ATTENTION DATA GEEKS---

[NoDayJob]

This was just given to me by an Australian whom I correspond with via e-mail. He says he makes his living with this method. I have no way to check the validity of his claim with my data. Perhaps, someone out there may have the answer. I am very suspicious that this is another pile of horse poop. :bang:

See what you can dredge up on his method of play---it's exactly as he outlined it to me.

1- Confine play to races for 3yos & up.

2- Pass races where the track M.L. favorite is less than 2-1.

3- Confine contenders to M.L. odds of 3-1, 6-1 and 8-1. No Others.

4- Eliminate 3yos vs. older, females vs. males and no races in the last 6 months.

5- Play the horse that is bet down the most percentage wise or has the least overlay. If 2 or more contenders are tied play the one with the most money in the place pool. If still tied, play the horse who raced the latest. If still tied, either pass the race or play the horse with the highest average purse in the last 4 starts.

NDJ

[kenwoodallpromos]

I understand the principal of betting from a choice of close odds contenders that a lot of others are also betting, but I do not understand about (3). There are other odds possible in between the numbers you list, like 7-2.
1 thing I do not know is how much past race or workout information is available for horses in Australia. If not much then this system may be OK if just following the "smart crowd" there.
BRIS has sample pp's.

[BIG RED]

NDJ, is this for Australian racing, American racing, or all T-bred racing ?

[NoDayJob]

NDJ, is this for Australian racing, American racing, or all T-bred racing ?

I was told all T-breds.

NDJ

[NoDayJob]

I understand the principal of betting from a choice of close odds contenders that a lot of others are also betting, but I do not understand about (3). There are other odds possible in between the numbers you list, like 7-2.
1 thing I do not know is how much past race or workout information is available for horses in Australia. If not much then this system may be OK if just following the "smart crowd" there.
BRIS has sample pp's.

Item 3- He claims these M.L. odds win a high percentage of races.

I haven't seen a TAB sheet in over 25 years so I can't answer your workout question.

NDJ

[Tom]

You only consider horses at 3,6 or 8-1? 4-1 is not considered?

You could never play this system because the odds will change at the end.

[kingfin66]

Tom,

The way I read it is ML odds of 3/1, 6/1, 8/1. Still, it makes no sense.

[NoDayJob]

Tom,

The way I read it is ML odds of 3/1, 6/1, 8/1. Still, it makes no sense.


Yes, the odds are the track's morning line.

NDJ

[midnight]

Another "smart money" system.

I've done studies on this kind of thing in the past, and most of them end up with ROI's of 0.70 to 0.80, or 20%-30% loss.

[NYPlayer]

This was just given to me by an Australian whom I correspond with via e-mail. He says he makes his living with this method. I have no way to check the validity of his claim with my data. Perhaps, someone out there may have the answer. I am very suspicious that this is another pile of horse poop. :bang:

See what you can dredge up on his method of play---it's exactly as he outlined it to me.

1- Confine play to races for 3yos & up.

2- Pass races where the track M.L. favorite is less than 2-1.

3- Confine contenders to M.L. odds of 3-1, 6-1 and 8-1. No Others.

4- Eliminate 3yos vs. older, females vs. males and no races in the last 6 months.

5- Play the horse that is bet down the most percentage wise or has the least overlay. If 2 or more contenders are tied play the one with the most money in the place pool. If still tied, play the horse who raced the latest. If still tied, either pass the race or play the horse with the highest average purse in the last 4 starts.

NDJ

This system is practically impossible to test, unless your looking at ten or more tracks per day. The criteria are so restrictive you'd probably wind up passing 95% of the races. Am I reading number 3 correctly? No other contenders other than those at 3/1, 6/1, 8/1? What if a horse is 9/2? He's not a contender? Gimmie a break!

[midnight]

I believe it means that whenever a race has a horse or entry at 9/5 MLO or less, every horse with MLO of 3-1, 6-1, or 8-1 is checked on the toteboard. The horse getting the most tote action from those is the play. There's no form-based handicapping involved.

It wouldn't be hard to check. You might try the HTR forum. There are guys there with Access databases of over a year in length. I have one myself. What I don't have is the knowledge to program with VBA and find all the races that have the morning line favorite of 9/5 or less. If you can find somebody over there that can (and will) do that, you can get an answer to your question.

[andicap]

Why would you pass a lot of races?

The only restriction -- aside from the age -- is you skip races where the ML favorite (at ANY odds in the ML as I read it) is less than 2-1.
My question is: LESS THAN 2-1 in the ML or LESS THAN 2-1 on the board??

Midnight: I think you have it backward -- you skip the race if its 9/5 or below.

Let's say he meant less than 2-1 in the ML since those horses tend to go off at odds-on and it would be impossible to bet the system if you passed races where horses went postward at 9/5 and under because of all the late money.

Assume a race has a 3-1 ML horse as favorite, as is common.

You would look only at the horses 3-1, 6-1, and 8-1 (I presume because studies show these are the most profitable values.) Then bet the one who is bet down the most. The LEAST overlay. Counter-intuitive to what most of us usually do.

Seems weird to me and I agree would be tough to implement because late changing odds would screw up which horse is the pick. You could say it all evens out in the end, but that would miss the point of the method -- to identify the horses that get most of the action below their MLs. Considering so much of that action flows in at the very last minute -- or beyond -- I don't see how you could accurately judge the best "steam" horse.

Presume doesn't include 7-2, 4-1 and 9-2 because DB shows the angle doesn't work with those ML, for whatever reason.

[OTM Al]

One thing that strikes me here is that you said this fellow is from Australia. Isn't bookmaking legal there? If so, I would think that the work that goes into setting a track's morning line there has different pressures than setting one in the US would as here, bookies are not quite what they used to be. Thus, a public response to a ML there may have much different implications than would be the case here.

[midnight]

Andy: You're right. I did have it backwards. Even so, the ROI on this would probably not even beat the take.

[NoDayJob]

I believe it means that whenever a race has a horse or entry at 9/5 MLO or less, every horse with MLO of 3-1, 6-1, or 8-1 is checked on the toteboard. The horse getting the most tote action from those is the play. There's no form-based handicapping involved.



You pass any race where the favorite has track M.L. odds less than 2-1.

NDJ

[NoDayJob]

One thing that strikes me here is that you said this fellow is from Australia. Isn't bookmaking legal there? If so, I would think that the work that goes into setting a track's morning line there has different pressures than setting one in the US would as here, bookies are not quite what they used to be. Thus, a public response to a ML there may have much different implications than would be the case here.

I'm not sure about lawn and club books being banned but a few years ago the TAB got rid of off track books.

NDJ