Contenders Plus One

[PICSIX]

There is a lot of talk about holding out for random odds or better when betting to win. The way I handicap (for win bets) I may have anywhere from 1-6 contenders, ranked relatively equal, depending on the race. IMO it makes more sense to make my acceptable odds equal to number of contenders + 1 vs. random odds. Examples....

1.) 12 horse field with 5 contenders, Random Odds = 11-1, My Odds = 6-1.

2.) 8 horse field with 3 contenders, RO = 7-1, MO = 4-1.

3.) 5 horse field with 1 contender, RO = 4-1, MO = 2-1.

I think this is a more realistic approach to finding value that is based on how I've handicapped the race(s). :ThmbUp:

[Overlay]

So I take it that in figuring your odds, you're disregarding any horses that you don't consider contenders, without using what Dick Mitchell used to call a "Stuff Happens" blanket odds figure/percentage for the non-contenders as a group as part of making up the line.

[Overlay]

Also, does the performance of your contenders indicate that assigning an equal chance of winning to each of them is valid from the standpoint of optimizing your return, or have you considered somehow weighting the contenders themselves based on one or more criteria, and assigning differing fair odds based on those weights?

[Capper Al]

There is a lot of talk about holding out for random odds or better when betting to win. The way I handicap (for win bets) I may have anywhere from 1-6 contenders, ranked relatively equal, depending on the race. IMO it makes more sense to make my acceptable odds equal to number of contenders + 1 vs. random odds. Examples....

1.) 12 horse field with 5 contenders, Random Odds = 11-1, My Odds = 6-1.

2.) 8 horse field with 3 contenders, RO = 7-1, MO = 4-1.

3.) 5 horse field with 1 contender, RO = 4-1, MO = 2-1.

I think this is a more realistic approach to finding value that is based on how I've handicapped the race(s). :ThmbUp:

I'll lower my odds to contenders plus one for my top two picks when I'm not in rehab. All others are at random.

[PICSIX]

So I take it that in figuring your odds, you're disregarding any horses that you don't consider contenders, without using what Dick Mitchell used to call a "Stuff Happens" blanket odds figure/percentage for the non-contenders as a group as part of making up the line.

I'm using the +1 for "stuff happens"

[PICSIX]

Also, does the performance of your contenders indicate that assigning an equal chance of winning to each of them is valid from the standpoint of optimizing your return, or have you considered somehow weighting the contenders themselves based on one or more criteria, and assigning differing fair odds based on those weights?

Work In Progress at this point.

[pondman]

I'm all in favor of this type of thought process. I believe you are heading in the right direction.

However, I spot play and personally wait for the horse that I know will run at +40%. I don't look for contenders. In most cases I don't care about anything else in the race, or the # in a race. I continue to watch the odds throughout the prior week, as the house handicapper and morning line is posted. I could go in at 2-1, but I still want to give myself 5-1, because my personal epsilon of unknowns is at 60%. It's a habit. It's the way I was taught.

Do you have a set type of race to play? Or do you generally play most?

[PICSIX]

I'm all in favor of this type of thought process. I believe you are heading in the right direction.

However, I spot play and personally wait for the horse that I know will run at +40%. I don't look for contenders. In most cases I don't care about anything else in the race, or the # in a race. I continue to watch the odds throughout the prior week, as the house handicapper and morning line is posted. I could go in at 2-1, but I still want to give myself 5-1, because my personal epsilon of unknowns is at 60%. It's a habit. It's the way I was taught.

Do you have a set type of race to play? Or do you generally play most?

I currently play around 50% of the races I handicap. I stay away from races with more than 2 or 3 first time starters and I also avoid races where I agree with the public on a short priced horse.

[classhandicapper]

I used to use various approaches like this because it's theoretically the correct way to go, but I kept running into two practical problems.

There were many situations that were very complex or that fell into areas I could not "value" well. So I had an "odds line" but I didn't have enough confidence in it to make a bet (and I think that's highly appropriate).

There were some situations where I knew I was at a disadvantage relative to insiders. Things like layoffs, FTS, large claiming price drop downs, alchemist trainers that may or may not turn a horse around etc....

Often, horses that look like overlays based on their PPs are dead on the board for a very good reasons and vice versa. It's that someone knows something you don't.

There's no question you have to be value oriented to win, but I think you also have to be aware that sometimes you are operating with incomplete information and understanding. So identifying true value is sometimes more about identifying situations you know you understand better than the public.

Then when the price is longer, you know exactly why and can feel confident pulling the trigger.

[pondman]

There were some situations where I knew I was at a disadvantage relative to insiders. Things like layoffs, FTS, large claiming price drop downs, alchemist trainers that may or may not turn a horse around etc....
.

On the high end of racing many of the breeder/owners/trainers don't wager. The reasoning is because they don't want to give the image of impropriety to customers. And so their horses float on the back of the crowd. Some of the best bets are high end breeders bringing their horses back. You'll see this late in the year with 3yr old maidens; They just couldn't get them going in the spring.

I think a player needs to blindly bet a few of these every year.

[pondman]

I currently play around 50% of the races I handicap. I stay away from races with more than 2 or 3 first time starters and I also avoid races where I agree with the public on a short priced horse.

Sounds good. I'm a proponent of staying away from low priced horse. You'll probably find that anything below about 4-1 does nothing for you bank in the long run.

I bet maiden races and some of the better bets in California are the MSW in which half of the horses haven't run. I'd go with the horses with a couple races, no matter how poor of a performance. About 84% of the MSW winners have had a prior race in S. Cal. I think this is probably true on the high end of racing everywhere in the U.S.

[OCF]

Sounds good. I'm a proponent of staying away from low priced horse. You'll probably find that anything below about 4-1 does nothing for you bank in the long run.

I bet maiden races and some of the better bets in California are the MSW in which half of the horses haven't run. I'd go with the horses with a couple races, no matter how poor of a performance. About 84% of the MSW winners have had a prior race in S. Cal. I think this is probably true on the high end of racing everywhere in the U.S.

What do you make of the 2 in the $70K MSW race 5 at Belmont today? Sired by Bernardini, trained by Pletcher, ridden by J Velazquez, solid works, FST. All of those things are favorable except the FST, but still how does it get a 7/5 ML with no race record to consider? I don't believe this is uncommon. My suspicion is that this is the kind of horse that creates some buzz around the track, folks have been waiting for it to run, and the oddsmaker knows that.

I've taken the long way around to get to the real question - if that scenario is true, how do you find good prices on higher-end maidens? I suspect that the insiders are watching these types particularly closely.