The Live Horse ?

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Much has be discussed and written about the importance of the selection a "live horse" meaning a horse that is set for it's best efforts in today's race and though subjective the connections are going today.

This notion of a live horse deals with many handicapping factors including form, condition, class, trainer intent etc. I am sure there are many variables associated with finding the "live" horse including the first flash on the board, and the payouts in the multiple pools and the exactas.

What is the biggest factor you use in your handicapping process to achieve the illusive 'live" horse for wagering.?

Thanks in advance for the responses.

[Ocala Mike]

the first flash on the board, and the payouts in the multiple pools and the exactas.



That's it in a nutshell for me. Relates to the old Wall Street axiom, "Don't fight the tape." In other words, I start with these "technical" price factors and go from there.

I have found that finding the "dead" horse(s) using these factors is even easier.

[DeltaLover]

What is the biggest factor you use in your handicapping process to achieve the illusive 'live" horse for wagering.?

The biggest factor is to go against a well known positive one!

What I mean here, is that I will always look for the live one within those who will be automatic thrown out by the average patron of the club house: First After breaking the maiden, very long lay off, filly against the boys, sprinter who looks outclassed by several other sprinters and very low percentage connections are just a few among the "biggest" factors I am looking for..

[ReplayRandall]

That's it in a nutshell for me. Relates to the old Wall Street axiom, "Don't fight the tape." In other words, I start with these "technical" price factors and go from there.

I have found that finding the "dead" horse(s) using these factors is even easier.


Couldn't agree more. A great starting point for me is the pick-3 probable pay-outs. Have seen some irrational pay-out prices that made me go back for a deeper look at certain horses and trainers. This leads to amazing prices sometimes found in win pool overlays with just a little creative intuitiveness, plus good record keeping practices.....

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Most other factors being equal I believe that horses 4 year old and up should have a win at todays distance. time and time again I have seen horse fail when they have distance limitations and most are well bet.

[thaskalos]

To me, a "live horse" is one that is facing an easier task today than it faced in its last couple of starts. Wrong class, wrong distance, wrong pace matchup, wrong jockey...many things conspire to make a horse look a lot worse than it really is. It's a mistake to carelessly skim the past performances. I don't care what people say...the best bets DON'T jump right off the page.

[biggestal99]

My perfect selection is dead on the board,

A story, as my friend and i are heading to Southwell track in England, he starts waxing poetic about the 6 hossinthe first race, He's 3-1 on the racingpost ml and i can see what my friend is talking about seems like a really good bet at the ml price okay we get to the track, at the horse opens up at 5-1. I assume my friend is dumping some more money on this hoss, nope he,s on the hot chalkie the3 , anyway i tell him he,s crazy and bet the 6.

The 6 jogs home a winner and the hot chalkie runs a non threatening 3rd, i never let a higher price than expected dissuade me from betting.

Allan

[biggestal99]

Of course as a counter point is a hoss like lady eli, shes a good hoss and all but 2-1! This is the breeders cup and ihave her in the 4-1 range so i pass on betting her,good with the euro with frankie on. Lady eli jogs....

Live with value, die by value.

I insist on getting value on all of my bets but sometimes i get bit

Allan

[Overlay]

Much has be discussed and written about the importance of the selection a "live horse" meaning a horse that is set for it's best efforts in today's race and though subjective the connections are going today.

A related question that I have always had on the subject of the "live" horse is, why would a horse that compares favorably to its competition on all visible handicapping factors not be "trying" in today's race? I can understand if the horse is coming off a layoff, or is not at the top of its game due to illness, injury, or other consideration that may not be discernible in its record. But why would the connections of a horse that really is fit and ready not be "trying" today? Why forfeit the chance to win a purse today for some potential (but more uncertain) future win or wagering coup?

[Greyfox]

Why forfeit the chance to win a purse today for some potential (but more uncertain) future win or wagering coup?

That is exactly why I play major tracks only. They have purses that can't be ignored.
At cheaper tracks with lower purses, there may be reason to wait for a coup down the road.

[Stoleitbreezing]

Couldn't agree more. A great starting point for me is the pick-3 probable pay-outs. Have seen some irrational pay-out prices that made me go back for a deeper look at certain horses and trainers. This leads to amazing prices sometimes found in win pool overlays with just a little creative intuitiveness, plus good record keeping practices.....

This is a method I've heard about and used with some degree of success. I was told by another horseplayer about it when he went to vegas and saw another horseplayer using a calculator and writing the probables down for several tracks.

Basically he divides the pick 3, pick 4 probables by the horses ML odds, then he uses the 5 smallest numbers in the race in tris and supers. In some cases there are very big ML odd horses who as they say are "live". My friend was told to stick to the A tracks and that the pick 4's are more reliable as there is more "smart" money in those pools.

I remember playing a race at woodbine and playing the lowest horse who happened to be 20ML go off at 8-1, sat the perfect trip and scored. Nothing like the steam horse.

[Ocala Mike]

Basically he divides the pick 3, pick 4 probables by the horses ML odds, then he uses the 5 smallest numbers in the race in tris and supers.




Yes, indeed. I modify this a little, allowing for what I consider to be aberrant M/L odds, and proceed with my "Divide and Conquer" approach. Interesting that you give an example at Woodbine; I've found that it works especially well up there in fields of 10 or more.

[thaskalos]

This is a method I've heard about and used with some degree of success. I was told by another horseplayer about it when he went to vegas and saw another horseplayer using a calculator and writing the probables down for several tracks.

Basically he divides the pick 3, pick 4 probables by the horses ML odds, then he uses the 5 smallest numbers in the race in tris and supers. In some cases there are very big ML odd horses who as they say are "live". My friend was told to stick to the A tracks and that the pick 4's are more reliable as there is more "smart" money in those pools.

I remember playing a race at woodbine and playing the lowest horse who happened to be 20ML go off at 8-1, sat the perfect trip and scored. Nothing like the steam horse.

"Some degree of success". Does anybody even know what this means? :)

There was a book written in the 60s (Al Illich) which made mention of this method being used in daily doubles...and Al confessed that the method did not originate with him. Everything works once in a while...and we all remember the wins more than we remember the losses.

[DeltaLover]

"Some degree of success". Does anybody even know what this means? :)


Pretty valid question Thask... How do we really measure success when it comes to horse betting?

I am under the impression, that many horse bettors, measure success by ROI (LOL), considering something like a .95 to be a somewhat successful result!!!!!

[Poindexter]

To me a "live" horse is a horse that is getting bet that should not be getting bet as much as he should be. Has nothing to do with oddsline, morning line, it is simply a horse that when you look at him you have a strong feel that he should be going off at around 6-1 but he closes at 3-1. Not saying they are a good bet, but you probably do need to include them somewhere in your exotics. The Dead horse is the opposite. The public should be betting this down to 5/2 based off of his past performance and for some reason he is completely ignored at 9/2. Now this requires that you have some kind of a feel for what horses should go off at(not what there fair value is and not what there morning line is as some morning lines are better than others). Do they win(at times) but in general I believe them to be fairly poor performers. I would still play them, just play them more carefully then you normally would.

Now do not confuse this with a horse who you love(you saw him blocked and loaded in his last race) and you are dying to bet him at 3-1 or better, but everybody in the track saw the same thing you did and hammers him down to 6/5. That is not live, that is over bet. By the same token, you make a horse 6-1 and he is morning line 8-1 and drifts up to 15-1. Is he dead. Probably not. There is a good chance that other horses are being overbet and you are seeing something that is not obvious to the masses or the sharps.

It is all about "feel". But to be honest it can get real confusing and sometimes take you the wrong direction. It is just an additional skill set that may help or hurt your performance. You have to take it slowly and carefully and see what it does for you.

[jk3521]

"Some degree of success". Does anybody even know what this means? :)

There was a book written in the 60s (Al Illich) which made mention of this method being used in daily doubles...and Al confessed that the method did not originate with him. Everything works once in a while...and we all remember the wins more than we remember the losses.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3977&highlight=chinese+daily+double :D

[Greyfox]

To me a "live" horse is a horse that is getting bet that should not be getting bet as much as he should be. .

How do you differentiate a "live horse" from an "underlay?"

[Greyfox]

Poindexter -

What you've stated is somewhat awkard to understand.
In re-reading your statement, I think that you are saying that a "live" horse is an overlay.

[Overlay]

Poindexter -

What you've stated is somewhat awkard to understand.
In re-reading your statement, I think that you are saying that a "live" horse is an overlay.

My take on what Poindexter is saying would be that a "live" horse is a horse that you regard as an underlay, with public odds that are lower than you think they should be, and you can find no reason as to why the odds should be that low. However, the fact that the horse is attracting that much betting action means that it is "live" for reasons that are not apparent from its record. (If the reasons for the heavy betting action were apparent to everyone, the horse would be an underlay, but not "live".)

The "dead" horse is one that appears to be overlaid, but that should be attracting more betting action based on its record, which makes the lack of wagering support a negative sign.

On the other hand, if you rate a horse as having a better chance than indicated by its morning line for reasons that are not obvious to the public, and the odds on the horse drift up even higher than its morning line, the rise in odds is probably due to the public overbetting other horses in the race, rather than being a negative reflection on the horse's chances.

[Greyfox]

My take on what Poindexter is saying would be that a "live" horse is a horse that you regard as an underlay, with public odds that are lower than you think they should be, and you can find no reason as to why the odds should be that low. However, the fact that the horse is attracting that much betting action means that it is "live" for reasons that are not apparent from its record. (If the reasons for the heavy betting action were apparent to everyone, the horse would be an underlay, but not "live".)

The "dead" horse is one that appears to be overlaid, but that should be attracting more betting action based on its record, which makes the lack of wagering support a negative sign.

On the other hand, if you rate a horse as having a better chance than indicated by its morning line for reasons that are not obvious to the public, and the odds on the horse drift up even higher than its morning line, the rise in odds is probably due to the public overbetting other horses in the race.

Well explained! But why would I expect anything less. You wrote a very good book on that!:ThmbUp:

Greyfox

[Overlay]

Well explained! But why would I expect anthing less. You wrote a very good book on that!:ThmbUp:

Greyfox
Thanks for the plug! ;)

[Poindexter]

How do you differentiate a "live horse" from an "underlay?"

It is a "feel" thing. The more "obvious" a horse is the more likely he is an underlay, the less obvious a horse is the likelier he is "live". An example of what I considered a "live" horse was at Balmoral Park(harness racing) on 11/5. He races again in Wednesdays 9th race(free past performances at ustrotting.com if you want to see his past performances). Basically raced up the track at the same class level with his trainer driving 3 races in a row and then all of a sudden 11/5, he puts a catch driver up and he get bet down to 2.4-1. Yes the catch driver up should drive the price down, but maybe to 5 or 6-1 in the said race not 2.4-1. He was not overbet imo because I do not "feel" the public would have jumped on him to that degree. It turns out he ended up 1st over and tired to 4th but he was a live item in my opinion.

Just to give you an example of what I mean from a thoroughbred perspective. There was a horse named Coolington at SA a couple of weeks ago, that I singled in the pick 5. He was dropping in class after racing well 1st race off layoff and then racing poorly 2nd race off layoff. I was watching the betting on this horse and he seemed too dead to me, I think he was hoverng at 2-1, than with I think about 5 minutes to post or so, he got hit down to 8/5 and I knew he was live(he ended up being bet from 3/2 to 6/5 as the horse took off. He went on to win. Had he stayed at 2-1 there is a chance i would have cancelled my ticket. 2-1 was just too high on that horse in that spot if he was ready to win. That is why I say it is "feel". It is sort of subconscious. You feel a horse is live and you feel another horse is dead.

As a side note I failed to mentioned betting patterns. Horses that are bet early and drift up I generally consider live(somebody bet him early, public wanted not part of him). A horse that is bet down and stays bet down, I generally consider a bad morning line. Another pattern I would consider live would be a horse who opens ml 3-1 at say 6-1 then 5,4,9-2, 4, 7-2, 4, 7/2, 3. You say why is that live, morning line 3 at 3 and I say because the upward drifts tells me the public is not betting this horse, the sharps are. The public is betting all the time while the sharps are betting at different points of time. An example of a dead horse might be ml 6/15,14,15,14,13. Either it is a bad morning line or he was dead. But these horses do win and at long odds I see no point in ever tossing them. It is one thing to pass on a 2-1 I like because he seems too dead it is a whole other to pass on a 15-1 I like because he seems toe dead.

An example of a horse I considered overbet was the horse who shipped in from Hong Kong and beat Goldencents and then was way too low of a price for the Breeders Cup. I felt that was all public money.

You actually see the same phenomenon in sports betting. A team that figures to be favored by 4 and seems obvious opens -4.5 and then -4 and then -3.5. Same idea, the difference is with sports you are talking about sharp money vs square money, In racing you are often dealing with "inside information" such as horse had an issue corrected(has an issue he did not have before if he is dead), is super sharp(or dull if he is dead on the board) ate his wheaties this morning.......

It is just one more piece to a big puzzle. I remember reading an article about this very subject 30 years ago, and thought the guy was an idiot. Many years later i get what he was trying to say. He probably articulated the point as well as I did in my op:lol:.

[Poindexter]

My take on what Poindexter is saying would be that a "live" horse is a horse that you regard as an underlay, with public odds that are lower than you think they should be, and you can find no reason as to why the odds should be that low. However, the fact that the horse is attracting that much betting action means that it is "live" for reasons that are not apparent from its record. (If the reasons for the heavy betting action were apparent to everyone, the horse would be an underlay, but not "live".)

The "dead" horse is one that appears to be overlaid, but that should be attracting more betting action based on its record, which makes the lack of wagering support a negative sign.

On the other hand, if you rate a horse as having a better chance than indicated by its morning line for reasons that are not obvious to the public, and the odds on the horse drift up even higher than its morning line, the rise in odds is probably due to the public overbetting other horses in the race, rather than being a negative reflection on the horse's chances.

Well done.