Show Parlay

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by jman5581

The moral of the story, should someone want to take a couple hundred bucks and parlay it on one show bet for 17 races (just pick a favorable race on the card), they could make about a thousand fairly quickly. At about round 10, I would have made approximately 350% return.

Last time I did the showvivor contest I managed to stay alive 12 rounds, so I think making it to 10 is very achievable.

Anyone serious about their money realizes that this is a substantial return in comparison to other alternatives available to make money!

You suggest that succeeding for 10 rounds is relatively easy, and yields a return in the 350% range. A 350% yield means a profit of 2.5-1. If the bet was fair, the chance of winning a 2.5-1 bet is 29%. For the 10-race show parley to be a good bet, you'd have to win it more than 29% of the time. Do you think hitting 10 show bets in a row has more than a 29% chance of happening? For that to be true, many of the individual show bets would have to be paying better than fair odds. I see no reason to believe that's the case.

IMO, you had a lucky run in two samples. I'm not saying that it isn't a fun way to try to build up a profit. You may get more bang (in terms of time/$$) for your buck than many other ways. But in pure $$ value, I don't see any advantage over just taking a 5/2 shot to win.

You can do a test of this over in the "Contests" forum, if you really think it works. (See randall's ongoing place vs exacta test as an excellent example of how to proceed). Because the odds involved in your test are so low, you would only need to do maybe 20 attempts to get a reasonable estimate of how good the idea is. (the more, the better, however) You would need to specify the number of total attempts ahead of time, then you'd need to post the 10 show bets ahead of time before each attempt. (you don't need to post all 10 at once, but each "pick" would have to be posted before its race.) I'm pretty confident you'd end up with a negative ROI.

--Dunbar

[jman5581]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

You suggest that succeeding for 10 rounds is relatively easy, and yields a return in the 350% range. A 350% yield means a profit of 2.5-1. If the bet was fair, the chance of winning a 2.5-1 bet is 29%. For the 10-race show parley to be a good bet, you'd have to win it more than 29% of the time. Do you think hitting 10 show bets in a row has more than a 29% chance of happening? For that to be true, many of the individual show bets would have to be paying better than fair odds. I see no reason to believe that's the case.

IMO, you had a lucky run in two samples. I'm not saying that it isn't a fun way to try to build up a profit. You may get more bang (in terms of time/$$) for your buck than many other ways. But in pure $$ value, I don't see any advantage over just taking a 5/2 shot to win.

You can do a test of this over in the "Contests" forum, if you really think it works. (See randall's ongoing place vs exacta test as an excellent example of how to proceed). Because the odds involved in your test are so low, you would only need to do maybe 20 attempts to get a reasonable estimate of how good the idea is. (the more, the better, however) You would need to specify the number of total attempts ahead of time, then you'd need to post the 10 show bets ahead of time before each attempt. (you don't need to post all 10 at once, but each "pick" would have to be posted before its race.) I'm pretty confident you'd end up with a negative ROI.

--Dunbar

No, I don't mean to make it sound like it is easy. It requires a degree of patience, picking your spots (maybe one or two a day that are "mortal locks" in the mind of the bettor), strategically selecting races with fewer than 7 entrants, using confirmed angles for the track being bet. I do think it's possible to do more than 29% of the time...I have no statistical backing at this point, but based on my experience I do consider this to be a risk well worth taking.

This last contest I did, in fact, post my picks to the board until I was eliminated. Were I actually betting, I probably would have schnitzeled a little off at about round 10 as profit. And, based on my experience in this contest, I think I could have done this over a course of 5 to 10 days.

What's more, I think this can be done at least a third of the time if one is patient enough to pick races with small fields of 6 or less.

I may take up this experiment at a time that is not so hectic. Right now, I'm a little too busy to commit to it. If someone else would like to try it out, feel free. I will join in when the studies aren't demanding so much of my time. for now, consider my string of 12 and 17 to be the first of 20 attempts. Fair enough? Unfortunately I don't still have the picks from the first contest as that was a good 3 or 4 months ago. But, I suspect the return was very similar. I do still have the picks from the round of 17 if anyone is interested enough to confirm....I suspect no one is so I will leave it at that!

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by jman5581

No, I don't mean to make it sound like it is easy. It requires a degree of patience, picking your spots (maybe one or two a day that are "mortal locks" in the mind of the bettor), strategically selecting races with fewer than 7 entrants, using confirmed angles for the track being bet. I do think it's possible to do more than 29% of the time...I have no statistical backing at this point, but based on my experience I do consider this to be a risk well worth taking.

This last contest I did, in fact, post my picks to the board until I was eliminated. Were I actually betting, I probably would have schnitzeled a little off at about round 10 as profit. And, based on my experience in this contest, I think I could have done this over a course of 5 to 10 days.

What's more, I think this can be done at least a third of the time if one is patient enough to pick races with small fields of 6 or less.

I may take up this experiment at a time that is not so hectic. Right now, I'm a little too busy to commit to it. If someone else would like to try it out, feel free. I will join in when the studies aren't demanding so much of my time. for now, consider my string of 12 and 17 to be the first of 20 attempts. Fair enough? Unfortunately I don't still have the picks from the first contest as that was a good 3 or 4 months ago. But, I suspect the return was very similar. I do still have the picks from the round of 17 if anyone is interested enough to confirm....I suspect no one is so I will leave it at that!

No, that is supremely unfair. You do not start an experiment with back data. You start fresh.

Having said that, I would be very interested in seeing your experiment go forward. If you are very carefully choosing your races, I don't rule out the possibility that you could have an edge. But it's a very bad idea to conclude you have an edge based on 2 attempts plus some anecdotal evidence from friends.

Originally Posted by randallscott35

I agree with Dunbar....There is a reason why bridge jumping is a bad strategy. There are no sure things and 3-5 horses run off the board all the time...

For the record, randall, I don't necessarily think bridge jumping is a bad strategy.

--Dunbar

[randallscott35]

Boy I sure do Dunbar. When you could get a rebate on horses with low show prices, that's something. But a straight 5% win needing to put up decent money to get any decent return will end badly eventually.

[jman5581]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

No, that is supremely unfair. You do not start an experiment with back data. You start fresh.

I would be more than happy to start fresh, but what's wrong with me using picks that I posted to this board (in advance of the race itself) for the last contest. I've just posted the payouts and cumulative returns at the top of this thread. As far as I'm concerned that meets the criteria of any pick I would make in the "experiment." I made the picks...it should at least count for the 1st of 20 since I disclosed them in the Showvivor thread.

Originally Posted by Dunbar

For the record, randall, I don't necessarily think bridge jumping is a bad strategy.

--Dunbar

Guys, I don't consider this bridge jumping....I think whether bridge jumping is a good or bad strategy depends on how much a person can stand to lose. JMHO.

[randallscott35]

Betting any horse where your expected payout is 2.10 is bridge jumping. No, you aren't putting 100 grand on the horse so you won't be jumping off the Verrazano. But for that guy where 10 bucks matters, he may be jumping into the kiddie pool with floaties attached....and for 50 cents?

[jman5581]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Betting any horse where your expected payout is 2.10 is bridge jumping. No, you aren't putting 100 grand on the horse so you won't be jumping off the Verrazano. But for that guy where 10 bucks matters, he may be jumping into the kiddie pool with floaties attached....and for 50 cents?

50 cents now....a buck later....10 bucks later....100 bucks later....oh, did I just lose 100? Oh, no I didn't....just 10 bucks...

[randallscott35]

Semantics Jman.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by jman5581

I would be more than happy to start fresh, but what's wrong with me using picks that I posted to this board (in advance of the race itself) for the last contest. I've just posted the payouts and cumulative returns at the top of this thread. As far as I'm concerned that meets the criteria of any pick I would make in the "experiment." I made the picks...it should at least count for the 1st of 20 since I disclosed them in the Showvivor thread.

jman, I don't doubt that you made and posted the picks. But it's bad statistics to decide after the fact that you are going to include some results you already obtained in a longer study that wasn't specified ahead of time.

Let's say I walk by a roulette table, and I see that red has come up 5 times in a row (on the history display). If I see one more red come up, does that make it REALLY likely that red is a good strategy?

If you had said ahead of time, 'guys, I'm going to test a show parlay theory and post all my picks here', then fine. Those first 2 sets would belong. But it's bad statistical practice to decide after-the-fact that certain bets count.

At any rate, if there is any merit in show parlays, you should be able to demonstrate it without resorting to past bets.

--Dunbar

[jman5581]

I guess the way I see it, I was at the roulette table playing....so, by your analogy, it would be okay to use as part of the sample. I could very easily say, "Hey, I picked red, I'll try red 19 more times and that'll make 20"....

If I do this, it will be a rather long experiment. I will likely use the most recent picks I made as the first sample because they're there for everyone to see if they wish, so long as that thread doesn't get deleted.

If it's even remotely close at the end of the experiment I suppose I could always do one more round.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by jman5581

I guess the way I see it, I was at the roulette table playing....so, by your analogy, it would be okay to use as part of the sample. I could very easily say, "Hey, I picked red, I'll try red 19 more times and that'll make 20"....

If I do this, it will be a rather long experiment. I will likely use the most recent picks I made as the first sample because they're there for everyone to see if they wish, so long as that thread doesn't get deleted.

If it's even remotely close at the end of the experiment I suppose I could always do one more round.

This would be about like Grits hitting a $100 exacta and telling randall, "see? let's compare exactas to place bets, but I want to start with my $100 exacta."

jman, you will get into trouble down the line if you don't understand that a test has to be well-defined before the test starts. You will find angles that look good, but are really just flukes of the way you are measuring.

--Dunbar