Beat the odds?

[kitts]

I doubt there is answer to this, but here goes I am a longhsot player and bet early based on Morning Line. I have a software generated odds line and I look for horses going off at higher odds than those generated. If more than one overlay, I bet the highest ranked in the software. Due to the vagaries in Morning Line odds, I rarely bet one at less than 5/1 ML. I used to do this at the track live and sometimes my underlays would turn into overlays and get bet. Conversely, overlays would get bet down to underlays and not bet. Since I now bet from home based on ML I don't follow the odds. Now an overlay gets bet down to 2/1 and wins and pays me $6. I would not have had that at the track. Conversely, the horse I like at a generated oddsline of 4/1 is only 4/1 ML but at the track goes of at 10/1 and pays $22. I would miss that one. My question is so what in the long run? Do the gift $6 horses compensate for the $22 horse? I tend to think so since the lonsghots missed are not often. What do you folks think?

[JimG]

Kitts,

All I can say is I have a buddy of mine at the track that is a full-time big bettor that does something very similar. The main difference is he uses an oddsline and bets the biggest overlay of his in tri's and pick 3's with other contenders and sometimes hits the "all" button. He likes to play against the morning line especially where pick 3's are concerned. In fact he likes a horse "taking action" and bet below their high morning line odds when his oddline likes them as well.

He doesn't always win, but I have seen him have huge days and I would guess he cashes around 75-100 IRS tickets a year.

Jim

[trying2win]

Kitts:

I use similar methods like you do. That is, just using minimum morning line odds to help in the process of choosing a horse or horses to bet. It works fine for me.

Sometimes I may be playing 3 or 4 thoroughbred and/or harness tracks at the same time from home.. Using minimum morning line odds, and then phoning or making the bets online well ahead of time, is a real timesaver and anxiety reducer. No more switching between online toteboards, trying to get the odds you want with 2 minutes to go till post time, then trying to get your bet in on time without getting shut out for one reason or another.

I generally make my win and/or place bets with a minimum 4-1 or 5-1 morning line odds. It all depends what method or angle I'm employing.

Most tracks I've found, have fairly good morning line oddsmakers. Some better than others of course. I find the really good morning line oddsmakers, have a line that adds up to a percentage of between 120 and 135% (when converting odds to percentages).

There are some race track programs, that consistently have a morning line that adds up to 200% plus. I avoid tracks like that.

I guess some of the purists who make an oddsline and then study the toteboard to see if they're getting the odds they want, will lambaste me here. I'll just ignore them and use my own betting methods.

In conclusion, a bettor has to do what works for them.

[kitts]

JimG and trying2win-

Thanks for your replies-they are helpful. I had thought there would be more people concerned with this issue seeing as how precision oriented some of them are on discussing fractions and variants and value. However, I have been doing my thing based on ML for some time now and I am making some money so I guess I know the real answer - "stick with what works!"

[Rick]

kitts,

I use morning line odds and it works just fine. I'll bet my top horse if it's not a morning line favorite. The higher ranked it is in odds, the more profitable it is. Most of the plays that go off at lower odds have best last race speed, so if you want better prices you could avoid those. But I'm not sure it would help the bottom line since they do win at a higher rate. I haven't monitored toteboard odds for years and with 27% wins and 23% profit I'm not too worried about it.

[andicap]

Rick,
do you ever bet your second-ranked horse?

[Rick]

andicap,

I don't bet the second ranked horse normally now, but it is a winning proposition (18% wins, 13% profit). I really hate losing streaks though and I'm getting enough action (about 48% of races are playable). Another thing I'm looking into is using a different handicapping approach for the unplayable races. My main method is somewhat pace-oriented, and when that doesn't select an overlay, using a speed-oriented approach shows some promise (33% wins, break-even). Eventually, I'll probably use three different approaches applied succesively in order to play every race while maintaining a high win %. Also, it could develop into a way to play several horses in one race.

I probably won't be changing anything soon though. My bankroll is more than 6 times it's original level now and it's making me pretty conservative about messing up a good thing. In fact, it takes a lot of the excitement out of things to just grind out a profit using the same approach every day. I'm not complaining, just making an observation about something that was unexpected to me.

[hurrikane]

that looks pretty nice Rick. How many tracks/races are you playing a day?

[Rick]

hurrikane,

I play two tracks per day. I estimate that I'll get about 1876 plays per year with about 23% profit plus at least 3% rebates. I'll be satisfied to bet about $100 per race. You figure the math. It should work out pretty well.

By the way, I'm not saying any of this just to brag. But I really would have liked to hear something like this years ago about what can really be achieved under realistic conditions. Reading books about people betting two horses per race and getting 70-80% winners is just something that doesn't inspire me, even if it's true for some people. I just can't do that and I don't think most of you can either. But what I've done is very possible. So, I guess what I'm saying is don't stop trying. And when you get there, don't blow it by expecting too much. That's about as good as it gets for those of us who aren't "handicapping geniuses".

[ranchwest]

Sometimes I feel like I probably do better not watching the board. Watching the tote tends to influence my confidence, both directions.

Today, I hit Pat Day on a longshot. Had I been watching the board, I probably would have thought, "Hey, it's Pat Day, if the horse had a chance it would be the favorite." Instead, I won.

[andicap]

You're right about that RW. I have, however, come to respect horses who should be 5-1 or higher and are going off at half their expected price. Yes, sometimes it is ignorant public money but if you know the types of horses the public bets on (hot trainers, deep class drops, good recent form and Beyers), you can tell if the money is smart or not.
Now those horses don't always win, but I do respect it and at the least use them in savers with my picks.

[kitts]

Rick
Your reponse re Morning Line was very reassuring to me. It gives me reason to live <g> and keep betting them critters. Thanks again.

[Rick]

kitts,

I bet longshot spot plays for many years without looking at any odds and know of several others who have done the same. It's really the easiest way to make money, but you do have to be psychologically able to endure the longer losing streaks. It always seemed to me that the longer the losing streak, the higher odds you got on the eventual winner that broke the streak. As usual, the guy with the big bankroll and guts beats up everyone else. It's the same way with all investments.

[GR1@HTR]

Rick,

It sounds like you are betting off shore w/ the 3% rebate. After turn your bank 6 times the offshore facility hasn't closed your account or cut you off? I haven't ventured off shore but had head they will close your account and send you your winnings if you show a way to beat them at their own game.

[Rick]

GR1,

It's actually more than 7 times now and I haven't had any problems. I use Neteller to transfer money in and out. I keep about half of the bankroll at eHorse and the other half in Neteller, since it would be a very rare occurence to get down to half of the bankroll. Deposits at eHorse are supposed to go into an independent trust that has enough to cover all winners, but of course one never knows for sure. The most I could lose is about half of the bankroll this way and the 3% rebates seem to make it an acceptable risk.

Also, I figure that if they're letting Dick continue to bet they won't give me any trouble. If they shut him out, I'll move my money elsewhere.

Of course, I'd really rather use a US operation if it's ever available. There doesn't seem to be much progress in that area though.

[JustMissed]

I have been trying to spend more time on finding value and placing the proper bets with less time on contender selection. It seems to me that the better players are not necessarily the better pickers but the better bettors.

You are obiviously a good player and according to your numbers are making more than $40k a year with what appears to be flat win bets around $100. I have read quite a bit about Kelly and other incremental betting methods and am curious as to why a consistent player like you would not be increasing your bet size.

Tapping out is not a consideration for a modern player with a good method. I could be wrong but it would seem to me that if you just doubled your bet size to $200, you would increase your profit to over $80K without changing another thing.

I know there are probably some mental aspects to larger bets but mathematically, bet size should not affect your win percentage or your ROI excepting those cases where your bet size would significantly alter the pool.

If my thinking is wrong, please let me know where I am going wrong.

Thanks,

JustMissed
:)

[Rick]

JustMissed,

I'm not at the $100 level yet. I'm still building the bankroll but I should be there within the next 6 months. I like to start with a small investment and play with "other people's money". Otherwise, I'd probably never be psychologically able to handle making bets of more than about $20.

There are several reasons I chose that level as point to take profits. First, it provides what I consider to be an adequate income. Some would disagree with that, but I already have other sources of income and don't have to work any more. I could play more tracks, but two is about the right amount of effort for me so that it doesn't seem to much like a job. Second, some of the tracks I play have parimutuel pools that wouldn't support bets of much higher than that. Although I'm not betting into the pools now, it may be desirable to do so in the future. So, $100 is a realistic goal no matter how I choose to make the bets. You're quite right that I could bet more though, as much as $300 with eHorse on those tracks.

One of the non-parimutuel race books here (Cal Neva) has an interesting way of setting limits that might be desirable. They'll pay off an aggregate maximum total of $20,000 on one race. So, even with a longshot of 49-1 they would pay off on bets of up to $400. Of course, you can't be sure how many others will have selected the winner but at those odds there aren't likely to be many others.

Most discussions of money management totally ignore the fact that you'll want to be taking profits. They always talk about bankroll growth assuming that nothing is taken out along the way. That's OK for building the bankroll but says nothing about what will be required to sustain an income. I suspect that most who have written about the subject have never actually made a living or regular profit from horse racing bets. The assumptions that they make would generally bankrupt a player within the first couple of years.

People are always making statements about longest losing streaks without considering how many total plays there will be. If I make 1800 bets per year for ten years, that would amount to 180,000 bets. I'll guarantee you that in 180,000 plays you'll get some pretty unbelievable losing streaks compared with what most people think is the worst possible. I could write a book just about fallacies like this that are widely believed by "experts" but I don't think anyone would buy it.

By the way, think it's better to be a great researcher than a great handicapper. The method I use now could be taught to a child in 5 minutes. There's absolutely no subjective judgement involved whatsoever. But thousands of hours of research went into developing that method. Experience and good judgement are required in order to make educated guesses about what might work because you really can't test every combination of things in the world, and some ideas are just obviously not going to hold up when tested further.

[JustMissed]

Thanks for your reply. I thought you were at the $100 level now and after re-reading your earlier post I see where you said you would be happy at the $100 bet size.

I usually bet the win, exacta & trifecta, depending on the odds. A $60 bet total per race is heavy for me and I usually bet around $30.

The weather has killed me at Aqueduct lately so I'm going back to Calder tommorrow.

There is a guy who sits in the carrel in front of me sometimes who I know is a pro. I have seen him bet a $100 straight exacta and hit with a $64 payoff for $3,200 total. The guys knows what he's doing cause he will cover by flipping the horses for a $20 exacta and/or play a different combination for a smaller amount, for example. I don't ever talk to these guys or certainly don't ask them any questions but by observing their play I can tell you they are cashing big time.

The betting really seems to be an art and the more I look at it it seems like the better players know when to bet heavy but also know how to lose where they really aren't losing, if that makes any sense.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to answer my question and good luck to you.

JustMissed
:)

[kitts]

Rick-
Still thanks to you. The reassurance you give is quite worthy in that I have not heard it before. At least not heard it that way. I can (and have) endured killer losing streaks and it is no room full of monkeys. I have just broken a losing streak that took me through September and October but the (for $2) $349 and $401 Exactas and the $50 winner or two and you bounce right back!

[hurrikane]

Rick,
I worked it a lot like you. Built my bankroll up from winnings.
Now I use a kind of altered session method along what Dave and Fierro use. At the end of the month if my bank has increased by more than half I take a payday. If not I don't.
Only thing altered is if my bank doubles I take a check. Those are the fun times..especially when it happens a couple of weeks in a row.

Good luck..and keep up the research.

[Rick]

kitts,

My largest win payoff this year was followed by my longest losing streak. I raised my bet size too much after the win and didn't wind up as much ahead as I should when things got back to normal again. After that, I finally got serious about running some money management simulations to get some better answers. As usual, experience is the best way to get motivated to learn something. You've got to have confidence in your method or you'll be betting scared like the losers do.