Favorite Win Percentage

[Sapio]

I have read several interesting threads/posts on factor significant tests (as well as several articles on Delta Lover's website). They are quite interesting.

My question is has anyone run a significant test on favorites getting the lead/no lead. Actually two test:

One based on win percentage
Another based on tote odds

I's appreciate any information in this area.

Thomas Sapio

[DeltaLover]

It is very difficult to find a handicapping factor with a positive impact and
with this I am referring to a factor that is can be profitable in the long run.
Although we can easily discover factors that systematically affect the winning
frequency, it seems that their impact is incorporated to the betting markets
really well.

The opposite is a little more encouraging and by this I mean that there are
certain factors that indeed affect negatively the horse, but the crowd tends to
overdo it with them, converting some of them to neutral which sometimes might
reveal some of the most profitable situations in the game. Similarly, there are
some case where the crowd tends to overestimate the chances of the favorite,
making it clearly an underlay, which if combined by some other betting anomaly
among the other starters might account for a profitable bet....

As a typical example of the crowd overdoing with a negative angle, I can refer
to horses who have just broken their maidens and today are trying stakes
conditions for the first time. The crowd is of course correct in its
assessment that these runners win less than their fair share but also seems to
ignore several sub-clusters of them, allowing for very profitable situations as
happened last Saturday in both Aqueduct and Tampa giving the chance to those
aware of it to cash a couple of winners at very high odds...

Talking specifically about the favorite, the crowd is pretty good on setting it
odds, considering almost all of the apparent factors, pace been the dominant
among them. This is clearly not the domain to look for betting inefficiencies
that might point to a huge overlay..

The largest crowd's mistakes have to do more with optimism, high expectations
and false class estimates rather than anything else.

I almost never listen to public handicappers but in one of the very few times I
did so, I remember that it was TLG handicapping the races of the day. I have to
admit, his analysis was really good, showing advanced handicapping knowledge and
deep understanding of the game. Besides this, I recall that when analyzing the
most 'open' race of the day, he still picked the favorite, despite the fact that
it was running the distance for first time as all of the other starters were
doing, making the comment that the favorite should have had no more problems
than the others since all of them were trying something for the first time.

Exactly this is what I mean when I am referring to optimism. Expecting that the
favorite will improve today or succeed doing something he never done in the
past, because of its breeding, trainer or the trouble he had in his last race
are a few among the reasons behind this concept. Of course this (false)
assessment is cultivated by the (realistic) higher winning chances of the
obvious choice which still are not high enough compared to the optimism of the
crowds...

For several reasons that mainly have to do with psychology and the social
subconscious, the crowd tends to make systematic mistakes magnifying the chances
of the obvious choices while ignoring the chances of the less visible making
this situations the prime betting candidates for the bettor who is looking for a
large score.

[Robert Goren]

The crowd has nothing to with it major or middle size tracks. The whales are driving prices of the most likeliest winners according to their models to well below what the non-rebated bettor gets.

[DeltaLover]

The crowd has nothing to with it major or middle size
tracks.

I think you are making an overstatement here.

Whales do not bet alone. They bet against the crowd adjusting their decisions accordingly.

[traynor]

The crowd has nothing to with it major or middle size tracks. The whales are driving prices of the most likeliest winners according to their models to well below what the non-rebated bettor gets.

The reason is simple. The "less attractive" an entry seems to those focused on value wagers or big scores, the more money the whales can get down on the real selections. What they seem to have learned (and learned very well) is that chasing price is a losing game when compared to selecting a (much) higher percentage of winners at lower prices.

[DeltaLover]

What they seem to have learned (and learned very well) is that chasing price is a losing game when compared to selecting a (much) higher percentage of winners at lower prices.

Any evidence ?

[sjk]

The reason is simple. The "less attractive" an entry seems to those focused on value wagers or big scores, the more money the whales can get down on the real selections. What they seem to have learned (and learned very well) is that chasing price is a losing game when compared to selecting a (much) higher percentage of winners at lower prices.

I seem to be betting longer and longer prices as the years go by. My feeling is that the lower priced horses are priced efficiently a high percentage of the time.

For me the longer prices are working.

[Stillriledup]

The crowd has nothing to with it major or middle size tracks. The whales are driving prices of the most likeliest winners according to their models to well below what the non-rebated bettor gets.

Whale or no whale, rebate or no rebate, every race has a "most likely winner" that is decided by the crowd. If a big whale selects the inherent "2nd most likely winner" and makes him the favorite, you can bet that most times, another whale will see the REAL "most likely winner" sitting up there as the 2nd choice with 0 MTP and bet that horse down accordingly.

[thaskalos]

IMO...the sorriest sight of all is the horseplayer who thinks that the "road-to-riches" in this game is paved with 4/5 shots who supposedly have a 70%+ chance of winning.

This is where "theory" and "practice" drift off to their most distant point from one other.

[Robert Goren]

Whale or no whale, rebate or no rebate, every race has a "most likely winner" that is decided by the crowd. If a big whale selects the inherent "2nd most likely winner" and makes him the favorite, you can bet that most times, another whale will see the REAL "most likely winner" sitting up there as the 2nd choice with 0 MTP and bet that horse down accordingly.They will drive the odds between the two most likely winners (according to their model) to the appropriate ratio. Their money and models controls enough of the pool to do that.

[traynor]

IMO...the sorriest sight of all is the horseplayer who thinks that the "road-to-riches" in this game is paved with 4/5 shots who supposedly have a 70%+ chance of winning.

This is where "theory" and "practice" drift off to their most distant point from one other.

Fortunately, reality trumps theory.

[Robert Goren]

IMO...the sorriest sight of all is the horseplayer who thinks that the "road-to-riches" in this game is paved with 4/5 shots who supposedly have a 70%+ chance of winning.

This is where "theory" and "practice" drift off to their most distant point from one other.For the non whale bettor, you are correct. It is very hard for the average bettor to have enough information to determine that a horse has a 70% chance of winning with any accuracy. In order to be that sure, you would need "inside" information" about the current fitness of the horse, etc.

[Dave Schwartz]

I seem to be betting longer and longer prices as the years go by. My feeling is that the lower priced horses are priced efficiently a high percentage of the time.

For me the longer prices are working.

This is the trend I am seeing as well: As the winners get pushed to the top, longer prices become more viable.

Of course, the problem is that you cannot bet massive dollars on $25+ horses and not whittle your profit away.


Whale or no whale, rebate or no rebate, every race has a "most likely winner" that is decided by the crowd. If a big whale selects the inherent "2nd most likely winner" and makes him the favorite, you can bet that most times, another whale will see the REAL "most likely winner" sitting up there as the 2nd choice with 0 MTP and bet that horse down accordingly.


The "whale" money does not show up in the pool early enough for anyone to react. I would imagine that you do not wager until about the time that the first horse enters the gate. Why would they?

Therefore, all wagering decisions are made without the knowledge of how the whales will wager, either individually or collectively.

[Robert Goren]

This is the trend I am seeing as well: As the winners get pushed to the top, longer prices become more viable.

Of course, the problem is that you cannot bet massive dollars on $25+ horses and not whittle your profit away.




The "whale" money does not show up in the pool early enough for anyone to react. I would imagine that you do not wager until about the time that the first horse enters the gate. Why would they?

Therefore, all wagering decisions are made without the knowledge of how the whales will wager, either individually or collectively.It appears to me that the jockeying begins at about 2 MTP (reflected on the odds change available to the public at 1 MTP) and continues to the last possible second. There seems to be at least some gamesmanship between the whales.

[lamboguy]

here is a great example how odds change after the start of the races these days. first at Beulah, i bet the 2 horse this morning before i went to the gym. i got home just in time to watch the race. the horse leaves the gate at 1/5, stumbles to last, wins the race and $1000 is subtracted from the win pool on this horse. this is horse racing 2014!

[Stillriledup]

Dave, when you see a horse at Mountaineer (for example) open up with 6k in the win pool, that's a whale wager. Its a bet from a player trying to "corner the market" on that runner, he's making that horse 1-5 so everyone else is "forced" to shop on another horse to play.

Whales bet before the last flashes all the time because they know that the computer bettors models will "adjust" the prices at the last second, and when those prices get adjusted, their heavy favorite will drift up to a more reasonable price.

[DeltaLover]

Dave, when you see a horse at Mountaineer (for example) open up with 6k in the win pool, that's a whale wager. Its a bet from a player trying to "corner the market" on that runner, he's making that horse 1-5 so everyone else is "forced" to shop on another horse to play.

Whales bet before the last flashes all the time because they know that the computer bettors models will "adjust" the prices at the last second, and when those prices get adjusted, their heavy favorite will drift up to a more reasonable price.

I believe Still has it right here, although my question would be, do these whales really need this 2.40 winner than bad? Is this the ultimate way to play the game, especially having the overhead these 'whales' do?

[cutchemist42]

It is very difficult to find a handicapping factor with a positive impact and
with this I am referring to a factor that is can be profitable in the long run.
Although we can easily discover factors that systematically affect the winning
frequency, it seems that their impact is incorporated to the betting markets
really well.

The opposite is a little more encouraging and by this I mean that there are
certain factors that indeed affect negatively the horse, but the crowd tends to
overdo it with them, converting some of them to neutral which sometimes might
reveal some of the most profitable situations in the game. Similarly, there are
some case where the crowd tends to overestimate the chances of the favorite,
making it clearly an underlay, which if combined by some other betting anomaly
among the other starters might account for a profitable bet....

As a typical example of the crowd overdoing with a negative angle, I can refer
to horses who have just broken their maidens and today are trying stakes
conditions for the first time. The crowd is of course correct in its
assessment that these runners win less than their fair share but also seems to
ignore several sub-clusters of them, allowing for very profitable situations as
happened last Saturday in both Aqueduct and Tampa giving the chance to those
aware of it to cash a couple of winners at very high odds...

Talking specifically about the favorite, the crowd is pretty good on setting it
odds, considering almost all of the apparent factors, pace been the dominant
among them. This is clearly not the domain to look for betting inefficiencies
that might point to a huge overlay..

The largest crowd's mistakes have to do more with optimism, high expectations
and false class estimates rather than anything else.

I almost never listen to public handicappers but in one of the very few times I
did so, I remember that it was TLG handicapping the races of the day. I have to
admit, his analysis was really good, showing advanced handicapping knowledge and
deep understanding of the game. Besides this, I recall that when analyzing the
most 'open' race of the day, he still picked the favorite, despite the fact that
it was running the distance for first time as all of the other starters were
doing, making the comment that the favorite should have had no more problems
than the others since all of them were trying something for the first time.

Exactly this is what I mean when I am referring to optimism. Expecting that the
favorite will improve today or succeed doing something he never done in the
past, because of its breeding, trainer or the trouble he had in his last race
are a few among the reasons behind this concept. Of course this (false)
assessment is cultivated by the (realistic) higher winning chances of the
obvious choice which still are not high enough compared to the optimism of the
crowds...

For several reasons that mainly have to do with psychology and the social
subconscious, the crowd tends to make systematic mistakes magnifying the chances
of the obvious choices while ignoring the chances of the less visible making
this situations the prime betting candidates for the bettor who is looking for a
large score.

I had actually never seen your site before, it is great good job. I liked your post/ideas about Type 1 factors being obvious, did you ever post your thoughts on Type 2 factors that might not be obvious?

[DeltaLover]

I had actually never seen your site before, it is great good job. I liked your post/ideas about Type 1 factors being obvious, did you ever post your thoughts on Type 2 factors that might not be obvious?

When I am referring to TYPE 2 factors I mean derivatives of the public data,
that are not easily identified by the crowd due to their complexity and
difficulty to identify. I have not written a specific posting, but whenever we
are discussing a composite factor consisting of a combination of simpler factors
we are essentially talking exactly about a TYPE 2.

[Sapio]

Hi Delta Lover,

A very comprehensive post by you. In fact, I can't find any disagreement.

However, what I was hoping for was if anyone had looked favorites that win/lose make the lead/not make the lead at the first call as joint distribution in table ( or matrix ) form.

Or a contiguency table for a chi-squared significance test, where in one case the expected values are based on percentages and in the other case the expected values are based on tote-odds.

Althought, I'm interested in the significance , my intent is not to use it as positive factor to bet on favorites.

Thomas Sapio

[sjk]

first call lead winner favorites
yes yes 33944
yes no 31329
no yes 73412
no no 162108

Headings are not aligned with data but you get the idea

[Sapio]

first call lead winner favorites
yes yes 33944
yes no 31329
no yes 73412
no no 162108

Headings are not aligned with data but you get the idea

Hi sjk,

Thanks, That is most helpful.

Thomas Sapio

[traynor]

Any evidence ?

The "98% of bettors lose" is pretty convincing evidence that whatever they are doing isn't working.

[thaskalos]

The "98% of bettors lose" is pretty convincing evidence that whatever they are doing isn't working.

I think what he meant was...is there any evidence to suggest that the remaining 2% employ the methods that you seem to think they do?

You say that "chasing price is a losing game when compared to selecting a (much) higher percentage of winners at lower prices".

Is there any EVIDENCE that this is what the remaining 2% are doing...or is this just an educated guess of yours?

I make educated guesses too...but I label them as such...

[traynor]

I think what he meant was...is there any evidence to suggest that the remaining 2% employ the methods that you seem to think they do?

You say that "chasing price is a losing game when compared to selecting a (much) higher percentage of winners at lower prices".

Is there any EVIDENCE that this is what the remaining 2% are doing...or is this just an educated guess of yours?

I make educated guesses too...but I label them as such...

You would have to ask the 2% if that is the case, and if they are willing to provide convincing evidence for public display that it is the case.

[thaskalos]

You would have to ask the 2% if that is the case, and if they are willing to provide convincing evidence for public display that it is the case.
You said that, since 98% of the bettors are losing...then this is conclusive evidence that what they are doing is not working. This is the type of statement that is often used in the motivation/positive thinking landscape that we have both criticized in the past. It seems to say something...but it really doesn't.

The truth is that we DON'T know what the losing 98% are doing...nor can we ascertain how the remaining 2% distinguish themselves from the losing masses.

So...how can we -- in good faith -- say that one playing method is a "losing game" when compared to another?

[Tara73]

It is very difficult to find a handicapping factor with a positive impact and
with this I am referring to a factor that is can be profitable in the long run.
Although we can easily discover factors that systematically affect the winning
frequency, it seems that their impact is incorporated to the betting markets
really well.

The opposite is a little more encouraging and by this I mean that there are
certain factors that indeed affect negatively the horse, but the crowd tends to
overdo it with them, converting some of them to neutral which sometimes might
reveal some of the most profitable situations in the game. Similarly, there are
some case where the crowd tends to overestimate the chances of the favorite,
making it clearly an underlay, which if combined by some other betting anomaly
among the other starters might account for a profitable bet....

As a typical example of the crowd overdoing with a negative angle, I can refer
to horses who have just broken their maidens and today are trying stakes
conditions for the first time. The crowd is of course correct in its
assessment that these runners win less than their fair share but also seems to
ignore several sub-clusters of them, allowing for very profitable situations as
happened last Saturday in both Aqueduct and Tampa giving the chance to those
aware of it to cash a couple of winners at very high odds...

Talking specifically about the favorite, the crowd is pretty good on setting it
odds, considering almost all of the apparent factors, pace been the dominant
among them. This is clearly not the domain to look for betting inefficiencies
that might point to a huge overlay..

The largest crowd's mistakes have to do more with optimism, high expectations
and false class estimates rather than anything else.

I almost never listen to public handicappers but in one of the very few times I
did so, I remember that it was TLG handicapping the races of the day. I have to
admit, his analysis was really good, showing advanced handicapping knowledge and
deep understanding of the game. Besides this, I recall that when analyzing the
most 'open' race of the day, he still picked the favorite, despite the fact that
it was running the distance for first time as all of the other starters were
doing, making the comment that the favorite should have had no more problems
than the others since all of them were trying something for the first time.

Exactly this is what I mean when I am referring to optimism. Expecting that the
favorite will improve today or succeed doing something he never done in the
past, because of its breeding, trainer or the trouble he had in his last race
are a few among the reasons behind this concept. Of course this (false)
assessment is cultivated by the (realistic) higher winning chances of the
obvious choice which still are not high enough compared to the optimism of the
crowds...

For several reasons that mainly have to do with psychology and the social
subconscious, the crowd tends to make systematic mistakes magnifying the chances
of the obvious choices while ignoring the chances of the less visible making
this situations the prime betting candidates for the bettor who is looking for a
large score.

The above post is very insightful. TLG is mentioned and I have often heard him say that they are 'betting the horse on the come.' Meaning they just made the horse the favorite because they are expecting improvement. It's all optimism if you think about it.

The problem I have is accessing how to evaluate the improvement of a horse when the change of connections is the reason for the money and optimism and often favoritism. The other day, Got The Moves, was a wise guy horse, a 5 year old maiden, with no form moving into the Jacobson barn. Analyzing these types can drive me crazy.

[traynor]

You said that, since 98% of the bettors are losing...then this is conclusive evidence that what they are doing is not working. This is the type of statement that is often used in the motivation/positive thinking landscape that we have both criticized in the past. It seems to say something...but it really doesn't.

The truth is that we DON'T know what the losing 98% are doing...nor can we ascertain how the remaining 2% distinguish themselves from the losing masses.

So...how can we -- in good faith -- say that one playing method is a "losing game" when compared to another?

Actually, the truth is that whoever stated the 98% figure for losing bettors is the one who should be asked for proof. Or people who declare betting horse races almost impossibly difficult to do profitably.

How can anyone state anything--in good faith or otherwise--when each person's information is based on nothing more than a very limited view of a portion of a much larger reality? And what they believe to be "true" is little more than a subjective interpretation of that very limited view?

YMMV. The people I know are doing quite well. A big chunk of their profit comes from low mutuel prices and a high win percentage.

[thaskalos]

Actually, the truth is that whoever stated the 98% figure for losing bettors is the one who should be asked for proof. Or people who declare betting horse races almost impossibly difficult to do profitably.

How can anyone state anything--in good faith or otherwise--when each person's information is based on nothing more than a very limited view of a portion of a much larger reality? And what they believe to be "true" is little more than a subjective interpretation of that very limited view?

YMMV. The people I know are doing quite well. A big chunk of their profit comes from low mutuel prices and a high win percentage.
Fair enough. I, too, have my own experience to rely on. And my experience tells me that this is a very tough game in which to maintain a high win percentage.

DSFDF.

[CincyHorseplayer]

IMO...the sorriest sight of all is the horseplayer who thinks that the "road-to-riches" in this game is paved with 4/5 shots who supposedly have a 70%+ chance of winning.

This is where "theory" and "practice" drift off to their most distant point from one other.

Thask I'm tailgaiting off your post because it's the best starting point and correct me if we differ.In an age where the availability of races has been there bigtime it has made dealing with the intricacies of the favorite practically non existent IMO.If it has any weakness move on.This to me has been a problem solved for a while.I have erred in the other direction of late in that I have to consider taking 5/2 over 3-1 shots for $40 exactas that I know are highly likely(Tampa).

[CincyHorseplayer]

Don't know if this is a help or an idiocy or what it is but the other day I did a quick test of my bets to see if I had been changing my approach to anything as I had lost 6-1st place photos and 9-2nd place photos in the last 7 days.All I did was add the final odds and divide by bets to get an average mutual of 9/2.My average hit mutual has been 13.40 for the last year+.I'm not changing anything through this dismal run.Anyway it does make me feel I have not waivered and reached for lower mutuels for the psychological need.It still sucks!

[thaskalos]

Thask I'm tailgaiting off your post because it's the best starting point and correct me if we differ.In an age where the availability of races has been there bigtime it has made dealing with the intricacies of the favorite practically non existent IMO.If it has any weakness move on.This to me has been a problem solved for a while.I have erred in the other direction of late in that I have to consider taking 5/2 over 3-1 shots for $40 exactas that I know are highly likely(Tampa).
I'll be honest with you...I don't indulge in any of this "formula betting".

I don't believe in hard-and-fast rules, like..."don't bet on any horse at odds of less than 5/2"...or, "don't box your exactas"...or, "avoid the 6-horse fields".

My game does not depend on archaic betting rules...it relies on my own understanding of the particular race.

There was a time when I avoided the short fields...but then, they became too plentiful for me to avoid. Now...I see nothing wrong with heavily backing a 9/5 over a 6/1 one-way exacta...if my understanding of the race warrants such a move.

"Value" is relative. It does not depend on predetermined, formulaic betting rules.

[traynor]

I'll be honest with you...I don't indulge in any of this "formula betting".

I don't believe in hard-and-fast rules, like..."don't bet on any horse at odds of less than 5/2"...or, "don't box your exactas"...or, "avoid the 6-horse fields".

My game does not depend on archaic betting rules...it relies on my own understanding of the particular race.

There was a time when I avoided the short fields...but then, they became too plentiful for me to avoid. Now...I see nothing wrong with heavily backing a 9/5 over a 6/1 one-way exacta...if my understanding of the race warrants such a move.

"Value" is relative. It does not depend on predetermined, formulaic betting rules.

I think that goes with a pen-and-paper approach to race analysis. If you built computer models, you would probably look at races in an entirely different way.

I don't believe in hard and fast rules either, because extrapolating future results based on nothing more than past events is an iffy business in any case. As I have repeated endlessly, computer models do not guarantee future results--especially those based on small samples. At best, they suggest trends that may be usefully applied to analysis of future events.

Predetermined, formulaic betting is good. It pays the bills, fattens the piggy bank, and frees up the time for serious race analysis.

[thaskalos]

I think that goes with a pen-and-paper approach to race analysis. If you built computer models, you would probably look at races in an entirely different way.

I don't believe in hard and fast rules either, because extrapolating future results based on nothing more than past events is an iffy business in any case. As I have repeated endlessly, computer models do not guarantee future results--especially those based on small samples. At best, they suggest trends that may be usefully applied to analysis of future events.

Predetermined, formulaic betting is good. It pays the bills, fattens the piggy bank, and frees up the time for serious race analysis.

I can't say that I disagree with you. In fact...I probably agree more with your postings than I might have led you to believe. :)

Yes...my chosen handicapping "style" no doubt has a LOT to do with my current viewpoint of the game...and my opinions would probably be MUCH different if I were a more "computerized" gambler.

Be that as it may...we must all listen to our own muse.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'll be honest with you...I don't indulge in any of this "formula betting".

I don't believe in hard-and-fast rules, like..."don't bet on any horse at odds of less than 5/2"...or, "don't box your exactas"...or, "avoid the 6-horse fields".

My game does not depend on archaic betting rules...it relies on my own understanding of the particular race.

There was a time when I avoided the short fields...but then, they became too plentiful for me to avoid. Now...I see nothing wrong with heavily backing a 9/5 over a 6/1 one-way exacta...if my understanding of the race warrants such a move.

"Value" is relative. It does not depend on predetermined, formulaic betting rules.

I do the same when I am betting home tracks where there are the constant small fields.In the winter I don't encounter them as much as I am betting full turf fields dominantly.

By my records my bets on sub 2-1 are a handful or less per 100 averaging 1 per.They lose and there are plenty of other races so I see no need.I simply find that dealing with the favorite in almost every scenario is a losing proposition except when ontrack.I'll be archaic when betting on 3 tracks from the computer.

The rest of the hardfast rules you mentioned I agree with.

Back to the topic.The favorite isn't a problem.You bet when you think it's legitimate or bet elsewhere when not.Says it all.Your first post you said those that think the 4/5 70% winner highway is salvation is the wrong road to redemption.I agree.You thread the needle with artistry.While less traveled and dominantly a weekend player I am fine not turning 3/2's in a 6'er into gold.Either way both of us are at full ease when it comes to the topic ability of favorite relevance.Right?Im comfortable with it.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think that goes with a pen-and-paper approach to race analysis. If you built computer models, you would probably look at races in an entirely different way.

I don't believe in hard and fast rules either, because extrapolating future results based on nothing more than past events is an iffy business in any case. As I have repeated endlessly, computer models do not guarantee future results--especially those based on small samples. At best, they suggest trends that may be usefully applied to analysis of future events.

Predetermined, formulaic betting is good. It pays the bills, fattens the piggy bank, and frees up the time for serious race analysis.

Traynor I know this is a reply to Thask but wanted to jump in just to say I completely get what you are saying.In the last 5 months I have been doing the requisite work to be able to grasp how to let a computer be an ally in testing etc(never a mentor in game or computer til lately).I will always have my hands on approach as I love this game.But I will have the equine sabermetric background as well.Best of both worlds.No stone unturned.Best as always ahead!Good to hear from you.

[thaskalos]

I do the same when I am betting home tracks where there are the constant small fields.In the winter I don't encounter them as much as I am betting full turf fields dominantly.

By my records my bets on sub 2-1 are a handful or less per 100 averaging 1 per.They lose and there are plenty of other races so I see no need.I simply find that dealing with the favorite in almost every scenario is a losing proposition except when ontrack.I'll be archaic when betting on 3 tracks from the computer.

The rest of the hardfast rules you mentioned I agree with.

Back to the topic.The favorite isn't a problem.You bet when you think it's legitimate or bet elsewhere when not.Says it all.Your first post you said those that think the 4/5 70% winner highway is salvation is the wrong road to redemption.I agree.You thread the needle with artistry.While less traveled and dominantly a weekend player I am fine not turning 3/2's in a 6'er into gold.Either way both of us are at full ease when it comes to the topic ability of favorite relevance.Right?Im comfortable with it.

Well, yes...that's how I feel about it.

As Traynor said in an earlier post...reality trumps theory in this game.

I would LOVE to operate under the guiding principle that I can reliably spot horses with a 70%+ expectancy of winning their races...but I know that this is -- for me at least -- just a fantasy. You can't get the short end of the price all the time and hope to survive...IMO.

That's what I meant by my original post here...

[CincyHorseplayer]

Well, yes...that's how I feel about it.

As Traynor said in an earlier post...reality trumps theory in this game.

I would LOVE to operate under the guiding principle that I can reliably spot horses with a 70%+ expectancy of winning their races...but I know that this is -- for me at least -- just a fantasy. You can't get the short end of the price all the time and hope to survive...IMO.

That's what I meant by my original post here...

I got ya.You amongst about a handful of players on here I think this is a great question for.One that I am interested in just by how I feel about it and with my experience.The favorite is always a pivotal focal point but it is not as bold faced print as some perceive it to be in my opinion.Just recently I was reminded of veteran prowess as a friend turned the Holy Bull into a nice score off the favorite.I have not converted my favorite approach from small tracks,where it is a hub of wagering to big tracks.In short you can smell my antithesis.If you could elaborate slightly on your thoughts I'd dig it Thask!

[Robert Goren]

Where does that 98% number come from?

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, when you see a horse at Mountaineer (for example) open up with 6k in the win pool, that's a whale wager. Its a bet from a player trying to "corner the market" on that runner, he's making that horse 1-5 so everyone else is "forced" to shop on another horse to play.

Whales bet before the last flashes all the time because they know that the computer bettors models will "adjust" the prices at the last second, and when those prices get adjusted, their heavy favorite will drift up to a more reasonable price.

No, it is not.

At least not by my definition of "whale:"

Whale= "A player that wagers $100m per year or more."

[Stillriledup]

No, it is not.

At least not by my definition of "whale:"

Whale= "A player that wagers $100m per year or more."

Computer whales have ways to not overbet the pool, some whales bet every track, from hundreds of thousands of dollars on Derby day, to maybe a few hundred dollars at Rosecroft Raceway. Whales are betting Mountaineer, they're just not overbetting the pools. If Mountaineer had win pools that were a million dollars per race, whales would be able to make HUGE win bets, but with win pools that are 25k to 50k, they have to bet accordingly.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Let me re-ask the question.When you bet $200-400 how much does it change the pool and where at?

[Stillriledup]

Let me re-ask the question.When you bet $200-400 how much does it change the pool and where at?

200 to win at SRU Downs makes a 20-1 shot go off at 1-9. :D

I gotta get me some customers. :jump:

Seriously though, i think it all depends on the track you bet and the odds you're betting. If you bet 200 to win last flash on a 30-1 shot at Rosecroft harness track, that 30-1 will get hammered down to 10-1 or lower. BUT, if you bet 20 dollars to win on that 30-1 shot with 10 mins to post and then another 20 with 9 mins to post and so on and so forth until you have your entire 200 on that racer, he will end up a higher price than if you stuck the 200 to win on him a few seconds before off time.

[thaskalos]

I got ya.You amongst about a handful of players on here I think this is a great question for.One that I am interested in just by how I feel about it and with my experience.The favorite is always a pivotal focal point but it is not as bold faced print as some perceive it to be in my opinion.Just recently I was reminded of veteran prowess as a friend turned the Holy Bull into a nice score off the favorite.I have not converted my favorite approach from small tracks,where it is a hub of wagering to big tracks.In short you can smell my antithesis.If you could elaborate slightly on your thoughts I'd dig it Thask!

The favorite is a minor consideration to me, Cincy...it does not sway my opinion in the least. Nor does the apparent vulnerability of the favorite necessarily find me rushing towards the betting window with bankroll in hand. I am mainly a vertical exotics bettor...and the race has to LAY right in order for me to make my move. To a vertical exotics bettor...a vulnerable favorite may still not be enough of an enticement to warrant taking a major stand. Even while eliminating the favorite...I may STILL not be able to make sense of the race. It isn't like win-betting...where I can safely assume that the elimination of a favorite is bound to create a profitable situation for me...no matter WHICH contender I may end up wagering on.

To be honest with you...I have NO IDEA where my winners will be coming from during the day's action. My record-keeping tells me that I am good in particular types of races rather than at particular race tracks...so I bet on ALL my preferred races -- no matter where I may find them. (I do, of course, exclude Mountaineer, Turf Paradise, Gulfstream, and the Ohio tracks from my play.)

Lately...I have gotten progressively interested in harness racing (mainly the Canadian tracks) and the results have been quite promising so far. The serious player must always keep his options open. :)

I am telling you all this because of your "Holy Bull" and "small track/big track" reference. To me...understanding the particular RACE is the thing. If a 6-furlong claiming race at Delta Downs has what I am looking for...then I would gladly leave the Kentucky Derby to you. Marquee races don't excite me; BETTING opportunities excite me...and these can show up anywhere.

There is nothing sacred about the "big tracks"...IMO.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The favorite is a minor consideration to me, Cincy...it does not sway my opinion in the least. Nor does the apparent vulnerability of the favorite necessarily find me rushing towards the betting window with bankroll in hand. I am mainly a vertical exotics bettor...and the race has to LAY right in order for me to make my move. To a vertical exotics bettor...a vulnerable favorite may still not be enough of an enticement to warrant taking a major stand. Even while eliminating the favorite...I may STILL not be able to make sense of the race. It isn't like win-betting...where I can safely assume that the elimination of a favorite is bound to create a profitable situation for me...no matter WHICH contender I may end up wagering on.

To be honest with you...I have NO IDEA where my winners will be coming from during the day's action. My record-keeping tells me that I am good in particular types of races rather than at particular race tracks...so I bet on ALL my preferred races -- no matter where I may find them. (I do, of course, exclude Mountaineer, Turf Paradise, Gulfstream, and the Ohio tracks from my play.)

Lately...I have gotten progressively interested in harness racing (mainly the Canadian tracks) and the results have been quite promising so far. The serious player must always keep his options open. :)

I am telling you all this because of your "Holy Bull" and "small track/big track" reference. To me...understanding the particular RACE is the thing. If a 6-furlong claiming race at Delta Downs has what I am looking for...then I would gladly leave the Kentucky Derby to you. Marquee races don't excite me; BETTING opportunities excite me...and these can show up anywhere.

There is nothing sacred about the "big tracks"...IMO.

Thask great answer I'm too tired to process it!

The only thing sacred about the big tracks is nobody can win on em or big races.I'm 2 of 3 the last 2 Derbies and I'm pissed!

[CincyHorseplayer]

2 of 3 of the last 2 derbies.Brilliant.

[Sapio]

first call lead winner favorites
yes yes 33944
yes no 31329
no yes 73412
no no 162108

Headings are not aligned with data but you get the idea

Definitions
P(Result = Win, Lead = Yes) = joint probability
P(Result = Win | Lead = Yes) = conditional probability
P(Lead = Yes) = marginal probability




P(Result = Win, Lead = Yes) = 0.112848371 P(Result = Win | Lead = Yes) = 0.520031253
P(Result = Win, Lead = No) = 0.244061531 P(Result = Win | Lead =No) = 0.311701766
P(Result = Lose, Lead = Yes) = 0.104154684 P(Result = Lose | Lead = Yes) = 0.479968747
P(Result = Lose, Lead = No) = 0.538935414 P(Result = Lose | Lead = No) = 0.688298234
P(Result = Win) = 0.356909901 P(Lead = Yes | Result = Win) = 0.316181676
P(Result = Lose)= 0.643090099 P(Lead = Yes | Result = Lose) = 0.161959708
P(Lead = Yes) = 0.217003055 P(Lead = No | Result = Win) = 0.683818324
P(Lead = No) = 0.782996945 P(Lead = No | Result = Lose) = 0.838040292


Thomas Sapio

[Sapio]

Add this to the previous post.

Based on the data that sjk was so kind to provide, here are the probabilities I was able to infer.

Thomas Sapio