Extreme Favorites

[sligg]

Results betting extreme favorites using data from
TSN Advantage Plan ($59.95) for the month of July.

Bets: 205
Won: 129
W %: 62.9
ROI % 8.9

My previous posts for March and May also showed profits.

The negatives for this method: too many tracks, a very long day time wise, and the need to bet the post time favorite.

[Bill Olmsted]

Results betting extreme favorites using data from
TSN Advantage Plan ($59.95) for the month of July.

Bets: 205
Won: 129
W %: 62.9
ROI % 8.9

My previous posts for March and May also showed profits.

The negatives for this method: too many tracks, a very long day time wise, and the need to bet the post time favorite.

Those are excellent results.
Besides... a long day handicapping
beats a short day at the office--anytime. :ThmbUp:

[Topcat]

Using HSH I was able to quickly test all odds on favorites against 271,000 races against all tracks over several years. In 23% of the races there was an odds on favorite, these won 49.5% of the time and paid $1.71 for each $2.00 bet. If you had bet $2 on each you would have bet $124,502 dollars and lost $18,267.

Breaking the odds on favorites into 10 subsets lets you look at the results for the extreme odds on favorites. All of them show a loss on the win end and the best are those horses going off at .5 to 1 or less and (still losing) returning $1.77 for $2.00. These results use no other handicapping factor other then a favorite at certain odds levels.

Now Lou Holloway always talked about the "further slectiviity" of favorites and I've never been able to make it work against any large sample (you need thousands not hundreds)

Sligg, what handicapping factors are you using? If they can be replicated I can check them for you against a large database.

[sligg]

There are no handicapping factors used.

I use the TSN Advantage Plan ($59.95 per month).

From this plan I use the following:

Insider Picks & Power Plays
Quick Play PP'S

The selections are almost automatic with just several restrictions.

I don't think you can test these factors in your data base but I may be wrong.

You can further discuss this with me if you want.

I still maintain that betting horses seven days a week from 12pm to 11pm does not make for an enjoyable life. What is the point of it, being attached to a computer monitor-money?

[BIG RED]

Sligg > you are defining an extreme fave by a program?

or are you defining it by odds?

[Good4Now]

SAL, I like the way you put it at the end of post #4 (above).

I just spent some time going over results from AP for Sat., Who of us would have waited until the 12 th race of the day for that sure fire 7 to 5 shot?

Could've played race 5, where the horse who HOLDS the Synth surface record for one mile was allowed to go off at nearly 17 to 1 to win going one mile on yielding turf. To be followed in race 6 where the TEPID 3 to 1 favorite going 7 f on the wax wins by 8 lengths AND sets a new surface/track record of 1.21.02 in the process. What a world we live in!

[sligg]

Sligg > you are defining an extreme fave by a program?

or are you defining it by odds?

By morning line and odds at post time.

[RaceBookJoe]

Using HSH I was able to quickly test all odds on favorites against 271,000 races against all tracks over several years. In 23% of the races there was an odds on favorite, these won 49.5% of the time and paid $1.71 for each $2.00 bet. If you had bet $2 on each you would have bet $124,502 dollars and lost $18,267.

Breaking the odds on favorites into 10 subsets lets you look at the results for the extreme odds on favorites. All of them show a loss on the win end and the best are those horses going off at .5 to 1 or less and (still losing) returning $1.77 for $2.00. These results use no other handicapping factor other then a favorite at certain odds levels.

Now Lou Holloway always talked about the "further slectiviity" of favorites and I've never been able to make it work against any large sample (you need thousands not hundreds)

Sligg, what handicapping factors are you using? If they can be replicated I can check them for you against a large database.

Basically what Holloway was talking about was this. Every race has to have a favorite, but many races are crappy races. To further select the favorite was to make sure the horse was decent using a variety of handicapping. Old time rules of his were, ran recently and good jockey. He also used speed ( his own figures ) and class. Patience was the key. Instead of playing 9 favorites a day, there might be only 3 good favorites, when top speed was required you might only get 1 good bet a day at a track. I have used this from time to time to a degree with decent success. Good win % but payoffs are on the low side obviously.
He said "favorite haters" wont touch the low price and "favorite lovers" played too many favorites. Again, patience is the key.

[46zilzal]

Dick Mitchell said he loved John Henry since he cashed on him all but once. He bet him often to PLACE and made money.

[RaceBookJoe]

Dick Mitchell said he loved John Henry since he cashed on him all but once. He bet him often to PLACE and made money.

There is nothing wrong with Place bets except the low payoff, i use them often. Also Mark Cramer's "exacta-as-place" bet can be used. Depends on exacta odds and how fast you can read the tote. Sometimes a couple of $5 exacta-as-place bets can equal the return of a $200 place bet.

[andicap]

The philosophic debate over whether to bet place is a futile and stupid one.
It's a different story, however, if you want to analyze place in specific situations.

It all depends on YOUR records, your method of handicapping. If many of your picks finish 2nd and you're lousy at picking the winner in these instances, place makes excellent sense.

[midnight]

Place betting on short price horses may be the way to go in the drug-cheater era. The cheats usually don't bet their horses to place, so if your horse runs second to some drug-aided horse, the place price will be more generous than it might be otherwise.