Arriving At Value Without "Value Handicapping".

[CincyHorseplayer]

Reading the consistency thread sparked the age old debate of picking winners vs picking bets. A little over a year ago after a shittier than usual run of a losing streak I had to take a break and did not know how long I would be gone. My judgement was off to the point I couldn't tell a good from a bad bet and is was beyond mere odds. While I had been tinkering with the mechanics of coming up with a simple methodology for evaluating a race for it's exotic potential during those last few months, it gave me a way back in the door. But first.

I think any player who has played for any length of time has developed an innate sense of value. He doesn't have to forcibly "Value Handicap". But I think there does need to be a very basic, kindergarten level method to keep him from reaching too far or to sense the worthiness of what is available right in front of him.

I got sick of the value handicapping term because I thought it exactly was(for me and not anybody else) putting your focus on mediocre horses who would not prove valuable over a lengthy period of time. Playing with methods of picking a 3rd or a 4th choice I also completely thought was just wrong. At least for me for basic the basic reasons of this(which I tracked for a number of years and looked basically like this);

1st choice-25% win

2nd choice-25% win

3rd choice-12% win

4th choice-8% win etc etc

The precipitous dropoff after the first 2 choices to me I needn't look any further. More on this in a minute.

Making oddslines. Did it for years. Found it to be too time consuming and making it neat and tidy to be practical. Why? I see plenty of races especially at a place like Saratoga where a 120-136 oddsline might need another look but not really. IT IS THAT CONTENTIOUS! For me this was escaping the basic need also.

Simple goal. Find who is bettable and who is marginal for exotics without using an oddsline or even exact odds.

And let me say I am only using what I am doing to point out the conclusions I am reaching. Not looking for critiques about it. I don't care. It is meant to be fast and this dumbed down and for me it is effective.

A-single contender in a race

B-for multiple contenders in a race

C+-for marginal contenders in a race who do not qualify as bets but are uses in exotics.

Any other designation I utilize in other ways in ticket structures that aren't worth noting here.

Proceed by only betting on A and B horses.

That's it.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Early on in doing this I arrived at the conclusion I already knew. Betting marginal horses(C+) don't win enough to justify bets. And they can't be saved unless you had ridiculously high mutuels.

So the next step for me was not betting anything or next to anything to win that was less than 2-1. Here is what was left and the average mutuel on the winning AB Contenders.

Diving back into it I felt like I at least had an adequate point of departure.

[CincyHorseplayer]

If you haven't noticed already my computer level skills are next to none. So if there is anything you can suggest I track along with this or errors in what I've posted definitely let me know. Always looking to get further down the road with this.

Rod

[FakeNameChanged]

Reading the consistency thread sparked the age old debate of picking winners vs picking bets. A little over a year ago after a shittier than usual run of a losing streak I had to take a break and did not know how long I would be gone. My judgement was off to the point I couldn't tell a good from a bad bet and is was beyond mere odds. While I had been tinkering with the mechanics of coming up with a simple methodology for evaluating a race for it's exotic potential during those last few months, it gave me a way back in the door. But first.

I think any player who has played for any length of time has developed an innate sense of value. He doesn't have to forcibly "Value Handicap". But I think there does need to be a very basic, kindergarten level method to keep him from reaching too far or to sense the worthiness of what is available right in front of him.

I got sick of the value handicapping term because I thought it exactly was(for me and not anybody else) putting your focus on mediocre horses who would not prove valuable over a lengthy period of time. Playing with methods of picking a 3rd or a 4th choice I also completely thought was just wrong. At least for me for basic the basic reasons of this(which I tracked for a number of years and looked basically like this);

1st choice-25% win

2nd choice-25% win

3rd choice-12% win

4th choice-8% win etc etc

The precipitous dropoff after the first 2 choices to me I needn't look any further. More on this in a minute.

Making oddslines. Did it for years. Found it to be too time consuming and making it neat and tidy to be practical. Why? I see plenty of races especially at a place like Saratoga where a 120-136 oddsline might need another look but not really. IT IS THAT CONTENTIOUS! For me this was escaping the basic need also.

Simple goal. Find who is bettable and who is marginal for exotics without using an oddsline or even exact odds.

And let me say I am only using what I am doing to point out the conclusions I am reaching. Not looking for critiques about it. I don't care. It is meant to be fast and this dumbed down and for me it is effective.

A-single contender in a race

B-for multiple contenders in a race

C+-for marginal contenders in a race who do not qualify as bets but are uses in exotics.

Any other designation I utilize in other ways in ticket structures that aren't worth noting here.

Proceed by only betting on A and B horses.

That's it.
I think pressing the reset button occasionally is a good exercise for anyone playing this game. You did the right thing. I've drawn some mild criticism for being too simple or antiquated in my approaches, but that's good if it gets me to think. No one has ever criticized me harder than the guy in the mirror.

For me, it's about picking winners, and then getting the value, since I don't play tri's or supers or doubles, etc. I do play exactas and trying very hard to wean myself off of them. I'm about half way there. I know that puts me in the minority on here, and I don't care if it does. In my case, if I'm not picking winners, what difference does it make to try to pick the 2, 3, & 4th horse? I only try to look at who the contenders are that my horse has to beat.

[traynor]

You are defining a VERY important area with far-reaching implications (and values). The key is your definition of a "contender."

Much past performance data is seriously tweaked by the number of (and attributes of) the actual contenders in a race. Way too many bettors are so frightened of "eliminating the winner" that they consider any horse with four legs and a head and tail on opposite ends as a "contender." Not so. The tighter your contender selection process, the better the results.

I am currently working on the development of a dutching process that is based on the number of "real contenders" in a given race, with "interesting" preliminary results. One of the peripheral bits of information is the degree to which the number of contenders in a given race influences the performance (and performance records) of all the other entries. When the records are used in isolation in subsequent evaluations (ignoring or failing to evaluate the context in which they were earned) the predictive accuracy of those records is substantially diminished.

[CincyHorseplayer]

You are defining a VERY important area with far-reaching implications (and values). The key is your definition of a "contender."

Much past performance data is seriously tweaked by the number of (and attributes of) the actual contenders in a race. Way too many bettors are so frightened of "eliminating the winner" that they consider any horse with four legs and a head and tail on opposite ends as a "contender." Not so. The tighter your contender selection process, the better the results.

I am currently working on the development of a dutching process that is based on the number of "real contenders" in a given race, with "interesting" preliminary results. One of the peripheral bits of information is the degree to which the number of contenders in a given race influences the performance (and performance records) of all the other entries. When the records are used in isolation in subsequent evaluations (ignoring or failing to evaluate the context in which they were earned) the predictive accuracy of those records is substantially diminished.

Yes I think many value approaches are a mirage, at least in my experience. Your work with the lower odds spectrum and Nitro's approach in a race tracking the action forced me to start tracking odds. Without getting into that full discussion the most enlightening aspect of it was the performance of longshots. I consider them anything 9-1 and up. Of the 50% win group only 2% of the wins came from those horses(albeit marginally profitable). Within their own subset they were 12 for 132(9% win). So not only do marginal horses win at an unsatisfactory rate, longshots in general do not perform well at all. It's a deadly combination. That said when I have a race where the AB and C+ horses are all 5-1 and higher that's the race I am targeting to go all in on exotic bets. Which was initially the goal in the first place.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

I dost though believe you be thinking too much.

You are a smart guy Cincy. Make it simple.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I dost though believe you be thinking too much.

You are a smart guy Cincy. Make it simple.

LDH I think that is exactly what I have accomplished here. I started with merely evaluating the evaluations. The end result is a very simple approach from a group that starts with a solid average mutuel.

[traynor]

Yes I think many value approaches are a mirage, at least in my experience. Your work with the lower odds spectrum and Nitro's approach in a race tracking the action forced me to start tracking odds. Without getting into that full discussion the most enlightening aspect of it was the performance of longshots. I consider them anything 9-1 and up. Of the 50% win group only 2% of the wins came from those horses(albeit marginally profitable). Within their own subset they were 12 for 132(9% win). So not only do marginal horses win at an unsatisfactory rate, longshots in general do not perform well at all. It's a deadly combination. That said when I have a race where the AB and C+ horses are all 5-1 and higher that's the race I am targeting to go all in on exotic bets. Which was initially the goal in the first place.

Consider an alternative approach. Rather than tossing all longshots into one basket, consider the individual races. Meaning, how often do longshots win when other criteria are present? Examples: Races with one solid contender, two solid contenders, three solid contenders, etc. Races in which odds of favorite are WAY down (1-5, 1-10). MANY others.

Many would define your example of "a race where the AB and C+ horses are all 5-1 and higher" as a "chaos" race (with no clear "most probable" winner). That seems to be where a LOT of money is. It is perfectly reasonable--the more "certainty" (there seems to be) in a race, the more money the average bettor tends to shovel in. If you layer races by the odds of the favorites (and, depending on ranges, of second and third favorites), the percentage of winning longshots comes out quite differently.

Small example (from a current model):
OCT262016 IV ROI Wagering Model
AllTracks 0.53 136 L1 S
AllTracks 0.85 164 L2 S
AllTracks 1.22 102 L3 S
AllTracks 0.39 68 L4 S

Second column is ROI, third column is number of races, fourth is number of contenders in the race (using a highly specific set of filters to establish such).

The "L3" designation (three solid contenders) ROI is betting ALL THREE (flat bet dutch, completely ignoring odds, morning lines, and most everything else).

[classhandicapper]

Making an odds line is the theoretically correct approach, but there are so many factors with so many incomprehensible interrelationships, I wonder whether it's actually worth it. At various times I've used that approach, but I think simply ranking the contenders in the order of their probability of winning (you can use 1a and 1b for very similar horses) and then focusing on misranked horses is good enough.

I try to focus on situations where my top ranked horse looks like good value (he's the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc.. choice), and more importantly, I think I know WHY I am getting a decent price (there has to be some somewhat hidden attribute). I'll go down below my top ranked horse, but again, I have to think I know WHY I am getting a good price and the value has to be screaming to me.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Consider an alternative approach. Rather than tossing all longshots into one basket, consider the individual races. Meaning, how often do longshots win when other criteria are present? Examples: Races with one solid contender, two solid contenders, three solid contenders, etc. Races in which odds of favorite are WAY down (1-5, 1-10). MANY others.

Many would define your example of "a race where the AB and C+ horses are all 5-1 and higher" as a "chaos" race (with no clear "most probable" winner). That seems to be where a LOT of money is. It is perfectly reasonable--the more "certainty" (there seems to be) in a race, the more money the average bettor tends to shovel in. If you layer races by the odds of the favorites (and, depending on ranges, of second and third favorites), the percentage of winning longshots comes out quite differently.

Small example (from a current model):
OCT262016 IV ROI Wagering Model
AllTracks 0.53 136 L1 S
AllTracks 0.85 164 L2 S
AllTracks 1.22 102 L3 S
AllTracks 0.39 68 L4 S

Second column is ROI, third column is number of races, fourth is number of contenders in the race (using a highly specific set of filters to establish such).

The "L3" designation (three solid contenders) ROI is betting ALL THREE (flat bet dutch, completely ignoring odds, morning lines, and most everything else).

Like the example and it makes sense. I find I can utilize that approach more on turf than on dirt but as you example points out(I think!)when there are too many legitimate contenders the value for profit potential falls apart. I have 2 separate turf rankings I use and right now the T2 ranking is winning 89% of the races at Santa Anita on the top 2 from the category. Which is all well and good IF you only have 2 or 3 of those in a race. Often I am seeing races when there are 4-5 and as many as 7 horses that fit that ranking so it becomes completely useless. Sticking to the 2-3 contender race type the hit% obviously falls but it's a better bet. The avg mutuel is at an even $10.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Making an odds line is the theoretically correct approach, but there are so many factors with so many incomprehensible interrelationships, I wonder whether it's actually worth it. At various times I've used that approach, but I think simply ranking the contenders in the order of their probability of winning (you can use 1a and 1b for very similar horses) and then focusing on misranked horses is good enough.

I try to focus on situations where my top ranked horse looks like good value (he's the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc.. choice), and more importantly, I think I know WHY I am getting a decent price (there has to be some somewhat hidden attribute). I'll go down below my top ranked horse, but again, I have to think I know WHY I am getting a good price and the value has to be screaming to me.

In most races I have 2 horses that are more or less equals. Unless something is really nagging me about a contender I'll pass on the sub 2-1 horse and bet the other. If they are both in the $6-8 payoff range I'll pass the race. If both are 4-1 up I'll usually bet both. Those end up being the typical race I will play the exotics. But not always. In races where there are next to no marginal contenders and the favorite falls into the non contender category I'll do a criss cross bet. I'll bet 3 units on horse A to win and 1 unit on horse B to win but I will do 2 units on the BA exacta and 1 unit on the AB exacta. Instead of say shooting for an overall 9-1 return or recouping the bet I end up having either a 6-1 or a 4-1 return if either outcome comes in. I did this a lot at Gulfstream last winter. I like this approach.

[classhandicapper]

In most races I have 2 horses that are more or less equals. Unless something is really nagging me about a contender I'll pass on the sub 2-1 horse and bet the other. If they are both in the $6-8 payoff range I'll pass the race. If both are 4-1 up I'll usually bet both. Those end up being the typical race I will play the exotics. But not always. In races where there are next to no marginal contenders and the favorite falls into the non contender category I'll do a criss cross bet. I'll bet 3 units on horse A to win and 1 unit on horse B to win but I will do 2 units on the BA exacta and 1 unit on the AB exacta. Instead of say shooting for an overall 9-1 return or recouping the bet I end up having either a 6-1 or a 4-1 return if either outcome comes in. I did this a lot at Gulfstream last winter. I like this approach.

I rarely bet a horse at less than 5-2 and virtually never at less than 2-1. If I dislike the favorite and there are 2 other similar horses in the race I like, I bet both.

[Track Collector]

I rarely bet a horse at less than 5-2 and virtually never at less than 2-1. If I dislike the favorite and there are 2 other similar horses in the race I like, I bet both.

Value betting is value betting, no matter how one arrives at the process. The end results (over a significant time) help define whether one's success is thru excellent handicapping or just a run good period which will eventually go away.

Contrary to a number of handicappers, the value I have been able to find via Win betting does not exclude considerably low odds horses (such as 5-2 and below, and including some specific favorites). The higher odds horses naturally offer the most potential for profits. One benefit though of low odds horses (providing they do result in a profit) is that their lower total profit potential is offset by a higher win rate, thus helping to cushion losing streaks from both a financial and phychological perspective.

As an aside, count me in as one of those handicappers who not too long ago went thru a long and bad result period which required a complete stop in betting for about 2-3 months, (This is a big change for someone who wagers over 350 days a year), followed by a significant revamp to my handicapping methodology.

[FakeNameChanged]

Value betting is value betting, no matter how one arrives at the process. The end results (over a significant time) help define whether one's success is thru excellent handicapping or just a run good period which will eventually go away.

Contrary to a number of handicappers, the value I have been able to find via Win betting does not exclude considerably low odds horses (such as 5-2 and below, and including some specific favorites). The higher odds horses naturally offer the most potential for profits. One benefit though of low odds horses (providing they do result in a profit) is that their lower total profit potential is offset by a higher win rate, thus helping to cushion losing streaks from both a financial and phychological perspective.

As an aside, count me in as one of those handicappers who not too long ago went thru a long and bad result period which required a complete stop in betting for about 2-3 months, (This is a big change for someone who wagers over 350 days a year), followed by a significant revamp to my handicapping methodology.

Your comment rings true with me. What was your approach to revamp your handicapping? Did you also revamp your betting style/money management approach? Thanks.

[Track Collector]

Your comment rings true with me. What was your approach to revamp your handicapping? Did you also revamp your betting style/money management approach? Thanks.

The critical key to my turnaround was a mindset, and it also involved a pride issue. Until about 2 years ago, I had always been a relatively high dollar handle better, and this allowed me to qualify for higher-end rebates. Due to multiple years of declining handicapping results and a greatly diminished bankroll, I logically began reducing the amounts and types of wagers made. This eventually led to me lose a favored status (i.e. not meeting minimum handle requirements), and I was forced to settle for a significant reduction in rebate compensation. This big negative did include one big positive in that the level of rebates now in effect required NO minimum handle.

So with the weight of meeting a minimum handle requirement gone along with a group of poorly performing handicapping plays, what did I do?

STOP! I ceased all wagering and went back to work studying my current handicapping plays. I continued daily to download the handicapping data and results charts during this 2-3 month process. I tweaked some current plays, while discarding some others and developed new plays. I essentially eliminated all exotics and stuck/went with Win bets. And in something contrary to the way I had always done things, my re-start of plays were made from a conservative approach rather than a "both fists bettor". This ego change had me reducing my Win unit size wagers from $100 to $40. (My previous approach was not a "chasing" one, but simply a much too agressive approach when first trying out new/revised plays.).

Over the past 12 months I believe I have improved my analytical skills too, which has helped me to continue to develop new plays. I have also slowly added back in some exotics, in addition to the current Win wagers. (I just started a new one on Wednesday. :)). My unit wager sizes for a number of my plays will be increased gradually IF subject plays continue to yield a profit.

I don't expect that every new play will remain profitable, so there will be a continual tweaking and discarding as time goes on.

Thus is the life of a wanabe successful handicapper.

Edit: BTW just saw your user profile. While I branched out from it, I am a Engineer by Degree.

[CincyHorseplayer]

You are defining a VERY important area with far-reaching implications (and values). The key is your definition of a "contender."



Traynor could you elaborate a little more on your first sentence? Just want to see how you are thinking what you are thinking.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Basically what this whole thread is about for me was altering the decision making process. There is a lot of gray area out there in deciding what a contender is really worth and what is worth betting. I still do not bet in a mechanistic manner. Betting all the AB contenders I just can't bring myself to do because there are many races where I see 2 underlays even when dual contenders are beyond 2-1. But even though I am still selective in what I am betting my average mutuel, which from 2001 to 2013 had stayed at a consistent 9.40 or so has leaped to nearly the identical 11.60 number that the second graphic showed. That's no small shakes to increase 23% and peripherally all the accompanying exotics payouts have followed suit. I do attribute that also to immersing myself in turf racing over the last few years also. Either way without following the outline of most value seeking methods I ended up there simply by eliminating some of the illusions on marginal contenders, longshot performance, and by simply letting odds dictate my play among actual contenders.

[thaskalos]

In my own play, the "value" aspect of a race starts --and sometimes ends -- with my assessment of how vulnerable the race favorite appears to me. If the favorite appears legitimate, then I suspect right off that there is limited profit potential for me in the race...and, being primarily a vertical exotics bettor, I tend to look elsewhere for a "better" wagering opportunity. There was a time when I bet serious money to win on these favorite-types, because I felt that they were "overlays" in spite of their depressed odds. I used to also key these favorites in vertical exotics...figuring that I had enough "value" underneath them to warrant making the wager. I abandoned BOTH these practices once I fully realized that they didn't add anything to my bottom line. IMO...it's tough to be right often enough to overcome the barrier created by the betting "appeal" generated by the legitimate favorite in the race. When the favorite wins, not only is the win-price unappetizing...but the resulting vertical payoffs tend to be unappetizing as well.

I now confine my bets to races where I "dislike" the favorite...and, the more unappealing the favorite appears to me...the more liberally I spread in the exotics. What good is cashing a lot of tickets...if the desired result isn't there in the end?

[CincyHorseplayer]

The other thing I wanted to mention and ask about is odds tracking and how you do it and what you look for?

As I said I don't even use actual odds but break them down into odds ranges. How I have chosen to classify them is simply by my own intuition by where I think the break lines are. I feel the way I have them bracketed they perform in certain ways. But that's another story. Anyway I tracked the odds this way.

5=any odds less then 2-1

4=$6-8

3=$9-11

2=$12-18

1=$20 up

Here is how they performed. The lower odds range while performing at a high rate from a win/IV standpoint had a 13% loss but look at the dropoff on the 9-1 and up range. 2% wins .80 IV and only a 9% ROI. I seem to gather longshots in bunches here and there through the year and I have no hesitation betting these horses but it does make me think twice in races where on pops up which is why I have been dutch betting when I have multiple contenders. Exotics are another story as these types anchor solid payoffs by landing in other slots. The steady performance from payoffs in the $6-18 range I think is no accident.

The first number is the win% from the 50% winners of the AB contenders. The 2nd and 3rd numbers the entrant % and win % from all contenders.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I meant to say that first number is the win% from their own odds bracket.

[FakeNameChanged]

The critical key to my turnaround was a mindset, and it also involved a pride issue. Until about 2 years ago, I had always been a relatively high dollar handle better, and this allowed me to qualify for higher-end rebates. Due to multiple years of declining handicapping results and a greatly diminished bankroll, I logically began reducing the amounts and types of wagers made. This eventually led to me lose a favored status (i.e. not meeting minimum handle requirements), and I was forced to settle for a significant reduction in rebate compensation. This big negative did include one big positive in that the level of rebates now in effect required NO minimum handle.

So with the weight of meeting a minimum handle requirement gone along with a group of poorly performing handicapping plays, what did I do?

STOP! I ceased all wagering and went back to work studying my current handicapping plays. I continued daily to download the handicapping data and results charts during this 2-3 month process. I tweaked some current plays, while discarding some others and developed new plays. I essentially eliminated all exotics and stuck/went with Win bets. And in something contrary to the way I had always done things, my re-start of plays were made from a conservative approach rather than a "both fists bettor". This ego change had me reducing my Win unit size wagers from $100 to $40. (My previous approach was not a "chasing" one, but simply a much too agressive approach when first trying out new/revised plays.).

Over the past 12 months I believe I have improved my analytical skills too, which has helped me to continue to develop new plays. I have also slowly added back in some exotics, in addition to the current Win wagers. (I just started a new one on Wednesday. :)). My unit wager sizes for a number of my plays will be increased gradually IF subject plays continue to yield a profit.

I don't expect that every new play will remain profitable, so there will be a continual tweaking and discarding as time goes on.

Thus is the life of a wanabe successful handicapper.

Edit: BTW just saw your user profile. While I branched out from it, I am a Engineer by Degree.thank you for your well worded and thorough response. Am enjoying your postings.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The critical key to my turnaround was a mindset, and it also involved a pride issue. Until about 2 years ago, I had always been a relatively high dollar handle better, and this allowed me to qualify for higher-end rebates. Due to multiple years of declining handicapping results and a greatly diminished bankroll, I logically began reducing the amounts and types of wagers made. This eventually led to me lose a favored status (i.e. not meeting minimum handle requirements), and I was forced to settle for a significant reduction in rebate compensation. This big negative did include one big positive in that the level of rebates now in effect required NO minimum handle.

So with the weight of meeting a minimum handle requirement gone along with a group of poorly performing handicapping plays, what did I do?

STOP! I ceased all wagering and went back to work studying my current handicapping plays. I continued daily to download the handicapping data and results charts during this 2-3 month process. I tweaked some current plays, while discarding some others and developed new plays. I essentially eliminated all exotics and stuck/went with Win bets. And in something contrary to the way I had always done things, my re-start of plays were made from a conservative approach rather than a "both fists bettor". This ego change had me reducing my Win unit size wagers from $100 to $40. (My previous approach was not a "chasing" one, but simply a much too agressive approach when first trying out new/revised plays.).

Over the past 12 months I believe I have improved my analytical skills too, which has helped me to continue to develop new plays. I have also slowly added back in some exotics, in addition to the current Win wagers. (I just started a new one on Wednesday. :)). My unit wager sizes for a number of my plays will be increased gradually IF subject plays continue to yield a profit.

I don't expect that every new play will remain profitable, so there will be a continual tweaking and discarding as time goes on.

Thus is the life of a wanabe successful handicapper.

Edit: BTW just saw your user profile. While I branched out from it, I am a Engineer by Degree.

Thanks for elaborating on that TC. It was easy for me to stop betting because I was swimming in a sea of my own mediocrity. But it was very difficult not to play because I missed the game. So I would put the horses on in the background and go to work trying to reformulate and simplify the approach.

My kindergarten barely oddsline method is what I came up for exotics! I needed something fast and merely to "take the temperature" of a race. Tracking the results led to other conclusions I've covered. But with exotics I was just routinely playing them randomly. It was almost an action oriented reflex and it was killing my $$. My first book on handicapping was Beyer's Winning Horseplayer, so I started out betting exotics dominantly. And I still firmly believe exotics are thee impact bets. But about 5 years ago right before Christmas when mulling over my betting records I noticed if I had bet to win I would have had a 31% ROI instead of a 17% loss. I wasn't going to fully abandoned exotics but I knew the right thing to do was to have a dual approach and to bet smarter in exotics. It's gone a lot better this year.

[Track Collector]

Basically what this whole thread is about for me was altering the decision making process. There is a lot of gray area out there in deciding what a contender is really worth and what is worth betting. I still do not bet in a mechanistic manner. Betting all the AB contenders I just can't bring myself to do because there are many races where I see 2 underlays even when dual contenders are beyond 2-1. But even though I am still selective in what I am betting my average mutuel, which from 2001 to 2013 had stayed at a consistent 9.40 or so has leaped to nearly the identical 11.60 number that the second graphic showed. That's no small shakes to increase 23% and peripherally all the accompanying exotics payouts have followed suit. I do attribute that also to immersing myself in turf racing over the last few years also. Either way without following the outline of most value seeking methods I ended up there simply by eliminating some of the illusions on marginal contenders, longshot performance, and by simply letting odds dictate my play among actual contenders.

Does your contender selection process involve any aspects where subjectivity is applied, or is it entirely rules-based?

[CincyHorseplayer]

Does your contender selection process involve any aspects where subjectivity is applied, or is it entirely rules-based?

I don't have any rules. That is one of the things I wanted to test. A few years ago I decided I was going to be a specialist in certain areas when I got heavily into turf and pedigree. What I ended up doing was painting myself into a corner. I reasoned that after 20 years I shouldn't have to specialize, play at certain tracks,or even handicap for hours on end which also was getting ridiculous. So I sat down and looked at as many tracks as I could and basically it was all subjective judgments on contenders. That experience had my spirits back up. I WASN'T limited and started winning again! I do have other methods of playing when one of my rankings is dominating at a track or surface but pretty much it's free form.

[traynor]

Traynor could you elaborate a little more on your first sentence? Just want to see how you are thinking what you are thinking.

Define what you consider a contender. How often do you find a race in which the process you use to select contenders narrows the race to four entries, and how often does one of those four win? Rinse and repeat with three contenders, two contenders, and one contender. If you refine your contender selection processes sufficiently, all the rest becomes fluff--interesting, but not especially useful.

If you use attributes rather than simplistic comparisons in your contender selection processes, you may find that isolating the winner is not especially productive, because the second (or second and third or whatever) "choices" win often enough at high enough mutuels to make betting both (all three, or whatever) productive.

An added advantage (especially at minor tracks) is that you can spread wagers, rather than overly diluting the mutuel pools (and your return).

[traynor]

The other thing I wanted to mention and ask about is odds tracking and how you do it and what you look for?

As I said I don't even use actual odds but break them down into odds ranges. How I have chosen to classify them is simply by my own intuition by where I think the break lines are. I feel the way I have them bracketed they perform in certain ways. But that's another story. Anyway I tracked the odds this way.

5=any odds less then 2-1

4=$6-8

3=$9-11

2=$12-18

1=$20 up

Here is how they performed. The lower odds range while performing at a high rate from a win/IV standpoint had a 13% loss but look at the dropoff on the 9-1 and up range. 2% wins .80 IV and only a 9% ROI. I seem to gather longshots in bunches here and there through the year and I have no hesitation betting these horses but it does make me think twice in races where on pops up which is why I have been dutch betting when I have multiple contenders. Exotics are another story as these types anchor solid payoffs by landing in other slots. The steady performance from payoffs in the $6-18 range I think is no accident.

The first number is the win% from the 50% winners of the AB contenders. The 2nd and 3rd numbers the entrant % and win % from all contenders.

I use very similar ranges, track specific.

[classhandicapper]

Value betting is value betting, no matter how one arrives at the process. The end results (over a significant time) help define whether one's success is thru excellent handicapping or just a run good period which will eventually go away.

Contrary to a number of handicappers, the value I have been able to find via Win betting does not exclude considerably low odds horses (such as 5-2 and below, and including some specific favorites). The higher odds horses naturally offer the most potential for profits. One benefit though of low odds horses (providing they do result in a profit) is that their lower total profit potential is offset by a higher win rate, thus helping to cushion losing streaks from both a financial and phychological perspective.

As an aside, count me in as one of those handicappers who not too long ago went thru a long and bad result period which required a complete stop in betting for about 2-3 months, (This is a big change for someone who wagers over 350 days a year), followed by a significant revamp to my handicapping methodology.

I start with the assumption that both my information and my analysis could be somewhat flawed. So I insist on a pretty large margin of safety before I make a play. If 8/5 looks about fair to me, I don't bet just because the odds are 9/5 or 2-1. I want better than that to cover for those possible errors. There are almost certainly overlays on horses at less than 2-1, I just have a more difficult time isolating them and meeting my standards.

I solve the problem of win rate by betting some horses win/place and betting 2 horses in the same race.

[classhandicapper]

In my own play, the "value" aspect of a race starts --and sometimes ends -- with my assessment of how vulnerable the race favorite appears to me. If the favorite appears legitimate, then I suspect right off that there is limited profit potential for me in the race...and, being primarily a vertical exotics bettor, I tend to look elsewhere for a "better" wagering opportunity. There was a time when I bet serious money to win on these favorite-types, because I felt that they were "overlays" in spite of their depressed odds. I used to also key these favorites in vertical exotics...figuring that I had enough "value" underneath them to warrant making the wager. I abandoned BOTH these practices once I fully realized that they didn't add anything to my bottom line. IMO...it's tough to be right often enough to overcome the barrier created by the betting "appeal" generated by the legitimate favorite in the race. When the favorite wins, not only is the win-price unappetizing...but the resulting vertical payoffs tend to be unappetizing as well.

I now confine my bets to races where I "dislike" the favorite...and, the more unappealing the favorite appears to me...the more liberally I spread in the exotics. What good is cashing a lot of tickets...if the desired result isn't there in the end?

My own thinking is very much like yours except I tend to not go as deep into the verticals as you do. For me to get involved in triples or supers I have to REALLY hate the favorite. I like going for "crush" exactas.

[CincyHorseplayer]

My own thinking is very much like yours except I tend to not go as deep into the verticals as you do. For me to get involved in triples or supers I have to REALLY hate the favorite. I like going for "crush" exactas.

Getting robbed enough times when the fav finishes 3rd I lean towards this as well. I remember a Chad Brown 1st in country winning at 5-1. Should have just 2 units win 1 unit place but played $1 ex and tris and got $120 because fav snuck in show. The exacta was $80 and usually would have $5 the combination.

[Track Collector]

I start with the assumption that both my information and my analysis could be somewhat flawed. So I insist on a pretty large margin of safety before I make a play. If 8/5 looks about fair to me, I don't bet just because the odds are 9/5 or 2-1. I want better than that to cover for those possible errors. There are almost certainly overlays on horses at less than 2-1, I just have a more difficult time isolating them and meeting my standards.

I solve the problem of win rate by betting some horses win/place and betting 2 horses in the same race.

My methodology is database and factor driven, and therefore the average ending odds are already baked in. No need to watch the odds near post time and make a win wager if the horse is 9-5 but pass if the odds are 8-5 or less. (This also avoids the issues of "I bet the horse when he was 2-1 but his ending odds were 6-5 making him an underlay which in hindsight I should not have bet", and the "He was 2-1 but I an underlay at the time I needed to place the bet so I passed, but he final odds were 3-1 which would have made him an overlay which I should have bet". Yes those sophisticated wagering teams with all their intelligence know how to reasonably predict the final ending odds, but the rest of us guys/gals for the most part don't know how to do that.). Horses with ending odds less than the average do have higher win percentages, so I live with the breakeven or couple of percent loss on the Win wagers while capitalizing on hitting the exotics.

The only things that I currently care about near approaching race plays are was there a surface/distance change, or were there any scratches which could change the race dynamics or which do reduce the field size (because some of my plays have field size requirements.).

Before beginning a new play I also consider a few safety factors to reduce the overall risk. The factors include:
-- Elimination of outliers which can contribute to the "appearance" of a profitable play which in reality is really a dubious and negative return play.
-- Reduce the projected ROI by a few percent to help soften the effects of unfavorable yet chosen to do data fitting.
-- Reduce the projected ROI by a wee bit more knowing that MY wagers are going to dilute the payout average which was originally determined prior to my joining the party. (I have formulated a spreadsheet with build-in assumptions to help me arrive at the percentage amount of subject dilution.).

I view the different types of plays I make like having a stock portfolio. Some may perform as well as expected, while a number of others will under-perform and may even have to be discarded. Hopefully the gains overcome the losses for a net profit!

Data mining is not for everyone. That said, I really admire respect and admire those who are successful handicappers who incorporate a number of subjective factors in their methodology. Subjective factors might be things like a horse's body language, selecting a pace line, or even a track bias (provided it is not determined by some type of numerical analysis.). Subjectivity has both its' advantages and curses. It can be that unique factor and/or interpretation that gives one a significant advantage over fellow handicappers, but could lend itself to repeatability issues meaning that the value/assessment could be different each time it is determined/calculated.

All said, "value handicapping" to me is a means to an end. If I end up on the profit side of the ledger over a long-enough period of time, then I must have been practicing "value handicapping" successfully (but not necessarily optimally.;)). While still very hard to achieve, it would seem good news to know that individual reasoning and creativity allow for more that just a single pathway to profitability.

[CincyHorseplayer]

My methodology is database and factor driven, and therefore the average ending odds are already baked in. No need to watch the odds near post time and make a win wager if the horse is 9-5 but pass if the odds are 8-5 or less. (This also avoids the issues of "I bet the horse when he was 2-1 but his ending odds were 6-5 making him an underlay which in hindsight I should not have bet", and the "He was 2-1 but I an underlay at the time I needed to place the bet so I passed, but he final odds were 3-1 which would have made him an overlay which I should have bet". Yes those sophisticated wagering teams with all their intelligence know how to reasonably predict the final ending odds, but the rest of us guys/gals for the most part don't know how to do that.). Horses with ending odds less than the average do have higher win percentages, so I live with the breakeven or couple of percent loss on the Win wagers while capitalizing on hitting the exotics.

The only things that I currently care about near approaching race plays are was there a surface/distance change, or were there any scratches which could change the race dynamics or which do reduce the field size (because some of my plays have field size requirements.).

Before beginning a new play I also consider a few safety factors to reduce the overall risk. The factors include:
-- Elimination of outliers which can contribute to the "appearance" of a profitable play which in reality is really a dubious and negative return play.
-- Reduce the projected ROI by a few percent to help soften the effects of unfavorable yet chosen to do data fitting.
-- Reduce the projected ROI by a wee bit more knowing that MY wagers are going to dilute the payout average which was originally determined prior to my joining the party. (I have formulated a spreadsheet with build-in assumptions to help me arrive at the percentage amount of subject dilution.).

I view the different types of plays I make like having a stock portfolio. Some may perform as well as expected, while a number of others will under-perform and may even have to be discarded. Hopefully the gains overcome the losses for a net profit!

Data mining is not for everyone. That said, I really admire respect and admire those who are successful handicappers who incorporate a number of subjective factors in their methodology. Subjective factors might be things like a horse's body language, selecting a pace line, or even a track bias (provided it is not determined by some type of numerical analysis.). Subjectivity has both its' advantages and curses. It can be that unique factor and/or interpretation that gives one a significant advantage over fellow handicappers, but could lend itself to repeatability issues meaning that the value/assessment could be different each time it is determined/calculated.

All said, "value handicapping" to me is a means to an end. If I end up on the profit side of the ledger over a long-enough period of time, then I must have been practicing "value handicapping" successfully (but not necessarily optimally.;)). While still very hard to achieve, it would seem good news to know that individual reasoning and creativity allow for more that just a single pathway to profitability.

The entirety is good. Last bit is pure poetry. Nicely done!

[Nitro]

As some might have already guessed, my ONLY source of information for play is a real-time tote analysis. It provides me with what I believe to be the real contenders in any race that I’m interested in. This objective information is based solely on the actual money being wagered in both the mutual and exacta (or quinella) pools during a typical pre-race betting cycle. In a nutshell, it allows me to make selections based on proven betting patterns. Once they’re pointed out, the actual ODDS of those selections are used as a barometer for playability. In other, words their individual or combined values will determine if it’s a play or a pass for specific types of bets.

But no matter how you’re playing, I believe that if you’re first looking for value or overlays, you’re putting the cart in front of the horse. There should be some sort of initial selection process, be it based on subjective or objective information. Once that’s done a simple comparison of the ACTUAL odds should determine the course of any betting.

As good or bad as a subjective M/L might be, I personally ignore it because any number of things can alter any preconceived notions about how the betting population might bet a race. Things like a simple scratch, change in track condition, or even an obvious physicality issue (good or bad) will impact how the betting goes.

[Track Collector]

But no matter how you’re playing, I believe that if you’re first looking for value or overlays, you’re putting the cart in front of the horse. There should be some sort of initial selection process, be it based on subjective or objective information. Once that’s done a simple comparison of the ACTUAL odds should determine the course of any betting.


This depends upon what type of methodology one is using, and the risks and/or trade-offs one is willing to accept.

For example, let's say that for my Pattern Match "A" plays, I know from the historical statistical data that betting horses to Win that go off at final odds of 0.60 to 1 or less results in a net 6% loss (and $300 less profit for the year.).

In the above case I am going to continue betting horses in that odds range and accept $300 less profit at the end of the year because of the following:
-- It frees me up from the need to watch/monitor each race in real time in order to make a bet/pass decision.
-- Subject bet/pass decision is going to be imperfect anyway without a way to reliably forecast what the FINAL odds are going to be.

For me personally, the above trade-off is well worth it. If the sacrifice of profit were instead something like $2500 per year, I would be working on something different to address the issue of horses in that odds range.

BTW, kudos for developing what is implied to be a successful real-time tote board analysis methodology! :ThmbUp:

[CincyHorseplayer]

This depends upon what type of methodology one is using, and the risks and/or trade-offs one is willing to accept.

For example, let's say that for my Pattern Match "A" plays, I know from the historical statistical data that betting horses to Win that go off at final odds of 0.60 to 1 or less results in a net 6% loss (and $300 less profit for the year.).

In the above case I am going to continue betting horses in that odds range and accept $300 less profit at the end of the year because of the following:
-- It frees me up from the need to watch/monitor each race in real time in order to make a bet/pass decision.
-- Subject bet/pass decision is going to be imperfect anyway without a way to reliably forecast what the FINAL odds are going to be.

For me personally, the above trade-off is well worth it. If the sacrifice of profit were instead something like $2500 per year, I would be working on something different to address the issue of horses in that odds range.

BTW, kudos for developing what is implied to be a successful real-time tote board analysis methodology! :ThmbUp:

Really TC?

What you are suggesting here is the antithesis of trying to win. I stopped playing and found a way to find solid paying horses. You stopped playing and are picking winners at odds and willing to accept X losses? Damn! Ok then!

[Nitro]

This depends upon what type of methodology one is using, and the risks and/or trade-offs one is willing to accept.

For example, let's say that for my Pattern Match "A" plays, I know from the historical statistical data that betting horses to Win that go off at final odds of 0.60 to 1 or less results in a net 6% loss (and $300 less profit for the year.).

In the above case I am going to continue betting horses in that odds range and accept $300 less profit at the end of the year because of the following:
-- It frees me up from the need to watch/monitor each race in real time in order to make a bet/pass decision.
-- Subject bet/pass decision is going to be imperfect anyway without a way to reliably forecast what the FINAL odds are going to be.

For me personally, the above trade-off is well worth it. If the sacrifice of profit were instead something like $2500 per year, I would be working on something different to address the issue of horses in that odds range.

BTW, kudos for developing what is implied to be a successful real-time tote board analysis methodology! :ThmbUp:I agree that the type of selection methodology is critical, especially if the predictions of a race’s outcome is based on subjective interpretations. As you mentioned previously:
Data mining is not for everyone. That said, I really admire respect and admire those who are successful handicappers who incorporate a number of subjective factors in their methodology. Subjective factors might be things like a horse's body language, selecting a pace line, or even a track bias (provided it is not determined by some type of numerical analysis.). Subjectivity has both its' advantages and curses. It can be that unique factor and/or interpretation that gives one a significant advantage over fellow handicappers, but could lend itself to repeatability issues meaning that the value/assessment could be different each time it is determined/calculated. On one hand, I believe that as an Outsider I have the good fortune of basing my selection process on objective information, but on the other hand because everything is happening in real-time I generally don’t have the luxury betting until the final minutes before post time. However, in conjunction with my mentor we’ve developed a very unique pre-race “static tote analysis” for the racing events in Hong Kong. Although it’s provided some very nice Exotics, it’s been portrayed primarily on this forum as a 3-entry Dutch betting mechanism to produce a very profitable ROI.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133995&page=3

I wish I could take credit for developing the tote analysis I use. I’m not the developer, just an avid user. The foundation of this analysis is based on the proprietary formulas used to assimilate and solve the questions related to the money movement during typical betting cycles. I do know that the visual results illustrate Betting Patterns that vary from track to track and pool size to pool size. I also know that the critical betting intervals used by the tote analysis vary from track to track.

At each of these betting intervals the actual analysis provides a PAR value for the combined betting from all of the available pools on all the entries. At the same time an individual value is established for each entry. It then just becomes a matter of comparing the PAR value with each Entry value at each of the pertinent Betting intervals. When viewing all of this information together, the betting patterns in most cases become very obvious because there's a definite relationship between the PAR value and the Entry values. That relationship and whether or not it changes during the betting cycle becomes the primary focus of each race. From there I’m able to determine at least 2 Key entries along with 2 or 3 others of betting interest. I’ve been using it for quite a while and it was worth every bit of my investment.

BTW it might be of interest knowing that the developer of the tote analysis is also a certified engineer who has often referred to his way of doing things as always involving the “KISS principle” in one way or another.

[SizzleanbyCozzene]

Also of interest is that "The Developer" is also the "The Architect" in both the The Matrix and Inception. Horse Racing, naturally, completed the Trinity.

[Dave Schwartz]

Gotta come to the aid of Nitro here.

Everyone wants to downgrade the public as being stupid, yet they have proven for decades to be highly predictive at picking the winners, even to the point of skewing towards low-odds horses out-performing high odds horses (in terms of return).


Personally, I am not so much that I am a tote watcher. Heck, I don't even use the tote in my own handicapping.


BUT...

What Nitro is describing is using the public (minus the last minute bettors) as a prediction market, and then studying the nuances within the data to find angles which produce an edge.

Not my cup of tea, as it is fraught with lots of data accumulation problems and sensitivities, but it certainly is not a crackpot idea.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Gotta come to the aid of Nitro here.

Everyone wants to downgrade the public as being stupid, yet they have proven for decades to be highly predictive at picking the winners, even to the point of skewing towards low-odds horses out-performing high odds horses (in terms of return).


Personally, I am not so much that I am a tote watcher. Heck, I don't even use the tote in my own handicapping.


BUT...

What Nitro is describing is using the public (minus the last minute bettors) as a prediction market, and then studying the nuances within the data to find angles which produce an edge.

Not my cup of tea, as it is fraught with lots of data accumulation problems and sensitivities, but it certainly is not a crackpot idea.



Tote analysis, IMHO, is a power tool, but has its limitations, at least for typical horseplayers. The tote, like the stock market, is efficient over many races, but be very misleading at times. In a fashion similar to the way Thask looks for vulnerable favorites, I look at tote action quite differently if the race is formful versus chaotic.

For example, at Saratoga this past summer, the "wide open on paper" races often seem to be won by short-priced chalk, which appeared to be underlays. Now we can debate that a horse that pays $5.60 and wins by five lengths in hand is an "overlay" after the race, especially if the tote appeared to tilt on it. But for many horseplayers, finding the discipline to stick with an approach that depends on these chalks and grinding it out over the long haul is very difficult, especially when "value" handicapping will want to toss many of these contenders out.

OTH, if a race is truly wide open, and tote action indicates a longer shot has a chance, then the game is afoot. It's not just the 20-1 shot that opens at 5-1 and drifts, it's whether or not the connections have bet their horses in the past (and won), and whether the horse is live in the exotics. Is there hidden form, ongoing "hits" in the betting, or some chalks that are "cold" on the board, inflating the prices on the others?

I would argue the most lucrative method to obtain value, without "value handicapping", is to analyze the physicality of the horses. Since it is more difficult to quantify, it remains more lucrative than other methods - especially in closely matched fields.

[Nitro]

Also of interest is that "The Developer" is also the "The Architect" in both the The Matrix and Inception. Horse Racing, naturally, completed the Trinity.It sure is fun interpreting riddles in order to figure out what's meant by the post. Nice try! But if that's the only way you have of expressing yourself, I feel for you pal. :rolleyes:

[Nitro]

Gotta come to the aid of Nitro here.

Everyone wants to downgrade the public as being stupid, yet they have proven for decades to be highly predictive at picking the winners, even to the point of skewing towards low-odds horses out-performing high odds horses (in terms of return).

Personally, I am not so much that I am a tote watcher. Heck, I don't even use the tote in my own handicapping.

BUT...

What Nitro is describing is using the public (minus the last minute bettors) as a prediction market, and then studying the nuances within the data to find angles which produce an edge.

Not my cup of tea, as it is fraught with lots of data accumulation problems and sensitivities, but it certainly is not a crackpot idea.Hey Dave I appreciate your effort, but as I’ve mentioned on many occasion here on PA the term “betting public” is a total misnomer to begin with. It’s unfortunate that the majority of players (who are Outsiders) just don’t understand who actually makes up the real betting population and who they’re betting competition really is. It’s certainly not just those who may be betting $2, $20, or even $50. It’s those type of players who may be described as those being as dumb as a fox.

What I’m describing is the ability to unravel the overall betting activities that are not very apparent to anyone who may be monitoring just the odds (which I’ll mention again as ONLY reflecting a SINGLE betting pool).

[Nitro]

Tote analysis, IMHO, is a power tool, but has its limitations, at least for typical horseplayers. The tote, like the stock market, is efficient over many races, but be very misleading at times. In a fashion similar to the way Thask looks for vulnerable favorites, I look at tote action quite differently if the race is formful versus chaotic.I look at tote action quite differently no matter what the conditions might be.

I would argue the most lucrative method to obtain value, without "value handicapping", is to analyze the physicality of the horses. Since it is more difficult to quantify, it remains more lucrative than other methods - especially in closely matched fields.Excellent Point! You certainly won’t get any argument about that from me Parkview Pirate!

I’m just a bit puzzled to why anyone would consider the pre-race observations of the horses in the paddock, walking ring, and post parade as being “subjective” information. As far as I’m concerned it’s probably some of the most objective information that any player betting serious money can get.

That’s another thing I like about the live HK racing broadcast. Part of the ½ hour before each race Jenny offers her expertise by examining each and every horse in the field. They don’t waste that time playing race re-runs (which are also available on the HKJC Web site)

[formula_2002]

FOR WHAT IT MAY BE WORTH, ASIDE FROM COUNTING THE "FRANKLINS" AS WAS SUGGESTED TO ME BACK IN THE DAY OF PRODIGY, HERE IS HOW I DETERMINE VALUE.
DETERMINE TRACK TAKE OUT
ADJUST THE PUBLIC'S FINAL TOTE BOARDS ACCORDINGLY
SUM THE SUM THE PROBABILITES OF YOUR SELECTIONS USING THE ADJUSTED PROBABILITIES.
DIVIDE THAT SUM INTO THE NUMBER OF YOUR WINNERS. ANSWERS GREATER THAN 1 IS A GOOD THING :)

A/E, (ACTUAL WINNERS/ EXPECTED WINNERS (I.E,SUM OF THE PROBABILITIES) )>=1 IS A GOOD THING.
THERE ARE MANY TWIST AND TURNS TO DIFFERENT METHODS, BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE A GREATER THAN 1 A/E

[Nitro]

And my take is a bit different when it comes using the tote analysis and later perhaps making a Dutch type play.

I ignore the Track Take-out. Why? Because the displayed odds and will-pays already reflect this percentage. No adjustment required.

The probable contenders are pointed out by the tote analysis without any consideration for the odds of each enrty during the betting cycle.

When contemplating a Dutch play my only pre-bet concern is the resulting potential Profit margin percentage after inputting the current odds of the contenders. This margin has to be higher than the historic hit frequency percentage.

It’s not just about having the Winner. It’s ALL about making a Profit over the long haul.

[thaskalos]

And my take is a bit different when it comes using the tote analysis and later perhaps making a Dutch type play.

I ignore the Track Take-out. Why? Because the displayed odds and will-pays already reflect this percentage. No adjustment required.

The probable contenders are pointed out by the tote analysis without any consideration for the odds of each enrty during the betting cycle.

When contemplating a Dutch play my only pre-bet concern is the resulting potential Profit margin percentage after inputting the current odds of the contenders. This margin has to be higher than the historic hit frequency percentage.

It’s not just about having the Winner. It’s ALL about making a Profit over the long haul.

How consistent does this "historic hit frequency percentage" remain, over time?

[Nitro]

How consistent does this "historic hit frequency percentage" remain, over time?
So far so good, even if EVERY race were played. I don't know about you but I'm usually pretty selective.

We’ve developed a very unique pre-race “static tote analysis” for the racing events in Hong Kong. Although it’s provided some very nice Exotics, it’s been portrayed primarily on this forum as a 3-entry Dutch betting mechanism to produce a very profitable ROI.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/...t=133995&page=3

[Track Collector]

Really TC?

What you are suggesting here is the antithesis of trying to win. I stopped playing and found a way to find solid paying horses. You stopped playing and are picking winners at odds and willing to accept X losses? Damn! Ok then!

No antithesis to winning at all here.

Again as mentioned, I have no current way to reliably exclude the precise portion which results in the small $ loss, and some efforts to do so might actually end up excluding some of the profitable range. Bear in mind that it is not common for me to purposefully bet a negative expectancy range, and when I do, it has a tiny financial impact to my overall total return.

In my previous response I also neglected to say there are some increased handle benefits, which can swallow up the small losses to make them an overall net positive.

Unsoundness usually manifests itself soon enough. :)

[Track Collector]

I don't know about you but I'm usually pretty selective.

Another very important key to winning in the long-term, at least for most handicappers. After all, with such high takeout, is it really possible to find value in EVERY race? And if yes, how many folks can participate in that pool finding that exact same value before that value turns into a negative expectancy?

I have never strictly looked at it, but I would estimate that I play (meaning that I "think" I have found value) in about 1 out of every 30-40 races.

[ReplayRandall]

Another very important key to winning in the long-term, at least for most handicappers. After all, with such high takeout, is it really possible to find value in EVERY race? And if yes, how many folks can participate in that pool finding that exact same value before that value turns into a negative expectancy?

I have never strictly looked at it, but I would estimate that I play (meaning that I "think" I have found value) in about 1 out of every 30-40 races.
You play too tight......Not conducive to maximize long-term profitability, as low variance alone may put you behind for long periods of time. On average, for every 8 races I analyze, 2 are playable for profit.....Life is too short to play too tight.

[Track Collector]

You play too tight......Not conducive to maximize long-term profitability, as low variance alone may put you behind for long periods of time. On average, for every 8 races I analyze, 2 are playable for profit.....Life is too short to play too tight.

Perhaps, but would you not agree that it is one's handicapping methodology that dictates if/when one has a playable (and potentially long-term profitable) race? And it is interesting too that several handicappers can end up at similar profit levels while having a significantly different sub-set of races played.

I see this as a case where two handicappers have worked to the strengths of their respective methodologies, and thru your studies and/or higher skill level you have been able find I higher number of playable races. Kudos!

My initial figure as to the percentage of races played was strictly a guess. Out of curiosity I'll do a brief study over the next few weeks to get a more accurate figure. (I am very sure it will not be close to your 1 in 4 figure though.).

[CincyHorseplayer]

No antithesis to winning at all here.

Again as mentioned, I have no current way to reliably exclude the precise portion which results in the small $ loss, and some efforts to do so might actually end up excluding some of the profitable range. Bear in mind that it is not common for me to purposefully bet a negative expectancy range, and when I do, it has a tiny financial impact to my overall total return.

In my previous response I also neglected to say there are some increased handle benefits, which can swallow up the small losses to make them an overall net positive.

Unsoundness usually manifests itself soon enough. :)

Gotcha. Myself I just forego the sub $6 range or very rarely unless I see underneath potential which is seldom. The big battle I have is deciding which $6-8 horses to play or not. Overall they are as you say a slight negative expectancy range so I am very judicious in evaluating their true worth. Am wide open after that!

[DeltaLover]

Gotcha. Myself I just forego the sub $6 range or very rarely unless I see underneath potential which is seldom. The big battle I have is deciding which $6-8 horses to play or not. Overall they are as you say a slight negative expectancy range so I am very judicious in evaluating their true worth. Am wide open after that!

If you find yourself in the $6-8 win decision you probably need to start accepting more risk looking in the next price bracket.

[CincyHorseplayer]

If you find yourself in the $6-8 win decision you probably need to start accepting more risk looking in the next price bracket.

That's what I just said in so many words. I won't split hairs if I have 2 horses at this range or lower, I pass. If I have 1 only I usually bet it. All other upwards odds ranges I green light no question! The $9-18 range is max value and the % prove it out. The $20 and up range drops precipitously. For me.

[classhandicapper]

Gotcha. Myself I just forego the sub $6 range or very rarely unless I see underneath potential which is seldom. The big battle I have is deciding which $6-8 horses to play or not. Overall they are as you say a slight negative expectancy range so I am very judicious in evaluating their true worth. Am wide open after that!

There must be something magical about that odds range. In the early 90s I was going through a tough period and had a conversation with pretty sharp guy at the Select Club in downtown NY. In those days I wasn't shy about betting a favorite if I thought I had good value. He told me to look through my betting records and break them out by 3-1 and above and everything else. It was an enlightening moment. I was a net loser at 2-1 or less (which were some of my biggest bets) and profitable at 3-1 or higher even though in my mind they were all good value bets. I immediately stopped betting those shorter prices and it changed my results. Over time I loosened it up to 5-2, but I almost never go below that unless the horse is screaming, shouting, and howling good value. Even then I'm reluctant.

[EMD4ME]

There must be something magical about that odds range. In the early 90s I was going through a tough period and had a conversation with pretty sharp guy at the Select Club in downtown NY. In those days I wasn't shy about betting a favorite if I thought I had good value. He told me to look through my betting records and break them out by 3-1 and above and everything else. It was an enlightening moment. I was a net loser at 2-1 or less (which were some of my biggest bets) and profitable at 3-1 or higher even though in my mind they were all good value bets. I immediately stopped betting those shorter prices and it changed my results. Over time I loosened it up to 5-2, but I almost never go below that unless the horse is screaming, shouting, and howling good value. Even then I'm reluctant.

In regards to your last statement, do you see a 3/1 who should be 1/2 and you say to yourself, WOW, HOW CAN THIS HORSE BE 3/1????? and fear they are dead on the board (which leads to betting on a dead horse in your mind)?

[classhandicapper]

In regards to your last statement, do you see a 3/1 who should be 1/2 and you say to yourself, WOW, HOW CAN THIS HORSE BE 3/1????? and fear they are dead on the board (which leads to betting on a dead horse in your mind)?

It doesn't come up very often for me. Virtually every bet I make, I think I have an insight the public does not have, information people missed this time, etc... I'm expecting to get an inflated price.

Once information is in the public domain and an insight is getting discussed widely, I start running in another direction.

There's an old saying.

How do you beat Bobby Fisher?

Play him anything other than chess. ;)

If I handicap a race and the only information I have is the same figures and insights everyone else is using it would scare me if he looked like a 1/2 shot and was 3-1. At that point I'm going to start thinking someone else has the information I don't have. ;)

[Parkview_Pirate]

...I’m just a bit puzzled to why anyone would consider the pre-race observations of the horses in the paddock, walking ring, and post parade as being “subjective” information. As far as I’m concerned it’s probably some of the most objective information that any player betting serious money can get.

That’s another thing I like about the live HK racing broadcast. Part of the ½ hour before each race Jenny offers her expertise by examining each and every horse in the field. They don’t waste that time playing race re-runs (which are also available on the HKJC Web site)

I think many horseplayers consider the appearance of a horse as "subjective", or qualitative, because it cannot be quantified easily. For example, when Jenny Chapman says a horse "strides out well, is looking good in its coat, carrying a bit of condition," etc., that's different than saying the horse ran 1400 meters last out in 1:22.37, the last 400 meters in 23.26 and posting an energy figure of 94.

And I don't know about you, but sometimes I'll look at a horse that Ms. Chapman is neutral on, and have a strong positive or negative opinion. Get 10 opinions on any horse in a post parade, and you'll cover the spectrum of bad to good. And of course, it's also very dependent on each individual horse, as some can outrun or under perform their appearance.

The differences in these data become more striking when using computer programs for analysis. Statistics for the metrics in past performances, post position, projected pace, class, jockey changes, trainer patterns, etc. are rather trivial to input. Summing up a horse's appearance, and then determining if that results in a 94% effort or an 87% effort in today's race is much tougher nut to crack.

In the same way, tote analysis needs to be examined more closely. Is the early money "the tell", or perhaps reflects a crowd favorite like Pikachu or the Magic Man. Is the late plunge on the no-hope outsider that runs mid-pack indicative of a better effort next out? Are the 7/2 odds too generous on a horse that on paper appears to be 2-1?

The bottom line is that "value" is itself subjective, and arriving at it without "value handicapping" seems to be wishful thinking....

[CincyHorseplayer]

This isn't a play on words here at all. The way I see "value handicapping" is looking for positives on horses who win so marginally they wipe out their own value. What I practice is a negative approach not a positive seeking approach. I eliminate the negative expectation outcomes and by virtue of that I arrive on the doorstep with a solid avg mutuel and that carries over to exotics. Value is indeed subjective but it is all that is left once you strip away the illusions. My hit rate in the lower odds range is as everybody's rightfully high but I do turn them into 9-1 or 17-1 plenty so not preaching any new tricks to this kid!

[appistappis]

there is value in 5 min at the mountain....r9 #2 tai kai

[appistappis]

and he blows the break....down goes value

[CincyHorseplayer]

There must be something magical about that odds range. In the early 90s I was going through a tough period and had a conversation with pretty sharp guy at the Select Club in downtown NY. In those days I wasn't shy about betting a favorite if I thought I had good value. He told me to look through my betting records and break them out by 3-1 and above and everything else. It was an enlightening moment. I was a net loser at 2-1 or less (which were some of my biggest bets) and profitable at 3-1 or higher even though in my mind they were all good value bets. I immediately stopped betting those shorter prices and it changed my results. Over time I loosened it up to 5-2, but I almost never go below that unless the horse is screaming, shouting, and howling good value. Even then I'm reluctant.

Somehow we got separated at birth. I am the brother that trusts turf and pedigree and voodoo more and you are the one that is the voice of reason and keeps things in perspective with well heeled handicapping and experience! Thanks Class. Let's kill it this BC!

[CincyHorseplayer]

In my own play, the "value" aspect of a race starts --and sometimes ends -- with my assessment of how vulnerable the race favorite appears to me. If the favorite appears legitimate, then I suspect right off that there is limited profit potential for me in the race...and, being primarily a vertical exotics bettor, I tend to look elsewhere for a "better" wagering opportunity. There was a time when I bet serious money to win on these favorite-types, because I felt that they were "overlays" in spite of their depressed odds. I used to also key these favorites in vertical exotics...figuring that I had enough "value" underneath them to warrant making the wager. I abandoned BOTH these practices once I fully realized that they didn't add anything to my bottom line. IMO...it's tough to be right often enough to overcome the barrier created by the betting "appeal" generated by the legitimate favorite in the race. When the favorite wins, not only is the win-price unappetizing...but the resulting vertical payoffs tend to be unappetizing as well.

I now confine my bets to races where I "dislike" the favorite...and, the more unappealing the favorite appears to me...the more liberally I spread in the exotics. What good is cashing a lot of tickets...if the desired result isn't there in the end?

Thask I always love your input.