Should you bet early or late?

[Rick Ransom]

Here's another question for you guys: If you were a large bettor, should you bet early or late? Every book I've ever read says you should bet late, but I'm not so sure. I've played a few tracks over the years with very small parimutuel pools and I've seen cases where a relatively large amount was bet early which resulted in everyone avoiding the horse like the plague until late enough in the betting where it was getting back up closer to its morning line odds. In other words, what I am saying is that making the horse look like an "underlay" early may make a lot of people avoid betting on it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an analyst say that a horse is an "overlay" because the morning line odds are higher than the current odds. That's not my definition of an overlay, but apparently a lot of people think that way.

[Tom]

I say bet a s late as possible-what with whales and other strange fish in our pools, you never kow what the odds are going to do. If you are looking for value, betting too early can hurt your game. Small fields and lots of simulcasting pools can significantly change the odds late in the game.

Tom

[Druther]

Surprisingly, I once did a very extensive test on early action vs. late action and here are my conclusions:

Early action is by far more predictive that the horse will win than late action.

Early action is by far more meaningful when the horse’s ML is in the mid-range (say the 5-1 to 10-1 range). Early action on the MLF or second MLF rarely means anything. And early action on horses with a ML of 12-1 or more also rarely means anything.

Those horses that take early action and maintain that “status” up until the late money starts pouring in – about 3-5 MTP – win at a much greater percent than those taking early action, then fizzling out early.

The best way to measure whether or not a mid-range horse taking early action is “serious” – unless you have a program that does it automatically like I do – is to calculate the respective payoffs. For example: ML of 5-1 ($12) and opens at 3-1 ($8). The difference: $4/$12 = 33%. Anything 30% plus is significant – as long as it maintains that percentage up until the late money pours in. If it floats back up during that time period, forget about it.

Late action is primarily predictive when it comes in the last 1-3 MTP. And it usually comes in so late that you can’t detect it in time.

And now the good news. My tests show that no more than 10% - 15% max - of all races will have detectable early action that stays there. I believe late action happens at a much higher percentage but I’ve never calculated it because it’s often the actual, final odds that reflect the “hit” and by then it’s too late, anyhow.

[Lefty]

If I bet enough to impact the pools i'd bet early. I've seen early action horses eventually drift up to much higher odds. Once you bet late there's no time for your
horse's odds to go back up.
And the public doesn't seem to catch on to early action like they do late action.

[Rick Ransom]

Druther,

The only toteboard system that I've ever seen actually win a significant amount of money relied on horses bet down early going up in odds later. I don't know if it still works since I haven't tried it for years, and the whole scenario has changed with earlybird betting and late action coming in from simulcast sites after the race has started. I know that it worked very well in Northern California during the 80s with medium size pools. I used to use it all the time when I didn't have any other opinion on a race, but lately it seems like I have more information than I can absorb!

Lefty,

I think you're exactly right about what you said!

[Druther]

Rick

Isn't that just the way life goes? My tests clearly showed that early action not maintained do poorly - very poorly.

However, if I were a big bettor - and I'm not - I'd do it exactly the way my test showed most predictive: I'd spread it throughout the wagering process in order to draw as little attention as possible. The last thing I'd do is bet it all at once - except, perhaps in the last few seconds assuming I could - because the moment a "big hit" shows, everybody sees it immediately.

[Rick Ransom]

Druther,

Yeah, I think the theory is that if you bet the large amount evenly throughout, you would have a bigger impact on the earlier odds than the later odds. Makes a lot of sense to me. Like you, however, I've never bet enough to impact the pools, except maybe if you count one time at Portland Meadows (hate to admit that).

[PaceAdvantage]

Druther,

I wonder what you research might show now that the Dakota boys are playing this "use my direct link to AutoTote to place 300 wagers in 5 seconds" game! LOL


==PA

[Druther]

Rick

Does it take much more than a hundred bucks to move the odds at Portland Meadows?

PA

I don't even want to think about it.

[Rick Ransom]

When I was playing Portland Meadows (early 90's), it only took about $20 to affect the odds. I don't know what it's like now. I only played the track because I happened to be in Oregon at the time.

Turf Paradise (my local track) used to have their own (non-comingled) pools for simulcast tracks. On an off day when they were showing Mountaneer or something that nobody wanted to bet they would only have a couple of thousand dollars in the pool.

I don't like to bet more than about 1/2% of the win pool. Now, I'm not saying I'm a large bettor, but I've bet Greyhounds and Jai Alai, and $10 is about the limit on either one.

I focus on SoCal and NY tracks now because:

1. They have big parimutuel pools so if my bankroll grows a lot I can bet really large amounts without affecting the odds. I'm not there yet. My philosophy is to start with a small bankroll and grow it. Either you'll lose a small amount of money if you're wrong or you'll be betting with house money if you're right. This minimizes my regret if something goes wrong and makes me very happy when everything goes right. It's something I learned from a couple of pros I knew. Patience is a real virtue in this game.

2. Both of those circuits have low takeout rates. New York may lower their's even more. I hope it's a huge success and other tracks follow.

3. Any kind of figures you use will tend to be more accurate at higher class tracks, so the races are just more predictable than at small tracks. There are some exceptions, though. If you can find a track with a strong bias you'll do very well. Turf Paradise was that way and I've had a lot of success in the past. I haven't played it very much in the last couple of years, but I understand they are actively trying to eliminate the early speed bias (adding sand, etc.). I'm still winning there (based on very few races), but I think that is the trend at all tracks now (to eliminate bias). Santa Anita, for example, used to have a really great bias and was my favorite track to play, but the last meet seemed to play much more "fair" to me. I'm still doing very well at that track, but I think they are trying to eliminate the bias. This is not good news for you guys who depend totally on pace to win. Have any of you attended any of the Gordon Jones "Easy Pickings" seminars? I don't know if he's still doing it, but his basic idea was that some tracks are easier to beat than others. I played some early speed methods during the 80s and 90s and that's the approach I took. Just pick the tracks you do best at, whatever your method. That used to be only feasible if you could bet in a Nevada race book, but now you can be anywhere.

[andicap]

Not True. Actually an honest track is better for a pace player. Bias plays havoc with pace. If a race stacks up toward a closer and the track is "early," what do you do?
Answer: Depends on how strong the bias is.

I've seen tracks that tended early but a closer would win because of a certain pace scenario (or some other strange reason) and everyone would assume the track was "honest." Next race an early horse would win and pay decent money. You've got to zig-zag.

andicap

[Rick Ransom]

I see what you're saying. I was thinking of players who try to take advantage of an early or late speed bias. I shouldn't have used the term "pace", because as you pointed out, it really involves a lot more than that. I'm not too good at visualizing pace scenarios. Things don't usually go close enough to what I expected in order to really benefit from it. When I have two early speed types rated 1st and 2nd, they don't burn each other out, in fact the exacta becomes a very good play. I really think that one's opinion on this is influenced by the methods they use. I think analyzing pace scenarios may be an indirect way of measuring class. Hey, whatever works! I think I said this before, but I didn't stop doing well at Santa Anita and Turf Paradise even though they have taken steps to eliminate the early speed bias.

[andicap]

Rick,
pace scenarios don't always work out. You're right. Sometimes a lot of early speed sets it up for a late runner. Sometimes the speed of the speed hangs on either a) track bias b) the horse was in rare form that day c) the closers weren't very good.

That's why I always look for value in my pace plays: They don't always work, but good longshots come in using that method, especially on the turf where people generally look for closers.
And if they don't win, they will often get up for 2nd or 3rd. Even in a early track bias, a closer can get 2nd money. If the odds are long enough (10-1) I'll play place and show and back it up in exotics.

andicap

[Rick Ransom]

The horses I like best are usually "E/P" types, laying about 2-3 lengths off the lead. I think if a horse has class it can run either early or late and this is the best position for it to be in. These are the types that I've found usually overcome the front runner(s), not the deep closers. That's just according to my methods though. There are a lot of different ways to look at things (speed points, pace ratings, running style, velocity, and probably a hundred other variations on the theme).