How do the Europeans Handicap?

[Capper Al]

What I'd like to know is how do Europeans handicap with the limited information that they have in the Racing Post or Racing Times? And if the public there hits 33%+ winners like they do in North America. This thread is open for those in the know to fill the rest of us in.

Thanks

[DeltaLover]

What I'd like to know is how do Europeans handicap with the limited information that they have in the Racing Post or Racing Times? And if the public there hits 33%+ winners like they do in North America. This thread is open for those in the know to fill the rest of us in.

Thanks


I cannot speak of the Euros in general but I can write a whole book about how handicapping was done in Greece, years ago when there was no Tote board or any kind of electronic data..

Back then, we used to know the majority of the horse by their names, and some of us even knew their breeding by hard.

The horse who was going to take the early lead, was known to every one and it was also written in the program as the faster horse. We were well aware about how fast or heavy the track was and the daily program was expressing the 'speed' of the track, in seconds (for example faster by 1.5 sec)...

We had relatively few distances (1000m, 1400m 1800m and 2400m) and only dirt.. We had very detailed workout tabs, including the jockey, time and even company (if was available).. The programs were reporting the final time of each starter (and not only the winner of the race) using an electronic timer.

Steward reports were publicly available in the end of every racing day.

A horse that happened to finish less than fifth without a reported excuse, was not allowed to win a race before a mandatory lay-off of 20 days. In the opposite case, there was an investigation and possible penalties. There were no claiming races at all and up to three years old they were running in conditions like N1L, N2L etc and later they were added to a global handicap, divided in six classes... The horse was going up and down in class based in number of loses and winners ( I think this is similar to an Australian system)...

Fillies were regularly running against males..

Favourites were winning at a 33% rate..

All races had WIN PLACE EXACTA QUINELLA DOUBLE and TWIN QUINELLA (which was the most exotic bet of the time)...

It was very common to place a bet in the day before (and even more than this)..

Also we used to bet with (illegal) bookmakers, who were offering IF bets, that were very common... For example: Give me 1000 drachmas to win of the five in the first and 50% of the winnings bet them on the third exacta 3X2 and the rest 50% on the last double 2X3...

[BlueChip@DRF]

Also we used to bet with (illegal) bookmakers, who were offering IF bets, that were very common... For example: Give me 1000 drachmas to win of the five in the first and 50% of the winnings bet them on the third exacta 3X2 and the rest 50% on the last double 2X3...


Oooooh! Advanced parlay!

[DeltaLover]

Oooooh! Advanced parlay!

We used to do this every day...

[Capper Al]

Interesting that favorites still won 33% of the time.

[Capper Al]

Since the Euro's don't have speed figures. They have Timeform which is class and speed together. The Euro's don't have class figures. They probably use earnings per start instead. The Euro's don't have workouts. The Euro public probably focuses on finish last race like our public. And the Euro's do seem to be big on the connections.

The point here is without workouts, without speed figs, and without pace figs- the Euro public does just as well as our public. So might we be able to dismiss speed figs, workouts, and pace figs also? It seems so since the public win rate is about the same.

[DeltaLover]

Since the Euro's don't have speed figures. They have Timeform which is class and speed together. The Euro's don't have class figures. They probably use earnings per start instead. The Euro's don't have workouts. The Euro public probably focuses on finish last race like our public. And the Euro's do seem to be big on the connections.

The point here is without workouts, without speed figs, and without pace figs- the Euro public does just as well as our public. So might we be able to dismiss speed figs, workouts, and pace figs also? It seems so since the public win rate is about the same.

The whole point is that horse betting is a competition among horse bettors each of them trying to do the best, utilizing the existing information. As we already know very well, whenever some piece of information finds its way to the wide betting public, it is eventually incorporated to the crowd's consensus loosing any value that might present to its original inventor

[DeltaLover]

Interesting that favorites still won 33% of the time.

I am a firm believer, that even though we did not have the notion of a speed figure, the way we were handicapping back then, as I have described it above, was more predictive than how we do it today. This was happening due to the small population, the limited number of distances and the transparency of medical and training records

[cj]

Since the Euro's don't have speed figures. They have Timeform which is class and speed together. The Euro's don't have class figures. They probably use earnings per start instead. The Euro's don't have workouts. The Euro public probably focuses on finish last race like our public. And the Euro's do seem to be big on the connections.

The point here is without workouts, without speed figs, and without pace figs- the Euro public does just as well as our public. So might we be able to dismiss speed figs, workouts, and pace figs also? It seems so since the public win rate is about the same.

Euro's have speed figures. There are speed figures published in Timeform (Timefigures) and Racing Post (Topspeed) and there are other sources available that are very good. http://www.speedratings.com/ is one example.

[Tom]

Sectional times are available for some tracks as well.
Doesn't BRIS do class figs for the Euros?

[Capper Al]

Sectional times are available for some tracks as well.
Doesn't BRIS do class figs for the Euros?

I know they do on North America PPs for shippers. I don't know if the Euro Racing Forms do.

[Capper Al]

Euro's have speed figures. There are speed figures published in Timeform (Timefigures) and Racing Post (Topspeed) and there are other sources available that are very good. http://www.speedratings.com/ is one example.

Do they carry these in the Racing Forms by pp line? I understand that there are vendors that sell fractional times and speed figs separate from the Racing Forms.

[jfdinneen]

Capper Al,

As a handicapper of Euro races, I look for events in England, France, and Ireland (Grade 1 Horse-Racing Countries) with a high degree of chaos (I have entropy scores for all race-types). From this initial list, I have selected seven race-types that I focus on exclusively. Because of the high level of uncertainty in these races, the market (wisdom of crowds) is a less successful predictor. With a Bayesian-based, Elo-Class algorithm, I generate my own performance figures. Using the performance figures for all entrants in a chosen race, I run a Monte-Carlo simulation of 1000 races that automatically generates a realistic odds-line as final output. Critically, as long as there is at least one overlay (almost always) in the chosen race, I finally run a Haigh-like Kelly-variant algorithm that selects the final contenders. (As I have stated elsewhere, this list may include both overlays and underlays).

John

[cj]

Do they carry these in the Racing Forms by pp line? I understand that there are vendors that sell fractional times and speed figs separate from the Racing Forms.

It has been a few years since I saw a paper version of Euro PPs, but when I did Timeform had Timefigures and Racing Post had Topspeed included for each race.

[whodoyoulike]

Since the Euro's don't have speed figures. They have Timeform which is class and speed together. The Euro's don't have class figures. They probably use earnings per start instead. The Euro's don't have workouts. The Euro public probably focuses on finish last race like our public. And the Euro's do seem to be big on the connections.

The point here is without workouts, without speed figs, and without pace figs- the Euro public does just as well as our public. So might we be able to dismiss speed figs, workouts, and pace figs also? It seems so since the public win rate is about the same.

I don't understand why you would conclude the 2nd to last sentence of dismissing speed figs etc.

I also find it odd the favorites win 33%. Didn't someone else mention that in England 33% was common?

I wonder why that happens.

Does anyone have stats for HK, Japan or Australia?

[Some_One]

I don't understand why you would conclude the 2nd to last sentence of dismissing speed figs etc.

I also find it odd the favorites win 33%. Didn't someone else mention that in England 33% was common?

I wonder why that happens.

Does anyone have stats for HK, Japan or Australia?

32% in HK (remember larger field size)
http://racing.scmp.com/freeservice/news/news20140625b.asp

[whodoyoulike]

Thanks Some_One.

This 33% winning favorite rate is really odd to me. The HK larger field size makes me wonder why this occurs even more. Anyone have a theory why this is normal? I never realized it was a universal truth.

[Capper Al]

Capper Al,

As a handicapper of Euro races, I look for events in England, France, and Ireland (Grade 1 Horse-Racing Countries) with a high degree of chaos (I have entropy scores for all race-types). From this initial list, I have selected seven race-types that I focus on exclusively. Because of the high level of uncertainty in these races, the market (wisdom of crowds) is a less successful predictor. With a Bayesian-based, Elo-Class algorithm, I generate my own performance figures. Using the performance figures for all entrants in a chosen race, I run a Monte-Carlo simulation of 1000 races that automatically generates a realistic odds-line as final output. Critically, as long as there is at least one overlay (almost always) in the chosen race, I finally run a Haigh-like Kelly-variant algorithm that selects the final contenders. (As I have stated elsewhere, this list may include both overlays and underlays).

John

What? Over my head. I would understand that you made your class or speed figures. But this scenario, I'm clueless. Thanks anyway.

[Capper Al]

I don't understand why you would conclude the 2nd to last sentence of dismissing speed figs etc.

I also find it odd the favorites win 33%. Didn't someone else mention that in England 33% was common?

I wonder why that happens.

Does anyone have stats for HK, Japan or Australia?

It's a big world out there. The Euros hitting 33!% is actually better than us since their average field size is larger. All this without speed or pace?

[Capper Al]

32% in HK (remember larger field size)
http://racing.scmp.com/freeservice/news/news20140625b.asp

Absolutely, the larger field size. What type of information do they use?

[Capper Al]

Thanks Some_One.

This 33% winning favorite rate is really odd to me. The HK larger field size makes me wonder why this occurs even more. Anyone have a theory why this is normal? I never realized it was a universal truth.

Of course, I'm guessing. But I believe the public universally uses

Morning line
jockey
Finish last race
post and trainer somewhat, but not as much as the three above.

I'm thinking this combination gives the public their 33%. Do the rest of us with speed, class, and pace do any better? I don't think so.

[BlueChip@DRF]

What I'd like to know is how do Europeans handicap with the limited information that they have in the Racing Post or Racing Times? And if the public there hits 33%+ winners like they do in North America. This thread is open for those in the know to fill the rest of us in.

Thanks

Probably in the dark like everyone else.

[castaway01]

Thanks Some_One.

This 33% winning favorite rate is really odd to me. The HK larger field size makes me wonder why this occurs even more. Anyone have a theory why this is normal? I never realized it was a universal truth.

It's quite a bit higher than 33% in the United States now.

[Profiler8]

Hi,

I do not post a lot, but this topic interests me. :-)

I live in Germany and I began betting the races in France, because there is and was a lot more information available in France. Since some years, I only bet on US races. In the last few days, I had a little bit of time in the afternoons, so I bet some French races. Ten Years ago, I was so confused from the information in the US (too much). Now, I am confused from the French races, because there is so less information available in relation to the US. No speed ratings, no pace shapes, no good comments (only on Paris-Turf), many shippers from different countries etc.... Nearly all the races are won by closers. Many players make their selections, because a good trainer or jockey form. There is also no good software available.

Conclusion: I only bet US races.

[BIG49010]

I believe physicality is very big in Euro handicapping, and the few times I have looked at the Timeform UK, it seemed to be a big part of the notes they gave on the horses.

[HuggingTheRail]

I watch the Australian races often - the commentators often mention things like "the trainer has reported that this horse will be raced more forwardly today" - find that to be interesting....does that help the public land on more winners?

[Profiler8]

Yes, in the UK some services of raceforms uses US methods (Pace and Speed) as well. They calculate Speed Points.

[whodoyoulike]

It's quite a bit higher than 33% in the United States now.

Yes, I know. But, the 33% has been a commonly accepted % for years in the U.S. I've recently seen reports in the upper 30's (maybe from this PA site) which I think is the direct result of field sizes being smaller. I would think in a two horse race the fav would win closer to 50%. Conversely, I would expect larger fields would result in favs winning at a lower %.

I recall ReplayRandall suggested the similar percentages was the result of people will always bet "value" which I agree. I just find this odd.

[Bullet Plane]

There is more emphasis on Trainer form, going, distance, course, and draw, in UK racing.

The racetracks in the US are, for the most part, all LH one mile ovals.

We have sectional timing, they don't.

Although, they also have speed figures, we emphasis them more in the States.

We generally have less to distinguish our tracks. So, because they are all the same, you need something to separate the horses out... speed figures are more necessary here for that reason.

That's my take on it.

[Capper Al]

The fact is that outside the US and Canada, favorites come in at similar rates. Does this disqualify all the extra information that is used in North America as unnecessary?

[OTM Al]

Class handicapping is my main tool. Figure out who fits the race best and toss the rest. If you can narrow it down well, then make the bet. I actually enjoy it more than US racing.

[horses4courses]

The fact is that outside the US and Canada, favorites come in at similar rates. Does this disqualify all the extra information that is used in North America as unnecessary?

No.
Is some of it overkill?
Very likely.

There are not 2 racetracks in the UK, Ireland, or France
that are identical in contour, shape, or surface.
Some right handed, some left. Some uphill, some down.
Even if you just stick to one track there, the condition of
the turf can vary widely from one race day to another.

So many more variables at their biggest tracks than in the US.
The tracks with the most constants are their artificial surface tracks.
That's where you get some uniformity.

[horses4courses]

Class handicapping is my main tool. Figure out who fits the race best and toss the rest. If you can narrow it down well, then make the bet. I actually enjoy it more than US racing.

I enjoy the racing there, too.
The problem for me is the large takeout.
Horses are regularly paying 10-40% lower than returned odds over there.
Makes it too tough.

[cj]

The fact is that outside the US and Canada, favorites come in at similar rates. Does this disqualify all the extra information that is used in North America as unnecessary?

As many have tried to tell you, there really isn't a lot of extra information. I would say those in Hong Kong and Japan actually have MORE information.

[classhandicapper]

I have been going back and forth between comparative class handicapping and using pace/speed figures for years. I've noticed very little difference in my results other than coming up with different winners on occasions.

I've been trying to combine them to produce optimal results for decades.

Right now I am in the early stages of studying it more formerly. So far my basic class ratings are outperforming final time speed figures very slightly both in win% and ROI. I don't know if that will last, but they will clearly be close. I've made very little progress combining them to get much better result. At least not enough progress to be certain of anything. All I can tell you is that when they agree, the horses are iron. The prices also plummet. :lol:

I think both methods are valid and both have some flaws. In the end a good set of speed figures works well and good classing techniques will work well. I think the The Euros tend to be more comparative class oriented and do just fine.

[Capper Al]

I have been going back and forth between comparative class handicapping and using pace/speed figures for years. I've noticed very little difference in my results other than coming up with different winners on occasions.

I've been trying to combine them to produce optimal results for decades.

Right now I am in the early stages of studying it more formerly. So far my basic class ratings are outperforming final time speed figures very slightly both in win% and ROI. I don't know if that will last, but they will clearly be close. I've made very little progress combining them to get much better result. At least not enough progress to be certain of anything. All I can tell you is that when they agree, the horses are iron. The prices also plummet. :lol:

I think both methods are valid and both have some flaws. In the end a good set of speed figures works well and good classing techniques will work well. I think the The Euros tend to be more comparative class oriented and do just fine.

It appears that way. Are your class figs speed based or dollar based?

[classhandicapper]

It appears that way. Are your class figs speed based or dollar based?

I assign a numerical value for each class level.

[Capper Al]

I assign a numerical value for each class level.

Have you tried BRIS' Race Rating, a.k.a RR?

[classhandicapper]

Have you tried BRIS' Race Rating, a.k.a RR?

I haven't looked at their ratings but I always read the threads on the subject.

[Krudler]

Class handicappi[IMG]ng is my main tool. Figure out who fits the race best and toss the rest. If you can narrow it down well, then make the bet. I actually enjoy it more than US racing.

Mark Cramer's latest book, [B]Handicapping on the Road[/B, focuses primarily on handicapping in France during the author's 2010 cycling trip around that country. He presents a class and trainer based system to determine "who fits the race best". It's a compelling read that details a methodology applicable to racing in North America, as well.

I find the Short Form particularly useful in determining playable races - races in which 1/2 or more of the horses don't meet one or both of the class or trainer criteria.

You can find details on the book here at the Altiplano Publcations (http://www.altiplanopublications.com/ontheroad.htm) website.

Krudler

[romankoz]

Hi all,
This is my first post to the site. I am from Australia.

In Australia the win percentage for favourites is also around the 30% figure. Naturally, it will differ from year to year but seldom by anything more than 5% which I would suspect is the same world wide.

It is a statistic that amazes me and I have been betting for close to fifty years. When I started betting we never had beaten margins on horses that finished fifth or worse yet the figures were about the same as they are now when every breath a horse takes seems to be measured by someone somehow.

I noticed some discussion re the elimination of false favourites being the "secret" to successful betting and, of course, it is so. However, as was stated you must have a track record which suggests you know what you are talking about when it comes to eliminating favourites. It is especially true if you lay them on Betfair. The 2/1 starting price favourite with our bookmakers needs to be layed close to 5/2 on Betfair which means you need the 2/1 favourite to be winning at 27% or less to profit for starters and then you also need to factor in their 6.5% take on your profit if you are correct.

To my way of thinking you must know how to treat favourites. In some races they are excellent bets, in others awful and in others somewhere in between. The ones that bother me are the in between ones.

If you have any questions on Australian horseracing just ask.

[traynor]

Hi all,
This is my first post to the site. I am from Australia.

In Australia the win percentage for favourites is also around the 30% figure. Naturally, it will differ from year to year but seldom by anything more than 5% which I would suspect is the same world wide.

It is a statistic that amazes me and I have been betting for close to fifty years. When I started betting we never had beaten margins on horses that finished fifth or worse yet the figures were about the same as they are now when every breath a horse takes seems to be measured by someone somehow.

I noticed some discussion re the elimination of false favourites being the "secret" to successful betting and, of course, it is so. However, as was stated you must have a track record which suggests you know what you are talking about when it comes to eliminating favourites. It is especially true if you lay them on Betfair. The 2/1 starting price favourite with our bookmakers needs to be layed close to 5/2 on Betfair which means you need the 2/1 favourite to be winning at 27% or less to profit for starters and then you also need to factor in their 6.5% take on your profit if you are correct.

To my way of thinking you must know how to treat favourites. In some races they are excellent bets, in others awful and in others somewhere in between. The ones that bother me are the in between ones.

If you have any questions on Australian horseracing just ask.

What is the best current source (public, private, or otherwise) for past performances with internal fractions (position and beaten lengths at specific points) with times for those fractions?

[traynor]

What criteria do you use to determine whether a horse is a legitimate favorite/contender or a "false" favorite/contender?

[romankoz]

Hi Traynor,
Google Vince Accardi His site/service is at www.dailysectionals.com

If you can find any podcast from him via rsn.net.au (try this site and see if you can find him).

If you can listen he will amaze you with the apparent depth of how he delves into times.

I typed "where to find sectionals for victorian horseracing" into Google. Some options elsewhere.

www.trackdata.com.au/RaceSectionals.aspSectional Times (Pay), Racing & Sports (Free), Fagan's Service (Pay). AUSTRALIA. A Bettor Edge (Pay). Australian Turf Club (Free), Sky Racing (Free) ...

racingandsports.com.au
skyracing.com.au

Looks like they have something. I am not a times man so am a tad vague but Vince Accardi stands out in Oz as long as you don't mind paying a bit.

Hope this helps

I think racing.com have sectionals as part of their results service. Logging on is a bit clunky

[romankoz]

My biggest query about a favourite starts at ability at this distance at this class.

From there it's ability first run (first up) from a break at this class.

Quite often you see a well fancied runner at say 3/1 or less that causes immediate concern when violating the above.

From there a race map helps as I try to determine where the horse will be in the run and whether a slow early pace makes the difference for a mid fielder or get back type or whether a wide barrier with inside speed worries me.

From there track conditions and track layout are gimmes with individuality of each horse paramount.

This gets me started.

[traynor]

Hi Traynor,
Google Vince Accardi His site/service is at www.dailysectionals.com (http://www.dailysectionals.com)

If you can find any podcast from him via rsn.net.au (try this site and see if you can find him).

If you can listen he will amaze you with the apparent depth of how he delves into times.

I typed "where to find sectionals for victorian horseracing" into Google. Some options elsewhere.

www.trackdata.com (http://www.trackdata.com).au/RaceSectionals.aspSectional Times (Pay), Racing & Sports (Free), Fagan's Service (Pay). AUSTRALIA. A Bettor Edge (Pay). Australian Turf Club (Free), Sky Racing (Free) ...

racingandsports.com.au
skyracing.com.au

Looks like they have something. I am not a times man so am a tad vague but Vince Accardi stands out in Oz as long as you don't mind paying a bit.

Hope this helps

I think racing.com have sectionals as part of their results service. Logging on is a bit clunky

Thanks for the links! I have been so immersed in refactoring my computer modeling app that I missed your response until now. Again, thanks!

I don't mind one bit paying for good data and/or good information.

[TonyMLake]

It's always approximately 33%. There are people with limited mathematics training who will get excited and point out they believe it is higher than that now in the United States or over the last ten years or within some other (relatively) small subset of data, but even if it were true its only a matter of time before there is a regression to the mean.

It has been and will always be about 33% (and similar predictions for the second and third favorite) as an artifact of a mathematical principle known as Zipf's Law.

[cj]

It's always approximately 33%. There are people with limited mathematics training who will get excited and point out they believe it is higher than that now in the United States or over the last ten years or within some other (relatively) small subset of data, but even if it were true its only a matter of time before there is a regression to the mean.

It has been and will always be about 33% (and similar predictions for the second and third favorite) as an artifact of a mathematical principle known as Zipf's Law.

It will only return to 33% if field size returns to past levels. There are many tracks where 40% favorites win. It won't be returning to 33% any time soon.

[thaskalos]

It's always approximately 33%. There are people with limited mathematics training who will get excited and point out they believe it is higher than that now in the United States or over the last ten years or within some other (relatively) small subset of data, but even if it were true its only a matter of time before there is a regression to the mean.

It has been and will always be about 33% (and similar predictions for the second and third favorite) as an artifact of a mathematical principle known as Zipf's Law.
It helps if one's mathematical knowledge is tempered by his horse-racing knowledge.

[traynor]

It's always approximately 33%. There are people with limited mathematics training who will get excited and point out they believe it is higher than that now in the United States or over the last ten years or within some other (relatively) small subset of data, but even if it were true its only a matter of time before there is a regression to the mean.

It has been and will always be about 33% (and similar predictions for the second and third favorite) as an artifact of a mathematical principle known as Zipf's Law.

It's a lot like Pareto. It seems to work just often enough to keep the true believers believing. It seems to fail just often enough to keep the skeptics skeptical. What a great world! Always something to think about.

[Capper Al]

No, I believe the information age has made the public better.

[Tom]

It helps if one's mathematical knowledge is tempered by his horse-racing knowledge.

Math alone should tell you that today's reality of smaller fields mean it is no longer the same population as is was years ago. We actually hit a "long run" and are now in an "new run."

[Light]

Saw a race today on TVG from the Royal Ascot. I think there was around 28-30 horses? It was run on a straight turf course over a mile.

Half of the field raced bunched up on the right of the course and the other half raced bunched up on the left of the course. It seemed you could easily have have fit another group in between them with room to spare.

Why do they race like that? And why during the course of the race did none of the horses drift into the middle where there was a lot more room to run unimpeded by traffic? Never seen that before.

[Tom]

Why do they race like that?

Their daily double is only one race! :lol:

[Capper Al]

Their daily double is only one race! :lol:

Have to pick the left side winner and the right side winner for the double.

[TonyMLake]

Don't get me wrong.... there's some possible fluctuation... power laws like Benford's Law and Zipf's law are all power laws that range ABOUT

1 = 30%
2 = 18%
3 = 12%
4 = 9%

but are adjusted by a small multiplier... for example, in horse racing, the favorite is closer to 33%... so there's some "fudge factor" even over gigantic sample sizes.

Basically, it happes this way because there is a natural law which enforces
"rank versus frequency" ... these laws are unalterable and MUST be adhered to ESPECIALLY if the betting public has become more informed.

The only way they have been "improved" is in the case of special circumstances... for example, large statistical fluctuations or large scale cheating (far, far more likely).

I encourage any of you to study up on Benford's Law or Zipf's law. It really has nothing to do with what you are all saying but is much more related to the simple fact that a hysterical system tends to naturally find the "favorite" about 1/3 of the time and (using fractal regression) 1/3 of the time on down the line from that. Any DEVIANCE from that doesn't indicate an educated public but more likely someone with "inside knowlege" - ie, cooking the books in accounting, or, doping or nose spongeing a horse in horse racing.

I'm so sorry folks, the recent uptick in favorites being in the money (if it even exists) is NOT a mathematical likelihood and is FAR more likely to indicate wide spread cheating.

It's because of the way numbers distribute on a logarithmic scale. It's really pretty basic statistics.

Please don't take my word for it, I've give you the keys. Unlock the door by examination. I'm not going to offer some kind of passionate defense, but I used to teach college algebra, so if any of you actually really want to know I will try to help you understand. Not gonna get into a debate over 200 year old math, though... hehe...

[TonyMLake]

Here's a fun high school math primer that I think explains it pretty well:

http://www.kirix.com/blog/2008/07/22/fun-and-fraud-detection-with-benfords-law/


Whenever the orator talks about the frequency of a "leading digit (x)" replace "(x) with that favorite... in other words leading digit (1) means the 1st favorite... leading digit (7) is the 7th favorite horse.

This law is absolutely inviolable in all bookmaking, and it's exact how the government catches companies who cook the books.

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF THERE ARE 5 or 18 HORSES.

Please, I beseech you, learn these very basic statistical skills. I'm willing to help, but I'm not gonna listen to a lot of flames.

[TonyMLake]

It will only return to 33% if field size returns to past levels. There are many tracks where 40% favorites win. It won't be returning to 33% any time soon.

I understand EXACTLY why it would seem that way, but actually, the smaller field sizes make the predictive power laws MORE on target (ie, closer to 33% for the highest ranked horse). Please read up on Benford's law.

If you have an accurate data set that shows smaller field sizes with precision higher than 33%, this is a heavy indicator of CHEATING.

It's exactly how the feds catches cheaters in bookmaking, I promise. Read up on Benford's law, Zipf's Law, and Power Laws in General.

I'll try to help.

[TonyMLake]

And finally, don't get me wrong, knowing that the favorite is going to win about 33% of the time if nobody is cheating WONT help you if you cant find an over or underlay because the track take always reduces your maximum possible takeout on favorites to a -15% ROI (or worse).

It's just that simple folks.

[whodoyoulike]

I understand EXACTLY why it would seem that way, but actually, the smaller field sizes make the predictive power laws MORE on target (ie, closer to 33% for the highest ranked horse). Please read up on Benford's law.

If you have an accurate data set that shows smaller field sizes with precision higher than 33%, this is a heavy indicator of CHEATING.

It's exactly how the feds catches cheaters in bookmaking, I promise. Read up on Benford's law, Zipf's Law, and Power Laws in General.

I'll try to help.


There was a post earlier this year and a link regarding a Woodbine study which seems to contradict your recent posts. See posted links in posts #1 and #2.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1778455&highlight=field+size#post1778455

See page 3 ..... Average & Median Win Odds Per Field Size

and,

page 15 ..... Race Competitiveness

one of the bullet points: "Overwhelming favourites increase as field size decreases. Econometric models consume this effect with the field size test"


This makes sense to me and seems to agree with my own observations.

[Capper Al]

Don't get me wrong.... there's some possible fluctuation... power laws like Benford's Law and Zipf's law are all power laws that range ABOUT

1 = 30%
2 = 18%
3 = 12%
4 = 9%

but are adjusted by a small multiplier... for example, in horse racing, the favorite is closer to 33%... so there's some "fudge factor" even over gigantic sample sizes.

Basically, it happes this way because there is a natural law which enforces
"rank versus frequency" ... these laws are unalterable and MUST be adhered to ESPECIALLY if the betting public has become more informed.

The only way they have been "improved" is in the case of special circumstances... for example, large statistical fluctuations or large scale cheating (far, far more likely).

I encourage any of you to study up on Benford's Law or Zipf's law. It really has nothing to do with what you are all saying but is much more related to the simple fact that a hysterical system tends to naturally find the "favorite" about 1/3 of the time and (using fractal regression) 1/3 of the time on down the line from that. Any DEVIANCE from that doesn't indicate an educated public but more likely someone with "inside knowlege" - ie, cooking the books in accounting, or, doping or nose spongeing a horse in horse racing.

I'm so sorry folks, the recent uptick in favorites being in the money (if it even exists) is NOT a mathematical likelihood and is FAR more likely to indicate wide spread cheating.

It's because of the way numbers distribute on a logarithmic scale. It's really pretty basic statistics.

Please don't take my word for it, I've give you the keys. Unlock the door by examination. I'm not going to offer some kind of passionate defense, but I used to teach college algebra, so if any of you actually really want to know I will try to help you understand. Not gonna get into a debate over 200 year old math, though... hehe...

This is amazing. I would of never believed it.

[thaskalos]

I understand EXACTLY why it would seem that way, but actually, the smaller field sizes make the predictive power laws MORE on target (ie, closer to 33% for the highest ranked horse). Please read up on Benford's law.

If you have an accurate data set that shows smaller field sizes with precision higher than 33%, this is a heavy indicator of CHEATING.

It's exactly how the feds catches cheaters in bookmaking, I promise. Read up on Benford's law, Zipf's Law, and Power Laws in General.

I'll try to help.
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the favorite is as likely to win a 4-horse race as it is to win a 12-horse race? Wouldn't the increased competition diminish the winning chances of each individual horse?

And what if they suddenly started running match races? Wouldn't this cause the percentage of the winning favorites to increase further still?

[classhandicapper]

Why do they race like that? And why during the course of the race did none of the horses drift into the middle where there was a lot more room to run unimpeded by traffic? Never seen that before.

I think it's likely the riders believe some sections of the course are superior to others, but they can't all fit in one area, so they split.

[classhandicapper]

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the favorite is as likely to win a 4-horse race as it is to win a 12-horse race? Wouldn't the increased competition diminish the winning chances of each individual horse?

And what if they suddenly started running match races? Wouldn't this cause the percentage of the winning favorites to increase further still?


We know with 100% certainty that in 2 horse fields favorites have to win greater than 33%.

We know that with any skill at all in 3 horse fields favorites have to win greater than 33%.

I feel comfortable about that in 4 horse fields too.

The counter is that large fields (call it 12) sometimes contain some really terrible horses with almost no chance of winning. So adding 4-5 horses with a cumulative expected win% of 5%-10% doesn't have much impact on the win% of the favorite. The field may be bigger, but it's no biggie. Obviously though, if you add 4-5 horses and they are all really good, that would be different.

[Tom]

Please, I beseech you, learn these very basic statistical skills. I'm willing to help, but I'm not gonna listen to a lot of flames.

Then provide real world data to prove your point. Math is no substitute for reality.

[castaway01]

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF THERE ARE 5 or 18 HORSES.

Please, I beseech you, learn these very basic statistical skills. I'm willing to help, but I'm not gonna listen to a lot of flames.

I'm stealing this data from a post by Ron Tiller on 10/28/14.

I'm sure you'll find some way to deny the numbers, but 41% winning favorites in 6-horse fields and 32% winning favorites in 10-horse fields flies directly in the face of what you are adamantly claiming.

In the real world, you're 100% wrong.

Favorites in 6 Horse Fields
Year St W W%
2000 9248 3461 37.42
2001 8709 2960 38.28
2004 7792 2949 37.85
2005 8254 3210 38.89
2006 8342 3285 39.38
2007 8020 3125 38.97
2008 8104 3203 39.52
2009 7600 3029 39.86
2010 7274 2972 40.86
2011 7752 3151 40.65
2012 8606 3588 41.69
2013 8367 3386 40.47
2014 7820 3216 41.13



Favorites in 8 Horse Fields
Year St W W%
2000 11873 3908 32.92
2001 11991 3926 32.74
2002 11655 3843 32.97
2003 11629 3941 33.89
2004 11323 3830 33.82
2005 11411 3823 33.50
2006 11262 3791 33.66
2007 11016 3813 34.61
2008 10611 3692 34.79
2009 10463 3748 35.82
2010 9772 3547 36.30
2011 9627 3432 35.65
2012 9386 3327 35.45
2013 8966 3169 35.34
2014 7163 2540 35.46


Favorites in 10 Horse Fields
Year St W W%
2000 9192 2711 29.49
2001 9285 2869 30.90
2002 10275 3156 30.72
2003 10300 3232 31.38
2004 10031 3125 31.15
2005 8818 2705 30.68
2006 8341 2594 31.10
2007 8412 2632 31.29
2008 8441 2684 31.80
2009 8288 2711 32.71
2010 7624 2546 33.39
2011 6647 2147 32.30
2012 6087 1956 32.13
2013 5747 1861 32.38
2014 3709 1187 32.00

[castaway01]

Then provide real world data to prove your point. Math is no substitute for reality.

I posted some of that data here, thanks to Ron Tiller, from the "Favourites Hit 32% Year In Year Out. Why?" thread from last October.

[biggestal99]

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF THERE ARE 5 or 18 HORSES.

Please, I beseech you, learn these very basic statistical skills. I'm willing to help, but I'm not gonna listen to a lot of flames.

Math is great but reality is better. 4 horses field at aqueduct on inner are NOT equal to 20+ horse heritage handicaps in the UK. You know math but horse racing well you need a primer.

If 33% of favorites won heritage handicaps its a sure trip to easy street. :-)

Allan

[traynor]

Then provide real world data to prove your point. Math is no substitute for reality.

One of the reasons I am so underwhelmed by the pointification of holders of "advanced degrees" in statistics or mathematics. By my third year in graduate school I had learned enough to realize that the majority of it was worthless (or nearly worthless) for handicapping horse races.

Some of the absolute worst "race analysts" I have encountered held the most impressive sounding degrees and "academic credentials." They suffer as much as anyone else from the "to a carpenter with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" syndrome. And are guilty of ignoring "compelling disconfirming evidence to the contrary" a bit more than most.

[DeltaLover]

I am not sure 100% of what Tony is trying to say here..

I cannot believe that he claims that the favourite wins with the same frequency regardless of the field size. Probably he means something different..

Can you please clarify?

[Dave Schwartz]

Please don't take my word for it, I've give you the keys. Unlock the door by examination. I'm not going to offer some kind of passionate defense, but I used to teach college algebra, so if any of you actually really want to know I will try to help you understand. Not gonna get into a debate over 200 year old math, though... hehe...

Excuse me, Mr. Lake. But you are in tougher company here than I think you know. Around here there are guys with PhDs in math and science. Even a couple with multiple PhDs. I doubt that anyone is deeply be impressed because you taught college algebra.

I find that your theories are, at this point, purely anecdotal.


Respectfully,
Dave Schwartz

[lansdale]

It's always approximately 33%. There are people with limited mathematics training who will get excited and point out they believe it is higher than that now in the United States or over the last ten years or within some other (relatively) small subset of data, but even if it were true its only a matter of time before there is a regression to the mean.

It has been and will always be about 33% (and similar predictions for the second and third favorite) as an artifact of a mathematical principle known as Zipf's Law.

Hi TL,

We had a discussion of Benford's Law on the site some months back which touched on some of these issues. I think you're making an important, little-recognized point on the value of playing rank vs. frequency here, but you must realize that Zipf (which is identical with Benford) doesn't come close to reflecting the distribution of winners in U.S. racing, as most of the responses to your post suggest.

However, you mention that your play is primarily in Europe where, according to John Dineen, a very knowledgeable and math-oriented player who sometimes posts here, the Zipf (or Benford) distribution, does in fact, obtain for fields of 8-15 horses. He used research in this area to profit on European horse shipping to the U.S. for the last Breeder's Cup.

Trifecta Mike, a math professor who formerly posted on the site, suggested in the Benford thread, as well as in the picks he posted, that playing rank vs. frequency is part of his own handicapping process. Although he's unlikely to appear, it would be interesting to have his comments on this.

I am far from being a mathematician, but looking at the frequencies of U.S. racing, they appear to more closely resemble the Pareto distribution than Zipf. When we discussed this before, we mentioned exactly the same issue that you raise - that the difference reflects the element of cheating, specifically drug use by trainers. But of course this is speculation.

http://vendire-ludorum.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Benford

Cheers,

lansdale

[Luckycreed]

Field size DOES matter Here are some stats on Australian racing for city tracks since 1991.

All races 74490 favourites 23151 winners 31.07% strike rate average field size 11

Field size eight or less favourites 15866 winners 5962 37.57% strike rate

Field size 16 or more 6210 favourites ran 1601 won 25.76% won.

the more horses in the race, the bigger the chance the fav gets beat that ain't rocket science.Favourites win over 60% in Aistralian football betting as you would expect in a two horse race.

[Luckycreed]

Also I don't think algebra has anything to do with it, club handicappers (race secretaries) program for competitive racing and around one in three fabs winning is what they aim for because it maximises wagering.

Too few favs and people think the game is to hard too many and all those short priced winners turn them away.If the fav starts winning or losing too much they simply start fiddling with the class system and or start using weight more aggressively which is what Australia did when we moved to ratings based handicapping a few years back

Falling field sizes might be a bit harder to deal with however,that is something the US industry really needs to try and gets it's ahead around or you guys could be heading to 40% favourites like oz harness racing.

[romankoz]

Hi Luckycreed,
I seem to remember an Oz pacer of that name in my youth. Is that correct? If so you must be of my vintage.

Anyway you are spot on. The 33% figure used by many are the sum total of all the odds brackets. All favourites paying 1/2 will win many more times than 7/2 fvaourites and all those in between will range accordingly. In the finish it averages out to 33% give or take variances in some years when you add them all together and divide by the number of odds.

It is the same in smaller fields (shorter priced favourites) compared to larger fields (longer priced favourites) usually.

I kind of find it difficult to see why realising smaller fields favs have a higher strike rate is so hard a concept to grasp.

[Luckycreed]

Hi mate,luckycreed was before my time but he was (still is) my mothers favourite horse.He won the 1970 Miracle mile as well as loads of other races and mum won some serious coin betting him.

[Luckycreed]

Back on the topic of this thread racing is about opinions but not just that, it is about putting your money were your mouth is.

In life you will constantly here people making irrational bellicose forecasts but challenge them to back their forecasts with their own cash ans most will suddenly become much more rational.

[Luckycreed]

Also remember wherever you go in the world the average player has the market to guide him, the average player just follows the money je has fifty on a 1-1 shot and next race ge gas a fiver on a 20-1 shot, that is the way most people bet even if they don;t realise it.

In the UK and Australia the market is led by by huge bookmaking firms,that set the opening markets and then adjust for weight of money.Believe me they know how to price a horse race, nobody on the planet can price them better than they can.

In places like the US you have a betting forecast (morning line) to guide you and people who produce those also have a fair idea how to price a horse race and every body starts with that and then follows the money, and ultimately money wagered is the most powerful predictive tool, not speed ratings or class figures ow weight handicapping or whatever, money wagered trumps all that.

[thorobasePA]

I grew up in Ireland and bet both Irish and British Flat and National Hunt (Jumps) races.

I would characterize the "average" bettor in this part of the world being primarily influenced by:


Tips (either direct from a tipster, spotlight summaries in the Racing Post, forums etc.)
Trainer and/or Jockey profiles and combinations (very influential for certain race types)
Ground conditions (the "going" - far more variety in descriptions)
Class ratings (Racing Post Ratings etc.)
Whether connections are trying today


I believe the vast majority of punters in this part of the world are not aware of, nor care about, speed figures etc. Same for handicapping software - almost certainly not used.

@Luckycreed is right - the fact that the market is priced up by professional bookmakers (thereby giving very early information and signals) influences bettors' decisions a lot.

[classhandicapper]

I believe the vast majority of punters in this part of the world are not aware of, nor care about, speed figures etc.

This doesn't surprise me. Not that I'm a particularly good turf handicapper but all my research indicates that real speed figures aren't a very good way to handicap turf races. Most of the speed figures that are sold aren't even real speed figures. The races are often broken out into stand alone entities with a "number" projected based on the horses previously projected numbers. They are more like class figures that use the times as input.