Horse Racing Results and Betting Systems

• 

  airzone on 30/12/2017 - 13:53

  +2

  A few years back, computer based tipping agencies were the latest craze/scam being run out of the gold coast.

  Didn't see any instant millionaires back then.

  • 

    johninmelb on 30/12/2017 - 14:06

    I remember all those get rich quick schemes. They cost a fortune and every one of them was a complete and utter scam. The cartoonist Larry Pickering was involved with one of them as I recall. The only people who made money were the crooks who sold them to gullible punters. Those crooks are probably politicians now.

• 

  Davo1111 on 30/12/2017 - 15:12

  +2

  I thought the odds for a race were based on the pool of bets then subtract an amount for profit/tax etc

  Unless betting agencies are producing "loss leader" style promotions to hook you into long term betting. I'd be willing to bet (hehe) that there is not actual money to be made from a statistical point of view.

  • 

    johninmelb on 30/12/2017 - 15:31

    At this juncture I am not interested in odds etc. It's just an academic exercise to see what happens.

    I am sure it is well known to everyone that mug punters do not make money on horse racing. Yes, you can win sometimes, but you will lose more times than win. If anyone here did not know that, then I am happy to be able to enlighten you.

    40 odd years ago when I did dabble a little, a good day for me was going to Flemington, once every few months, paying my $2 entry fee, wagering $1 on each of the 8 races till I spent my limit of $10. Then I would use my "profits" and original stake of $10 to go out for dinner and see a movie with my racing companions. If I didn't recoup my $10 I went home. The reason I live in some degree of comfort now is due to not being stupid with money.

    • 

      Davo1111 on 30/12/2017 - 16:17

      +1

      yeah but my point is if you bet $1 on every single horse, you're not going to recoup your money back, even when you win.

      It sounds like you're looking for long term trends (number/horse breed/etc) which isnt guaranteed. Plenty of people pick lottery numbers based on the least or most previously picked numbers. They don't win though.

      • 

        johninmelb on 30/12/2017 - 16:53

        -2

        Of course I didn't win every race. I suspect it is very rare that anyone could do that.

        They used to have something called Accumulator Bets in the UK as I recall. Pick the winner of each race on the card and your winnings were reinvested each race. Pick every winner and you stood to win a lot of money, but it was all but impossible.

        I never used to win a lot of money, but several times I arrived at Flemington with $10 in my pocket, and left with $15-20. Back in those days, it paid for a meal at McLures at the old Hoyts Cinema Centre, and admission to the movies, with change left over. Basically, I got lucky. I had no inside knowledge, nothing. Basically bet on horses I liked the name of or a trainer I liked.

        Don't confuse a bit of mindless entertainment with wanting to make money. They're two totally different things. I got a day out at the races, a meal and a movie, all for $10. I never ever spent a cent more than the allocated $10. As I said, if I lost it at Flemington, I went home. End of.

      • 

        Kangal on 30/12/2017 - 17:05

        -1

        Yeah, John you're going about this all wrong.

        It's like a coin flip, each flip is separate from the previous and has no bearing. Each horse race is independent of the one before it. We cannot predict the outcome of a coin flip, let alone a horse race. We don't have the technology to do so, so exerting your efforts seems pointless. I mean we don't even have the technology and language to transmit basic perceptions accurately from one consciousness to another (ie Is your Red the same as my Red?). Or even define what consciousness really is (if you believe you aren't the only one with a consciousness/living in your own dream state).

        However, what you're alluding to streams far into philosophy. And if you follow this rabbit hole, it can actually be worthwhile. If we knew 100% of the information** about a coin flip (ie absolute weight, tilt, force, angle, wind, trajectory, etc etc)… if we had 100% of the information can we predict the outcome of a coin flip with 100% accuracy?

        If we can, that means Randomness does not exist in this universe, and we mearly have the illusion of Randomness and Free Will. That means we're living in a complex simulation, as per the thoughts of Elon Musk. Therefore, all religions are false and God does not exist.

        If we cannot predict with 100% accuracy despite having 100% of the information, that means Randomness does indeed reside in this universe. And that means people CAN have Free Will, and gives a slim allowance of the supernatural (or soul). This means all religions are false, but the notion of a God can exist, perhaps in a religion lost to time, or one that's to come which actually accounts for the new facts that we have established in the >20th century.

        I've long pondered which is the correct evaluation of my existence. I cannot know it. But I reason that I'm not living in a dream state, that other people do in fact have consciousness too. And I believe that we do in fact have a degree of Absolute Randomness in this reality, that we do not simply subside in a complex simulation. I give it the odds of 2/3 that we aren't a simulation. I give allowance that the supernatural COULD exist, but is probably not true. And thus, life is only a snapshot of what we experience and leave behind for others, making it strange and impossible to explain to others. And basically an open-ended book, where it doesn't have a meaning until you decide it has a meaning for you. Thus, the individual consciousness is secondary to facts/natural philosophy… and not "the collective" belief which groups people, divides, and conquers them as the law and religion has done for thousands of years.

        **and remember there's a big distinction between 100% accuracy and 99.999(recurring)% accuracy.

      • 

        havebeerbelywillsumo on 30/12/2017 - 18:01

        -1

        @Kangal:

        Heavens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!….let me guess, you are not a horseplayer nor have you researched the subject?

        "Each horse race is independent of the one before it" - well, individually yes (in a fashion, they are not totally independent with the proviso of same track, same day, same weather) BUT a large sample of results can be used to successfully attempt to predict future results.

        "We cannot predict the outcome of a coin flip, let alone a horse race" - rubbish - let me fix that,

        "We cannot predict the outcome of a coin flip but all things being above board we can predict the long term result from a sufficiently large sample, 1/1 heads, 1/1 tails,…… let alone a horse race…untrue - longterm the horse most favoured by participants wins more races than the rest, the second most favoured wins more races than the others bar selection 1, the third most favoured etc etc, it's just that you cannot be 100% accurate for any individual entrant no matter how large your sample"

        Unlike a fair coin/card flip, lottery, lotto, roulette spin etc etc racing has some randomness built in (eg the horse cannot tell you it feels slightly off colour today) and a sufficiently talented, disciplined and dedicated participant can make a profit from this randomness……. with a lot of hard work.

      • 

        Kangal on 30/12/2017 - 21:52

        -1

        @havebeerbelywillsumo:
        Good luck, and gamble responsibly. Make sure you pay the rent first, and put food in them kids belly too.

        There's very little way in analysing and making money from horse races.
        Not unless you rig the race.
        Or have one of these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zorz3SXqjv0

      • 

        havebeerbelywillsumo on 31/12/2017 - 00:08

        @Kangal:

        "gamble responsibly"…when I hear that I never know whether to laugh or cry - it's the last thing the corporates want you to do and sadly the various pokie addicted state governments let them get away with it while sanctimoniously parroting that the phrase be mandatory in every ad.

        "There's very little way in analysing and making money from horse races." but that "very little" is all you need if you work at it and beats the pants off the "none" in other gambling areas.

      • 

        Kangal on 31/12/2017 - 00:42

        @havebeerbelywillsumo:
        All I'm saying is that with time and effort (and luck) every market can make you successful.
        However, that does not make one a good target.
        You probably will earn more money working 20 years at a servo, than "studying it" and gambling on horses.

        Hence, treat it for what it is: a game… it's not a venue to make money unless you are part of the system (jockey, sales, etc etc).
        There's really no argument for the contrary.

      • 

        havebeerbelywillsumo on 31/12/2017 - 01:46

        @Kangal:

        Put aside "luck".

        "All I'm saying is that with time and effort (and luck) every market can make you successful."

        All gambling "markets" are not the same…….a tiny few (racing is one) have some randomness inbuilt so the skill of the operator will influence outcomes.

        "Hence, treat it for what it is: a game… it's not a venue to make money.

        As I said earlier roughly 5% of horseracing participants make long term profits or break even (note to "break even" you have actually won, it's just that paying obligatory commissions have eliminated your profit)

        "There's really no argument for the contrary."

        There is both argument and evidence if you look seriously

        "unless you are part of the system (jockey, sales, etc etc)"
        With all due respect, and talking about Australia (and other well regulated jurisdictions eg HK racing)that is a copout. Inside info/cheating does exist, you'd be living in fairyland to deny it, but you don't need to be in on it.

      • 

        Kangal on 31/12/2017 - 12:25

        @havebeerbelywillsumo:

        You've made quite a few assertions here.
        Please back up your claims with evidence.
        Me and the readers are interested in examining, learning, and dissecting the evidence.

      • 

        havebeerbelywillsumo on 31/12/2017 - 16:22

        @Kangal:

        I'll reply as a courtesy……the work is up to you now

        I have already given the "hard" evidence that justifies the work you will need to put in as a point in one of my posts

      • 

        Kangal on 31/12/2017 - 17:55

        @havebeerbelywillsumo:

        No, it's upto you.
        You made some claims, now back them up. It's delusional for you to say I must do your work for you and provide evidence for your claims. It doesn't work that way.

        You haven't given any evidence, certainly nothing "hard".

        I'm not asking for courtesy, just asking for you to substantiate your assertions. I'm willing to change my mind on any subject matter, its only a question about the persuasive evidence and facts.

      • 

        havebeerbelywillsumo on 31/12/2017 - 18:21

        -1

        @Kangal:

        OK, this will be blunt but no rudeness is intended.

        I'm not the one who wants clarification, so the work is yours.

        I'll repeat that I have given a big piece of "hard" evidence.

        "I'm willing to change my mind on any subject matter" ….that is good but, IMHO, any statement by a stranger should not "change" it, it would appear we agree on that, however,it should awaken a curiosity to investigate if the stranger has a point. The answer you personally find will be far more convincing.

        "You haven't given any evidence, certainly nothing "hard"." Bluntly you just called me a liar, now you say you want me to say more. Puzzling.

        Your reply indicates a closed mind, not an open one.

      • 

        Kangal on 31/12/2017 - 21:53

        @havebeerbelywillsumo:

        It may not be intended to be rude, or blunt, but it is preposterous.
        I didn't ask for clarification, since I understood your claims. I asked for evidence.

        The work is not mine. That's not how this works. That's not how our society works.
        I don't go around putting things into textbooks for them to teach in high school, and when confronted, tell the boards that it is their duty to find the evidence (or counter-evidence) for my claims.

        Any stranger can change my mind. It's one of the perks to being a man of reason.
        However, the change depends on the claims and the evidence, and if found to be of sound logic and persuasive evidence, then I would accept this as a working hypothesis or even as rudimentary fact.

        That is how an open mind works, it doesn't blindly believe everything, but is open to change based on logical critique. A closed mind is one that cannot be changed, even if the facts are laid bare to witness (case in point: Flat-Earthers).

        You have my curiosity. Hence, why I asked for you to substantiate your claims. You haven't provided any "hard" evidence, despite being called out on it, and still claiming you have, so at this point its non liquet. The answer(evidence) you provide is the one up for debate, if I go looking into it, I may get lost in a sea of diverging conclusions. Hence, we take things on a scientific modus operandi basis: you make a claim or hypothesis, we inspect the evidence and test the hypothesis, we draw conclusions on the event and formulate a new hypothesis based on a refined processed information and repeat step one or arrive at the claim or fact which is most likely reflects reality.

      • 

        havebeerbelywillsumo on 01/01/2018 - 02:08

        @Kangal:

        The work is not mine. That's not how this works. That's not how our society works. - This "society" is moribund then.

        …and that is up to you to find..I really do mean something you personally verify is best, not being glib here.

        You have my curiosity, that's good. Now you need to raise the motivation.

        You haven't provided any "hard" evidence,… and still claiming you have", that again, could there be a possibility I firmly believe I have?

        Kangal what can I say…….still in respect of your replying, there are many successful roads here (and many many many more deadends) and one that will be beyond 99.9% of people, myself included, is the ways of Alan Woods, go look.

        The end.

      • 

        Kangal on 01/01/2018 - 10:54

        +1

        @havebeerbelywillsumo:
        Nothing you said made any cohesion or sense.
        It seems like you want to push your assertions on to others without backing them up.

        That's fine. A lot of people do it. Doesn't make it right, but doesn't make it surprising.
        It just means your premise has been shattered, and you have no venues to make an argument.
        If you brought this gameplan to a court of law, an impartial judge would've deemed you guilty.

        Good luck on your gambling, and please don't coerce people to take needless risks in the future.

      • 

        havebeerbelywillsumo on 01/01/2018 - 12:29

        @Kangal:

        Have a look at mysterytals post…that's "coersion".

        "It just means your premise has been shattered, and you have no venues to make an argument."

        Since you seem a thinking person

        (a) consider that your wish for data/proof is not my obligation, unlike a "court"

        (b) if I sincerely believe my worst competition in this endeavour is a thinking person why would I…..

        (c) no mention of any research from you despite "hard evidence" number 2 so "open mind", no perhaps not, if you didn't look then certainly not. (no insult intended, just a conclusion on my part)

        Thanks for the wishes though "luck", albeit handy, should not come into it if I'm being truthful should it?

        "needless risks" are what highly successful people often take (no I'm not, sadly), study contrarionism, read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds".

        And best wishes to you too…if you are young enough that time is on your side then look "outside the box"!

      • 

        Kangal on 01/01/2018 - 12:47

        @havebeerbelywillsumo:
        That's not coercion, that's delusion.
        If you place bets on all possibilities, you will win every single-time, but the amount you put in will always be smaller than the amount you get out. If he is true, and found an event where the opposite was the case…. then that was a Very Poor management of that race. These races are a business, and the asset is the game.

        Your assertion, your evidence. That's how it worked before, that's how it works now, that's how it will work in the future.
        It's like YOU telling me that Nordic Thor is a real God, then telling me to provide evidence for it (or against it).

        You seem to not understand what "needless risk" means. It means risking for no practical gain, but for a loss.
        If my boat's motor starts to misfire, and I say "nah, its only a day, she'll be fine on the waters" it is a needless risk since that can prove itself to be a potential problem/disaster, and yet it could've been avoided. Successful people DO NOT take needless risk. They take CALCULATED risk. There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.
        A calculated risk would be like spending $2 Million on buying every possible lottery ticket to gain $4 Million back, hypothetically speaking of course.

        I say "good luck" because we do not know if "luck" or True Randomness exists in this universe. If it does, then yes, you will need it to stay competitive. If it doesn't exist, and we only have the illusion of it, well then you don't need it because what you are going to do can be manually calculated to the 100% accuracy… and there goes your ideologies of Free Will, or living in a complex simulation. The curtain gets drawn, so to say.

        PS, what do you mean by "look outside the box" ?

      • 

        havebeerbelywillsumo on 01/01/2018 - 13:39

        @Kangal:

        This has got to end LOL

        "If you place bets on all possibilities, you will win every single-time, but the amount you put in will always be smaller than the amount you get out. If he is true, and found an event where the opposite was the case."

        You may not believe this but I do firmly consider it is 100% possible, rarely, but to make a long term living/profit on it is not…I'll anticipate your "how can that be" with "humans make the odds, humans are not infallible, a market includes the time it is open, things change over time."

        "That's how it worked before, that's how it works now, that's how it will work in the future." Not sure what you mean here but I will say that I'd never agree with this, that's one of the reasons the work is so damned hard and 95% fail.

        "It's like YOU telling me that Nordic Thor is a real God, then telling me to provide evidence for it (or against it)." No. I'm asking you to think and research your perception that there is no real profit in horseracing, all things being equal and above board….just some points on dragging religion in, your god may not be my god, there are a gazillion past religions were they all deluded, in 2000 years will your god be an extinct religion, who is correct?

        "You seem to not understand what "needless risk" means"…errr your example is needless risk due to stupidity and/or laziness, lets go with "calculated" then BUT think that just cos Joe says it's "calculated" doesn't prevent Fred from thinking "that's needless and really stupid." Who is correct?

        A calculated risk would be like spending $2 Million on buying every possible lottery ticket to gain $4 Million back, hypothetically speaking of course

        (a) it's not "hypothetical"….consider jackpotting, replace lottery with lotto perhaps.
        (b) yes it would be a calculated risk as you couldn't normally buy every ticket.

        If it does, then yes, you will need it to stay competitive. No!!, just that good and bad luck be in equal proportion as they should be and thus irrelevant long term(and yes there are people that seem to be insanely lucky, the average person is not)

        PS, what do you mean by "look outside the box" ? - Exactly that.

      • 

        Kangal on 01/01/2018 - 16:13

        @havebeerbelywillsumo:

        Indeed LOL

        Sure, there may be an event or several where the odds are not calculated properly. However, these betting agencies are much smarter than you, and they will (practically always) build the stakes that you will lose money if you bet on everything. If they were this dumb, horseracing would've become extinct years ago since it would be unmaintainable from a financial viewpoint.

        So the crux of your argument is this:
        You make some claims
        You don't back them up with any evidence (and even claim you have)
        You say you never agreed to the conditions of providing evidence
        You say people should go search for the evidence for you
        … well, you see how this is a dead-end, don't you?

        It practically stops the conversation on the topic from progressing?
        It's fundamentally flawed, which is why we do not conduct discussions this way when it comes to things that matter such as health, finance, science, and law.

        The point about Thor was an analogy. It was to show you the error of your means, which was clearly stated. God wasn't dragged in here, if he exist or not. This is a strawman.

        The thing is a person can deem one opportunity as a Needless Risk and another as a Calculated Risk. However, the difference between the two is that Calculated Risk is associated with some facts, numbers, reality, and reason to provide an overall positive gain. However, a Needless Risk is one where it CAN provide a positive gain but at OVERWHELMING odds, in fact, a Needless Risk would more likely result in an overall negative loss.

        (you can buy every possible lottery number combination, btw)
        (its just that if you do, you will always lose money/needless risk)

        What does "look outside the box" mean? Do you mean outside the television box? Out side the box-shaped house? Or is it a metaphor? And if its a metaphor, I didn't understand the context, and asked for your elaboration.

        start rant#
        And what do you mean by the Average Person?
        If you mean the Average Queenslander is not lucky, then I could say they live in one of the best climates in the world, with all the resources to survive, and in a system that allows them to save multiple-million dollars in their lifetime, putting them in the top 30% of the nation. So you have a funny way of saying "not lucky" lol.

        If you mean the Average Westerner (USA, Canada, UK, AU, NZ), then the above is true on a diluted scale.
        If you mean the Average Citizen living in a Westernised Nation (France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Swiss, Luxe), is again true on a more diluted scale.
        If you mean the Average Citizen living in a West-influenced/Wealthy Country (Sth Africa, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Brunei, Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan), is again true on the same diluted scale.
        If you mean the Average Person living in a middle-country (Brazil, Mexico, Russia, East-Europe, Mediterranean), then the premise is triple-distilled so that they have some luxuries, all the essentials, but an increasingly difficult ladder to become a millionaire. However, if you are at this scale, congratulations you are in the top 1% woohoo.

        Now if you move down to the struggling second world countries (many in Middle-East, some in South America, few in South-East Asia) or a place like China, your prospects are much much lower. And if you move lower down to India and some other countries in Asia, its even lower. However, you still have access to air, water, food, shelter, some level of security, policing, education, healthcare, etc etc. So you may say that you are "not lucky" but you still have a lot to lose.

        When you move to the bottom of the rung, majority in Africa, you can die of dehydration, hunger, cold, disease, murder from local warlords, with limited education from your family. Now that's a raw deal.

        But we can go further, comparing this deplorable life of the bottom 20% of people, they're still so fortunate when compared to an animal (eg some Endangered Frog in Africa) in the wild. I guess context matters when parsing adjectives.
        end rant#

      • 

        havebeerbelywillsumo on 01/01/2018 - 18:52

        @Kangal:

        OK let's approach this differently

        It's probably obvious that I bet the horses. From that point I am either hopelessly deluded OR from experience, if nothing else, have "seen" things that encourage me to consider there is money in this. You, I assume, are not a horseplayer (possibility - perhaps not currently??).

        So my viewpoint has the possibility (yep not certainty, I am a stranger) of having experiences that make me think this way. Now, unless you have researched (hearsay doesn't count) the subject (you too are a stranger but have made no claims of having done so) you cannot have that possibility. If that assumption on my part is true then it is an impossibility that you can have the authority to say no-one can ever make money long term betting on horses…….yes, yes you want me to "prove it". Putting aside "why should I, your belief or non-belief has no relevance for me" I have unambiguously given you 2 items to consider (Woods and contrarian thinking). You have not stated you have checked either out.

        "You say people should go search for the evidence for you
        … well, you see how this is a dead-end, don't you?"………….if they don't dig, yes I do BUT there is the possibility (yes, not certainty) that a fixed opinion, based perhaps on hearsay, is a "dead-end" for the other party. By the way it is not me that wants the evidence, you don't have to do anything "for me", I am where I am, rightly or wrongly.

        You do realise that not all types of gambling have the same basic conditions? To explain - most gambling types are closed eg a coin flip, heads and tails are it, roulette, there are x numbers of holes the ball can come to rest in depending on the type of wheel being used etc, for all these events the odds of an outcome are fixed in stone, racing is different. It involves animate contestants and the odds are calculated by fallible humans. I back this up by saying, as an example, a horse is an individual - they can be sooks, they can be brave, they can hate to be in front of the pack, they can hate being bustled till they want to "go", they can have a strong preference for the ground to be firm under their feet, the list is endless! And that is only the horse, the jockey is animate as well……Some will "see" these tendencies before others realise and so have an advantage in speculating on the result.

        If the above is "clearly impossible" in your mind then stop here. The "event", in racing, can never be calculated with 100% accuracy. However some will continually be more correct than average.

        "Sure, there may be an event or several where the odds are not calculated properly. However, these betting agencies are much smarter than you, and they will (practically always) build the stakes that you will lose money if you bet on everything." BUT I don't have to bet on "everything", their downfall is that they have to provide a market on every race ("everything").

        "The thing is a person can deem one opportunity as a Needless Risk and another as a Calculated Risk." Yes that is correct, however, highly successful people often take calculated risks that, at the time, the average soul sees as a needless risk. Think about it, would it really be a "risk" at all unless it was seen to be so by a majority?

        "luck" - we are talking about racing in Australia (I hope) so the rest of the globe is irrelevant. In any case my point was "luck" should not be a determinant in the long-term outcome of any endeavour if any success is valid and repeatable for a range of participants.

        Cripes nearly forgot…."look outside the box"….perhaps I should have said "think outside the box". Excuse me if I am totally and genuinely surprised that this, to me, extremely common expression, is unknown to you. So surprised that I discounted the question as being a serious one, my fault.

        Google "think outside the box" and learned people will explain it far better than I can.

        This is really "the end". Thanks for a civil discussion.

      • 

        Kangal on 01/01/2018 - 22:09

        @havebeerbelywillsumo:
        I appreciate the lengthy reply, but there are some portions of my reply you are ignorant on or simply failed to grasp.
        I apologies that I am not the most eloquent person, so a break-down of language may occur.

        What I am trying to convey, and this is in the most basic form, is that horseracing is a business.
        It has a lot to do with probability, like all other gambling activities.
        Now, the race-holders have the majority of data and information on the race… much much more than you, an outsider does. And they have a lot more resources to throw at processing this data than you.
        What this means is that "the house" will always be ahead of you from the probability viewpoint. And on top of this, they control the odds and pricing, so they essentially can maximise their gains and minimise their losses.
        During a (small/mid-size) event, there might be $200,000 collected as bets, but only $30,000 paid out. So the betting agency has a Net Profit of $170,000 from that race. Now after expenses, insurance, and (large) taxes… this profit may dwindle down to $90,000. Not bad from one event, surely more than what I make in a year.

        So you see, it really is just gambling. Treat it as a game; where its an entertainment and not a business.
        I studied mathematics at uni, and I did the odds before, and they are not favourable. It's certainly MUCH better than slot machines (or claw machines), and slightly better than roulette, but I don't know if its better than Blackjack.

        Does that mean you will always lose? Nope. Heck, even "the house" can lose money from an event. But they are intelligent enough not to. And even if you bought yourself insider information, and had a daisy-chain of dozen PS4's to process the information in your jerryrig supercomputer… it would only be useful FOR THAT SINGLE EVENT. And even if you had a system to increase your odds systematically, so much so that you won above average money at above average frequencies… you do know that it is a Privately Owned business protected by Federal Law. They can deny you service for any reason, and there goes your system. In fact, casinos are appalling at this practice… they do kick people out for winning too much, and its legal (though not ethical).

        Again, let me reiterate the above: I am not against the Possibility of your system, I'm criticising the Probability of your assertions. And it is the probability which is paramount here.

        Perhaps you should try to understand what I'm alluding to. I'm saying people (both individuals and as a collective) are stupid and illogical in many aspects. Don't be. Be wise, and be intelligent like the successful people. Do not take needless risk. Take calculated risks, which are based on real numbers, facts, probabilities and reason. Do your homework (and if you do, you will come to the counter-evidence). That would mean gambling on horseraces as entertainment, and nothing more. Or gambling on something which is likely to produce a net positive gain, like stocks and bonds. Or an even better Calculated Risk, is to throw your excess time, willpower, and effort to further yourself in your work/career… that will pay much higher dividends in the future (the long play).

        So I'm not sure how much more thinking outside of the box I need to do.
        I've done moreso than you, I touched on how the system works/stacked against you, the implications of your claims, how an argument works, and if there is Randomness/Luck/Supernatural existence in our reality. You still failed to give the context in what you want me to mentally explore, I know the idiom but you used it without context, so I cannot know what you were talking about…. unless you were throwing sentences at the paragraph and "see what sticks".

      • 

        havebeerbelywillsumo on 02/01/2018 - 02:25

        @Kangal:

        I appreciate the lengthy reply, but there are some portions of my reply you are ignorant on or simply failed to grasp.
        I apologies that I am not the most eloquent person, so a break-down of language may occur.

        No need to apologise at all, I feel I see your position, I sincerely dispute it's foundation.

        This will be brief(ha! as I keep typing) as we are at am impasse -

        So you see, it really is just gambling. Treat it as a game; where its an entertainment and not a business. Incorrect, it can be both or exclusively one or the other of the two depending on how the gambler conducts themselves - see Woods. It is NEVER to be treated as a "game" if you wish to be a winner.

        I studied mathematics at uni, and I did the odds before, and they are not favourable. No they aren't favourable BUT that doesn't exclude the possibility that they are beatable ** in a field where the odds are not set in stone, as referred to earlier **. With all due respect to your learning all "gambling" is not identical, this point is something that has been seemingly missed. Whether you accept that or not is up to you, I can only say horseracing is not 100% quantifiable and that has very significant implications for your statement.

        It's certainly MUCH better than slot machines (or claw machines), and slightly better than roulette, but I don't know if its better than Blackjack. Neither do I heh heh but it is similar in that a blackjack player's skill can make a difference, 100% agree that pokies and roulette are inherently a losing game for the gambler (as I've said before), as they are closed systems, I don't touch them.

        In fact, casinos are appalling at this practice… they do kick people out for winning too much, and its legal (though not ethical). So why do they do this on a systematic basis, this is hugely important…..and who else systematically bans participants?

        What this means is that "the house" will always be ahead of you from the probability viewpoint. And on top of this, they control the odds and pricing, so they essentially can maximise their gains and minimise their losses. - No

        (a) they are run by humans and so are fallible
        (b) there are 2 alternatives, research Betfair and parimutual betting.
        (c) "During a (small/mid-size) event, there might be $200,000 collected as bets, but only $30,000 paid out." That is one possibility…..one of many…. which include payouts of well over $200,000. The "house" in horseracing does not always win, far from it….tends to win over time is better and I accept that, believe it or not. Which should have you thinking if that is accepted why is kangals's argument considered invalid?
        (d) I can pick and choose what odds I accept and the events that I consider participating in.

        So I'm not sure how much more thinking outside of the box I need to do. In this area, a lot LOL, in short (and I know you disagree) your viewpoint is academic rather than through experience and practical research.

        "Perhaps you should try to understand what I'm alluding to" I'll say I read it, there are truths and errors therein.

        Again, let me reiterate the above: I am not against the Possibility of your system, I'm criticising the Probability of your assertions. And it is the probability which is paramount here." Ah, another thing, it's not solely about me and my ways, remember I said there are many roads (to profitablity), further I do not solely bet "systems". Indeed "systems" are not mandatory for a winning approach and may not be in use at all with other successful players.

        Probability is indeed paramount, a winning player MUST place enough bets at better than real odds overall such that they turn a profit. I believe it is doable in this restricted field, you differ.

• 

  havebeerbelywillsumo on 30/12/2017 - 17:02

  Short answer

  "lottery" is irrelevant as you have can choose your bets and how they are placed with racing. Approx 5% of participants win or cut even long term…this is why the stinking UK dominated corporate bookmakers have "ban winners" policies.

  Yes, computerised operations can win….trouble is that is "operation" - genius programmer(s) plus staff that gather the data for the DB ie not a "home" based operation.

  Ah, Mr Mclean and The System of Laws and Fortune on Four…….nooooo.

  IMHO 99.99% of commercially sold systems will be a fail long term…why would it be sold otherwise? Also the rules of racing change over time (eg mimimum weights), punters generally get smarter (eg now on pace runners are far more respected), participants change (the mug money has drifted to lotteries, online gambling, casinos).

  You can garner winning "systems" but you need to devise them and probably only one in a thousand of your creations will actually work so a huge slog.

• 

  johninmelb on 30/12/2017 - 18:01

  -2

  Amazing how forum posts run quickly off the rails here at Ozbargain.

  So now we have had our fun with the irrelevant stuff, can we return to the discussion of using Excel to sift data, and finding downloadable race results.

  If you want to discuss statistical stuff, the problems of betting, coin flipping, philosophy or anything else, please start a new thread and discuss amongst yourselves.

  This is not a money making exercise, just something I am curious about. Can we just leave it at that and forget all the other drivel.

  Thanks.

  • 

    airzone on 30/12/2017 - 20:10

    +1

    See if you can find some scraping software.. It should lift the results right off the webpage.

    • 

      havebeerbelywillsumo on 31/12/2017 - 00:34

      Why in god's name was that negged?????

      • 

        Baysew on 31/12/2017 - 12:29

        +1

        What were the odds of that happening?

  • 

    Davo1111 on 30/12/2017 - 20:11

    Woah, it all seems pretty on topic imo.

    ummm if you're using excel, you're doing statistics. which is exactly what you're trying to do.

    If you just want to go to the races and write down results, it's just a diary.

    Quick question - without googling… if i flip a coin 10 times in a row, and it's heads each time, whats the chances of getting another "head" on the next toss? Just throw a ballpark percentage at me.

    • 

      Kangal on 30/12/2017 - 21:55

      See Davo gets it…

  • 

    havebeerbelywillsumo on 31/12/2017 - 00:32

    -2

    To the OP

    Have addressed your points

    " It's just an academic exercise", my apologies for leaving academia aside for some real world answers then.

    "I am just curious to see what difference a bit of computing power would make to the equation", covered.

    "computers, and wonderful things like Excel ", covered.

    "systems", covered

    "Seemed like a lot of work, and I didn't really stick at it", covered

    "I AM FULLY AWARE there is no such thing as easy money, horse racing is notoriously unpredictable, betting is a total waste of money, horse racing is corrupt, and so-called horse racing systems DO NOT WORK.", I thought you put this in to avoid flippant "don't bet in the first place" replies. Appears I gave you too much credit…in any case, either debunked or covered.

    I did forget a results source, sorry about that. For a serious amount of data contact Neale Yardley of capitalinfo (clear note - I use but am in no way promoting OR denigrating his betting software) he MAY be able to help, it almost certainly will cost you. Alternatively contact the 2 main totalisator agencies in Australia to see if they sell results data.

    I shall now put away the spoon for good.

• 

  mysterytal on 31/12/2017 - 22:02

  -1

  It is possible to beat the bookie but the bookmakers are smart….very smart. If you keep betting on horses that return a positive expected value they will ban you. I've been severely limited at almost of the big bookmakers. You do not need to win you just need to be betting on prices that are out of line with the market. They don't like that. I personally made a profit of thousands. I bet on all outcomes of a race so money was never at risk. What I mean by that is that if there's a horse race with 6 horses in it I bet on every horse with 6 different bookmakers. No matter what horse won I would get back at least 101% of what I staked. It's not much so you need to place big bets to make a big profit. Placing big bets just highlights yourself as someone who isn't betting for pleasure (a mug punter) and inevitably I was banned. Also making sure the return from any one winner was the same required some strange stakes rather than round figures.

  So yes you can make a spreadsheet to beat the bookie. I wish you luck.

  • 

    havebeerbelywillsumo on 01/01/2018 - 01:22

    Starts well

    "It is possible to beat the bookie but the bookmakers are smart….very smart. If you keep betting on horses that return a positive expected value they will ban you."

    But then

    I've been severely limited at almost of the big bookmakers…………I bet on every horse with 6 different bookmakers.

    and

    No matter what horse won I would get back at least 101% of what I staked.

    No.

    • 

      ColonialBoy on 03/01/2018 - 12:19

      Of course you can make money if there is a 101% overround https://www.betfair.com.au/hub/betting-better/understanding-…

      There was huge overround arbitrage 30 years ago in horse racing.

      • 

        havebeerbelywillsumo on 03/01/2018 - 17:49

        I'll correct this………..true "101% overround" simply won't exist in anything outside of "rarer than hen's teeth" or "markets so illiquid as to be basically unbettable". Do you mean "1%" overround? If the latter, no "Of course" as

        (A) Betfair charges commission on winnings of roughly 5% and above. Other avenues will have 1% as a rarity.
        (B) There may be 1% overround once the market has closed but in the period leading to the close, prices (and the overround) will have varied significantly. Thus, without a crystal ball, using the final overround from a liquid betting market to predict long term profit is fantasy.
        (c) any overround is a negative for a punter, even if 1% is damned good, it is still -1%.
        (d) for completeness - a layer will have a different overround based on the lay side that will have similar negative implications.

        "There was huge overround arbitrage 30 years ago in horse racing." True, but long gone and irrelevant to "today"…or do you have a very special DeLorean? :)

        added on edit, I have assumed you are talking about a punters prospects not a bookies

  • 

    Davo1111 on 02/01/2018 - 13:18

    If you were betting large amounts on single horses and always winning, i'd ban you too. It looks a lot like insider trading.

    • 

      havebeerbelywillsumo on 03/01/2018 - 17:53

      Held back twice but……with all due respect, if you don't have intimate knowledge of the subject please don't comment.

• 

  ColonialBoy on 03/01/2018 - 12:06

  As has been suggested elsewhere, these days people use betting exchanges, and they arbitrage between the various exchanges an online totalisators.

  I use Betfair https://www.betfair.com.au/ , which is life the backend that does the betting on the exchange, and for the frontend I use Gooks Toy https://www.geekstoy.com/ . This is the setup used by most people, and you can bet on Australia and the UK (forget about other countries as they are too nutty). You can bet on horses, greyhounds, & harness racing.

  To give you some idea of the interface to "modern betting", Geeks Toy will show you this: https://apps.betfair.com/assets/Uploads/GeeksToy.png . Its like "market depth" on a stock exchange. There are lots of yourtuber channels on this and the best known is Caan Berry https://www.youtube.com/user/caanberry .

  Betfair absolutely does influence the local Australian totalisators. I would even go so far to say it is the major influence through arbitrage.

  Betfair allows about 10 transactions per second per user (don't quote me on this). That seems ludicrously large. Surely a person would only make a few bets per minute? These days many people run 'bots' across the markets, making and withdrawing numerous bets automatically https://www.betangel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11918&start=1… . The bots affects the betting exchange, which indirectly affects the totalisator. It would not surprise me that Betfair is handling tens of thousands of bets per second in big (Australia & UK) Saturday gallops, mostly from bots. That's what you are up against with modern betting.

  Betfair has a premium charge for people that make lots of profit http://www.betfair.com/aboutUs/Betfair.Charges/#charges6 . Less than 1% of Betfair customers pay this charge, which means less than 1% of customers are making serious money. Also, on Betfair you will not be banned if you make profits, unlike bookmakers.

  There is also betting on other sports (tennis, soccer) and sports arbitrage https://sportsarbitrage.com.au/

  For all these modern betting methods you need a relatively deep knowledge of the subject matter & maths. The general problem of bet allocation is a minimax problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax & I developed betting software using minimax over 30 years ago. You want to minimise the maximum amount you can lose.

  Hint: An understanding of the Kelly Criterion will get you a long way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion#Multiple_horse… . There is some suggestion that Warren Buffett uses the Kelly Criterion in his asset allocation.

  • 

    havebeerbelywillsumo on 03/01/2018 - 18:41

    More correction and sorry about the length and eye glazing technobabble, IMO it is necessary)

    "and they arbitrage between the various exchanges an online totalisators." - highly unlikely as - well they could….but there is an insurmountable problem with this approach - the tote has a varying price over time with that price varying quite significantly in the last minute (15-30% change is not uncommon at double figure odds, 10 to 20 at lower). It gets worse for the "normal" punter than this though - as the tote gives a kickback to big (computer based) concerns they will bet big and insanely close to the race commencement (actual not advertised time by the way)soooo that money (and its significant price changing effect) will not appear on the average punters screen till up to 30 seconds AFTER the start. IMO only (perhaps) possible for huge players, not the average soul.

    "I use Betfair https://www.betfair.com.au/ , which is life the backend that does the betting on the exchange, and for the frontend I use Gooks Toy https://www.geekstoy.com/ . This is the setup used by most people, and you can bet on Australia and the UK (forget about other countries as they are too nutty). You can bet on horses, greyhounds, & harness racing."…….I'd say more people use BetAngel than GeeksToy but aside from that true as a VERY general statement. Use Fairbot myself.

    Betfair absolutely does influence the local Australian totalisators….as does corporate prices. IMHO all influence the total picture. IMHO your statement should include a reference that the tote market esp at 10 minutes plus to the start tends to comprise the collective opinions of the least cluey punters…no insult intended but that's the way it is. So, of course it is subject to the most influence from "follow the lead, any lead" bettors for one.

    "Betfair allows about 10 transactions per second per user (don't quote me on this). That seems ludicrously large. Surely a person would only make a few bets per minute? These days many people run 'bots' across the markets, making and withdrawing numerous bets automatically https://www.betangel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11918&start=1… . The bots affects the betting exchange, which indirectly affects the totalisator. It would not surprise me that Betfair is handling tens of thousands of bets per second in big (Australia & UK) Saturday gallops, mostly from bots. That's what you are up against with modern betting." Well this is all true (though Betfair and Cup Day tend to not compute at least once on that ultra volume day LOL) but, like the sky being blue, it is what it is, your point?

    "Betfair has a premium charge for people that make lots of profit http://www.betfair.com/aboutUs/Betfair.Charges/#charges6 . Less than 1% of Betfair customers pay this charge, which means less than 1% of customers are making serious money. Also, on Betfair you will not be banned if you make profits, unlike bookmakers." All true (though the "only 1%" is a Betfair claim and that claim was made in defence of the charge being "fair")For clarification - Betfair works solely on commission (in a fashion like a tote)so neither will bar valid and above board bettors whether the win squillons or not. The "1%" goes in tandem with my earlier statement elsewhere that only 5% of horse players either win or at least finish even. But again, aside from being a proof that long term profits ARE possible, what is your point?

    "There is also betting on other sports (tennis, soccer) and sports arbitrage https://sportsarbitrage.com.au/". Yes.

    "For all these modern betting methods you need a relatively deep knowledge of the subject matter & maths. The general problem of bet allocation is a minimax problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax & I developed betting software using minimax over 30 years ago. You want to minimise the maximum amount you can lose." HMMMM, sounds like an ad LOL. IMHO, as said elsewhere, there are many roads and, perhaps, you have found one BUT, if so, you are not betting as an overwhelming majority would be and are using extremely specialised resources and IMHO need to state that at the very start. IMO FWIW- the key - you need to consistently secure better odds long term than the real probability of a horse winning.

    • 

      havebeerbelywillsumo on 03/01/2018 - 18:45

      (added on edit) Mentioning Kelly criterion without a HUGE "beware you really, really need to know your betting and yourself" is just not on. Like telling a child "here's some dynamite and matches, they may make your fortune if applied to the correct place."

• 

  Willyslicks on 08/01/2018 - 23:03

  Ubet has a promo every weekend where if you place a fix win bet, you get up to 50 bux back if the horse gets 2nd/3rd. Trying for a few weekends even with these odds I still find it hard to come out even.