I take it back [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

rrbauer

05-01-2002, 11:30 AM

andicap wrote:

If you bet a horse at 3-5, chances are you will win. That does not make it a good bet for if you continually bet these types of horses you will lose in the long run -- unless, of course you are an exceptional handicapper to start with. Then, you don't to be reading ANY books.

Comment:
Betting 3/5 shots is a bad proposition only when the horse's chance of winning is less than 60%. Going from there, using MP's axiom, if you bet a 3/5 shot that only has a 50% chance of winning; and, it wins anyway: you have a winning bet that is also a bad bet.

A "bad bet" is one that has a negative expectation. Making "bad bets" is playing a negative-sum game.

How's this for an oxymoron: The only way you can win in a negative-sum game is to quit while you're ahead!

tanda

05-01-2002, 11:34 AM

Underlays win races. They win a lot of races, since most horses are underlaid.

If you consistently bet underlays, you will lose. It is simple mathematics. So, a winning bet can belong to a class of bets that will have a negative return in the long-term.

If the draw to an insider straight is 10:1 and the pot is offering odds of 5:1, it is the wrong move to pay to draw. But 1 out of 11 times you make the wrong move, you will win. That does not make the times you hit a good move.

It would be nice if we could predict when underlays would win, but if we could, they would no longer be underlays! If you knew that a 1:1 shot was assured of winning, then he would be quite an overlay. Thus, all we can do is restrict our action to bets that, as a group, show a long-term profit.

With the takeout and breakage, the average horse must show a long-term loss. The majority of money wagered is on horses with a negative expectation. Thus, a majority of bets are bad investments even though many of them win a given race.

ranchwest

05-01-2002, 11:55 AM

You may have a flawed selection strategy if it leads you to too many short-priced horses and too many of those are losing, but the ones that win are winners.

My point is that this is a game of profit. The only way you profit is with winners. If you can end the day ahead and some of your winners were 3/5, so what? I don't argue with success.

anotherdave

05-01-2002, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by karlskorner
Last week I posted a quote from Mike Pizzola (Handicapping Magic) found on another board.

Karl,

Just curious what board were you found this on. This is the best board, of course, but I am interested in any decent other ones too.

Thanks

AD

karlskorner

05-01-2002, 12:07 PM

Anotherdave:

Gordon Jones board

www.netcapper.com

go to grandstand, mostly west coast stuff and a couple of good articles

Karl

karlskorner

05-01-2002, 12:21 PM

Andicap;

I won.........good bet
I lost..........bad bet

I guess our mode of 'handicapping" differs in the manner in which we approach the race. I know who I am wagering on when I leave home, yours depends on "value", you have the choice of numerous tracks throughout the country, I live with one. The only thing that will change my mind for me is paddock inspection or the backstretch workout. If the horse is 3/5, so be it. If 3 races in a row my choice is 3/5, I can live with it, because my next winner will be 7/1 and the one after that will be 5/1, which means that my "walking-out money" will be greater than my "walking-in money"

In theory the thought as expressed above, by continually wagering on 3/5 horses will lead to ruin, make sense, if that is all you wager on, but in the course of any given day, at any given track how many horses go off at 3/5 ? Agreed 1 or 2 of my choices may go off at 3/5, because I truly believe they will win, but it's the other 3-4 winners I am looking for, that will make my day.

Karl

Lefty

05-01-2002, 12:21 PM

netcapper.com is Gordon Pine's board. Gordon Jones is not into computers and still does all of his research and selections with pencil and paper.
Horse is 3-5 he is dropping 3 levels. He wins but it wasn't a good bet because this type doesn't win its fair share. just one example of a bad bet that won.

karlskorner

05-01-2002, 12:31 PM

Lefty;

You are right, I knew it was one of the Gordon boys, Gordon Jones, Gordon Pine, Flash Gordon, or the infamous Ray Gordon.

Karl

ranchwest

05-01-2002, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Lefty
netcapper.com is Gordon Pine's board. Gordon Jones is not into computers and still does all of his research and selections with pencil and paper.
Horse is 3-5 he is dropping 3 levels. He wins but it wasn't a good bet because this type doesn't win its fair share. just one example of a bad bet that won.

By definition, winners win their fair share. Overlays and underlays happen in your head. Winning happens on the track and then at the cashier.

If a horse wins at 3/5 but is someone's idea of an underlay, does it help to bet on some other horse? It helps to bet the winner.

Lefty

05-01-2002, 01:20 PM

Ranchwest, I couldn't disagree more, but hey, that's what makes this great game.

Schlagman

05-01-2002, 01:23 PM

And a change of pace for those who think this poor horse has been beat to death.....

www.flashgordon.ws

karlskorner

05-01-2002, 01:51 PM

Lefty;

Your statement "That's what makes this a great GAME" confirms what I have thought for a long time. The majority of members on this board approach horseracing as a "game", something they can apply their vast knowledge of computers and theories too. If this angle/theory doesn't work, well, I'll try something else. No question, they have every right to their methods and use thereof, but at the same time, if I had changed my approach to handicapping, everytime a new book or program came out I truly belive I would still be looking for an answer.

Karl

ranchwest

05-01-2002, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Lefty
Ranchwest, I couldn't disagree more, but hey, that's what makes this great game.

I made 4 statements, I'm not sure on which point you disagree.

Understand, of course, that I DO look for longshots. I hit a winner paying over $70 a few weeks ago and I sometimes hit ones over $40, so I'm not looking for a steady diet of 3/5 horses.

tanda

05-01-2002, 02:29 PM

If a handicapper is playing 3/5 shots, then a review of his records will reveal (on horses at those general odds) either a profit or loss (ignoring the slim possibility of break-even).

If the result is a profit, then those 3/5 shots must be winning at a rate higher than 62.5%. They are overlays.

If the result is a loss, then the horses are underlays.

Both sets of results will contain winning bets, but one class is profitable and the other is unprofitable. The handicapper would be better off eliminating the entire unprofitable group and in the process give up the winners contained in that group.

Short-term winners are not the same as long-term profitability.

Quote from Ranch West - "My point is that this is a game of profit. The only way you profit is with winners. If you can end the day ahead and some of your winners were 3/5, so what? I don't argue with success."

This quote is either inaccurate or incomplete. First, winners only allow you to profit if their odds are greater than their winning chances. So the accurate quote would contain "overlaid" before the first use of "winners". Second, success is not measured day to day. One day's results has very little to do with whether you have a long-term edge.

Manager has the choice of sending Babe Ruth to the plate or Bob Uecker. The manager knows that Ruth will make an out 55% of the time and that a percentage of the time Ruth makes out, Uecker would have hit a home run if he had gone to the plate instead. Thus, it is possible that the manger could send Uecker to bat and he hits a home run when Ruth otherwise would have made an out.

However, unless the manager has some way of knowing when these particular outcomes will occur (other than a vague idea through the use of probability), it is a mistake to send Uecker to the plate .. even when Uecker hits a home run. Because in the long-run, the team gains less/losses more when Uecker bats. Also, you are judging the manager's performance on the short-term result when: 1) the manager did not have access to this information when he made his decision and 2) the manager, since he has no knowledge of short-term fluctuations in the percentages, made his decision on a different basis, i.e long-term probabilities.

One of the greatest logical errors made by people in various fields is to believe that a short-term success PROVES the correctness of a decision. Bad decisions do work out and good decisions do not on many occasions. What makes a decision good is that it will be correct more often than the alternatives ... not necessarily always.

My challenge: can anyone identify any decision a human can make that is GUARANTEED before the fact to always work out better than the alternatives?

If you can not meet this challenge, then you must admit that there are correct decisions (including wagering decisions) that do not work out and incorrect decisions that do work out (winning underlays).

Betting underlays is incorrect because it is less profitable than the alternatives which are betting overlays or sitting out if there are no overlays. Since underlays do win (over half the field must be underlays in the long-run) and the decision to bet those horses was incorrect, then the winning bet was a bad investment.

ranchwest

05-01-2002, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by tanda
Short-term winners are not the same as long-term profitability.

My challenge to you is to show any long-term that is not comprised of a series of short-terms. To win in the long-term, you must have some short-term success.

Take my previous statement and insert any time period you choose for the word "day". It still comes out that winning is based on winners. You can find a thousand "overlays", but if they all lose, then you haven't won squat.

The notion that one cannot win if he sometimes has 3/5 winners has no basis.

Horses win, approximately, in proportion to their odds. If you dismiss a horse based on its odds, you pass on an opportunity to win. I'm not saying that everyone will feel comfortable betting on every horse they think will win, but not betting on it does pass that opportunity.

karlskorner

05-01-2002, 03:17 PM

I haven't the foggiest idea about the theories that Tanda and Ranchwest are talking about. Someday someone will explain the theory behind "flipping a coin" that I keep reading about, I am not sure what this "flipping of a coin" has to do with horseracing and the fact that it will all come out even in the end. I think I am blessed.

Karl

tanda

05-01-2002, 04:04 PM

My challenge to you is to show any long-term that is not comprised of a series of short-terms. To win in the long-term, you must have some short-term success.

Yes, but you stated that ALL winning bets were good bets. My point is that a bad bet can win on occasion. And a good bet can lose. If the short-term successes are bets on underlays, then you will not have long-term success. So, short-term success is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, to long-term success. The type of short-term success is also important. Even losing players have some short-term success. If your short-term success is comprised solely of underlays, you cannot profit. That is a mathematical fact. Any bet on those underlays contibutes to your losses, even those that win.

The notion that one cannot win if he sometimes has 3/5 winners has no basis.

I never wrote that a bet on a 3/5 horse was always a mistake. It usually is since it is unusual for a horse to have better than a 62.5% chance of winning a race (a 3/5 horses do in fact lose more than 37.5 of the time). However, there are probably horses who have gone at 3/5 who were overlays. Bets on those horses, win or lose, were good bets.

Take my previous statement and insert any time period you choose for the word "day". It still comes out that winning is based on winners. You can find a thousand "overlays", but if they all lose, then you haven't won squat.

If a class of horses went 0 for 1000, even at average odds of 25:1, those horses were, in all probability, not overlays. Assuming that they each had an estimated chance of winning of 5% and were overlaid at 25:1, there is only a 1.88971E+22 : 1 chance that (0 for 1000) could occur by chance. So, the handicapper overestimated their chances and was probably betting on underlays.

In fact, if you play 1000 overlays with average winning chances of 15% who go off at 7.5:1, you are virtually guaranteed of making a healthy profit.

Horses win, approximately, in proportion to their odds. If you dismiss a horse based on its odds, you pass on an opportunity to win. I'm not saying that everyone will feel comfortable betting on every horse they think will win, but not betting on it does pass that opportunity.

I pass on horses whose odds do not compensate me for the risk that they will lose. That means I do pass on some opportunities to win since those opportunities are unprofitable. In fact, unless you bet on every horse, you are always passing an opportunity to win since any horse can win any race.

I haven't the foggiest idea about the theories that Tanda and Ranchwest are talking about. Someday someone will explain the theory behind "flipping a coin" that I keep reading about, I am not sure what this "flipping of a coin" has to do with horseracing and the fact that it will all come out even in the end. I think I am blessed.

Actually you do. What I am discussing is expectation. The idea that an investment is only a good investment if it has a positive expectation. If you profit from handicapping, then you must be making a cumulative series of bets that have a positive expectation. You may not do realize you are doing it, but the odds you are receiving must be greater than the horses' chances of winning would indicate they should be. If not, you would be a losing player in the long-run.

And flipping a fair coin does not necessarily come out even in the end. In the long-term probabilities merely dictate that it approaches even. That is a big difference.

ranchwest

05-01-2002, 04:53 PM

And flipping a fair coin does not necessarily come out even in the end. In the long-term probabilities merely dictate that it approaches even. That is a big difference.

No, you don't know what the long-term results will be. The only thing you know about flipping a coin is that the probability is even on the next toss. That does not ensure there will ever be symmetry.

It is the same with horse racing. No matter what the odds are "supposed" to be, the results will never match.

Today, I only found one horse to bet. It was 4/5 and won easily. Profit. Seems good to me. Maybe I'm missing it.

BillW

05-01-2002, 05:33 PM

If a win is always a good bet and a loss always a bad bet, then is a horse that dumps his rider out of the gate a bad bet? If so, what in ones handicapping would indicate ahead of time that this is a bad bet to be avoided? If the horse otherwise is an outstanding play, this seems to be a good bet to me (without the benefit of hindsight, of course).

Bill

ranchwest

05-01-2002, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by BillW
If a win is always a good bet and a loss always a bad bet, then is a horse that dumps his rider out of the gate a bad bet? If so, what in ones handicapping would indicate ahead of time that this is a bad bet to be avoided? If the horse otherwise is an outstanding play, this seems to be a good bet to me (without the benefit of hindsight, of course).

Bill

There's always a few odd cases, but I always look for the reason why I missed the winner. Picking the winner is what I'm responsible for doing. Maybe the jockey is no good, maybe the horse was not calm enough. Maybe it is simply a case of stuff happens, but I'm the one who bought the ticket that I bought. When I start looking for blame, I lose focus on the one thing that is important, winning. Ultimately, losing is always my fault and winning is always my responsibility. This may seem odd, but it is the only way I know to handle things.

BillW

05-01-2002, 07:25 PM

RW,

I certainly agree with you on the blame thing. Possibly a good postmortem to improve handicapping is warranted, but blame has no place in this endeavor.

As far as seeming odd, the beauty is that the "odd" wins and the mainstream hits 33% and looses money. While in search of my own odd approach, I'm always interested in understanding other's. :)

Bill

Lefty

05-01-2002, 08:49 PM

My records show me that in MY case betting horses under 4-1 is not profitable. Now a lot of these won but don't make me any profits when the losers are also taken into account. So, for ME this group is a bad bet So I have to come to the conclusion that a winning horse can also be a bad bet. I let my records be my guide. Works for me. Karl you are winning, so don't change a thing.

Lefty

05-01-2002, 08:52 PM

Karl, the word GAME was just a matter of semantics. I could have just as easily said, "a great sport" or a "great financial opportunity."

Lefty

05-01-2002, 08:55 PM

Ranchwest, I disagreed on the statement "that by definition winners win their fair share" Huh? Did you ever read Quirin's book
Winning At the Races?

ranchwest

05-01-2002, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Lefty
Ranchwest, I disagreed on the statement "that by definition winners win their fair share" Huh? Did you ever read Quirin's book
Winning At the Races?

Maybe the phrasing of the statement wasn't clear.

Every race is won by the winner, by definition. Being on the winner or being off the race are the only ways you can keep from losing. If a 3/5 wins, there are 3 possibilities:

1) bet it and win
2) don't bet and break even
3) bet another horse and lose

The interesting thing is that the exact same scenario applies to the horse who is 35-1.

Yeah, if you bet every 3/5 that comes along, you'll lose. Never bet a 3/5? I don't think so.

I first read Winning at the Races shortly after it was published, in 1979.

Tom

05-01-2002, 10:41 PM

What is the "long run?"
How long is it?
When we get there, can't we play anymore?
If we can keep playing, are we then in the "longer run?"
All I know for sure is we go broke in the short run and die in the long run.
The only runs that are inportant are the run to the fisrt turn, the run down the stretch, and the run to the windows.

Serioulsy. How can you possibly evaluate something in the long run if it is always changing, evolving, getting better, getting worse?
I handicap differently today than I did two years ago. did I hit a long run and then start new one? I didn't change overnight, it was gradual...did I go through several long runs, just shorter long runs than normal? What kind of run am I in now?
Inquirng minds want to know.

superfecta

05-01-2002, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Tom
What is the "long run?"
How long is it?
When we get there, can't we play anymore?
If we can keep playing, are we then in the "longer run?"
All I know for sure is we go broke in the short run and die in the long run.
The only runs that are inportant are the run to the fisrt turn, the run down the stretch, and the run to the windows.

Serioulsy. How can you possibly evaluate something in the long run if it is always changing, evolving, getting better, getting worse?
I handicap differently today than I did two years ago. did I hit a long run and then start new one? I didn't change overnight, it was gradual...did I go through several long runs, just shorter long runs than normal? What kind of run am I in now?
Inquirng minds want to know. Stop that Thomas,you will become an annoyance to those of us who believe statistics and mechanical systems are the only way to win at the track.

superfecta

05-01-2002, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by karlskorner
Last week I posted a quote from Mike Pizzola (Handicapping Magic) found on another board.

"(Numbers) are NOT meant to represent mathematical precision or the absolute truth of a horses's performance, in my experience, there isn't any such thing"

At that time I said I never read the man's book, but I know I like him.

This week another quote from Mike Pizzola from the same board.

"The fact that you may have WON a race dosen't necessarily mean that the bet was a good bet"

What kind of nonsence is that ?

Another book I am glad I never bothered reading.

Karl Look at it this way Karl,what if you went to the window and wanted $10 on #1,but the teller gave you #11 instead.Before you can return the ticket,the race goes off,and son of a gun,#11 wins at long odds.You won the bet but was it a good bet?

Lefty

05-02-2002, 10:31 PM

Ranchwest, actually there are 4 possibilities:Pass the race.

ranchwest

05-02-2002, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Lefty
Ranchwest, actually there are 4 possibilities:Pass the race.

Don't bet and break even = Pass the race

highnote

05-03-2002, 12:06 PM

This is not necessarily my belief, but Sartin once said, "Every winner is an overlay."

John

05-03-2002, 12:15 PM

I used as a key horse. a 3/5 [ Pat Day] winner at Churchill and hit a $160.00 pick3 for $12.00. Is that a bad bet.

Lefty

05-03-2002, 12:21 PM

rocajack, only you via your records know the answer to the question.

highnote

05-03-2002, 12:33 PM

ranchwest

05-03-2002, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by rocajack
I used as a key horse. a 3/5 [ Pat Day] winner at Churchill and hit a $160.00 pick3 for $12.00. Is that a bad bet.

I think if it was an underlay you have to give the money back because you weren't playing under the proper rules. If it were a Sunday, the rule wouldn't apply because you were betting Pat Day. I think there's a bonus day at CD, though, so you might want to check it out.

Never mind, I think it was a good bet.

John

05-03-2002, 03:45 PM

Ranch west

That was this past Wednesday 8th,9th,10th races.

To me, it was "bonus day".

ranchwest

05-03-2002, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by rocajack
Ranch west

That was this past Wednesday 8th,9th,10th races.

To me, it was "bonus day".

Maybe it was "bonus Day". :)

Congratulations, I'm sure you were happy.

karlskorner

05-03-2002, 07:36 PM

Superfecta;

Your illustration of a clerk punching the wrong ticket and it proves to be a long shot that won has happened to me more than once, this type of wager falls under a special catagory that I call "karl's karma", like the time I was at the paddock at GP. looked into the flower pot and there was an Amer. Express wallet with a $100.00 in it, the same afternoon my wife came out of the ladies room and gave me a "move it" look, she found 5 $20's wrapped in a napkin on the floor. All part of "karl's karma" Are they winning bets ?

Karl

ranchwest

05-03-2002, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by karlskorner
Superfecta;

Your illustration of a clerk punching the wrong ticket and it proves to be a long shot that won has happened to me more than once, this type of wager falls under a special catagory that I call "karl's karma", like the time I was at the paddock at GP. looked into the flower pot and there was an Amer. Express wallet with a $100.00 in it, the same afternoon my wife came out of the ladies room and gave me a "move it" look, she found 5 $20's wrapped in a napkin on the floor. All part of "karl's karma" Are they winning bets ?

Karl

I literally found a winner in someone else's pocket one day. I watched as a man put one winning ticket in his shirt and one in his pants. He thought he only had one winning ticket, at nearly $5,000 each. I told him he had two and jokingly told him there'd be a $5 fee for the information. He came back with $8200 after taxes and handed me $100. I had gone to the track with only $20 that day, just thought I was supposed to be there. Sometimes you can win and not even bet at all! No overlays, no underlays, just count the cash.

05-03-2002, 08:29 PM

Some of my best hits have been walking up to the self bet machine and finding a big balance left over with no one within 100 feet of the machine...what's a guy to do?

CJ

tanda

05-03-2002, 09:13 PM

It seems to me every winning bet is a good bet and every losing bet is a bad bet. The key is to make sure the profits from your good bets cover the losses on your bad bets. If they do then you're a good bettor. If they don't then you're a bad bettor. So you can make bad bets and be a good bettor and make good bets and be a bad bettor.

Yes it is true that skilled players make mistakes and vice versa, but if you mean that a good bettor could habitually make bad bets and still be a good bettor ... well that makes no sense.

My point is this: Every time you make a wager, you are assuming a risk. The risk is the total loss of the invested capital. Assuming risks is okay, we all do it everyday in a variety of ways. Successful people in any endeavor strive for and demand that the reward for assuming a risk provide adequate compensation. For most people, that compensation must be a gain or profit. The standard for assesing whether the acceptance of any proposition was a good or bad idea is whether the compensation for the risk assumed was adequate. It is understood that the bad result will not always occur nor will the good result. If either was a certainty, then there would be no risk. Risk is based on the idea that the outcome is not a certainty. Regardless of the compensation, either result can occur. The result is not dependant on the compensation. For that reason a positive short term result can occur even if the compensation was inadequate for the risk assumed. A person who regularly makes decisions where he accepts inadequate compensation for risks assumed is going to have a problem.

If I accept 2:1 odds on horses that win 25% of the time, the individual winners are still bad bets ... because they did not provide adequate comensation fore the risk of losing. The price of the bet is not just the amount wagered on this particular wager but also the amount risked on the inevitable bets that most be lost as well. When I hit that 2:1 shot after losing three in a row (25% winners), my problem is that I have inadeqaute compensation for the inevitable 75% losers. All four bets were bad bets. Unfortunately, we cannot just bet on our winners and avoid the losers. We do not know the results beforehand. The price of a winning bet is inevitable losing bets as well. When assessing the reward from a winning wager, the total costs must be evaluated not merely the results of that wager ... unless that is the only wager you ever made or will make.

Imagine this: you bet on a horse and win $1. Was the bet a good bet? According to many it was. But what if the terms of the bet were this: you win $1 or your wife and children are murdered. Sound ludicrous? Not really, since many posters have stated that ANY winning bet is a GOOD bet. ANY bet means ANY bet. Assuming you like your wife and children, I respectfully submit that the bet was a bad bet ... and you were fortunate that you won. Or what if the terms were this: you win $1 or you pay $1,000,000? Well, it is a winning bet so it must be a good bet. Or is it?

Using these counter-examples, we have reached a point of reductio ad absurdum. If you accept that ANY winning bet is a good bet, then the above examples must be good bets. If you disagree that the above examples are good bets, then you must acknowledge that there are some winning bets that are, in fact, bad decisions.

Foolish Pleasure

05-03-2002, 10:58 PM

How can you not agree with Karl?

It is so obvious, he's right what's a coin toss have to do with it? For that matter why even consider basic probability whatsoever?

This guy's supposed to be a pro?

Now who's kidding who here?

GameTheory

05-03-2002, 11:03 PM

Good and bad are certainly very subjective terms, so in a sense everyone is right.

Personally, I'm with Tanda.

But for Karl, who seems like he is just trying to pick the winner every race, then a winning bet is good, and a losing bet is bad. Karl can do that because of his high hit rate.

It may seem stupid, but I'm not looking to hit the winner every time. I can't do that. But I know what percentage of them I can hit, and bet accordingly.

I have also found balances and cash vouchers in the AutoTote machine. Can't beat that.

What about the people that just go around all day picking up tickets off the floor? I used to see the SAME PEOPLE day after day doing this. They must find some winners, right, or why would they keep doing it?

One of the most nerve-jangling things that ever happened is when I almost lost *my* money. I left my wallet with $300 in it (not to mention my id, credit cards, etc.) in the bathroom stall at Hollywood Park. I got all the way to the paddock before I realized it, and sprinted back to the bathroom. Luckily, it was still an hour before first post, not many people around, and it was still there. I would have flushed myself.

Tom

05-03-2002, 11:14 PM

I played a $5 show parlay one day and after the first leg, I had $9 to bet back. I go to the window and get a $9 show ticket.
I watch the race, my hore places, and pays $6.80 to show.
I look at the ticket and I don't get a $9 show ticket after all.
I got a $99 show ticket. I gave the poor clerk his$90 that he would have been responsilble for and still had a nice profit.
No-I didn't bet it all on the third leg of the parlay. And yes, it too came in and paid $4.20, so I should have.

anotherdave

05-04-2002, 12:10 AM

I was on a roll once and left $1800 on a betting machine. I just turned and started to walk away and then it hit me. There was a guy there who had already put his $20 voucher in the machine. I said sorry I left my voucher in there before he saw how much was in there and he said his was $20. I gave him $40 and said sorry and he was happy. I love playing by phone now! With my memory starting to go, who knows how much I would have left in those machines by now.

AD

ranchwest

05-04-2002, 12:18 AM

Tanda,

All I can lose is what I wagered. At the racetracks I frequent, it is not possible to wager $1,000,000 to get $1 or to bet your wife and kids.

In another thread, I've told how I go about making sure I'm getting value over the whole of my wagers rather than trying to postulate an arbitrary value on each race.

I know that many of you are successful with overlays and underlays, but that is not the only road to success. There's no mandatory requirement that each wager should hinge on being defined as an overlay.

Rick

05-04-2002, 06:03 AM

I think everyone here is looking for overlays. It's just that some people don't need to look at the toteboard to find an overlay. A horse can be bet down for legitimate reasons that make its probability of winning better than you expected. If you throw out these horses it will hurt you.

Defining an overlay by comparing your odds to toteboard odds assumes that you have a more accurate way of computing odds than the toteboard. I can assure you that you don't. If you use that method you will always win less often than you expect, because the odds do contain additional information about the probability of your horse winning. If you really want accurate odds, you can combine actual odds with your own estimate to get a more accurate line and then compare that to the toteboard.

What you really want is "smart money" on your horse and "dumb money" on another horse. You should have a pretty good idea in advance of where the "dumb money" will be bet. Most of the time it's on a morning line favorite that you don't like. The lower you rank these obvious choices the better "overlay" you have.

My point is that you usually don't know what the true probability of a horse winning is, but you may know that it's underbet or overbet anyway.

Show Me the Wire

05-04-2002, 09:05 AM

Fellow peers:

I agree with Karl. Probability is not a factor in horse racing; random choas is. If you run the same race over and over again with the same contestants (keeping the horses physical abilities and condition the same) you will get the same result. The other horses will not win their 10%, 15%, etc. of the time. The only influence will be randomness. The actual winner may change once we introduce randomness choas. The past winner may lose becuase it unseated its rider, it fell down, it was severely checked, etc.

If we look at the odds line in this light then an even money shot has a 50% chance to win, while the rest of the entrants equal all together have a 50% chance to defeat the even money animal. If we run this SAME race 100 times, I believe the even money animal if it is in shape will win substantialy more than 50% of the coin tosses and any variation in the eventual outcome will be based on choas.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Foolish Pleasure

05-04-2002, 03:21 PM

There's no mandatory requirement that each wager should hinge on being defined as an overlay.

You can explain your voodoo till your blue in the face. Unless it hinges on betting overlays, you lose.

Regardless of any rationale you or any of your fellow mathematically challenged folk post.

BY DEFINITION IF YOU DO NOT CONSISTENTLY BET OVERLAYS, YOU LOSE.

AND ANY PRO THAT TELLS YOU HE CAN'T MAKE A STRONGER LINE THAN THE TOTE BOARD IS A FRAUD.

Foolish Pleasure

05-04-2002, 03:26 PM

And the bullsh*t that there are so many different ways to beat the track isn't it just grand, is really sickening coming from people that appear to believe they have a clue.

THE ONLY WAY TO WIN AT ANY FORM OF GAMBLING IS TO CONSISTENTLY MAKE BETS WITH POSITIVE EXPECATIONS ATTACHED TO THEM, PERIOD, THERE IS EXACTLY ZERO OTHER WAYS.

JimG

05-04-2002, 03:27 PM

Foolish Pleasure:

I am glad you have shown up on this board to show me the way, the truth, and the light. If only you'd shown up earlier, you could have saved me from so many losing bets.

Thanks for being such a stablizing force!

Jim

Foolish Pleasure

05-04-2002, 03:41 PM

I can assure you that you don't.

But we conclude with I'm sure you can find good bets anyway?

Be real, how exactly are you going to find good bets without some cognizance of the horses chances to win aka a line?

And not only are you dead wrong, but Ray's ME2, market efficiency crap is nice theoretical TP, but in reality you are betting against other people, the fact that one's numbers are significantly different than the board is as likely to be positive for the 84hr a week guy as it is negative

Foolish Pleasure

05-04-2002, 03:50 PM

you could have saved me from so many losing bets.

Will do, don't ever look at any bet that contains any field with less than 8 entrants, unless there is carryover money involved.

and before the vultures descend, there is no doubt there are races where there is good value that fail here, but most are not and they sap time away from looking at more lucrative spots.

There I just saved you a great deal of money, you can bank on it.

superfecta

05-04-2002, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Foolish Pleasure
And the bullsh*t that there are so many different ways to beat the track isn't it just grand, is really sickening coming from people that appear to believe they have a clue.

THE ONLY WAY TO WIN AT ANY FORM OF GAMBLING IS TO CONSISTENTLY MAKE BETS WITH POSITIVE EXPECATIONS ATTACHED TO THEM, PERIOD, THERE IS EXACTLY ZERO OTHER WAYS. The saying is not to be taken so literal,FP,as in" there is only one job that will earn you a living".There are many wagering methods that will turn a profit,but depend on the individual making the right bet at the right time.Most bettors will not,but thats what makes it profitable for those who do.
Why so upset ,bud?Just enjoy the fact that 80% of bettors bet #s ,colors,names and other silly ways to choose a horse.Thats their money you are winning.

Foolish Pleasure

05-04-2002, 04:11 PM

Yep, it seems I was a little harsh, my apologies.

Why so upset ,bud?

the cable went out about 60mins ago and with it the racing channel and ESPN, it's irritating as hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rick

05-04-2002, 04:29 PM

Foolish Pleasure,

Are you trying to break the record for posts in one day? You can calculate a reasonably accurate probability IF you include actual odds in the calculation. However, you'd better be pretty fast about doing it or use a computer directly connected. It's more likely that you'll win more money by being able to predict how the public will bet in advance and act accordingly rather than waiting until the final second to make your bet.

This, of course, is just my opinion, but it's based on more than 20 years of serious betting and being sometimes associated with real pros, not handicapping authors but people who had no other source of income. Most of the winners I have known didn't need to monitor the odds. They knew they were using a method that would not be bet down by the public anyway. You can combine 100 obvious factors and not win more money than you can by using one non-obvious factor despite the fact that the 100 factor line is more accurate at predicting the probability of the horse winning. This idea of calculating the ultimately accurate line is the biggest myth ever perpetrated in the handicapping literature and is only understood by those with adequate experience.

andicap

05-04-2002, 05:23 PM

Who's your cable operator and where are you?
How long was it out for?

Foolish Pleasure

05-04-2002, 09:09 PM

The best you could come up with was a shot on the number of posts.

This is fantasy land flaunt whatever you'd like fact is there is not a human on earth that has seen more races than I, in the last 30 years.

Take your pompous head out of your ASS!

In no form of sports gambling is the pro's line not stronger than the publics.

Period, do you understand, give me your sole source of income bullshit, there are no amateurs when money is involved.

These absurd claims of double digit ROI's are a joke, these debates exaotics vs straight bets are a joke, it's obvious churn as much handle as humanly possible in spots where there is an overlay vs the public's line.

YOU WOULDN'T KNOW A REAL EARNER IF ONE SMACKED YOU IN THE FACE.

So save the rhetoric, because I can't make a line after 20 years of going to the track noone can, fact is people do every day and they are commonly called

WINNERS

tanda

05-04-2002, 09:09 PM

agree with Karl. Probability is not a factor in horse racing; random choas is. If you run the same race over and over again with the same contestants (keeping the horses physical abilities and condition the same) you will get the same result. The other horses will not win their 10%, 15%, etc. of the time. The only influence will be randomness. The actual winner may change once we introduce randomness choas. The past winner may lose becuase it unseated its rider, it fell down, it was severely checked, etc.

Random chaos theory and probability theory are not mutually exclusive.

Probability theory can be used to estimate the effect of random chaos.

You cannot prove your second statement. I cannot disprove it. It is conjecture.

If we look at the odds line in this light then an even money shot has a 50% chance to win, while the rest of the entrants equal all together have a 50% chance to defeat the even money animal. If we run this SAME race 100 times, I believe the even money animal if it is in shape will win substantialy more than 50% of the coin tosses and any variation in the eventual outcome will be based on choas.

You appear to be writing that random chaos creates a 50% probability that the best horse will not win. This is the application of probability theory, albeit in a different manner than that in which I use it. That chance that he will win, which you estimate at more than 50%, is an assignment of probability by you to that horse. You mention "if it is in shape". That is a contingency that can be estimated using probaility theory. Karl and you have mentioned coin tosses repeatedly. I think coin tosses have nothing to do with horse racing. But that does not mean that probability theory also has nothing to do with it. Probability theory has many applications other than those utilizing coin tosses. You mention a horse having a 50% chance to win and the field having a 50% chance. That is probability.

I am confused as to how your repeated use of probability refutes the idea that probabilties are irrelevant to horse racing.

Foolish Pleasure

05-04-2002, 09:16 PM

You can combine 100 obvious factors and not win more money than you can by using one non-obvious factor despite the fact that the 100 factor line is more accurate at predicting the probability of the horse winning.

If you ever get past the phase that not every input is necessarily objective and that although all instincts are to find some magic easily replicated formula, and move onto actually doing the work race by race let us know.

Foolish Pleasure

05-04-2002, 09:22 PM

IF you include actual odds in the calculation.

And the fact of the matter is all this serves is to create a consensus effect.

Rick

05-05-2002, 08:21 AM

FP,

What do you mean by "let us know"? Do you have multiple personalities?

I just always perplexed why people like you get so upset when someone disagrees with them. In my experience, I've never met a winning player that had that kind of attitude. However, I will say that you're very good at insulting people. I suppose you deserve some credit for that in some twisted way of thinking.

By the way, I made my winning bet on War Emblem yesterday before I knew the actual odds. I didn't have to see the toteboard to know that he wouldn't be favored. Who was your choice?

Show Me the Wire

05-05-2002, 10:24 AM

Tanda:

I am not saying random chaos creates a 50% chance that the best horse will lose. I am saying the winning horse will win almost 100% of the time if the same race is repeated over and over. Some extreme good examples are yesterday's 5th and 6th races at Spt. If each race was repeated 100 times the same horse would win 100% of the time and the field would not win one race. The only time the result would change would be due to racing luck (chaos), such as the horse injuring its self, falling down, etc. Of course you must understand the eventual winners were the best and the rest of the other entrants had almost no chance to win, except for luck. If you backed the rest of the field based on the perceived 50% probability, as reflected by the tote board that one of them would win you made a bad wager.

I understand random chaos could be calculated as a probability, but not like a coin toss where over the long run your result would be heads 50% of the time and tails 50% of the time. In both of the races I pointed out above in the long run each winner would win 100% of the time less the element of luck (random chaos), which is far less than 50% of the time. The probability of injury, falling down, etc is so minute it would not be worth the effort to calculate.

Horse racing is the only form of gambling (risk taking), excluding the financial markets you are able to create a positive expectancy. If horse racing wagering was based on probabilities applicable to casino games and other games of chances you could never have a positive expectancy unless you are the house. That is why Karl is saying every bet he makes is a good bet and I agree with him.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Tom

05-05-2002, 11:36 AM

If you have all the answers, why waste your time here debating with us losers? Fact is you don't know every winner out there and you don't know how all winners get that way. You have chosen an approriate handle - FOOL!

tanda

05-06-2002, 12:05 AM

Show Me The Wire,

Actually, I think Karl said every winning bet was a good bet, although he may believe that every bet is a good bet as well.

Horse racing is not the only form of gambling with a possible positive expectancy. Blackjack, poker, sports betting do as well. Baccarrat may as well, although the number of plays when a positive expectancy are so rare that is is not practical. Roulette can be beat with the use of a computer (in violation of casino rules). Some slots can generate a postive expectancy on occasion(those with reels where the probability of each outcome can be calculated and a jackpot accumulates to a sufficient level). Also, some video poker machines have 100%+ payout with perfect play. These games and others combined with comp programs can also generate an overall positive expectancy (counting the comps as return). Other than that, your point was correct.

You cannot prove your statements that the same horse would win time after time absent freak luck. Again, I cannot disprove it. It is merely conjecture.

tanda

05-06-2002, 01:17 PM

Actually, there may be proof that the best will not always win absent luck.

That proff may be the game of chess. Chess has no luck at all. I am better than a person I play regularly. My USCF rating is better, my record is better (against better competition) and my win percentage against this opp is better than 75% (with draws included). I have gone 20+ games in a row without defeat. He has never neaten me more than twice in a row.

Yet, even though I am unquestionably the superior player, I sometimes lose or draw. Show Me The Wire says that is not possible. The best will win absent bad luck. Chess has no luck. So the best must always win. My experience and the experience of others refutes this theory.

That is because competitors do not perform the same every time. They have ranges of performance even when in form and and at full ability. If the competitors' performance ranges overlap, then it is possible for the inferior player to win. In some cases, the ranges are so far apart that only freak luck could change the outcome. In most cases, the performance ranges overlap which allows performance fluctuations as well as luck to cause the inferior player to win.

Rick

05-06-2002, 02:30 PM

tanda,

You hit the nail on the head. People make mistakes. Chess is the best example of this. You apparently make a lot fewer mistakes than your opponent on the average, but in some games your concentration may not be as well as others. So you don't win 100% of the time although you're clearly a better player.

Last Saturday 17 of 18 people (jockeys) in the Kentucky Derby made a serious error by not pressing the pacesetter. It happens in horse racing too.

ranchwest

05-06-2002, 02:33 PM

Johnny Oates says that luck is when preparation and opportunity meet.

05-06-2002, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Rick
Last Saturday 17 of 18 people (jockeys) in the Kentucky Derby made a serious error by not pressing the pacesetter. It happens in horse racing too.

With all due respect, 17 jockeys did not screw it up. Do you honestly think the riders of Essence of Dubai, Saarland, Blue Burner, and some others were capable of pressing War Emblem? Only a couple really had the ability, namely those aboard Proud Citizen and Medaglia d'Oro. In Proud Citizen's case, its hard to call even that an error as he did manage to run second. Had he gunned up with WE he surely would have run up the track judging by the winner's superiority on this day.

CJ

Show Me the Wire

05-06-2002, 09:59 PM

Tanda:

I hear you interpreting my remarks; the best will always win except for luck. I did not say this by any stretch of the imagination. And I do not see how you can apply my statement to chess.

I said the odds board is not a true reflection of probabilities. Your statement about you losing to an inferior chess player is not at odds (pun intended) with my statement.. In my prior examples I said if the same race was run multiple times the same horse would win 100% of the time except for the element of random chaos. In reality we cannot run the same race over and over so as you said you cannot disprove my statement, nor can I prove my statement.

Since you have a past record playing this particular opponent you know what your probabilities of winning are and you have a positive expectancy each and every time you play and that is great. But your example of chess is certainly not applicable (I am assuming you do not make the same exact moves in the same exact order each time), because each game is different.

Since I cannot prove my statement and you cannot disprove my statement and if you truly believe that based on the probabilities as reflected on the tote that the fastest horse with the correct running style will lose 50% of the time, there is nothing I can say to you except good luck in your wagers.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

tanda

05-06-2002, 10:13 PM

Show Me The Wire:

I never said the toteboard has anything to do with the probabilities. I also never said the best horse will lose 50% of the time, although your posts gave me the impression that you believe that to be the effect of random chaos.

You seem to believe that but for luck a race would be run the same way every time. If so, I disagree. Until my chess analogy, I though neither of our positions could be proven or disproven. Now I am not so sure.

Just as the same moves will not be repeated, usually, in chess, the same moves, strides, decisions by the horses and jockeys, will not be repeated either in horse racing. Thus, if the race was run 100 times, I would anticipate differing results caused not only by luck but also normal fluctuations in performance. The better do lose to the worse other than because of bad luck. I have seen Tiger Woods lose without suffering anything remotely to ber considered bad luck. How can that be? Because there are normal fluctuations is performances. Horse, humans, etc. are not robots.

Estimating the probablities of these performance fluctuations plus the freak incidents of luck is a use of probability theory in racing. As long as you accept that the outcome is not a pre-determined certainty, then you must accept that the varying outcomes have some sort of probability which must add up to 100%. Whether those various outcomes our purely random, fundamental to the horses' abilities or both does not matter. For example, if you believe that the best horse will win absent random chaos and you believe that random chaos will occur 50% of the time, then your selection should be assigned a 50% chance and the remaining horses should equally divide the other 50%. So, probabilities can be applied to your theory as well.

Show Me the Wire

05-06-2002, 10:42 PM

Tanda:

One more time. I originally said probabilities except for random chaos do not apply to horse racing like other games of chance. I know you did not say it or we would not be having this exchange. Today at SPTs in the 7th race the winner, I believe was below even money. Once again this horse would win this race 100% of the time except for random chaos. This horse keyed a nice pick 3 for those whom understood that wagering on any other entrant to win would be based on luck (random chaos) and therefore be a bad bet.

I do not understand why I see different thoughts attributed to me. I never said I believe random chaos happens 50% of the time. I said in my earlier posts random chaos is to minute to consider.

I believe we shall never agree on this issue and I am not on a mission to convert you. I only want to clarify my opinion and statements to you.

Once again good luck and good racing.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

ranchwest

05-06-2002, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
I said the odds board is not a true reflection of probabilities.

As pointed out by Quirin in 1979, horses win in proportion to their odds, or at least in clearly close proportioin. As has been shown in previous threads on this board, that fact remains basically true to this day, though there are a few bulges in the proportion.

Very ofen we see a race and then basically the same horses run against one another the next out and there is a different result. Horses are not machines. There's a lot more than raw ability that determines the winner of a race.

If clearly superior horses won every race, then there would seldom be an extreme longshot win, but it happens and some of those longshots are very pickable if you are willing to look beyond the obvious things that the general public relies upon.

Show Me the Wire

05-07-2002, 10:31 PM

WARNING long post. WARNING long post. WARNING long post.

Part 1

Ranchwest:

I am not clear on the implications of your statement. I understand it to mean over the long run the probabilities reflected on the tote will occur i.e. 10-1 horses will win 9% of all races and 1-1 horses will win 50% of all races. If this were true you would never have a positive expectancy because you are a guaranteed loser over the long run. If my understanding of your statement is correct, then we all are fools for attempting to wager on horse racing.

At first blush, it seems Ainslie confirms this statistical fact everyone wagering on horse racing will lose in the long run . I accept the statistics cited by Ainslie, but all the statistics tells us is not to play all even money favorites indiscriminately. Ainslie's statements do not contradict the position probabilities have little impact on horse racing wagering. In fact, Fabricand's study confirms favorites outperform probabilities listed on the tote . Unlike most casino games of chance the long-term losses incurred while indiscriminately wagering on favorites are attributed to takeout not probabilities.

Therefore, my conjecture that winner's would keep winning the same race, unless random chaos interferes is supported by Fabricand's study. Basically, all I am saying just because the tote reflects 5 other entrants have a 50% chance to win that this will not be the result over the long-term because of pure mathematical probabilities and any wager based on pure probabilities that a legitimate even money favorite will lose 50% of the time is a bad bet.

Maybe a better way to explain my conjecture that probabilities have little impact on the result of horse race may be by comparing pure probability games to horse racing:

Coin Toss

There are only two natural outcomes heads or tails, a 50-50 chance one or the other result will occur. We can ensure the integrity of the bet by using a new coin every time to avoid wear and tear on the coin. Therefore, any wager is a break-even proposition.

Dice

Using one die there are 6 natural outcomes meaning the probability is 1 out of 6 any number 1 through 6 will result from a roll. Once again using a new cube for every roll can ensure the integrity of the roll.

Horse racing

10 entrants do not equate to natural odds of 1 out of 10, because each entrant is not physically uniformly equal to each other as the coin and the die. In horse racing symmetry does not account for a run of winning or losing wagers as it does in games of chance based strictly on probabilities.

(continued in next post)

Show Me the Wire

05-07-2002, 10:32 PM

Part 2

Assuming all 10 horses, in our race, are ready to perform to their typical physical performance the winner will come from the fastest horse (the race goes to the swift). One of the 10 horses in each race is capable of running the fastest final time with the best early pace figure, than the rest of the field. Let us further state that the fastest horse has a 50% chance of winning (even money) according to the tote. Based on this scenario does anyone believe over the long run the favorite in each these races will lose 50% of the time? I do not. I believe the favorite in this scenario wins 100% of the time, except for random chaos.

This example is not that far fetched, it is a common occurrence with even money favorites. In fact, I listed 3 races in the last 2 days with this basic scenario. The problem we must solve as handicappers is not probability and symmetry, but assessment of the current physical condition of the fastest horse. Favoritism by itself it does not denote or equate to physically fitness nor does it denote the favorite is the fastest horse in the race. More importantly current physical condition of any horse is not quantifiable by mathematical probabilities. Therefore, any statistical analysis on all wagers on favorites of 2 to 1 or less are meaningless with out taking into account the actual physical condition of the fastest horse. Since physical condition of the horse is not properly explained by probabilities, probability has little or no effect on the outcome of the race. Therefore, any intentionally placed winning bet is a good bet because you assessed the physical condition of the winning horse accurately and conversely any losing bet is a poor bet because the assessment of the losing horse's physical condition and or physical ability was incorrect.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

1 Ainslie's Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing citing Fabricand's study of playing all horses in an odds range.
2 Supra

GameTheory

05-07-2002, 10:55 PM

Even if you are correct, that probability doesn't DETERMINE the outcome, it does not mean that assigning a probability to a horse is an error.

Why?

Because we can never know with certainty who is in perfect physical shape, etc. etc. (And picking the "best" horse can't be done in isolation -- the other horses actually DO have an effect on the race.)

So if I say HorseA has a 40% to win the race, all I'm really saying is that I can't decide (or know) who will DEFINITELY win this race, but I think HorseA is best and there is a 40% chance that I am right. But just in case I'm wrong about A, I'll look at the other horses, give 20% to HorseB, etc.

So if you like, the probabilities can be looked at as the chance of my handicapping being correct.

Either way, I don't really see how this would affect the way you bet, unless you think you can predict a race with 100% certainty. The application of the probabilities remains the same, no matter their "true meaning". Now, you don't have to make explicit probabilities to be successful, but there isn't anything flawed about doing so, at least in theory.

Aussieplayer

05-07-2002, 11:41 PM

Hi All,

Don't know if this is relevant to the thread, but re: toteboard providing a good reflection of the probabilities - it does.

Now, I was always "brought up" to never consider the toteboard or morningline odds in doing your own odds line, for obvious reasons.

However, (& being one who doesn't mind my own views challenged, I didn't find this hard to accept after reading about it thoroughly), at least one HK team uses a computer model that DOES take the toteboard into consideration - precisely because it IS such a good estimation of the probabilities.

Using handicapping factors alone leads to too many mistakes being made (if getting extremely accurate probabilities is the goal), whereas using the toteboard alone is of no betting use.

They use a complicated combination of both - to get EXTREMELY accurate probability estimates of all the horses in a race.

This is all in a paper I read recently. I certainly don't believe it is the only way to make profits from racing, but it probably would be necessary if you were wanting to make multi-millions annually, which (I believe) is a completely different ball game to making thousands.

Hope that may have been of interest.

Cheers
AP

Show Me the Wire

05-08-2002, 12:06 AM

GameTheory:

[Because we can never know with certainty who is in perfect physical shape, etc. etc.]

Is it probability or just an educated guess on our part? I vote for guess and as you said you can assign a probabilty to your guess.

[So if you like, the probabilities can be looked at as the chance of my handicapping being correct.]

I agree you can assign a probability to your own handicapping on how well you can identify the fit and fastest horse.

[Either way, I don't really see how this would affect the way you bet, unless you think you can predict a race with 100% certainty.]

Maybe that is the missing ingredient that separates the pros from the recreational players.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Rick

05-08-2002, 07:32 PM

AP,

That's the point I was trying to make. The actual odds DO contain information that is not reflected in the past performances. I think Benter proved that beyond doubt.

CJ,

I agree with you that it was an exaggeration to say that 17 jockeys made a mistake about the pace, but clearly the jockeys on the main contenders that could press the pace early probably did make a mistake by not putting the pressure on. Of course, it could be argued that it may have been better for some of them to settle for "sure thing" purse money rather than get involved in a "do or die" scenario. I think we'll see a different situation in the Preakness; they'll probably be right up there challenging him. It's interesting though that WE is NOT the favorite in the futures betting at this point. So he may still be an overlay if people think he just had a lucky pace scenario. At this point I'm actually very impressed that he was able to do this in the KD and still have something left at the finish.

But, back to the original question. I just can't believe that anyone would believe that the best horse always wins, no trouble ever occurs in a race, the jockeys never make mistakes, and horses always run exactly the same as their average (or recent) performance. Perhaps, some people's plans ALWAYS work out right, which would lead them to believe in that kind of world. That's not the way mine have so I'm more likely to believe in a partly (say 50%) chaotic world.

Show Me the Wire

05-08-2002, 08:51 PM

Rick:

That is not what I wrote and that is not my position. I can't believe anyone would think the fastest and fittest horse will lose randomly 50% of the time. On the other hand maybe I should be glad so many others do.

Btw way to go over 2000 hits on this thread.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Rick

05-09-2002, 12:04 PM

I really don't think we can make any generalizations about how often the best horse should win since there are so many possibilities for differences in performance levels. I have a chart of average lengths for different odds groups that I use to decide whether I really had an overlay in a race. For example, even money should translate into about an average win of 0 lengths, but a 1/2 odds horse should win by about 2.5 lengths on the average and a 1/10 odds horse by about 5 lengths. Using these guidlines is a better way for me to decide whether my bet was a good one or not rather than just looking at win or lose. Of course, I don't make very many bets in those odds ranges. More typical would be a 3-1 horse compared with the average loss of 3.5 lengths. At those odds, if I lose in a close photo finish I still give myself credit for having made a good bet.

Since I'm familiar with statistics, I think of a race as being a collection of normal distributions with different mean performance levels for each horse. That's not exactly correct but I think it's pretty close to the truth. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Show Me the Wire

05-09-2002, 01:16 PM

Rick:

Your idea of using beaten lengths to measure the utility of you wagers is an interesting concept. Additionally, I know a couple of people using normal distributions with different mean performance levels; especially with sheet type speed figures to handicap and they do well. I am glad this method works for you, but it is too complicated for me.

Also, I believe actual odds on the tote do reflect information not included in the pps, but how relevant is the information. I could give you plenty examples of were people's plans don't work out. Just 2 weeks ago a trainer practically guaranteed his charge would win and he backed up his opinion in the win and place pools along with his client. Unfortunately, his plans did not work out, because his animal didn't feel like running that particular race. Fortunately for me I did not bet his horse, because if I hear "steam" I make one of two choices, I either pass the race or wager on the animal I initially picked.

I do believe the tote is an invaluable tool in helping point out the actual contenders in a race, but it does a lousy job of selecting the winner by itself. This is why I say the tote really does not accurately reflect probabilities regarding the winning horse.

However, and this is not meant as a swipe at you or anyone else, any losing bet is a bad wager to me. A losing wager to me means I reduced my capital by x amount and I've lost future opportunities to make income with that wasted capital. It really is a matter of perspective. I use to have the perspective, hey my long shot lost by a nose, and I was happy because it was good for my ego. But the reality of the matter was I lost money and went home with less money in my pocket than, I started with. After years this realization finally dawned on me and that is when my perspective changed about what actually is a good or bad bet. Therefore, to me any intentionally played winning bet is a good bet, any intentionally played losing bet is a bad bet, even if I lost due to random chaos.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

tanda

05-09-2002, 03:01 PM

Tanda: 200/1000 at 5:1 = 1.20 R.O.I.

Show Me The Wire: 400/1000 at 1:1 = 0.80 R.O.I.

With identical sample size, Show Me The Wire has made two times as many "good" bets as Tanda. Yet, he has lost money and Tanda is profitable.

What is the point of making twice as many "good" bets as somebody else, if that somebody else takes your money? That is not "good" to me.

Show Me the Wire

05-09-2002, 03:34 PM

Let me say I really enjoy this exchange of ideas. I really want to understand the application of probabilities in predicting the winner. I understand you may use probabilities to handicap your selection process, ala Dick Mitchell and that is not in issue. Additionally, I agree the tote is a great tool for isolating contenders. I would like to focus on the sole issue of outcome determination.

What prompted this post was Tanda's post regarding Sklansky's theory. I do not understand Sklansky's conjecture.

"Assume that there is a ten-horse field. Horse A runs a 100 speed figures every time he races. No exceptions. Each other horse runs a 100+ speed figure 25% of the time and a 90 the other 75% of the time. Assume that the speed figures will not fluctuate due to field size (as they may because of different pace scenarios, post positions, running wide, etc. as other horses are added to the field). In a match race, Horse A is a 1:3 (75% v. 25%) favorite against any horse in the field.

Against the whole field, Horse A is the LEAST LIKELY winner. A horse who is a huge favorite against any horse in the field is the least likely winner against them all. Why? Because if any of the field pops their occasional 110, he loses. The chances that none will run a 110 is 0.75 ^ 9 = 7.5%. The rest of the field averages about a 10.3% chances to win."

Where I have difficulty in understanding the pure mathematical essence of probability application in outcome determination involving horse racing is embodied in Sklansky's statement. By Sklansky's own parameters hoarse A is not the fastest horse in any match race. The fastest horse, with the important caveat it must also be fit, wins horse races. Since horse A is not the fastest horse it will only win when the other horse is of form and therefore should never be favored unless the fastest horse is off form.

This is where I have the most trouble understanding probability application. I cannot grasp how anyone can arbitrarily assign a probability that a horse will not perform its best or close to its best.

As several have pointed out in prior posts horses are not machines. Most any horse racing literature warns the novice player that horses are not consistent in their performances. For example, Ragozin in his book "The Odds Must Be Crazy" states consistent horses like Horse A do not win and they are usually beaten by faster erratic horses.

So how can Sklansky attempt to make such an assumption in order to apply his probability formula? This is what I do not understand. Actually, my perception of Sklansky's example is his theory supports my belief that the slowest horses will lose at a higher rate than quoted on the odds board and that the fastest horse will win a higher percentage than quoted on the tote. However, I am not writing this post to legitimize my conjecture. I am truly interested in this discussion as it is forcing me to think about my wagering philosophy and I hope it is doing the same for others.

Based on my perception, I do not see how pure mathematical probabilities apply to outcome determination in horse racing.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Rick

05-09-2002, 04:06 PM

SMTW,

I understand what you're saying. Beaten lengths doesn't always tell the whole story. For example, if your method selects a lot of early speed horses they may tend to either win or run out (all or nothing). It took me a long time to come up with a method that not only selects winners but also place horses if the top choice doesn't win. My previous methods were all of the previously mentioned all-or-nothing type and couldn't be bet in exactas as a result.

I'm not knocking that way of picking winners. I still have some spot plays of that type and they have a higher ROI than my general selection method. But now, I really like to have more plays at one or two tracks because of the time and money involved in playing many tracks from home. If I were in Nevada, I might play more spot plays at many tracks.

Another risk I've encountered is what I call "disqualification (DQ) risk". This involves a horse that is weakening in the stretch and finishes first but has a higher probability of being DQ'd because of veering out and bumping another horse.

As I said before, from a statistical point of view, actual odds do add a significant amount of information about probability to your own ratings, no matter how good you are. I don't believe all large bets are "smart money", but it is generally true that the $200 bettors tend to be more well-informed than the $2 bettors. Otherwise, most of them will eventually become $2 bettors!

That being said, you can argue that we can never know what the true probabilities are so you may very well have an overlay when all the evidence points to the contrary. I have a spot play involving claimed horses that has won for 20 years that selects horses in a wide range of odds. I have no idea what the true odds on the horses should be, but the idea has always resulted in overlays. I never worry about what the post-time odds are.

I think Sklansky is saying that the more consistent horse, with a smaller standard deviation or range of performances, is at a disadvantage compared with the inconsistent (do or die) type horse.

tanda

05-09-2002, 04:08 PM

First, the general theory is not a conjecture. It can be proven to be true in poker, for example. Whether it applies to horse racing is conjecture.

Second, it seems that the definition of "fastest" is causing problems. Show Me The Wire says the consistent 100 horse is not the fastest. Presumably, he believes that one of the others (who runs 3 90s for each 110) is the fastest. If so, then the faster will lose three out of four to the slower. But, it is legitmate to value ability at its peak.

Who was a better pitcher: Sandy Koufax or Don Sutton? Koufax clearly reached a peak of performance (real and sustained, not a fluke) higher than Sutton. Sutton may have had more cumulative value over his career. Do we measure ability at its peak or over its career? It is a matter of opinion. If you graph ability, is it the total sum under the curve or the peak height of the curve?

Thus, we have those who choose pacelines from last race (recent ability), all pacelines (average ability), best paceline (peak ability), best of last three pacelines (hybrid of peak and recent ability), etc. None are always right and none are always wrong.

As to Show Me The Wire's question, the characterization of a horse as the fastest is not really relevant primarily because there is no consistent or widely accepted definition of that term.

Ragozin may state that consistent horses do not win. That statement has not been proven to be true by Ragozin and I seriously doubt it is true. I believe that if we agreed on a definition of "consistent" and "erratic", then a study would show both types winning races.

With that quote and others, Show Me The Wire seems to argue that horses do vary in their performance. Yet, and maybe I am reading his posts wrong, he seems to argue elsewhere that performances do not vary.

Ragozin is probably on the right track though. The higher the amount of "erratic" horses in a field, the more likely that a "consistent" type will lose. Thus, the quote supports the application of Sklansky's theory to horse racing.

As to the conjecture that the fastest horse will win more than the toteboard reflects, this is only true if the public unberbets the fastest horse. Thus, it it not necessarily true or untrue in general. For example, it cannot be true in a race where 100% of the money is bet on the fastest horse. Before we attempt to validate the conjecture, we need to agree on a definition of "fastest". For example, if last race Beyer is used as the definition of fastest, then the conjecture may be true since last race Beyers do slightly outperform the crowd.

Rick

05-09-2002, 04:32 PM

tanda,

All horses have a distribution of ability that is partly consistent (average ability) and partly variable (form cycle). I won't even get into the problem of injuries and age affecting performance. I don't think we can ever get an accurate picture of what the real distribution is because we have such a small sample. But we keep trying. It really is a great thinking man's game!

Show Me the Wire

05-09-2002, 05:10 PM

Tanda:

I guess I am not being eloquent enough and I am causing confusion. I am not arguing both sides. First, I was referring to Sklansky's statement it applies to horse wagering. I accept it as theory for poker and other such like positive expectancy games of chance.

Second, I always state the fastest and fittest horse will win. My definition of the fastest horse is the horse that has the physical ability to run the distance of the race in the best time i.e. 108 4/5 versus 108 for 6 furlongs. It really is a no brainier for me to subjectively understand which horse is faster. If someone is really unsure which horse is the fastest sheet type speed figures help clarify the situation. My definition of fittest refers to the actual physical condition of the horse at race time. Applying these definitions to Horse A, referred to by Sklansky, means that Horse A is not the fastest since he is not physically capable of running faster than the any other horse's peak performances, however fit he may be at any given time.

In horse racing from a wagering point I think and I may be wrong here that you have to look at peak performance and the horses ability to reach the peak today.

I think a big part of our differences are based on our respective perceptions. I believe you perceive horse racing as almost purely a game of chance (note I said almost), while I perceive horse racing as a commodities market. I believe you perceive horse racing as a game of chance because you constantly allude to card games and other such games of chance. I believe the race is won by the most valuable commodity in the race and is not based in chance. Of course the most valuable commodity may lose because of random chaos.

As always good racing,
Show Me the Wire

Dave Schwartz

05-09-2002, 08:49 PM

SMTW,

Although I don't wish to get embroiled here, I think I understand what Tanda is saying.

Let's take you... you have an approach that gets some percentage of winners and/or allows you to expect a certain return on investment. You know that some number of horses will win, but the truth is you don't know which ones. You just know (or at least think you know) that over time some of them will win. After that it becomes a crap shoot.

Just my opinion.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Show Me the Wire

05-09-2002, 09:23 PM

Dave:

Okay, I think I am going crazy. Maybe my assumption is wrong, but I think your above post is the answer to my question posted in the thread you started about the best and worst handicapping books.

If it is I do not understand the implication I am embroiling you in some sort of conflict. I may be a little slow on the uptake and maybe I misunderstood your original post in which you wrote to Tanda "Your post might be the most valuable concept presented on this bbs. Thanks!"

As I stated I did not know what concept you were attaching import to, as Tanda's post contained two distinct separate concepts. It was a simple question Dave!!!

And what is this embroiling stuff? When I read such a statement I feel like I am being referred to as a troublemaker just because I question someone's ideas and theories. I do not believe any of my posts contained personal attacks towards anyone and I hoped my posts spurred on the thought process. I contributed to this board because I felt the posters here appreciate different points of view and I will continue to post as long as PA allows me.

However, I do not appreciate being told I am embroiling someone when I ask for a clarification of what was meant.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Arkle

05-09-2002, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
SMTW,

Although I don't wish to get embroiled here, I think I understand what Tanda is saying.

Let's take you... you have an approach that gets some percentage of winners and/or allows you to expect a certain return on investment. You know that some number of horses will win, but the truth is you don't know which ones. You just know (or at least think you know) that over time some of them will win. After that it becomes a crap shoot.

Just my opinion.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Clearly you did wish to get embroiled here, Dave, and having done so, you attempted to trivialize the argument of SMTW, adding nothing to the debate.
I really don't think that, given his abilities, Tanda needs backup sniping by lightweights.

Arkle

PaceAdvantage

05-09-2002, 10:27 PM

How bout we all take a deep breath and relax a bit...I'd hate to see this thread take a turn for the worse, because it is a damn fine thread....

Keep hashing things out people...that's how greatness is made...

And Arkle, I don't get where you are coming from....

If this thread goes the way Arkle wants it to go, it's getting closed...I hope that doesn't have to happen...

Up until Arkle's post, I thought everything was going smoothly here....intelligent people having a civil, intelligent debate....let's keep it going....

==PA

Arkle

05-09-2002, 10:35 PM

Up until Arkle's post, I thought everything was going smoothly here....intelligent people having a civil, intelligent debate....let's keep it going....

==PA [/B][/QUOTE]
"You just know (or at least think you know) that over time some of them will win. After that it becomes a crap shoot. "

Do yo feel that this is a "civil, intelligent" summation of his position?

Can you say how Dave's post adds to the debate?

Arkle

GameTheory

05-09-2002, 10:45 PM

Dave's post didn't seem to be anything other than a straightforward statement, and furthermore wasn't intended to represent SMTW's position, but Tanda's.

He just said that you will know approximately what amount of winners you will get, but not which ones specifically. (That's the crap shoot part.)

Let's say you know that you generally are going to win 30 of out every 100 bets you make. How well do you think you (by you I mean anybody) could do betting on which of your bets will win? If you can do that better than random (crap shoot), you just found a way to avoid some losing bets...

Arkle

05-09-2002, 11:30 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GameTheory
In part...
and furthermore wasn't intended to represent SMTW's position, but Tanda's

Yes. I think that's what I was saying, wasn't it?

In any case, you present an undeservedly good explanation of what I consider to be Dave's pretty cheesy post.

Arkle

tanda

05-09-2002, 11:53 PM

SMTW,

I do not believe that horse race handicapping is a game of chance, if by game of chance you mean a pure game of chance. Certainly it has an aspect of chance involved as all activities do for the most part. I do believe that the horses' intrinsic abilties are the most important determinant of a race winner.

We have covered many different points. Returning to the initial point, I was contending that a handicapper can attempt to assign probabilities to the chances that each horse has of winning a race. You seemed to argue otherwise. Even assuming that we could determine with certainty what a horse's peak ability was, there are many uncertainties. Will it run to it's peak? Will the others run to their peaks? Can it win without running at its peak?Will a freak incident override thew horse's intrinsic abilities? Etc. Then, you have the well-supported possibility that the fundamental abilities of the horses' can be overriden by incidental factors (post position, track bias, pace scenario, etc.). There are probablities that each of these things and many more will happen. Whether a particular handicapper can accurately determine those probabilites is another question.

Aussieplayer

05-09-2002, 11:59 PM

Let's not be afraid of strong debate guys. We can all learn. Going by the amount of views, a lot of us are interested!!!

One of the best ways I've learned things is, after debating for MY point of view, I then try and debate AGAINST myself. Then, the way I feel about the issue is usually (a) a lot more balanced, and (b) a lot deeper in understanding through the process.

The thread has raised a few discussion points, each a valid thread on its own. For what it's worth, my opinions:

Good bets can be winners & losers as can bad bets: I agree with this. I understand where Karl & others are coming from in that a winner is a good bet & a loser is a bad bet, however, & because I think I see their point of view I can agree with them. What I mean when I personally say good bets vs bad bets is in the context of me looking for good betting propositions at the track. I must admit (prob. much to Karl's disgust:) ) that I do tend to be carefree about the win/loss result of particular bets (except when I get beaten in a photo on a 20/1 horse, lol). I am concerned with reviewing a days performance and saying, "every bet I made today was a good betting proposition. I'm happy with my contender finding methods. I'm happy with the order of contenders, and I'm happy with my odds line. I'm happy that I didn't make any silly or unplanned bets. I'm happy that I only bet when I was "proposed" odds that I thought justified the risk in that race."

Toteboard: Certainly does have info. that I don't. I personally however use the toteboard merely as the market which is proposing me various odds on the various horses I am interested in. I respect the toteboard greatly however, as I fully understand (as my HK puter team member friend showed me), that when I have a horse at 5/1 and it is on the tote at 15/1, the "true" odds are prob. around 10/1 (or less if my capping ain't brilliant).

Randomness: I'm with Dave & Tanda here - always have been. Learn to count at bj if you disagree, and then agree or disagree. If I'm fairly comfortable about my win% and roi within a reasonable range, I do not see any way for me to know exactly which horses are going to hit and which are not. Only that some will, some won't, so what - hence the carefree attitude at the track.

Cheers & let's keep this going.
AP

Arkle

05-10-2002, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by Aussieplayer
I am concerned with reviewing a days performance and saying, "every bet I made today was a good betting proposition. I'm happy with my contender finding methods. I'm happy with the order of contenders, and I'm happy with my odds line. I'm happy that I didn't make any silly or unplanned bets. I'm happy that I only bet when I was "proposed" odds that I thought justified the risk in that race."

AP

This will do a lot for your ROI.

And mine.

Arkle

Dave Schwartz

05-10-2002, 12:46 AM

SMTW,

I am sorry if my post made it seem that YOU were embroiling anything. I did not mean it that way. I meant it just as I wrote it... that I did not wish to become embroiled.

My post was simply what it was... a statement that said I thought I understood what Tanda was saying about probabilities being part of it. I do see it tied to the other thread. Did I misunderstand that?

I have the utmost respect for both of your opinions, else I would not have bothered to comment at all.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PaceAdvantage

05-10-2002, 01:24 AM

Arkle,

Sigh.....

If you've got a beef with Dave, setttle it by e-mail....

I for one think you're being way too critical here....

And now, back to the topic at hand.....

==PA

Rick

05-10-2002, 10:11 AM

It seems to me that their is an argument over what the definition of probability really is. To me it is not necessarily a definite number, it's only a measure of the degree you understand the process. When you use terms like "random" and "chaos" you're referring to the kinds of things that it may not be possible to anticipate.

If you apply probability to dice, for instance, you can calculate the probabilities pretty accurately by assuming that all sides of the die are equally probable. That may not be true if the die is not well made or loaded however. Also, when you throw the die, the probability of a particular side showing depends on how the die hits the surface. That's why, in a craps game, you're required to hit the far wall in order for it to be a valid roll. It makes the way the dice are thrown largely irrelevant by introducing "chaos" or "randomness" into the process. Now, if the shooter is rolling loaded dice, what is the probability? It's different from the point of view of the shooter than it is for his unsuspecting opponents.

In horse racing or sports betting, a considerable amount of skill is involved in selecting winners. If we had no past performances, we would rightly assign equal probabilities to all of the horses or teams. But, assuming that we do have past performances, then different people will have different estimates of the probability of winning of the various competitors. The ultimately best probability estimate would be some weighted combination of everyone's opinion. Even the public opinion, which is a dollar-weighted estimate of the probability, is a pretty good estimate of the most likely winner.

Of course, betting the favorite is not usually the way to win money. Value is more likely found in lower ranked choices. It's not necessary to have the most accurate probability estimate in order to win money. It's only necessary to find one horse whose chances are underestimated by the public. That involves a considerable amount of knowledge about how the public makes errors. So, I think the real skill in horse racing involves selecting the horse that is the best overlay (if there is any) based on your own knowledge.

It's possible that someone out there may be able to subjectively visualize a race in advance well enough in order to predict winners significantly better than the public. But everyone I've ever known who used that approach lost money. That's why I prefer the mathematical/statistical approach. If any of you out there fall into the "handicapping savant" category, I'd really like to watch what you do for a while and try to analyze it.

Rick

05-10-2002, 10:31 AM

Some representative statistics for those who like to try to select a high percentage of winners:

Favorites overall: 33.6% wins, 20% loss.

Favorites, also Morning Line Favorite: 36.0% wins, 22% loss.

Favorites, not Morning Line Favorite: 29.1% wins, 16% loss.

So, its actually easy to select high-percentage winning favorites, but you probably will be hurting yourself by trying to do so.

Jeff P

05-10-2002, 11:36 AM

Of course, betting the favorite is not usually the way to win money. Value is more likely found in lower ranked choices. It's not necessary to have the most accurate probability estimate in order to win money. It's only necessary to find one horse whose chances are underestimated by the public. That involves a considerable amount of knowledge about how the public makes errors. So, I think the real skill in horse racing involves selecting the horse that is the best overlay (if there is any) based on your own knowledge.

Guys,

I have enjoyed this thread immensely.

Rick-

I think that you may have captured the essense of the game for most horseplayers with your above statement. We all play the game to try and win money. I think we can, at least, all agree on that. All you have to do in order to win money is have the ability to consistently identify a horse, or horses, that are underbet by the public in relation to its true chance to win, and then bet only these horses.

From where I sit, overlaid horses, as a group, win races at a far lower percentage than do underlaid horses.

Being able to identify a high percentage of winners is a skill wholly separate from the ability to win money. I too would like to meet a handicapping savant, if such a person is out there. What I wouldn't give to be able to hit a high percentage of overlaid horses.

anotherdave

05-10-2002, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Rick
Some representative statistics for those who like to try to select a high percentage of winners:

That has taken me a long time to learn. My win percentage is around the 25-30% mark usually. But the last 20 bets I have made I have won 2. The kicker is I still made a nice profit. It can be stressful, but I think that I am developing the temperment to deal with losing streaks (and winning streaks also!). 10 or 15 years ago when I was more of a chalk player I would sometimes hit 4 or 5 out of 9 on a day and somehow manage to lose money. I developed different "high percentage" methods and always seemed to lose. There are some around that work, undoubtedly, but I haven't found them. Now I make flat bets on horses that I think are overlays. And when one of them hits at 10-1 or more, that is a feeling that I almost never experienced when I was more of a chalk player.

AD

Rick

05-10-2002, 01:28 PM

AD,

I think that many years ago their were a lot more successful high win percentage methods. Back when favorites lost only maybe 10%, someone with superior methods could have the best of both worlds. One successful pro I knew in the early 80's had some spot plays that hit about 35% winners and 30% profit with about 3 plays a day at all east coast tracks. As a reward for myself and another friend helping him research some other methods, he "threw us a bone" by giving away one of his "longshot" methods, which had about 18% winners and 15% profit. I refined that method further and still use it today. He'd bet $200 on the high percentage methods but only $20 on the longshot methods so they weren't a big money earner for him. These days, most experienced players would be more than glad to have a collection of those "longshot" methods and could make a good living playing them. But, of course he'd have to have a much larger bankroll than my friend had (40 bets, or $8000).

tanda

05-10-2002, 02:35 PM

From where I sit, overlaid horses, as a group, win races at a far lower percentage than do underlaid horses.

Is this true? What is the basis for the statement?

Some people believe that both favorites and long-shots are over bet (win less than the take + breakage). If so, there would be high win percentage (favorites) underlays and low win percentage underlays (long-shots).

If you mean that fewer overlays win in terms of gross number of winners (as opposed to adjusted for number who go off as overlays, i.e. impact value) then you are right, but that is beacuse the vast majority of horses are underlays. In fact, there are probably races in which every horse is an underlay.

My contender selection methodology identifies non-contenders who go off as long-shots and return 40 cents on the dollar. These are low percentage underlays.

There is one bias in favor of fewer overlays among low odds (and high win percentage) horses: breakage affects those horses much more.

Other than the effects of breakage, I suspect that overlays are evenly distributed along the win percentage (and odds) spectrum.

Rick

05-10-2002, 05:49 PM

tanda,

I have to disagree. I think that most overlays occur in the medium odds range. Most longshots have always been overbet (but there are exceptions) but most favorites today are either underlays or neutral kind of bets (losing at about the same % as horses overall). That leaves the medium odds horses, I think maybe mostly in the 3-1 to 10-1 odds range as being the best place to look for overlays.

I think this phenomenom is a result of both people being better informed these days than in the past (more information available at a reasonable price) and regression to the mean (horses running in the future closer to the average performance than they have in the recent past).

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Hey, I just want to say that this discussion is a good example of what we should be doing - learning from each other. I don't care if anyone disagrees with me; I might learn something if I'm wrong. Keep it going guys!

Foolish Pleasure

05-10-2002, 06:32 PM

So, I think the real skill in horse racing involves selecting the horse that is the best overlay (if there is any) based on your own knowledge.

I agree feel free to lock the thread:D

FWIW I couldn't help but notice you bet on War Emblem than actually questioned where was I?

If you'd like, I'll gladly direct you to a board clearly illustrating my thoughts and opinions, which of course was to bet War Emblem.

http://server1.majorwager.com/fusetalk/messageview.cfm?catid=9&threadid=20222 pretty sure Peep or Carl or whatever he posts under here will gladly vouch for it's authenticity.

Topcat

05-10-2002, 06:32 PM

< Some of my best hits have been walking up to the self bet machine and finding a big balance left over with no one within 100 feet of the machine...what's a guy to do?

CJ>

__________________

And on an ealier post Karlkorner mentioned how he and his wife foudn some money-

I have had the same thing happen and found a $200 on the machine and over the objections of my buddy who said just keep it. I cleared it took the voucher and and went to the to the information window and asked if anyone had reported any trouble and lost money-they said someone did and gave me the machine number (BTW if this happens to you they can track the vouchers to the next machine ) The number of the machine was the same I had stumbled upon-. they pointed the man out to me and I went tover to him, he was quite upset-an older man who looked about to cry. i asked if he had los t some money/voucher and asked if he could tell me the exact amount. He did and I gave him his voucher-he gave me a $20 and i promptly bet it on a an exacta which came in and paid-now get this: $220.

It would be an even better story if the horse was named honestyisthebestpolicy but that wasn't the case.

IMHO, I wasn't doing anything extrodianary. My father found a wallet years ago with $510 in it and left his name and number (without identifying the amount) and someone called, identified the wallet and exact amount and gratefully took the amount.

Forgive the obvious folks but if you find money at the track it is someone else's and keeping it without any effort to find the owner is questionable in my mind.

TC

Topcat

05-10-2002, 07:02 PM

On the actual topic thread I'd like to toss my 2 cents worth in.

The classic approach of make your own line and bet against that line is over rated , in my opinion,-actual execution of this has always been difficult and with odds shifting after the bell from money coming in from inter-track betting it is made it even more difficult.

The classic definition of overlays would say that if you make a horse 2/1 and it going off at 3/1 it is an overlay-it is one minute to post-you bet it, it is a good bet, the race goes off-after the bell the odds click to 2/1-the horse wins-it is a bad bet. Ranchwest and Karlskorner would say it is a good bet.

Barry Meadow is one of the bigger exponents making a line and betting against it. To his credit in one of his newsletters he wrote an exposition of his betting over the course of one week. He covered his actual bets over the course of s week. He did bet about 3 bets a day on one circuit and did manage to eke out a small profit subsidized by rebates but if wasn't clear this was any better than flat betting his selections. The overwhelming majority of his wagers (over half) were heavy heavy favorites. The defining difference to me was that Barry Meadow was betting fairly large sums. He can do this based on his record keeping and history of making this work for him. His ROI is positive and believable but not significantly different than some of us "amateurs"

If Ranchwest and Karlskorner are turning a profit at the end of a year they are betting on overlays. I believe the key is record keeping and not necessarily line making. The approach may be different but it can work to dismiss it is either a semantic difference or being a little too dogmatic. IMHO There are different ways to get to a profit in this game.

Record keeping gentleman-that's the key.

TC

anotherdave

05-10-2002, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Topcat
The overwhelming majority of his wagers (over half) were heavy heavy favorites.
Record keeping gentleman-that's the key.

TC

I make an odds line as a guide, but most of my overlay bets are obvious. They are not 2-1 shots going off at 5-2. They are 7-2 shots going off at 7-1, or 2-1 shots going off at 4-1. I usually know they will be an overlay before I even see the odds. I am very surprised that Barry Meadow's wagers were mostly on heavy heavy favourites. I rarely bet on a horse below 2-1. Most are in the 3-1 to 8-1 range. I guess there are overlays at 1-1, but I pass the race. And below that, well what's the old saying -"no horse alive is worth 4-5"

And also complete agreement with you-record keeping is vital.

AD

karlskorner

05-10-2002, 09:39 PM

Tomcat;

With regard to your 2 posts. (1) That particular day at GP there was probably 20,000 in attendance, I am quite sure if I had asked enough people if they lost $100.00, I would find someone who would say they did. But thanks for the morality lesson, the next time I find money I will leave it and let someother person suffer the pangs of guilt.
(2) Your example of a 3/1 horse dropping to 2/1 as being an underlay, therefore not betable is not in my scheme of things. If the horse won, I had a winning bet, if it lost I had a losing bet. I have been doing this since 1985 and supporting myself and family during all those years. UNDERLAY, OVERLAY, MANDALAY means nothing to me. I leave home with the intent to make win wagers on 9-10 races a day. Today at CRC there were 9 races, I won 6, they paid, $6.40, 3.20, 8.00, 12.60, 6.20, 3.80, which means I left home with $360.00 to make 9 $40.00 wagers, I came home with $762.00 or a profit of $402.00. I do this day in and day out. As I read some of these posts, my head spins, probabilities or the tossing of a coin having nothing to do with horseracing. I agree that keeping of records is a must, my 'daily" sheet has satisfied the IRS twice in the past

Karl

ranchwest

05-11-2002, 01:00 AM

I agree about record keeping. There can never be too much, except that it takes a lot of time.

I start the day with potential spot plays. Some are high percentage plays, some are high return plays. I can tell you the number of qualifiers, win percentage, ROI, longshot percentage, etc. on every spot play I track, every day. I only consider the ones that do well. I also track the spot plays by surface and distance. I'm never afraid to explore potential improvements.

Topcat

05-11-2002, 02:08 AM

Karl,

On point number two: Where you say" Your example of a 3/1 horse dropping to 2/1 as being an underlay, therefore not betable is not in my scheme of things." I know that Kal,if you go back and re-read my post you will see i was supporting your potions while identifying the opposite "classic" line making approach. You would say this is a bet and if it wins a good bet.

On point number one: Facts are stubborn things and the fact is if you find money it's not yours- Call it want you like. I realize that most people would do what you did and yours is the common answer-just keep it-after all you didn't steal it. But you don't have to check with 20,000 people just one pesron will do - all one has to do is to leave word at the info desk if anyone is inquiring and then if someone is responding make them identify where they lost it and how much. Of course, you already know this.

Sorry if this bugs you but it was on my mind as I had just talked to the manager at Los Alamitos Race track and she said everday people lose money and inquire-she said years and years ago the majority of people who found it would have left a number or name in case someone checks in looking for it-leaving the amount unstated- but not anyomore. She said no woder people don't want to come to the track- I felt like keeping the money too-but then that would have been ,to use your words, bad Karma!

Anyway i wish you good luck and good handicapping,

GameTheory

05-11-2002, 04:17 AM

Karl,

Regarding record-keeping -- I'm wondering have you ever charted how you do at certain odds ranges?

Obviously, if you hit 6 out of 9 everyday, you're going to make plenty of profit, but have you ever gone through your records to find out if the horses you bet that go off at say less than 2-1 have made a profit for you? Do you take the odds in consideration at all in terms of bet/no bet, or are all the decisions made before you get to the track?

Rick

05-11-2002, 06:23 AM

The reason some people don't like betting on "overlays" is that the term has been so misusued over the years. A surprising number of people, uncluding some TV commentators who should know better, say that a horse is an overlay when it's toteboard odds are higher than it's morning line odds. That would be a true overlay only if you think the morning line reflects some information not included in the toteboard odds, and that is hardly ever true. You can make a better case for looking for overlays the opposite way. If you're winning money, you're betting true overlays. If you're losing, you may be betting a lot of apparent overlays according to comparing your line with the toteboard, but you're not betting true overlays.

Jeff P

05-11-2002, 07:27 AM

quote:

From where I sit, overlaid horses, as a group, win races at a far lower percentage than do underlaid horses.

Is this true? What is the basis for the statement?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tanda-

I have been maintaining and feeding a pretty comprehensive racing database for a number of years. The spot play methods that I have been able to identify on my own as being truly long run profitable each seem to share some common traits. Each profitable play type that I use has a win percentage of between 10% and 18% (very low when compared to the hit rates that I hear from other players) and an average win mutuel of between $22.00 and $29.00. It is the high win mutuel that carries me.

I have been tracking the performance of my own methods over the years and feel pretty comfortable about consistently getting results that statistically fall within these ranges.

Every time that I look at methods with a higher win percentage I never fail to run into the following wall: The average win mutuel is always too low to get a profit in the long run. This never stops me from looking for a useable method with a high win percentage and writing new database queries to find such a method. If one exists at all you'd think I would have stumbled across it by now. But I haven't- and I've written thousands of different queries over the years in search of such a method.

This, of course, has lead me to the following conclusion:

It is easier to make money betting long odds horses over the course of a season than it is betting horses with shorter odds.

Rick

05-11-2002, 08:26 AM

Jeff,

I've always found that it's wise to be skeptical about high win % methods. It really pays to do more follow-up testing on them because they so frequently fail to repeat their intially promising results. I think that's because they have so much farther to fall if they lose significance. Most methods will regress toward the average win % of all horses (11-12%) on retesting, but those in the lower percentage ranges aren't affected as much. An interesting side effect of this is that there may be many very low percentage methods that are actually helped by losing significance. Say you find a valid 6% method and for some period of time it is more affected by random factors such as weather. The win percentage may actually improve and make it more profitable for a while due to racing conditions being more unpredictable. Of course finding a valid 6% method requires a lot of effort and may not be worthwhile using due to bankroll requirements. But a method that normally hits at a 30% rate but wins at only 20% for a while will really kill your bankroll too. The highest ROI spot play I know of wins at about an 18% rate so my experience roughly corresponds to yours. I don't have much experience playing anything below about 15% because I normally wouldn't play those on a regular basis, just maybe if I'm trying to find something in every race for a small "action" bet.

karlskorner

05-11-2002, 08:33 AM

PA

With the "tinkering" last night it appears you lost 1/2 dozen or more comments on this post.

Karl

PaceAdvantage

05-11-2002, 06:46 PM

Are you sure? What happened last night was that the search index table crashed and had to be rebuilt. No messages should have been lost. In fact, even though a user may have gotten an error when posting notes, every note submitted WAS posted. I witnessed this myself while I was "tinkering".....(actually, I wasn't tinkering, I was fixing a broken board...a public THANK YOU to Dick Schmidt for e-mailing me and alerting me as to what was going on last night....if he didn't, things may have gotten worse over time....)

If you know first hand that notes were lost, I will take your word for it. But, I was under the impression, after fixing the table and reindexing, that all notes that were posted remained intact.....

Anyone else feel that there are notes missing from the board??

==PA