Playalong/Workshop on "Inside Information"

[Robert Fischer]

What is 'Inside Information' at the track?

& Is it possible for one of us, the horseplayers, to identify when inside-info may exist, and adjust accordingly??


- In this thread, I will attempt to address those questions from my own POV, as well as provide a sample race for everyone to play-along and test the concept.

I invite you to play along, and I welcome any input on the subject of 'Inside Information'.

[Robert Fischer]

First we have to define "Inside Information".

Well, we all know what the hell Inside-Info is, but we have to define it in such a way that we can hopefully be on the same page here and attempt to identify it.

"Inside Information" is actually a part of a larger category that I will call "Unexpected Odds Behavior" or UOB.

'UOB' is simply the difference between actual, and expected Odds.


When the Odds behave unexpectedly, there are 3 primary reasons:


Randomness


Errors (We made a bad line)


Inside Information
to summarize it in a sort of word equation:
UOB = ExpectedOdds-ActualOdds=Randomness+Errors+InsideInformation

[Robert Fischer]

PPs for play-along race =
http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=CD&race=9&param1=6732&param2=816&param3=1214442

1st level allowance race @ Churchill Downs. 12horse field w/ an alternate entry. 8.5f Turf. $43K Purse.

Your assignment = Rank the top-5 contenders in terms of what you Expect the Final Odds will be(like a Morning Line). You may use the Morning Line if you agree with it, and then Rank your top-5 selections in order of who you feel is most likely to win.

Example:

Expected Odds: 4-3-10-12-1
My Picks: 3-1-4-6-12

[Stillriledup]

I would propose that inside information exists on every runner in every race. There's something about each runner that the public at large doesn't really know, but the key is does that piece of info matter. Is it a big enough piece of information to alter a horse's PPs enough to make enough of a difference.

Also, when information is "inside" and it becomes public knowledge, is it still inside info?

Here's an example. There was a filly trained by Ron Ellis who ran at Del mar this past summer, and in the post parade, Ellis was interviewed by TVG and he said that he treated his filly with EPM medicine for the first time for this race. Now, this was inside info until Ellis said it on TV. Or, does it still qualify as "inside" info? Partial inside info since not everyone who bet the race used Ellis comments as a factor, most people had bet already and if you had TVG on mute, you didn't hear what he said either.

Personally, when i heard these comments it peaked my interest, but i have to say i really didn't like the way his filly looked on the track and since she was a short price, i bet against her. She ended up winning by a very slim margin with a spectacular ride by Talamo, but even with this great info, i decided to bet against.

I think most inside info has to do with the current day to day health of the horse, what medications (legal, illegal, or legal overages) the horse receives and the horse's overall bill of health. Any kind of vet procedure is also "inside" information, so most of the stuff the general public doesn't know has to do with medical treatments.

[Robert Fischer]

I think most inside info has to do with the current day to day health of the horse, what medications (legal, illegal, or legal overages) the horse receives and the horse's overall bill of health.

Health and medication is certainly the ever-present "elephant in the room".

If the connections and insiders don't bet, or if they hide their bet in a blind pool like a Pick-6, we don't get to see any indications.

This thread attempts to tackle some of the stuff we do happen to be able to see.

[biggestal99]

expected win--12-11-10-4-3
my win--11-10-12-3-4

as far as inside information. as an former owner I was privy to the inside of the barn.

yeah i knew stuff that other handicappers were not aware of, giving me a slight advantage but it was just slight.

more of when not to bet the horse (not trying to win) rather then when to bet the horse.

Allan

[DeltaLover]

What is 'Inside Information' at the track?

& Is it possible for one of us, the horseplayers, to identify when inside-info may exist, and adjust accordingly??


- In this thread, I will attempt to address those questions from my own POV, as well as provide a sample race for everyone to play-along and test the concept.

I invite you to play along, and I welcome any input on the subject of 'Inside Information'.

Excellent thread topic!

Still, I am not sure if the selected race represents either a very good or a very bad case study. It seems to me that all the horses in the race fit in two (or three at max) general categories from a handicapping factors stand point of view, something that makes it almost impossible to handicap.. Also the fact that it is a turf, diminishes the importance of speed figures...

[TrifectaMike]

What is 'Inside Information' at the track?

& Is it possible for one of us, the horseplayers, to identify when inside-info may exist, and adjust accordingly??


- In this thread, I will attempt to address those questions from my own POV, as well as provide a sample race for everyone to play-along and test the concept.

I invite you to play along, and I welcome any input on the subject of 'Inside Information'.

Robert, you might find this useful (down the road).

I kinda left this hanging. I've given it some thought, and I believe I have a way of explaining in understandable terms without giving up too much info.

I'm going to present the statements below without proof or justification, nor will I use a Bayesian framework. In spite of this the information I'll present can be used in a crude fashion...but usable.

When there are n horses in a race, your beliefs about the horses are represented by the probability vector

p = (p1,........,pn)

(where 0<= pi <= 1 for i = 1,......n, and the sum of the p i's = 1)

The question I'll ask is a follows.

If uncle Guido has some "additional" information about a particular horse, i, how do I reassign (or reshape) the probability vector?

Uncle Guido may operate as an angle player and has a terrific angle. Or he might be tuned into some inside information, or he maybe a great handicapper and is totally selection oriented.

As I said without proof or justification, here is how to update the probability vector:

Pnew = (1 - a)p + ae i (This doesn't have a name, so let's call it Mike's update)

where ei = (0,.....0, 1 , .......0) is a degenerate distribution assigning all probability mass to the ith horse (Guido' s horse) and

0< a <= 1. a represents the confidence in uncle Guido's horse.


Mike

[Robert Fischer]

Race is Today's 9th at Churchill, for those who wish to play along:
1. Make a "morning line" by simply ordering the 5 expected favorites, and
2. Make a "selection line" by ordering your 5 picks to win.


expected win--12-11-10-4-3
my win--11-10-12-3-4

as far as inside information. as an former owner I was privy to the inside of the barn.

yeah i knew stuff that other handicappers were not aware of, giving me a slight advantage but it was just slight.

more of when not to bet the horse (not trying to win) rather then when to bet the horse.

Allan
"cold on the board"
I totally missed your 11 in this race. She could end up taking some money, I'm not sure. I'll have to handicap the race some more. :ThmbUp:

Excellent thread topic!

Still, I am not sure if the selected race represents either a very good or a very bad case study. It seems to me that all the horses in the race fit in two (or three at max) general categories from a handicapping factors stand point of view, something that makes it almost impossible to handicap.. Also the fact that it is a turf, diminishes the importance of speed figures...
I see what you are saying, and that is actually part of the reason I selected this race. I think this kind of race: (full field of unproven horses, decent class level, turf,...) provides a great platform for what I had in mind. The problem with this race, is that the Morning Line isn't exactly obvious. I'd prefer that this race had an OBVIOUS grouping of expected favorites/mid/longshots...
but we can try to form a line.

Certainly a lot of "unknowns" regarding this race.


Pnew = (1 - a)p + ae i (This doesn't have a name, so let's call it Mike's update)

where ei = (0,.....0, 1 , .......0) is a degenerate distribution assigning all probability mass to the ith horse (Guido' s horse) and

0< a <= 1. a represents the confidence in uncle Guido's horse.


Mike


That is very cool.

[Robert Fischer]

Morning Line (Track) = 4-12-3-10-1-6

My picks = 12-10-6-1-11-3

[Robert Fischer]

Morning Line (Track) = 4-12-3-10-1-6

My picks = 12-10-6-1-11-3

Q: So right now, the most IMPORTANT difference between how I expect the public to behave, and my own opinion is what?

A: I don't like the 4 (the ML favorite).


To keep it simple, and on-topic = I like the 12 better than the 4.

And - I like the 12 better than the 4 in a reality, where the Public supports both the 12 and the 4 as near favorites. <---- This is key.

[Robert Fischer]

at 4:07pm today (EST), the daily double pools will become visible for the r8-r9 daily double.

We can get a glimpse of actual vs. expected pool behavior.

[Red Knave]

My morning line - 4-12-6-1-10

My picks in order - 6-4-11-12-13

6 is a key horse for exotics for me.
Good luck.

[thaskalos]

What is 'Inside Information' at the track?

& Is it possible for one of us, the horseplayers, to identify when inside-info may exist, and adjust accordingly??


- In this thread, I will attempt to address those questions from my own POV, as well as provide a sample race for everyone to play-along and test the concept.

I invite you to play along, and I welcome any input on the subject of 'Inside Information'.

It is possible to identify "inside information"...but not all of it is reliable.

[Robert Fischer]

My morning line - 4-12-6-1-10

My picks in order - 6-4-11-12-13

6 is a key horse for exotics for me.
Good luck.

Maybe we could then say you like the 6 better than the 12.

And - You like the 6 better than the 12 in a reality, where the Public supports both the 4 and the 12 (and the 6 to some extent) as near favorites.

[Robert Fischer]

expected win--12-11-10-4-3
my win--11-10-12-3-4

For this, maybe we could say you like the 11 better than the 12?

And you like the 11 better than the 12 in a reality where you expect the 12 and 11 to take some money.

[Red Knave]

My morning line - 4-12-6-1-10
My picks in order - 6-4-11-12-13
Maybe we could then say you like the 6 better than the 12.

And - You like the 6 better than the 12 in a reality, where the Public supports both the 4 and the 12 (and the 6 to some extent) as near favorites.

That's close enough that I don't disagree. Not to put too fine a point on it but my morning line is how my software suggests the public will bet. My handicapping sees things just differently enough that I am interested in this race now (although I don't typically bet races at CD). The 11 showing up in my handicapping adds some price potential to the exotics.

[Robert Fischer]

Our (early) Race 9 doubles with the favorite from race 8:

:1: :10: :4: :12: :3: :11:

1,10,4,12,3,11

[Robert Fischer]

for the doubles from race 8 we have
:1: :4: :10: :3: :12: :6: :11:

Morning Line (Track) = 4-12-3-10-1-6

My picks = 12-10-6-1-11-3

My 12 is way colder than expected. (outside post? or ??).
The 1 is way hotter than expected.


expected win--12-11-10-4-3
my win--11-10-12-3-4
Your 12, and 11 is colder than expected , and your 1 is way hotter than expected.

My morning line - 4-12-6-1-10

My picks in order - 6-4-11-12-13

6 is a key horse for exotics for me.
Good luck.

The 12 is also "cold" for your ML

1 is a hot, 3 is a little hot.

[Robert Fischer]

Morning Line (Track) = 4-12-3-10-1-6

My picks = 12-10-6-1-11-3

My important horses:
4- I don't like the 4. And as expected she is well supported.

:10: - I like the 10, and she's getting support.

:12: - I like the 12. It could be a bad sign that she isn't getting the support I expected. She is COLD on the board.
Will consider her due to the 4 being a bet-against for me, but am wary...

:1: - hot on the board

:6: - horse I see as a secondary contender, and is getting pretty good support as I expected.

[HUSKER55]

GOTTA QUESTION,

be kind, at 62 I feel like I am working on my fifth grade diploma... :D

is your odds line made by you or your computer?

I get the notion in your first post that sometimes horses win and no mere mortal is going to know why. I get the second one...who doesn't make mistakes.

But to minimize those 2 to to isolate the third wouldn't the computer have to do it so that part is fixed?

Thanks...like the topic :)

[Show Me the Wire]

Our (early) Race 9 doubles with the favorite from race 8:

:1: :10: :4: :12: :3: :11:

1,10,4,12,3,11


On the circuit I follow the "hot" horses in the second half of the double usually show will pays at aproximately 5 times the winner's mutuel for the first half of the double. For example a $6.00 winner any horse with a will pay around $30.00 plus or minus is live.

I don't know why, but there seems to be a correlation with that ratio to the first half to the second half.

[Robert Fischer]

Final win-pool odds ranking
:10: :4: :1: :12: :6: :3: :11:

[Robert Fischer]

So why was the :1: hotter on the board than expected, and why was the :12: colder on the board than expected?

(:1: (the Hot horse) Wins, and pays 10.40 off a 6-1 ml , and :12: may still be running...)



When the Odds behave unexpectedly, there are 3 primary reasons:





Randomness


Errors (We made a bad line)


Inside Information
Was it randomness? - I think we can lean against that option here. Bettors seemed to have a clear opinion in the doubles and the Win pool, that the :1: was preferable to the :12:.

So did we simply make a bad line, or was there some "Inside Information" regarding the 1 and 12??

I think it's inconclusive here.
The fact that we are talking a full field of horses on the Matt Winn turf course, and opposite extremes for post-position, calls in the obvious consideration that bettors simply felt the :12: would lose too much ground.

[Robert Fischer]

But to minimize those 2 to to isolate the third wouldn't the computer have to do it so that part is fixed?

Thanks...like the topic :)


I'm hoping I addressed your question w/ the post above, if not feel free to go into more detail.

If I'm reading your question correctly the answer is as in the above post, = we have to use logic and be reasonable. We aren't always going to be able to separate "Inside Info" from "Unexpected Odds Behavior", but we can make a note of when the Odds behave unexpectedly, and try to adjust.

[Red Knave]

Final win-pool odds ranking
:10: :4: :1: :12: :6: :3: :11:Interesting.
The DD with the 1 was the lowest price overall, 30% lower than with the favorite, 10% lower than the with 2nd choice. Possibly, due to a long price horse winning the race previous, you don't get the win pool distribution percentages in the double. Or maybe the 10 was really the dead horse. Heads up ride by the excellent Rafael Hernandez on the 5, also Brian Hernandez on the 8 because otherwise I cannot see them at all.
Anyway, I'd like to say I backed off this race because the 6 did not get the action I thought but the fact is my wife was having trouble with our new TV remote and I was too preoccupied with that to make a bet.
Remember I did wish us good luck. ;)

[DeltaLover]

Boys, I did not watch the race live, but the replay makes to believe that the inside money was either wrong or missing from this race. As the race was ran, I would expect both the :5: and the :8: to leave the gate at much shorter prices... The opposite applies to some of the favourites like the :10: for example...

As I said before, the race was really chaotic and a prime passing candidate... Which one will be the next race to analyse?

[Robert Fischer]

I thought it went OK.
The 'Hot' horse won, the 'Cold' horse disappointed...
That was a tough race however. I may have gone too far in searching out the unknown there.

I didn't see the :5: at all! You had him lower? The :8: was somewhat interesting to me...
Pace certainly played a role, as both :5:, and :8: went 1,2 early and held surprisingly(to me at least) well.

If you would like to try another race, I'm open to suggestions, or I can come up with another race.

Boys, I did not watch the race live, but the replay makes to believe that the inside money was either wrong or missing from this race. As the race was ran, I would expect both the :5: and the :8: to leave the gate at much shorter prices... The opposite applies to some of the favourites like the :10: for example...

As I said before, the race was really chaotic and a prime passing candidate... Which one will be the next race to analyse?

[elhelmete]

If you see an odds move on a horse (at a track with big pools) based on inside information, how 'inside' can it really be?

And at any track...you get inside info on, say the :3: horse, that leaves nine other horses with inside info that YOU just don't know about.

[DeltaLover]

I didn't see the :5: at all! You had him lower? The :8: was somewhat interesting to me...
Pace certainly played a role, as both :5:, and :8: went 1,2 early and held surprisingly(to me at least) well.

If you would like to try another race, I'm open to suggestions, or I can come up with another race.

The :5: had some of the angles I am looking for in this type of a race, but the same applies to almost half of the field...

I would suggest a dirt race in Aqueduct as the next case...

[Robert Fischer]

I would suggest a dirt race in Aqueduct as the next case...

How about the 8th race tomorrow?
http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=AQU&race=8&param1=1053&param2=7128&param3=1047280

[DeltaLover]

How about the 8th race tomorrow?
http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=AQU&race=8&param1=1053&param2=7128&param3=1047280

looks good..:ThmbUp: i will post later my ranking..

[GatetoWire]

So why was the :1: hotter on the board than expected, and why was the :12: colder on the board than expected?

(:1: (the Hot horse) Wins, and pays 10.40 off a 6-1 ml , and :12: may still be running...)



[/list] Was it randomness? - I think we can lean against that option here. Bettors seemed to have a clear opinion in the doubles and the Win pool, that the :1: was preferable to the :12:.

So did we simply make a bad line, or was there some "Inside Information" regarding the 1 and 12??

I think it's inconclusive here.
The fact that we are talking a full field of horses on the Matt Winn turf course, and opposite extremes for post-position, calls in the obvious consideration that bettors simply felt the :12: would lose too much ground.

I would really question the :1: being the hot horse because of inside info. To me the :1: was the hot horse because of some basic CD turf route dynamics and the way the race was likely to play out from a pace perspective. Dropping out of a listed stake also was a factor in the odds.
Just my opinion but this looks like fundamental handicapping angles vs inside information.

[DeltaLover]

For today's AQU race:

I would expect the following ranking on the top choices:

:2:
:7:
:3:
:5:

The horse that I will be looking for stable money:

:6:

[Robert Fischer]

I would really question the :1: being the hot horse because of inside info. To me the :1: was the hot horse because of some basic CD turf route dynamics and the way the race was likely to play out from a pace perspective. Dropping out of a listed stake also was a factor in the odds.
Just my opinion but this looks like fundamental handicapping angles vs inside information.

I agree with you that there were enough fundamental handicapping angles to 'naturally' drive the odds in the direction that they went.

'Inside Info' is both a relative term, and a 'hook' for a the broader concept of Unexpected Odds Behavior.

The Morning Line, Biggestal99, Red Knave, and myself all picked :12: to both be a lower price on the board, and out-finish the :1:.
From our relative perspective, the odds behaved unexpectedly.
We had a certain understanding of the race, we had a certain understanding of the odds, - based on a certain 'reality'.

When the odds behaved unexpectedly(for our handicapping), that means that the 'reality' we had done our handicapping for had shifted. :eek:

Now, maybe You would have correctly ordered the :1: as a top favorite and top contender, and the :12: as a slightly higher priced horse? In that case, the 'reality' you had done your fundamental handicapping for, would be closer to the real reality. You would have demonstrated a better insight, and your handicapping would require less adjustment. That is the main idea behind this concept. 'Inside Information' is simply the most fun part of it.

[Robert Fischer]

For today's AQU race:

I would expect the following ranking on the top choices:

:2:
:7:
:3:
:5:

The horse that I will be looking for stable money:

:6:
Do you have a top pick here?

track morning line = :2: :7: :3: :5: :6:

my morning line odds = :2: :7: :3: :6: :5:

my selections = :7: :2: :3: :6: (^ IF 2 is the favorite, and 7 gets some good support(as 2nd choice), I'll take 7 to win here.)


This isn't a real easy race.
:2: looks like a runner, but he just broke maiden in a race that really flattered him, and takes most of the value out for today.

:7: has demonstrated open class and speed, and comes in with a huge move for a good trainer.

:3: has kind of made a "middle move" in several races, and could move up(or down) on dirt...

:6: is solid for the class and comes in off a freshening.

[thaskalos]

So why was the :1: hotter on the board than expected, and why was the :12: colder on the board than expected?

(:1: (the Hot horse) Wins, and pays 10.40 off a 6-1 ml , and :12: may still be running...)


I have given this topic a lot of thought in recent years, Robert...and here is what I've come to:

I think all of us have become aware of the fact that the "dead-on-the-board" horse is to be avoided. To define our terms, as Socrates used to say, let's call the "dead-on-the-board-horse" the horse whose past performances reveal that it should be offered at a much lower price than the tote board now indicates. We don't know the reason why...but we do know that this type of horse seldom wins...and it often flops entirely.

Now...here is where my thinking takes a leap in a new direction:

If this "dead-on-the-board-horse" is to be avoided...then shouldn't its OPPOSITE -- "the-LIVE-on-the board-horse" -- now be embraced...for the same reasons? Shouldn't the forces which seem to conspire against the "dead-on-the-board-horse" now operate in favor of the "live-on-the-board-horse"? After all...isn't this "live-on-the-board-horse" the main reason why the other horse is so conspicuously ignored in the betting?

So...I propose a two-prong handicapping method here:

Forget the Morning Line...it's too imprecise in many cases, and it could easily lead us astray. I say we look at the past performances with a classical handicapping eye. We all know which basic handicapping factors drive the betting...and what most bettors are looking for. Sharp recent races at today's class or higher...sharp early speed while dropping in class...high speed figures...uncontested early speed, especially in the sprints...favorable post positions in routes...fashionable horse connections...I believe we can all agree that THESE are the basic handicapping factors which drive the betting in race after race, and in year after year. OK...so let's handicap the field using these handicapping guidelines...and put our contenders in some sort of order. Once we do this...now we have a handle on what the tote board should look like -- from the classical handicapping perspective. The next step is to find where the tote board will DEVIATE from our projections..figuring that these "deviations" will be based upon factors which cannot be readily seen on the PP page. And the most telling deviation isn't the "dead-on-the-board-horse"...although that's an important consideration -- because it saves us money. Our prime objective is its very OPPOSITE; the horse with the nondescript past performances and connections...who is going off at much LOWER odds than its racing record warrants. In most cases...THIS is the horse responsible for the "dead-on-the-board" effect on the other horse...and THIS is the horse who should be helped by those same mysterious forces which conspire against its more impressive-looking counterpart.

This horse with the nondescript record and connections, who is being bet as if he is a "good thing", is the "inside information" in the race...IMO.

[DeltaLover]

Do you have a top pick here?

track morning line = :2: :7: :3: :5: :6:

my morning line odds = :2: :7: :3: :6: :5:

my selections = :7: :2: :3: :6: (^ IF 2 is the favorite, and 7 gets some good support(as 2nd choice), I'll take 7 to win here.)


This isn't a real easy race.
:2: looks like a runner, but he just broke maiden in a race that really flattered him, and takes most of the value out for today.

:7: has demonstrated open class and speed, and comes in with a huge move for a good trainer.

:3: has kind of made a "middle move" in several races, and could move up(or down) on dirt...

:6: is solid for the class and comes in off a freshening.


The horse that looks interesting to me, assuming more than natural odds is the :6:

At natural odds the :5: seems good as well

[Nitro]

What is 'Inside Information' at the track?
& Is it possible for one of us, the horseplayers, to identify when inside-info may exist, and adjust accordingly??
- In this thread, I will attempt to address those questions from my own POV, as well as provide a sample race for everyone to play-along and test the concept.
I invite you to play along, and I welcome any input on the subject of 'Inside Information'.

First we have to define "Inside Information".

Well, we all know what the hell Inside-Info is, but we have to define it in such a way that we can hopefully be on the same page here and attempt to identify it.

"Inside Information" is actually a part of a larger category that I will call "Unexpected Odds Behavior" or UOB.

'UOB' is simply the difference between actual, and expected Odds.

When the Odds behave unexpectedly, there are 3 primary reasons:


Randomness


Errors (We made a bad line)


Inside Information
to summarize it in a sort of word equation:
UOB = ExpectedOdds-ActualOdds=Randomness+Errors+InsideInformationWOW! This thread is really something! I can't believe that those posting could be that naive into believing that they can simply pick out any race - at any track and use some antiquated tote observations to arrive at some sort of conclusion about so-called "Insider Information". It reminds of of that current TV commercial about 15% off auto insurance where a lady is sitting at the table breaking hard candies with a hammer, and her son says "IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY"!

Well guess what? As an outsider looking for real insider information off the tote board, the proposed methodology here won't work either. I'm not going go into a lot of details as to what a real tote analysis can do for any astute bettor. I'll just say that many years ago I was fortunate enough to read a number of posts and communicate with a former poster here on PA named Totemaster. Unfortunately, he stopped posting for obvious reasons. But one thing I have learned is that once you get a handle on how the betting patterns work at each track, the races with obvious tell-tale indicators come to you. You don't go to them.

Understanding actual betting patterns is far more involved then making oversimplified comparisons between current win pool odds and some other subjective odds line or even the morning line. Your not going to find solid insider info that way. And BTW if you attempting to use this type of methodology at any of the smaller tracks like Delta or Evangeline Downs you're going to get burnt, because one of their games is to sway public betting by creating decoys. Simple odds comparisons are exactly what they're hoping for, but a betting pattern analysis will usually expose it.
.
.

[Red Knave]

Software morning line - 2-7-4-6
My picks in order - 7-2-6

7 and 6 would be interesting if the 2 is actually less than even money (which I doubt).

[Red Knave]

"IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY
We're just having some fun. Take a chill pill.

[woodtoo]

My picks and final odds;


:3: 4/1 :4: 15/1 :7: 3/1 thinking the :2: will bounce at 6/5

good thread:ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

WOW! This thread is really something! I can't believe that those posting could be that naive into believing that they can simply pick out any race - at any track and use some antiquated tote observations to arrive at some sort of conclusion about so-called "Insider Information". It reminds of of that current TV commercial about 15% off auto insurance where a lady is sitting at the table breaking hard candies with a hammer, and her son says "IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY"!

Well guess what? As an outsider looking for real insider information off the tote board, the proposed methodology here won't work either. I'm not going go into a lot of details as to what a real tote analysis can do for any astute bettor. I'll just say that many years ago I was fortunate enough to read a number of posts and communicate with a former poster here on PA named Totemaster. Unfortunately, he stopped posting for obvious reasons. But one thing I have learned is that once you get a handle on how the betting patterns work at each track, the races with obvious tell-tale indicators come to you. You don't go to them.

Understanding actual betting patterns is far more involved then making oversimplified comparisons between current win pool odds and some other subjective odds line or even the morning line. Your not going to find solid insider info that way. And BTW if you attempting to use this type of methodology at any of the smaller tracks like Delta or Evangeline Downs you're going to get burnt, because one of their games is to sway public betting by creating decoys. Simple odds comparisons are exactly what they're hoping for, but a betting pattern analysis will usually expose it.
.
.

What you suggest here is "naïve" as well. There are no significant "betting patterns" in today's game. There once was a time when the timing of these bets was deemed significant, because it revealed the actual time of the bet being made at the betting windows. Today...more than half of the money is wagered into the pools as the horses are walking into the gate...and the rest of the money is funneled into the pools whenever the out-of-town tracks feel like sending the bets to the host track.

Tote board analysis, as we once knew it, is dead.

[Robert Fischer]

track morning line = :2: :7: :3: :5: :6:

my morning line odds = :2: :7: :3: :6: :5:

my selections = :7: :2: :3: :6: (^ IF 2 is the favorite, and 7 gets some good support(as 2nd choice), I'll take 7 to win here.)

odds rankings from the r7 fav/ Doubles:
:2: :7: :3: :5: :6: :4:

important notes = :2: :7: :3: as I expected = My 7 win bet looks to be qualified as explained in the quote above.

also somewhat interesting to see :5: a clear favorite to the :6:.

[Robert Fischer]

Well guess what? As an outsider looking for real insider information off the tote board, the proposed methodology here won't work either.
The methodology I have covered in this thread is very fundamentally sound.

You may know of, or wish to offer some more advanced tote analysis techniques. You are welcome to introduce them in here, or in your own thread.

[Robert Fischer]

track morning line = :2: :7: :3: :5: :6:

my morning line odds = :2: :7: :3: :6: :5:

my selections = :7: :2: :3: :6: (^ IF 2 is the favorite, and 7 gets some good support(as 2nd choice), I'll take 7 to win here.)

So my :7: won easily, paying $5.20.
There wasn't really a lot of interesting tote action, in a race that was a lot less chaotic than the previous example. The main point here was that I thought the :7: was better than the :2: for a 'reality in which the :2: would be favored and in which the :7: was well supported as the 2nd choice. When this indeed played out to be true, I had a greater confidence that the reality in which I had handicapped for was in line with the betting market.

[lansdale]

What is 'Inside Information' at the track?

& Is it possible for one of us, the horseplayers, to identify when inside-info may exist, and adjust accordingly??


- In this thread, I will attempt to address those questions from my own POV, as well as provide a sample race for everyone to play-along and test the concept.

I invite you to play along, and I welcome any input on the subject of 'Inside Information'.

Hi RF,

Very interesting idea for a thread. And it think it wouldn't be a bad idea to see if there is still anything of value to be gleaned from tracking odds directionality. Would also be of interest to me to see if a 'lemming' factor could be isolated.

But first, one question: wondering how you define 'hotness' or max. downward odds movement, in this race. If you are using the ML, it seems to me that the #10 dropped the most, then, the #1 and the #4. The 11, 12, and 6 all rose. In this context, how can the 1 be the hottest horse?

Re the 'lemming' factor, per Flatstats recent posting of the odds 'shrinkage' of UK winning favorites (if I'm reading this correctly), what about the possibility that a horse dropping too far from its ML is a sign of 'lemming' money, and thus negative. In this race e.g., the 10 was .58 of it's ML odds, the 1 - .7, and the 4 - .82. Of course, as Thask has pointed out, the ML is arbitrary, but for this reason, possibly exploitable at many tracks.

Cheers,

lansdale

[DeltaLover]

So my :7: won easily, paying $5.20.
There wasn't really a lot of interesting tote action, in a race that was a lot less chaotic than the previous example. The main point here was that I thought the :7: was better than the :2: for a 'reality in which the :2: would be favored and in which the :7: was well supported as the 2nd choice. When this indeed played out to be true, I had a greater confidence that the reality in which I had handicapped for was in line with the betting market.

I think that the :7: was the worst betting option in the race, given its profile and final odds. I would have never bet it on top....

[Nitro]

What you suggest here is "naïve" as well. There are no significant "betting patterns" in today's game. There once was a time when the timing of these bets was deemed significant, because it revealed the actual time of the bet being made at the betting windows. Today...more than half of the money is wagered into the pools as the horses are walking into the gate...and the rest of the money is funneled into the pools whenever the out-of-town tracks feel like sending the bets to the host track.

Tote board analysis, as we once knew it, is dead.Your statement obviously shows that you're not up to date or misinformed about how today's betting pattern analyses actually work. But that's okay, I'm certainly not going to try and convince you or anyone else around here about how lucrative a real tote analysis can be.

I agree that is was probably easier 10 years ago. But when you think about it, does anyone actually believe that late money is insider action? I doubt that any intelligent bettor with solid info is going to wait for the last minute to place a serious wager. Besides that, anyone who understands these betting patterns knows the limited significance of monitoring individual betting pools.

The methodology I have covered in this thread is very fundamentally sound.

You may know of, or wish to offer some more advanced tote analysis techniques. You are welcome to introduce them in here, or in your own thread.Well, I must admit it is fundamental, but sound is another story. As one poster put it this thread is about having some fun. So who am I to spoil it. My personal enjoyment is occasionally making a nice score with what I believe to be worthwhile information. Unfortunately I don't have access as to how the betting patterns I use are derived, so any explanation on my part would probably be an injustice to the developer. As far as my own threads go I’ll stick with starting selection threads. They’re a bit more revealing, and demonstrate just how alive and worthwhile a real tote analysis can be.
.

[Robert Fischer]

Would also be of interest to me to see if a 'lemming' factor could be isolated.

...

Re the 'lemming' factor, per Flatstats recent posting of the odds 'shrinkage' of UK winning favorites (if I'm reading this correctly), what about the possibility that a horse dropping too far from its ML is a sign of 'lemming' money, and thus negative. In this race e.g., the 10 was .58 of it's ML odds, the 1 - .7, and the 4 - .82. Of course, as Thask has pointed out, the ML is arbitrary, but for this reason, possibly exploitable at many tracks.
Lemmings, sheep, the herd-instinct... oh my
It's a jungle out there.

I'm not sure how to necessarily calculate it, but I can look at a race like that one, and at least raise the question.

Did :10:, :4:, and :1: really comprise 68% of the win-probability for that specific 12 horse turf race??

I don't think that it would be unreasonable to question that.

Were the :10: or the :1: Hot horses, or Lemming horses?

I think that is harder to say with any certainty before the race is run.

Was the daily double pool from the previous race favorite (favoring the :1: ) 'smarter' money than the win pool (leaning toward :10: ), or just more accurate in that specific sample? Or was leveraging involved?

It's all certainly interesting.

[thaskalos]

Your statement obviously shows that you're not up to date or misinformed about how today's betting pattern analyses actually work. But that's okay, I'm certainly not going to try and convince you or anyone else around here about how lucrative a real tote analysis can be.

I agree that is was probably easier 10 years ago. But when you think about it, does anyone actually believe that late money is insider action? I doubt that any intelligent bettor with solid info is going to wait for the last minute to place a serious wager. Besides that, anyone who understands these betting patterns knows the limited significance of monitoring individual betting pools.


Well...I happen to know for a fact that there are some very intelligent bettors, with solid info, who wait for the last SECONDS to place their serious wagers...but as you say...what reason could I possibly have to try to change your mind?

[Stillriledup]

Well...I happen to know for a fact that there are some very intelligent bettors, with solid info, who wait for the last SECONDS to place their serious wagers...but as you say...what reason could I possibly have to try to change your mind?

This is correct.

The longer you wait, the more information you can gather on warmups, money adding to the pools, late scratches, horses flipping in the gate, late rider changes, etc.

You need every edge you can get, there's no edge to betting early other than maybe once in a while not getting shut out of some or all of your plays.

[ReplayRandall]

Lemmings, sheep, the herd-instinct... oh my
It's a jungle out there.

I'm not sure how to necessarily calculate it, but I can look at a race like that one, and at least raise the question.

Did :10:, :4:, and :1: really comprise 68% of the win-probability for that specific 12 horse turf race??

I don't think that it would be unreasonable to question that.

Were the :10: or the :1: Hot horses, or Lemming horses?

I think that is harder to say with any certainty before the race is run.

Was the daily double pool from the previous race favorite (favoring the :1: ) 'smarter' money than the win pool (leaning toward :10: ), or just more accurate in that specific sample? Or was leveraging involved?

It's all certainly interesting.

RF, thank you for this entertaining and interesting thread. I'm following the journey of thoughts, comments and analyzation which seem to be leading to a possible "breakthrough" conclusion. You've got my attention, so by all means, please continue.........

[lansdale]

Lemmings, sheep, the herd-instinct... oh my
It's a jungle out there.

I'm not sure how to necessarily calculate it, but I can look at a race like that one, and at least raise the question.

Did :10:, :4:, and :1: really comprise 68% of the win-probability for that specific 12 horse turf race??

I don't think that it would be unreasonable to question that.

Were the :10: or the :1: Hot horses, or Lemming horses?

I think that is harder to say with any certainty before the race is run.

Was the daily double pool from the previous race favorite (favoring the :1: ) 'smarter' money than the win pool (leaning toward :10: ), or just more accurate in that specific sample? Or was leveraging involved?

It's all certainly interesting.

Hi Robert,

I didn't mean 'lemming' in the subjective sense - I was asking what the statistical value of directionality is, and whether it can be exploited. Sam Wang at Princeton Electronic Consortium was asking this same kind of question about late movement in voter polls before the recent election. Intuitively, it seems that we sense that winners tend to be horses whose odds are dropping - but, if so, by how much? If you take a look at Flatstats' charts of odds shrinkage in winning ML favorites, the mean is ca. 90%. One wonders what the comparable odds drop (if any) there would be for higher ranked horses. The question I'm asking is, could a horse be dropping 'too much' in a way that reveals that the 'uninformed' money was driving it rather than the smart money. There may be a statistical sweet spot for dropping odds that such a horse might fall outside of.
And I think, to really examine this, there needs to be some objective measure of what a 'hot' horse is, which is why I mentioned those percentages.

As far as this race went, without running it through any software and trying not to redboard, I think I would have made it 10,1,4,12. The three that you mention were also the top Bris PP - to use a recent TM stat re speed fig weighting, the 10,1,12 had the best figs in their most recent race. I agree with you re the 4 - it's most recent races didn't stack up. If, out of this group you, therefore, eliminated the 4 and just dutched the other droppers, the 10 and the 1, using directionality would have worked. But how would it work in the more average 8 and under fields? My guess - not much value. But I would be interested in seeing some serious research on this. I wouldn't doubt that someone somewhere may already be using it.

Cheers,

lansdale

[lansdale]

Hi Robert,

I didn't mean 'lemming' in the subjective sense - I was asking what the statistical value of directionality is, and whether it can be exploited. Sam Wang at Princeton Electronic Consortium was asking this same kind of question about late movement in voter polls before the recent election. Intuitively, it seems that we sense that winners tend to be horses whose odds are dropping - but, if so, by how much? If you take a look at Flatstats' charts of odds shrinkage in winning ML favorites, the mean is ca. 90%. One wonders what the comparable odds drop (if any) there would be for higher ranked horses. The question I'm asking is, could a horse be dropping 'too much' in a way that reveals that the 'uninformed' money was driving it rather than the smart money. There may be a statistical sweet spot for dropping odds that such a horse might fall outside of.
And I think, to really examine this, there needs to be some objective measure of what a 'hot' horse is, which is why I mentioned those percentages.

As far as this race went, without running it through any software and trying not to redboard, I think I would have made it 10,1,4,12. The three that you mention were also the top Bris PP - to use a recent TM stat re speed fig weighting, the 10,1,12 had the best figs in their most recent race. I agree with you re the 4 - it's most recent races didn't stack up. If, out of this group you, therefore, eliminated the 4 and just dutched the other droppers, the 10 and the 1, using directionality would have worked. But how would it work in the more average 8 and under fields? My guess - not much value. But I would be interested in seeing some serious research on this. I wouldn't doubt that someone somewhere may already be using it.

Cheers,

lansdale

I should have added that the lemming money is the uninformed money - bet on a horse that is dropping (and possibly dropping the most) and running out or at least, or not winning - however you choose to define it.

[DeltaLover]

Hi Robert,

I didn't mean 'lemming' in the subjective sense - I was asking what the statistical value of directionality is, and whether it can be exploited. Sam Wang at Princeton Electronic Consortium was asking this same kind of question about late movement in voter polls before the recent election. Intuitively, it seems that we sense that winners tend to be horses whose odds are dropping - but, if so, by how much? If you take a look at Flatstats' charts of odds shrinkage in winning ML favorites, the mean is ca. 90%. One wonders what the comparable odds drop (if any) there would be for higher ranked horses. The question I'm asking is, could a horse be dropping 'too much' in a way that reveals that the 'uninformed' money was driving it rather than the smart money. There may be a statistical sweet spot for dropping odds that such a horse might fall outside of.
And I think, to really examine this, there needs to be some objective measure of what a 'hot' horse is, which is why I mentioned those percentages.

As far as this race went, without running it through any software and trying not to redboard, I think I would have made it 10,1,4,12. The three that you mention were also the top Bris PP - to use a recent TM stat re speed fig weighting, the 10,1,12 had the best figs in their most recent race. I agree with you re the 4 - it's most recent races didn't stack up. If, out of this group you, therefore, eliminated the 4 and just dutched the other droppers, the 10 and the 1, using directionality would have worked. But how would it work in the more average 8 and under fields? My guess - not much value. But I would be interested in seeing some serious research on this. I wouldn't doubt that someone somewhere may already be using it.

Cheers,

lansdale


I do not think that the topic of the thread is one that can be treated by a statistical approach.

Quite the contrary!

Board movements and hot - cold horse assessment, belongs in the artistic rather than the scientific part of the puzzle and should be approached as such!

Each race has two kind of characteristics: those who can be treated macroscopically (where applying statistics makes sense) and those that specify its individual attributes (where intuition and experience plays the first role to detect their validity) making it an event that never occurred in the past and will next be repeated in the future .. What we are examining here, clearly belongs to that later case and we should continue to examine in a per - race base, possibly adding some more comments about how each horse was bet...

[DeltaLover]

Yesterday (NOV 13) I liked a the :9: Ferrero in the 6th in DEL MAR.

His angles that I considered were as follows:

Second Time Out
Won as a FTS
Claimed Last Time
Moves to outer post for first time
Tries Artificial Surface for first time
Took the lead in shorter distance

Considering the other horses in the race I think I might have an overlay, something that it is confirmed by running the race though a computerized model, that happens to agree with me, stating that the EV for each $100 I will bet on it will be around $35 (!!!).

I am now sold!
I place my bet when the horses are loading and the odds on the :9: are9-1

A few blinks before the bell the horse drops from 9-1 to 5-1 at once!

What does this mean?

Do I have a terrible UNDERLAY or in reality the :9: is a hot horse who is about to run a great race? Note also, that here, we are not talking about Turf Paradise or Finger Lakes but for a track with very large pools which in theory are very difficult to move so sharp in a single blink!!!

Anyway, the :9: is proven to be a no factor in the race, where the top two crowd's choices are finishing 1 - 2 and he just manages to complete the bottom spot of the super. I have just managed to burn a few hundred and keep on wondering about the whos and the whys, this dog, was bet so heavily..

[TrifectaMike]

Hi Robert,

I didn't mean 'lemming' in the subjective sense - I was asking what the statistical value of directionality is, and whether it can be exploited. Sam Wang at Princeton Electronic Consortium was asking this same kind of question about late movement in voter polls before the recent election. Intuitively, it seems that we sense that winners tend to be horses whose odds are dropping - but, if so, by how much? If you take a look at Flatstats' charts of odds shrinkage in winning ML favorites, the mean is ca. 90%. One wonders what the comparable odds drop (if any) there would be for higher ranked horses. The question I'm asking is, could a horse be dropping 'too much' in a way that reveals that the 'uninformed' money was driving it rather than the smart money. There may be a statistical sweet spot for dropping odds that such a horse might fall outside of.
And I think, to really examine this, there needs to be some objective measure of what a 'hot' horse is, which is why I mentioned those percentages.

As far as this race went, without running it through any software and trying not to redboard, I think I would have made it 10,1,4,12. The three that you mention were also the top Bris PP - to use a recent TM stat re speed fig weighting, the 10,1,12 had the best figs in their most recent race. I agree with you re the 4 - it's most recent races didn't stack up. If, out of this group you, therefore, eliminated the 4 and just dutched the other droppers, the 10 and the 1, using directionality would have worked. But how would it work in the more average 8 and under fields? My guess - not much value. But I would be interested in seeing some serious research on this. I wouldn't doubt that someone somewhere may already be using it.

Cheers,

lansdale

Hi lansdale,

Following the flow of money bet to determine "informed" betting is chaotic at best. Identifying "bad" money is doable. And leads to more stable solutions and useful information for betting purposes.

Mike

[Robert Goren]

I am in the process of developing a method for detecting "smart money" and predicting a win percentage for it using BRIS Prime Power to set the expected odds. It is still a ways from becoming even a Beta. The more I work on it, the more hopeful I become that it will be something useful. I think I have several unique ideas to incorporate in it.

[Robert Fischer]

Hi Robert,

I didn't mean 'lemming' in the subjective sense - I was asking what the statistical value of directionality is, and whether it can be exploited. Sam Wang at Princeton Electronic Consortium was asking this same kind of question about late movement in voter polls before the recent election. Intuitively, it seems that we sense that winners tend to be horses whose odds are dropping - but, if so, by how much? If you take a look at Flatstats' charts of odds shrinkage in winning ML favorites, the mean is ca. 90%. One wonders what the comparable odds drop (if any) there would be for higher ranked horses. The question I'm asking is, could a horse be dropping 'too much' in a way that reveals that the 'uninformed' money was driving it rather than the smart money. There may be a statistical sweet spot for dropping odds that such a horse might fall outside of.
And I think, to really examine this, there needs to be some objective measure of what a 'hot' horse is, which is why I mentioned those percentages.
Words like subjective and/or objective come out, and people usually think of polarized stances.

When You are tackling this, or when I am tackling this, or when Sam Wang is tackling this (don't make me bring Sam Wang into this thread, /just kidding :D), we're doing essentially the same thing.

We are starting with an an insight that clearly sees and and understands the system.

Then, we are looking/waiting for systemic events or scenarios to occur that we understand to be profitable.

Ultimately, all things being equal, it's better to have a machine calculate it, so we can go to the beach, but we are doing the same fundamental things.

-
Do you have a link for the Sam Wang 'directionality' article? I see several interesting Princeton Consortium articles by Wang. , Thanks.

[Harvhorse]

my picks 6, 2, 4, 8
My line
6- 5/2
2- 3/1
5- 5/1
8- 6/1

[lansdale]

Hi lansdale,

Following the flow of money bet to determine "informed" betting is chaotic at best. Identifying "bad" money is doable. And leads to more stable solutions and useful information for betting purposes.

Mike

Hi TM,

I've never been a tote-watcher and have approached this issue with an open mind, but if it's true that it makes more sense to expect the 'madness of crowds', i.e. lemmings, as you say rather than the 'wisdom of crowds' as many do and as Robert has suggested, possibly you could elaborate on what to look for without giving away anything proprietary.

Cheers,

lansdale

[lansdale]

I do not think that the topic of the thread is one that can be treated by a statistical approach.

Quite the contrary!

Board movements and hot - cold horse assessment, belongs in the artistic rather than the scientific part of the puzzle and should be approached as such!

Each race has two kind of characteristics: those who can be treated macroscopically (where applying statistics makes sense) and those that specify its individual attributes (where intuition and experience plays the first role to detect their validity) making it an event that never occurred in the past and will next be repeated in the future .. What we are examining here, clearly belongs to that later case and we should continue to examine in a per - race base, possibly adding some more comments about how each horse was bet...

What if only negative information can be usefully extracted from late price movement, as TM suggests, and can be determined statistically?

[lansdale]

Words like subjective and/or objective come out, and people usually think of polarized stances.

When You are tackling this, or when I am tackling this, or when Sam Wang is tackling this (don't make me bring Sam Wang into this thread, /just kidding :D), we're doing essentially the same thing.

We are starting with an an insight that clearly sees and and understands the system.

Then, we are looking/waiting for systemic events or scenarios to occur that we understand to be profitable.

Ultimately, all things being equal, it's better to have a machine calculate it, so we can go to the beach, but we are doing the same fundamental things.

-
Do you have a link for the Sam Wang 'directionality' article? I see several interesting Princeton Consortium articles by Wang. , Thanks.

The examples from Sam Wang (BTW, it's the Princeton *Election* Consortium), which involve poll-tracking aren't exactly analogous to tote-watching, since the latter more closely resembles actual voting. But, in the few days before the election the polling shifted suddenly toward the GOP. Can this kind of stat be usefully extended to horseracing?

I don't know the answe to this, and was interested in the idea of further research, but after seeing TM's recent post, I wonder if this is true.

[DeltaLover]

What if only negative information can be usefully extracted from late price movement, as TM suggests, and can be determined statistically?

I have no related data.. It would have been interesting to see a related study..