PDA

View Full Version : Value Betting At The Racetrack


JustMissed
09-08-2006, 06:27 PM
I asked the following of Dave Johnson in response to one of his post regarding the book he wrote entitled VALUE BETTING AT THE RACETRACK.

The tread was in the Library section and unfortunately Mr. Johnson nor anyone else was able to provide any examples or explainations as to how or why Value Betting can increase a player's profits.

Since this seems to be the most popular and most read area of the board, I am printing below my original question to Mr. Johnson in hopes that someone can provide some information as to why Value Betting works.

My original post is below in quotes:

"Would you mind explaining where the value comes from? I am not sure that measuring the difference between self-calculated betting lines(or oddsline if you prefer) and the tote odds(or expected payoff as I prefer) really means anything.

After all, two guys could very well be standing next to each other by the rail and one guy makes the #2 horse to be 5-2. The guy standing next to him may make that same horse 3-1. If the #2 horse wins and pays $9, both guys make a $7 profit. How could there be more value for one player over the other.

I strongly suspect that "value betting" is just a gimmick some book writer came up with to sell another book and was quickly picked up by the software developers in order to ad another enhancement to their handicapping software.

It is possible that I am wrong and would gladly admit so if you would please show me an example of value betting and how it causes you to make more profit in the long or short term.

Thanks,

JM"[END QUOTE]

Any comments are appreciated but I hope someone can provide some examples or direct me to some bonafide studies or research that shows that value betting can improve profits and why.

Thanks,

JM

Overlay
09-08-2006, 06:34 PM
I offered one possible scenario in the original thread, as follows:

One way could be if, instead of each betting the same amount, they were sizing their wagers based on the amount of overlay the horse offered according to their respective betting lines, so that the one who had the horse at lower odds in his line would make more. There could also be cases where a horse would be an overlay on one player's line, and an underlay on another's, in which case the net outcome would hinge on whether the horse won or lost, and how big an overlay it was on the one player's line. Of course, the final gauge of how accurate each player's line was would be the degree to which it corresponded to the actual winning percentage of horses at each of its odds levels (based on a 100% betting line) over a representatively large number of races. (Then there is also the issue that has already been mentioned of how accurate the odds line remains as the toteboard odds go up, and the effect of that on the overall net wagering result.)

ryesteve
09-08-2006, 06:35 PM
Before repeating the same thread here, why not go back to the original one and respond to the posts that were directed to you?

JustMissed
09-08-2006, 06:44 PM
Before repeating the same thread here, why not go back to the original one and respond to the posts that were directed to you?

Gee Steve,

If I want an answer, why not post in an area that has 78,905 post rather than in the Handicapping Library area that has only 5,993.

Now that is an example of real value.

JM :lol:

PaceAdvantage
09-08-2006, 07:07 PM
Gee Steve,

If I want an answer, why not post in an area that has 78,905 post rather than in the Handicapping Library area that has only 5,993.

Now that is an example of real value.

JM :lol:

I think what he is saying is that you received a couple of replies from Overlay and GameTheory....I take it you were unsatisfied with their answers to your inquiry?

sjk
09-08-2006, 07:12 PM
Any comments are appreciated but I hope someone can provide some examples or direct me to some bonafide studies or research that shows that value betting can improve profits and why.

Thanks,

JM

Where are any bonafide studies or research in the handicapping area? If there were a large number of them I would probably have stumbled across some of them over the years.

There are no journals related to handicapping that I am aware of.

People who do handicapping research are primarily interested in:

1). Making winning bets and optimizing their play

2). Some of the good folks here are willing to offer advice to those who are open-minded enough to learn.

3). ?? - giving good advice to people who only want to hear what they already believe is something that gets old after a while.

twindouble
09-08-2006, 07:41 PM
To me the answer is simple, you handicap the race bet the horse you like to win if it's not the 1-9 chalk. That's value betting at the track, online or through the book if you can find one.


T.D.

TRM
09-08-2006, 10:50 PM
You might try Steve Fiero's book. He gives some good examples.

ryesteve
09-08-2006, 10:55 PM
I think what he is saying is that you received a couple of replies from Overlay and GameTheory....I take it you were unsatisfied with their answers to your inquiry?
... and there were a couple from me as well. We'll never know whether or not he was satisfied with them, since he ignored him. His inability to comprehend that point in the previous message is enough to convince me further explanations would be a waste of time.

twindouble
09-08-2006, 11:01 PM
You might try Steve Fiero's book. He gives some good examples.

What's he going to tell me, bet a 5-2 when I like an 18-1? Skip the chalk when I know he's a key horse in the picks? Watch the odds board and bet the smart late or early money? Am I finally going to learn how to handicap after 46 years at the game? Clue me in TRM, please.

GameTheory
09-08-2006, 11:02 PM
Not to mention that he's been asking this same question periodically for a few years now and getting the explanation over and over...

twindouble
09-08-2006, 11:08 PM
Not to mention that he's been asking this same question periodically for a few years now and getting the explanation over and over...

And I've been worried about losing my memory. :D

NY BRED
09-09-2006, 08:40 AM
real value "bet"


drive to the track and face:

high price of travel(gas,tolls,traffic)
face ridiculous admission and parking charges
being unable to watch more than one track if you are in the stands
spend significant $ for lousy food
again face the issues on line 1 above when leaving the track

or..

open an on line account and get track odds
save all the money listed above and you can purchase tvg/htr simulcasts
save on all travel expense and potential damage and frustration listed above
enjoy your own list of favorite foods
even if you still lose, at least you can still smile that you missed
the negatives of going to the track

only negatives
you can't observe the paddock or properly observe the horses
as they parade to the gate

if you are trackside, you can't yell at the jock for a bad ride.


unfortunately, this is why the average track attendance
has dramatically decreased during the year at all eastern
tracks(Saratoga not included)

TRM
09-09-2006, 09:55 AM
TD,

The original question from JM was Where does value come from?

From Steve's book pg 23

"The program morning line odds have absolutely nothing to do with a horse's probability to win the race. They also have nothing to do with his or her true level of contention in a race. True value is the function of attaching your own fair odds to your contenders. These fair odds are based on the insights and opinions you foster for each of your contenders in any given race. This is performing the Second Quarter; attaching value to your contenders."

Seems plain and simple to me.


If you like an 18/1 that's more than likely a value bet......but that would be your line or contender based on your opinion. My opinion may be otherwise.

JustMissed
09-09-2006, 11:12 AM
I think what he is saying is that you received a couple of replies from Overlay and GameTheory....I take it you were unsatisfied with their answers to your inquiry?

PA, After GT called me "dense" and referred to my wife in his post I felt he was getting a little too personal for a horseracing discussion and has nothing to offer as an example or illustration as to why Value Betting is more profitable than not using value betting.

I always appreciate Overlay's post and the others as well. If I did not respond to their post it was because I did not understand that they were asking me a direct question and I apoligize for that.


JM

twindouble
09-09-2006, 11:15 AM
TD,

The original question from JM was Where does value come from?

From Steve's book pg 23

"The program morning line odds have absolutely nothing to do with a horse's probability to win the race. They also have nothing to do with his or her true level of contention in a race. True value is the function of attaching your own fair odds to your contenders. These fair odds are based on the insights and opinions you foster for each of your contenders in any given race. This is performing the Second Quarter; attaching value to your contenders."

Seems plain and simple to me.


If you like an 18/1 that's more than likely a value bet......but that would be your line or contender based on your opinion. My opinion may be otherwise.

Really TRM, I don't see the point. Regardless of where you go making your own line your only going to get what the final odds are. If I like a horse to based on all the handicapping factors I muster up, I bet the sucker if I can make a buck. What more is there to it? So, the horse is 18-1 and goes off a 20-1 or he drops to 12-1, that don't change my mind. Don't matter to me if he's 5-1 and ends up 2-1, I'll make money on him someway in the pools, if not I pass. Obviouly that don't mean I win them all. Why add more factors to soup and spoil it? Got a break today, thought I'd be tied up all day.

T.D.

ryesteve
09-09-2006, 11:44 AM
Really TRM, I don't see the point. Regardless of where you go making your own line your only going to get what the final odds are. If I like a horse to based on all the handicapping factors I muster up, I bet the sucker if I can make a buck. What more is there to it? So, the horse is 18-1 and goes off a 20-1 or he drops to 12-1, that don't change my mind. Don't matter to me if he's 5-1 and ends up 2-1, I'll make money on him someway in the pools, if not I pass. Obviouly that don't mean I win them all.
That's pretty much the whole point. You don't win them all. So when you decide you "like" a horse, that doesn't mean you're assessing his chances to win at 100%. If you did, then yeah, any price is an overlay. But you don't. Let's say for argument's sake you think he has a 1 in 3 chance of winning. If he's even money, and you're still betting on him, it's a losing proposition based on your own assessment of his chances of winning. If your assessment is correct, he still has a good chance of winning, but the payoff you'd get doesn't compensate for what you'd lose in the 2/3's of races like this when the horse doesn't win.

TRM
09-09-2006, 11:49 AM
Agreed.

If I like a horse that's 20/1 or whatever and he drops to 10/1 I'm still going to bet. Now if he drops to 6/5......then forget it. There's a ton more races to play.

Even a horse that's 5/1 and drops to 2/1 is still iffy to me. My records tell me that my profitability bottom line is between 4/1 and 7/2 and up.

Have a good one.... :)

jfdinneen
09-09-2006, 12:30 PM
JM,

If the concept of value is not to your liking, you could use the alternate concept of mathematical expecation based on your long-term estimated strike rate to guide your wagering decisions.

For example:

Strike Rate = 25%
Tax = 20%
Edge (Reqd) = 50%
Value SP = 5.8

Best wishes,

John

twindouble
09-09-2006, 01:09 PM
That's pretty much the whole point. You don't win them all. So when you decide you "like" a horse, that doesn't mean you're assessing his chances to win at 100%. If you did, then yeah, any price is an overlay. But you don't. Let's say for argument's sake you think he has a 1 in 3 chance of winning. If he's even money, and you're still betting on him, it's a losing proposition based on your own assessment of his chances of winning. If your assessment is correct, he still has a good chance of winning, but the payoff you'd get doesn't compensate for what you'd lose in the 2/3's of races like this when the horse doesn't win.

Call me an old fart but I can't imagin letting movements in tote determ how I'm going to wager or not, so why make a line? This is about value, I've had periods where my "strike rate" was a hell of lot higher than 33% (hot) and others where it was much less and still made money. Then there's times when I'm just spinning my wheels, like at De Mar or Santa Anita. That's racing.

A sustained losing streak with a meager bankroll is what gets most players in trouble.



T.D.

the_fat_man
09-09-2006, 01:28 PM
Call me an old fart but I can't imagin letting movements in tote determ how I'm going to wager or not, so why make a line? This is about value, I've had periods where my "strike rate" was a hell of lot higher than 33% (hot) and others where it was much less and still made money. Then there's times when I'm just spinning my wheels, like at De Mar or Santa Anita. That's racing.

A sustained losing streak with a meager bankroll is what gets most players in trouble.



T.D.

Twin

Here's what the whole 'VALUE' thing is about for the Database guys

you deterime, empirically, that factors A thru .....

win X percent of the time with the average odds of Y

so, next time a horse satisfying these conditions runs, you check the odds

and see if they're higher or lower than the expected win odds

if higher you bet, whether you 'like' the horse or not

if lower you come over to PA and post something silly

This method, while boring as hell, makes sense to me

as the process of 'making an odds line' is not a totally subjective endeavor

and can thus be discussed

now, 'boring' is a relative term: try watching replays of races you have absolutely more interest in--makes running DB queries seem like a glamour job.

p.s.

as for the good DR.

he definitely seems to be craving attention/recognition

I'd suggest teaching some more classes, where he can get attention from his students, rather than focusing on research

traynor
09-09-2006, 01:34 PM
3). ?? - giving good advice to people who only want to hear what they already believe is something that gets old after a while.

There is an upside to that. Those are the simple folk pounding chalk into dust every day at every track. Were it not for them, life would be hard for those trying to eke out their meager existence betting on thoroughbred races. ;)

Good commentary, sjk. More profound that it appears on the surface.
Good Luck

twindouble
09-09-2006, 01:41 PM
p.s.

as for the good DR.

he definitely seems to be craving attention/recognition

I'd suggest teaching some more classes, where he can get attention from his students, rather than focusing on research


Skinny, who's the good DR.? I'm a drop out. :cool:

the_fat_man
09-09-2006, 01:50 PM
p.s.

as for the good DR.

he definitely seems to be craving attention/recognition

I'd suggest teaching some more classes, where he can get attention from his students, rather than focusing on research


Skinny, who's the good DR.? I'm a drop out. :cool:

Johnson, the author of the book, who comes on every so often and basically regurgitates the same old BS without addressing anyone's concerns

it's pathetic: HE NEEDS RECOGNITION

tell me this TWIN, if you had a method that was foolproof (as he claims)

would you be happy MERELY raking in the DOE or

would you need to publish a book and constantly VISIT PA for ATA BOY's?:lol:


Now, take a minute to think about his one, 'cause it's really a difficult decision.

JustMissed
09-09-2006, 02:30 PM
Twin

Here's what the whole 'VALUE' thing is about for the Database guys

you deterime, empirically, that factors A thru .....

win X percent of the time with the average odds of Y

so, next time a horse satisfying these conditions runs, you check the odds

and see if they're higher or lower than the expected win odds

if higher you bet, whether you 'like' the horse or not

if lower you come over to PA and post something silly



Ah, that was the part of Value Betting I did not understand. The part about betting a horse "whether you 'like' the horse or not".

Fat Man, if you don't mind I would like to copy an example of using a betting line that was at Gordon Pine's fine website netcapper.com in the articles section. The article is by Gordon and maybe you could clear up a couple of questions for me.

1. Why do you suppose he used the #10 on top and bottom of the exacta when the #10 is not even on the betting line.

2. I assume Point Given was left out of the win bet because he was an underlay, if so, why not bet the whole $170 on the 3,8 & 16 and forget the exacta that included the underlay. A $56 win bet on Monarchos would have cashed for $644, a profit of $474.

3. Do you think Gordon's example is a fair presentation of how Value Bets are constructed by most Value players?

4. Why are his bet odds so much higher than his fair odds? I believe players mark up their Fair Odds to account for track take-but his mark-up seems a little high.

Any response will be appreciated.

JM

FROM NETCAPPER.COM BY GORDON PINES:

"Track Tracts

Betting Line Wagering Simplified
by Gordon Pine

The first two races of this year’s triple crown illustrate the power of wagering with a betting line. With decent, if less-than-brilliant, handicapping, I was able to take money from both races. How is that possible? In the Derby, my fourth pick won. In the Preakness, my third pick won at 2/1 odds. In both races, my top pick was out of the money.

My meat and potatoes betting includes win, place, show and exacta wagers. If there are overlays in a race, I will generally bet them in some or all of these pools. My wagering method is mechanical, easy-to-implement, and well-worn – I’ve been happily doing it this way for years. The overarching principle is to place bets that involve overlays as defined by my betting line. Here’s how it works:

•Win Betting: Bet if the horse’s odds are equal to or greater than the Bet Odds.
•Place Betting: Bet Win/Place if the horse’s odds are 3+ times the Fair Odds.
•Show Betting: Bet Win/Place/Show if the horse’s odds are 6+ times the Fair Odds.
•Exacta Betting: Wheel the overlay(s) top and bottom with the top two favorites. If there are more than one overlay, box them.

Using the betting line I posted for the Kentucky Derby in Capper’s Corner the night before the race (assuming $20 win/place/show bets and $5 exacta bets) here’s how this betting method worked

Fair Bet Track
P# Horse Odds Odds Odds
3 Balto Star 5/2 4/1 8/1
8 Congaree 7/2 5/1 7/1
17 Point Given 4/1 6/1 9/5
16 Monarchos 7/1 9/1 10/1

$20 Win 3,8,16 = $60
$20 Place 3 = $20
$5 Exacta, 18 combinations = $90
(3+8+16 with 10+17, 10+17 with 3+8+16, and 3-8-16 box)

Total Bet $170
Collected $230
Profit $60

I didn’t expect to get my 9/1 Bet Odds on Monarchos, but they’re generous on Kentucky Derby Day, and it ended up being a bet. I missed my big exacta payday when Congaree got nosed out of the second spot, but the $23.00 win payoff for Monarchos made it a profitable day".

ryesteve
09-09-2006, 02:45 PM
Call me an old fart but I can't imagin letting movements in tote determ how I'm going to wager or not, so why make a line? This is about value
So exactly where is the value in accepting even money on a horse that you expect only has a one in three chance of winning?
The impression I get is that guys like you and JM are strictly binary thinkers. Everything is black and white. A horse is either going to be the winner or he's not. But that's not reality. When the horses load into the gate, every horse has some probability of winning. There are no 0% horses and no 100% horses. The potential return (ie the odds), in conjunction with your assessment of those probabilities, is what should be driving the bet/no bet decision.

Hell, if you really think the odds don't matter, I will cheerfully book all your bets from now till doomsday... but I'll pay you half of whatever the ontrack price is. Shouldn't matter if you actually believe payouts are irrelevant.

Tom
09-09-2006, 03:41 PM
Do you want to know why Gordon did it or do you want to why some fat guy thinks he did it?

Ask gordon.

JustMissed
09-09-2006, 04:02 PM
Do you want to know why Gordon did it or do you want to why some fat guy thinks he did it?

Ask gordon.

Do you have Gordon's user name, I could not find it in the Members List.

Let me know and I will send him a PM.

You have the reputation as one of the better players that post on this board and I believe you make your own odds line. If you have the time, maybe you could explain what Gordon was doing.

JM

Tom
09-09-2006, 04:11 PM
Go to his webpage and leave a message - might be an email link.
No, I don not make a line.
I have access to a line in HTR, and have played around with a prgram CJ gave away, but I no longer use to make one. Wehn I did, it was very similar to what Overlay talks about. In fact, I am reading one of his books right now.

Found it:

gordon@netcapper.com

Tom
09-09-2006, 04:20 PM
I went back to his archives and looked up that article - the only reason to use the 10, which never gets mentioned at all until the bet structure, is this, which he posted right after the selctins:


Fill a tall glass or silver tumbler with crushed ice.
Put 2 sprigs of fresh mint in another glass.
Add 1/4 oz. of water.
Add 1 tsp. Sugar.
Muddle ingredients well.
Add 3 oz. of Bourbon.
Stir gently, but thoroughly.
Strain into glass with crushed ice.
Garnish with fresh sprigs of mint.
Use the freshest and highest quality ingredients you can.
Silver cups or tumblers are the traditional way to serve this drink.
Best when allowed to sit in the fridge a half hour or longer.
And, finally, do your own handicapping, preferably before the mint julep. NC







:lol:

JustMissed
09-09-2006, 04:24 PM
Go to his webpage and leave a message - might be an email link.
No, I don not make a line.
I have access to a line in HTR, and have played around with a prgram CJ gave away, but I no longer use to make one. Wehn I did, it was very similar to what Overlay talks about. In fact, I am reading one of his books right now.

Found it:

gordon@netcapper.com

Tom, I am sending Gordon an email and perhaps he will find the time to post to this tread.

I thought you were a Value bettor but I was wrong. Good to know you are a winning player yet you don't make an odds line.

So many players here like to talk about how they became winners after they started Value Betting but few, if any, can produce any examples of how or why it works. It makes me think there is not really anything to it, which obiviously you believe also.

Maybe Gordon will post here, that would be nice.

Thanks,


JM

twindouble
09-09-2006, 06:55 PM
So exactly where is the value in accepting even money on a horse that you expect only has a one in three chance of winning?
The impression I get is that guys like you and JM are strictly binary thinkers. Everything is black and white. A horse is either going to be the winner or he's not. But that's not reality. When the horses load into the gate, every horse has some probability of winning. There are no 0% horses and no 100% horses. The potential return (ie the odds), in conjunction with your assessment of those probabilities, is what should be driving the bet/no bet decision.

Hell, if you really think the odds don't matter, I will cheerfully book all your bets from now till doomsday... but I'll pay you half of whatever the ontrack price is. Shouldn't matter if you actually believe payouts are irrelevant.

GOD, where did I say odds don't matter?? Where do you get this 1 in 3 chances of winning? We all know crap happens in racing, your horse falls down or doesn't leave the gate what's the odds of winning then?? No not every horse has a probability of winning unless the rest of the field died in the stretch, I mean dead! We have an expression for those horses, "NO SHOT". There's others. Can't you except the fact some horses just don't belong in the race in most cases more than one. That's what handicapping is all about. I never felt like I had a 1-3 chance of winning when I bet, ESP when it comes betting to win. I feel a hell of lot better than that, so what if your not right all the time. As long as I'm right enough times betting what I conceder "value" in any pool to make money over the long term, I'm happy keeping things as simple as possible.

Good luck,

Overlay
09-09-2006, 08:00 PM
4. Why are his bet odds so much higher than his fair odds? I believe players mark up their Fair Odds to account for track take-but his mark-up seems a little high.
Fair Bet Track
P# Horse Odds Odds Odds
3 Balto Star 5/2 4/1 8/1
8 Congaree 7/2 5/1 7/1
17 Point Given 4/1 6/1 9/5
16 Monarchos 7/1 9/1 10/1

As far as the "cushion" on his bet odds, I would say it's used to account for both the track take (as you suggested) plus a margin of error in the fair-odds calculation itself. I was going to speculate that his criterion for the above horses appeared to be setting the bet odds at three ranks higher on the odds scale than the fair odds, but Monarchos should have been at bet odds of 10/1 by that standard. (Of course, at those bet odds, Monarchos wouldn't have been an overlay.) Anyone else see another pattern there to account for how those bet odds were set?

Overlay
09-09-2006, 08:29 PM
1. Why do you suppose he used the #10 on top and bottom of the exacta when the #10 is not even on the betting line.

2. I assume Point Given was left out of the win bet because he was an underlay, if so, why not bet the whole $170 on the 3,8 & 16 and forget the exacta that included the underlay. A $56 win bet on Monarchos would have cashed for $644, a profit of $474.

3. Do you think Gordon's example is a fair presentation of how Value Bets are constructed by most Value players?

My responses to the above would be along these lines:

1. Probabilities for exacta combinations can be figured separately, just as separate payoffs are shown for exacta combinations at the track that are not connected to the win pool. A horse may be underlaid to win, but the exacta combinations involving that horse may still offer value. Exotic wagers allow you to cover cases like that, so that you can take a horse into account, even though it may not offer value as win bet, or if you want to protect yourself in the event that a particular horse (such as (I'm assuming) the 10) might get a piece of the purse (or even win), even if you don't consider it worthy of a separate win bet.

2. I would want to know what the degree of value offered by the exacta combinations were, compared to the three win-bet possibilities.

3. Your example doesn't really go into detail about how Gordon determined his fair-odds figures. If they're educated guesses based on knowledge and experience, that's one way to do it. There's also the more quantitative approach using statistics or probabilities associated with the various performance characteristics, like the fair odds associated with the multiple regression technique that Quirin discussed in Winning at the Races.

ryesteve
09-09-2006, 11:17 PM
Where do you get this 1 in 3 chances of winning?

I offered it up as a hypothetical. If this doesn't work for you, offer up a different number. Doesn't really change things...

I never felt like I had a 1-3 chance of winning when I bet, ESP when it comes betting to win. I feel a hell of lot better than that
Ok, assuming you keep records, what IS your hit rate?
And what is your ROI on horses going off under even money?

Here's another hypothetical that might help. You want to bet a horse that's going off at 2-1, and you love his chances (I won't try to guess what you think his chances of winning are, since that's not working). Anyway, the line at the window is way too long, and you realize you have no chance of getting your bet down. Being the good samaritan that I am, I offer to book your bet, but I'll only give you 4/5 odds. Do you bet the horse with me, or do you pass the race?

PaceAdvantage
09-09-2006, 11:51 PM
PA, After GT called me "dense" and referred to my wife in his post I felt he was getting a little too personal for a horseracing discussion and has nothing to offer as an example or illustration as to why Value Betting is more profitable than not using value betting.

Really? GT did that? Man, I gotta start paying attention more when I'm reading all the posts on this board....time to re-read that thread....

twindouble
09-10-2006, 12:00 AM
I offered it up as a hypothetical. If this doesn't work for you, offer up a different number. Doesn't really change things...


Ok, assuming you keep records, what IS your hit rate?
And what is your ROI on horses going off under even money?

Here's another hypothetical that might help. You want to bet a horse that's going off at 2-1, and you love his chances (I won't try to guess what you think his chances of winning are, since that's not working). Anyway, the line at the window is way too long, and you realize you have no chance of getting your bet down. Being the good samaritan that I am, I offer to book your bet, but I'll only give you 4/5 odds. Do you bet the horse with me, or do you pass the race?

The only chance I have of winning a race is if my handicapping is right on. I don't care what odds are, 2-1 or 60-1. You don't need a high hit rate to make money, that's a fact.

Do I keep records, yes all I have do is look at the condition of my bankroll, I can count.

I count on one hand the number of times I bet through a book and that was only because I couldn't make it to the track, it was 3 or 4 horses that were on my watch list and I paid up front. Wagering on credit is dumb thing to do.

To answer your question, seeing how your a good samaritan, I'd say save your money and lets go have a beer. One race don't mean anything to me at that price. Now if you were willing to take my picks keying that horse thinking I'd miss the first leg, you would take the beer because I would want track payoffs.

T.D.

ryesteve
09-10-2006, 08:51 AM
The only chance I have of winning a race is if my handicapping is right on. I don't care what odds are

To answer your question, seeing how your a good samaritan, I'd say save your money and lets go have a beer. One race don't mean anything to me at that price.
Maybe we're getting somewhere? As you can see, you DO care what the odds are. In this example, you liked the horse enough to bet him at 2-1, but then decided that at 4-5, it wasn't worth it because the value had evaporated. Given your response to this hypothetical, your response should be the same if instead, you were waiting on line to bet this horse, and before you got to the front of the line, his tote odds dropped to 4/5.

Similarly, your answer should be the same if, instead of 2-1 and 4/5, we were using hypothetical odds of say 12-1 and 7/2. The gist is that there is a point for any horse where you would be correct in deciding that the odds were too low to warrant a bet.

twindouble
09-10-2006, 10:28 AM
Maybe we're getting somewhere? As you can see, you DO care what the odds are. In this example, you liked the horse enough to bet him at 2-1, but then decided that at 4-5, it wasn't worth it because the value had evaporated. Given your response to this hypothetical, your response should be the same if instead, you were waiting on line to bet this horse, and before you got to the front of the line, his tote odds dropped to 4/5.

Similarly, your answer should be the same if, instead of 2-1 and 4/5, we were using hypothetical odds of say 12-1 and 7/2. The gist is that there is a point for any horse where you would be correct in deciding that the odds were too low to warrant a bet.

No,no ryesteve; I didn't say any such thing, that 4-5 could very well be my key in the picks with others with "VALUE". Being a Book, you wouldn't take the bet giving track odds. That's what I said. Your interpreting what I'm saying wrong, when I say don't matter to me what the odds are, if I like the horse I'm going to bet it in any pool where I can make money. In other words, you don't have to beat the chalk all the time to make money, they should be part of your play nowadays with the huge wagering menu that out there, providing you think they can win or be on the board. Yes, there's value in playing the chalks as well. Missing one race is of no consequence to me, it just rolls of and I'm onto the next. One race will never make or break me, I don't recall ever running to make a bet. Not that I haven't exceeded the speed limit getting to the track carring my sisters all and my key horse in the DD, didn't make it and it cost me a little over $900. :eek: Never did that again, make your own bets.

I have no control over the tote, I have to take what's there and go from there. Fact of life. In all the picks your at the mercy of the tote, it can work agains't you or you may very well get a huge suprise. That's one reason why I love this game. By the way, If your not playing the picks there's something wrong with your strategy, picking winners is the heart of gambling on the horses, ESP those with value, if your fortunate enough to come up with them.

Good luck,

T.D.

ryesteve
09-10-2006, 10:42 AM
that 4-5 could very well be my key in the picks with others with "VALUE".
If you take an underlay and hook him with overlays in exotic pools, that bet itself can still be an overlay. We're not in disagreement there.


I have no control over the tote, I have to take what's there and go from there.

That's the thing... you don't "have" to take it... you can decide the price is too low, and move on.

I'm still not convinced we're talking about two different things. It sounds to me like when the win price is too low (ie no value) you're looking for value in the exotics, by hooking the horse with horses that are overlays. Similar to the Gordon example above, where he still hooked up the underlay Point Given in the exactas with the three overlays. In that case, even though a win bet on Point Given was, in his estimation, a negative expectation bet, the exactas of Point Given on top of the three overlays was still a positive expectation bet. Sounds to me like you're doing the same thing... the only difference is that you're calling it "looking for a pool where I can make money" whereas Gordon might've called it "value betting via the exacta pool". The strategy seems all the same to me.

cj
09-10-2006, 10:50 AM
...if I like the horse I'm going to bet it in any pool where I can make money...

But you can make money in any pool if your horse wins.

twindouble
09-10-2006, 11:24 AM
But you can make money in any pool if your horse wins.

Agreed.

You all have to understand, sometimes well most of the time it's like pulling teeth getting an understanding of where I'm at on subjects like this. It's my nature to keep things simple and I think that clashes with all the brains that are here, respectfully of course. Going to the Horse racing discussion board is like me having to learn a new language. :confused:

Good luck, cj.

GameTheory
09-10-2006, 11:37 AM
The problem with the anti-value guys is they never want to count the losers.

Let's say that no matter who you bet on, in whatever pool, if your selections are right you are going to get fixed odds on all winning tickets of 1/9. No what matter you can never cash a ticket paying more than 1/9. When I say "you" here I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but any bettor.

If you would keep on betting as normal in this circumstance, then you are truly NOT a value bettor. You would also be DENSE, and just to make it "personal" I'll also throw in that your wife must be pretty stupid too to stay with you.

However, if you have half a brain, you'd say, "There is no way I can make money that way, I'd have to be right nearly 100% of the time. I'm giving up horse racing if all the winners are only worth 1/9." If that would be your answer, congrats, you're a value bettor. Now any discussion about specific odds and situations is just semantics.

GameTheory
09-10-2006, 11:39 AM
Agreed.

You all have to understand, sometimes well most of the time it's like pulling teeth getting an understanding of where I'm at on subjects like this. It's my nature to keep things simple and I think that clashes with all the brains that are here, respectfully of course. Going to the Horse racing discussion board is like me having to learn a new language. :confused:
Actually, I think CJ was saying why not bet him in the win pool if you really think he is going to win, even at 2/5 or whatever? You say no thanks at that price, I'll hook him up in the other pools. That's value betting.

twindouble
09-10-2006, 11:43 AM
The problem with the anti-value guys is they never want to count the losers.

Let's say that no matter who you bet on, in whatever pool, if your selections are right you are going to get fixed odds on all winning tickets of 1/9. No what matter you can never cash a ticket paying more than 1/9. When I say "you" here I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but any bettor.

If you would keep on betting as normal in this circumstance, then you are truly NOT a value bettor. You would also be DENSE, and just to make it "personal" I'll also throw in that your wife must be pretty stupid too to stay with you.

However, if you have half a brain, you'd say, "There is no way I can make money that way, I'd have to be right nearly 100% of the time. I'm giving up horse racing if all the winners are only worth 1/9." If that would be your answer, congrats, you're a value bettor. Now any discussion about specific odds and situations is just semantics.

Where do you come down on guys that say they can do very well taking advantage of the Rebates under those conditions.

T.D.

GameTheory
09-10-2006, 11:57 AM
Where do you come down on guys that say they can do very well taking advantage of the Rebates under those conditions.
So they'd get 1/9 on all winning tickets plus a rebate? Still would be impossible to make money unless that is one hell of a rebate. And it doesn't change anything. A rebate just changes the math a little, but not the underlying principle. A rebate is essentially just a takeout reduction.

joeyspicks
09-10-2006, 11:59 AM
"There is no way I can make money that way, I'd have to be right nearly 100% of the time. I'm giving up horse racing if all the winners are only worth 1/9." If that would be your answer, congrats, you're a value bettor. Now any discussion about specific odds and situations is just semantics.

congrats, you're a value bettor. :ThmbUp:

EXACTLY.....no matter WHAT you call it you had BETTER be a value player or you will go broke !:(

Tom
09-10-2006, 12:06 PM
Here is an example from yesterday, literally ripped from the headlines!

Belmont, the Gazelle Stakes.
I saw only three contenders in the race. They were, with odds:

Pine Island.......1-1
Teammate.......7-1
Bushfire...........9-5

Using Beyer's, the last out numbers were, in order: 101, 99, 89,
and thier lifetime tops were 191, 100, 91.

Add to this a two month layoff, and Bushfire was not a good bet here.

Last time out, Pine Island and Teammate finished within a length and a quarter, and Teammate was showing improving pace figs in each of it's last four races.

For me, 1-1 vs 7-1 was a no brainer. I didn't a line to know Teammate was my play. That he lost is not the issue - at 7-1, I only have to be right once every 8 races. At 1-1, I gotta be right a lot more often than that. (And sicne I bet 1W3P units at this odds range, I made a liitle on the race).

My original choice was Pine Island, and had Teammate gone of 7-2 or so, I would not have bet.

twindouble
09-10-2006, 12:30 PM
Here is an example from yesterday, literally ripped from the headlines!

Belmont, the Gazelle Stakes.
I saw only three contenders in the race. They were, with odds:

Pine Island.......1-1
Teammate.......7-1
Bushfire...........9-5

Using Beyer's, the last out numbers were, in order: 101, 99, 89,
and thier lifetime tops were 191, 100, 91.

Add to this a two month layoff, and Bushfire was not a good bet here.

Last time out, Pine Island and Teammate finished within a length and a quarter, and Teammate was showing improving pace figs in each of it's last four races.

For me, 1-1 vs 7-1 was a no brainer. I didn't a line to know Teammate was my play. That he lost is not the issue - at 7-1, I only have to be right once every 8 races. At 1-1, I gotta be right a lot more often than that. (And sicne I bet 1W3P units at this odds range, I made a liitle on the race).

My original choice was Pine Island, and had Teammate gone of 7-2 or so, I would not have bet.

Good example Tom. The only thing I would question on Teammate is those last four efforts. Did he win with any of them? Were they contentious races? Same distance? Any horse improving in four consecutive races more than likely would have little to offer as far as improvement goes on the 5th start. Unless you see Pine Island going the other way. Anyway, a length an quarter is just one bad move or misstep or even a better post position to warrant a wager at 7-1.


T.D.

lansdale
09-10-2006, 04:22 PM
JM,

If the concept of value is not to your liking, you could use the alternate concept of mathematical expecation based on your long-term estimated strike rate to guide your wagering decisions.

For example:

Strike Rate = 25%
Tax = 20%
Edge (Reqd) = 50%
Value SP = 5.8

Best wishes,

John


jf,

Although the idea you mention seems straightforward, isn't it a question of what your strike rate is within a given odds range? Per your example, one's overall SR may be 25%, but within the 6-1 odds range (or 5.8-1), it may only be 16% or worse - not such a desirable outcome. I know from reading your posts that you're a far better mathematician than myself, so I may have misunderstood, but maybe you could clear this up. Thanks.

Cheers,

lansdale

Tom
09-10-2006, 06:13 PM
Good example Tom. The only thing I would question on Teammate is those last four efforts. Did he win with any of them? Were they contentious races? Same distance? Any horse improving in four consecutive races more than likely would have little to offer as far as improvement goes on the 5th start. Unless you see Pine Island going the other way. Anyway, a length an quarter is just one bad move or misstep or even a better post position to warrant a wager at 7-1.


T.D.

Actually, improving pace figs in younger horses is a good sign to my way af thinking. I do not look for horses to boucne of new pace tops. Shw did it in graded stakes at routes, so I was looking for more improvement...the two finished daylight ahead of the pack.

jfdinneen
09-12-2006, 01:01 PM
Lansdale,


Thanks for the kind words.

Value betting anchors the wagering decision on the selection; Expectation betting anchors the wagering decision on the ability of the
handicapper. Though both are on the same continuum, expectation betting is a more conservative approach.

For instance, assume we have two racegoers - "Rich" (Elite Handicapper, Strike Rate (Avg): 35%, Price (Avg): 5/2, Field (Avg): 7,
Tax (Avg): 15%, Expect: $0.04) and "Joe" (Weekend Punter, Strike Rate (Avg): 20%, Price (Avg): 7/2, Field (Avg): 7, Tax (Avg): 20%,
Expect: -$0.28) who both assign a subjective price of 1/1 to the favorite ("White Chalk") in a five runner, six furlong, stakes race for which
the board currently shows 6/4 (win price) - should we advise one or both to consider this price acceptable?

Using expectation (e = (w * p) -( (1 - w) * 1)) and rearranging the terms, we can solve for p and scale the result by field size to
give minimum acceptable prices of 6/4 for Rich and 9/4 for Joe. In other words, White Chalk's win price is acceptable to Rich but not to
Joe.

Note that experienced value bettors always take strike rate into account either explicitly or implicitly in their calculations.

In sum, value bettors ask whether or not the selection is an overlay; expectation bettors ask whether or not the selection is both an
overlay and the price available is above their minimum threshold.

Finally, you are correct that the more detailed, historical data you have at your disposal the greater the probability that you can
generate more meaningful strike rate statistics. However, for most weekend handicappers, this is not a realistic goal.


Best wishes,


John

the_fat_man
09-12-2006, 09:59 PM
Good example Tom. The only thing I would question on Teammate is those last four efforts. Did he win with any of them? Were they contentious races? Same distance? Any horse improving in four consecutive races more than likely would have little to offer as far as improvement goes on the 5th start. Unless you see Pine Island going the other way. Anyway, a length an quarter is just one bad move or misstep or even a better post position to warrant a wager at 7-1.
T.D.

Pine Island is a flat out brute: just keeps coming; game as hell.

With that said, Teammate is supposed to win the Alabama. Her 2 races going into the 'bama are good and all she needs is a more patient ride and she's home. Moreover, if you watch her closely, you'll know that she can be rated. She can sit a good trip.

If she doesn't needlessly open up early and then again going through the turn in the Alabama, she wins. Pine Island ran too long, too hard to beat a 'rested' horse. The key is for Teammate NOT to run when Pine Island is making her bid or when the others are trying to come to her on the turn, SIT and WAIT, but to wait and engage her in the stretch when the long run has weakened PI. Her trip in the Alabama was very much like Smarty Jones' Belmont ---opening up when no need to do so and getting caught late.

With that said, you gotta love Teammate in the Gazelle: cutting back distance--plus for her; minus for PI. 7:1, high 30's/low 40's exacta on top of PI. And when Bushfire takes the money and the lead all Velasquez has to do is WAIT. Let Bushfire go as long as she can; let PI do her running. You don't need to take the lead before entering the stretch. It's subtle but Velasquez does the same thing he did in the Alabama. And instead of 40 we get 15.

Six horse field; unbridled belle and last romance have NO SHOT; Wild Fit is a joke bet; and Bushfire is off the layoff taking money.

Now, ThAT's VALUE!!!

In the real world, it's a SKUNKING

lansdale
09-15-2006, 12:50 AM
Lansdale,


Thanks for the kind words.

Value betting anchors the wagering decision on the selection; Expectation betting anchors the wagering decision on the ability of the
handicapper. Though both are on the same continuum, expectation betting is a more conservative approach.

For instance, assume we have two racegoers - "Rich" (Elite Handicapper, Strike Rate (Avg): 35%, Price (Avg): 5/2, Field (Avg): 7,
Tax (Avg): 15%, Expect: $0.04) and "Joe" (Weekend Punter, Strike Rate (Avg): 20%, Price (Avg): 7/2, Field (Avg): 7, Tax (Avg): 20%,
Expect: -$0.28) who both assign a subjective price of 1/1 to the favorite ("White Chalk") in a five runner, six furlong, stakes race for which
the board currently shows 6/4 (win price) - should we advise one or both to consider this price acceptable?

Using expectation (e = (w * p) -( (1 - w) * 1)) and rearranging the terms, we can solve for p and scale the result by field size to
give minimum acceptable prices of 6/4 for Rich and 9/4 for Joe. In other words, White Chalk's win price is acceptable to Rich but not to
Joe.

Note that experienced value bettors always take strike rate into account either explicitly or implicitly in their calculations.

In sum, value bettors ask whether or not the selection is an overlay; expectation bettors ask whether or not the selection is both an
overlay and the price available is above their minimum threshold.

Finally, you are correct that the more detailed, historical data you have at your disposal the greater the probability that you can
generate more meaningful strike rate statistics. However, for most weekend handicappers, this is not a realistic goal.


Best wishes,


John



John,

Thanks for this detailed post, especially the formulas, but I don't think you dealt with the question I was asking until the last paragraph. I also realize now that you also intended the formulas more as a 'rule of thumb' for recreational players than those playing the game more seriously, but this still doesn't make sense to me.

I guess my point is, if you're a negative expectation player, what possible difference can it make what your strike rate is? My own assumption, admittedly empirically based but I think widely shared, is that one wins a smaller percentage of races as the odds rise. Generally speaking, races with longshot winners are more difficult to pick than those with chalk winners. Better handicappers hit them more often than worse handicappers. To use your example, Joe might hit an occasional 20 or 10-1 shot, but in the long run he would still be losing at the rate of -.28 (quite horrendous actually, worse than one's expectation at keno, the worst casino game!) And Rich, who has approximately the expectation mentioned by multi-millionaire horseplayer Ernest Dahlman, would soon be living up to his name.

As far as determining value goes, no need to base decisions on some subjective sense of a horse's value. Check your 'track IQ' which is just another way of saying 'expectation' or 'ROI'. This is how much you can expect to win or lose from this race. I don't mean this to detract from the recreational aspects of a very tough game, but this is how I keep things in perspective, and although I don't see how it can be contradicted, I'm willing to be persuaded.

Thanks again for your thoughful post.

Cheers,

lansdale

jfdinneen
09-15-2006, 04:39 AM
I guess my point is, if you're a negative expectation player, what possible difference can it make what your strike rate is?


lansdale,


We are broadly in agreement - life is extremely tough for the average punter!

However, even though Joe has a negative expectation in general, it is theoretically possible to calculate a minimum price for him in this particular race that has a positive expectation. That said, the resulting price (7/2 not 1/1) is unrealistic for White Chalk.

In sum, the negative expectation player (weekend punter) has limited options, of which the best is to improve his handicapping skills. The second best option is to try the exotics!


Best wishes,


John