Run of outs
 

Hi all

If i am betting my top 2 picks that have a 40% win strike rate what run of outs could i expect.

What would be the minimum odds i should be taking for each selection.



cheers
ubetido

Go and download "Risk of Ruin".
It will tell you the chances of any run of outs you choose.

And it is patently obvious that you should be taking a minimum price about your selections of $5....Or did I miss something?

ubetido,

There is no maths needed here, just a bit of reason.

A horse with a 40% strike rate is very unlikely to miss having at least 2 wins in any preparation of say 8 runs, so even if those wins were the last or 1st. 2 runs, the outs would be no more than 6.

A horse 's SR is pretty much set in stone within it's first 10 starts. If it's SR is 10% [or whatever] as a 3 yr. old, you won't see it with a 30% SR as a 5yr. old. It will be 10% throughout it's career if it stays in reasonably good shape and health.

Ubetido

You'll be able to work it out in Excel with the formula posted here

http://www.propun.com.au/racing_for...ead.php?t=13201

In short though you could expect

a run of 5 outs every 19 bets
a run of 7 outs every 54 bets
a run of 10 outs every 248 bets
a run of 13 outs every 1148 bets

You should be thinking in terms of combined odds if your backing two runners each race.

Pixie

AP,

I think your confusing a punter's SR with a runners SR.

A run of outs for a punter with a win SR of 40% [we wish] is completely different to a horses win SR regarding expected runs of outs.

A horse has spells and it's SR cannot be calculated over 100's of runs.

Quote ubetido: ...'my top 2 picks that have a 40% win strike rate'. I think ubetido is talking about the runner's win SR, either each or perhaps combined[?], not himself as a punter.

By your calc. a horse will have had to have run 1148 races [what a horse!] before expecting a run of 13 outs :-))

Ok we've read it differently. I thought he was saying that his two system selections win 40% of the time.

Oh well

Sorry mate I just couldn't resist on that one : -)

Well so long as Ubetido know's what he's talking about...

Hope so too, because his question was a bit ambiguous.

Was it the system or the selections with 40% SR? I thought one and you thought the other.

Hi all

Thanks for your replies and sorry that i created that confusion. I was referring to an overall strike rate not the runners strike rates.

So for every 100 bets 40% of them should win. In the the TOP TWO PICKS.

So i wanted to at least theoretically work out the run of outs i could expect.

Also the minimum odds i should take. $5 as indicated seems obvious 100/20% each selection.

However there may be the following winners odds 2.5 4.5 22.0 11.0 8.5 3.75 5.7 etc So i would need to find an average i guess and as long as it is over $5 it should be ok.

Thanks for you input.

Cheers
ubetido

ubetido

Your big trouble will be covering bets for your SR to remain consistent. There will be bets you can't cover because you will not get your price creating an inaccurate lower SR %. The more bets not covered the higher your average price must be due to a lower SR.

A higher average price will mean even more bets will remain uncovered which of course means an even higher average price is needed by those that are covered .......and so on it goes if you get my drift.

Hi Crash

Yes this is a bone of contention and not sure how to proceed.

Ones selections have say as this example 40% win strike rate. BUT some may have been odds on others a bit longer and then longer shots.

So if you take out the odds ons and lesser price ones your percentage of winners drops and your price needs to be higher as you stated.

So i am no closer really to getting an edge on the top two. Back to the drawing board i guess..lol

Cheers
ubetido

Ubetido

It's the combined odds of the two selections that's important isn't it? If they're winning 40% of races don't you just have to make sure that the combined price you get is less than 40%? ie. 25% + 10% or 20% + 13.3% etc. Sounds simple doesn't it

As Crash says though you'll probably have to pass on a few.

I'd be approaching this as a single bet on two runners, not two seperate bets if you get my drift.

Pixie

Thanks Angrypixie

I get your drift....

Cheers
ubetido

Yes, maintaining edge does seem to be the problem. Great simple ideas always seem to come unstuck in the tiny details. In this case it's the lower priced selections that become hardest to cover and these are
quite naturally, the very bets that make up a large slice of the SR's consistency and stability in your idea.

Racehorse punting will always remain a negative expectation game [one of the worst and quite probably 2nd. only to Poker Machines] and genuine edges as opposed to 'perceived' edges, are well and truly quickly exploited with the market rapidly responding and self-correcting back into negative expectation with the edge firmly not on the punter's side at all !

The perceived 'Golden Gooses' in this game are the fantasy that keep the constant stream of new punters and their money coming. The ones making a quid mostly already have a quid, are very, very smart and working on very small margins and large turnovers.

Anyone in this pursuit [winners or losers] for any other reason except for the sheer pleasure of Horse Racing and punting on the outcome, need to have a long talk to themselves in front of a mirror :-)

Hi Ubetido,
1) To answer your 40% SR question.
The longest run of out is approx 14 in a row
With a less than 1% chance of 20 outs in a row.

2) With a 40% SR, the majority of the wins should come from the first 10 bets at the beginning of the day.
And also.
After the last winner was struck.

3) One approach is to stop betting if 11 outs are struck & recommence where one left off after a winner is struck .
This is not to say, that one may experience another 11 outs after the last winner, so be prepared , but it does give us the feeling of some controll when the dredded run of outs is about to decend upon us.

4) One way to work the bet on 2 horses, is to split the bet for that race, 60/40
60% on the shorter price & 40% on the longer price.
The shorter priced horses tend to win more often & this can possibly balance things up a bit while waiting for those juicy payers to come along.

5) These are the prices one is actually working to when betting 2 horses a race .
$4.00 = $2.00 e.g. Bet $2 (1+1) - Ret 4
$6.00 = $3.00
$8.00 = $4.00
$10.00 =$5.00 e.g. Bet $2 (1+1) - Ret 10

One would need a $5.00 avereage div to break even, based on a 40% SR.

6) Another approach is to use the horse paying less than $4.00 as a saver bet .
One could then bet 40% on that one & 60% on the longer priced horse.
Therefore maximising any possible profits that could be there.

Cheers.

When this discussion was held earlier Bhagwan was forced to concede that his claims were nonsense.

But instead of learning anything from that exercise he merely recycles his fallacies to help problem gamblers ruin their lives.

There is no such thing as the longest run of outs.

The chance of 20 outs is not 1%.

Depending on how many games you play that chance could be 50%, 99% or higher.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/jfc2000/drawdown.htm

This tool should illustrate the phenomenon. But for some curious reason every one seems to forget about it, and instead promote ignorance.

I think JFC has a point Bagman.

Going on ubetido's clarified intentions above, that include wide odds fluctuation over 100 bets, the run of outs for such a small number could be almost anything.

Is everyone promoting ignorance?

That site just proves what I am surgesting .

I am making the assumption that one is making 56 bets a day (8x7) or less , which could be seen as a lot of bets each day .

I am making the assumption that the majority of wins are within the first 10 bets of the day & after each win with a known 40% SR.

I am making the assumption that its not a bad idea to stop betting once approx 11 outs in a row is struck, before recommencing once a winner gets up.
So as to address the long run of outs question.

I am also making the assumption that each day is different, which all horse experts agree on. I dont know what our friend JFC thinks of that.

What I did was place 56 in the simulators Number of Trials box, then pressed the Simulate Drawdown key a couple of hundred times to see if the idea was out of whack & it showed that it was not.

It would appear JFC has an an argument with his own stuff.

Most punters dont bet 1000 races a day.

I believe to use that tool properly , one should place in the box , the average number of bets one has each day plus 75% along with their known SR from approx 150 bets + , because each day is considered different, each with its own anomilies.

Our friend JFC is not putting anything possitive that would be a of interest to many punters except his personal enlightenment through the mantra of doom & gloom.

I would like to see our friend put forward his argument which disproves
the above assumptions using the simulator or any other thing that promotes enlightenment onto the world of punting ignorance.

The figures I use are based on various models designed by mathematics professors.
Maybe they are propergators of ignorance aswell.

Better than all this stuff, why cant our friend JFC get off his phsydo egalitarian stand & put forward a selection stratergy that may work, if he is that enlightened, or is he as ignorant as the rest of us.
OR
Is the name of the game to wait to see what someone posts , then go all out with a head full of emotion & use as much demeaning & inflamitary language as possible, along with the derogatory & snide remarks so as to try & drive them off this site.

Why dont we all start doing the same thing. It could be fun... if you are a fool.

Cheers.

Lawn Bowls anyone?