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 08-04-2008, 01:05 PM   #1
dvlander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 96
Rep Power: 11 dvlander is on a distinguished road
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 3-5 contenders will win a lot more often than the 10-1 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 as-is.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Dale
dvlander is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 01:11 PM   #2
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 41,062
Rep Power: 64 cj is a name known to allcj is a name known to allcj is a name known to allcj is a name known to allcj is a name known to allcj is a name known to all
Bet the longest price...or the second longest, but not the shortest.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 03:04 PM   #3
jcrabboy
Registered User
 
jcrabboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 128
Rep Power: 13 jcrabboy is on a distinguished road
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
jcrabboy is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 04:02 PM   #4
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 13,876
Rep Power: 34 Dave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really nice
With an 80% hit rate in 3 horses you could simply bet all three. Period.
Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 04:57 PM   #5
Cratos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 4,220
Rep Power: 19 Cratos is on a distinguished road
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 3-5 contenders will win a lot more often than the 10-1 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 as-is.

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 6.60-1. However if the field shrinks to a small size of 5 your odds increase to a 3-5 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 8.40-1 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 2-1 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 long-term investment success My hero, Warren Edward Buffett

"Science is correct; even if you don't believe it" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
Cratos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 05:00 PM   #6
dvlander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 96
Rep Power: 11 dvlander is on a distinguished road
Dave, are you saying that assuming the 80% hit rate is valid, betting all three horses each time is superior long-term to any odds-dependent exclusion?

Are you suggesting flat-betting the three regardless of odds?

Thanks,

Dale
dvlander is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 05:11 PM   #7
dvlander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 96
Rep Power: 11 dvlander is on a distinguished road
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 8.40-1 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 2-1 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 5-horse fields would offer little value. However, I am quite sure that an 80% overall hit rate would be a bit higher for 5-horse 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
dvlander is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 06:02 PM   #8
rrbauer
Both-hands Bettor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NASCAR Country
Posts: 4,390
Rep Power: 21 rrbauer will become famous soon enough
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 composite-odds of 4/5 to break-even (at an 80% hit rate). So anytime the composite odds of the three horses is greater than 4/5 you have a 3-horse dutch play.
__________________
Richard Bauer
rrbauer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 06:24 PM   #9
podonne
Eliminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 332
Rep Power: 13 podonne is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrbauer
Agree with Dave subject to the following:

You need composite-odds of 4/5 to break-even (at an 80% hit rate). So anytime the composite odds of the three horses is greater than 4/5 you have a 3-horse 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 super-horse, that super-horse should have odds higher than 4/5?

I've been looking for an easy way to intrinsicly tell wherther a situation is "dutchable" (without monte-carloing the hell out of the entire thing)
__________________
Whenever I read something I think about horse racing... Is that an addiction?
podonne is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 06:57 PM   #10
rrbauer
Both-hands Bettor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NASCAR Country
Posts: 4,390
Rep Power: 21 rrbauer will become famous soon enough
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 super-horse, that super-horse should have odds higher than 4/5?

I've been looking for an easy way to intrinsicly tell wherther a situation is "dutchable" (without monte-carloing 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
rrbauer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 07:18 PM   #11
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 13,876
Rep Power: 34 Dave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really nice
Quote:
Dave, are you saying that assuming the 80% hit rate is valid, betting all three horses each time is superior long-term to any odds-dependent exclusion?

Are you suggesting flat-betting 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 lower-priced 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 higher-priced 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 non-contenders.



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 two-thirds of the winners into one-third 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 pay-for 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 in-person 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; 08-04-2008 at 07:19 PM.
Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 08:42 PM   #12
Cratos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 4,220
Rep Power: 19 Cratos is on a distinguished road
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 long-term investment success My hero, Warren Edward Buffett

"Science is correct; even if you don't believe it" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
Cratos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 09:18 PM   #13
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 13,876
Rep Power: 34 Dave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really niceDave Schwartz is just really nice
What I heard was that his contenders win 80% of their races. Is that incorrect?
Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 09:32 PM   #14
Cratos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 4,220
Rep Power: 19 Cratos is on a distinguished road
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 long-term investment success My hero, Warren Edward Buffett

"Science is correct; even if you don't believe it" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
Cratos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-04-2008, 11:04 PM   #15
juanepstein
devo-lutionizing
 
juanepstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: its a beautiful world
Posts: 14,134
Rep Power: 25 juanepstein is on a distinguished road
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; 08-04-2008 at 11:07 PM.
juanepstein 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
» Current Polls
Will Brick and Mortar only sports betting help horse racing?
If Brick and Mortar Only for 2 years it will help horse racing. - 52.17%
12 Votes
If NOT Brick and mortar only it will hurt horse racing. - 47.83%
11 Votes
Total Votes: 23
Non-members may not vote on this poll.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2018 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved -- Best Viewed in a modern browser @ 1280x720 Resolution Or Higher
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.