Morning Line Handicapping

[dav4463]

Do any of you use the morning line while handicapping ? I personally do not look at it because I may be influenced in my picks. I'm curious about those who do use it and how you use it while handicapping.

[cj]

I think it is way off in most places anyway, so much so that I don't even pay attention. A horse just won at Hawthorne that was 30-1 ML, imagine betting this one early and hearing he won, only to find out you get $14.80.

I honestly think most ML makers are way out of touch with what factors the money players are betting these days.

[dav4463]

I saw a 10-1 m/l at Lonestar the other night that only paid $7.80.

[Overlay]

I complete my handicapping, and develop my own 100% odds line for a field, before I even look at the morning line. Even then, I don't let the morning-line odds influence my thinking, especially since those odds are based on a 115%-125% line, not to mention how different they may be from the final actual odds, which are the only gauge I use to determine whether I am getting betting value or not; and the fact that there will often be artificial upper and lower limits on the odds that the morning line assigns to horses, in order to encourage betting on all entrants.

[JohnB]

Only time I use the morning line is to throw out the morning line favorite in most of my spot plays.

[dav4463]

I knew a guy who used to start with the m/l favorite and then compare him to the second m/l choice and label as KEEP, TOSS, KEY, then proceed to the 3rd m/l choice, 4th m/l choice and so on. He would end up with for example..... 1 TOSS 2 KEEP 3 TOSS 4 KEEP 5 KEY 6 KEEP 7 KEEP 8 TOSS.... In this example he would place a win bet on the 5th m/l choice and key him with his KEEP horses the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 7th m/l choice in exotic wagers. I lost contact with him, but I remember he did very well doing it that way. He would handicap a race in about two minutes and place his bets way ahead of time. He never looked at post time odds and would pass the race if he thought the 1st or 2nd m/l horse should be a KEY play.
I remember he would look at 1 vs 2, and say can 2 beat the 1 ? Then if 2 was a keep, he would go to the next one,,, can 3 beat the 2, and so on looking for a high odds key horse, always 3rd or higher m/l odds....

[kenwoodallpromos]

I use it to get an idea of how contenteous a race may be prior to checking pp's. With small fields sometimes I gat a hint as to who may be too big an underlay.

[dogkatcher]

I like to look for a 2nd choice ML that is too close to the favorite. Only use 6 horse fields and up. Example: Fav ML 7-5 then IMO no other entry should be under 2-1 ML. If there is one at 9-5 ML that would be the play. Only would play in the Place slot +7% Pinny. Only look at races with a favorite at x-5. Also works good on live action (at least at Santa Anita). Good Luck to All.

[46zilzal]

I honestly think most ML makers are way out of touch with what factors the money players are betting these days.

this gets my vote

[headhawg]

I would only be concerned with the effect that the M/L has on the public's thinking, not mine. But when 30-1s get bet down to 6-1, how much influence does it really have on them?

[Topcat]

It really depends on what track you are talking about....some random thoughts:

Remember for some wagers the ML is the only guideline available other than your own line. e.g. P3s or P4s and at least for half of the daily doubles.

With the odds shifting so rapidly after 1 minute to post the study of ML becomes more important.

I would say don't be so quick to dismiss the ML. In one study I did the ML had the strongest correlation of where the final odds end up.

Some have hypothesized that the final odds are a reflection of the ML and the betting public will hammer the odds back to the ML. The ML may be THE most common denominator. Think about it, not everyone has the DRF or Past Performances or even wants to have such information but by virtue of having a betting program they will have the ML.

My brother , betting large sums tested this by betting enough to alter the odds. He would watch as the odds moved back to the ML, cancel his bet and alter some more and the same thing would happen. So much for tore board watching and smart money.

What I have found is that it is a mixed bag-sometimes the ML id dead on as to where the final odds end up and other times you have to wonder what they were thinking.

My question is: Has anyone found a better model to predict where the final odds will end up? I don't mean a better line in terms of predicting results just a line that will predict final odds. There would be a lot of value to this because then you need not worry about after the bell and last minute odds shifts.

[JustMissed]

I complete my handicapping, and develop my own 100% odds line for a field, before I even look at the morning line. Even then, I don't let the morning-line odds influence my thinking, especially since those odds are based on a 115%-125% line, not to mention how different they may be from the final actual odds, which are the only gauge I use to determine whether I am getting betting value or not; and the fact that there will often be artificial upper and lower limits on the odds that the morning line assigns to horses, in order to encourage betting on all entrants.


Got a question or so for you,

1. Does the Tote Line total 100% or 115-125%?

2. If it is > 100% does that screw you up when figuring your over/underlays?Wouldn't the probably of winning be greater with a 100% line than it would with a 125% line?

3. If the track pays the stated odds(per the Tote) plus return your original bet, aren't the losers acutually the ones that are paying the take?

If anyone else has the answer or comments I'd be glad to read them.

Thanks,

JM :)

[Overlay]

JustMissed:

Some good questions, and ones that I had to give thought to in developing my wagering strategy. The percentages represented by the odds listed on the toteboard for all the horses in a race will in fact add up to a figure in excess of 100%, to account for the combined effects of the track take and breakage. However, this has no bearing on my decision of how much to wager, since that decision is based on the rate of financial return if the bet comes in. Since this amount is accurately reflected by the toteboard odds, no adjustment is necessary. For example, consider a track with a 17.5% mutuel take, and a horse on which 25% of the total win pool has been wagered. The "natural" (pre-take) odds on this horse are 3-1 (75%/25%), and, if there were no take and breakage, a $2 bet on the horse would return $8.00 (3 x $2.00, plus the original $2.00 wager). However, after the track deducts the 17.5% take off the top of the win pool before figuring payouts, only 57.5% of the pool will be left to divide up among the 25% that had the winner, rather than the 75% that existed before the take. 57.5%/25% equals 2.30 - 1, so the horse will be listed on the toteboard at 2-1 instead of 3-1, and instead of $8.00, I'll receive only $6.60 (2.30 x 2, plus the $2.00 wager). (The odds of every other horse in the race will also be affected in the same way, which is what causes the total of the percentages represented by the after-take odds to add up to more than 100%, since (as you stated) reducing the odds increases the percentage of the pool they represent.) However, since I'm basing my bet on whether the horse's toteboard odds are higher than my own betting line, if I had calculated that a horse had an actual 25% chance of winning, I wouldn't be betting on it individually until its toteboard odds were higher than 3-1. There would be no need for me to adjust for take and breakage under those circumstances, since the odds listed on the toteboard would have already figured them in. Also, as you'll note from the above, it is the winners who bear the burden of the mutuel take through reduced payoffs. The losers lose 100% of their wager in any event. The disadvantage that the take imposes is that you have to hit more winners, or winners at higher odds, to be in the same position that you would have been in if there had been no take. That is why I place great importance on coming up with as accurate a fair-odds line as possible, and confining my wagers to horses with toteboard odds which are higher than my calculated fair odds.

[Lasix1]

JustMissed:
That is why I place great importance on coming up with as accurate a fair-odds line as possible, and confining my wagers to horses with toteboard odds which are higher than my calculated fair odds.
Overlay, how good is your odds line?

[Overlay]

My fair odds are closer to the actual frequency that horses will win at over all odds ranges than their toteboard odds, which are distorted by the application of take and breakage (in addition to misjudgments by the public). For instance, horses with toteboard odds of 2-1 will win at only a 27.2% rate (assuming that the horses deserve to be held at 2-1 in the first place), while 2-1 odds in my line are calculated to reflect the horse's true chance of winning. (There will be some slight deviation in winning percentages for such horses, in the same way that 2-1 odds on the toteboard encompasses horses with odds ranging from 2.00-1 to 2.49-1, but my odds are generally a more accurate reflection of the horses' true winning chances.) This gives me greater confidence in both my identification of overlays, and in the proper sizing of my wagers based on the disparity between fair odds and actual odds.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sorry if this was already mentioned; but what do you all or the official pricemakers consider logshots? 6-1 or what? is there a set number? The question may sound stupid but I want to find a number below which I should start looking at horses I did not consider, so I can look at them more closely the next race. Thanks.

[JustMissed]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

JM :)

[Overlay]

I've mentioned this on other threads, and I have no mathematical or statistical basis for it, but I personally regard horses to which I assign fair odds which are longer than their random chance of winning based on the size of today's field as non-contenders or longshots (for instance, horses with odds higher than 6-1 in a seven-horse field, 7-1 in an eight-horse field, and so forth).

[Lasix1]

My fair odds are closer to the actual frequency that horses will win at over all odds ranges than their toteboard odds, which are distorted by the application of take and breakage (in addition to misjudgments by the public). For instance, horses with toteboard odds of 2-1 will win at only a 27.2% rate (assuming that the horses deserve to be held at 2-1 in the first place), while 2-1 odds in my line are calculated to reflect the horse's true chance of winning. (There will be some slight deviation in winning percentages for such horses, in the same way that 2-1 odds on the toteboard encompasses horses with odds ranging from 2.00-1 to 2.49-1, but my odds are generally a more accurate reflection of the horses' true winning chances.) This gives me greater confidence in both my identification of overlays, and in the proper sizing of my wagers based on the disparity between fair odds and actual odds.
Overlay,

Thanks for the well-crafted answer and it gives rise to the further question of how good an odds line has to be in order to be useful. Mark Cramer, from whom I learned value handicapping many years ago, used to say that a less-than-perfect odds line is better than no odds line at all. I have certainly found this to be true, and once I started making one, my bottom line improved dramatically even though it is no where near as precise as yours apparently is.

One of the reasons that odds lines are almost impossible to get precisely right is because of what Charles Carroll has called the three-lobed nature of them. You need one odds line for win contenders, but perhaps an entirely different one for place and show contenders, and still another for "not in your lifetime" horses.

How do you handle this problem?

[Overlay]

I have tremendous respect for Mark Cramer and others who have written about the development of odds lines, since it has always seemed to me that this skill was an indispensable one for handicappers. I wish that I had the intuitive sense of a horse's readiness (both individually and in comparison to its opponents in light of the conditions of the race) that some players seem to have, and that I could develop an accurate line through qualitative evaluation. My particular disposition leads me to a quantitative/statistical approach, with an emphasis on using properly-weighted factors from each of the major handicapping areas to develop a composite line for win betting. I recognize that this leaves unresolved the likelihood of a horse to place or show, and that the horse which is ranked second in the field in terms of pure win potential will not necessarily be the horse most likely to finish second, and so on down the line. I have a model for predicting the probability of given exotic combinations which I use currently, but I am attempting to refine it (while retaining my quantitative orientation) by focusing on factors (particularly speed measures) which rank highest in terms of in-the-money percentage, while not necessarily being among the leading performers in winning percentage. I prefer not to completely rule out the chances of any horse, but I have found that my current approach will assign fair odds to those "not in your lifetime" horses which are sufficiently high that they will either not offer betting value at all, or not offer sufficient value to merit even a small wager. In my experience, horses which do qualify for wagers by my measures have enough redeeming qualities in their records that they truly do represent value in comparison to their actual winning chances.

[Lasix1]

This is a wonderfully thoughtful and comprehensive answer to this difficult question. Thanks, overlay.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Thanks, makes sense.