|
|
10-16-2022, 10:23 AM
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,613
|
I did quite well for awhile with selective Place plays as part of my game, but much of my advantage diminished when they switched to Net Pool Pricing. It might be worth re-examining that in NY because the CAWs may be less involved and in KY where you get the extra pennies (that add up).
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
10-16-2022, 01:04 PM
|
#17
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1,287
|
______________
in googling around I found several scholarly articles on betting racing - some were quite interesting
most focused on confirming the fave/shot bias
this is a fairly recent one because the guy discusses a race from 2013
this is a quote directly from the linked article:
"at less than even money place bets are usually recommended because they price out with an advantage"
is that statement true_____?
I dunno - he doesn't actually show that data - where and when he got it
I would tend to doubt that it's true but it piqued my interest
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/...813278790_0001
.
__________________
believe only half of what you see.....and nothing that you hear..................Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
|
10-16-2022, 06:01 PM
|
#18
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,912
|
Yes, it works but is not practical.
My understanding is that betting $2.10 horses is not feasible long term for anything representing big money because ADWs get pressure from the tracks to dump big $2.10 players.
I think Lambo has more knowledge on this subject than I do.
What say you, sir?
|
|
|
10-17-2022, 01:47 PM
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,613
|
Quote:
"at less than even money place bets are usually recommended because they price out with an advantage"
|
This is not true. It's dated info.
There are some sub categories of races/horses that can put a dent in the track take, but there is no broad advantage. You would still have to handicap the races carefully and find the less common favorable situations.
That's what I was doing.
I was looking at all the very short price horses in the place pool and trying to selectively weed out the weaker ones, find the stronger ones, and look at the details of the place pool. I did very well for awhile with rebates, but my rebate was lowered and then when they changed the place/show calculations to Net Pool Pricing (look it up if you are unfamiliar with the change) it lowered the place and show prices on short priced horses by a few percent on average. So the advantage I had was reduced to the point where I wasn't sure it was worth the effort. So I stopped focusing on it.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
10-17-2022, 02:38 PM
|
#20
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
|
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.
|
|
|
10-17-2022, 03:22 PM
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1,287
|
_____________
I believe that a serious punter's R.O.I. no matter what types of bet he makes
will be greatly influenced by his tolerance for waiting and selectivity
2 players with equal skills at handicapping - one feels that he needs to make at least 25 bets every time he shows up or the day isn't satisfying
another can wait patiently to get his best 4 bets of the day
the punter who is more selective, I believe, will have a significantly better R.O.I.
if he chooses to he can have the same total action by betting greater amounts on the 4 bets he chooses
actually, to edit my first sentence - if the punter is playing the extreme exotics then all of this is pretty much null and void
Pick 6, and stuff like that the variance is thru the roof -
.
__________________
believe only half of what you see.....and nothing that you hear..................Edgar Allan Poe
Last edited by Half Smoke; 10-17-2022 at 03:25 PM.
|
|
|
10-17-2022, 04:27 PM
|
#22
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 312
|
Quote:
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%
|
If we change your show price to $2.60, you have a negative return. If we change your win price to $9.00, we have a positive return. How you derived your percentages (25% win, 75% win) and prices supports your argument without any rationale for the numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
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.
|
Your bias (preference) is then to cash often without consideration of value on the wager itself. Wager value is not equated to just price as a $3.00 win price could be value while a $40.00 win price could be terrible value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
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.
|
One element that is not outdated is that your show payoff is controlled, in part, by the others that hit the board with your horse. Yes, net-pools have helped in some pricing scenarios however your price is still pegged to others hitting the board.
|
|
|
10-17-2022, 05:44 PM
|
#23
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1,287
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ
Your bias (preference) is then to cash often without consideration of value on the wager itself. Wager value is not equated to just price as a $3.00 win price could be value while a $40.00 win price could be terrible value.
|
we all know that as a whole, horses going off at 25/1 are terrible values
but nobody can say authoritatively that this horse going off now at 25/1 is a terrible value
a player can create an odds line - but it's all speculation
there is no mathematical formula that can calculate what a horse's true odds are
those who win in the long run probably look for things that look extremely out of whack
I really doubt that there is anybody, who in a 10 horse field can accurately say that the #3 horse on the board at 7/2 has true odds of 3/1
.
__________________
believe only half of what you see.....and nothing that you hear..................Edgar Allan Poe
Last edited by Half Smoke; 10-17-2022 at 05:47 PM.
|
|
|
10-17-2022, 06:15 PM
|
#24
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ
2835762]If we change your show price to $2.60, you have a negative return. If we change your win price to $9.00, we have a positive return. How you derived your percentages (25% win, 75% win) and prices supports your argument without any rationale for the numbers.
|
75% show hits is based on my own experience and ability. Mine is actually 77%.
As for the 25% for win bets I was being generous to win bettors. When I play online contests, the vast majority of players are below par (negative ROI)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ
Your bias (preference) is then to cash often without consideration of value on the wager itself.
|
I never said that. To clarify: $3 is the minimum average a show better needs to strive for if his hit rate is 75% as explained by the 100 race ROI example I posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ
One element that is not outdated is that your show payoff is controlled, in part, by the others that hit the board with your horse. Yes, net-pools have helped in some pricing scenarios however your price is still pegged to others hitting the board.
|
Yes, but it works both ways.
Your win betting is also controlled by last minute money dropping the odds on your horse which is the norm today rather than the exception.
|
|
|
10-17-2022, 06:55 PM
|
#25
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,542
|
There's a lot of moving parts to place and show bets. I'd love to make them work but IMO it's even more complex than win bets. I suppose if you need to average $3 to show you could set a minimum odds requirement 'range' maybe 5/2 - 7/2 ? and base that final odds requirement range upon the DD probables matrix from the completed first leg. I don't see how else I could attack that problem. I'm sure others have ways... 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).
|
|
|
10-17-2022, 07:11 PM
|
#26
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 312
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
75% show hits is based on my own experience and ability. Mine is actually 77%.
As for the 25% for win bets I was being generous to win bettors. When I play online contests, the vast majority of players are below par (negative ROI)
|
I cannot and will not contest your personal percentages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
I never said that. To clarify: $3 is the minimum average a show better needs to strive for if his hit rate is 75% as explained by the 100 race ROI example I posted.
|
As a theorem, yes, a 75% hit rate requires a $3.00 return per wager to achieve a 12.5% ROI. That is the mathematics which is undeniable. What is challenged here is the assertion that you can achieve 75% of winning show wagers at that average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
Yes, but it works both ways.
Your win betting is also controlled by last minute money dropping the odds on your horse which is the norm today rather than the exception.
|
Dropping the odds - or increasing the odds. The same argument applies to the show pool. Nothing has been brought to the table in this assertion. Again, if it works for you, great.
|
|
|
10-17-2022, 07:17 PM
|
#27
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 312
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJC922
There's a lot of moving parts to place and show bets. I'd love to make them work but IMO it's even more complex than win bets. I suppose if you need to average $3 to show you could set a minimum odds requirement 'range' maybe 5/2 - 7/2 ?
|
Since the pools are independent, working under this assumption assumes a correlation between the win and show pools that may or may not exist in any given race which invalidates the strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJC922
and base that final odds requirement range upon the DD probables matrix from the completed first leg.
|
Be aware of where CAW money plays and where it does not. Conflating the daily double pools with straight pools - at least at NYRA - does not have the tight correlation that many seek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJC922
I don't see how else I could attack that problem. I'm sure others have ways... 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).
|
Identifying horses that hang (or similar factors) is itself what handicapping is all about!
|
|
|
10-17-2022, 11:10 PM
|
#28
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,651
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJC922
There's a lot of moving parts to place and show bets. I'd love to make them work but IMO it's even more complex than win bets. I suppose if you need to average $3 to show you could set a minimum odds requirement 'range' maybe 5/2 - 7/2 ? and base that final odds requirement range upon the DD probables matrix from the completed first leg. I don't see how else I could attack that problem. I'm sure others have ways... 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).
|
to average $3 show mutual, you probably need horses with less than 20% of show pool
|
|
|
10-18-2022, 12:54 AM
|
#29
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJC922
I suppose if you need to average $3 to show you could set a minimum odds requirement 'range' maybe 5/2 - 7/2 ? and base that final odds requirement range upon the DD probables matrix from the completed first leg. I don't see how else I could attack that problem.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJC922
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).
|
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.
|
|
|
10-18-2022, 03:03 AM
|
#30
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,994
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|