Type Of Software I'm seeking.

[Flysofree]

I want a program that ranks by percentage (1 to 100%) every horse in a race chances to win this race. It must have the ability to recalculate % chances after scratches or announced and If/when a race is moved to the dirt.
Has anyone seen exactly what I'm talking about or is this a pipe dream?

Obviously it would have to look at the connections jockey trainer and workouts also especially for first time starters. I guess it would be like a Watson for horse racing.

[Capper Al]

Software just crystalizes factors such as pace and speed. They can say overall we hit a winner 30% of the time. Morning lines are just estimates. No one in the business can give you want you want.

[Flysofree]

Pace and speed are 2 parts of 100% circle.

[DeltaLover]

I want a program that ranks by percentage (1 to 100%) every horse in a race chances to win this race. It must have the ability to recalculate % chances after scratches or announced and If/when a race is moved to the dirt.
Has anyone seen exactly what I'm talking about or is this a pipe dream?

Obviously it would have to look at the connections jockey trainer and workouts also especially for first time starters. I guess it would be like a Watson for horse racing.

What you are looking for is exactly what any handicapper is trying to discover since the beginning of the time.

Here you can read (http://themindofagambler.com/CreatingWinningPercentages.pdf) a related extract from the book I am writing about horse racing that might help you to understand the underlined process..

[098poi]

What you are looking for is exactly what any handicapper is trying to discover since the beginning of the time.

Here you can read (http://themindofagambler.com/CreatingWinningPercentages.pdf) a related extract from the book I am writing about horse racing that might help you to understand the underlined process..

Looks like a good read, keep us updated.

[Tom]

You are looking for a program that does an odds line?

[MPRanger]

I want a program that ranks by percentage (1 to 100%) every horse in a race chances to win this race. It must have the ability to recalculate % chances after scratches or announced and If/when a race is moved to the dirt.
Has anyone seen exactly what I'm talking about or is this a pipe dream?

Obviously it would have to look at the connections jockey trainer and workouts also especially for first time starters. I guess it would be like a Watson for horse racing.



Make your own with Excel


A ------------------B

250 --------- 0.203252033
225 --------- 0.182926829
265 --------- 0.215447154
175 --------- 0.142276423
193 --------- 0.156910569
122 --------- 0.099186992


1230 -------------- 1

------------------------------------------------------------------
Just plug this in:

I just made up the 250,225,265... etc; This would represent your power
rating however you come up with it.

The 1230 is the sum of the power rating numbers.

In column B you divide each number in column A by the total of column A
Column A total formula =SUM(A1:A9)

Column B formulas

=A1/A9
=A2/A9
=A3/A9
=A4/A9

ETC;

The total of column B will = 1

If one of your horses gets scratched, delete the row and it will automatically update your line.

To make it easy, give your non contenders 20% of the line in accordance
with the 80-20 rule.

Do that by adding this to the end of each formula in column b ---- *.8
So the formula will be =(A1/A9)*.8

This way you do not have to make a row for your non contenders. Just leave them out.

Doing it this way the sum of column B will be .8

For some good ideas on constructing your line see Dick Mitchell's Common Sense Betting.

His book will also show you how to adjust for field size.

[green80]

I want a program that ranks by percentage (1 to 100%) every horse in a race chances to win this race. It must have the ability to recalculate % chances after scratches or announced and If/when a race is moved to the dirt.
Has anyone seen exactly what I'm talking about or is this a pipe dream?

Obviously it would have to look at the connections jockey trainer and workouts also especially for first time starters. I guess it would be like a Watson for horse racing.

The problem is that the best horse doesn't always win the race, not by a long shot. Your money will be made when the crowd underestimates a horse's chance of winning. It may be the third horse in your oddsline that you show has a 20% chance of winning and the crowd only gives him a 10% chance, that your money will be made on.

There are many software programs that will assign an oddsline and you can easily convert these to percentages. An accurate oddsline is another matter.

[DLigett]

WagerMate tries to do most of what you want:
http://wagermathematics.com/

The "Win %" in the reports at the bottom of the page is supposed to be the odds of winning.

[crestridge]

JCapper is what you're looking for, and supplement JCap with Bayesian calc., (read Nate Silver's Signal/Noise), and wow, you'll be set!!

[traveler]

What are you willing to pay?

Have you even taken the time to see what programs are available and what they offer?

Why are you even worried about playing a few races that come off the turf? Skip them, move on.

I'd suggest if you want Watson, do a search on it, you might be surprised.

No program will give you an "accurate" line, they are all just good guesses.

Probably find a 15% off coupon for something on CyberMonday.

This makes think I should start playing again. Pax Vobiscum

[chaz63]

Bris Profitline isn't bad for giving "fair odds". And it's free with TwinSpires. I'm sure there is better out there if your willing to pay good $$. But for the price(free), it's not bad. If I see something like a 15-1 ML show up as 7-1 or so on their "fair odds", I'll throw it in my horizontal tickets sometimes, I've made some good hits doing that, looking for a price.

[Dave Schwartz]

As Delta said so accurately,

What you are looking for is exactly what any handicapper is trying to discover since the beginning of the time.

I can't tell you how many people I have heard from over the years who begin with, "Does your software make a good line?"

The answer is that the software (anybody's software) only makes a line as good as the methodology/systemology behind it.

Learned guys like Delta, me and many others on PA have devised ways to make a "good line," but the question always comes down to, "Is it good enough?"

Consider Ranger's learned reply as well. He offered a weighting system that produces a line. Is it "good enough?" Well, that depends upon several things:

1. How good that 1st column he showed really is - what he called the "Power Number."
2. How good his internal algorithm converts that power number into a probability.


At the end of the day, it all boils down to those two facts and one more:
1. The "number" for each horse
2. The "formula" used to convert that number into a probability.


The 3rd thing is your ability to estimate the final odds, which. ultimately comes down to two more things:
1. A "number" for each horse that predicts how the public will bet the horse.
2. A "formula" used to convert that number into a pool percentage.



My opinion is that the best you can hope for in any software that produces a "line," is that:
1. It is flexible in how you produce the "horse numbers."
2. It provides some mechanism for building the formulas to convert those numbers into what you need.
3. Some reasonable testing facility to see how your work is progressing.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: I am not saying that the only way you beat the game is by making a line, predicting odds.

[raybo]

As Dave said, one of the failings of most lines I've seen is the rating you're using for the horses. That rating must be tailored to the race type, the probable running dynamics of the field, the condition of the track, the configuration of the track (what types of horses it favors, and what types it doesn't favor), any path biases that may exist, etc., etc., etc..

Another factor is, do you include the takeout in your fair odds? if you don't then you are just calculating the probabilities of winning against the other horses in the field. You are not getting odds that can be directly compared to the live odds, because the live odds do reflect the takeout. Sure, you can convert the live odds to probabilities which will better allow you to compare your probabilities line with the live probabilities line, based on the live odds. But, keep in mind that the live odds will almost assuredly change after you have made your bet, upward or downward.

Another problem with creating a line is the "Power" level and the "Confidence" level, both of which should be tailored to the individual race, as these levels will affect the odds line.

But, by far, the ratings are the sticking point for most lines, they just aren't as accurate, in individual races, as they should be in order to bet with confidence based on your line versus the live odds. I have an automated fair odds line in my program, but would never consider using it to determine betting value.

[Capper Al]

A line counts attributes of one's scoring system, not the horse. Hopefully, they correlate well. But remember a line that correlates only 33% of the time is a good line while missing the mark 67% of the time.

[Dave Schwartz]

As Dave said, one of the failings of most lines I've seen is the rating you're using for the horses. That rating must be tailored to the race type, the probable running dynamics of the field, the condition of the track, the configuration of the track (what types of horses it favors, and what types it doesn't favor), any path biases that may exist, etc., etc., etc..

:ThmbUp:

... as well as time of year.

[raybo]

A line counts attributes of one's scoring system, not the horse. Hopefully, they correlate well. But remember a line that correlates only 33% of the time is a good line while missing the mark 67% of the time.

The value of a line is that it gives us many other options for betting, when your focus is on the long term. When you reduce it to matching the public's favorite winning percentage, you have removed much of the value of a good line. Sure, in individual races, that 33% hit rate may work occasionally, either for betting on the favorite, or against the favorite, but unless we have a good line on the non-favorites also, we still have not answered the question of which horse(s) to bet, and at what odds.

Almost any decent line will tell you who the most probable winner is, and probably will hit a good percentage of winners, but it's the fair odds portion that is the real value of a line.

[Capper Al]

Almost any decent line will tell you who the most probable winner is, and probably will hit a good percentage of winners, but it's the fair odds portion that is the real value of a line.

The fair odds is still a best guess correlation of the system points, not today's horse. The 33% example used was an old hit ratio of the betting public. Anyone who could do as well as the public does is doing good. There wasn't any implication that they would necessarily pick the same horses as the public to achieve their own 33%.

[Dave Schwartz]

The fair odds is still a best guess correlation of the system points, not today's horse. The 33% example used was an old hit ratio of the betting public. Anyone who could do as well as the public does is doing good. There wasn't any implication that they would necessarily pick the same horses as the public to achieve their own 33%.

I am sorry but I do not understand what you mean.

What do you mean by "today's horse" as opposed to "fair odds?"
(I assume "fair odds" means hit rate or probability to you. Please correct if I am wrong.)

[DeltaLover]

What is more important and possibly easier to estimate is the ranking vs the exact probabilities; in either case, I think that it is impossible to beat the crowd when it comes to either one.

The best way to create a probability distribution or ranking, is to somehow consider the degree of cotranrianism against the crowd's opinion.

What I am trying to say here, is that I prefer a line that is inferior to the crowd when it comes to its general performance, assuming that some (few) times is proven correct when it favors a huge longshot instead of a line that struggles to beat the crowd splitting hairs among the top three or two choices...

[Nitro]

What is more important and possibly easier to estimate is the ranking vs the exact probabilities; in either case, I think that it is impossible to beat the crowd when it comes to either one.

The best way to create a probability distribution or ranking, is to somehow consider the degree of cotranrianism against the crowd's opinion.

What I am trying to say here, is that I prefer a line that is inferior to the crowd when it comes to its general performance, assuming that some (few) times is proven correct when it favors a huge longshot instead of a line that struggles to beat the crowd splitting hairs among the top three or two choices...
Good estimate, but not because it's the "crowd's" money.

So as I understand it, a program is being sought (or may be currently available) to develop an Odds-line that would be based on some methodology used to generate an animal’s overall power figure based on the past performances.

I can certainly understand the subjectivity involved when trying to create a methodology that will encompass an array of variables based on hundreds of actual race conditions. I think Rabyo’s comments covered that very clearly. However, I don’t quite understand the point of all this work when so many variable factors have to be considered, especially if “today’s” race conditions are not factored in as well.

But let’s say for argument’s sake that this can all be accomplished. Now a player would have his Created line (C/L), the Morning line (M/L), and the actual Betting line (B/L) at his/her disposal. Let’s create a simple scenario for a common type Claiming race @ 6f for 3yrs & ^ on a dirt track listed as “fast” at one of the larger tracks:

PP….…M/L ……C/L ……B/L (at 5 mins to Post)
#1 ……5/1…….6/1…….3/1
#2 ……3/1…….2/1…….4/1
#3 ……8/1…….10/1…..9/2
#4 ……6/1…….4/1…….6/1
#5 ……12/1….15/1…..20/1
#6 ……20/1….30/1…..25/1
#7 ……9/2….…6/1…….5/1
#8 ……12/1…..8/1….…12/1
#9 ……5/2…….2/1…….9/5
#10…..8/1……10/1…..10/1

I’d be interested in seeing comments related to how anyone with this type of information would attack this and arrive at their final betting choice (or choices).

I believe there’s a lot more to consider, especially when you realize that the so-called “public money” when taken literally does not describe the actual betting population very accurately.
.

[Dave Schwartz]

Nitro,

IMHO, you do not have sufficient information.

What is missing is a real estimate of the "final" tote odds.

[Nitro]

Nitro,

IMHO, you do not have sufficient information.

What is missing is a real estimate of the "final" tote odds.
As far as I know the only “estimate” of the “final” odds is generated by the Racing Secretary (or an assigned handicapper) at each track and called the Morning Line (M/L).
Please enlighten me as to some other source that might exist.

[Dave Schwartz]

Not a source. You build it yourself.

A model - similar to a probability model except you have a lot more usable data. (i.e. Every horse in a race has odds vs. only one winner per race.)

[Capper Al]

I am sorry but I do not understand what you mean.

What do you mean by "today's horse" as opposed to "fair odds?"
(I assume "fair odds" means hit rate or probability to you. Please correct if I am wrong.)

What was meant by fair odds is what a system ascribes to a horse. Sorry, for the confusion. It's not the unknown real fair odds which no one can figure exactly.

[Capper Al]

Nitro,

IMHO, you do not have sufficient information.

What is missing is a real estimate of the "final" tote odds.

Quirin in his book shows how well the public ascribes odds. Not only does the public pick the best over the long run, they also do an amazing job at setting the odds over the long run.

[Capper Al]

What is more important and possibly easier to estimate is the ranking vs the exact probabilities; in either case, I think that it is impossible to beat the crowd when it comes to either one.

The best way to create a probability distribution or ranking, is to somehow consider the degree of cotranrianism against the crowd's opinion.

What I am trying to say here, is that I prefer a line that is inferior to the crowd when it comes to its general performance, assuming that some (few) times is proven correct when it favors a huge longshot instead of a line that struggles to beat the crowd splitting hairs among the top three or two choices...

I agree. Ranking works best for me too.

[thaskalos]

Good estimate, but not because it's the "crowd's" money.

So as I understand it, a program is being sought (or may be currently available) to develop an Odds-line that would be based on some methodology used to generate an animal’s overall power figure based on the past performances.

I can certainly understand the subjectivity involved when trying to create a methodology that will encompass an array of variables based on hundreds of actual race conditions. I think Rabyo’s comments covered that very clearly. However, I don’t quite understand the point of all this work when so many variable factors have to be considered, especially if “today’s” race conditions are not factored in as well.

But let’s say for argument’s sake that this can all be accomplished. Now a player would have his Created line (C/L), the Morning line (M/L), and the actual Betting line (B/L) at his/her disposal. Let’s create a simple scenario for a common type Claiming race @ 6f for 3yrs & ^ on a dirt track listed as “fast” at one of the larger tracks:

PP….…M/L ……C/L ……B/L (at 5 mins to Post)
#1 ……5/1…….6/1…….3/1
#2 ……3/1…….2/1…….4/1
#3 ……8/1…….10/1…..9/2
#4 ……6/1…….4/1…….6/1
#5 ……12/1….15/1…..20/1
#6 ……20/1….30/1…..25/1
#7 ……9/2….…6/1…….5/1
#8 ……12/1…..8/1….…12/1
#9 ……5/2…….2/1…….9/5
#10…..8/1……10/1…..10/1

I’d be interested in seeing comments related to how anyone with this type of information would attack this and arrive at their final betting choice (or choices).

I believe there’s a lot more to consider, especially when you realize that the so-called “public money” when taken literally does not describe the actual betting population very accurately.
.

What good is the betting line at 5 minutes to post...when 90% of the wagered money hits the board during the last 2 minutes of the betting period?

[Nitro]

Not a source. You build it yourself.

A model - similar to a probability model except you have a lot more usable data. (i.e. Every horse in a race has odds vs. only one winner per race.)
As Delta said so accurately,

I can't tell you how many people I have heard from over the years who begin with, "Does your software make a good line?"

The answer is that the software (anybody's software) only makes a line as good as the methodology/systemology behind it.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to those two facts and one more:
1. The "number" for each horse
2. The "formula" used to convert that number into a probability.


The 3rd thing is your ability to estimate the final odds, which. ultimately comes down to two more things:
1. A "number" for each horse that predicts how the public will bet the horse.
2. A "formula" used to convert that number into a pool percentage.

My opinion is that the best you can hope for in any software that produces a "line," is that:
1. It is flexible in how you produce the "horse numbers."
2. It provides some mechanism for building the formulas to convert those numbers into what you need.
3. Some reasonable testing facility to see how your work is progressing.

If this is what you mean perhaps you could explain what “number “ you’re referring too because apparently the 2 “number”s mentioned are not the same . Because calculating the pool percentage is easy.

To be honest Dave, it looks like a lot of double-talk to me.

[Dave Schwartz]

Quirin in his book shows how well the public ascribes odds. Not only does the public pick the best over the long run, they also do an amazing job at setting the odds over the long run.

Even better today.

[Nitro]

What good is the betting line at 5 minutes to post...when 90% of the wagered money hits the board during the last 2 minutes of the betting period?

Who said anything about “betting the line at 5 minutes to post”? I’m not sure where in world you came up with that “90%” figure! That statement is absolute fiction, especially if you look at the individual pools at EACH track (particularly Hong Kong).

Believe what you wish, but that wasn’t my question or the purpose of my previous comment! :bang:

[NorCalGreg]

Who said anything about “betting the line at 5 minutes to post”? I’m not sure where in world you came up with that “90%” figure! That statement is absolute fiction, especially if you look at the individual pools at EACH track (particularly Hong Kong).

Believe what you wish, but that wasn’t my question or the purpose of my previous comment! :bang:

M/L ……C/L ……B/L (at 5 mins to Post)

This was your own matrix, Nitro. I assumed the same...betting 5 min to post. I don't know anything about HK, I understand that's in your domain--but I have watched and made notes of the pools @ tracks here in the U.S.
They are literally CRUSHED in the final minutes of wagering.
Was pool-watching @ RPX the other night-keeping track of win pools--one horse went from appx $2K--to $15K--in the final two tote blinks.

[traveler]

The OP wanted number one to "I want a program that ranks by percentage (1 to 100%) every horse in a race chances to win this race."

Ok - 3731 Field size of 7 races. The first 2 tables should be obvious. But the 3rd table is how I ranked the horses and how they finished. BTW, M/L is not that bad. Remember these are ranking tables - not actual odds.

Public Choice: Win Bets
=======================
PubCh Starts Wins Pct $Rtrn
1 3,821 1,442 37.7% $1.72
2 3,735 801 21.4% $1.59
3 3,714 576 15.5% $1.60
4 3,700 375 10.1% $1.45
5 3,712 280 7.5% $1.54
6 3,716 166 4.5% $1.42
7 3,715 101 2.7% $1.36

M/L Rank: Win Bets
==================
MLRank Starts Wins Pct $Rtrn
1 3,750 1,248 33.3% $1.66
2 3,837 803 20.9% $1.59
3 4,018 595 14.8% $1.49
4 4,125 483 11.7% $1.61
5 4,072 314 7.7% $1.43
6 3,432 186 5.4% $1.51
7 2,879 112 3.9% $1.36

My Probability Rank: Win Bets
==========================
Rank Starts Wins Pct $Rtrn
1 3,732 1,250 33.5% $1.74
2 3,732 815 21.8% $1.66
3 3,731 583 15.6% $1.57
4 3,736 433 11.6% $1.56
5 4,354 334 7.7% $1.41
6 4,885 248 5.1% $1.38
7 1,943 78 4.0% $1.35

My win percentage is better than the M/L and so is the return for the top 2 or even 4. My win percentage is a bit light compared to the public but my return is better.

I'd suggest to concentrate on rank. So what did I do. The same 5 factors in each race. Each factor in an impact value table and each factor with the same IV in slots 1-7. Each of the 7 IV tables were weighted in a Fibonacci sequence relative to each other. You could weight them the same with little difference.

But here is the key - the values in the IV tables came from a formula - I never ran through the 3731 races to see how what the "correct" IV value should be for each ranking slot of each factor.

So I submit that all this gnashing of teeth over which factors to use and their weightings for the "AVERAGE JOE" is overdone. There is more to the game but it is a start.

[thaskalos]

Who said anything about “betting the line at 5 minutes to post”? I’m not sure where in world you came up with that “90%” figure! That statement is absolute fiction, especially if you look at the individual pools at EACH track (particularly Hong Kong).

Believe what you wish, but that wasn’t my question or the purpose of my previous comment! :bang:

As RaiderGreg has already told you, it was you YOURSELF who supplied a betting line that you specified was "at 5 mins to Post". Now you ask me where I got the idea of using a 5 minute to post betting line? :bang:

What WAS the point of that little chart that you provided for us? You have a hard time determining what the play is when you have the created line and the betting line at your disposal?

[Nitro]

]M/L ……C/L ……B/L (at 5 mins to Post)[/COLOR]

This was your own matrix, Nitro. I assumed the same...betting 5 min to post. I don't know anything about HK, I understand that's in your domain--but I have watched and made notes of the pools @ tracks here in the U.S.
They are literally CRUSHED in the final minutes of wagering.
Was pool-watching @ RPX the other night-keeping track of win pools--one horse went from appx $2K--to $15K--in the final two tote blinks.Yes that was my matrix, but don’t you have to make a selection before you bet on it?
Isn’t the theme of this thread to inquire about a program that evaluates a pre-race betting line that’s derived from some sort of handicapping methodology? Wouldn’t that be done for the purpose of selecting an entry (or entries) for eventual betting?

In case you missed it this was my question/comment.
I’d be interested in seeing comments related to how anyone with this type of information would attack this and arrive at their final betting choice (or choices).
Where did I say “betting at 5 minutes to Post”???


Regarding the late tote board activities:
For instance here are the mutual betting pools for Sunday’s 9th race at Del Mar.

15min 7 min 5min
40843 77419 106011 Win
12816 22254 32110 Plc
6035 11273 17977 Sho

Are you or anyone else going to tell us that $106,011 amounted to only 10% of the final total in the Win pool? If so, then you’re not watching the same tote board I am.

BTW I don’t just watch and take notes. I directly input the raw tote data.
For every track that’s shows freakish late input of $$ I’ll show another that doesn’t. My point is that making an outlandish statement like that just doesn't hold water for all tracks, but like I said believe what you want.
.
.

[Dave Schwartz]

If this is what you mean perhaps you could explain what “number “ you’re referring too because apparently the 2 “number”s mentioned are not the same . Because calculating the pool percentage is easy.

To be honest Dave, it looks like a lot of double-talk to me.

LOL - Is this your way of saying that you don't understand?

In order to create a probability you need a number for each horse so that you may normalize the entire field to 100%.

That means that all the variables you use for each horse must ultimately condense down into a single number. Ultimately, that column of numbers is used with some type of formula, the final outcome of which is a probability for each horse. The sum of the probabilities are always 100%.

Then final step to determining profitability is to multiply each horse's probabilities by the horse's payoff.

Thus:
25% at $9.00 = $2.25 --- a 12.5% edge
while
25% at $7.00 = $1.75 --- a 12.5% loss

Because calculating the pool percentage is easy.

Yes, it certainly is easy to calculate. Especially when the race is over.

But, see, there is a problem with that in the age we live in, namely, that the odds when we are forced to make a bet can be drastically different than the actual payoff. Not just can be different but likely will be different, since so many winners are bet down rather than up.

This is true even if we bet at the last possible second.

Anyone who thinks that the bet downs and the bet ups will just balance out is living in a dream world.



Thus, the problem ultimately expands to including a prediction process for the odds on the tote board as well.

Now, I know that there are players out there who will say, "I make this horse 7/2. Yup. That's my line." But how accurate are their predictions? I would not be surprised to find that for every winning player who plays this way there are 100 or even 200 losing players.


So, while we begin with this:

25% at $9.00 = $2.25 --- a 12.5% edge

both the 25% and the $9.00 are in question.

Maybe this 25% horse is really 30% or maybe he's a 15% horse. And maybe the $9.00 will become $4.40.

It is relatively easy to build a sample of our predictions and develop some kind of smoothing process to make our probabilities (say) +/- 5%, but the tote board swings too dramatically.

The really bad news is that if that $9 horse actually goes off at (say) 7/1 his hit rate will (statistically) be far lower than if he winds up bet down to (say) 6/5.


I hope this helps clarify what I am saying.

[ReplayRandall]

But, see, there is a problem with that in the age we live in, namely, that the odds when we are forced to make a bet can be drastically different than the actual payoff. Not just can be different but likely will be different, since so many winners are bet down rather than up.

This is true even if we bet at the last possible second.

Anyone who thinks that the bet downs and the bet ups will just balance out is living in a dream world.

It seems that FIXED odds betting is the only way out of this dilemma. BTW Dave, did you ever solve the problem from a previous post, some years back, that you were dealing with:

The strength of my own handicapping is that it picks great contenders. Not good, but great. So great, in fact, that I can wager 3-4 of them per race flat and come within 4.5% of even. When all is said and done, one finds that profit begins with the 3.5th public choice.

Of course, that is all hindsight - as one cannot truly discern which horses will be what odds with any degree of certainty before the race is run.

[NorCalGreg]

Yes that was my matrix, but don’t you have to make a selection before you bet on it?
Isn’t the theme of this thread to inquire about a program that evaluates a pre-race betting line that’s derived from some sort of handicapping methodology? Wouldn’t that be done for the purpose of selecting an entry (or entries) for eventual betting?

In case you missed it this was my question/comment.

Where did I say “betting at 5 minutes to Post”???


Regarding the late tote board activities:
For instance here are the mutual betting pools for Sunday’s 9th race at Del Mar.

15min 7 min 5min
40843 77419 106011 Win
12816 22254 32110 Plc
6035 11273 17977 Sho

Are you or anyone else going to tell us that $106,011 amounted to only 10% of the final total in the Win pool? If so, then you’re not watching the same tote board I am.

BTW I don’t just watch and take notes. I directly input the raw tote data.
For every track that’s shows freakish late input of $$ I’ll show another that doesn’t. My point is that making an outlandish statement like that just doesn't hold water for all tracks, but like I said believe what you want.
.
.

Nitro....you're accusing me of making figures fit the point I'm making, when that's exactly what you're doing. You're quoting an example pool from DEL MAR...I'm quoting an example pool from Remington.

There are like 4-5 pools in this country similar to DM--& 50 similar to RPX. So who is making figs fit their point? Also....you stopped @ the 5 min point at DM--so did you really even show us anything?

What difference does it make how anyone is going to attack this problem you lay out--if in 3 minutes the problem has already changed?

The only data processing I personally do, is with paper & pencil, anything I can't do--I pay someone to do it. I see nothing wrong with that strategy-do you?

[Dave Schwartz]

The strength of my own handicapping is that it picks great contenders. Not good, but great. So great, in fact, that I can wager 3-4 of them per race flat and come within 4.5% of even. When all is said and done, one finds that profit begins with the 3.5th public choice.

Of course, that is all hindsight - as one cannot truly discern which horses will be what odds with any degree of certainty before the race is run.

BTW Dave, did you ever solve the problem from a previous post, some years back, that you were dealing with:

Absolutely.

I ultimately built a value-based model that was based upon "phony hit rates" and "phony odds."

[ReplayRandall]

Absolutely.

I ultimately built a value-based model that was based upon "phony hit rates" and "phony odds."

You lost me.....don't know if your serious or not.

[Dave Schwartz]

You lost me.....don't know if your serious or not.

Completely serious.

My goal in each race is to play the contenders with the greatest value and hit rate.

Handicapping Process
1. I pick my contenders.
2. I handicap the entire field using a couple of "handicapping objects" (to produce that 1st number).
3. I normalize all those points to 100%. (Formula to get to 100%)
4. I penalize the non-contenders 90% of their probabilities and re-normalize to 100%.
5. I use a specialized "Handicapping Object" to create a projected pool total for each horse. (the other 1st number.)
6. I normalize all those points to represent what the odds on each horse should be. Instead of 100% it is whatever total pool points should be at this track. (2nd formula - to create odds.)

Now I have some contenders, each with a hit rate and a payoff, neither of which are accurate. Next I compute a theoretical $Net and Kelly for each horse.

It is logical that the horses with the highest hit rates are the ones most likely to win and it is logical that the ones with the highest $Net are the ones that will return the most money, even though neither the hit rates nor odds are actually correct.

Based upon a set of 8 rules - which fire at the press of a single button, I can see who to bet. The rules are looking to bet two horses. Occasionally I bet a 3rd or even 4th horse, and rarely I single a horse.

Finally, comes bet-sizing.
This is based upon simple principles:

1. The more theoretical pool size among my contenders, the less I should bet.
2. The more theoretical pool size among my bets, the less I should bet.

The bet size is for the race. The horses to be wagered are bet in a pseudo-dutch. That is, 60% of the money in the race is wagered equally and 40% is dutched. This results in slightly more money being wagered on low odds horses; just enough to get you close to even or make small profit on days where the the favorites hammer you.

The betting output per race is a number representing a percentage of absolute maximum bet. Average wager size comes in at around 25% of max. Wagers below 30% are not even made (i.e. the race is passed). Wagers above 38% are so good that I double the size of the wager.

This entire approach will (eventually) make it into my new software. (Doubt it will make first release because it demands that a complete programmable betting system be in place.


Origin of Design
I designed this approach when I realized that nobody (short of people with whale-like resources) was going to make a truly accurate line or have anything even resembling final odds.

The real point of the entire approach is that it makes consistently good decisions without having been the product of truly rigorous mathematical and statistical studies - something outside the scope of most players.

Simply put - it produces a REALLY GOOD ANSWER.

[raybo]

You lost me.....don't know if your serious or not.

My take, and I'm assuming Dave was not being facetious - LOL:

"Phony" = "inexact" or "estimated" or "fudged" or anything other than "perfectly accurate" (because in our game that is impossible). Percentages and probabilities based on more than a few events, with probably, a little fuzzy logic and/or AI, thrown into the mix.

My well experienced opinion, is that one does not enter into a pissing contest with Dave Schwartz regarding horse racing or gambling in general. :lol:

My personal philosophy in racing is that "good enough is good enough", however, one should always strive towards perfection even though one will never truly attain it. But, the attempt alone will teach you things you cannot learn any other way. Failure can be a very profitable endeavor.

[ReplayRandall]

Completely serious.

My goal in each race is to play the contenders with the greatest value and hit rate.

Handicapping Process
1. I pick my contenders.
2. I handicap the entire field using a couple of "handicapping objects" (to produce that 1st number).
3. I normalize all those points to 100%. (Formula to get to 100%)
4. I penalize the non-contenders 90% of their probabilities and re-normalize to 100%.
5. I use a specialized "Handicapping Object" to create a projected pool total for each horse. (the other 1st number.)
6. I normalize all those points to represent what the odds on each horse should be. Instead of 100% it is whatever total pool points should be at this track. (2nd formula - to create odds.)

Now I have some contenders, each with a hit rate and a payoff, neither of which are accurate. Next I compute a theoretical $Net and Kelly for each horse.

It is logical that the horses with the highest hit rates are the ones most likely to win and it is logical that the ones with the highest $Net are the ones that will return the most money, even though neither the hit rates nor odds are actually correct.

Based upon a set of 8 rules - which fire at the press of a single button, I can see who to bet. The rules are looking to bet two horses. Occasionally I bet a 3rd or even 4th horse, and rarely I single a horse.

Finally, comes bet-sizing.
This is based upon simple principles:

1. The more theoretical pool size among my contenders, the less I should bet.
2. The more theoretical pool size among my bets, the less I should bet.

The bet size is for the race. The horses to be wagered are bet in a pseudo-dutch. That is, 60% of the money in the race is wagered equally and 40% is dutched. This results in slightly more money being wagered on low odds horses; just enough to get you close to even or make small profit on days where the the favorites hammer you.

The betting output per race is a number representing a percentage of absolute maximum bet. Average wager size comes in at around 25% of max. Wagers below 30% are not even made (i.e. the race is passed). Wagers above 38% are so good that I double the size of the wager.

This entire approach will (eventually) make it into my new software. (Doubt it will make first release because it demands that a complete programmable betting system be in place.


Origin of Design
I designed this approach when I realized that nobody (short of people with whale-like resources) was going to make a truly accurate line or have anything even resembling final odds.

The real point of the entire approach is that it makes consistently good decisions without having been the product of truly rigorous mathematical and statistical studies - something outside the scope of most players.

Simply put - it produces a REALLY GOOD ANSWER.

And you call this a serious reply??.. :lol: ....Just kidding....Thanks Dave for taking the time to give a complete, well thought-out explanation to an eternal dilemma.

To take things one step further, in another thread, I proposed enhancing a methodology that ANER had been working on this past year, by making conditional wagers with 0 or 1 minute to post, through Xpressbet or another entity who have this feature, and bet all 3/4 picks conditionally at the minimum prescribed odds in each race,(as per whatever methodology one is using) thus forgetting the highly erratic morning line......Just set it, and forget it.

Raybo, then came along with his insightful analysis:

"I doubt many players would think much of betting multiple horses in races, to win, but there are 2 success factors in racing, hit rate and average payouts. Average payouts alone can make us successful, but some tracks just don't have a high enough average win payout to allow success. So, the logical solution is to produce a better hit rate, thus the multiple win bet philosophy at a minimum odds level.

I was never a win bet player, seriously, until the multiple win play thing hit me between the eyes. The degree of variance in racing can, and will, doom you, if you don't find a way to mitigate it, and multiple win plays at acceptable odds can be that mitigating factor, IMO."

Bottom-line, there is NO perfect way to the promised land, but these discussed concepts, and others, take a huge stride forward towards simplifying an already highly complex and difficult journey of being profitable in horse race investing.

[Dave Schwartz]

Randall,

First, start with :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

I was never a win bet player, seriously, until the multiple win play thing hit me between the eyes. The degree of variance in racing can, and will, doom you, if you don't find a way to mitigate it, and multiple win plays at acceptable odds can be that mitigating factor, IMO."

Indeed. Truer words...

So many people say that they hate betting favorites, yet they do not have a problem betting a $20 exacta box to net less than even-money.

Speaking of true words, one of my long-time winning players once said, "Frankly, I'd be thrilled with 47% winners at 6/5 with 3 plays per track."

The players who are really concerned with winning All get this.

[raybo]

And you call this a serious reply??.. :lol: ....Just kidding....Thanks Dave for taking the time to give a complete, well thought-out explanation to an eternal dilemma.

To take things one step further, in another thread, I proposed enhancing a methodology that ANER had been working on this past year, by making conditional wagers with 0 or 1 minute to post, through Xpressbet or another entity who have this feature, and bet all 3/4 picks conditionally at the minimum prescribed odds in each race,(as per whatever methodology one is using) thus forgetting the highly erratic morning line......Just set it, and forget it.

Raybo, then came along with his insightful analysis:

"I doubt many players would think much of betting multiple horses in races, to win, but there are 2 success factors in racing, hit rate and average payouts. Average payouts alone can make us successful, but some tracks just don't have a high enough average win payout to allow success. So, the logical solution is to produce a better hit rate, thus the multiple win bet philosophy at a minimum odds level.

I was never a win bet player, seriously, until the multiple win play thing hit me between the eyes. The degree of variance in racing can, and will, doom you, if you don't find a way to mitigate it, and multiple win plays at acceptable odds can be that mitigating factor, IMO."

Bottom-line, there is NO perfect way to the promised land, but these discussed concepts, and others, take a huge stride forward towards simplifying an already highly complex and difficult journey of being profitable in horse race investing.

:ThmbUp: Now you're talking!

I know some people just can't stand the idea of betting multiple horses, to win. But, if you are playing tracks that are constantly bet down on obvious horses, the only way to make long term profit is to increase your hit rate (or do what most players can't or won't do, be extremely patient and pick your spots very carefully), because the average payouts at those tracks are just not high enough to overcome your losses, long term, on single horse bets.

I'm not suggesting that this is the only way to win, but it is one way. You have to reach the proper ratio between hit rate and average price in order to show net profit, whatever that entails.

[Capper Al]

What no click and win?

[PICSIX]

I believe the OP is looking for a program that teaches itself (artificial intelligence) how to handicap and determines win probabilities....like "Watson"

[thaskalos]

I want a program that ranks by percentage (1 to 100%) every horse in a race chances to win this race. It must have the ability to recalculate % chances after scratches or announced and If/when a race is moved to the dirt.
Has anyone seen exactly what I'm talking about or is this a pipe dream?

Obviously it would have to look at the connections jockey trainer and workouts also especially for first time starters. I guess it would be like a Watson for horse racing.

As usual...Thaskalos to the rescue:

http://cynthiapublishing.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=THS&Product_Code=ALLV6&Category_Code=SOFTWARE

[raybo]

What no click and win?

Sure, if it's at the right track!

[Capper Al]

Sure, if it's at the right track!

I'll play any track if you have a click and win program for that track.

[ReplayRandall]

Pure and simple, someone told me there's a thread-derailing TROLL named AL that won't shut-up.......Are there any moderators on this site? I've had plenty of my posts deleted with 1 tenth of the delinquent nonsense that this idiot spews out....C'MON CJ what's wrong with you?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[raybo]

I'll play any track if you have a click and win program for that track.

You're a member of my forum, haven't you read any of the threads there? You like to do our own thing, play all the races, can't wait to bet, can't stand to pass. Then keep doing what you have to do Al. Best of luck!

[NorCalGreg]

Pure and simple, someone told me there's a thread-derailing TROLL named AL that won't shut-up.......Are there any moderators on this site? I've had plenty of my posts deleted with 1 tenth of the delinquent nonsense that this idiot spews out....C'MON CJ what's wrong with you?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Come on, Randall......I post more delinquent crap than anyone. :cool:

[ReplayRandall]

Come on, Randall......I post more delinquent crap than anyone. :cool:

Yours is a "conscientious" delinquent kind of crap.....far more entertaining... :cool:

[Capper Al]

Pure and simple, someone told me there's a thread-derailing TROLL named AL that won't shut-up.......Are there any moderators on this site? I've had plenty of my posts deleted with 1 tenth of the delinquent nonsense that this idiot spews out....C'MON CJ what's wrong with you?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What do you base this outrage on, a little light hearted humor about click and win? With post like this, I can see why you had plenty of your posts deleted.

[MPRanger]

As usual...Thaskalos to the rescue:

http://cynthiapublishing.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=THS&Product_Code=ALLV6&Category_Code=SOFTWARE


That does seem to answer exactly what he asked for.

[Tom]

It was 1/2 price for Cyber Monday!

[green80]

I believe the OP is looking for a program that teaches itself (artificial intelligence) how to handicap and determines win probabilities....like "Watson"

There are some programs that do just that, but it just doesn't work.

[Capper Al]

You're a member of my forum, haven't you read any of the threads there? You like to do our own thing, play all the races, can't wait to bet, can't stand to pass. Then keep doing what you have to do Al. Best of luck!

I'll make a note to stop by. I have more in common with spreadsheet handicappers. You are amazing sharing your stuff.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

As usual...Thaskalos to the rescue:

http://cynthiapublishing.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=THS&Product_Code=ALLV6&Category_Code=SOFTWARE

Your modesty knows no bounds..... :D

Interesting link. Runs on Linux. Oh, but it's java. (run away, run away!!!!)

[Hoofless_Wonder]

It seems that FIXED odds betting is the only way out of this dilemma.

Years ago when I had an IASBET account, one of the things I looked forward to was betting the fixed odds on Aussie racing, as the small North American pools could (and still do) fluctuate wildly over the last minute of wagering.

In practice though, I found that they rarely, and I mean rarely, offered an overlay. Fixed odds bets from a single source will bake in some of the risk in pricing, and those oddsmakers are pretty sharp. So if I liked a horse at 5-1 on the Aussie tote, it might be 4-1 fixed odds, and it may be anything from 6/5 to 15-1 in the North American pool - which surely changes on the last flash. After a while, I found that betting the Aussie tote was usually the best move (80% of the time), with an occasional wager in the NA pool (15% of time), and those rare fixed price plays (maybe 5% of the time).

Now if we can get access to multiple source fixed price options like on BetFair, that could be a whole different ball game.....

[Racey]

Not much interest.....why

[NorCalGreg]

Not much interest.....why

Racey, you aren't gonna rest until you get some kind of reply on Pandy's Dimond software. The silence should have told you something....Pandy certainly is a stand-up guy, as you mentioned on another thread, concerning this software. Don't know why you don't just buy the dang thing, and try it for yourself, Racey? Minus a few bucks for handling, he'll send your money back if you don't like it.

I don't send anything back--I figure if I bought it--I now own it. I now own Pandy's Dimond software. :lol:

I will say this...I went ahead AFTERWARDS --to show you how much confidence I still had in the Pandy-man---I went ahead and ordered both his paper & pencil PACE methods--and am awaiting his latest book any day it's released.
good luck

-NCG