Math and Horse Racing question
May 14th, 2012 at 9:10:47 PM
permalink
My sons friend is very good with the ponies. Apparently he makes a track variant differently than others in the profession. My question is this:
He lists three columns of ranking with the horses that should win
column A column B column C
Horse 2 Horse 4 Horse 2
Horse 3 Horse 5 Horse 5
Horse 4 Horse 2 Horse 4
Now Column A is more important then B + C
Above there are 4 different horses shown. In theory it could be 9. Most of the time 4 or 5, but I have seen 6 a few times and passed betting those races
Is there a mathematical way to rank these horses overall based on the appearances in the columns w a little extra weight given to column A? What about making an oddsline?
Currently I give a score of 8 for 1st, 5 for 2nd, 3 for 3rd in A and 5 3 1 for B + C. Recently I added 1pt to the horses which appeared in more than one column but I am no math guy.
Any comments or ideas would be appreciated, thank you in advance
Arnie
He lists three columns of ranking with the horses that should win
column A column B column C
Horse 2 Horse 4 Horse 2
Horse 3 Horse 5 Horse 5
Horse 4 Horse 2 Horse 4
Now Column A is more important then B + C
Above there are 4 different horses shown. In theory it could be 9. Most of the time 4 or 5, but I have seen 6 a few times and passed betting those races
Is there a mathematical way to rank these horses overall based on the appearances in the columns w a little extra weight given to column A? What about making an oddsline?
Currently I give a score of 8 for 1st, 5 for 2nd, 3 for 3rd in A and 5 3 1 for B + C. Recently I added 1pt to the horses which appeared in more than one column but I am no math guy.
Any comments or ideas would be appreciated, thank you in advance
Arnie
May 14th, 2012 at 10:20:00 PM
permalink
this is called regression in statistics. no rocket science.
May 14th, 2012 at 10:33:46 PM
permalink
so what i've been doing is regression
In the above example I would score it this way, this includes the extra 1 point for each column appearance
2-- 17
4-- 12
5-- 8
3-- 3
This race was won by #4 at 10-1.
Is there a way to assign percentages?
In the above example I would score it this way, this includes the extra 1 point for each column appearance
2-- 17
4-- 12
5-- 8
3-- 3
This race was won by #4 at 10-1.
Is there a way to assign percentages?
May 14th, 2012 at 10:43:25 PM
permalink
I would be glad to post some examples on preakness day in the correct forum in order to show how great these rankings are
May 19th, 2012 at 6:49:54 AM
permalink
See below
May 19th, 2012 at 6:57:50 AM
permalink
Did not format so great, so let me redo
column A
1st) 7..9 (tie 1st)
2nd)
3rd) 6
column B
1st) 7
2nd) 6..9 (tie 2nd)
3rd)
column c
1st) 7
2nd) 5 ..6 (tie 2nd)
3rd)
The winner should come from one of the four horses shown. Not earth shattering as they are the four favorites. Again, is there a simple math way to get a consensus ranking using the above rankings with extra weight given to column A? The ties have also given me struggles.
Thanks
column A
1st) 7..9 (tie 1st)
2nd)
3rd) 6
column B
1st) 7
2nd) 6..9 (tie 2nd)
3rd)
column c
1st) 7
2nd) 5 ..6 (tie 2nd)
3rd)
The winner should come from one of the four horses shown. Not earth shattering as they are the four favorites. Again, is there a simple math way to get a consensus ranking using the above rankings with extra weight given to column A? The ties have also given me struggles.
Thanks
May 19th, 2012 at 8:29:10 AM
permalink
People have been juggling numbers and rating with horses forever. The only one to make any real money was Andrew Byer.
He made his money selling his Byers points to the daily racing form.
Byers points are used by many people. Andrew himself stated he lost over $200,000 the last few years betting on horses. LOL
He was also a televised handicapper at Pimlico race track for a few years. I went every Saturday for several years and he had few
winning days. Some of my best bets were against his Best bets.
Not saying give up, just realize it is impossible to beat the races due to the 17% take, let alone the 23-30% take on exotic bets.
But you can beat a race. I would work on that factor, if at all.
I remember one day I had hit 3 races in a row. A punter asked to copy my figures. He did, but left without asking whether a high
or low number was better to bet. LOL
He made his money selling his Byers points to the daily racing form.
Byers points are used by many people. Andrew himself stated he lost over $200,000 the last few years betting on horses. LOL
He was also a televised handicapper at Pimlico race track for a few years. I went every Saturday for several years and he had few
winning days. Some of my best bets were against his Best bets.
Not saying give up, just realize it is impossible to beat the races due to the 17% take, let alone the 23-30% take on exotic bets.
But you can beat a race. I would work on that factor, if at all.
I remember one day I had hit 3 races in a row. A punter asked to copy my figures. He did, but left without asking whether a high
or low number was better to bet. LOL
May 19th, 2012 at 8:45:28 AM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffPeople have been juggling numbers and rating with horses forever. The only one to make any real money was Andrew Byer.
He made his money selling his Byers points to the daily racing form.
Byers points are used by many people. Andrew himself stated he lost over $200,000 the last few years betting on horses. LOL
He was also a televised handicapper at Pimlico race track for a few years. I went every Saturday for several years and he had few
winning days. Some of my best bets were against his Best bets.
Not saying give up, just realize it is impossible to beat the races due to the 17% take, let alone the 23-30% take on exotic bets.
But you can beat a race. I would work on that factor, if at all.
I remember one day I had hit 3 races in a row. A punter asked to copy my figures. He did, but left without asking whether a high
or low number was better to bet. LOL
Thanks for the response. Variant making is the key and this kid is incredible. But part 2 of the puzzle is the hard part. Knowing how to bet. Me, lifetime loser yes. Last six months up pretty decent. According to the kid, Beyers are flawed and if those horses keep getting public money opportunities will always be there
Anybody have a basic way do consensus rank? That all i need
May 19th, 2012 at 9:17:02 AM
permalink
Quote: ArnieMy sons friend is very good with the ponies.
I don't mean to disparage your friend's son, as I've never met him. However, I've yet to meet anyone who played the horses and didn't claim to be good at it. Yet funny how the track still manages to take 17% as well. Makes you wonder who is losing.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 19th, 2012 at 9:28:36 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI don't mean to disparage your friend's son, as I've never met him. However, I've yet to meet anyone who played the horses and didn't claim to be good at it. Yet funny how the track still manages to take 17% as well. Makes you wonder who is losing.
I agree with you. Lots of egos in this game. I've been reading lots of stuff here and i love it.
The key to the track is betting the overlays if you can create a decent oddsline. It also helps to get an 8% rebate..
Wizard, can you suggest a way to handle these rankings? or assign probabilities to them?
Right now, I just wait for 15-1 odds on any of them and automatically bet. So far its been good but would like to see if more math can be applied to the ranking side of this.
Thanks
May 20th, 2012 at 5:45:35 AM
permalink
Let me show how I calculate it and maybe someone can let me know if it makes math sense
Column A...1st rank earns 8 points, 2nd 5, 3rd 3
7 9
6
7= 6.5
9= 6.5
6= 3
Since a tie for 1st, I add up 8 and 5 and split evenly for 6.5 each
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
column B scoring 5, 3, 1
7
6 9
7= 5
6= 2
9= 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
column C scoring 5,3,1
7
56
7=5
5=2
6=2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
7= 16.5
9= 8.5
6= 7
5= 2
then 1 point for every appearance in a column provided its more than once only
7 add 3 = 19.5
9 add 2 = 10.5
6 add 3 = 10
5 add 0 = 2
Results:
Win 9
Place 7
show 6
I hit the triple as they were the top three by a wide margin
Column A...1st rank earns 8 points, 2nd 5, 3rd 3
7 9
6
7= 6.5
9= 6.5
6= 3
Since a tie for 1st, I add up 8 and 5 and split evenly for 6.5 each
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
column B scoring 5, 3, 1
7
6 9
7= 5
6= 2
9= 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
column C scoring 5,3,1
7
56
7=5
5=2
6=2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
7= 16.5
9= 8.5
6= 7
5= 2
then 1 point for every appearance in a column provided its more than once only
7 add 3 = 19.5
9 add 2 = 10.5
6 add 3 = 10
5 add 0 = 2
Results:
Win 9
Place 7
show 6
I hit the triple as they were the top three by a wide margin
September 22nd, 2012 at 7:05:48 AM
permalink
I am a new member who has played horses on and off for about 25 years. I can agree that the 17% take
on the pool is not at all fair to the average player. In fact, I saw the "game" getting more and more difficult
even as the "TAKE" went from 14% to 17%.
I have a question in regard to the Kelly Criterion. I have read the Wizard's presentation and find the
explanation to be understandable except for one nagging point in regard to the "advantage".
I used an article by Huey Mahl about 20 years ago in which he stated that you can calculate your advantage
from your win percentage over a large sample of horse race plays. So you come up with a number like
1% and this is the percentage of your bankroll that you bet. However, I found that it all was very hard
to apply because when you get to a very specific bet your advantage can vary. For example, when you
are picking a silly longshot your advantage is eaten by overbetting in the pool. So the question is basically
does Kelly really break down in this situation? After all, I don't think he was a horse player; he worked for
Bell Labs or some other think tank.
on the pool is not at all fair to the average player. In fact, I saw the "game" getting more and more difficult
even as the "TAKE" went from 14% to 17%.
I have a question in regard to the Kelly Criterion. I have read the Wizard's presentation and find the
explanation to be understandable except for one nagging point in regard to the "advantage".
I used an article by Huey Mahl about 20 years ago in which he stated that you can calculate your advantage
from your win percentage over a large sample of horse race plays. So you come up with a number like
1% and this is the percentage of your bankroll that you bet. However, I found that it all was very hard
to apply because when you get to a very specific bet your advantage can vary. For example, when you
are picking a silly longshot your advantage is eaten by overbetting in the pool. So the question is basically
does Kelly really break down in this situation? After all, I don't think he was a horse player; he worked for
Bell Labs or some other think tank.
September 22nd, 2012 at 8:25:36 AM
permalink
" I hit the triple as they were the top three by a wide margin " I once boxed the 3 horses who took a dump in the post parade
and hit a $7,000 trifecta . My system is as full of shit as yours.
and hit a $7,000 trifecta . My system is as full of shit as yours.
September 22nd, 2012 at 8:58:04 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI don't mean to disparage your friend's son, as I've never met him. However, I've yet to meet anyone who played the horses and didn't claim to be good at it. Yet funny how the track still manages to take 17% as well. Makes you wonder who is losing.
Me.
I have about a -.15 ROI meaning I lose just under the take out. Of course, all I need is that one hit... Like everyone.
September 22nd, 2012 at 10:40:18 AM
permalink
Kelly Kelly Kelly With a sincere apology to Math purist Bullshit.
You have to be in the real world, not one with infinite decks, negative numbers, equations that can't be solved, etc.
2 minutes to post and post time odds almost always differ. I have seen a horse go off at 8 to 1 as the trotters were on the move.
I have $20 on him. I got $44.00 as my payoff. LOL
System analysis is simply track system till you have 100 wins. Throw out 2 longest and 2 shortest prices. See what's left.
Instead after 100 plays horseplayers expand rules to include winners and drop losers.
Steeldco can tell you how that worked out for him.
You can not beat the races if you are a horseplayer who has to bet every race. You can beat a race !
So if you can, that bet 10% of your bankrioll until it reaches a set number, than 10% of that number, and so on.
Not mathematically pure, but it works for most people.
Years ago guys would cry they could kill the horses if the take was reduced to 10% on straight bets,
Now those guys think they can beat the races with exotic bets that have a 23 -30% rake. LOL
There are 1000's of AP horse players. Owners and trainers. They get their gambling backed by us taxpayers.
And smile all the way to the bank when a first time starter pays $42 or their horse show miraculous improvemnt.
You have to be in the real world, not one with infinite decks, negative numbers, equations that can't be solved, etc.
2 minutes to post and post time odds almost always differ. I have seen a horse go off at 8 to 1 as the trotters were on the move.
I have $20 on him. I got $44.00 as my payoff. LOL
System analysis is simply track system till you have 100 wins. Throw out 2 longest and 2 shortest prices. See what's left.
Instead after 100 plays horseplayers expand rules to include winners and drop losers.
Steeldco can tell you how that worked out for him.
You can not beat the races if you are a horseplayer who has to bet every race. You can beat a race !
So if you can, that bet 10% of your bankrioll until it reaches a set number, than 10% of that number, and so on.
Not mathematically pure, but it works for most people.
Years ago guys would cry they could kill the horses if the take was reduced to 10% on straight bets,
Now those guys think they can beat the races with exotic bets that have a 23 -30% rake. LOL
There are 1000's of AP horse players. Owners and trainers. They get their gambling backed by us taxpayers.
And smile all the way to the bank when a first time starter pays $42 or their horse show miraculous improvemnt.
September 22nd, 2012 at 11:51:24 AM
permalink
My point is that I could not get Kelly to work.
Seems like the late-changing odds in horse betting do a number on the public and
Kelly breaks down at that point.
Seems like the late-changing odds in horse betting do a number on the public and
Kelly breaks down at that point.
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:21:58 PM
permalink
Kelly is not the end all betting system. It is one of those mathematical things that has no real purpose in life. Theoretical nonsense.
If you have an 90% of winning, then 10% of the time you will lose 90%. How silly is that ?
If you have an 90% of winning, then 10% of the time you will lose 90%. How silly is that ?
September 22nd, 2012 at 1:53:30 PM
permalink
So, do you like the Dutch method wherein more than one horse is bet in a race?
September 22nd, 2012 at 2:37:07 PM
permalink
No Hard enough to beat that 17% without giving them more than one shot. To say nothing of increased breakage.
Daily Doubles , pick 3's, etc have a reducing factor on the take. Problem is waiting till you have 2 or 3 consecutive races
that you feel strong about.
Daily Doubles , pick 3's, etc have a reducing factor on the take. Problem is waiting till you have 2 or 3 consecutive races
that you feel strong about.
September 22nd, 2012 at 3:00:10 PM
permalink
Do you agree or disagree with the value of past performances as found in the racing form?
I find that there is now really too much information. In fact, I think that the market is
now very efficient in that information is truly digested by only the public as a whole.
I find that there is now really too much information. In fact, I think that the market is
now very efficient in that information is truly digested by only the public as a whole.
September 22nd, 2012 at 3:41:23 PM
permalink
I am old enough to remember when the pages of the Racing form was crimped on all sides to ensure you had to buy and not peek LOL
At same time there was The Morning Telegraph. Now there is daily racing Form, Equibase, Trackmaster and who knows.
I knew Andy Byers when he was writer of the Washington Post, before he came up with Byers points. Saw him later doing picks on closed TV at Pimlico. He rarely made a profit.
You need something that is not common knowledge to have an edge. But even that is tough with 5 and 6 horses fields. I wish
racino's would become casino and let bad tracks die.
I would look at the full charts today and specialize in turf races for young horse, I think !
At same time there was The Morning Telegraph. Now there is daily racing Form, Equibase, Trackmaster and who knows.
I knew Andy Byers when he was writer of the Washington Post, before he came up with Byers points. Saw him later doing picks on closed TV at Pimlico. He rarely made a profit.
You need something that is not common knowledge to have an edge. But even that is tough with 5 and 6 horses fields. I wish
racino's would become casino and let bad tracks die.
I would look at the full charts today and specialize in turf races for young horse, I think !
September 22nd, 2012 at 4:24:00 PM
permalink
Quote: CathrateDo you agree or disagree with the value of past performances as found in the racing form?
I find that there is now really too much information. In fact, I think that the market is
now very efficient in that information is truly digested by only the public as a whole.
Past performances will not help you win. I'll let you know when I've figured out how to win. Future bets maybe? I've done well on non derby ones
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:58:37 PM
permalink
I don't remember the Morning Telegraph so you must be older than I.
I think that the 5-6 horse field is a waste of time especially on fast dirt.
It actually gets boring watching the favorite win but it is hard to spin a profit
on those races. I met Beyer in Las Vegas and he told me that the speed
points were ancient history. He told me to dig into trainer stats from the DRF
Formulator.
I think that the 5-6 horse field is a waste of time especially on fast dirt.
It actually gets boring watching the favorite win but it is hard to spin a profit
on those races. I met Beyer in Las Vegas and he told me that the speed
points were ancient history. He told me to dig into trainer stats from the DRF
Formulator.
September 22nd, 2012 at 5:59:46 PM
permalink
I tried random numbers but it did not work.
September 22nd, 2012 at 7:59:18 PM
permalink
Andy first proclaimed speed figures to be the Holy Grail. Especially a double fig. A horse who last 2 figs were the fastest of any horse in the race. Then his followers came up with an excuse. The horse bounced if he did not win. BOUNCE LOL
I gave up on Andy with his book, My first $50,000 year at the track. or something like it. He just happened to take 3 months off in the middle of the year and did not bet those months . LOL
I may be older than you if you and not yet 36. I am 2 x 36 LOL
I gave up on Andy with his book, My first $50,000 year at the track. or something like it. He just happened to take 3 months off in the middle of the year and did not bet those months . LOL
I may be older than you if you and not yet 36. I am 2 x 36 LOL
