Trifecta Fire Sale

[jfc]

You have to wonder about the mentality of those who patronise Trifectas with 21% rakes.

However the June fire sale with 10.5% rakes for NSW TAB Trifectas commences in a few hours.

So any sane punters out there should consider betting Trifectas (and nothing else) there - while it lasts.

For some strange reason there is very little publicity about this. Could this guarded secrecy have something to do with a non-level playing field? Tilted towards those Crash believes are on a different planet? Check the Betfair Australian Forum thread titled Jackpots for opinions on this.

http://www.thoroughbrednews.co.nz/australia/?id=24051

[gort]

You have to wonder about the mentality of those who patronise Trifectas with 21% rakes.
A 21% rake is mild compared to what most oncourse bookies charge so maybe it's not so dumb after all especially when you consider that there is excellent value to be found in trifectas and exactas

there is so much dumb money in the exotics pools that it is very easy to overcome the rake. there are a number of punters who hang out on ausrace who "rake" the exotics pools daily and i manage to make a good deal more from the exotics than i do from the win bets

like the old saying goes "value is in the eye of the beholder"

R.Gort

[jfc]

A 21% rake is mild compared to what most oncourse bookies charge so maybe it's not so dumb after all especially when you consider that there is excellent value to be found in trifectas and exactas

there is so much dumb money in the exotics pools that it is very easy to overcome the rake. there are a number of punters who hang out on ausrace who "rake" the exotics pools daily and i manage to make a good deal more from the exotics than i do from the win bets

like the old saying goes "value is in the eye of the beholder"

R.Gort

Considering the bogus posts and posters show no sign of abating, perhaps you might care to establish your bona fides by disclosing the handle you use elsewhere?

You present yourself as quite an authority so surely these are not your debut posts?

Once the matter of your authencity is settled then I'm prepared to challenge your claims.

[jfc]

A 21% rake is mild compared to what most oncourse bookies charge so maybe it's not so dumb after all especially when you consider that there is excellent value to be found in trifectas and exactas

there is so much dumb money in the exotics pools that it is very easy to overcome the rake. there are a number of punters who hang out on ausrace who "rake" the exotics pools daily and i manage to make a good deal more from the exotics than i do from the win bets

like the old saying goes "value is in the eye of the beholder"

R.Gort

Leaving aside the authenticity of the poster for now, let's examine the content, which does not improve with further viewings.

Despite having read pertinent Forums extensively I have yet to come across a credible account of anyone currently profiting well from Australian Trifectas on galloping at the official 21% rake.

Certainly I'll be very happy for anyone to step forward and enlighten me.

Programs to automatically predict and wager Exotics have been publicly available over a decade ago. The dumb money gets well and truly swamped by the leviathan money. Consequently the apparent Overs routinely get crushed in to negative expectations.

Anyone skilfull enough to play Trifectas should also be smart enough to ignore them and instead play whatever has the lowest rakes.

[KennyVictor]

I'm not going to say I'm that elusive guy who makes money on the trifectas but I have some interesting results in that direction and an opinion rather than an explanation as to why that may be.
I have a computerised rating system that makes it's own ratings from past results and returns the field of each race in order of merit. It's certainly not backfitted as it's been constructed on a limited period of results from one state only and works pretty consistently across all states results. It's not (intentionally) slanted towards exotics either as no consideration of them was made when the ratings system was created.
If (as it runs through 10 years of past results) it makes a bet on every predicted winner of every race it comes out about even, so it just overcomes the rake on the NSW win pool. If it makes a bet on every exacta it comes out about 20% ahead and if it makes a bet on every trifecta it comes out about 30% ahead. This indicates to me that with the same level of skill in picking a horse's merits it is possible to do better on the exotics than the win pool. Having said that let me say this, the runs of outs and drawdowns are truely scarey and although it always seems to recover any lost ground (eventually) I don't actually bet them purely because I haven't got the nerve.
Now why this is so I'm not entirely sure, and you jfc would probably have more of a mathmatical idea than I but I reason along these lines of logic.
The results on the win bets indicate that the ratings are better than the average punter (including mug money, wise money, bots, droids, whatever.) by an amount roughly equal to the win rake (what's that? 14%?). When you are betting trifectas does this mean you are better than the average by (1.14 x 1.14 x 1.14) because you are making three selections and using your skill level three times? If this is so that would make you almost 1.5 times better than the masses. The maths would doubtless be more complex but this simplistic view will do to get the idea across. Now if this is true and the rake is 21% this would come close to explaining why the figures give me a 30% lead over the TAB on trifectas.
KV

[jfc]

KV,

Spectacular as your figures are you probably would not be able to survive solely on Trifectas. But could well make a killing in other ways.

Obviously due to limited disclosure I'm making some guesses in the following calculations.

If you bet a $1 Trifecta on all ~16,000 races per year then you would expect nearly $5,000 profit which is obviously not enough.

But if you took $20 trifectae in the hope of self sustainability then you run into problems.

A significant number of those races have pools below $20,000 and they often would not be able to cope with an extra $20 on the winner.

Your figures presumably include some anomalous collects in the $5,000 region and it is those which make or break you. Notably if you miss out on just 1 of those in a year you make bupkiss.

But even $1 in a $20,000 net pool reduces a $5,000 collect by ~25%.

It would be interesting to calculate just how much you could invest without eroding your returns, but right now time does not permit me.


I expect to make a few more mathematical comments later when I'm able.

[KennyVictor]

Like most ratings systems it picks shortish priced horses in the main so the size of the divvies are not as high as you may think. Just looking at races in NSW it comes up with 33000 trifecta bets and picks 758 winners. At a dollar a bet it returns a bit over 10,000 profit and the higest payout is $2028, next highest is $954. Only 8 are above $500.
KV

[gort]

Programs to automatically predict and wager Exotics have been publicly available over a decade ago. The dumb money gets well and truly swamped by the leviathan money. Consequently the apparent Overs routinely get crushed in to negative expectations.

Mr JFC
please tell me which TAB actually provides a feed of Trifecta approximates? there is no way to predict "overs" as you call them without having current approximates so therefore there is no way that I know of for the "leviathan money" to swamp the apparent overs - yes there are many programs which bet trifectas based on calculated approximates but these calculated approximates are not very accurate im afraid
however i am prepared to be proven wrong and perhaps there is a tote and there are programs which display current approximates

Anyone skilfull enough to play Trifectas should also be smart enough to ignore them and instead play whatever has the lowest rakes.
im quite happy to remain dumb and take my 140% ROI

you seem to disbelieve that it is possible to make money on the trifectas - so be it. i have made a statement of fact here and whether you [or anyone else on this forum for that matter] believes me matters squat - just because you can't imagine it does not make it impossible.

R.Gort

[bluetown]

There is money in Trifecta betting if one has the software to apply the maths.

[Chrome Prince]

It doesn't matter to me what percentage they take out or leave in (within reason, a variation of 10% is diddly).

Why?

Because I'm not betting against them, I'm betting against other punters.

All I need is a dividend which, when multiplied by the strike rate is greater than 100.

Simple.

To find that occurrence is the challenge, but exotics are the easiest way to make a profit - full stop. The very fact that the approximates are unknown (to most) is why it is so easy.

Just a small amount of research turns odds on horses in 5/1 shots (I've posted re this some time ago).

[AssumeTheCrown]

It is possible to beat a rake as high as 20% in my view.
Most of my betting is on first fours which have a rake as high as 25% (NSW TAB) and i have managed to show a healthy POT on these bet types over the past few years. I do have an advantage however of having software to generate the hundreds of combinations per race and a robust mathematical model to predict the first four placings. My biggest problem is finding large enough pools. Small pools are bad for my method of betting because dividends are "unders" when the outsiders come in. The beauty now is that exotic bets can be placed with corporate bookmakers to avoid smothering the dividend. The problem however is that they are quick to ban you when you start collecting big payouts. I have been a fulltime pro for about 4 years now and have consistently beaten a 20% rake. You just have to be a little smarter than the average person, have a decent bankroll and a good computer program. And a PhD in mathematics helps too!

Cheers
ATC

[bluetown]

And a PhD in mathematics helps too!
I would have to disagree on that one Assume...

The numbers are there and anyone can come up with the right formula/method or whatever to pick a win.

Biggest advantage is software to do it.

[jfc]

Here are some relevant calculations to illustrate important but poorly understood concepts of Exotics.

I'm using these formulae:

a*b*c/(1-a)/(1-a-b) = Trifecta Prob

a*b*c*d/(1-a)/(1-a-b)/(1-a-b-c) = F4 Prob

First assume a ZERO-rake situation:

And that a, b, c and d are all paying as 10% chances.

But you know that they are 10% better than that - i.e. 11% chances

You can (as KV did) approximate your expected return by multiplication.

133.1% Trifecta
146.4% F4

But if you use the formulae above you get:

138.1% Trifecta
158.7% F4


Now apply the offical rakes of 21% and 25% to get a post rake:

109.0% Trifecta
119.0% F4


Leading to the intriguing situation where the F4 profit is over double that for the Trifecta even though the F4 rake is higher.

If you change the parameters you can get even more startling results.

For KV's case where he claims to be 18% better:

138.7% Trifecta
168.4% F4

Suggesting even better returns for the F4.

The figures get even weirder when you consider say 20% chances, but anyone interested can readily calculate such things on a spreadsheet.

[jfc]

It is possible to beat a rake as high as 20% in my view.
Most of my betting is on first fours which have a rake as high as 25% (NSW TAB) and i have managed to show a healthy POT on these bet types over the past few years. I do have an advantage however of having software to generate the hundreds of combinations per race and a robust mathematical model to predict the first four placings. My biggest problem is finding large enough pools. Small pools are bad for my method of betting because dividends are "unders" when the outsiders come in. The beauty now is that exotic bets can be placed with corporate bookmakers to avoid smothering the dividend. The problem however is that they are quick to ban you when you start collecting big payouts. I have been a fulltime pro for about 4 years now and have consistently beaten a 20% rake. You just have to be a little smarter than the average person, have a decent bankroll and a good computer program. And a PhD in mathematics helps too!

Cheers
ATC

ATC,

While I appreciate your quality post there are some observations I need to make.

I deliberately stipulated 21% Trifectas on Australian gallops for good reason.

Your situation with F4s is straying into different areas.

As I have just tried to demonstrate there are many situations where Trifectas are inferior propositions to F4s so success in F4s does not imply success in Trifectas.

The F4 rake hike to 25% is only recent so your 4 year record may not be able to be sustained.

Flexi-betting was only introduced in 2001. That offered a massive advantage to F4 players capable of rapidly automating that. That edge has now been eroded.

F4s are both more blind and less blind than Trifectas allowing appropriate exploitation.

And of course the big difference is that F4s have a pleasant habit of jackpotting - meaning big pools and effective rakes approaching ZERO. The sub-zero ones seems to have stopped now for some curious reason.

So all in all your F4 testimony does not change my scepticism about Trifectas.

I also note you frequent the Betfair Forum. That suggests you are not averse to minimum rake gambits.

Writing an effective F4 program is not difficult and certainly not only the province of PhDs.

Betfair Programming is however a different matter.

Essentially there is a massive first-mover advantage in such capers. It wouldn't surprise me if those pioneers who led the way in Overs, then Trifectas, Supers, F4s and noticed the diminishing returns as laggers finally arrived, are now making waves in the still brave new stochastic world of Betfair.

[KennyVictor]

please tell me which TAB actually provides a feed of Trifecta approximates? These figures are available at a cost from certain data sources.
KV

[AssumeTheCrown]

Thanks for your reply jfc.

You seem to be on the same wavelength as me to a certain extent.
I consider my first four model to be a very good one. The fact that i turnover millions of dollars a year on this bet type and have continually beaten the 20-25% rake over time shows how good my model is. And no i dont use Bayes Theorem of using win probabilities to predict the placings. I have sufficient evidence to disprove this. The superfecta before the abolished it was my biggest winner. The takeout there was 25% and my POT was huge thanks to a couple of sweeps of the pool. A few times a multiple jackpot would occur and in a big field it was quite easy to hold the only live ticket.

At the end of the day a 20% rake is definitely easy to overcome if you are taking all of the "overs" combinations. I have recently started betting in Hong Kong on the six up and Triple Trios and the overlays in some of the combinations there are huge. An example is no 4 being an unlucky Chinese number. If a no 4 wins in any of these bet types the dividends are significantly inflated. Massive pools and huge carry over jackpots mean the dividends pay "overs" quite frequently.

Just because the TAB have such a huge rake doesnt mean that these overlays dont exist. For example the World Cup has plenty of them. I dont know who sets the odds but they stuffed up big time with the quarter final odds. The original market for teams in groups G and H to reach the quarters was 160% when 2 teams MUST qualify from the 8 teams within. A huge arbitrage situation that didnt last long once i took to it. My biggest problem is not finding overlays but getting barred by fixed odds betting agencies. I have hundreds of accounts in different names and still manage to get several a week closed down.

Cheers
ATC

[jfc]

Thanks for your reply jfc.

You seem to be on the same wavelength as me to a certain extent.
I consider my first four model to be a very good one. The fact that i turnover millions of dollars a year on this bet type and have continually beaten the 20-25% rake over time shows how good my model is. And no i dont use Bayes Theorem of using win probabilities to predict the placings. I have sufficient evidence to disprove this. The superfecta before the abolished it was my biggest winner. The takeout there was 25% and my POT was huge thanks to a couple of sweeps of the pool. A few times a multiple jackpot would occur and in a big field it was quite easy to hold the only live ticket.

At the end of the day a 20% rake is definitely easy to overcome if you are taking all of the "overs" combinations. I have recently started betting in Hong Kong on the six up and Triple Trios and the overlays in some of the combinations there are huge. An example is no 4 being an unlucky Chinese number. If a no 4 wins in any of these bet types the dividends are significantly inflated. Massive pools and huge carry over jackpots mean the dividends pay "overs" quite frequently.

Just because the TAB have such a huge rake doesnt mean that these overlays dont exist. For example the World Cup has plenty of them. I dont know who sets the odds but they stuffed up big time with the quarter final odds. The original market for teams in groups G and H to reach the quarters was 160% when 2 teams MUST qualify from the 8 teams within. A huge arbitrage situation that didnt last long once i took to it. My biggest problem is not finding overlays but getting barred by fixed odds betting agencies. I have hundreds of accounts in different names and still manage to get several a week closed down.

Cheers
ATC

ATC,

Rest assured I have studied both your posts with extreme empathy, however if we continue much more of this in public some feathers might get ruffled. Recently KV was in high dudgeon when I made an aside to the "nth root" - something everyone should know, so you can imagine what might happen if the discussion strays into Sierpinski carpets or Mexican Hat transforms. Of course you are welcome to contact me off-line at any time assuming you can figure out how.

Anyway I was simply trying to alert people to opportunities in a Trifecta fire sale rather than secrets to mastering all Exotics, and I wasn't trying to pry into anyone's elite methods.

However if you're so inclined can you elaborate in public on what fascinates me on a strictly academic level?

Are you saying that there are corporate bookies with rocks in their head prepared to offer inducements on F4s?

What do they offer considering that NSW is usually the only state fielding F4s?

How do you know they'll pay out when you snare a blinder like the $1/4 million Gold Coast Magic Millions?

Do you yourself have rocks in your head in not knowing the counter measures they can take?

As described elsewhere, rather than ban you they can instead lay off a fraction of your big bet guaranteeing you get an undersized return should you win.

Anyway I'm impressed that you can find 100s of associates you're willing to trust with your money.

[La Mer]

Recently KV was in high dudgeon when I made an aside to the "nth root" - something everyone should know, so you can imagine what might happen if the discussion strays into Sierpinski carpets or Mexican Hat transforms.

KV. And before you ask:

Definition of the Sierpinski Carpet
Start with a solid (filled) square. Divide this into 9 smaller congruent squares. Remove the interior of the center square (that is, do not remove the boundary). Now subdivide each of the eight remaining solid squares into 9 congruent squares and remove the center square from each. Continue to repeat the construction to obtain a decreasing sequence of sets

The Sierpinski carpet is the intersection of all the sets in this sequence, that is, the set of points that remain after this construction is repeated infintely often.

And if you don't understand what the above is all about, don't worry, not knowing will not have any affect on your punting. :)

[Shaun]

For Trifecta and Quinella approximates try the ACT tab i am sure they have them there.....they are linked with Supa Tab pools

[jfc]

KV. And before you ask:

Definition of the Sierpinski Carpet
Start with a solid (filled) square. Divide this into 9 smaller congruent squares. Remove the interior of the center square (that is, do not remove the boundary). Now subdivide each of the eight remaining solid squares into 9 congruent squares and remove the center square from each. Continue to repeat the construction to obtain a decreasing sequence of sets

The Sierpinski carpet is the intersection of all the sets in this sequence, that is, the set of points that remain after this construction is repeated infintely often.

And if you don't understand what the above is all about, don't worry, not knowing will not have any affect on your punting. :)


http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/FracAndDim/SimDim/SimDimAnsB.html

Probably a picture is more descriptive.

I might redecorate my abode with it next time I scoop a Triple Trio.

[lomaca]

KV. And before you ask:

And if you don't understand what the above is all about, don't worry, not knowing will not have any affect on your punting. :)

Hi KV!
NOW that really should have made your day?
Cheers mate!

[KennyVictor]

KV,
Spectacular as your figures are you probably would not be able to survive solely on Trifectas. But could well make a killing in other ways.
Flattering as it may be to have ones dudgeon impugned by the forum's mathmatical elite I would far prefer you elaborate on the above (preferably with a minimum of millinery and floor covering terms).

KV

[jfc]

Flattering as it may be to have ones dudgeon impugned by the forum's mathmatical elite I would far prefer you elaborate on the above (preferably with a minimum of millinery and floor covering terms).

KV

That was written before learning that your model has a particularly high Trifecta strike rate and did not depend on larger collects as I first assumed.

If as it seems you can make 30% Trifecta POT betting all 16,000 races a year it makes your model beyond anything I have contemplated.

So the big question is why haven't you actually dipped your toes in the water?

You don't have to try it with the presumed $20 bet required for financial independence. If you started with just 50 cents you wouldn't do too much damage but it would give you a feel for whether you've miscalculated somehow.

[jfc]

It doesn't matter to me what percentage they take out or leave in (within reason, a variation of 10% is diddly).

Why?

...


Consider a Trifecta punter successful at finding Overs.

Then the effect of halving the rake on the % of action is:

10% => 26%
5% => 20%

Asssuming Overs are distributed according to the spreadsheet NORMSDIST function.

That is someone previously with 5% action can now get 20%. 4 times the action suggests at least 4 times the profit.

That is a phenomenal improvement which could set someone up for life.

There are well documented articles worldwide about the extents big players go to reduce the rake. Yet when an actual opportunity arises which doesn't involve consorting with Triads or whatever, there is an inexplicable reluctance.

[jfc]

...
The very fact that the approximates are unknown (to most) is why it is so easy.
...


This simply is wrong. The few who know the approximates also have lots of savant money with which to tsunami the pools.

It has been like that for a painfully long time, and I'm amazed that this should be disputed.

These big players didn't get where they are by being philanthropists and intentionally leaving even a scrap for anyone else.

There's no need to take anyone's word either way. It's easy to satisfy yourself with a test similar to what I recently undertook on the NSW TAB.

11:43 $3,024
11:44 $3,788
11:45 $5,278 = AST + actual jump
11:45+ $6,797

In this piddly NZ jumps race the pool nearly doubled from 60 seconds before actual jump until close.

So nearly half the money in that pool was very well educated. That is an overwhelming proportion which must crush Overs - particularly with a 21% rake.

[La Mer]

There's no need to take anyone's word either way. It's easy to satisfy yourself with a test similar to what I recently undertook on the NSW TAB.

11:43 $3,024
11:44 $3,788
11:45 $5,278 = AST + actual jump
11:45+ $6,797

So nearly half the money in that pool was very well educated. That is an overwhelming proportion which must crush Overs - particularly with a 21% rake.

JFC - Ain't you assuming that ALL of the money going into the pools in the last 60 seconds or so is from 'educated' punters? Clearly, that would not be the case.

[jfc]

JFC - Ain't you assuming that ALL of the money going into the pools in the last 60 seconds or so is from 'educated' punters? Clearly, that would not be the case.

La Mer,

Obviously I am making assumptions but it is also possible that not all of the money prior to 60 seconds is dumb. Connections and hedging bookmakers might place their significant bets a little earlier to ensure they get set.

I was looking for for an experiment that everyone could try to get a feel for the significant very late money that only surfaces after it's too late.

But this phenomenon has long been well documented. The most publicised recent example was the famed dawg sting where the mastermind has described how he instructed the operator to delay his monster bet so no one could see its effect before the boxes were flung open.

P.S. dawg as in doggone it