Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieP
Hey Bill
The bets were made over 7 days this month.
What I meant about rebates is this: at smaller tracks (Mnr,Rp,Ct, Zia etc etc) there is a point where betting larger wagers actually has you betting against yourself in a way.
Let's make an assumption for discussion purposes ok? Lets say I can easily(assuming RDSS template gives me what I need saving countless hours of manual input etc) bet 700 horses to win a month using my "setup".
Lets also assume that I can make a + 5% ROI on all these bets before any rebates.
So I have made 700 win bets in 30 days. Let's also assume that $20 win bets (after bank has built up and still only 1% of bank is being bet per wager. Anything more is suicide according to Pizzolla and I agree 10000% ) are made.
That is 14k a month bet. Lets take a 6% rebate. that's 840 clams back on that + 700 bucks profit on the actual wagers.
total return risking 14 large a month is 1500 bucks. Not for nothing big deal.
Now read on other sites about all these astronomical sums being bet monthly and I cant "get there from here".
What I mean is if I increase wager size to larger amounts (especially the smaller venues where MOST of my plays are) I am betting into myself and reducing odds quite possibly.
I have had this discussion with Ted privately and told him that CJ over on PA is the ONLY one who sees what I described above happening.
He has stopped betting these smaller tracks for the exact reason I outlined above saying "its not worth his time with the small pools" and has taken to only playing a few larger venues and increasing significantly wager size.
I honestly don't see it but I am not the smartest bulb in the fixture.
As far as costs for "Bill from Brooklyn" or whomever that's for them to find out Bill. I have a 9g a year tax bill on the house here. I have to take care of my business. Trackmaster blessed me with a comp account and I am looking for/exploring ways to exploit that plain and simple.
Drive safe!
|
Hi Richie,
The level of performance you demonstrate here is excellent and consistent with some of the other longitudinal studies you've posted. Re the problem of pool-sized bet limits, William Benter touched on this problem in his article in 'Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Markets' but didn't present the algorithm he was using to handle it. In fact, one of Benter's main reasons for playing the Hong Kong tracks was that the huge mutuel pools allowed him to place his average bet - 250k - without cutting into his odds. The important point he makes is that it's possible to reduce your bet size to extract the maximum gain without cutting into your odds.
So the logic behind what CJ is doing is correct. But it is still necessary to know the minimum pool size needed to make your max (or average, if you're flat-betting) bet. This is not a question I often deal with, since I mainly play only the big circuits for just this reason, but I am checking into it because I'm also interested. I will post a more accurate answer when I have it, but Benter's article implies the optimal max bet is a bit less than 1/2 of 1% of the total win pool. So clearly even $20 maybe too big at some small tracks.
My general response to this problem would be to work from the bottom up. With a $20 flat bet, I would guess that many tracks are still playable. Play the high-volume multi-track approach, and as your bank grows, start dropping tracks whose average mutuel pools are too small too sustain your growing bet size. Eventually, of course, you will only be able to bet into the biggest pools. Even without increasing your bet-size the scheme you've laid out implies an annual return of 900% - not too shabby. So, the progress from small tracks to large would be fairly quick.
One thing I'm not clear about - you mention an 18% ROI for the betting sequence in question, but only 5% when calculating your betting scheme. Maybe you just wanted to be cautious, as far as betting goes, but do you think an ROI of 18% or something close to it is unsustainable? I think if you extended the sample to 1k or 2k races you would find it within the range of possibility.
In any case, good luck with this. If your're interested in checking the Benter article, it's included in William Ziemba's 'Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Markets', which is available in preview at Google Books.
Cheers,
B Jennet