"Chucking the Chalk"

[kitts]

Just got my DVD (also available in VHS) with the above title from Cynthia Publishing and found it worthy of comment. I like being able to have somebody else do a ton of research for little money.

Whenever I can dismiss a favorite, I know that my other contenders are now overlays. Especially when I can dismiss an odds-on favorite. Their research covered every race at five major circuits, over 12,000 races. Their research was based on odds-on favorites that were off the board. Granted, there are not many of such races, but just give me two or three and this research pays for itself.

The research discovered 6 conditions under which the odds-on favoite is more likely to lose. They fine tuned this further for 2YO, MDN, MCL, Non-Graded Stakes, Statebreds and NW1/NW2 Allowances and even an interesting trainer angle

A lot of information is uncovered in thei 55 minute presentation and I recommend it. Check it out at: http://www.cynthiapublishing.com

[joeyspicks]

Man I could not agree MORE ! Finding false favorites is a primary skill that leads to profits.:jump:

[Nickle]

I ony chuck chalks with bad jocks on them

[46zilzal]

I know people who bet against the favorite so often, they miss many 5/2 horses that are very solid. Wake up!, there are a lot of good handicappers out there many using good services (Sheets, Throograph etc.) diluting the prices at the bigger meets......Look at LITTLE, out of the way venues where the money is still the same color but the sophsitication of the bettors is not nearly as acute.

[KingChas]

46zilzal; I know people who bet against the favorite so often, they miss many 5/2 horses that are very solid.

If I feel the chalk is solid. I will take a serious look at the Exactas.If I can catch a $16+ ex. with my underpicks I will not hesitate to play a large ex. bet.

[RXB]

Upon just how many horses can they be basing their findings?

12,000 races might sound impressive, but the vast majority of favourites are not odds-on, and of those that are odds-on, the vast majority run in the top three.

So, when they further say that they can divide these (few hundred, I'm guessing) horses into several different groupings, as well as making additional distinctions for several different class categories, the statistical side of my brain raises a red flag.

[RonTiller]

I don't know anything about the content of the Video in Question. However, there are a lot of odds on favorites, about 1 out of 6 favorites. A charitable interpretation might be 12,000 odds on favorites. Maybe Kitts could clarify this.

Year Count Win Count Place Count Show Count

2002 10899 5450 7634 8863
2003 11945 5970 8434 9700
2004 11949 5819 8381 9744
2005 5430 2650 3745 4363

[ceejay]

Kitts,

Just curious, is there a professional relationship between you and Cynthia Publishing/Dick Mitchell?

[twindouble]

Just got my DVD (also available in VHS) with the above title from Cynthia Publishing and found it worthy of comment. I like being able to have somebody else do a ton of research for little money.

Whenever I can dismiss a favorite, I know that my other contenders are now overlays. Especially when I can dismiss an odds-on favorite. Their research covered every race at five major circuits, over 12,000 races. Their research was based on odds-on favorites that were off the board. Granted, there are not many of such races, but just give me two or three and this research pays for itself.

The research discovered 6 conditions under which the odds-on favoite is more likely to lose. They fine tuned this further for 2YO, MDN, MCL, Non-Graded Stakes, Statebreds and NW1/NW2 Allowances and even an interesting trainer angle

A lot of information is uncovered in thei 55 minute presentation and I recommend it. Check it out at: http://www.cynthiapublishing.com

Hi Kitts; Beating the chalk is as old as the advent of bookmaking as you know. The thing is, now with modern day parimutual wagering and all the gimmicks, (many pools,) to take advantage off, the chalk can be a key factor in making money as others have stated. What I'm saying is, if the horse figures to be there, don't toss him, just weigh the potential to make money. On the other hand if he's dead in your mind, toss the sucker!

[kitts]

The statistical side of this research is not my area of expertese. The website will give you access to the researchers and they can probably help you.

There is no professional relationship between Cynthia Publishing and me. I have a friend or two there but that's it. If you would like to do a search of my posts, they are not all Cynthia Publishing related. I just do well with their stuff and share an opinion now and then

[Hosshead]

Year Count Win Count Place Count Show Count

2002 10899 5450 7634 8863
2003 11945 5970 8434 9700
2004 11949 5819 8381 9744
2005 5430 2650 3745 4363

They sure are consistent (even though a minus roi) at 49%-50% Wins/70%Place
Amazing that in 2003/2004, there were only 4 starts difference after almost 12,000 races. Of course we wouldn't really know which ones were odds-on at the time, as a large % were probably not odds-on until after the race went off.

[RonTiller]

They're even more consistent than you think. Going back to 1991:

"Year" "Total" "W%" "P%" "S%"
1991 10,549 0.48 0.69 0.81
1992 10,312 0.50 0.70 0.81
1993 10,703 0.49 0.70 0.82
1994 11,634 0.49 0.70 0.82
1995 12,461 0.49 0.69 0.81
1996 10,766 0.48 0.68 0.80
1997 11,145 0.48 0.69 0.81
1998 11,415 0.48 0.70 0.81
1999 10,482 0.48 0.69 0.80
2000 11,484 0.49 0.69 0.80
2001 11,408 0.49 0.70 0.81
2002 10,899 0.50 0.70 0.81
2003 11,945 0.49 0.70 0.81
2004 11,949 0.48 0.70 0.81
2005 5,457 0.48 0.68 0.80

I see no evidence that the number of odds on favorites is increasing, nor do I see evidence that they are winning more (smart big money doesn't seem to be getting any smarter). Moreover, hyper odds on horses (odds less than .5) have the same stability:

"Year" "Total" "W%" "P%" "S%"
1991 1692 0.60 0.78 0.86
1992 1633 0.60 0.78 0.87
1993 1767 0.60 0.80 0.88
1994 2031 0.61 0.81 0.89
1995 2233 0.62 0.80 0.88
1996 1715 0.62 0.79 0.87
1997 1919 0.60 0.77 0.86
1998 2081 0.61 0.79 0.88
1999 1874 0.58 0.77 0.87
2000 2342 0.58 0.77 0.86
2001 2313 0.59 0.78 0.87
2002 2283 0.61 0.78 0.87
2003 2708 0.58 0.77 0.86
2004 2572 0.58 0.77 0.87
2005 1086 0.59 0.77 0.87

Ron Tiller
HDW

[The Judge]

It seems that the stats are pretty consistant so this dvd must really be something. Thanks Ron for the break down. It doesn't take must handicapping ablitiy to know you are up against it betting against an odds on choice or as you put it a hyper odds horse (I like that) we all know this yet in search for the elusive "overlay" we bet against these horses rather then pass the race. If research shows there is a way to bet against the horse then thats a different story. I'll get the dvd.

[Speed Figure]

They're even more consistent than you think. Going back to 1991:

"Year" "Total" "W%" "P%" "S%"
1991 10,549 0.48 0.69 0.81
1992 10,312 0.50 0.70 0.81
1993 10,703 0.49 0.70 0.82
1994 11,634 0.49 0.70 0.82
1995 12,461 0.49 0.69 0.81
1996 10,766 0.48 0.68 0.80
1997 11,145 0.48 0.69 0.81
1998 11,415 0.48 0.70 0.81
1999 10,482 0.48 0.69 0.80
2000 11,484 0.49 0.69 0.80
2001 11,408 0.49 0.70 0.81
2002 10,899 0.50 0.70 0.81
2003 11,945 0.49 0.70 0.81
2004 11,949 0.48 0.70 0.81
2005 5,457 0.48 0.68 0.80

I see no evidence that the number of odds on favorites is increasing, nor do I see evidence that they are winning more (smart big money doesn't seem to be getting any smarter). Moreover, hyper odds on horses (odds less than .5) have the same stability:

"Year" "Total" "W%" "P%" "S%"
1991 1692 0.60 0.78 0.86
1992 1633 0.60 0.78 0.87
1993 1767 0.60 0.80 0.88
1994 2031 0.61 0.81 0.89
1995 2233 0.62 0.80 0.88
1996 1715 0.62 0.79 0.87
1997 1919 0.60 0.77 0.86
1998 2081 0.61 0.79 0.88
1999 1874 0.58 0.77 0.87
2000 2342 0.58 0.77 0.86
2001 2313 0.59 0.78 0.87
2002 2283 0.61 0.78 0.87
2003 2708 0.58 0.77 0.86
2004 2572 0.58 0.77 0.87
2005 1086 0.59 0.77 0.87

Ron Tiller
HDW

[hurrikane]

the only thing about finding the false fav race is that many many times the 2nd fav wins, at low odds, and is still a money loser.

the hyper odds horse is something entirely different. There are ways to filter these strong races entirely out of your play and save you a lot of losing wagers.

[linrom1]

Well, it seems like the easiest way to make big bucks is for these types to run out of money!

[alysheba88]

I ony chuck chalks with bad jocks on them

Actually many times those are the chalks with the real value. Their odds will be higher than they should because of the jock

[BIG RED]

Well, it seems like the easiest way to make big bucks is for these types to run out of money!

Roger on that or pass. Real simple

[ceejay]

Just got my DVD (also available in VHS) with the above title from Cynthia Publishing and found it worthy of comment. I like being able to have somebody else do a ton of research for little money.

Whenever I can dismiss a favorite, I know that my other contenders are now overlays. Especially when I can dismiss an odds-on favorite. Their research covered every race at five major circuits, over 12,000 races. Their research was based on odds-on favorites that were off the board. Granted, there are not many of such races, but just give me two or three and this research pays for itself.

The research discovered 6 conditions under which the odds-on favoite is more likely to lose. They fine tuned this further for 2YO, MDN, MCL, Non-Graded Stakes, Statebreds and NW1/NW2 Allowances and even an interesting trainer angle

A lot of information is uncovered in thei 55 minute presentation and I recommend it. Check it out at: http://www.cynthiapublishing.com
I feel that this video was just worthless. They provided some alleged angles, but without documentation! Where is the meat, the backup? For example, with angle #whatever, what % of odds on-favorites actually do finish OTM? How many races fit that criteria? Details like this are NOT provided. Their total data base seems pitifully small: Just 682 total races (of 12000+ in the subject year).

The production values in the video were also just awful, but I could handle that if the content were valuable!