Questions About Trifectas and Supers

[Dave Schwartz]

I have need of some conversation.

I am writing some very deep A.I. and am having some issues with structuring trifecta and superfecta bets.

Understand that I am not designing how the A.I. will bet these plays in a rigid manner. Rather, I am trying to design a way for the A.I. to be able to DISCOVER how it should bet.

What I have it doing now is (indirect) Topological Data Analysis.

WHAT THAT MEANS
==============
Image that there are a set of systems for handicapping a horse - 250 for previous starters, 100 for FTS, and 50 for foreign horses.
(When I say 250 "systems" I mean a set of weighted factors for producing a "score" for an individual horse.)

There are a set up rules - 100's of them (created by the A.I.) - that assign points to the 250 systems. The idea is that the A.I. can decide that this is the "type of horse" that should be handicapped using (say) System #17, while the 2nd horse in the same race might be a System #221 horse.

As an example, the A.I. could be able to UNDERSTAND the difference between an ES horse with a class edge who is likely to quit completely if he doesn't win, and an ES horse that is likely to persevere for 2nd or 3rd even if he is headed in the stretch.

HERE'S MY PROBLEM
==================
Creating an environment where the A.I. engine can UNDERSTAND how to bet the win pool is actually relatively easy. All it has to do is project the odds for each horse and the hit rate to determine profitability.

Even place and show bets are relatively easy to figure out.

The problems begin with exactas - because projecting exacta payoffs is not so easy. I think I have this one whipped.

The REAL PROBLEMS begin with trifectas because there really isn't much chance of projecting a trifecta or superfecta payoff.

Understand that the system is smart enough to know (or, hopefully will be) that a horse can be tossed from finishing 1st but still be left underneath.

So, I am hoping for some discussion from anyone who has a mathematical idea to put forth about how to address this situation.

I know that the bar is very high here. But if you have knowledge to share, please bring it forth, whether publicly or privately.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Exotic1]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I have need of some conversation.

I am writing some very deep A.I. and am having some issues with structuring trifecta and superfecta bets.

Understand that I am not designing how the A.I. will bet these plays in a rigid manner. Rather, I am trying to design a way for the A.I. to be able to DISCOVER how it should bet.

What I have it doing now is (indirect) Topological Data Analysis.

WHAT THAT MEANS
==============
Image that there are a set of systems for handicapping a horse - 250 for previous starters, 100 for FTS, and 50 for foreign horses.
(When I say 250 "systems" I mean a set of weighted factors for producing a "score" for an individual horse.)

There are a set up rules - 100's of them (created by the A.I.) - that assign points to the 250 systems. The idea is that the A.I. can decide that this is the "type of horse" that should be handicapped using (say) System #17, while the 2nd horse in the same race might be a System #221 horse.

As an example, the A.I. could be able to UNDERSTAND the difference between an ES horse with a class edge who is likely to quit completely if he doesn't win, and an ES horse that is likely to persevere for 2nd or 3rd even if he is headed in the stretch.

HERE'S MY PROBLEM
==================
Creating an environment where the A.I. engine can UNDERSTAND how to bet the win pool is actually relatively easy. All it has to do is project the odds for each horse and the hit rate to determine profitability.

Even place and show bets are relatively easy to figure out.

The problems begin with exactas - because projecting exacta payoffs is not so easy. I think I have this one whipped.

The REAL PROBLEMS begin with trifectas because there really isn't much chance of projecting a trifecta or superfecta payoff.

Understand that the system is smart enough to know (or, hopefully will be) that a horse can be tossed from finishing 1st but still be left underneath.

So, I am hoping for some discussion from anyone who has a mathematical idea to put forth about how to address this situation.

I know that the bar is very high here. But if you have knowledge to share, please bring it forth, whether publicly or privately.


Regards
Dave Schwartz

Do trifecta payouts correlate to exacta probables by some factor of odds, field size and running style? Superfecta payouts are getting to be ridiculously low. It's almost at a point of trifecta * 2 or 3 regardless (or without an appreciation) of the odds on the 4th place finisher.

Sounds like you've mastered exacta probable payouts to their real probabilities. That alone sounds very difficult if one assumes that win odds vs. odds of running second w no chance of winning, are two different subjects. Not sure that assumption is correct.

[Robert Fischer]

Payout probables aren't necessary for tris and supers, at least not in a vacuum.
If I personally had to do a model, I'd do a value model, and just run it separately, provided it was profitable. I wouldn't care about payout, just that I was buying tickets that were more valuable than the price.

If you wanted those tris and supers to be part of a multi-layered dutch/hedge/leveraged 'maximum churn' algorithm, then you'd need (I think?) the payout probables.
I don't have a complete picture in my head.
Pool Size, Field size, a Win Odds distribution, Odds Ranking, and maybe the Under-the-Fav Exacta Probables would probably be nearly all you need in live data. Then generate a low estimate for payouts.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Exotic1

Do trifecta payouts correlate to exacta probables by some factor of odds, field size and running style? Superfecta payouts are getting to be ridiculously low. It's almost at a point of trifecta * 2 or 3 regardless (or without an appreciation) of the odds on the 4th place finisher.

Sounds like you've mastered exacta probable payouts to their real probabilities. That alone sounds very difficult if one assumes that win odds vs. odds of running second w no chance of winning, are two different subjects. Not sure that assumption is correct.

I have no idea if trifectas correlate. Hence, my problem. LOL

Payout probables aren't necessary for tris and supers, at least not in a vacuum.
If I personally had to do a model, I'd do a value model, and just run it separately, provided it was profitable. I wouldn't care about payout, just that I was buying tickets that were more valuable than the price.

How would you do a value model without payoffs?

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

How would you do a value model without payoffs?

Horses that the public are significantly wrong about, are going to generate underlays and overlays.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Conceptually I would think you are trying to calculate the percentage of the trifecta pool represented by different combinations without having the printout that the track gets. So if you have a fair pay calculation for the exacta, the trick may be to come up with a multiplier, perhaps even a weighted multiplier, for the third place horse in a trifecta.

I'm just stabbing here, but if you have 2-1 over 8-1 over 5/2 you might take the fair pay exacta (let's call it $50 for $2) and multiply it by 2.5 (the odds of the third place horse to one) for a trifecta pay of $125 for $2. The problem, is that payouts can be highly different depending on which place the price horse is in, or whether the trifecta is one of the high probability outcomes, and how many horses are in the race.

So you might want to have a multiplier for the number of horses, and one for the odds of the third place horse. This way if the longshot is first or second, you've accounted for it in the exacta pay, and you just have to figure out how to multiply that number by something representing the third place horse (with the longer the odds the greater the deviation from the third place finisher's odds to one) and an adjustment for the number of starters (because the fewer the starters, the fewer the combinations and vice versa.)

I'm not sure how much this would help, but it just struck me that if you can calculate the exacta pay, you should be able to use that as a starting point to calculate the trifecta.

The superfecta - I'm not sure the same sort of calculations would work. I don't have a concept on the super.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Conceptually I would think you are trying to calculate the percentage of the trifecta pool represented by different combinations without having the printout that the track gets. So if you have a fair pay calculation for the exacta, the trick may be to come up with a multiplier, perhaps even a weighted multiplier, for the third place horse in a trifecta.

I'm just stabbing here, but if you have 2-1 over 8-1 over 5/2 you might take the fair pay exacta (let's call it $50 for $2) and multiply it by 2.5 (the odds of the third place horse to one) for a trifecta pay of $125 for $2. The problem, is that payouts can be highly different depending on which place the price horse is in, or whether the trifecta is one of the high probability outcomes, and how many horses are in the race.

So you might want to have a multiplier for the number of horses, and one for the odds of the third place horse. This way if the longshot is first or second, you've accounted for it in the exacta pay, and you just have to figure out how to multiply that number by something representing the third place horse (with the longer the odds the greater the deviation from the third place finisher's odds to one) and an adjustment for the number of starters (because the fewer the starters, the fewer the combinations and vice versa.)

I'm not sure how much this would help, but it just struck me that if you can calculate the exacta pay, you should be able to use that as a starting point to calculate the trifecta.

The superfecta - I'm not sure the same sort of calculations would work. I don't have a concept on the super.

Actually a remarkably good idea!

Maybe not the specifics, but what I am hearing you say is that I need an algorithm (formula) which considers:

BaseNumber + WinPool% * Wgt1 + WinPool% * Wgt2 + WinPool% * Wgt3.

This is a linear version of what the formula needs to look like. I could use a more robust type of formula. In fact, I do for the win pool. (The AI figures out what these variables should be for each horse.)

[Franco Santiago]

Dave, I think your question is rhetorical in nature, but just in case, here's my sincere answer:

Don't waste your time. No is ever going to throw out a horse in the 3rd slot based on the AI. Why? Fear of regret. If the first two came in at long odds and Joe Blow doesn't have the 3rd horse at 5-1 because Mr. Arti Intel hold him it was a bad bet, he'll promptly go to the strong box or safe, get his gun, chamber a round, and end it all LOL!!!

Seriously, people handicap much more loosely for the show spot and they toss in all kinds of crap. They ain't tossing one out based on AI...now they might toss one IN based in AI, but it won't be because of some value algorithm...it'll be because they want to HIT THE BET.

Now, come clean, you don't really expect a cogent answer from anyone, do you?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Actually a remarkably good idea!

Maybe not the specifics, but what I am hearing you say is that I need an algorithm (formula) which considers:

BaseNumber + WinPool% * Wgt1 + WinPool% * Wgt2 + WinPool% * Wgt3.

This is a linear version of what the formula needs to look like. I could use a more robust type of formula. In fact, I do for the win pool. (The AI figures out what these variables should be for each horse.)

Yes, that is essentially where I was going. The variables are the odds of the top the three finishers, the order in which they finish, the amount of the pool, the number of horses and the distance of the three finishers from the crowd favorites.

Anecdotally, if the first two choices come in in that order, the odds of the third place horse. However, if the winner runs out, or the second and third probability horses run out, or longshots finish first and second or first and third or even second and third, you start to get proportionally higher payoffs. So if you can contstruct the algorithm to account for those variables, you may come close to predicting the more complex combinations.

[menifee]

I have never understood why you can't look up a tri price and get an accurate quote. There should be real time systems to tell you the will pay for a certain combination.

Other than the variables already mentioned (odds of third place horse, exacta price, size of field), pool size matters quite a bit. Larger pools more efficient pricing.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

...
Maybe not the specifics, but what I am hearing you say is that I need an algorithm (formula) which considers:

BaseNumber + WinPool% * Wgt1 + WinPool% * Wgt2 + WinPool% * Wgt3.

This is a linear version of what the formula needs to look like. I could use a more robust type of formula. In fact, I do for the win pool. (The AI figures out what these variables should be for each horse.)

I saw the consideration of the WinPool also in another thread and the question I have when you do this is ..... each exacta, trifecta and superfecta pools are separate wagering pools.

Do these pools correlate to the WinPools?

Since we don't receive that info, I don't think we'll ever know.

Do the tracks even know (probably yes)?

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Franco Santiago

Dave, I think your question is rhetorical in nature, but just in case, here's my sincere answer:

Don't waste your time. No is ever going to throw out a horse in the 3rd slot based on the AI. Why? Fear of regret. If the first two came in at long odds and Joe Blow doesn't have the 3rd horse at 5-1 because Mr. Arti Intel hold him it was a bad bet, he'll promptly go to the strong box or safe, get his gun, chamber a round, and end it all LOL!!!

Seriously, people handicap much more loosely for the show spot and they toss in all kinds of crap. They ain't tossing one out based on AI...now they might toss one IN based in AI, but it won't be because of some value algorithm...it'll be because they want to HIT THE BET.

Now, come clean, you don't really expect a cogent answer from anyone, do you?

LOL - Apparently not from you.

This is not for "Joe Blow."

PS: Halvey did pretty well.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I saw the consideration of the WinPool also in another thread and the question I have when you do this is ..... each exacta, trifecta and superfecta pools are separate wagering pools.

Do these pools correlate to the WinPools?

Since we don't receive that info, I don't think we'll ever know.

Do the tracks even know (probably yes)?

Since there is no trifecta or superfecta grid available, we cannot know.

[Jeff P]

Obviously you cannot know with precision what the pool amounts were on non winning individual tri and super combinations in individual races.

But you do have historical payoffs that can be scraped from chart data or read from a db that contains chart data.

And from that you can get a pretty good idea overall if you build a classification system that:

a. identifies like situations

- and

b. uses historical payoffs on winning combinations.

Originally Posted by Franco Santiago

Dave, I think your question is rhetorical in nature, but just in case, here's my sincere answer:

Don't waste your time. No (one) is ever going to throw out a horse in the 3rd slot based on the AI. Why? Fear of regret. If the first two came in at long odds and Joe Blow doesn't have the 3rd horse at 5-1 because Mr. Arti Intel hold him it was a bad bet, he'll promptly go to the strong box or safe, get his gun, chamber a round, and end it all LOL!!!

Seriously, people handicap much more loosely for the show spot and they toss in all kinds of crap. They ain't tossing one out based on AI...now they might toss one IN based in AI, but it won't be because of some value algorithm...it'll be because they want to HIT THE BET.

Now, come clean, you don't really expect a cogent answer from anyone, do you?

Actually there's quite a bit of good info in the above post -- especially the bolded part.

People do handicap much more loosely and toss all kinds of crap into the underneath slots.

Personally - I've found that instead of modeling to get a Y/N decision whether or not to include a horse underneath in tri and super tickets:

You'll do much better by modeling the likelihood of individual horses to achieve an exact finish position.

And from there base ticket structure around likelihood estimates of exact finish positions for individual horses.



-jp

.

[AltonKelsey]

I think it's safe to say there is a tremendous amount of variance in the payoffs.

So even if you had a respectable 'model', there will still be a lot of room for error in any given race payoff. Chalky finishes might be less susceptible to that , but anything involving longshots, expect wild differences in price.


You had a finish at BEL yest , where the EX paid 170 or so. 10-1 over 20-1. 5 horse field , but still. Good luck trying to bang out long term profits with payouts like that .