The Science of Betting
Originally,
I’d planned on discussing a variety of racetrack issues in this week’s column —
Dullahan’s surprise (at least to me) victory in the Pacific Classic, hopes that
Frankel may travel to Paris, etc.
But some
comments on a couple of recent TwinSpires blog pieces have caused me to change
my mind.
Regarding a
piece written by Ed DeRosa entitled “TwinSpires.com
bettor plays name game to scoop Pick 6 at Del Mar” that — surprise,
surprise — details how a TwinSpires account-holder made over $500K by hitting
last Thursday’s pick-six as well as a few other multi-race wagers at Del Mar by
keying on certain names, an anonymous poster had this to say:
“Betting on
horses is ridiculous. It's honestly the dumbest thing you can do. You might as
well go play ‘War’ in the casino.”
Later, Old School
explained why betting on horses is
ridiculous:
“This is
just another example of the true odds one faces wagering on horses. An industry
that loves the [shadows] and refuses to punish lawbreakers creates results that
can only be hit this way…
“Give the
government their 60% cut and learn to play poker. It will last longer.”
Added to
this, were comments I received from a guy named Kyle on my piece “Fit vs.
Fragile.” Among other things, Kyle thought I was dead wrong about the effect of
takeout and the importance of one’s winning percentage as it pertains to ROI:
“The more bet collectively on a set of winners the lower the return; the less, the higher. How often horses of either set win is beside the point,” he explained.
“The more bet collectively on a set of winners the lower the return; the less, the higher. How often horses of either set win is beside the point,” he explained.
“Yes, takeout is not currently tied to field size. It should be. But racing does work that way — field size overcomes take at a certain point. You admit that (I didn’t and don’t). You just don't believe it, I guess.”
Kyle then
challenged me to a handicapping/wagering contest to, as he put it, “show you
how much more knowledgeable I am than you.”
Now, to be
fair, I’ve since communicated with Kyle and he apologized “if he came off
arrogant” (I did likewise). However, I still disagree with certain aspects of his
approach — mainly, his dismissal of win percentage and what I consider to be his
over-emphasis on field size (although, curiously, Kyle told me on my latest
podcast that he does not pay attention to field size when he bets).
I also took
him up on his challenge. Each of us will start with a $1,000 bankroll — mythical
for Kyle, real for me — and we will make bets up to and possibly including the
Breeders’ Cup.
I did this
for two reasons:
1) I want to show that the races can be and are beaten — in a myriad of ways. Frankly, although I certainly want to beat Kyle in our little head-to-head showdown, I also want him to show a nice profit — using techniques that are surely different from my own.
2) It is my hope that this demonstration will help generate more interest and understanding of the wagering side of the game. Toward that end, I will periodically list some of my proposed plays. I won’t be doing this all the time, mind you — because I am betting real money, I want/need to concentrate on what I’m doing and not be sidetracked by social media stuff — but I’ll shoot for a post or two a week. (Kyle, on the other hand, doesn’t have my time management issues and has graciously allowed me to post his plays on my Facebook page.)
While Kyle
has already started betting in earnest, I still want to finish a few database tests before
I start officially, hopefully in early September. In the meantime, however, I’ll
make a few action bets... just to keep things interesting.
Below are my plays for Thursday, Aug. 30 (ignore races carded for turf that come off the green):
Below are my plays for Thursday, Aug. 30 (ignore races carded for turf that come off the green):
2nd
Canterbury Park (turf): $15 to win on 3-Love Makor.
5th
Del Mar (turf): $15 to win on 9-Marlenadarlena.
7th
Finger Lakes: Conditional $15 to win on 6-Say Mr. Sandman (at least 7-5 odds with
0 MTP).
3rd
Hoosier Park: Conditional $15 to win on 6-Our Blushing Rose (3-5, 0 MTP).
7th
River Downs: Conditional $15 to win on 8-Louimpressme (6-5, 0 MTP).
10th
Saratoga (turf): $15 to win on 10-Notacatbutallama.
Check back for other plays this weekend.
Check back for other plays this weekend.
2 comments:
Just how 'knowledgeable' can Kyle be when he doesn't even have $1000 to back up his big mouth?
And what a surprise that he has no problem managing his time - he must be Occupying Something.
#whatadouche
I've got to defend Kyle on this one. The mythical $1,000 bankroll was my idea simply because I planned on starting with that and doing the screen shot thing anyway once I was finished with the betting program I've been working on.
Kyle may or may not be betting with that much -- or more -- in an actual account or on-track somewhere.
Post a Comment