|
Yesterday some friends and I went to a horse race held nearby mainly as a way of socializing and spending a Sunday afternoon, as none of us are really into horses or betting. I don't think it was a particularly significant race either, like Kentucky Derby that I somehow heard about despite not even living in the US. We tried betting some small sums for fun (like 5$), I lost everything and my friend won enough to buy himself a cheesburger. What struck me though was that most people, including the friend who won and most others I've seen around, made their decisions based on completely useless factors like the nationality of the horse, the jockey, or its name. And to be fair how could you not bet on Private Ryan (he was left behind). So it seems like it should be trivial to do better than that. For example by estimating the probability based on recent results of the horse, plus factors like rest time, different jockeys, weather, altitude and what not. Models aren't perfect but have to be better than using the color of the horse to determine the winner. Still, I can't be the first one with this idea, so what's the catch?
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
I work part-time as a cashier in a high street betting shop in the UK. I mostly just scan slips and argue with people over 17p underpayments, but I've picked a basic understanding of how the system works. 1). The bookies do indeed set the odds, based on the horse's past performance (form), quality of the trainer/stables, jockey, race type (e.g. flat, hurdles), ground condition and, probably most significantly, how people have backed it in the past. 2). Yes, prices fluctuate based on how people are backing. A clear favourite will get its odds shortened to dissuade people from backing it. Low-staking punters tend to avoid short odds because there's not much to gain from it. For example, a 10/11 favourite will only pay out £1.90 on a £1 stake, so since they're not going to miss £1, they'll put it on something that's less likely to win but will net them a relatively decent return. Higher-staking punters, on the other hand, will stake a significant amount of money on short odds: a £100 bet on a 10/11 horse will net you about £191, which isn't to be sniffed at, especially if you're betting like that and winning all day. If a lot of people put a lot of money on a horse with short odds, they bookies will keep shortening them until it stops being attractive. The reverse is also true of horses that aren't being backed. If there's a decent horse set at 4/1 and nobody's interested, they might push the prices out to 6/1 to tempt people in. There is a point at which punters will start ignoring long odds though, as there's a fine line between an outsider being worth a punt and being so much of a donkey that they'll give you 50/1 on it. 3). My shop's a little off the beaten track, so we only really get a large number of "real" people coming in for major races like the Grand National. They do usually bet entirely on gut feelings, names, colours and that sort of thing. Regular punters bet on a variety of factors. Some go entirely off the odds, some go off past form, some favour certain trainers and jockeys, but the majority will go off a combination of factors. I would say that the more successful punters tend to study form extensively, but there are so many factors at play that I'd say it's impossible to develop a reliable system. Backing whimsically on names or colours or what have you is probably no less valid than being scientific about it, given how large the element of chance is.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing, that's very interesting! Have you noticed some people winning consistently? What I'm seeing here is that it's pretty much like betting on the roulette, there's a lot of variability in every horse's performance, making it difficult to come up with any sensible guess. Still, I wanted to see just how (in)consistent the performance is but apparently this information doesn't exist? The best I could find had finishing positions and winning times, which is next to useless. Like for F1, you can get exact individual lap times for all drivers in each race, for example, so I was hoping to see something similar. Is this like a trade secret or something?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
I'm going to caveat this post with the info that although I have followed horse racing for twenty years, I don't bet on it. I'm one of those weirdos who follows it because I think it's interesting. That said, I like to try to pick winners for funsies and a self-challenge. Picking a winner in horse racing is a rocky challenge for sure; there are so many factors involved not to mention dumb luck. Here are a few factors seasoned betters are going to look at (US-centric since that's where I'm located): The horse's pedigree. This is a biggie. Does the sire (horse's father) have a good record of siring winners? The father's success rate in the breeding shed usually matters a lot more than the father's success rate on the track. Beyond that, you also want to know if there are distance runners or sprinters in the horse's pedigree, because that will often clue you in on how the offspring will perform on that particular type of race. Do the bloodlines "nick" together well; i.e. have similar family crossings amounted to winners in the past? Breeding is both an art and a science. All of this is really just scratching the surface. Has the horse performed at this track before and does he like it? Some tracks (such as Churchill Downs) are known for being polarizing; a horse will either love or hate its surface. Then there are tracks like Belmont that are abnormally big so a horse used to going around two smaller turns just goes around one big one. How is the weather? Does the horse like a sloppy (wet) track? How does the horse run? Does he run in the front? Does he stalk the leads? Does he come from behind? How do all the other horses in the race run compared to the horse you're eyeing? This will give you a sort of rough idea of how the race might play out. If there are a lot of sprinters in the race setting a fast early pace, that sets up a situation where they could tire and give the race to the horses in back who were saving their energy. How were his past performances? If they were poor, does he have a good excuse (i.e. a bad trip, was bumped, was unwell). If they were good, was he up against a weak field? What's his position coming out of the starting gate? Horses on the far outside have more ground to cover to get out to the front. Horses on the far inside might get bumped and jostled a lot. How has the horse been exercising? Does he travel well? Is he skittish? When did the horse last race? If it's a handicap race, how much weight is the horse carrying? And of course, this doesn't even take things like jockeys and trainers into account. mobby_6kl posted:Still, I wanted to see just how (in)consistent the performance is but apparently this information doesn't exist? The best I could find had finishing positions and winning times, which is next to useless. Like for F1, you can get exact individual lap times for all drivers in each race, for example, so I was hoping to see something similar. Is this like a trade secret or something? For this information, most people look at the Daily Racing Form, which will give you detailed race charts on every thoroughbred race run in the country, telling you the horse's position at certain points of the race, how they ran, and so on. As an example, this is the race chart for the recent Kentucky Derby. It tells you when (and where) the horse last raced, his position at several key points during the race itself, and how he finished. Picking winners really is a very complicated thing and even the pros get it wrong a lot. Me, I just like to watch the horses run 
Pikestaff fucked around with this message at 22:50 on May 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Here's the mechanics of how payouts and odds are calculated, short version is that the opening odds are a best guess by the bookie and then as the wagers flow in they're automatically shifted around as a function of how much money is on each outcome as a fraction of the whole. This used to be accomplished by enormous shaft & gear clockwork computers which were a marvel of engineering in their day. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/racetrack-betting-mechanized/
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
It's important to note that there's a huge difference between horse betting in the UK and the US. In the UK, usually bookies set all the odds. You make your bet with a particular bookie with their set of odds, and you're locked in. The bookmaker makes a profit via the overround, which works identically to other sorts of sports betting. The US, for complicated historical reasons, instead uses a parimutuel system. No matter where you are (on track, off track, online), your bet goes to the track running the race and goes into a pool specific to that type of bet (for instance, 'win' bets are placed in with all other 'win' bets). The track takes a percentage of the entire pool (for example, 15%). Once a winner is decided, the money from the losing betters is distributed to the winning betters in proportion to how much they bet. This is calculated down to 'how much you win per $2' and that's what's displayed on the board. Other places that are not the US may use this system, including (rarely) some places in the UK. You'll see the 'live odds' for horses in the US on the various boards, but these are only 'win' odds. Place and show bets are more complicated (since, of course, there can be multiple winners for them, whereas win bets only ever have one winning horse), and exotic bets (everything not win, place, or show) are their own bugbear. E4C85D38 fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
Pikestaff posted:Lots of good stuff Only other thing I'd add is the distance... Has the horse ran this particular distance before and how did they do? I believe there are computer models that calculate all of this but there are so many factors that go into picking a winner that it's not come down to a science, yet anyway. I grew up in Louisville where Churchill Downs/the Kentucky Derby is so I've watched horse racing all my life. I went to the Derby this year and ended up even on the day, so I won some, lost some. The track was really wet this year so I looked for "mudders" who have done well in wet conditions previously. Sometimes I just liked the name/owner/sob story* and went with that. *There's always a human/horse interest story at the Derby. Like this year there was Patch, a one-eyed horse. How can you not like that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
^^^ A one-eyed horse named Patch would definitely get my bet, which is also how I would lose my money  This stuff is really interesting once you start digging into all the various details! My initial idea seems to be dead in the water due to unavailability of data, but it's fascinating to learn about it nevertheless. I had no idea different countries did it so differently, or about the crazy mechanized totalisators. The thinking with the model was that since the odds are at least partially influenced by other (mostly clueless) betters, it should be sufficient, and not too difficult, for the model to be just slightly better then random to result in positive expected value in the long term. You don't need to predict the winner perfectly every single time, if you can reliably average 110% returns over the whole race day. Just a clear history of how the horse performed at a given distance previously would make a big difference, and the weather and surface conditions could narrow the guess down further. Plus all the other factors Pikestaff mentioned. This information might be possible to get with some upfront investment, but I probably wouldn't bother just for shits and giggles and instead keep enjoying mainly as a nice opportunity for socializing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
People are over complicating this. If you're a rookie, look at the speed class and pace ratings for a horse. Speed: how well it sprints, very good for short races Pace: how well it doesn't burn itself out early, very good for long races Class: whether it's going down or up in competition. Use this to modify your thoughts on the previous two higher is better in all cases. Have fun! E. Source: I've lived in Lexington and Louisville for 20 years and love keeneland E2. In a maiden or claiming race class probably doesn't matter and for maiden the others don't either. But now I'm over complicating poo poo too. Just run with those ratings. It costs a few bucks to get the sheet with those, and will be well worth it for a rookie let it mellow fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:if you can reliably average 110% returns over the whole race day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:Just a math note, if you can reliably generate 110% returns over a day, you can turn 1 dollar into 1 billion dollars in less than 2/3 of a year. Well most tracks don't run every day for the whole year. Keeneland and Churchill downs for example only run two month long sessions a year each but yeah, nobody makes 10% a day reliably e. Downs after dark is a thing, but that's more party than true meet
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
I got the horse right here, the name is Paul Revere
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:17
|
|
