Believable ROI and Win %
 

With all these races being taken off the turf (BEL and just about everywhere else on the eastern part) I've been reading (on that other forum) about some extraordinary claims concerning ROI and Win %.

What would be a believable win % for win bets?

What would be a believable win % for exotics bets?

What would be a believable ROI for win bets?

What would be a believable ROI for exotic bets?

What would be a believable ROI for all bets?

Looking more for empirically grounded responses.

take a look fat , let me know what you think - the exotics i based on ex's only

What is this a quiz?

Professor Obessio in the hiz-ouse.

My answer is you can't believe 99% of the posts on Face Disadvantage.

I dont really believe anyone who say they make money gambling on horses.

lori i think he may just be talking about today or the last few days

so it's very possible that there are some + roi's out there

No

There's someone claiming a high ROI and Win % for over 900 races (over the course of 1 year).

what is the user name?

15-20% seems VERY high to me for just win bets over a significant enough sample size. I doubt there are many if any regular players in the country that have such a high ROI from straight wins alone. The take-out is a lot to overcome and the pools have become increasingly efficient.

I think that 15-20% (and up) ROI on wins bets in more believable than a
35% win rate.

It depends - I think you could pull off a 35% win rate with your eyes closed if you were completely unconcerned with value.

But that's exactly the point. 35% winners AND a high ROI just don't quite go hand in hand. With the low prices you have to be consistently better than 1 out of 3. There's a very small margin for error.

I think he meant actually winning the bet 15-20% of the time... not the ROI.


I think its very possible to win 1 out of every 5 win bets you make. But I dont think it would equate, overtime to a positive ROI.


But with takeout and everything it is VERY hard to make money over time. I'd guess just play pick 6's and pick 4's and hope to hit some big ones.

I would expect a negative ROI for 99.9% of bettors and breaking even or making a small amount of money for a very small percentage of players.

is the culprit giving out a high roi and high win % ???

or is it a low win % but high roi %? this could be possible if he is connected to a barn or a clocker for 1st'ers that win with bad works in the form

I agree that if someone had a high ROI their win % would be much lower than 35%.

Just bet favorites every race and you'll win at a 33% clip. You'll also lose a lot of money.

some of the .1% in the country with positive roi's are right here Lori !

Just realized that I read Gales win % fig as ROI for some reason. His ROI guess is even more impossible than what I thought it was. And Antitrust, I agree that it's very hard to profit over time, but not nearly as impossible as you think.

I highly doubt someone could win 315 out of 900 races (35%), unless they were betting strickly favorites. But the ROI would be in the negative.


I believe you are correct on calling bullshit on whoever this poster is. Maybe he doesnt count any losing tickets when computing an ROI ;)

Yes, but every statistical study I've ever seen had favorites winning around that 33% clip, but also beating the take by losing only +/- 10%. In fact, for win betting, the % loss grows greater at every increasing odds tick, meaning by betting longshots you have to be even better when compared to the total pool of wagers.

maybe if you had a bankroll of a million dollars. but even with a $1,000,000 bankroll I bet even the most brilliant of handicappers would make 100k tops.

what if the guy hit say MTB in the derby , wouldn't that push his ROI % or if he scored with a 1ster at toga that paid $80 , then went cold for a while and then went on a chalk fest run to boost his win % but not pumping up the roi as much???

LOL gales. I've got a nice bridge to sell you also!

This was probably more the case 20 or 30 years ago than it is today. With access to all the tracks presently operating, one need no longer be limited and could play to their strength(s). It's not about taking what your local track gives you and make the best of it any longer.

kaspet
blackthoratwind
dahoss
rootdog
bigmc
rudeboyelvis
hovvesupsideyourhead
gpk - maybe not this year
scav - ok he's in the 99.9% but at least he has fun:D :D

I'm familiar with a few of those. No idea who the other 4 are.

coach i take runnerup to Kasept in spelling , but , i am good with numbers ,you know 2+2=5:eek: :eek:

That does makes sense... go through the different tracks and make one or two bets that you feel very comfortable with. Would take a ton of skill and discipline. But I'm willing to lower my percentage to 99% of horseplayers lose $ instead of 99.9%.

Question for you, would it even be possible to have a positive ROI by making win bets only?

Or is multi-race bets the only way?

most people ive ever known to win over a length of time

1-bet exotics

2- bet extremely heavy, using many combos

3- work on a very small roi, and also depend on their rebates

Its not my business whether those people have positive ROI's or not... but the only way I'd believe someone who told me they made money betting would be to see their tax forms.


Edit: mistergee makes a very good point. Rebates can give you a chance at a positive ROI.

This is a multi-race forum. Here, it's all about playing exotics.

Personally, I think investing a (relatively) significant amount of money to get back 6-10:1 (or less, as is usually the case) is not the way to go. I believe that it's easier to make money betting to win. And, additionally, it's a bit harder to win betting limited number (2 plays max) exotics (exactas and doubles).

But the real problem, assuming one has the skill, is actually believing you can do it. Let's say, for example, that I have a 25% hit rate with a 25% ROI over 60 win bets. At what point do I start believing that I can do this consistently? Over how many races do I need to show similar numbers? 100, 500, 1000? And, additionally, how am I showing this return: are my prices consistent or do I have a number of huge longshots? Do I count on 5 'scores' over the year to make my money, like the exotic player, or do I have consistent returns? It's a mind game thing.:rolleyes:

The number is obviously much higher than .1%

Jockey Kerwin Clark has ridden over 3,000 mounts in his career at Evangeline Downs ... and his ROI is above $2.40.

So, he's over 20% profitable from a 3K + sample size .. and he doesn't have nearly as much freedom as a bettor does to pick and choose.

Chucklestheclown ??

Some guy from California who has done seminars with none other than Aaron Hesz.

He claims a prominent California breeder asked him to take over his ranch and breed his horses but he declined.

Just using my current stats as a reference..

My top selection in the paper this year is winning at 28.5% with a $2.13 ROI

My top two selections in an exacta box have connected 22-for-144 - so 15.3% with a $3.61 ROI

My top three selections in a Tri box have connected 11-for-123 - so 9% with a $1.98 ROI .. on 21 occasions one of my top 3 was scratched.

if you are hitting 35% of win bets with a high ROI you are good enough to be questioned (or are really lying) , and at the same time you are saying that you don't understand the parimutuel system.

the goal in a parimutuel market is to pick low priced losers. Then you search all the available pools and find the highest percentage play that returns your minimum value demand. If your bankroll is $1000, you might bet about $20-40 on the play.
Usually your are limited to WPS and DB Ex. If you are willing to gamble risk of ruin for higher payout you can use the multi race wagers.

Did you keep track of how often 1 of your top 3 choices won, if you can hit at about 75% amongst top 3 and fit them into a dutching odds grid you can bang out a nice profit

i should add you are obviously doing very well with your top pick only already