Bet Sizing

[BCOURTNEY]

Ok, you've made your selections. Now it's time to click the mouse button or go to the window. Anyone care to share successes they have had in bet sizing and producing a positive bankroll over a significant amount of time? What types of wagers do you make and are you flat betting, kelly betting, fractional kelly, what percentage of your bankroll do you wager? Do you produce a odds line? Do you account for the pool sizes and amounts in each one?

Personally, I beleive that proper bet sizing is about 3 or 4 times more important than selection or prediction methods in order to produce a successful profitable system, if you disagree with this then please share why this is. I have always been curious why the focus of handicapping software is almost exclusively concerned with selections as opposed to the wager and bet size. Share experiences.

Thanks,
B

[ezpace]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

Ok, you've made your selections. Now it's time to click the mouse button or go to the window. Anyone care to share successes they have had in bet sizing and producing a positive bankroll over a significant amount of time? What types of wagers do you make and are you flat betting, kelly betting, fractional kelly, what percentage of your bankroll do you wager? Do you produce a odds line? Do you account for the pool sizes and amounts in each one?

Personally, I beleive that proper bet sizing is about 3 or 4 times more important than selection or prediction methods in order to produce a successful profitable system, if you disagree with this then please share why this is. I have always been curious why the focus of handicapping software is almost exclusively concerned with selections as opposed to the wager and bet size. Share experiences.

Thanks,
B

Your right on the size and CONSISTENCY OF WAGER. THE BEST i have seen is at Daves Horse Street site. ..............bbmL...

[Bruddah]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

Ok, you've made your selections. Now it's time to click the mouse button or go to the window. Anyone care to share successes they have had in bet sizing and producing a positive bankroll over a significant amount of time? What types of wagers do you make and are you flat betting, kelly betting, fractional kelly, what percentage of your bankroll do you wager? Do you produce a odds line? Do you account for the pool sizes and amounts in each one?

Personally, I beleive that proper bet sizing is about 3 or 4 times more important than selection or prediction methods in order to produce a successful profitable system, if you disagree with this then please share why this is. I have always been curious why the focus of handicapping software is almost exclusively concerned with selections as opposed to the wager and bet size. Share experiences.

Thanks,
B

Let's say your system has the proper bet size to produce your desired results, over a period of time. The only thing you lack is proper selection. YOUR GOOSE is COOKED!!

Selection and proper bet sizing are equally important. It's like baking a cake. Too much flour or too much eggs, or not enough of either, will ruin the finished product and it won't be fit to eat.

[HUSKER55]

I think it boils down to how well do you know the system you are using or how much do you trust the system you made for yourself.

For example, my system almost always produces 3 or 4 contenders but 3 or 4 times A WEEK it will only produce 1 horse and if the odds are over 3:1 I bet way more than normal and believe it or not I hit more often than not.

For me, there is the art of handicapping and the art of wagering and I am at a stage right now where I am unable to seperate the two. I pick my horse and then I try to make the most money I can with my pick.

I think that going with your second or third pick is a suckers bet because you are basically betting against yourself.

Maybe I am wrong. What do the rest of you think?

Thanks

husker55

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

I think that going with your second or third pick is a suckers bet because you are basically betting against yourself.

Even if you consider playing only your top-rated horse (which can certainly be a valid approach), you'll do better if you have a means of judging (by either experience, intuition, or quantitative data) whether the horse has a greater chance of winning than its odds indicate. The disparity between the odds and your estimate of the horse's winning probability can then also serve as a basis for wager sizing (as with Kelly or fractional Kelly, for example). And that same logic can be extended to horses below your top pick, to make them possible favorable betting propositions. It's not just about the absolute winning chances of any particular horse, but about those chances in relation to the horse's odds (whether it's the "best" horse in the field or not).

[TrifectaMike]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

I think it boils down to how well do you know the system you are using or how much do you trust the system you made for yourself.

For example, my system almost always produces 3 or 4 contenders but 3 or 4 times A WEEK it will only produce 1 horse and if the odds are over 3:1 I bet way more than normal and believe it or not I hit more often than not.

For me, there is the art of handicapping and the art of wagering and I am at a stage right now where I am unable to seperate the two. I pick my horse and then I try to make the most money I can with my pick.

I think that going with your second or third pick is a suckers bet because you are basically betting against yourself.

Maybe I am wrong. What do the rest of you think?

Thanks

husker55

Betting against yourself is dependent on how your selections are made. If your selections are made by following a probability curve, then you are not betting against yourself. However, if your selection process is based on measurement factors such as pace or speed ratings, then yes you might be betting against yourself.

Mike

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by TrifectaMike

Betting against yourself is dependent on how your selections are made. If your selections are made by following a probability curve, then you are not betting against yourself. However, if your selection process is based on measurement factors such as pace or speed ratings, then yes you might be betting against yourself.

Mike

Comment on the probability curve. If you think of insurance payouts upon death as the track take and monies to other players, do you think that insurance companies would do anything but probability estimates and averages when they issue their policies? Funny part is you cant argue with them about when you will die, they already know when that is, and don't worry if your 30-1 they will still accept you at a slightly rate for anticipated losses. Even 100-1's win 1 of 700 races (-66% returns ).

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

I think it boils down to how well do you know the system you are using or how much do you trust the system you made for yourself.

For example, my system almost always produces 3 or 4 contenders but 3 or 4 times A WEEK it will only produce 1 horse and if the odds are over 3:1 I bet way more than normal and believe it or not I hit more often than not.

For me, there is the art of handicapping and the art of wagering and I am at a stage right now where I am unable to seperate the two. I pick my horse and then I try to make the most money I can with my pick.

I think that going with your second or third pick is a suckers bet because you are basically betting against yourself.

Maybe I am wrong. What do the rest of you think?

Thanks

husker55

Depends on if horse racing is a regression or classification problem .. to you.
If you think it is a regression problem then you should be using a probability curve and potnetially playing multiple or no horses in a race. You should use a computer. If you think it's a classification problem, then you play according to the classes you develop. This is generally done pen and paper, but can be done on a computer also.

Cheers.

[Murph]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

Comment on the probability curve. If you think of insurance payouts upon death as the track take and monies to other players, do you think that insurance companies would do anything but probability estimates and averages when they issue their policies? Funny part is you cant argue with them about when you will die, they already know when that is, and don't worry if your 30-1 they will still accept you at a slightly rate for anticipated losses. Even 100-1's win 1 of 700 races (-66% returns ).

How many 100-1 shots go off in a set of 700 races?

I would like to comapre your results to mine. Maybe some of the other d-base guys would like to check that out too.

I'll answer my own question now. In the past week Thorostats has recorded around 1380 races. It is a busy time for racing as many tracks large and small focus their spring racing in conjunction with the KY Derby and Triple Crown races.

In that set of nearly 1400 races, there are zero 100-1 shots winning any of them. For the month of May there are approx 5400 races. Again my data returns zero 100-1 winners. I do not know how many 100-1 shots went off in that group,(a limitation of the data that is being addressed.)

The same data set of all races for May returns 18 winners of 50-1 or greater with the largest payout at 163.20 Thorostats top selection had zero winners chosen from that group (if you were wondering about that.)

Hopefully, won the 2nd race at Penn National May 29th by 3 lengths over a soft turf course at 1 1/16M, carded for 3YO MdnClm Fillies for 25K. Trained by James Farley and ridden by J A Farley (maybe a 5# bug boy relative?), her tote board odds were 80-1.

Now, Thorostats only covers 91 North American thoroughbred tracks so I may not have the same data as you used to make your statement on 100-1 shots winning once in every 700 races. Plenty of posters here have a D-base much more powerful than mine. Maybe they can share their findings. We enjoy this type of thing so much you know.

Murph

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by Murph

How many 100-1 shots go off in a set of 700 races?

I would like to comapre your results to mine. Maybe some of the other d-base guys would like to check that out too.

I'll answer my own question now. In the past week Thorostats has recorded around 1380 races. It is a busy time for racing as many tracks large and small focus their spring racing in conjunction with the KY Derby and Triple Crown races.

In that set of nearly 1400 races, there are zero 100-1 shots winning any of them. For the month of May there are approx 5400 races. Again my data returns zero 100-1 winners. I do not know how many 100-1 shots went off in that group,(a limitation of the data that is being addressed.)

The same data set of all races for May returns 18 winners of 50-1 or greater with the largest payout at 163.20 Thorostats top selection had zero winners chosen from that group (if you were wondering about that.)

Hopefully, won the 2nd race at Penn National May 29th by 3 lengths over a soft turf course at 1 1/16M, carded for 3YO MdnClm Fillies for 25K. Trained by James Farley and ridden by J A Farley (maybe a 5# bug boy relative?), her tote board odds were 80-1.

Now, Thorostats only covers 91 North American thoroughbred tracks so I may not have the same data as you used to make your statement on 100-1 shots winning once in every 700 races. Plenty of posters here have a D-base much more powerful than mine. Maybe they can share their findings. We enjoy this type of thing so much you know.

Murph

You are correct, the return was negative -61% percent not the -66%. I spoke quickly off the top of my head when providing an example of a long odds horse as a joke in relation to the insurance business ... and I think the context I presented it in required less precision than a database report, but since you need to have one ... (because I also enjoy this type of thing)

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfer...gshot_Bias.pdf

"Our data include all 6.4 million horse race starts in the United States from 1992 to 2001." - Page 2. The data was provided by Equibase.

[Murph]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

You are correct, the return was negative -61% percent not the -66%. I spoke quickly off the top of my head when providing an example of a long odds horse as a joke in relation to the insurance business ... and I think the context I presented it in required less precision than a database report, but since you need to have one ... (because I also enjoy this type of thing)

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfer...gshot_Bias.pdf

"Our data include all 6.4 million horse race starts in the United States from 1992 to 2001." - Page 2. The data was provided by Equibase.

AWSOME!! You're working with a few more races than I am!

You are too kind. I need to study a document like this and believe me I am grateful to you for sharing it. I will be lucky to build my database to one million races, I won't live that long. Unbelieveable report and they give you credits for working with info in this manner? That's fantastic, thank you again, BC.

On average, how many runners go off at 100-1 or better in 700 races? It may be a few daysuntil I can find that in the report.

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by Murph

AWSOME!! You're working with a few more races than I am!

You are too kind. I need to study a document like this and believe me I am grateful to you for sharing it. I will be lucky to build my database to one million races, I won't live that long. Unbelieveable report and they give you credits for working with info in this manner? That's fantastic, thank you again, BC.

The 61% stat is in the introduction to the paper section 1.

I really enjoyed the report, it isn't my report however, I found it from a
google search.

On a side note regarding any past horse racing economic models, and perhaps of interest, if you like papers like these, I recommend considering Harville not
Henery in terms of statistical analysis, Harville has more robust and accurate methods.

Assigning Probabilities to the Outcomes of Multi-Entry Competitions
David A. Harville
Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 68, No. 342 (Jun., 1973),
pp. 312-316

[098poi]

Thanks for the cool link! (Unfortunately my last few brain cells exploded trying to understand it all)

[Murph]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

I really enjoyed the report, it isn't my report however, I found it from a
google search.

On a side note regarding any past horse racing economic models, and perhaps of interest, if you like papers like these, I recommend considering Harville not
Henery in terms of statistical analysis, Harville has more robust and accurate methods.

Assigning Probabilities to the Outcomes of Multi-Entry Competitions
David A. Harville
Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 68, No. 342 (Jun., 1973),
pp. 312-316

I am just getting my feet wet on this type of study. I am not at all convinced that advanced statistical modeling and engineering level math and physics can help me pick more winners. I am not the smartest kid on the block either but I know that folks would not waste so much time without some benefit involved. Maybe I need to have a closer look. The report will help me draw some valid conclusions.

Won't it?

[jcrabboy]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

Ok, you've made your selections. Now it's time to click the mouse button or go to the window. Anyone care to share successes they have had in bet sizing and producing a positive bankroll over a significant amount of time? What types of wagers do you make and are you flat betting, kelly betting, fractional kelly, what percentage of your bankroll do you wager? Do you produce a odds line? Do you account for the pool sizes and amounts in each one?

Personally, I beleive that proper bet sizing is about 3 or 4 times more important than selection or prediction methods in order to produce a successful profitable system, if you disagree with this then please share why this is. I have always been curious why the focus of handicapping software is almost exclusively concerned with selections as opposed to the wager and bet size. Share experiences.

Thanks,
B

Hi BCOURTNEY:

Essentially I bet Daily Doubles, pick 3's and pick 4's (I like the single takeout aspect of this wager) along with flat win bets. In my handicapping I focused on learning to pick winners at a decent rate (not so hot at choosing horses to finish in other money slots).

I bet one horse in each leg of DD, P3 Or P4 (a $2 wager). I usually hit at least one or 2 of these per day covering bet cost and then some.

I usually bet earlybird, so I use the Morning Line for my win bet calculations (this can make for pleasant surprises-it can also disappoint, but overall it has worked well for me). Win bets are calculated for the day based on having 200 times the amount of wager in my bankroll. I cap my win wagers at $50.00 (less at smaller tracks) regardless of bankroll size. I will pass a race for win betting if ML too low (I sometimes will make a place bet on these horses, but lately I am not getting much bang for the buck with these wagers, so I probably will be dropping them), but use horse in my serial betting.

I like to keep things simple and manageable.

I have enjoyed the threads you have started lately.

Jimmie