Is "value" being overbet?

[so.cal.fan]

Could one reason for the bet downs after the race starts be because phone account people and computer bettors are waiting until the last possible second to place their wagers on "the value?"
Value is as important as speed, pace, race shape, etc.
It just seems it is more "trendy" these days.
More good handicappers are making lines, many accurate lines.
However...........are they over saturating the pools.....mostly late?

[ranchwest]

I think this all teaches us that "value" players are playing the wrong way. They're going with their own line against the actual odds. Maybe, if they're going to look for "value", they should do a better job of anticipating the final odds and look to compare their own race evaluation with their prediction of the public action.

Better yet, just forget about it and spend the time picking winners.

[so.cal.fan]

Ranch West
Equine Performance Analyst-


Yep! I think you're right!;)

[Rick]

so.cal.fan,

I think what you're really talking about is false overlays. I hear people all the time (including famous analyists who should know better) about how a horse is an "overlay" because their toteboard odds are greater than their morning line odds. I think you can pick up about 10% by taking advantage of this simplistic thinking by playing against the obvious.

[steve fierro]

Hey So. Cal,

A couple of responses to your post: 1. Although our perception is more people are using value as a final decision maker I still belive this is a very small percentage. I say this becuase it depends on what circles you run in. We run in the circle that does. Yes there are more now than ever but there truly aren't many. 2. My take on the late money phenom is: (and this eludes to Ricks post) I have found that too many people (as Rick states) are basing there value judgements on the morning line. When late in the game folks see M/L favorites too low they jump in. I personally never want it to end. Why? First off using a betting line I rarely get caught in these drops. The opposite is true. While these low odds runners are dropping, horses I am playing at 5/1 and up are heading upward at the same time. It has been a mini-gold mine.
I will be at Hollywood PArk let's hook up so I can buy lunch. Steve

[ranchwest]

When a horse is 7/5 or 6/5 or whatever on the ML, that horse will frequently go much lower on the board. My comment was meant to suggest that there should not be a big surprise when a logical horse goes from 6/5 to 4/5 at about post time. It happens every day.

[so.cal.fan]

Steve:
We know it is possible to make a good line. You do it, so do many others.
It has only been since Phone Betting and YouBet type bets that we have seen this huge increase in late money coming in.
I was pointing out one possible reason for it.
Look........any time we are getting this much money into the pools, it has to help folks like us. I hope it never ends too.
In fact.......I want a 10% takeout in the win pool!
That way we will get money from all over the WORLD!
Horseracing would be the BEST game in town. Any town!


;)

[tdthomas]

I have seen a lot of late money go on "value" plays. I have seen so much money go on the second and third favorites that the horse that should be the favorite ends up being 3rd choice. I bet those "value" players feel like fools when the "favorite" pays 12 bucks to win.

[BillW]

I see the term "value" used in some interesting contexts here. Just out of curiosity, what is everybody's definition of value?

Bill

[andicap]

Originally posted by tdthomas
I have seen a lot of late money go on "value" plays. I have seen so much money go on the second and third favorites that the horse that should be the favorite ends up being 3rd choice. I bet those "value" players feel like fools when the "favorite" pays 12 bucks to win.

No, because then the favorite becomes a value play!

Also, lots of horses that should be chalk and end up 4-1 are fools gold, horses that are false overlays, look too good to be true. Examples: Richard Dutrow horses with seemingly competitive figures -- he wins 30% of his races so you figure, "Holy Cow"! I can get 3-1 or even 4-1 on Dutrow. But that's not value, that's false value.

I love value. Yeah, I felt like a real fool cashing in on Sarava on Saturday. No one who bet on Sarava in the Belmont throught the horse would win, but we sure as well thought he was better than 70-1. I don't really set much of an odds line, but I knew he had a shot. That's value betting.

I don't know why people have such vitriol against value players? What have we ever done to you? I don't go around insulting decision-oriented players about their style.

I respect Karl for what he does -- no one works harder than him. And the way he plays -- one track -- he has to play that way.
And if works for Ranchwest, great.

But value works for me and lots of others on this board, so why call us "fools?"

[ranchwest]

Oh, I don't think value players are fools. I just view it as somewhat similar to a shotgun approach. If it works, that's OK.

On the other hand, those who are not value players don't have to be fools, either. Different strokes.

I'm not a value player. I look to invest, to cash my ticket. I wait until I find a horse that I think has a clear advantage and I go with it, hitting a high percentage. Because I don't watch the board, I'm not restricted to odds-on horses. A good portion of my winners pay $7 to $10, good money if you have a high enough win percentage.

[karlskorner]

Andicap;

I guess "value" has a different meaning to different people. The post by JimG on selections at CRC that I replied to, 4 of the 6 races I won were in the range of $3.40 to $6.80, all chalk or near chalk, most would not have played them as there was no 'value", those 4 along with 2 $10.00 mutuals gave me a $456 profit for the day, the "value" in those races came about "after" the races were run. JimG pulled out with a $27.40 horse in the 10th, I came out ahead with mostly "chalk" although I was never concerned with the price my selections would pay. As I have said before, I cannot afford to pass a race.

Karl

[steve fierro]

Bill W.

The definition of value: Value is when a handicapper takes his handicapping process to the next step. He first chooses a set of contenders. Then, realizing that a pari-mutuel pool is a financial market, he/she places a financial criterion to these contenders. After all, if they have been deemed contenders by an individual, they must be delegated a certain odds price that you feel comfortable playing them at. The only thing thing that a player playing at this level is doing is basing their final wagering decision becuase of a certain price they are able to "buy" a contender at. It really depends on how wrapped up you are in playing this wonderful game. The beauty of racing is that it can be enjoyed many different ways. Some can do as Ranch West does. Find a key play go with it. If it is profitable long term thats all that is necessary. Some tend to get more involved with betting lines. Hope this helps. Steve Fierro

[ceejay]

I don't think of myself as a value player, but maybe I am. My style is to either find a "live" longshot and play him/her, or to play the horse I feel most likely. Odds enter into my selection process, but they do no good if the horse loses. Does this make me a "value guy?"

[GR1@HTR]

Just started getting into S Fierro's book yesterday. I think this is definitely going to make me a better player. As I have stated before, the Value of a play is the most difficult part of the game for me gauge and evaluate. Do I play the 5-2 that I like a whole lot or do I go with the 8-1 that I perceive as a value play. His answer might suprise most of you. I think this book will help me cross this bridge and improve my bottom line...

[tdthomas]

andicap,
I think you misunderstood my remarks. I was just pointing out how sometimes so much late money goes on "value" plays that they lose their "value" and the horse which may have appeared the best but "without enough value" becomes an overlay. Someone who bets a 4-1 horse over a 2-1 horse simply becacuse 4 is better than 2 may very well feel tricked when the race goes off and the odds are reversed.

I certainly have nothing against people who look for value. Anyone who wins at this game finds value and bets it.

Sarava was a contender and a huge overlay. I was in bed half asleep watching the Belmont on tv. I was not surprised when Sarava won, I was shocked when I saw the odds. I think all three triple crown races show that real value is alive and well.

[Dr.Larry]

Agree with Andicap,
There are known Trainers in NY whose horses
are bet down. As Andicap stated, if one of your
contenders trained by one of these trainers goes
up in price- then statistics show that these horses
do not run. This is my only disagreement with
Steve's otherwise excellent book.

One additional observation that was stated by
Lenny Friedman (of Ragozin) several years ago:
Where there is a horse much faster then everyone
else in the race, and this horse is picked as the
Best Bet by many Public Handicappers, or is the
Racing Form Best Bet- in Bold type- If this horse
is going off at 2-1 or 5-2 you can book the bet and
make money, because whenever the money
overwhelms the handicapping by so much, the money
will usually be correct.

[andicap]

Originally posted by tdthomas
andicap,
I think you misunderstood my remarks. I was just pointing out how sometimes so much late money goes on "value" plays that they lose their "value" and the horse which may have appeared the best but "without enough value" becomes an overlay. Someone who bets a 4-1 horse over a 2-1 horse simply becacuse 4 is better than 2 may very well feel tricked when the race goes off and the odds are reversed.



Yes, you are right. that is the tricky part of playing the odds. the good news is it doesn't often happen with longer priced horses who tend to float up in odds near the end. late action could be :

-- the public feels its getting a good deal on what is really a false overlay. I love to bet against these types.
-- Insider money comes in late. Dangerous of course, but I've heard mixed things about people betting late. They might bet early to make sure they get their bet in, or they might bet late so they don't tip their hand. And of course insider money doesn't always win.
-- A big bettor drops one at the end, it's not necessarily informed money.

[tanda]

I presuppose that, when a person uses the term "value", it means positive or beneficial value.

If so, value in the context of an economic transaction is when a person exchanges less for more.

In the context of handicapping, it is a wager that will show a positive return on investment not necessarily in the short-term but in the long-term.

The only way a handicapper can profit is to find value. If a player is investing money on horses that win 20% of the time but pay 3:1, he cannot win. If he invests in horse that pay 15:1 but only win 5% of the time, he cannot win.

There appears to be value at all ends of the odds spectrum. So, players who invest on low-priced horses can, indeed, be value handicappers.

If Karl wins 40% at 2:1, then he is a value handicapper. He has identified a group of horse who should pay 3:2 and is able to buy them at less than their fair price. That is value.

A profitable "selection oriented" handicapper is actually a value handicapper. Although that person may not take price into account, he has a method that identifies winners who pay more than their fair odds. That is value.

However, many of these people would do better to not play certain horse at low odds. For example, I have a flat bet angle that shows a profit. The angle generates wagers on a wide range of odds including odds-on choices and longshots. Yet, by excluding less than 2:1 horses, the profits increase. A profitable "selection oriented" handicapper may be able to identify a sub-class of wagers on which he is showing a loss or treading water through detailed record-keeping. But if the other sub-classes are profitable enough, the player can show an overall profit.

A player who only wagers on horses above his personal odds parameters and loses is not a value player. His horse have won less then their fair odds. That is not value. At best, he is an attempted value player.

[Rick]

Value is in the eye of the beholder. You can't really prove that you had any value in one race. The best you can do is show that the horse you selected finished better than his odds rank, but there is so much randomness in results that you still may very well have been lucky rather than good. Now, if you're ahead of the game after 1000 races, I'd say you had value, and you should have a pretty good idea as to what your overall probability of winning is. I don't think you can ever come up with a set of variables that describes more than about 40% of the variance of outcomes though, so your odds lines are always going to be pretty inaccurate. There is more luck than skill involved in the outcome of an individual typical race, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying. Blackjack and poker players face the same frustrating circumstances and their stories make interesting reading for the aspiring pro.

[BillW]

Tanda, Rick,

I guess I see things the way you 2 do( also Steve F.). Value == more potential reward than risk (i.e. making money) Also, it is true that most horse players are not value players (they lose money).

As far as variability, yes it is a personal opinion just as evaluating a stock purchase or a real estate purchase. Whether we truely realize value or not depends on our ability to correctly assess the situation (in horse racing, our handicapping skills; in real estate our appraisal skills).

As you stated above, Rick. different people have wildly differing definitions of value, ranging from a horse with a high price (regardless of chances of winning) to a horse that is higher in odds than his morning line. This does include some professional? handicappers (talking heads?). I notice these wildly varing definitions occur in the stock markets also.

That is like saying a house is a good buy simply because its asking price is high regardless of its worth.


I also agree that a perceived value that is overbet is a false value. This is by definition, as any proposition ceases to be a true value if its cost exceeds its worth.

Bill

[rrbauer]

Value, simply stated, is when a horse's probability of winning exceeds the implict probability contained in the odds.

Value bets do not imply winning bets. (Although you had better win some of them!) They do imply "good" bets.

Positive expectation if you will.

Overlay if you will.

Value.

For most players, value betting is more of a concept than it is a practice. It's an informal application at best. Horse is 5-1. Player sees that and says, "That horse should be 3-1, I'm gonna bet it." Intuitively, the player sees value and plays it, but doesn't formalize the process, or express the premium in mathematical terms.

"Odds are too high on the 8 horse, I'm playing it."

"Good price on the 2, that's where I'm going."

Value.

[Rick]

Richard,

Yes, but sometimes players are very formal about the process of calculating probabilities and are just plain wrong. Knowledge of probability and statistics is helpful IF you understand horse racing but it isn't sufficient in itself. There are probably literally thousands of people who thought it would be easy to beat the horses after taking an elementary statistics course covering regression analysis. And that probably explains why so many non-mathematical people have no respect for them whatsoever. They've seen people calculating their fingers off and winding up losing more than they do.


Bill,

The stock market is indeed an interesting analogy. There are those who believe that an individual investor or analyst can't do better than the market as a whole. The proof is always based on averages and is totally fallacious (did I spell that right?). While it's easy to show that most stock market analysts or horse race handicappers don't do better than the average, it doesn't prove that a few can't do much better. The only thing it shows is that it's very difficult. Efficient markets is something that mathematicians can easily adopt as a religion without looking for the exceptions to the rule. Since I worked with some of the most highly educated people in the world at times in the past, I'm just not all that intimidated or impressed by theories. But show me something that works, no matter how you came up with the idea, and I'm really impressed.

[Foolish Pleasure]

I don't think you can ever come up with a set of variables that describes more than about 40% of the variance of outcomes though, so your odds lines are always going to be pretty inaccurate. There is more luck than skill involved in the outcome of an individual typical race, but that doesn't mean.

I'm not quite sure exactly what this means but the biggest fallacy in the world is the beat the races not the race crap. A series of minute difference between what is perceived and what is reality is what makes a winner, it's a perpetual machine no different than any BJ player that wins a fixed amount of every bet, it ultimately is a contest at who can get down the most and still maintain ROI integrity.

[Rick]

FP,

I don't know what you're disagreeing with. A blackjack player with an edge doesn't win a fixed amount every hand, but has maybe a 1-2% advantage on average. You can lose 49% of the time on an individual hand and still be an overwhelming favorite to win after 10,000 hands. I guess you could call that beating the game but not the hand if you want to, but all it really means is that you have to bet a small % of bankroll on each hand in order to avoid ruin and have a high probability of profit. A card counter can use a pretty crude count (inaccurate odds estimate) and still win a lot of money in the long run. Still, the long run can be frustratingly long sometimes in any gambling game even when you have the edge. To expect otherwise is contrary to the real probabilities in a game involving part skill and part luck.

[rrbauer]

Going back to the original posts in this thread, the answer is a resounding "NO".

Value is not being overbet for the simple reason that if it was then it wouldn't be value!

[karlskorner]

IMHO the word "value" (and that's all it is is a word) becomes real "after" you have won the race, not before. If you wagered on a "value" horse and lost, where is the "value" ? Of the 6 races I won at CRC yesterday the payoffs ranged from $3.40 to $30.00, the "value" became real when I collected. Did the 4 races I lost have a "value" horse, NO, because I didn't collect on the wager.

Karl

[JimG]

Originally posted by karlskorner
IMHO the word "value" (and that's all it is is a word) becomes real "after" you have won the race, not before. If you wagered on a "value" horse and lost, where is the "value" ? Of the 6 races I won at CRC yesterday the payoffs ranged from $3.40 to $30.00, the "value" became real when I collected. Did the 4 races I lost have a "value" horse, NO, because I didn't collect on the wager.

Karl


Karl:

If I had that kind of hit percerntage in the win pool (60%) I wouldn't care about value either! <g> After all, making profit is the name of the game.

Jim

[andicap]

Aren't' we beating a dead horse (no pun intended) here.

[karlskorner]

Andicap;

Agreed, a couple of months ago we beat up the word "value" until it lost it's value.

Karl

[so.cal.fan]

Richard:

If you make a good morning line (which I am sure you do), and you have a horse at 3/1, you are looking for 7/2 or better, you wait until near post if it is in that range. Correct?
A half a minuet before post, your horse is 4/1. You jump in there and bet. Solid play. Agreed.
However........other expert handicappers jump in as well, all over the country...........after the race, your horse is 5/2, an underlay.
That is what I meant.

You posted:

Going back to the original posts in this thread, the answer is a resounding "NO".

Value is not being overbet for the simple reason that if it was then it wouldn't be value!


__________________
Richard



Report this

[Triple Trio]

Originally posted by steve fierro
...Although our perception is more people are using value as a final decision maker I still belive this is a very small percentage. I say this becuase it depends on what circles you run in. We run in the circle that does. Yes there are more now than ever but there truly aren't many...

While it's true that there is a small % of people adopting the value concept, some of these people -- especially the computer groups -- can be extremely well funded and their betting actions can have enormous influence on the pools.

On the other hand these sophisticated bettors tend to focus on the exotic pools because they enjoy a greater edge there -- win betting being simpler, the win pools have always been more "efficient markets" and hence less appealing from their perspective.

So for those who make win bets primarily, yes it has been getting more difficult to find value but there'll always remain sufficient opportunities for us to earn a few bucks.

[rrbauer]

so.cal.fan wrote:
If you make a good morning line (which I am sure you do), and you have a horse at 3/1, you are looking for 7/2 or better, you wait until near post if it is in that range. Correct?
A half a minuet before post, your horse is 4/1. You jump in there and bet. Solid play. Agreed.
However........other expert handicappers jump in as well, all over the country...........after the race, your horse is 5/2, an underlay.
That is what I meant.

Comment:
Everybody has a different perception of value from race to race. If everyone agrees on what the "value horse" is, then it is not a "value horse" and if the herd behavior that you describe prevailed on each horse that I "liked" then I would take up golf again (bad as I am!).

I only play two circuits (SoCal and NYRA) and I keep an odds' log on every race that I'm interested in, starting from the opening click right up until they go in the gate. I can say with a high degree of certainty in most races what the closing odds will be based on what I've seen up until 1 MTP. (Although the random "hammer" jobs are beyond my crystal ball!) Because these circuits have large pools there is less non-predictable fluctuation at the end of betting than there might be at a track where the end-game betting was a bigger percentage of the total pool.

I find that as many horses that I "like" for a win bet go up at the end as go down and for the most part I can anticipate which will go down. From this you can surmise that I bet a fair number of price horses, which I do.

Before we had simulcast betting and we needed to be at the track to bet (except when we talked to our friendly telephone bookie) I used to enjoy being in the mutuels area when a horse would click down as the horses were getting ready to load. A flood of people would come running, all betting on the "live" horse, thereby causing it to click down again, and causing another flood of people to come running. I referred to it as, "the crowd chasing its tail".

I don't think that the end-game money is all that smart and I welcome it! Indeed, I would love to book it...but, of course, that's illegal!
:)

[so.cal.fan]

Richard:

I agree!

I only bet in the So. Cal win pools and only at the track.
I guess I am the only one on board who still does that.
I too, have had just as many horses go up than go down.

I used to do the same thing you did, it was a hoot to watch everyone go jump onto the "steamer."


Please don't take up golf again, we would miss your posts!

:)

[rrbauer]

so.cal.fan

You're very kind. I envy that you are at the track "live". My days at the track when I was younger and more tolerant of long freeway drives in traffic (I'm 52 miles from SA for example) rank at the top of my list of "unforgettable moments".

[ranchwest]

I know I'm the contrarian here, but...

If you learn to handicap well enough to recognize money burners, then you're going to be well on your way to finding the value plays. Value is not to be found on the tote board, it is to be found in recognizing losing favorites before they lose and basing your handicapping accordingly.

Once you recognize the money burners, then you have several options. You can selectively go with some of the remaining logical horses, mostly favorites. Or, you can play for the longshots, which may involve somewhat of a shotgun approach.

There's one other approach. You can learn the details of horse racing and learn to recognize the physicality factors of the horses, the trainer patterns, the details that most people either overlook or haven't a clue about. I think we have a couple of pro's on this board who take this approach.

I'm just not in agreement with any of this talk about value being based on the tote board. If you know the statistics, you can find the value in the past performances and the factors the pro's use. You don't need the tote board.

Now, would I say that I never use the tote board? No, sometimes the tote board draws my attention to horses I might otherwise have missed, but I can do well without ever looking at the tote board.

[cj]

Originally posted by rrbauer
so.cal.fan

You're very kind. I envy that you are at the track "live". My days at the track when I was younger and more tolerant of long freeway drives in traffic (I'm 52 miles from SA for example) rank at the top of my list of "unforgettable moments".

Agreed guys,

Some of my most memorable days as a teenager were Pimlico-CharlesTown double headers, and even an occasional Pimlico-Garden State or Meadowlands adventure. Remember going to watch Spend a Buck, Skip Trial, and Broad Brush compete in New Jersey before the days of simulcasting. Even though the trips were long, they always flew by when hanging out with a couple of fellow racing junkies!

CJ

[Rick]

ranchwest,

I agree with you. You can handicap without the toteboard if you have enough experience to know which factors will be underbet or overbet. That approach is much easier than trying to develop the most accurate odds line and bet against it. I usually select my plays based on morning line odds rank and it's good enough. If I want to monitor the toteboard I can do a little better but it's a large investment of time for so little gain. I've played spot plays in the past with no knowledge of either morning line or actual odds and done quite well. I've also experimented with computing an odds line and won with that approach too. So, it's possible to win any of these ways if you do it right, and it's also possible to lose any of these ways if you do it wrong. People usually (naturally) favor whichever approach has worked best for them in the past. Since you say you're a contrarian I'd expect you to look for contrarian factors, and I think that's a very good approach.

[ranchwest]

Rick,

That's exactly what I study, which factors will be overbet and underbet and which categories of horses are productive.

I don't consider my handicapping to be all that contrarian, but my approach is. My only rule etched in stone is to win. Anything that doesn't win is out the window.

[so.cal.fan]

Ranchwest and Rick:

;) ;)

[rrbauer]

Ranchwest said

I'm just not in agreement with any of this talk about value being based on the tote board.

Comments:

Because you do not agree does not make you right.

Because you have a different perspective of "value" than others do, does not make them wrong.

Surely you have been around this horse betting game long enough to recognize that there are many ways to skin the betting "cat". You like to bet against bad favorites. I like to bet on 10-1 shots that should be 5-1. You're right and I'm wrong?

Spare me.

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by ranchwest
I'm just not in agreement with any of this talk about value being based on the tote board. If you know the statistics, you can find the value in the past performances and the factors the pro's use. You don't need the tote board.

But if you are kicking out bad favourites, you are using the tote board - how else do you know they are favourites?

AD

[Derek2U]

yes i agree with that 100% ... i play at NY tracks at home watching the live action on TV and every race I play I note
the FAV & any other horse say 5:2 & less & I pass judgment
on whether or nor they deserve tote support. (1) NO; (2) Maybe;
(3) YES. (I rarely use Maybe). It's amazing just how many horses
are so OverBet in my judgment. But if its a YES, I will play them
with my selection. Yes, trust your method & note the Fav....
many times you can confidently bet more if the Fav is truly a bad
bet.

[Derek2U]

Race#1 Belmont .... with 13 mins to post, #7 Ginzano is the
2:1 Fav. Yes, Ginzano deserves that status; it's a formidable
choice. He may lose just because the race sorts that way, but
that in no way makes the public choice less smart. Since I like
the 2 horses in Race2 (#3 / #8) I will play a Exrtra DD or two
with that 1st race Fav .... (I rarely bet DDs but I'm in the mood
today) ..hehe

[Derek2U]

In Race#1, Ginzano ran second. A good race for the Fav.
In Race#2, however, the Fav seems to be #7, JustOneOfTheBoyz.
I think this is a Very Bad Favorite. I much prefer the #s 3 & 8...

[Derek2U]

Both my 2 horses the #3 and #8 were the only 2 horses
battling at the wire. The #8 won & I won the whole enchilada,
but I see there's a stewart's inquiry.. Yikes...

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by Derek2U
In Race#1, Ginzano ran second. A good race for the Fav.
In Race#2, however, the Fav seems to be #7, JustOneOfTheBoyz.
I think this is a Very Bad Favorite. I much prefer the #s 3 & 8...

Nice call, Derek

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by rrbauer
Ranchwest said

I'm just not in agreement with any of this talk about value being based on the tote board.

Comments:

Because you do not agree does not make you right.

Because you have a different perspective of "value" than others do, does not make them wrong.

Surely you have been around this horse betting game long enough to recognize that there are many ways to skin the betting "cat". You like to bet against bad favorites. I like to bet on 10-1 shots that should be 5-1. You're right and I'm wrong?

Spare me.

I don't question that you can derive beneficial information from the tote board. My contention is that the tote board is a manifestation of what you can likely ascertain without ever looking at it.

I also don't question that there are many, many ways to be a successful handicapper.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by anotherdave


But if you are kicking out bad favourites, you are using the tote board - how else do you know they are favourites?

AD

Finding the favorite is usually pretty easy, hardly anyone should need a tote board. Figuring out which ones will win and which ones won't is the important part.

[Triple Trio]

One thing in Steve's book puzzles me. Steve has a "Pass Legitimate Favorite" filter whereby he'd pass a favourite @3/2 or less because these favorites are often overbet and hence losing propositons. This goes against the famous favorite-longshot bias. Have things changed in recent years to invalidate the bias?

[Aussieplayer]

TT,

Steve F. is talking about horses HE has made 3/2 on HIS line. When they are underlaid, you might be tempted to go looking to the 2nd, 3rd or 4th contender for value. HIS records showed HIM that, whilst "overlays" were plentiful (understandably, as the public is betting down the legitimate fav.), they weren't winning. But the legitimate fav. wasn't winning quite enough for its low, low odds to make a profit. Only one solution left: pass the race!

Steve is really trying to get a point across: that by keeping good records, you can find this sort of thing out! Also, by sharing this sort of thing, it may make you think of filters of your own.

Example, someone (apologies, I can't remember who but I think their nick started with "R" lol), said that they'd looked at their own "ranked" contenders, and simply found the odds level at which each rank is profitable. What could be simpler than that? I love it!! Providing you've done a good few races of course.

Cheers
AP

[Aussieplayer]

A word TT:

Whilst I have always said that stats. tend to hold in horse racing world wide (and why not, since they all run with 4 legs & a tail!). & this is generally true. eg. early speed, favs winning 33% or so etc. etc. there are some differences.
It's been a while since I've seen the lists, bu tfrom memory:

US racing takeout (or vig) sweet spot is is the mid odds ranges. That is, the favs. lose more than the takeout, as do the extreme longshots. That's according to some guys around here & no one has disputed that, so I'll take it to be fact.

HK, again, from what I've seen which could possibly be wrong - the takeout across all odds ranges is reasonably "even." This comes from people betting on all the horses, or in other words, not very sophisticated players joining in the pools. I think the list I saw was fairly old though, so things might be different.

Oz: the low prices are the one's who lose less than the takeout. This may be why the philosophy of "experts" down here seems to lean more toward finding "true" favs. rather than longshot play.

Cheers
AP

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Triple Trio
One thing in Steve's book puzzles me. Steve has a "Pass Legitimate Favorite" filter whereby he'd pass a favourite @3/2 or less because these favorites are often overbet and hence losing propositons. This goes against the famous favorite-longshot bias. Have things changed in recent years to invalidate the bias?

The bias probably still holds, but I haven't checked the stats. (The longshot-favorite bias is the fact -- we think -- that favorites perform better than their odds would indicate, and that longshots perform worse. In other words, horse players as a group are somewhat "risk-loving" and are betting too much on longshots. Thus a slight market inefficiency at each end of the odds curve. Note "performing better" doesn't mean well enough to beat the take & be profitable.)

Even if the bias doesn't hold, I doubt those favorites are overbet in the sense that they perform worse than their percentage of the win pool would indicate. Of course, that still doesn't mean you can make money on them because of the takeout, and Steve is probably referring to the more normal use of the word "overbet" -- meaning bottom-line not showing positive expectation.

[so.cal.fan]

Aussieplayer:

You write: "Oz: the low prices are the one's who lose less than the takeout. This may be why the philosophy of "experts" down here seems to lean more toward finding "true" favs. rather than longshot play".
According to Andy Beyer, who visited your country to bet horses, the Aussies are much more sophisticated handicappers than the players here in the United States.
The bookmakers are extremely accurate in their lines.
I'm sure this is where Steve F. is tying to go with his ideas.
He is focussed on a factor many do not understand or handle correctly. I agree.
Ranchwest and others are just commenting that some of us can do it quite well in our heads, based on many, many years of knowledge and probably a good intuitive skill as well.
I want to know why you guys are so much better handicappers than us!!!! ;)

[rrbauer]

GT wrote:
The bias probably still holds, but I haven't checked the stats. (The longshot-favorite bias is the fact -- we think -- that favorites perform better than their odds would indicate, and that longshots perform worse.

It's been a few years since I looked at this too. As I recall the best performance vis-a-vis odds came from those horses with odds roughly in the 5-1 to 8-1 range. In other words if you do a frequency distribution using the normalized odds' percentage as a win probability (win expectation) and then map the actual win percentages by odds' group against the expected win percentages there would be a bubble in the odds' area mentioned. I do recall that the larger odds' groups underperform but I'm not sure about the short odds' groups. Seems to me that the very short ones overperformed, but I can't recall for sure.