Last Minute Odds Drop Analysis

[barn32]

OK, if this is a dumb idea I'm fine with that. (I'm not Trifecta Mike for Christ sakes.)

Has anyone broken down last minute odds drops according to last minute odds?

In other words, it seems to me from much of the discussion I've read about this topic that most last minute odds drops are on short(er) priced horses. So if you arrange the odds from low to high, how much (and how often) do they drop for each odds segment.

Example:

Odds

1 (even)
2 to one
3 to one
4 etc.
5
6
7
8
9
10

You can break these down even further (like 8/5, 9/5, 5/2, 7/2, etc.) but you get the idea.

So if you have this data, your analysis would read something like this, give or take.

1 50%, 30% (Horses at even money drop in odds 50% of the time, and average a 30% drop.)
2 25%, 17% (Horses at 2 to 1 drop in odds 25% of the time, and average a 17% drop.)
3 10%, 5% (etc)
4 5%, 3%
5 2%, 1%
6 1% .05%
7 .05%, .02%
8 .02%, .01%
9 .01%, .005%
10 .009%, .0045%

Horses with last minute odds of 3 to 1 or less show the largest percentage drops. 4 to 1 and higher, and the drops are negligible.

Conclusion: Assuming the above is accurate (or close) at one minute to post only play horses 4 to 1 or higher. (Or 5/2, 3 to 1 or 7/2,--whatever your data tells you.)

It might also be track dependent, I don't know.

All right, let me have it.

[DeltaLover]

What you describe here is not a simple task.

In the past, I had written a live odds feed retriever trying to detect patterns related to price movements trying to detect the closing. I was only considering odds while ignoring anything else like trainer, owner, or the overall profile of each horse.

I have to admit that this exercise was proven to be a fruitless project, convincing me to abandon the idea that I can come up with this kind of a final price predictor.

[FocusWiz]

I likewise agree with DeltaLover.

I have seen some patterns where "generally" very short horses odds-on entries rise in odds during the last minute with a reduction in the odds for next "tier" of favorites and an overall increase in the odds for the longest wagers, but nothing that I could hang my hat on.

[traynor]

It depends on the track, and the cause of the odds drop/rise. Lumping all tracks/situations/scenarios together blurs any (decipherable) distinctions. As with most other aspects of horse racing, looking at the "big picture" often hides all the useful information that would be readily available to more astute observation.

[Robert Fischer]

(edit- Just read Traynor's post and it appears we are on similar wavelengths)

The way the track collects it's data from the hubs, and the way a few large players opt to play that specific track,scenario,day,etc... make a big difference

Some tracks show 2.60 to show on eventual 2.20 horses all the time

Some do similar with $5 horses that start at 2-1.

Some scenarios, tracks show $3.80-$4 horses opening at 2-5.

Aside from something you can't control, such as some random guy placing $10K on a horse, a lot of it comes down to knowing the play inside and out, and knowing the patterns of how that play often gets played by the public at that track.

[Dave Schwartz]

I did a SMALL study a couple of years ago where I took the toteboard at the first refresh flash of zero minutes to post and compared it to the "winner cirlce" odds (i.e. final).

Be aware that the "first refresh flash" means that when the mins-to-post said "0" for the first time I waited until the pool totals refreshed, which could be as much as 30 seconds later.


I divided the tracks into 3 groups:

1. low rebate tracks (i.e. less than 1.5% or even 0%)

2. Mid rebate tracks (i.e. >1.5% to 5.99%) - note these would be lower now.

3. High rebate Tracks (6% and up)


Could only be called anecdotal because the sample size was small - only around 200 races total.

Percent of final pool that was on the board at 0 minutes:
Group 1. 43%
Group 2. 35%
Group 3. 27%


The Winning Horse: Odds changed - i.e. went up or down a full tick:
Note: Definition of "full tick" means that a horse that was 4.3:1 went off at 3.3:1 or below. Horses that dropped below 3/1 were required to drop 0.5. Thus, 2.3 would have to go to 1.8:1 or below.

Group 1.
38% went up
20% stayed the same
42% went down

Groups 2&3.
10% went up
17% stayed the same
73% went down



Please note that I am sharing this not because I think the deal is done, but that perhaps this will give someone who wants to do a more complete study a starting point.

[MJC922]

Dave thanks for sharing.

[traynor]

I think the size of the mutuel pools and the relative predictability of races at a given track are more useful ways to categorize than rebates. Lost (or apparently lost) in the analyses of pool trends is that in order to profit from rebates, one still has to pick a LOT of winners. Maintaining a high enough strike rate to get into a range at which rebates produce an overall profit is not easy. Especially at the tracks with the best rebates.

Additionally, the amount one can dump into the mutuel pools at the last minute (without diminishing the return into the red, with or without a rebate) will vary widely--even at the same track on the same day. Other factors are involved in such situations than the amounts of the pools at various points, but that is a great starting point.

[Dave Schwartz]

I think the size of the mutuel pools and the relative predictability of races at a given track are more useful ways to categorize than rebates.

Traynor,

I must disagree.

IMHO, the higher the rebate, the more attractive the pool is to whales.

The greater the percentage of whale money in the pool, the more difficult it is for anyone to make a profit.

I liken it to walking into a poker room where there are two identical poker games (i.e. same rules, buy-ins, etc.). Table #1 has a slightly lower rake, thereby attracting the best players in the room. The lesser players gravitate towards the table #2.

My belief would be that table #2 would be easier to beat.

[OverlayHunter]

Percent of final pool that was on the board at 0 minutes:
Group 1. 43%
Group 2. 35%
Group 3. 27%


Dave, do I understand you to being saying that, on average, 73% of the dollars wagered to win on Group 3 races enters the pool after the first refresh flash of zero minutes to post?

[Dave Schwartz]

Yes.

[cj]

Yes.

Makes sense, everyone has learned the odds early mean nothing at these places. Hell, the odds late mean very little too.

[Cratos]

Traynor,

I must disagree.

IMHO, the higher the rebate, the more attractive the pool is to whales.

The greater the percentage of whale money in the pool, the more difficult it is for anyone to make a profit.

I liken it to walking into a poker room where there are two identical poker games (i.e. same rules, buy-ins, etc.). Table #1 has a slightly lower rake, thereby attracting the best players in the room. The lesser players gravitate towards the table #2.

My belief would be that table #2 would be easier to beat.
I agree with your conclusion.

[Cratos]

Yes.
Again, I agree with you.

[traynor]

Yes.

It seems that might be a very productive area to study. Interesting.

[thaskalos]

Group 1.
38% went up
20% stayed the same
42% went down

Groups 2&3.
10% went up
17% stayed the same
73% went down


Is there any reason why the late money should be so much more "informed" at the Group 2&3 tracks? Are the rebate-seeking whales so much more informed than the rest of us?

[Stillriledup]

Is there any reason why the late money should be so much more "informed" at the Group 2&3 tracks? Are the rebate-seeking whales so much more informed than the rest of us?

Its not that the money is necessarily more informed, its just that it takes less of it to make a difference.

Also, late money is essentially a product of how bad the money is BEFORE the sharpest players make their bets....so, maybe its more of an indication how less sophisticated the "other" bettors are at the B and C tracks before the late money hits.

[FocusWiz]

Its not that the money is necessarily more informed, its just that it takes less of it to make a difference.

Also, late money is essentially a product of how bad the money is BEFORE the sharpest players make their bets....so, maybe its more of an indication how less sophisticated the "other" bettors are at the B and C tracks before the late money hits.Interesting theory. I was thinking that the investment crowd would flock to the rebate tracks and thus, overall, be better pickers and that the lateness of the money was just because of the tools they used to wager (i.e., conditional wagers at 0 or -1 minutes to post)

Your theory makes a lot of much sense. The high rebate tracks give you an edge even if you have lesser skills and attract these players as well. Thus, you have a mix of the folks who know they don't have a chance without a higher rebate and the whales who know that the rebate could be a large portion of their profit (or reduce any loss).

[thaskalos]

Its not that the money is necessarily more informed, its just that it takes less of it to make a difference.

Also, late money is essentially a product of how bad the money is BEFORE the sharpest players make their bets....so, maybe its more of an indication how less sophisticated the "other" bettors are at the B and C tracks before the late money hits.

Your argument is unconvincing. Dave's study clearly shows that the late money at the Group 2&3 tracks are WAY more informed than at the group 1 tracks. Now...do you have any studies of your own which would lead us to believe that the EARLY money at the Group 2&3 tracks are as exploitable as you suggest?

[Stillriledup]

Your argument is unconvincing. Dave's study clearly shows that the late money at the Group 2&3 tracks are WAY more informed than at the group 1 tracks. Now...do you have any studies of your own which would lead us to believe that the EARLY money at the Group 2&3 tracks are as exploitable as you suggest?

Maybe i explained it wrong.

The "informed" nature of the late money is direct relation to how uninformed the money is with 1 minute to post (or just before off time).

A horse who is destined to be 1-1 is more likely to be sitting on the board at 3-1 (while the horses are approaching the gate) at a B track than it is at an A track.

Unless Dave's research indicates otherwise?

[thaskalos]

Maybe i explained it wrong.

The "informed" nature of the late money is direct relation to how uninformed the money is with 1 minute to post (or just before off time).

A horse who is destined to be 1-1 is more likely to be sitting on the board at 3-1 (while the horses are approaching the gate) at a B track than it is at an A track.

Unless Dave's research indicates otherwise?
I understand what you are saying, SRU...and I am wondering if you have actually seen this in your own experience of betting at the "B" tracks. I bet at these B tracks...and I haven't seen those 1-1 horses sitting there at 3-1 with 0 minutes to post...waiting for the "smart guys" to exploit the situation. Have YOU witness this phenomenon?

[cj]

I understand what you are saying, SRU...and I am wondering if you have actually seen this in your own experience of betting at the "B" tracks. I bet at these B tracks...and I haven't seen those 1-1 horses sitting there at 3-1 with 0 minutes to post...waiting for the "smart guys" to exploit the situation. Have YOU witness this phenomenon?

I see it all the time. Just the other day at TuP a horse was 9-2 at the break and won at 6-5. The late money is right WAY more often than not.

[Dave Schwartz]

Is there any reason why the late money should be so much more "informed" at the Group 2&3 tracks? Are the rebate-seeking whales so much more informed than the rest of us?

1. Yes, they are "more informed."

2. There is also the issue of large amounts of money being wagered by a small group of highly "informed" people.


My opinion is that roughly 1-of-every-7 dollars wagered in the U.S. originates from 6 primary and about 40 secondary sources. That's 14% of all handle!

Side note:
Consider, then, that this figure (logically) goes up at high rebate tracks and down at lower tracks. I concluded that at the highest rebate tracks 28% would not be an unreasonable pool percentage and at the low rebate tracks around 4%.

Back on track: If my figures are correct, and 73% is coming down after 0 minutes show on the tote, then about 2/5's of the money coming down late is whale money.

14% * 2 = 28% of total pool (That is, 28% of 100% of pool)

28% of 73% = 38% (at a very high rebate track)

Remember that the biggest of the whales (and perhaps some of the junior whales as well) decide who to wager based upon integrating tote models with their probabilities. In other words, they decide at 0 minutes to post what the final odds will likely be.

If they happen to be in near-total agreement on overlays and odds they wind up on the same horse(s) causing that 9/2 overlay to wind up at 6/5 (as CJ mentioned).

One more thing: Remember that there is a single, common mathematical approach being used by many of these whales. Some form of regression that pushes the high probabilities to the top. Since there is a common proliferation of data, it is logical that (to one degree or another) their models are similar, and, hence, will agree on selections often.

Everyone has seen the horse that broke back of the lead and then, just as he made his big move on the turn to blow past, his odds went WAY down. The uninitiated public thinks that the horse made his "much-the-best" move AND THEN money was bet, when, in reality, the money was bet BECAUSE the horse was DISCERNED to be much the best JUST BEFORE the gate opened.


What I found most interesting in my small/short study was the up-down-same numbers at the zero-to-low-rebate tracks.


Again, I want to offer these caveats:
1. I did this study like 4 years ago.
2. It was only a couple of hundred races over about 10 tracks over about 3 days.

This is a sample size that is so small as to be almost silly. Nevertheless, it fits what I have observed (anecdotally) very well.

We need better studies.

[Stillriledup]

I understand what you are saying, SRU...and I am wondering if you have actually seen this in your own experience of betting at the "B" tracks. I bet at these B tracks...and I haven't seen those 1-1 horses sitting there at 3-1 with 0 minutes to post...waiting for the "smart guys" to exploit the situation. Have YOU witness this phenomenon?

I just think it takes less cash to exploit a situation, which means if 500 bucks makes CJs 9-2 shot go to 6-5, there are dozens and dozens and maybe even hundreds of horseplayers who could theoretically afford 500 to win. But, at a track like Saratoga, only the biggest bettors in the country can make that 9-2 shot into a 6-5 shot because it would require a 5k win bet or maybe even more, that's why it happens less at the better places.

[Stillriledup]

1. Yes, they are "more informed."

2. There is also the issue of large amounts of money being wagered by a small group of highly "informed" people.


My opinion is that roughly 1-of-every-7 dollars wagered in the U.S. originates from 6 primary and about 40 secondary sources. That's 14% of all handle!

Side note:
Consider, then, that this figure (logically) goes up at high rebate tracks and down at lower tracks. I concluded that at the highest rebate tracks 28% would not be an unreasonable pool percentage and at the low rebate tracks around 4%.

Back on track: If my figures are correct, and 73% is coming down after 0 minutes show on the tote, then about 2/5's of the money coming down late is whale money.

14% * 2 = 28% of total pool (That is, 28% of 100% of pool)

28% of 73% = 38% (at a very high rebate track)

Remember that the biggest of the whales (and perhaps some of the junior whales as well) decide who to wager based upon integrating tote models with their probabilities. In other words, they decide at 0 minutes to post what the final odds will likely be.

If they happen to be in near-total agreement on overlays and odds they wind up on the same horse(s) causing that 9/2 overlay to wind up at 6/5 (as CJ mentioned).


Everyone has seen the horse that broke back of the lead and then, just as he made his big move on the turn to blow past, his odds went WAY down. The uninitiated public thinks that the horse made his "much-the-best" move AND THEN money was bet, when, in reality, the money was bet BECAUSE the horse was DISCERNED to be much the best JUST BEFORE the gate opened.


What I found most interesting in my small/short study was the up-down-same numbers at the zero-to-low-rebate tracks.


Again, I want to offer these caveats:
1. I did this study like 4 years ago.
2. It was only a couple of hundred races over about 10 tracks over about 3 days.

This is a sample size that is so small as to be almost silly. Nevertheless, it fits what I have observed (anecdotally) very well.

We need better studies.

Good writeup Dave, in agreement.

To add about the tote models and probabilities, also factored in there is predicted pool sizes as well as the "Acceptable odds" they are seeking.

[Dave Schwartz]

I just think it takes less cash to exploit a situation, which means if 500 bucks makes CJs 9-2 shot go to 6-5, there are dozens and dozens and maybe even hundreds of horseplayers who could theoretically afford 500 to win. But, at a track like Saratoga, only the biggest bettors in the country can make that 9-2 shot into a 6-5 shot because it would require a 5k win bet or maybe even more, that's why it happens less at the better places.

I agree - if you replace "better" with "bigger handle."

[thaskalos]

I see it all the time. Just the other day at TuP a horse was 9-2 at the break and won at 6-5. The late money is right WAY more often than not.
I understand that, Cj. But SRU was suggesting that those bet-down horses were sitting there at inflated odds to begin with. That 6-5 winner at TuP that you speak of...did it look 6-5 on paper?

[Stillriledup]

I understand that, Cj. But SRU was suggesting that those bet-down horses were sitting there at inflated odds to begin with. That 6-5 winner at TuP that you speak of...did it look 6-5 on paper?

Here's another way to look at it. Do it from the reverse. Lets say you dug out an equibase chart after the fact and looked at all the final prices. Unless you followed along during the day, you wouldn't know what the prices were at 0 MTP, 1 MTP, etc.

If you assume all final prices are essentially market prices and that one track is not much different from another track, the way you can see how "stupid" the bettors are is to see what these market prices looked like at 0 MTP. Its working backwards to see how 'smart' the crowd is up until the whales take over.

[thaskalos]

Here's another way to look at it. Do it from the reverse. Lets say you dug out an equibase chart after the fact and looked at all the final prices. Unless you followed along during the day, you wouldn't know what the prices were at 0 MTP, 1 MTP, etc.

If you assume all final prices are essentially market prices and that one track is not much different from another track, the way you can see how "stupid" the bettors are is to see what these market prices looked like at 0 MTP. Its working backwards to see how 'smart' the crowd is up until the whales take over.
Let me tell you what I think: It isn't just the "whales" who are taking over after the 0 MTP mark at the minor tracks. It's the too-late betting insiders too...who are mimicking those mysterious whales.

I have been doing my own research into these very late adds dropdowns...and these horses often do not warrant the late action that they get. The guys who are making these bets possess more than the normal handicapping information that the rest of us have access to.

Forgive me if I am overly paranoid here...but I don't think that the whales are solely responsible for this late-late betting phenomenon.

[Stillriledup]

Let me tell you what I think: It isn't just the "whales" who are taking over after the 0 MTP mark at the minor tracks. It's the too-late betting insiders too...who are mimicking those mysterious whales.

I have been doing my own research into these very late adds dropdowns...and these horses often do not warrant the late action that they get. The guys who are making these bets possess more than the normal handicapping information that the rest of us have access to.

Forgive me if I am overly paranoid here...but I don't think that the whales are solely responsible for this late-late betting phenomenon.

I think you're mostly right, its a combination of whales and just smart non whales who know an overlay when they see it.

The question is if there's people making bets on true inside information. I'm sure sometimes it is, and sometimes its not. Wish i had a better answer. :D

[thaskalos]

I think you're mostly right, its a combination of whales and just smart non whales who know an overlay when they see it.

The question is if there's people making bets on true inside information. I'm sure sometimes it is, and sometimes its not. Wish i had a better answer. :D

That's not what I am saying. These are more than just "smart non whales who know an overlay when they see one". These are guys who can spot an overlay even when there is no sign that an overlay is present.

[Robert Fischer]

I understand that, Cj. But SRU was suggesting that those bet-down horses were sitting there at inflated odds to begin with. That 6-5 winner at TuP that you speak of...did it look 6-5 on paper?

I like your perspective here.

Certainly, if you have a good gauge about how the horse "should" be bet, then you have a right to think along with the late money patterns.

[cj]

I understand that, Cj. But SRU was suggesting that those bet-down horses were sitting there at inflated odds to begin with. That 6-5 winner at TuP that you speak of...did it look 6-5 on paper?

I don't remember to be honest, but you are right, often times these horses look close on paper and the late money usually picks the right one.

[thaskalos]

I don't remember to be honest, but you are right, often times these horses look close on paper and the late money usually picks the right one.

My point exactly! :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

My point exactly! :ThmbUp:

Racing would be a lot better off if you could go to jail for insider trading. This "insider trading" stuff cuts massively into the bottom line for people who are handicapping off pen and paper. Racing doesn't need the "performers" taking a cut of the pie, they already get their cut.

[Robert Goren]

With a lot of the "smart non-whales" whether the horse is an overlay or not has nothing to do with their bet. They are betting be cause they think they have an lead pipe cinch. It is stable money. Very often the money comes in so late you can't use the information.

[Robert Fischer]

I divided the tracks into 3 groups:

1. low rebate tracks (i.e. less than 1.5% or even 0%)

2. Mid rebate tracks (i.e. >1.5% to 5.99%) - note these would be lower now.

3. High rebate Tracks (6% and up)



Really a smart perspective to consider.

[FocusWiz]

Let me tell you what I think: It isn't just the "whales" who are taking over after the 0 MTP mark at the minor tracks. It's the too-late betting insiders too...who are mimicking those mysterious whales.

I have been doing my own research into these very late adds dropdowns...and these horses often do not warrant the late action that they get. The guys who are making these bets possess more than the normal handicapping information that the rest of us have access to.

Forgive me if I am overly paranoid here...but I don't think that the whales are solely responsible for this late-late betting phenomenon.I do not think you are paranoid. I think you are mostly right. I have had some discussions with a fellow who sells selections to what he considers big time bettors. He claims that much of the information he uses is augmented by information obtained discreetly beyond the past performances and he once remarked that when he feeds them a wager on a Md Sp Wt race, he wins about 95% of the time.

However, I still think it is the whales who are making these wagers. My paranoia is that I do not think the whales are followers of the sport any more than a person who just gives their money to a bank or a financial advisor follows the stocks. I think this is where much of the problem is with this sport. I think the whales are using this as an investment vehicle. They do not know the horses or jockeys. They know the track code and the race number and the program number and the amount of the suggested wager and the minimum odds to take at 0 minutes to post. I would not be a bit surprised if they are fed a file each day based on the amount they've allocated to this investment which they simply upload to their ADW. I do not picture them typing at their computer and agonizing over stretch runs.

While you guys were typing, I was reviewing the 5th race today at Turfway Park. This was an $8,000 Claiming Race at 8½ furlongs.

I liked the :1: over the :4: and both of those well over the Morning Line Favorite, the :6:.

Early in the wagering, the three favorites were:
:1: 9/2
:4: 5/2
:5: 9/2

The :1: fluctuated between 9/2 and 5/1 for most of the wagering. The :5: dropped to be even with the :4: for most of the wagering in the 5/2 to 3/1 range (interesting dip in the 4 down to 2/1 about 8 minutes to post).

At post time they were joined by the :6: who had been as high as 9/1.
:1: 7/2
:4: 7/2
:5: 4/1
:6: 3/1

From post time forward, the late money went on the :1: and :4: with the :1: dropping to 8/5 and the :4: dropping to 3/1.

:1: 8/5
:4: 3/1
:5: 6/1
:6: 7/2

I don't keep track of these over time, but the doubles wagering in the prior race and the exacta wagering both favored the :1: and :4:.

The :1: had nothing left in the stretch and they finished
:4: :3: :5: :8:
The late money definitely came in on the :1: but it was clear that there was also heavy wagering on the :4:. I do not think the :1: was in any way an 8/5 favorite in this race. In other words, I don't think it was stupid money early on the :1: followed by smart money.

I think the actual smart money dropped in at 8 minutes to post on the 4. However, if you take a look at this chart, I've seen this double dip before that was on the :3: (Ballanchino) as it increased in odds. This is how I suspect the barn money comes in.

[thaskalos]

1. Yes, they are "more informed."

2. There is also the issue of large amounts of money being wagered by a small group of highly "informed" people.


My opinion is that roughly 1-of-every-7 dollars wagered in the U.S. originates from 6 primary and about 40 secondary sources. That's 14% of all handle!

Side note:
Consider, then, that this figure (logically) goes up at high rebate tracks and down at lower tracks. I concluded that at the highest rebate tracks 28% would not be an unreasonable pool percentage and at the low rebate tracks around 4%.

Back on track: If my figures are correct, and 73% is coming down after 0 minutes show on the tote, then about 2/5's of the money coming down late is whale money.

14% * 2 = 28% of total pool (That is, 28% of 100% of pool)

28% of 73% = 38% (at a very high rebate track)

Remember that the biggest of the whales (and perhaps some of the junior whales as well) decide who to wager based upon integrating tote models with their probabilities. In other words, they decide at 0 minutes to post what the final odds will likely be.

If they happen to be in near-total agreement on overlays and odds they wind up on the same horse(s) causing that 9/2 overlay to wind up at 6/5 (as CJ mentioned).

One more thing: Remember that there is a single, common mathematical approach being used by many of these whales. Some form of regression that pushes the high probabilities to the top. Since there is a common proliferation of data, it is logical that (to one degree or another) their models are similar, and, hence, will agree on selections often.

Everyone has seen the horse that broke back of the lead and then, just as he made his big move on the turn to blow past, his odds went WAY down. The uninitiated public thinks that the horse made his "much-the-best" move AND THEN money was bet, when, in reality, the money was bet BECAUSE the horse was DISCERNED to be much the best JUST BEFORE the gate opened.


What I found most interesting in my small/short study was the up-down-same numbers at the zero-to-low-rebate tracks.


Again, I want to offer these caveats:
1. I did this study like 4 years ago.
2. It was only a couple of hundred races over about 10 tracks over about 3 days.

This is a sample size that is so small as to be almost silly. Nevertheless, it fits what I have observed (anecdotally) very well.

We need better studies.

I wish MY "discerning" abilities were that well-developed. :)

[Dave Schwartz]

I understand that, Cj. But SRU was suggesting that those bet-down horses were sitting there at inflated odds to begin with. That 6-5 winner at TuP that you speak of...did it look 6-5 on paper?

Do you know the story about the 2 guys who are out in the woods and come across a mountain lion? One guy puts down his backpack and takes out a pair of running shoes to put on instead of boots.

The other guy says, "You don't really think you're going to outrun that mountain lion, do you?"

The first guy says, "I don;t have to outrun the mountain lion. I just have to outrun you."

My point is that the whales (or whomever) did not need to think that the horse was worth 6/5. They may have only thought the horse was worth 7/2.


Unfortunately, (maybe) so did some other whales.


On the topic of "how much..."

I cannot tell you how often I have a conversation with a guy that starts with, "I know a whale. He is a REALLY big player..." and eventually come to find out that the "really big player" wagers (say) $500 per race, spread between 2 horses several times per day.

Now, that IS a big player. Certainly bigger than me in terms of single-race bets. But that is not even within the scope of a whale.

Just consider a guy who wagers $100m per year. That is about $2m per week. That's about $400,000 per day. Now, consider that one cannot wager as much during the winter - less tracks and less handle per track. Let's view a summer day and call it $700,000 spread over (say) 15 tracks, playing (say) 7.5 races per track, and call it 4 pools (win, exacta, trifecta, the rest combined).

15 x 7.5 = 112.5 races
$700,000 / 112.5 = $6,222 per race!

$6,222 / 4 pools = $1,555 per pool.

Now, think of putting $1,555 in each win pool, 112 times per day.

You can't wager that much at MNR, so while you wager less at MNR you wager more at GP to make up for it.

Are my calculations wrong? Probably. But what difference does it make? Some wager MORE - with handles at $300m.

My point is that these players are at least 2 magnitudes above the guy known as "The Big Player."

[FocusWiz]

My point is that the whales (or whomever) did not need to think that the horse was worth 6/5. They may have only thought the horse was worth 7/2.


Unfortunately, (maybe) so did some other whales.Dave,

Not questioning your authority on this subject, but questioning how the world works. Big investors do not sit at a terminal waiting for a stock to reach a price point and then typing as quickly as they can to buy what they need before it goes up. They place a "buy" order at a price. In our world, the closest we could come would be a conditional wager. I would think the whales would work their wagers this way.

Are you saying that you think they all had wagers triggered to go in at some time based on the odds and at some odds point like 2/1 and when they all hit, they drove it down to 6/5?

Thanks for the time you've spent on this subject. I find it quite fascinating.

[Dave Schwartz]

No, I am saying that they have a staff of employees that do that for them.

[FocusWiz]

No, I am saying that they have a staff of employees that do that for them.Thanks, Dave.

That is very interesting. You picture it more like a trading floor then.

[Robert Goren]

Dave,

Not questioning your authority on this subject, but questioning how the world works. Big investors do not sit at a terminal waiting for a stock to reach a price point and then typing as quickly as they can to buy what they need before it goes up. They place a "buy" order at a price. In our world, the closest we could come would be a conditional wager. I would think the whales would work their wagers this way.

Are you saying that you think they all had wagers triggered to go in at some time based on the odds and at some odds point like 2/1 and when they all hit, they drove it down to 6/5?

Thanks for the time you've spent on this subject. I find it quite fascinating.They have a computer do it for them. It is called high frequency trading and it makes up most the trading done in day these days. There have been books written on it.

[Valuist]

I'm afraid win betting has become mostly obsolete, thanks to all the late, and real, real "late" money. Granted, multiexotics can be very frustrating with the near misses, but at least you know what you are getting going into the final leg.

[Dave Schwartz]

Granted, multiexotics can be very frustrating with the near misses, but at least you know what you are getting going into the final leg.

Not until after you've made your wager.

[Stillriledup]

That's not what I am saying. These are more than just "smart non whales who know an overlay when they see one". These are guys who can spot an overlay even when there is no sign that an overlay is present.

Perfect example of what you're talking about in Race 1 at Los Al today. The 1 and 5 figured to be the top 2 chalks based on Beyers in the 50s and 60s, but at the very last moment, the 2 horse, who has main track Beyers of: 5, 21, 36, 24, 16 and 40 get clobbered late in the betting and wins like a 1-9 shot.

I'm not sure where Katy's Plum was, that horse figured to be competitive and lost by a million lengths off a strong 3rd with a 58 Beyer.

Not sure how the 2 was the favorite, but she was and didn't show to be the favorite on paper. She was 17-1 or higher in ALL her 8 previous lifetime starts. Today, 3-2 and crushes like a good thing.

[traynor]

I must have a short attention span, or too many explanations confuse me, or both. On re-reading the posts, it seems the key point is that tracks that offer rebates should be avoided for wagering. Is that correct?

I am curious about this because I may have reached essentially the same conclusion, based on an entirely different set of premises. I apply models to tracks. Some are profitable. I bet on races at those tracks. Some are not profitable. I ignore those tracks. I never correlated the "profitability" of models with rebate programs. In fact, I never really thought about it too much, because there were too many opportunities at other tracks.

[Robert Goren]

This stuff was happening long before there was rebates, internet betting and whales.

[Stillriledup]

I must have a short attention span, or too many explanations confuse me, or both. On re-reading the posts, it seems the key point is that tracks that offer rebates should be avoided for wagering. Is that correct?

I am curious about this because I may have reached essentially the same conclusion, based on an entirely different set of premises. I apply models to tracks. Some are profitable. I bet on races at those tracks. Some are not profitable. I ignore those tracks. I never correlated the "profitability" of models with rebate programs. In fact, I never really thought about it too much, because there were too many opportunities at other tracks.

Imo, its not the rebates that are the problem, its the computer assisted wagering that makes the market much tighter. Whoever thinks that other people getting rebates is a disadvantage to them, it pales in comparison to the computers betting FOR people.

[Dave Schwartz]

I must have a short attention span, or too many explanations confuse me, or both. On re-reading the posts, it seems the key point is that tracks that offer rebates should be avoided for wagering. Is that correct?


That would agree with my findings.



I am curious about this because I may have reached essentially the same conclusion, based on an entirely different set of premises. I apply models to tracks. Some are profitable. I bet on races at those tracks. Some are not profitable. I ignore those tracks. I never correlated the "profitability" of models with rebate programs. In fact, I never really thought about it too much, because there were too many opportunities at other tracks.

Traynor, I did the same thing. It was almost an accident for me to notice the rebate-thing.

What I noticed was that after around 1pm (pacific time) I lost money. As I delved into it further, it was quite obvious that I did absolutely wonderful until around noon, slumped a little from 12-4pm and then got crushed at night.

Logically, I knew it could not have anything to do with time of day because I did relatively alright on Friday nights. That was when I started to group the tracks together by rebate. At the ends of the spectrum I had:

Group 1: SoCal, NoCal, CD, NYRA, TAM (low or zero rebate)

Group 2: MNR, TUP, CT, EVD (highest rebates)

Group 1 was easily flat-bet profitable for me, with high hit rate and low-to-medium-sized mutuels. In watching the pools saw pretty close to 40-20-40% for the up-same-down odds on the winner. This led me to believe that the pool was primarily made up of "normal" money.

Group 2 was like -30% and the only tickets I cashed were either very low odds or extreme longshots. The winner-money produced an 10-10-80% for up-same-down odds.

That was when I came up with the poker room analogy. It just made sense.

The competition is simply tougher at those tracks.

I've got to say that for me making the distinction that the night tracks (ALL are high rebates) not being beatable with a conventional strategy was the turn-around to me becoming virtually unbeatable at the window.

Not saying that the night tracks cannot be beaten but it takes a much different strategy.

[traynor]

Imo, its not the rebates that are the problem, its the computer assisted wagering that makes the market much tighter. Whoever thinks that other people getting rebates is a disadvantage to them, it pales in comparison to the computers betting FOR people.

I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I said I thought the issue of picking enough winners at prices sufficient to generate a profit should be the primary consideration, not rebates.

[traynor]

That would agree with my findings.





Traynor, I did the same thing. It was almost an accident for me to notice the rebate-thing.

What I noticed was that after around 1pm (pacific time) I lost money. As I delved into it further, it was quite obvious that I did absolutely wonderful until around noon, slumped a little from 12-4pm and then got crushed at night.

Logically, I knew it could not have anything to do with time of day because I did relatively alright on Friday nights. That was when I started to group the tracks together by rebate. At the ends of the spectrum I had:

Group 1: SoCal, NoCal, CD, NYRA, TAM (low or zero rebate)

Group 2: MNR, TUP, CT, EVD (highest rebates)

Group 1 was easily flat-bet profitable for me, with high hit rate and low-to-medium-sized mutuels. In watching the pools saw pretty close to 40-20-40% for the up-same-down odds on the winner. This led me to believe that the pool was primarily made up of "normal" money.

Group 2 was like -30% and the only tickets I cashed were either very low odds or extreme longshots. The winner-money produced an 10-10-80% for up-same-down odds.

That was when I came up with the poker room analogy. It just made sense.

The competition is simply tougher at those tracks.

I've got to say that for me making the distinction that the night tracks (ALL are high rebates) not being beatable with a conventional strategy was the turn-around to me becoming virtually unbeatable at the window.

Not saying that the night tracks cannot be beaten but it takes a much different strategy.

That is where the confusion comes in. The tracks you list are ones I would generally categorize as not worth betting, for reasons unrelated to rebates. Similarly, the tracks you list as little or no rebate are tracks that I consider much more predictable--meaning the results of races at those tracks seem to be similar to what my models suggest they should be. And when there is a wide divergence (as in a horse I think is a top contender finishing last), odds can often be used to good advantage. If a horse goes off at 30/1, there may be a good reason for it (that I don't necessarily know).

[traynor]

I've got to say that for me making the distinction that the night tracks (ALL are high rebates) not being beatable with a conventional strategy was the turn-around to me becoming virtually unbeatable at the window.

Not saying that the night tracks cannot be beaten but it takes a much different strategy.

That is a point that all would do well to heed. Different tracks require different strategies.

[Stillriledup]

That would agree with my findings.





Traynor, I did the same thing. It was almost an accident for me to notice the rebate-thing.

What I noticed was that after around 1pm (pacific time) I lost money. As I delved into it further, it was quite obvious that I did absolutely wonderful until around noon, slumped a little from 12-4pm and then got crushed at night.

Logically, I knew it could not have anything to do with time of day because I did relatively alright on Friday nights. That was when I started to group the tracks together by rebate. At the ends of the spectrum I had:

Group 1: SoCal, NoCal, CD, NYRA, TAM (low or zero rebate)

Group 2: MNR, TUP, CT, EVD (highest rebates)

Group 1 was easily flat-bet profitable for me, with high hit rate and low-to-medium-sized mutuels. In watching the pools saw pretty close to 40-20-40% for the up-same-down odds on the winner. This led me to believe that the pool was primarily made up of "normal" money.

Group 2 was like -30% and the only tickets I cashed were either very low odds or extreme longshots. The winner-money produced an 10-10-80% for up-same-down odds.

That was when I came up with the poker room analogy. It just made sense.

The competition is simply tougher at those tracks.

I've got to say that for me making the distinction that the night tracks (ALL are high rebates) not being beatable with a conventional strategy was the turn-around to me becoming virtually unbeatable at the window.

Not saying that the night tracks cannot be beaten but it takes a much different strategy.

I'm completely the opposite, the A tracks i struggle with and those B tracks, i'm better. I think the A tracks are more speed favoring in general, the B tracks have more "Fair" surfaces, and i'm not a speed handicapper, i'm the guy looking for the speed to fall apart and the price horses to swoop up. There's less 'swooping' at Gulf, SA, etc. and more swooping at Mountain, CT, Parx, Laurel and Penn.

[Valuist]

Not until after you've made your wager.

I understand. But at least the payoff isn't going to change 3 furlongs into the last leg.

[Dave Schwartz]

Ah... Now I get it. Very good point Valuist.

[traynor]

What you describe here is not a simple task.

In the past, I had written a live odds feed retriever trying to detect patterns related to price movements trying to detect the closing. I was only considering odds while ignoring anything else like trainer, owner, or the overall profile of each horse.

I have to admit that this exercise was proven to be a fruitless project, convincing me to abandon the idea that I can come up with this kind of a final price predictor.

Out of curiosity, did you ever try to layer it by track, or by track groups? One of the most useful patterns I have seen (and described in detail in other posts) is that at certain tracks, there seems to be a continuous feed of wagers (rather than a dump at the end) that keep a particular entry close to even money, rarely higher than 2/1. It seems almost as if betting is being fed into the pools in a manner that discourages late money. That is, the "value bettors" who might otherwise dilute the pools with last minute wagers either pass the race or bet on other entries offering "better value."

It would be less interesting if it were not for the fact that such entries win a very large percentage of their races--much more so than "normal"--and provide a healthy ROI as a result.

You may find it more interesting (and possibly rewarding) to track the wagering patterns over a larger span of time, broken down by track. One of the odd things about that particular scenario is that the final odds are usually close to even money--the opposite of what one would expect with last minute wagers by serious bettors. When the odds take a sudden drop at the last minute to less than 3/5 (0 MTP), the win rate plummets. In short, the complete opposite of what one would expect of "smart money betting on a sure thing."

Of course, that is only my opinion, and I have no interest in "proving" it. If you have the software already, locating such a pattern should be relatively trivial, if you layer by track, and/or by open races for winners, rather than races carded for non-winners.

[Stillriledup]

Out of curiosity, did you ever try to layer it by track, or by track groups? One of the most useful patterns I have seen (and described in detail in other posts) is that at certain tracks, there seems to be a continuous feed of wagers (rather than a dump at the end) that keep a particular entry close to even money, rarely higher than 2/1. It seems almost as if betting is being fed into the pools in a manner that discourages late money. That is, the "value bettors" who might otherwise dilute the pools with last minute wagers either pass the race or bet on other entries offering "better value."

It would be less interesting if it were not for the fact that such entries win a very large percentage of their races--much more so than "normal"--and provide a healthy ROI as a result.

You may find it more interesting (and possibly rewarding) to track the wagering patterns over a larger span of time, broken down by track. One of the odd things about that particular scenario is that the final odds are usually close to even money--the opposite of what one would expect with last minute wagers by serious bettors. When the odds take a sudden drop at the last minute to less than 3/5 (0 MTP), the win rate plummets. In short, the complete opposite of what one would expect of "smart money betting on a sure thing."

Of course, that is only my opinion, and I have no interest in "proving" it. If you have the software already, locating such a pattern should be relatively trivial, if you layer by track, and/or by open races for winners, rather than races carded for non-winners.

In order for the largest bettors in the game to get the "proper amount" on a horse to win and not win too much of their own money, they have to keep the horse they like at market value or below....if that horse who SHOULD be 1-1 drifts to 8-5 at the gate load, there's a shot the horse could go lower than 1-1.

If a big bettor wants 10k to win on a horse who figures to close at around 1-1, he can start betting 1k to win each flash starting at 8 or 9 MTP (depending on the track and their propensity to not start the race at 0 MTP) as opposed to sinking the entire 10k to win as the last horse is loading.

He's much better off dripping and drabbing the cash rather than taking a huge chunk at the end.

[Robert Goren]

In order for the largest bettors in the game to get the "proper amount" on a horse to win and not win too much of their own money, they have to keep the horse they like at market value or below....if that horse who SHOULD be 1-1 drifts to 8-5 at the gate load, there's a shot the horse could go lower than 1-1.

If a big bettor wants 10k to win on a horse who figures to close at around 1-1, he can start betting 1k to win each flash starting at 8 or 9 MTP (depending on the track and their propensity to not start the race at 0 MTP) as opposed to sinking the entire 10k to win as the last horse is loading.

He's much better off dripping and drabbing the cash rather than taking a huge chunk at the end.The pools these days are very shallow until about 4MTP. He would be tipping his hand by betting at 8MTP. At some tracks and on some races money doesn't start to roll in until almost post time. For instance 2yo maiden races with a lot of firsters are unlikely to get much action until very late especially at tracks with small handles. If you have not watched pool sizes as the MTPs decrease, you are in for a real education. The % of the final pool that does not show up until the race has started is very high. We don't have numbers for the pre-simulcast days, but I suspect that was always true at least on weekdays. Weekends always presented the prospect of being shut out so people bet a little earlier. Now days if you are sitting in front of your computer and are able to watch the horses load live, there is no reason to bet before the last possible second hoping to catch one more flash. There is no way to get almost of the money in before you bet. You will be always be guessing on what the final odds will be.

[JohnGalt1]

The pools these days are very shallow until about 4MTP. He would be tipping his hand by betting at 8MTP. At some tracks and on some races money doesn't start to roll in until almost post time. For instance 2yo maiden races with a lot of firsters are unlikely to get much action until very late especially at tracks with small handles. If you have not watched pool sizes as the MTPs decrease, you are in for a real education. The % of the final pool that does not show up until the race has started is very high. We don't have numbers for the pre-simulcast days, but I suspect that was always true at least on weekdays. Weekends always presented the prospect of being shut out so people bet a little earlier. Now days if you are sitting in front of your computer and are able to watch the horses load live, there is no reason to bet before the last possible second hoping to catch one more flash. There is no way to get almost of the money in before you bet. You will be always be guessing on what the final odds will be.


Isn't this because the simulcast and ADW facilities transfer their bets in late so that 75% of the money is shown the last 3 minutes before post time?

[JohnGalt1]

I have to disagree.

About 75% of my bets are win bets. I avoid losing streaks this way.

If you look at pool totals for almost all races, exactas have more money, win bets second, and I would guess trifecta bets third.

Another reason for my high percentage if win betting is the proliferation of $.20 minimums and jackpot bets.

I love tracks like Hawthorne. But since they instituted $.20 jackpot pick sixes and $.20 minimum exotics my handle has gone down, but I will make my win bets.

Of the last 10 days I bet horses, some days I played more than one track, 8 were profitable.

That would not be the case if I only played pick fours or trifectas.

[barn32]

My opinion is that roughly 1-of-every-7 dollars wagered in the U.S. originates from 6 primary and about 40 secondary sources. That's 14% of all handle!

Side note:
Consider, then, that this figure (logically) goes up at high rebate tracks and down at lower tracks. I concluded that at the highest rebate tracks 28% would not be an unreasonable pool percentage and at the low rebate tracks around 4%.

At what point would the higher odds at the low rebate track more than compensate for the higher rebate?

And wouldn't the whales also notice this phenomenon and pounce on it?

Ex:

Track A No rebate
Track B 7% rebate

Horse #1, Track A, 0 MTP 3-1 (goes off at 5/2)
Horse #1, Track B, 0 MTP 3-1 (Goes off at 6/5)

It's true they couldn't bet as much money as they are normally accustomed to, but at some point getting 5/2 (or close to it) has to compensate or surpass a 7% rebate...no?

Betting $1500 to win at 6/5 with a 7% rebate nets you about $1905.
Betting $500 to win at 2/1 with no rebate nets you $1000. You won almost half but you only had to risk 1/3 as much.

[DeltaLover]

Out of curiosity, did you ever try to layer it by track, or by track groups? One of the most useful patterns I have seen (and described in detail in other posts) is that at certain tracks, there seems to be a continuous feed of wagers (rather than a dump at the end) that keep a particular entry close to even money, rarely higher than 2/1. It seems almost as if betting is being fed into the pools in a manner that discourages late money. That is, the "value bettors" who might otherwise dilute the pools with last minute wagers either pass the race or bet on other entries offering "better value."

It would be less interesting if it were not for the fact that such entries win a very large percentage of their races--much more so than "normal"--and provide a healthy ROI as a result.

You may find it more interesting (and possibly rewarding) to track the wagering patterns over a larger span of time, broken down by track. One of the odd things about that particular scenario is that the final odds are usually close to even money--the opposite of what one would expect with last minute wagers by serious bettors. When the odds take a sudden drop at the last minute to less than 3/5 (0 MTP), the win rate plummets. In short, the complete opposite of what one would expect of "smart money betting on a sure thing."

Of course, that is only my opinion, and I have no interest in "proving" it. If you have the software already, locating such a pattern should be relatively trivial, if you layer by track, and/or by open races for winners, rather than races carded for non-winners.

Since I always try to avoid betting many tracks, I had limited my research only to AQU and Tampa which were running by the time I was conducting my experiments.

Again, I was not able to find any kind of logic or pattern, to predict with significant accuracy the direction of the late money and simply gave up on the idea.

[barn32]

Let me tell you what I think: It isn't just the "whales" who are taking over after the 0 MTP mark at the minor tracks. It's the too-late betting insiders too...who are mimicking those mysterious whales.

I have been doing my own research into these very late adds dropdowns...and these horses often do not warrant the late action that they get. The guys who are making these bets possess more than the normal handicapping information that the rest of us have access to.

Forgive me if I am overly paranoid here...but I don't think that the whales are solely responsible for this late-late betting phenomenon.If we eliminate the whales from the above analysis, then who exactly are the informed late bettors? Are they trainers? Owners? Jockeys?

In my experience, knowing a lot of the above kinds of "racetrackers," and with only few exceptions, they are some of the worst gamblers out there. Oh sure, they make some scores from time to time, but they blow a lot too--especially jockeys.

Aside from maybe some owners, the trainers, jockeys, grooms and backsiders aren't all that big of bettors anyway. Perhaps collectively they might add up to a significant amount, but individually I'm not so sure.

[And speaking of owners: many if not most of them have a tendency to fall in love with their own horses.]

And how often are these "insiders" right? The evidence presented in this thread suggests (at least to me) that the informed late money is right a very high percentage of the time.

Take the case of the 9/2 horse going off at 6/5 and winning in hand. This example could very well be insiders (racetrackers) taking advantage of a horse they know is ready to pop. But if that's true, then you have to take into consideration all 9/2 horses going off at 6/5 and computing their win percentage. If all of these types of dropdowns win a high percentage of the time then you have something to hang your hat on. If just some of them win from time to time, not so much.

[Dave Schwartz]

At what point would the higher odds at the low rebate track more than compensate for the higher rebate?

And wouldn't the whales also notice this phenomenon and pounce on it?

I have no idea.


If we eliminate the whales from the above analysis, then who exactly are the informed late bettors? Are they trainers? Owners? Jockeys?

Asch and Quandt wrote about this back in 1986 or so.

They showed (at a single meet at one track - LOL - ATL, BTW) that people who wager in the last 5 minutes get better results (based upon the tote board money wagered). IOW, the supposition was that later bettors are smarter.

[traynor]

In order for the largest bettors in the game to get the "proper amount" on a horse to win and not win too much of their own money, they have to keep the horse they like at market value or below....if that horse who SHOULD be 1-1 drifts to 8-5 at the gate load, there's a shot the horse could go lower than 1-1.

If a big bettor wants 10k to win on a horse who figures to close at around 1-1, he can start betting 1k to win each flash starting at 8 or 9 MTP (depending on the track and their propensity to not start the race at 0 MTP) as opposed to sinking the entire 10k to win as the last horse is loading.

He's much better off dripping and drabbing the cash rather than taking a huge chunk at the end.

I agree. I think it is unwise to believe that "whales" betting millions at a crack sit poised with fingers on the Bet Now button with wagers contingent on "available odds." The whales create the odds--not respond to them. The more they expose their selections via last minute dumps, the less value those selections have. The more of their money they can get down on a high-probability winner without attracting chump money chasing the rainbow of "following insider betting trends" the more value those selections have.

The ideal situation is one in which every winning wager on a given horse (that wins) is made by the whale.

[traynor]

Since I always try to avoid betting many tracks, I had limited my research only to AQU and Tampa which were running by the time I was conducting my experiments.

Again, I was not able to find any kind of logic or pattern, to predict with significant accuracy the direction of the late money and simply gave up on the idea.

Two suggestions. First, there are fairly distinct categories of "more predictable" races and "less predictable" races, usually based on race conditions. The greater the tendency of conditions to favor non-winners (in general) the less predictable the race. And the less likely it is that there will be correlations between "smart money" and race results.

Second, comparisons of near-post time odds, post time odds, and final odds. Most people are followers--they tend to overbet low-odds entries on the (usually correct) assumption that others know more than they do. However correct, that assumption does not guarantee those others know which horse will win--the rather dismal performance of odds-on favorites should be a warning sign of the futility of such wagers.

[traynor]

If we eliminate the whales from the above analysis, then who exactly are the informed late bettors? Are they trainers? Owners? Jockeys?

In my experience, knowing a lot of the above kinds of "racetrackers," and with only few exceptions, they are some of the worst gamblers out there. Oh sure, they make some scores from time to time, but they blow a lot too--especially jockeys.

Aside from maybe some owners, the trainers, jockeys, grooms and backsiders aren't all that big of bettors anyway. Perhaps collectively they might add up to a significant amount, but individually I'm not so sure.

[And speaking of owners: many if not most of them have a tendency to fall in love with their own horses.]

And how often are these "insiders" right? The evidence presented in this thread suggests (at least to me) that the informed late money is right a very high percentage of the time.

Take the case of the 9/2 horse going off at 6/5 and winning in hand. This example could very well be insiders (racetrackers) taking advantage of a horse they know is ready to pop. But if that's true, then you have to take into consideration all 9/2 horses going off at 6/5 and computing their win percentage. If all of these types of dropdowns win a high percentage of the time then you have something to hang your hat on. If just some of them win from time to time, not so much.

That is the point at which human psychology dictates actions, rather than reality. If one believes in a given premise, results that seem to validate that premise will be strongly remembered, while results that conflict with the premise will be easily (and routinely) forgotten. Those wagering from "experience" rather than solid research are the most subject to such distortions.

The actual probabilities of various categories of final odds entries winning seems to be one of the most avoided areas of research--probably because it conflicts with some of the most cherished beliefs of bettors.

[Robert Goren]

If we eliminate the whales from the above analysis, then who exactly are the informed late bettors? Are they trainers? Owners? Jockeys?

In my experience, knowing a lot of the above kinds of "racetrackers," and with only few exceptions, they are some of the worst gamblers out there. Oh sure, they make some scores from time to time, but they blow a lot too--especially jockeys.

Aside from maybe some owners, the trainers, jockeys, grooms and backsiders aren't all that big of bettors anyway. Perhaps collectively they might add up to a significant amount, but individually I'm not so sure.

[And speaking of owners: many if not most of them have a tendency to fall in love with their own horses.]

And how often are these "insiders" right? The evidence presented in this thread suggests (at least to me) that the informed late money is right a very high percentage of the time.

Take the case of the 9/2 horse going off at 6/5 and winning in hand. This example could very well be insiders (racetrackers) taking advantage of a horse they know is ready to pop. But if that's true, then you have to take into consideration all 9/2 horses going off at 6/5 and computing their win percentage. If all of these types of dropdowns win a high percentage of the time then you have something to hang your hat on. If just some of them win from time to time, not so much.Is this based on tips you got from them? They do not tell outsiders squat. Big money from the backstretch almost always wins. How to tell if it is backstretch money or just some fool who has too much money is another story.

[traynor]

Is this based on tips you got from them? They do not tell outsiders squat. Big money from the backstretch almost always wins. How to tell if it is backstretch money or just some fool who has too much money is another story.

The question would then be, how do you know this to be true? It may be, but how could you (or anyone else) ever really know?

[barn32]

Is this based on tips you got from them? They do not tell outsiders squat. Big money from the backstretch almost always wins. How to tell if it is backstretch money or just some fool who has too much money is another story.Finally, after 70 posts we have gotten to the bottom of things.

Now, if I want to be successful playing the horses, all I have to do is to follow the strategy my best friend used back in the 70s...follow the trainers to the windows.

[Robert Goren]

Finally, after 70 posts we have gotten to the bottom of things.

Now, if I want to be successful playing the horses, all I have to do is to follow the strategy my best friend used back in the 70s...follow the trainers to the windows.That didn't work in the 70s and it won't work now because when the big money is bet, the trainer has somebody else do it for him. My dad was one of those people for a while for a trainer in the late 1960s. That ended when a couple people got wise and started following my dad to the window. Of course the people on the other side of the glass figured it almost immediately.
My rule has always been if you see trainer anyplace near a window, you can scratch that horse off of your possible wagers. He is making a small bet for the jockey or the owner just in case 5 horse go down and his horse wins. $20 across the board or $50 win tickets used to popular amounts for those types of bets. I know this because I was a teller for a while many, many years ago. I also hung out on the backstretch some because my dad was close friends with a few trainers.