PDA

View Full Version : CREATING AN ODDS LINE - THE JK WAY


Robert Fischer
12-10-2007, 01:57 PM
I started writing some thoughts on a basic win odds line, in response to a recent thread on Edge and fair odds, and I decided I may as well make a decent draft of it.

There are a lot of threads about creating odds lines here, and some are very good. Some of my opinions and techniques may be different or unorthodox , feel free to criticize, comment or add.




CREATING A WIN ODDS LINE

STEP 1 HANDICAPPING
You have selected a race, and now you must handicap the horses for this specific race. It doesn't matter what handicapping method you use. If you rolled some dice on the table, or watched video and read form, or looked at the horses in the paddock , or ran powerful software programs, you start by handicapping.

CONVERTING A WIN PERCENTAGE
To Convert a Win Percentage for each horse,
Start with the best horse, and move through the several top contenders and do the worst horses last.

Note: A major error that most everyone makes when they start creating odds lines is that they over-estimate the favorite's win probability. If a favorite looks like he "can't miss" than his true probability is probably not any higher than 70%. A beginner will intuitively label him as a 90% shot. It seems like they are near certain winners, and they probably will win that specific race, but that isn't what odds lines are asking.

Most favorites are going to fall between 20 and 40%. If you are outside those guidelines make sure you have a logical reason. An "even money" horse should be around 50%, a 1/5 shot would be 83% (and it better be the Horse of The Year vs. Claimers). You must become familiar with the percentages and how they relate to "fair odds".

Formulas
fair odds= (1/probability) -1
fair probability= 1/(odds +1)

YOUR 40% SHOT
So you say you have the best horse "finished" and you think he has a 40% chance of winning. Who the hell do you think you are, Andrew Beyer ?!? :lol:
I don't think the greatest handicapping consortium in the world could nail down a win percentage for any horse, much less the 40% shot in today's race.

HANDICAPPING YOURSELF / MEASURE OF UNCERTAINTY
Next and this is a major step - you have to handicap yourself for this specific race. You HAVE to handicap how accurate you are. It doesn't matter what method you use to handicap, you still have to accurately estimate how accurate you are for this specific horse in this specific race! This is the Measure of Uncertainty or "error range".

You are a solid handicapper. You can read a form , maybe you watched some races and/or punched some numbers... We have to look at this "40% horse" now. He happens to have established form. He ran at this distance 3 of the last 5 races. He looks consistent. The others in this field don't particularly scare me. But we don't know EVERYTHING about this horse and we have to allow for some probability that something will go awry or different. So maybe we can reasonably "handicap our method" for this specific horse as being within 15%.

Now our rough estimate with our error range looks like this:

40% +- 15%
The odds for this horse now have a range from 4/5 to 3-1
Our "edge" for this horse is going to start appearing at odds > 3-1.
40%-15% =25%
1/.25 -1 = 3

FIRST TIME STARTER / UNKNOWN POTENTIAL
Now let's do the first time starter, or the horse with unknown potential which includes lightly raced horses especially well meant animals and/or surface changes.
Good trainer. Good jockey. Good pedigree. Good owner. All the right trainer/sire/…stats. Good works.
Maybe we think a decent starting point is around 18% for this guy.
Now, let’s take this to level 2, and get a little more advanced.
This horse could be the best in the race for all we know. Or maybe he is a dud?? What do we do here toss him? pass the race? This is a tough race.
Well our range of probability may not be equally distributed.
We can give him some points for potential.
So maybe our First Time Starter is 18% +20% -15%

18% +20% -15% ??? UH OH
Hold on! this means I don't bet this horse to win unless he goes off at an impossible >32/1??
why didn't I just say that before I had do the paper work for this horse?

THE BUMS
Most of the time the worst couple/few horses in the race have some slim chance of winning. As a general rule the worst horses (as determined by your handicapping method) will not have as much potential and also allow for less error. Maybe you get something that looks like 4% +2% -4%. That is he is a 6% horse at best. Doesn't mean you or your method got any better, only that this horse obviously has little to no potential to improve. Once in a while (aqueduct winter meet :D) you will find a terrible horse who has both terrible form AND terrible late pace figures. It is ok to disregard these rarities completely from your odds line. You must handicap them, but you don't have to calculate them.

WE STILL HAVEN'T GLANCED AT THE MORNING LINE OR TOTE BOARD YET.


APLICATION TO WAGERING
Wagering could be the longest section here. I will keep it very simple.

WIN WAGERING
Back to the examples; Horse 1 was to get a win bet @ > 3/1 TOTE ODDS , and the FTS was a win bet @>32/1.

To find our overlay odds we subtract the "minus" range of error from our rough estimated odds. ( 40%-15% =25% , 1/.25 -1 = 3 )

EXOTICS
Prerequisite to using odds lines for exotics wagering is that you understand the rules of the wager, and estimate the payouts.

EXACTAS are nice and simple because they give you a payout probable. There are different ways to use probabilities with exactas. My advice is to stick to your win probabilities. If you are great enough to form a separate "place probability" pat yourself on the back.:D One way to use your win probabilities for exactas is to use your minimum figures. Say you had two horses with minimums of 25% and 15%.
.25*.15 = .0375 = 25.7/1 = $52/2 exacta probable.

PICK6 / MULTI RACE WAGERS
These wagers also utilize the "plus" side of your error range. This is where that first time starter and his "potential" may be put to good use. These are expensive wagers especially with coverage. It is better to pass a race if you ca not afford to play on the side of advantage , which is what this thread is about.

FINAL NOTES
Make sure you under-estimate the payout at off. You don't get to lock in Win bets or Exacta probables, so make a low estimate. Know how much the win or exacta probables will change in the final minutes for this track and pool size. This knowledge comes from active practice on paper with respect to time remaining ,tote probables, track, pool size.

When utilizing advanced strategies such as coverage, leverage, hedging etc the strategy goes beyond basic odds line work in this document.

A race with a significant amount of “unknown potential” is going to reflect in the “minus” error range for even the “best” most consistent horses The “plus” potential that the unknowns have, will be reflected in the “minus” potential of the other horses and to a small degree in even the best most consistent rivals. I skipped that step to keep this somewhat straightforward.


- JK "bobby fischer"

Robert Fischer
12-10-2007, 06:11 PM
EXACTAS ... Say you had two horses with minimums of 25% and 15%.
.25*.15 = .0375 = 25.7/1 = $52/2 exacta probable.


I made an error here. At a "fair odds" of 26-1 the exacta probable for $2 would have to be $54 not $52. You have to allow for the wager cost in exactas if you are converting them from Win Odds that pay out the wager cost.

"easy" way = 2 x fair odds + $2


example of work
fair odds = 25.7/1
rounded to 26/1
exacta probables are in $2 format
26 X $2 =$52
add your cost = $54 EXACTA PROBABLE

nobeyerspls
12-11-2007, 10:27 AM
It might be helpful to distinguish between exotic and straight bets in determining the value of odds lines. My approach with the latter is simple: I do not bet any horse straight unless the odds are 7/2 or higher. I pass on more than a few winners but that threshold has served me well. Simply stated, too many things can go wrong during a race so I need to be paid for selecting a winner.

That is not true with exotics, particularly the horizontals. Leverage from pick3's will apply even with a couple of low-priced horses in the sequence. In that sense I do not care if a horse is overbet in the start of a pick3 or win4. I remember one from Saratoga last summer. The winners were 3/5, 6/5, and 11-1 and the pick3 paid over $800.

How do odds lines apply with straight betting? Let's say you need 3-1 to bet on the horse you think will win. When he goes off at 2-1 do you abandon him and bet a 6-1 that you thought should be 4-1? I'll stick with the threshold concept for straight bets and ignore the odds in the horizontals.

Robert Fischer
12-11-2007, 11:03 AM
How do odds lines apply with straight betting? Let's say you need 3-1 to bet on the horse you think will win. When he goes off at 2-1 do you abandon him and bet a 6-1 that you thought should be 4-1?

Good question

let's test it out

Simplify
"Let's say you need 3-1 to bet on the horse you think will win. When he goes off at 2-1 do you abandon him"?
- Yes. if we need (Greater Than) > 3-1 odds, yes we toss him at 3-1 or less.


"and bet a 6-1 that you thought should be 4-1?"
- lets try the system and see how it looks.
Call him horse 2
If horse 2 gets our win bet @ > 4-1 odds
fair probability= 1/(odds +1)
fair probability= 1/(4+1)
fair probability = 1/5 or .20 or 20%
So this means that our "minus" error range will leave us with 20%
we are working backwards now , but if we are using the same 15% error range that we used for our 3-1 horse in the example, then that means our probability estimate started at 35% (20% plus 15%)

work shown for Horse 2
35% +- 15%
The odds for this horse now have a range from 1 to 4-1
Our "edge" for this horse is going to start appearing at odds > 4-1.
35%-15% =20%
1/.20 -1 = 4

So our horse 2 was really only estimated at 5% worse than horse1 by us , when we handicapped the race.
If he goes off at 6-1 we will bet him.

note that Horse1 and Horse2 account for 75% of the win probability by our estimates, so this is probably either a lopsided race or a small field.



One of the unique things about the method here is that you do include the error range or "measure of uncertainty". A lot of old school handicappers will say that they intuitively add odds or demand twice the fair odds of a horse. That is the idea of accounting for the error range. This method is doing each step and showing the work, the old school 'capper is doing it intuitively.

classhandicapper
12-11-2007, 12:20 PM
I used to spend a lot of time trying to make exact odds lines, but in most cases I don't bother with the effort anymore. I'll explain why.

In virtually every single race I handicap, there are a few complications that I don't think I can quantify properly.

Among them are layoffs, FTSs, horses coming off 1 or 2e poor off track races, horses that have been running on a different surface than today's race with back form on today's surface, horses trying a new surface, horses taking a huge dropdown in class and many others.

In most cases I have either seen stats on these categories or have a good idea of how the GROUP will do over the long haul. But the reality is that the individual cases are never identical to the group because the specifics are often wildly different and I don't have stats on that.

Once I'm in a position of not being able to "VALUE" some of the horses in a race well, almost by definition that means I'm not going to be able to value any of them well.

However, that's not going to stop me from making value the primary focus of my betting or prevent me from being as comprehensive as I can be in my handicapping.

What I do is compare the contenders I actually do understand very well.

Suppose I make horse "A" and horse "B" approximately equal and am certain I understand them well. Suppose I also feel that I can't value horses "C" and "D" well due to complications, incomplete info etc... If horse "A" is 9-2 and horse "B" is 2-1, I already know that either "A" is an big overlay, "B" is a big underlay, or a little of both unless the rest of the board is totally out of whack (an extremely rare occurrence). I can sort of ignore "C" and "D".

By focusing on what you do understand with almost certainty, you can still recognize where your attention should be focused even though you are admitting to yourself that you can't put exact numbers on all of it because of all the complications.

The bigger the error you are certain about, the bigger the margin of safety, the more confident you can be in pulling the trigger without going through the exercise of assigning probabilities to other horses in an almost guesswork like fashion.

In the past I have talked about simply ranking horses in terms of their probability of winning and looking for misranked horses, but direct comparisons work even better because you sometimes don't even know where to rank horses because of the complications.

nobeyerspls
12-11-2007, 01:01 PM
I think horse A can win but I want at least 3-1. He is 2-1 so I do not bet him.
I do not think that horse B can beat horse A and he should be 4-1. He is 6-1 so I bet him.
Horse A wins as I predicted.
I bet the horse that gave me an edge.
I lost.
I did not give up the edge though.
But I still lost.
Next time I'll double my bet.
What's so hard about this?

cj
12-11-2007, 01:02 PM
I think horse A can win but I want at least 3-1. He is 2-1 so I do not bet him.
I do not think that horse B can beat horse A and he should be 4-1. He is 6-1 so I bet him.
Horse A wins as I predicted.
I bet the horse that gave me an edge.
I lost.
I did not give up the edge though.
But I still lost.
Next time I'll double my bet.
What's so hard about this?

IF you don't think horse B can beat horse A, how can be possibly be 4 to 1 on your line?

Robert Fischer
12-11-2007, 02:02 PM
I think horse A can win but I want at least 3-1. He is 2-1 so I do not bet him.
I do not think that horse B can beat horse A and he should be 4-1. He is 6-1 so I bet him.
Horse A wins as I predicted.
I bet the horse that gave me an edge.
I lost.
I did not give up the edge though.
But I still lost.
Next time I'll double my bet.
What's so hard about this?

Another good question.

I think you are saying the horse is a 4-1 shot to start. - before any error range is subtracted.


"Error Range" - the key part of my odds-line system.

The error range is what is going to determine at what Win Odds you bet.

First you make a "Rough Estimate" of win%. If you are better with odds then you can start with odds.

:ThmbUp: If your "rough estimate" is 4-1 then that equals 20% because (1/(odds+1)) = 1/5 = 0.20

If your rough estimate is 4-1 or 20% now we have to use "Error Range".

How sure are you that he is a 4-1 shot? For the example I used 15% as my error range.

4-1 plus or minus 15% = 20% +-15%
To find our " overlay odds" we use the minus
20% - 15% = 5%
Now we change 5% into odds to find our Overlay Odds
fair odds= (1/probability) -1
= (1/ .05) -1
= 19
So this horse will need to show greater than 19-1 before we bet on it to win.

If you said he was probably a 4-1 shot to start then you were right to pass him at 6-1 !

What a big difference between a horse who you guess is a 4-1 shot , and a horse who you already used the error range to get up to a 4-1 shot !

-----
This system requires some getting used to the percentages. You may find that you are more or less accurate than a 15% error range, and I only use that as a safe demonstration guideline.

classhandicapper
12-11-2007, 07:18 PM
I really like your error range idea. I think of it as a margin of safety (that term comes from Ben Graham and Warren Buffet when discussing stock market investing). The one minor problem I have with it is related to my point above. Suppose there are 2 horses with a very wide error range because of race complications. Let's call it 12.5% +/- for each horse. That's 25% out there that theoretically could be assigned to other horses in the race if our 2 horses should really both be at the lower end of the range. When you throw that on top of some smaller error ranges of other horses, it sometimes looks like a total mess to me.

Robert Fischer
12-12-2007, 11:14 AM
I really like your error range idea. I think of it as a margin of safety (that term comes from Ben Graham and Warren Buffet when discussing stock market investing). The one minor problem I have with it is related to my point above. Suppose there are 2 horses with a very wide error range because of race complications. Let's call it 12.5% +/- for each horse. That's 25% out there that theoretically could be assigned to other horses in the race if our 2 horses should really both be at the lower end of the range. When you throw that on top of some smaller error ranges of other horses, it sometimes looks like a total mess to me.

It can be a real mess! My method is slow and deliberate and conservative. If the race has a lot of unknowns, it is going to expose that and you are going to find that some of those unknowns have BIG error ranges. It is like admitting you don't know much about those unknown horses.
The idea is to get your "central?" rough estimates to = about 100% without regard to the +/-. Starting with the "best" horses and moving on to the unknowns and bad horses. Then you have the Error Range +/- to help you determine if a horse is a Win Odds Overlay (in the case of the minus) or someone to include in Multi race wagers or Coverage bets (in the case of the "plus" side).
At the most advanced level you would allow a little bit in the +/- to reflect the Unknown horses. Also an error range is going to have more impact at higher odds horses than low-odds horses. - This is kind of a built in safety and "artificially" focuses the wagering to look for the top pick(s) at an overlay - but can be tweaked. I will not "fib" here and say that I always do an odds line as described. We all had that teacher in school who made us "show our work" :bang:. The idea behind this is showing the steps and the math that is the basis of an odds line.

I like your DIRECT COMPARISONS method as well. In essence it is built on the same principals. Neither system is going to place a win wager on the unknown "guess horses", and your Direct Comparison approach saves time. It sounds like you place a value on your similar known horses and look for the overlay between them. Not only is it a quick clean way to do an "odds line", it is a quality selections method. :ThmbUp:

cj
12-12-2007, 12:58 PM
While it probably seemed like I was being a smartass, I was actually serious. How could anyone ever make a horse 4 to 1 on their line if they think there is a horse in the field he can't beat? If someone really believes that about two horses, the inferior of the two should be a huge longshot on that person's line, period.

Handiman
12-15-2007, 09:31 PM
Betting a horse you don't think can beat one you think is unbeatable by your bet horse, is like marrying an ugly woman, when a beautiful one is available. Doesn't make any sense to me...better to stay a bachelor and wait till two closer looking chicks show up and choose one of them. Cause they surely will.


Happy Holidays
Handi