Morning Line Adjustments

[Secretariat]

I was wondering if anyone has explored tinkering with the morning line in their handicapping.

For example linemakers tend to make their morning lines 2/1 or higher and rarely go above 20/1.

Was just curious if anyone has cross-referenced morning line to actual odds?
For example do 2/1 morning line horses go off on average at 2/1 or much lower? Do 20/1 horses go off at 20/1 on average or much higher?

I have been contemplating running a rather lengthy tabulation on this, but thought I'd check here first.

If for example 2/1 morning line horses go off at say 8/5 on average, one could plug in 8/5 instead of 2/1 before calculating fair odds.

Likewise if 20/1 horses generally go off at 30/1 one might plug that in. Just looking for a baseline.

Has anybody done such a query?

[Overlay]

Here's a previous thread that might be of interest to you in that regard:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111611&page=1&pp=15&highlight=normalize

[mickey_arnold]

I was wondering if anyone has explored tinkering with the morning line in their handicapping.

For example linemakers tend to make their morning lines 2/1 or higher and rarely go above 20/1.

Was just curious if anyone has cross-referenced morning line to actual odds?
For example do 2/1 morning line horses go off on average at 2/1 or much lower? Do 20/1 horses go off at 20/1 on average or much higher?

I have been contemplating running a rather lengthy tabulation on this, but thought I'd check here first.

If for example 2/1 morning line horses go off at say 8/5 on average, one could plug in 8/5 instead of 2/1 before calculating fair odds.

Likewise if 20/1 horses generally go off at 30/1 one might plug that in. Just looking for a baseline.

Has anybody done such a query?


I think I have a study that approximates what what you are looking for..

The results were published by a gentleman with an unusual and controversial background, name Butch Bucheson (a pseudonym, as I read in another horse racing website) who reportedly passed away in 2004.

It is based on more than 50,000 races and more than 400,00 horses.

I am taking some of the data and doing some additional calculations to fill in one gap in the statistics... It doesn't compromise the impact of the findings, it just makes the study results as shown, a little more explicit.

Here's a brief description of the fields and one sample line from the study (I altered the data presentation for clarity)

"The first set of numbers is for all horses. The second set is for all horses whose final odds were the same or higher than their morning line. The last set is of horses whose final odds were half or lower than their morning line. Let's take one line as an example:

ML # H W% ROI # H W% ROI # H W% ROI
4-1 | 30198_15.7%_0.77 | 16576_10.5%_0.75 | 2288_33.1%_0.82 There were 30,198 horses whose morning line were 4-1. Of those, 15.7% won, and the ROI was 77 cents on every dollar. Of those, 16,576 horses had final odds of 4-1 or higher. Of those, only 10.5% won, and the ROI was 75 cents on a dollar. 2,288 horses with a morning line of 4-1 went off at 2-1 or lower (half or less of their morning line). Of those, 33.1% won, and the ROI was 82 cents on a dollar."
That last section of the data line is critical.

In the full data set , I highlighted horses with an ML of 4-1 through 12-1 that had final odds that were half or less of the ML. This was the composite results for that subset.

ML # H W% ROI

4-1 to 12-1 14,048 22.9% .87

For horses with that simple profile, it would seem there is an excellent base to work with to apply additional selection criteria or elimination rules...One good possibility is to see if this subset of horses can be used with the criteria for solid longshot plays (like Pandy's) in which you can then accept lower odds than usual.

Remember many players will see some of these same angles associated with a longshot play, yet may not place a wager because they feel it is not good enough value.

The total of 14,048 horses that meet the ML and final odds criteria more than likely represent the approximate #of races in which you would find a potential play. It would seem unlikely to find a significant number of races with more than one horse in the specified ML odds range with final odds that are 1/2 or less than the ML odds.

There were around 50,000 races in the study and if the subset of 14,000 is very close to the actual number of races containing horses that fit the profile, then that would equal 28% of all races (2-3 races per day per track). Again, not a bad starting point.

As for horses with final odds that were drastically below their ML odds, there was the following finding,

"4,225 horses had morning line odds of 6-1, 8-1, 10-1, or 12-1 and were bet down to odds of somewhere between 2.0 to 2.95 (in other words, 2-1 or 5-2 on the toteboard). Of those, 25.9% won, and the ROI was a respectable 90 cents on the dollar, the best of our study so far."


Not bad... Again, the number of horse fitting the criteria more than
likely represent the actual number of races involved

I hope to have the enhanced data set ready shortly.

There are some other studies that I found which I will share soon.

[traynor]

That points out something that more than a few consider the equivalent of a cash cow--including a number of "serious bettors." There are ample opportunities for profit in high turnover, low odds entries--the same entries that the "value seekers" avoid. The "half of morning line" is something I have never seen (or even thought about) before. Thanks for posting it!

[mickey_arnold]

That points out something that more than a few consider the equivalent of a cash cow--including a number of "serious bettors." There are ample opportunities for profit in high turnover, low odds entries--the same entries that the "value seekers" avoid. The "half of morning line" is something I have never seen (or even thought about) before. Thanks for posting it!


Hey Traynor.....it's been 12 hours since I posted that analysis of those "half of morning line" specials, and the silence is deafening ..I think half or more of the forum users are out hustling for ML sources to get ready to cash in on every cow in the herd for today's races ,from around the country.

Darn it, I forget to post the part of the study about what happens to "half of morning liners" when they get hammered to below 2-1 because the projected final odds favorite gets scratched and "the half of ML's" become the final odds 1st choice. ... Oh, well...

Uh, BTW do you know to spell "false favorite" ? ;)

[traynor]

Hey Traynor.....it's been 12 hours since I posted that analysis of those "half of morning line" specials, and the silence is deafening ..I think half or more of the forum users are out hustling for ML sources to get ready to cash in on every cow in the herd for today's races ,from around the country.

Darn it, I forget to post the part of the study about what happens to "half of morning liners" when they get hammered to below 2-1 because the projected final odds favorite gets scratched and "the half of ML's" become the final odds 1st choice. ... Oh, well...

Uh, BTW do you know to spell "false favorite" ? ;)

I have posted several comments about my epiphany at Fraser Downs--after a friend pointed out that the horses I had selected that went off at odds greater than 3/1 almost always lost, while those going off at less than 3/1 won at a much greater rate (than expected). That turned a mediocre season into one of the best ever. It also made me a VERY firm believer in the wisdom of correlating morning lines, final odds, win rates, and ROI. I have been seriously researching/studying that topic ever since.

Few things are more profitable than knowing when the 1/5 favorite is unlikely to win the race.

[pondman]

That points out something that more than a few consider the equivalent of a cash cow--including a number of "serious bettors." There are ample opportunities for profit in high turnover, low odds entries--the same entries that the "value seekers" avoid. The "half of morning line" is something I have never seen (or even thought about) before. Thanks for posting it!

I'm also seeing this as a source of income. The day of value playing is over. You might have a weekly spot play, but if you want to be engaged in the game, you've got to play the #s at the beginning of the day, and let them ride, and check them at night. I've had many this year that paid less than $9, but the surprise for me was that it made money at the end of the day.

[Overlay]

There are ample opportunities for profit in high turnover, low odds entries--the same entries that the "value seekers" avoid.
It depends on how you define "value". As you indicate, just because a horse is at low odds doesn't necessarily mean that it's therefore being overbet, or not offering a positive expectation. The handicapping model just has to have sufficient breadth, and produce fair odds with sufficient range, to highlight those low-odds opportunities.

[traynor]

It depends on how you define "value". As you indicate, just because a horse is at low odds doesn't necessarily mean that it's therefore being overbet, or not offering a positive expectation. The handicapping model just has to have sufficient breadth, and produce fair odds with sufficient range, to highlight those low-odds opportunities.

As with many other aspects of "race analysis," value seekers tend to make go/no go decisions on a race-by-race basis. That is equivalent to re-inventing the wheel every race.

It is not the basic premise of "value" that is foolish. It is the process of applying that premise on individual races that comes up short. And that is before all the caveats about "final odds will not be known until after the betting has closed."

Models--by their nature--are intended for multiple applications across a range of events. Some seem to foolishly believe that interjecting subjective selection of individual elements of that range as being "more" or "less" suitable to the model increases the value of the model. The opposite is true--such an approach diminishes its value. If it works, use it. Don't mess around tinkering with it every race. If it doesn't work, find something that does.

[Tom]

I'm also seeing this as a source of income. The day of value playing is over. You might have a weekly spot play, but if you want to be engaged in the game, you've got to play the #s at the beginning of the day, and let them ride, and check them at night. I've had many this year that paid less than $9, but the surprise for me was that it made money at the end of the day.

For you maybe, but you hardly describe a method that is the only way to win. Value is not dead, just not everyone can find it.

[PressThePace]

For you maybe, but you hardly describe a method that is the only way to win. Value is not dead, just not everyone can find it.

:ThmbUp: