proportional show betting negative pool = guaranteed profit??

[ribjig]

Most important = PROPORTIONAL

e.g. 100K show pool after takeout last toteboard change before race:

86K show
4K show
3K show
3K show
2K show
2K show

Your bets, depending on how deep your pockets:
(guessing ratio -- what exactly is correct ratio??)

$86 (or x10 or x100 etc)
$4 (or x10 or x100 etc)
$3 (or x10 or x100 etc)
$3 (or x10 or x100 etc)
$2 (or x10 or x100 etc)
$2 (or x10 or x100 etc)

Guaranteed profit per race will be higher
at tracks with $2.20 minimum, e.g. CT

Why "guaranteed" -- because track loses on negative pools, right?

Follow-up: are some bridgejumpers also betting proportionally
& therefore NOT bridgejumpers at all?!!!!!!!!!!!

If true, this, to me, seem ultimate reason for
syndicate of bettors who understand & band
together to purposely create negative pools
for the few percent GUARANTEED each & every bet race...

[green80]

I think your figures are off. If the favorite shows you bet $100 and get back 94.60 if the horse pays 2.20.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by green80

I think your figures are off. If the favorite shows you bet $100 and get back 94.60 if the horse pays 2.20.

But two other horses will also show and you could still make a profit on the race.

Interesting idea! I'll have to play around with it.

[ribjig]

Originally Posted by Actor

Interesting idea! I'll have to play around with it.

The "degree" of negative pool or track takeout
may play role in determining proportions? Also
whether payoff are per 10 cents or 20 cents??

But since there are much smarter people out
there & there is no regular negative pool events,
especially at same track, same day, that, IMO,
evidences there may be hitches...?

One I can think of is last moment larger show bet
on longshot(s) that comes in after proportional
bets, but still, that would be very occasional &
still result in nearly full return of single race investment...

William Quirin mentioned this scheme in ?WinningAtRaces?
briefly, but IIRC, did not give specific proportion formula...

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Actor

But two other horses will also show and you could still make a profit on the race.

That's assuming the chalk finishes in the money. If it doesn't, you don't have a negative pool. In the example, you have to collect $100 on 8 or 10 dollars worth of show bets to break even.

[ribjig]

Originally Posted by Clocker

In the example, you have to collect $100 on 8 or 10 dollars worth of show bets to break even.

That would be GUARANTEED by betting proportionally correct.
(OP example was guess, could be off $1 or more per longshot)
No matter what horses show, one realizes same guaranteed profit.
It will be some small percentage of total investment per race...
And if others are also betting proportionally correct, then no
one loses but track...?

Its not necessarily about having negative pool,
its about lowest show payout relative to lowest
proportion required of biggest show bet...?
(mathematicians, wake up, help needed!!!)

[Ocala Mike]

ribjig, the short answer is that yes, there are certain races wherein the heavy show favorite has a certain huge proportion of the show pool bet on him (95% or more?) allowing a guaranteed profit no matter the finish if the correct amounts are bet on each runner. Although it will work, in theory, the problem with it working in practice is purely logistical, i.e., EXACTLY how much to bet on each runner with the calculation having to be made IN REAL TIME, and while the pool figures are constantly changing. Don't quit your day job!

[ribjig]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

...the problem with it working in practice is purely logistical, i.e., EXACTLY how much to bet on each runner with the calculation having to be made IN REAL TIME, and while the pool figures are constantly changing

But what is formula & why wouldn't it be near instant
via iPad or similar? A correct formula must be
established before resolving other issues, IMO.

The situation is created by minimal show payouts
of $2.20 or $2.10 rather than, say,
$2.02 or $2.05 or $2.08 true show payout.

[green80]

Originally Posted by Actor

But two other horses will also show and you could still make a profit on the race.

Interesting idea! I'll have to play around with it.

yes, and you will pick up another .40 or .50 cents, you are still in the neg.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by ribjig

But what is formula & why wouldn't it be near instant
via iPad or similar? A correct formula must be
established before resolving other issues, IMO.

The situation is created by minimal show payouts
of $2.20 or $2.10 rather than, say,
$2.02 or $2.05 or $2.08 true show payout.

Because you could figure out the formula but you don't know what other people are going to bet until after the race is already underway, so you'd never be able to get the exact right proportions of money.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by green80

yes, and you will pick up another .40 or .50 cents, you are still in the neg.

Not with the numbers the OP gave and assuming the favorite showed. You would suffer a big loss if the favorite failed to even show.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Clocker

That's assuming the chalk finishes in the money. If it doesn't, you don't have a negative pool. In the example, you have to collect $100 on 8 or 10 dollars worth of show bets to break even.

Right. The idea does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Basically you are handicapping to predict a negative pool. One failure to do this ruins your roi.

[ribjig]

Originally Posted by Actor

You would suffer a big loss if the favorite failed to even show.

False, false, false.
Look at real world show payoffs in this thread & elsewhere.
Betting PROPORTIONALLY correctly guarantees no loss at all.
There is also some breathing room for very small last second
show bets by public. The greatest risk is last second big bet
on longshot show. Last second big show bet on heavy favorite
has no effect on $2.20 or $2.10 minimum & would actually boost
longshot show payoffs if heavy favorite runs out of money...

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by ribjig

False, false, false.
Look at real world show payoffs in this thread & elsewhere.
Betting PROPORTIONALLY correctly guarantees no loss at all.
There is also some breathing room for very small last second
show bets by public. The greatest risk is last second big bet
on longshot show. Last second big show bet on heavy favorite
has no effect on $2.20 or $2.10 minimum & would actually boost
longshot show payoffs if heavy favorite runs out of money...

The greatest threat is that so much late money comes against the bridge jumper(s) that you no longer have a positive expect value event. In my thread on "betting against bridge jumpers", that popped up several times.

[ribjig]

> The greatest threat is that so much late money comes against the bridge jumper(s)

Yes, but where's the data that, in reality, it happens
to a degree & often enough that it cancels guaranteed profit?

What I envision is an individual or syndicate led by individual
bettor that has a bankroll of, say, $100K, that visits the right
sized tracks on a day where there are minimum 2 or 3 horses
that are certain to be odds on favorites, & in final seconds as
horses are being loaded into gate, the proportional bets are made;
that last moment technique will nearly always prevent counter
big bets on longshots, right?

Say, $100K/race invested = 2% profit/race = $2K profit per race
2 races = $4K, 3 races = $6K, expenses = ?$300-500 airfare+hotel+meals?

Maybe two or three racetrack visits weekly nationwide?

2.5 tracks x 2.5 races/track x $2K/race = $12.5K gross
minus 2.5 tracks x $400/track expenses = $11.5K net weekly!!!!


(assumes tracks with $2.10 minimum show payout, if $2.20 tracks
included, then profit ~3%/race...?)

One question: when one goes up to window to bet all entries
proportionally totalling $100K, does $$ need to be counted by
teller in advance of revealing-placing bet??????????