

08042008, 01:05 PM

#1

Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 96
Rep Power: 11

Theoretical Win Wagering Strategy Question
Suppose you could isolate three contenders in a large group of races. 80% of the time, one of your contenders wins. The field sizes for the races and the odds for the three contenders can be all over the place but as in any meaningful sample, the 35 contenders will win a lot more often than the 101 contenders. Other than that, I'm just trying to take advantage of the statistic that one of the three will win at an 80% clip without trying to further rank or separate the three contenders.
There are a lot of creative minds on this board so I'd like to solicit some win wagering strategies to best take advantage of this statistic asis.
Thanks in advance for your input.
Dale



08042008, 01:11 PM

#2

@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 41,062

Bet the longest price...or the second longest, but not the shortest.



08042008, 03:04 PM

#3

Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 128
Rep Power: 13

Hi dvlander:
With an 80% hit rate in your top three contenders I would bet them all if odds are 7/2 or better. Drop the low odds horse if under 7/2. If all your contenders are at low odds pass the race.
A lot of guys don't like betting more than one horse in a race. I think if you show a profit and it is compatible with your betting personality then it is a perfectly acceptable strategy. A big bonus would be a significant decrease in long runouts, which can be psychologically devastating.
Jimmie



08042008, 04:02 PM

#4

Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 13,876

With an 80% hit rate in 3 horses you could simply bet all three. Period.



08042008, 04:57 PM

#5

Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 4,220
Rep Power: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlander
Suppose you could isolate three contenders in a large group of races. 80% of the time, one of your contenders wins. The field sizes for the races and the odds for the three contenders can be all over the place but as in any meaningful sample, the 35 contenders will win a lot more often than the 101 contenders. Other than that, I'm just trying to take advantage of the statistic that one of the three will win at an 80% clip without trying to further rank or separate the three contenders.
There are a lot of creative minds on this board so I'd like to solicit some win wagering strategies to best take advantage of this statistic asis.
Thanks in advance for your input.
Dale

I believe the way to view your problem would be to understand that your probability of randomly picking a contender from a large group will be 3/X. Therefore a group the size of the KY Derby field it would be 3/20 or about 6.601. However if the field shrinks to a small size of 5 your odds increase to a 35 chance of selecting your contenders or about 60%.
But, there is the second part which you say one of the 3 will win 80% of the time. Therefore you would have in a 20 horse field a 12% chance of winning, but the horse that you bet should be not less than 8.401 for a long run breakeven.
If you have a 5 horse field you will have a 48% chance of winning and your betting odds should be not less than 21 to breakeven.
In summary as your field size increases you need to increase your odds proportional to the breakeven point and conversely as the size becomes smaller you can accept lower odds and still breakeven
__________________
Independent thinking, emotional stability, and a keen understanding of both human and institutional behavior are vital to longterm investment success – My hero, Warren Edward Buffett
"Science is correct; even if you don't believe it"  Neil deGrasse Tyson



08042008, 05:00 PM

#6

Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 96
Rep Power: 11

Dave, are you saying that assuming the 80% hit rate is valid, betting all three horses each time is superior longterm to any oddsdependent exclusion?
Are you suggesting flatbetting the three regardless of odds?
Thanks,
Dale



08042008, 05:11 PM

#7

Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 96
Rep Power: 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cratos
But, there is the second part which you say one of the 3 will win 80% of the time. Therefore you would have in a 20 horse field a 12% chance of winning, but the horse that you bet should be not less than 8.401 for a long run breakeven.
If you have a 5 horse field you will have a 48% chance of winning and your betting odds should be not less than 21 to breakeven.
In summary as your field size increases you need to increase your odds proportional to the breakeven point and conversely as the size becomes smaller you can accept lower odds and still breakeven

Cratos, your stats are logical. In retrospect, I would guess that 5horse fields would offer little value. However, I am quite sure that an 80% overall hit rate would be a bit higher for 5horse fields and quite a bit lower for 12+ fields. I posted my question today before breaking the data down by field size although I know the average field size in the entire sample was 8.1.
I appreciate your input.
Dale



08042008, 06:02 PM

#8

Bothhands Bettor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NASCAR Country
Posts: 4,390
Rep Power: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
With an 80% hit rate in 3 horses you could simply bet all three. Period.

Agree with Dave subject to the following:
You need compositeodds of 4/5 to breakeven (at an 80% hit rate). So anytime the composite odds of the three horses is greater than 4/5 you have a 3horse dutch play.
__________________
Richard Bauer



08042008, 06:24 PM

#9

Eliminator
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 332
Rep Power: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrbauer
Agree with Dave subject to the following:
You need compositeodds of 4/5 to breakeven (at an 80% hit rate). So anytime the composite odds of the three horses is greater than 4/5 you have a 3horse dutch play.

Sorry, just wanted to understand this. By composite you mean additive, like if you added the pools of the three contenders together and treated them as one imaginary superhorse, that superhorse should have odds higher than 4/5?
I've been looking for an easy way to intrinsicly tell wherther a situation is "dutchable" (without montecarloing the hell out of the entire thing)
__________________
Whenever I read something I think about horse racing... Is that an addiction?



08042008, 06:57 PM

#10

Bothhands Bettor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NASCAR Country
Posts: 4,390
Rep Power: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by podonne
Sorry, just wanted to understand this. By composite you mean additive, like if you added the pools of the three contenders together and treated them as one imaginary superhorse, that superhorse should have odds higher than 4/5?
I've been looking for an easy way to intrinsicly tell wherther a situation is "dutchable" (without montecarloing the hell out of the entire thing)

You can do it that way, or you can normalize the odds to 1, and see if the three horses you like have less than 80% of the total. For example, let's say there's one with .10 of the total and another with .20 and another with .30. That's .60 of the total which is less than .80, so (roughly) you would bet 1/6 of your bet on the .10 horse; 2/6 on the .20 horse and 3/6 on the .30 horse to complete the dutch.
(As an aside, monte carlo has nothing to do with it)
__________________
Richard Bauer



08042008, 07:18 PM

#11

Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 13,876

Quote:
Dave, are you saying that assuming the 80% hit rate is valid, betting all three horses each time is superior longterm to any oddsdependent exclusion?
Are you suggesting flatbetting the three regardless of odds?

I am.
Dick's suggestion about dutching is a good one as well, but ... the nature of dutching is that you will now be wagering more money on the lowerpriced horses and less on the higher ones.
Logically, the 1st and 2nd choices will almost always be part of your contenders. What will likely make your system profitable are the slightly higherpriced horses that make it into your top 3.
As an example, suppose we considered only horses that went off at 8/1. One would assume that they would, as a group, lose around 20%. But you would have two classes of 8/1 horses: those that are conetnders and those that aren't. One would (logically) assume that the contender group would significantly outperform the noncontenders.
All this being said, I will offer you another alternative: Monty Hall.
http://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/monty.html
I have a methodology that will concentrate twothirds of the winners into onethird of the horses. In other words, it is a "final decision" approach that works. If you really are capable of getting 80% winners in three contenders, then a realistic expectation when Monty is applied is about 50% winners with one horse.
On the 23rd of August we will hold a payfor workshop on this precise topic.
http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000053.html
While this seminar is aimed at HSH users, it is not mandatory that you have HSH to apply the principles. Read what one user had to say after attending this workshop back in March:
http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001822.html
Here is the thread of the original inperson workshop we did in January. If you scroll towards the bottom you will see the results achieved by the actual attendees. Note that at that workshop I played live  every race  30 races, 1 horse per race, and cashed 17 tickets. The other players had similar results.
Read about it here:
http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001722.html
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
Last edited by Dave Schwartz; 08042008 at 07:19 PM.



08042008, 08:42 PM

#12

Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 4,220
Rep Power: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
With an 80% hit rate in 3 horses you could simply bet all three. Period.

As I understand the problem, it is not a 80% hit rate of a given race, it is a 80% hit rate of a subset of a given race and the probability of that subset having a contender is 3/X where “X” is the size of the field. This problem becomes a conditional probability or Bayesian analysis.
__________________
Independent thinking, emotional stability, and a keen understanding of both human and institutional behavior are vital to longterm investment success – My hero, Warren Edward Buffett
"Science is correct; even if you don't believe it"  Neil deGrasse Tyson



08042008, 09:18 PM

#13

Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 13,876

What I heard was that his contenders win 80% of their races. Is that incorrect?



08042008, 09:32 PM

#14

Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 4,220
Rep Power: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
What I heard was that his contenders win 80% of their races. Is that incorrect?

That is correct, but he is selecting contenders at 3/X which says the larger the field, the harder it is to select contenders which is typically true in horseracing. Also a small field is virtually a shoo in with a contender.
__________________
Independent thinking, emotional stability, and a keen understanding of both human and institutional behavior are vital to longterm investment success – My hero, Warren Edward Buffett
"Science is correct; even if you don't believe it"  Neil deGrasse Tyson



08042008, 11:04 PM

#15

devolutionizing
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: its a beautiful world
Posts: 14,134
Rep Power: 25

i play three horses in one race alot. but i look at horses physically and make evaluations. if you can cap horses physically and evaluate them in the paddock or post parade then your gonna do much better in your handicapping.
#1 i look at the favorite and see if he is false and i look at his appearance and see if looks out of shape and beatable.
#2 if the first favorite looks bad and is beatable i go to the 2nd favorite. if its the same with the 2nd favorite then i go to the 3rd favorite.
#3 once ive found which favorite looks top notch. i look at his odds pay and divide it by 2. that will tell me how many horse i can bet with that favorite.
so if the 2nd favorite looks impressive on the track and he is say 3/1 2 goes in to 8 four times. so i can bet the 2nd favorite with 3 other horses to beat the 1st favorite. if the 2nd favorite comes in ive pushed if any of my other horses come in ive made a profit. usually in american racing i go three horses unless its a big field and/or i see potential bombers then i go for it.
this is the way i love to play australia with their 16 to 20 horse fields.
Last edited by juanepstein; 08042008 at 11:07 PM.





Thread Tools 

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
HTML code is Off




