Racehorse TALK

a * b * c * d/(1-a)/(1-a-b)/(1-a-b-c)

is probability according to the Harville Method.

A question often asked here before.

So perhaps a more interesting calculation is the probability that 18 people would read the post but not respond.

Spreadsheet attached.

Just punch in the win totes and you can see what you DESERVE - not what you WILL get.

Some will debunk the approach, but they won't be able to come up with anything better.

 DIVIDEND_APPROXIMATES_Forum.xls (14.5 KB - downloaded 77 times.)

Actually it's easy to get something better considering the F4 formula has a blatant error.

If H4-H7 contain

=C4/100
=C5/100
=C6/100
=C7/100

Then the (Harville) probability is:

=H4*H5*H6*H7/(1-H4)/(1-H4-H5)/(1-H4-H5-H6)

Invert that for True Odds of

$349.95

Where's fours when you need him.

El Zoro,

Out flying a kite mate!

Theory is one thing ( don't argie with jfc on this ) but reality is another.

Various totes have pool size problems PLUS jackpot rules which mean you can throw out that formula in the first place. In addition punter behaviour at both extremes of the odds curve makes those formulas invalid in the first place.

Finally jackpots tend to attract a better class of punter which is one reason odds obtained often disappoint.... the mug money % falls dramatically.

Fours
Jackpots nevertheless are the cream when you know when to play. The reason why is very simply - one can get more than 4 times the expected dividend on occasion. I am not saying this is easy however. It can be done though.

El Zoro,

I have a range expectation.

However the reference to four times concerns Unitab's method of working out divdends which applies some of the time. As a rule however I am not betting in Unitab pools.

Fours

I can't say I follow the theory that Professionals follow jackpot pools therefore the pay out divs on jackpot pools is generally lower than normal divs on ordinary pools. I guess that it could happen but doesn't it all come down to probability anyway?  

NO!

Skill of the particpants in the field is a big factor.

In the scenario the odds of the placings in a F4 are 20/1 50/1 10/1 4/1, would this mean 'the professionals' would get a high div by going for more roughies at a small %? (covering more probabilities in a systematic approach)

 

El Zoro,

I can't talk for what others do... but do know that one professional simply would not take that combo; maybe an exacta.

Choosing when I bet is my biggest first step. Then the hard work starts but step 1 is more important.... for me.

Fours

Good luck to anyone who thinks they can select the First Four in recent times especially when there is a Starting Jackpot on the First Four or Trifecta Pool. I have just about despaired when a race is run well below the normal speed of a quality race on a good track to a point that any horse in the race could nearly win or certainly place in the First Four. Recently where there was a Jackpot on either the Trifecta or First Four, the near to two worst speed horses in the race have been able to place, based only on their three most recent  runs, which of course is a problem. In effect you would have to cover all horses in the First Four  in the race.
 Under normal circumstances where two real rough chances place, the First Four bet would probably partially jackpot again, but what is happenning is that the pool has been fully taken out totally, with some two to five dollars taking out the LOT. Now that is organisation.

In the Underwood about eight horses were within about 3.0* of the fastest  in Speed capability and so I decided not to bet on the Tri nor the F4 due mainly to there being a Jackpot starter to the Trifecta pool; and only two of the top 8 placed, numbers 7 and 8. The race was run at a sub par speed. I am hoping for better in the better class races of the Spring, but one may have to give up altogether.

 * In Scientific Racegoing it explains why any horse with a Speed Rating within 3.0 of the fastest horse in a race can win that race due to the vagaries of horse racing in the form of accidental interference; planned interference adds a  further and much greater risk and leaves the stunned punters lamenting "about time to gave this ???? game  away".