How would you reconcile your picks with the tote-board?

[Capper Al]

Let's say your top 4 picks are A-B-C-D and watching the tote-board you note the action is B-E-A-F. How would you reconcile this difference and make a wager? Your A-B are in but you are not seeing E-F as contenders.

[Tom]

They were made contenders before I looked at the board.
That they are not in the top 4 is good news. A and B are out, E and F are now elevated.

[classhandicapper]

I think about odds 2 ways.

1. What do I think the odds will be? (like my own morning line)

2. What do I think the fair odds are?

If the actual odds disagree with my predicted odds significantly, then I think there's always possibility that I am missing something or someone knows something I don't. So I might double check those horses (trainer pattern, trip, etc..that I missed)

If the odds look around where I expected them to be, then the only thing that matters to me is #2.

[traynor]

Depends on the track, depends on the accuracy of the morning line at that track, depends on whether "public selectors" have selected a different rank order, and depends on the result of some serious correlation between order of finish, morning line, and odds at that specific track--preferably on that specific distance/class/condition race.

Unless I had clear, compelling evidence that either the morning line is a more accurate predictor of the order of finish than I am, or the final odds are more accurate predictors of the order of finish than I am (neither of which I have found to be true), I would ignore both and go with my selections.

[whodoyoulike]

Why wouldn't you continue to evaluate A, B, C and D's chances? Is your wager to include all 4?

[DJofSD]

You're not seeing E-F as contenders -- for what, the win?

How about hitting the board?

Too many variables to discuss but I might bet A-B/E-F as an exacta/Q.

[thaskalos]

Let's say your top 4 picks are A-B-C-D and watching the tote-board you note the action is B-E-A-F. How would you reconcile this difference and make a wager? Your A-B are in but you are not seeing E-F as contenders.
Is the E horse the type of horse that the crowd would be attracted to? If it is...then I would toss it. Overbet horses with obvious attributes do not scare me. But if this E horse gets heavy betting action while looking nondescript on paper...then this is something that I cannot ignore.

But I would toss the F horse in all cases.

[Overlay]

Since my evaluation of a race field reflects a composite of weighted ratings from multiple fundamental handicapping categories for each horse, I can then nearly always account with confidence for differences between my opinion and the public's -- generally because the public is either overlooking/undervaluing or actually negatively viewing one or more factors that I know to be positive aspects of a horse's record (which makes the horse in question an overlay), or else overbetting one or more factors that may indeed be positive indicators, but not to the extent that the public believes in that particular race (which produces underlays). Under those circumstances, I would not allow the toteboard to change my opinion of a horse's or combination's chances. The only question would be whether the odds or probable payoff would compensate me for the risk of wagering on it.

[thaskalos]

Since my evaluation of a race field reflects a composite of weighted ratings from multiple fundamental handicapping categories for each horse, I can then nearly always account with confidence for differences between my opinion and the public's -- generally because the public is either overlooking/undervaluing or actually negatively viewing one or more factors that I know to be positive aspects of a horse's record (which makes the horse in question an overlay), or else overbetting one or more factors that may indeed be positive indicators, but not to the extent that the public believes in that particular race (which produces underlays). Under those circumstances, I would not allow the toteboard to change my opinion of a horse's or combination's chances. The only question would be whether the odds or probable payoff would compensate me for the risk of wagering on it.
What do you do when a horse that doesn't figure on paper gets suspicious, heavy play on the board?

[Moto Pete]

This happens a lot in cheap races with dirty trainers. I pass. When it happens in a Maiden Special at a big track I take notice but since I don't play chalk on top I'll usually pass on those races too.

[traynor]

Since my evaluation of a race field reflects a composite of weighted ratings from multiple fundamental handicapping categories for each horse, I can then nearly always account with confidence for differences between my opinion and the public's -- generally because the public is either overlooking/undervaluing or actually negatively viewing one or more factors that I know to be positive aspects of a horse's record (which makes the horse in question an overlay), or else overbetting one or more factors that may indeed be positive indicators, but not to the extent that the public believes in that particular race (which produces underlays). Under those circumstances, I would not allow the toteboard to change my opinion of a horse's or combination's chances. The only question would be whether the odds or probable payoff would compensate me for the risk of wagering on it.

I agree. Changing one's opinion in response to tote action is fine, provided one has clear and compelling evidence that what one perceives as "insider action" validates a), that one's perceptions are accurate and b) that such action accurately predicts the race finish more often than not.

It is well to remember that people have tender, fragile egos that lead them to remember selectively. Detailed records help.

[Capper Al]

They were made contenders before I looked at the board.
That they are not in the top 4 is good news. A and B are out, E and F are now elevated.

Tom,

Are you saying that you stick with your picks, or go with the tote-board?

My picks were A-B-C-D in that order

The tote-board has B-E-A-F in that order.

We agree on the A and B horse but not in that order.

[Capper Al]

I think about odds 2 ways.

1. What do I think the odds will be? (like my own morning line)

2. What do I think the fair odds are?

If the actual odds disagree with my predicted odds significantly, then I think there's always possibility that I am missing something or someone knows something I don't. So I might double check those horses (trainer pattern, trip, etc..that I missed)

If the odds look around where I expected them to be, then the only thing that matters to me is #2.

Class,

You sound the most like me. I accept that there is a lot going on that I don't know or that can't be found in print. Recently, I have changed to be more accepting of the tote-board.

[Capper Al]

Since my evaluation of a race field reflects a composite of weighted ratings from multiple fundamental handicapping categories for each horse, I can then nearly always account with confidence for differences between my opinion and the public's -- generally because the public is either overlooking/undervaluing or actually negatively viewing one or more factors that I know to be positive aspects of a horse's record (which makes the horse in question an overlay), or else overbetting one or more factors that may indeed be positive indicators, but not to the extent that the public believes in that particular race (which produces underlays). Under those circumstances, I would not allow the toteboard to change my opinion of a horse's or combination's chances. The only question would be whether the odds or probable payoff would compensate me for the risk of wagering on it.

Overlay,

Are you saying that you stay with your picks period and wait for value only?

[Capper Al]

What do you do when a horse that doesn't figure on paper gets suspicious, heavy play on the board?

That's my question too.

[Capper Al]

This happens a lot in cheap races with dirty trainers. I pass. When it happens in a Maiden Special at a big track I take notice but since I don't play chalk on top I'll usually pass on those races too.

Moto,

My way of thinking that's a valid option. Skipping confirms that we don't know what's up and saves our money until we find a race that we are comfortable with.

[thaskalos]

That's my question too.
One of these days, we are gonna get him to answer it. :)

[Capper Al]

Depends on the track, depends on the accuracy of the morning line at that track, depends on whether "public selectors" have selected a different rank order, and depends on the result of some serious correlation between order of finish, morning line, and odds at that specific track--preferably on that specific distance/class/condition race.

Unless I had clear, compelling evidence that either the morning line is a more accurate predictor of the order of finish than I am, or the final odds are more accurate predictors of the order of finish than I am (neither of which I have found to be true), I would ignore both and go with my selections.

Trayron,

You are saying you know what's up given my premise where it is given that we don't know. I value being open to the unknown in racing especially since what we know works only one-third of the time at best.

[Capper Al]

You're not seeing E-F as contenders -- for what, the win?

How about hitting the board?

Too many variables to discuss but I might bet A-B/E-F as an exacta/Q.

I purposely left the ticket combinations open. For myself, I'll pick a key or two and wheel them in exactas and trifectas and win and place bets and doubles. how I see fit.

yes, given in this scenario, my handicapping doesn't see E and F as contenders but the tote-board does.

[Capper Al]

Why wouldn't you continue to evaluate A, B, C and D's chances? Is your wager to include all 4?

I would include all four, but leave it open for others to do what they like given this situation.

[DeltaLover]

This thread is touching what I consider to be the most critical component of horse betting and the one that is causing the more misconceptions and generates the most fallacies among gamblers.

Given the type of the race, there are certain past performance profile patterns that can dictate to a large extend the behavior of the public; deviations from the expected behavior is what we should be looking for, either as a positive or a negative sign.

Understanding the meta – handicapping game is the central idea behind deciphering the various TOTE moves and this process has as a requirement a very sound understanding of the basic handicapping factors and how they are perceived from the crowd!

I have read many-many times in any source of handicapping related content, about myriad methods to increase predictability and increase the rate of picking the winner; I am also convinced that whoever deals with these objectives as a means to improve his effectiveness as a horse bettor, simply does not understand the game beyond the level of an advanced beginer.

The crowd is doing a great job in terms of “predictability” and it is next to impossible for any individual to try to outsmart the public consensus. I do not want to repeat here, the phenomenal effectiveness of the crowd, who is correct in all the layers of its betting scale, starting from the favorite down to the longest shot of the race.

Discovering handicapping factors and scenarios who happen to win (or loose) more than the average, is perfectly doable and EXTREMELLY SIMPLE too.


Even a novice who has been to the track a few times, is aware about the increased chances of a horse who drops from a Maiden Special Weight to the claiming ranks and of course he is right about it.

The problem though is, that this angle represents an angle that is known to everyone else, to the extend of not allowing any margin for profitability.

What is way more important, is the opposite scenario: a MSW who is the single drop to a MCL and appears to be at relatively high odds, let's say 3-1, might be the extremely opposite than what his profile is suggesting. A horse having such a visible angle, when is ignored in the betting pools, usually is not an overlay (as a pure statistical approach would suggest) but a huge underlay, that is only preferred by naive bettors.

Identifying this type of situations is what I call meta-handicapping, a term than refers to:

HANDICAPPING NOT THE HORSES BUT THE WAY BETTORS ARE VIEWING THEM

[Capper Al]

Is the E horse the type of horse that the crowd would be attracted to? If it is...then I would toss it. Overbet horses with obvious attributes do not scare me. But if this E horse gets heavy betting action while looking nondescript on paper...then this is something that I cannot ignore.

But I would toss the F horse in all cases.

Generally, public favorites will come up in my top four contenders. Why would you toss the F and not the E?

[traynor]

Trayron,

You are saying you know what's up given my premise where it is given that we don't know. I value being open to the unknown in racing especially since what we know works only one-third of the time at best.

Yes and no. What I am saying is that you should keep track of the cases in which the morning line/odds put you off selections that scored (you were right, they were wrong), and the cases in which the morning line/odds put you on selections that scored (and off your selections, meaning they were right and you were wrong).

Massive databases and excruciatingly detailed records are not necessary. Just track your own performance relative to the tote/odds and leverage that knowledge.

[Capper Al]

This thread is touching what I consider to be the most critical component of horse betting and the one that is causing the more misconceptions and generates the most fallacies among gamblers.

Given the type of the race, there are certain past performance profile patterns that can dictate to a large extend the behavior of the public; deviations from the expected behavior is what we should be looking for, either as a positive or a negative sign.

Understanding the meta – handicapping game is the central idea behind deciphering the various TOTE moves and this process has as a requirement a very sound understanding of the basic handicapping factors and how they are perceived from the crowd!

I have read many-many times in any source of handicapping related content, about myriad methods to increase predictability and increase the rate of picking the winner; I am also convinced that whoever deals with these objectives as a means to improve his effectiveness as a horse bettor, simply does not understand the game beyond the level of an advanced beginer.

The crowd is doing a great job in terms of “predictability” and it is next to impossible for any individual to try to outsmart the public consensus. I do not want to repeat here, the phenomenal effectiveness of the crowd, who is correct in all the layers of its betting scale, starting from the favorite down to the longest shot of the race.

Discovering handicapping factors and scenarios who happen to win (or loose) more than the average, is perfectly doable and EXTREMELLY SIMPLE too.


Even a novice who has been to the track a few times, is aware about the increased chances of a horse who drops from a Maiden Special Weight to the claiming ranks and of course he is right about it.

The problem though is, that this angle represents an angle that is known to everyone else, to the extend of not allowing any margin for profitability.

What is way more important, is the opposite scenario: a MSW who is the single drop to a MCL and appears to be at relatively high odds, let's say 3-1, might be the extremely opposite than what his profile is suggesting. A horse having such a visible angle, when is ignored in the betting pools, usually is not an overlay (as a pure statistical approach would suggest) but a huge underlay, that is only preferred by naive bettors.

Identifying this type of situations is what I call meta-handicapping, a term than refers to:

HANDICAPPING NOT THE HORSES BUT THE WAY BETTORS ARE VIEWING THEM


I pretty much agree with this. Money makes the mare go.

[Capper Al]

Yes and no. What I am saying is that you should keep track of the cases in which the morning line/odds put you off selections that scored (you were right, they were wrong), and the cases in which the morning line/odds put you on selections that scored (and off your selections, meaning they were right and you were wrong).

Massive databases and excruciatingly detailed records are not necessary. Just track your own performance relative to the tote/odds and leverage that knowledge.

Here we differ. I agree with you that we should map where we go wrong. But in these type of scenarios, I believe there is no unknown variable other then the barn knows something that we don't and can not know other than on the tote-board.

[VeryOldMan]

What do you do when a horse that doesn't figure on paper gets suspicious, heavy play on the board?
This.

And does it depend on whether it's a major or minor track? I most often play a minor track near me, and late money (not including bridge-jumping show wagering aiming for the 2.20 min) usually says someone knows something I don't from the outside. Makes me pass, but maybe I'm too hesitant.

[traynor]

Here we differ. I agree with you that we should map where we go wrong. But in these type of scenarios, I believe there is no unknown variable other then the barn knows something that we don't and can not know other than on the tote-board.

Which is why I suggest monitoring that belief to see how accurate it is. People tend to remember when their perceptions were right, and promptly forget the (many more) times they were wrong.

[VeryOldMan]

This thread is touching what I consider to be the most critical component of horse betting and the one that is causing the more misconceptions and generates the most fallacies among gamblers.

Given the type of the race, there are certain past performance profile patterns that can dictate to a large extend the behavior of the public; deviations from the expected behavior is what we should be looking for, either as a positive or a negative sign.

Understanding the meta – handicapping game is the central idea behind deciphering the various TOTE moves and this process has as a requirement a very sound understanding of the basic handicapping factors and how they are perceived from the crowd!

I have read many-many times in any source of handicapping related content, about myriad methods to increase predictability and increase the rate of picking the winner; I am also convinced that whoever deals with these objectives as a means to improve his effectiveness as a horse bettor, simply does not understand the game beyond the level of an advanced beginer.

The crowd is doing a great job in terms of “predictability” and it is next to impossible for any individual to try to outsmart the public consensus. I do not want to repeat here, the phenomenal effectiveness of the crowd, who is correct in all the layers of its betting scale, starting from the favorite down to the longest shot of the race.

Discovering handicapping factors and scenarios who happen to win (or loose) more than the average, is perfectly doable and EXTREMELLY SIMPLE too.


Even a novice who has been to the track a few times, is aware about the increased chances of a horse who drops from a Maiden Special Weight to the claiming ranks and of course he is right about it.

The problem though is, that this angle represents an angle that is known to everyone else, to the extend of not allowing any margin for profitability.

What is way more important, is the opposite scenario: a MSW who is the single drop to a MCL and appears to be at relatively high odds, let's say 3-1, might be the extremely opposite than what his profile is suggesting. A horse having such a visible angle, when is ignored in the betting pools, usually is not an overlay (as a pure statistical approach would suggest) but a huge underlay, that is only preferred by naive bettors.

Identifying this type of situations is what I call meta-handicapping, a term than refers to:

HANDICAPPING NOT THE HORSES BUT THE WAY BETTORS ARE VIEWING THEM


Fantastic post DL.

[whodoyoulike]

I would include all four, but leave it open for others to do what they like given this situation.

The way I was understanding your OP was you had handicapped this race with these 4 contenders. I take it C and D have gone up in odds. Why would you get off if they still appear to be contenders? Again, I don't bet all my contenders.

[cashmachine]

I agree with Overlay: I would stick with my selections since I know from experience that my program has positive expectation. I do make adjustment of my probabilities using public odds but that's all. The very point of handicapping is to find scenarios when your prediction is different from public. If you chicken when it happens you can't make any money even theoretically: if you always go with public you won't overcome track take.

I also agree with DeltaLover that toteboard itself provides valuable clues. I have more than 10 indicators based only on the public odds that help me to incorporate into my prediction various patterns of toteboard behaviour. If after all adjustments I compute my probabilities and according to them horse is overlay I bet on him no matter what.

[Overlay]

What do you do when a horse that doesn't figure on paper gets suspicious, heavy play on the board?
I have enough confidence in my line (based not only on established probabilities, but also on the memory of horses such as you describe failing to live up to the expectations of those who are driving its odds down (usually to levels that I consider underlaid anyway), combined with the elevated payoffs on the horse's competitors as a result) that I almost never change my opinion or wagers. If I would somehow have reason to genuinely suspect/conclude that something illicit or completely imperceptible was not only accounting for the action on the horse, but could also potentially have a material effect on the outcome of the race, my fallback position would be to sit it out.

[Maximillion]

They were made contenders before I looked at the board.
That they are not in the top 4 is good news. A and B are out, E and F are now elevated.

I agree......and it now becomes a very playable race,and I would probably bet both.

[Overlay]

Overlay,

Are you saying that you stay with your picks period and wait for value only?
I'm saying that my pre-race opinion of any particular horse's winning chances would be extremely unlikely (to word it as strongly as I can without saying "never") to change purely as a result of tote action, in the absence of any new relevant handicapping information that was not available when I made my line, or that I somehow missed. What might change would be whether I would regard a particular horse as worth a wager, depending on the effect of that tote action on the odds of each horse in the field.

[traynor]

This thread is touching what I consider to be the most critical component of horse betting and the one that is causing the more misconceptions and generates the most fallacies among gamblers. deciphering the various TOTE moves and this process has as a requirement a very sound understanding of the basic handicapping factors and how

Given the type of the race, there are certain past performance profile patterns that can dictate to a large extend the behavior of the public; deviations from the expected behavior is what we should be looking for, either as a positive or a negative sign.

Understanding the meta – handicapping game is the central idea behind they are perceived from the crowd!

I have read many-many times in any source of handicapping related content, about myriad methods to increase predictability and increase the rate of picking the winner; I am also convinced that whoever deals with these objectives as a means to improve his effectiveness as a horse bettor, simply does not understand the game beyond the level of an advanced beginer.

The crowd is doing a great job in terms of “predictability” and it is next to impossible for any individual to try to outsmart the public consensus. I do not want to repeat here, the phenomenal effectiveness of the crowd, who is correct in all the layers of its betting scale, starting from the favorite down to the longest shot of the race.

Discovering handicapping factors and scenarios who happen to win (or loose) more than the average, is perfectly doable and EXTREMELLY SIMPLE too.


Even a novice who has been to the track a few times, is aware about the increased chances of a horse who drops from a Maiden Special Weight to the claiming ranks and of course he is right about it.

The problem though is, that this angle represents an angle that is known to everyone else, to the extend of not allowing any margin for profitability.

What is way more important, is the opposite scenario: a MSW who is the single drop to a MCL and appears to be at relatively high odds, let's say 3-1, might be the extremely opposite than what his profile is suggesting. A horse having such a visible angle, when is ignored in the betting pools, usually is not an overlay (as a pure statistical approach would suggest) but a huge underlay, that is only preferred by naive bettors.

Identifying this type of situations is what I call meta-handicapping, a term than refers to:




HANDICAPPING NOT THE HORSES BUT THE WAY BETTORS ARE VIEWING THEM





I agree that it is both doable and simple. In essence, rather than modeling the attributes of the race winners, one models the attributes of the betting favorite. From there, it is a small step to calculate the probabilities of each profile actually winning. Comparing those profiles to entries in a given race would automate the process of "uncovering false favorites." It is also relatively simple to extend those profiles to place and show positions.

[Tom]

They were made contenders before I looked at the board.
That they are not in the top 4 is good news. A and B are out, E and F are now elevated.
I read that wrong - If I make a horse a contender, I don't care that that it is not in the top 4. If I don't make a horse a contender, love to see it getting action. I go by my handicapping.

[cashmachine]

I'm saying that my pre-race opinion of any particular horse's winning chances would be extremely unlikely (to word it as strongly as I can without saying "never") to change purely as a result of tote action, in the absence of any new relevant handicapping information that was not available when I made my line, or that I somehow missed. What might change would be whether I would regard a particular horse as worth a wager, depending on the effect of that tote action on the odds of each horse in the field.
When do you compute your probabilities? Why you don't do it in the very last few seconds before the race start? I compute my probabilities 45 seconds before the race start and no new information can appear before the start, all toteboard action already taken into account.

[imofe]

Let's say your top 4 picks are A-B-C-D and watching the tote-board you note the action is B-E-A-F. How would you reconcile this difference and make a wager? Your A-B are in but you are not seeing E-F as contenders.

I spend a lot of time trying to eliminate horses in the top 2 or 3 that I expect that the public will bet. In your example, if I expect E to get bet, then I have a playable race. Maybe A to win and an AB exacta or box depending on what the exacta payouts are. If I did not expect E to get bet, but he is at something like 5/2, then I have to worry about wise guy action on this horse. If there are unknowns about this horse ( shipper, layoff, recent barn change) then these horses are usually live.

[thaskalos]

IMO...there is no simple answer to this thread's original question. What makes horse racing the unique gambling game that it is, is the fact that there is very pertinent information out there which is known by only the few...while the many must base their decisions on readily available information which at times is totally misleading. This is a tough nut to overcome.

I consider this balance between the handicapper's own opinion and the subtle hints given by the tote board to be the very ESSENCE of profitable play...and the horseplayer's most difficult task. In this game, what appears too good to be true, very often is...

[imofe]

Everything you said is true Thaskalos. We can not control the information we don't have. But what if in certain situations the readily available information is overbet consistently. What if you have seen horse E many many times and he wins about 10% of the time and not 25%. When I say seen horse E I mean you have seen this situation over and over. You know exactly why they will bet horse E. This has to change the value of A,B, and D. They have less money on them simply because of E. Of course we can and will still lose this race sometimes. Maybe E still wins. Maybe we bet the A and B wins, or vice versa. Maybe the gimmick pools have E at 7-1 and we have no value there anyway.

[thaskalos]

Everything you said is true Thaskalos. We can not control the information we don't have. But what if in certain situations the readily available information is overbet consistently. What if you have seen horse E many many times and he wins about 10% of the time and not 25%. When I say seen horse E I mean you have seen this situation over and over. You know exactly why they will bet horse E. This has to change the value of A,B, and D. They have less money on them simply because of E. Of course we can and will still lose this race sometimes. Maybe E still wins. Maybe we bet the A and B wins, or vice versa. Maybe the gimmick pools have E at 7-1 and we have no value there anyway.
I remember a time when a 14-day layoff was a reason for concern. The horseplayer's life was a lot simpler then...because the frequent racing also meant that the past performance information was more BELIEVABLE. Now, a horse's last race has most likely taken place four-five weeks ago..and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.

I was as cocky as anyone else in years past...and NOTHING could have dissuaded me from betting my own opinion, at ALL times. But things changed...and I had to change as well.

Now I carry a mini-recorder while betting...and I dictate to myself any betting peculiarities that I encounter, along with the horses' connections and the subsequent results. It becomes enlightening at times...

You dance to the music that they play you...

[Overlay]

When do you compute your probabilities? Why you don't do it in the very last few seconds before the race start? I compute my probabilities 45 seconds before the race start and no new information can appear before the start, all toteboard action already taken into account.
The great majority of the time, all the information that I need/use (aside from real-time odds) is available well in advance, and the probabilities derived from that information won't change prior to post time, so I see no need to wait.

[FocusWiz]

IMO...there is no simple answer to this thread's original question. What makes horse racing the unique gambling game that it is, is the fact that there is very pertinent information out there which is known by only the few...while the many must base their decisions on readily available information which at times is totally misleading. This is a tough nut to overcome.

I consider this balance between the handicapper's own opinion and the subtle hints given by the tote board to be the very ESSENCE of profitable play...and the horseplayer's most difficult task. In this game, what appears too good to be true, very often is...I totally agree.

In addition, the question for me isn't whether to drop my picks or use the ones on the tote board. That is far too simplistic.

My picks are my picks. My chosen contenders are my choices.

Similar to some of the comments above about creating an odds line, my algorithms determine what would be good odds to play my picks (based on the strength of the choice and the size of the race). If my first choice goes below a certain return, I won't play it. If my third choice is above a certain odds, I might, even though I think my first choice is the more likely winner. The key word in that sentence is "likely." They all have four legs.

I do not totally disregard the odds board for hints either. Often there are clues in the tote board of perhaps who the consensus of handicappers favors or where the "smart" money (if there is such a thing) is going. I do not watch solely the win odds, but also the relative exacta prices to the individual horse odds and the relative double prices (from several horses in the prior race) relative to each horse's odds. If the tote board is consistently favoring a horse which I do not, I often take a second look. I may have discarded it based on one of my biases, or I may have overlooked something that warrants a second look. If I discarded the horse, it doesn't matter if the horse goes off at 1-9, it will not make it a contender in my book (until later when it wins by 14 lengths and I have to concede I was wrong).

Not sure what you are asking, but if we were going to disregard our own picks when the tote board disagrees, we should save money and time and just play off the tote board looking for inconsistencies and value among the various reported wagers (which I have also done on more than one occasion).

[HUSKER55]

if you play with a system and then decide to play the tote aren't you skipping your system? (hope I said that right). If you don't play your system then how do you know where you are. If something triggers you to skip your system then THAT REASON should be part of the process...no?

[Capper Al]

Good Morning,

Thanks for the wonderful comments. I'm thinking it's time to list the possible outcomes from this tote-board conflict with our own selections.

* skip the race because sometime is going on that I don't understand.
* include the tote-board's E and F horses in your wheels along with your own contenders (I'm guilty of this).
* go with your two horses not showing action on the board and play them as value horses.
* go with the tote-board's horses that are not your contenders as key horses since something must be up with them.
* if you have another possible outcome, please post it.

Thanks

[Capper Al]

Which is why I suggest monitoring that belief to see how accurate it is. People tend to remember when their perceptions were right, and promptly forget the (many more) times they were wrong.

My observation is that many times that this occurs the E horse (unknown favorite) runs away with the race and if not many a time they come in the money.

[Capper Al]

The way I was understanding your OP was you had handicapped this race with these 4 contenders. I take it C and D have gone up in odds. Why would you get off if they still appear to be contenders? Again, I don't bet all my contenders.

This might uncover a hidden reason when to play value horses. If the tote-board selections are understandable and we get our value is the only time to play. If we don't understand the tote-board then even with high odds, our horse probably doesn't have any real value.

[Capper Al]

I agree with Overlay: I would stick with my selections since I know from experience that my program has positive expectation. I do make adjustment of my probabilities using public odds but that's all. The very point of handicapping is to find scenarios when your prediction is different from public. If you chicken when it happens you can't make any money even theoretically: if you always go with public you won't overcome track take.

I also agree with DeltaLover that toteboard itself provides valuable clues. I have more than 10 indicators based only on the public odds that help me to incorporate into my prediction various patterns of toteboard behaviour. If after all adjustments I compute my probabilities and according to them horse is overlay I bet on him no matter what.

Even with a positive long run scenario with sticking to your selections, might you not be maximizing your profits play these races. This scenario might itself be a source of losses for you. It still might be better to skip.

[Capper Al]

I have enough confidence in my line (based not only on established probabilities, but also on the memory of horses such as you describe failing to live up to the expectations of those who are driving its odds down (usually to levels that I consider underlaid anyway), combined with the elevated payoffs on the horse's competitors as a result) that I almost never change my opinion or wagers. If I would somehow have reason to genuinely suspect/conclude that something illicit or completely imperceptible was not only accounting for the action on the horse, but could also potentially have a material effect on the outcome of the race, my fallback position would be to sit it out.

Might be the most sensible approach.

[Capper Al]

I agree that it is both doable and simple. In essence, rather than modeling the attributes of the race winners, one models the attributes of the betting favorite. From there, it is a small step to calculate the probabilities of each profile actually winning. Comparing those profiles to entries in a given race would automate the process of "uncovering false favorites." It is also relatively simple to extend those profiles to place and show positions.

Accept that there is no way for us to understand the public's favorite outside of the tote-board. Either we miss the logic that the public sees or something is going on that smart money might know about with the information not available to handicap on.

[Capper Al]

When do you compute your probabilities? Why you don't do it in the very last few seconds before the race start? I compute my probabilities 45 seconds before the race start and no new information can appear before the start, all toteboard action already taken into account.

I struggle at 2 minutes to post to make my mind up and get my bet in.

[Capper Al]

I spend a lot of time trying to eliminate horses in the top 2 or 3 that I expect that the public will bet. In your example, if I expect E to get bet, then I have a playable race. Maybe A to win and an AB exacta or box depending on what the exacta payouts are. If I did not expect E to get bet, but he is at something like 5/2, then I have to worry about wise guy action on this horse. If there are unknowns about this horse ( shipper, layoff, recent barn change) then these horses are usually live.

This doesn't work here in most cases, and you are not the only one doing it. What I am talking about is the false favorite. Most false favorites should figure into your top four selections. A typical false favorite will have some good numbers in it's past performance like a high speed figure or dropping in class. We just can't assume the best handicapper, the public, doesn't know what they are doing everytime this scenario comes up.

[Robert Fischer]

Let's say your top 4 picks are A-B-C-D and watching the tote-board you note the action is B-E-A-F. How would you reconcile this difference and make a wager? Your A-B are in but you are not seeing E-F as contenders.
example 1
My morning-line = B-E-A-C-D-F-G-H
My top-4-picks = A-B-C-D-E-G-F-H
I notice the tote action is = B-E-A-F-D-C-G-H

Next I compare My morning line (B-E-A-C) to the Tote Action (B-E-A-F).
The public is betting "C" as the sixth choice, instead of the fourth choice, and is betting "F" as the fourth choice instead of the sixth choice.
I did not anticipate this!
Since "E" is a big underlay here, I'm going to make money over the long-term with "A" and "B" in this race. If I want to use vertical exotics as well, I will use "F" along with "C" and "D".



example 2
My morning-line = B-C-A-D-E-F-G-H
My top-4-picks = A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H
I notice the tote action is = B-E-A-F-C-D-G-H

Next I compare My morning line (B-C-A-D) to the Tote Action (B-E-A-F).
The public is betting "E" as a top contender, and "C" is ice-cold on the board.
I did not anticipate this!
I don't know why the public is behaving in this fashion. I will pass this race entirely except when linking to a high-value multi race series, where I will now be forced to include the "E" (A-B-E-C).

[traynor]

Accept that there is no way for us to understand the public's favorite outside of the tote-board. Either we miss the logic that the public sees or something is going on that smart money might know about with the information not available to handicap on.

The point is, that is not true. It ONLY appears so when one is looking at the world of racing as a one-time event, with no connection to anything that has gone before. In reality, the behavior of the betting public is as predictable as any other factor.

It isn't complex, complicated, unknowable, or hidden in any way. It just requires a bit more astute analysis of the available information than knee-jerk response to tote board movement. Specifically, it is useful to know when the tote board indicators usually associated with "insider betting" are based on insider betting and when they are based on (usually skewed and unrealistic) public opinion regarding some factor or combination of factors.

A simplistic example--speed on the rail wins three in a row. E and F--in your scenario--have inner posts and a bit of early speed. D and C are outside, and slow starters. What a myopic view might conclude was "insider betting" is perfectly normal under the circumstances. While the reasons for the tote action may not be as blatant (and noticeable to the uncritical observer) as that indicated above, in most cases they are both knowable and apparent. If one is using appropriately sophisticated computer models.

[traynor]

I have a real problem with the notion of analyzing a race, making my choices, then looking for external validation of those choices on the tote board before wagering. It seems that would virtually guarantee wagers restricted to crowd favorites, while passing races in which one's selections were actually overlays.

[tophatmert]

I read that wrong - If I make a horse a contender, I don't care that that it is not in the top 4. If I don't make a horse a contender, love to see it getting action. I go by my handicapping.

I agree especially in claiming and ALW races for older horses. 2yos and lightly raced maidens are not my cup of tea because there are more variables that I don't care to analyze. Long term I will take my opinion over the public and barns trying to put one over . I have taken notes on every race from BEL SAR and AQU since 1989. I use good speed figures . I have studied a great deal over the years why would I let myself be influenced by a guy who heard from a guy. Most of the time I believe I know something that the public doesn't know. I get that information from hard work and paying attention and I won't let that me marginalized by fear of the tote.

[DeltaLover]

I agree that it is both doable and simple. In essence, rather than modeling the attributes of the race winners, one models the attributes of the betting favorite. From there, it is a small step to calculate the probabilities of each profile actually winning. Comparing those profiles to entries in a given race would automate the process of "uncovering false favorites." It is also relatively simple to extend those profiles to place and show positions.

The problem is that in the vast majority of the races, the calculated probabilities of each profile (as you put it very accurately and correctly) will be aligned with crowd's selection. Sure, there might be some discrepancies but the huge takeout is enough to convert them to losing propositions.

What is needed, is a way to estimate not only the win probability of each horse but the probability of the crowd committing an error of a specific magnitude in its final decision, regardless of the odds of each individual starter.


I think that the key to understand what I am trying to say here, is the expression specific magnitude and refers to the probability of the crowd to commit a very large error when forming its opinion..

The question that needs to be addresses here is the following:

Given a race profile (encapsulating of all publicly known data, including past performances, recent connection behavior, well known names etc) what is the probability that the crowd will commit a LARGE ERROR in its final assessment?


Of course I need to define what I mean by LARGE ERROR, which is probably not the main topic in this thread. From a high level, we can consider a LARGE ERROR cases where for example a 10-1 is expected to run as a 2-1 shot..

BUT this is not exactly what I mean here...

Instead of a specific horse that might be misjudged by the crowd, I am referring to the WHOLE RACE as an entity.


Let's say that we use some measurement to express the accuracy of the crowd (it can be R^2 or any other similar metric)... Following what I have just described, our objective becomes to detect if we can find a cluster of races similar to the current one, where the accuracy of the crowd is systematically less than the rest of the racing universe...

If we are able to accurately detect this kind of clusterization, out betting strategy becomes much simpler as we now in advance what races we should be playing and the next question we should answer has to do with the profile of the horse to bet, which can be again discovered by analyzing where the crowd's error is coming from.

[traynor]

The problem is that in the vast majority of the races, the calculated probabilities of each profile (as you put it very accurately and correctly) will be aligned with crowd's selection. Sure, there might be some discrepancies but the huge takeout is enough to convert them to losing propositions.

What is needed, is a way to estimate not only the win probability of each horse but the probability of the crowd committing an error of a specific magnitude in its final decision, regardless of the odds of each individual starter.


I think that the key to understand what I am trying to say here, is the expression specific magnitude and refers to the probability of the crowd to commit a very large error when forming its opinion..

The question that needs to be addresses here is the following:

Given a race profile (encapsulating of all publicly known data, including past performances, recent connection behavior, well known names etc) what is the probability that the crowd will commit a LARGE ERROR in its final assessment?


Of course I need to define what I mean by LARGE ERROR, which is probably not the main topic in this thread. From a high level, we can consider a LARGE ERROR cases where for example a 10-1 is expected to run as a 2-1 shot..

BUT this is not exactly what I mean here...

Instead of a specific horse that might be misjudged by the crowd, I am referring to the WHOLE RACE as an entity.


Let's say that we use some measurement to express the accuracy of the crowd (it can be R^2 or any other similar metric)... Following what I have just described, our objective becomes to detect if we can find a cluster of races similar to the current one, where the accuracy of the crowd is systematically less than the rest of the racing universe...

If we are able to accurately detect this kind of clusterization, out betting strategy becomes much simpler as we now in advance what races we should be playing and the next question we should answer has to do with the profile of the horse to bet, which can be again discovered by analyzing where the crowd's error is coming from.

That is essentially what (in part) I am doing. Consider 100 variables, 10 of which are "considered" by the crowd as "indicators." The other 90 function as confounding variables. Find clusters in (what many ignore as "unknowable") those 90 (or whatever) variables that indicate when the 10 variables considered indicative by the crowd are negated or seriously diminished by their existence.

Short version would be, "Don't look only what what wins. Look at what loses." and merge that with the "what-wins" categories, so that discrepancies are readily apparent. That makes detection of races with "false favorites" quite simple.

[Robert Fischer]

I think about odds 2 ways.

1. What do I think the odds will be? (like my own morning line)

2. What do I think the fair odds are?

If the actual odds disagree with my predicted odds significantly, then I think there's always possibility that I am missing something or someone knows something I don't. So I might double check those horses (trainer pattern, trip, etc..that I missed)

If the odds look around where I expected them to be, then the only thing that matters to me is #2.

Yea, this is very close to what I do.

[DeltaLover]

That is essentially what (in part) I am doing. Consider 100 variables, 10 of which are "considered" by the crowd as "indicators." The other 90 function as confounding variables. Find clusters in (what many ignore as "unknowable") those 90 (or whatever) variables that indicate when the 10 variables considered indicative by the crowd are negated or seriously diminished by their existence.

Short version would be, "Don't look only what what wins. Look at what loses." and merge that with the "what-wins" categories, so that discrepancies are readily apparent. That makes detection of races with "false favorites" quite simple.

I completely agree and even push your statement a little higher.

As a gambler, one of your worst attitudes is to be result oriented. The outcome of a specific event or even a (relatively short) sequence of them is completely a matter of luck and there is nothing you can do to predict it.

The best you can do, is to try to detect favorable betting situations knowing that you are actually making money while you are placing your bets and not when you are cashing out!

Horse bettors who still think of the pools as some form of an ATM, that can be used for regular daily withdraws, is a very amusing situation. People do not seem to realize that, despite the fact that without a doubt, horse racing is highly predictable, it is still gambling with the fullest meaning of the world!

[whodoyoulike]

This doesn't work here in most cases, and you are not the only one doing it. What I am talking about is the false favorite. Most false favorites should figure into your top four selections. A typical false favorite will have some good numbers in it's past performance like a high speed figure or dropping in class. We just can't assume the best handicapper, the public, doesn't know what they are doing everytime this scenario comes up.


I haven't really thought this through but isn't a false favorite from a handicapper's or your perspective a favorite which is not your selection?

And, why do you consider the public is the "best handicapper"? Is it because they are consistently able to identify the winners 33% +/- of the time?

[traynor]

I completely agree and even push your statement a little higher.

As a gambler, one of your worst attitudes is to be result oriented. The outcome of a specific event or even a (relatively short) sequence of them is completely a matter of luck and there is nothing you can do to predict it.

The best you can do, is to try to detect favorable betting situations knowing that you are actually making money while you are placing your bets and not when you are cashing out!

Horse bettors who still think of the pools as some form of an ATM, that can be used for regular daily withdraws, is a very amusing situation. People do not seem to realize that, despite the fact that without a doubt, horse racing is highly predictable, it is still gambling with the fullest meaning of the world!
Complete agreement.

[traynor]

This doesn't work here in most cases, and you are not the only one doing it. What I am talking about is the false favorite. Most false favorites should figure into your top four selections. A typical false favorite will have some good numbers in it's past performance like a high speed figure or dropping in class. We just can't assume the best handicapper, the public, doesn't know what they are doing everytime this scenario comes up.

Is that meant to be serious?

[DeltaLover]

Is that meant to be serious?

If not the best handicapper, certainly very close.

In my mind though, what is way more important, has to do with the best bettor as opposed to best handicapper and this is exactly where the public comes short

[Robert Fischer]

This might uncover a hidden reason when to play value horses. If the tote-board selections are understandable and we get our value is the only time to play. If we don't understand the tote-board then even with high odds, our horse probably doesn't have any real value.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[traynor]

If not the best handicapper, certainly very close.

In my mind though, what is way more important, has to do with the best bettor as opposed to best handicapper and this is exactly where the public comes short

"Best handicapper" may be misleading if generic results (every race, every track, every day) are applied to specifics (this race, this track, today). There is considerable variation in the accuracy of crowd predictions.

[imofe]

This doesn't work here in most cases, and you are not the only one doing it. What I am talking about is the false favorite. Most false favorites should figure into your top four selections. A typical false favorite will have some good numbers in it's past performance like a high speed figure or dropping in class. We just can't assume the best handicapper, the public, doesn't know what they are doing everytime this scenario comes up.

Most of the time the horse in question is the 2nd or 3rd favorite. Make your contender list. Break down as simple as you can WHY the horse is a contender. Chart the contenders that lose. I was shocked at some of the myths and long time supposed truths that I was using as contenders. If horse E in your example is one of those horses, you might have a great betting race. I have charted a two 10% winning situations over the last few years that are generally one of the first four favorites on the board.

[Capper Al]

example 1
My morning-line = B-E-A-C-D-F-G-H
My top-4-picks = A-B-C-D-E-G-F-H
I notice the tote action is = B-E-A-F-D-C-G-H

Next I compare My morning line (B-E-A-C) to the Tote Action (B-E-A-F).
The public is betting "C" as the sixth choice, instead of the fourth choice, and is betting "F" as the fourth choice instead of the sixth choice.
I did not anticipate this!
Since "E" is a big underlay here, I'm going to make money over the long-term with "A" and "B" in this race. If I want to use vertical exotics as well, I will use "F" along with "C" and "D".



example 2
My morning-line = B-C-A-D-E-F-G-H
My top-4-picks = A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H
I notice the tote action is = B-E-A-F-C-D-G-H

Next I compare My morning line (B-C-A-D) to the Tote Action (B-E-A-F).
The public is betting "E" as a top contender, and "C" is ice-cold on the board.
I did not anticipate this!
I don't know why the public is behaving in this fashion. I will pass this race entirely except when linking to a high-value multi race series, where I will now be forced to include the "E" (A-B-E-C).

Complex, but I think you have worked out a sensible plan. I had to keep rereading to finally get it. Basically it's an ebb and flow. The value flows upstream in scenario A where you wager, and the values goes down stream in scenario B making it a race to skip.

[Capper Al]

The point is, that is not true. It ONLY appears so when one is looking at the world of racing as a one-time event, with no connection to anything that has gone before. In reality, the behavior of the betting public is as predictable as any other factor.

It isn't complex, complicated, unknowable, or hidden in any way. It just requires a bit more astute analysis of the available information than knee-jerk response to tote board movement. Specifically, it is useful to know when the tote board indicators usually associated with "insider betting" are based on insider betting and when they are based on (usually skewed and unrealistic) public opinion regarding some factor or combination of factors.

A simplistic example--speed on the rail wins three in a row. E and F--in your scenario--have inner posts and a bit of early speed. D and C are outside, and slow starters. What a myopic view might conclude was "insider betting" is perfectly normal under the circumstances. While the reasons for the tote action may not be as blatant (and noticeable to the uncritical observer) as that indicated above, in most cases they are both knowable and apparent. If one is using appropriately sophisticated computer models.

okay traynor, it would be good to try to categorize dysfunctional tote-board patterns. Maybe this is possible. I still believe these anomalies would be too difficult too categorize. It would be just easier to give into that there is something happening that we don't understand.

[Capper Al]

I have a real problem with the notion of analyzing a race, making my choices, then looking for external validation of those choices on the tote board before wagering. It seems that would virtually guarantee wagers restricted to crowd favorites, while passing races in which one's selections were actually overlays.

The tote-board is just another source of information to be used.

[Capper Al]

The problem is that in the vast majority of the races, the calculated probabilities of each profile (as you put it very accurately and correctly) will be aligned with crowd's selection. Sure, there might be some discrepancies but the huge takeout is enough to convert them to losing propositions.

What is needed, is a way to estimate not only the win probability of each horse but the probability of the crowd committing an error of a specific magnitude in its final decision, regardless of the odds of each individual starter.


I think that the key to understand what I am trying to say here, is the expression specific magnitude and refers to the probability of the crowd to commit a very large error when forming its opinion..

The question that needs to be addresses here is the following:

Given a race profile (encapsulating of all publicly known data, including past performances, recent connection behavior, well known names etc) what is the probability that the crowd will commit a LARGE ERROR in its final assessment?


Of course I need to define what I mean by LARGE ERROR, which is probably not the main topic in this thread. From a high level, we can consider a LARGE ERROR cases where for example a 10-1 is expected to run as a 2-1 shot..

BUT this is not exactly what I mean here...

Instead of a specific horse that might be misjudged by the crowd, I am referring to the WHOLE RACE as an entity.


Let's say that we use some measurement to express the accuracy of the crowd (it can be R^2 or any other similar metric)... Following what I have just described, our objective becomes to detect if we can find a cluster of races similar to the current one, where the accuracy of the crowd is systematically less than the rest of the racing universe...

If we are able to accurately detect this kind of clusterization, out betting strategy becomes much simpler as we now in advance what races we should be playing and the next question we should answer has to do with the profile of the horse to bet, which can be again discovered by analyzing where the crowd's error is coming from.

What makes the tote-board wrong? This keeps coming up as good handicappers should know better when a lot of these horses win and win big.

[traynor]

okay traynor, it would be good to try to categorize dysfunctional tote-board patterns. Maybe this is possible. I still believe these anomalies would be too difficult too categorize. It would be just easier to give into that there is something happening that we don't understand.

Not really. If you realize that they are little more than confounding variables, and rate them the same way you would rate any other factor (pace for example), it comes down to simple number crunching.

"Easy" does not often equate to "profitable." Everyone else likes to take the easy way, shuffling around a few numbers and calling it "handicapping." Tote analysis (in conjunction with analysis of morning line/odds patterns) is quite likely one of the most profitable areas for non-whales-according-to-Dave's-criteria bettors to make a big leap forward in profitability.

In the scenario you presented initially, the existence or non-existence of certain clusters of (otherwise confounding, but now categorized and monitored) variables would enable you to distinguish "smart money" (horse more likely to win/place) from "chump money" (somebody imagined they saw something, bet a few bucks early, and everyone else jumped on it, creating a false favorite/false favorites).

This is not rocket science. No PhD required. Basic programming, or database, or spreadsheet skills are more than enough.

[traynor]

The tote-board is just another source of information to be used.

I agree. The question is, is it being used appropriately, or is it being used as if it meant something that it (almost always) does not?

[Capper Al]

I haven't really thought this through but isn't a false favorite from a handicapper's or your perspective a favorite which is not your selection?

And, why do you consider the public is the "best handicapper"? Is it because they are consistently able to identify the winners 33% +/- of the time?

Hot handicappers come and hot handicappers go, but the public is always there on top of their game. To me a good handicapper can see why a horse is favorite but might prefer another, but never underestimates the public in doing so. Handicapping authors might have over used the term false favorite to the point that any favorite that doesn't win was false.

[Capper Al]

Is that meant to be serious?

Most false favorites might be overstated, but a lot should show up in our top four.

[traynor]

What makes the tote-board wrong? This keeps coming up as good handicappers should know better when a lot of these horses win and win big.

What makes the tote board wrong is when wagers are made according to scenarios/patterns with a seriously negative expectation, as in false favorites. False favorites do not magically appear--the crowd chooses the wrong set of values or is impressed with attributes that are negatively associated with good performance. Most of what seems to be "smart money" is the complete opposite.

If it was really "smart money" you certainly wouldn't be able to see it by casual observation of the tote board. The wagering would be so diffused that the only ones who noticed would be the conditional bettors looking for "value" who avoid betting--enabling the "smart money" bettors to get more down on what they consider a lock.

[thaskalos]

What makes the tote board wrong is when wagers are made according to scenarios/patterns with a seriously negative expectation, as in false favorites. False favorites do not magically appear--the crowd chooses the wrong set of values or is impressed with attributes that are negatively associated with good performance. Most of what seems to be "smart money" is the complete opposite.

If it was really "smart money" you certainly wouldn't be able to see it by casual observation of the tote board. The wagering would be so diffused that the only ones who noticed would be the conditional bettors looking for "value" who avoid betting--enabling the "smart money" bettors to get more down on what they consider a lock.
Handicapping the horses turned out to be the easy part.

The REAL difficulty lies in handicapping the handicappers.

[traynor]

Handicapping the horses turned out to be the easy part.

The REAL difficulty lies in handicapping the handicappers.

It has been like that for a long time.

[Maximillion]

My main approach is to usually look for longer odds horses.
For myself......there is nothing that would sway me from my opinion on said horse by toteboard action (or lack of)

On the ones I have cashed on....some have recieved pretty heavy early action, (often a good sign,Ill admit)others have been kinda dead on the board and hit somewhat late.......and then there is the rare occasion that the price opens high and stays there.Its a non-factor in my play.....for better or worse.

[thaskalos]

It has been like that for a long time.

Well...I've never been accused of being the most observant player...so it took me a little longer to figure it out. But late or not...I learned. And now, when I tell people that only the paranoid survive in this game, they laugh...because they don't know how serious I am.

[traynor]

Hot handicappers come and hot handicappers go, but the public is always there on top of their game. To me a good handicapper can see why a horse is favorite but might prefer another, but never underestimates the public in doing so. Handicapping authors might have over used the term false favorite to the point that any favorite that doesn't win was false.

isn't it? The "favorite" is supposed to be the horse the crowd believes is most likely to win. If that horse does not win (as in roughly two-thirds of all races) the crowd was wrong (again) and the wagers of their hard-earned dollars created a false favorite. Hopefully, those with less-than-stellar opinions of the "wisdom of crowds" recognize how often the crowds picks losers and adjust their wagers accordingly.

The whole point of studying confounding variables is to enable a bettor to know when an entry that is getting a lot of action is because "smart money" is being wagered on it, as opposed to "not-so-smart money."

[TrifectaMike]

isn't it? The "favorite" is supposed to be the horse the crowd believes is most likely to win. If that horse does not win (as in roughly two-thirds of all races) the crowd was wrong (again) and the wagers of their hard-earned dollars created a false favorite. Hopefully, those with less-than-stellar opinions of the "wisdom of crowds" recognize how often the crowds picks losers and adjust their wagers accordingly.

The whole point of studying confounding variables is to enable a bettor to know when an entry that is getting a lot of action is because "smart money" is being wagered on it, as opposed to "not-so-smart money."

Can you provide an example of a confounding variable? Also, possibly, in a general sense, provide a method of testing for the presence of a confounding variable and it's influence and/or association to predictor variables and predicted or response variables. Possibly guide us to a specific methodology or test, which may or may not exist.

Mike

[traynor]

Can you provide an example of a confounding variable? Also, possibly, in a general sense, provide a method of testing for the presence of a confounding variable and it's influence and/or association to predictor variables and predicted or response variables. Possibly guide us to a specific methodology or test, which may or may not exist.

Mike

I think delta lover would do a much better job of explaining it.

[whodoyoulike]

I think delta lover would do a much better job of explaining it.

I don't understand your response.

But, I have noticed that you and Delta Lover are frequently in sync. Why is that?

[Capper Al]

Can you provide an example of a confounding variable? Also, possibly, in a general sense, provide a method of testing for the presence of a confounding variable and it's influence and/or association to predictor variables and predicted or response variables. Possibly guide us to a specific methodology or test, which may or may not exist.

Mike

Wow! To my fellow punters, Google confonding variables. Wikipedia has an example, if I remember right.

[DJofSD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding_variable

As an example, suppose that there is a statistical relationship between ice-cream consumption and number of drowning deaths for a given period. These two variables have a positive correlation with each other. An evaluator might attempt to explain this correlation by inferring a causal relationship between the two variables (either that ice-cream causes drowning, or that drowning causes ice-cream consumption). However, a more likely explanation is that the relationship between ice-cream consumption and drowning is spurious and that a third, confounding, variable (the season) influences both variables: during the summer, warmer temperatures lead to increased ice-cream consumption as well as more people swimming and thus more drowning deaths.

[Capper Al]

Can you provide an example of a confounding variable? Also, possibly, in a general sense, provide a method of testing for the presence of a confounding variable and it's influence and/or association to predictor variables and predicted or response variables. Possibly guide us to a specific methodology or test, which may or may not exist.

Mike

Good question.

[Capper Al]

isn't it? The "favorite" is supposed to be the horse the crowd believes is most likely to win. If that horse does not win (as in roughly two-thirds of all races) the crowd was wrong (again) and the wagers of their hard-earned dollars created a false favorite. Hopefully, those with less-than-stellar opinions of the "wisdom of crowds" recognize how often the crowds picks losers and adjust their wagers accordingly.

The whole point of studying confounding variables is to enable a bettor to know when an entry that is getting a lot of action is because "smart money" is being wagered on it, as opposed to "not-so-smart money."

Understand that us humble punters are confounded when the favorite doesn't appear in our top four contenders. We are challenged to differentiate between did we miss something that the crowd sees or is this really a false favorite.

[Capper Al]

We should agree on what we mean by a false favorite for this discussion.

I suggest using Quirin's definition of a good race is a good basis to use. A good race is finishing first, second, or third, or finishing within 2 lengths in a sprint or three lengths in a route. If the favorite didn't have racing trouble and did not have a good race then the horse was a false favorite.

[DJofSD]

We should agree on what we mean by a false favorite for this discussion.

I suggest using Quirin's definition of a good race is a good basis to use. A good race is finishing first, second, or third, or finishing within 2 lengths in a sprint or three lengths in a route. If the favorite didn't have racing trouble and did not have a good race then the horse was a false favorite.
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Capper Al]

My main approach is to usually look for longer odds horses.
For myself......there is nothing that would sway me from my opinion on said horse by toteboard action (or lack of)

On the ones I have cashed on....some have recieved pretty heavy early action, (often a good sign,Ill admit)others have been kinda dead on the board and hit somewhat late.......and then there is the rare occasion that the price opens high and stays there.Its a non-factor in my play.....for better or worse.

So you don't reconcile your picks? Your wagers would be as you picked them: A-B-C-D.

[TrifectaMike]

We should agree on what we mean by a false favorite for this discussion.

I suggest using Quirin's definition of a good race is a good basis to use. A good race is finishing first, second, or third, or finishing within 2 lengths in a sprint or three lengths in a route. If the favorite didn't have racing trouble and did not have a good race then the horse was a false favorite.

A reasonable defintion. At minimum, it allows for the stochastic nature of the race. To consider a losing favorite as a false favorite, as some have suggested, is plain folly and niave.

Mike

[traynor]

We should agree on what we mean by a false favorite for this discussion.

I suggest using Quirin's definition of a good race is a good basis to use. A good race is finishing first, second, or third, or finishing within 2 lengths in a sprint or three lengths in a route. If the favorite didn't have racing trouble and did not have a good race then the horse was a false favorite.

A good definition on paper. Not so good in the real world, especially if one has bet the favorite to win. Second, third, or a finish within 2 lengths does not pay much in such a case.

[DJofSD]

OK, I understand, opinions vary but you need to define terms and parameters.

If the prior definition for a false favorite is inadequate, why is it inadequate?

Since the favorite is by definition a horse considered for the win, only, why not just consider any horse that is the betting favorite in the win pool but does not win -- regardless of anything else -- a false favorite?

[DeltaLover]

As TM says, a loosing favorite is by not means a “false” favorite and I amf surprised that people still think this way.

I have seen it many times written in this board that the public “has it wrong by 66% and is only correct by the remaining 34%”...

Nonsense..

In theory, something like this, might have been true if the public had a unanimous decision to bet only one horse in the race...

As I said before, instead of making the search for a false favorite the objective of our handicapping process, it is more feasible to shift our efforts to discovering race compositions that are likely to be misjudged by the public instead.

[Capper Al]

OK, I understand, opinions vary but you need to define terms and parameters.

If the prior definition for a false favorite is inadequate, why is it inadequate?

Since the favorite is by definition a horse considered for the win, only, why not just consider any horse that is the betting favorite in the win pool but does not win -- regardless of anything else -- a false favorite?

What is real about a true favorite? For me it is that the horse was there to challenge. We can't blame the horse if there was a surprise and other horses showed up better. A false favorite means that the horse didn't have a chance and at the same time the public didn't have a clue. It has nothing to do with actually winning.

[AndyC]

OK, I understand, opinions vary but you need to define terms and parameters.

If the prior definition for a false favorite is inadequate, why is it inadequate?

Since the favorite is by definition a horse considered for the win, only, why not just consider any horse that is the betting favorite in the win pool but does not win -- regardless of anything else -- a false favorite?

If one were to roll a pair of dice the favorite to come up would be a 7. If a 7 isn't rolled is it then deemed a false favorite?

[DJofSD]

What is real about a true favorite? For me it is that the horse was there to challenge. We can't blame the horse if there was a surprise and other horses showed up better. A false favorite means that the horse didn't have a chance and at the same time the public didn't have a clue. It has nothing to do with actually winning.
OK. Then how to quantify didn't have a chance and didn't have a clue.

Are those constraints themselves variable depending upon, say field size, or, some other factor?

I mention field size b/c a horse that hits the board in a full field has done more than another that competes in a field of 5.

[Capper Al]

OK. Then how to quantify didn't have a chance and didn't have a clue.

Are those constraints themselves variable depending upon, say field size, or, some other factor?

I mention field size b/c a horse that hits the board in a full field has done more than another that competes in a field of 5.

That's where Quirin's definition of a good race and no racing trouble line come in. The horse was ready and the public saw it. Therefore, a reasonable favorite.

[Capper Al]

If one were to roll a pair of dice the favorite to come up would be a 7. If a 7 isn't rolled is it then deemed a false favorite?

Agree. That's why winning isn't necessary just being in the fight is what counts.

[Capper Al]

As I said before, instead of making the search for a false favorite the objective of our handicapping process, it is more feasible to shift our efforts to discovering race compositions that are likely to be misjudged by the public instead.

Agree. The discussion seemed to side step on this topic. Hopefully, when someone marks their contenders as A-B-C-D, they are doing so based on their research of the composition of similar races. The conflict here is what to do when the tote-board disagrees? How would you reconcile this situation, if you would at all?

[thaskalos]

If one were to roll a pair of dice the favorite to come up would be a 7. If a 7 isn't rolled is it then deemed a false favorite?
I was in the process of posting a much more wordy, much less focused reply to this question...but your very astute observation made it unnecessary. :ThmbUp:

[Overlay]

If one were to roll a pair of dice the favorite to come up would be a 7. If a 7 isn't rolled is it then deemed a false favorite?
I agree with you that a false favorite would be a favorite that is not the horse that has the greatest probability of winning the race. Unfortunately, whether the favorite is in fact false or not can't be objectively/precisely determined in advance of the race in the same manner as with a pair of dice (although some measures might come closer than others to achieving that). (That, coupled with the fact that the race is only run once, and, even if the horse loses, it might not have been a false favorite because it still may have been the horse with the best pre-race chance of winning, and would be the most frequent winner if it were possible to run the race multiple times under the same identical circumstances.)

[thaskalos]

I agree with you that a false favorite would be a favorite that is not the horse that has the greatest probability of winning the race. Unfortunately, whether the favorite is in fact false or not can't be objectively/precisely determined in advance of the race in the same manner as with a pair of dice (although some measures might come closer than others in achieving that). (That, coupled with the fact that the race is only run once, and, even if the horse loses, it still may have been the horse with the best before-the-fact chance of winning, and would be the most frequent winner if it were possible to run the race multiple times under the same identical circumstances.)

True...but the notion that a favorite is a "false" favorite just because it lost its race presupposes that the eventual winner of the race was the "true" favorite...which is obviously not the case.

There is "chaos" in this game...

[Overlay]

True...but the notion that a favorite is a "false" favorite just because it lost its race presupposes that the eventual winner of the race was the "true" favorite...which is obviously not the case.

There is "chaos" in this game...
The point that I was trying to make was that (as you say) a favorite losing the one-time running of a unique, never-to-be-exactly-repeated race does not establish that it was a (before-the-fact) false favorite, or that the horse that beat it would/should have been considered a more probable winner before the race was run. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

[traynor]

OK, I understand, opinions vary but you need to define terms and parameters.

If the prior definition for a false favorite is inadequate, why is it inadequate?

Since the favorite is by definition a horse considered for the win, only, why not just consider any horse that is the betting favorite in the win pool but does not win -- regardless of anything else -- a false favorite?

I think that has always been (and still is) the precise, unambiguous definition of "false favorite"--the horse with the most money bet on it in the win pool that failed to win.

[traynor]

True...but the notion that a favorite is a "false" favorite just because it lost its race presupposes that the eventual winner of the race was the "true" favorite...which is obviously not the case.

There is "chaos" in this game...

Not at all. There seems to be a bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "favorite" (which has a precise definition) mixed in with the concept of "contender." The money bet to win on the favorite is not returned if the horse finishes second, third, within two lengths, or any other creative definition. The horse loses, it was a false favorite, the money is gone.

[thaskalos]

Not at all. There seems to be a bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "favorite" (which has a precise definition) mixed in with the concept of "contender." The money bet to win on the favorite is not returned if the horse finishes second, third, within two lengths, or any other creative definition. The horse loses, it was a false favorite, the money is gone.

I don't follow your train of thought here.

Is it your contention that the only "true" favorite is the eventual winner of the race? When you answer "not at all" to this question -- as I suppose you would -- then what exactly are you trying to say?

In the David against Goliath matchup...was Goliath the "false favorite"?

[TrifectaMike]

I don't follow your train of thought here.

Is it your contention that the only "true" favorite is the eventual winner of the race? When you answer "not at all" to this question -- as I suppose you would -- then what exactly are you trying to say?

In the David against Goliath matchup...was Goliath the "false favorite"?

Yes, because according to Traynor's definition the winner is always the "true" favorite. There is no ranking. There is no probability. It is pre-determined and absolute.

Mike

[Capper Al]

Not at all. There seems to be a bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "favorite" (which has a precise definition) mixed in with the concept of "contender." The money bet to win on the favorite is not returned if the horse finishes second, third, within two lengths, or any other creative definition. The horse loses, it was a false favorite, the money is gone.

What I think what's missing here is the connection to the original question. What the handicapper has to deal with when one of his horses is not the favorite is, is he seeing the handicapping factors correctly? Is the information hidden from the public view also has to be considered. So the focus is on the factors. Am I seeing the race right is more the issue here. If the favorite doesn't run a good race then my handicapping was correct. If the favorite does run a good race (and especially wins), he was a true contender and I missed something in my handicapping or did not have the needed information to make the proper judgement. Unfortunately, we all have to make this call before the race. The results verifies our handicapping and wagering and is why this definition is appropriate here. It answers our dilemma of our decision before the race when we had to decide.

[DeltaLover]

Not at all. There seems to be a bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "favorite" (which has a precise definition) mixed in with the concept of "contender." The money bet to win on the favorite is not returned if the horse finishes second, third, within two lengths, or any other creative definition. The horse loses, it was a false favorite, the money is gone.

Sorry, I have to disagree...

As we have said before, the outcome of a specific race has very little to say about whether the money bet on it were gone forever or not...

The immediate result, only compensates to the illusion of determinism and nothing else.

As an expert bettor you should be able to decide about the EV of your bet ahead of the completion of the race and have the courage and to stick with it regardless of what is actually going to happen in the specific event.

An example:

Assume a roulette wheel, which you KNOW that is slightly favoring a specific number, to the point of increasing its odds from 36-1 to let's say 34-1... You start betting this number over and over again without paying any attention to the short term results. Besides the fact that you are going to be a guaranteed winner after a few thousand of spins, who still might experience very extended loosing streaks... What really counts is that you know that for each dollar you manage to put in action you have a positive EV which gains for you a few cents per spin... The money you bet as time and spins are going by should never be considered “gone”, regardless of the outcome of each individual spin... Win or lose, each bet is actually increasing your bottom line..

[traynor]

I don't follow your train of thought here.

Is it your contention that the only "true" favorite is the eventual winner of the race? When you answer "not at all" to this question -- as I suppose you would -- then what exactly are you trying to say?

In the David against Goliath matchup...was Goliath the "false favorite"?

With all due respect, there is no "true" favorite--other than the horse or entry with the most money bet on it in the win pool. That is "the favorite." If that horse--true, false, or however otherwise defined--loses the race, it was a false favorite. There is no ambiguity in the term. If anyone is unclear about that, look for the little asterisk preceding the odds in the charts.

[Capper Al]

In our scenario, we had one favorite with the most money wagered on him which was not one of our top four choices. The question is still how does one reconcile this?

[traynor]

Sorry, I have to disagree...

As we have said before, the outcome of a specific race has very little to say about whether the money bet on it were gone forever or not...

The immediate result, only compensates to the illusion of determinism and nothing else.

As an expert bettor you should be able to decide about the EV of your bet ahead of the completion of the race and have the courage and to stick with it regardless of what is actually going to happen in the specific event.

An example:

Assume a roulette wheel, which you KNOW that is slightly favoring a specific number, to the point of increasing its odds from 36-1 to let's say 34-1... You start betting this number over and over again without paying any attention to the short term results. Besides the fact that you are going to be a guaranteed winner after a few thousand of spins, who still might experience very extended loosing streaks... What really counts is that you know that for each dollar you manage to put in action you have a positive EV which gains for you a few cents per spin... The money you bet as time and spins are going by should never be considered “gone”, regardless of the outcome of each individual spin... Win or lose, each bet is actually increasing your bottom line..


Where did you ever get the idea that I agonize over the wagers on/odds of/ or result of individual races? I have no interest whatsoever in individual races, who bets which horse in them and why, or what gyrations the tote board goes through. I bet according to models. Although I may wager on races individually, it is usually in clumps--I bet every race on a given card that I am going to bet on that card at one time and then go about my business. Some win, some lose, but overall, more win than lose. I like that.

It would be far more accurate to say that I wager "by the week" or "by the month" than "by the race." Why? More profitable. Agonizing over "does someone know something in this race that I don't?" is definitely not my style. I don't care about "smart money" because a lot of that "smart money" is the mutuel pool equivalent of tilting at windmills--unless one has a VERY precise means of locating when anomalies in wagering indicate an entry MORE likely to win or an entry LESS likely to win. And that all comes before the race, during the modeling process.

[traynor]

In our scenario, we had one favorite with the most money wagered on him which was not one of our top four choices. The question is still how does one reconcile this?

That is simple. If you trust your selections, go with them and assume the favorite has been set with chump money. If you think you may have missed something, pass the race.

Again, it all comes down to records, which vary greatly by track. How often is the favorite NOT in your top four, and how often does it finish "forwardly" (included in whatever exotics you bet) when it is not in your top four? That is a very specific scenario that has no (meaningful) generic answer.

[DeltaLover]

Where did you ever get the idea that I agonize over the wagers on/odds of/ or result of individual races? I have no interest whatsoever in individual races, who bets which horse in them and why, or what gyrations the tote board goes through. I bet according to models. Although I may wager on races individually, it is usually in clumps--I bet every race on a given card that I am going to bet on that card at one time and then go about my business. Some win, some lose, but overall, more win than lose. I like that.

It would be far more accurate to say that I wager "by the week" or "by the month" than "by the race." Why? More profitable. Agonizing over "does someone know something in this race that I don't?" is definitely not my style. I don't care about "smart money" because a lot of that "smart money" is the mutuel pool equivalent of tilting at windmills--unless one has a VERY precise means of locating when anomalies in wagering indicate an entry MORE likely to win or an entry LESS likely to win. And that all comes before the race, during the modeling process.

I do not think I implied that you agonize over wagers and results of individual races.

Just wanted to make the point that I do not think that money is gone when your horse is losing the race, as you wrote above.

As you say, during the modeling process, is when money is gone or stay... The rest is just implementation details...

[traynor]

Sorry, I have to disagree...

As we have said before, the outcome of a specific race has very little to say about whether the money bet on it were gone forever or not...

The immediate result, only compensates to the illusion of determinism and nothing else.

As an expert bettor you should be able to decide about the EV of your bet ahead of the completion of the race and have the courage and to stick with it regardless of what is actually going to happen in the specific event.

An example:

Assume a roulette wheel, which you KNOW that is slightly favoring a specific number, to the point of increasing its odds from 36-1 to let's say 34-1... You start betting this number over and over again without paying any attention to the short term results. Besides the fact that you are going to be a guaranteed winner after a few thousand of spins, who still might experience very extended loosing streaks... What really counts is that you know that for each dollar you manage to put in action you have a positive EV which gains for you a few cents per spin... The money you bet as time and spins are going by should never be considered “gone”, regardless of the outcome of each individual spin... Win or lose, each bet is actually increasing your bottom line..

My reference to the money being gone was solely in regard to the fact that there is no ambiguity in the term "favorite." The money bet to win on that (betting) favorite in the win pool is "gone" (for those who bet on it) if that horse fails to win. It had nothing to do with how I bet, or how I think others should bet.

[traynor]

I do not think I implied that you agonize over wagers and results of individual races.

Just wanted to make the point that I do not think that money is gone when your horse is losing the race, as you wrote above.

As you say, during the modeling process, is when money is gone or stay... The rest is just implementation details...

I agree.

[Capper Al]

That is simple. If you trust your selections, go with them and assume the favorite has been set with chump money. If you think you may have missed something, pass the race.

Again, it all comes down to records, which vary greatly by track. How often is the favorite NOT in your top four, and how often does it finish "forwardly" (included in whatever exotics you bet) when it is not in your top four? That is a very specific scenario that has no (meaningful) generic answer.

I believe our difference comes down to if you believe racing is an open system or a closed system. I believe it is an open system with parts unknown. it seems to me that you lean toward to the closed system with records on everything can deduce anything.

[traynor]

I believe our difference comes down to if you believe racing is an open system or a closed system. I believe it is an open system with parts unknown. it seems to me that you lean toward to the closed system with records on everything can deduce anything.

I agree (that it is an open system), with the addition that it is not necessary to know everything--just enough to stay ahead of everyone else. With perhaps a little additional slack, just to be sure.

I don't keep records on everything (the wind velocity on the backstretch at Aqueduct, and whatever else). I keep records only on the things I have found to be profitable (and/or useful) to track. Considering the complexity of many handicapping apps, what I do could almost be considered minimalist.

[cashmachine]

I agree that winning or losing has nothing to do with being "false". If horse showed good efforts during the race and was a real threat then he was "true" favorite even if he came second. I think that "false" favorites are those who was obviously and undoubtedly sore loser, like came 12th.

As we extended boundary for "win" to definition of "good race" by Qinn, I think it will be useful also extend notion of "favorite" not only to horse with most money bet on him, but also on all horses with very low odds. "low" is not defined precisely, just low enough to be a "very strong horse" in public eyes.

[Capper Al]

I agree that winning or losing has nothing to do with being "false". If horse showed good efforts during the race and was a real threat then he was "true" favorite even if he came second. I think that "false" favorites are those who was obviously and undoubtedly sore loser, like came 12th.

As we extended boundary for "win" to definition of "good race" by Qinn, I think it will be useful also extend notion of "favorite" not only to horse with most money bet on him, but also on all horses with very low odds. "low" is not defined precisely, just low enough to be a "very strong horse" in public eyes.

I understand where you coming from with these definitions. In a nutshell, the public is saying that these horses have legs and they end up non-contenders.

[traynor]

I understand where you coming from with these definitions. In a nutshell, the public is saying that these horses have legs and they end up non-contenders.

As soothing as such definitions may be to the egos of those who do not distinguish between winning and almost winning, the basic fact remains that if an entry is bet to win--and it fails to win--the bet is lost. Pretty simple. No ambiguity or creative interpretation is necessary.

I think you may be experiencing a phenomena that affects many handicappers (and most developers of handicapping software). It is relatively easy to narrow a race to three or four contenders, using whatever method or process one favors. Where the rubber meets the road is distinguishing between those (to use a Sartin term) "true contenders."

If your selection method does not make the distinction that Horse A is more likely to win than Horse B, and Horse B is more likely to win than Horse C, it may be that more work is needed to make those distinctions before wagering. That is not just for win only betting--it is every bit as critical when assembling exotic bets. Part-wheels are almost invariably more profitable long term than boxing.

Returning to your original question, I think if you are confident that your selection process is accurate, you should stick with it.

[DeltaLover]

As soothing as such definitions may be to the egos of those who do not distinguish between winning and almost winning, the basic fact remains that if an entry is bet to win--and it fails to win--the bet is lost. Pretty simple. No ambiguity or creative interpretation is necessary.

I think you may be experiencing a phenomena that affects many handicappers (and most developers of handicapping software). It is relatively easy to narrow a race to three or four contenders, using whatever method or process one favors. Where the rubber meets the road is distinguishing between those (to use a Sartin term) "true contenders."

If your selection method does not make the distinction that Horse A is more likely to win than Horse B, and Horse B is more likely to win than Horse C, it may be that more work is needed to make those distinctions before wagering. That is not just for win only betting--it is every bit as critical when assembling exotic bets. Part-wheels are almost invariably more profitable long term than boxing.

Returning to your original question, I think if you are confident that your selection process is accurate, you should stick with it.

Of course what you say here is correct... The only part that might be debatable is your closing statement:

I think if you are confident that your selection process is accurate, you should stick with it.

I think that your confidence to your “selections” is as stochastic as the outcome of the race is as well. Maybe not to the same degree, but certainly there is enough uncertainty to make your selection process volatile until the bell time...

[traynor]

Of course what you say here is correct... The only part that might be debatable is your closing statement:



I think that your confidence to your “selections” is as stochastic as the outcome of the race is as well. Maybe not to the same degree, but certainly there is enough uncertainty to make your selection process volatile until the bell time...

I would agree, conceptually, if I were betting on an individual race basis. In my own wagering, the last-minute decisions always seem to turn out less profitably than decisions made according to specific premises. For example, one of those premises is that over a number of races, the odds available will tend to replicate (relatively accurately) the odds predicted during the modeling process. So I tend to ignore the odds fluctuations that Capper Al referenced in his question--regardless of who, what, or why is behind those fluctuations.

Some may be able to make last minute decisions about bet/pass and improve their results. I am not one of them. The more I can distance myself from last-minute changes, the better I do.

[DeltaLover]

So I tend to ignore the odds fluctuations that Capper Al referenced in his question--regardless of who, what, or why is behind those fluctuations.



I think you have a point here, although I have not done any related study to prove it... Some times our first impression is the best....

[Capper Al]

Okay, I found that over the long run that I should stay with my system picks. Yet, there is a gut feeling about most races if I have a clear vision or not. So, I try to have my cake and eat it too by second guessing last minute. Now I'm experimenting using a tote-board to limit my second guessing. If the tote-board suggests something is up I'll review my picks and maybe play it differently or (dare I say) skip the race. I rarely skip.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

The tote-board is just another source of information to be used.

In theory, the tote board is far more than "just another source" of information. Like the stock market, it represents all known variables in the race - or at least the ones that bettors are investing in. It's not always accurate (just ask anyone who was long Bear Stearns back in 2008), but I would hazard a guess that a field of players using a single method to handicap would be dominated by the tote watchers.

When reconciling selections, I only consider horses that a receiving more or less action that what I perceive the "public/known" factors would generate. I sometimes toss my contenders/value plays if they're cold on the tote, and sometimes add in horses I tossed if they're getting more action than I thought they should - but won't include them if they become horrible underlays, say at less than 50% of what I considered more fair odds.

The approach is fraught with error.

[Capper Al]

In theory, the tote board is far more than "just another source" of information. Like the stock market, it represents all known variables in the race - or at least the ones that bettors are investing in. It's not always accurate (just ask anyone who was long Bear Stearns back in 2008), but I would hazard a guess that a field of players using a single method to handicap would be dominated by the tote watchers.

When reconciling selections, I only consider horses that a receiving more or less action that what I perceive the "public/known" factors would generate. I sometimes toss my contenders/value plays if they're cold on the tote, and sometimes add in horses I tossed if they're getting more action than I thought they should - but won't include them if they become horrible underlays, say at less than 50% of what I considered more fair odds.

The approach is fraught with error.

That's what I'm trying to do. I believe anyone's handicapping has blind spots. The board might help find a missing play.

[Robert Fischer]

The 9th today at Saratoga was an excellent example.

I briefly capped the race to look at how I would structure a pick-3.

Actual Morning Line = 3-8-6-2-5

the NYRA track handicapper = 6-3-2-7
and significantly, he mentioned that the 8 had a perfect trip last time and was stepping up in class, and both track handicappers mentioned that the trainer (Chad Brown) was causing this specific horse to be consistently over-bet.

I handicapped the race and came up with the same expected morning line as the track handicapper My Morning Line = 3-8-6-2-5
I would not have been surprised if the 8 were a slight underlay as the favorite, but the 3 was pretty clearly one of the main contenders, and after a good effort, the public would be betting this Mike Maker filly.


Then I picked my selections in order of win percentage My Picks = 3-6-2-8-5.
With the 8 looking like a potential false-favorite, the 3 was now somewhat exciting. He was my top pick, and you hope now that you see the public bet the false 8 horse because of the barn. I also wasn't crazy about the 6 even with the drop in class, and the 2 was coming off of that layoff in a low percentage move.

Finally the race approached and I could apply actual tote information.
First it was notable that the daily doubles were different than expected. = 8-5-6-2-3

next the race itself opened for wagering and the 3 opened at 10-1.
The final odds were = 5-8-6-2-3

After comparing the information (during the wagering), it was quickly clear that the 3 was unexpectedly very cold on the board.
It was also clear that the 5 was unexpectedly very hot on the board.


In all, five horses were taking significant action. The 5 was the unexpected favorite off an 8-1 morning line, who had been without fanfare from the track handicapper. The 8 was the 2nd choice and was expected to be blindly bet because of his hot barn. The 6 was the third choice and seemed a logical class include. The 2 was the fourth choice and was showing good support for a horse coming off such a layoff. The 3 was unexpectedly all the way down to fifth choice on the board, was extremely cold and sending up red-flags everywhere.

[cashmachine]

So, did you bet 3 or not?

[Robert Fischer]

So, did you bet 3 or not?

No.

[thaskalos]

So...the ultimate question then becomes:

Was the #3 a true overlay in this race?

[Robert Fischer]

So...the ultimate question then becomes:

Was the #3 a true overlay in this race?

Others will disagree, but in my process the 3 was a toss-out.

When I picked 3-6-2-8-5, I did so for a reality where the public would support 3-8-6-2-5, and did so for reasons which I felt I had a strong enough grasp of. I was comfortable taking the 3 over the 8 in that reality.

When the public actually supported 5-8-6-2-3, I realized that I had a poor understanding of who, and why the public was going to play.

[thaskalos]

Others will disagree, but in my process the 3 was a toss-out.

When I picked 3-6-2-8-5, I did so for a reality where the public would support 3-8-6-2-5, and did so for reasons which I felt I had a strong enough grasp of. I was comfortable taking the 3 over the 8 in that reality.

When the public actually supported 5-8-6-2-3, I realized that I had a poor understanding of who, and why the public was going to play.

I didn't play today, so I don't know the specifics of this race...but it exemplifies what I have been trying to say here -- and in numerous other similar discussions that we've had in the past. This game is UNIQUE, as far as gambling games go...and assessing "value" while playing it is not a simple matter. There is pertinent information out there that some players know about...and this information cannot be accessed through the past performances.

I know that those who roll their eyes at the idea of "inside information" will be quick to point out that this "well-meant" 5-horse LOST in this race...but that's a small consolation to those who were enticed into betting the "overlaid" 3-horse.

This is why I say that experience is GOLDEN in this game...

[FocusWiz]

Robert,

Thank you for sharing. I will also share how I approached this race.

My analysis of the wagering in that race was similar, but with a very different perspective.

My picks were 8-3-10-7-6

My Doubles analysis of Race 8 showed the unexpected wagering that was coming in on the :5: (ignore the numbers but lower indicates greater wagering support).

Dbl Betting: :5:/ 1.54, :6:/ 2.41, :2: / 2.48, :8:/ 2.83

The nearly .9 difference between the :5: and the :6: is significant (though it can be less meaningful if the :5: were the ML favorite). Usually the Morning Line favorite will appear somewhere in this group due to the tendency of some players to pick the horses in the first race of the Daily Double and not want to leave out the Morning Line favorite in the next leg. That the :3: was not in the top 4, would be significant.

My Exacta analysis also showed that the:5:was heavily favored (likewise, lower numbers mean greater wagering support). However, there was also significant support for the :6: and :7: (at least when compared to the :8: ).

:5:/ 36.0393, :7:/ 52.0230, :6:/ 53.2539, :8:/ 59.0775, :2:/ 69.1794

As you indicated, the final odds were favoring the :5: as well with the :5: bet well down from my adjusted M/L of 8/1 to 5/2. By my rules, more than half IS significant and would warrant a second look. Although the :6: and :8: were also bet down, they were not bet down as significantly as the :5:.

Since there were no short money horses in this race (which can dramatically reduce the place and show returns), it appeared to be a "good betting race" so my figures (which generally give more weight to the Exacta wagering over the other pools) suggested the following wagers:

:7: $2 WIN, $5 PLACE, $10 SHOW
Longshot bet on :10: $2 WIN (My Longshot plays win often enough to make it interesting long term, but they seldom win.)

I have long ago lost track of the precise logic in the formulas in my spreadsheets, but the odds pushed me away from my top picks, but would never make me choose the :5: in their place. I WILL frequently bet the top horse from the Doubles Analysis, but seldom if the difference is over .5 since such plays have not been profitable.

Net result of this race:
Obviously my Longshot ran up the track, (though third at the top of the stretch). The :7: also gave me a run for the money.

Total wagered: $19.00
Return: $31.50

[FocusWiz]

I didn't play today, so I don't know the specifics of this race...but it exemplifies what I have been trying to say here -- and in numerous other similar discussions that we've had in the past. This game is UNIQUE, as far as gambling games go...and assessing "value" while playing it is not a simple matter. There is pertinent information out there that some players know about...and this information cannot be accessed through the past performances.

I know that those who roll their eyes at the idea of "inside information" will be quick to point out that this "well-meant" 5-horse LOST in this race...but that's a small consolation to those who were enticed into betting the "overlaid" 3-horse.

This is why I say that experience is GOLDEN in this game...You make an excellent point and my experience has taught me that there often is true "inside information." However, that does not necessarily mean that only one horse generates such information nor does it mean that the people with the inside information all have equally loose lips. It also does not mean that the information is worth betting on.

Suppose the :2: and the :3: and the :5: and the :7: all had inside information, not that the race is fixed, but say that some knew the :5: would run well, others that the :2: would run well, others that the :7: would run well and still others that the :3: was off her feed. Suppose the insiders of the :5: and the :3: are blabbermouths and broadcast this on Facebook and in coded methods on the antennas of their cars and in the color of their ties at the track. The folks with the inside knowledge of the :2: and :7: are more tight-lipped but did wager on the horse they expected to do well, with the insiders with knowledge of the :7: putting their wagers into Exactas rather than in the more obvious pools.

This could definitely generate that wagering that was shown.

I have long believed that there is information in the wagering, but this information seldom tells you how the race will be won nor that only one horse is ready to win. There is also a ton of noise for a variety of reasons.

Odds are a factor to be considered, but just knowing that a horse is well backed by the crowd, does not mean it will run well enough to beat the best horse in the race.

[FocusWiz]

Robert,

I like your picks (for this race) much better than mine.

Just for fun, I replaced my derived picks with yours.

The spreadsheet suggested as the only play to play the :2: $5 across the board as what I call a "Value Play" which means that in the order of your selections for a race this size and the wagering going on, the best value bet is your third choice, the :2:.

I then put in the NYRA track handicapper's selections and it suggested that there was value for both the :2: and the :7:. I would generally not play this race, or would pick the name or color or number of letters I liked best (I would have played the :7: due to my predilection for good Beef Chow Fun).

Playing around with this, I see that my sheets would have allowed me to play the :5: only if it had been one of my top four choices based on the odds in this race.

This is what I mean when I suggest that the odds should influence our wagering, but not necessarily change who we consider as contenders.

[Capper Al]

Results for race #9 at Sar 7/26:

2-5-7

#2 paid $13.40 to win

[Capper Al]

The 9th today at Saratoga was an excellent example.

I briefly capped the race to look at how I would structure a pick-3.

Actual Morning Line = 3-8-6-2-5

the NYRA track handicapper = 6-3-2-7
and significantly, he mentioned that the 8 had a perfect trip last time and was stepping up in class, and both track handicappers mentioned that the trainer (Chad Brown) was causing this specific horse to be consistently over-bet.

I handicapped the race and came up with the same expected morning line as the track handicapper My Morning Line = 3-8-6-2-5
I would not have been surprised if the 8 were a slight underlay as the favorite, but the 3 was pretty clearly one of the main contenders, and after a good effort, the public would be betting this Mike Maker filly.


Then I picked my selections in order of win percentage My Picks = 3-6-2-8-5.
With the 8 looking like a potential false-favorite, the 3 was now somewhat exciting. He was my top pick, and you hope now that you see the public bet the false 8 horse because of the barn. I also wasn't crazy about the 6 even with the drop in class, and the 2 was coming off of that layoff in a low percentage move.

Finally the race approached and I could apply actual tote information.
First it was notable that the daily doubles were different than expected. = 8-5-6-2-3

next the race itself opened for wagering and the 3 opened at 10-1.
The final odds were = 5-8-6-2-3

After comparing the information (during the wagering), it was quickly clear that the 3 was unexpectedly very cold on the board.
It was also clear that the 5 was unexpectedly very hot on the board.


In all, five horses were taking significant action. The 5 was the unexpected favorite off an 8-1 morning line, who had been without fanfare from the track handicapper. The 8 was the 2nd choice and was expected to be blindly bet because of his hot barn. The 6 was the third choice and seemed a logical class include. The 2 was the fourth choice and was showing good support for a horse coming off such a layoff. The 3 was unexpectedly all the way down to fifth choice on the board, was extremely cold and sending up red-flags everywhere.

Thanks Robert. This discussion is on the mark for what I had in mind when I started this thread.

Results for race #9 at Sar 7/26:

2-5-7

#2 paid $13.40 to win

[Capper Al]

Others will disagree, but in my process the 3 was a toss-out.

When I picked 3-6-2-8-5, I did so for a reality where the public would support 3-8-6-2-5, and did so for reasons which I felt I had a strong enough grasp of. I was comfortable taking the 3 over the 8 in that reality.

When the public actually supported 5-8-6-2-3, I realized that I had a poor understanding of who, and why the public was going to play.

Master of the tote-board! That's it the tote-board speaks to you and says there is something wrong with my picture. Well done.

[Capper Al]

Robert,

Thank you for sharing. I will also share how I approached this race.

My analysis of the wagering in that race was similar, but with a very different perspective.

My picks were 8-3-10-7-6

My Doubles analysis of Race 8 showed the unexpected wagering that was coming in on the :5: (ignore the numbers but lower indicates greater wagering support).

Dbl Betting: :5:/ 1.54, :6:/ 2.41, :2: / 2.48, :8:/ 2.83

The nearly .9 difference between the :5: and the :6: is significant (though it can be less meaningful if the :5: were the ML favorite). Usually the Morning Line favorite will appear somewhere in this group due to the tendency of some players to pick the horses in the first race of the Daily Double and not want to leave out the Morning Line favorite in the next leg. That the :3: was not in the top 4, would be significant.

My Exacta analysis also showed that the:5:was heavily favored (likewise, lower numbers mean greater wagering support). However, there was also significant support for the :6: and :7: (at least when compared to the :8: ).

:5:/ 36.0393, :7:/ 52.0230, :6:/ 53.2539, :8:/ 59.0775, :2:/ 69.1794

As you indicated, the final odds were favoring the :5: as well with the :5: bet well down from my adjusted M/L of 8/1 to 5/2. By my rules, more than half IS significant and would warrant a second look. Although the :6: and :8: were also bet down, they were not bet down as significantly as the :5:.

Since there were no short money horses in this race (which can dramatically reduce the place and show returns), it appeared to be a "good betting race" so my figures (which generally give more weight to the Exacta wagering over the other pools) suggested the following wagers:

:7: $2 WIN, $5 PLACE, $10 SHOW
Longshot bet on :10: $2 WIN (My Longshot plays win often enough to make it interesting long term, but they seldom win.)

I have long ago lost track of the precise logic in the formulas in my spreadsheets, but the odds pushed me away from my top picks, but would never make me choose the :5: in their place. I WILL frequently bet the top horse from the Doubles Analysis, but seldom if the difference is over .5 since such plays have not been profitable.

Net result of this race:
Obviously my Longshot ran up the track, (though third at the top of the stretch). The :7: also gave me a run for the money.

Total wagered: $19.00
Return: $31.50

Thanks for sharing. Good analysis.

[Capper Al]

Robert,

I like your picks (for this race) much better than mine.

Just for fun, I replaced my derived picks with yours.

The spreadsheet suggested as the only play to play the :2: $5 across the board as what I call a "Value Play" which means that in the order of your selections for a race this size and the wagering going on, the best value bet is your third choice, the :2:.

I then put in the NYRA track handicapper's selections and it suggested that there was value for both the :2: and the :7:. I would generally not play this race, or would pick the name or color or number of letters I liked best (I would have played the :7: due to my predilection for good Beef Chow Fun).

Playing around with this, I see that my sheets would have allowed me to play the :5: only if it had been one of my top four choices based on the odds in this race.

This is what I mean when I suggest that the odds should influence our wagering, but not necessarily change who we consider as contenders.

Similarly, I mentioned previously that was what I'm testing- finding which horse to wheel on.

[Capper Al]

Last night (7/26) at Canterbury with my tote-board app.

This is truly after the race analysis because I'm experimenting. I do see some patterns emerging. It looks like my top 3 selection and 3 or more matching patterns on my app will hit the winner about 70% of the time, and about half of these paid over $10 to win. Still tweaking.

[HUSKER55]

Robert, do you ever bet a race when you are not 100% sure of why you are betting "this horse"?

I am thinking that most handicappers fail when they can not put a definite answer to that question but place a wager anyway.

I am finding out that my ROI goes up when I skip races, bet only when I feel good about the bet and increase the size of my wager. I am betting more per race but less number of races.

JMHO

[Robert Fischer]

Robert, do you ever bet a race when you are not 100% sure of why you are betting "this horse"?

I am thinking that most handicappers fail when they can not put a definite answer to that question but place a wager anyway.

I am finding out that my ROI goes up when I skip races, bet only when I feel good about the bet and increase the size of my wager. I am betting more per race but less number of races.

JMHO

I try to be selective. I agree.