PDA

View Full Version : Racing Pundits



Trousers
20th-August-2005, 08:39 AM
Ok off to Chester races in a couple of hours.

All I know about horses is they are a big box with a leg at each corner, parts for violin bows at one end and a desire to emulate Mike Tyson at the other.
Oh and apparently they run fast too. There may be a prediliction for carrots and sugar cubes too but I could be confusing horses with my kids there.

But I need to know who's gona run the fastest, which horses today at Chester will not be going home in tins?

Anyone in the know want to give me the nod?

Lory
20th-August-2005, 09:00 AM
Anyone in the know want to give me the nod?
Well, I went to Ascot a few years ago, with some serious racing fans, (who were betting BIG bucks) they picked their horses according to scientific statistics (form) and I picked pretty names........... I put £10 each way on each of the six races and every horse I picked came FIRST! :clap: (much to the annoyance of the others :D )

I was gutted I didn't do an accumulator but I made did make a nice profit which just about covered the cost of my dress, hat and the day out! :na:

An (interesting?) fact for you... My Granddad gained the first ever licence to run a legal betting shop in England, on may 1st 1961, he ran the shop in Islington, London for many years, until Ladbrokes bought him out!

And to quote him, 'Betting, is a mugs game!' :cool:

My personal tip is, only bet what you can afford to loose! ;)

Trousers
20th-August-2005, 09:06 AM
And to quote him, 'Betting, is a mugs game!' :cool:



Pretty Names - Good tip Lory. :worthy:

The only real bet I would like to make (and this is a works do taking the client out on the pss) is that I will be surounded by drunk people by 2.00pm - could make a killing on that. But as I plan to boogie tonight I'm gonna be a shandy drinking bore (no change there then)

Minnie M
20th-August-2005, 09:15 AM
.........Anyone in the know want to give me the nod?
Jockey is your man - he has an amazing wealth of knowledge :worthy: (the clue is in his name :whistle: )

David Bailey
20th-August-2005, 11:38 AM
Anyone in the know want to give me the nod?
I work for a company supplying software to most of the major online bookmakers.

It is possible to make money from gambling, but you need to know a hell of a lot about the topic. 99.99% of people don't know that much.

But if you have to gamble, don't bet more than, say £20 for the day, and read the Racing Post. Won't help you, but it may make you feel knowledgeable :)

The only other thing I can add to Lory's statement is :yeah: X many.

bigdjiver
20th-August-2005, 01:59 PM
When Babbage was trying to make the first programmer Ada Lovelace was recruited as the first candidate for programmer. The first application researched was betting on horses. She got hooked, and went broke. It was the first application I researched.

I could have made money on the horses by assuming that the sport was crooked - some owners running their horses slow to up the odds, then going for it.

I did actually make a betting profit on the greyhounds, but was not quite covering my costs of travel and entry. After a long calculations I worked out my next bet, discovered that the Tote offered better odds, and put my money on, only to find that I had put my money on the wrong number. It was a dog called "Tillside Binnie", and it romped in at 50-1. That put me ahead, and with that I quit the dogs.

I moved on to soccer, and was banned from a bookmakers for making too complex bets, which were making money. It was then the Government introduced betting tax, which wiped out my margin, so I quit that too.

Years later on contract in Brighton I wanted somewhere I could get a late night cup of tea. The newly opened Sergeant Peppers casino offered free memebership, so I went in. My maths education had taught me that it was impossible to make money at roullette, but one look at the way it was actually played showed that the ball and the wheel were both in motion before the croupier call "rien ne va pas". Where the ball finished up was down to physics. It only took two nights of recording to determine that a suitable computerised system could make a lot of money. That has since been proven.

So. it is possible to make money betting. The non-casino odds are generated by how the people bet. Too many bet on the most likely winner. Betting on favourites is generally very bad. There are too many gamblers that bet on instinct - nice name - nice colours - lucky numbers etc . This betting is spread across the field, and results in the outsiders having too much bet on them too. In general it is better to bet on the middle odds - take the number of runners and divide by 2. 16 runners - best returns are from those around 8-1. The last time I looked at this was a long time ago, and, because of the betting tax, this method still lost money. I wonder if betting on the horses with almost impossible names in this group might work, on the basis that the average punter will shy away from trying to write them.

Assuming people are crooks might still work. The last time I looked at dog racing the chances of an odds-on favourite finishing last were close to those of it finishing first, but it needed a larger sample to be sure.

Lynn
20th-August-2005, 02:55 PM
Well, I went to Ascot a few years ago, with some serious racing fans, (who were betting BIG bucks) they picked their horses according to scientific statistics (form) and I picked pretty names........... I put £10 each way on each of the six races and every horse I picked came FIRST! :clap: (much to the annoyance of the others :D )I've never gambled, but anytime I did watch racing on TV I picked my horses based on how they looked (esp if they looked like my pony!), and they often won too! I would think a day out at the races would be fun though! Hope you had a good day.

bigdjiver
20th-August-2005, 03:38 PM
I've never gambled, but anytime I did watch racing on TV I picked my horses based on how they looked (esp if they looked like my pony!), and they often won too! I would think a day out at the races would be fun though! Hope you had a good day.The old designers axiom - if it looks right, it probably is right.

David Bailey
20th-August-2005, 09:36 PM
{ Snip Very interesting stuff... }
it is possible to make money betting.
I'd rephrase that as, in the long run:
- It is possible to make money betting on sports / real-world events; you just have to know more than the bookmaker who's laying your bet
- It is also possible to make money in games of skill (e.g. poker); you just need to know more than the people you're playing against.
- It is not possible to make money on games of chance (e.g. slot machines), as the odds are always fixed in favour of the house.

And if you bet online, use a bet-matching site rather than a bookmaker - you'll get better odds.

Lynn
20th-August-2005, 09:44 PM
The old designers axiom - if it looks right, it probably is right.And maybe I was partly judging on confirmation - though a horse can look fast but be slow! And I know there are many other factors - weight, going, form, jockey, trainer and things that you can't know - if the horse has travelled well, hasn't had too strenous a workout the day before or what instructions the trainer has given the jockey... there are so many variables.

bigdjiver
21st-August-2005, 01:04 AM
I'd rephrase that as, in the long run:
- It is possible to make money betting on sports / real-world events; you just have to know more than the bookmaker who's laying your betOne way bookmakers could set the odds is according to the money coming in, so whichever animal came in first they would win about the same amount. Another way is to know more about form tha the punter, and know a lot about the punters biases, and, in effect, bet themselves. It looked to me, when I was doing my analyses that the bookmakers were actually betting themselves, and collecting more if certain runners came in. If it is not violating customer confidentiality, can you say if this is so?


- It is also possible to make money in games of skill (e.g. poker); you just need to know more than the people you're playing against.In poker you need to be able to calculate odds, conceal or, better still, misrepresent your feelings, and to be able to spot "tells", actions that indicate how your opponents feel about their cards. You also need luck. In the present state of poker, where most games are being played by people who do not know their opponents, and probably cannot even see them, it is very much down to luck. If you watch poker on TV you will find that players using very different strategies have accumulated the same amounts of chips. You will see multi-million dollar winners sitting down with almost unknowns, and being the first eliminated. There are thousands who understand the odds and strategies, and it is mostly luck that separates them. A lot of people are contributing to the fortunes the poker companies are making, and I would not recommend poker as a career. However, if you can find a group of dumb and expressive players for a regular game ...

ducasi
21st-August-2005, 02:55 AM
I'd rephrase that as, in the long run:
- It is possible to make money betting on sports / real-world events; you just have to know more than the bookmaker who's laying your bet
- It is also possible to make money in games of skill (e.g. poker); you just need to know more than the people you're playing against.
- It is not possible to make money on games of chance (e.g. slot machines), as the odds are always fixed in favour of the house. I guess blackjack is a game of skill...

I understand that if you're really good at card counting (memorising which cards have been used) and you can memorise a table of what to do for every different possible hand combination, then it is possible to beat the odds – but only just. Your chances of winning move from 47% to about 51%

But with those odds, the returns probably aren't worth the effort...
<hr> So, Trousers, how did you do?

bigdjiver
21st-August-2005, 11:25 AM
I guess blackjack is a game of skill...

I understand that if you're really good at card counting (memorising which cards have been used) and you can memorise a table of what to do for every different possible hand combination, then it is possible to beat the odds – but only just. Your chances of winning move from 47% to about 51%

But with those odds, the returns probably aren't worth the effort...If it is 1% every few minutes it very much is worth the effort - you are probably doubling your money every few hours. It is compound interest, which implies exponential growth.

It is a message that I have been trying to get across to Ceroc management. Just a 1% increase in beginner retention over their first few weeks leads to a very substantial increase in the growth rate. It is very disappointing to me that Ceroc cannot even properly determine which members are true beginners and cannot data-mine their database for every possible commercial advantage.

How many male beginners are deterred by trying to learn the shoulder drop? How many first timer ladies are deterred by the intimacy of the basket or the slow comb? What is obvious is that the retention rate shoots up after a few visits, and that anything that affects the beginner retention rate is worthy of examination.

El Salsero Gringo
21st-August-2005, 12:05 PM
One way bookmakers could set the odds is according to the money coming in, so whichever animal came in first they would win about the same amount. Another way is to know more about form tha the punter, and know a lot about the punters biases, and, in effect, bet themselves. It looked to me, when I was doing my analyses that the bookmakers were actually betting themselves, and collecting more if certain runners came in. If it is not violating customer confidentiality, can you say if this is so?That's no secret. Bookmakers can run a straight book where (in the long run) they are bound to win. They just set the odds according to the amount of cash riding on each horse. If they have a feel for which horse the fancy then they tip the odds with respect to that horse. That's equivalent to a bookmaker taking a bet in their own book against their own punters. This much was 'revealed' in a BBC programme that followed the life of a course-based bookie a few years ago. (I used to work for the company that provides the teletext screens to the bookies, so I have inside knowledge of how that side of things works - but not the betting side.)

El Salsero Gringo
21st-August-2005, 12:06 PM
I guess blackjack is a game of skill...

I understand that if you're really good at card counting (memorising which cards have been used) and you can memorise a table of what to do for every different possible hand combination, then it is possible to beat the odds – but only just. Your chances of winning move from 47% to about 51%

But with those odds, the returns probably aren't worth the effort...
<hr> So, Trousers, how did you do?If 1% is good enough for the house on roulette; it'd certainly be good enough for me. Many retail industries are on overall margins of less!

Trousers
21st-August-2005, 12:21 PM
Well. . . . I Stuck with the Tote - I understand that.

Went with favourites and not so favourites in forecast bets but there was some glue being made yesterday. I lost £20 but the beer was free so that sort of makes it reasonable in my book.

My boss though - god knows how because there was no form analysis or anything else remotely clever about his betting technique ended up £320 pounds better off. He was however buying drinks all day for the customer we have at the moment so this morning was £700 worse off - including the winnings. I'm really glad I dobbed out to go dancing.

ducasi
21st-August-2005, 02:55 PM
If it is 1% every few minutes it very much is worth the effort - you are probably doubling your money every few hours. It is compound interest, which implies exponential growth. Although most of what I wrote was from memory, I did some web search to double-check my figures...

Here's what I found on http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack...

Furthermore, with today's rules, a realistic advantage the counter will have is only 0.5% to 1.5%. You will not win money slowly and gradually but your bankroll will go up and down like a roller coaster in the short run. Only in the long run over hundreds of hours of playing can you count on winning. Doesn't sound like you'll double your money every few hours...

If, like the gaming companies, you're in it for the long-haul, 1% is significant, but for the short-term, it's just a rounding error.

Clive Long
21st-August-2005, 03:06 PM
Although most of what I wrong was from memory, I did some web search to double-check my figures...

Here's what I found on http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack...
Doesn't sound like you'll double your money every few hours...

If, like the gaming companies, you're in it for the long-haul, 1% is significant, but for the short-term, it's just a rounding error.

Furthermore, with today's rules, a realistic advantage the counter will have is only 0.5% to 1.5%. You will not win money slowly and gradually but your bankroll will go up and down like a roller coaster in the short run. Only in the long run over hundreds of hours of playing can you count on winning.
Isn't a factor that the house generally has much more reserves than the individual punter and that the "dynamic behaviour" your bankroll will go up and down like a roller coaster in the short run results in the individual punter usually going bust before the big one comes in?
And the occassional big wins are good for business because it creates the hope that YOU TOO could get the big one & hides the much greater money that trickles back in from the majority of unpublicised hapless punters.
I'm very "anti" the lottery as it is a "regressive tax" (I think that's the phrase) that disproportionately takes money from low income people.
Having said that, I'm a hypocrit because I have been a few times to Windsor race track and Walthamstow dogs and had a laugh. The cash handed over to the bookies made my blood chill though. My profile is "risk averse" - many call it dull.

Clive

David Bailey
21st-August-2005, 04:08 PM
One way bookmakers could set the odds is according to the money coming in, so whichever animal came in first they would win about the same amount.
Technically this is called "pool betting" - that's the way the Tote operates. Not always as good from a punter's point-of-view, as you don't know what odds you'll be getting (you get a guide price, but it's not guaranteed).


Another way is to know more about form tha the punter, and know a lot about the punters biases, and, in effect, bet themselves.
That's exactly how most "fixed-odds" bookmaking works, yes.


It looked to me, when I was doing my analyses that the bookmakers were actually betting themselves, and collecting more if certain runners came in. If it is not violating customer confidentiality, can you say if this is so?
They're not betting personally, but they will often lay bets off on other bookmakers, to reduce the risk.


That's no secret. Bookmakers can run a straight book where (in the long run) they are bound to win. They just set the odds according to the amount of cash riding on each horse.
Well, it's not quite as simple as that, especially for a fast-changing environment like horse racing. The trouble with fixed-odds betting (where you offer, say 10/1), is that if someone bets at those odds, you're stuck with a potential liability, and you can't guarantee to offset it even if you change the odds for subsequent bets. Punters are tricky... That's why bookmakers put bet limits on selections, to limit their potential liability for long-odds outcomes.

Being a bookmaker is a better way to make money than being a punter, but nothing's ever guaranteed.

bigdjiver
21st-August-2005, 04:10 PM
Although most of what I wrote was from memory, I did some web search to double-check my figures...

Here's what I found on http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack...
Doesn't sound like you'll double your money every few hours...

If, like the gaming companies, you're in it for the long-haul, 1% is significant, but for the short-term, it's just a rounding error.At 1% profit per game it takes about 70 games to double your money.

David Bailey
21st-August-2005, 04:17 PM
Isn't a factor that the house generally has much more reserves than the individual punter and that the "dynamic behaviour" your bankroll will go up and down like a roller coaster in the short run results in the individual punter usually going bust before the big one comes in?

Oh yes - the "Double every bet" system some mugs (err, "valued customers", that is) use gets very scary, very quickly.


I'm very "anti" the lottery as it is a "regressive tax" (I think that's the phrase) that disproportionately takes money from low income people. :yeah: To quote Viz, "A tax on the poor and the stupid".

bigdjiver
21st-August-2005, 04:36 PM
There are ways to bet and make money. An ex-colleague used to work for Post Office telephones. He was about to fixing a connection to a bookmakers when the result came in. He knew it would be repeated soon, so he made the connection and then went into the bookies to ask if he was too late to bet on the 2:30. The bookie was thumping his receiver as he said "No."

Len was invited to travel with a greyhound owner to see its first race at Catford. It won, and they immediately returned. Len went and sat in his usual seat in the pub, and was shortly joined by the local bookie. They played dominos for an hour or so, and the bookie remarked that "It was ****s first race tonight, I wonder how it got on". Len said "I should have liked to have had a bet on that." "That's alright said the Bookie, I'll take one. How much?"

Whilst in the army, for a dare, Len went up to a pub landlord and said that he had a bet on with a friend. Were there four pints in a quart or two? The Landlord said two. Len down the other end of the bar, and ordered two pints of beer, "on the house", and immediately shouted across. "landlord, you said two pints, didn't you?", and got the nod.

As I recall - Len was later in hospital, dying of cancer. Amongst his visitors was a jockey friend. Len was a known loser on the horses, so I did not believe the tips he passed on for the Oaks, St. Leger and Grand National. I did not bet on the Oaks tip, but it won. I placed sentimental bets on the other two. The St. Leger tip came in at 22-1. The National was won by Foinavon at 100-1, after a loose horse brought down most of the leaders, and it ran around the melee. His tip, Pinza, did win the Irish National.

Another way to win is to learn from your losses. Years later at Walthamstow dog track there was a sudden shower. I looked at the chewed up ground on the first bend, and remembered Foinavon. I bet on a long odds slower wide runner. It duly ran around a heap of muddy dogs and won.

Clive Long
21st-August-2005, 04:44 PM
There are ways to bet and make money. An ex-colleague used to work for Post Office telephones. He was about to fixing a connection to a bookmakers when the result came in. He knew it would be repeated soon, so he made the connection and then went into the bookies to ask if he was too late to bet on the 2:30. The bookie was thumping his receiver as he said "No."

Len was invited to travel with a greyhound owner to see its first race at Catford. << snip >>
Dave,

We need to make a film of your life.

I am fascinated and appalled in equal measure. I haven't lived.

Clive

ducasi
21st-August-2005, 04:45 PM
At 1% profit per game it takes about 70 games to double your money.
Except you don't make 1% each game. You win, then lose, then win, then lose. Each loss can wipe out your winnings for the whole lot.

I'm not sure how these percentages convert into winnings... I don't think that you'll get an extra 1% back each game, or even 1% extra back over 100 games. All I can figure out is that at 50% you'll break even over enough games, and at 51% you'll be slightly ahead.

El Salsero Gringo
21st-August-2005, 06:21 PM
Well, it's not quite as simple as that, especially for a fast-changing environment like horse racing. The trouble with fixed-odds betting (where you offer, say 10/1), is that if someone bets at those odds, you're stuck with a potential liability, and you can't guarantee to offset it even if you change the odds for subsequent bets.You can't guarantee to. But if a bookie starts to take too much on a particular horse he shortens its odds to shift the betting to the others, and can also lay off with other bookies. The point stands, that if he takes a view on which horse is going to win then the odds he offers his punters will differ because of it. He is, in a very real sense, placing a bet on the outcome in his own book. At that point he stops being a bookmaker and becomes a gambler.

El Salsero Gringo
21st-August-2005, 06:23 PM
If, like the gaming companies, you're in it for the long-haul, 1% is significant, but for the short-term, it's just a rounding error.Professional gamblers - like professional solicitors, and professional doctors - *are* in it for the long haul.

jockey
22nd-August-2005, 10:51 PM
Ok off to Chester races in a couple of hours.

All I know about horses is they are a big box with a leg at each corner, parts for violin bows at one end and a desire to emulate Mike Tyson at the other.
Oh and apparently they run fast too. There may be a prediliction for carrots and sugar cubes too but I could be confusing horses with my kids there.

But I need to know who's gona run the fastest, which horses today at Chester will not be going home in tins?

Anyone in the know want to give me the nod?
Hi Trousers - I lost my internet connection till now otherwise I could have offerred some advice..
Chester is the tightest track in the country and the draw is extremely important (which stall the horse is in); Chester is lefthanded and stalls are numbered from the inside out so low numbers are favoured (they cover less ground). In a handicap (where according to the official assessor each horse carries a different weight intended to equalise its chances) at Chester comprising, say 10 runners, you can safely eliminate the outside five and focus on stalls 1-5; the advantage diminshes over distance (as the horses are more line astern over longer trips). Next time you go you should remember this.
I was a jockeys agent"s form man for a while and watch a lot of racing and study form about 6 hours a day. Also I am keen on speed figures (how fast each race is run compared to "standard time").
Nowadays racing is largely straight and all jockeys ride out to achieve the best possible placing (or they get suspended); most punters who yell "foulplay" are talking thro their pockets and dont understand the rudiments of form analysis.
With study and knowledge of form, breeding, speed figures etc it is possible to make a profit if you back a horse at "value" odds i.e, odds greater than its actual chance of winning the race (as assessed by you); this is the same as buying, say, a £500 car for £400. If you continue to do this over time and your judgement is good you will win. This is not possible in roulette, say, where, as was pointed out correctly on this thread, you are always betting at slight disadvantage because the 0 belongs to the house; staking plans do not work (doubling up to recoup previous losses and a set amount profit)!
When you go again trousers PM me and I will try to help. I specialise in handicaps because they are more difficult for the average punter to work out and give the advantage to the form student such as myself.
Finally avoid all "inside information" - its a con. :yeah:

jockey
22nd-August-2005, 11:15 PM
I've never gambled, but anytime I did watch racing on TV I picked my horses based on how they looked (esp if they looked like my pony!), and they often won too! I would think a day out at the races would be fun though! Hope you had a good day.
Books have been written on this ("Thhe Winning Look" by Nick Mordin. pub. Aesculus Press, Oswestry) surprisingly enough and the following is what you should be looking for:
Shiny coat;
Alert demeaner but not boiling over or excitable (the latter is wasting valuable energy)
A line tracing the rib cage parallel to the horses stomach - this is clearly visible in a fit horse;
THe horse will be active and "on its toes" in the parade ring, and , going to post
"it will be in full stride immediatwely and galloping at full tilt within 50 yds. When it is turned to to come back past the stands, it will pick up immediately...The horses ears will be pricked forward alertly. It will gallop cleanly with a long sweeping stride. The horse is keen to run and is exuding well being" (p79 "Betting For A Living" Mordin, Aesculus 1992). :nice:

bigdjiver
23rd-August-2005, 12:27 AM
... This is not possible in roulette, say, where, as was pointed out correctly on this thread, you are always betting at slight disadvantage because the 0 belongs to the house; staking plans do not work (doubling up to recoup previous losses and a set amount profit)!...You are right about staking plans. People believe in them because they think "black must come up eventually" (or red or odd or even or whatever) It is very seductive argument. I love the killer question - How does the wheel remember what numbers have come up?

When I was studying roullette (about 1980) The croupier span the wheel, then she span the ball, and after it had circulated a few times called "Rien ne va plus" to signal the end of betting. The wheel and ball are both rotating at particular speed. The point where the ball descends from the rim is down to Newtonian physics, and so is elapsed time. Time is money, and the wheels are designed for the ball to settle quickly. The randomising effect of the ball bouncing about is far less than is required. It does not take much clustering to overwhelm the house percentage of about 3%. People have used a computer to do the calculations, and won considerable sums. A casino sued some of them recently, but judgement went to the punters.
I do not know if the casinos have caught onto the fact that their croupiers could actually bias the wheel against big bets on single numbers, or hit zero more than chance times.

Daisy Chain
23rd-August-2005, 09:34 PM
Anyone in the know want to give me the nod?

You can't go wrong with Wogan's Winner. It's guaranteed to lose so that's one horse eliminated from the list of runners and increases the odds of you picking a winner from the remaining donkeys.

Daisy

(A Racey Little Flower)

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-August-2005, 09:52 PM
You are right about staking plans. People believe in them because they think "black must come up eventually" (or red or odd or even or whatever) It is very seductive argument. I love the killer question - How does the wheel remember what numbers have come up?Don't be daft. Everyone knows it's not the wheel that remembers, it's the ball.

David Franklin
23rd-August-2005, 10:18 PM
People believe in them because they think "black must come up eventually" (or red or odd or even or whatever) It is very seductive argument. I love the killer question - How does the wheel remember what numbers have come up?What's that got to do with it? Black will come up eventually (with probabliity 1). Whether it will come up while they have any money left to bet is another matter...

David Bailey
23rd-August-2005, 10:26 PM
Ooh, I missed this in all the excitement...

The point stands, that if he takes a view on which horse is going to win then the odds he offers his punters will differ because of it. He is, in a very real sense, placing a bet on the outcome in his own book. At that point he stops being a bookmaker and becomes a gambler.
:confused: Any bet placed is also a bet matched, if that's what your saying? - the punter bets on an outcome (backs it), the bookie bets against that outcome (lays it).

That's where (some of) the controversy over bet matching systems comes in - backers of bets are OK, but layers of bets could be viewed as bookmakers in a sense, and so (bookies argue :) ) could be seen to be under the same restrictions as normal bookies...

The rest of the controversy is due to the fact that it's easier to fix a lay bet than a back bet - e.g. easier to not win a horse race than to win it - so the system could be more open to abuse.

OK, anybody else still awake?

Clive Long
23rd-August-2005, 10:41 PM
Ooh, I missed this in all the excitement...

:confused: Any bet placed is also a bet matched, if that's what your saying? - the punter bets on an outcome (backs it), the bookie bets against that outcome (lays it).

That's where (some of) the controversy over bet matching systems comes in - backers of bets are OK, but layers of bets could be viewed as bookmakers in a sense, and so (bookies argue :) ) could be seen to be under the same restrictions as normal bookies...

The rest of the controversy is due to the fact that it's easier to fix a lay bet than a back bet - e.g. easier to not win a horse race than to win it - so the system could be more open to abuse.

OK, anybody else still awake?

So when we all going down the 'Stow to put a monkey on a pony? Or is it a pony on a donkey? Or a banana on a zebra? :confused: :confused:

bigdjiver
24th-August-2005, 01:47 AM
What's that got to do with it? Black will come up eventually (with probabliity 1). Whether it will come up while they have any money left to bet is another matter...If the lifespan of a roullete wheel is 1 billion spins, the chances that it will never come up black are (2 to the power of a billion) to one. Probablity pretty close to 1, but not quite there.

David Franklin
24th-August-2005, 08:25 AM
If the lifespan of a roullete wheel is 1 billion spins, the chances that it will never come up black are (2 to the power of a billion) to one. Probablity pretty close to 1, but not quite there.Sorry, but I think bringing in "lifetime of the wheel" is a bit of a weasel. Using the normal definitions of probability, P(black eventually comes up) = 1. However, I did word things badly; I'd somewhat forgotten that P(X will happen) = 1 doesn't actually mean X will happen. English and probability theory don't always mix very well!

None of which is the point. Suppose the casino offers 10:1 odds on black. Then it's definitely worth betting on black, even though all the arguments about "roulette wheels have no memory" etc. still apply. The issue boils down to whether or not a bet on black has positive expectation.

Conversely, the arguments in favour of Martingale strategies don't really involve appeals to "the gamblers fallacy". On a somewhat deceptive level, Martingales work. Suppose your base bet is £1 and your maximum bet £1024. Then it's over 1000 to 1 you will win £1 using the "doubling up" strategy. The problem is, you have a 1:1165 chance of losing £2048 (assuming a 0+00 wheel). But unless that chance is explicitly spelled out, it's easy to miss it. And I suspect, it's also easy to assume "it won't happen to me".

The authors of the more complex strategies usually rely on making it very hard to calculate the chance of exceeding your maximum bet (and/or running out of money). They then say, "oh the chances of that happening are negligable". You can safely assume they are not...

I always thought the clearest argument against roulette systems was:

If you take any single bet, and calculate it's expectation, it's -ve. But expectation is a linear operator, so any combination of bets must have -ve expectation. QED.

El Salsero Gringo
24th-August-2005, 09:33 AM
Using the normal definitions of probability, P(black eventually comes up) = 1.No, strictly I don't think that's true. The limit of the probability that black will appear in n tries as n increases is 1. That's not the same thing as saying that a probability *is* one.
However, I did word things badly; I'd somewhat forgotten that P(X will happen) = 1 doesn't actually mean X will happen.Er, OK then, if not that then what does it mean?

David Bailey
24th-August-2005, 09:57 AM
Er, OK then, if not that then what does it mean?
:yeah: I thought P = 1 means exactly that - "it will happen"... :confused:

David Franklin
24th-August-2005, 10:01 AM
No, strictly I don't think that's true. The limit of the probability that black will appear in n tries as n increases is 1. That's not the same thing as saying that a probability *is* one.Yes it is. Or, formally, let P be the probability black comes up, and P(n) the probability black comes up in the first n tries. Then we have P(n) <= P (because if it comes up in n tries, it certainly comes up). So we have P(n) <= P <= 1. That is, 1-2^-n <= P <= 1. This is true for all n, so P = 1.

[Looking at it really formally, there's a set of disjoint events E_n = "black comes up for the first time on trial n". So that P(E_n) = 2^-n. P(black comes up) = P(union E_n); I can't remember which convergence theorem you use, but basically the fact that everything is disjoint and bounded and there's only a countable number of sets means all the limits have to come out as you'd expect].


Er, OK then, if not that then what does it mean?Here's a different example. Suppose X is uniformly distributed on [0,1]; i.e. P(X <=y ) = y for any y in [0,1]. Then the probablilty X equals any particular number is 0. E.g. P(X = .5) = 0. But that doesn't mean X can't equal 0.5; it's got to equal something, and .5 is as likely (or unlikely) as anything else.

Does that help? It's a difficult concept, not least because it's one of the areas where idealised theory and "the real world" don't match. The whole concept of "random number" in the real world is very dubious. For example, if I say pick a number between 0 and 1, the number you give me is very likely to be computable, despite the fact computable numbers are only a countable subset of [0,1] and in an ideal world the probability of getting one would be zero.

jockey
24th-August-2005, 06:39 PM
Every subculture has its slang, here are a few examples in racing:
"Ringer" : a substitute horse or dog that resembles the entry on the racecard but with superior form (and consequently a very good bet!!)
"Stumer" : non trier.
"Pony" : £25
"Monkey" : £500
"Screw" : (in Greyhound racing) ungenuine animal
"Dodgepot" abrev. "dodge" : ungenuine racehorse
"Punter" : member of the betting public (rhyming sland "railway shunter")
"Mug" : member of the betting public
"The Bible" : the form book
"Buzzer" : animal trying for its life (opposite of stumer)
"JOb" or "coup" : attempt at pulling off a massive gamble with a "buzzer"
"The Long Fellow" Lester Piggot (legendary retired jockey)
"The Head Waiter Harry Wragg (legendary retired jockey known for his waiting tactics)
"THe Nanny Goat" : tote
"Morning Glory" : racehorse that burns up the gallops in the morning but does not reproduce its ability on the racecourse
"Win with the stablecat" :trainer in excellent form could...
"Favourite Backer" : punter who religiously backs the favourite irrespective (see "mug")
"Rag" Outsider of the field
"Skinner" virtually unbacked winner (as in skinner for the book)
"Laid out for the race" said of an animal whose preparation has been timed to coincide with a planned target race (see "buzzer" & "coup")
"Bent" : crooked or fixed (as in race or sometimes said of a jockey who has just lost on the horse you have backed.. :rofl:)

El Salsero Gringo
24th-August-2005, 07:24 PM
Yes it is. Or, formally, let P be the probability black comes up, and P(n) the probability black comes up in the first n tries. Then we have P(n) <= P (because if it comes up in n tries, it certainly comes up). So we have P(n) <= P <= 1. That is, 1-2^-n <= P <= 1. This is true for all n, so P = 1.

[Looking at it really formally, there's a set of disjoint events E_n = "black comes up for the first time on trial n". So that P(E_n) = 2^-n. P(black comes up) = P(union E_n); I can't remember which convergence theorem you use, but basically the fact that everything is disjoint and bounded and there's only a countable number of sets means all the limits have to come out as you'd expect]. I'll take that under advisement, and get back to you. But since it's conceivable that white comes up for ever, the Probability that black ever turns up cannot be exactly 1.

Here's a different example. Suppose X is uniformly distributed on [0,1]; i.e. P(X <=y ) = y for any y in [0,1]. Then the probablilty X equals any particular number is 0. E.g. P(X = .5) = 0. But that doesn't mean X can't equal 0.5; it's got to equal something, and .5 is as likely (or unlikely) as anything else. Actually, the fact that P(X=0.5) = 0 means that X cannot be 0.5. In fact, it can't be any single number that you nominate. Bizarre, but true. But that's a confusion that you've introduced by introducing a continuous random variable whereas before we were talking about discrete RV's.
Does that help? It's a difficult concept, not least because it's one of the areas where idealised theory and "the real world" don't match. The whole concept of "random number" in the real world is very dubious. For example, if I say pick a number between 0 and 1, the number you give me is very likely to be computable, despite the fact computable numbers are only a countable subset of [0,1] and in an ideal world the probability of getting one would be zero.Bringing psychology and the inability for me to pick an uncomputable number truly 'at random' doesn't help either!

David Bailey
24th-August-2005, 08:05 PM
I'll take that under advisement, and get back to you. But since it's conceivable that white comes up for ever, the Probability that black ever turns up cannot be exactly 1.
Mmm... if "for ever" is "infinity", then I believe the infinite series as described does actually converge do 1, from what I recall - bit counter-intuitive, but there you go.

And I could well be wrong, I'm already suffering "Maths degree" flashbacks, so I'll happily accept anyone's word on the matter.

David Franklin
24th-August-2005, 11:25 PM
I'll take that under advisement, and get back to you. But since it's conceivable that white comes up for ever, the Probability that black ever turns up cannot be exactly 1.
Quoting from wikipedia:
Suppose that a coin is flipped again and again. A sequence heads, heads, heads, ..., ad infinitum, without ever coming up tails, is possible in some sense -- it does not violate any laws of physics to suppose that tails never appears -- but it is very, very improbable. In fact, such a sequence has probability zero.
To argue the other points would be more than a little tedious; we're at the stage where part of the problem is definitions; I'm (unless mistaken!) using standard probability measure theory, but we have all mercilessly abused notation. But the key point is a set can have (probability) measure zero and be non-empty.