January 25, 2007 at 15:13 #745non vintageMember
- Total Posts 1268
Whilst I imagine that the exact formula for calculating these is probably quite complicated, is anyone aware of whether it is available for inspection anywhere, or whether it should be available?
Obviously, different factors are taken into account – these would I guess include the over-round percentage, the field size, and the price of the favourite as well as the SPs of the first two horses. I’m also guessing it might include something around extreme draws (as for tricasts), however unfair this may be.
<span style=”color: Green;”>(Oops – missed a R4 here, so example from today not relevant – sorry!)</span>
Comments please, with thanks in advance,<br>NV<br>
(Edited by non vintage at 3:22 pm on Jan. 25, 2007)January 25, 2007 at 15:20 #36613non vintageMember
- Total Posts 1268
tdk – i just added up the SPs and worked that out. thanks. will take out the details of the races…
still wonder whether there is not some obligation for the payout formula to be in the public realm?January 25, 2007 at 15:32 #36614
I used to have a copy of it somewhere – I seem to recall that I phoned up one of the main bookies organisation (BOLA probably, as it was then) and they sent it to me.
I showed it to an acquaintance who happened to be a well-known professor of maths at the local university, and to my surprise, he said that it was relatively straightforward in strict mathematical terms, despite looking horrendously complicated to me (it ran to about five pages of A4).
Basically it’s the odds of the winner multiplied by the odds of the second, but then there are four or five stages after that where "tweaks" are made to shave the dividend: when there’s an odds-on favourite, for instance, or there is a well-known draw bias, like low numbers at Chester.
Of course, you could argue that the odds of horses in low boxes at Chester already take account of the fact that they have a good draw, so there should be no need to tweak the dividend at all. You could, but they won’t listen to you.January 25, 2007 at 17:08 #36615FormathMember
- Total Posts 1451
If it is any help this is what Nick Mordin in his book, ‘Betting for a Living’ circa 1992 says about the calculation’:<br>"….. this can be seen from the standard straight forecast offered by most bookies on big races, which operates in a similar way to the Computerised version. In this bet, 1 point is added to the price of the second horse before the odds of the first two are multiplied."January 25, 2007 at 17:33 #36616FlatSeasonLoverMember
- Total Posts 2065
So what is the reason given for shaving the dividend with an odds on favourite?January 25, 2007 at 17:48 #36617rolandMember
- Total Posts 302
agreed with formath, that i thought it was as simple as that.<br>which is why i thought there was always huge value when you get a race down to 2 horses, when 1 is very short but you fancy the bigger priced horse to win, as the added point is a larger percentage of that horses odds. Make sense? not to me!!January 25, 2007 at 18:02 #36618bluechariotMember
- Total Posts 569
In the long run do Exactas with the tote and you will beat the csf most timesJanuary 25, 2007 at 19:00 #36619GlennParticipant
- Total Posts 1981
The CSF doesn’t take account of the draw. The formula has been constantly revised (downwards) over the years and goes something like this:
the number of excuses they can come up with for the forumula favouring punters (harmonisation, related contingencies etc)
the rounding up of pre-2001 tax to 10%
Lord Donoghue’s hospitality packages
lizards’s xmas do expenses
expenditure on brown envelopes
repayments on the Kepmton redevelopment loan
the drippings from Tom Kelly’s nose
<br>Here p is the price after it has been adjusted to reflect bookies’ wet dreams of what it really ‘should’ be – around 2.5% a runner.
(Edited by Glenn at 7:01 pm on Jan. 25, 2007)<br>
(Edited by Glenn at 7:03 pm on Jan. 25, 2007)January 25, 2007 at 20:03 #36620Ultimate NightmareMember
- Total Posts 326
it used to work on the bags dogs forcasts roughly ish, mind you that was many decades ago :biggrin:January 25, 2007 at 20:33 #36621AnonymousInactive
- Total Posts 17718
UN <br>It used to work, (the Nick Mordin formula), with reasonable accuracy on horse racing too.<br>If I recall correctly, didn’t they add the draw to the formula when someone cleaned up a couple of times on high draw combinations at Thirsk – could even have been a member of this forum?January 25, 2007 at 21:25 #36622
I think it was Patrick Veitch who cleaned up at Hamilton, won Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£250,000 when the top three stalls came in at big prices – and yes, not long after that, BOLA announced that the draw would be factored in to the formula.
I believe there was also an adjustment according to the total overround on the race ie. if there was a low profit margin, they would bump it up a bit, but if it was high already, well, that’s another matter…January 25, 2007 at 22:47 #36623GlennParticipant
- Total Posts 1981
The tricast formula takes account of the draw, the CSF does not (unless they changed it since I last looked).January 25, 2007 at 23:05 #36624
Yep, you may well be right about that, it was sloppy to conflate one with the other. Although if the draw isn’t factored into the CSF, you have to wonder why not, since they get away with it when it comes to the Tricast.January 25, 2007 at 23:07 #36625
And since I’m in self-flagellatory mood, I think you’re right reet hard, it was Thirsk, not Hamilton.January 26, 2007 at 00:53 #36626witParticipant
- Total Posts 2152
….and i’m pretty sure it was Paul Cooper and not Patrick Veitch.
i’ve got a VHS tape from a short-lived racing news series of tapes issued in the late 80s / early 90s where Zorro interviews the guy in a pub.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.