Long shots or Favorites

[Capper Al]

I can pick favorites and I can pick long shots, but I can't tell who's most likely to win. Value odds makes it easier to pick long shots. Yet, this is no indication that the favorite is not going to win. I'm guessing that perfecting the art of the false favorite would help. My method for picking favorites and picking long shots are different. This means they are not on the same scale for comparison. Any ideas on how to handle this?

[betovernetcapper]

I think that the first step is defying a false favorite.
IMO a FF has one or more of the following characteristics

Sub par speed or pace figures in relation to the field

Has failed constantly at this class-distance-surface or track

The horse's trainer has a poor record with horses in this situation (1st race lifetime-0 for 50 off a layoff-repeaters-horses going up or down in class) whatever is appropriate to this situation

The horse is at a disadvantage to to the race shape or track bias.

The horse is only marginally superior to many others but is required to carry substantially more weight than his competitors, example FF has to carry 134 pounds and a legit contender has to only carry 118 pounds. We don't have this very much in US racing, but it's a real factor in many foreign races.

Weak jockey that has not won with this horse or for this trainer.

On a biased track, an impossible post.

In terms of breeding, a FF may be one who is trying a distance/surface for the 1st time & everything in it's family tree suggests that it can't handle it.

I'm sure there are other factors, but those are the ones off the top of my head.

[deelo]

I usually handicap the race first quickly without knowing morning lines (have it hidden in formulator) then turn em on and see if there's anything interesting...did i hate the favorite? Rank a 20/1 as a top contender? Etc.

[deelo]

Once you have your good favorite and good longshot, I'd compare the favorite's most likely performance to the longshot's top ability performance (this is the race they haven't run yet but could with past trouble removed).and see what you got.

[Capper Al]

I think that the first step is defying a false favorite.
IMO a FF has one or more of the following characteristics

Sub par speed or pace figures in relation to the field

Has failed constantly at this class-distance-surface or track

The horse's trainer has a poor record with horses in this situation (1st race lifetime-0 for 50 off a layoff-repeaters-horses going up or down in class) whatever is appropriate to this situation

The horse is at a disadvantage to to the race shape or track bias.

The horse is only marginally superior to many others but is required to carry substantially more weight than his competitors, example FF has to carry 134 pounds and a legit contender has to only carry 118 pounds. We don't have this very much in US racing, but it's a real factor in many foreign races.

Weak jockey that has not won with this horse or for this trainer.

On a biased track, an impossible post.

In terms of breeding, a FF may be one who is trying a distance/surface for the 1st time & everything in it's family tree suggests that it can't handle it.

I'm sure there are other factors, but those are the ones off the top of my head.


All good was to find false favorites.

[Capper Al]

I usually handicap the race first quickly without knowing morning lines (have it hidden in formulator) then turn em on and see if there's anything interesting...did i hate the favorite? Rank a 20/1 as a top contender? Etc.

Randomized approach looking for what shakes out.

[Capper Al]

Once you have your good favorite and good longshot, I'd compare the favorite's most likely performance to the longshot's top ability performance (this is the race they haven't run yet but could with past trouble removed).and see what you got.

Comparing the average of the favorite to the best of the long shot. I'll try it.

[azeri98]

I will try to find at least 2 flaws in the favorite and then if I find those 2 I will try to find 4 horses that are "better" in my eyes and then try to dismiss 2 of those and then pick from the last 2. I also look at the toteboard and see if any horses between 15 to 1 and 5 to 1 have taken half price haircuts. If those are in my top 4 then I most likely will play those. There is a lot of inside info at the track and the board tells you a lot, early and late betting. If I think the favorite is much better I will bet it but not any lower than even money.

[burnsy]

That's why you need the ability to at least "ballpark" your own line. I don't have time to do my own line for every horse in the race either. I narrow it down to anyone I think has a shot and try to "assign" a fair price. When I see overlays that's usually the horses I like for my exactas. If I see one that I really think is under bet.....win, place. You have to have the ability to eliminate horses right off the top. Discernment: you can't like them all. As for false faves:

Horses running at a new track, surface, class or distance.

Horses that are always bet and rarely win.

Horses that are a ridiculously low price for the circumstances they are running in. Its hard to bet a 3-5 in a race full of proven losers just as it is in a big race with stiff competition. That's why I love grass and Saratoga grass, there are not many "walk overs" in those conditions.

Always remembering its a freakin horse race, anything can happen. If you constantly stick on low prices you are never going to win and when you do cash it doesn't amount to a hill of beans because no one wins all the time and chalk usually loses 2 out of 3.

ROI is way more valuable than playing it safe....its gambling.

I'm not the best handicapper, but I'm a decent gambler. I understand the ins and outs of winning at gambling. Sometimes being "street smart" and understanding numbers and odds along with human tendencies......can put you in position to make better decisions than the average Joe. The crowd is mostly "followers", most people constantly lose, don't be a follower. Develop your own skill set of strengths and use it until you abuse it. Then do it again! If you are the type person that can't take your own "personal stand"............gambling may be fun for you because you get used to losing all the time. I'm not like some of the freaks you see huddled over their lap tops, I'm loose, I have fun but I'm serious as a heart attack about winning. "Just because I have a beer in my hand does not mean I don't know what I'm doing." You can have fun and do well if you develop your own thing. Am I rich from betting? No, but I've never borrowed a dime to gamble either and I have had years where I actually win at gambling.

[ultracapper]

Next race after a big cheap maiden win.

[Capper Al]

I will try to find at least 2 flaws in the favorite and then if I find those 2 I will try to find 4 horses that are "better" in my eyes and then try to dismiss 2 of those and then pick from the last 2. I also look at the toteboard and see if any horses between 15 to 1 and 5 to 1 have taken half price haircuts. If those are in my top 4 then I most likely will play those. There is a lot of inside info at the track and the board tells you a lot, early and late betting. If I think the favorite is much better I will bet it but not any lower than even money.

I will do this by default when my elimination module is up and running again.

[Capper Al]

That's why you need the ability to at least "ballpark" your own line. I don't have time to do my own line for every horse in the race either. I narrow it down to anyone I think has a shot and try to "assign" a fair price. When I see overlays that's usually the horses I like for my exactas. If I see one that I really think is under bet.....win, place. You have to have the ability to eliminate horses right off the top. Discernment: you can't like them all. As for false faves:

Horses running at a new track, surface, class or distance.

Horses that are always bet and rarely win.

Horses that are a ridiculously low price for the circumstances they are running in. Its hard to bet a 3-5 in a race full of proven losers just as it is in a big race with stiff competition. That's why I love grass and Saratoga grass, there are not many "walk overs" in those conditions.

Always remembering its a freakin horse race, anything can happen. If you constantly stick on low prices you are never going to win and when you do cash it doesn't amount to a hill of beans because no one wins all the time and chalk usually loses 2 out of 3.

ROI is way more valuable than playing it safe....its gambling.

I'm not the best handicapper, but I'm a decent gambler. I understand the ins and outs of winning at gambling. Sometimes being "street smart" and understanding numbers and odds along with human tendencies......can put you in position to make better decisions than the average Joe. The crowd is mostly "followers", most people constantly lose, don't be a follower. Develop your own skill set of strengths and use it until you abuse it. Then do it again! If you are the type person that can't take your own "personal stand"............gambling may be fun for you because you get used to losing all the time. I'm not like some of the freaks you see huddled over their lap tops, I'm loose, I have fun but I'm serious as a heart attack about winning. "Just because I have a beer in my hand does not mean I don't know what I'm doing." You can have fun and do well if you develop your own thing. Am I rich from betting? No, but I've never borrowed a dime to gamble either and I have had years where I actually win at gambling.

My favorites and my long shots are weighed against a different formula. There is no way to create a comprehensive odds line for comparison.

[Capper Al]

Next race after a big cheap maiden win.

Does what? I quit playing doubles because of back wheelers lowering the payouts. I'd hit a shot in the maiden race and the following race's favorite would hit with prices about the same as the win ticket on the long shot maiden.

[ultracapper]

I mean the maiden winner's next race.

[Overlay]

I can pick favorites and I can pick long shots, but I can't tell who's most likely to win. Value odds makes it easier to pick long shots. Yet, this is no indication that the favorite is not going to win. I'm guessing that perfecting the art of the false favorite would help. My method for picking favorites and picking long shots are different. This means they are not on the same scale for comparison. Any ideas on how to handle this?
Ideally, if you have a full-field fair-odds line, you should know both how much and why you like each of the horses in the race, and at what odds they become favorable (overlaid) or unfavorable (underlaid) betting propositions (regardless of whether you rate them as the one most likely winner of the race or not).

Also, if the favorite is underlaid, one or more of the other horses in the race must be overlaid. That doesn't mean that you necessarily have to bet against the favorite (depending on your tolerance for risk). You can always pass the race and wait for a situation where the horse that you feel is the best is at odds that are higher than they should be (whether the horse is the favorite or not), and you can account either for the reason why the horse is not being bet, or for the false reasons why the other horses are being bet, or both (provided you're not of the conspiratorial mindset that, just by virtue of the fact that the horse is an overlay, it means that "they" know or have decreed that the horse will not win today).

[Capper Al]

Ideally, if you have a full-field fair-odds line, you should know both how much and why you like each of the horses in the race, and at what odds they become favorable (overlaid) or unfavorable (underlaid) betting propositions (regardless of whether you rate them as the one most likely winner of the race or not).

Also, if the favorite is underlaid, one or more of the other horses in the race must be overlaid. That doesn't mean that you necessarily have to bet against the favorite (depending on your tolerance for risk). You can always pass the race and wait for a situation where the horse that you feel is the best is at odds that are higher than they should be (whether the horse is the favorite or not), and you can account either for the reason why the horse is not being bet, or for the false reasons why the other horses are being bet, or both (provided you're not of the conspiratorial mindset that, just by virtue of the fact that the horse is an overlay, it means that "they" know or have decreed that the horse will not win today).

Not so. Favorites use a typical comprehensive formula like e-Ponies. My long shots use another formula. The two don't mix. It's like adding up the apples for favorites, and adding up the oranges for long shots.

[Dark Horse]

Not so. Favorites use a typical comprehensive formula like e-Ponies. My long shots use another formula. The two don't mix. It's like adding up the apples for favorites, and adding up the oranges for long shots.

There's your problem. An evaluation process has more merit if it is integrated for the entire field, rather than patched together with bits and pieces. Otherwise there is no true way to recognize value. To me it seems that your underlying question is not so much WHO to bet, but HOW to bet.

Often all I do is toss out a number of horses. If that turns the playing field positive, I'm interested in the race. If not, I pass. It doesn't matter who provides the value. Then the remaining horses are shown with their individual, combined and average overlays. Depending on these factors I then choose an exotic wagering formula, that usually includes backup exotic wagers. For example a trifecta backed up by a couple of exactas. I programmed these formulas, but had to learn them one by one before understanding which one was best for which situation. That's the learning curve, just as handicapping has a learning curve.

So many things can go wrong during a race that it's crucial to learn HOW to bet rather than rely on WHO wins. I'm often completely wrong about the winner, but end up with a nice profit on the race just the same.

Today's example from R7 at SA. Field reduced to 5 horses. Bets: 1-3/1-3-7-8-2 with 1-3-7-8-2/1-3 (two exactas), and 1-3/1-3/7-8-2. Note that all three bets can win. The favorites happen to be the 1 and 3, which lowers payouts for them coming in first and second, but opens the door to all three tickets winning. The result: 8-1-3 paid just one exacta, but at 41/1 was well worth it. Not a big payout by any means, but that's not something I can control. Betting formulas do open the door wide to juicy payouts, but also deliver at lower levels. All I really did was toss out four horses, and three of those had double digit odds. If you had asked me before the race WHO would win I would have had no clue.

[salty]

I'm confused on what your question is? It is in fact so vague I don't know how anyone has even managed to come up with any answer. I've never used computer handicapping software, so maybe that's why?


I look at the probable race shape then decide who has the advantage. If the race looks to set up for the favorite then they will probably win. You know sometimes no matter how much handicapping you do the money ends up being amazingly accurate. If the favorites running style can be compromised by the way the race sets up then it's a good idea to go with the long shot. Best answer I have for what I think you are asking.

Base the decision on the race shape.

[salty]

Dark horse,

That example makes absolutely no sense. Your are risking what? $22 on exotics that in many cases return negative to what you bet? :lol:

The exacta paid $41 which is $3 shy of getting even money on your bet.

[Dark Horse]

Dark horse,

That example makes absolutely no sense. Your are risking what? $22 on exotics that in many cases return negative to what you bet? :lol:

The exacta paid $41 which is $3 shy of getting even money on your bet.

Quite a typical reaction for this board. I'm just as happy to suggest a better way of betting as to let folks like you gloat in their own ignorance. It makes no difference to me. The ROI was 87%, if you must know. When the race is in clearer focus, there are leaner ways of betting; but this race fit this standard and proven betting formula quite nicely.

[salty]

I'm ignorant of what? The fact that you have to get lucky more than half the times you make that bet to turn a profit?

That exacta only returned so much because it was a total question about what the 8 would do when it tried grass for the first time. Also the 10 took a lot of money for some strange reason.

[Dark Horse]

I'm ignorant of what? The fact that you have to get lucky more than half the times you make that bet to turn a profit?

That exacta only returned so much because it was a total question about what the 8 would do when it tried grass for the first time. Also the 10 took a lot of money for some strange reason.

Pointless debate. Why? Because you have no knowledge of exotic wagering formulas. It would take, at least, a few months of serious study to become proficient with those. Your criticism is on par with telling me that I couldn't reduce a 9 horse field to 5 contenders. Your more than welcome to that opinion.

Oh, how did you do with this race?

[Dark Horse]

As to ROI. The 'goal' was to win the trifecta. The two exactas were backups. One could play the same formula without the trifecta, and increase ROI. The prices for the two favorites were 5/2 (240) and 3/1 (310), so if they finished first and second the payout would be high enough (paid twice! -with the trifecta on the table ... ) to warrant a ticket with five contenders. Other options, such as the winning exacta, would involve higher payouts. So the only condition for that, aside from the correct reduction to five contenders, was that one of the two favorites finished first or second. Luck had nothing to do with it. It's the art of cashing tickets. And the part of horse racing most widely ignored.

[salty]

Right the art of cashing tickets. So you have 0 opinion on the race and you pick your nose and hope to find gold. Good plan.

Yeah I have no knowledge of exotic wagering formulas, I must be a caveman. :lol:

If the goal was to hit the trI shouldn't the bet be

1,3//1,2,3,7,8//1,2,3,7,8

1,2,3,7,8 // 1,3 // 1,2,3,7,8

1,2,3,7,8//1,2,3,7,8//1,3

??????

[Dark Horse]

Right the art of cashing tickets. So you have 0 opinion on the race and you pick your nose and hope to find gold. Good plan.

Yeah I have no knowledge of exotic wagering formulas, I must be a caveman. :lol:

If the goal was to hit the trI shouldn't the bet be

1,3//1,2,3,7,8//1,2,3,7,8

1,2,3,7,8 // 1,3 // 1,2,3,7,8

1,2,3,7,8//1,2,3,7,8//1,3

??????


Wow, you're able to fill out a winning ticket after the race. :ThmbUp:

Your play is one-dimensional and only wins if you win the trifecta. My method is much leaner. The trifecta formula is backed up by exactas. Just as a superfecta formula would be backed up by trifectas.

It's over your head, at this point, but you could always learn. Problem is that you think you already know it all. That pretty much closes the door. On yourself.

[traynor]

I can pick favorites and I can pick long shots, but I can't tell who's most likely to win. Value odds makes it easier to pick long shots. Yet, this is no indication that the favorite is not going to win. I'm guessing that perfecting the art of the false favorite would help. My method for picking favorites and picking long shots are different. This means they are not on the same scale for comparison. Any ideas on how to handle this?

I think Dave Schwartz alluded to (or expressed) the inherent difficulties involved in combining attributes. That is, finding a probable win frequency for your favorite is fairly simple--but only when it is viewed in isolation.

A more complex approach might be to isolate (or "layer") different circumstances with that favorite in combination with other attributes of other entries.

Simplistic example: Favorite wins X% of the time if (and only if) it is the lone early speed in the race. It may win so often under such circumstances that looking at overall figures is deceptive. Like Pareto, 80% of the profit is often in 20% of the races. Find that 20% and marginal methods can often turn into quite profitable methods.

[traynor]

Ideally, if you have a full-field fair-odds line, you should know both how much and why you like each of the horses in the race, and at what odds they become favorable (overlaid) or unfavorable (underlaid) betting propositions (regardless of whether you rate them as the one most likely winner of the race or not).

Also, if the favorite is underlaid, one or more of the other horses in the race must be overlaid. That doesn't mean that you necessarily have to bet against the favorite (depending on your tolerance for risk). You can always pass the race and wait for a situation where the horse that you feel is the best is at odds that are higher than they should be (whether the horse is the favorite or not), and you can account either for the reason why the horse is not being bet, or for the false reasons why the other horses are being bet, or both (provided you're not of the conspiratorial mindset that, just by virtue of the fact that the horse is an overlay, it means that "they" know or have decreed that the horse will not win today).

Easier said than done. To be accurate (and predictive) the relative probability of each horse's performance in a specific race should be made as a factor of the entire field as a group, relative to its inclusion in that specific group (and the individual and collective attributes of each of the other entries in that group). Not an easy task.

Probability values calculated as if each entry is the only entry in the race (ignoring the "confounding variables" present in the other entries) are much less predictive. Simple combining of values so calculated as if they represent composite reality is even less so.

[thaskalos]

Easier said than done. To be accurate (and predictive) the relative probability of each horse's performance in a specific race should be made as a factor of the entire field as a group, relative to its inclusion in that specific group (and the individual and collective attributes of each of the other entries in that group). Not an easy task.

Probability values calculated as if each entry is the only entry in the race (ignoring the "confounding variables" present in the other entries) are much less predictive. Simple combining of values so calculated as if they represent composite reality is even less so.

EXCELLENT! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Robert Fischer]

I can pick favorites and I can pick long shots, but I can't tell who's most likely to win. Value odds makes it easier to pick long shots. Yet, this is no indication that the favorite is not going to win. I'm guessing that perfecting the art of the false favorite would help. My method for picking favorites and picking long shots are different. This means they are not on the same scale for comparison. Any ideas on how to handle this?

Start with the favorite.
By definition, the favorite has the largest market share of each pool.

[Capper Al]

Easier said than done. To be accurate (and predictive) the relative probability of each horse's performance in a specific race should be made as a factor of the entire field as a group, relative to its inclusion in that specific group (and the individual and collective attributes of each of the other entries in that group). Not an easy task.

Probability values calculated as if each entry is the only entry in the race (ignoring the "confounding variables" present in the other entries) are much less predictive. Simple combining of values so calculated as if they represent composite reality is even less so.

A point in the thread 'The Morning Line is Just Wrong' that I was trying to make was that the factors aren't really homogenous in a way that lends itself into a total view of the race. When we look at speed or class or whatever, we are only looking at the tips of the icebergs.

[Capper Al]

Start with the favorite.
By definition, the favorite has the largest market share of each pool.



I hear you and tend to default in favorites direction.

[Capper Al]

The idea about morning lines is that our factors that we handicap with aren't really homogenous that lend themselves to a total view for making an odds line. When we factor class or speed or whatever, we are only seeing the tips of the iceberg. A morning line should handicap the handicapper's ability, not the horses, for that particular race being evaluated.

[Robert Fischer]

Because of the takeout, in order for there to be value, the public has to be significantly wrong.

If the favorite is super strong, and the public is all over him, you pretty much have to pass with the exception of maybe a mult-race sequence in which there is another heavy favorite who is false.

If the favorite is flawed and is a huge underlay, then you are free to attack the race from just about any angle, including using true contending longshots from the same race in the win slot.

If the favorite is very strong and the public isn't crushing him, it opens up some vertical-horizontal opportunities for the longshots that you have from the same race.
Here is an example:
LEGIT FAVORITE/ABCDE/ABCDEF/LONG SHOT OVERLAY KEY =$2.50
ABCD/LEGIT FAVORITE/ABCDEF/LONG SHOT OVERLAY KEY =$2.00
LEGIT FAVORITE/ABCDE/LONG SHOT OVERLAY KEY/ABCDEFG =$3.00
ABCD/LEGIT FAVORITE/LONG SHOT OVERLAY KEY/ABCDEFG =$2.40

here you are basically combining a strong favorite who isn't getting crushed which you are in essence making a 'place bet' with,
And a big longshot which you feel has a great shot to be 3rd or 4th,
and then the 7 other most likely contenders.
For $9.90 you've found a way to attempt to capitalize on your longshot even though he may not be a win contender today.

[Robert Fischer]

vertical-horizontal


*vertical-exotic opportunities :)

[Capper Al]

That's the difficulty, "the public has to be significantly wrong".

[TheOracle]

That's the difficulty, "the public has to be significantly wrong".

I'm not sure how accurate the public is when it comes to Morning Line Favorites but I did some digging and I found that at Aqueduct when one of R Rodriguez's horses has a
Morning Line that ends with a 5 (i.e. 2/5, 3/5, etc.) his horses have hit the board 10 straight times since the beginning of this year!!!

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/r rodraquwmlfve.jpg

This includes 5 straight wins from January 22nd until today where his horses won 3 races and had Morning Lines ending with a 5!!

The average win price is a little over $3 each time and were it not for the 2 place finishes he would be perfect at 10 wins in a row had those horses won their races!!!

For this very specific case, the public has been right on the button in going with R Rodriguez when his horses Morning Line ends with a 5!!


As for the case where "the public has to be significantly wrong", one of the better value races are those that are some type of Optional Claiming (i.e. *Allowance Optional Claiming, Starter Optional Claiming, etc.).
* I group any Optional Claiming race (i.e. Starter Optional Claiming, Optional Claiming, etc.) as Allowance Optional Claiming

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/alwoptclmrcsaqu.jpg

Since the Inner Dirt season started at Aqueduct on December 9th, 2015 the average win price in these races is $14 and out of 29 races only 12 have had win prices under $8.

So far at Aqueduct, the value has been in these races so if you want to find a situation where "the public has to be significantly wrong" these races might be worth a look if you have a strategy for playing longshots.

All/5 is any Morning Line Favorite ending with a 5 (i.e. 2/5, 3/5, etc.)

[Robert Fischer]

That's the difficulty, "the public has to be significantly wrong".
Yes it is the difficulty. The fact that the public us to be significantly wrong, is why I believe in starting with the favorite centric approach. If the favorite is wrong, most of the time that automatically means that the public is significantly wrong. However , The favorite is the most scrutinized horse, and in case and in cases where the public can clearly see the attributes of the favorite, you have this wisdom of crowds thing to overcome, which is pretty much impossible. So you have to be able to find cases where your insight is superior to the publics. if we look at naturE , scientists have found that scavengers such as vultures do not follow the population, rather they look for pray in areas where animals are most likely to die. That's so our approach to flawless favorites is going to have to be. We have to look in areas and patterns were the favorites are most likely to fail and then we will have a better chance of finding them. Sorry about some of the Good medical errors here this is grammatical, I'm trying to use voice to text here and it's not working out smoothly

[Dave Schwartz]

Yes it is the difficulty. The fact that the public us to be significantly wrong, is why I believe in starting with the favorite centric approach.

I know you know this but, the part you left unsaid is, "... and we need to have a mechanism for knowing that."

I received an email from someone recently that said whenever he encounters an odds-on horse he just always looks for a longshot. The writer said that this worked for him, so he should keep doing what he is doing because it is working. I think that as a general statement this is not a good strategy.

Simply put, not all odds-on horses are bad bets. In fact, some are actually good bets.

My belief would be that to automatically do so would be to invite failure in for a meal (with your money being the main course).

As an example, suppose there is a 1/5 shot who is almost break even at $1.95 $net. That is, if you wagered on him a hundred times, you'd lose around 2.5%. (I have no idea how you would determine that he is precisely a 2.5% loser.)

So, if we know the horse will pay $2.40 and the end result (in 100 races) is to get back $195, then this horse is going to win 81% of those races. That does not leave much pie to cut between your 12/1 horse and the rest of the field.

[thaskalos]

I received an email from someone recently that said whenever he encounters an odds-on horse he just always looks for a longshot. The writer said that this worked for him, so he should keep doing what he is doing because it is working.
The amazing thing is that people are actually able to convince themselves that such strategies "work for them".

[Capper Al]

The amazing thing is that people are actually able to convince themselves that such strategies "work for them".

Oh, do I agree with you. The old "if this race ran a 100 times" joke. Most people agree that they will never see a race exactly like today's race again. They are in denial that they are guessing at the scenario of the race as well as the potential winner. They've fallen in love with their numbers and think they are not gambling. And, if there analysis is so good, the math ought add up for the same horse to win every time, not 50 times or whatever out of a 100 races. Yet, they claim to have insight that the horse will win these 50 races out of a hundred. Somehow intuitively they know that today's winner will fail 50 or 70 times or whatever number of times- and believe their numbers aren't failing them?????

[TheOracle]

That's the difficulty, "the public has to be significantly wrong".

I did some more digging and decided to also look at T A Pletcher's horses with Morning Lines ending with 5 and I was surprised to see how bad his horses did as the Morning Line Favorite at Aqueduct.

I am quite certain that when T A Pletcher's horses have Morning Lines ending with 5 they do become the actual favorite in the race.

I was very surprised to see how horrible his horses have done as the Favorite!!

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/pletchertofvesaqu.jpg

He has had better success on the Inner Dirt at Aqueduct 5 of his 7 wins have come at 6 Furlongs but he only has 2 wins at races going 1 Mile or better going back to November 15th 2015.

Either way you are beating T A Pletcher's horses 64% of the time when he has horses with Morning Lines that end with 5!!

What is also amazing is that almost half of his horses in this situation failed to hit the board and I suspect the winners of these races paid huge prices to win!!

If you want to talk about "the public being significantly wrong" the above is a good example.


Now when you compare that to what R Rodriguez horses have done when they had Morning Lines ending with 5 the difference is striking!!

R Rodriguez horses have won 12 out of 14 starts when they had a Morning Line ending with 5 his horses are winning at 85% in this situation over roughly the same time period at Aqueduct!!

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/rodrigueztofvesaqu.jpg


He had a win streak of 7 in a row going back to November 22nd up to January 7th of this year in this situation!!

I wonder what the record is for a Trainer with consecutive wins at one race track?

In either case, R Rodriguez horses with Morning Lines ending in 5 seem to be a good bet so far at Aqueduct!!!

-5 is any Morning Line Favorite ending with a 5 (i.e. 2/5, 3/5, etc.)

[Capper Al]

This ending in 5 is interesting. I don't think I'll use it, but I'll keep an eye on it.

[Robert Fischer]

You got to go beyond an odds range.

The horses can't read the tote board. And unless you think that certain trainers were certain jockeys are pulling funny business with certain heavy favorites, or unless you think that the public is over betting certain trainers it in a certain odds range, then odds ranges themselves are going to be limited to interesting statistical reviews.

You can certainly start with the odds range, but then you are going to be wanting to look for certain factors where favorites are more likely to fail.

[TheOracle]

Well R Rodriguez has a 4/5 Morning Line tomorrow with #5 No Entiendo ironically No Entiendo means I don't understand and that couldn't be more true as I don't understand how he has such an impressive record with Morning Lines ending with 5.

I like the fact that all but one of the Morning Lines ending with 5 avoided the Aqueduct 1st race trap where the Morning Line Favorite usually loses!!

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/aqufrstracetrap.jpg


Among the Morning Lines ending with 5 in the 1st race for the month of January, there was only 1 loser and that was T A Pletcher with Voided Contract!!!

Although February is a new month, let's see if R Rodriguez gets that win streak up to 6 in a row in this situation!!!

[Robert Fischer]

Well R Rodriguez has a 4/5 Morning Line tomorrow with #5 No Entiendo ironically No Entiendo means I don't understand and that couldn't be more true as I don't understand how he has such an impressive record with Morning Lines ending with 5.

I like the fact that all but one of the Morning Lines ending with 5 avoided the Aqueduct 1st race trap where the Morning Line Favorite usually loses!!

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/aqufrstracetrap.jpg


Among the Morning Lines ending with 5 in the 1st race for the month of January, there was only 1 loser and that was T A Pletcher with Voided Contract!!!

Although February is a new month, let's see if R Rodriguez gets that win streak up to 6 in a row in this situation!!!


That is interesting. I can tell you that most players will dismiss the idea. The fact that you use ML and not final odds does lead into a possibility of a "grouping" by the odds maker.

I would want to attempt to track the same oddsmaker or at least the same track, and then look to a specific '5' (4/5 etc..)

[Robert Fischer]

certain factors where favorites are more likely to fail.

I think that these are a lot more basic than it probably seems.

these factors with favorites are likely to be some of the same factors that cause normal horses to fail more often.

"my horse got a bad trip!"

"he dueled the cheap speed in a fast pace!" - so likely pace-meltdowns are probably bad for favorites. Then you want additional factors for that pattern (does your fav stand to be clear, does he have success vs hot pace type of things)

"Cornelio put a hammer lock on him and the pace got away!"
(does your jock, pace scenario, lack of early foot etc... hurt your favorite?)

"He raced wide around the first turn and it burned him out!" (does the post position hurt your favorite today?)


you want to consider different types of patterns and their complimentary related-factors.
You want to consider if the favorite is "too good" to be hurt (he'll simply over-power that factor) or on the flipside will the public totally dismiss the factor in their oddsline because this is a star horse?

[EMD4ME]

I did some more digging and decided to also look at T A Pletcher's horses with Morning Lines ending with 5 and I was surprised to see how bad his horses did as the Morning Line Favorite at Aqueduct.

I am quite certain that when T A Pletcher's horses have Morning Lines ending with 5 they do become the actual favorite in the race.

I was very surprised to see how horrible his horses have done as the Favorite!!

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/pletchertofvesaqu.jpg

He has had better success on the Inner Dirt at Aqueduct 5 of his 7 wins have come at 6 Furlongs but he only has 2 wins at races going 1 Mile or better going back to November 15th 2015.

Either way you are beating T A Pletcher's horses 64% of the time when he has horses with Morning Lines that end with 5!!

What is also amazing is that almost half of his horses in this situation failed to hit the board and I suspect the winners of these races paid huge prices to win!!

If you want to talk about "the public being significantly wrong" the above is a good example.


Now when you compare that to what R Rodriguez horses have done when they had Morning Lines ending with 5 the difference is striking!!

R Rodriguez horses have won 12 out of 14 starts when they had a Morning Line ending with 5 his horses are winning at 85% in this situation over roughly the same time period at Aqueduct!!

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/rodrigueztofvesaqu.jpg


He had a win streak of 7 in a row going back to November 22nd up to January 7th of this year in this situation!!

I wonder what the record is for a Trainer with consecutive wins at one race track?

In either case, R Rodriguez horses with Morning Lines ending in 5 seem to be a good bet so far at Aqueduct!!!

-5 is any Morning Line Favorite ending with a 5 (i.e. 2/5, 3/5, etc.)

There is a simple and logical answer to all of this.

TP sends down his main runners to GP for the winter. His "weaker" crop are kept back at AQU for the winter.

Rudy's "hottest" streaks are when AQU opens in NOV up until March. He feasts on the inner track.

Up until this year, DJ did the same as Rudy.

RR and DJ take advantage of the big boys being away.

[EMD4ME]

I think that these are a lot more basic than it probably seems.

these factors with favorites are likely to be some of the same factors that cause normal horses to fail more often.

"my horse got a bad trip!"

"he dueled the cheap speed in a fast pace!" - so likely pace-meltdowns are probably bad for favorites. Then you want additional factors for that pattern (does your fav stand to be clear, does he have success vs hot pace type of things)

"Cornelio put a hammer lock on him and the pace got away!"
(does your jock, pace scenario, lack of early foot etc... hurt your favorite?)

"He raced wide around the first turn and it burned him out!" (does the post position hurt your favorite today?)


you want to consider different types of patterns and their complimentary related-factors.
You want to consider if the favorite is "too good" to be hurt (he'll simply over-power that factor) or on the flipside will the public totally dismiss the factor in their oddsline because this is a star horse?

Some people are very good at projecting what will happen in a race (and forecasting that a certain horse will be impacted by certain variables that are not visible to the simple eye).

You are 100% correct.......

The hard part is, to a person that is great at forcasting how a race should run, watching jocks go completely out of character for the horse AND THE JOCKS style (for example: Cornelio quarter horsing a horse for speed that is a closer in a race full of speed).

When those specific people SPEW VENOM, you can see it from afar.

The stupid people call the super intelligent person crazy for their venom.

All one can do is document that crazyness of the race and bet accordingly in the future.

[Capper Al]

Hey you ends in 5 odds guys,

This thread is about longshots vs. favorites. How does your end in 5 work against longshots should be the issue here. Are you saying not to bet a longshot if there is a horse whose odds end in 5 in the race?

[TheOracle]

Hey you ends in 5 odds guys,

This thread is about longshots vs. favorites. How does your end in 5 work against longshots should be the issue here. Are you saying not to bet a longshot if there is a horse whose odds end in 5 in the race?

Hey Capper,

I'm not sure about not betting the longshot but so far at Aqueduct since the start of the year up to January 31st the Morning Lines ending in 5 have won 27 out of their last 41 attempts which is around 65%.

They have been tough to beat so far!!

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/mloddsaqufives.jpg

R Rodriguez has 4/5 in the 1st race today at Aqueduct #5 No Entiendo would be interesting to see if he wins this race as it has been raining since yesterday!!

Let's see what happens!!

[TheOracle]

Well #5 No Entiendo finished 2nd snapping R Rodriguez streak at 5 wins in a row with Morning Lines ending with 5 !!

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/r rodraqusnpfve.jpg

Of course as I rip T A Pletcher a new one regarding how terrible his horses have been as the Morning Line Favorite ending with 5 he then goes and wins the 8th race paying $12 across the board not too shabby!!!

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/rmloddsaqufivestdy.jpghttp://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/mloddsaqufivestdy.jpg

I will continue to keep an eye on this for the rest of the Aqueduct season!!

[Robert Fischer]

Some people are very good at projecting what will happen in a race (and forecasting that a certain horse will be impacted by certain variables that are not visible to the simple eye).

You are 100% correct.......

The hard part is, to a person that is great at forcasting how a race should run, watching jocks go completely out of character for the horse AND THE JOCKS style (for example: Cornelio quarter horsing a horse for speed that is a closer in a race full of speed).

When those specific people SPEW VENOM, you can see it from afar.

The stupid people call the super intelligent person crazy for their venom.

All one can do is document that crazyness of the race and bet accordingly in the future.

I agree with what you are saying. I think the only way to combat that is to bet in (relative to most gambler's) small units.

Sometimes it will be the smallest possible unit for a wager. Sometimes 2x or even more, if your bankroll is truly large.

I know this does not help when one of those illogical/unpredictable/out-of-character rides or events occur on a jackpot type payout.

It will help however, on your run of the mill play. Each individual result will become trivial. You've already won at the outset, and yes it will be 'boring' and gradual, but you will not face a major loss scenario.

Johnny V. Killed me last year when I overbet him in a multi-race, and he gave an awful ride. So I haven't always listened to my own advice.