.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Onesome

Yep the bookies that would have taken that bet would have lost, but it only happens once as that person gets limited right away to making no more then dollar bets.

Exactly the point I made earlier in this thread. If it is going to become limiting anybody with a pulse, who needs it and what purpose does it serve? What if I loved the 3 horse and bet $300 to win on him at say plus 160, do I wake up tomorrow with a 20 dollar limit. I don’t think that is far fetched.




Ps in my previous post I meant to post that the 4 was .75 to 1 in the double pool and the 3 was 1.35 to 1 in the double pool.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Exactly the point I made earlier in this thread. If it is going to become limiting anybody with a pulse, who needs it and what purpose does it serve? What if I loved the 3 horse and bet $300 to win on him at say plus 160, do I wake up tomorrow with a 20 dollar limit. I don’t think that is far fetched.




Ps in my previous post I meant to post that the 4 was .75 to 1 in the double pool and the 3 was 1.35 to 1 in the double pool.

In the 6th race notice the 1 projected at 7-5 in the 5th race doubles matrix and paid 2-1 on the tote. So it goes both ways. At major tracks it's usually + / - a tick in odds but sometimes it's a few ticks in either direction. We also don't know if these horses were bet any differently in longer horizontals. For the tracks to not include all horizontals in these calculations would be a mistake IMO. Yes the DD by itself is very good standalone but why would anyone leave stones unturned to set their line? If they have it at their disposal, use it, right? The fact of the matter is if you're going to keep a really good secret and crush only to win at fixed odds you're leaving more money on the table than you're actually making IMO. If you love something, you're going to do like the teams do, you're going to get every penny out of every possible pool.