Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Message Board - What software has the most effect on mutuels

Tom Barrister

11-04-2007, 04:56 PM

The focus of this poll isn't the single most influential factor, rating, figure, etc., (e.g. not the Beyer, BRIS Prime Power, etc.) nor does it include such as the Ragozin Sheets, Thorograph, etc. It deals with the single most influential software, in your opinion, on mutuel prices throughout North American tracks.

Note: this isn't about which software is the best, most useful, most powerful, etc. It's about which has the most INFLUENCE on the mutuels, e.g. which, in your opinion, draws the most overall money towards it.

Sorry if I left a major one out.

chickenhead

11-04-2007, 05:53 PM

99% of the people who are going to be voting have no clue whatsoever. The 1% who might be in a position to make an educated guess are going to be completely swamped out.

What is the point of this?

Sailwolf

11-04-2007, 06:32 PM

Why don't we ask about people? I think Big Mack is the reason why strong faith is 1/2 of the morning odds. Race 8:rolleyes: :D See the other thread!

mrharness

11-04-2007, 06:51 PM

Tom

Did you have something in mind about how a person should determine the answer?

bigmack

11-04-2007, 06:57 PM

Hardly. I hadn't a cent on him to win and that was early lettuce as he opened at 7. Live Life helped in his involement in the super @ 43-1.

Agree with Chick that the survey is a bit silly. Doesn't Jerry Brown say he has 11,000 subscribers? Almost hard to believe.

What is Syndergism? http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/a11.gif

Tom Barrister

11-04-2007, 07:19 PM

Tom

Did you have something in mind about how a person should determine the answer?

Not really. I was hoping people who actually use any of these programs or know people who do might base their vote and comments on what they've observed or heard. For example, I've read here and elsewhere that Jcapper's original "J" rating was deflating the prices, and while that's one rating, the software produced it, and users can create their own UDM's. I've heard similar things about HTR and about CJ's program.

Pace Cap'n

11-04-2007, 09:27 PM

Whatever TVG uses?

Tom Barrister

11-04-2007, 11:33 PM

What is Syndergism? http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/a11.gif

A typo.

46zilzal

11-05-2007, 12:24 AM

IMPOSSIBLE to say. If one person with HUGE funds used a system, HE/SHE would have the most influence (via the software they used).

mrharness

11-05-2007, 06:07 AM

The only opinion I have, is that it would probably vary from track to track. At some smaller tracks it might very well be just the general public. At others it could be insiders. At others, someone or someones with one of the above mentioned choices.

ryesteve

11-05-2007, 08:47 AM

In the past, I've argued vehemently on the "software deflates odds" side, but there's absolutely no way of knowing which has the most impact.

njcurveball

11-05-2007, 10:21 AM

On occasion there is a guy that bets $2,000 to $3,000 to win on horse at Moutaineer. I believe they sometimes refer to him as the "mad bomber".

If someone can tell me what he uses, then I will vote for him!

I think nothing deflates the odds more than a bad morning line. Many times we see a horse 10-1 and the software has the horse in the top 2 or even the first choice.

Then the horse is bet to 3-1 and we naturally think it is "our stuff". Many computer reports are generated by finding overlays and the most used factor in doing that is the morning line.

If a horse is on all these reports because of a high morning line, interest in generated and odds are depressed.

On a daily basis, there are 5-1 horses listed at 10-1, 12-1, even 20-1 on the morning line!

Precious Kitten at 30-1 was a great example of this in the Breeders Cup. A natural 8-1 morning line horse that looked like she was getting bet.

Consider this, IF a software program depressed the odds, it loses its profitability. If Users continue to bet the same factors and continue to lose, there is more profit for the rest of us. :ThmbUp:

DJofSD

11-05-2007, 11:07 AM

Beats the you-know-what out of me. How are we suppose to know?

11-05-2007, 01:06 PM

Beyer speed figures would beat all of these by a good margin I would think.

DeanT

11-05-2007, 01:56 PM

Bris Prime Power #1 has to be up there (or whatever they call their rating). I wonder if that was ever profitable? It has good predictive value.

A tight second choice: When an Emerald Downs shipper wins at long odds on a Friday, the software that predicts the one will win on Saturday :)

BillW

11-05-2007, 02:26 PM

How about the tote software that calculates the takeout. :eek:

Wickel

11-08-2007, 12:05 PM

ryesteve

11-10-2007, 08:44 AM

I voted for Pizzolla's programs only because it seems to generate the most interest when a thread pops up in one of the forums. In other words, it appears to to the "now" software. And things will only intensify when the new stuff comes out.I think the "interest" has more to do with people liking to bash him. If someone does a 2008 version of "What software are you using now?", I'd be pretty surprised if his stuff was in the top 3.

cato

11-10-2007, 02:11 PM

The only bit of information that has a significant effect on the odds would be the Byers numbers and the sheets (and related/similar products).

I'm sure most of the program developers would disagree but my guess is that over time most software generally points to (i) the same horses or (ii) no horses (i.e, it depends on what you emphasize in your use of a particular program and users of the same program will bet on several different horses in any give race).

The claims of developers to the contrary are either intentional hype or unintentional ego projection (IMO).

Cato

gallahadion

11-10-2007, 03:10 PM

How about the tote software that calculates the takeout. :eek:

Thats a great movie!

ryesteve

11-11-2007, 11:17 PM

The only bit of information that has a significant effect on the odds would be the Byers numbers and the sheets (and related/similar products).
I can understand your point as to Beyers, since they're widely disseminated, by why give credit to sheets "and similar products", but not software? If I'm betting some races at Retama, I'd imagine that there's at least as much money in those pools from people using software as there is from people using sheets. Do they even make sheets for Retama?

Tom Barrister

11-12-2007, 01:43 AM

Do they even make sheets for Retama?

Thorograph does. I would imagine that Ragozin and Equiform do, too.

ryesteve

11-12-2007, 08:39 AM

Thorograph does. I would imagine that Ragozin and Equiform do, too.I figured they did... that was more sarcasm than an actual question.

cato

11-12-2007, 03:37 PM

My point was that I think its mainly an illusion that a program has a continuous, sustained and significant impact on the odds becuase most/many of the programs will point to the same or similar horses. Someone can say, look here, this horse was 10-1 on the ML and was the #1 pick in my program and its going off at 3-1 so my program is killing the odds. Guess what, many of the other programs (and/or the sheets) also pointed to that horse + handicappers withouth programs might also be able to see whatever it was that the priogram saw to pick the horse.

+ due to the considerations of value a program may point to 3 or 4 horses and different user's will bet different horses depending on their analysis of the program's output + value considerations.

+ any given user may focus on one or two ratings over others. That is, there are multiple interpretations of any given priogram on any given race. People betting real money are not just betting on a program's top rating.

I gave credit to the sheets becuase I was simply repeating the conclusion that keeps getting repeated which is that the sheets players tend to be heavier hitters and can really move the odds when they get excited about a horse. I have no hard data for that. Heck, we're just making this shit up, man.

Cato

ryesteve

11-12-2007, 05:15 PM

My point was that I think its mainly an illusion that a program has a continuous, sustained and significant impact on the odds becuase most/many of the programs will point to the same or similar horses.
But wouldn't you say the same about "Sheets and similar products?" I'm not necessarily trying to refute what you're saying about software, I just don't see why those comments don't apply just as well to "Sheets and similar products"

Dave Schwartz

11-13-2007, 11:54 AM

IMHO, the single thing that has changed mutuels the most is the proliferation of common information. That is, we're all downloading the same data from the same source and pretty much seeing handicapping the same way(s).

However, if you want to pin mutuel change on one or more software products you must ask yourself where the biggest money is wagered.

When you consider that the six largest players in North America wagered over one-billion dollars last year, it becomes obvious that all of our $200-per-race bets are but a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Therefore, IMHO, changes in the mutuel character are caused by whales and their own software. And I don't mean little whales, I mean giant, blue whales.

Anyone who thinks that a software program whose users are (typically) in the $2-$50 range are going to impact mutuels in comparison to the biggest boys is just not thinking in perspective.

Anyone with a significant database should take a close look at the public choice rankings and raw odds at major tracks (no NYRA) before and after May, 2005 and report back what they find.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Tom

11-13-2007, 12:38 PM

Why May, 2005?

Dave Schwartz

11-13-2007, 01:08 PM

My sources tell me that two very large players started playing that month.

njcurveball

11-13-2007, 01:40 PM

IMHO, the single thing that has changed mutuels the most is the proliferation of common information. That is, we're all downloading the same data from the same source and pretty much seeing handicapping the same way(s).

However, if you want to pin mutuel change on one or more software products you must ask yourself where the biggest money is wagered.

When you consider that the six largest players in North America wagered over one-billion dollars last year, it becomes obvious that all of our $200-per-race bets are but a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Therefore, IMHO, changes in the mutuel character are caused by whales and their own software. And I don't mean little whales, I mean giant, blue whales.

This was an amazing post on a number of levels Dave! I think you cut to the chase and nailed it with your information.

I also think you showed great humility as many software developers are quick to toot their own horn about "their" stuff tilting the mutuels.

It goes back to the days when the ads said "only 50 will be sold as we do not want to impact the mutuels".

Thanks for a great thread and your great contributions! :ThmbUp:

Dave Schwartz

11-13-2007, 01:49 PM

CurveBall,

LOL - Oh, if only everyone were so gullible as to believe that it is all in the software.

Dave

rrbauer

11-13-2007, 03:04 PM

I would agree with Dave. The most dominant players are not using any of the software on the list. For the most part, the software on the list is mostly to do with handicapping using historical data and little to do with playing using live (albeit subject to network and processing delays) streams of tote data. The most dominant players are concerned with making money using probability-based cross-pool analysis and placing multiple bets for varying amounts into all the single-race pools available to them for a race.

Indeed, and it's only my opinion, the second most dominant players are those guys with an inside track to the backstretch. The guys with the dough talking to the people in the "know". First-time starters that open at even money and win for fun aren't being picked by software programs.

JimG

11-14-2007, 11:05 AM

I think it depends on who is using the software and how much they bet. I suspect most heavy hitters are betting into large pools and not using commerical software but using their own custom application or something else. However, I do think that people betting into smaller pools using commercial software can affect the odds with decent sized bets. Especially commericial software with a dominant rating.

Jim

ryesteve

11-14-2007, 01:17 PM

I would agree with Dave.
But Dave has also explained (elsewhere) that these guys betting huge sums of money are spreading all over the board, in order to maximize their churn and rebates. Given that strategy, I don't see them affecting the odds as much as a guy with more bankroll than common sense, betting into a small pool.

rrbauer

11-14-2007, 03:24 PM

But Dave has also explained (elsewhere) that these guys betting huge sums of money are spreading all over the board, in order to maximize their churn and rebates. Given that strategy, I don't see them affecting the odds as much as a guy with more bankroll than common sense, betting into a small pool.

The more likely scenario IMHO is a lot of guys with average size bankrolls all jumping on the same horse in a small pool because whatever software they're using (including none) points to the same horse. It's the classic dog chasing its tail scenario. I don't know any big players who are playing in small pools regardless of what playing strategy they're employing.

David-LV

11-17-2007, 10:42 PM

equicom

11-17-2007, 11:41 PM

It would be whichever one has the most number of people using it. And whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing would be dependant on how effective it was.

If it rarely picked winners, that would be good for the rest of us because it would artificially inflate the dividends on the other runners. If it was really hot and picked winners all the time, you'd find it is bad for everyone to a more or less extent.

Good staking strategy may help to offset the lower returns due to over-wagering, perhaps. But unlikely given that few people have the discipline to do what they intuitively know they should do. Many people don't trust their own instincts enough either, and follow the herd.

Tom Barrister

11-19-2007, 03:36 PM

The original post asked this:

The focus of this poll isn't the single most influential factor, rating, figure, etc., (e.g. not the Beyer, BRIS Prime Power, etc.) nor does it include such as the Ragozin Sheets, Thorograph, etc. It deals with the single most influential software, in your opinion, on mutuel prices throughout North American tracks.

Note: this isn't about which software is the best, most useful, most powerful, etc. It's about which has the most INFLUENCE on the mutuels, e.g. which, in your opinion, draws the most overall money towards it.

Congratulations to the 95% of you who did everything that the original post asked NOT to do, while not doing what WAS asked.

Special commendation to Mr. Anal, who pointed out a typo.

njcurveball

11-19-2007, 04:00 PM

Well after a good number of votes, I think this survey proves that there really is not one piece of software that can impact the mutuels the way some have trumpeted.

Very educational survey! :ThmbUp:

Jeff P

11-20-2007, 11:49 AM

I'm actually of the opinion that other programs have more influence on the odds than my program does. My logic being more users... more money being bet than my own tiny user base.

But my program does have some influence on the odds. I'm going to post a couple of example races of what I'm talking about.

HAW R1 Sun 11/11/2007
http://www.jcapper.com/HawR1_11112007.jpg

Above is a screenshot of the odds and pool amounts with 40 minutes to post. There is already $1200 to win on the #2 horse... which also happens to be the top ranked JRating horse in the race. It's very likely in this case that other software was pointing to this horse as well. Morning line favoritism in this race belonged to the 1 and 1A entry trained by WAYNE M CATALANO. The really interesting thing to me about the early betting in this race (yes my perspective is that of a software maker) is that a software pick is taking twice as much money as the morning line favorite power entry.

TUP R8 10/28/2007
http://www.jcapper.com/TupR8_10282007.jpg

Above is a screenshot of the early betting at 13 MTP. The #2 horse is the top ranked JRating horse in the race and has a morning line of 15-1. Yet the horse has taken twice as much money in the early betting as the morning line favorite (#7.)

Again, it's entirely possible that other software was pointing to these two specific horses. But when you see this happen over and over again thousands of times in a year you have to ask yourself the following question: What are the odds that other software was also pointing to the same exact horses all those other times? As a software maker it's hard to draw any conclusion other than your own software is having an influence on the odds.

-jp

.

DeanT

11-20-2007, 03:07 PM

I would believe that JC and others would have some effect like the above - early $$$. Guessing, but with mechanical selections (and I was NEVER a mechanical selector before) I often bet a few bucks at the start of the day when I can not play.

njcurveball

11-20-2007, 03:22 PM

But when you see this happen over and over again thousands of times in a year you have to ask yourself the following question: What are the odds that other software was also pointing to the same exact horses all those other times? As a software maker it's hard to draw any conclusion other than your own software is having an influence on the odds.

-jp

.

Interesting thoughts here. As I would venture a guess that those players betting lots of money early, are not really showing a profit.

And I am confused about the 2 horse in the race you posted at Hawthorne. Was that a Jcapper play? I have the horse with a 3-1 ML, going off at 3-5 and finishing a well beaten 6th.

The entry in that race went off as an overlay and finished 1-2 thanks to the extreme betting on the 2 horse.

If that is what is attracting large sums of money in the win pool I would not think those players would have a large bankroll for very long.

I dont know any professionals plunking down thousands with over 10 minutes to post looking forward to winning races at less than even money.

the Turf paradise race with the #2 horse showed another well beaten 6th at 9-2 odds.

I must be missing something? If I were betting thousands on these horses and losing badly, why would I keep doing it?

Jeff P

11-20-2007, 05:41 PM

Interesting thoughts here. As I would venture a guess that those players betting lots of money early, are not really showing a profit.

And I am confused about the 2 horse in the race you posted at Hawthorne. Was that a Jcapper play? I have the horse with a 3-1 ML, going off at 3-5 and finishing a well beaten 6th.

The entry in that race went off as an overlay and finished 1-2 thanks to the extreme betting on the 2 horse.Was the #2 horse a JCapper play? No. Not for me. Despite having the top JRating in the race, there were several other things in the race working against this horse... including the way it looked and acted when it stepped out onto the track. IMHO anyone betting that horse was literally throwing their money away.

I must be missing something? If I were betting thousands on these horses and losing badly, why would I keep doing it?Jim, I don't think you're missing anything. I've been asking myself that same question for about two years now... wondering why someone keeps plunking these horses in the same manner... and just how long they can keep doing it.

-jp

.

njcurveball

11-20-2007, 06:28 PM

You have some interesting stuff there Jeff, that is for sure.

There will always be some grey area (or is it gray area) on who is plunging this money into the pools.

It sounds like you have a firm grasp on value though. Your posts are very well thought out with good information. :ThmbUp:

It would be interesting to someday have some sort of independant firm get all of the printouts before the races and try to determine the answer to this question.

If nothing else, they could make a very accurate line for each horse using a consensus of the data and then see how the betting differs from that accurate line. :ThmbUp:

cmoore

12-04-2007, 04:17 PM

You could have 20 handicappers use the same software for the same race and only a few hit the longshot. It's how the software is used by that individual. I use procaps and I think it's the best for the buck. TSNHORSE has a monthly fee of 59.95 for unlimited procap files and data files. Quick play pps are included which I do not use. Instead I downloaded the tsn pp generator and use the datafiles. These datafiles include the class and race ratings which the quick play pps do not and your still only paying $59.95. I also have made a few changes when printing my pps. You just have to find out what works for you. I also use the reports and top sire sheets at breedingwinners.com. The procaps software, tsn generator past perfomances printed my way and the breeding reports has been successful for me. Just check out dailyhandicappingcontests.com and look at the money leader board.

JustRalph

01-30-2008, 06:30 PM

JustRalph

01-30-2008, 06:39 PM

You could have 20 handicappers use the same software for the same race and only a few hit the longshot.

hold your horses there cmoore. I have caught several nice horses lately and after the race email a couple of people using the same software as I do..........and find out that they all nailed the horse too..........the only ones that didn't were not in front of their computers at the time. Sometimes, maybe even "often" the software I use points at certain horses that are either "must bets" at certain odds or the program downright tells you to bet the horse, almost no questions asked. A brightly highlighted horse on a race report is pretty obvious. In some other software I have used, I would agree with you. But there is some stuff out there now that is incredible when it comes to certain kinds of opportunities.

asH

01-30-2008, 08:24 PM

United Tote (tote software) replaced Scientific Games Racing, formerly known as Autotote Systems.

asH ;)

Scientific Games was at the center of the 2002 Breeders' Cup Pick Six scandal because the ringleader of the scheme, Chris Harn, worked for Autotote as a software engineer and used holes in the company's information technology security to fraudulently alter a win ticket worth approximately $3.1-million. At the time, Autotote processed approximately 65% of all pari-mutuel wagers in North America.