what's your style?

[dav4463]

Who makes all their bets ahead of time without looking at the toteboard before the race? How do you know you are getting value for your bet? Do you base it on the morning line or do you just recognize value and hope you get it today?


Who picks two to four, maybe five contenders and tracks odds up until almost post time looking for value? Do you do better this way or does the late money make it near impossible to know if you are really getting value?

Which style fits you better?

[Overlay]

I share the frustration of many other board members regarding significant odds changes at the last flash, when no more bets can be placed. But from a value-betting standpoint, it's hard for me to see an alternative to just waiting as long as possible to wager and hoping the breaks even out over time (that is, if some of your anticipated overlays become unexpected underlays, some of them should also become overlays to a greater degree). I try to promote this possibility by making an odds line for an entire field (rather than a limited number of possible contenders), so that I have visibility of potential value over the entire odds spectrum. I also think that another way to mitigate this situation is to look for value in the exotic pools (at least for those that show advance probable payoffs), rather than confining yourself only to win betting.

I only look at the morning line (for lack of any other basis of comparison) if I'm forced to make bets far in advance, but I try to avoid that whenever possible. Too many significant changes can occur by post time...or after.

[Overlay]

One other way to approach the problem (for those who make a betting line) would be to tack on an extra percentage of overlay as a margin before considering a horse or combination worth a bet. That way, the horse might fall below the required degree of value, but still be an overlay to some extent rather than an underlay. For example, with a 50% margin, requiring 3-1 on a horse that you rate at true odds of 2-1, and only getting 5-2 as a result of a late odds shift (but still an overlay by your line).

[dav4463]

It works in reverse also. I had a bet the other night where I liked three horses. My top pick was 2-1 at 2 MTP, my second pick was 5-1, and my third pick was 4-1..... It was a no-brainer for me, I bet my second pick at 5-1....then when the race was over...the top pick went off at over 4-1, my pick was bet down to less than 3-1 and my third choice went way up around 9-1, I should have played my top pick and third pick if I am playing the odds, but I couldn't due to the late money. None of the three won anyway, but I would not have been too happy to let a top choice go off at over 4-1 or missed out on a 9-1+ winner.

[RaceIsClosed]

Who makes all their bets ahead of time without looking at the toteboard before the race? How do you know you are getting value for your bet? Do you base it on the morning line or do you just recognize value and hope you get it today?


Who picks two to four, maybe five contenders and tracks odds up until almost post time looking for value? Do you do better this way or does the late money make it near impossible to know if you are really getting value?

Which style fits you better?

Most of the time, if you bet with 3-5 minutes to post, you'll have a good idea of what you're getting. If there's a question, you can wait to 1-2 minutes or even until they are loading if you have BRIS or a solid hookup (don't try this at Pinnacle!).

I use the morning line more than the final odds to guide my value play, but there are times when one or two ticks in either direction can change my opinion of a race, and that's when I prefer to wait.

[twindouble]

Who makes all their bets ahead of time without looking at the toteboard before the race? How do you know you are getting value for your bet? Do you base it on the morning line or do you just recognize value and hope you get it today?


Who picks two to four, maybe five contenders and tracks odds up until almost post time looking for value? Do you do better this way or does the late money make it near impossible to know if you are really getting value?

Which style fits you better?

The ML and the tote is just a distraction when it comes to handicapping the race and coming up with contenders. I never look at the ML or the tote, in most cases I know when I have value just by looking at the PP's. I just hold tight and hope the general public don't see what I see, then wager accordingly. Sometimes that late money is painful to some degree but that don't deter me if I think I can make a buck. On the other hand, there's times when I get more value than I expected. Once in awhile it's shocking the value I get. My main goal is to pick the horses, nothing more, the wagering will take care of the rest.

T.D.

[fmhealth]

The style that has helped me become a much better player & generate an ALMOST positive ROI is a totally contrary approach. I simply limit my focus to three tracks at most. Quickly review all the races. Work this number down to about 8-10 playable scenarios.

After drilling-down to the races I'm most comfortable with I develop the appropriate strategy. Perhaps it's a DD or Per, sometimes a Pk-3 or simply a straight win bet. If these races fall at the early part of the card I'll try to do some visual inspection & of course check the odds. If they are later races, I bet them as soon as I arrive at the track.

Results are of course mixed. Wind-up with a lot of short priced horses that under ordinary circumstances I would toss. On the other hand quite a few of my picks go off at very high odds. Both extremes tend to balance out over time. Bottom line is that I bet far fewer races than ever before & hit more winners since I'm exclusively wagering on races that I have a strong opinion about. Cal racing .com allows me to watch the races at my leisure & provides me with enough action to keep me interested.

This strategy has improved my game & the enjoyment I get from it. Best of luck!!!

[Vegas711]

Most exacta players that I know never look at what the payoffs are, they are too busy putting together their tickets, on the other hand i would say that almost everyone takes a look at what the win odds are.


Value is for the most part a wild ass guess, no one for certain can say that horse A. has a 22% edge if bet. Every race is completely isolated event, what happens in a race happens. The worst year I ever had was when I used an odds line to select my bets, the runouts were huge, the trips to the A.T.M. machines were constant. It was not until I concentrated on picking winners that my game became profitable, my only demand is that I get atleast 2-1.


Pleaseeeeeeeeeees everyone continue playing the value methodology I need the money. Thanks.

[twindouble]

Most exacta players that I know never look at what the payoffs are, they are too busy putting together their tickets, on the other hand i would say that almost everyone takes a look at what the win odds are.


Value is for the most part a wild ass guess, no one for certain can say that horse A. has a 22% edge if bet. Every race is completely isolated event, what happens in a race happens. The worst year I ever had was when I used an odds line to select my bets, the runouts were huge, the trips to the A.T.M. machines were constant. It was not until I concentrated on picking winners that my game became profitable, my only demand is that I get atleast 2-1.


Pleaseeeeeeeeeees everyone continue playing the value methodology I need the money. Thanks.

That's right! You can analyze that tote board in every way possible and it won't help unless you pick the winners. Pure waste of valuable time in my opinion. Looking for overlays and underlays is like going along with the crowd, just toss your handicapping software or racing form and hope for the best.
Wouldn't be nice to make a ton of money and not have to work for it?

T.D.

[Overlay]

If picking winners (regardless of odds) is all that matters, why are there so many posts from people who are upset when the odds on a horse that they bet on drop significantly at the last flash of the tote board, after the race has already started? As long as they have the winner, why should it matter to them what the odds do? But the reason that they are (rightly) upset is because they know that, if the same thing happens regularly to horses they bet, the reduced prices they get on their winners won't be enough to compensate them for the losses on their losers. Even Vegas711 said, "My only demand is that I get at least 2-1." I assume that's because his experience has taught him that he needs those minimum odds in order not to lose money in the long term, using whatever handicapping criteria he employs to arrive at his selections. Even though he may not be assigning a fair-odds figure to every horse in a race, he is thus still incorporating the concept of value into his wagering. Assigning a fair-odds figure to every horse in a race is just an extension of that same reasoning.

[twindouble]

If picking winners (regardless of odds) is all that matters, why are there so many posts from people who are upset when the odds on a horse that they bet on drop significantly at the last flash of the tote board, after the race has already started? As long as they have the winner, why should it matter to them what the odds do? But the reason that they are (rightly) upset is because they know that, if the same thing happens regularly to horses they bet, the reduced prices they get on their winners won't be enough to compensate them for the losses on their losers. Even Vegas 711 said, "My only demand is that I get at least 2-1." I assume that's because his experience has taught him that he needs those minimum odds in order not to lose money in the long term, using whatever handicapping criteria he employs to arrive at his selections. Even though he may not be assigning a fair-odds figure to every horse in a race, he is thus still incorporating the concept of value into his wagering. Assigning a fair-odds figure to every horse in a race is just an extension of that same reasoning.

:lol: I just won a mind bet with my wife, I said I'll hear from you after that post. Like I said before, if it works don't fix it, don't matter what it is. How can you assign fair odds or demand 2-1 when you have no idea what the final odds will be? 2-1 at some tracks after the late money can end up 2-5. Your shooting for $12.00 exacta the ends up $6.00. At most sites, you can't even cancel your bet. By the same token that 2-1 shot can end up 4-1

I'm not knocking the idea of looking for value, you know when you have it without looking at the tote, otherwise there would be no need for some to make there own line. They are assigning odds based on past performances Correct? Same applies to the ML. I do the same thing without getting wound up in tote movements that I have no control over. I just pass or bet accordingly.

[Overlay]

:lol: I just won a mind bet with my wife, I said I'll hear from you after that post.

You owe me one, then. I kept you from losing your mind. :)

[PaceAdvantage]

The worst year I ever had was when I used an odds line to select my bets, the runouts were huge, the trips to the A.T.M. machines were constant. It was not until I concentrated on picking winners that my game became profitable, my only demand is that I get atleast 2-1.


Pleaseeeeeeeeeees everyone continue playing the value methodology I need the money. Thanks.

What a silly thing to say. Just because you couldn't make that particular style of wagering work for YOU, doesn't mean it won't work for ALL.

Did you ever think that the odds line you were using just plain SUCKED? Maybe that was the reason for your lack of succes....you think?

[PaceAdvantage]

That's right! You can analyze that tote board in every way possible and it won't help unless you pick the winners. Pure waste of valuable time in my opinion. Looking for overlays and underlays is like going along with the crowd, just toss your handicapping software or racing form and hope for the best.
Wouldn't be nice to make a ton of money and not have to work for it?

T.D.

Another who doesn't understand the concept. But another who is quite comfortable to tell those who DO what is and what isn't a waste of time....you guys should really take a step or two out of your own heads and try and understand what you are talking about.

[Vegas711]

What a silly thing to say. Just because you couldn't make that particular style of wagering work for YOU, doesn't mean it won't work for ALL.

Did you ever think that the odds line you were using just plain SUCKED? Maybe that was the reason for your lack of succes....you think?

PA, I was just having some fun with the value boys with my last line. Hell, I will take money from all types of players I am not vindictive.:lol:

[twindouble]

Another who doesn't understand the concept. But another who is quite comfortable to tell those who DO what is and what isn't a waste of time....you guys should really take a step or two out of your own heads and try and understand what you are talking about.

I understand very well what I'm talking about, it's what they are talking about that I don't understand whe it comes to time spent and the value of what they do. It all boils down to value plays, nothing more. How I go about it don't make it wrong, it's just a lot easyer and less time wasted in my opinion. That's all I'm saying and Ive been over the hump with Overlay. I would hope to think.

T.D.

[Koko]

Value is for the most part a wild ass guess, no one for certain can say that horse A. has a 22% edge if bet. Every race is completely isolated event, what happens in a race happens.

It was not until I concentrated on picking winners that my game became profitable, my only demand is that I get atleast 2-1.



A rather contradictory set of statements there. Essentially what you're saying is that the guy who plays nothing but horses that he'll gladly state are not "the most likely to win the race" but demands a certain higher level odds, i.e. value selections, is not going to be successfull, but you, doing essentially the same thing using horses with acknowledged better chances to win, will find value without having that as your primary goal.

Utterly ridiculous. So, you're going to take the path chosen by most of the money at the track (presumeably), which is, attempting to pick winners, and you're a winner. But let someone pick horses that have a chance to win as well, but with a given presumed level of value and that approach will be a losing one according to you.

I wish everyone with your approach was able to be as delusional about which approach is more likely to be a winning one, so more of them would stick with your approach longer, instead of waking up and seeing the light.

PA, said it right. You had to resort to a method that offers less potential because you couldn't find horses with value. Please correct me if you think my assessment is off base somehow.

[PaceAdvantage]

How I go about it don't make it wrong,

I don't think I ever implied that how you go about it is wrong. I just get a little miffed when folks like you and valuist attempt to discredit the overlay approach based on the theory that "if it doesn't work for me, it must suck"

[twindouble]

I don't think I ever implied that how you go about it is wrong. I just get a little miffed when folks like you and valuist attempt to discredit the overlay approach based on the theory that "if it doesn't work for me, it must suck"

Well, I guess you didn't read what I said and that was, "if isn't broke don't fix it." and that was meant for Overlay not me.

[Koko]

As a follow-up to my earlier post. There are advantages to attempting to find value in lower-odds priced horses as well as higher odds horses, those are namely:

1. There are more of them overlaid than there are 14-1 shots overlaid.

2. Because you're dealing with high hit rate you can put more money through the windows than you could betting the same number of 14-1 shots.

The advantages of looking for value in longer odds horses:

1. If you posess the skill to find overlays, you're going to find fewer but more significantly overlaid horses at 14-1 than if you're searching for 2-1 shots. You may find a reasonable number of 2-1 shots worth 8/5 or even perhaps 7/5. You're probably not going to find too many worth even odds. You will, if you're patient, find 14-1 shots worth 5-1, 7-1 etc. giving you a far more substantial edge than you'd have with the overlaid 2-1 shots.

2. In the exotic pools, it's far more valuable to find a heavily overlaid 14-1 shot than it is to find a number of slightly overlaid 2-1 shots.

[twindouble]

As a follow-up to my earlier post. There are advantages to attempting to find value in lower-odds priced horses as well as higher odds horses, those are namely:

1. There are more of them overlaid than there are 14-1 shots overlaid.

2. Because you're dealing with high hit rate you can put more money through the windows than you could betting the same number of 14-1 shots.

The advantages of looking for value in longer odds horses:

1. If you posess the skill to find overlays, you're going to find fewer but more significantly overlaid horses at 14-1 than if you're searching for 2-1 shots. You may find a reasonable number of 2-1 shots worth 8/5 or even perhaps 7/5. You're probably not going to find too many worth even odds. You will, if you're patient, find 14-1 shots worth 5-1, 7-1 etc. giving you a far more substantial edge than you'd have with the overlaid 2-1 shots.

2. In the exotic pools, it's far more valuable to find a heavily overlaid 14-1 shot than it is to find a number of slightly overlaid 2-1 shots.

I agree, like I said on another thread, looking for value is as old as the game. What I'm saying is, it's easier to find, that value in the past performances with whatever method you used to handicap the races. An on going complete tote analysis seems to me a waste of time. You have to deal with the final odds anyway, unless your the type that attemps to follow the early and late movement of money. To me that late money has nothing to do with how you see the race. I would bet my shirt that the majority of handicappers here can look at the form and pick out who's going to be chalk and second choice in 8 out of 10 races on the card. That don't mean they are going to win of course. We want to beat them, so when you can you have "value".


T.D.

[Vegas711]

A rather contradictory set of statements there. Essentially what you're saying is that the guy who plays nothing but horses that he'll gladly state are not "the most likely to win the race" but demands a certain higher level odds, i.e. value selections, is not going to be successfull, but you, doing essentially the same thing using horses with acknowledged better chances to win, will find value without having that as your primary goal.

Utterly ridiculous. So, you're going to take the path chosen by most of the money at the track (presumeably), which is, attempting to pick winners, and you're a winner. But let someone pick horses that have a chance to win as well, but with a given presumed level of value and that approach will be a losing one according to you.

I wish everyone with your approach was able to be as delusional about which approach is more likely to be a winning one, so more of them would stick with your approach longer, instead of waking up and seeing the light.

PA, said it right. You had to resort to a method that offers less potential because you couldn't find horses with value. Please correct me if you think my assessment is off base somehow.


What I meant to say was that I tried to value method with a very well known software vender, it did not work for me , passing my top choice becouse it was a so called underlay and betting my second or third choice becouse it offered this so called value cost me thousands of dollars.What methods others choose is their right, I was just sharing what results I had with this betting method.

Everywhere I go people say that the only way you can beat this game is by doing an odds line and getting value, I must be the exception to the rule becouse I don't play for value ( I just want atleast 2-1 odds if I don't get this I pass the race, I never bet my second pick) I never bet exotics, I never know who the trainer or jockey is and I pay no attention to what others say or any attention to myths of racing.

Playing only my top selection is very profitable for ME.

[Valuist]

Another advantage to the multirace wagers is you don't have to worry about the late tote action. A good bettor should anticipate how the race will be bet anyways.

Unless one is playing one of the big tracks with very large win pools, I think the days of "reactive handicapping" (i.e. looking at the board w/2 minutes to post and letting the crowd dictate your win play) are pretty much gone. With 2 minutes to post at Belmont, you'll have a pretty good idea of the odds you'll get. With 2 minutes to post at Indiana Downs or Penn National, you really have no idea what the closing odds will be. There's nothing worse than liking a horse and planning to bet it, only to get off it because of lack of perceived value, then watch its odds rise at the last minute and win while you're holding a losing ticket on a horse who became an underlay in the closing minutes.

[skate]

valuist;


"I go """people say that the only way you can beat this game is by doing an odds line and getting value, I must be the exception to the rule becouse I don't play for value ( I just want atleast 2-1 odds if I don't get this I pass the race, I never bet my second pick) I never bet exotics, I never know who the trainer or jockey is and I pay no attention to what others say or any attention to myths of racing.

Playing only my top selection is very profitable for ME.[/QUOTE]"""




variables are just too many, to be specific.
but if you pick winners 100% (not saying you did), it would be impossible to improve, if you looked for futher value.
so if you have already picked a value, then to look further (unless playing deeper, trifectas etc) for value, you went and discarded agood value play, of coarse you would lose .

if you were one who does not already have a value play, then you should look further.

[classhandicapper]

The major problem with the odds line approach is that it is highly dependent on the information you use.

In other words:,

If you are using TG speed figures you would make one odds line.

If you are using RAG speed figures you would make another odds line.

If you are using Beyer speed figures you would make another odds line.

If you are using pace figures in addition to speed figures you would make another odds line.

Depending on whose pace figures you are using you would make another odds line.

If you aware/unaware horse "x" raced on a deal rail last time you would make another odds line.

So which line is right and why would each of several competent handicappers using different information bet different horses according to their odds line? They can't all be right!

I could go on and on covering every single major factor.

That doesn't mean I"m not an advocate of "value oriented thinking". I am. I just think it's a good idea to be aware of the limitations in anyone's ability to make an accurate line for a single race.

I prefer using value positive and value negative concepts within my overall handicapping. So I'm usually not making a formal odds line, but my thinking is exactly along those lines

For instance, if I know trainer "X" is bad with layoffs (win % and ROI), one of his horses is getting bet down, and it doesn't look all that much better than another horse to begin with, I'm immediately interested in that race because I have a negative value situation to bet against. If they go off at equal odds, I can be pretty sure there's a mistake on the board even if I can't assign the exact probabilities (ballpark is fine).

I try to build a portfolio of negatives and positives. If you get a negative and positive within the same race, then you are in a really great situation.

[Overlay]

As you correctly note, there are many possible measures of performance that can be used, and the odds lines produced will vary in content and predictive power based upon the strength, accuracy, and distribution of the factors that compose them. As Quirin demonstrated in Winning at the Races, once you know what the range of values (in his case, impact values) associated with any given factor or measure is, it's possible through the application of statistical techniques to see which combination of factors and values produces an end result that most closely approximates the actual outcomes of races, and the probability of victory for horses with specific blends of characteristics in comparison to their competition. Although many different combinations of factors are possible, and some are more powerful or predictive than others, the use of a quantitative approach helps assure the correct analysis of factors from one race to the next (replicability), and the ability to more readily determine which component of the predictive model is not functioning as anticipated in the event of a decline in effectiveness, so that adjustments can be made.

[classhandicapper]

I understand the theory, but I am questioning the reality a bit. (stress a BIT)

Over the years, it became apparent to me that some horses that I thought were overlays were definitely not. The only reason they appeared to be overlays was because I had inaccurate or incompete information to work with and/or weighed things incorrectly.

That raises an interesting question.

A person might have terrific line making ability in general, but when he/she disagrees with the tote board it might almost always be because he/she is missing something or has incorrect data and not because the public is wrong. It's hard to know which it is. If you are not aware of the problem, it leaves you wide open to playing tons of underlays in real the world even if what you are doing is theoretically correct.

As evidence of this from my own experience I can say that the more comprehensive my handicapping has become and the better handicapper I have become, the more I have tended to agree with the odds board and pass races - not the other way around. It's at the point that when I do disagree by enough to consider a wager, I feel compelled to double check if I am missing something.

[the_fat_man]

Yeah, Class voices concerns similar to mine.
(Or so I think:bang:)

Overlays are supposed to be about probabilities.

If I'm counting cards, shooting craps, or playing poker, I can set/expect mathematical probabilites that a certain event will occur.

The probabilities involved in overlays are empirically or at least theoretically grounded (Beyerian, Brownia, Ragozian, etc.). They not irrefragable. They can hold today and cease to hold tomorrow.

Just another exercise in quantification. Let me run my program to search my database and pull out the common factors in winning horses. Then I can get the probability numbers that factors a,b,c.... result in win % xxx and typical odds yyy.

Nice methodology. But, I'm cluess, as a result, as to the actual game of horse racing. Moreover, there's no reason why these common factors need to keep winning at that percentage and those odds. They're empirical. That's their nature.

If I'm a 300 hitter I can count on hitting 300 by the end of the year. Every year.

If I'm not really a ballplayer, don't have the requisite skills, but someone get lucky and hit 300 for a few months, I'm not going to hit 300 at the end of the year.

[Hank]

You were doing nicely until the baseball analogy, then you struckout.:lol:

[Overlay]

The probabilities involved in overlays are empirically or at least theoretically grounded (Beyerian, Brownia, Ragozian, etc.). They not irrefragable. They can hold today and cease to hold tomorrow.

Nevertheless, there are any number of performance attributes that retain a high correlation with winning probability year after year. If such a factor falls out of favor among handicappers, it's likely because it becomes unprofitable from too many bettors treating it as the be-all and end-all of their analysis. But viewed in a context of probabilities rather than certainties, it can remain as useful as ever.

On the question of having second thoughts about a supposed overlay because its odds are high (that is, it's "dead on the board"), I agree that it's only natural that such a state of affairs might cause doubts to arise. But to me, that's another advantage of quantifying handicapping to the greatest extent possible. It facilitates going back and checking whether there was anything significant I overlooked. And (at least in my case) I find more often than not that the unexpectedly high odds on the horse I like are not the result of an oversight on my part, but are due to the public becoming oversold on one or more of the other horses in the race that may indeed have positive indicators in their records, but that will not benefit from those attributes to the extent that the public believes.

[twindouble]

I always like this little story, it's simple and to the point, it was told me when I was just a kid. Many different variations have come about.

This building contractor was looking for someone to oversee the labor's, he goes to job site and asked one question; First one he encounters he asked,"what are you doing?" His response was, I'm making forms. Then sees two guys in hole with shovels, he asked one "what are you doing" he says I'm digging a ditch. The he says to the next "what about you", the guy continues to shovel and says, "I'm building a building". The boss says drop the shovel, I've got another job for you.

We all bring who we are to this game, just like anything else we do. The psychology of the player, how he views things and makes decisions along with the tools he selects very from player to player, more so today because of the computer. I view horse racing and handicapping different than the majority of prominent posters here. Sure it's simple compared to the complex computer programs and other in depth analysis of stats, pace and so on but I don't see how I or anyone else can put a damper on this trend. I have no way to validate it's any better than what I do, nor can I discount it entirely. A good gambler won't press when the edge isn't there and I sure as heck don't have the edge here on that score.

Good luck,


T.D.

[classhandicapper]

As I said in a prior post, I think one of the things that can help the line maker be more certain he is betting an overlay is being able to identify specifically why a horse isn't being bet properly. If you have a "value negative" or "value positive" in the race, you can be more certain that you aren't missing something or working with inaccurate data.