Strong vs vulnerable favorite

[bettheoverlay]

Many advise learning to identify these types of favorites, and strike and crush the real contenders when there is a vulnerable favorite. I've often wondered that if one is proficient in identifying strong favorites, if there is money to be made betting the strong favorite, at greater than odds on.

I'm often surprised that in a long string of races, my top selection almost always shows a small profit at closing odds of 1/1 to 9/5. In 30 years of horse wagering, I've never been tempted to bet the favorites, but do some have success with this approach, or is it a dead end?

[PlanB]

I agree. I've still NOT seen good research on bad favs. I like to think I can
see bad favs, but how much, and is my insight meaningful, I'm really Not Sure.
Any system that can say, 'This Fav has no chance; or 'This Fav has < 20%
chance'--- now that's a system worth seeking. All the talk on EMH -- efficient markets -- if it pertains to horse racing, dealing with the FAV is the holy grail.

ps: The most perfect system in my mind does this, in this order: (a) Does
the Fav have flaws? Vulnerable? >>>>>>>>> If no, Pass the Race or Use
the Fav on Top with whatever; (b) The Fav is incomprehensible/vulnerable/
stupid -----ATTACK.

[Overlay]

It's been a while since I've looked at Horse Sense by Burton Fabricand. His ideas may be somewhat dated by now, but he focused on identifying and betting favorites based on the principle of maximum confusion, involving races where the public is unable to make a significant distinction among multiple contenders in a race. I do recall his opinion that it made more sense to build a handicapping approach around the favorite, which consistently yielded a known high percentage of winners, rather than through looking only at the favorite's competitors in the race, and trying to selectively locate the race winner from among them on a dependable, recurring basis.

[ceejay]

I view short-priced fav's as vulnerable if they are trying something new or have flaws. Examples from yesterday's HP card were:
the 3 in R4 off short rest. I used him in my P6 but went deep.
the 5 in R5 has seconditis IMO. Didn't use in P6 at all. Even money way too short-- had far less than 50% chance of winning IMO.

[classhandicapper]

If you have some skill at identifying overbet favorites, the remainder will outperform the "take".

In races where the favorite is legitimate and likely to outperform the "take", you are usually playing a rough game trying to beat them. The full "take" has to come from somewhere. If the favorite's full proportion is not coming from him, it's coming from the remaining horses in the race. That it turn means you are playing a game with a higher "take" when you bet against legitimate solid favorites.

[twindouble]

If you determing a horse is clearly going to dominate a race, that makes him a strong choice to win. Can you make money on that horse if the public sees what you see and he goes off the favorite, of course you can! That horse can be the key to taking down the picks or gimmicks.

On another note, I think the one of worst things a handicapper (gambler) can do is be intimidated by public opinion. Just because a horse is 1-9 don't make him the winner, early money or late money. Your own handicapping will tell you if the horse is vulnerable or not. Determining if a horse is a vulnerable chalk goes back to the beginning of the game, also the idea of betting "value". What we have going for us today is the numerous pools to attack.

T.D.

[1st time lasix]

it is natural for good players to try to determine what makes a favorite "vulnerable." If he is trying a different surface, distance, post position or track...it has been pointed out that he could be vulnerable. All true! I think you also have to examine the pace scenario for THIS race to see if that favorite is likely to get in to his/her best position to win. Perhaps a bias that may play against his today? It also pays to consider if the house is a "bounce" candidate based of the theories of form cycle. I caught a nice 8-1 horse yesterday at Hollywood because I determined that the favorite had all the characteristics of a "bounce" type. { a sprinter filly that won with a lifetime best beyer...with a stressful race after a layoff being wheeled back in less than three weeks...odds were 2-1} On the other hand it also important to identify possible improvement for another contender that may be overlooked. Did the previous race/workouts set him up for this race today? Is the horse coming into peak form? Positive equipment change? Is today's pace likely more favorable to his running style?

[1st time lasix]

Strong favorites that you deemed "solid" should not be bet against no matter how much you detest chalk. If you take a stand against them you will be backing false overlays and get killed at the windows. Either pass .....or try to use a single in the multirace exotics or in trifectas or superfectas WITHOUT the 2nd and 3rd choices in the two hole! If you have to use the 2nd and 3rd choice based on your handicapping....the race is way too formful and must be passed. Time for a smoke, a refreshment or a walk. There is always another race coming in the simulcast era. I have had a few signers with "odds on" chaulk on top.... with double digit longshots second and third in big fields.

[Robert Fischer]

It is more comfortable to say "vulnerable" or the opposite; "strong/ lock", however there are only degrees, and many refinements of gradation. Therefore to apply these principals in a scientific way, we need to have some specific definitions for what we are looking for. There will be a specific estimate for Win probability, in-the-money probability( and to a lesser extent P/S specifically). The value of an estimated probability is inherent in other variables. Is this a competitive uncertain affair? How will the size of the field affect the probable exotic payoffs?
Taking this a step further, I think finding a value opportunity often involves more than a single favorite. What horses as a group will attract the most wagering popularity? What are the estimated probabilities for this group , for a part of the group? More than a single favorite, you are looking for a significant amount of money wagered on a "relatively" unlikely outcome. These situations often pay particularly well on trifectas. I have focus on the other extreme, Strong favorites. I don't have any formulas, or guideline probabilities and situations to offer for vulnerable money. Something I may go into in the future, and is entertaining folly in the present;). The recent thread on wagering strategy begins to go into some basic ideas about vulnerable money, and value opportunities.



Originally Posted by bettheoverlay
...I'm often surprised that in a long string of races, my top selection almost always shows a small profit at closing odds of 1/1 to 9/5. In 30 years of horse wagering, I've never been tempted to bet the favorites, but do some have success with this approach, or is it a dead end?

One thing I have noticed, is that in the odds range you mention, it is possible to achieve a high win percentage(35-40%?). When you have strong factors in favor of a horse AND the public strongly backs the horse, you are operating in a higher percentage area. As odds decrease below even money, you can obtain a peak hit percentage near to 50%. Your wagering strategy will determine if these low-priced horses are any value to you.

[stu]

Ken Massa has a metric called the volatility index. The index designed to quantify races by their likelihood of the favorites winning. He has done a study with the Vi and win prices

http://www.homebased2.com/km/pdf/HTRMonthlyReport-JAN2004.pdf
http://www.homebased2.com/km/pdf/HTRMonthlyReport-DEC2002.pdf
http://www.homebased2.com/km/pdf/HTRMonthlyReport-NOV2002.pdf
http://www.homebased2.com/km/pdf/HTRMonthlyReport-SEP2002.pdf
http://www.homebased2.com/km/pdf/HTRMonthlyReport-AUG2002.pdf


Stu

[Tom]

HTR also labels heavy favorites based on objective statistics, no opinoins, and our friend Hurrikane has developed a simpe test to show false favorites who win at a low percent.

I still run his idea querry every day and start out by focusing on those races.

[Robert Fischer]

Stu - great stuff! At a glance, I like what Massa is doing with the volatility index. I hope to get some time to look at it this evening.

Tom - any more info on this idea querry? and Hurrikane's test? Is Hurrikane a member here? This is the first I've heard of this. I will run a search on my own as well, thanks.

[Tom]

Hurrikane posts here occasionally - not in a while.
His querry is based on morning line and the K rating, so it would not he usable by the general public.
He posted some lists of all the bad favs on certain days and they won at like 13%-18% - for favs.

[NoDayJob]

My software is geared to play 2 horses in a race, from up to 3 horses chosen. If there were only 2 selections and 1 of them was the m.l. favorite, then both horses were played. If there were 3 selections including the m.l. favorite @ 2-1 odds or less, it was eliminated. Better than 70% of the races with 3 selections, including the m.l. favorite @ 2-1 odds or less, had the winner in the remaining 2 horses. The sample size with 3 horses, including the m.l. favorite @ odds 2-1 or less, was over 4.2k.

[PriceAnProbability]

Just because a horse is 1-9 don't make him the winner, early money or late money. Your own handicapping will tell you if the horse is vulnerable or not.

For the average player, this can never be true, as "our own handicapping" yields an ROI of $1.00 minus the takeout for every $1.00 bet.

For a sharpie, this is true.

Now, how do we get that sharp? It still comes down to faster horses.

[twindouble]

For the average player, this can never be true, as "our own handicapping" yields an ROI of $1.00 minus the takeout for every $1.00 bet.

For a sharpie, this is true.

Now, how do we get that sharp? It still comes down to faster horses.

That's like saying "the best team will win the game," gives you nothing to go on picking the winner. Well, I can't say just picking the winner is where it's at, there's other opertunities in a race or card.

I you want to discuss what to look for in a given races, this thread will turn into an handicapping seminar.

T.D.

[PlanB]

My software is geared to play 2 horses in a race, from up to 3 horses chosen. If there were only 2 selections and 1 of them was the m.l. favorite, then both horses were played. If there were 3 selections including the m.l. favorite @ 2-1 odds or less, it was eliminated. Better than 70% of the races with 3 selections, including the m.l. favorite @ 2-1 odds or less, had the winner in the remaining 2 horses. The sample size with 3 horses, including the m.l. favorite @ odds 2-1 or less, was over 4.2k.

At first glance I was going to type, "HUH" but now I'm intrigued. Are you saying that when your method picks 3 horses, one of which is the FAV, there is a GREAT Pr that the FAV will lose? In a way, if its because the 3 are so closely matched it makes perfect sense. Can (Will) you flesh out how you do that?

[PriceAnProbability]

[/b]

That's like saying "the best team will win the game," gives you nothing to go on picking the winner.
T.D.

Telling people to search for "value" without giving specific examples of horses who present said value is no different.

Where are all these mysterious overlays, and why do individuals seem to think they are smarter than the collective wisdom of the crowd? Anyone who truly is in that position will generally have only one problem, and that is how to get down as much as possible on his picks.

[Tom]

Uh, I think there might a couple of posters here who accomplish this. ;):rolleyes:

[twindouble]

Telling people to search for "value" without giving specific examples of horses who present said value is no different.

Where are all these mysterious overlays, and why do individuals seem to think they are smarter than the collective wisdom of the crowd? Anyone who truly is in that position will generally have only one problem, and that is how to get down as much as possible on his picks.

You left out where I said, the thread will turn into a semiar. The only way you, I or anyone else can expose what we do is to, like I said, handicap a given race or races. That or just hit on key points, "basics" be it software, speed figures or just handicapping. I wasn't ridiculing what you said, just pointing out the obvious. If you took it that way, sorry about that.


Good luck,

T.D.

[NoDayJob]

In a way, if its because the 3 are so closely matched it makes perfect sense. Can (Will) you flesh out how you do that?

My software has many filters to do the job. Without the software it would not be possible. Remember that the m.l. favorite isn't eliminated unless the m.l. odds are 2-1 or less and there are 3 horses selected. This situation occurs in slightly over 25% of the races played. These m.l. favorites are mostly overbet anyway.