show pools converted into odds

[highnote]

Originally Posted by steveb

thanks, and yes i meant bridge!!

just one question, does the operator of the show pool take the hit, or does the dividend on the other horses that show pay less to compensate.

in australia's case they're robbing peter to pay paul.
as in australia, it is the latter, or was, as i am out of it these days, so may be left behind as far as changes go.

This is my understanding, although, I may not be correct about all of it, but, in general, I think I am:

Bettors who receive a rebate on their bets and who make their bets over the internet pay their share of the minus pool they helped create.

Bettors who bet at the track and who may or may not be primarily responsible for the minus pool do NOT have to pay for the minus pool. The tracks take the hit. That is, on-track bettors receive the full $2.10 or $2.20 payoff.

The minimum payoff is $2.10 or $2.20 to show on a $2 wager depending on the jurisdiction. If the actual payoff is less than $2.10, the track, by law, still has to pay out $2.10 or $2.20 on every wager.

Now, advance deposit wagering companies that might pay a 5% or even 10% rebate on the bet sometimes get charged by the host racetrack for its share of the minus pool. The ADWs in turn pass on a share of the charge to its customers who made the bet.

I gathered a lot of data on this as a study for a group that asked me to see what happened if a bet was made on races with a minus pool. Not every bet that would have been made into a minus pool was on the horse that caused the minus pool. Sometimes the bets won a lot of money when they were NOT on the horse that caused the minus pool and when the horse that was taking all the money finished out of the money. However, this was offset by the occasional losses of the bets on those horses that produced the big payoffs and also losses on the favorite that ran out of the money, or the losses on bets on the favorite when it was in-the-money because of the share of the minus pool that had to be paid back. I looked at all the possible scenarios, tallied the results, and found that show betting into minus pools broke even for the system that was being used to identify the bets. On the one hand the bets broke even for the bettor. I can't remember if the ADW still made a profit from the minus pool bets, even though share of the minus pool loss was paid back to them.

Keep in mind that it might be the case that rules vary from one ADW to another. Host racetracks might also have varied rules.

As the esteemed Senator Bird of the Great State of West Virginia once said, "The secret to success in the senate is knowing the rules." The same is likely true in racetrack betting.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by steveb

i think we have some wires crossed somewhere.

I am certain I do not make my figures the way you suggested. We had some pretty lengthy posts back and forth and you corrected some of my errors for which I thank you.

You pointed out that Beyer figures are just percentages whether he knows it or not. As I dug deeper into the math behind the making of the figures you were proved correct.

Surely, the mathematician Bill Quirin understood Beyer figures, but even so, Quirin's method was different from Beyers' and I am not convinced his figures are less predictive than Beyers'. Quirin's might be more profitable if they are reasonably good and used by fewer people.

This could be studied, but it's hard to find time for everything. At some point, you realized there is more to life than chasing money and now, I seem to recall, you chase birds -- the winged kind.

Whether our wires are crossed or not, I learned a lot from your posts. And that's why I spend time on PaceAdvantage. The little bits of wisdom I pick up here and there and the stimulating, lively, and passionate discussions keep me coming back.

And maybe most important, is the chance for me to give back some of what I've learned and help others. Hopefully, I don't lead them too far astray! LOL

The only downside is that sometimes you have to tolerate the occasional post from a sourpuss or a troll. But it's easy enough to ignore those types, too.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by highnote

You pointed out that Beyer figures are just percentages whether he knows it or not. As I dug deeper into the math behind the making of the figures you were proved correct.

they're only percentages where the winners are concerned.
not the beaten runners.

the attached will show how to get the variant and the basic speeds for the races of a meeting in its most basic way.
it is obvious that the 2000 metre race is a long way astray(and the 1000M one to a lesser extent), but the parts that will account for that are not included.
but it will likely be slow pace accounting for it, or something else just as easily discoverable.
but it has no place in this very basic example.
unless you know how the standards are calculated and the class(expected speed) columns are figured, then you can't accurately emulate it.
because how they were found is part of the entire method.
anyway, because that race is so far astray, the basic way will make all the other races wrong too, because that bad one (wrongly) has the same weighting as any other of the races.

in the attached the variant is simply the average of the difference between expected and actual.
and it is very obviously wrong in this example, but i was just displayng the basics.
but when you know how to weight the different races, rather than just using the plain average, it works very well.
and your variant will be accurate too, but i still cant see any use for the variant other than giving you an indication of how fast or slow the track was running for that meeting.

and the smaller your deviation between actual and expected, then the more accurate it will normally be, although a number far too high for the expected, might just be a horse that is on the way to better things.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by steveb

they're only percentages where the winners are concerned.
not the beaten runners.

the attached will show how to get the variant and the basic speeds for the races of a meeting in its most basic way.
it is obvious that the 2000 metre race is a long way astray(and the 1000M one to a lesser extent), but the parts that will account for that are not included.
but it will likely be slow pace accounting for it, or something else just as easily discoverable.
but it has no place in this very basic example.
unless you know how the standards are calculated and the class(expected speed) columns are figured, then you can't accurately emulate it.
because how they were found is part of the entire method.
anyway, because that race is so far astray, the basic way will make all the other races wrong too, because that bad one (wrongly) has the same weighting as any other of the races.

in the attached the variant is simply the average of the difference between expected and actual.
and it is very obviously wrong in this example, but i was just displayng the basics.
but when you know how to weight the different races, rather than just using the plain average, it works very well.
and your variant will be accurate too, but i still cant see any use for the variant other than giving you an indication of how fast or slow the track was running for that meeting.

and the smaller your deviation between actual and expected, then the more accurate it will normally be, although a number far too high for the expected, might just be a horse that is on the way to better things.

That's great. I like the way you laid it out in the spread sheet. It makes a lot of sense.

It's been so long since I have made speed figures using what I thought was your method that I forgot to mention that making good standard times is also difficult.

I won't go into my whole method because it would take to long to explain each step. Plus, I don't want to waste your time. You've been very helpful.

But in a nutshell, I converted times to speed figures and then kept adjusting the standard times until they equaled the class average speed figure, or something like that.

When I tested them in a model they were significant. That is, they were more predictive than random. I doubt they are good enough by themselves to turn a profit from betting them, but at least it is better to have them in my model than not.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by highnote

That's great. I like the way you laid it out in the spread sheet. It makes a lot of sense.

It's been so long since I have made speed figures using what I thought was your method that I forgot to mention that making good standard times is also difficult.

I won't go into my whole method because it would take to long to explain each step. Plus, I don't want to waste your time. You've been very helpful.

But in a nutshell, I converted times to speed figures and then kept adjusting the standard times until they equaled the class average speed figure, or something like that.

When I tested them in a model they were significant. That is, they were more predictive than random. I doubt they are good enough by themselves to turn a profit from betting them, but at least it is better to have them in my model than not.

that is basically right, but you have to start with EVERY type of race getting the same expected figure , which for me is a 100.
then you iterate, and check...then you alter the times AND the race types, not just the times.
if you can't classify the races sensibly then it's going to be hard.
in those instances it's solved(classifying) using the official ratings by regression analyiss.


i know how good they WERE, because the syndicates had already told me that what i was doing for them, was more accurate than what they themselves could do.
thus what i put here a long time back was their attempt at emulating me.
I only put it up here because they pissed me off.
when alan died i was owed a lot of money, and ongoing profit share, but because our agreement was vocal only, his daughter would not do the right and proper thing.

and it is quick in that you can find classes and times in about 30 seconds depending on your computer i guess.
they could not get as accurate, depsite alan's son and others, spending months on the new country.
which is why they sought my hlep in the first place.

anyway, if anybody can win(enough to live) off time alone, then i would be very surprised.
certainly not me, and certainly none of the teams that i knew stuff about.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by steveb

that is basically right, but you have to start with EVERY type of race getting the same expected figure , which for me is a 100.
then you iterate, and check...then you alter the times AND the race types, not just the times.

I did that, but I am sure I did not do it as well as you. I can send you some code examples by private msg when I get a chance.

if you can't classify the races sensibly then it's going to be hard.
in those instances it's solved(classifying) using the official ratings by regression analyiss.

If I get motivated maybe I will try that. I just made figures for the most popular classes. I'll just avoid betting on the unpopular classes. I just guessed at the standard times when my sample sizes were small.

i know how good they WERE, because the syndicates had already told me that what i was doing for them, was more accurate than what they themselves could do.
thus what i put here a long time back was their attempt at emulating me.
I only put it up here because they pissed me off.
when alan died i was owed a lot of money, and ongoing profit share, but because our agreement was vocal only, his daughter would not do the right and proper thing.

It seems like they must have gone underground. I haven't heard anything about them in several years.

anyway, if anybody can win(enough to live) off time alone, then i would be very surprised.
certainly not me, and certainly none of the teams that i knew stuff about.

Those days were probably over not long after Beyer wrote his book.

Thanks again!

[steveb]

Originally Posted by highnote

It seems like they must have gone underground. I haven't heard anything about them in several years.

when alan died, his 2ic (paul l) tried to wrestle control of the syndicate.
i don't know exactly what happened, just that there was a split, where alan's daughter victoria got control, and the paul bloke and others left and started their own syndicate.


i know that woods and associates as it became known, was still going when i decided racing was no longer for me, just a few years back.
that was where your friend would have been, as i have seen correspondence between nick m and a woman called ciara who was there at the time(still?).
don't ask me how i get to see these things.
if they are still going now, i don't know, but i do know that the pari-mutuel handle in australia is in freefall, and they had bet there(among other places) since 2006 so maybe they have left that market.

i don't know about the Paul L one.

another i was involved with, is no more, and that was full of other ex woods people.

i guess it had to happen sooner or later, but i am pretty sure something is happening in malta at the moment.
as many names i know from the old days, appear to be domiciled there.
so i am guessing they are still involved in gambling, but at what i don't know.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by steveb

when alan died, his 2ic (paul l) tried to wrestle control of the syndicate.
i don't know exactly what happened, just that there was a split, where alan's daughter victoria got control, and the paul bloke and others left and started their own syndicate.


i know that woods and associates as it became known, was still going when i decided racing was no longer for me, just a few years back.
that was where your friend would have been, as i have seen correspondence between nick m and a woman called ciara who was there at the time(still?).
don't ask me how i get to see these things.
if they are still going now, i don't know, but i do know that the pari-mutuel handle in australia is in freefall, and they had bet there(among other places) since 2006 so maybe they have left that market.

i don't know about the Paul L one.

another i was involved with, is no more, and that was full of other ex woods people.

i guess it had to happen sooner or later, but i am pretty sure something is happening in malta at the moment.
as many names i know from the old days, appear to be domiciled there.
so i am guessing they are still involved in gambling, but at what i don't know.

That's interesting. Someone just posted recently asking me what happened to Nick M. I have tried contacting, but he seems to have disappeared. He hasn't posted to facebook in several years. A company bought his domain name when it wasn't renewed by him.

He has lived all over the world, so he could be anywhere. That is his nature.

I wish I could talk to him. We had a lot of fun going to the races together. He taught me a lot about paddock handicapping.

[mikeb]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

I don't think that's what the orig poster was asking for, but who knows.

Back in the 70's before simulcasting i had a slide rule(that has long been misplaced) that calculated the show pool into odds,curious if anyone heard of it?
It was a great tool when you associate it with the win odds.
Thanks
mb