Most Morning Lines are just Wrong

[Capper Al]

Forget the fact that most handicapper's prime numbers hit around 30%, some more and some less. Forget that the lines need to be split into two, one for the winning contenders and one for the in the money contenders. Most have been seduced into to believe their numbers are it= a reflection of reality, not something that their top number just hits a winner one out of about three times with no other correlation to reality.

What most do is add up their scores. Divide each horse's score by the sum to determine the probability of each horse according to their total score for the probability. And then convert their probability into odds by subtracting one. What a shame. They still haven't caught on to the game. It's not numbers, it's contenders and separating contenders.

One has to pick 80% contenders or better over the long haul. One does need their 30% or so winners, but this isn't the true odds. Why? I know you're baffled by now. What's this crazy guy talking about? And frankly, I'm amazed that people will think this way. Most that have made an odds line probably tried it out for value against post time odds and lost money, but you're thinking what I'm saying is crazy. If you so believe your math to be fundamental, then why are you losing when you play it against the post time odds? And I can hear the excuses now. -- The odds change too much in the last minute. That's a small cost. Your line should be able to cover this within reason.

Let's see if anyone else has a different way to make an odds line before I pipe in with a solution? I'll be surprised if we get one alternative.

[GameTheory]

One has to pick 80% contenders or better over the long haul. This means what? That one of your contenders must be the winner 80% of the time? Well that's easy if there are no limitations on number of contenders per race. Heck, I can make it 100%. So how many contenders per race am I limited to when calculating whether or not I've hit the magic 80%?

[whodoyoulike]

... What a shame. They still haven't caught on to the game. It's not numbers, it's contenders and separating contenders.

One has to pick 80% contenders or better over the long haul. ...

Let's see if anyone else has a different way to make an odds line before I pipe in with a solution? I'll be surprised if we get one alternative.

You're on to to something here. But, I'm uncertain what the % should be, whether 80% or maybe even 60% could be the correct number. Probably it's a lot greater than 50% to be successful. I think it's always been about identifying contenders. And, not just price horses but whether horses are legit and then determining whether it's worth the risk to make the wager.

Do you actually have a solution because I'm very interested?

[Capper Al]

This means what? That one of your contenders must be the winner 80% of the time? Well that's easy if there are no limitations on number of contenders per race. Heck, I can make it 100%. So how many contenders per race am I limited to when calculating whether or not I've hit the magic 80%?

Sorry for the omission. Usually, 3 or 4 contenders. Sometimes 5 especially in larger fields of 10 or more horses. But it's okay to say anyone could win this race and skip it also.

[Capper Al]

You're on to to something here. But, I'm uncertain what the % should be, whether 80% or maybe even 60% could be the correct number. Probably it's a lot greater than 50% to be successful. I think it's always been about identifying contenders. And, not just price horses but whether horses are legit and then determining whether it's worth the risk to make the wager.

Do you actually have a solution because I'm very interested?

Yes, there is a solution. But many would be disappointed in their search for finding value. At least, their ML would be better.

[MJC922]

Anytime I see a method which has a dependency upon post time odds in order to show a profit on paper then I know I'm in a world of trouble. YMMV.

[Tom]

Why do you need a ML?
People make their own value lines, what purpose does the ML serve?
Anytime there is a scratch, it is meaningless.

[Capper Al]

Why do you need a ML?
People make their own value lines, what purpose does the ML serve?
Anytime there is a scratch, it is meaningless.

I agree. I use random(natural) odds when I'm serious. But I still think there's a lot of people out there just like to take a ML as if they're facts like 1 out of for any side of a dice to come up. (May not your dice, Tom. I hear that you play with loaded dice.)

[NorCalGreg]

I agree. I use random(natural) odds when I'm serious. But I still think there's a lot of people out there just like to take a ML as if they're facts like 1 out of for any side of a dice to come up. (May not your dice, Tom. I hear that you play with loaded dice.)

For me.....the ML has a very good purpose. It's a starting point. When I sit down to 'cap a race, my field is lined up ML fav to bottom--and I begin. I can usually see false favorites in a heartbeat, and potential price plays quickly ( I do most of my 'capping with software, pad and pencil in front of me for notes). Sometimes the ML Fav is a Fav for good reason, and it's time to move on.
My software can give me the top-3 contenders with no problem--that's no great feat, Al.
Without going "Trifecta Mike" on us----what's the deal?

[Capper Al]

For me.....the ML has a very good purpose. It's a starting point. When I sit down to 'cap a race, my field is lined up ML fav to bottom--and I begin. I can usually see false favorites in a heartbeat, and potential price plays quickly ( I do most of my 'capping with software, pad and pencil in front of me for notes). Sometimes the ML Fav is a Fav for good reason, and it's time to move on.
My software can give me the top-3 contenders with no problem--that's no great feat, Al.
Without going "Trifecta Mike" on us----what's the deal?

Hey, I'm not talking about using the ML just making one using your own power figures. I look at the ML too and try to guess at what the public will be doing.

[Capper Al]

What's being handicapped?

[NorCalGreg]

Hey, I'm not talking about using the ML just making one using your own power figures. I look at the ML too and try to guess at what the public will be doing.

ahhh...I thought you were saying you had discovered an odds-line solution that renders any need for a ML useless.....(which isn't saying much---so far) and is still effective vs post time odds swings. Am I right so far?

[Capper Al]

ahhh...I thought you were saying you had discovered an odds-line solution that renders any need for a ML useless.....(which isn't saying much---so far) and is still effective vs post time odds swings. Am I right so far?

Yes. It will be just like many handicappers are attempting to do with their own power ratings. It will be better fitted for their system.

[Capper Al]

What's being handicapped?

What's being handicapped by your homemade odds-line?

[raybo]

What's being handicapped by your homemade odds-line?

Are you trying to "teach" here Al? Please don't, that's what the "Trifecta Mike" reference was about earlier in the thread. If you have something to contribute, then contribute it. Simple!

Why make it one of those "I have the answer, can you guess it" things. Most of us don't like silly games and ego displays.

[v j stauffer]

People that can win at betting on horses need to tell only one person what they know.

A mutual clerk.

The rest are seeking attention for whatever reason.

Doesn't make them bad.

But they're certainly not real.

[Capper Al]

Are you trying to "teach" here Al? Please don't, that's what the "Trifecta Mike" reference was about earlier in the thread. If you have something to contribute, then contribute it. Simple!

Why make it one of those "I have the answer, can you guess it" things. Most of us don't like silly games and ego displays.

Thanks Raybo.

[v j stauffer]

I wonder how it would play out if track simply didn't publish a morning line?

I expect people with real opinions wouldn't care much since a faulty line can only hinder them.

Of course some would be frozen from playing because there would be no way of knowing when a horse was an over/underlay.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

What a great ambassador for the game you would make. :rolleyes:

[v j stauffer]

What a great ambassador for the game you would make. :rolleyes:

Thanks.

Many think I already am one.

I don't expect the fun barbs I exchange with a very few people on here would change that much.

I'm more confident my 40 years of promoting, participating and caring about our great sport might carry the day.

But you could be right.

[hopbet]

VIC,
I believe 99.9% of the people who post or read your (post), WITHOUT question acknowledge you care about horse racing. I personally feel, that I'm being SHORTCHANGED (again 99.9% of the people who post or read AGREE)> The years and different positions you have held, and INSIGHT (knowledge) especially on the handicapping(betting) you have and have obtained would benefit ALL. I fully understand providing information would cause your ROI to DECLINE. Sharing and or providing information ultimately is your choice/decision. Thanks HOPBET

[whodoyoulike]

Sorry for the omission. Usually, 3 or 4 contenders. Sometimes 5 especially in larger fields of 10 or more horses. But it's okay to say anyone could win this race and skip it also.

I misunderstood your OP. If you're considering up to half the field as possible contenders then even 80% may be too low. You may need 100% to be successful and only if they are all price horses because there would be too many permutations involved to make it worthwhile which means I can't see you making very many wagers.

My response was thinking you were narrowing your contenders to 1 or 2.

[cj]

I misunderstood your OP. If you're considering up to half the field as possible contenders then even 80% may be too low. You may need 100% to be successful and only if they are all price horses because there would be too many permutations involved to make it worthwhile which means I can't see you making very many wagers.

My response was thinking you were narrowing your contenders to 1 or 2.


If somebody can pick 80% of the winners using only half the field they are well ahead of your average Joe.

[whodoyoulike]

If somebody can pick 80% of the winners using only half the field they are well ahead of your average Joe.

But, how would you structure your wagers?

You've already acknowledged that 20% of the winners could or would come from your non-contenders which is the reason I think they would all have to be price horses. Now, there are races where the top 4 horses are long shots, so it's possible just not very often. I just don't like using half the field as contenders as in his example of a 10 horse field. I usually pass the race because there is another one. JMO, you need to narrow it further.

[cj]

But, how would you structure your wagers?

You've already acknowledged that 20% of the winners could or would come from your non-contenders which is the reason I think they would all have to be price horses. Now, there are races where the top 4 horses are long shots, so it's possible just not very often. I just don't like using half the field as contenders as in his example of a 10 horse field. I usually pass the race because there is another one. JMO, you need to narrow it further.

I was just pointing out that picking 80% winners using only half the field is difficult. My personal way is to set a line on the horses I think are contenders and bet the overlays. I don't have a set number. What I won't do is bet a horse I think is a contender but then has a line > the size of the field.

I have system I use also that is part of the line making. If I think only three horses are contenders in a 10 horse field, I average that (30%) with 100% and set my line as if I'll have the winner in those three 65% of the time. If I have 4 of 6 as contenders, I use 83.333%, and so on. I then divvy up the percentage among the horses I have as contenders. It works for me, been doing it a long time now.

[Capper Al]

I misunderstood your OP. If you're considering up to half the field as possible contenders then even 80% may be too low. You may need 100% to be successful and only if they are all price horses because there would be too many permutations involved to make it worthwhile which means I can't see you making very many wagers.

My response was thinking you were narrowing your contenders to 1 or 2.


Do a personal study. Find out how many horses don't come from your top half. In cases of odd field sizes like 9 horses put the 5th horse in the top half. This has little to do with contenders, but it takes the hassle out of figuring contenders and makes your study objective. You might find that 20% come out of the bottom half. Most of these horses can't be picked after the race.

[Capper Al]

But, how would you structure your wagers?

You've already acknowledged that 20% of the winners could or would come from your non-contenders which is the reason I think they would all have to be price horses. Now, there are races where the top 4 horses are long shots, so it's possible just not very often. I just don't like using half the field as contenders as in his example of a 10 horse field. I usually pass the race because there is another one. JMO, you need to narrow it further.

My studies agree.

[MJC922]

If your process is adding value then I suspect the value is intrinsic, meaning you should not care what the odds are. When you break it down by odds ranges you will see differences in ROI but they do not hold up long-term, i.e. the next forward test you do will show another subset odds range with better profits and the previous best ROI starts to tank or even lose. I see this time and again in my studies.

So this presumption we have (myself included) that the odds are showing us the crowd hasn't 'caught on' (so to speak) in a specific race to what you're seeing on paper is really without any basis when you think about it. If what you're using, specific tools, process or whatever is leading toward profit then it would seem far better to distill what it is you do that's actually adding value to the point where you can safely ignore odds. FWIW.

[NorCalGreg]

VIC,
I believe 99.9% of the people who post or read your (post), WITHOUT question acknowledge you care about horse racing. I personally feel, that I'm being SHORTCHANGED (again 99.9% of the people who post or read AGREE)> The years and different positions you have held, and INSIGHT (knowledge) especially on the handicapping(betting) you have and have obtained would benefit ALL. I fully understand providing information would cause your ROI to DECLINE. Sharing and or providing information ultimately is your choice/decision. Thanks HOPBET

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks

NorCalGreg

[Capper Al]

If your process is adding value then I suspect the value is intrinsic, meaning you should not care what the odds are. When you break it down by odds ranges you will see differences in ROI but they do not hold up long-term, i.e. the next forward test you do will show another subset odds range with better profits and the previous best ROI starts to tank or even lose. I see this time and again in my studies.

So this presumption we have (myself included) that the odds are showing us the crowd hasn't 'caught on' (so to speak) in a specific race to what you're seeing on paper is really without any basis when you think about it. If what you're using, specific tools, process or whatever is leading toward profit then it would seem far better to distill what it is you do that's actually adding value to the point where you can safely ignore odds. FWIW.

Quirin proved that over the long run the public does a descent job at setting odds. Some handicappers like ranking their horses based on their own odds line.

[TheOracle]

Yes, there is a solution. But many would be disappointed in their search for finding value. At least, their ML would be better.

Your title says that most Morning lines are just wrong. You also mention that many would find that their own Morning lines would be better.

However, I find that sometimes the Morning lines are right on the button. For example, at Aqueduct the Morning lines ending with 5 (i.e. 2/5, 3/5,,,,9/5 etc.) have been doing quite well since January 1, 2016.

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/ml fiveendaqu.jpg

So far Morning lines ending with 5 have been winning at a rate of 67% and have hit the board at rate of 87%. They have won 21 of their last 31 attempts

Now obviously, they will not be able to continue at this pace throughout the year and I attribute this high win percentage is in part due to the extremely warm weather we have been enjoying for the first half of January.

However, once the temperatures drop and we have full racing days of the severe cold weather that we are used to seeing in Queens New York I suspect that these percentages will drop off dramatically but until then it might be advantageous to just go with the flow at least for now


Trying to beat the Morning lines ending with 5 at this time might prove to be quite difficult what ever method you choose. It would probably be best if you have patience and wait for these percentages to subside at least for the moment at Aqueduct

[MJC922]

Quirin proved that over the long run the public does a descent job at setting odds. Some handicappers like ranking their horses based on their own odds line.

Myself included, however I'd much prefer a predictive ranking which is based upon what's actually value-added. The horse you think is third best may have the most profit potential; IMO this has nothing to do with what odds you set on the horse or what the horse is going off at near post time. If you know it has specific factors that are intrinsically not well understood that is in theory all that matters.

This type of ranking would be based more upon where the profits are concentrated and less upon this predictive line many of us try to conjure up looking for crowd 'mistakes'.

[mickey_arnold]

I have system I use also that is part of the line making. If I think only three horses are contenders in a 10 horse field, I average that (30%) with 100% and set my line as if I'll have the winner in those three 65% of the time. If I have 4 of 6 as contenders, I use 83.333%, and so on. I then divvy up the percentage among the horses I have as contenders. It works for me, been doing it a long time now.

CJ,

Your linemaking approach has dramatically simplified for me the task of setting a threshold win% for the set of contenders.

But I don't use it to for apportioning that percentage to each contender and help to make a fair odds line.... I use it with a little tweaking to create a group overlay scenario...

Can't use it for every race and have several race elimination criteria...Ultimately, it is a high win%, low average mutuel method....Averages 2-3 races per card and recent set of 500 races shows 10% return...Still needs some tightening to set acceptable overlay edge...

As with any method, you need a solid approach to select contenders....The drawback is that board watching is a must, so late flash drop-downs can hurt....Working on strategy to identify and handle inevitable odds drop-downs...If I develop one , I'll be sure to share here..

Congrats on your approach to targeting of total contender %age.

P.S. Been looking for the PA link to the fuller description of your method.... Have the write-up, didn't save the link... Can you share it on the forum ?

Thanks again,
Mickey

[Stillriledup]

It's a math problem.

[cj]

CJ,

P.S. Been looking for the PA link to the fuller description of your method.... Have the write-up, didn't save the link... Can you share it on the forum ?

Thanks again,
Mickey


Thanks for the nice words.

As for the method, I have it quasi-automated in a spreadsheet after I manually select contenders, but in all honesty I've been doing it so long now I can usually just do "close enough" calculations in my head. I focus on speed figures and figure patterns, trainers (especially changes), and surface/distance. I try to use what is most relevant for each horse. If a horse is first time on grass, speed figures on dirt don't count much...I'll focus on breeding ratings and trainer ratings. If it is a first claim by a "super trainer", again speed figures are out the window.

I could go on and on, but I don't want to bore people to death with all the various combinations. Basically I'm focusing on the most important factor(s) for each horse, putting them on the same scale, then mathematically creating a line.

[mickey_arnold]

I hear you, CJ...I can just take a gander at the figs I use and can see at a glance whether a horse fits in the group edge I am looking for...helps a lot to have memorized how odds translate into probabilities.

..My approach is to to look for the classic fundamentals in a horse that the public has overlooked in the process of trying to outsmart everyone else...Happens more often than people realize..

It's using unappreciated strengths against the obvious ones in the classic factors impacting a race.

The basics of my approach are semi-automated in a spreadsheet also....In fact, i just use a little "cut and and paste" to utilize the basic method, then either do the overlay calculations in my head or a use a basic calculator...going to automate the overlay edge fairly soon , but at this point, with quick eyeballing of the prospects for an overlay fit on ,it is less critical.

Sure, The algorithm I devised mostly contains predictable contenders (and result in a skipped race), but sometimes even some of those have a nice odds spread that meets
overlay requirements.

[v j stauffer]

VIC,
I believe 99.9% of the people who post or read your (post), WITHOUT question acknowledge you care about horse racing. I personally feel, that I'm being SHORTCHANGED (again 99.9% of the people who post or read AGREE)> The years and different positions you have held, and INSIGHT (knowledge) especially on the handicapping(betting) you have and have obtained would benefit ALL. I fully understand providing information would cause your ROI to DECLINE. Sharing and or providing information ultimately is your choice/decision. Thanks HOPBET

I'm a totally open book. I'm more than happy to share anything and everything I've learned during my 40 years in the business.

My ROI will take care of itself. Especially because I'm predominantly a tournament player these days.

I love talking attacking the windows theory anytime.

Fire away. :ThmbUp:

[v j stauffer]

Your title says that most Morning lines are just wrong. You also mention that many would find that their own Morning lines would be better.

However, I find that sometimes the Morning lines are right on the button. For example, at Aqueduct the Morning lines ending with 5 (i.e. 2/5, 3/5,,,,9/5 etc.) have been doing quite well since January 1, 2016.

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/ml fiveendaqu.jpg

So far Morning lines ending with 5 have been winning at a rate of 67% and have hit the board at rate of 87%. They have won 21 of their last 31 attempts

Now obviously, they will not be able to continue at this pace throughout the year and I attribute this high win percentage is in part due to the extremely warm weather we have been enjoying for the first half of January.

However, once the temperatures drop and we have full racing days of the severe cold weather that we are used to seeing in Queens New York I suspect that these percentages will drop off dramatically but until then it might be advantageous to just go with the flow at least for now


Trying to beat the Morning lines ending with 5 at this time might prove to be quite difficult what ever method you choose. It would probably be best if you have patience and wait for these percentages to subside at least for the moment at Aqueduct

The morning line is NOT a selection process.

[Capper Al]

I don't know where this thread is at, but the first point I was trying to get people to see is that we are blind to about 20% of the winners, some maybe more and some maybe less.

A common mistake is that most mistakenly take their numbers for the horse's ability. A true morning line is not as much a measure of the horses ability, but better a reflection of our understanding of the game. Start the with the permission that we are blind to about 20% of the winners. Then consider that the public has first choice, so if you like a horse and the public likes a horse- the public bets it down first. To wager against the public for value, one must exclude the public. Let's use the old fashion measure that the public wins one third of the time. What's available to you? On average out of 10 races, we won't be able to pick the winner after the race on two of them. The public will hit about three of them across the 10 races. Most likely, these three that the public hits will be in your vision, at least you could have pick these after the race. It's looking like around 5 winners out of ten races are available to hit at a price to be denoted by your personal morning line. What I'm getting at here is not the horse's odds of winning, but rather your odds needed to profit.

[NorCalGreg]

Not following your meaning, Al.....picking "after" the race. I can pick 10 out of 10 winners "after" the race---so I'm sure I'm not understanding. Explain?

[Capper Al]

Not following your meaning, Al.....picking "after" the race. I can pick 10 out of 10 winners "after" the race---so I'm sure I'm not understanding. Explain?

The concern here was what is visible in your handicapping to you after the race. How many winners are from your top ranked horses? Those that are not in the top half are most likely blind to your methods. Most of these bottom half horses are not seen by the handicapper, they might not honestly be able to justify the winner after the race. These are one's blind spots and need to be accepted and figured into one's odds line.

[caper]

I literally just came down stairs to start a topic on the same subject.

I'm beginning to hate MLO's Yesturday at Freehold (harness track) was a great example. There was a p4 carryover so i was studying the program pretty good. A lot of favorites hit at that track, but if you follow it as closely as I do, you can find the false favorites. 2 legs were pretty easy picks, singles. There was a big favorite in the last leg, that I suspected might have problems negotiating the tight turns. So I had that down to two or 3. The toughest leg was a trot race where the 1st 4 horses (best post positions) were all really poor. The 5ht horse I liked, had the highest win percentage and could really leave. But she was in poor form over the last month or so. But still all the horses leaving inside were poor. It's all my fault I admit, I should have known better, but the reason I didn't pick her was that she was 20-1 morning line. I ended up going with the "safer pick" (who I could not stand). The race goes off, she ends up at like 9-1 and wins easy. The p4 goes favorite- 9-1- favorite- 2nd favorite. Pays 2k. I was sick.

[Dave Schwartz]

Not following your meaning, Al.....picking "after" the race. I can pick 10 out of 10 winners "after" the race---so I'm sure I'm not understanding. Explain?

My POV is a little different than "The Capper's."

After a race is over, to me the question is, "Can the winner be justified?"

I have about 30 core factors. Specifically, that means can I see at last 2 factors where the winner was 1st or 2nd? If so, then there was a logical reason why the horse won the race.

This does not mean that my handicapping could have pushed him up high enough to get as a contender.

In my experience around 12% of all winners will fall into this category.

[Capper Al]

My POV is a little different than "The Capper's."

After a race is over, to me the question is, "Can the winner be justified?"

I have about 30 core factors. Specifically, that means can I see at last 2 factors where the winner was 1st or 2nd? If so, then there was a logical reason why the horse won the race.

This does not mean that my handicapping could have pushed him up high enough to get as a contender.

In my experience around 12% of all winners will fall into this category.

This is what I mean about picking the winner after the race. Can I verify a couple of plus factors for the winner after the race.

[ebcorde]

as the effort to compete for the dollar, excitement races are more competitive. The odds makers are accurate majority of the time.

I think most races the Horses fit in that competitive level hence you see tons of 3-1-4-1,-5-1,6-1,8-1.

what I suggest is creating 3 levels for Morning line odds

level 1 8-1 and lower (for me I give Horses 8-1 and lower the same chance to win)

level 2 12-1/10-1.

level 3 above 12-1.

now count the number of Horses 8-1 and lower in a race. that's a sure sign to be careful. test it out.

[ebcorde]

Not following your meaning, Al.....picking "after" the race. I can pick 10 out of 10 winners "after" the race---so I'm sure I'm not understanding. Explain?


I can pick 10 out of 10 winners "after" the race

:lol:

[Capper Al]

The public isn't bad with their odds over 10,000 races. But not so in today's race.

[ebcorde]

The odds maker getting it wrong R2 at AQU the #7 was better than 20-1.

Was the classiest Horse in that 10k field, came in 2rd in his last race.

[Capper Al]

Here's probably where the confusion comes in. Capper's believe that they are on top of understanding a game that they are wrong in 2 out of 3 times. They do analysis and falsely conclude that a horse in a certain niche scenario will win one out of four times. Sounds mathematically certain doesn't it? How many times have you said something like early speed is going to fold as you watch the winner go wire to wire? We are in the dark as to today's scenario as much as we are in the dark about today's winner. And yes, I do analysis and create scenarios also. As handicappers we have no other way, but be aware of the dangers.

[RXB]

Whoever makes the morning line at Sam Houston clearly doesn't have a clue. They might as well let a monkey pick odds lines out of a hat.

6/1 on :2: in the 2nd race today.

9/2 on :1: :1a: entry in the 4th race.

And it's every day like this.

[RXB]

So the :1: looked like the obvious and legitimate favourite by itself had it been decoupled, and the :1a: looked like the second best horse in the race. The :1: wins easily and the :1a: finishes second. At 1/5 odds. And the Sam Houston ML for that entry was 9/2. That is the worst morning line I have ever seen. Ever. No doubt about it.

[Capper Al]

So the :1: looked like the obvious and legitimate favourite by itself had it been decoupled, and the :1a: looked like the second best horse in the race. The :1: wins easily and the :1a: finishes second. At 1/5 odds. And the Sam Houston ML for that entry was 9/2. That is the worst morning line I have ever seen. Ever. No doubt about it.

That's bad.

[raybo]

Whoever makes the morning line at Sam Houston clearly doesn't have a clue. They might as well let a monkey pick odds lines out of a hat.

6/1 on :2: in the 2nd race today.

9/2 on :1: :1a: entry in the 4th race.

And it's every day like this.

In the 2nd, I have the 2 ranked 3rd in "class" and 4th in my Power Form Velocities rating, and I have 2 horses with a running style/early speed points calculation of "E6" (the 2 and 5) and another horse with an "E3" (the 4), and another horse with an "E/P4" (the 1). Based on those running styles and possible pace battles, the 2 and 5 looked like they might hook up early and fade late. So, a 6/1 morning line didn't look completely out of line to me.

In the 4th race, the 1 ranked 2nd in "Class" with the 1A being ranked 1st, and in Power Form Velocities the 1 ranked 1st and the 1A ranked 3rd (coming off a 60 day layoff, in which the trainer does not do well). Based on that, the 1 at 9/2 appeared too high (although moving up from 6f to 7f with low late pace figures may have been a consideration for the M/L creator) and probably should have been the M/L favorite, but the 1A might have been a 9/2 odds horse. Danny Pish had the 5 so that probably carried some weight regarding its 7/2 M/L, but I fail to see where the 5/2 M/L came from on the 7.

I didn't play the card (Texas resident and can't bet Texas tracks) so I haven't done a full analysis of those 2 races, just posted some basics that may have contributed to the M/Ls.

[RXB]

I follow Sam Houston and the proof is in the pudding from both the final odds and the results that the morning line is frequently bonkers. (The ML maker is also the track announcer.)

[raybo]

I follow Sam Houston and the proof is in the pudding from both the final odds and the results that the morning line is frequently bonkers. (The ML maker is also the track announcer.)

Maybe you should apply for the M/L job? Just time stamp your M/Ls at least a day before each race day, for about a year, and bring them to the interview. Should be a slam dunk.

[Dave Schwartz]

Maybe you should apply for the M/L job? Just time stamp your M/Ls at least a day before each race day, for about a year, and bring them to the interview. Should be a slam dunk.

Is it really only a day early? I thought it was more like 2 days?

Your point, of course, is without Past Performances, right?

[raybo]

Is it really only a day early? I thought it was more like 2 days?

Your point, of course, is without Past Performances, right?

Yeah, it's probably at least 2 days prior, and yes, before the PPs and late scratches, current weather and surface conditions, etc.. But, I was giving him a bit of a break.

[RXB]

Is it really only a day early? I thought it was more like 2 days?

Your point, of course, is without Past Performances, right?

I can see why people might wonder if he's making the ML without PP's, but that's not the case. I can already access PP's for next Monday's card at Sam Houston-- that's six days from now.

Today's 3rd race, an 1/9 Asmussen horse that totally and utterly outclassed the field, won by about 10 lengths which is pretty much how much faster it had ran in several races compared to the hopeless lot that it was facing today, and paid the absolute minimum $2.10 to win. It was the 3/1 second choice on the ML.

[Capper Al]

The biggest problem that I have with MLs is in the belief that the total card is understandable. We are lucky if we can pick the winner. It isn't science. It's gambling.

[Dave Schwartz]

I can see why people might wonder if he's making the ML without PP's, but that's not the case. I can already access PP's for next Monday's card at Sam Houston-- that's six days from now.

May I ask where you get PPs 6 days in advance?

Is this common access for line makers?

[Steve 'StatMan']

May I ask where you get PPs 6 days in advance?

Is this common access for line makers?

I just checked, DRF has PPS up for next Tuesday, 2/9. And I checked the national calendar, and Sam Houston has enters 168 hrs (7 days) in advance!

[RXB]

May I ask where you get PPs 6 days in advance?

Is this common access for line makers?

I use TimeformUS. You should be able to get them from DRF and Brisnet, too.

Tracks typically close entries at least 72 hours before that race card. Some go as far as a week in advance. Once the entries are in, the PP's are available shortly thereafter.

[ebcorde]

past odds from past performances? I do all the time to gauge the public's perception of the horse at that time. past odds by result and by purse level.
guess I'm the only one

[Dave Schwartz]

Really? 6 days in advance? I had no idea!

[raybo]

Really? 6 days in advance? I had no idea!

I didn't know that either, and I was a Brisnet member for years before they ran me off after their merger and ensuing lack of customer service, and seeming disregard of time proven business philosophies, like "the customer is everything".

[ubercapper]

Really? 6 days in advance? I had no idea!

Of the 14 tracks racing Saturday, 8 draw 120-192 hours in advance.

http://www.equibase.com/liveday.cfm?trk_date=2016-02-06%2000%3A00%3A00.0

[raybo]

Of the 14 tracks racing Saturday, 8 draw 120-192 hours in advance.

http://www.equibase.com/liveday.cfm?trk_date=2016-02-06%2000%3A00%3A00.0

I think the question is not about when the draw is made , but when the PPs are available. Do M/L creators really do that without PP data? If so, no wonder most of the M/Ls are screwy.

[whodoyoulike]

I think the question is not about when the draw is made , but when the PPs are available. Do M/L creators really do that without PP data? If so, no wonder most of the M/Ls are screwy.

Maybe, they're utilizing their own or the tracks historical databases if pp's aren't available. But, I really don't know. Just can't imagine doing it without pp's.

[mountainman]

As a racing official/ oddsmaker, I have immediate access to pathetic, skeletal pp's featuring just one concession to handicapping: Equibase's worthless pace and speed figs.

My lines are much more accurate when I have time to pull up drf and better view things from a player's perspective.

[NorCalGreg]

As a racing official/ oddsmaker, I have immediate access to pathetic, skeletal pp's featuring just one concession to handicapping: Equibase's worthless pace and speed figs.

My lines are much more accurate when I have time to pull up drf and better view things from a player's perspective.


You too, mountainman? Bashing EQ's figs? I've always considered you a voice of reason--in this sea of madness.

Since my handicapping doesn't require figures of quantum mathematical precision....I've always accepted as truth-- any of the pace/speed numbers were as good as the next, as long as you CONSISTENTLY used the same producer.

Now I find out--from a board member known to be mentally-competent, that one major producer of speed/pace numbers are completely worthless?

Damn....I may leave the game altogether, now---take up whittling.

Always liked whittling :)

[classhandicapper]

If your process is adding value then I suspect the value is intrinsic, meaning you should not care what the odds are. When you break it down by odds ranges you will see differences in ROI but they do not hold up long-term, i.e. the next forward test you do will show another subset odds range with better profits and the previous best ROI starts to tank or even lose. I see this time and again in my studies.

So this presumption we have (myself included) that the odds are showing us the crowd hasn't 'caught on' (so to speak) in a specific race to what you're seeing on paper is really without any basis when you think about it. If what you're using, specific tools, process or whatever is leading toward profit then it would seem far better to distill what it is you do that's actually adding value to the point where you can safely ignore odds. FWIW.

I understand exactly what you are saying.

The one exception I have found is among very short priced horses. Even when I find some value oriented approach, it's value seems to diminish among odds-on horses.

[mountainman]

You too, mountainman? Bashing EQ's figs? I've always considered you a voice of reason--in this sea of madness.

Since my handicapping doesn't require figures of quantum mathematical precision....I've always accepted as truth-- any of the pace/speed numbers were as good as the next, as long as you CONSISTENTLY used the same producer.

Now I find out--from a board member known to be mentally-competent, that one major producer of speed/pace numbers are completely worthless?

Damn....I may leave the game altogether, now---take up whittling.

Always liked whittling :)

Beyers get bet, but if there's ANY correlation between Equibase numbers and the win pool, I've yet to discover it.

Giving a track oddsmaker equibase numbers and asking him to predict what the public will do is like looking at a list of Dairy Queens to track Johnny Football on a Saturday night.

And as for the whittling, you don't strike me as a wood handler.

[ubercapper]

I think the question is not about when the draw is made , but when the PPs are available. Do M/L creators really do that without PP data? If so, no wonder most of the M/Ls are screwy.

When they draw entries, early entry files are created with pps that can be used for making morning lines. So essentially draw times are the same as entry times when pps are available (within a few hours).

[ubercapper]

Beyers get bet, but if there's ANY correlation between Equibase numbers and the win pool, I've yet to discover it.

Giving a track oddsmaker equibase numbers and asking him to predict what the public will do is like looking at a list of Dairy Queens to track Johnny Football on a Saturday night.



There are threads on PA going back to early 2000's (maybe earlier) referencing studies done by Sports Stat (Jim Bayle) in the late 90's comparing Equibase, Beyer and other figures (I think one was the DRF SR+TV, maybe another was HDW as I saw Ron Tiller's name on some of the threads).

Unfortunately, according to the threads, Bayle did not repeat the study when asked and instead it was thought he went into betting full time. There is no record of the first study he did finish that I'm aware of.

I do recall the results though. Using some easily measurable principals (best last figure, average of last 3, average of last 5) the Equibase Figure was within 1 or 2 percentage points of Beyer and the others in win % using all three criteria and had a slightly higher ROI, most likely because it was underutilized.

[Appy]

Don't know if they've changed things since I last entered, but used to be that every horse you brought to the track was accompanied by an up to date PP with the paperwork for that horse. Therefore when that horse/any horse at that track was entered it's entire racing history was in the hands of the office and available for use. They can easily create their own in house PP for the entire field.

In addition I believe every track office has full time free access to equibase database for pedigree and PP info.

[Capper Al]

My complaint about morning lines isn't about their picks. They select pretty good overall. It is in the assigning odds where they are just wrong. The idea that odds are assigned on a prediction that is wrong two-thirds of the time is what is just wrong. When it is determined that one horse is 3/1 and another 1/1 we are saying that the 1/1 is twice as likely to win. If anyone had that precision they'd be rich.

[NorCalGreg]

My complaint about morning lines isn't about their picks. They select pretty good overall. It is in the assigning odds where they are just wrong. The idea that odds are assigned on a prediction that is wrong two-thirds of the time is what is just wrong. When it is determined that one horse is 3/1 and another 1/1 we are saying that the 1/1 is twice as likely to win. If anyone had that precision they'd be rich.

I think you're reading a lot more into the ML, than was ever intended, Al. These guys aren't bookmakers or financial/mutual pool gurus...it's all just an educated guess--right?

[ebcorde]

I think you're reading a lot more into the ML, than was ever intended, Al. These guys aren't bookmakers or financial/mutual pool gurus...it's all just an educated guess--right?

exactly. Is there really a difference in a race between 2 5-1's and 2 6-1's, or 2 8-1's vs 2 10-1's? it's the same to me.

The only time I see what I consider a bad ML is when a Horse greater than 12-1 wins in a large field. That's bad 12 horse field 9 horses below 10-1,
and a 20-1 shot wins. How did that happen? if it happens a lot somebody needs to put out an alert.
But there is no "bad oddsmaker thread"

and sometimes I'll throw out all ML's 4-1 and below and all ML's 12-1 and higher. Leave me with ML's of 9-2 to 10-1's.

[NorCalGreg]

And so it was that later

as the miller told his tale

that her face, at first just ghostly,

turned a whiter shade of paleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


-love that tune, man

[Stillriledup]

Tracks should be forced by local government and state authorities to honor ML odds with fixed odds wagering (for any amount)

Anything less is false advertising.

[ultracapper]

"They're not rules. They're more like guidelines"

I love that movie.

[Capper Al]

I think you're reading a lot more into the ML, than was ever intended, Al. These guys aren't bookmakers or financial/mutual pool gurus...it's all just an educated guess--right?

Agree. If you understand that most MLs are made from a distribution of prime numbers then one realizes that they are looking at the numbers not the horses.

[Dave Schwartz]

If you understand that most MLs are made from a distribution of prime numbers then one realizes that they are looking at the numbers not the horses.

Al,

I do not understand that.

Could you please explain how that works?

[burnsy]

Why do you need a ML?
People make their own value lines, what purpose does the ML serve?
Anytime there is a scratch, it is meaningless.

Totally agree with Tom. The morning line may help a newb. I've even seen people start a "bitch thread" about guys that make them. Meaningless, until the scratches. One scratch can change the dynamics of the entire race. More importantly, if one has done this for any amount of time and is serious about winning, how will one survive if they can not at least "ballpark" your own personal value line? I actually like when the guy is awful, that's a blessing, if you have your own "original" thoughts. If one gambles to win on anything, finding flaws in what everyone else thinks is how you get ahead. Do people think these guys that play professionally or win these contest care what the morning line is? They are all looking for overlays. People act like this is rocket science. Read the morning line and take it to heart, worry about it.....yeah, that's how I bet...........not.


The "non-precision" of them (the odds) is what makes the entire game. The morning line means nothing once the bets start coming in, Pari-mutuels rule. If there were actual "stone cold" odds no one would probably be playing. Hell, they have those video (bot) slot, horse races, with random winners and set odds. No form, no numbers for number players, maybe a goofy power number that the machine assigns. So there is zero thinking on your own. That's not how horse racing works.......thank God.

Sometimes I almost think people think too much about the things you can't control. Who gives a good crap about what the line maker thinks, if you think you can handicap yourself?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Tracks should be forced by local government and state authorities to honor ML odds with fixed odds wagering (for any amount)

Anything less is false advertising.

I agree.

And Wall Street should take it in the arse every time I buy a crap stock at an inflated price. Bastages.

[Capper Al]

Al,

I do not understand that.

Could you please explain how that works?

If horse A is 3/1 and horse B is 1/1, their probabilities are 1/4 vs 1/2. We are saying that B is twice as likely as A by our numbers. Given that at best our top number hits the winner 1 out of 3 times, our numbering systems are more wrong than right. I can't see how we can make a statement like that.

[NorCalGreg]

If horse A is 3/1 and horse B is 1/1, their probabilities are 1/4 vs 1/2. We are saying that B is twice as likely as A by our numbers. Given that at best our top number hits the winner 1 out of 3 times, our numbering systems are more wrong than right. I can't see how we can make a statement like that.

So.....by your logic, the "probable" ML favorite, or the entry given the lowest ML odds---should always be 3-1, to mathematically fit your numerical thesis?

[TheOracle]

Totally agree with Tom. The morning line may help a newb. I've even seen people start a "bitch thread" about guys that make them. Meaningless, until the scratches. One scratch can change the dynamics of the entire race. More importantly, if one has done this for any amount of time and is serious about winning, how will one survive if they can not at least "ballpark" your own personal value line? I actually like when the guy is awful, that's a blessing, if you have your own "original" thoughts. If one gambles to win on anything, finding flaws in what everyone else thinks is how you get ahead. Do people think these guys that play professionally or win these contest care what the morning line is? They are all looking for overlays. People act like this is rocket science. Read the morning line and take it to heart, worry about it.....yeah, that's how I bet...........not.


The "non-precision" of them (the odds) is what makes the entire game. The morning line means nothing once the bets start coming in, Pari-mutuels rule. If there were actual "stone cold" odds no one would probably be playing. Hell, they have those video (bot) slot, horse races, with random winners and set odds. No form, no numbers for number players, maybe a goofy power number that the machine assigns. So there is zero thinking on your own. That's not how horse racing works.......thank God.

Sometimes I almost think people think too much about the things you can't control. Who gives a good crap about what the line maker thinks, if you think you can handicap yourself?

Hey Burns

I guess a good study would be to see how often the Morning Line is wrong but in looking at the Morning Line at Aqueduct recently I am seeing that, at least for now, the lines ending in 5 (2/5, 3/5,,, 9/5) have won 30 of their last 46 attempts which is around 65% since the beginning of the year.

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/ml fiveaqujanfeb.jpg

I know this is a short term trend, but since I have been watching this sport I have never seen anything with this type of accuracy and I know it won't last long but I can't help but to pay attention to it while it's hot.



Even more interesting is what the 5er's have been doing in Maiden races in which they have won 12 of their last *15 attempts, again I know it won't last long but, if you've been trying to go against the trend in this situation since January 1st you lost 12 times.

*Actually 14 attempts due to the coupled entry on January 1st


http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/ml fivemdnsaqu.jpg

Maybe, you wait for the first 2 or 3 losses in this situation and then capture the overlays going forward if you are going against the trend.

However, for now the 5er's have been tough to beat in this situation.


There are three 5er's tomorrow in Maiden races at Aqueduct:

Race 3
#6 Adrestia

Race 4
#7 Big East

Race 6
#7 Smile Big


Let's see what happens!!

[Capper Al]

So.....by your logic, the "probable" ML favorite, or the entry given the lowest ML odds---should always be 3-1, to mathematically fit your numerical thesis?

No, but that's what they are worth. Saying that we can differentiate between horses when we are more wrong than right is crazy. You're earlier point was right on about two horses at the same odds. Does anybody really believe these horses have the same odds? We do this because our numbers say so mathematically. MLs are an aid in handicapping, but we need to take a step back and evaluate the horses. There's no getting away from this.

[Dave Schwartz]

If horse A is 3/1 and horse B is 1/1, their probabilities are 1/4 vs 1/2. We are saying that B is twice as likely as A by our numbers. Given that at best our top number hits the winner 1 out of 3 times, our numbering systems are more wrong than right. I can't see how we can make a statement like that.

It is the "prime number" thing I am not getting.

[Capper Al]

It is the "prime number" thing I am not getting.

I'm using prime number as an example of a number likely to be used to make an odds line out of. Some cappers may use other numbers like speed to convert into their ML formula.

[Dave Schwartz]

I am not seeing where you are using prime numbers. Can you please explain that?

[Capper Al]

I am not seeing where you are using prime numbers. Can you please explain that?

I'm using the take a series of numbers and add them up for a total figure. Then take the that number for a horse and divide it by the total to get a percentage. The total sum represents the strength of the field. The horse's percentage represents the horse's probability based on whatever number series one is feeding it such as a capper's prime number. Once one has the probability then they convert it into odds. Of course, there's more to it than this. Our numbers might need prepping first before summing them up and dividing them. But that's just a matter of math.

[ebcorde]

how many equally divide the time to each Horse?

I don't, I use the ML to separate. Anyone above 10/12-1 (depending on the amount of Horses in a race) I put into Group 2. Those below in Group 1.

When I finish with Group 1 , I tackle group 2 and select the best of that lot if I feel he has a good shot. I'm do not expect to find GOLD on every race.
I still have to check them out.

This way I devote the bulk of my handicapping time to the Horses MOST likely to win

really that's all I get out of the ML line.

[Dave Schwartz]

I'm using the take a series of numbers and add them up for a total figure. Then take the that number for a horse and divide it by the total to get a percentage. The total sum represents the strength of the field. The horse's percentage represents the horse's probability based on whatever number series one is feeding it such as a capper's prime number. Once one has the probability then they convert it into odds. Of course, there's more to it than this. Our numbers might need prepping first before summing them up and dividing them. But that's just a matter of math.

So, when you say, "Prime Numbers," you don't mean: 1,2,3,5,7, etc.

This was my confusion.

[ultracapper]

So, when you say, "Prime Numbers," you don't mean: 1,2,3,5,7, etc.

This was my confusion.

That's what I was thinking also. I thought I'd sit back and wait for him to respond to you.

[raybo]

So, when you say, "Prime Numbers," you don't mean: 1,2,3,5,7, etc.

This was my confusion.

I think he means a "power" number, an all encompassing rating for each horse. Like Bris Prime Power, or JCapper's power rating, etc..

[Capper Al]

I think he means a "power" number, an all encompassing rating for each horse. Like Bris Prime Power, or JCapper's power rating, etc..

That's correct. I get the term from BRIS' Prime Power rating. Sorry for any confusion on my part.

Any composite figure will do. One can use multiple factors for calculation instead of a single prime factor, but the formula will be a little different.

[NorCalGreg]

That's correct. I get the term from BRIS' Prime Power rating. Sorry for any confusion on my part.

Any composite figure will do. One can use multiple factors for calculation instead of a single prime factor, but the formula will be a little different.



I know this thread is about the track Morning Line--but since you mentioned it, Al--I'm really impressed with PRIME POWER.
There's another, I suppose, similar ranking called PROFIT LINE....both from Bris. In the past, I've used Profit Line as a screen...if my horse I was considering wasn't TOP-5 Profit Line--I simply eliminated it.
That was a train wreck--I was eliminating winners regularly! I don't think one can go wrong with using PRIME POWER'S top-5 as an odds line. Say what you will, but to me it's the best commercial ranking available--1 to 5.

Use Profit Line and take your chances--no comparison to Prime Power. If anyone has any stats on Prime Power vs Profit Line--I would certainly be interested in seeing it.

[Capper Al]

I know this thread is about the track Morning Line--but since you mentioned it, Al--I'm really impressed with PRIME POWER.
There's another, I suppose, similar ranking called PROFIT LINE....both from Bris. In the past, I've used Profit Line as a screen...if my horse I was considering wasn't TOP-5 Profit Line--I simply eliminated it.
That was a train wreck--I was eliminating winners regularly! I don't think one can go wrong with using PRIME POWER'S top-5 as an odds line. Say what you will, but to me it's the best commercial ranking available--1 to 5.

Use Profit Line and take your chances--no comparison to Prime Power. If anyone has any stats on Prime Power vs Profit Line--I would certainly be interested in seeing it.

I keep my eye on profit line also. It's like a check on the tote-board.

[ebcorde]

as a odds line, that's a good idea.

Not for betting, they will kill you ...at the wrong time

years ago Brisnet featured Prime Power as a major selling tool. They claimed the highest Prime Power above 3 won 35% of races , above 10 won ?? (I forget) but it was a super high percentage. And then they stopped advertising it.

I figured someone must have cried foul. My experience found it not to be true.

[TheOracle]

Well the 5er's only had 1 win in 4 attempts today at Aqueduct and gave back some of the win returns which is now down to 18% from 24% last week!!

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/ml tofivesfebaqu.jpg

I was really hoping to see at least 2 wins today but it just didn't happen


This might be a good time to beat them as the returns and the win percentages are starting to head downward for the month of February!!!


The 5er's had an equally rough time in Maiden races today as they also gave back some win returns which is now down to 33% from 60% last week!!

However, it is interesting that the 9/5 Morning Line in the 6th race, #7 Smile Big paid $3.80 to show which is more that some of the win prices in this situation at Aqueduct!!

The 5er's went 0 for 3 today in Maiden races:

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/ml favsmdnsaqufeb.jpg

The same scenario could be the case in Maiden races to try to beat them as it is now getting colder and that Aqueduct backstretch could be rough on the Morning Line Favorites!!


Let's see what happens with these 5er's tomorrow at Aqueduct:

1st race
#2 Picture Day

2nd race -- Maiden
#6 Threes Are Wild

8th race
#8 Geaux Mets

[whodoyoulike]

Oracle,

I'm still trying to figure out why this ending in #5 odds makes sense to you.

Have you been monitoring this for some time?

[TheOracle]

Hey who,

Nah haven't been following for long I do try to keep up with it from time to time but when Al started asking about the favorites I decided to look it up again and then I found they were winning at a high rate since January at Aqueduct for some weird reason.


Then I decided to look at Maidens and the win rate was even higher but it seems to be tailing off now.

[NorCalGreg]

as a odds line, that's a good idea.

Not for betting, they will kill you ...at the wrong time

years ago Brisnet featured Prime Power as a major selling tool. They claimed the highest Prime Power above 3 won 35% of races , above 10 won ?? (I forget) but it was a super high percentage. And then they stopped advertising it.

I figured someone must have cried foul. My experience found it not to be true.

They still make claims about how a 3-pt gap wins so-and so, 10 pt gap, etc.
To show how anyone can make stats seem fantastic....they truthfully say their top 4 contains the winner in something like 75% of all races. Sounds outstanding, right? Until you realize how small the fields are nowadays--with many races only having 5 ,6 or 7 starters.

Still, all in all...until someone shows me different---Prime Power's the king.

[TheOracle]

Since this post the 5ers have been struggling at Aqueduct for the month of February

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/ml fiveaqufebtwlv.jpg


They have only won 5 of their last 14 attempts as February is proving to be a rough month

However 3 of the 5 wins in February have been in Claiming races in which the 5ers have been doing well since the beginning of the year as they have won 9 out of their last 15 attempts!!


http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/ml fiveaqufebclm.jpg


There are these Claimers running today at Aqueduct for M Nevin

1st race
#1 Gabbys Brown

6th race
#8 American Creed

Let's see what happens today!!

[TheOracle]

Since this post #1 Gabbys Brown was off the board on February 21st for M Nevin however #7 Amours Charm did win yesterday for Nevin and paid $6 to win.

Correction on my part #8 American Creed, was not listed with a Morning Line ending in 5 and so does not qualify for the study

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/ml fiveaqufebclmrs.jpg

Overall, since January 1st the 5ers have won 10 of their last 17 Claiming races and is giving a 30% return so far at Aqueduct!!

[mickey_arnold]

Check out this link before making definitive statements about Prime Power being "king": http://www.jcapper.com/benchmarktesting.asp (http://http://www.jcapper.com/benchmarktesting.asp). Depends on whether you are talking Win% or ROI, especially on Top Rank Pick.

BTW I have deeper comparisons that cover all Ranks...Jeff Platt from JCapper obviously has even more studies of his ratings...If you can dig up BRIS analyses that might parallel some of his, it would be interesting to expand the comparison.

[thaskalos]

Any chance that we'll see 4-1 odds on the :7: in today's 11th race at Sam Houston? :)

[TexasDolly]

Check out this link before making definitive statements about Prime Power being "king": http://www.jcapper.com/benchmarktesting.asp (http://http://www.jcapper.com/benchmarktesting.asp). Depends on whether you are talking Win% or ROI, especially on Top Rank Pick.

BTW I have deeper comparisons that cover all Ranks...Jeff Platt from JCapper obviously has even more studies of his ratings...If you can dig up BRIS analyses that might parallel some of his, it would be interesting to expand the comparison.

I wasn't able to access that link you posted . Is it currently bad or is it my
setup ?
Thank you,
TD

[davew]

I wasn't able to access that link you posted . Is it currently bad or is it my
setup ?
Thank you,
TD


try this
http://www.jcapper.com/benchmarktesting.asp

[TexasDolly]

try this
http://www.jcapper.com/benchmarktesting.asp

Thanks Dave worked fine. Pretty impressive.
TD

[overthehill]

I pay a lot of attention to MLs. and i would say there is variability among the line makers. I would say that the only ML that is consistently off among major tracks is Gulfstream Park as far as contenders go. and the NYRA line maker tends to undervalue the likelihood of a long shot winning on occasion.

Here I have found the discussion of contenders thought provoking. are you saying that the basket of your non-contenders have no chance of winning or will win about 20% of the time? if so your basket of non contenders would have odds of 4-1 in your line.

Yesterday I felt victimized by picking a horse i felt was a strong contender at 21-1 who was 6-1 in the ml only to lose to a perceived contender who had never run well in the class in many attempts , who while being trained by a competent trainer , was 20-1 and went off at 60-1. I gave the horse a slim chance of winning because of the trainer, but did not have it as a contender , yet it won.

Personally, at times i ve toyed with the notion of just arbitrarily narrowing the field down to my three likeliest winner and assigning mimimum acceptable odds to each level. sometimes it might be difficult to narrow it down to a top 3 because 4 and 5 are pretty close to 3. and then you have some races with lots of firsters trained by great trainers who are all well bred.

[Capper Al]

ML is a good source of information even if they are wrong. What's wrong about an ML is that they imply that the science of handicapping is so refined that they can distinguish between a 3/1 horse and a 7/2 horse. The ML selection outright are generally very good.