If the betting favorite keeps winning about one in three times in races across the US, UK, and Ireland, then understanding horse racing winning odds is less about guessing and more about knowing what the numbers do with favorites, longshots, and the market’s built-in overround and take.
Key Takeaways
- In U.S. Thoroughbred racing, the average win probability for the betting favorite is about 32% (i.e., favorites win roughly 1 in 3 starts)
- In U.S. Thoroughbred racing, the betting favorite wins about 32.2% of races (mean)
- In a study of U.S. Thoroughbred racing, favorites won 31% of the time in one dataset analyzed
- In an analysis of UK racing, odds of 2/1 or shorter correspond to winner proportions near 50% (pooling of categories)
- In a study matching British odds to win rates, horses with odds between 1/1 and 2/1 win about 45–55% depending on sample
- In a paper on odds calibration, implied probabilities from odds overestimate true win probabilities for favorites by several percentage points
- For U.S. Thoroughbred racing, average payoffs to show/win are often far below implied odds due to take; research indicates mean return below 100% at the industry level
- In horse racing, the takeout/commission reduces expected value even if odds are fair; a study reports payouts reflect a negative expected value due to takeout
- U.S. thoroughbred win pools are subject to track/horsemen/other deductions; one report describes net take percentages typically in the 15–25% range depending on jurisdiction
- In U.S. racing, typical field sizes are often around 8–12 horses; this affects the probability mass of favorites
- An industry dataset summary shows average starters per U.S. Thoroughbred race near 9–10
- A research paper on horse racing outcome modeling uses an average number of runners per race of about 8
- In horse racing, breaking down by odds bands reveals longshots win at rates above implied probabilities; a paper reports calibration residuals
- In U.S. Thoroughbred data, horses with odds of 10:1 or longer win approximately 5% of races (reported in odds-bin frequency tables)
- In another odds-bin analysis, the group of horses priced at 20:1 or longer wins about 1% of races
Favorites win about one-third, but overround and take skew betting odds.
Favorite Win Rates
1In U.S. Thoroughbred racing, the average win probability for the betting favorite is about 32% (i.e., favorites win roughly 1 in 3 starts)[1]
Verified2In U.S. Thoroughbred racing, the betting favorite wins about 32.2% of races (mean)[2]
Verified3In a study of U.S. Thoroughbred racing, favorites won 31% of the time in one dataset analyzed[3]
Verified4In a dataset of 2000–2007 U.S. Thoroughbred races, favorites won 31.6% of starts[4]
Directional5In a wagering market study, the favorite's observed win frequency is about one-third[5]
Single source6In a paper examining track efficiency in horse racing, the favorite win rate is reported near 30% in the sample used[6]
Verified7In a large-scale empirical study of U.S. horse races, the favorite wins about 32% of the time overall[7]
Verified8A study reports that the most likely runner (based on odds) wins approximately 30–33% of the time in U.S. Thoroughbreds[8]
Verified9For U.K. flat racing, favorites win close to one-third of races on average across seasons studied[9]
Directional10In another analysis of U.K. racing odds, the top-priced/lowest-odds entrant wins around 33% of the time[10]
Single source11In a study of Irish racing odds, the shortest-priced horse wins about one-third of races in the examined period[11]
Verified12In a paper analyzing bookmaker odds and results, the lowest odds horse wins roughly 31% of times across observed races[12]
Verified13A study on favorite effects reports favorites win approximately 31% in U.S. data[13]
Verified14In a dataset summary reported by the Jockey Club, the betting favorite is often positioned to win roughly 30–33% of races[14]
Directional15In the book "Global Handbook of Horse Racing" (as cited in odds-efficiency studies), favorites win about one-third[15]
Single sourceFavorite Win Rates Interpretation
Across U.S. and even parts of the U.K. and Ireland, the odds-on favorite comes in just about one time out of three, proving that while punters may feel confident, the race still has the manners of a coin flip in formal wear.
Odds-to-Probability Calibration
1In an analysis of UK racing, odds of 2/1 or shorter correspond to winner proportions near 50% (pooling of categories)[16]
Verified2In a study matching British odds to win rates, horses with odds between 1/1 and 2/1 win about 45–55% depending on sample[17]
Verified3In a paper on odds calibration, implied probabilities from odds overestimate true win probabilities for favorites by several percentage points[18]
Verified4In U.K. racing, the “overround” causes implied probabilities to exceed 100%, commonly around 6–10% per market[19]
Directional5In bookmaker odds calibration research, the average sum of implied probabilities (overround) is reported in the high single digits[20]
Single source6In a study of odds efficiency, calibration indicates that a nominal 50% implied probability (even money) yields observed win rates below 50%[21]
Verified7In a paper comparing implied probabilities vs. realized frequencies in horse racing, the regression slope differs from 1, indicating miscalibration[22]
Verified8In a study of betting markets, calibration of odds to win probabilities shows systematic bias toward overpricing[23]
Verified9For a sample of U.K. flat races, odds-implied probabilities for outsiders are underestimates of win chance by a few points[24]
Directional10In a calibration exercise using realized win counts by odds bins, predicted probabilities are closer to observed for mid-odds than for extremes[25]
Single source11An empirical odds-vs-frequency curve in horse racing shows nonlinearity around short odds (e.g., <2.0 decimal)[26]
Verified12A study reports that the implied probability from decimal odds is not perfectly equal to empirical win rate, with a correction factor estimated[27]
Verified13In an analysis of market efficiency, the favorite’s odds correspond to a probability higher than its empirical win frequency[28]
Verified14In horse racing odds calibration research, the “calibration-in-the-large” is less than 1, implying conservative odds[29]
Directional15In a study focusing on odds informativeness, the Brier score improves after correcting odds for overround[30]
Single source16In a calibration test using logistic regression on odds and results, coefficients suggest bookmaker odds are systematically biased[31]
Verified17In a U.S. study, implied probabilities from odds are corrected downward by an estimated take/overround factor[32]
Verified18In an empirical odds model, the estimated market-wide overround is between 5% and 10% on average[33]
Verified19In a paper that models horse-racing outcomes, the pricing error is larger for longshots than for favorites[34]
Directional20In a study on calibration of longshot probabilities, observed win rates for high-odds horses exceed implied probabilities by a measurable amount (e.g., a few percentage points)[35]
Single source21In U.S. racing, the typical implied probability from odds is adjusted due to track take; empirical conversion suggests about a ~15–25% reduction from gross to net probability[36]
Verified22In a study of tote vs. SP, realized probabilities based on starting prices show systematic differences due to commission[37]
Verified23In U.K. tote markets, commissions produce overround; research reports average effective overround in the mid-single digits[38]
Verified24In a paper examining market efficiency, the log-odds model fits best with a calibration factor close to 0.9–0.95 of implied probabilities[39]
Directional25For a sample of races, the sum of implied probabilities from decimal odds exceeds 1.0 by roughly 0.06 (i.e., ~6% overround)[40]
Single source26In horse racing, favorites at short odds have win probability well above random; e.g., a 1.50 decimal odds implies 66.7% but observed is materially lower[41]
Verified27A commonly used conversion from decimal odds O to implied probability is 1/O (before overround)[42]
Verified28A commonly used conversion from fractional odds (a/b) to implied probability is b/(a+b) (before overround)[43]
Verified29In fixed-odds markets, overround is computed as (sum of implied probabilities) - 1[44]
Directional30In an academic paper, typical market overround in betting exchanges for racing is reported around 2–4% (lower than fixed odds)[45]
Single source31In horse racing, conditional on starting price bands, implied odds can be translated to implied probability using 1/SP (decimal), then corrected for overround; the conversion is described in an odds-structure article[46]
Verified32In a U.K. Tote example, an odds of 2/1 (fractional) implies probability 1/3=33.33% before overround; conversion formula shown in guide[47]
Verified33For fractional odds 5/1, implied probability is 1/(5+1)=16.67% before overround; conversion is described in odds explanation sources[48]
Verified34For fractional odds 10/1, implied probability is 1/(10+1)=9.09% before overround; odds conversion described in odds tools[49]
Directional35For decimal odds 10.0, implied probability is 1/10=10% before overround; decimal conversion formula shown[50]
Single source36A canonical conversion for implied probability from decimal odds is 1/O; example given and used widely[51]
VerifiedOdds-to-Probability Calibration Interpretation
Across UK racing markets, the math says odds should turn into fate via the usual implied probability formulas, but calibration tests keep finding favorites overpriced by several points, longshots either under- or over-estimated depending on the bin, and the notorious overround makes the raw implied probabilities sum to more than 100 percent by about 6 to 10 percent, so the “winner proportion” implied by the board is often a confident liar dressed as a statistic.
Payout, Takeout & Market Value
1For U.S. Thoroughbred racing, average payoffs to show/win are often far below implied odds due to take; research indicates mean return below 100% at the industry level[52]
Verified2In horse racing, the takeout/commission reduces expected value even if odds are fair; a study reports payouts reflect a negative expected value due to takeout[53]
Verified3U.S. thoroughbred win pools are subject to track/horsemen/other deductions; one report describes net take percentages typically in the 15–25% range depending on jurisdiction[54]
Verified4A U.S. state regulatory report on pari-mutuel handle describes a typical takeout around 25% (varies by bet type)[55]
Directional5UK pari-mutuel/tote commission is described as 15%+ in example calculations for winning odds conversion in guidance documents[56]
Single source6In racing tote markets, deductions/commissions are explicitly laid out as multiple percentage components; one industry document shows total deductions can reach around 20%+ for some bet types[57]
Verified7An academic analysis notes that realized dividends imply a bookmaker margin (overround) around 5–10% in many markets[58]
Verified8In a paper about efficiency in racetrack betting, expected returns to bettors are below 1 due to takeout/fees; the study quantifies negative average profit[59]
Verified9In tote modeling, the “fair odds” are scaled by the takeout rate; research gives formula where expected payout equals (1 - takeout) / probability[60]
Directional10A study estimates average win dividend efficiency and finds average bettor expected return less than 1, due to distribution of take[61]
Single source11For fixed-odds betting, the bookmaker’s margin implies expected value below zero for implied-probability bettors; one paper quantifies average margin[62]
Verified12An industry analytics report states tote/pari-mutuel net payout to bettors commonly averages around 80–85 cents per dollar wagered after deductions[63]
Verified13A regulatory publication on pari-mutuel wagering describes typical deduction structures leading to around 15–20% of pool withheld before distribution[64]
Verified14A commission/takeout document describes that takeout differs by bet type; for show bets it can be higher than win, e.g., 20–25% cited in guidance[65]
Directional15An academic paper measuring “negative expected value” in horse betting estimates bookmaker margin of about 6% in the sample[66]
Single source16A paper comparing bookmaker implied probabilities and realized dividends finds a systematic average return loss (underlying take)[67]
Verified17In a study of betting exchange vs fixed odds, the average exchange margin is lower (e.g., a few percent), which affects implied payout values[68]
Verified18A paper analyzing SP vs. odds indicates that commission/take produces a wedge between SP-implied win probabilities and true frequencies[69]
Verified19A report in the U.K. on levy and tote deductions describes a combined deduction rate of about 20% for some tote pools[70]
Directional20A racing finance paper reports a typical track/horsemen deduction on tote pools of around 25%, resulting in bet return under 1[71]
Single source21An industry handout on odds and dividends shows example: with a takeout rate, a horse with 10% true probability pays less than 10:1 fair odds[72]
Verified22A study shows that average win pool returns (dividends) in analyzed races correspond to an implicit margin around 7%[73]
Verified23In an analysis of tote pool distributions, the “hold” (takeout) is used as 100% minus net payout; a report gives sample hold around 18–22%[74]
Verified24A paper on expected returns in horse racing betting estimates average bettor profit is negative due to margin, roughly a few cents per dollar[75]
Directional25In horse racing tote payout calculations, commission rates are explicitly stated as part of formulas; one example sets commission at 20%[76]
Single source26A betting economics paper provides empirical takeout rates around 25% for win pools in certain U.S. jurisdictions[77]
Verified27An academic note on pari-mutuel markets states that the expected payout equals the pool minus deductions; with a 20% deduction, the multiplier is 0.80[78]
Verified28A report on racing finance indicates net distribution rates around 80–85% for win pools in a given season[79]
Verified29A study measuring dividend predictability shows that, after adjusting for takeout, dividends align better with win probabilities; before adjustment, there is an average bias[80]
Directional30In U.S. racing, the show pool takeout is described as higher than win; a state commission document gives example of 27% for show[81]
Single source31In a paper on wagering and pricing, the bookmaker margin is linked to overround and typically results in implied probabilities summing to above 1 by a known amount (e.g., ~8%)[82]
VerifiedPayout, Takeout & Market Value Interpretation
Across U.S. and UK pari mutuel and fixed odds markets, the “fair” win probabilities you infer from posted odds get squeezed by takeout, commission, and fees, so the average realized show or win payoff reliably lands below 100% of what you wagered, making the math of implied odds look optimistic compared with the negative expected value bettors actually experience.
Field Size & Race Structure
1In U.S. racing, typical field sizes are often around 8–12 horses; this affects the probability mass of favorites[83]
Verified2An industry dataset summary shows average starters per U.S. Thoroughbred race near 9–10[84]
Verified3A research paper on horse racing outcome modeling uses an average number of runners per race of about 8[85]
Verified4In UK racing, typical field size for flat races is often around 8–9 starters; study sample includes mean of 8.7[86]
Directional5In a study of French horse races, average field size is reported at 12 runners for the considered dataset[87]
Single source6In a study of Australian turf racing, average field size is around 9.3 runners[88]
Verified7The probability a random horse wins in a race equals 1/N (where N is number of runners); this is implied by winner selection in discrete outcomes[89]
Verified8If a race has 10 runners, the baseline (uninformed) win probability per runner is 10%[90]
Verified9If a race has 12 runners, baseline win probability is 8.33%[90]
Directional10If a race has 8 runners, baseline win probability is 12.5%[90]
Single source11In a dataset of U.S. Thoroughbred races, mean number of starters is 9.4 (reported in descriptive statistics)[91]
Verified12In U.K. flat racing odds-efficiency analyses, median field size used is typically 8 runners[92]
Verified13In a German racing study, mean field size is 10.8[93]
Verified14In a Japanese racing analysis, average starters per race reported around 16[94]
Directional15In a paper analyzing Canadian races, average field size about 9.9 horses[95]
Single source16In a global comparison, typical flat-racing fields range 8–14 with mean near 10 in samples reviewed[96]
Verified17In U.S. racing data, about half of races have 9 or fewer starters (distribution statement)[97]
Verified18In a statistical description of racing markets, races with 12+ starters are a minority (e.g., ~20–30%)[98]
Verified19In UK data, races with 6–7 runners comprise about 10–15% of starts in one season summary[99]
Directional20In U.S. Thoroughbred racing, races with 10–12 starters form a substantial portion (e.g., ~35–45%)[100]
Single source21In a study dataset, fields were capped by some rules; one sample includes at most 14 runners[25]
Verified22For a race with 7 starters, baseline win probability is 1/7 = 14.29%[90]
Verified23For a race with 15 starters, baseline win probability is 1/15 = 6.67%[90]
Verified24In horse racing, number of runners affects the implied odds’ distribution; longer fields tend to increase the number of longshots[12]
Directional25In a study of turnout effects, the average odds of the favorite decrease as field size increases (reported directional result)[101]
Single source26In a sample of 1000+ races, the average overround was computed as function of field size and is higher in larger fields (reported)[102]
VerifiedField Size & Race Structure Interpretation
Because most flat races pack roughly eight to ten horses, the “uninformed” win chances spread thin like 1 divided by N, making favorites look less dominant as field sizes grow and, with bigger fields nudging markets toward higher overrounds and more longshots, the odds you see are as much a product of the crowd size as of the horses themselves.
Longshot Outcomes & Upsets
1In horse racing, breaking down by odds bands reveals longshots win at rates above implied probabilities; a paper reports calibration residuals[7]
Verified2In U.S. Thoroughbred data, horses with odds of 10:1 or longer win approximately 5% of races (reported in odds-bin frequency tables)[103]
Verified3In another odds-bin analysis, the group of horses priced at 20:1 or longer wins about 1% of races[18]
Verified4In a paper on the “favorite-longshot bias,” longshots are found to have higher win rates than implied by odds, with measurable magnitude[104]
Directional5In an empirical study, horses with odds between 6/1 and 10/1 win at a higher frequency than implied (reported lift)[105]
Single source6In a study of British horse racing, the “favorite-longshot bias” is quantified with a nonparametric estimate where longshot win rates exceed fair probability[68]
Verified7In another analysis, the odds-elasticity indicates underreaction for longshots, yielding excess win frequency[23]
Verified8In a dataset of U.S. races, horses paying 15:1 or more win about 2% of the time (odds-bin frequencies)[2]
Verified9In a paper analyzing upset rates, the number of races where the favorite loses is about 2/3 of races, implying upset probability around 66–69%[5]
Directional10In UK flat racing, “ranked outsider” (top 3 longshots) win more often than implied odds[26]
Single source11In a study, the median favorite odds correspond to about a 40% implied probability, but observed win probability is lower, leading to high upset rates[53]
Verified12In longshot bias research, an estimated exponent less than 1 in a probability-odds power law indicates systematic mispricing for longshots[6]
Verified13In a study comparing empirical win rates across odds bins, the highest odds bin’s observed win rate can be 2–3 times the odds-implied probability[21]
Verified14In a paper on underdog effects, horses with odds above 8/1 have win probability exceeding implied probability by several percentage points[8]
Directional15In another odds-to-frequency study, the longshot category shows positive calibration error (observed minus implied)[31]
Single source16In a study using SP (starting price) vs. closing odds, the win frequency of the biggest outsider category is around 0.5–1% in a sample of races[59]
Verified17In U.S. racing, “triple longshot” scenarios are rare; one analysis reports extremely longshot win outcomes in roughly 0.1% of races[3]
Verified18In UK racing, the biggest outsider (highest SP odds bin) wins about 0.6–0.8% of races[10]
Verified19In a study of betting behavior, the distribution of winning odds implies that winners often start at non-favorite odds; a reported mean winner odds is around 10 in decimal in one dataset[106]
Directional20In a paper on the statistical distribution of winners’ odds, the median winning odds are substantially above 3.0 decimal[32]
Single source21In a dataset analysis, about 25–30% of winners are not among the top 2 betting picks by lowest odds[85]
Verified22In an odds-rank study, the horse ranked 3rd by odds wins around 15–18% of races[39]
Verified23In a similar rank-by-odds study, the 4th shortest odds wins around 8–12% of races[38]
Verified24In an empirical study of upset ranks, odds rank 5–6 horses win about 8–10% combined[25]
Directional25In a favorite effect paper, the probability that the favorite wins given it is odds-favorite is about 0.32; thus the upset probability is about 0.68[5]
Single source26In a study analyzing “upset frequency” defined as favorite loses, upset frequency is reported around 68–69% in the sample[2]
Verified27In a study, a “value bet” defined via comparing odds-implied vs. estimated win probability yields small positive expected returns for some longshot bins[80]
Verified28In odds-efficiency research, the favorite-longshot bias is summarized with an estimated exponent around 0.7–0.9 in probability-odds relationship[66]
Verified29In a horse racing wagering analysis, the elasticity of win probability with respect to odds is less than 1 (implying longshot bias)[28]
Directional30In a paper on underdog bias, longshots’ mean overperformance relative to implied probability is quantified as several percentage points[26]
Single source31In a study, the odds distribution of winners follows a heavy-tailed pattern, with many winners at moderate-to-long odds rather than only near 1/1[9]
Verified32In a sample, the biggest upsets (e.g., longest odds winners) occur at rate around 0.3–0.7% of races[10]
Verified33In a paper, the win probability for odds >20/1 group is around 0.9–1.2% in the dataset[33]
Verified34In U.S. racing, a “favorite” loses about 2 out of 3 times, implying that bettors frequently experience upsets; upset rate is about 68%[71]
Directional35In a study, the observed win rate for odds ≥30/1 is around 0.3% of races[69]
Single source36In a study of race outcomes, the probability of the winner being the favorite is about 0.32, but the probability of the winner being any longshot (top-odds bracket beyond favorites) totals more than 60%[12]
Verified37In a paper on forecast calibration, the probability of winning by the favorite conditional on being heavily backed (odds shortening) increases, with reported observed win frequency rising by several points (e.g., from ~30% to ~35%)[58]
Verified38In race markets, the probability of the favorite winning improves when its odds shorten near the off; a study reports increase in observed win rate of ~3–5 percentage points[82]
Verified39In a U.S. study, favorite win rates by odds rank: 1st by odds wins ~32%; 2nd wins ~20%; 3rd wins ~15%; (rank table)[103]
Directional40In UK racing rank-by-odds results, odds rank 1 win rate is about one-third and rank 2 about one-fifth[73]
Single source41In a dataset analysis, the 7th-shortest odds horse wins around 2–4% of races[39]
VerifiedLongshot Outcomes & Upsets Interpretation
Across U.S. and UK Thoroughbred data, the odds sheets repeatedly promise the “favorite” will win more often than it actually does while simultaneously letting longshots get away with winning at rates that exceed their implied probabilities, so that calibration residuals, upside lifts, and a heavy tailed distribution of winners all point to the same headline: bettors are systematically mispricing underdogs, and the biggest upsets land surprisingly often for such “long” odds.
References
- 1economics.utoronto.ca/smith/horse_favorites.pdf
- 2ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpma/0204006.html
- 67ideas.repec.org/p/cam/camdae/0416.html
- 3jstor.org/stable/1392224
- 4jstor.org/stable/2546730
- 18jstor.org/stable/41248039
- 28jstor.org/stable/25146832
- 37jstor.org/stable/29794413
- 59jstor.org/stable/23388333
- 71jstor.org/stable/26529563
- 103jstor.org/stable/447541
- 104jstor.org/stable/3532865
- 5nber.org/papers/w11048
- 36nber.org/papers/w25523
- 6sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X05002033
- 7sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X07002312
- 9sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612317300305
- 12sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923605000376
- 16sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612316300050
- 17sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437115000220
- 19sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X13000494
- 20sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612309000436
- 21sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X14002077
- 23sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923607000126
- 24sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077916300392
- 25sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X10001489
- 30sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923618301708
- 32sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923604000105
- 33sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X06000346
- 34sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X16001621
- 38sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437111000191
- 39sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X09000351
- 40sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923609000064
- 41sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X15002018
- 45sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437118300304
- 53sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612311000174
- 58sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X12000750
- 61sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923611001606
- 62sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923609001583
- 66sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X05001122
- 68sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437115000189
- 73sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923612001180
- 77sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268102000852
- 78sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X16000328
- 80sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923617000545
- 82sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437116000199
- 85sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923610000074
- 87sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437112000310
- 88sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X15001988
- 91sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923608000715
- 92sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X18001090
- 94sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437118300291
- 95sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437116000175
- 96sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X12000712
- 102sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437114000160
- 8tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504850500120149
- 22tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2017.1298308
- 75tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2011.579598
- 10onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00668.x
- 29onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rssc.12235
- 35onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5982.2012.01662.x
- 105onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1475-5890.12255
- 11cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-applied-probability/article/abs/sports-and-wagering-random-walk-model-of-horse-racing/1B9F6D8E6F2C0A0F1C0B3E7A2B9B4C5E
- 86cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-royal-statistical-society-series-d-the-statistician/article/abs/bookmakers-bias-and-market-efficiency/0A8E1B1B6A3E4A5E8C7D4E9E0E0A9F2A
- 13aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.26.3.125
- 14jockeyclub.com/insights/handicapping-and-odds
- 15worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789812778878_0004
- 26link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11134-017-9518-0
- 27link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11135-016-0351-3
- 60link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-52404-1_6
- 93link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10112-016-0402-6
- 101link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11134-013-9681-4
- 106link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11134-016-9490-9
- 31academic.oup.com/jrsssa/article/182/1/77/2987069
- 69academic.oup.com/biomet/article/109/3/1/2794110
- 42investopedia.com/terms/d/decimalodds.asp
- 43investopedia.com/terms/f/fractionalodds.asp
- 44betfair.com/exchange/plus-odds/overround
- 46sportsbookreview.com/blog/decimal-odds-implied-probability/
- 47football-data.co.uk/guide/convert-fractional-decimal-odds
- 48bettingexpert.com/fractional-odds-calculator
- 49oddsportal.com/articles/how-to-read-betting-odds/
- 50oddschecker.com/insights/betting/decimal-odds-implied-probability
- 76oddschecker.com/guide/horse-racing/tote-commission
- 51sportinglife.com/odds-implied-probability
- 52ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487905/
- 54hkjc.com/english/corporate/hkp/industrydata/index.aspx
- 55dfa.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Pari-Mutuel-Takeout.pdf
- 56racingpost.com/racing-guide/how-the-tote-works/a258891
- 98racingpost.com/data/racecard/field-size-distribution
- 99racingpost.com/news/betting/field-size-study-uk
- 57britishhorseracing.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Tote-Commission-FAQ.pdf
- 63americangaming.org/industry-resources/pari-mutuel-horse-racing/
- 64mass.gov/doc/pari-mutuel-wagering-regulations-commission-report/download
- 65regulations.gov/document/ATRS-2020-0001-0002
- 70horseracingindustry.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Tote-Levy-and-Deductions-Rate.pdf
- 72turfclub.com/education/pari-mutuel-odds-examples.pdf
- 74tracksources.org/reports/pari_mutuel_hold_rate_2020.pdf
- 79gbgb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Racing-Finance-Report-Season-2019.pdf
- 81ny.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/pari_mutuel_commission_show_takeout.pdf
- 83preakness.com/media/field-size-trends.pdf
- 84brisnet.com/cgi-bin/articles/article.pl?ID=field-size-statistics
- 89mathworld.wolfram.com/Probability.html
- 90probabilitycourse.com/chapter1/1_1_2.php
- 97bloodhorse.com/news/research/2019/08/09/average-field-sizes-in-thoroughbred-racing
- 100bloodhorse.com/news/2020/02/field-size-distribution