[AusRace] Place Power - a system

[L.B.Loveday]

Nick,

 

The 1.4m shows how many international races TAB bets on nowadays - I make it "only" 928,657 Oz runs in the last 5 years (plus a couple of non-TAB meetings over the weekend I'll pick up tomorrow), not all of which were TAB races (maybe only 825,697, but I'm less sure of that figure).

 

Your TAB VIC Trifecta loss of  20% presumably comes from their commission rate (21% on Oz races, 25% on international) but it may be of interest to some that backing all Trifecta combinations, viz taking FieldxFieldxField will return only around 67% (loss 33% ) - the long-shot effect is alive and well in Trifectas, as it is, and ever has been, in bookmaker markets; backing every horse at top price of the final markets of the bookmakers I track (average 108%) will return only around 86% (loss 14%) if all horses have the same amount bet on them - the 108% (indicating a 7.5% loss) only applies if each horse is backed to win the same amount.  

 

Cheers,

 

LBL

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of nick.aubrey at twonix.com
Sent: Sunday, 22 April 2018 9:43 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system

 

Hi Ausracers,

Clearly there is more volatility in Exotic dividends and I agree with Greg that there are lot more inefficiencies compared with Win betting. BUT inefficiencies doesn’t imply better returns. In the race Greg mentioned, the trifecta paid $69 on VIC and $58.40 on NSW. That’s +18% on VIC. This advantage would have been lost if the wrong Tote was selected.  Analysis of 1.4 million horse race runs over the last 5 years shows Best Bookie Odds losing  -6% vs TAB VIC Win Div loss of -16%  vs TAB VIC Trifecta loss of  -20%. 

So Best Bookie Odds, on the average, performs 14% better than a dutchbook standout trifecta on the winner !

Cheers,

AN

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> > On Behalf Of Greg Conroy
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2018 1:58 PM
To: Ausrace Racing <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system

 

Hi all,

 

IMO, there’s still a lot of inefficiencies in the exotic markets.

 

The other day (Scone R4, Apr 9 18 for those playing at home) I was able to extract an effective WIN dividend of $5.01 about my top fancy (General Artie) when the best price IN THE MARKET was $4.50.

 

How did I do this? I stood out General Artie with the FIELD for 2nd/3rd using RewardBet’s staking.

 

BTW, that is a matter of public record as I provide those selections daily to over 100 interested people.

 

Greg.

 

On 20 Apr 2018, at 11:53 am, Tony Moffat <tonymoffat at bigpond.com <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> > wrote:

 

Len – I multiply the displayed quinella offerings by .83 (point 83) which I feel deals with the take, and may give me an over also, certainly  if it is still over after that it seems to be value.

It is voodoo, I’m increasing the unit bet size to counteract and provide a profit, if the runners comply. I am not that convinced that quinella prices are in league with win/[lace price, yes, there is a link but a ripple in the win market does not often come through to the quinella market, not readily any rate.

 

I am wondering if the number of nominations for inclusion in a short quinella is not a sign to follow when selecting a winner, win betting. As an example Tab 1 may be the most popular in quinella couplings but is that the effect of boxing, or do quinella bettors really go further and truthfully do the form to find those hidden wonders, then bet the quinella because the dividend is better, or was.

When you make a win market out this, it can follow the win dividend eerily, which may answer my question.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 9:28 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system

 

Tony,

 

Just amused myself by looking at the Fixed Quinella odds offered by Centrebet. 170% markets! And I thought TAB's 130% markets on F4s was bad.

 

That "surely" means they realise they are incompetent at calculating prices and try to cover themselves by dishing up ridiculous 170% markets, or

They figure punters are so naïve that they will bet into 170% markets.

 

LBL

 

From: Racing < <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 1:58 PM
To:  <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system

 

Len – 

 

Dr Dedman gave the formula for calculating a fair place price against the price of the favoured horse (which includes the favourite)

 

Dedman wrote Commonsense Punting and the newer Commonsense Punting Revisited – more sums with letters and numbers.

 

His equation determines the price of a horse running second as – second horse price (this is the price you entered in the equation) * the favourite horse price – 1.

so (s*(fp-1))

Eloquent isn’t it?

 

So, in an equation involving $2.5(f) and $4(s) it sees the $4(s) winning at a calculated price of $4 – as if the (F) $2.5 did not exist. 

Continuing: the results of further calculations using the inputs mentioned (2.5 as F &4.00 as S)

S wins $4 – this is the exacta with these runners also.

F wins, S second $6

Any other horse(an outsider) wins, S second $10.8

F wins, S third $9.3

F second, S third $ 14.6

S third, F unplaced $ 32.6

 

The sum of these is the fair place price for S (0.25+0.166667+0.09292+0.107693+0.068618+0.030681)

Totals 71.66% = $1.40 – this is the calculated place price for 1st or 2nd or third.

 

Thank you to Sean (an Ausracer) for paring it back to referential reasoning (in my case at least).

 

I have 10 (ten) of these equations working for me each race. 1st and 2nd, 3rd,4th, 5th fav

2nd and 3rd,4th , 5th

3rd and 4th, 5th

4th and 5th.

I want to look and see if there is any obvious overs – well  I did, I went back to sensible punting and losing (with the occasional windfall) quick smart.

 

The equation chokes on big numbers, the relevance seems to go when you force it to compute unrealistic combinations eg your $101 winner with a few other lesser prices (as S)

S=$4 – calculated place price $1.60 when old school ¼ gives you $1.75

S=$5 – calculated place price $1.80

S=$6 – calculated place price $ 2.10

 

I mentioned old school 1/4 there – you take your win return, minus 1, divide this by 4, then add one. So $4 goes (($4-1)/4)+1) 

 

I tend to rank the quinella dividends, all of them, then highlight the top 10 and speedbet those if they exceed/comply with another rule – this is how I grow my bank now.

Often a $2 quinella will exceed an exacta dividend (often by a lot) – it $2 because I reverse the exacta too,  1 and two, two and 1 as a demonstration.

 

Cheers – raining here, so wet Saturday in Mel-bourne

 

Tony

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:19 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system

 

Tony,

 

The apparent imbalance between %age of win pools and place pools is somewhat a reflection of reality.

 

I first saw a "mathematical" calculation of one-race exotic odds based on win odds in Scott's book - I don't know whether he devised the formulae, or got them from another's work, but I instinctively knew they were flawed, and my better calculations held me in good stead for many years. But I can't beat 20% take-out by enough to bother.

 

To explain via a straightforward example of the simplest one-race exotic to calculate - the Exacta.

 

Let's say we have calculated a 100% win market, (or SP adjusted to 100%):

1/1,  5/1,  10/1,  10/1,  20/1,  20/1,  20/1,  100/1 (=100.124298%)

 

Let's say the 100/1 shot wins

 

Scott then says you have a "race" between the other 7 for second, so ignoring the 0.990099% reduction to 99.1432%, Scott says the 1/1 is still 1/1 and the 5/1 shot still 5/1 etc.

 

It just isn't so. 47% from my very large sample that start at 1/1 win (SP market, not adjusted to 100%), whereas only 38% of those that do not win come second, viz "win" the race for second, whereas it should be around the same 47% if 100/1 shots won the races the 1/1 shot lost, even higher in practise - eg in the above race, say the 5/1 shot wins, Scott takes the 17% of the 5/1 shot from 100%, giving 83% and says the chances of the 1/1 shot coming second having not won is 50/83 = 7/10, but they come second nothing like that often.

I'm a mere statistician by training and practise, and seldom watch races, let alone base my ratings on what I have seen, but my explanation is that whatever prevented them from winning often also prevented them from coming second (eg interference, missing the start, being poorly ridden, sea gulls, being a stallion when a mare comes on heat….).

 

At the other end, the opposite applies - a 100/1 shot is 2.5 times as likely to run second having lost, as it is to win, while a 10/1 chance is 1.43 times as likely to run second having lost as it is to win. 

 

LBL

 

 

From: Racing < <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM
To:  <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system

 

Len – thanks

 

I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even – the system instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better and then I went with 1.12 or similar.

The idea was good, the execution not so.

No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own ratings of course

so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) – if you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost -  and listening to an album by Hem.

(For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.)

 

The ‘Dr Z System’ focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of the show pool included)

This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, relative to their pool portion in the win pool.

Another variation, continuation, or some such of ‘Place Power’ –see Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) two books full of algebra.

 

I don’t want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them.

Ok, I’m disparaging, deriding, but only because I don’t understand.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system

 

Tony,

 

I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02).

 

Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up.

 

It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend:

 

<2.0, 2.12  

2.0 & <5.0 1.35

5.0 & <10.0 0.95

10.0 & <25.0 0.74

25.0 & <50.0 0.63

>=50.0 0.55

 

Cheers,

 

LBL

 

 

 

From: Racing < <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM
To:  <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system

 

There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances – no phones basically

 

Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time – these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn’t have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly.

 

You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). 

 

There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program.

 

It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time,  keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list.

 

The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. 

 

The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else – except system users).

 

The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used  by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless.

A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt ‘Racetrack Betting’ or/and ‘Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting’. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. 

 

The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless ‘em.

 

The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly.

 

When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does.

 

If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? 

 

The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding.

 

Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday – selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends.

The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6.

Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60

Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 – the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd

Race 4  1.22 1st $2.4

Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9

Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also

Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 –this was Winx

Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7

Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 –there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1

Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 – there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2

 

It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield – it made no selection in this race.

 

I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true?

 

Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend – there are several ways.

If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program.

 

Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virus-free.  <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com

 

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com <mailto:Racing at ausrace.com> 
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

 

 

Greg Conroy, Inventor of Award Winning and Free:

www.rewardbet.com <http://www.rewardbet.com>    … more: https://about.rewardbet.com/ <http://promo.rewardbet.com/> 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20180423/3fb9b99b/attachment.html>