professional gamblers?

captain - Thanks for sharing some insights from a pro.

Do you play the ponies? My pony action is aggressive with lots of gimmicks (tri's / exacta's), but a good handicapper with a VERY conservative approach can win on a regular basis. When I say conservative, I'm thinking 1 or 2 show bets per day that have a potential payout of $3.00+, which is a 50% ROI. It takes a lot time and discipline, but it might be a worthwhile effort under the right circumstances.

 

Horseracing has a high house edge due to the pari-mutuel pools. It's really tough to get an edge with such small betting pools and high house advantage. The only times the betting pools become big enough in the US so that sharp action doesn't move payouts drastically is in the Triple Crown and Breeders Cup races. Over in Hong Kong, betting pools are huge and there are guys who have made 9-figures in betting on horses (Bill Benter, Alan Woods). The only hope for the US market would be Exchange Betting on horses...where you can make an offer that a horse doesn't win and get matched up with a wager by someone who believes they will. This could effectively lower the house edge to 1% (from 19% now) and increase volume 20-fold. The house would still bank the exotic bets (trifecta's etc). It's been proposed in a number of states but hasn't come to fruition yet.

 

My Alter Ego I am a professional gambler

 

Ok, I was able to verify this system against all games played since 2009 (5.5 seasons). There were 445 series during that time in which the home team was the underdog the entire series. You would have made 870 wagers. Your record would have been 364-506 (41.84%) and if you were betting $100, $200, $400 as described, you would have lost $8416. Even if the system was modified to wager on every home underdog at the start of the series and abandon them if they turned into a favorite in a subsequent game in the series, it would produce more wagers that wouldn't be chased. It wouldn't improve the system. I don't think I need to dig any deeper into this. It's certainly not profitable for $100k per season.

If anyone is interested in the spreadsheet with the data behind this, PM your email address and I'll pass it along.

 

Good stuff...interesting discussion and also props on your database!

 

Thanks, Capt... good to know, (although I never actually considered even trying it!)
Next time I see this guy, I'll pass along your info.

 

No problem...it was an interesting exercise. Good conversation as well.

 

Great thread and info, thanks to all the posters for some interesting info. Good stuff......

 

so... if you did the opposite and bet on the favorite each time where would you stand?

fk

 

It's essentially a 'sports-martingale', with the notion being that a home team is rarely swept in a series (only occurs about 10% of the time) - even when they are underdogs. And, with a 6-month season and games every day for those 6-months (other than All-Star break), one would have constant 'action'.
Where the strategy breaks down is the amount you lose on those 10% of the series where the home team is swept. That kills as many as 15 of your wins (for a 4-game series).
Even in a 3-game series, if the home-team is swept, you lose $700...needing 7 wins just to be back to even from that loss.
The average is probably very close to $900 lost on those 10% & $900 won on the other 90%.
I don't think it's a losing strategy, but nor is it an advantageous one.

Probably better to just handicap every day and trust your own judgement.