Keeneland apparently raising takeout

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by highnote

If that was his point and you agree with him you are both incorrect.

You wrote:



That is not a true statement. If you can asses a line and value then it doesn't matter how many horses are in the field.

Here is the math:

Let's say Bettors AA and BB both have a 3% advantage over the course of a year.

AA only bets 6 horse fields. BB only bets 12 horse fields.

The average odds in a 6 horse field are 4.99. This is 1/6 = 0.167 is the average chance of winning at random.

1.00 - 0.167 = 0.833. This is the chance of losing at random.

Odds are 0.833/0.167 = 4.99.

On average AA will have a 3% advantage betting on 4.99/1 shots.

When AA bets a 4.99/1 shot the public says it has a 0.167 chance of winning. AA says it has a 0.197 chance of winning. That is 3% better than the public.

If the horse has a 0.197 chance of winning then it must have a 0.803 chance of losing. AA says the horse should have odds of 4.08/1. The public says it should be 4.99/1. AA has a 3% edge and will make a bet.

Optimal Kelly is edge divided by expected payoff (or odds) times bankroll. AA will bet (0.03/4.99) x 1000 = $6

If AA wins the bet he will make $6 x 4.99 = 29.94.

If he makes this bet 100 times he will win 19.7 times out of a hundred and lose 80.3 times out of a hundred. So 19.7 x 6 = 589.2. He will lose 80.3 x 6 = 481.80. His profit after 100 bets will be 108.20.

Let's do the math for BB.

The average odds in a 12 horse field are 11.05/1. 1/12 = 0.083. 0.917/0.083= 11.05/1 odds.

When BB bets a 11.05/1 shot the public says it has a 0.083 chance of winning. BB says it has a 0.113 chance of winning. That is 3% better than the public.

If the horse has a 0.113 chance of winning then it must have a 0.887 chance of losing. BB says the horse should have odds of 7.85/1. The public says it should be 11.05/1. BB has a 3% edge and will make a bet.

Optimal Kelly is edge divided by expected payoff (or odds) times bankroll. BB will bet (0.03/11.05) x 1000 = $2.70

If BB wins a bet he will collect 2.70 x 11.05 = $29.84.

If he makes this bet 100 times he will win 11.3 times out of a hundred and lose 88.7 times out of a hundred. So 29.84 x 2.70 = 338.32. He will lose 88.7 x 2.70 = 239.49. His profit after 100 bets will be 98.83.

AA's profit is $108 and BB's is $98.

There are some rounding errors, but AA is slightly better off with a 3% advantage in a 6 horse field than BB having a 3% advantage in a 12 horse field.

Now you can come up with all kinds of scenarios. But my argument was that the handicappers were of equal ability. I thought they would have equal outcomes, but it turns out I was wrong.

It is actually more profitable to bet on small fields than on large ones, all else being equal.

All things being equal when searching for +EV plays, I will find 3-4 times as many plays as the small field bettor will uncover......Instead of making $25K (SFB), the large field bettor, having a higher rebate aggregate, will make $100K, as optimal Kelly turbocharges the large field bettor, with his much greater play count and his accelerated bankroll escalation.....Do you get it now??....Sorry if you don't, all things being equal, they aren't even close.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Am I the only one that thought that article was written from a pro-track perspective. Seemed like the reporting slanted that way and when there was opinion it seemed to side with the tracks.

Maybe thats my negative view of the press.

I agree. It did seem tilted towards slanted towards the tracks. It started out balanced, but it felt like he tried to throw Jeff under the bus.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Man this topic has really gotten sidetracked...seems like this should be a separate discussion.

It started out as a takeout discussion and some bettors feel smaller takeouts should benefit players. Others said high takeouts are ok as long as fields are large.

It would be good to answer these questions because takeout plays an important role.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

All things being equal when searching for +EV plays, I will find 3-4 times as many plays as the small field bettor will uncover......Instead of making $25K (SFB), the large field bettor, having a higher rebate aggregate, will make $100K, as optimal Kelly turbocharges the large field bettor, with his much greater play count and his accelerated bankroll escalation.....Do you get it now??....Sorry if you don't, all things being equal, they aren't even close.

If a player produces the same percentages of wins in a 6 horse field as they do a 12 horse field then I would be amazed.

We keep saying "all things being equal" when clearly the two cases are hardly the same.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

If a player produces the same percentages of wins in a 6 horse field as they do a 12 horse field then I would be amazed.

We keep saying "all things being equal" when clearly the two cases are hardly the same.

Bottom-line, who in the long-term makes substantially more money? Sorry you don't see the point of betting the game at the optimal level either..... Maybe Cratos can teach you how to bet 60 plays a year and make the same amount of money. Get used to making $20K bets, and don't worry as variance will never come into play the Cratos way...

Variance is a killer, short fields kill handle and doom racing. Contraction is the only thing that will save this game, believe it or not.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

If a player produces the same percentages of wins in a 6 horse field as they do a 12 horse field then I would be amazed.

We keep saying "all things being equal" when clearly the two cases are hardly the same.

I don't think you get it. Win % has nothing to do with +EV

+EV refers to the bet being an overlay.

By some accounts , it's easier to find an overlay in a large messy field, as the confusion of the public takes over.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I have a program that assesses lines with 100% accuracy 100% of the time. I wait until the public assessment (the odds) differ from my line so that my bet results in a positive expectation bet.

What do you mean by asses lines?

If you mean that you compare your line to the public's line to determine if the public is correct, you are correct, or you're both correct, then that makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by AndyC

Do you think that the public makes more mistakes with a big field or a small field?

Intuitively, it seems like it should make sense that the public makes more mistakes in larger fields because there are more horses. But logically the sum of the errors in large fields is the same as in small fields. There might be a couple different ways of looking at it. The average odds in a 12 horse field are about 11/1. In a 6 horse field they are about 5/1. There might be more errors in the 12 horse field, but they are smaller in magnitude, but they sum to the same amount as in the 6 horse field.

If a horse has a 30% chance of winning a race it has a 70% chance of losing. After a long run of races in which a horse with a 30% chance of winning wins the race, the public will have made an error in judgment 70% of the time. It doesn't matter what the size of the field is. There error is the same.

Originally Posted by AndyC

My ability to assess a line has to be coupled with a mistake by the public relative to my assessment in order to produce a bet. The ability to just assess a line only yields a bet when the public has made an error. Simple probability will tell you that the more chances there are to make an error the more errors there will be.

But in a 12 horse fields the errors will be smaller, on average, and will sum to 1.

Again, a bet is dependent on your probability of winning, the payoff, and the size of your bankroll. Just because the field is larger does not mean the sum of all the errors made by the public is larger.

The lower the odds are on the favorite the fewer implied errors there are on that horse. If a horse is 1/5 in a small field his implied error rate is the same as the implied error rate on a 1/5 shot in a 12 horse field.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

Lastly, I don't understand how this can be labeled as corporate greed if the money is flowing back into purses, and therefore to trainers and their staff, jockeys and others that benefit from the trickle down effect of a vibrant racetrack economy.

It's not trickling down to bettors -- the ones who are also helping to subsidize the purses and are part of the racetrack economy.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

...
Lastly, I don't understand how this can be labeled as corporate greed if the money is flowing back into purses, and therefore to trainers and their staff, jockeys and others that benefit from the trickle down effect of a vibrant racetrack economy.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not in the best interest of racing.

Takeout is already TOO high, raising higher means you don't care about the bettor at all, so why should the bettor care about you?

[highnote]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

By some accounts , it's easier to find an overlay in a large messy field, as the confusion of the public takes over.

By some accounts it might be easier, but by other accounts it might not be.

Just because someone lacks the expertise to find value in small fields does not mean value is not present.

There is the same amount of error in a small field as in a large. In both cases the sum of the errors equals one.

Take a two horse race. AA bets on a horse that has a 60% of winning. BB bets on a horse that has a 40% chance of winning.

40% of the time AA wrong. 60% of the time BB is wrong. The sum of their errors is 1.

It doesn't matter if there are 2 horses or 20. There is the same amount of error.

If it is the case that people are more comfortable trying to find value in a large field of horses that is a horse of a different color.

They might find more value in a large race, but it's not because there is more value than in a race with a small field, it's because they are comfortable that they have the tools to find the value.

On average, the magnitude of error will be smaller on each horse in a large field, but the errors will still sum to 1. And because the error is smaller on each horse the bets will be smaller on each horse and the edge will be smaller on each horse.

Final point... it is harder to win when takeout is 17.5% it is harder to win than when takeout is 15% regardless of field size.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not in the best interest of racing.

Takeout is already TOO high, raising higher means you don't care about the bettor at all, so why should the bettor care about you?

Agreed. (see what I did there. LOL) But seriously, I do agree with you. It was a shitty thing for Keeneland to do to their customers. It shows how much they value them.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by highnote

By some accounts it might be easier, but by other accounts it might not be.

Just because someone lacks the expertise to find value in small fields does not mean value is not present.

There is the same amount of error in a small field as in a large. In both cases the sum of the errors equals one.

Take a two horse race. AA bets on a horse that has a 60% of winning. BB bets on a horse that has a 40% chance of winning.

40% of the time AA wrong. 60% of the time BB is wrong. The sum of their errors is 1.

It doesn't matter if there are 2 horses or 20. There is the same amount of error.

If it is the case that people are more comfortable trying to find value in a large field of horses that is a horse of a different color.

They might find more value in a large race, but it's not because there is more value than in a race with a small field, it's because they are comfortable that they have the tools to find the value.

On average, the magnitude of error will be smaller on each horse in a large field, but the errors will still sum to 1. And because the error is smaller on each horse the bets will be smaller on each horse and the edge will be smaller on each horse.

Final point... it is harder to win when takeout is 17.5% it is harder to win than when takeout is 15% regardless of field size.

A shocking comment...which makes me wish that we were holding our conversation in person...preferably close to a betting window somewhere. That way...we could find out a little something about each one of us...so we could place our opinions on this in some sort of "context".

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

A shocking comment...which makes me wish that we were holding our conversation in person...preferably close to a betting window somewhere. That way...we could find out a little something about each one of us...so we could place our opinions on this in some sort of "context".

Are you going to shout your bets from the $5 window to the $100 window where Highnote is betting?...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Are you going to shout your bets from the $5 window to the $100 window where Highnote is betting?...

If Highnote bets at the $100 window...I'll eat my racing form.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If Highnote bets at the $100 window...I'll eat my racing form.

You want ketchup or tabasco with your form?