proportional show betting negative pool = guaranteed profit??

[traynor]

Originally Posted by ribjig

> Precise proportioning requires precise knowledge of distribution.

A precise formula will describe precise proportional betting
that maximizes +ROI for ANY negative pool event;
perferct proportioning yields the greatest +ROI per event,
say 3%, but there will be "headroom" for less than perfect
proportioning that will yield 2.5% or 2% or 1.5% or
1% or 0.5% per event, too...

In one day, visiting one track, market-making (3)
negative pool events in (3) races with (3) heavy favorites
& 6 entries per race, one might typically realize, say,
2% + 1% + 1% net profit on 3 events or 4%+ of
one's market-making bankroll that day...

Where did you get that idea?

[ribjig]

OP never claimed creation of scheme.
Previously reported Authoritarian Sources for scheme:
a. William Quirin (don't come back with his "other error" = disproof)
b. Andrew Beyer

A bunch of whining Negatory ROI'ers
≠
disproof of scheme...
no objective concrete disproof offered, just opinions...
+ a sprinkling of "yes it will work" posts being ignored by whiners!!!

Proportional Formula Angel, are you out there...?
(lack of angel ≠ disproof either)

[Dave Schwartz]

If we all agree that you are going to get rich from this will you stop pounding us and just go do it?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

If we all agree that you are going to get rich from this will you stop pounding us and just go do it?

Maybe he needs a backer...

[Poindexter]

I do not pay much attention to bridge jumping races since I rarely see them. But I am puzzled by the fact that ADW's will not allow you to capitalize on a bridge jumping situation. I understand that they do not want you creating one by betting say $400,000 to show on a horse because they are held responsible for the minus pool and have to foot the cost. But why does it cost them money if I bet $1000 to show on 2 other horses in the race? These bets are not creating the minus pool.

By the way what is the current formula they use to determine show prices when the bridge jumpers horse finishes in the money.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Maybe he needs a backer...

A backer, a mathematician or two, and a tech expert. Other than that though...

[traynor]

Originally Posted by ribjig

OP never claimed creation of scheme.
Previously reported Authoritarian Sources for scheme:
a. William Quirin (don't come back with his "other error" = disproof)
b. Andrew Beyer

A bunch of whining Negatory ROI'ers
≠
disproof of scheme...
no objective concrete disproof offered, just opinions...
+ a sprinkling of "yes it will work" posts being ignored by whiners!!!

Proportional Formula Angel, are you out there...?
(lack of angel ≠ disproof either)

That is all you have?

[ribjig]

> "That is all you have?" said Vague E. Vaguerson

Near Indisputable Proof Negative Pool Proportional Betting
can ALWAYS produce small profit:

a. find historic real-world negative pool final toteboards
(several are presented in another related thread)
b. find just ONE in which it was IMPOSSIBLE to have
proportionally bet all entries & NOT have shown a small profit
using the same formula in all events...

hint: try 100 - (100 - % public-bet-on-entry)(NPF) = % you bet on entry
as formula with NPF being somewhere around 2...

Best formula will be found by mathematically-minded,
distraught gamblers step back & watch!

Indirect indication of scheme being employed:
a. what was rate of negative pool events before this thread started?
b. what is rate of negative pool events since this thread started?!!!!

What some might want to do:
contact your nieces & nephews at MIT, CIT, Ivy League math majors...

[Prairie Bettor]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I do not pay much attention to bridge jumping races since I rarely see them. But I am puzzled by the fact that ADW's will not allow you to capitalize on a bridge jumping situation. I understand that they do not want you creating one by betting say $400,000 to show on a horse because they are held responsible for the minus pool and have to foot the cost. But why does it cost them money if I bet $1000 to show on 2 other horses in the race? These bets are not creating the minus pool.

They only care if your horse is part of a minus payout. Easiest way to know if your safe with this rule is that your bet pays more than the track minimum. 2.10 at most tracks, 2.20 at a few. It is possible to receive the track minimum payout and not be a minus payout. Due to breakage rounding your bet might compute to a payoff of 2.17. So you get 2.10 and are fine. But if it figures to 2.07, your going to see 2.10 on the tote board and trigger an email from your ADW or track that you bet through.

Originally Posted by Poindexter

By the way what is the current formula they use to determine show prices when the bridge jumpers horse finishes in the money.

The easiest way is to forget the minus pool horses entirely. Remove their bet from the pool and figure the remaining finishers the normal way. Please remember, after removing the largest dollar bet horse from the pool, the same rules apply to the remaining horses. It is possible to have 2 or even 3 minus pool horses in one show pool. In that case they would all pay less than 2.10 and would trigger the mentioned email from your ADW.

Another FYI, the sending track simply collects a flat percentage from the ADW. So when a horse pays 2.17, the ADW collects 2.17 from the track and credits your account 2.10. That is why the sending track doesn't foot the loss on negative pools.

Yet another FYI, Any pool could technically be a negative payoff if someone bets enough on one combo. Often mention is show, but place and even win have been negative payoffs. I don't remember if I've seen exacta pays of 2.10.

[Some_One]

CJ, PA, ffs please shut this thread now, we have someone acting like a holocaust denier who refuses to believe any evidence that doesn't support their view. It's just comical now.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Some_One

CJ, PA, ffs please shut this thread now, we have someone acting like a holocaust denier who refuses to believe any evidence that doesn't support their view. It's just comical now.

I'm in full agreement with SO......Enough already, way past expiration date.

[castaway01]

The fact the guy has nastily ripped everyone for not being able to prove his formula wrong, then spent recent posts in the thread asking for someone to provide him with the formula MAY show a lack of logic at work...

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Prairie Bettor

They only care if your horse is part of a minus payout. Easiest way to know if your safe with this rule is that your bet pays more than the track minimum. 2.10 at most tracks, 2.20 at a few. It is possible to receive the track minimum payout and not be a minus payout. Due to breakage rounding your bet might compute to a payoff of 2.17. So you get 2.10 and are fine. But if it figures to 2.07, your going to see 2.10 on the tote board and trigger an email from your ADW or track that you bet through.




The easiest way is to forget the minus pool horses entirely. Remove their bet from the pool and figure the remaining finishers the normal way. Please remember, after removing the largest dollar bet horse from the pool, the same rules apply to the remaining horses. It is possible to have 2 or even 3 minus pool horses in one show pool. In that case they would all pay less than 2.10 and would trigger the mentioned email from your ADW.

Another FYI, the sending track simply collects a flat percentage from the ADW. So when a horse pays 2.17, the ADW collects 2.17 from the track and credits your account 2.10. That is why the sending track doesn't foot the loss on negative pools.

Yet another FYI, Any pool could technically be a negative payoff if someone bets enough on one combo. Often mention is show, but place and even win have been negative payoffs. I don't remember if I've seen exacta pays of 2.10.

Thank you for the explanation.

I just want to make sure I have this correct. There is a race with the following bet.

1) 10000
2) 2000
3) 2000
4) 2000
5) 2000
6) 2000


the take is 15%. $20,000 bet $17,000 paid out to the top 3 finishers-we will call it 1-2-3

$17,000-$14,000(bet on 1-2-3)=$3000/3 horses or $1000 per horse. So the payout is $3.00 to show on the 2 and 3.

So let's say hypothetically somebody tosses in $190,000 to show on the 1 at the bell. The 1 will pay $2.10. The remaining horse have $10,000 to show on them. 15% is removed, so they are paid out $8500-4000 bet on the 2 and 3 or $4500/2 horses or $2250 per horse. So because a big bet was made on the chalk, my show bet on the 2 or 3 went from paying $3.00 to show to $4.50 or $4.40 with dime breakage(and of course a tremendous amount more if the 1 finishes out of the money).

[Track Collector]

This TROLL has been quite mind in his/her name calling, so I do not think it warrants closing the thread.

TROLLS love attention and to stir thing things up. That is how they get their jollies. They will go away after EVERYONE ELSE stops replying to this thread. They usually don't go away easily, so expect them to continue to post, making the same outrageous claims, baiting people to respond by calling them names, etc. in hopes of seeing new posts.

We (collectively) effectively get in the last word when the TROLL checks this thread day after day, then week after week, until they come to realize no one else will play their game.

I'm out of here...........hoping others follow my lead.

[Prairie Bettor]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Thank you for the explanation.

I just want to make sure I have this correct. There is a race with the following bet.

1) 10000
2) 2000
3) 2000
4) 2000
5) 2000
6) 2000


the take is 15%. $20,000 bet $17,000 paid out to the top 3 finishers-we will call it 1-2-3

$17,000-$14,000(bet on 1-2-3)=$3000/3 horses or $1000 per horse. So the payout is $3.00 to show on the 2 and 3.

So let's say hypothetically somebody tosses in $190,000 to show on the 1 at the bell. The 1 will pay $2.10. The remaining horse have $10,000 to show on them. 15% is removed, so they are paid out $8500-4000 bet on the 2 and 3 or $4500/2 horses or $2250 per horse. So because a big bet was made on the chalk, my show bet on the 2 or 3 went from paying $3.00 to show to $4.50 or $4.40 with dime breakage(and of course a tremendous amount more if the 1 finishes out of the money).

I did miss type how to figure the payout. lol

Your horses would pay 3.40. What I forgot is you need to put an equal weighted bet on the negative pool horse. So toss the 200,000 that is on the 1 and change it to 2000. Then compute your payouts. I'm usually close to correct on what the will pay. I may be missing something because it is off a bit sometimes. I'll look into it more, using real life results.

When I say equal weighted, I mean weighted to the other 2 finishers.

Hope this makes sense.

Out of the money? Each of the three finishers would get $59.00