can anyone beat the public_____?

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Gekish

Up to 8-1 the public correctly identifies a horse's chances to win. After that they start overestimating the chances. Higher the odds more the overestimation. This was all written about Fabricand's book years ago. The title escapes me now.

FWIW, my stats show that 78% of all races are won by horses at 8/1 and below.

Further, for those who like to only bet above 8/1, for every winning horse, there are 24 losing horses.

[geroge.burns99]

Originally Posted by sharkey11

fav win rate in todays world is a bit higher than the 33% more like 40 to 45% and ive read that in the old world that it was impossible to beat that. authors of such studys have since past away .

not that high Shark..

Stats on Post Time Favorites for 2022 by Class

[Half Smoke]

__________


one time I had this idea that Maiden Specials would be much less predictable - that the fave would win at a significantly lower %

I didn't do a thorough study but I tracked a couple of hundred races

I was astonished that the fave still won by a high %

in many of these races the horses have never even run in a race before

yes, I know they have breeding, workouts, jocks and trainers to look at but still - so much less info to work with

now I'm wondering about breaking down the subset further - and looking at only those Maiden Specials where all of the horses have never run before

and I'd bet that even then somehow the fave would be tracked at winning a high %

pretty amazing - to me anyway


.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

well, that's the whole point of what I was asking

a challenge can't be unfair if it's accepted

if he uses tote info then they aren't really his selections imo - at least that is one way of looking at it - granted - using the tote and then making selections would normally be considered that capper's selections

mimicking the tote except in a few spot play races and matching or beating the % that way would not impress me


.

Beating the system is what is important. Whether you're impressed is of little consequence.

[lamboguy]

if you give me 8 seconds after the bell, i will beat it too without a rebate.

[MPRanger]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

____________


I'm not referring to winning or making money - obviously there are some that can do that - probably most often with the exotics

I'm referring to one specific thing

it's well known that the public correctly identifies the winning horse as the fave right about 33% of the time

do you think you could do that if you were asked to do it if you weren't able to see the actual odds and weren't even able to see the M/L odds__________?

and do you think anybody could do it______?

I tend to think that maybe nobody could do it



.

The good news is that you don't have to beat the public. You only need to
profit from the subset which you choose to play. The bad news is that you

probably can't do that either.


Also, remember; The public is a losing player. Otherwise you could just bet
whatever was on the toteboard and get rich.



This past week I asked Nobel prize winning economist Eugene Fama:
"A stock price can randomly go up, down or stay the same.
A horse race has more than three possible outcomes.
Does the fact that the outcome is largely random with more
than three possible outcomes mean that the efficiency of the
tote board is weaker than any form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis?"





His response was brief:

"No, just different. EFF"

So .... he believes the toteboard/public/market is efficient.

There are opposing schools of thought allowing for inefficienes in markets.

There are a small number of people or groups who beat the market
using the techniques of quantitative analysys. Most don't.

"Why do you think fund managers can't beat the S&P 500? Cause they're
sheep. And sheep get slaughtered. Publics out there throwing darts at a
board sport. Well, I don't throw darts at a board. I only bet on a sure thing"

- Gordon Gecko WALL STREET

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

__________


one time I had this idea that Maiden Specials would be much less predictable - that the fave would win at a significantly lower %

I didn't do a thorough study but I tracked a couple of hundred races

I was astonished that the fave still won by a high %

in many of these races the horses have never even run in a race before

yes, I know they have breeding, workouts, jocks and trainers to look at but still - so much less info to work with

now I'm wondering about breaking down the subset further - and looking at only those Maiden Specials where all of the horses have never run before

and I'd bet that even then somehow the fave would be tracked at winning a high %

pretty amazing - to me anyway


.

All they have to do is beat other non-winners. Much easier than winning a NW1x.

[Bustin Stones]

If you concede that the tote is efficient and that AI is controlling those odds, the only way to beat the odds is to choose races where the data fed to AI is either minimized or not historically helpful in picking winners.
Even if the rate of success in picking winners in those races is nearly as high, it doesn't mean that the non favorites who do win are equally bet down.

[Half Smoke]

Originally Posted by MPRanger

The good news is that you don't have to beat the public. You only need to
profit from the subset which you choose to play. The bad news is that you

probably can't do that either.


Also, remember; The public is a losing player. Otherwise you could just bet
whatever was on the toteboard and get rich.



This past week I asked Nobel prize winning economist Eugene Fama:
"A stock price can randomly go up, down or stay the same.
A horse race has more than three possible outcomes.
Does the fact that the outcome is largely random with more
than three possible outcomes mean that the efficiency of the
tote board is weaker than any form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis?"





His response was brief:

"No, just different. EFF"

So .... he believes the toteboard/public/market is efficient.

There are opposing schools of thought allowing for inefficienes in markets.

There are a small number of people or groups who beat the market
using the techniques of quantitative analysys. Most don't.

"Why do you think fund managers can't beat the S&P 500? Cause they're
sheep. And sheep get slaughtered. Publics out there throwing darts at a
board sport. Well, I don't throw darts at a board. I only bet on a sure thing"

- Gordon Gecko WALL STREET

thanks, that is an excellent post IMO

.

[vegasone]

“Further, for those who like to only bet above 8/1, for every winning horse, there are 24 losing horses.”


Misleading statistic. How many horses that you handicap that look like they have a chance are bet. Not like you are betting every horse over 8/1. Still, lots harder to get those winners.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

38-39% now.

I'll point out the obvious. It's because the favorite win probabilities are higher due to the fact the big bet money is "Smarter", however they are still subject to the same vig, which may make them not so "Smart".

to prove a point, what is the ROI based on the 38-39%?
With what is now "very little work" I can get is up to about $0.95.
With a lot more work, perhaps $1.0 or higher

[cj]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

I'll point out the obvious. It's because the favorite win probabilities are higher due to the fact the big bet money is "Smarter", however they are still subject to the same vig, which may make them not so "Smart".

to prove a point, what is the ROI based on the 38-39%?
With what is now "very little work" I can get is up to about $0.95.
With a lot more work, perhaps $1.0 or higher

But they aren't subject to the same vig. They get nice rebates.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

If you concede that the tote is efficient and that AI is controlling those odds, the only way to beat the odds is to choose races where the data fed to AI is either minimized or not historically helpful in picking winners.
Even if the rate of success in picking winners in those races is nearly as high, it doesn't mean that the non favorites who do win are equally bet down.

Or, find an approach that is not dependent upon "globally pushing winners to the top" because that is what the competition does.

IOW, segment your approach(es) into segments that the whales do not (and probably will not) look at because it does not fit their approach.

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Or, find an approach that is not dependent upon "globally pushing winners to the top" because that is what the competition does.

IOW, segment your approach(es) into segments that the whales do not (and probably will not) look at because it does not fit their approach.

My statement was conditional (note the word IF at the beginning). I do not concede that the tote is efficient. If I did, I wouldn't waste my time handicapping races. The AI that syndicates use is only as smart as the idiot program code they write to spit out recommendations. To believe that there's no virgin territory to explore, is short sited. So, we are in total agreement.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

My statement was conditional (note the word IF at the beginning). I do not concede that the tote is efficient. If I did, I wouldn't waste my time handicapping races. The AI that syndicates use is only as smart as the idiot program code they write to spit out recommendations. To believe that there's no virgin territory to explore, is short sited. So, we are in total agreement.

Uh, respectfully, the idiots are (collectively) the smartest handicappers on the planet.

The tote is not efficient.
Only in the 1st 3.5 ranks or so. LOL

But that is an increase from 5 years ago when it was only 2 ranks.


Ironically, it is the artful students of handicapping who have the best chance of being long-term winners in this age because they are not trying to directly compete with the whales.

I know this seems odd coming from a "systems guy" but artful players disadvantages CAN overcome the system players.

My version of that would be what I call Systematic Artfulness. (SysArt)

Am I winning with SysArt?
(Thanks for asking. LOL)

It works on weekdays but it does not work on weekends or holidays. It works because I've got a way to find BET AGAINST, LOW-ODDS horses. The guys who have helped me with the research call them BALOs.

On the weekends, those BALOs beat the crap out of me. Logically, I do not play on weekends - at least for now. LOL