Unexplained Odds Drop

[Nosebob]

How often is an unusual (and unexplainable) odds drop from a horses prior race a signal of a big effort? From 20/1 to 6/1 for example.

From anecdotal evidence, it seems that this type of odds action is a precursor to being defeated by a horse which doesn't seem to figure. Sometimes you can find a reason for an odds drop after the fact, but just as often it seems there is no logical explanation (other than other people know a lot more than I do!).

Do you reconsider a race if a horse other than your selection takes an unexplained odds drop?

Not trying to ignite a "Toteboard Debate", but just wonder if others consider this factor important. :confused:

Nosebob

[ranchwest]

I can tell you that some of us in the P4 contest wished we could have seen the AQU 9th race board Monday at the time we made our selections.

Horse scratches from race Sunday to run Monday. Trainer is 0/5 this year, 0/11 last year. 1/22 in maiden claiming. Morning line 10/1. Horse goes off at 2/1. Only thing I see is the trainer was 1/5 with 1st blinkers, now 2/6. Horse did figure some, but not 2/1, IMHO. I did include it in some of my P4 combinations, but not as a key horse. He won.

This is also one of the races that some have said Coa had a lackluster ride on the morning line favorite.

[boomman]

Nosebob asked:

Unexplained Odds Drop
How often is an unusual (and unexplainable) odds drop from a horses prior race a signal of a big effort? From 20/1 to 6/1 for example?

Nose: 2 cases in which I see this the most: First time starters of course, that might be debuting for a low % barn with so-so works (even though you asked about prior races), and horses returning from long lay-offs. The consistency here is that something has happened in morning workouts to "spurn the action on the toteboard".

Boomer

[aaron]

I look for subtle changes in the odds. For instance if a horse I think should be 15-1 or higher and he stays around 11-1, I might be inclined to throw him in my exacta play. The obvious plays like the 9th race at Aqueduct on Monday must be respected.If a person was looking at the double possiability he could have picked this horse up.For pick 3 or 4 players,this would have been a hard horse to single.

[Cesario!]

Never good to base opinions on "noise" in the betting process.

Only exception is maybe a FTS -- although I think you tend to get a compounding effect here as the public follows the early money and makes it stronger, which makes the initial money seem stronger, and so on. You should be able to tell a well-meant first-timer from paddock appearance anyway -- it's much more reliable.

[jma]

You also have to consider the quality of the morning line. At some places, a big difference in odds "might" mean something, but other times it's just an awful morning line and the public bets the horse down to a more reasonable level.

[classhandicapper]

I can tell you that some of us in the P4 contest wished we could have seen the AQU 9th race board Monday at the time we made our selections.

Horse scratches from race Sunday to run Monday. Trainer is 0/5 this year, 0/11 last year. 1/22 in maiden claiming. Morning line 10/1. Horse goes off at 2/1. Only thing I see is the trainer was 1/5 with 1st blinkers, now 2/6. Horse did figure some, but not 2/1, IMHO. I did include it in some of my P4 combinations, but not as a key horse. He won.

This is also one of the races that some have said Coa had a lackluster ride on the morning line favorite.

I realize this is a major league redboard, but I'm just trying to explain the odds. The AQU ID track was wildly biased towards inside speed that day. The horse in question had the rail and was stretching out from 6F to one mile after racing reasonably close to the lead in the sprint. He seemed very likely to get the lead on the rail with the addition of blinkers and the small drop in class. I think the sharpest players out there bet that horse based on the track condition and drove him down. Of course, knowing the bias late doesn't help you when you are putting in pick 6 bets early.

[ranchwest]

Never good to base opinions on "noise" in the betting process.

Only exception is maybe a FTS -- although I think you tend to get a compounding effect here as the public follows the early money and makes it stronger, which makes the initial money seem stronger, and so on. You should be able to tell a well-meant first-timer from paddock appearance anyway -- it's much more reliable.

Certainly noise can be bogus, which would be welcomed. And, for a narrow wager, such as a single to win, you'd be hard pressed to get off of your otherwise sound logic on another horse. However, for a wide bet, such as a wide superfecta or trifecta, you really have to do a thorough evaluation of whether you want to leave out this action horse altogether. I think action demands evaluation.

And, I agree on physicality.

[ranchwest]

I realize this is a major league redboard, but I'm just trying to explain the odds. The AQU ID track was wildly biased towards inside speed that day. The horse in question had the rail and was stretching out from 6F to one mile after racing reasonably close to the lead in the sprint. He seemed very likely to get the lead on the rail with the addition of blinkers and the small drop in class. I think the sharpest players out there bet that horse based on the track condition and drove him down. Of course, knowing the bias late doesn't help you when you are putting in pick 6 bets early.

Admittedly, I have a bias from the Louisiana/Texas/Arkansas tracks where the "oh-fer" trainers seldom win in a race against several established trainers, bias or not. Certainly I did recognize this horse's speed and included him on my play. I just didn't think he looked 2/1 to me and therefore he was not my key horse.

[Cesario!]

Certainly noise can be bogus, which would be welcomed. And, for a narrow wager, such as a single to win, you'd be hard pressed to get off of your otherwise sound logic on another horse. However, for a wide bet, such as a wide superfecta or trifecta, you really have to do a thorough evaluation of whether you want to leave out this action horse altogether. I think action demands evaluation.

And, I agree on physicality.

I'd agree with that, but only so much that the opinion must be based on something tangible which may have been overlooked by your analysis. Underrated pedigree? Other contenders not as strong as anticipated? I think there's always a reason -- while it just might not come up under one's particular style of handicapping, it's rarely an insider secret.

[ranchwest]

Yeah, I'm not suggesting just blindly jumping into someone else's money pile. I've seen money be wrong too many times for that to even be on the radar. I'm just suggesting a closer look.

[skate]

nosejob;

the drop, would have me look at my figures, but i would not change my bet, unless the odds were to drop too much, as they did in your example.

[classhandicapper]

Admittedly, I have a bias from the Louisiana/Texas/Arkansas tracks where the "oh-fer" trainers seldom win in a race against several established trainers, bias or not. Certainly I did recognize this horse's speed and included him on my play. I just didn't think he looked 2/1 to me and therefore he was not my key horse.

I didn't think he was a 2-1 shot either and interestingly enough he was around 7-1 at the betting exchange.

[BIG RED]

There was just a race at gulf (5th)turf. I had 4 to win alone, but noticed the 8 was co-faved at 3-1 with my 4. I did not figure the 8 in this race, his ml was 12-1. Now, if I was betting exotics I may get a little scared and cover the 8 some. I still had confidence in the 4

Well in the last turn , 12 made a huge move and came flying right up to the 4 (who had just taken the lead) with ease, but , somehow he 'blew' the turn into the stretch, went wide, lost a lot of ground. Either this horse was wired to run or the jock fouled up in control. The 4, seeing the 12 come on him like that, openned up and won. Plus, he ran straight.

So, I never let it bother my win bets, seen this sceneerio enough. But I may put them into the 'mix' if I'm playing exotics. Should have the 12 won? Don't know, but should have stayed up for exotics.

(Oh yea, while watching this, #5 BucketHead decided to jump over the inner fense in the stretch :D )

[Nosebob]

Thanks for the discussion.

I agree with the paddock check, but most of my play is simulcast, and I just can't see enough to be very helpful.

It seems most everyone agrees that without a look in the paddock they might include a big odds dropper in exotics, but would not rush to make a straight bet on the dropper.

Seems reasonable.

Nosebob

[boomman]

Nosebob: Granted that playing simulcast is not like being there (except apparently at Gulfstream because even though I only live 2 hours from there , I haven't been there since the remodel, and everyone is saying in a different thread for me not to waste my time) but I play over 300 days a year on my home office/computer, and most of the tracks do a decent job of showing the horses in the paddock prior to them heading for the track. I think also if you study the post parades, even though again it will never be as concise as being there, you will certainly see horses that "are on their toes" and look ready to race. My advice is to go ahead and take a shot at interpreting the body language of horses (because you can also see the negatives, washed out, etc) and you might find that you aren't losing much observation via simulcast.....

Boomer

[JustRalph]

people still play NYRA Tracks? :lol:

[ranchwest]

I didn't think he was a 2-1 shot either and interestingly enough he was around 7-1 at the betting exchange.

I can't get away from the fact that this horse was entered Sunday and scratched in favor of this race Monday. Then, with a morning line of 10, which I would place at about 4 or 5, and the betting exchange having it at 7, the horse goes off at 2 at AQU. Someone was very eager for this horse to run.

This seems like a pass to me. This is not always a figures game. Sometimes it is a thinking man's game. I think the fact that the horse was entered two days in a row is the key information here. That's not in most folks' handicapping evaluations, but not everything is. Someone liked this horse a whole lot more than I did, which suggests to me that this race is probably gambling more than investing.