[Dark Horse]

In case anyone has read these books (see links), I would much appreciate some feedback.

There seems to be a gap between the typical sports betting literature and academic studies. And from what I've seen only the field of horse racing has study material that bridges that gap. I'm of the opinion that anything complex can be made accessible by breaking it down into simple components, and that those who take the trouble to do so are often the best teachers. Unfortunately, most academics in this regard are terrible teachers. Hence the gap.

Anyway, the second book can be read online, or at least big chunks of it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=V9z...HY6GlQTX_qiCAQ


http://books.google.com/books?id=HX2...ets%22&f=false


Sidenote. Some books like this in the SBR store?

[laxdjock]

I have a stats background.....so it is all numbers to me! The nice thing about stats is they are a tool that can be applied in an almost infinite amount of ways. I crunch numbers for FB and BBALL, and everything else is more about feel.

I'm pretty sure I need to stick to numbers.

[Dark Horse]

Well, it's numbers to almost all of us.

The concept that peaked my interest in the above publications is market efficiency. I've always worked from my own models and expected value; an edge based on my views, in other words. But those folks are onto a completely separate approach that shows where the market might be off, based on public behavior and tendencies (example: favorite-long shot bias). That could possibly add one or two percent to one's own edge. Or it could turn out to be a spectacular waste of time.

[20Four7]

The one guy wrote a few books using the handle Dr. Z. Basically he was looking at parimutuel wagering and finding ineffeciencies, horse 1 has 50% of the money bet on it to win, horse 2 has 20%, horse 3 has 5%, then the place and show pools should have the same percentages within reason. Now if in the place pool horse 1 has 25% and horse 2 has 55% you would have an overlay by better the 1 horse to place since it's expected payoff is greater than what it would seem.

I believe it was called Beat the Racetrack and have a copy somewhere around here.

[Wrecktangle]

DH: every book I've read written by folks from the Academic World was useless in the application they are speaking about, but sometimes worthwhile in the math/stat/economic approach they might have used.

It turns out the "publish or perish" concept drives this.

Ed Thorpe was one of the few who broke this pattern. His two books: "Beat the Dealer" and "Beat the Market" were gold mines.

[luigi]

DH: every book I've read written by folks from the Academic World was useless in the application they are speaking about, but sometimes worthwhile in the math/stat/economic approach they might have used.

It turns out the "publish or perish" concept drives this.

Ed Thorpe was one of the few who broke this pattern. His two books: "Beat the Dealer" and "Beat the Market" were gold mines.

yeah, it's always interesting how many academic papers seem promising at first but then you find that the studies are outdated, but also look at very well-known market biases like nfl underdogs... they then conclude.."will this bias continue?" well that depends on .....

the recent book "without a tout" offered some approaches to using regression but had a very rudimentary knowledge of baseball stats/sabermetrics to apply in the regression.

[Dark Horse]

The one guy wrote a few books using the handle Dr. Z. Basically he was looking at parimutuel wagering and finding ineffeciencies, horse 1 has 50% of the money bet on it to win, horse 2 has 20%, horse 3 has 5%, then the place and show pools should have the same percentages within reason. Now if in the place pool horse 1 has 25% and horse 2 has 55% you would have an overlay by better the 1 horse to place since it's expected payoff is greater than what it would seem.

I came across that idea somewhere as well. Could be interesting in all sports (SU/ATS inefficiencies), especially for scalpers and during live betting.

DH: every book I've read written by folks from the Academic World was useless in the application they are speaking about, but sometimes worthwhile in the math/stat/economic approach they might have used.

It turns out the "publish or perish" concept drives this.

That makes sense. And explains why the most useful books are written by people who put their money where their mouth is.

I continue to be impressed by the horse racing literature. It is so far ahead of other sports. But we don't want other sports catching up to that level of analysis. Beyer spilling the beans was terrible for players easily beating the game back in the days.

[TomG]

Thanks for posting the Google book's version of Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Markets. This book regularly sells on Ebay for three figures.

I own Dr. Z's Beat the Racetrack. The general idea is very interesting and was groundbreaking at the time of publishing. Unfortunately, the track take combined with parimutuel style wagering makes the book's applications somewhat dated. Also, the author's use of a Kelly staking system for his betting strategy is horrendous.