blonde poker forum

This is something that has been on my mind, and I have been a bit scared to post it because it will probably come across as being incredibly naive or silly. Or maybe it is already being done and everyone knows about it? But anyway, this is my idea. I realise it is likely I have got this completely wrong, but I cannot see why... so please tell me, it will help me learn.

First, am I right in thinking that some horses are much better when the going is soft and others are much better when the going is firm? Second, am I right in thinking that information about the going is not always 100% accurate, especially when given several hours beforehand (if for no other reason that it could rain in the intervening period)? If I am wrong with any of this then everything below is irrelevant...

Ok, so let's imagine we are looking through tomorrow's racecard (or today's racecard in the morning). We see two horses in different races at the same course that seem to be priced approximately correctly given that the going is predicted to be firm. So we have no bet on either of them because we would, at best, be making an =EV bet. However, we think that both these horses much prefer softer ground and that if the ground ends up being softer than predicted then both these horses would represent great value at the current price. For example, if it starts to rain between now and the start of the day's racing then the going would become a little softer and we'd now love to bet on these horses at those prices. The problem is, once we know that the going is softer, everyone else also knows and so the market will adjust.

So it is annoying because we only want to bet on these horses at this price if the going is soft, but by the time we know it is soft we won’t be able to get the current prices. Wouldn’t it be great if we could say to a bookmaker “I’d like to bet £10 on Horse A in the 2.15pm at 5/1 and £60 on Horse B in the 2.50pm at 5/1. But I would like my bet on Horse B to be cancelled before the race starts unless the going is soft. Is that ok with you?”. Obviously no bookmaker would accept this sort of offer. But it seems to me that we can actually achieve something similar to this by placing an accumulator bet.

If we have a double on these two horses then we are in effect cancelling the bet on the second horse if the first horse loses. And since both horses are more likely to win than the odds suggest if the going turns out to be soft, then we are actually taking advantage of related events. We only end up making a bet on the second horse if the first horse has already won, and the fact that the first horse has won means it is slightly more likely that the going has changed to soft since we placed the bet.

I am not sure if I have explained this well, so I will do it again through using a very simplified model - a completely unrealistic imagined extreme which will, however, demonstrate the maths in a pure form. Then the principle is clear and it can be adjusted to be more realistic:

Imagine that there are only two possible goings - firm or soft. The chances of each of these goings is exactly 50%. Both horses are 100% to lose if the going is firm and 100% to win if the going is soft. This is just an imagined extreme remember. The odds on each horse are 10/11 which means if we bet on each horse individually we are taking the worst of it since it is equally likely the going will be soft or firm, and so we win exactly half the time. But if we have a £10 double then half the time we lose £10 and half the time we win £36.50. So in this imagined extreme the double is a great bet even though an individual bet on either horse would be a losing bet.

What is happening here is that we are able to place an accumulator that includes related events. I realise of course that in reality horses are never guaranteed to win or lose and that the going is a continuum, not an either/or thing. But surely the same principle would apply in a less extreme form in the real world? So we could have a double on two horses knowing that if the ground is soft the chances of winning would increase noticeably for both of them.

The edge comes from the fact that the second bet gets made more often when the going turns out to be favourable than it does when the going turns out to be unfavourable. Imagine both horses are priced at 5/1, which is a fair price given the likely going. When the going turns out to be less favourable than expected, the true prices of the horses will be 6/1. When the going turns out to be more favourable than expected the true prices of the horses will be 4/1. This means that our bet on Horse A is always =EV since the 5/1 odds are correct (given all the different possible outcomes of how the going will actually be). However, when we end up making that second bet on Horse B through our accumulator - because horse A has won - there will be a greater chance that the going is favourable (the fact that horse A has won means it is slightly more likely the going is soft). So we get the best of it with our second bet, since we are able to cancel it sometimes when conditions are worse than expected. In effect, when Horse A gets beaten this is sometimes a GOOD THING (theoretically of course) because our bet on Horse B is now cancelled.

I am pretty certain that mathematically this is completely correct. This is based on rigorous simulations and testing that I have done in my head lol! Please let me know if there is anything at all in my thinking. Or if it is a decent idea in theory but won’t work in practice for logistical reasons. Or if this is just something that everyone already knows. Or if I am just going on with myself...

Finally, please accept my apologies if you are thinking “WTF... who is this guy writing a full on essay about a really simple concept? We are clever guys here, and we understood what he meant after the first couple of paragraphs, so why is he explaining it as if we are 5 year olds?” Those of you who have seen my posts in PHA or The Rail know that I am simply unable to write succinctly; I don’t have the confidence in myself to say something in merely a few words and trust it has been understood. So please forgive me.

Right... flame away, and tell me why I am stupid. I want to learn about this stuff.

Interesting.  The same might apply to backing overs on the first day of a tennis tournament in an accumulator.  If the court plays fast in the first match then you have a favourable bet?

Yes exactly. And there are a ton of similiar possibilities in other sports too obviously. Is this a new concept that I have thought of, or is this something that everyone already knows and I have embarrassed myself by writing about it as if it is a new idea?

Or am I just being an idiot - like the guy who says he has a winning roulette system that he has thought up all by himself, and then goes on to painstakingly describe the Martingale?

I guess the problem with using this concept in many other areas is that you'd be making some extremely sharky looking bets, and the bookies would examine them and work out that you were actually betting on related events. But accumulator betting on horses does not look sharky at all does it, quite the opposite in fact if I have understood things correctly? And the related event aspect of it would likely go unnoticed.

Related contingencies where they aren't acknowledged as being so, sort of.

I kinda like it, I think. Concern would probably centre around the pricing of the selections you are having to take in the first instance. Ie. how close it is to the 'true' price (acknowledging the significance/likelihood of the weather and adjusting accordingly)

If the initial margin you are having to take on is too great I would think it difficult to overcome. If, however, you are getting a relatively fair bet in the first instance this concept should skew things further in your favour.

Oh, but good luck getting on racing the night before if your record is anywhere near reasonable after a short while.

The theory is sound but very hard to make it work in practice in horse racing, there are just too many variables in most horse races. It´s the old American Football bad weather=unders bet basically where they are related contingencies but not priced as such (related multiples). It works much better in something with 2 outcomes and very clearly benefits one of the 2 possible outcomes. NCAA Football is perfect for this but imo it´s hard to make it work on horse racing.

I don't really have much of clue when it comes to horse racing, although I do enjoy it. Even with my limited knowledge of it I've got to say the theory here seems very interesting and pretty darn good. will be interested to see what people like Keith /  bad beat / all the other geniuses say about it.

Agree this may be a problem though

I should probably qualify that I think there might be an edge to be had here (the theory is sound enough), the issue is that it is such a high variance situation that we could go years/thousands of meetings without knowing if we´ve found a meaningful edge7made any money.

Related contingencies that bookies allow and don't realise are potentially a very profitable area and I think this works in principle but I think there are a fair few problems with it in practise.  Firstly, the number of occasions that the going changes significantly overnight are fairly minimal and it would pretty much would have to be a major meeting for firms to be pricing enough races to get two or more opportunities, then the prices would have to be sufficient to make the selections close to bets anyway.  Secondly, it is massively high variance.  If we have 20 of these bets a year at an average odds of say, 8-1 and 5-1 so 53/1 you can see that even with "true odds" of 30/1 we are going to take a long, long time to reach the long run which if the theory is compelling enough shouldn't really be an issue but mentally it takes a great deal of confidence to follow a strategy for, say, ten years without showing a profit.  I have done something similar betting unders in college football and NFL games when bad weather has a high probability of striking for a few years and have never gotb them all right in 7 years of doing it.  I have killed the closing line which is what really but just never actually won but you do start having doubts after a while.  there are plenty of other related contingencies that firms allow that we can exploit.  favourite and over and dog and under parlays in american football with large pointspreads, home and under and away and over parlays in baseball, weather related parlays in American football, draw accas in county cricket when weather is expected are just a few that spring to mind immediately.

So to sum up from the replies so far:

1. My amazing new concept is not actually either amazing or new! It is something that is already known about by every good sports bettor - seeking out related contingencies that the bookies allow. Hmmm... bit embarrassing for me that I thought it was my own original concept  ;ashamed;

2. Therefore I could have explained my idea in about 50 words rather than wasting everyone's time with a tl;dr post, since you all understood the concept anyway! Further embarrassment for me  ;dingdell;

But,

3. The idea of using the going as a related contingency might be an original idea on my part. So at least I feel a little less embarrassed...

But,

4. It is likely very impractical to try to find worthwhile edges in this way, for a whole variety of reasons.

And,

5. Even if it could be made to work in both theory and practice, the variance involved would be such that it is not a realistic way of trying to make regular money. Rather like playing poker tournaments instead of cash games ;)

Thanks for your responses guys, and for being so gentle with me... especially considering that it was a pretty naïve post on my part (and a very long-winded one too).

Not a naive post at all.  In fact if anyone should be embarrassed it is me because you figured something out in a few months of sports betting that took me a few years!!!!

Thanks red! I am just trying to learnt this stuff, but want to do so as fast as possible. At the start of this year I didn't even know how an each way bet worked... that is how green I am at this.

Don't feel embarassed because your concept isn't original.

I thought I was the inventor of "one hand one bounce" at playground cricket when I was eight.

:D  POTY

(they should use that in T20 cricket).

I have read this and I do not understand hardly any of it. I can only just understand that we are betting in doubles on horses that prefer a certain condition, therefore this is getting us value? it would be terribly hard to predict the going in a horse race, but understand theory slightly I suppose.

I probably am likely to understand this a lot less as I am a a backer on singles rather than a double/treble, etc.

edit: red is in thread :) :)

Yes, I learned of that when I was about 6, & I was told you had invented it previously....