Help needed from wagering pros

[douglasw32]

Okay-

I can handicap the races down to 4 contenders on a regular basis one of these wins, many times hit the exacta.

If I were to wager properly on these races with this method how would one go about it?

I sorta understand value, but these 4 consistently have the exact same chance, I have not been able to find one isolating factor or set of traditional factors that give anyone of these 4 an advantage.

So I figure I am doing allright but betting all 4 of them in every race to win is a losing proposition.

Any suggestions or is it still just getting me absoloutly NO WHERE!

[Overlay]

As far as win betting, given the scenario you indicated, I would say that you should determine what percentage of the time on a cumulative basis one of your four horses wins. Then, if you have indeed verified that each of the four has an equal chance of winning, divide that cumulative percentage figure by four and convert it to odds. Then, in any given race, bet any of the four that go off at odds higher than that figure.

As far as exotic wagering, I'd think you'd want a little more information on how your four horses perform when they don't win. Do they often finish in the money if they don't win, or are they all-or-nothing propositions? How often do your four horses cumulatively run first only, second only, third only, 1-2, 1-3, 2-3 or 1-2-3? What patterns (if any) or probabilities relate to their performance in that regard?

[Overlay]

And what about race types? Do you find that the four perform more consistently under one type of race conditions than another? Is the performance or winning probability of the four equal across the whole spectrum of surfaces, distances, and classes?

[Overlay]

One other consideration: Do you find that your selections perform equally well regardless of the odds that they go off at? What is the winning probability of each of your selections in each of the various odds ranges? Do some odds ranges win more or less than they should to a degree that is statistically significant?

[douglasw32]

WOW, Thanks for the responses Overlay :)

Umm...mind you you are dealing with a wagering MORON here....

As far as distance surface etc...itis mainly trainer based and a power rating type thing mixed in...

I have not specifically seen that number 1 wins more than number 2 or 3 or 4, for any specifics that hold up, sometimes it will seem like routes are working better than sprints, then nope the other is true... the database excludes first time starters, and filters for other things including potential of being the favorite, or over 30-1 (oposite ends of the spectrum)...

The only consistent thing I have seen is that if it filters the race down to less than 4 contenders, 3 or 2 or just 1 (mainly maiden spwt or real contentious races with two real close favorites) then the contender is usually beat by one of the filtered out ones or a FTS.

as for odds ranges it gets its share of low and long, I never tracked it. <- so onece I do what does this do, how is this implemented, if you can explain.

So I have some record keeping to do, should I use multiple tracks and random days, and how many races make a fair sample ? I use the Pro Caps File...

The exotic scenario, I can also test out, but I want to get the WIN betting down first if this even works, it is the closest I have come so far but any time I take it to 3 or less I end up getting my _______ handed to me.

I was thinking like this...(warning random thought about to follow)

One of the 4 will win...

a. I will have one of those 4 bet based on th public under valuing it and it wins.

b. Something will happen during the race causing another to win when the value could have (bad luck).

C. One of the over valued ones will win

d. One of the other not in the top4 will win.

If all 4 are overlayed calling for $8.00 wager, to break even I need 3-1 but there are 3 other outcomes of failure (14.00 as a group) so if I wager only on any of the top 4 going off at odds of 6-1 or above I should be okay ????

I have no idea if that makes any sense or if it is worth running a test on....

How do I start ?

[betovernetcapper]

OK, using trainers stats of some sort you've reduced the race to 4 possible condeners. A good next step might be to see if the race shape or track bias seems to help or hinder any of the 4. A next step might be to then compare speed/pace figs and see if any of the 4 seems intrinsicly faster than the others.
just a thought

[Sailwolf]

One possible method is " the art of making your own line and identifying overlays":ThmbUp:

Value Handicapping by
Mark Cramer

City Miner Books Fort Bragg CA

or any book by Mark Cramer

You make a line and then if the horse is more than 50% above your line then you bet the horse.

[hurrikane]

you might consider the 4 quarters of horse racing by Steve Fiero.

right up this line

[AwolAtPA]

hi,

I am NOT a wagering pro (still looking for a good bet!!)

however, consider using the Morning Line and the Tote board. Many winners have odds near or BELOW the Morning Line value but some races will have two or three. Do not use when race has Odds on (ie, near even money) favorite. At about one minute to Post time, the '..at or near..' condition should be '..clear..' in most races.

so, using your four contendors, eliminate ones that are '..way over..' the Morning Line and bet the others (1 2 or 3) to win.

also, consider using a Dutch bet instead of a flat, same amount, for each bet.

awol

[douglasw32]

Again Thanks for the reading suggestions and other opinions...

[Overlay]

You say that every time you narrow the contention to three horses in a race rather than four, it significantly affects your hit rate. What criteria do you use to do that narrowing? Does your method produce a rank order for each horse in a field, and you then eliminate all horses below the number of contenders that you want to work with? If your method produces a composite rank or numerical rating of some sort for each horse in a field, I would first find out what winning percentages and impact values are associated with the various ranks or rating ranges, both individually and in combination with each other. (For example, what aggregate percentage of the time do your two highest-ranked horses win, versus the percentage of the average field size that they represent? What about the highest-ranked, coupled with the third-highest-ranked? And so forth…) (That’s another consideration, come to think of it. Are you equally accurate regardless of field size?) I would then use those figures as guides to determine when the odds are offering win-bet value for the various individual and group wagers.

Has your experience so far been solely with one track? If that track is the only track you play, or plan on playing, I would say to specialize as far as your sample. But if you plan on playing multiple tracks or locations, you would want a broader-based sample. I think there’s another thread currently ongoing with an extended discussion of how many races it takes to validate a particular handicapping method. You might check that out.

[douglasw32]

Overlay:

You say that every time you narrow the contention to three horses in a race rather than four, it significantly affects your hit rate.

Yes It Does...

What criteria do you use to do that narrowing?

Usually I look at the obvious, Better Speed, Better earnings, Better distance/track record, etc...taking out the one that looks to get the worst of it...

Does your method produce a rank order for each horse in a field, and you then eliminate all horses below the number of contenders that you want to work with?

Yes it ranks best to worst then filters the ranked horses eliminating some, I take the top 4 after the filter.

(For example, what aggregate percentage of the time do your two highest-ranked horses win, versus the percentage of the average field size that they represent? What about the highest-ranked, coupled with the third-highest-ranked? And so forth…) (That’s another consideration, come to think of it. Are you equally accurate regardless of field size?)

NEVER LOOKED AT FIELD SIZE (I LIKE THIS IDEA)...

Has your experience so far been solely with one track?

Actually I run them all the time all over the place because it blows my mind it works across the board, but mainly I use the New York Tracks and/or MNR sue to evening races. and yes the top 4 hold up.

Let me run some of your thoughts and suggestions and get back to you.

Nice Web Site you have BTW

[DJofSD]

Some ideas:

Keep a track profile -- a model of what is winning at your track. Use that model to help eliminate that 4th runner.

Look to see if you dropped the lowest paying horse if you could dutch the other 3 contenders to show a profit.

If you've got the win and place horse in the mix often enough see if there's a profit playing exacta boxes.

[douglasw32]

The exacta box originally was what I wanted to conquer but the 4 is just too many to box...

Such a simple idea...kick the lowest (odds a few miniutes before post horse) from the box. Should produce only the overlayed exacta payoffs when it does hit.

These are great suggestions, not sure how long it will take to test and implement them but hopefull one of them may get me within my "weekend warrior" goals.

:)

If it helps with the discussion this is not some proprietary number crunching it is more a K.I.S.S idea.

I take the power rating (used to make one, but now I just use the procaps provided one)

I total the field and get the percent of the power rating each horse has.

I average ALL of the trainer catagories the trainer has for todays race...
beaten fav/sprints/30-90 days off/ etc , etc...

Total the two....filter out any Morning Line odss under 2-1
then average all the morning line numbers (not percents, but like 2,4.5,6 etc) and make the cutoof the average+1 point and filter any exceeding it.

Then rank the remaining ones...

If I do not get 4 in the list the race is a pass (real contentious according to the morning line maker or maiden with first time starters are usually included here)

That's it if scratches remove one of the top 4 it is also a PASS for obvious reasons.

Sounds real silly but it is working out.

[douglasw32]

Here is todays for FINGER LAKES (actually have never tested Fingers with this, but it is in NY, and they are running...)

Attached an image of the report.

Finger Lakes May 09, 2006

[douglasw32]

Maybe a concensus on TWO TO TOSS form the FINAL FOUR and Bet the two remaining to win!

any takers we have like two hours to post.

[Nicole]

The exacta box originally was what I wanted to conquer but the 4 is just too many to box...

If your unable to narrow your key horse to one or two contenders I would suggest passing the race.

Value is different in every race. If your a handicapper that can identify false favorites..then you hammer the legit favorites and bet against the false ones.

Like these guys suggested...records, records, records.

I would play an exacta with 4 contenders such as this.

ex 1,2 with 1,2,3,4
ex 1,3 with 1,2,3
ex 1 with 1,2,3,4

So now if your top pick wins with 2nd or 3rd choice you've hit three tickets. I normally use 3 contenders unless I'm playing a chaotic or large field.

Key and backwheel a longshot you like. There are so many different combinations you can come up with to fit your handicapping style. Keeping records will help you with this.

Boxing 4 horses you are paying for too many combinations with the chance of only collecting one ticket.

Good Luck!

[douglasw32]

Keepers based on Fitness Rules (alla william scott, modified somewhat).

r1..Nifty Gal/Royal Expression
r2...PASS
r3..Use the Entry and Donkey Engine
r4...PASS
r5...Danzalicious/Gebbs Rodeo
r6...Anties Boy/Atlantis Crusder
r7...Chantelian/Blue Blitzen
r8...PASS
r9...Brief the lady/Cap D'Antibes

Thats how I see it but I always get nailed elminitaing from the 4.
It may just be some dumb percentage anomily, like even random chance can pick 4 and have one be the winner this often ???

any ideas?

[douglasw32]

"Boxing 4 horses you are paying for too many combinations with the chance of only collecting one ticket"

Exactly ! and thanks for the input...I agree I need more records, at least now I know how to approach that record keeping.

:)

[douglasw32]

After Scratches heres the plays I will need to go with.

Win Bets
==========

r6...Anties Boy/Atlantis Crusder
r7...Chantelian/Blue Blitzen
r9...Brief the lady/Cap D'Antibes

<$12.00>

TYhis is how I usually go about it....

[skate]

doug;

the idea would be to keep things simple.

so, you take the highest odds horse and play what ever way you like.

if it works, you've found your answer.

if it does not work, simple again. your top four are not the same, eliminate that forth highest and play your next highest odds horse.

then if this does not work, evaluate your capping.


now you've got "it".

[spilparc]

Okay-

I can handicap the races down to 4 contenders on a regular basis one of these wins, many times hit the exacta.

If I were to wager properly on these races with this method how would one go about it?

I sorta understand value, but these 4 consistently have the exact same chance, I have not been able to find one isolating factor or set of traditional factors that give anyone of these 4 an advantage.

So I figure I am doing allright but betting all 4 of them in every race to win is a losing proposition.

Any suggestions or is it still just getting me absoloutly NO WHERE!

You said you can get the race down to four on a regular basis. Check your records. (You're keeping records aren't you?) If that "regular basis" is 80% or higher here is what I would do with my remaining four. This is for win betting only.

I would bet an equal amount on the two highest price horses to win at odds of 5/2 or better. So if the odds on your four remaining horses are:

5/2
3
6
7

I would bet the 6 and 7 to one shots to win. No exacts no exotics. See if you can throw a nice profit doing it this way first. Exotics come much later.

Since you say you can't seperate them let the odds do it for you. If they can't be seperated, then the higher odds horses would have to be no brianers. You said that you had trouble picking the winner out of these four, so rather than guess ... take the guesswork out of it and bet for value. After all, you have them rated equally, yet some of them have higher odds--how can this be?

Take the best prices, and bet them!

If you have records of old cards, you could go over them to see how this stacks up.

I'm betting it shows a nice profit. (Assuming of course you have the winner amongst your remaining four 80+% of the time. Now that I think about it 70-75% might even be good.)

[douglasw32]

SPILPARC- Excellent, well this post has motivated me to pull out the old cards and start keeping much better records...

[oddswizard]

I try to narrow my picks to the top 3 selections per race. However, sometimes there are 4 horses that figure to run big. When this happens here is how I handle it:

Step one is to eliminate the lowest odds horse of the four. Then I concentrate on the 3 selections that still qualify. Assume I am wagering $60.00 per race or $20.00 on each of the three contenders. I use odds to determine my wager. I label the horses ABC in order of preference. I will bet $20.00 to win on horses that are 7/2 or more. If 2 of the 3 horses are under 7/2 I pass the race. Lets assume A is 2-1, B is 4-1 & C is 6-1. My play is $20.00 to win on B & C. Then I play a $10.00 one way exacta on A/B & A/C. If the exacta pays less than $15.00 on either exacta I skip this bet and play a $10.00 BC exacta box. If either B or C wins I will net a 50% ROI on the race. If any of the exactas hit I will make a nice profit. If B or C wins & the exact box wins I will make enough profit for an entire week of wagering. I hope this will help you understand the value of money management.

[douglasw32]

There we go...Davids dilema was 5/2...on the board by eliminating him for sound reasons over the other 3 he was tossed and won...

[BetHorses!]

doug;

the idea would be to keep things simple.

so, you take the highest odds horse and play what ever way you like.

if it works, you've found your answer.

if it does not work, simple again. your top four are not the same, eliminate that forth highest and play your next highest odds horse.

then if this does not work, evaluate your capping.


now you've got "it".


Agreed. Good Post.

I would key the highest odds with the other three contenders in Exotics. Automatic Win bet on any double digit odds horse

[Conquer]

Did you know, taking the top 4 Lowest MLO will result with one being your winner more than 85% of the time.

Go from there.

Also, did you know that the lowest MLO will come ITM more than 85% of the time.

[skate]

i've seen where the chalk will be in the tri 80%. and if we give the chalk a 30% win percentage, then the chalk should come 2 nd or 3rd in 50%.

i would play with this in my supers, maybe tris also.
goottaaa get the chalk outta first, either way.

[Koko]

Also, did you know that the lowest MLO will come ITM more than 85% of the time.

Somehow that number sounds way off. Favorites, who perform better than lowest MLO's horses, typcially come in between 65-75% depending on the race and track if I'm not mistaken. Where did you get that number by the way?

[Dave Schwartz]

Conquer,

Did you know, taking the top 4 Lowest MLO will result with one being your winner more than 85% of the time.

Also, did you know that the lowest MLO will come ITM more than 85% of the time.

Sorry, but those are both incorrect statements.

The top 4 public choices will certainly outperform the top 4 M/L horses. They produce about 81% winners.


68,510 races (dirt, 6-9f, non-mdn, fast, major & 2nd tier tracks, 5+ horses.

Ranks 1-9 (9=9+)

rPubCh
------
WIN BETS
Field1 Field2 Starts Pays Pct $Net IV PIV
--------------------------------------------------------
1 71,854 24,037 33.5 $1.65 2.60 0.99
2 67,706 13,881 20.5 $1.61 1.59 0.96
3 67,836 9,890 14.6 $1.56 1.13 0.93
4 67,896 7,453 11.0 $1.59 0.85 0.95
5 68,139 5,358 7.9 $1.56 0.61 0.95
6 64,847 3,703 5.7 $1.59 0.46 0.97
7 55,013 2,165 3.9 $1.47 0.33 0.92
8 40,744 1,176 2.9 $1.45 0.27 0.91
9 55,082 991 1.8 $1.36 0.19 0.88

Total 559,117 68,654 12.3 $1.55 1.00 0.96


rPubCh
------
WIN BETS
Field1 Field2 Starts Pays Pct $Net IV PIV
--------------------------------------------------------
1 71,854 24,037 33.5 $1.65 2.60 0.99
2 67,706 13,881 20.5 $1.61 1.59 0.96
3 67,836 9,890 14.6 $1.56 1.13 0.93
4 67,896 7,453 11.0 $1.59 0.85 0.95

Total 275,292 55,261 20.1 $1.60 1.56 0.97

Top 4: 80.5% of all winners.




The favorite will certainly outperform the top M/L horse. They produce about 67% ITM.


rPubCh
------
SHOW BETS
Field1 Field2 Starts Pays Pct $Net IV PIV
--------------------------------------------------------
1 71,538 47,920 67.0 $1.78 5.19 1.97
2 67,461 37,948 56.3 $1.72 4.35 2.64
3 67,571 32,431 48.0 $1.65 3.71 3.05
4 67,634 27,280 40.3 $1.60 3.12 3.49
5 67,877 21,903 32.3 $1.52 2.50 3.88
6 64,808 16,307 25.2 $1.44 2.01 4.26
7 55,001 10,275 18.7 $1.35 1.59 4.38
8 40,739 5,822 14.3 $1.28 1.31 4.49
9 55,078 5,001 9.1 $2.94 0.95 4.42

Total 557,707204,887 36.7 $1.70 1.00 0.00

Top 1: 67% ITM.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[RaceIsClosed]

One possible method is " the art of making your own line and identifying overlays":ThmbUp:

Value Handicapping by
Mark Cramer

City Miner Books Fort Bragg CA

or any book by Mark Cramer

You make a line and then if the horse is more than 50% above your line then you bet the horse.

So if you make a horse 7-5, he's obviously superior to the field, is 3-2 on the morning line, but goes off at 5-2, you'd bet him?

If so, you'd not likely be pleased at the results.

Many horses are live on the board and dismissed as "underlays" when the inside information literally changes his chances of winning to where the lower price is actually a greater value.

In other words, if you make a horse 3-1 to win the race, the public makes him 5-1, and he's bet down to 6-5, you should probably increase your bet and single it all over the exotics.

[RaceIsClosed]

As far as win betting, given the scenario you indicated, I would say that you should determine what percentage of the time on a cumulative basis one of your four horses wins. Then, if you have indeed verified that each of the four has an equal chance of winning, divide that cumulative percentage figure by four and convert it to odds. Then, in any given race, bet any of the four that go off at odds higher than that figure.

As far as exotic wagering, I'd think you'd want a little more information on how your four horses perform when they don't win. Do they often finish in the money if they don't win, or are they all-or-nothing propositions? How often do your four horses cumulatively run first only, second only, third only, 1-2, 1-3, 2-3 or 1-2-3? What patterns (if any) or probabilities relate to their performance in that regard?

If what you say is true, and the horses have value that appears to be equal, and each horse itself offers value (otherwise win bets won't be profitable), then your best bet would be to box all four in the exacta, trifecta, and super, or to do a modified strategy where you box the exacta and key the tri/super with one horse you select on some criteria (e.g., odds).

The value of the horses will compound in the exotic pools.

[Overlay]

If what you say is true, and the horses have value that appears to be equal, and each horse itself offers value (otherwise win bets won't be profitable), then your best bet would be to box all four in the exacta, trifecta, and super, or to do a modified strategy where you box the exacta and key the tri/super with one horse you select on some criteria (e.g., odds).

The value of the horses will compound in the exotic pools.

I agree with you, provided (as I commented) that the horses involved aren't "all-or-nothing" types that tend to either win or else finish far back in the pack, with no middle ground That's why I recommended getting some additional information on place and show probabilties with the particular method (in addition to win probabilities) before deciding on an optimum wagering strategy.

[douglasw32]

Everyone-

That is what I am up to, and so far they are not falling into the all or nothing cat, but when the win misses it is 2nd and 3rd that one of the top 4 shows up and the winner is from off the radar.

thus the field size study ??? right....

I will keep you updated as soon as I have enough solid data.

[socantra]

Conquer,

Sorry, but those are both incorrect statements.

The top 4 public choices will certainly outperform the top 4 M/L horses. They produce about 81% winners.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Those M/L figures looked familiar. I looked through old Follow Ups, and Sartin used to say that the top 5 (not 4) M/L horses produced 85% winners. That was an overall figure and would vary track to track, depending on the abilities of the M/L maker,

I don't recall him ever making a claim about win% of the top M/L choice.

socantra...

[douglasw32]

Might make sense I improved the selection by knocking out the longest morning lines, I was using an automated filter of (toatal all morning lines, get average, filter any above the average) I went back to just getting rid of the extremes like 20-1/30-1 then taking the top 4 remaining on my list of trainer+power.

Maybe looking at the top 5, I wonder if ties count ?