Rook, short prices, and exotics

[lansdale]

I've recently returned to the horses after being away for a number of years, and I've been struck by the way in which win mutuels seem to have deteriorated. Horses that I would get 5/2 or 3-1 on a decade ago are now regularly even money. Larger longshots (greater than 10-1) seem to occur with the same frequency, but horses in the 4 to 10 range appear to have dwindled. Am I just imagining this or has something really changed?

Also, this chalkiness in the win pool doesn't seem to have occurred in the place and show pools, where difficult or erratic horses continue to hit the board at good prices. After reading about Rook's success with exotics in his entertaining 'New Coke' thread, I'm wondering if a good deal of it can be attributed to the fact that most of his money seems to have been made with tris and supers.

In the past, although I've played exactas from time to time, I've been primarily a win bet player, but am wondering if exotic play is now the way to go. Would appreciate any feedback.

lansdale

[dav4463]

I think the odds on winning horses have gone down for those who still use methods that are older methods (10+ yrs). The public catches up with certain types of winners after a while. However, there are still basic facts that produce winning horses. If you identify those that have a chance to win rather than a single pick and then let the tote board determine your bet, I think the chances for success or better. Conversely, there are some who just pick one horse per race and do quite well, but I would be willing to bet that they do not use the same conventional handicapping factors that the public uses. They have "something" that helps them pick their horses and the general public doesn't know about it.

[JackS]

It seems to me that general consensus has caught on to the importance of speed versus class and final time. however, they still do mess-up prefering class of class regardless of extended layoffs of obvious class and subpar numbers produced in what appears to be struggling horses in inferior races above todays class level.
I think it was easier 20yrs ago but track take-out is the same so opportunities should be equal. Perhaps a slight adjustment in handicapping really is in order.
Still prefer speed but now maybe a good time to make some home-grown adjustments.

[dav4463]

Class moves and trainer intent along with winning patterns that I can identify based on past experience are my major eliminating factors. If a horse doesn't fit the race and has the best or close to best speed figures and is overbet, that is a race I concentrate on trying to beat. The public overbets the speed figures obviously, but when you can find a horse or two that is almost as good, but fits the class and race...you have a decent chance to make some serious money. There are some major longshots that have one of the top 4 last race speed figures and there are plenty of longshots that have run fast enough in the past to win today despite the last couple of races being poor and have just been spotted where they belong.

[Snag]

lansdale, I'm not sure how long you have been away from the game but if simocasting was not a major factor when you played last, it may now be a reason for the odds shift. Also, the age of computers has had a big impact in updating the odds quicker.

Back in the day (before simo), I used to play with a guy that watched the odds update. He did this every 5 minutes. He had a little chart for MLO and the updates. He is now a firm believer that simo has changed the odds game.

He also claims some tracks have a good basis for their MLO and the final odds follow those very closely, while a number of tracks have wide differences between the two. Those with the biggest difference are the ones he plays on a regular basis.

I've often wondered if the public are bandwagon jumpers.

[Rook]

I've recently returned to the horses after being away for a number of years, and I've been struck by the way in which win mutuels seem to have deteriorated. Horses that I would get 5/2 or 3-1 on a decade ago are now regularly even money. Larger longshots (greater than 10-1) seem to occur with the same frequency, but horses in the 4 to 10 range appear to have dwindled. Am I just imagining this or has something really changed?

Also, this chalkiness in the win pool doesn't seem to have occurred in the place and show pools, where difficult or erratic horses continue to hit the board at good prices. After reading about Rook's success with exotics in his entertaining 'New Coke' thread, I'm wondering if a good deal of it can be attributed to the fact that most of his money seems to have been made with tris and supers.

In the past, although I've played exactas from time to time, I've been primarily a win bet player, but am wondering if exotic play is now the way to go. Would appreciate any feedback.

lansdale
Lansdale,
Since you did me the honour of including my name in the thread title, the least I can do is chip in my 2 cents worth.

I prefer exotics for a couple of reasons. First, I think the pools are less efficient. There are hundreds of players who throw all sorts of horses into their tickets without much thought. The same guy who buys a 5 horse tri box wouldn't dream of betting all 5 to win. He is far more reckless with his money when there is hope of a big payoff but when the potential rewards are limited, he acts more rationally when he stops and realizes that there is only a remote chance that all five are overlays.

The second reason that exotics are more profitable for me is that I tend to be either completely right or completely wrong. If my numbers are solid for that type of race and I have correctly visualized how the race will be run, the 3rd and 4th place horses are typically going to be ones I have in my ticket. So supers maximize my profit on those races where I had excellent insight.

That being said, if I were you, I wouldn't completely give up on the win pool. There is still money to be made if you are dedicated. It took me many months, but I finally devised and committed myself to a win system that has been bringing in steady profits. Since January 14th, there have been 292 bets which have returned $1.23 on the dollar (16% + 7% rebate).

It is my long term goal to be profitable in all available pools. I found it easier to go from supers and work my way backwards to win. Perhaps you will find that to be the best approach for you. The only way to truly find out is to risk actual money because testing on paper is virtually impossible.

[shanta]

I think one of the biggest reasons for the much lower win prices on the top 2 or 3 low odds horses in a race is one word: REBATES.

There are many people wagering who dont care if they make profit on their wagers. Matter of fact some would bet even if they KNEW they would lose small.

They are wagering big money relative to most, betting at shops where they get huge rebates ( even on the win end) and are pounding these horses into submission as a PART of their "hedge" bets.

Horse that paid 5 and 6 bucks a few years ago now pay $3.20- $ 4.40. This is at tracks everywhere.

My opinion
Richie

[lsbets]

Richie -

That could be a factor, but that I'm not sure. Have win prices gone up in NY since they cut off the rebate shops? There might be some rebate shops that can get rebates from NY, but as far as I can tell, NYRA doesn't play the rebate game. Also, rebates tend to be much larger in the exotic pools. If a decrease in win prices were due to large rebate players, I would think that would also play out in the exacta pools.

Just some thoughts.

[skate]

man, some great thought and counter thoughts in here.

Rook, i can see your plays (postings) just as if it were myself.

you compact my game for me. i can't help but notice, i'm either "dead on" with the race or completly wrong.
sometimes i'm thinking "they must think i'm cheating", and then i'm no place to be found. my profits come from the exotics, but never ever forget the win bet.
most important, "gotta have a price".

i don't study too much, but i'd say that prices are always there, just as before.but if forced, i'd have to say that early in "the game" people will over bet the chalk. ex. Rockport, created a negative pool (show money), time and time again people will bet tuns, just to cash (?) i guess

[lansdale]

I think the odds on winning horses have gone down for those who still use methods that are older methods (10+ yrs). The public catches up with certain types of winners after a while. However, there are still basic facts that produce winning horses. If you identify those that have a chance to win rather than a single pick and then let the tote board determine your bet, I think the chances for success or better. Conversely, there are some who just pick one horse per race and do quite well, but I would be willing to bet that they do not use the same conventional handicapping factors that the public uses. They have "something" that helps them pick their horses and the general public doesn't know about it.

Agree with all you say here. BTW, I am one of those that let's the tote determine my bet - the problem is that the prices on my winning picks are getting crushed. As you say, finding unconventional factors that work is the key. Thanks for your input.

[lansdale]

It seems to me that general consensus has caught on to the importance of speed versus class and final time. however, they still do mess-up prefering class of class regardless of extended layoffs of obvious class and subpar numbers produced in what appears to be struggling horses in inferior races above todays class level.
I think it was easier 20yrs ago but track take-out is the same so opportunities should be equal. Perhaps a slight adjustment in handicapping really is in order.
Still prefer speed but now maybe a good time to make some home-grown adjustments.

What is class? Some would say it's speed. Others attribute special qualities to horses as they move up the class ranks. I'm not one of the latter.

I don't know how it was 20 years ago, but many seem to agree that prices were much better before Beyer numbers went public. I think the same is now true of pace numbers, which used to give me more of an edge. Don't see what takeout has to do with anything. Is one poker game the same as another because the rake is the same? But, agree with you on this- time to make some adjustments. Thanks for your input.

[lansdale]

lansdale, I'm not sure how long you have been away from the game but if simocasting was not a major factor when you played last, it may now be a reason for the odds shift. Also, the age of computers has had a big impact in updating the odds quicker.

Back in the day (before simo), I used to play with a guy that watched the odds update. He did this every 5 minutes. He had a little chart for MLO and the updates. He is now a firm believer that simo has changed the odds game.

He also claims some tracks have a good basis for their MLO and the final odds follow those very closely, while a number of tracks have wide differences between the two. Those with the biggest difference are the ones he plays on a regular basis.

I've often wondered if the public are bandwagon jumpers.

Limited simulcasting was available when I quit, and is more widespread now, but even the MLOs and final odds at the big NY and CA tracks where I used to play, which were always the sharpest seem to have gotten sharper. Someone recently found that 43% of ML favorites are winning at AQU. Try beating that.

RE discrepancies between final odds and MLOs at various tracks, I do exactly the same thing as your friend - just seems like the opportunities are sparser. Thanks for your input.

[lansdale]

I think one of the biggest reasons for the much lower win prices on the top 2 or 3 low odds horses in a race is one word: REBATES.

There are many people wagering who dont care if they make profit on their wagers. Matter of fact some would bet even if they KNEW they would lose small.

They are wagering big money relative to most, betting at shops where they get huge rebates ( even on the win end) and are pounding these horses into submission as a PART of their "hedge" bets.

Horse that paid 5 and 6 bucks a few years ago now pay $3.20- $ 4.40. This is at tracks everywhere.

My opinion
Richie

This is a very interesting idea that I should have thought of, but failed to put two and two together. Given the many stories I've heard in the past couple of years about batch-betting whales getting these rebates, this makes perfect sense. Doesn't necessarily make things easier, but it does explain a lot. Thanks.

[lansdale]

Lansdale,
Since you did me the honour of including my name in the thread title, the least I can do is chip in my 2 cents worth.

I prefer exotics for a couple of reasons. First, I think the pools are less efficient. There are hundreds of players who throw all sorts of horses into their tickets without much thought. The same guy who buys a 5 horse tri box wouldn't dream of betting all 5 to win. He is far more reckless with his money when there is hope of a big payoff but when the potential rewards are limited, he acts more rationally when he stops and realizes that there is only a remote chance that all five are overlays.

The second reason that exotics are more profitable for me is that I tend to be either completely right or completely wrong. If my numbers are solid for that type of race and I have correctly visualized how the race will be run, the 3rd and 4th place horses are typically going to be ones I have in my ticket. So supers maximize my profit on those races where I had excellent insight.

That being said, if I were you, I wouldn't completely give up on the win pool. There is still money to be made if you are dedicated. It took me many months, but I finally devised and committed myself to a win system that has been bringing in steady profits. Since January 14th, there have been 292 bets which have returned $1.23 on the dollar (16% + 7% rebate).

It is my long term goal to be profitable in all available pools. I found it easier to go from supers and work my way backwards to win. Perhaps you will find that to be the best approach for you. The only way to truly find out is to risk actual money because testing on paper is virtually impossible.

Rook,

Thanks for your reply. What you say re exotics confirms my sense that they are less efficient. Clearly you're a highly dedicated player whose performance has been extraordinary - also evidence that opportunities in the game still exist. I'm not giving up on the win pool but will begin looking into exotics more seriously.

BTW, due to the description of your intensive testing process, I wondered whether you've been influenced by the methods of William Benter. As you probably know, Benter was a blackjack player before becoming involved with handicapping, and adapted techniques used by BJ players, such as Kelly betting, and estimation of the 'long run' performance of a system into his own work. Just wondered whether you use either of these techniques in your approach to the game. Thanks again and continued good luck, although no one would seem to need it less.

[Rook]

BTW, due to the description of your intensive testing process, I wondered whether you've been influenced by the methods of William Benter. As you probably know, Benter was a blackjack player before becoming involved with handicapping, and adapted techniques used by BJ players, such as Kelly betting, and estimation of the 'long run' performance of a system into his own work. Just wondered whether you use either of these techniques in your approach to the game. Thanks again and continued good luck, although no one would seem to need it less.
I just counted the number of handicapping books in my bookcase: there are 78 and there are a handful of others scattered in various locations throughout my home. With that many sources, it is hard for me to determine who influenced my handicapping and betting over the years but since Benter didn't author any of those, I know he played no part in my success.

That being said, there is one area where Benter has changed my thinking and made me realize where I and dozens of other PA members have completely failed. Over a year ago, when I read about how Benter made his millions, I was struck by how he did it by building and managing a team of experts. To me, this is his biggest edge and accomplishment. No doubt, he could have made a bundle doing all the work himself but he took things to another level by recognizing that there were practical time constraints and that others could bring things to the table.

I, like many others reading this, have always operated as a lone wolf. At various times in my handicapping career, I have taken it upon myself to be the foremost expert in evaluating class, creating speed figures, analyzing pace, deciphering workout patterns, discovering trainer intent, and building great programs & databases.

I have been reasonably successful in all of these projects but the problem is this: when you turn your attention from one area to another, you lose what you had before. My homemade speed figures were excellent but they took so long to make that I didn't have time to comprehensively study the DRF.

My current program is fine but it is with great regret that I rarely have the chance to enhance them with a manual look at the past performances. I know that if I did have the time, I could stop myself from betting on hundreds of flawed horses.

If I could go back in time to 1988, I would tell myself that the first order of business would be to form a team. One guy would generate figures, another would know everything about trainers, one would be a master reader of the DRF, one would be a database programmer and a body language expert would give the final red or green light.

Benter essentially took such a collaborative approach and I did not. He made his millions while I spun my wheels in a comparatively fruitless fashion.

It took me 17 years to learn this lesson but I have still not been able to put this newfound wisdom into practice. You would think that with my success that it would be pretty easy to find a partner but that has not been the case. Handicappers are a pretty proud and stubborn bunch.

[twindouble]

I just counted the number of handicapping books in my bookcase: there are 78 and there are a handful of others scattered in various locations throughout my home. With that many sources, it is hard for me to determine who influenced my handicapping and betting over the years but since Benter didn't author any of those, I know he played no part in my success.

That being said, there is one area where Benter has changed my thinking and made me realize where I and dozens of other PA members have completely failed. Over a year ago, when I read about how Benter made his millions, I was struck by how he did it by building and managing a team of experts. To me, this is his biggest edge and accomplishment. No doubt, he could have made a bundle doing all the work himself but he took things to another level by recognizing that there were practical time constraints and that others could bring things to the table.

I, like many others reading this, have always operated as a lone wolf. At various times in my handicapping career, I have taken it upon myself to be the foremost expert in evaluating class, creating speed figures, analyzing pace, deciphering workout patterns, discovering trainer intent, and building great programs & databases.

I have been reasonably successful in all of these projects but the problem is this: when you turn your attention from one area to another, you lose what you had before. My homemade speed figures were excellent but they took so long to make that I didn't have time to comprehensively study the DRF.

My current program is fine but it is with great regret that I rarely have the chance to enhance them with a manual look at the past performances. I know that if I did have the time, I could stop myself from betting on hundreds of flawed horses.

If I could go back in time to 1988, I would tell myself that the first order of business would be to form a team. One guy would generate figures, another would know everything about trainers, one would be a master reader of the DRF, one would be a database programmer and a body language expert would give the final red or green light.

Benter essentially took such a collaborative approach and I did not. He made his millions while I spun my wheels in a comparatively fruitless fashion.

It took me 17 years to learn this lesson but I have still not been able to put this newfound wisdom into practice. You would think that with my success that it would be pretty easy to find a partner but that has not been the case. Handicappers are a pretty proud and stubborn bunch.

My best years playing the horses was when I partnered up with other good and I mean good handicappers. Two of them have passed away so now I have just investors and I do the handicapping. That's only when I think I have a shot at a big pick 6 carryover.

I agree it's tough to find compatible handicappers but to me it's foolish not to share the risk when the opportunity is there.


Good luck,

T.D.

[JackS]

Rook- If I knew of a group of handicappers doing this and that I completly trusted, I wouldn't mind investing and trusting their wisdom and their decisions. But as you stated, stubborness would require me to continue on my own. Most of us realize we don't know everything but think (right or wrong) that we know more than most. Could be the curse of all handicappers but we'll never learn.

[Rook]

Most of us realize we don't know everything but think (right or wrong) that we know more than most.
Even if a handicapper was the foremost expert on a wide range of topics, how effectively would he be able to apply that knowledge on a full slate of racing cards? I believe I can read the DRF about as well as anyone but how often does this skill get put to use?: A few times a year, when I drop the regular online betting and head off to Fort Erie for a family fun day.

There are just not enough hours in the day to both manually handicap and maintain databases & interpret the output from my computer program. When cloning gets legalized, my problem will be solved but until that day, I'll have to wait for the day I partner up with someone who can cover the bases I've had to neglect.

[lansdale]

I just counted the number of handicapping books in my bookcase: there are 78 and there are a handful of others scattered in various locations throughout my home. With that many sources, it is hard for me to determine who influenced my handicapping and betting over the years but since Benter didn't author any of those, I know he played no part in my success.

That being said, there is one area where Benter has changed my thinking and made me realize where I and dozens of other PA members have completely failed. Over a year ago, when I read about how Benter made his millions, I was struck by how he did it by building and managing a team of experts. To me, this is his biggest edge and accomplishment. No doubt, he could have made a bundle doing all the work himself but he took things to another level by recognizing that there were practical time constraints and that others could bring things to the table.

I, like many others reading this, have always operated as a lone wolf. At various times in my handicapping career, I have taken it upon myself to be the foremost expert in evaluating class, creating speed figures, analyzing pace, deciphering workout patterns, discovering trainer intent, and building great programs & databases.

I have been reasonably successful in all of these projects but the problem is this: when you turn your attention from one area to another, you lose what you had before. My homemade speed figures were excellent but they took so long to make that I didn't have time to comprehensively study the DRF.

My current program is fine but it is with great regret that I rarely have the chance to enhance them with a manual look at the past performances. I know that if I did have the time, I could stop myself from betting on hundreds of flawed horses.

If I could go back in time to 1988, I would tell myself that the first order of business would be to form a team. One guy would generate figures, another would know everything about trainers, one would be a master reader of the DRF, one would be a database programmer and a body language expert would give the final red or green light.

Benter essentially took such a collaborative approach and I did not. He made his millions while I spun my wheels in a comparatively fruitless fashion.

It took me 17 years to learn this lesson but I have still not been able to put this newfound wisdom into practice. You would think that with my success that it would be pretty easy to find a partner but that has not been the case. Handicappers are a pretty proud and stubborn bunch.

Since you have roughly the same ROI as Benter - he says his is 24%, and yours is 23% - I don't see why you need to change anything to make the same kind of money. I assume that ultimately the only problem you'll have to deal with is the same one that sent him to Hong Kong - bumping up against the size of most of the pools at U.S. racetracks. Again, best of luck.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Rook]

Since you have roughly the same ROI as Benter - he says his is 24%, and yours is 23% - I don't see why you need to change anything to make the same kind of money. I assume that ultimately the only problem you'll have to deal with is the same one that sent him to Hong Kong - bumping up against the size of most of the pools at U.S. racetracks.

You hit the nail on the head. The size of the pools at U.S. tracks are rinky dink compared to Hong Kong, especially at the tracks that have the most overlays. Also, after 305 races, I sure wouldn't say my 25% ROI is written in stone. I'll feel a lot more confident when the sample is 3,005. Since I'm averaging only 5 plays per day, that will take a bit of time.

I'm pleased with what I have for now, but my goal is to substantially increase the number of bets per day.