The Gambler Who Cracked the Horse-Racing Code (2018)
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Of course, it's (sort of) a very clever trick. All is revealed in the show (now on Brown's YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR970Y10WNw). I showed it to my kid who had recently asked me about a state lottery billboard claiming "Someone has to win!" and it proved to be an entertainingly effective answer as well as providing some good ways to think critically about gambling propositions.
Conversely, if you know Santa's Little Helper is going to win the 6th race and told everyone, that would drive DOWN the odds and your potential payout. You'd have to have insider knowledge, then fabricate and disseminate a lie so that the actual winner gets bid down to 99:1 least-favourite before the race.
So the incentive model is different. In a way, in the stock market, being seen as a psychic genius can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. $FOOBAR doubled in price because people chased your prediction, not due to fundamentals.
It's much simpler than that. Although the show appears in the beginning like it's a "magic trick" (though that is never actually claimed), in the end the audience is clearly shown how there's no trick at all. It's all simple probability and there really is no way to "beat the odds". Which IMHO is ultimately more entertaining and valuable than just some slight of hand or magic trickery.
Anyway, I apologize for my error in recollection. I sincerely remember the gist of the show being as I described. Another reminder that memory can sometimes be weirdly porous yet not be correctly 'flagged' with an appropriate sense of uncertainty.
It's not really revealed how he does the last trick. In the last bet she believes she loses because the horse he tips doesn't win - and during the race he reveals there is no system.
However, he places the final bet - not her - and after the race ends she opens the ticket to find it's placed on the winner, not the tipped horse.
Almost certainly it's slight of hand (which he is excellent at) but that is never revealed.
Anyway, I apologize for my error in recollection. I sincerely remember the gist of the show being as I described. Another reminder that memory can sometimes be weirdly porous yet not be correctly 'flagged' with an appropriate sense of uncertainty.
https://www.minder.org/episodeguide/S04E04_SorryPalWrongNumb...
It really stuck in my head for some reason, but never been able to figure out what show/movie it was.
He may have done it like this for real (I haven't seen the show), but just be aware that part of Derren Brown's magic is that the "reveal" is still part of the act. Often he claims to have done things using psychological effects but actually it's just traditional magic.
Clever really because nobody believes magic really exists today, but plenty of people believe in stuff like hypnosis and NLP.
It went kind of hilariously wrong for his "wisdom of the crowds" explanation for predicting the lottery - that one was too blatantly bullshit for most people and they screwed up the CGI fakery.
This is another one that always stuck in my mind:
(I watched it years ago and haven't rewatched it but IIRC he has a whole NLP explanation for what was clearly sleight of hand performed days ago off camera.)
Lots to unpack here. :)
https://gwern.net/doc/statistics/decision/1986-bolton.pdf
And Bill Benter wrote this one in 1995 describing his system
Source, I worked at company that did arbitrage in online sports betting in 2010s that employed around 30 or so people and did hundreds of millions in profit.
In general people overestimate how hard it is to make money in gambling. You don't need to be some kind of savant to do it. The people in general are similar to what you would find in your average tech company. Sure there is a founder with a vision and some sort of an insight into making money, but every company has one.
I'm on a bit of a probability (gambling, sports betting, stats, etc) kick these days, and I'd be interested in reading more about people and companies doing this in practice. I'd been imagining there must be organised sports gamblers, but they don't seem to be overly searchable.
Longshot Systems Football Radar Gambit Research SportsRadar Odds Reactor Star Lizard Smartodds Smarkets
These companies are known more for their HFT trading in financial markets, but I believe they have also expanded into sports betting.
jane street jump trading Susquehanna
Also some of the bookmakers such as matchbook have started as betting group and then overtime turned into a bookmaker as that is where the real money is.
Internally they track how much each account wins & loses. If you win too much, the site gives you worse and worse odds until eventually you’re banned entirely. The reverse is also true: if you’re a terrible better, the site gives you better odds hoping to keep you coming back for more.
They have a whole team whose job it is to instantly block smart betters from opening new accounts. Accounts opened in the name of their girlfriends is the classic thing they watch out for.
Some of the smartest gamblers also get hired as quants, and help figure out what the odds should be on the site.
In Asia the bookies are a lot more tolerant, especially the larger ones. You really have to hit their pnl hard for you to get cut off.
These don't apply to all horse-racing scenes.
These advantages emerge, but get competed away.
Look at how the protagonists here were in black jack card counting teams. They do make money until they get blacklisted.
Or to put it another way, social engineering is usually a more reliable hack than technical means. I mean his card counting at blackjack was a team sport.
Hedge funds trade on inside information because making money is the goal. Not style points.
Which is great for the pros, I suppose. Here's a list of countries, which you'd have to check individually, after I searched "gambling tax free countries":
Austria
Australia
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Hungary
Italy
Luxembourg
Malta
Romania
Sweden
United Kingdomhttps://www.vegasmaster.com/gambling-tax-free-countries/
I see these relevant lines:
> The laws concerning gambling tax around the world aren’t all black and white. In most cases, there is a sort of gray area which states that you will be taxed on winnings if gambling is your profession or your main source of income. However, if you gamble and win but you have a bigger source of income and don’t rely on professional gambling to pay the bills, you won’t be taxed.
In other countries, like Kenya and Ireland, players aren’t taxed on their winnings, but bookies must pay a certain percentage of taxes on the total bets or winnings they record. In Ireland bookies must pay 1% on all bets placed through them, while in Kenya bookies have to pay 7.5% tax on all winnings they record.Take Italy which (along the UK) has one of the largest gambling market and the strictest regulations. Effectively every bet is sent to the regulator in near real time and some stuff like bringing money to the table (game) requires an explicit approval of the regular beforehand. To put it simply taxing the gambling firms, that already need a license, is much easier.
There are monthly reports, regulator mandated vaults that have to reflect the state of each player, including all bets and wins done, player (and operator) set limits (e.g deposit limits)
So overall not taxing the end user is a good choice, it just it's a lot more involved that just 'no taxation'
If you place enough bets (I make about 15k bets each day that are matched) that have a positive expected value your chances of a losing day become pretty low.
For example, I had a losing day on Christmas Day, but was only able to place about 500 bets as it was such a big holiday that there were almost no events.
As it’s a betting exchange they don’t care if you win or lose as you aren’t winning money from them, but they start to take steeper cuts of your profits if you’re a regular winner above some threshold that a random punter is very unlikely to hit.
Any further questions?
Too bad no exchanges are available from the US. Has anyone gotten around this wit vpn or some such?
> allow people to buy and sell bets.
Can't sell - you can buy, or find a counterparty. The exchange part is finding a counterparty.
> placing bets well before the date the event occurs and using them to arbitrage the result as the event nears.
Narrowly correct -- we could, of course, offset our X wins bet at $100 with a Y wins bet for $20. The implication is this is done by selling bets, which as mentioned above, isn't a thing in this world.
Are there some websites where this can be done? yes.
Is it widespread? No.
Is it implied by the phrase betting exchange? No.
The implication with betting exchange is "you're not betting against us, we're not making lines, we're just matching you up with a counterparty, so our incentive structure is aligned with you, we'll build an API even. also fees are much lower, its a pure rake"
> you have to use btc/crypto and risk being ripped off with no legal recourse
Sites that only take crypto do exist, but its certainly not a given or predominant.
> Also presumably there’s a system around what bet to place when. They never talk about that.
This is confusing because:
- you spelled out a system, intuitively, that most people would grok instantly (arbitrage on the line)
- "presumably" is doing 0 work, besides implying there's some hidden secret: any system involved in placing bets would have to provide information on what bet to place. :)
Generally, I don't think it's anyones job to spell out how to pull off consistent net-positive money machine, and it's quite odd to not only want it, but expect it.
Whether it beats the bookmaker’s margin I wouldn’t know.
You're welcome
While there are lots of "real and theoretical gains" to be made in gambling, a far more cynical take is that the "advanced analytics" is the frontbusiness for the real money being made by criminal enterprises, insider-trading, front-running, special access advantages, arbitrage, regulatory and competetive inefficiencies and insider-jobs.
"No no, we're all really smart see, look at this math that you don't understand, that's how we make millions while being bankrolled by mysterious money and business partners from vegas, who also by definition can't understand the math and hence can't validate what we're doing but who are totally willing to just front us a bankroll :)"
Its possible that there are certain gains left on the table, especially in old and early markets, but be wary of anyone being bankrolled by external forces and earning millions/billions and needing to explain that wealth with "smarts".
Often i wonder whether these articles that appear aren't a form of marketing or reputation laundering, but i have absolute no proof and i'm not particularly interested in looking into it much further. So you know, i'm probably way off :)
In poker, the top cash players win by choosing who's (i.e., lesser players) in their games, not playing against other top players. People with math acumen are most likely to find some of these anomolies like the Stats PhD who kept winning scratch off lottos.[0]
> Its possible that there are certain gains left on the table, especially in old and early markets, but be wary of anyone being bankrolled by external forces and earning millions/billions and needing to explain that wealth with "smarts".
Do you have favorite examples in mind?
[0] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Gint...
I actually did a little bit of private investigation myself into betting markets of a handful of sports a number of years ago out of both curiosity, and potentially profit. And I'm currently working on perceptions of skill and merit along various systems just for my own intellectual project.
I find it interesting you've discovered the systematic bias strategy of choosing your opponents and events (these are done both consciously by players in various systems, but often formally and informally supported or enabled by various governing bodies and competitive structures).
Aside from both the boredom (arbitraging and scraping stats can be meticulously dull especially in fields you have no interest in or if you lack a hustler or profit maximising mentality or significant bankroll), opportunity cost (how much you can earn in other markets with such skills given equal investment of time and safety), the moral question (you're taking money from other ignorant bettors and I personally consider a lot of gambling and exploitation of people's ignorance relatively immoral, the house/market maker in many contexts still profits just through sheer trading frequency or other profit making actions), these days you have many market makers targeting little sharps presumably because they want to keep their ignorant base happy and gambling and don't want the perception of playing agaist certain losses or against people capable of seeing through the systems to reveal internal operations.
That's the only reason I can come up with for why they target and close accounts of profitable gamblers while they're still taking the house edge on every bet as profit.
What I (of course) also informally discovered in some markets I looked into was evidence of various fixing activities and systemic biases.
Now if you were going to do this for large scale profit, one of the things you are going to have to do is stop the illusion you're modelling skill and start modelling corruption.
It's all well and good for these articles to come out and pretend skilled prediction will win you millions, but you can be the best statistician in the house and if you place bets in a game based on models of skill, but the game outcome is rigged, you can kiss goodbye to your bankroll.
Criminals win because their outcomes aren't statistical or based on skill.
And now you're suddenly in the business of modelling and fighting people who profit from rigging markets rather than morally neutral statistical models in games of skill.
You can of course model such and go down that rabbit hole, but at some point you either buy into such a world and get involved (either by being hired by or interacting with criminal and questionable enterprise) or you are effectively trying to do statistical surveillance of criminal activities... Which will then show up in the statistical patterns of your own betting activities and potentially alert said enterprises to your existence.
And that's about where I bowed out of my investigations and turned back to more theoretical work.
That's not particularly a world I want to be involved in, but I am relatively confident popular sports and markets have illicit match fixing and other activities going on in them at significant levels, but I'm not interested in fighting with or building implicit knowledge bases of people who have million dollar anonymous backers from Vegas, billion dollar contracts, and whom die from accidental sleeping pill overdoses... If you know what I mean ...
Well...I reject that dichotomy. If someone intentionally introduces an exploit, sure. But I can think of numerous examples where someone found "bugs" and exploited them, while playing by criminal and ethical rules. It sounds like you realized that these are just rare and hard to reproduce without taking on more legal risk. Hats off to the people like the Stats PhD I linked to who ran a multi-person outfit and everyone has kept their mouth shut.
A similar exploit happened recently where a syndicate bought all of the lotto combinations. The math was straightforward, but execution was hard. They had to spin up a few licensed terminals at shuttered storefronts to execute all of the purchases. This forced a rule change.
But as a general rule there's a trade off between signal generated by your winnings vs the frequency of your trading all balanced against your power and ability to manipulate and capture the market.
If you bet big enough and pull off the implementation successfully once such that you can get away in that one time (and ensure the system doesn't respond to cancel your winnings as it will often try to due to the cost benefit of paying you out), congrats. And you can go the opposite strategy and have lots of small winnings and fly under the radar and make profit just below the cost of entry or dealing with you, but you won't make squillions.
If anyone repeatedly makes big money, what is almost certainly going on is some other expression of market power, because if you don't have that power, the real market power will make the calculations on shutting you down once you're detected.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/lottery-jackpot-record-power...
on edit - well I guess it technically does it give it, but at such a high rate of investment it isn't really that worthwhile either. The point about the lottery is that a single ticket which costs little can return a billion. A horse race that returned a billion probably needs at least a 100 million to be bet, which is probably not even possible.
If you start with two billion, it’s relatively easy to walk away from the track with one.
I admit I am at a loss how either of these suppositions could actually come to be, based on what I wrote, so I suppose I am mistaken.
I pointed out an ordinary mechanism by which a person could find capital.
A winning system could offer better rates to customers of a money laundering service.
https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Beat-Racetrack-William-Ziemba/dp/0...
His idea is that the odds (on the tote board) to win can be used to make a more accurate predictor for winning place and show than the place and show odds on the board. What you notice is that maybe two times a day at the track you find a horse which is favored to win and the show bet pays almost as much as the win bet and you place a Kelly-sized bet on that one.
I've found a few opportunities of that sort at the local harness racing track.
“Bill Benter did the impossible: He wrote an algorithm that couldn’t lose at the track.”
The article is more nuanced. He created an EV+ system. It included tickets bought that did lose as part of the system he used. In fact buying tickets that would lose was part of his system. Along with other tickets that would win.
Buying 50k individual tickets to win 13 million is great ROI, but didn't see guaranteed ROI.
Also, the cover
> How to make $1 billion betting on horses
is called into question as it's alleged that at best, the firm may have made $1 billion, but not individuals. I guess a few allegedly came close? Hard to verify.
If there's something incorrect or unclear in what I said, I’d appreciate it if you could point it out or share your perspective. It would be helpful to know if I misunderstood something or if my tone came across in a way I didn’t intend. Constructive feedback is always welcome!
Some discussion then:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16985413
And in 2019:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20865312
2021:
Being first looks simple in hindsight
From 2018 (please add tag)