• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Horse Racing Odds Question

Brian

Graduate Poster
B
Joined
Jul 27, 2001
Messages
1,776
Meadowlands has a Pick 4 (you have to pick the winner of 4 specific races in a row) that has a guaranteed payout of $75,000.
The average race has 10 horses.
How many possible combinations are there?
Is it 10^10
Or 10^4
Or 4^10
I'm trying to figure if it would cost less than $75,000 to bet all/all/all/all.
I don't have $75,000 to bet so this is just curiosity.
Even if it is less if there is more than one winner, your screwed.
It costs $2 to bet a single combination BTW.
 
Brian said:
Meadowlands has a Pick 4 (you have to pick the winner of 4 specific races in a row) that has a guaranteed payout of $75,000.
The average race has 10 horses.
How many possible combinations are there?
Is it 10^10
Or 10^4
Or 4^10
I'm trying to figure if it would cost less than $75,000 to bet all/all/all/all.
I don't have $75,000 to bet so this is just curiosity.
Even if it is less if there is more than one winner, your screwed.
It costs $2 to bet a single combination BTW.
Click to expand...

10^4
 
There are 10<sup>4</sup> possibilities, assuming four races at 10 horses per race.

However, not all of these possibilities are equally likely. Strategizing gamblers might select, say, the three favorite horses in each race, and bet all those combinations.

Even so, considering the volume of wagering at a typical track, the chance of a single bettor taking home the whole 75 grand is pretty slim.
 
If there are 10 horses per race, then there are 10^4 combinations. At $2 per ticket, it would cost $20,000 to cover all the possibilities. So should you be the sole winner, it would be profitable. However, if you have to split with more than 2 other winners, it's a loser's bet.

How many people generally win this bet on a given day? I would guess it must usually be split several ways.
 
shemp said:
If there are 10 horses per race, then there are 10^4 combinations. At $2 per ticket, it would cost $20,000 to cover all the possibilities. So should you be the sole winner, it would be profitable. However, if you have to split with more than 2 other winners, it's a loser's bet.

How many people generally win this bet on a given day? I would guess it must usually be split several ways.
Click to expand...

Generally, there is a time limit for betting and the numbers are entered by hand... so it's really a loser's bet.

But as has been pointed out, I know gamblers who, much like a master chessman, can lower their odds to the point where they usually make money.
 
it should be noted that when dealing with "an average of 10 horses per race" there are "on average" *LESS* than 10^4 combinations.

Consider:

9*10*10*11 = 9900

8*9*11*12 = 9504

9*9*11*11 = 9801

..and so on..
 
Interesting coments all around. Just a few notes. The average is ten, but meadowlands is almost always 10 or less. Often in pick 3 and pick 4 races one race will have six horses. And then, there's always the scratches, so you might have a race with 8 or 9 horses. I don't think I've ever seen a 12 horse race there.

As for the time it takes to place a bet, the window has an *all* key. You could bet all/all/all/all in 5 seconds. Same with 1/3/5/all and 5/all/all/all.

I'll keep an eye on the results and post the over the long haul results if anyone is curious.

Here's my best guess. If betting "all" paid more than 20K more often than not wealthy people would bet it every single time, and drive the payoff down to below 20k.

No such thing as a sure bet.

I lost 44 bucks tonight.
 
Just a goofy wine induced comment:

A long time ago I was looking at a collection of cartoons from the "New Yorker" at my Dad's house. There was a cartoon showing the booths at a horse track which this comment:

"Did you notice that there are 10 windows to take bets and only one booth to pay the winners?"

(I am so cheap... that in high school I spent an evening with my friends at an arcade and spent a total of only twenty-five cents on air hockey)
 
Statistical odds vs Parimutual odds:

As noted above, the individual horses may have peculirities that make their performances not equally likely. People have tried all sorts of ways to adjust the probabilities. But in the end, the "Odds" for wager payoffs are determined by the amounts of money bet on each horse in the race, and each type of bet has its own separate pool.

Track success stories are like psychic success stories--people are a lot more likely to tell about their winnings than about their losses.
 
pupdog said:
Statistical odds vs Parimutual odds:

As noted above, the individual horses may have peculirities that make their performances not equally likely. People have tried all sorts of ways to adjust the probabilities. But in the end, the "Odds" for wager payoffs are determined by the amounts of money bet on each horse in the race, and each type of bet has its own separate pool.

Track success stories are like psychic success stories--people are a lot more likely to tell about their winnings than about their losses.
Click to expand...

That's why folks are much better off - and have a higher chance of long-term success - playing games of skill with low house takes.... games like black jack, basic craps, video poker, etc.
 
pupdog said:
Statistical odds vs Parimutual odds:

As noted above, the individual horses may have peculirities that make their performances not equally likely.
Click to expand...

..such as the owners and/or jockies fixing the race.
 
rockoon said:


..such as the owners and/or jockies fixing the race.
Click to expand...

well there are very strict laws and stricter penalties if a owner/jockey intereferes with the horse or horses.

I'm pretty good at picking winners. Not being psychic, and not betting money (is that the key?), I had a 70% success rate for picking winners and placers. I could also tell with a 90% success rate who would NOT place or win.
 
DangerousBeliefs said:


That's why folks are much better off - and have a higher chance of long-term success - playing games of skill with low house takes.... games like black jack, basic craps, video poker, etc.
Click to expand...

IMO a better way of wording this would be "..have a lesser chance of large long-term failure." The chances of long-term success in any of those games is virtually nil (unless you cheat and they don't catch you).
 
If you study the racing forms carefully, you can probably do quite a bit better than the bettor who picks the white horsie, or the the horse that defecates while parading, or the one with the number that matches your kid's age. But, if that horse is strongly favored (parimutual odds), you only get back two bits on a $2 bet. If it's late in the day and you're behind, it's so tempting to go for the long shots.
 
...no such thing as a "white horse."

And Ham Sandwich, that wonderful dapple gentleman, was a pretty dang good racer.

One problem of racing is that horses might be run too often. There are multiple owners (or even just one) who want returns on their investment, so the horse runs too soon after he has already done very well in one race. It's a pretty good chance if he runs in the next couple days after that one race, he won't do so well.
 
I always presumed that odds were fixed in order that the bookmakers (or tote) would achieve a certain return and therefore reflect the money wagered rather than any consideration by the bookmaker as to which horse would win.

Clearly this isn't always the case otherwise they wouldn't take a bit of a dunking from time to time (and doesn't reflect bookmakers laynig off some of their liability) but I think it is a good first order approximation.

If everyone betting was an expert and had considered form and so forth, the odds on the race would fairly erflect each horse's chances of winning (lets's call them the "true odds"). As the only inexpert bettor then it doesn't matter which horse I bet on, I'll experience the same return (which WILL be less than 100%). If I bet on short odds horses, I'll win less but more often. If I bet on long odds horses then I'll win more money but less frequently. My return will be less than 100%.

When it gets fun is if you're in a position to be able to determine whether the actual odds are different from the "true odds". "Professional" gamblers may rely on stable gossip or some arcane process to do this. Unless you enjoy that kind of thing (in which case good luck to you and let me know if you have any hot tips ;)) I would suggest that you consider human nature. Grey horses are often very popular with the public and therefore have odds far lower than their "true odds". On this basis grey horses represent poor value for your betting dollar. In soccer/rugby games, often the home team is heavily backed and so has odds much lower than the "true odds", again this is a flag to bet against the home team.

Using this technique over the past two years I have made absolutely no money at all from gambling (I don't mind betting, I just hate losing) but if someone here is willing to put my flaky scheme to the test then I'd be very appreciative.
 
The Don

The one and only time I have seen a real no-risk bet at the bookies was for a six nations rugby match a few years back. Bookies in Scotland were offering very favourable odds on Ireland to win (presumably due to an understandable tendency of people to overestimate the chances of a team they support). Being a natural pessimist, I put a few quid on the Irish.

I then headed over to Dublin for the game. The same factor had obviously taken place over there as well, as the odds on Scotland were considerably better than they had been at home, while Ireland were at much shorter odds. So much so that by backing Scotland (and covering the draw, which in rugby tends to have fairly long odds) I could produce a guaranteed return for any outcome of the game. Quick trip to the cashline and a phone call home to up the stake on Ireland and that was the weekends Guinness paid for.

I think the internet has probably killed of the possibility of doing this on a regular basis however.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
...Quick trip to the cashline and a phone call home to up the stake on Ireland and that was the weekends Guinness paid for.
Click to expand...
Wow. Gaining a "lock" (making multiple bets to ensure an overall positive edge) on an event is incredibly rare. You should have bet the farm.
 
Iconoclast said:
Wow. Gaining a "lock" (making multiple bets to ensure an overall positive edge) on an event is incredibly rare. You should have bet the farm.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there was no "farm" to bet. :( Having said that, do you have any idea how much Guinness gets consumed over a rugby weekend trip to Dublin? Paying for that is not insignificant :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom