Betting Examples Discussion

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by rmath

What was the actual number of races in your study?
Just curious.

82,985 total races were used in this survey.

I could have used 10 times that amount, but to no end. In all of my research, I have found that two years is enough to reach a stable and reliable number.

[Bill V.]

Who won ? here is a little quiz

Two races just came in for selectors one afternoon
with a few minutes of each other. Both people had nice 5/2 winners.
Both bet two horses to win

AAA Bet $50 win on two horses
BBB Bet $30 win and $20 place on one of the selections
Both bet two horses per race
Both bet $100 in the race

AAA got a win and the winner paid $7.60
BBB got a win and place bet. The winner paid $7.90 and $4.20

Who made more money ???

answer below
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Answer is AAA although the price was lower the profit in the race was $90
BBB got the back up place bet hit but still the profit for the race was only $60.50

Next I even turned around the bet and made BBB's bet $20 w and $30 p
and all that did was reduce the profit to S42.00



I would never thought that BBB would make less, How about you ?

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Thank you.

If its possible, If you don't mind would it be asking too much to do the same analysis with horses that went off at 4/1 and above

Only because Doc's guidelines are to back up a win bet on horses that will pay
over $10 with a place bet


thanks
Bill

Hello Bill,

I hope you don't mind if I change your request slightly.
Instead of running the whole thing all over again starting with 4/1 and higher, and since the results of 7/1 or higher are already posted, I thought it might be more informative if I did 4/1 to 4.99/1 as a group, 5/1 to 5.99/1 as a group and lastly, 6/1 to 6.99/1 as a group. Here are the results.


I used the same 82,985 races.

In the 4.0/1 to 4.99/1 trial, there were a total of 47.704 horses that fell into this group.
Of those 47,704 horses;
7,778 of them “placed”. This represents 16.30% of the total group.
7,148 of them “won”. This represents 14.98% of the total group.
This is a total of 14,926 possible place bets won. This represents 31.28% of the total group.
Notice that 52.11% placed and DID NOT WIN, while 47.89% WON.
The average win price was $10.82
The average place price was $5.24

Betting $2 to “place” on every horse in the group comes to $95,408.
Total “place” bets won (including horses that won) comes to $78,212. A loss of $17,196.
Betting $2 to “win” on every horse in the group comes to $95,408.
Total “win” bets won comes to $77,341. A loss of $18,067.

Notice that at this range of odds, it is almost 50-50 win to place. The lower the odds, the better the chance of the horse running second.

On to the group of 5.0/1 to 5.99/1.
_____________________________________________________________
In the 5.0/1 to 5.99/1 trial, there were a total of 38,840 horses that fell into this group.
Of those 38,840 horses;
5,930 of them “placed”. This represents 15.27% of the total group.
4,836 of them “won”. This represents 12.458% of the total group.
This is a total of 10,763 possible place bets won. This represents 27.71% of the total group. Notice the decline from the previous group.
Notice that 55.10% placed and DID NOT WIN, while 44.93% WON.
The average win price was $12.83
The average place price was $5.74

Betting $2 to “place” on every horse in the group comes to $77,680.
Total “place” bets won (including horses that won) comes to $61,780. A loss of $15,900.
Betting $2 to “win” on every horse in the group comes to $77,680.
Total “win” bets won comes to $62,046. A loss of $15,634.

Notice that increasing the odds just one full point, betting to win, although still a loss, is LESS of a loss than betting to place, even though the win% in this group is lower than the previous group.

On to the 6.0/1 to 6.99/1 group.
____________________________________________________________
In the 6.0/1 to 6.99/1 trial, there were a total of 33,320 horses that fell into this group.
Of those 33,320 horses;
4,441 of them “placed”. This represents 13.33% of the total group.
3,506 of them “won”. This represents 10.52% of the total group.
This is a total of 7,947 possible place bets won. This represents 23.85% of the total group. Notice the decline from the previous two groups.
Notice that 55.88% placed and DID NOT WIN, while 44.12% WON.
The average win price was $14.83
The average place price was $6.40

Betting $2 to “place” on every horse in the group comes to $66,640.
Total “place” bets won (including horses that won) comes to $50836. A loss of $15,804.
Betting $2 to “win” on every horse in the group comes to $66,640.
Total “win” bets won comes to $51,994. A loss of $14,646.

Notice that increasing the odds just one full point again, betting to win, although still a loss, is LESS of a loss than betting to place, even though the win% in this group is lower than the previous group.

Let’s look at the average win/place prices for each group.

4/1 to 4.99/1 = win/$10.82 – place/$5.24 (difference between win and place = $5.58)

5/1 to 5.99/1 = win/$12.83 – place/$5.74 (difference between win and place = $7.09)

6/1 to 6.99/1 = win/$14.83 – place/$6.40 (difference between win and place = $8.43)

Notice that although we are only increasing the odds 1 full point at a time, there is a big difference between win and place prices as we move up the odds ladder. This becomes even more pronounced as the odds get higher.

[For The Lead]

If there is one thing you should take away from the information I have posted here, it is this.

Although you may "feel better" when you cash that place ticket on a horse that runs second, "IN THE LONG RUN" you are only costing yourself money!

There are only two situations where betting to place is better than betting to win.

Situation #1
You bet an entry and the entry runs first and second.
In most cases, the entry will pay more to place than it does to win. This is because the place pool is paid to one betting interest rather than to two betting interests.

Situation #2
There is a favorite in the race with an extra ordinary amount of money bet to place and show on it and it runs out of the money.
In these cases not only is the place pool more profitable, but in some cases the show pool can be the most profitable.

Just one thing.
Let me know in advance when you find one of these spots!

[rmath]

Thanks for the info. I always enjoy looking over your stats.
They are always very eye opening.

Bills post on betting are great, too.

Thanks to both of you.rmath

[JIMBOB1002]

I agree with rmath this is all very helpful.Thanks

[Bill V.]

Rmath and Jimbob I am glad your finding this helpful.

FTL Yes I hit your PLUS senerio #1 It has always been a spot play for me.

As you wrote, in the earlier post the place price was almost the same as the win price

I want to see if my method of adding a place bet on horses over 4/1
as is Doc's guidelines is a positive way to bet

I ran four lines on the spreadsheet, Using my two betting selections # 1 and 7



These 4 lines are choices I had
Note : I used the average place price of $5.20 since its more likely that the entry will not run 1-2 I derived this figure from the data you posted
yesterday on the stats of place prices for horse 4/1 to 4.99/1

AAA is if I had bet $50 win on both the 1 and the 7 - Win return $275
BBB is if I had bet $60/$40 on the low odds 7 and high odds 1 = $220
CCC My actual bet $40 win on the 7, $25 win $35 place on the 1 = $228.50
DDD same amounts but with more on the win than place # 1 = $257.50
EEE is the always popular $25 win/place bet on the #1 and #7 = $202.50
**
Method AAA is the best profit maker
I used method CCC however method DDD pays better and I do get the
insurance against long losing runs. I use these and it seems to support Doc's other guideline of always bet in a way were you never fall too far behind.

thoughts ?
Bill

[Ted Craven]

I suspect that the same rationale, and indeed statistics, which 'prove' that it is more profitable to forego all Place betting in favour of the Win pool, would also prove that it is also more profitable - in the long term - to bet only 1 horse per race, to Win.

I think Howard Sartin discovered a psychological truth a long time ago, and I have discovered in my own betting practice over 20 years: that most people do NOT bet in the world of statistics or in a comforting hypothetical world where every choice is couched in knowing where the next event fits in the pantheon of the last 10,000 or 100,000 events.

They SHOULD know and bet into the truth of these large numbers and general statistics about wagering pools - BUT, unless you are betting with a robot and going for bulk (and are well capitalized) - MOST of us must deal with the EMOTION of every next bet, even if we are Walter White. The truth for MOST of us is that we receive feedback from the result of every bet - win or lose - in neuro-chemicals and emotional stimuli which usually has at least some effect on the next bet. Perhaps not ALL of us, but likely MOST of us.

And that is why MOST people will likely be negatively affected by losing 7 out of 10 races (i.e. betting one horse, or one pool, per race). Of course, it IS possible to train yourself, by record keeping and by repeated positive experience to be unaffected by such a scenario, but the reason for 2 horse betting (or multiple interest/pool betting) is to limit the expected series of Losses and to limit the negative effect on our handicapping/wagering discipline by enjoying a higher hit rate, say ~.50% or perhaps > 66% when including judicious Place betting, or Exacta dutching/hedging.

You would not (could not) drive your car without insurance. Consider 2 horse Win betting and judicious Place betting as a form of insurance against psychologically crashing, a support tool for mental health. While participating in the ongoing game, and anteing up each race to see if your qualified longshot, or mid-priced horse, or 3rd tier BLBL, etc will indeed pay handsomely this time, surging your bankroll ahead, you need to use all your resources to make sure you are indeed still in the game, and have not checked out too soon for mental recuperation or bankroll repair because you got the 'wobblies' after one too many well priced horses finished 2nd without your bet!

Howard Sartin advised taking perhaps smaller profits here and there, from whatever pools offered opportunity, and staying as close to breakeven in a 20 race cycle waiting for the price horses to come along - rather than swinging for the fences. Of course, nothing prevents any of us from swinging for the fences, in any pool, but I believe, at least for myself, that taking many small wins plus my share of larger ones is the correct strategy for me, and perhaps for many.

It is cheaper to drive without insurance, just as it may be more profitable in the long run to never backup longer priced horses to Place or bet 2 horses to Win. But in order to make it to the long run, we first have to make it through the short run.

I don't care whether my net 2-1 or 1-1 odds in any winning wager comes from betting 1 horse to win, 2 horses to win, 1 horse to Win and another long priced horse dutched to Win/Place, or a dutched 4-horse matrix of exacta bets (boxes and wheels). The only thing that matters to me is how much I win, net, out of any wager regardless of the pool(s) from which the money comes. I HATE to lose my entire bet! I am often happy to hedge my bet in order to breakeven or even lose a little on a legitimate looking favourite, when a good 3rd tier or well ranked VDC horse or lone Early is paying boxcars and I have money left in my betting unit to Win and/or Place on that one (hedging being another form of insurance).

No disrespect in the least intended to For the Lead and his valuable statistics, which we all MUST be aware of. But this discussion on Betting Strategies MUST also take into account at its foundation, the emotional nature of risk-taking and betting.

I'd like to hear further takes, or interesting rebuttals of this proposition!

cheers,

Ted

[JimG]

I think the need to win a race is why most people with sound handicapping principles lose long term. The takeout and rebates are such that good short price horses really get pounded in the win pool. Heck, so so horses that should be 3-1 are now bet down to 8-5 or so. For most people, I feel that if they cannot overcome the stress of losing several races in a row, they stand little chance to be long term winners.

Reachable rebates for the average player have driven down the prices of logical horses even further. My sweet spot for win bets is in the 7/2 to 6-1 range, however I am never swayed against a horse I like if say it is 30-1 or greater. I have to stay out of many races due to the lower odds of logical horses in the win pool compared to say 1990.

Everybody has their own comfort zone for sure. I am not comfortable betting horses at 2-1 or less. My way is not the only way, but it is what works for me. Overcoming psychological barriers is very difficult but years of losing trying to win a race as opposed to winning at the races forced me to change my mindset.

Jim

[For The Lead]

Good post by Ted. I understand his points right down the line, but I'm going to try and further my position anyway. It gets lengthy and may seem off topic, but hang in there, I think you'll get my meaning.

The first thing I would like to discuss is “insurance”.

In the average person’s life the purchase of their home is the biggest investment they will make, naturally, insuring that investment makes a lot of sense.
The next biggest investment the average person makes is the purchase of a car. Again, it makes sense to insure that investment.
In both of the above cases, not only are you insuring the investments themselves, but you are also insuring (protecting) yourself from liability claims due to your negligence that could ruin your life financially and cost you everything you own.

Now let’s talk about something else that is called “insurance”. Any of you that have ever played blackjack in a casino know that right there on the blackjack table layout it says “INSURANCE”. Is this the same type of insurance I just talked about? NO! But the casino would like you to think about it that way.

Let’s say you bet $10 on your hand and the dealer’s up card is an ACE. The dealer will ask you if you would like to take insurance. If you say “yes”, then you must make an additional $5 bet. When the dealer checks their hole card, if they have blackjack they will show you their hand and take your initial $10 bet. However, they will then pay you $10 for your “insurance bet” of $5, because the insurance bet pays 2/1. Of course, if they do not have blackjack, you lose the insurance bet and can still lose the original bet on your hand or, you can win your original $10 bet on your hand and lose the insurance bet and instead of winning $10 from your original bet, you end up only winning $5 because you lost that additional insurance bet of $5.

Now lets’ say you are dealt blackjack and the dealer shows an ACE. The dealer will ask you if you want “even money”. Why? When you win by being dealt a blackjack, the normal payoff you receive is 1.5/1. So if you had bet $10 on your hand, you would receive a payoff of $15, which is your bet times 1.5. Now, if you do not take insurance with your blackjack hand and the dealer has a blackjack, you will “tie” and break even. So most people will “insure” their blackjack and take even money. This is less painful than going through the procedure of taking your original bet and then paying you on the “insurance” bet, they just pay you even money. But if the dealer doesn't have blackjack, you just lose another separate bet! So is this insurance bet a good bet? Why wouldn’t it be? You are guarantying yourself a winning hand, right? On the face of it, yes, but let’s take a closer look.

The first thing you have to understand is this, by making the so called insurance bet, you ARE NOT INSURING ANYTHING!! You are simply making another separate bet, which is, the dealer either does or does not have blackjack. It is that simple.
Now unlike horse racing and handicapping, blackjack is a precisely mathematical game. So, since the so called “insurance bet” pays 2/1, do you think you should make that bet if the true odds of the dealer having a blackjack is 3/1 or 4/1 or higher? NO! Why would you make a bet and receive 2/1 on your bet if the true odds are greater than that?
But suppose I told you the true odds of the dealer having a blackjack is 1/1. Would that be a better bet? YES! Because the chances of the dealer having a blackjack is 1/1 and the casino is going to pay you 2/1.
The main point here is this. The bet on your hand cannot be insured. What the casino wants you to think of as "insurance" is nothing more than a separate bet on whether or not the dealer has blackjack. They are two separate and individual bets. One has nothing to do with the other.

I’m getting there, but first a little background.

I started betting horses in the mid 1960’s. At that time the ONLY BETS available were a Daily Double, Win, Place and Show. THAT WAS IT! Naturally, the only way to make any substantial money was by betting to “win” and so that is what you learned to do, pick the horse you thought would win the race and bet it “to win”.
Now don’t think there weren’t other betting schemes around, there were. Take as an example the idea of betting $2 to win, $4 to place and $12 to show, a total bet of $18. The idea here was that if you horse only ran 3rd and paid $3.00 you would break even. I guess this may have been the “insurance bet” of the day. I prefer to call it a betting scheme designed to “not lose”, rather than “to win”. Naturally, those that applied this betting scheme went broke! Try recapturing $36 after two of these bets ran out of the money. Good luck with that when you are only betting $2 to win! And take into consideration, the longer the odds on a horse, the less chance there is of the horse running in the money. Favorites only run in the money approximately 67% of the time.

When you bet a horse to win and then make a place bet as “insurance” or if you make an exacta bet as “insurance" or any number of other bets as “insurance”, YOU ARE NOT INSURING ANYTHING!!!
All you are doing is making several separate and individual bets. The bets must stand on their own in order for you to win, meaning, you must be able to make a profit on each of these individual bets, otherwise you will lose money. Ask yourself this. Would a retailer continue to carry a particular line in his store if he was losing money on it? I doubt it. So why would you continue to make a certain bet if you cannot make money on it?
Betting “to win only” is betting to win...IF you are good enough.
Betting “to place only” is betting to win…IF you are good enough.
Betting “exactas only” is betting to win…IF you are good enough.
This is true for any of the other bets that are available.
But mixing these bets is NOT INSURANCE! You are either good enough to win at each type of bet or you are not!
If you make all of these various bets in the same race and cannot show a profit on each of them, you are taking a shot at betting in an effort NOT TO LOSE…RATHER THAN TO WIN!

Lastly, and giving credit where credit is due, ‘Doc” offered people an opportunity to avoid long losing streaks by betting TWO HORSES TO WIN in each race. Good contender selection and good line selection are the basics of achieving the goal of 60% to 70% winners and a good ROI in a 20 race cycle.

Personally, I think the contest being offered is a great way to hone your skills…FOR FREE!
If you are not already winning 60% to 70% of your “WIN BETS” in a 20 race cycle, betting two horses per race, then here is your chance to improve and it costs you NOTHING!

I see contest bets like $80 to win on horse A and $10 to place on horse A and B. What kind of bets are those?
Just about everyone in the contest bets to win and place. WHY? Is this to say there is a “value place bet” in every race and that you are good enough to win enough of these place bets to show a profit?
Just bet TO WIN!
Improve your game to the point where you are winning 12 to 14 races out of 20!
Does it matter if you only win 8 or 10? NO. It’s FREE!
Take the contest seriously and bet the way you should bet in order to LEARN and IMPROVE YOUR GAME!
Even if you are only winning 8 to 10 bets out of 20, I don’t think losing 10 to 12 bets out of 20 is mind altering.
And if you are playing the methodology correctly, that is, playing the right horses with good odds, even winning just 8 races out of 20 isn’t going to take your whole bankroll.