An argument for betting the second or third best horse?

[Milkshaker]

I like to read strategy articles in fields different from horse race betting, and then, if I learn something from them, try to re-read the article through a handicapping prism.

This bit from the NYT the other day caught my eye.

It originally applies to how we select people to emulate as role models, but I am applying it to the slant of avoiding betting favorites and instead seeking out the second or third best betting alternatives.

I know I am stretching the original point, but here's the excerpt and then the full link:

A professor of behavioral science at the University of Warwick drew...conclusions by developing a simulation model in which success depends both on skill and past success. In other words, the probability of success increases if the previous outcome was a success.

Based on simulated data, they looked at how average skill levels vary with the number of successes achieved and found that players who achieved exceptional performance had an average skill level that was lower than the skill level of those with fewer successes.

“The most successful players are not the most impressive,” they wrote. “Rather, the moderately successful players are the most impressive ones.”

That’s because “chance events outside the control of individuals" often influence performance.

Luck and the rich-get-richer dynamic — in which those who succeed early are more apt to receive resources and attention — often play a crucial role in determining who ends up on top.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/your-money/sometimes-second-best-makes-a-better-role-model.html

[thaskalos]

Could it be that the reason why the most "successful" people are not the most "impressive" is because these outstanding achievers are not always able to EXPLAIN what they do...or to teach their skills to others?

We all know that the best players often make the worst coaches.

The highest achievers in any endeavor are often on what seems like an automatic pilot -- a "zone", if you will -- and that state is not one that can be easily explained to someone else. And without an adequate explanation...it might be easier to misinterpret their outstanding achievements as being the result of "luck".

[Ocala Mike]

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet." - Damon Runyon

[Stillriledup]

I like to view it this way. I'm not betting on horses, i'm betting on bets. The 2nd or 3rd best horse could theoretically be the 1st or 2nd worst bet, so i like to keep that in mind at all times.

[Overlay]

That's the big advantage of pari-mutuel wagering -- the ability to detect and capitalize on instances when the public is wrong (wherever in the odds spectrum that misjudgment may occur).

Even if the public has isolated the horse that has the greatest chance of winning, there is no profit in betting the horse if it then gets hammered down to odds that are below the level corresponding to that chance. The fact that that horse is then an underlay is almost sure to raise the odds of one or more other horses in the race above fair level, and turn them into overlays. (And that doesn't even address instances where the public is totally mistaken about the horse that has the best chance of winning to begin with.)

Anyone who thinks that handicapping consists solely of finding the one horse that is most likely to win, and then betting it regardless of its odds; or who believes that the best horse in a race automatically has a 100% guaranteed assurance of winning, with no need to consider the chances of the other horses against which it is competing, is coming at the game from the wrong perspective, and is throwing away the favorable edge that pari-mutuel wagering offers in comparison to games of pure chance.

[thaskalos]

A player's method of play must harmoniously coexist with his temperament and disposition. A bettor who insists on wagering on the third or the fourth-best horse in the race because of the "wagering value" that these horses represent must have the internal fortitude to withstand the much longer losing streaks that such a betting method invites.

I often encounter players who dazzle me with their logic of why they are betting on a relative outsider in a race...but then they fall to pieces when they encounter a string of losses.

Why are they so surprised when they lose many races? By their own admission they are not betting on the best horses.

[Ocala Mike]

thas, it's like the story of the gambler sitting with his pal having a nice seafood dinner. They both order trout, and the gambler says to his pal, "I'll bet you the check that this isn't trout we're eating." His friend takes him up on it, and the waiter comes over to verify that the gambler loses the bet.

"Why did you make such a foolish bet?," his friend asks.

The gambler replies, "Because I had every other fish in the sea going for me."

[Stillriledup]

thas, it's like the story of the gambler sitting with his pal having a nice seafood dinner. They both order trout, and the gambler says to his pal, "I'll bet you the check that this isn't trout we're eating." His friend takes him up on it, and the waiter comes over to verify that the gambler loses the bet.

"Why did you make such a foolish bet?," his friend asks.

The gambler replies, "Because I had every other fish in the sea going for me."

That's pretty funny Mike. :D

[Robert Fischer]

A professor of behavioral science at the University of Warwick drew...conclusions by developing a simulation model in which success depends both on skill and past success. In other words, the probability of success increases if the previous outcome was a success.

Based on simulated data, they looked at how average skill levels vary with the number of successes achieved and found that players who achieved exceptional performance had an average skill level that was lower than the skill level of those with fewer successes.

“The most successful players are not the most impressive,” they wrote. “Rather, the moderately successful players are the most impressive ones.”

That’s because “chance events outside the control of individuals" often influence performance.

Luck and the rich-get-richer dynamic — in which those who succeed early are more apt to receive resources and attention — often play a crucial role in determining who ends up on top.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/your-money/sometimes-second-best-makes-a-better-role-model.html
It sounds like it could be a good read. :ThmbUp:

I wouldn't apply it seriously to business or horse racing.

[Robert Fischer]

Could it be that the reason why the most "successful" people are not the most "impressive" is because these outstanding achievers are not always able to EXPLAIN what they do...or to teach their skills to others?

We all know that the best players often make the worst coaches.

The highest achievers in any endeavor are often on what seems like an automatic pilot -- a "zone", if you will -- and that state is not one that can be easily explained to someone else. And without an adequate explanation...it might be easier to misinterpret their outstanding achievements as being the result of "luck".

A player's method of play must harmoniously coexist with his temperament and disposition. A bettor who insists on wagering on the third or the fourth-best horse in the race because of the "wagering value" that these horses represent must have the internal fortitude to withstand the much longer losing streaks that such a betting method invites.

I often encounter players who dazzle me with their logic of why they are betting on a relative outsider in a race...but then they fall to pieces when they encounter a string of losses.

Why are they so surprised when they lose many races? By their own admission they are not betting on the best horses.


Lots of wisdom here. :ThmbUp:

[dkithore]

[QUOTE=Milkshaker]I like to read strategy articles in fields different from horse race betting, and then, if I learn something from them, try to re-read the article through a handicapping prism.

/QUOTE]

Milkshaker, you may want to check out book "Black Swan" if you haven't already. And Fooled by Randomness by same author, Nassim Taleb.

[pondman]

It originally applies to how we select people to emulate as role models, but I am applying it to the slant of avoiding betting favorites and instead seeking out the second or third best betting alternatives.



I'd take it a step further. Don't bet the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and perhaps 5th choice given to you by the crowd.

[pondman]

[QUOTE=Milkshaker]
Milkshaker, you may want to check out book "Black Swan" if you haven't already. And Fooled by Randomness by same author, Nassim Taleb.

And 'Antifragile'.

[Stillriledup]

[QUOTE=dkithore]

And 'Antifragile'.

I have that sitting on my desk in my office and its the book i'm currently reading, but with 6 days a week of Toga, huge fields and 11 and 12 race cards, i haven't had time to get to it.

[Capper Al]

seeking out the second or third best betting alternatives.



This is The One and Only Absolute Truth for Profitability. One does this based on random (natural) odds.

[jahura2]

A player's method of play must harmoniously coexist with his temperament and disposition. A bettor who insists on wagering on the third or the fourth-best horse in the race because of the "wagering value" that these horses represent must have the internal fortitude to withstand the much longer losing streaks that such a betting method invites.

I often encounter players who dazzle me with their logic of why they are betting on a relative outsider in a race...but then they fall to pieces when they encounter a string of losses.

Why are they so surprised when they lose many races? By their own admission they are not betting on the best horses.

Outstanding wisdom here. Thanks Thaskalos. All in all if you play the track you BETTER have intestinal fortitude regardless of how you play.

[Exotic1]

A player's method of play must harmoniously coexist with his temperament and disposition. A bettor who insists on wagering on the third or the fourth-best horse in the race because of the "wagering value" that these horses represent must have the internal fortitude to withstand the much longer losing streaks that such a betting method invites.

I often encounter players who dazzle me with their logic of why they are betting on a relative outsider in a race...but then they fall to pieces when they encounter a string of losses.

Why are they so surprised when they lose many races? By their own admission they are not betting on the best horses.

Outstanding !!

But, they only fall to pieces when betting real money - not when they're betting theoretically.

[mountainman]

I like to read strategy articles in fields different from horse race betting, and then, if I learn something from them, try to re-read the article through a handicapping prism.

This bit from the NYT the other day caught my eye.

It originally applies to how we select people to emulate as role models, but I am applying it to the slant of avoiding betting favorites and instead seeking out the second or third best betting alternatives.

I know I am stretching the original point, but here's the excerpt and then the full link:

A professor of behavioral science at the University of Warwick drew...conclusions by developing a simulation model in which success depends both on skill and past success. In other words, the probability of success increases if the previous outcome was a success.

Based on simulated data, they looked at how average skill levels vary with the number of successes achieved and found that players who achieved exceptional performance had an average skill level that was lower than the skill level of those with fewer successes.

“The most successful players are not the most impressive,” they wrote. “Rather, the moderately successful players are the most impressive ones.”

That’s because “chance events outside the control of individuals" often influence performance.

Luck and the rich-get-richer dynamic — in which those who succeed early are more apt to receive resources and attention — often play a crucial role in determining who ends up on top.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/your-money/sometimes-second-best-makes-a-better-role-model.html

No doubt there's a knack to success that can transcend theory and is hard to emulate. Nor should articulance be equated with skill. I've met winning horseplayers who couldn't begin to explain their methods.

[DJofSD]

Finding a reason to not bet the first selection/favorite is not the same thing as finding a reason to consider the 2nd or 3rd choice -- and vice versa.

[Magister Ludi]

[QUOTE=dkithore]

And 'Antifragile'.

Here is an excellent lecture by NNT on Anti-Fragility directed to a quant:

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Hs_DORLTWLU#at=17)

[davew]

I try to bet on best value, and that depends on odds and my given probability of horse winning.

If I think horse A has 33%, B has 25%, C has 20% chance of winning - I could bet on any or all depending on odds

break-even odds would be 2/1, 3/1, 4/1

if horse A is even money, I would be looking elsewhere (probably B and C)
if horse A is 3/1, it would be getting my money


Flexability is important to me.

[pondman]

I try to bet on best value, and that depends on odds and my given probability of horse winning.

If I think horse A has 33%, B has 25%, C has 20% chance of winning - I could bet on any or all depending on odds

break-even odds would be 2/1, 3/1, 4/1

if horse A is even money, I would be looking elsewhere (probably B and C)
if horse A is 3/1, it would be getting my money


Flexability is important to me.

This just doesn't sound profitable or enjoyable.

I can understand if someone had 40% confidence in a single, and took 2-1 or 3-1, and keyed the single in exotics. They'd be okay overtime. I could make beer and hotdog money that way-- squeeze out a few dollars in a season. But I don't play that way, I'd rather do other things.

But you are talking about losing at least 66% of your bets, and that's as singles. When you do the math on combos... I'd suggest rethinking this process. There are players that go 50% wins and they are playing a variety of odds including long balls.

Your confidence in a horse isn't high enough to play combos.

[burnsy]

That's the big advantage of pari-mutuel wagering -- the ability to detect and capitalize on instances when the public is wrong (wherever in the odds spectrum that misjudgment may occur).

Even if the public has isolated the horse that has the greatest chance of winning, there is no profit in betting the horse if it then gets hammered down to odds that are below the level corresponding to that chance. The fact that that horse is then an underlay is almost sure to raise the odds of one or more other horses in the race above fair level, and turn them into overlays. (And that doesn't even address instances where the public is totally mistaken about the horse that has the best chance of winning to begin with.)

Anyone who thinks that handicapping consists solely of finding the one horse that is most likely to win, and then betting it regardless of its odds; or who believes that the best horse in a race automatically has a 100% guaranteed assurance of winning, with no need to consider the chances of the other horses against which it is competing, is coming at the game from the wrong perspective, and is throwing away the favorable edge that pari-mutuel wagering offers in comparison to games of pure chance.


Words of wisdom right there. I would listen to this over what some fool (probably non horse player) at the NYT says. I'll admit i didn't read the story because this is how its done. Someone like me that doesn't really use numbers tries to handicap EVERY race i BET this way. It has nothing to do with betting the second or third best horse.......what a bunch of crap that is. You have to attempt to figure out fair odds versus that horses chances of winning that day. If you are betting exoctics you have to mix in short priced horses or you are just being a fool....not that i have not made that mistake many times, as a "value" player it happens and you have to be prepared for losing streaks. At the beginning of the meet (Saratoga) i had 4 out of 5 days where i didn't cash a single ticket. But the prices are coming around and the horses are running "easier" for me to see and i'm doing fine the last two weeks. As mentioned in this quote the BEST opportunities are when the public is WRONG or totally OVERBETTING the fave even if it has a good chance of winning...its still a damn horse race. Keeping an open mind and looking at ALL the entrants is the key to betting this way and making scores........second or third best horse?????? That may be the goofiest thing i ever heard of.....seriously? Monday at Saratoga there were 5 overbet horses and 4 of them LOST. A banner day for Burnsy....but like i said i'm prepared to get kicked in the teeth REGULARLY without letting it get me down. Betting is a marathon if you intend to survive........its not a 4 and 1/2 furlong event.

[Milkshaker]

I would listen to this over what some fool (probably non horse player) at the NYT says. I'll admit i didn't read the story...

When someone bashes a theory and shuns outside perspectives without taking the time to check them out, it makes me remember how grateful I am that horse race betting is a pari-mutuel endeavor.

[Robert Fischer]

I think these types of things are best for providing a springboard for new ideas, or offering a fresh perspective to consider. Making you feel smart, and stimulating or inspiring in a positive way.

A lot of this stuff comes across as 'armchair intellectualism' to me. You get a highly credentialed, charismatic writer/speaker, and then you find or create a study that can be interpreted into something that is a popular theory.

These things seem to sell like hotcakes, and the authors are celebrated as geniuses and not only sell a few rounds of books, but also drum-up pretty good business touring universities and business events.

[therussmeister]

I can't imagine how anyone can read that article and come away from it with the conclusion that maybe you should be betting the second or third best horse. The only conclussion I could draw that has any relevance to horse racing is, because of the luck factor involved, it is not worth the effort to try to improve numerical ratings (such as speed figures) beyond a certain point. The exact point of diminishing returns can be debated.

[pondman]

When someone bashes a theory and shuns outside perspectives without taking the time to check them out, it makes me remember how grateful I am that horse race betting is a pari-mutuel endeavor.

What exactly does it say? I'd have a hard time evaluating the article for horse racing.

I don't have much interest in a horse unless it's at least 5-1. I don't go heavy until about 8-1. It's nothing for me to have large bills on at 30-1. I like a lot of upside potential. Don't think going with the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd crowd selections or tote board odds is going to do it in the long run. Someone out there probably has an estimation of how many you'll hit. With the top 3 I'd say a little over 50%. I know roughly 67% of the races are won by horses paying less than $12, which can be 5, maybe more. Is that what the article is saying. I guess I start around the 5th or 6th selection for most of my bets.

[Ocala Mike]

I guess I start around the 5th or 6th selection for most of my bets.



pondman, you must be a fantastic handicapper, be extremely lucky or selective, or have a money printing press in your basement. 5th or 6th choices probably win on the order of 12-15% of races.

Obviously, you have some filtering techniques which work for you, but I know I'd be tearing up lots of tickets and having to weather some huge losing streaks throwing out the 1st 4 choices off the top of all bets.

[pondman]

pondman, you must be a fantastic handicapper, be extremely lucky or selective, or have a money printing press in your basement. 5th or 6th choices probably win on the order of 12-15% of races.

Obviously, you have some filtering techniques which work for you, but I know I'd be tearing up lots of tickets and having to weather some huge losing streaks throwing out the 1st 4 choices off the top of all bets.

Selective. I'm out 3 or 4 days ahead looking for the big kill.

It's not something I invented, or new. A number of people I know play this way. I would think many members of PA have similar outlooks. You are underestimated the horses that win at +5-1. One third of the races, at least where I play, are won by horses paying at least $12. So if you are on the top 3 crowd's choices you aren't going to do better than about 55% winner, with a 3 unit/combo bet. And it won't make you any money. You'd need to have precise math, and a high speed connection to make it. There might be chalk tracks that something like this could work. It wouldn't work where I play.

You'd still need to select out those races where you've got one of the top 3 and something longer in a combo if you expect a profit. And in the long run, you might as well go with the longer, and forget about the short price.

[CincyHorseplayer]

pondman, you must be a fantastic handicapper, be extremely lucky or selective, or have a money printing press in your basement. 5th or 6th choices probably win on the order of 12-15% of races.

Obviously, you have some filtering techniques which work for you, but I know I'd be tearing up lots of tickets and having to weather some huge losing streaks throwing out the 1st 4 choices off the top of all bets.

I agree Mike.In anybody's hierarchy of contenders the top 3 on pure rank win 60-70% of the races.Throwing them all out to me seems impractical.But Pondman is one of the most patient bettors on this board and can do that.He rarely bets from what I gather from his posts.I take a different tact.I just throw out any horse under 2-1(about 1 per 100 bets exception,average).I started doing so when I was younger and realized the impact later.The favorite only wins 15% of the time in what's left,at least in the races I do look at.That creates an edge in itself.In the last 47 races I have looked at Saratoga,35 of 47(74%) winners have come from the top 3 rank.Tossing any at less than 2-1 it's still 27 of 43(63%).To me it's a better point of departure than tossing all of these out and finding wins in the 26% bracket that are barely deemed contenders at all.I find there is such a precipitous dropoff after the first 2 contenders that I barely even bet 3rd or 4th choices because for me they win a collective 20% of the time(12-8%).It gets worse after that.I'm not exempt from being stupid though.I just don't get where Pond is coming from.

[TrifectaMike]

I agree Mike.In anybody's hierarchy of contenders the top 3 on pure rank win 60-70% of the races.Throwing them all out to me seems impractical.But Pondman is one of the most patient bettors on this board and can do that.He rarely bets from what I gather from his posts.I take a different tact.I just throw out any horse under 2-1(about 1 per 100 bets exception,average).I started doing so when I was younger and realized the impact later.The favorite only wins 15% of the time in what's left,at least in the races I do look at.That creates an edge in itself.In the last 47 races I have looked at Saratoga,35 of 47(74%) winners have come from the top 3 rank.Tossing any at less than 2-1 it's still 27 of 43(63%).To me it's a better point of departure than tossing all of these out and finding wins in the 26% bracket that are barely deemed contenders at all.I find there is such a precipitous dropoff after the first 2 contenders that I barely even bet 3rd or 4th choices because for me they win a collective 20% of the time(12-8%).It gets worse after that.I'm not exempt from being stupid though.I just don't get where Pond is coming from.

There is some wisdom in this here post. It just requires some precision.

Mike

[JJMartin]

I don't see any reason to ever bet the favorite as a straight win bet. If you don't have any viable contenders in a given race based on your own subjective selection method then you should just skip the race. There's thousands of races to be run in the future, knowing when to skip a race is just as critical as knowing when to bet one. Betting the fav as a general rule usually means betting an underlay. Do not ever think that some horse is a guaranteed lock for a win (a low paying favorite) and it will be an easy cash, it will lose and you will lose. Always bet when there is value present and that can mean betting the longest odds in the field if that's what your style of play determines.

In a horse race, there is no "luck" factor to why a horse won. There always has to be a reason. Developing a method that demonstrates some degree of reliable predictability race after race is obviously the challenge. Horse racing is not the national lottery where you have a totally random event controlling the results. The horse doesn't win because of luck (unless the jockey falls off the lead horse causing your horse to win but who could predict that) but the bettor, if he sucks as a handicapper or is really just a non-handicapper playing for fun, if they win, will be because of luck more than anything else. People who claimed some big scores especially in the exotics doesn't mean anything by itself either. If some clown gambling at a casino showed a net profit at the end of the year playing games against a house edge, would you ask his advice on how to be a winner? Stick to what you can determine has merit and warrants making a bet when judging a horse race.

[thaskalos]

I don't see any reason to ever bet the favorite as a straight win bet. If you don't have any viable contenders in a given race based on your own subjective selection method then you should just skip the race. There's thousands of races to be run in the future, knowing when to skip a race is just as critical as knowing when to bet one. Betting the fav as a general rule usually means betting an underlay. Do not ever think that some horse is a guaranteed lock for a win (a low paying favorite) and it will be an easy cash, it will lose and you will lose. Always bet when there is value present and that can mean betting the longest odds in the field if that's what your style of play determines.

In a horse race, there is no "luck" factor to why a horse won. There always has to be a reason. Developing a method that demonstrates some degree of reliable predictability race after race is obviously the challenge. Horse racing is not the national lottery where you have a totally random event controlling the results. The horse doesn't win because of luck (unless the jockey falls off the lead horse causing your horse to win but who could predict that) but the bettor, if he sucks as a handicapper or is really just a non-handicapper playing for fun, if they win, will be because of luck more than anything else. People who claimed some big scores especially in the exotics doesn't mean anything by itself either. If some clown gambling at a casino showed a net profit at the end of the year playing games against a house edge, would you ask his advice on how to be a winner? Stick to what you can determine has merit and warrants making a bet when judging a horse race.

IMO...there are plenty of times when the outcome of the race can be attributed to "luck". In fact...the short-run outcome of a player's betting activity is often DOMINATED by luck.

[JJMartin]

IMO...there are plenty of times when the outcome of the race can be attributed to "luck". In fact...the short-run outcome of a player's betting activity is often DOMINATED by luck.

The outcome of a race is never attributed to luck if we are defining luck as a random event (in physics there is no such thing as a random event we just use that term because of lack of information and understanding in other areas of life). Of course a player's individual performance may be viewed as being the result of luck but that has nothing to do with the horse.

[thaskalos]

The outcome of a race is never attributed to luck if we are defining luck as a random event. Of course a player's individual performance may be viewed as being the result of luck but that has nothing to do with the horse.

Don't we sometimes see horses who were lucky to win -- or unlucky to lose -- in a particular race?

[DJofSD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockam%27s_razor

Seems like the part of the thread having to do with luck would lead to a discussion of Ockam's razor.

[JJMartin]

Don't we sometimes see horses who were lucky to win -- or unlucky to lose -- in a particular race?

We may perceive situations that way and of course strange or totally unexpected things can happen that could change what a horse does, e.g. something runs across the track and slows or alters the horse in some way. But I think what is more likely is the horse didn't win because he didn't have the energy that day or the horse won because somebody gave him a milkshake or whatever. What it comes down to is we never have enough information on all the variables that exist in any given race so we use words like luck when an expected result occurs...and lets not forget streaks, winning or losing.

[thaskalos]

We may perceive situations that way and of course strange or totally unexpected things can happen that could change what a horse does, e.g. something runs across the track and slows or alters the horse in some way. But I think what is more likely is the horse didn't win because he didn't have the energy that day or the horse won because somebody gave him a milkshake or whatever. What it comes down to is we never have enough information on all the variables that exist in any given race so we use words like luck when an expected result occurs...and lets not forget streaks, winning or losing.

By the same token, we should refrain from saying that there is "no luck" involved in a situation where "we never have enough information on all the variables that exist..."

I notice that "luck" takes many forms in the races that I see...and they are all random and unforeseeable. Tardy breaks, after which the horse rallies powerfully to lose narrowly...allowing the wrong horse to win and the right horse to lose. Horses getting sandwiched or thrown way wide...which have their winning chances compromised greatly, even though they have plenty of "energy" to win the race. And many other more subtle "lucky" or "unlucky" occurrences...which can easily influence a race's outcome.

In a game where victory is often determined by heads, necks and noses...it doesn't take much to affect the outcome of a race.

[Ocala Mike]

in physics there is no such thing as a random event



You should exclude quantum physics from this broad statement, no? Quantum theory stipulates that all events are a matter of probabilities rather than absolutes.

But, I digress. What I really want to say is that I'd rather be lucky than smart.

[Clocker]

Don't we sometimes see horses who were lucky to win -- or unlucky to lose -- in a particular race?

And isn't that the foundation of trip handicapping?

[Stillriledup]

I don't see any reason to ever bet the favorite as a straight win bet. If you don't have any viable contenders in a given race based on your own subjective selection method then you should just skip the race. There's thousands of races to be run in the future, knowing when to skip a race is just as critical as knowing when to bet one. Betting the fav as a general rule usually means betting an underlay. Do not ever think that some horse is a guaranteed lock for a win (a low paying favorite) and it will be an easy cash, it will lose and you will lose. Always bet when there is value present and that can mean betting the longest odds in the field if that's what your style of play determines.

In a horse race, there is no "luck" factor to why a horse won. There always has to be a reason. Developing a method that demonstrates some degree of reliable predictability race after race is obviously the challenge. Horse racing is not the national lottery where you have a totally random event controlling the results. The horse doesn't win because of luck (unless the jockey falls off the lead horse causing your horse to win but who could predict that) but the bettor, if he sucks as a handicapper or is really just a non-handicapper playing for fun, if they win, will be because of luck more than anything else. People who claimed some big scores especially in the exotics doesn't mean anything by itself either. If some clown gambling at a casino showed a net profit at the end of the year playing games against a house edge, would you ask his advice on how to be a winner? Stick to what you can determine has merit and warrants making a bet when judging a horse race.

A horse who is 4-5 could be value if you believe the horse really should be 1-5 or 2-5.

[Robert Fischer]

As horseplayers, we must deal with incomplete information and try to find value.

Because the information is incomplete, there is an element of 'uncertainty'.

Some uncertain events are for all intents and purposes, 'random'.

[JJMartin]

As horseplayers, we must deal with incomplete information and try to find value.

Because the information is incomplete, there is an element of 'uncertainty'.

Some uncertain events are for all intents and purposes, 'random'.

In the practical sense I suppose you could use that line of reasoning although as I stated before there is really no such thing as randomness. But I understand the way it is being used in this thread and I'm not arguing that. I would imagine that any unfavorable 'random' event in a race would be countered by a favorable 'random' event in another and it would all balance out anyway, so it is really a non-issue.

[JJMartin]

A horse who is 4-5 could be value if you believe the horse really should be 1-5 or 2-5.

Well, if you think you could actually accurately determine that I suppose you are correct, personally I would rather bet on a much higher return.

[DJofSD]

In the practical sense I suppose you could use that line of reasoning although as I stated before there is really no such thing as randomness. But I understand the way it is being used in this thread and I'm not arguing that. I would imagine that any unfavorable 'random' event in a race would be countered by a favorable 'random' event in another and it would all balance out anyway, so it is really a non-issue.
Godel's incompleteness theorems state it is not possible to have a system that is both consistent and complete. Some element of any system will not be capable of being defined, i.e. instances of events will fall outside the norm. Randomness, luck, or whatever you want to call it.

[JJMartin]

Godel's incompleteness theorems state it is not possible to have a system that is both consistent and complete. Some element of any system will not be capable of being defined, i.e. instances of events will fall outside the norm. Randomness, luck, or whatever you want to call it.

Yes and in this sport we are never complete but if we are at least less incomplete than the other guy, we might have an edge. We're all in the same boat.

[Robert Fischer]

In the practical sense I suppose you could use that line of reasoning although as I stated before there is really no such thing as randomness. But I understand the way it is being used in this thread and I'm not arguing that. I would imagine that any unfavorable 'random' event in a race would be countered by a favorable 'random' event in another and it would all balance out anyway, so it is really a non-issue.

I agree with you.

What I try to do is lump it all in under "uncertainty".

AFAIC it's all uncertainty before the race.


After the race, if you see something 'random' (something that couldn't have been reasonably predicted) that affected the results, it can occasionally be valuable to note.

[CincyHorseplayer]

No such thing as randomness?I am Mr Randomness right now.I have been 7 for 17 at a 12.40 mutual at Toga bookended by 0-13 this week.No 2nds either which really stings.Perfectly content with it though.It's just randomness!This is one of the most rare times ever where I hit a win,win/place ROI over 85%(til today) and a loss on exotics.Week days are crushing me at Toga.Usually a near 50% cash rate is expected,if not a decent ROI.Striving for level headed but looking for the kill.The Spa can humbleth!

[AndyC]

I don't see any reason to ever bet the favorite as a straight win bet. If you don't have any viable contenders in a given race based on your own subjective selection method then you should just skip the race...


In my view, the whole essence of handicapping is to try and estimate the probability of a horse winning a race. So if my probability estimate says that a horse should win 60% of the time I should skip the bet because he is the 9-5 favorite? The only thing that should matter when betting is whether or not you have an edge.

I realize that many bettors have psychological hangups about not betting their top selection or about betting on a favorite. Both are hard to justify on a pure math basis but peace of mind is important.

[michiken]

I can think of many reasons NOT to bet the highest rated horse:

1. Perhaps that the best horse has already RAN his best race? against Mountaineer style competition.

2. Maybe this horse was a NW2/L and moving too high up the claiming ladder?

3. Maybe this horse does not have the LATE PACE PAR to compete?

4. Trainer had to discontinue the dope to prevent from being caught?

5. Jockey is hungover and rides like Desormouex?

6. Horse is entered at the wrong distance/surface?

7. Horse is coming off a layoff and may not be in top form?

8. Speed figure was earned on a biased track.

9. Horse was claimed by a low percentage outfit that is trying to make a quick score?

10. Trainer wants to cash a big ticket so he instructs the jock to stiff the horse?

[therussmeister]

I can think of many reasons NOT to bet the highest rated horse:

1. Perhaps that the best horse has already RAN his best race? against Mountaineer style competition.

2. Maybe this horse was a NW2/L and moving too high up the claiming ladder?

3. Maybe this horse does not have the LATE PACE PAR to compete?

4. Trainer had to discontinue the dope to prevent from being caught?

5. Jockey is hungover and rides like Desormouex?

6. Horse is entered at the wrong distance/surface?

7. Horse is coming off a layoff and may not be in top form?

8. Speed figure was earned on a biased track.

9. Horse was claimed by a low percentage outfit that is trying to make a quick score?

10. Trainer wants to cash a big ticket so he instructs the jock to stiff the horse?
But if you are handicapping horses properly nearly all these things go into your rating. I consider all except #5 & #10 when I do my handicapping.