Show Parlay

[jman5581]

I thought some might find this interesting...below is the cumulative return on the selections I made in the Santa Anita ShowVivor contest. This is based on a Show Parlay strategy. In other words, bet X to show, get Y in return. Take Y and bet show, get Z, take Z and bet show, get A....you get the idea.

I managed to survive 17 rounds, which is achievable by anyone using the most basic of handicapping logic. Perhaps one might set their limit and take profits at round 10 or 12, or maybe even sooner than that. I find this interesting considering the amount of money that is thrown at Pick 4's, 6's, Magna 5's...It's a relatively "safe" way to start with a modest amount of money and end up with something substantial. I know it's not going to fall in favor with most bettors on this board, but nonetheless, take it for what it is...

Payout % Return Cumulative % Return
$2.10 1.05
$2.60 1.3 1.365
$2.20 1.1 1.5015
$2.40 1.2 1.8018
$2.10 1.05 1.89189
$2.10 1.05 1.9864845
$2.40 1.2 2.3837814
$2.10 1.05 2.50297047
$2.60 1.3 3.253861611
$2.10 1.05 3.416554692
$2.10 1.05 3.587382426
$2.10 1.05 3.766751547
$2.10 1.05 3.955089125
$2.10 1.05 4.152843581
$2.10 1.05 4.36048576
$2.20 1.1 4.796534336
$2.10 1.05 5.036361053

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!

[lemoncrush]

Show parlays are fun...
If a group of us is at the track, (and especially if we have novice handicappers with us) it's a fun way for everyone to throw in $5 or $10 to start and build enough money to pay the dinner and/or bar tab.

I find it difficult for me personally to approach the bet seriously as a means towards achieving a Positive ROI, because it doesn't have the instant gratification or exotic appeal of exactas, trifectas, pick 3s, etc...

Still, I agree the possibilities are there.

[jman5581]

And, hey, if that's what a person wants to use it for....that's perfectly fine as well. It can pay the tab for sure....well, for most.

That was a nice run you had. It is harder than people think to win show bets. Inevitably one just doesn't run well or gets caught in a speed dual of some type.

[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!

[jman5581]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

How did these horses do in the win and place pools ? could you have made some coin there too ?

Well, yeah, but that's a little harder!! But, just for informational purposes, 13 of the 17 came in first or second. But, to be honest, I can't remember the intervals they came in...I don't think I ever went 10 consecutive firsts and seconds...perhaps, but I'm not making that claim...

[whodey17]

One of my gambling buddys does this. He starts out with $200 and all he wants to do is to double that each times he goes to the track. He succeeds more times than he fails. He picks what would be percieved as a safe bet in a small field. He does pretty well. To me it is fun to do, but I dont get as much excitement from a horse running 3rd.

[jman5581]

Originally Posted by whodey17

One of my gambling buddys does this. He starts out with $200 and all he wants to do is to double that each times he goes to the track. He succeeds more times than he fails. He picks what would be percieved as a safe bet in a small field. He does pretty well. To me it is fun to do, but I dont get as much excitement from a horse running 3rd.

IS THAT ALL???? Just double? I'm just kidding you....

If one were to do what I'm talking about, it would be more like double their money in about 10 days... if one were to play all the races on a card, I don't believe this strategy would work well enough to be profitable.

[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. Where a baseball player is a millionaire if he can get a hit 3 out of 10 times, you will be a net loser if you are trying for a 2.10 show price and need to do it at a factor of 10 to get only a 5-2 return. Just not worth it...I'm not against an occasional show wager if a pool is faulty or the field is large enough....But that is different than trying to get the chalk home that many times in a row.

[jman5581]

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. Where a baseball player is a millionaire if he can get a hit 3 out of 10 times, you will be a net loser if you are trying for a 2.10 show price and need to do it at a factor of 10 to get only a 5-2 return. Just not worth it...I'm not against an occasional show wager if a pool is faulty or the field is large enough....But that is different than trying to get the chalk home that many times in a row.

Randall, I meant this to be considered under the assumption of a modest amount of money....I consider a bridge jumper to be a not so modest amount of money taken completely from the pocket of the bettor, whereas what I'm suggesting is a modest amount built up on other people's money. I suppose one could categorize this as bridge jumping at a certain point but, to the bettor, he/she only stands to lose what he/she initially started with which, again, is a modest amount of money. Perhaps a couple hundred bucks.

[randallscott35]

Jman,
Someone trying to get 2.10 on a bet, whether they are betting 10,000 or 2$ is doing the same thing....And since I think bridge jumping is a bad practice, the same goes for the 2$ bettor....But there are people who subscribe to your thinking so I'm not being critical of you.

[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 randallscott35

Jman,
Someone trying to get 2.10 on a bet, whether they are betting 10,000 or 2$ is doing the same thing....And since I think bridge jumping is a bad practice, the same goes for the 2$ bettor....But there are people who subscribe to your thinking so I'm not being critical of you.

I'm more exploring this than advocating it. I've only occasionally done it in practice.

While I agree that the tactic is the same, it's not the same effect to risk $10,000 vs. $2 to make a 5% profit. I know what you mean....but, don't fully agree.

[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.

[jman5581]

hahaha....well, at least admit that it does matter whose money you're playing with.