Calling Mr logic

[partypooper]

Can't get my head around this; I have never bet to prices, always believing that level stakes is the way to go, but I was doodling really tonight with some results of a place plan, and came across something strange:

Betting overlays only:

Today 21 bets 13 hits returns = 22.83 = 8.75% POT this is fairly average

ok, so just for an experiment I queried backing all selections to return 100, you know basic stuff if the nag was paying 1.70c (BF) so place $59 on it etc etc

Ok so outlay to do this on 21 selections was $1095 (Hypothetically) and as there was 13 hits so the return would be $1300

Which is a profit of $205

Which is a massive 18 .72% POT

Needless to say I feel I must have done something wrong in the calculations, but have been over and over it and it seems to be correct,

What are your thoughts?

[michaelg]

Party,

When Mark Read provided his ratings to my local TAB I was showing a profit betting to prices.

Over about 100 races I was showing a POT of 5%. Out of interest I hypothetically bet on the same 100 races with level stakes. In spite of Don Scott's urgings not to bet this way the POT was almost unchanged. So I always assumed this would also apply to Place betting.

However, I've now done some calcs, which suggests that betting to prices increases the POT on a winning Place system, but conversley also increases the LOT on a losing system.

[lomaca]

Can't get my head around this; I have never bet to prices, always believing that level stakes is the way to go, but I was doodling really tonight with some results of a place plan, and came across something strange:

Betting overlays only:

Today 21 bets 13 hits returns = 22.83 = 8.75% POT this is fairly average

ok, so just for an experiment I queried backing all selections to return 100, you know basic stuff if the nag was paying 1.70c (BF) so place $59 on it etc etc

Ok so outlay to do this on 21 selections was $1095 (Hypothetically) and as there was 13 hits so the return would be $1300

Which is a profit of $205

Which is a massive 18 .72% POT

Needless to say I feel I must have done something wrong in the calculations, but have been over and over it and it seems to be correct,

What are your thoughts?Don't know what you did Party but it makes little sense.

Do a simple calculation like, place divi = $2.00
you bet a dollar, return $2.00 - 1 = $1. POT = 100%

Bet $50.00 return $100 - 50 = $50.00 POT = 100%

You can't add up ALL the individual odds and bet to $100, you have to do it separately.

Good luck

[partypooper]

ok Lomaca, know exactly what you are saying, this is what I did.

there was 21 bets, all differing prices , I hypothetically bet each individual one to win 100 so...

paying 1.5 bet = 67

paying 2.4 bet = 42

paying 1.89 bet =53

etc etc etc.

now all those 21 bets added up to 1095,

there were 13 successes so 1300 returned i.e. profit of 205

whereas at levels 21 bets returned 22.83


I sat bolt upright at about 3am convinced the reason was just that particular set of selections, i.e. on another day if more of the failures were paying say like 1.23, 1.34, etc etc then the situation could be reversed.

In other words on this particular set of selections, most of the failures were paying $2+ so the amount bet was less than 50% so you lost less on them than you would have done at levels, so I got some sleep, BUUUUT,

going over it again, it appears that that is wrong cos the amount won on the winners was more than at levels overall as the amount bet was greater....... shucks I'm still confused!

[Raven]

The concept of value betting will apply to place betting as well. If using your method you can make an evaluation as to the horses 'value' place price, and don't bet on the underlays, it could take your place betting to a whole new level.

[partypooper]

raven, all those 21 bets were assessed price 1/4 win odds x 50% as min accepted, all were matched.

[Mark]

Party, in the examples you've given you're betting to collect $100 not win $100. There is a difference which I'm sure you're aware of. Try running your results to win $100 to see if there's a different POT again.

eg 1.5 bet 200
2.4 bet 71.42
1.89 bet 112.36

Can be dangerous when the shorties lose.

[partypooper]

Mark will do, gotta collect the young bloke right now so will post later!

[michaelg]

Party, you like Place betting, just like I do.

For the past three weeks I've been Place betting using a mechanical system on the U.K. races. From 170 races it's had a strike rate of almost 70% and a POT of about 3% (better than losing).

Out of curiousity I looked at yesterday's Oz racing using a somewhat similar Place method.

1) 8 to 11 starters.
2) Bet the NSW TAB Win fave to Place.
3) No Maidens.

Even though there were only 32 qualifying races yesterday the results are encouraging.

Win. I'm not really interested in Win betting.
17 winners.
Return (NSW TAB) of $44.20.
Strike rate of 53% and a POT of 38%

Place Betting
27 placegetters
Return $41.20
Strike rate of 84% and a POT of 19%.

This is a much better result than the U.K in both the strike rate and POT, but 170 races would be expected to be more accurate than 32 even though they are different countries with possibly different methods applying to their style of racing. I have no records how Win betting in the U.K. has fared.

If I was prepared to sit at my computer most of the day I'd probaly give it a go. With U.K.racing I normally get my bets matched around 10 p.m. I take the current price, provided there's not an unacceptable gap between the buy/sell price.

I only checked yesterday with our racing, but as the U.K. is showing a profit I would not be surprised if our racing does not fare too badly in the future.

[place2win]

Hi Party,

Carefull with Actual V Hypo.
Your scenario yesterday 21 bets for 13 wins-return 22.83
profit 1.83 = 8.7%POT on a SR of 61%.
This would require an avg return of 1.615 to break even.
Your return(22.83) = 1.756 avg
Had you bet 100 per selection, your return = 2283
2283-2100 = 183 profit.

Take that to the next stage.
Bet to return 100 per selection
Your avg return (1.75)rounded would require 57.5 outlay
to return 100.625 per selection.
21x57.5 = 1207.5 out
13x100.625 = 1308.125 in = profit 100.625 POT 8.2%

183 profit level stakes V 100.625 betting to 100

On this occassion level stakes wins out
Each day will vary, depending upon avg return per selection.
Hope this helps.

[lomaca]

ok Lomaca, know exactly what you are saying, this is what I did.

there was 21 bets, all differing prices , I hypothetically bet each individual one to win 100 so...

paying 1.5 bet = 67

paying 2.4 bet = 42

paying 1.89 bet =53

etc etc etc.

now all those 21 bets added up to 1095,

there were 13 successes so 1300 returned i.e. profit of 205

whereas at levels 21 bets returned 22.83


I sat bolt upright at about 3am convinced the reason was just that particular set of selections, i.e. on another day if more of the failures were paying say like 1.23, 1.34, etc etc then the situation could be reversed.

In other words on this particular set of selections, most of the failures were paying $2+ so the amount bet was less than 50% so you lost less on them than you would have done at levels, so I got some sleep, BUUUUT,

going over it again, it appears that that is wrong cos the amount won on the winners was more than at levels overall as the amount bet was greater....... shucks I'm still confused!As said Party, you can't calculate the average POT like that.
Doesn't matter if you bet to return a $100 or to win a $100.
You must work on average return/bet if you want to work out your POT like this.

What's happening is that the outlay on your non winning bets and the winning bets are not equal and are distorting the the POT.

If you really want see that it is so, do a running tests like you just did, calculated with new selections and results added on every day.

You will see that the POT will change from day to day despite the fact that you bet to the same $100 return, it simply depends what price runners happen to win.

If you calculate all the individual POTs and add them up and divide them by the number of bets you will find that it will be the same, (virtually the same, because of some rounding off effect by not betting fractions) no matter whether you bet level stakes or to set return.

I know it's hard to conceptualise because we calculate POT on money out money in but trust me, in the long run you will find that it will come close to the sum of (POT/number of bets) of the individual runners.

What you can do is to find the price range where the return is negative and eliminate them.

I am 99.9999% sure I'm right in this but if some one can prove me wrong I cheerfully admit it.

Good luck

[Raven]

Party, how do the Place dividends offered by the bookies hold up longterm? Say if i lost 5% or 6% on a place method on a single TAB, can you turn that into profit by taking what the bookies offer?

[ixlat0]

partypooper -- check your outlay -- i think you'll find it comes to $1195 (not $1095)

cheers!

[partypooper]

raven, I wouldn't pretend to be any ************ (re this thread) but one thing is for sure I would NEVER bet on any one Tote.

The examples shown were prices available on Betfair. I guess there is no reason that you couldn't use fixed prices available from any bookies as long as the "overs" principle was employed.

I'd better say though as it turns out over 2500 bets there was virtually no difference betting best tote compared to the prices that you COULD have got with Betfair, which isn't much good to us I know if youre trying to bet to prices, it would be a very hairy and miss affair guessing, you'd win some and lose some.

[partypooper]

partypooper -- check your outlay -- i think you'll find it comes to $1195 (not $1095)

cheers!,

Gets even more confusing, I checked that and it actually comes to $1144, (not sure how I did that as its all auto calc, but anyway,its not as good but still its 13.60% POT on 1144 so I'm still not convinced WHY?

PS How did you arrive at $1195, when you don't know the prices of the nags?

I'll post the exact details

[ixlat0]

PS How did you arrive at $1195, when you don't know the prices of the nags?i didn't -- just guess work based on the average -- i assumed that the average of 13 would have to be pretty close to the average of 21 from the same sample -- your outlay seemed too far out -- not unless there was a big price difference between those you won and those you lost -- but it seemed the obvious place to look

cheers

ps the average of win 13 = $1.76, the lost 8 = $1.96, total 21 = $1.84

[partypooper]

yes thought you must have done an ave. anyway here is the workout (if it'll copy)


Bets.. hits.. price... Outlay...
1... 0... 2.88… 34.72
1.... 0... 1.68… 59.52
1.... 1… 1.79… 55.87
1... 1… 1.31… 76.34
1... 1… 2.08… 48.08
1... 1… 2.23… 44.84
1... 1… 1.43… 69.93
1... 0... 1.56… 64.10
1... 0... 2.18… 45.87
1... 1… 2.28… 43.86
1... 0... 2.62… 38.17
1... 1… 1.35… 74.07
1... 1… 1.63… 61.35
1... 1… 2.03… 49.26
1... 1… 1.36… 73.53
1.. 0... 2.4… 41.67
1... 1… 1.56… 64.10
1... 1… 1.93… 51.81
1... 1… 1.97… 50.76
1.. 0... 2.26… 44.25
1... 0... 2.03… 49.26
21… 13…................. 1,141.37…

thats the best I can get it

[partypooper]

Thanks everyone for the feedback, Interesting simple idea Michaelg, I guess you place your bets at a given point b4 the off??

Peterpan,

An excellent reply which of course explains it but still,

I didn't bet an average on each did I? I bet to prices and the return of

$1300 return from an OVERALL outlay of $1144 is still $156 which is profit on turnover of 13.6% (OVERALL)

In my mind I still add up ALL bets placed whatever size whatever outcome, -V- Total returns to arrive at a POT OR LOT, am I wrong to do this?

[ixlat0]

partypooper -- except for rounding errors i get the same result as you -- there is a massive difference between betting at level stakes and proportional staking -- bcoz there is little variance in the dividends (and i assume that this is a representative sample) then proportional staking seems the way forward :)

good luck with it!

[lomaca]

Hi party,

What I'll do is, I will run lets say 10, 20 thousand race result through a programme (where there are place dividend as well) to compare level stakes and proportional stakes.

We will see if this is a goer, I personally stick to level betting until I'm convinced that proportional staking is better in the price range I'm betting in.

Having thought about it, the one thing prop. staking can do is smooth out the bumps, the lows and highs of level staking but you also miss out on the big divies!

But as I said, we shall see.
I'm certain other people have done this analyses long ago, I wonder why nobody is speaking up?
After all it's not a secret.

I'll do it tomorrow and post it.

Cheers

Ps
Since I don't have any specific selections, I will select the race fav, it really makes no difference win or lose we only want to see the difference between the two methods.

[moeee]

The betting to Prices idea returns a different amount to betting an equal amount on each selection only because the outlay is invested in a different way.

You could just as easily have $150 on the First 12 bets and $50 on the Last 11 bets and probably come up with a different POT.

Or to be different again, you could invest $150 on every Odd numbered bet and have $50 on every Even numbered Bet and again probably come up with a different POT.

[partypooper]

Moeee, well , as exercise on those particular selections, betting to prices I invested $1144 and got a POT of 13.6%, so I invested an AVERAGE of 54.47c per race.

So now then I invest $54.47c per selection on all 21, and get back $1243.55c,

i.e. a flat stakes profit of $99.55 a POT of 8.7%

It will be interesting to see the results from Lomaca, but I am now convinced the answer lies in the fact that the lower the price is always the higher the S/R, so you lose less on the failures of the higher priced nags.

This is completely different to a staking plan whereby you are investing different amounts based purely on whether the previous few selections were successful or not, which of course has no bearing on whether the next one will win.

[moeee]

I just read your first Post here PartyPooper.
You said these 21 Bets were Overlays.

You have worked out level stakes and got an answer.
Then you worked out Betting to Prices and got a different , more rewarding answer.

When you bet to Prices, these prices you say, are they the Final Dividend Prices, or are they the Prices you calculated prior to the event to establish whether the animal was an Overlay.

If they were based on Final Dividends, then do a further exercise using betting to Prices, but this time substitute your calculated Prices and Percentages as the wager, but of course using the Final Dividend as the return.

[partypooper]

OK, now the crunch, I applied all of the above to a data base that I have for favs less than 3-1 (for the place)

2338 bets .1621 hits,= 69.33%, Rets 2281 loss of 80 units =POT(3.42%) at level stakes

now betting to prices (to return 1 unit per race)

Total bet = 1666 Rets 1621, loss of 45 units = POT (2.7%) in theory a slight improvement, but alas not what was promised,

and just in case some were getting excited, none of the above took into account the BF 5% commission.

As matter of interest backing best tote (i.e no commission) the returns were 2321.75 for a loss of only 16.25 units or .69%

I am expecting Lomacas figure to confirm that (or worse if he includes all favs regardless of price)

So in conclusion, I guess I have confirmed 2 things that I have always preached : NO staking plan will turn a loss into a profit (not even backing to prices)

And also at this end of the market Best Tote knocks the pants off Bet fair.

Hope you all found some of this interesting

[lomaca]

Selected all Supertab races this year.

Bets 12890
Winners 4083
Placing 8233

Level win return. $-1720.00
Level Place return. $-1374.50
Win to $100, return $-55688.21
Cost to $100 $314755.50
Place to $100 $-96141.73
Cost to $100 $584799.65

As can be seen, if it is a loser, the bet to return a certain amount can be a real killer.
However early in the piece there was a winning period, albeit very short, where the level stakes returned a POT of ~11%
and the proportional a POT of ~18%.
So if you are winning it can quickly multiply your return, but in the losing periods you also go down really, really, dangerously quickly.
Whether it's worth the pain, I don't know.
Obviously betting on favs. is not a good indication because they inherently lose.
What I need to do now is try on my winning selections and see if I can
live with an occasional losing run.

Basically it was a waste of time as we already knew what would happen.
There is a comma delimited text file for those who want to double check the results, it can easily be imported into Excel or a database, it's too big to post it here but I'm happy to Email it, to anyone if interested.

Good luck.

[TheNeedle]

So in conclusion, I guess I have confirmed 2 things that I have always preached : NO staking plan will turn a loss into a profit (not even backing to prices)

I beg to differ partypooper. All you have done is confirmed that none of the staking plans you have looked at turned a loss into a profit.

You cannot prove something does not exist by not finding it unless you have done an exhaustive search.

[partypooper]

Thanks Lomaca, no not a waste of time, sometimes you have to spell it out like that to get the message across.

There is a twist though, as you included all favs all prices, now if you can do the exercise again using the RATED fav, i.e a proven service or person, now only include overlays win+20%, place 1/4 win odds + 50%, you will find a different result!!

I am a little imp arn't I?

[lomaca]

There is a twist though, as you included all favs all prices, now if you can do the exercise again using the RATED fav, i.e a proven service or person, now only include overlays win+20%, place 1/4 win odds + 50%, you will find a different result!!

Since I do not subscribe to any service nor do I collect any ratings other than the (Neutrals and Prepost from Neutrals + donscott) for testing, I can only test those, see how it goes.

There might be some merit in checking the favs. above or below a certain price, if I have the time I might do it.

Good luck

PS.
I forgot to add why this staking can be so disastrous with favs. or short odds, imagine that on a $1.2 place divi you have to bet ~ $83.00 to win a hundred for a profit of just $17, if it fails, well the rest is history?

[partypooper]

Lomaca,.the 50% above 1/4 win odds requirement cuts the vast majority of those out

Another valid point is that I presume your box of tricks there is calculating at Supertab odds? fine for the exercise but my figures show about an 8% improvement when backing at best tote.

[lomaca]

Lomaca,.the 50% above 1/4 win odds requirement cuts the vast majority of those out

Another valid point is that I presume your box of tricks there is calculating at Supertab odds? fine for the exercise but my figures show about an 8% improvement when backing at best tote.Yes Party I only can test with Supertab odds.

But I can categorically say that betting to prices does not work if you have long outs and if your winning prices are near 8 to 10 $.

If anyone interested I ran the neurals CP second selection (the second highest ranking) where the TAB win price was 20% higher than the Neurals rated price for the neural CP horse, and it finished up with $214.60 profit on level stakes and a whopping -$5011.10 loss by betting to return $100.

What happened is that at one stage there were 30 outs and some prices were relatively low, so while the level outlay lost only $30.00 the proportional part went down by nearly $1800.00

On top of it, when it started winning again the odds were in the region of $6 to $18.00 and the outlay to get back $100 was comparatively small.
Therefore the proportional part never recovered.

Since my selections are mostly in this region I certainly keep away from betting to return an amount.

If your selections are winning at level stakes you'd be robbing yourself by limiting your outlay on the higher priced horses.

I don't quite understand your reference to " place 1/4 win odds + 50%," 50% of what?

could you make at bit clearer for me please

Thanks

[partypooper]

G'day Lomaca, thanks for all the work you've done on that, the $30 loss at levels and $5000 betting to 100 is much greater than I thought but still confirms the concept.

Now for the place thing, here's an example

The nag in question is rated at $3 i.e. 2-1 TO WIN, so divide the win odds by 4 =.5 x 50% (overlay req.) = .75 add your stake back on so $1.75c is the minimum odds I will accept for a place on this nag.

Of course the overlay reqd. is your choice 20%, 50%, 100% etc., but I find 50% (for place bets) works best, and also cuts out many of those shorties.

Eg. Today Ipswich R1-5 rated $1.55 so min place reqd is .55/4x1.5=1 =$1.23c (FOR THE PLACE)

max available = $1.19 so NO BET

race 2-4 rated $1.80c so .8/4x1.5+1 = $1.30 min reqd. $1.36 easily available so its a bet! (FOR THE PLACE)

Not brilliant examples as both were odds on and running in races with less than 8 runners so you could argue that you should divide the win odds by 3 in these cases but that's another argument, but

you get the idea?

[lomaca]

G'day Lomaca, thanks for all the work you've done on that, the $30 loss at levels and $5000 betting to 100 is much greater than I thought but still confirms the concept.
Actually in the end it won on level stakes about $220 or so, the 30 was only during the run of outs. the problem with this sort of staking is that it restricts you to win the set amount when winning, but still spend big when losing, real stooopid!


Now for the place thing, here's an example

The nag in question is rated at $3 i.e. 2-1 TO WIN, so divide the win odds by 4 =.5 x 50% (overlay req.) = .75 add your stake back on so $1.75c is the minimum odds I will accept for a place on this nag.

Of course the overlay reqd. is your choice 20%, 50%, 100% etc., but I find 50% (for place bets) works best, and also cuts out many of those shorties.

Eg. Today Ipswich R1-5 rated $1.55 so min place reqd is .55/4x1.5=1 =$1.23c (FOR THE PLACE)

max available = $1.19 so NO BET

race 2-4 rated $1.80c so .8/4x1.5+1 = $1.30 min reqd. $1.36 easily available so its a bet! (FOR THE PLACE)

Not brilliant examples as both were odds on and running in races with less than 8 runners so you could argue that you should divide the win odds by 3 in these cases but that's another argument, but

you get the idea?Got it, in your earlier post you put it as "+ 50%" that's what confused me, mind you, I'm easily confused at the best of times!

Thanks for clearing that up.

[lomaca]

Hi Party, re. betting only if (odds*1.2) is available I checked an old system someone wanted me to test, and it consistently came up a loser, picking only the overlays it turned out a nice little earner.
Only problem he can't bet watching the prices.

Even if one makes a few mistakes, because the odds change the last minute it's still OK.

I tested an other very simple staking system on the neural one:

increase the bets by one unit each time you lose up to 31 units then go back to 1 unit, it turned a profit of $435 level and $5200 with the staking.
If I didn't have a much better rating I'd be tempted, but jeeez the long outs don't suit me at all, plus too many bets for my liking.

I suppose I never bothered about overlays because I bet long shots which are by their very nature sort of overlays anyway, but if you can price your selections accurately, that's the way to go.

Cheers

[partypooper]

Lomaca, that doesn't surprise me at all, in a nutshell if the sample shows a profit at level stakes most staking plans will increase profits, BUT if the sample shows a loss at levels ,well, let me put it this way after 40 years of punting all the staking plans that I have seen will only accelerate losses.

[TheNeedle]

let me put it this way after 40 years of punting all the staking plans that I have seen will only accelerate losses.

If you were to get out more you might find a public discussion of a staking plan which has turned a losing sequence of over 1000 bets into a profitable sequence. "Cant be done" it has been said on this site dozens of times, yet the evidence is there to see.

The biggest problem with saying never as Sean Connery found out is that as soon as one is found that does then you have egg all over your face. Of course the naysayers will move the goal posts and claim the evidence staring them in the face is faulty or simply doesnt exist but for every person you can find who doesnt believe I can find a person who has profited from a staking plan.

You discard staking to prices and advocate level stakes. Yet many serious punters believe that level stakes is in fact a loss chasing staking plan and that betting to prices is the way to go. Daniel OSullivan is an advocate of betting to prices and I have yet to meet anyone who questions his bona fides.

Your own resident math guru advocates kelly staking. It is possible for kelly staking to turn a finite series of losing bets into a profitable one.

Who was it that said if you always do what youve always done then youll always get what youve always got.

One way for punters to get out of the bet-lose-bet-lose-bet-lose cycle is to do something different.

[lomaca]

Lomaca, that doesn't surprise me at all, in a nutshell if the sample shows a profit at level stakes most staking plans will increase profits, BUT if the sample shows a loss at levels ,well, let me put it this way after 40 years of punting all the staking plans that I have seen will only accelerate losses.Too true Party, but life is too short for me to waste it arguing with others about it, so I just let comments extolling the virtues of plans, that turn a loss into profit, slide past me.
Even JC needed at least water to turn it into wine!

We would be going over ploughed ground anyway, but punters being punters, they cling to every little ray of hope.

Even with small profits at level stakes but with long outs some staking plans may become impractical.

The example I gave above with the neurals, if tweaked a little it can produce a level POT of about 10%, but the max outs so far was 46.

Imagine, with the simple staking I used, the maximum bet size at the 46th out is $1081, and that starting at $1!!

So if anyone thinks "I can do better than that by increasing the bet" what do you think would happen if that bet had to be placed on a country meeting with a win pool of less than $5000?

Some people live in a dream world Party, I reckon we are better off doing what we know, and let them dream eh?

Good luck

[lomaca]

the maximum bet size at the 46th out is $1081,

Good luckThat of course is wrong, as sharp eyed punters here would have noticed.

This is how much you would be down by the time you snared an other winner if you had to go to the 46th outs.

The correct answer for the largest bet is $46

Sorry about it chief!

Cheers

[partypooper]

Well I got the idea Lomaca (been there and done that exercise a few times) without looking at the figures.

I had a very successful business man visit my house the other day, the racing was on the TV, so he proceeded to tell me about the [ infallible system] and how he'd used it for years at the track (and at the casino in a converted form)

I just smiled as he explained that you back the fav ONLY if you can get 1/1 or above and double up after a loser carrying on day to day hee hee, true you would have to hit a winner sooner or later, but I could see that there was no point in saying much.

I remember a few years back some Oxford professor formed a group who were doing just that, it worked for a while of course until they hit 23 consecutive losers at the main Cheltenham meeting.

I think the next bet would have been 8 million pounds, it won at 1/1, can you imagine trying to make a bet of 8m on an 1/1 chance hahahahah!

anyway in the end they would have won 1 pound!!