To the Intelligensia

[Barny]

I've read on here on numerous occasions that systems will have a winning trot then fall in a heap then come back to life again. They're cyclical. I would imagine a system based on Average Prizemoney to outperform during the spring.

What changes in racing over the past decade or two could bring down a successful system tested over a period of a decade ?? I cannot think of any changes that would bring a decent system undone.

[Vortech]

USing your API filter on your database run a few tests

Split your data into quarters - so if you have 12 years of data test over 3 year periods.

In each of the periods compare the Strike rate vs the average dividend.

You might find that the strike rate stays constant but the average dividend is dropping.

You can tell I'm on holidays with the constant replies.

[UselessBettor]

Barny,

I suggest you read winning without thinking.

It suggests that any system is taking advantage of a variance in the market. Due to everyone researching 100% of the time the advantage will diminish eventually as people find it and add their dollars to the odds reducing them to a non profitable situation.

This is the downfall of 99% of systems.

[Barny]

Barny,

I suggest you read winning without thinking.

It suggests that any system is taking advantage of a variance in the market. Due to everyone researching 100% of the time the advantage will diminish eventually as people find it and add their dollars to the odds reducing them to a non profitable situation.

This is the downfall of 99% of systems.
It's hard to argue against that logic UB, I believe it all the way. But I also believe that the next generation of punters will make the same mistakes as the previous generation of punters.

[Lord Greystoke]

It's hard to argue against that logic UB, I believe it all the way. But I also believe that the next generation of punters will make the same mistakes as the previous generation of punters.

Hi Barny, you are probably right - only diff being they will make same mistakes but quicker bc betting in the palm of the palm of their hand is akin to a cash register for tote / bookies etc !

LG

[rails run]

Barny,

I suggest you read winning without thinking.

It suggests that any system is taking advantage of a variance in the market. Due to everyone researching 100% of the time the advantage will diminish eventually as people find it and add their dollars to the odds reducing them to a non profitable situation.



This is the downfall of 99% of systems. The Pari-mutuel Reality: The profit value of anything known, and used by the public, is always working its way towards a near ZERO value point.






If what you have learned to handicap and wager the races is public knowledge - its profitability has been steadily eroding since the moment it was first made public!


-horseracinggold.com

[Lord Greystoke]

If what you have learned to handicap and wager the races is public knowledge - its profitability has been steadily eroding since the moment it was first made public! [/size][/font][/left]

Does it then follow that...

1. All knowledge readily available to the general public is sought out by them
2. The information, when accessed is used without intepretation or manipulation
3. Everyone is researching 100% of the time

I think not.

LG

[UselessBettor]

Does it then follow that...

1. All knowledge readily available to the general public is sought out by them
2. The information, when accessed is used without intepretation or manipulation
3. Everyone is researching 100% of the time

I think not.

LG
As the odds are still the best indication of a horses chnces of winning then you have to be extremely clever/lucky to beat the market consistently. This doesn't mean every race has the odds exactly right, in fact it could be a little or a lot wrong, but overall for every odd overvalued in one race by 10% there is another race where the odds are undervalued by 10%.

Our task as punters is to determine which is overvalued and which is undervalued. But its not as easy as you think it woiuld be.

[Lord Greystoke]

As the odds are still the best indication of a horses chances of winning then you have to be extremely clever/lucky to beat the market consistently. This doesn't mean every race has the odds exactly right, in fact it could be a little or a lot wrong, but overall for every odd overvalued in one race by 10% there is another race where the odds are undervalued by 10%.

Our task as punters is to determine which is overvalued and which is undervalued. But its not as easy as you think it woiuld be.

Interesting points here UB - the brain box is clicking over here (albeit slowly!)

What if one were able to predict the top 5 chances for a given race more often than the market itself. Would the remaining runners be overvalued as a group, and one or more of the top 5 selected undervalued?

LG

[rails run]

Does it then follow that...

1. All knowledge readily available to the general public is sought out by them
2. The information, when accessed is used without intepretation or manipulation
3. Everyone is researching 100% of the time

I think not.

LG
I agree LG. Not everyone is using or seeking the same information. It's just that of the thousands determining the outcome of a race it only takes a few to cross-pollinate similar segments of knowledge to frame a market to it's correct chance. It is extremely accurate consistently and yet it is done with the higher weight of ill-informed entertainment money. That old 80:20 chestnut again.
You're last point is a ripper... Most punters have stopped researching because they are simply not as interested in it as us! :)

[AngryPixie]

It's all the the first post of this thread guys ;)

http://www.propun.com.au/racing_forums/showthread.php?t=23914&page=1

[UselessBettor]

What if one were able to predict the top 5 chances for a given race more often than the market itself. Would the remaining runners be overvalued as a group, and one or more of the top 5 selected undervalued?

If we could predict the top 5 chances and get odds over the predicted chance then we would show a profit. But its not likely we could do this.

Its an interesting way at looking at it. If you can select 4-5 horses and think they will cover 80% of the market then treat them as one bet and the odds as the dutched prices. So if you could back all of them for $70 then it would be value and worth doing. If you could back them for $90 then you pass on the race. A lot of people do this for various reasons. The best reason being consistentcy. You get lots of small wins and few losses. (100/70 = odds of $1.42).

[AngryPixie]

Its an interesting way at looking at it. If you can select 4-5 horses and think they will cover 80% of the market then treat them as one bet and the odds as the dutched prices.

Yep a Group Overlay (http://www.cynthiapublishing.com/MitchellArticles/dm20001104.htm)

[Lord Greystoke]

UB, thanks for pointing out the space hole.. a galaxy of possibilities just beyond my somewhat feeble attempt at fuzzy logic.

Pixie, that article is gold - I am 'eating' it for breakfast.


LG

[Lord Greystoke]

Please remember that most professional money managers on Wall Street would give an organ to consistently achieve a 15% return. In fact, in many cases, a vital organ!

A sobering thought but it helps one remain realistic I guess.

LG

[gunny72]

When the odds go down regarding a particular system punters will tend to drop that system and so the odds will rise again and the cycle will again repeat itself. I have found the cyclic nature of using place percent to be in the order of 5 to 10 years and good odds will return but never to their former glory and of course they fall away again fairly quickly. Amazingly the strike rate has been consistent.

[AngryPixie]

Pixie, that article is gold - I am 'eating' it for breakfast.

Sadly we lost Dick Mitchell a few years back due to a dicky vital organ.

The numbers can be massaged to suit your needs i.e. 67% of top three, but you will need to work in a fudge factor of at least the 10% Dick describes.

[Chrome Prince]

Please remember that most professional money managers on Wall Street would give an organ to consistently achieve a 15% return. In fact, in many cases, a vital organ!

A sobering thought but it helps one remain realistic I guess.

LG

The difference between Wall St and punting, the guys in the boiler room can get set for millions, if not billions, we are restricted to pennies by comparison before we are shut down.

Otherwise I'd be hopping a plane to New York city and showing them how to make huge percentage returns with almost no risk, without leaving their homes.
Alas, we are left to play dodgeball with the bookies for pennies.

[Shaun]

I personally think dutching is over rated in the true form and has little value to add.

I still think multiple runners in a race is a good idea but betting to prices with overlays and underlays is a better idea.

I do bet multiple runners and have not found the best option as yet but will avoid dutching as i hate having small amounts on my bigger overlays.

[The Ocho]

Sadly we lost Dick Mitchell a few years back due to a dicky vital organ.

At least it wasn't a vital dicky organ

[garyf]

I personally think dutching is over rated in the true form and has little value to add.

I still think multiple runners in a race is a good idea but betting to prices with overlays and underlays is a better idea.

I do bet multiple runners and have not found the best option as yet but will avoid dutching as i hate having small amounts on my bigger overlays.I agree with the 2nd sentence 100%
Eventually i got tired of seeing my,
Top rated priced at $3.9 win at $3.8,
In the end i allowed for 0.5 betting,
Point all horses for an underlay.

Say i priced a horse at $4.0 i would accept $3.50,
This also helped overcome the disgraceful %s bet,
In the far away Sydney and Queensland country meetings.

In saying that i am in pursuit of something mechanical,
Now that hopefully will eliminate this process.

The above made it possible to bet an underlay without to ,
Much compromising the rated price to an extent.

Cheers.
Garyf.

[jose]

LOL @ The Ocho

[norisk]

................

[Lord Greystoke]

The difference between Wall St and punting, the guys in the boiler room can get set for millions, if not billions, we are restricted to pennies by comparison before we are shut down.

Otherwise I'd be hopping a plane to New York city and showing them how to make huge percentage returns with almost no risk, without leaving their homes.
Alas, we are left to play dodgeball with the bookies for pennies.

OK so the boys in the pin stripes and braces can wield huge leverage, break the rules from time to time and get to play with tankers full of mulah belonging to someone else. Sorry, did I forget.. live like kings when the bonus comes in (and poncy princes in between).

There must be some possibilities around increasing our sorry lot?

4 examples of me having lost some marbles...

Leverage - All up / parlay into 1st 4 races then divert any profits into exotics for remainder of card. Hang on to your plums going into the last leg however.

Breaking 'the rules' - punt contrary to common misconceptions, myths wherever possible eg You can't win backing FAVs (Odds-on Fav's for the Place 24/7, anyone?)

Someone else's money - See 2. Scoop Joe P's $$$ off the top of the bigger pools on a regular basis, double your bank,transfer original stake back into your bank account and go again with Joe P's hard earned

Greed is Good - take some profit every week, month and go buy something just for yourself. When you crack the big quaddy you can get the drinks in at Pu$$y Cats and tell me how you done it !


LG

[Barny]

Would anyone bother to consistently seek out a horse that's had at least 5 runs this time in without winning, and a winning % of let's say near enough to 20%. I'd call these horses overdue for a win ...........

[The Ocho]

There must be some possibilities around increasing our sorry lot?

4 examples of me having lost some marbles...

Leverage - All up / parlay into 1st 4 races then divert any profits into exotics for remainder of card. Hang on to your plums going into the last leg however.

Breaking 'the rules' - punt contrary to common misconceptions, myths wherever possible eg You can't win backing FAVs (Odds-on Fav's for the Place 24/7, anyone?)

Someone else's money - See 2. Scoop Joe P's $$$ off the top of the bigger pools on a regular basis, double your bank,transfer original stake back into your bank account and go again with Joe P's hard earned

Greed is Good - take some profit every week, month and go buy something just for yourself. When you crack the big quaddy you can get the drinks in at Pu$$y Cats and tell me how you done it !


LG

You can't win backing FAVs (Odds-on Fav's for the Place 24/7, anyone?) - Since 6/08 I've had 47 bets for 46 wins. Well overdue for some losers but WOW WEE so far at least.

Leverage - Maybe parlay/all-up some of the place bets?

Scoop Joe P's $$$ off the top of the bigger pools on a regular basis
PLUS When you crack the big quaddy you can get the drinks in at Pu$$y Cats and tell me how you done it ! = System C ;)

[Luxinterior]

Barny,

I suggest you read winning without thinking.

It suggests that any system is taking advantage of a variance in the market. Due to everyone researching 100% of the time the advantage will diminish eventually as people find it and add their dollars to the odds reducing them to a non profitable situation.

This is the downfall of 99% of systems.
As an extension of this with regards to favourites.... with data bases, system development software, easier access to race video analysis and more, over the past ten or so years the information available to punters has grown incredibly.

As a result of this has the win % of favourites risen?
Also has the average dividend of these favourites fallen?

[UselessBettor]

As an extension of this with regards to favourites.... with data bases, system development software, easier access to race video analysis and more, over the past ten or so years the information available to punters has grown incredibly.

As a result of this has the win % of favourites risen?
Also has the average dividend of these favourites fallen?The favs percentage has remained the same.
The average dividend has remained the same.
Overall the estimate of the crowd of the favs chances has remained the same . But the overlay/underlay to the actual available odds from race to race has dimished.

It may have been 30 years ago that favs were 20% underbet on X occassions and 20% overbet on X occasions which cancel each other out. Today the 20% overbet is less likely to occur and its more like a 3% overbet or underbet range.

This is my thought on what has happened over time and has been researched by lots of people smarter then me. The strike rate is irrelevant. The average dividend is irrelevant. Its the opporuntity to take advantage of mis pricing which is relevant and the general research done by people much smarter then me (uni professors, doctrate research) indicates that the range of mispricing has been reducing more and more but especially in the last 10 years.

[Luxinterior]

Thanks for the reply UB.
So, over the past 10 years the horse the crowd have made their favourite is starting at around the right price more often but that one they've bet on is not winning any more or less than before. Is that it?

[UselessBettor]

Thanks for the reply UB.
So, over the past 10 years the horse the crowd have made their favourite is starting at around the right price more often but that one they've bet on is not winning any more or less than before. Is that it?
yep thats right.

[Vortech]

[QUOTE=UselessBettor]
It may have been 30 years ago that favs were 20% underbet on X occassions and 20% overbet on X occasions which cancel each other out. Today the 20% overbet is less likely to occur and its more like a 3% overbet or underbet range.

How is the 20% and the 3% overlay calculated? Is it calculated by the Max and Min range?

[UselessBettor]

[QUOTE=UselessBettor]
It may have been 30 years ago that favs were 20% underbet on X occassions and 20% overbet on X occasions which cancel each other out. Today the 20% overbet is less likely to occur and its more like a 3% overbet or underbet range.

How is the 20% and the 3% overlay calculated? Is it calculated by the Max and Min range?
I'll find the papers again and provide the link. It was in papers on the fav vs longshot bias but I have read so many research papers I can't tell you quickly which ones looked into it and which didn't.

I suggest reading as much as you can on the fav long shot bias and its movement over time. (it hardly exists on betfair for example).

[Lord Greystoke]

Today the 20% overbet is less likely to occur and its more like a 3% overbet or underbet range.

Its the opporuntity to take advantage of mis pricing which is relevant and the general research done by people much smarter then me (uni professors, doctrate research) indicates that the range of mispricing has been reducing more and more but especially in the last 10 years.

So there is now a plethora of freely available real-time information, making the market for WIN betting much more transparent and efficient from a pricing perspective.

Would seem to indicate that bigger opportunities now lie in the multiples or an arbitrage angle of some kind?

LG

[darkydog2002]

Spot on Your Lordship.

[The Ocho]

With that 4 corners program last week I now realize why faves only win about 30% of the time - because the other races are rigged so that some outsider wins. No wonder just backing the fave doesn't work.

[aussielongboat]

Would anyone bother to consistently seek out a horse that's had at least 5 runs this time in without winning, and a winning % of let's say near enough to 20%. I'd call these horses overdue for a win ...........

If its in a suitable race and the trainer has backed it up fairly quickly from its most recent start i would be all over it like a cheap suit

[AngryPixie]

If its in a suitable race and the trainer has backed it up fairly quickly from its most recent start i would be all over it like a cheap suit

Even more so if it was in the market last start and failed.