The True Value a horse

[charlieparks53]

I am new at this so bear with me. I hear my friend saying that he only bets horses that are overlays or true value. Lets say a horse is 3-1 morning line but his true values is 5-1 he only bets them if they go 25% over the true value, my question is what is true values and how do you come up with those odds. Thank You.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I figure the horse's win % probabilty and deduct 20% (20% win probability minus 20% of that = 16% or 5-1) (50% minus 20% = 40% win, 60% lose, or 3-2 true odds.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I figure the horse's win % probabilty and deduct 20% (20% win probability minus 20% of that = 16% or 5-1) (50% minus 20% = 40% win, 60% lose, or 3-2 true odds.

[ryesteve]

I figure the horse's win % probabilty
I'm pretty sure THAT'S the part the guy wanted the "how" for.

Quick answer: there is no quick answer. No one can quite pin down "true" odds... but most people have their own style and methodology for estimating it, and developing that approach is really the point of the whole game.

[Dave Schwartz]

Alas, for all practical purposes there is no such thing as "true odds." The closest one can get is their own assessment of what they think true odds should be.

How "true" those odds actually are is only measurable in the long run and not in the individual race.

Imagine that two handicappers both have proven success in making an odds line. One makes horse A 5/2 and the other makes him 7/1. Which one is right? Even if the horse wins, you don't know that answer.

That is what makes the game so much fun. <G>

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

You have pretty much a horses odds based on the limited factors you use.
Each handicapper might use different factors, so each is correct to his method.
But, nobody ever knows all the factors or how they will intereact.
Thigns about the jock that day, the hore that day, the match up that day, other jocks that day, other horses that day, the track that day, the starters that day......

[robert99]

Alas, for all practical purposes there is no such thing as "true odds." The closest one can get is their own assessment of what they think true odds should be.

How "true" those odds actually are is only measurable in the long run and not in the individual race.

Imagine that two handicappers both have proven success in making an odds line. One makes horse A 5/2 and the other makes him 7/1. Which one is right? Even if the horse wins, you don't know that answer.

That is what makes the game so much fun. <G>

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave,

Agreed, except your sentence "How "true" those odds actually are is only measurable in the long run and not in the individual race",
which contradicts the others.

A race is never repeated so the long run is irrelevant.
If you mean that 2/1 shots win about 33% in the long run that tells you about the long run, not that 2/1 is correct in any single race. If you aim a dart at the bull it may miss every single time but after many attempts, the average position of the dart may still be dead centre of the bull's eye.

[robert99]

Tom,

That is spot on.
Which means you have to add a margin on top of your estimate to make allowance for the fact you have used limited information in the first place and also that the limited information may have its own errors and guesstimates.

The margin only conmes with wrtiting down your estimates before the race then checking to see how many races your 2/1, 3/1 estimates actually win over a time period. If they win 33% and 25% then that is reasonable. If only 22% and 16%, then you need to add a safety margin of 33% for making any bet.

[Dave Schwartz]

A race is never repeated so the long run is irrelevant.
If you mean that 2/1 shots win about 33% in the long run that tells you about the long run, not that 2/1 is correct in any single race. If you aim a dart at the bull it may miss every single time but after many attempts, the average position of the dart may still be dead centre of the bull's eye.

RObert,

You actually make my point.

The individual race can never be proven correct or incorrect.

Proof through long term win percentage also is not valid ("All my 33% horses won 33% therefore my system works" is an invalid assumption.).

Only the performance of the complete strategy can be "proven" and only in the long term.

IOW, "The results of wagering on the overlays that were designated thorugh the application of my probability-making mechanism were profitable" is a valid test of whether or not the odds line mechanism/strategy works.


Dave

[robert99]

Dave

You said earlier.
"How "true" those odds actually are is only measurable in the long run and not in the individual race".
Your next post contradicts yourself.
"Proof through long term win percentage also is not valid ("All my 33% horses won 33% therefore my system works" is an invalid assumption.)"

I did not say that anything more than the long term just proves the long term.
If your total returns exceed the total risk you took over the long term you have only proved this against the sequence of odds you actually got, not the "true" odds in any one particular race. The objective of odds-line gambling method being (as you say) to make a profit long term, rather than to nail the winner in any particular race.

[Dave Schwartz]

Robert,

I am not sure that we are in disagreement on anything here and I certainly do not see where I contradicted myself but perhaps I am missing something or have not properly communicated my thoughts.

As I see it, the issue of making money at the races is dependant upon a two-phase approach: Handicapping (where the horses are assigned probabilities or odds lines) and Exploitation (where the player decides how to best take advantage of the scenario as he sees it).

Now, I am not so arrogant as to say that this is how everyone does it or that this is how it must be done. Perhaps someone else has a different (or even better) way. If so, I congratulate them.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz