Whale Watch

[traynor]

DD Feb04 PACE R10 #5 RaritanBay

Watch the odds close to post time. Much can be learned. In particular, watch for the odds after the off, compared to the odds when wagers are still possible.

[traynor]

If that seems arcane, it is not. Stated another way, this entry fits a pattern used in some very sophisticated analytical software used by some very serious bettors. The caveat (and "trigger") is odds at post time. If it hovers close to even money or slightly above near post time, a dump (of money) can be expected (and should be anticipated).

The upside is that in such a scenario (odds and time), the folks using the software enjoy a win rate over 70%.

[Stillriledup]

This horse is NOT the ML Favorite. Is this horse better than the 1 horse?

[Knowclew]

I actually like the 5 in this race as well. However, I don't see how he is hovering near even money. 5-2 second choice would be my guess....I guess I am confused by what may happen at race time....are you suspecting him to be live, or dumping money for someone else???

[baconswitchfarm]

I actually like the 5 in this race as well. However, I don't see how he is hovering near even money. 5-2 second choice would be my guess....I guess I am confused by what may happen at race time....are you suspecting him to be live, or dumping money for someone else???


I was also confused as to what was supposed to happen. In hindsight , the three dope trainers in the race ran 123.

[LottaKash]

If DD's was the only place left to make a harness wager, I would just quit, even after these 50 some odds years of playing harness...

Am I bitter about that place, nah, it is just that "my handicapping style", more often than not, just seems to leave me wondering where I went wrong in my assessment of any given race, compared to other places where my style works "just fine"... More confidence that way...

Too "palsy" a place for me, I guess....The whales can keep their 70% winners...

[traynor]

It is a fairly simple task to monitor last minute odds changes--and the results of those changes. Given the prevalence of conditional wagering, it is a critical piece of knowledge. The key point is whether the last minute money dumps are usually successful ("smart money") or unsuccessful ("chump money").

DD is one of a number of tracks at which the last minute dumps are unusually successful, but only when certain criteria are met. Those criteria include a substantial amount of wagering before the last minute--much of it automated to disperse wagers roughly resembling a normal pattern. The high certainty of winning is a last minute decision, made on the basis of odds. NOT the so-called "value bets" that many seem to chase, but rather the lower end of the odds spectrum. The point at which most would consider it a "value bet" is an indication that the entry may be a no-go, or not worth betting.

Simply stated, in races like the one at DD last night, the inflated odds on the 5 near post time indicated it was not worth betting. That is the reason I specified the odds range acceptable before the race--not as a minimum for a "value bet" but as a maximum that would indicate an all-out win effort.

It amazes me that with all the various discussions about what "whales" do or do not do (with many attempts to convince readers of "inside secrets" held by the posters), there seems so little real knowledge of what they do and how they do it.

[traynor]

Same scenario as Raritan Bay.

DD Feb05 PACE R07 #3 BreakDancer

[traynor]

Same scenario as Raritan Bay.

DD Feb05 PACE R07 #3 BreakDancer

What a great life! Even money with 80%+ probabiliity of winning.

Oh, I forgot to mention. A $108 exacta with a lock on the win position. A round of applause for those folks who hammered on the 5. I wonder what they were thinking.

[LottaKash]

Same scenario as Raritan Bay.

DD Feb05 PACE R07 #3 BreakDancer

Traynor, thx for the inform on this ...

Still, I see the pattern, and I use this pattern as well....I can usually get better than even money at some other tracks tho...;

And for some of us, especially the ones that are not so far along, it remains a guessing game at times. when it comes to defining what is smart money....

Have fun at DD....:jump: ...I suspect that you are a very "rich" man by now...:jump:

[traynor]

Traynor, thx for the inform on this ...

Still, I see the pattern, and I use this pattern as well....I can usually get better than even money at some other tracks tho...;

And for some of us, especially the ones that are not so far along, it remains a guessing game at times. when it comes to defining what is smart money....

Have fun at DD....:jump: ...I suspect that you are a very "rich" man by now...:jump:

The kicker is in the probabilities. With a very high success rate, wagers can be made at absurdly low prices that others would avoid. The advantage lies in determining when the influx of late money by the "value bettors" either doesn't fire, or goes on another entry. That makes payoffs available that would be impossible without last-minute holdouts of "value bets."



Break Dancer was a perfect example of the type of horse (and type of race) I wanted to illustrate. If you watched the race, you might look closely at the performance of #6 DevilsEmbraceN. It had the signature of a great prep race.

[LottaKash]

Good stuff Traynor..... I for one, appreciate your sharing

I caught one tonite at PPK in the 4th race....#1 - MYMOMSABLIZZARD.....Same pattern, with the exception that the whales weren't in on it :D ....$9.60 for the win ! :cool:

[traynor]

Good stuff Traynor..... I for one, appreciate your sharing

I caught one tonite at PPK in the 4th race....#1 - MYMOMSABLIZZARD.....Same pattern, with the exception that the whales weren't in on it :D ....$9.60 for the win ! :cool:

The thing that some have difficulty adjusting to is the idea that they are not competing with other bettors--they are competing with computer algorithms. Once that is understood, much of the strange happenings at post time begin to make better sense.

The strength of computer algorithms is that they are consistent--they never make a mistake. The weakness of computer algorithms is that any (competent) programmer/researcher can reverse-engineer a given set of data points to extrapolate what algorithms were (or were not) at work.

Rather than complaints about how the "whales" are plucking all the low-hanging fruit in horse racing, bettors might better spend their time learning (exactly) what they do and how (exactly) they do it. Rather than deference and blindly following their approaches, one just might discover opportunities that others fail to perceive--including the "whales."

The ideas that quants and million-dollar programming budgets are required are more excuses than observations. Good sense and good research are the primary prerequisites--not advanced statistical processes or complex mathematics. Tweaking and crunching data ia all well and good, provided the right data is tweaked and crunched in the right way. Asking the wrong questions invariably generates the wrong answers.

[mrroyboy]

Interesting Stuff Tray but confusing to me. Those last minute bets are hard to track.

[traynor]

Interesting Stuff Tray but confusing to me. Those last minute bets are hard to track.

It takes a bit of work, but not so much if you focus on one track at a time. The thing to look for (the "signature" of specific wagering algorithms) is that odds drops at the last update (after the tote locks) tend to be more accurate than not. That is, dropped odds may (often) indicate a money dump on a horse perceived (by computer algorithms, not bettors) as the most likely winner.

In the Raritan Bay race mentioned above, a lot of late money went on the placer (0.50/1 final odds), that pushed the price of the winner (5/1 ML) up to pay $27. The algorithm(s) I mentioned at the start of this thread spooked at the odds on Raritan Bay close to post time (possibly cancelling previous bets). The significance in that race is that the late win money went on the wrong horse (it placed).

What makes it valuable is that it is directly opposed to the highly popular concept of "value bets" (odds at or above a specific number). And, of course, the simple fact that if you can learn to recognize the pattern indicative of "whale" algorithms, you can take advantage of those patterns without all the angst (and expense) of developing your own apps.

[am1947]

Tray,

Isn't the last money in usually the simo money. How can you say with any certainty that it is a whale and not the general public or for that matter a betting owner or stable in any given instance.
How often does this occur?

AM

[jimnancy]

If the odd's change is after the bell how are you able to take advantage of it?

[traynor]

If the odd's change is after the bell how are you able to take advantage of it?
By knowing whether the odds on a given entry are likely to go up or down, and whether or not the pattern of wagering indicates certain bettors consider a win by a given entry a near-certainty. At some tracks (probably more than anyone would think) the mutuel pools are controlled by a handful of bettors. In many cases, that handful of bettors has an impressively high win rate.

[traynor]

Tray,

Isn't the last money in usually the simo money. How can you say with any certainty that it is a whale and not the general public or for that matter a betting owner or stable in any given instance.
How often does this occur?

AM

Easy. The general public, betting owners, and betting stables are ALL wildly inconsistent. With all due respect to those who believe in the "wisdom of crowds," that crowd is wrong about two-thirds of the time.

In contrast, a handful of bettors is able to achieve win rates in the 70% and up area in cetain types of races at certain tracks--and that is a very, very nice area.

I would rather track what that handful of bettors is doing (and NOT doing) and pretty much ignore what the general public, betting owners, and betting stables think or do.

In the Raritan Bay example at the start of this thread, the odds at post time were a dead giveaway that the handful of bettors considered it a bad bet. In contrast, the Break Dancer race was almost a template of what to look for and how to recognize it.

[Stillriledup]

By knowing whether the odds on a given entry are likely to go up or down, and whether or not the pattern of wagering indicates certain bettors consider a win by a given entry a near-certainty. At some tracks (probably more than anyone would think) the mutuel pools are controlled by a handful of bettors. In many cases, that handful of bettors has an impressively high win rate.

Good post Tray.

The one thing i've noticed is that if there's a horse who is a really "good bet" with 0 MTP, with the gate rolling or with there being very little time before off time, that horse almost always goes off a BAD bet. Not market value, but under market value...seems like bettors have a habit of looking at the board, seeing a "good bet" and just betting it without thinking that many others are seeing the same thing and also pulling the trigger.

One of the toughest things to do is to bet on a horse that you like who is a "bad price" in the dying seconds of the cycle, those "bad prices" with the gate rolling have a great chance to go up in price as the market gets corrected.

[am1947]

Easy. The general public, betting owners, and betting stables are ALL wildly inconsistent. With all due respect to those who believe in the "wisdom of crowds," that crowd is wrong about two-thirds of the time.

In contrast, a handful of bettors is able to achieve win rates in the 70% and up area in cetain types of races at certain tracks--and that is a very, very nice area.

I would rather track what that handful of bettors is doing (and NOT doing) and pretty much ignore what the general public, betting owners, and betting stables think or do.

In the Raritan Bay example at the start of this thread, the odds at post time were a dead giveaway that the handful of bettors considered it a bad bet. In contrast, the Break Dancer race was almost a template of what to look for and how to recognize it.

Tray
I understand that the GP is off 2-3 times. And if you group all owners and stables as one you are correct. However there are some sharp owners and stables that do quite well in certain situations and are very consistent.
Unfortunately it does not occur often enough to be a staple

So if I am getting your drift when certain criteria on the amounts wagered,
on certain types of races at some tracks you have identified the "source" as smart and when odds follow drop late pattern it is in the hi win % area? ie Break Dancer . also if they drift up then the chances are low for a go? ie Raritin Bay.

Thanks as always
AM

[traynor]

Good post Tray.

The one thing i've noticed is that if there's a horse who is a really "good bet" with 0 MTP, with the gate rolling or with there being very little time before off time, that horse almost always goes off a BAD bet. Not market value, but under market value...seems like bettors have a habit of looking at the board, seeing a "good bet" and just betting it without thinking that many others are seeing the same thing and also pulling the trigger.

One of the toughest things to do is to bet on a horse that you like who is a "bad price" in the dying seconds of the cycle, those "bad prices" with the gate rolling have a great chance to go up in price as the market gets corrected.

Abso-(bleeping)-lutely! That is why so much of regression study fails in the real world--it is based on what happened after the final shakeout, not in the critical period while wagers are still possible. Looking only at final odds, value betting seems to make (more) sense (than it actually does) because it doesn't include all the non-bets (odds too low) that became "paper wins" in the after-the-fact research and the "value bets" that nosedive after the off to non-profit areas (that are deleted from results on paper as "non-bets due to unacceptably low odds").

There is a world of difference between "profit on paper" and "profit in the real world"--a difference that most computer researchers fail to grasp (or choose to ignore because it makes their results on paper seem better than they are/will be in the real world).

[traynor]

Tray
I understand that the GP is off 2-3 times. And if you group all owners and stables as one you are correct. However there are some sharp owners and stables that do quite well in certain situations and are very consistent.
Unfortunately it does not occur often enough to be a staple

So if I am getting your drift when certain criteria on the amounts wagered,
on certain types of races at some tracks you have identified the "source" as ... smart and when odds follow drop late pattern it is in the hi win % area? ie Break Dancer . also if they drift up then the chances are low for a go? ie Raritin Bay.

Thanks as always
AM

"... being the result of specific computer algorithms in use by a small number of bettors whose wagers disproportionately affect the mutuel pools at certain tracks in certain types of races."

Once identified, the patterns indicating the use of specific computer algorithms can be used profitably. One of the best is that demonstrated (no-go) in the Raritan Bay race, and (go) in the Break Dancer race. At certain tracks, in certain types of races, that pattern (in the "go" races) produces an unusually high percentage of winners.

[am1947]

"... being the result of specific computer algorithms in use by a small number of bettors whose wagers disproportionately affect the mutuel pools at certain tracks in certain types of races."

Once identified, the patterns indicating the use of specific computer algorithms can be used profitably. One of the best is that demonstrated (no-go) in the Raritan Bay race, and (go) in the Break Dancer race. At certain tracks, in certain types of races, that pattern (in the "go" races) produces an unusually high percentage of winners.


Traynor
Thanks for the clarification
AM

[Sapio]

Easy. The general public, betting owners, and betting stables are ALL wildly inconsistent. With all due respect to those who believe in the "wisdom of crowds," that crowd is wrong about two-thirds of the time.

In contrast, a handful of bettors is able to achieve win rates in the 70% and up area in cetain types of races at certain tracks--and that is a very, very nice area.

I would rather track what that handful of bettors is doing (and NOT doing) and pretty much ignore what the general public, betting owners, and betting stables think or do.

In the Raritan Bay example at the start of this thread, the odds at post time were a dead giveaway that the handful of bettors considered it a bad bet. In contrast, the Break Dancer race was almost a template of what to look for and how to recognize it.

Traynor, how do you define " that crowd is wrong about two-thirds of the time."

Thomas Sapio

[traynor]

Traynor, how do you define " that crowd is wrong about two-thirds of the time."

Thomas Sapio

On average, roughly one-third of the crowd favorites win. Two-thirds of the time they don't. Percentages vary, but that is generally the case.

[Stillriledup]

Abso-(bleeping)-lutely! That is why so much of regression study fails in the real world--it is based on what happened after the final shakeout, not in the critical period while wagers are still possible. Looking only at final odds, value betting seems to make (more) sense (than it actually does) because it doesn't include all the non-bets (odds too low) that became "paper wins" in the after-the-fact research and the "value bets" that nosedive after the off to non-profit areas (that are deleted from results on paper as "non-bets due to unacceptably low odds").

There is a world of difference between "profit on paper" and "profit in the real world"--a difference that most computer researchers fail to grasp (or choose to ignore because it makes their results on paper seem better than they are/will be in the real world).

The key is to be really good at knowing how the board is supposed to look when the betting is closed. If you know that, than you not only won't be flustered when a horse drops like a rock in price, but you'll know that you shouldnt "send it in" when your 8-5 shot is sitting up there at 5-2 with 0 MTP.

This also works in the place and show pools...sometimes a horse will have way less Place or show money, but that always seems to get overcorrected, especially if there's a horse who is a "lock" 4-5 shot who is sitting up there paying 3 and change to place no matter what...that place bet always gets hammered, you just don't get "Free money" in this game, so when "free money" is sitting up there as the gate is rolling (or the horses are loading) that FM will go away, almost all the time.

[traynor]

DD Feb09 PACE R06 #6 TaraMicket

DD Feb09 PACE R07 #5 AttackTheLand


FLMD Feb09 PACE R04 #3 ZiggySky

FRD Feb09 PACE R08 #2 OneLastShot

These are posted for informational and instructional purposes only, and should not be considered as inducements to wager.

Again, pay close attention to the relative symmetry of the incremental (and final) odds updates in these specific races. You may be fortunate enough to see the affect of "whale strategy" (and wagers made as a result of that strategy) as it happens in real time.

[LottaKash]

These are posted for informational and instructional purposes only, and should not be considered as inducements to wager.



Traynor, stop !...you are cracking me up :lol: ...

[traynor]

I first did this (with Katherine Jung's considerable expertise and input) by hand on graph paper. We were doing one track, and I graphed a set of data points representing the odds on each entry at each tote update. Being easily bored and inclined to experiment, I first coded it into a graphing calculator (that we had to use for a business statistics class), then into a VB GUI. The latter can be done by anyone with programming skills of any kind in a couple of hours. It ain't rocket science.

Basically, the apps feed wagers into the mutuel pools incrementally. The signature shows up on graphs as an unusually "straight" line because it is derived from ongong calculations in real time--meaning if someone bets a shopping bag full of cash on one entry, money will be fed into the pool to maintain the approximate relationship of the selected entry's "share" (projected) of the mutuel pool. In other words, you will rarely see something like a (selected) horse nosediving from 5-1 to 1-5.

While most lines will look like the proverbial "random walk" (normally distributed ups and downs), the "whale wagering line" will (usually) be smoother. When those lines are layered as overlays in a single graph using different colored lines to connect the data points, the "whale strategy" lines are quite obvious.

[traynor]

Watch #4 CAVIART SAVANNAH in the 5th at DD.

[traynor]

CAVIART SAVANNAH took a big drop a couple of minutes before the race--almost a prototype of the "tote action" that many believe (erroneously) indicates "smart money." As I mentioned above, that sudden change in odds close to post time is something to view with extreme skepticism. Only people are that foolish--not computers.

The interesting thing about the 5th is that the odds on the winner remained relatively stable throughout--despite the sudden drop in odds on CAVIART SAVANNAH that skewed the odds on the other entries. Consider what has to happen to maintain that stability, and you will learn a lot about how the "whale" apps work.

[traynor]

WDB Feb10 PACE R03 #2 AllChrome

If the odds are close to even money at post time, the computer buffs will likely empty the piggy banks. Woodbine has nice mutuel pools, and can hide a lot of betting action. Regardless of the qualifications (or lack thereof) of the horse, the key criteria is the availability of profit. Post time odds less than even money will likely see bets cancelled. Post time odds too much above even money similarly indicates that discretion may be warranted. Like Goldilocks and her porridge, the odds have to be just right.

[traynor]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the game is played in the big city. One needs to know when to empty the piggy bank and get a bigger one--while disregarding all that silliness about "lower class horses from the B tracks" and a 4/1 morning line. All Chrome started early at 3/5, and wavered very little throughout--regardless of what was wagered on the other entries.

Thank you, All Chrome. Lunch tomorrow at Bellagio's. And enough left over for a bus ticket to Poughkeepsie.

Oh, I almost forgot. Wasn't that a nice exacta payoff?

[LottaKash]

Oh, I almost forgot. Wasn't that a nice exacta payoff?

As if that statement is an afterthought, and not that it isn't where the "real power" of your "whale-read" is..?..haha...

I mean it ain't really that the #3.80 win price is what you are really celebrating, is it ??

[traynor]

What a great life! Even money with 80%+ probabiliity of winning.

Oh, I forgot to mention. A $108 exacta with a lock on the win position. A round of applause for those folks who hammered on the 5. I wonder what they were thinking.

That should answer the question. I am more than a little fond of exactas in such situations. However, it would be foolish to overlook the potential of win betting. The only reason bettors avoid short-priced entries is that they can't pick enough of them to make money--they hope to make up for those shortcomngs by chasing "value wagers."

As I mentioned earlier on this thread, when all the various discussions and revelations are posted about "whales" and what and how they do what they do are considered, there seems to be a remarkable lack of real knowledge.

Yes, there is a great deal of profit in the exactas. However, there is also a LOT to be made in the win pool, when one considers the 80%+ win probability. Especially at Woodbine. Not so much at smaller tracks.

[Just a Fan]

OK, I'll be the @#$hole here... I'm having trouble following your logic, Traynor. On All Chrome, you said "If the odds are close to even money at post time, the computer buffs will likely empty the piggy banks"... Post time odds less than even money will likely see bets cancelled."

Then you say he was at or near 3-5 thruout the wagering (I wasnt watching, I'm taking your word for it)... and he closes at 90 cents on the dollar... I don't see how that proves your point. When exactly did the computer buffs empty the piggy banks? And since the post time odds were less than even money, but he closed at 4-5, I don't see a whole lot of money getting cancelled either. Your point all along was that the computer bettors are identifying a potential "angle" horse, identifying whether the horse is "live" if it takes money thruout the wagering, and the computer bettors respond by betting big at the bell. In this case, there was no particular influx of late money, but when the horse wins, you say it proves your point. Looks to me like the betting public as a whole was on this one, not some computer buffs. In this case, there were only other 2 horses that got bet - one was totally empty, and one was given no chance by his driver (last by 15 at the half) so its not like All Chrome needed to be great to win the race.

Meanwhile, another "angle" horse mentioned in this thread wins and pays 9.60, so the whales were not on that one... but because the horse won that supports your logic too? I thought the whole point was that if the horse with this angle was heavily bet, that meant he was even more of a lock than the odds were showing.

And you keep patting yourself on the back when a price comes along for 2nd even though you're offering no logic to come up with the runner up.

Meanwhile, "angle" horses One Last Shot and Ziggy Sky are beaten favorites at 3-2 and 4-5, and somehow there's no mention of how they turned out. (I will give you credit for Attack the Land winning at even money, and Tara Micket losing at 4-1)

I'm open to different viewpoints, and I actually agree with you that there is a significant, important, yet hard to explain difference between what looks like a horse with value, and a horse that is dead on the board, but this feels like you are taking the results and making them fit your scenario... at least with All Chrome.

What am I missing? Anyone else think I'm just not seeing the light?

[baconswitchfarm]

OK, I'll be the @#$hole here... I'm having trouble following your logic, Traynor. On All Chrome, you said "If the odds are close to even money at post time, the computer buffs will likely empty the piggy banks"... Post time odds less than even money will likely see bets cancelled."

Then you say he was at or near 3-5 thruout the wagering (I wasnt watching, I'm taking your word for it)... and he closes at 90 cents on the dollar... I don't see how that proves your point. When exactly did the computer buffs empty the piggy banks? And since the post time odds were less than even money, but he closed at 4-5, I don't see a whole lot of money getting cancelled either. Your point all along was that the computer bettors are identifying a potential "angle" horse, identifying whether the horse is "live" if it takes money thruout the wagering, and the computer bettors respond by betting big at the bell. In this case, there was no particular influx of late money, but when the horse wins, you say it proves your point. Looks to me like the betting public as a whole was on this one, not some computer buffs. In this case, there were only other 2 horses that got bet - one was totally empty, and one was given no chance by his driver (last by 15 at the half) so its not like All Chrome needed to be great to win the race.

Meanwhile, another "angle" horse mentioned in this thread wins and pays 9.60, so the whales were not on that one... but because the horse won that supports your logic too? I thought the whole point was that if the horse with this angle was heavily bet, that meant he was even more of a lock than the odds were showing.

And you keep patting yourself on the back when a price comes along for 2nd even though you're offering no logic to come up with the runner up.

Meanwhile, "angle" horses One Last Shot and Ziggy Sky are beaten favorites at 3-2 and 4-5, and somehow there's no mention of how they turned out. (I will give you credit for Attack the Land winning at even money, and Tara Micket losing at 4-1)

I'm open to different viewpoints, and I actually agree with you that there is a significant, important, yet hard to explain difference between what looks like a horse with value, and a horse that is dead on the board, but this feels like you are taking the results and making them fit your scenario... at least with All Chrome.

What am I missing? Anyone else think I'm just not seeing the light?



A thank you, from everyone else.

[traynor]

OK, I'll be the @#$hole here... I'm having trouble following your logic, Traynor. On All Chrome, you said "If the odds are close to even money at post time, the computer buffs will likely empty the piggy banks"... Post time odds less than even money will likely see bets cancelled."

Then you say he was at or near 3-5 thruout the wagering (I wasnt watching, I'm taking your word for it)... and he closes at 90 cents on the dollar... I don't see how that proves your point. When exactly did the computer buffs empty the piggy banks? And since the post time odds were less than even money, but he closed at 4-5, I don't see a whole lot of money getting cancelled either. Your point all along was that the computer bettors are identifying a potential "angle" horse, identifying whether the horse is "live" if it takes money thruout the wagering, and the computer bettors respond by betting big at the bell. In this case, there was no particular influx of late money, but when the horse wins, you say it proves your point. Looks to me like the betting public as a whole was on this one, not some computer buffs. In this case, there were only other 2 horses that got bet - one was totally empty, and one was given no chance by his driver (last by 15 at the half) so its not like All Chrome needed to be great to win the race.

Meanwhile, another "angle" horse mentioned in this thread wins and pays 9.60, so the whales were not on that one... but because the horse won that supports your logic too? I thought the whole point was that if the horse with this angle was heavily bet, that meant he was even more of a lock than the odds were showing.

And you keep patting yourself on the back when a price comes along for 2nd even though you're offering no logic to come up with the runner up.

Meanwhile, "angle" horses One Last Shot and Ziggy Sky are beaten favorites at 3-2 and 4-5, and somehow there's no mention of how they turned out. (I will give you credit for Attack the Land winning at even money, and Tara Micket losing at 4-1)

I'm open to different viewpoints, and I actually agree with you that there is a significant, important, yet hard to explain difference between what looks like a horse with value, and a horse that is dead on the board, but this feels like you are taking the results and making them fit your scenario... at least with All Chrome.

What am I missing? Anyone else think I'm just not seeing the light?

Simply stated, there is not one large bet made at the last moment. The indicators are based on a range of wagers made that are based on a portion of the mutuel pool. The more that is bet (by others) on other selections, the more can be bet (by whoever is tracking it) on the primary selection. Given that the probability (calculated by a tracking agorithm used by a number of bettors) of All Chrome winning was in excess of 80%, the return was generous.

[spreader]

Finally a logical post in this thread

[traynor]

Horse racing is not rocket science. What I suggest is that any bettor with average intelligence and a bit of study can learn to recognize the patterns formed by computer-assisted wagering applications that indicate high-probability winners (or high-probability exacta keys). Lots of computational heavy-lifting free for the taking.

The advantages are two-fold. First, recognition of the patterns enable the bettor to recognize when those high-probability winners are the most likely to win, and, second, to recognize when a flood of chump money has created a false favorite that can be (relatively) safely ignored in wagering for the win position. In a game in which the difference between profit and loss can be a few points of ROI, it seems an easy way to improve one's bottom line.

I understand that the cherished notion of "value wagering" is being assaulted by such premises. I also understand that--as ordinarily perceived or implemented--"value betting" cuts off a large number of very profitable wagers that could otherwise generate a decent return. Rather than thinking, "I gotta get X return because I only pick Y percent winners," it might be more profitable to think, "How can I pick more winners?"

I have nothing whatsoever to gain by "convincing" anyone of the premises. And I have nothing whatsoever against dewy-eyed innocents writing about how the "whales" make all their profit in rebates through "churning" or some equally imaginative "strategy," or how hundreds of thousands in development dollars are needed to write software applications suitable for "whale" use. Chasing rainbows and tilting at windmills is more entertaining than admitting the "whales" win because they pick more winners that generate profit than the average bettor mindlessly following the notion of "value wagering."

[PaceAdvantage]

I understand that the cherished notion of "value wagering" is being assaulted by such premises. I also understand that--as ordinarily perceived or implemented--"value betting" cuts off a large number of very profitable wagers that could otherwise generate a decent return. Rather than thinking, "I gotta get X return because I only pick Y percent winners," it might be more profitable to think, "How can I pick more winners?" What is your definition of value wagering again? I've seen you post about this twice recently, and I'm beginning to think your definition isn't the same as mine.

[LottaKash]

" it might be more profitable to think, "How can I pick more winners?"



Traynor, I get your line of thinking now, but as for the others, I think that they were more interested in the "How can I pick more winners" part...

Earlier in this thread I pointed out that I had a $9.60 winner without the aid of any whales....I didn't point this out for any vain reason, but rather to agree with the "Handicapping" part of of what you were trying to not intimate to us...But, you didn't elucidate the "handicapping part", only the "betting part"....Handicapping wise, I pointed out my "whaleless" triumph in hopes that you would agree with me that my handicapping was very, very similar to what you key on when you are intending to go "whalewatching"...

I think that, you, deep down, wanted to say it, but didn't; Was that; certain in form horses in certain situations, are usually underbet even tho they have a high chance of winning, and that the whales reaffirm to you betting wise what your handicapping has revealed to you...But in essence you never revealed the angle of the handicapping to it...And, I truly believe that this was the thing that irked some here..

Traynor, you gave me additional fodder to consider when pondering my wagers vs. what the board may reveal, and I thank you for your effort, I took something good from it all the same (even tho you are not willing to give away the store, heehee)....

[traynor]

What is your definition of value wagering again? I've seen you post about this twice recently, and I'm beginning to think your definition isn't the same as mine.


In essence, what Sartin referred to as "handicapping the handicapper." Each bettor (in theory) has sufficient records to indicate that his or her selections (or his or her definitions of certain criteria indicating probable outcomes) assign what is considered an odds line for a given race. Not a morning line (an estimate of what other bettors will do, rather than the probabilities of horses), but an estimation of each horse's probability of winning a given race.

Whether that is based on "I usually pick the winner in 43% of races of this kind, so I have to get X odds to earn a profit" or "This horse in this race has X chance of winning (I think, based on whatever) so I have to get X odds to make a profit" doesn't matter--it is the point at which a bettor decides that a given set of odds in a given race represents a "good bet."

It makes incredibly good sense, in general. In specific races, unless one has an extremely accurate odds line, "demanding odds of such and such" tends to make one pass up some very good opportunities.

In making an odds line, it is assumed that one carefully calibrates the probabilities in relation to odds. If one picks 50% winners, and never bets unless the odds available are better than even money, profit seems guaranteed. It is not, unless the 50% win rate is only those winners that paid better than even money. And even then there is no guarantee that past situations are predictive of future results. The higher the odds (in general) the fewer the winners (in general). Mix that in with last minute odds changes tweaking any results used as a basis for constructing the odds line, and it becomes even more difficult to accurately assess a given horse's probability of winning a given race, and pick some figure at which a "bad bet" (odds too low) becomes a "good bet" (acceptable odds given all other information).

[traynor]

Traynor, I get your line of thinking now, but as for the others, I think that they were more interested in the "How can I pick more winners" part...

Earlier in this thread I pointed out that I had a $9.60 winner without the aid of any whales....I didn't point this out for any vain reason, but rather to agree with the "Handicapping" part of of what you were trying to not intimate to us...But, you didn't elucidate the "handicapping part", only the "betting part"....Handicapping wise, I pointed out my "whaleless" triumph in hopes that you would agree with me that my handicapping was very, very similar to what you key on when you are intending to go "whalewatching"...

I think that, you, deep down, wanted to say it, but didn't; Was that; certain in form horses in certain situations, are usually underbet even tho they have a high chance of winning, and that the whales reaffirm to you betting wise what your handicapping has revealed to you...But in essence you never revealed the angle of the handicapping to it...And, I truly believe that this was the thing that irked some here..

Traynor, you gave me additional fodder to consider when pondering my wagers vs. what the board may reveal, and I thank you for your effort, I took something good from it all the same (even tho you are not willing to give away the store, heehee)....

Stated another way, if one can determine the races in which some very astute bettors are dumping loads of money in because they believe they have something on the order of 75-80% shot at winning, it might be advantageous to go along for the ride.

Conversely, that also implies that there are many races in which those probabilities do not exist, and the (comparatively variable) wagering patterns are based on the betting public's perception of the relative value of some factor or other considered important in this race. Both may result in a heavy favorite, but the former may be considered more likely to win, while the latter will (usually) turn out more "false favorites" and the resulting higher mutuels on the (non-favorite) winners.

There is a huge difference between handicapping a race (and picking winners at longer prices) and handicapping the wagering patterns at a given track. The only thing I have tried to point out in this thread is the possibility that one can discover some very good opportunities for profit by tracking certain wagering patterns indicative of "computer-assisted wagering."

One thing I have learned is that "whales" are averse to leaving money on the table. If All Chrome had started at the morning line of 4/1, drifted up and down a bit, then closed at 2/1, it could be fairly well determined that it was not being seriously bet. Again, it is the relative symmetry of the wagering that is significant.

[traynor]

Traynor, I get your line of thinking now, but as for the others, I think that they were more interested in the "How can I pick more winners" part...

Earlier in this thread I pointed out that I had a $9.60 winner without the aid of any whales....I didn't point this out for any vain reason, but rather to agree with the "Handicapping" part of of what you were trying to not intimate to us...But, you didn't elucidate the "handicapping part", only the "betting part"....Handicapping wise, I pointed out my "whaleless" triumph in hopes that you would agree with me that my handicapping was very, very similar to what you key on when you are intending to go "whalewatching"...

I think that, you, deep down, wanted to say it, but didn't; Was that; certain in form horses in certain situations, are usually underbet even tho they have a high chance of winning, and that the whales reaffirm to you betting wise what your handicapping has revealed to you...But in essence you never revealed the angle of the handicapping to it...And, I truly believe that this was the thing that irked some here..

Traynor, you gave me additional fodder to consider when pondering my wagers vs. what the board may reveal, and I thank you for your effort, I took something good from it all the same (even tho you are not willing to give away the store, heehee)....

Exactly. There are situations in which even money (or close) can be a nice overlay.

Consider a situation in which I (from the perspective of an imaginary whale) think a horse has an 80% chance of winning, and I want most of the pie. The complete opposite of what I want is to make that horse attractive to "value bettors" (who may think it has a 40% chance of winning, and that only on a good day).

If I bet large, the odds nosedive, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. I get a smaller piece of the pie. So my handy-dandy little computer app determines a point at which the "value bettors" will avoid "my" horse--then pumps wagers in incrementally to keep "my" horse in that "unacceptably low odds" range by determining the ratio of the pool on "my" horse to the total pool. The "signature" is that the odds on "my" horse are relatively stable--regardless of how much is bet on the other entries.

What happens? The value bettors bet on other horses, and my 1-5 shot goes off at even money (of which most of the money bet on "my" horse is mine because everyone else thought the odds were too low to warrant a bet) and I clean up. Again.

[LottaKash]

Exactly. There are situations in which even money (or close) can be a nice overlay.

What happens? The value bettors bet on other horses, and my 1-5 shot goes off at even money (of which most of the money bet on "my" horse is mine because everyone else thought the odds were too low to warrant a bet) and I clean up. Again.

Traynor thx for furthering the spirit of your thread....

I get it completely now..(the "whale" wagering pattern vs. perceived "smart money" wagering)

I have always been an avid student and observer of the comings and goings of the tote....Having said that, I will confess, as well, to be not so shy when it comes to taking a low price either....

I have been accused via peer reviews as being a "grinder", and many would say that they can't understand how a grinder can be ahead in the long run, or at minimum, "how tedious is that".., but the truth be known, I have angles and pace patterns/combined with accompanying good form, that are worth their weight in gold, and I won't even hesitate to make a play at even money when the competition suggests that they don't (over the long haul) have a prayer in beating my play...


Fwiw, I also know when my play is up against on the board, especially when the handicapping isn't that well hidden to begin with....So, what you have offered only reinforces what I may have been pondering for a good while now...Thx, again, for the additional insight....

[traynor]

An imaginary whale is wined, dined, coddled, and flattered by Track A in exchange for his or her action. Imaginary whale thinks he or she sees a lock in the 7th race, and bets heavily. A minute to post, imaginary whale has a change of heart and decides she or he wants to cancel the bets (which have had serious impact on the tote board from the opening bell).

This is 2014. Is there really anyone out there who believes the imaginary whale will be prevented from doing so by track management? Or that ALL wagers made online ONLY affect the tote odds AFTER the totes are locked?

[Stillriledup]

An imaginary whale is wined, dined, coddled, and flattered by Track A in exchange for his or her action. Imaginary whale thinks he or she sees a lock in the 7th race, and bets heavily. A minute to post, imaginary whale has a change of heart and decides she or he wants to cancel the bets (which have had serious impact on the tote board from the opening bell).

This is 2014. Is there really anyone out there who believes the imaginary whale will be prevented from doing so by track management? Or that ALL wagers made online ONLY affect the tote odds AFTER the totes are locked?

Here's the thing that bugs me about this.....if a "whale" at your mythical track A is betting and cancelling at Santa Anita or some other major track, what's in it for Santa Anita to have their pools "manipulated"?

[traynor]

Here's the thing that bugs me about this.....if a "whale" at your mythical track A is betting and cancelling at Santa Anita or some other major track, what's in it for Santa Anita to have their pools "manipulated"?

Nothing, other than the illusion of providing "better service to their best customers." Most tracks realize that the lion's share of the revenue comes from a very small number of bettors. Those bettors get preferential treatment--just as they would in any other kind of service business.

[PICSIX]

[QUOTE=traynor]The kicker is in the probabilities. With a very high success rate, wagers can be made at absurdly low prices that others would avoid. The advantage lies in determining when the influx of late money by the "value bettors" either doesn't fire, or goes on another entry. That makes payoffs available that would be impossible without last-minute holdouts of "value bets."



Break Dancer was a perfect example of the type of horse (and type of race) I wanted to illustrate. If you watched the race, you might look closely at the performance of #6 DevilsEmbraceN. It had the signature of a great prep race.[/QUOTE

It seems to me you could use this information to identify a bad favorite and take better advantage of those races vs. the high hit rate, low ROI plays???

[traynor]

[QUOTE=traynor]The kicker is in the probabilities. With a very high success rate, wagers can be made at absurdly low prices that others would avoid. The advantage lies in determining when the influx of late money by the "value bettors" either doesn't fire, or goes on another entry. That makes payoffs available that would be impossible without last-minute holdouts of "value bets."



Break Dancer was a perfect example of the type of horse (and type of race) I wanted to illustrate. If you watched the race, you might look closely at the performance of #6 DevilsEmbraceN. It had the signature of a great prep race.[/QUOTE

It seems to me you could use this information to identify a bad favorite and take better advantage of those races vs. the high hit rate, low ROI plays???

Absolutely. The point many bettors seem to overlook is that horse races take place in the real world, not inside their computers. Specifically, factors external to the computer calculations (regardless of how accurate or predictive those calculations may be) influence the outcome of any given race. It is awareness of (and use of) those external factors that gives some bettors an edge that is unattainable by those slavishly devoted to the (totally erroneous) belief that everything they need to know to win is in the (readily available to all) data. The latter may catch a few crumbs, but not much more.

However, that does not mean that the "high hit rate, low ROI" races are any the less profitable. For a number of (very) successful bettors, those types of races make up the bulk of their profit. The major problem with finding "value wagers" is that often they are only so on paper. By the time a significant amount of money is invested in those "value wagers" they are nowhere near as profitable as they seemed to be on paper.

The actual return on "value wagers" is often dismal in comparison to the return suggested by a paper ROI because is much more affected by additional wagers than are additional wagers on the "high hit rate, low ROI" selections.

Betting on paper makes it easy to "show a profit." Making a consistent profit betting in the real world takes a bit more. Especially making a "significant" profit. Again, it seems that some of those commenting on the strategy of "whales" lack any real (first hand) knowledge on the topic.

[traynor]

I don't want to hijack Ray2000's thread, so I will post this here. It is related to the topics of both threads.

Basic exacta algorithms are fairly simple, providing the research base is adequate enough to be predictive. The probability of a given AB exacta is the win probability of A multiplied by the place probability of B. If A has a win expectation of 0.40, and B has a place expectation of 0.40, the probability of an AB exacta is 0.40 * 0.40 = 0.16 or roughly a one in six shot at an AB exacta. The rookies generally leave it at that, and assume that "value wagering" will make it all work. As in, "I demand 7/1 odds to make this bet." Unfortunately, the probabilities on those two entries are skewed by the probabilities of the other entries in the race.

Professional applications (the pricey ones that you will never see advertised for sale to anyone with the price) are sophisticated enough to calculate the win and place probabilities for the exact combination of entries in this specific race. The probabilities are used to construct an exacta matrix of all possible combinations, and odds necessary for each combination.

None of this is new. I watched a group of heavy hitters from New York do it by hand at the summer harness meets at Bay Meadows way, way back. Not as precise as a computer could do, but they were light years ahead of (most) of the other bettors.

The coding problem (other than that an immense amount of data is needed to generate meaningful numbers) is in regarding the probabilities of all the other entries as confounding variables that must be dealt with in a manner that assures accuracy of the predictions.

The upside is that when one has an application sophisticated enough to accurately predict exacta probabilities (considering the effect of all the entries in the race, and NOT just considering the two or three entries selected using individual methods as if the other horses didn't exist), one also has an app that is considerably more accurate in predicting the race winner than apps that calculate the probabilities of individual entries as if they were on the track alone.

[PICSIX]

I don't want to hijack Ray2000's thread, so I will post this here. It is related to the topics of both threads.

Basic exacta algorithms are fairly simple, providing the research base is adequate enough to be predictive. The probability of a given AB exacta is the win probability of A multiplied by the place probability of B. If A has a win expectation of 0.40, and B has a place expectation of 0.40, the probability of an AB exacta is 0.40 * 0.40 = 0.16 or roughly a one in six shot at an AB exacta. The rookies generally leave it at that, and assume that "value wagering" will make it all work. As in, "I demand 7/1 odds to make this bet." Unfortunately, the probabilities on those two entries are skewed by the probabilities of the other entries in the race.

Professional applications (the pricey ones that you will never see advertised for sale to anyone with the price) are sophisticated enough to calculate the win and place probabilities for the exact combination of entries in this specific race. The probabilities are used to construct an exacta matrix of all possible combinations, and odds necessary for each combination.

None of this is new. I watched a group of heavy hitters from New York do it by hand at the summer harness meets at Bay Meadows way, way back. Not as precise as a computer could do, but they were light years ahead of (most) of the other bettors.

The coding problem (other than that an immense amount of data is needed to generate meaningful numbers) is in regarding the probabilities of all the other entries as confounding variables that must be dealt with in a manner that assures accuracy of the predictions.

The upside is that when one has an application sophisticated enough to accurately predict exacta probabilities (considering the effect of all the entries in the race, and NOT just considering the two or three entries selected using individual methods as if the other horses didn't exist), one also has an app that is considerably more accurate in predicting the race winner than apps that calculate the probabilities of individual entries as if they were on the track alone.

Makes sense.....I think :lol:

[LottaKash]

Well, I 'll never have one of those schmancy programs....:( ..that's for sure...

I'll just have to be content to remain a little "tuna" floundering around amongst the whales, just trying to not get eaten...:D

[traynor]

To give you some idea of what the whales really do, the below is the result of a selection algorithm reverse engineered from a "whale app." The track is Fraser Downs:

Feb22 In 483 COMBINED Pace races 12 14 36 A==>ABC in 265 LM 11% LW 90% LR 1.36 VHM 36% VHW 12% VHR 0.58 25.00 13

What the numbers mean: The algorithm designated 12 14 36 applied to 265 of the 483 races. Of that 265 matches, 11% went to post at odds close to even money--often as a result of patterned (and computer-assisted) incremental wagering according to a clearly defined and predictable pattern of wagers. Of that 11%, 90% won their races, for a net ROI of 1.36.

So much for "value wagering" and "demanding minimum odds" of whatever. There is way more profit to be made swimming in the same direction as the whales as there is profit to be made by swimming in other directions.

While an ROI of 1.36 is nice, I leave you to calculate the potential of exacta wagering with a 90% probability of a lock on the win position. All it takes is a bit of research, a bit of study, a bit of analysis--and a clear idea of what the opposition is doing and how they are doing it. In the case of "whale watching" the actual knowledge of (and ideas generated by) most seems murky indeed.

[traynor]

Same process applied at Yonkers:

Feb22 In 392 SELECT Pace races 13 10 30 A==>ABC in 174 LM 20% LW 71% LR 1.11 VHM 36% VHW 02% VHR 0.08 10.20 11.

Life is much easier when one knows what to look for.

[traynor]

Same process applied at Western Fair:

Feb22 In 370 SELECT Pace races 25 18 21 A==>ABC in 123 LM 24% LW 80% LR 1.28 VHM 35% VHW 07% VHR 0.35 89.50 10

None of which is to file a claim of brilliant analysis or rocket science programming. As I stated previously, the patterns can be detected by paper and pencil handicappers as well as computer analysts. Is not so much rocket science as knowing what one is looking for, and what it looks like when it is found.

[LottaKash]

. All it takes is a bit of research, a bit of study, a bit of analysis--and a clear idea of what the opposition is doing and how they are doing it. In the case of "whale watching" the actual knowledge of (and ideas generated by) most seems murky indeed.

A bit, and a bit, and a bit....Well, I have been doing that for years Traynor...:D

[traynor]

A bit, and a bit, and a bit....Well, I have been doing that for years Traynor...:D

I think we all have. I meant that as a counterpoint to those who seem to believe that anyone who has not struggled and strained for 20 years or so while endlessly re-reading the Works of the Great Ones doesn't deserve to win. On the contrary, I think most bettors lose because they are wandering endlessly down a blind alley toward an inadequate information silo of insufficient data. It is that aimless wandering that takes all the time and effort.

Learning enough to turn a profit from wagering on horse races is not especially difficult. It is getting rid of the excess baggage of "horsey sayings and horsey wisdom" of the past (and the endless "advice" of self-proclaimed "experts") that makes it seem so.

I am only using harness races for illustration purposes. The same techniques apply equally to thoroughbred races.

[LottaKash]

I think we all have. I meant that as a counterpoint to those who seem to believe that anyone who has not struggled and strained for 20 years or so while endlessly re-reading the Works of the Great Ones doesn't deserve to win. On the contrary, I think most bettors lose because they are wandering endlessly down a blind alley toward an inadequate information silo of insufficient data. It is that aimless wandering that takes all the time and effort.

Learning enough to turn a profit from wagering on horse races is not especially difficult. It is getting rid of the excess baggage of "horsey sayings and horsey wisdom" of the past (and the endless "advice" of self-proclaimed "experts") that makes it seem so.

I am only using harness races for illustration purposes. The same techniques apply equally to thoroughbred races.

Good Traynor, glad to enjoy your feeling and opinions, as always...

I agree with all of the above, in fact I feel very strongly about a player having to find his "own-way", in order to achieve steady profits as a target to shoot for..

[mrroyboy]

I am still confused about all of this. What exactly are we looking for? Opening odds, late money etc? Thanks.

[PICSIX]

I am still confused about all of this. What exactly are we looking for? Opening odds, late money etc? Thanks.

Watch my selections.....I'm a whale :lol:

[mrroyboy]

Ok I need all the help I can get. :1a:

[traynor]

I am still confused about all of this. What exactly are we looking for? Opening odds, late money etc? Thanks.

The easiest way to understand it is to watch the mutuel pools at Fraser Downs for a week or two. Watch for horses that are (generally) one of the top three morning line, that drop to close to even money early, and that maintain that position right up to the off. Note how many times that particular configuration wins the race. The item of interest is the fluctuations (or lack of fluctuations) in the mutuel pools.

Fraser Downs is a smallish track, but it is a favorite of computer handicappers. It is also the easiest track to detect the presence or absence of incremental wagers dumped into the mutuel pools to keep a key selection at a level that makes it "unattractive" to "value bettors" without blatantly declaring to the world that they think it is a lock. In essence, the use of computer-assisted wagering apps creates a "signature" that is relatively smooth when compared with the odds changes of the other entries.

The exact same process is used at many other tracks on a daily basis. It is just easier to recognize at Fraser Downs. Once you understand what you are seeing, it is much easier to detect at other tracks.

[Ray2000]

traynor

Beached Whale example?

Meadows R 13, Wed, 2/26

The 4 horse
top line in money bet chart... last 4 mins
bottom line in odds chart..... 2/1~ 5/2 until gate swings open then drops to 4/5

got beat, longshot won it.

[mrroyboy]

Tray
Have you ever read "The toteboard is alive and well? It's for t-breds but the pattern you describe is his number one type of play.

[traynor]

traynor

Beached Whale example?

Meadows R 13, Wed, 2/26

The 4 horse
top line in money bet chart... last 4 mins
bottom line in odds chart..... 2/1~ 5/2 until gate swings open then drops to 4/5

got beat, longshot won it.

It looks more like the "value bettors" decided it was a good bet, and jumped on it late. One of the big problems with conditional betting is that it only goes for "at least" with no provision for "no more than." I have been tracking this for quite awhile now and the key indicator is what I mentioned initially--odds that stay fairly stable or slope slightly downward to post time, but are rarely much more than even money at the off.

If a horse was still 2/1 at post time, I would avoid it (if I were exclusively tracking computer-assisted wagers). The computer folks don't like to leave money on the table--meaning they want to distribute bets throughout the pre-race segments to get the post time odds down to even money or close. A horse going off at 3/2 would be an exception.

If you look at the flatter lines in the center of the lower graph, the shape is right but the odds are too high for computer wagers.

[traynor]

Tray
Have you ever read "The toteboard is alive and well? It's for t-breds but the pattern you describe is his number one type of play.

I don't really think much of pop racing literature. At least not since Katherine Jung was kind enough to accompany me to the lower regions of the Hayden Library at Arizona State and show me where the real information can be found. Apparently I am not the only one who attended graduate school (and most other college and university classes) for the express purpose of improving my handicapping skills. It was an investment in time and effort that I have never regretted, and that has been repaid many times over in increased income.

Lots of good stuff is out there, but the best of it is in "peer-reviewed professional journals," term papers, research projects, and theses.

[mrroyboy]

Good research Tray. Keep us posted.

[LottaKash]

Good research Tray. Keep us posted.

Well Roy, we must get back to our "peer reviewed professional journals" ....

BTW Roy, you got any ?...

Just teasin' Traynor....:jump:

[speed]

Well Roy, we must get back to our "peer reviewed professional journals" ....

BTW Roy, you got any ?...

Do letters to Penthouse count?

[traynor]

I don't want to waste a new thread on what most would consider trivia, so I will append it here. It is related to the thread topic.

I have just spent part of an otherwise dreary morning uncovering (and "fixing") what I thought was an error in the output of an application. After some "de-bugging" I realized the error was not in the calculations, but in the output format. Specifically, I had made no provision in the output format of strike rate (hit rate) for 100%.

Well, you may ask, "What could possibly be 100%?"

CalX. Top ranked average pace, that is also top ranked in earnings per start, and has one of the top five drivers. At odds of 1/2 or LESS that entry is winning 100% of the races at CalX, with an ROI of 1.19.

PaceCalX - AP EPS DR

<1/2 Match 05% W 100% ROI 1.19

>=1/2 <1/1 M 14% W 71% ROI 1.21

>=1/1 <2/1 M 45% W 74% ROI 1.20

>=2/1 M 55% W 17% ROI 0.65

[LottaKash]

Yikes ! Traynor how simple is that ?...

A question tho, the "EPS"...is that for the year, the lifetime, or the last X# of-races...?

Good stuff, septin' I hate that place....:D ...Even given that remarkable stat...:cool:

[traynor]

Yikes ! Traynor how simple is that ?...

A question tho, the "EPS"...is that for the year, the lifetime, or the last X# of-races...?

Good stuff, septin' I hate that place....:D ...Even given that remarkable stat...:cool:

That is a tough question, because I use my own data rather than program data. EPS would be (at this time of year) "approximately" the total of this year and last year (meaning that the combined year data should crank out the same numbers as I am using most of the time).

One caveat is that low end maiden and non-winner races are eliminated from the mix.

[LottaKash]

That is a tough question, because I use my own data rather than program data. EPS would be (at this time of year) "approximately" the total of this year and last year (meaning that the combined year data should crank out the same numbers as I am using most of the time).

One caveat is that low end maiden and non-winner races are eliminated from the mix.

Fair enough Tray...I use both this and last year as well....At least for the first 1/3 of the new year, if not more for some entrants..

Amazing tho, 100%

[traynor]

Fair enough Tray...I use both this and last year as well....At least for the first 1/3 of the new year, if not more for some entrants..

Amazing tho, 100%

Similar situations exist at The Meadows and several other tracks.

[LottaKash]

Similar situations exist at The Meadows and several other tracks.

Right on Bro....The Meadows, is my perfect cup of tea, and has been for a good long while...Surprisingly so tho, I haven't wagered as much as in times past...Still, I took most of the winter off, to recharge...Mea, is coming alive again...

[traynor]

After many months analyzing tote board trends, it is is difficult not to think that the ease of using final odds in calculations makes premises built on those odds seriously skewed in a non-profitable direction. In plain English, building a strategy based on information that is impossible to access in time to actually wager on it does not seem especially useful if profit is the motive.

While working on a "whale tracker" app, I put a lot of preliminary research into monitioring tote board changes in the 10-12 minutes before each race. That research strongly indicates that final odds--the odds available in past performances and race results after the race is over--introduce errors in calculations intended to predict future events that make such calculations much less useful than would otherwise be the case.

To compensate for those deficiencies, I have been using post time odds, rather than final odds, The results are sufficiently impressive that I would strongly recommend anyone interested in making a profit from wagering should substitute those odds for "final" odds in their calculations. The extra work necessary is more than amply rewarded by the improved results.

[LottaKash]

To compensate for those deficiencies, I have been using post time odds, rather than final odds, The results are sufficiently impressive that I would strongly recommend anyone interested in making a profit from wagering should substitute those odds for "final" odds in their calculations. The extra work necessary is more than amply rewarded by the improved results.

Hey Tray, I am trying to play funny-guy here...

But, how in the heck could a P&P guy like me ever get to do what a guy like you does?

Meaning, I am still not quite sure "why", when my 5/1 goody is stable thruout the betting, and then goes off at 8/5......:D ....So I take the low price whether the whales are at work or not....

Are we shopping for "hump" whales or "sperms" ... ? Either one is trying to screw us...:D

I don't believe that many people are that interested in digging out 3/5 shots, as a steady diet....Who has the patience for that ?....

Hey, I know that profits are the name of the game, but..... You keep encouraging us to become more like you, and I honestly & sincerely don't believe that most people are willing to jump thru the hoops that you are suggesting to do, nor do they have the long education and training that you posses to make it all possible, just to key on 1/2 shots...I just don't think that people are all that excited about those types of plays...

Hey, I make plays on very low price overlays all the time, and by choice....It is the fate of us fellow Gerunders.....I take 1/2 sometimes, only because I have to, and had no last minute choice in the matter, as in none...:D

Waaaahh, I don't wannna be a whale....:bang: (Ihopeyoutakethisasfunny)

[Ray2000]

Getting those post time odds is a b****

Image shows Big M Feb 27 Race 6 Odds changes starting at 5 MTP
(These are log odds to keep the graph a reasonable height)
the dotted line tracks MTP .... 5,4,3,2,1,0....etc

The real information seems to start at -2 MTP

Collecting that data is too much of a chore, it would be nice if it was included in the charts.

[traynor]

Hey Tray, I am trying to play funny-guy here...

But, how in the heck could a P&P guy like me ever get to do what a guy like you does?

Meaning, I am still not quite sure "why", when my 5/1 goody is stable thruout the betting, and then goes off at 8/5......:D ....So I take the low price whether the whales are at work or not....

Are we shopping for "hump" whales or "sperms" ... ? Either one is trying to screw us...:D

I don't believe that many people are that interested in digging out 3/5 shots, as a steady diet....Who has the patience for that ?....

Hey, I know that profits are the name of the game, but..... You keep encouraging us to become more like you, and I honestly & sincerely don't believe that most people are willing to jump thru the hoops that you are suggesting to do, nor do they have the long education and training that you posses to make it all possible, just to key on 1/2 shots...I just don't think that people are all that excited about those types of plays...

Hey, I make plays on very low price overlays all the time, and by choice....It is the fate of us fellow Gerunders.....I take 1/2 sometimes, only because I have to, and had no last minute choice in the matter, as in none...:D

Waaaahh, I don't wannna be a whale....:bang: (Ihopeyoutakethisasfunny)

Compared to spending mind-numbing hours at the track with a Sharp 1260 hand-held computer, endlessly punching figures in to detect Ziemba's "inefficiencies in the place and show pools" (I did), it is a snap.

I started with a sheet of graph paper, designed a simple chart that let me put dots in the appropriate column at the appropriate odds intersection, and had it photocopied. It gave me something to do between races. (I get bored really easily.)

It didn't take long to realize that the odds close to post were far more important than the final odds (for predictive purposes). Using the final odds is a bit like saying, "Don't bet until you know which horse is going to win, and how much it is going to pay." In a kinder, gentler world perhaps, but not in this one.

As for the low odds bets, I think there is way more profit on the low end than there will ever be on the high end. And that trend seems to be increasing. Most of the "profit" at higher odds ranges is on paper--not in the real world. That is, it only exists in the regressions with short models and small samples--NOT in actual betting going forward.

[traynor]

Getting those post time odds is a b****

Image shows Big M Feb 27 Race 6 Odds changes starting at 5 MTP
(These are log odds to keep the graph a reasonable height)
the dotted line tracks MTP .... 5,4,3,2,1,0....etc

The real information seems to start at -2 MTP

Collecting that data is too much of a chore, it would be nice if it was included in the charts.

I coded a simple app with (MTP) columns of radio buttons for the odds ranges. Makes tracking a simple matter of a few mouse clicks. The code scrapes it after the race, dumps it in a file, then accesses it later to include in calculations. It took a bit of work to get going, but it has definitely been worthwhile.

If you track it awhile, the usefulness of the data is motivation enough to do the work. I agree that it would be nice if it were included in charts, but that would probably destroy the value. As it is, most look at it as you do, as too much work. That makes the information all the more valuable to those who have it.

[LottaKash]

It didn't take long to realize that the odds close to post were far more important than the final odds (for predictive purposes). Using the final odds is a bit like saying, "Don't bet until you know which horse is going to win, and how much it is going to pay." In a kinder, gentler world perhaps, but not in this one.

.

Traynor, thx again for your input, I appreciate it, but still, in "my real world", how does knowing that going to help me win more ?...

When I make a play, it is almost always a live play, and my plays for the most part are always active and aggressive right to the end....I know that you are trying to impart something very important here, but I am just not getting what you are driving at here, is all....

So you say that the odds close to post time are more important than the final odds, ok, what does that say to me as a guy who is always trying to improve his game in one area or another...All that we (all of us) can go by, are the odds close to post time, as we will never know what the final odds will be til it's over....

I am trying to get something from all of this, really.. Feed me please, I am hungry....:jump:

[traynor]

Traynor, thx again for your input, I appreciate it, but still, in "my real world", how does knowing that going to help me win more ?...

When I make a play, it is almost always a live play, and my plays for the most part are always active and aggressive right to the end....I know that you are trying to impart something very important here, but I am just not getting what you are driving at here, is all....

So you say that the odds close to post time are more important than the final odds, ok, what does that say to me as a guy who is always trying to improve his game in one area or another...All that we (all of us) can go by, are the odds close to post time, as we will never know what the final odds will be til it's over....

I am trying to get something from all of this, really.. Feed me please, I am hungry....:jump:

Simply stated, there are some very sharp folks out there betting very large sums of money on races. Those very sharp folks tend to pick more winners than others do. In picking those winners, they tend to wager in specific, predictable patterns. Not always, not all races, not all tracks--but consistently enough that knowing when they consider an entry "a highly probable winner" can make the difference between a strike rate of 30-40% and a strike rate of 70%+.

Simply tracking who "the crowd" is betting on is not especially useful. Knowing that a certain category of bettors has the capability to either flood the mutuel pools at the last minute or to cancel previously-made large wagers at the last minute is one thing. Using that knowledge to gain an edge over "the crowd" is another thing entirely. The easiest way I have found to do that is by tracking the "signature" of computer-assisted wagering.

A prime component in that type of wagering is that little money is left on the table. If you see a horse going off at Fraser Downs (or Yonkers) that is over a specific odds range, you can be fairly certain it will perform accordingly. Double digit mutuels that are found elsewhere are few and (very) far between.

I used to avoid those tracks, believing that chump money was chasing obvious choices. I was wrong. There are very specific patterns in wagering that can be used to predict which entries the very sharp folks think will win. They are low mutuels because that is a hallmark of serious wagering. The lower mutuel prices are more than compensated for by the dramatically increased strike rate.

I do this for money, and only for money. I can make more money by combining my own race analysis with the probabilities indicated by certain trends in the mutuel pools than I can make wagering other ways. I am much happier with low mutuels, frequent payoffs, a VERY healthy ROI, and a strike rate that I would have considered pure fantasy a couple of years ago than chasing rainbows, "big scores," or tilting at windmlls because that is what "real gamblers" do. I don't care about the gambling. I just want the money.

[traynor]

In regard to post time odds vs final odds, understand that almost all regression studies use final odds to calculate ROI. That part is reasonable. The part that is NOT reasoanble is the assumption that the final odds will be enough like the last minute odds to make conditional wagers, "value" wagers, and such profitable--while relying on the predictive value of the final odds. The available data makes such calculations quick and easy.

I think (and I have found) that using the post time or later odds as the basis for constructing wagering models is more predictive than using final odds. A fringe benefit derived from that knowledge is a clearer idea of when the final odds are likely to be roughly similar to, less than, or more than the odds at post time or later. Dumping a bundle on an entry at 3/2 and getting 2.60 back is better than losing, but nowhere near as good as winning 5.00. Dumping a bundle on an entry at 3/2, watching the odds go up to 4/1 or 9/2 after the lock, and then watching that entry struggle to be fifth is dismaying indeed. I want to be over on the side of the folks "who know something everyone else doesn't"--and who wager accordingly.

I will leave all that "stalwart solitary gambler" playing the Lone Ranger for those who get some kind of reward from such fantasy role-playing. I just want the money.

[traynor]

Perhaps the easiest way to clarify my thoughts on the matter would be to ask a rhetorical question: Given that 98% or so of bettors lose, what kind of madness would persuade me to imitate what they are doing, read the same books and study the same data they read and study, and continue recycling the same out-dated, out-moded, obsolete ideas, concepts, and strategies they cling to so tenaciously?

[LottaKash]

I do this for money, and only for money. I can make more money by combining my own race analysis with the probabilities indicated by certain trends in the mutuel pools than I can make wagering other ways. I am much happier with low mutuels, frequent payoffs, a VERY healthy ROI, and a strike rate that I would have considered pure fantasy a couple of years ago than chasing rainbows, "big scores," or tilting at windmlls because that is what "real gamblers" do. I don't care about the gambling. I just want the money.

Traynor, I know who you are, as I believe that you can't say what you say without knowing about such things....I give you all the credit in the world for that...

I fully understand the Whale Watching Pattern that you exposed in the earlier posts....That pattern was good to know, and it certainly answered a few betting pattern questions that I have been entertaining for a long, long time...

The current state of my race analysis is of superior or at the least of good quality, imo, but since your first revelation was revealed, I haven't got any further from the intent of your succeeding posts, and my bottom line or way of thinking hasn't been altered to any significant degree as a result....Meaning you haven't given much more to chew on since ....Other than the pre-post time odds are more relevant than the final odds...What ?....

And Traynor, please forgive my ineptness in my way of articulating my words....But I have to tell you, since the first good thing you pointed out, all I have been hearing is, you "tooting your own horn", without any further substance to it......I feel as if you are just teasing all of us sometimes....I wish I could say it more eloquently and tactfully tho.....Feed me more, please,is all.

[traynor]

Traynor, I know who you are, as I believe that you can't say what you say without knowing about such things....I give you all the credit in the world for that...

I fully understand the Whale Watching Pattern that you exposed in the earlier posts....That pattern was good to know, and it certainly answered a few betting pattern questions that I have been entertaining for a long, long time...

The current state of my race analysis is of superior or at the least of good quality, imo, but since your first revelation was revealed, I haven't got any further from the intent of your succeeding posts, and my bottom line or way of thinking hasn't been altered to any significant degree as a result....Meaning you haven't given much more to chew on since ....Other than the pre-post time odds are more relevant than the final odds...What ?....

And Traynor, please forgive my ineptness in my way of articulating my words....But I have to tell you, since the first good thing you pointed out, all I have been hearing is, you "tooting your own horn", without any further substance to it......I feel as if you are just teasing all of us sometimes....I wish I could say it more eloquently and tactfully tho.....Feed me more, please,is all.

My intent has not been to convince anyone of anything, but rather to suggest possible areas of exploration that might be profitable. The most productive of those areas--to me--is tracking wagering patterns that seem to indicate someone out there is a whole lot better at picking winners than I am, or ever have been. I don't think it is tooting my own horn to say that in many cases I find it more profitable to defer to the (apparent) opinion of better race analysts than I am.

I am a big fan of self-acquired knowledge. Actually doing the work and making one's own discoveries seems much more useful to me than being told what to do by someone else (or telling someone else what to do and how to do it).

I have repeatedly suggest that studying the wagering patterns at two tracks in particular--Yonkers and Fraser Downs--will establish in short order that there is more going on than there seems to be on the surface and that once understood, that knowledge can lead to increased profit for anyone willing to exert the effort to discover it. I have also outlined two simple methods to faciitate such tracking--one easily used by P&P handicappers, and another within easy reach of anyone with even minimal programming skills.

That seems to me to be way more useful than saying, "Bet the 7 in the 4th race." I think you may be missing a crucial point. It is essential to discover the pattern--to be able to recognize it--rather than being told a specific horse in a specific race fits that pattern. I tried that earlier in this thread, and it didn't seem to enlighten anyone.

[LottaKash]

I think you may be missing a crucial point.--

With all due respect Traynor, I am not missing any crucial points, only perhaps, I may have expected more about this...that's all...

[traynor]

With all due respect Traynor, I am not missing any crucial points, only perhaps, I may have expected more about this...that's all...

If it was quick, easy, simple, and readily apparent to everyone at first glance, it would be (much like almost everything written about horse racing in the last 50 years or so) worthless for betting purposes. It is precisely the difficulty that creates the value (and will continue to do so).

It seems to me worth a bit of effort to be able to recognize when betting a horse going off at even money is a huge overlay and when betting on an essentially identical horse (based on all other information available to anyone with the price of admission) going off at 3/2 is like tossing money into a bottomless pit and hoping to fill it.

[LottaKash]

I get it, all of it, Traynor, it is just that in the end, I seem to be wanting more to be said about all of this"whale watching" thing of yours....

Of course, I truly appreciated your inputs and efforts in this matter, but again, in the end, I sort of feel like a guy who got to 2d and 3d base in the back seat of my chevy, but then had to go home and take a cold shower....I just can't put my finger on it tho...sorry...

After your nifty head's up post about whale betting patterns and how to detect them, ever since tho, all I am getting further is that we should all somehow learn a programming language so the we can become experts at picking "the right 1/2 shots"....

I know you can't and won't give away the store, but, therin lies the rub with me...And, I am having a hard time trying to make my silly point here too...sorry...