PDA

View Full Version : How often do races run to form?


zerosky
04-07-2016, 07:44 AM
Deciding whether or not not a race has run to form is open to interpretation
but for the sake of argument if the top three in the betting finish in the top three places (any order)
then that should be a rough indication that the race ran fairly close to the form book. (puts tin hat on :) )

If this is so then what proportion of races finish with the top three in the betting finishing in the top three places?

lamboguy
04-07-2016, 07:57 AM
Deciding whether or not not a race has run to form is open to interpretation
but for the sake of argument if the top three in the betting finish in the top three places (any order)
then that should be a rough indication that the race ran fairly close to the form book. (puts tin hat on :) )

If this is so then what proportion of races finish with the top three in the betting finishing in the top three places?what a question that is! the only answer i can give is that sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. and the times they do in pari mutuel wagering doesn't make up for the times they don't.

i have always looked at this game as the right horse to play is the one that you think is going to outrun his present form.

after losing for 3 consecutive years i knew i had to change things up a bit. so far i have been a very slight winner over the last 6 months. its under 1% ROI, but its at least a step in the right direction. (that is after the rebate). it might be because i have gone back to playing more NYRA and So. Cal that i can attribute the better results.

raybo
04-08-2016, 10:27 AM
I used to look at the last couple of cards to see if the track has been running normally, assuming there was no drastic weather between the last card and today's. If the top 4 at the stretch call produced the winner in 80% of the races, then the track was considered to be running normally. That was a while ago and I no longer do that, so things may have changed since then.

raybo
04-08-2016, 10:32 AM
Regarding whether or not an individual race has run to form, that probably varies by track, surface and surface condition. IMO, if my top 3 rankings produced the winner then the race was probably formful.

Robert Fischer
04-08-2016, 01:29 PM
First you have to have a strong insight into the expected form to even know what "running to form" is going to be.

whodoyoulike
04-08-2016, 06:45 PM
Deciding whether or not not a race has run to form is open to interpretation
but for the sake of argument if the top three in the betting finish in the top three places (any order)
then that should be a rough indication that the race ran fairly close to the form book. (puts tin hat on :) ) ...


Our definition of a horse's form is different. Mine is based on the horse's past performances not the betting public's opinion. My contenders usually run to their form with exceptions which is one of the things I'm attempting to figure out why not. One of the problems I'm having is one of the non-contenders jumps up in their performance.

... If this is so then what proportion of races finish with the top three in the betting finishing in the top three places?

I would expect this would occur only a small % of the time unless the field size is less than five or six.

Nitro
04-10-2016, 10:25 PM
Deciding whether or not not a race has run to form is open to interpretation
but for the sake of argument if the top three in the betting finish in the top three places (any order)
then that should be a rough indication that the race ran fairly close to the form book. (puts tin hat on :) )

If this is so then what proportion of races finish with the top three in the betting finishing in the top three places?
I’ve never heard of “races running to form”. I have heard of horses running to form though. From a handicapping perspective that simply means that in today’s race a horse may have run similar to its previous races with similar conditions (Class, distance, etc.) in terms of its relative position in the pace scenario and finish position. Unfortunately, this comparison can only be made after the race is over. In terms of how it ran and finishes, might also confirm the condition the horse was in, but again only after the fact.

From a pre-race betting perspective these type of evaluations are totally ineffective. This is because they would be based on subjective assumptions that the horse is in fact in condition and actually entered in the race with intentions of winning it. Outsiders relying on past performance data have absolutely no way of reaching such an objective conclusion and as a result any opinion they may have becomes pure speculation.
.

zerosky
04-11-2016, 05:35 AM
Interesting answers, in the uk the racing post publishes what it calls a RTF% for each trainer
which indicates the percentage of a trainers runners who have 'run to form' over the past two weeks.
Its based upon each horses expected race rating with its actual rating obtained.
Anecdotally it seems to be worth looking out for.

There's an interesting article about it here (http://www.theracingapp.co.uk/blog/trainer-form-how-much-does-it-really-matter/) If I had the time, patience and a hefty database
I would investigate using a similar figure for each race.

EMD4ME
04-11-2016, 06:24 AM
I’ve never heard of “races running to form”. I have heard of horses running to form though. From a handicapping perspective that simply means that in today’s race a horse may have run similar to its previous races with similar conditions (Class, distance, etc.) in terms of its relative position in the pace scenario and finish position. Unfortunately, this comparison can only be made after the race is over. In terms of how it ran and finishes, might also confirm the condition the horse was in, but again only after the fact.

From a pre-race betting perspective these type of evaluations are totally ineffective. This is because they would be based on subjective assumptions that the horse is in fact in condition and actually entered in the race with intentions of winning it. Outsiders relying on past performance data have absolutely no way of reaching such an objective conclusion and as a result any opinion they may have becomes pure speculation.
.

Nitro, do you follow NYRA racing ? If yes, please tell me your thoughts on sundays 1st race. To me , I thought Id walk in and see my single and top pick , the 5 at 2/5. He was dead on the board (NY dead) as he was 7/5 ML AND there was a a scratch in the field. The 1 was crushed for no legitimate reason. Not just in the win pool but in the DDS . Nevertheless, I singled the 5 in the pick 5 , ex and sups. I didn't see any large moves on the 5 in any Exactas or DDs. The horse finally and slowly dropped down to almost his ML price. He won well. I am not red boarding some 8/5 in a 5 horse field. Just wondering if you can speak to how the board speaks to you as you imply. The 5 was the most in form horse in the race and the lone tactical horse. We all know horses can go out of form in 1/2 a second and we all know a lone speed can lose their advantage in 1/4 of a stride. Id appreciate your insights as to how the board and money might've pointed you to the 5 as in this case the board said the 5 is not where juice is flowing to.

Thanks

PaceAdvantage
04-11-2016, 02:27 PM
Did anyone say the "board" can tip you off every single race?

raybo
04-11-2016, 02:35 PM
If a horse drifts down to his morning line of 7/5, etc., then IMO he/she wasn't "dead on the board". People bet differently for different reasons. In this case it appears that the big money (or a good portion of the betting public), was waiting until late, waiting for the pool size to increase enough to damper the the effect on the odds, or making it appear that the 5 had some problem that was not evident in the PPs, etc.. Pool manipulation takes many forms so you have to be careful about what you "perceive" is happening, because you could be (probably are, quite often) completely wrong.

CincyHorseplayer
04-11-2016, 04:06 PM
I think if you put it into the category of if I handicapped this race for 4 hours does the winner:

1)make a lot of sense

2)makes a little sense

3)could have kept on handicapping and looking at results and replays and never could have come to the conclusion that the winner made much sense and the marginal sense it did make would not be worth betting any sizable chunk of bank on.

Good enough way to gauge races and formfulness.

Fast horses win races and just about any of the top 92 percentile of speed figures win 80% or more of the races. I find this true on both dirt and turf. I trust this reality to the point I rarely track it long term anymore. To me I think it proves formfulness of races.

In the makes a little sense category marginal speed contenders that can improve via favorable race shape, 2nd start, new pace top, shipping to lesser circuit, dropping in class, natural improvement to lifetime norms 2nd, 3rd 4th etc off layoff, decent form horses with pedigrees to improve doing something bloodline oriented like routes and turf, FTS who make sense based on pedigree against a mediocre looking field. I'm sure we all have an array of improving factors and could make this list bigtime sizable.

Depending on the track, surface, or day or week I find the chaos/makes little sense number to be anywhere from 12-25%.

Robert Fischer
04-11-2016, 04:47 PM
Did anyone say the "board" can tip you off every single race?

Today's Turf Paradise r2 is weird example:


off the turf and a bad ML. (i also have no free form for this race, should have bought TimeformUS)

ml......Doubles from R1 heav fav
1 = 6/1 ...24.20
2 = 4/1 ...22.60
3 = 7/2 ...23.20
4 = 5/2 ...22.40 (SLIGHTLY COLD)
5 = 15/1...122
6 = 8/5....9.80 (HOT)

ml......Doubles from R1 actual winner
1 = 6/1 ...39.80
2 = 4/1 ...24.60 (HOT)
3 = 7/2 ...37.00
4 = 5/2 ...37.20 (COLD)
5 = 15/1...214.80
6 = 8/5....22.40 (NEUTRAL)

whodoyoulike
04-11-2016, 04:48 PM
Nitro, do you follow NYRA racing ? If yes, please tell me your thoughts on sundays 1st race. To me , I thought Id walk in and see my single and top pick , the 5 at 2/5. He was dead on the board (NY dead) as he was 7/5 ML AND there was a a scratch in the field. The 1 was crushed for no legitimate reason. Not just in the win pool but in the DDS . Nevertheless, I singled the 5 in the pick 5 , ex and sups. I didn't see any large moves on the 5 in any Exactas or DDs. The horse finally and slowly dropped down to almost his ML price. He won well. I am not red boarding some 8/5 in a 5 horse field. Just wondering if you can speak to how the board speaks to you as you imply. The 5 was the most in form horse in the race and the lone tactical horse. We all know horses can go out of form in 1/2 a second and we all know a lone speed can lose their advantage in 1/4 of a stride. Id appreciate your insights as to how the board and money might've pointed you to the 5 as in this case the board said the 5 is not where juice is flowing to.

Thanks


I find this ironic.

Redboarding used to be frowned upon on here.

When did it change, because I've always felt it was poor form on a handicapping forum?

Robert Fischer
04-11-2016, 04:55 PM
So knowing nothing at all about Turf Paradise R2 , if I were to use the board I'd toss the 4 from the top spot and use both 2 and 6 in the win spot.


for fun: Turf Paradise 2 $2.00 WN (PWHL) 2, 6 $4.00

CincyHorseplayer
04-11-2016, 05:40 PM
So knowing nothing at all about Turf Paradise R2 , if I were to use the board I'd toss the 4 from the top spot and use both 2 and 6 in the win spot.


for fun: Turf Paradise 2 $2.00 WN (PWHL) 2, 6 $4.00

Nice! We see tote things like this all the time. The thing I could never get over is that seeing this and thinking you are on a good thing, what is actually happening? You are betting a mediocre price on a horse you think is a mediocre contender and betting on it because someone else is. I just couldn't buy into the the Wizard of Odds Horseracing conspiracy theory that it is all controlled by the barns and bettors who know the barns!

Nitro
04-11-2016, 10:38 PM
Nitro, do you follow NYRA racing ? If yes, please tell me your thoughts on sundays 1st race. To me , I thought Id walk in and see my single and top pick , the 5 at 2/5. He was dead on the board (NY dead) as he was 7/5 ML AND there was a a scratch in the field. The 1 was crushed for no legitimate reason. Not just in the win pool but in the DDS . Nevertheless, I singled the 5 in the pick 5 , ex and sups. I didn't see any large moves on the 5 in any Exactas or DDs. The horse finally and slowly dropped down to almost his ML price. He won well. I am not red boarding some 8/5 in a 5 horse field. Just wondering if you can speak to how the board speaks to you as you imply. The 5 was the most in form horse in the race and the lone tactical horse. We all know horses can go out of form in 1/2 a second and we all know a lone speed can lose their advantage in 1/4 of a stride. Id appreciate your insights as to how the board and money might've pointed you to the 5 as in this case the board said the 5 is not where juice is flowing to.

Thanks
Honestly I haven’t been following the NY tracks lately. So I’m not able to produce the tote analysis for Sunday’s races. Even if I could get the tote data and attempt to back into it, I would only be able to show the analysis for the final pool totals and not the progression of betting during the entire betting cycle. That’s really an important aspect of the total analysis because it shows how betting patterns develop. In reality I personally would have passed on a race with a 5-horse field, only because I’ve learned that the analysis is very discriminatory. In other words, the more entries there are the clearer the betting patterns become. Very often entries that are odds-on skew the entire betting pattern, only because the way they’re being bet impacts every pool so heavily. I will say that when such an entry exists and another longer priced entry is also getting solid betting action that occasionally it paves the way for a nice betting opportunity.

Since today's (4/11) 2nd Race at Turf Paradise was mentioned, I thought it might be of interest to just see how the tote analysis faired when looking at all the final pool totals. Keep in mind when using the analysis we're not looking for Winners. We're looking for Winning plays!

PAR is the analyzed result of ALL the betting pools combined.
The numbers in RED are the individual entry values.
The objective is simply to observe and compare PAR with each Entry value.

Turf Paradise Race2 1st Int 2nd Int 3rd Int PAR
# Name..... Jockey........ M/L OD1 OD2 OD3 136 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
1 Sky T...... Ramgeet, Andre 6.0 2.5 104 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
2 Go Max. Stevens, Scott 4.0 1.8 129 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
3 Sindys Luck Hernandez, Isr 3.5 3.5 119 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
4 Nutty Futty Beauregard, Sh 2.5 6 142 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
5 Peaknatastar Bridges, Kelly 15 45 358 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
6 A P Phantom Barton, Jake 1.6 2.5 158 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!


Results:
1st….2-Go Max……….$5.60……..$3.40………$2.20
2nd…1-Sky T…………...….-………..$3.80………$2.80
3rd….4-Nutty Futty………-……….…..-….………$2.80
4th….3-Sindys Luck……..-…….……..-….....…….-
$2.00 EXACTA 2-1 ………….....….$19.20
$2.00 QUINELLA 1-2………...….. $11.80
$2.00 TRIFECTA 2-1-4………...… $91.80
$2.00 SUPERFECTA 2-1-4-3….. $149.00

Did anyone say the "board" can tip you off every single race?Absolutely not! Great observation!
.
.

Robert Fischer
04-11-2016, 10:47 PM
Nice! We see tote things like this all the time. The thing I could never get over is that seeing this and thinking you are on a good thing, what is actually happening? You are betting a mediocre price on a horse you think is a mediocre contender and betting on it because someone else is. I just couldn't buy into the the Wizard of Odds Horseracing conspiracy theory that it is all controlled by the barns and bettors who know the barns!

I agree 100%.
You never want to "follow" the crowd,
just want to know what's going on.


To me, the money is another tool (as if we don't already have enough to consider in our brain's 'supercomputer'...)

(my brain feels like an old PC at the moment but while we're onto something here, I'll try to contribute)



Each tool creates models or patterns

Luckily 80 or 90 different models(from our tool set) cover about 90% of the races.

also lucky, this isn't baseball, - we don't have to swing


FIRST RULE: Have an Opinion about the horse, and Have an Opinion about how that horse will be bet by the public.

NEXT: Observe how the betting plays out. The money, the Odds Behavior, will either be about what you expected:ThmbUp:, or it will be Unexpected :confused:...?



***UOB***
http://www.iconexperience.com/_img/v_collection_png/256x256/shadow/ufo.png

Unexpected Odds Behavior


What is UOB?, and why does it make your expected ML important?

When the Odds Behave differently from what you Expected, this is telling you in real time, that YOU WERE WRONG. :D

For whatever reason, you thought that the Odds would be wayyy different from what they actually are.

Safest thing to do at that point is 'fold em'.
Pass the race and move on.

OR
there are more advanced ways to 'read' that hand.


When the Odds behave unexpectedly, there are 3 primary reasons:


Randomness (public 'gravitated' to a 'default' fav, a 'high roller' went on 'tilt', dumb money following after dumb money, etc...)


Errors (We made a bad line! WE made a mistake. We were Wrong!!)


Inside Information (Trainer/Owner/Pro loves/hates this horse today, etc..)
Beginners should always pass, except for fun/practice.


Advanced horseplayers should usually pass, but also attempt to read their ERRORS and why they screwed up and misjudged the odds and how they can learn from it.

Once in a while they can adapt on the fly and re-calculate their bet.



Once in a blue moon, - they realize that word is out, and a horse is Hot or Cold on the board, and the player is sharp enough to tell the difference between a screw-up, and a horse that is UNEXPECTEDLY Hot-or-Cold-on-the-board that may be a horse to key or toss on a few tickets or whatever.



...


So one of the Main Models is simply a safety mechanism. The odds are a big part of this game, and if you weren't in the ballpark about a horse's odds, then your information isn't as strong for that horse or race as you need it to be.




You don't have to like or dislike a horse -
- to be right or wrong about the public's opinion.

Pletcher or Baffert have a FTS or something and the morning line may be 5/2 and they may be 8/5 on the board and it may not mean a thing. You know the Public loves Pletcher and Baffert. You know the reason for the Public's opinion, whether you agree with it or not, or whether you have no idea about the horse. At least you understand the public. Now if he's 1/9, you have to figure that word is out and the horse is thought of as stakes material, and reassess.

CincyHorseplayer
04-11-2016, 11:15 PM
A UOB. That's classic Robert!

I get everything you are saying and I wasn't trying to come off condescending in my last post. I've been watching odds changes and wondering this and that for 20 years and all it has made me think is I'm glad somebody else is chasing that money because I'm not betting "hot" horses that look mediocre and win at 9/5. A lot more of them go down in flames. I win plenty and I'm not devoting the time to follow what other people think. It doesn't work in theory for me and it doesn't work in practice. Other players can have it! Golf clap for them! I know you're with me on this.

Nitro
04-12-2016, 12:50 AM
I agree 100%.
You never want to "follow" the crowd,
just want to know what's going on.


To me, the money is another tool (as if we don't already have enough to consider in our brain's 'supercomputer'...)

(my brain feels like an old PC at the moment but while we're onto something here, I'll try to contribute)



Each tool creates models or patterns

Luckily 80 or 90 different models(from our tool set) cover about 90% of the races.

also lucky, this isn't baseball, - we don't have to swing


FIRST RULE: Have an Opinion about the horse, and Have an Opinion about how that horse will be bet by the public.

NEXT: Observe how the betting plays out. The money, the Odds Behavior, will either be about what you expected:ThmbUp:, or it will be Unexpected :confused:...?



***UOB***
http://www.iconexperience.com/_img/v_collection_png/256x256/shadow/ufo.png

Unexpected Odds Behavior


What is UOB?, and why does it make your expected ML important?

When the Odds Behave differently from what you Expected, this is telling you in real time, that YOU WERE WRONG. :D

For whatever reason, you thought that the Odds would be wayyy different from what they actually are.

Safest thing to do at that point is 'fold em'.
Pass the race and move on.

OR
there are more advanced ways to 'read' that hand.


When the Odds behave unexpectedly, there are 3 primary reasons:


Randomness (public 'gravitated' to a 'default' fav, a 'high roller' went on 'tilt', dumb money following after dumb money, etc...)


Errors (We made a bad line! WE made a mistake. We were Wrong!!)


Inside Information (Trainer/Owner/Pro loves/hates this horse today, etc..)
Beginners should always pass, except for fun/practice.


Advanced horseplayers should usually pass, but also attempt to read their ERRORS and why they screwed up and misjudged the odds and how they can learn from it.

Once in a while they can adapt on the fly and re-calculate their bet.

Once in a blue moon, - they realize that word is out, and a horse is Hot or Cold on the board, and the player is sharp enough to tell the difference between a screw-up, and a horse that is UNEXPECTEDLY Hot-or-Cold-on-the-board that may be a horse to key or toss on a few tickets or whatever.

So one of the Main Models is simply a safety mechanism. The odds are a big part of this game, and if you weren't in the ballpark about a horse's odds, then your information isn't as strong for that horse or race as you need it to be.

You don't have to like or dislike a horse -
- to be right or wrong about the public's opinion.

Pletcher or Baffert have a FTS or something and the morning line may be 5/2 and they may be 8/5 on the board and it may not mean a thing. You know the Public loves Pletcher and Baffert. You know the reason for the Public's opinion, whether you agree with it or not, or whether you have no idea about the horse. At least you understand the public. Now if he's 1/9, you have to figure that word is out and the horse is thought of as stakes material, and reassess.Cincy is Right! A Classic Delusion if I’ve ever seen one!

Well Robert with all due respect, you and many like yourself who have been indoctrinated by so many misconceptions about the game fail miserably at understanding what a tote analysis really is and what it can provide when properly applied.

The fact that you continually refer to the “Odds” as the foundation for the tote evaluation is a TOTAL underestimation of what’s involved. It’s about as accurate as saying that fastest horse in today's race is the one who won its last race. The “Odds” reflect the activities of ONLY one of mutual pools and NONE of the exotic pools. So as far as I’m concerned anyone who mentions just “Odds” or “UOB” knows about as much about the betting pools and the betting activities as someone who pretends to know more about a horse’s condition then its trainer.

The other obvious fallacy is the attempt to downplay the activities in betting pools as a reflection of the so called “crowd” or betting public. Over and over again the use of this terminology provides an oversimplification and obtuse description of the actual betting population. As far as I’m concerned anyone who actually believes that they’re JUST betting against some other player reading a racing form or even using some elaborate handicapping program is really kidding themselves.

This game is not about the horses. It’s about those who control every aspect of these horses in the racing game. And although it might be hard for some to swallow, you can bank on every assertion I've made!
.
.

CincyHorseplayer
04-12-2016, 01:22 AM
Cincy is Right! A Classic Delusion if I’ve ever seen one!

Well Robert with all due respect, you and many like yourself who have been indoctrinated by so many misconceptions about the game fail miserably at understanding what a tote analysis really is and what it can provide when properly applied.

The fact that you continually refer to the “Odds” as the foundation for the tote evaluation is a TOTAL underestimation of what’s involved. It’s about as accurate as saying that fastest horse in today's race is the one who won its last race. The “Odds” reflect the activities of ONLY one of mutual pools and NONE of the exotic pools. So as far as I’m concerned anyone who mentions just “Odds” or “UOB” knows about as much about the betting pools and the betting activities as someone who pretends to know more about a horse’s condition then its trainer.

The other obvious fallacy is the attempt to downplay the activities in betting pools as a reflection of the so called “crowd” or betting public. Over and over again the use of this terminology provides an oversimplification and obtuse description of the actual betting population. As far as I’m concerned anyone who actually believes that they’re JUST betting against some other player reading a racing form or even using some elaborate handicapping program is really kidding themselves.

This game is not about the horses. It’s about those who control every aspect of these horses in the racing game. And although it might be hard for some to swallow, you can bank on every assertion I've made!
.
.

Yes it is about horses and it is about constructing the game around your strengths and laughing at the hot payoffs and odds we see every day for years on end because they all lead to the same place=getting paid less money for equal work. Getting paid less and essentially worshiping at the altar of someone else's opinion as a divinity isn't just someone likely to be a loser at this game but also a half a human being and a fool of the highest order especially given the deafening roar of the self applause. The only thing we out here bank on is your money being in our pockets at the end of the year.

BTW start your own thread about this BS. Nobody mentioned betting on tote money when this thread started. It's about the formfulness of races or lack of. I have a methodology I talk about amongst players. You have a crusade for validation because you throw this around all over the place in the forum on threads it doesn't even relate to.

EMD4ME
04-12-2016, 09:30 AM
If a horse drifts down to his morning line of 7/5, etc., then IMO he/she wasn't "dead on the board". People bet differently for different reasons. In this case it appears that the big money (or a good portion of the betting public), was waiting until late, waiting for the pool size to increase enough to damper the the effect on the odds, or making it appear that the 5 had some problem that was not evident in the PPs, etc.. Pool manipulation takes many forms so you have to be careful about what you "perceive" is happening, because you could be (probably are, quite often) completely wrong.

Yup. You got me Raybo. Everyone knows that at NYRA the 7/5 ML favs who are 3/1 - 5/2 for most of the betting are mortal locks when they get late money down to 8/5. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What was I thinking? :rolleyes:

raybo
04-12-2016, 09:59 AM
Yup. You got me Raybo. Everyone knows that at NYRA the 7/5 ML favs who are 3/1 - 5/2 for most of the betting are mortal locks when they get late money down to 8/5. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What was I thinking? :rolleyes:

I didn't say they would be "mortal locks", only that they weren't "dead on the board" as most here perceive that phrase to mean, as in "doesn't have a chance". It is not unusual, at any track or circuit, to see a horse sit "dead" throughout most of the early betting, only to drift down to at or near its ML odds via the late money. It can mean that the horse got some serious money late, by someone knowing something, or it could mean that the downward drift was just a normal function of the public correcting towards the ML.

By the way, my previous post was just my opinion, not meant to denigrate anyone nor a statement of absolute fact. :rolleyes:

Nitro
04-12-2016, 11:07 AM
Yes it is about horses and it is about constructing the game around your strengths and laughing at the hot payoffs and odds we see every day for years on end because they all lead to the same place=getting paid less money for equal work. Getting paid less and essentially worshiping at the altar of someone else's opinion as a divinity isn't just someone likely to be a loser at this game but also a half a human being and a fool of the highest order especially given the deafening roar of the self applause. The only thing we out here bank on is your money being in our pockets at the end of the year.

BTW start your own thread about this BS. Nobody mentioned betting on tote money when this thread started. It's about the formfulness of races or lack of. I have a methodology I talk about amongst players. You have a crusade for validation because you throw this around all over the place in the forum on threads it doesn't even relate to.
From your response it sounds like my comments were not only hard for you to swallow but you might be actually choking on them. I’m not sure why you play the game, but I play to make money. As an Outsider I’m not stupid enough to believe that I can know at any given time the health and well-being of every animal in a race. Nor am I gullible enough to believe that any information found in the form or elsewhere is going to provide that information or the intentions of those on the inside.

I’m certainly NOT on any sort of crusade as you put it. I deal strictly with the realities of the game and I’m humble enough to realize that as an Outsider my personal opinions have nothing to do with making a profit. I’m not looking to inflate my ego by saying that I picked this or that winner based on some subjective interpretation of racing information.

I also find it very amusing that you take the time to lecture me on my approach, but conveniently venerate Robert’s comments discussing the same topic (on this thread) with an opposite opinion. It’s called being hypocritical and as far as I’m concerned your opinions of my comments are certainly not going to affect my game. But perhaps something I mention will make others take notice of the fact that there’s more information available to them (free of charge) that might improve their game.
.
.

Dave Schwartz
04-12-2016, 11:31 AM
I have been thinking about this thread and it begs a question:

What is the definition of runs true to form?

Logically, one could say, "Runs as expected by the public, which translates to final odds," but is there a better way?


Opinions?

Magister Ludi
04-12-2016, 01:04 PM
...what proportion of races finish with the top three in the betting finishing in the top three places?

country = USA
number of races = 77,060
percentage of races in which the lowest three final odds finish in the top three finishing positions (any order) = 17%

As usual, one classifier can change things dramatically.

example:

percentage of races in which the lowest three final odds finish in the top three finishing positions (any order) where race entropy < median = 23%
percentage of races in which the lowest three final odds finish in the top three finishing positions (any order) where race entropy > median = 9%

PaceAdvantage
04-12-2016, 01:33 PM
Yes it is about horses and it is about constructing the game around your strengths and laughing at the hot payoffs and odds we see every day for years on end because they all lead to the same place=getting paid less money for equal work. Getting paid less and essentially worshiping at the altar of someone else's opinion as a divinity isn't just someone likely to be a loser at this game but also a half a human being and a fool of the highest order especially given the deafening roar of the self applause. The only thing we out here bank on is your money being in our pockets at the end of the year.

BTW start your own thread about this BS. Nobody mentioned betting on tote money when this thread started. It's about the formfulness of races or lack of. I have a methodology I talk about amongst players. You have a crusade for validation because you throw this around all over the place in the forum on threads it doesn't even relate to.First off, Robert brought up odds, and second off, I'll be the one who decides what should and shouldn't be posted in a thread. And will someone please PM me why Nitro gets such a hard time on here? I must have missed a whole lot, because I don't get why you bust on this guy so badly (not just you).

Robert Fischer
04-12-2016, 02:34 PM
Honestly I haven’t been following the NY tracks lately. So I’m not able to produce the tote analysis for Sunday’s races. Even if I could get the tote data and attempt to back into it, I would only be able to show the analysis for the final pool totals and not the progression of betting during the entire betting cycle. That’s really an important aspect of the total analysis because it shows how betting patterns develop. In reality I personally would have passed on a race with a 5-horse field, only because I’ve learned that the analysis is very discriminatory. In other words, the more entries there are the clearer the betting patterns become. Very often entries that are odds-on skew the entire betting pattern, only because the way they’re being bet impacts every pool so heavily. I will say that when such an entry exists and another longer priced entry is also getting solid betting action that occasionally it paves the way for a nice betting opportunity.

Since today's (4/11) 2nd Race at Turf Paradise was mentioned, I thought it might be of interest to just see how the tote analysis faired when looking at all the final pool totals. Keep in mind when using the analysis we're not looking for Winners. We're looking for Winning plays!

PAR is the analyzed result of ALL the betting pools combined.
The numbers in RED are the individual entry values.
The objective is simply to observe and compare PAR with each Entry value.

Turf Paradise Race2 1st Int 2nd Int 3rd Int PAR
# Name..... Jockey........ M/L OD1 OD2 OD3 136 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
1 Sky T...... Ramgeet, Andre 6.0 2.5 104 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
2 Go Max. Stevens, Scott 4.0 1.8 129 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
3 Sindys Luck Hernandez, Isr 3.5 3.5 119 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
4 Nutty Futty Beauregard, Sh 2.5 6 142 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
5 Peaknatastar Bridges, Kelly 15 45 358 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
6 A P Phantom Barton, Jake 1.6 2.5 158 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!


Results:
1st….2-Go Max……….$5.60……..$3.40………$2.20
2nd…1-Sky T…………...….-………..$3.80………$2.80
3rd….4-Nutty Futty………-……….…..-….………$2.80
4th….3-Sindys Luck……..-…….……..-….....…….-
$2.00 EXACTA 2-1 ………….....….$19.20
$2.00 QUINELLA 1-2………...….. $11.80
$2.00 TRIFECTA 2-1-4………...… $91.80
$2.00 SUPERFECTA 2-1-4-3….. $149.00

Absolutely not! Great observation!
.
.

Looks like some good stuff

Amazing how often Tote analysis correlates with performance.

Didn't mean to post right after you last night, we both must have been doing a write-up about the same time. :ThmbUp:

Robert Fischer
04-12-2016, 02:39 PM
Back on-topic

I think that the pace scenario is also important to races "running to form".

raybo
04-12-2016, 02:53 PM
Back on-topic

I think that the pace scenario is also important to races "running to form".

Yeah, I used to look at the charts to see how the top 4 stretch horses finished, and what happened early regarding start, call positions and beaten lengths, to see if the track has been running normally. Just a visual analysis, nothing mathematical.