Video

Nothing that wasn't mentioned through the talk. One is Gu & Kong (1998), one is William Benter (himself), Richard Epstein, and a ref' for Edward Thorpe's Beat the Dealer

Bill Benter is one of my gambling hero's (for better or worse) and I agree that he has achieved some ground breaking advances in applying modern technology to profit from betting on horses. May I offer some advice.... You mention he "somehow" found a way etc..., but actually it is known how he did it, the thing is (by his own words in other talks) the problem is most people won't put the time into doing the work needed to make his way work. These people want a plug and play get rich quick method which isn't going to happen. The second point you make is about average gamblers lacking capital as if that is a barrier. No, it's not. The idea is to bet with the correct percentage of your bank whatever that might be, not how much it is. Staking is all about percentages which can be scaled up or down. I'm simplifying all this for a CZcams comment, but these are actually simple things to do once you know how of course. The thing is getting there might not be so easy, that's a much bigger discussion but I will admit that probably 95% or more people will be not be able to do what Benter is talking about. Why? Because other than having the wrong mindset, it takes a unique set of skills to not only understand probability, but to know how to pick winners or losers, how to use make (not buy) software that can crunch the data fast enough to be useful, have the right set up for placing bets, being able to bet without deviation due to mental stimulation and last of all even wanting to be that serious about making a long term profit from gambling. As a last note I'll say I bet on horses every day, seven days a week, profitably. I'll even state that I'm probably better than Benter "was" at picking winners because I use more modern methods than he did in a more difficult racing scenario. It is possible to be profitable but the learning curve is massive. Hope this has made sense :)

@@JohnDoe-cf8jz so do you bet on Betfair or thru a bookie or tote? Being profitable on BF is much easier than what he did, he was overcoming an 18% middleman. BF is almost a zero sum situation, much easier to find 'gaps' compared to the tote. He truly was a persevering trailblazer, coping with pre-internet restrictions. Data is so easy to obtain nowadays.

@@jamesrav Hi James, I only use exchanges as imo bookies are the most corrupt sob's there are next to politicians, lol. As for the rest, Benter is as I mentioned my hero for what he did at the time. Technological advances have made things much easier these days. Having said that one still needs to know what to look for in a mountain of data and how to apply whatever that data is indicating :)

@@JohnDoe-cf8jz couldnt agree more, when I read the initial comment I had to make sure it wasnt mine. BF is a true gift to sports bettors, I always ask people why they use bookies considering the poor odds and the high possibility of being banned should they actually be a long-term and they just say "its easier". Great way to eliminate your chance of actually making an income at this. Benter came in at a good time, by the early 90's PCs were pretty robust and the programming languages were very fast. Ten years earlier and he might not have succeeded. No internet for data scraping and hand-entering data (maybe the girls did that) was a big disadvantage.

@@jamesravYes to all those points and I agree about his timing. Technology gaps aside as for the differences, there is the point that he had a massive advantage in the location, that being of very limited scenarios to analyze. Here in the UK there are so many variables to consider given all the various courses a runner may have been on previously.

He said 0.2 %

@@joelakotia6591 He said 0.02 of 10,000 dollars which is 2% and it comes down to $200, not $20.

Yea he flanked on the basic 😂🤣 if I was writing my speech like that I’d notice it myself 😅

@@DineshPadisetti , I am surprised he didnt catch that himself, a $20 bet seems awfully low for a $10,000 bankroll. maybe he thought the bankroll was $1000. Unless I misheard, he seemed to say their group made 6,600 bets over 11 years (600/year). I cant see how they made so much money (profit) with so few bets. $100,000 bets would mean they BET $600 million, and they certainly lost a lot of bets - if they got $800 million in return that means $200 mill profit. He did beat the 18% track take which is amazing.

Who cares. Look at his accomplishments, and who are you.

Google, "Power laws and self similarity." (!)

It would be the 'greater pool of money better reflects the winning probability of each horse'. Generally speaking, the more money wagered, the more efficient the odds become.

Mr. Benter had his computer hooked up to the race tracks', and thus could put in many large bets based on those 'last minute' odds. This relates to the Kelly Criterion. Most of the 'smart' money is coming in from the connections of the horse. They know the current condition of their horse.