Breaking Ties

[PICSIX]

Let's say I have 3 or 4 horses ranked on top that are equally rated by my methods; unless one or two of them are juicy overlays I normally pass the race. However, I'm amazed, when checking results, at how many winners I would of had if I had just used the horse who is closest to the rail (post position).

Assuming there are no coupled entries and I have 2-4-6-8 ranked equally then the 2 would win the Tie-breaker.

Has anyone else looked at this?

In tournament play, for example, I'm forced to play these type of races and will use this Tie-breaker moving forward.

[ultracapper]

All things being equal, the shortest way around the track is the rail.

[cj]

Let's say I have 3 or 4 horses ranked on top that are equally rated by my methods; unless one or two of them are juicy overlays I normally pass the race. However, I'm amazed, when checking results, at how many winners I would of had if I had just used the horse who is closest to the rail (post position).

Assuming there are no coupled entries and I have 2-4-6-8 ranked equally then the 2 would win the Tie-breaker.

Has anyone else looked at this?

In tournament play, for example, I'm forced to play these type of races and will use this Tie-breaker moving forward.

Maybe include post position in your method?

[cato]

But then he has to come up with another tie breaker! :)

By the way it seems that this rail theory would, uh, vary based on track, distance, surface and condition, eh?

[ReplayRandall]

Let's say I have 3 or 4 horses ranked on top that are equally rated by my methods; unless one or two of them are juicy overlays I normally pass the race. However, I'm amazed, when checking results, at how many winners I would of had if I had just used the horse who is closest to the rail (post position).

Assuming there are no coupled entries and I have 2-4-6-8 ranked equally then the 2 would win the Tie-breaker.

Has anyone else looked at this?

In tournament play, for example, I'm forced to play these type of races and will use this Tie-breaker moving forward.

Works with the greyhounds, but the horses?....I don't know.

[DRIVEWAY]

How does the Juicy Method work?

[NY BRED]

[QUOTE=ultracapper]All things being equal, the shortest way around the track is the rail

Except for First timers as the heavy fav, with trainers not ranked in the top five at the specific track.

even if the trainer is high percentage, other factors involve breeding,
track condition/bias

[mikesal57]

Try using this for future bets....

2 inside post positions by track

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE RAILPOSITION <= 2
AND [DATE] >= #12-01-2015#


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 11357.80 11116.70 11465.10
Bet -15612.00 -15612.00 -15612.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -4254.20 -4495.30 -4146.90

Wins 923 1860 2767
Plays 7806 7806 7806
PCT .1182 .2383 .3545

ROI 0.7275 0.7121 0.7344
Avg Mut 12.31 5.98 4.14


************************************************** **************************************
BY TRACK sorted by Track Code Run Date: 1/22/2016 9:59:09 AM
************************************************** **************************************
WIN WIN WIN PLACE PLACE
TRACK PLAYS WINS PCT IMPACT ROI PLACES PCT ROI
************************************************** **************************************
AQU 532 84 0.1579 1.3354 0.9617 146 0.2744 0.7568
CTX 280 28 0.1 0.8457 0.8493 60 0.2143 0.6618
DED 576 62 0.1076 0.91 0.6915 131 0.2274 0.747
FGX 562 88 0.1566 1.3244 0.9881 154 0.274 0.7438
FLX 126 16 0.127 1.0741 0.3294 37 0.2937 0.7567
GGX 382 42 0.1099 0.9294 0.578 92 0.2408 0.7293
GPX 648 82 0.1265 1.0698 0.7866 152 0.2346 0.8015
HAW 278 39 0.1403 1.1865 0.9906 76 0.2734 0.7887
HOU 78 7 0.0897 0.7586 0.7628 17 0.2179 1.0013
LAX 108 19 0.1759 1.4876 0.6157 40 0.3704 0.7394
LRC 204 22 0.1078 0.9117 0.525 58 0.2843 0.7426
LRL 436 49 0.1124 0.9506 0.6296 109 0.25 0.7141
MVR 502 54 0.1076 0.91 0.7206 103 0.2052 0.6137
OPX 72 9 0.125 1.0572 1.2764 19 0.2639 0.9653
PEN 344 34 0.0988 0.8356 0.5872 67 0.1948 0.6164
PHA 238 32 0.1345 1.1375 1.1534 58 0.2437 0.8559
PMX 238 34 0.1429 1.2085 0.6189 65 0.2731 0.7061
RPX 130 13 0.1 0.8457 0.58 31 0.2385 0.7469
SAX 276 33 0.1196 1.0115 0.9293 63 0.2283 0.7627
SUN 228 13 0.057 0.4821 0.314 42 0.1842 0.5024
TAM 502 44 0.0876 0.7409 0.6014 112 0.2231 0.6681
TPX 468 45 0.0962 0.8136 0.5658 83 0.1774 0.6016
TUP 494 63 0.1275 1.0783 0.6694 123 0.249 0.6772
ZIA 104 11 0.1058 0.8948 0.4087 22 0.2115 0.5163
************************************************** **************************************
24 Track Codes from file: StarterHistory Table
************************************************** **************************************

[Overlay]

I use impact values in my handicapping, which results in the final "figure" for each horse (on which I base the horse's fair odds) being expressed to at least two decimal places. Coupled with the fact that I evaluate each horse on multiple factors, I very seldom (if ever) have two horses end up with the exact same figure. This not only makes it easy to rank them, but also allows me to tell exactly why and how much I prefer one horse over another. (Plus, of course, consideration of whether (and also by how much) each horse is an overlay or not according to my odds line will also come into play.)

[raybo]

I use post position for final tie breakers for all rankings methods in my program. Seems to work fine.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Let's say I have 3 or 4 horses ranked on top that are equally rated by my methods; unless one or two of them are juicy overlays I normally pass the race. However, I'm amazed, when checking results, at how many winners I would of had if I had just used the horse who is closest to the rail (post position).

Assuming there are no coupled entries and I have 2-4-6-8 ranked equally then the 2 would win the Tie-breaker.

Has anyone else looked at this?

In tournament play, for example, I'm forced to play these type of races and will use this Tie-breaker moving forward.
Are the results similar for sprints and routes? Is there are correlation between running style and post for your contenders? I would think a plodder on the rail would be at a much greater disadvantage than a speed horse from the outside in a sprint, whereas in a route it might be the opposite. In fact a horse with good tactical speed should be able to establish position from any post in a sprint. Just wondering if the correlation can be refined.

[Capper Al]

I use many different tie breakers. For speed figs I use class. For class figs I use speed. For trainer I use jockey. For jockey I use trainer. For final score I use MLand BRIS prime.

[therussmeister]

I draw a name out of a hat*. If you have a handicapping factor that reliably works as a tie breaker it is because you are not giving it enough weight in your original handicapping, and you should adjust your algorithm.

* Actually I don't do this because I play exotics and can cover both horses.

[PICSIX]

Thanks for the replies......for now, I will keep my methods the same and continue to play/monitor this tie-breaker. Thinking on how to adjust/weight for post position.

[raybo]

Thanks for the replies......for now, I will keep my methods the same and continue to play/monitor this tie-breaker. Thinking on how to adjust/weight for post position.

The problem with weighting by post position is that the break, and the frequent mad scramble after the break, is involved. Trying to universally weight by post position is one of those things where you will probably be wrong as much, or more, than you are right about the break and the ensuing scramble for position. So, weighting the inside post higher than the 2nd and wider posts assumes that the inside posts will break well, and that can never be predicted.

So, my opinion is that all your other factors should be analyzed first, and the post position should only be used as a tie breaker, not a weighted part of your analysis. Of course, I focus on the long term, not on individual race results, which means that some individual races may turn out the other way, with the post position being more significant.

[JohnGalt1]

How do you when you do break ties between 3-4 equally rated horses?

Is your win percentage as high as when you have one or two stand outs?

When I am confronted with your situation I either use all 3-4 horses in a pick 3,4 or pass the race

Personally I get in trouble when the differences between horses is as thin as an onion skin.

In fact, if I have 4 horses on top, it means I don't have a handle on the race, so I won't just limit to 3-4, but will take all, or pass.

Money saved for another race is as good as money won.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You "break ties" with the odds. You win by being value oriented, not selection oriented.

[raybo]

You "break ties" with the odds. You win by being value oriented, not selection oriented.

Yeah, we know, but we're talking about breaking rankings ties, not betting selections.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yeah, we know, but we're talking about breaking rankings ties, not betting selections.
Why would you need to break the tie if you had three horses that were very close but only one was an overlay? Or to put it another way, if you are wanting to make a win bet, why wouldn't you break the tie by ranking horses according to value? I'm suggesting value breaks the tie, and value drives the bet. And if you want three horses to use in a horizontal no need to rank them. If you need to come up with one horse for some reason, you are being selection oriented, which I've argued is not a long run winning strategy. Why have an academic discussion about ranking horses if it has nothing to do with betting? I suppose if you are ranking horses for the intellectual fun of it, you're right--value is not important.

[ultracapper]

[QUOTE=ultracapper]All things being equal, the shortest way around the track is the rail

Except for First timers as the heavy fav, with trainers not ranked in the top five at the specific track.

even if the trainer is high percentage, other factors involve breeding,
track condition/bias

The shortest way around the track is still the rail.

[thaskalos]

Why would you need to break the tie if you had three horses that were very close but only one was an overlay? Or to put it another way, if you are wanting to make a win bet, why wouldn't you break the tie by ranking horses according to value? I'm suggesting value breaks the tie, and value drives the bet. And if you want three horses to use in a horizontal no need to rank them. If you need to come up with one horse for some reason, you are being selection oriented, which I've argued is not a long run winning strategy. Why have an academic discussion about ranking horses if it has nothing to do with betting? I suppose if you are ranking horses for the intellectual fun of it, you're right--value is not important.
Vertical exotics usually demand that horses be put in some sort of order according to ability...so that the handicapping job could be done most effectively. In trifectas, for example...the takeout is too high to warrant the casual placement of ALL the win-contenders on the top slot of the bet.

There are also many players out there who are not psychologically suited to the practice of allowing the odds to determine their win-bets. They actually need the added reinforcement of knowing that they are betting their money on the "best" horse in the race.

"Breaking ties" is usually the ANGLE-player's dilemma. Figure handicappers usually employ methods which are detailed and precise enough to break up the vast majority of the ties out there. If a win-bettor encounters infrequent ties, and he can't bring himself to bet on the highest-odds horse...then he should pass the race, IMO. And if he encounters FREQUENT ties...then he should refine his handicapping methods.

The worn-out tie-breaking rules of yesteryear are not likely to bring forth desired results...I am afraid.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Vertical exotics usually demand that horses be put in some sort of order according to ability...so that the handicapping job could be done most effectively. In trifectas, for example...the takeout is too high to warrant the casual placement of ALL the win-contenders on the top slot of the bet.

There are also many players out there who are not psychologically suited to the practice of allowing the odds to determine their win-bets. They actually need the added reinforcement of knowing that they are betting their money on the "best" horse in the race.

"Breaking ties" is usually the ANGLE-player's dilemma. Figure handicappers usually employ methods which are detailed and precise enough to break up the vast majority of the ties out there. If a win-bettor encounters infrequent ties, and he can't bring himself to bet on the highest-odds horse...then he should pass the race, IMO. And if he encounters FREQUENT ties...then he should refine his handicapping methods.

The worn-out tie-breaking rules of yesteryear are not likely to bring forth desired results...I am afraid.
I agree about the vertical bets. With A, B, C in order from top contender to bottom, I may bet A with BC with (whatever), and possibly BC with A with (whatever). Or I may bet AB with AB with (whatever). I think the point of verticals is often to turn a shorter priced favorite into value. Turn an even money shot into 9/2 or something like that. But I'm still more focused on how strong the top choice is and where the value lies. One thing that I've passed along is that almost no horseplayer is practiced at picking for the runner up slots, other than assessing the win probability and ranking accordingly. This can lead to overestimating and underestimating horses for minor awards. So a horse with a 5% chance of winning, may have closer to a combined 15% chance of finishing in one of the top four slots. That's why the deeper verticals can be tough.

I also agree about how hard it is for players to give up their "selection" in favor of value. I think horseplayers are conditioned from day one to find the winner. Even if you watch TVG they are obligated to pick one horse per race without necessarily relating it to value. Even Andy Beyers book was titled Picking Winners, settling on one horse. Of course it is simple arithmetic that you cannot make money on win bets in the long run betting horses that are undervalued.

I used to write those "angle" articles for American Turf Monthly. A lot of the studies we used to do have been replaced by the detailed stats in Formulator and TimeForm.

[thaskalos]

I used to write those "angle" articles for American Turf Monthly. A lot of the studies we used to do have been replaced by the detailed stats in Formulator and TimeForm.

Oh...so, YOU were the guy! :)

Those impressive "workout results" which often accompanied those "angle articles"...were they authentic...or were they "slightly" exaggerated?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Oh...so, YOU were the guy! :)

Those impressive "workout results" which often accompanied those "angle articles"...were they authentic...or were they "slightly" exaggerated?
I wasn't the only guy doing that stuff. Some of the angles were really simple - For example, John Angelo's Shipper Angle for Saratoga was basically to look for horses that had a bullet work or a sharp race last out. My article on whether first time Lasix was profitable (in 1990) was purely statistical. They used to have the "angle of the month" and usually it was written around one stand out and real example. Ray Taulbot's stuff was actually just recycled every 10 years.

Anything I wrote was real, although I'd admit I didn't always do exhaustive studies, and you sometimes would add based on the results. I'd get a season's worth of data for some track, and calculate the angle. But say you were looking at all horses that started with less than 7 days rest. Calculating the percentage winners was easy, and then you might look at all the other factors - dropping weight, changing jockeys, switching distance, class change, etc. And then you'd come up with your five rules for betting horses coming back in less than 7 days. It was actually pretty crude compared to what you can do today. I actually did an article about the best angles of all time (that still apply today) for Horseplayer Magazine.

[raybo]

Why would you need to break the tie if you had three horses that were very close but only one was an overlay? Or to put it another way, if you are wanting to make a win bet, why wouldn't you break the tie by ranking horses according to value? I'm suggesting value breaks the tie, and value drives the bet. And if you want three horses to use in a horizontal no need to rank them. If you need to come up with one horse for some reason, you are being selection oriented, which I've argued is not a long run winning strategy. Why have an academic discussion about ranking horses if it has nothing to do with betting? I suppose if you are ranking horses for the intellectual fun of it, you're right--value is not important.

There are viable reasons for rankings, and if you can't think of any then you obviously don't need to rank horses, others do. Research is one reason, database work is another as rankings often work much better in the long term. Another is that the tied horses might be tied for 3rd or 4th, instead of 1st. Computer program automation of the handicapping process is another reason for rankings. Exacta, trifecta, superfecta, etc., is another. The list goes on and on.

The topic of this thread is about how to break rankings ties, not whether or not one should have tie breakers. That is another subject entirely. I suggest you start another thread about that.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There are viable reasons for rankings, and if you can't think of any then you obviously don't need to rank horses, others do. Research is one reason, database work is another as rankings often work much better in the long term. Another is that the tied horses might be tied for 3rd or 4th, instead of 1st. Computer program automation of the handicapping process is another reason for rankings. Exacta, trifecta, superfecta, etc., is another. The list goes on and on.

The topic of this thread is about how to break rankings ties, not whether or not one should have tie breakers. That is another subject entirely. I suggest you start another thread about that.
I develop an odds line for the race. How is that not "ranking?" And the odds line drives the bet based on value for me. It is the logical extension of ranking. And as I already said, if you have a horse solidly "ranked" as best, you can try to turn him into a higher odds horse with verticals.

Apparently we're talking by each other. I think I'm talking about rankings based on my computation of probable win percentage. How is that different than what a computer does? Or what you do? And the concept of breaking ties was brought up in the first post. I believe you break the tie (1st, 3rd or 4th, whatever) by deciding with horse has best value, which I see as legitimate as say, post position. I'm honestly not sure why you see that as different than whatever you see as rankings and breaking ties. But, if you need to be right, sure, you're right.

[ultracapper]

Vertical exotics usually demand that horses be put in some sort of order according to ability...so that the handicapping job could be done most effectively. In trifectas, for example...the takeout is too high to warrant the casual placement of ALL the win-contenders on the top slot of the bet.

There are also many players out there who are not psychologically suited to the practice of allowing the odds to determine their win-bets. They actually need the added reinforcement of knowing that they are betting their money on the "best" horse in the race.

"Breaking ties" is usually the ANGLE-player's dilemma. Figure handicappers usually employ methods which are detailed and precise enough to break up the vast majority of the ties out there. If a win-bettor encounters infrequent ties, and he can't bring himself to bet on the highest-odds horse...then he should pass the race, IMO. And if he encounters FREQUENT ties...then he should refine his handicapping methods.

The worn-out tie-breaking rules of yesteryear are not likely to bring forth desired results...I am afraid.

I don't want it to appear that I'm smooching up to your a$$, but there are times I'm blown away by the amount of clear thought you've put into this game.

This post is amazing in so many ways.

[raybo]

I develop an odds line for the race. How is that not "ranking?" And the odds line drives the bet based on value for me. It is the logical extension of ranking. And as I already said, if you have a horse solidly "ranked" as best, you can try to turn him into a higher odds horse with verticals.

Apparently we're talking by each other. I think I'm talking about rankings based on my computation of probable win percentage. How is that different than what a computer does? Or what you do? And the concept of breaking ties was brought up in the first post. I believe you break the tie (1st, 3rd or 4th, whatever) by deciding with horse has best value, which I see as legitimate as say, post position. I'm honestly not sure why you see that as different than whatever you see as rankings and breaking ties. But, if you need to be right, sure, you're right.

Then break your ties using your odds line versus the tote odds. Nothing wrong with that, but I suspect that most players do not use an oddsline, so their ties have to be broken in some other way. And of those who do use an oddsline, the oddsline they use is probably not very good (I've never seen one that is worth much, if anything), so their method of breaking ties is probably no better, and maybe much worse, than using post position to break ties.

Each to their own.

[thaskalos]

I don't want it to appear that I'm smooching up to your a$$, but there are times I'm blown away by the amount of clear thought you've put into this game.

This post is amazing in so many ways.

Thanks for the kind words. :blush:

Yes...I've put considerable thought into this game. Some here have even accused me of putting in TOO much thought. :)

[ultracapper]

Thanks for the kind words. :blush:

Yes...I've put considerable thought into this game. Some here have even accused me of putting in TOO much thought. :)

It's evident. You have an adept way of addressing the subtle challenges to the game. Many of those challenges aren't even recognized by many players. The psychological challenge engaged first in choice, second in structure, and third, laying your money on the table, is an exercise we all go through every race we play. Yet 95% of us don't understand why, when the race is over, we say "Damn, I liked that one. Why didn't I play that?" It's like a tape recorder.

Most of us find it much easier to create a tie, than to break one.

[classhandicapper]

When I do a subjective analysis, my thinking on several aspects of a race is often fuzzy. So several horses may seem similar or within a tight range of each other. I can't imagine any rule separating them well. If such a rule existed, it would already be part of the analysis.

I can see a "tiebreaker" working better if you have a systematic approach that produces a final number.