Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 11-08-2001, 12:49 AM   #1
General Sanders
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 85
Although I'm not trying to get so deeply into a mathematical discussion as to confuse anyone, I thought that I would also offer up a useful formula for all of those who enjoy modeling and are eternally unsure if their race sample size is large enough to base future expectation with confidence...namely, to wager, or not to wager.
The following formula will approximate the minimum number of races necessary to accomplish the above stated goal with a 90% confidence level:

WIN % x LOSS % x 1.645 x 1.645 / E / E

where E = WIN % - (2 x ROI) / AVERAGE MUTUEL

If you require a more stringent confidence level, then replace 1.645 with 1.96 (for 95% confidence), or with 2.575 (for 99% confidence).

As an example, a 20% win rate, coupled with a 1.20 ROI and an average mutuel of $15 would result in the following:

E = .2 - (2 x 1.2) / 15 = .04
.2 x .8 x 1.645 x 1.645 / .04 / .04 = 270.6

Therefore, after modeling, this can be used as a tool to determine which models can be expected to produce long term results, and which models need further testing before such assumptions can be made.

Have fun!


THE GENERAL
General Sanders is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-08-2001, 07:17 AM   #2
ranchwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: near Lone Star Park
Posts: 5,147
General,

That should be VERY useful. Thanks, you must be a five star general.

Ranch West
ranchwest is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-08-2001, 10:03 AM   #3
FortuneHunter
Back from the Abyss
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 254
G.S.,

Thank you for the formula !!

However I would like to point out a problem with your example. You wrote

" As an example, a 20% win rate, coupled with a 1.20 ROI and an average mutuel of $15 would result in the following:"

There is a relationship between win rate, ROI and average mutuel, which this example violates.

Here are some definitions and the simple formula:

HIT Frequency (H) is how often the particular wager in questions pays off in the form of a percentage (%). This could be a Win wager, a WPS wager, Triple Box Wager, on and on. We originally used the term WIN Frequency, but people confused that with a Win Wager Frequency. Using HIT Frequency avoids that confusion.

Avg Odds (O) is the Odds to 1 (expressed in decimal form) for the respective Wager in question.

ROI (R) is Return On Investment, in other words profit or loss on the respective wager. We shall normalize this value such that an ROI of $1.00 means you break even. We settled on this to keep away from negative numbers for loss situations, and to make the math simpler. For example, an ROI of $1.38 means 38cents profit on a dollar. An ROI of $0.78 means 22cents loss on a dollar.

With the definitions established, here is the simple but very useful formula presented in 3 formats:

H = HIT Frequency
O = Avg Odds
R = ROI

R=H(O+1) When you want to find ROI as a function of HIT Frequency and Avg Odds
H=R/(O+1) When you want to find HIT Frequency as a function of Avg Odds and ROI
O=(R-H)/H When you want to find Avg Odds as a function of HIT Frequency and ROI

Therefore, for a Hit Frequency of 20% and an ROI of $1.20, the average odds must be 5.00 which is an average mutuel payoff of $12.00 assuming the mutuel payoff is for $2.00.

So to run this example through your formula again with the correction:

E = H - [(2 x ROI) / AvgMutuel]
E = .20 - [(2 x 1.20) / 12] = 0

If my relationship for H, R, and O are correct, I believe E comes up zero for all cases.

Is there a flaw in the E formula?

Do I have a misunderstanding?

Can you help me out on this?

Thanks, FH
FortuneHunter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-08-2001, 10:07 AM   #4
ranchwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: near Lone Star Park
Posts: 5,147
FH,

Thanks, I found that out, too, but I don't think I could have expressed it as well as you did.

Thanks,
Ranch West
ranchwest is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-08-2001, 10:49 AM   #5
General Sanders
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 85
Sorry for the confusion guys; the confusion resulted from a matter of semantics, rather than a flaw in the formula; I should have been clearer on the meaning of the value for E.

What I should have stated was that you must first set a minimum acceptable profit margin, which must be less than the actual profit margin which has been produced by the modeling.

Therefore, I have edited the original example to eliminate the confusion and provide a clearer explanation of the use of the formula.

Take care.


THE GENERAL
General Sanders is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-09-2001, 01:36 PM   #6
Rick Ransom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 428
General,

This type of analysis would be accurate if the only variance was in win percentage and the payoffs were constant. That is clearly not the case in the real world. Payoffs for any selection method have a very large variance which makes for a much larger required sample size. It's not clear to me how to combine both types of variance into a useful formula, but maybe someone here with a better knowledge of statistics than myself could comment on this.
Rick Ransom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.