Ranking by Public Choice in Specific Race Types

[Calif_Eagle]

The typical historical percentages given for public choices as winners are about 33% for favorites, about 21% for public 2nd choices, about 14% for 3rd choice, about 10% for 4th & about 7% for 5th, continuing to trail off at about 2/3 of the preceeding number as one goes lower in the public choice rank.

These historic numbers** are for ALL races totaled together, regardless of Class, Surface, Distance, Racetrack, Track Condition and Field Size. Is there any ready source to get breakouts of these numbers in American racing taking all those different factors into account?

IOW, If I wanted to know the breakdown of Public Choices chances of winning (Strictly for an example) a Non-winners of 1X allowance on the dirt at 6F with a field size of 7.... Is that being totally ridiculous or can such a number be readily accessed via a database. Would the sample size drawn that many ways be so small it would have no predictive value? (Much in the way a baseball batter that hits .230 for a full season tells you nothing about his true hitting ability on that rare night he goes 5 for 5.)

I know breakouts of Public Choices by field size exist. I know that higher class racing is supposed to run much more according to form than lower class racing is. Same is supposed to be true for grass races vs dirt.

** I know the "historic" % of Public Choice winners is supposed to have been rising in recent years. Is this also true of the Public's 2nd thru say, 7th choices?

Any comments on this are welcome. An idea I had (that may well carry no water at all, strictly blue skying here) is that if accurate charts could be drawn up using all those factors, one might be able to use them to bet into overlays on the board as late as possible before the gate opens (understanding that the late board updates will skew the odds).

[Dave Schwartz]

I published Public Choice stats for 25 different race types in my Percentages & Probabilities (http://store.pacemakestherace.com/percentages-probabilities/) book.

Give me an idea of what you're looking for.


Dave

PS: Well, you kind of did that, but I mean, specifically, how can I help you?

I believe I have them broken down by field size as well, but not by race type + field size because there would just be no meaningful sample.

[Calif_Eagle]

I published Public Choice stats for 25 different race types in my Percentages & Probabilities (http://store.pacemakestherace.com/percentages-probabilities/) book.

Give me an idea of what you're looking for.


Dave

PS: Well, you kind of did that, but I mean, specifically, how can I help you?

I believe I have them broken down by field size as well, but not by race type + field size because there would just be no meaningful sample.

That's what I was afraid of (See my 3rd paragraph above). That slicing and dicing the "Public Choice" data in too many ways would result in sample sizes that were too small to be relied on for predictive guidelines.

I thank you very much for your generous offer to help me. I may very well be back to take you up on it. I do own a copy of your E book on disc (which I purchased from you) and am looking through it now to see what it has on this topic.

[Dave Schwartz]

Look in the "Tables" folder. You'll find the IV tables for each race type.

If you'd like a short conversation on the topic, send me an email and we can set an appointment to chat.


Dave

PS: I was wrong! Look at factor #201 in each race type. The actual odds ranges are there!

Also, exists (of course) in the CSV and Worksheet folders if you want them in a different format.

PPS: No, I was right. You wanted odds x field size by race type. Sorry.

[Nitro]

The typical historical percentages given for public choices as winners are about 33% for favorites, about 21% for public 2nd choices, about 14% for 3rd choice, about 10% for 4th & about 7% for 5th, continuing to trail off at about 2/3 of the preceeding number as one goes lower in the public choice rank.

These historic numbers** are for ALL races totaled together, regardless of Class, Surface, Distance, Racetrack, Track Condition and Field Size. Is there any ready source to get breakouts of these numbers in American racing taking all those different factors into account?
All of your historical overall percentages are correct. Someone recently asked me why it is that when I post selections why my 2 Key picks from the tote analysis often reflect 2 of the top 3 betting choices. I responded by saying that I would be a bit concerned if it didn’t considering that in most races they win at a 67-68% clip. This percentage can be further improved upon when looking at specific race conditions (As you mentioned). This would also illustrate the type of races that are prone toward much lower percentages.

If you’re looking to narrow it down all you would have to do is incorporate these four other factors: Class / Age / Distance / Surface. Of course field size may be of interest, but I believe the 4 factors mentioned will reveal an adequate disclosure of the races which are both above and below the overall averages. If there is a good source for this type of information I think it would also be beneficial for it to provide the data for individual racing jurisdictions with tracks offering similar race conditions.

The only thing that bothers me is your referral to these high % choices as being "public". It's unfortunate that so many players fail to recognize who actually makes up the betting population on a regular basis. I feel the term "public" as a description of the betting activities is an obvious misnomer.

[betovernetcapper]

I don't think favorite statistics are eternal. They are dependent on any number of factors. If a popular public handicapper is weak on turf races, then your probably going to have a lower win % of favorites at that track. The late Dave Feldman was a good handicapper, but he had a couple of holes in his game. Whenever a horse won his last race by a big margin, BANG it was at the top. Dave had a huge following & if he put a horse on top, it was going to get a lot of action. Now that he's no longer with us, that type of horse may not attract the same amount of action.
If a track has small pools one whale will have a big impact on the favorite. If the whale is poor at say 2 year old racing, then probably 2 year old races will have a lower % of favorites than could be expected. If the whale improves his two year old handicapping the fav win % will rise. If the whale starts betting another track the stats will change.
Even the track itself can impact the % of favorites. In the beginning of Haw's Fall meeting, the track is relatively hard & E & EP horses win a high %. In the last half of the meeting, the better horses ship down South & more dirt is put on the track creating more cushion & allowing closers a better chance & winning % goes down. Given that many of the closers have not had much of a chance for 6-8 weeks, they tend to look bad on paper, so aren't bet & win % of favorites go down.
IMO, this is best viewed by track, distance & class. There is sort of an ebb & flow to this that has to be monitored daily to be worth anything.
Just my 2$ :)

[Calif_Eagle]

All of your historical overall percentages are correct. Someone recently asked me why it is that when I post selections why my 2 Key picks from the tote analysis often reflect 2 of the top 3 betting choices. I responded by saying that I would be a bit concerned if it didn’t considering that in most races they win at a 67-68% clip. This percentage can be further improved upon when looking at specific race conditions (As you mentioned). This would also illustrate the type of races that are prone toward much lower percentages.

If you’re looking to narrow it down all you would have to do is incorporate these four other factors: Class / Age / Distance / Surface. Of course field size may be of interest, but I believe the 4 factors mentioned will reveal an adequate disclosure of the races which are both above and below the overall averages. If there is a good source for this type of information I think it would also be beneficial for it to provide the data for individual racing jurisdictions with tracks offering similar race conditions.

The only thing that bothers me is your referral to these high % choices as being "public". It's unfortunate that so many players fail to recognize who actually makes up the betting population on a regular basis. I feel the term "public" as a description of the betting activities is an obvious misnomer.

I understand what you are saying re: the above bolded red section. I recall reading that at least 30% or more of the handle at the big NYC circuit tracks was considered to be "well informed money" & that it was deposited "through the windows" (or via other ways) by about 3% or less of the players.

I used "public choices" as a typical naming convention for lack of anything better, but I'm not under any illusion that all money is sent in on an equal basis re: being "well informed" money.

[Calif_Eagle]

I don't think favorite statistics are eternal. They are dependent on any number of factors. If a popular public handicapper is weak on turf races, then your probably going to have a lower win % of favorites at that track. The late Dave Feldman was a good handicapper, but he had a couple of holes in his game. Whenever a horse won his last race by a big margin, BANG it was at the top. Dave had a huge following & if he put a horse on top, it was going to get a lot of action. Now that he's no longer with us, that type of horse may not attract the same amount of action.
If a track has small pools one whale will have a big impact on the favorite. If the whale is poor at say 2 year old racing, then probably 2 year old races will have a lower % of favorites than could be expected. If the whale improves his two year old handicapping the fav win % will rise. If the whale starts betting another track the stats will change.
Even the track itself can impact the % of favorites. In the beginning of Haw's Fall meeting, the track is relatively hard & E & EP horses win a high %. In the last half of the meeting, the better horses ship down South & more dirt is put on the track creating more cushion & allowing closers a better chance & winning % goes down. Given that many of the closers have not had much of a chance for 6-8 weeks, they tend to look bad on paper, so aren't bet & win % of favorites go down.
IMO, this is best viewed by track, distance & class. There is sort of an ebb & flow to this that has to be monitored daily to be worth anything.
Just my 2$ :)

You raise a number of very valid points that I had not previously considered. I was already leery that my idea wasn't going anywhere due to the sample sizes being too small when you cut them out of the overall total of races.

Now you mention a LOT of sources of "noise" that do or at least can distort the results vs. the way the "public" can be anticipated to bet. Good points.

It seems the overall trend is amazingly consistent but on a race by race basis it cant be relied on without making a LOT of allowances.

[betovernetcapper]

I set my model at a minimum of 50 races in a subcategory (like class or distance) and my minimum number of surface races at 6. I have know way of defending this except it seems reasonable. After about a week or so into a meeting, I can get a feel of what races tend to be predictable.