True Favorites

[sligg]

I keep reading about vulnerable or false favorites. If we as handicappers accept this premise, then there has to be the premise of True Favorites. And this has been my pursuit for the last four months.

I was looking for the perennial Black Box-no judgment needed. I used most of the tracks (flats) listed in the Twin Spires website that ran the typical distances except no turf races. My results are as follows:

Month Sept Oct Nov Dec Tot
Bets 13 15 10 15 53
Won 12 10 8 12 42
Won % 92.3 66.7 80 80 79.2
$ ret 34.8 30.8 26.1 41.0 132.7
$ net 8.8 0.8 6.1 11.0 26.7
ROI % 33.8 2.7 30.5 36.7 25.2

Do these results make the case that there are True Favorites? I think so. Yes, I know, not enough plays to make this determination. But at 82, I don't have enough time left in my life to gather thousands of plays so I will never know-and so my research will probably end with this post.

It's obvious that this is a spot bet with a limited number of plays. These are real plays with no back fitting. There was also a profit in the place slot but a loss for show.

The question is how much did I make? Nothing to speak of. I have difficulty in betting large sums. Back in the 1970's my typical bet was $200 win and on Pro Football $2000-6000 on a game. But those days are long gone. Age does a number to your head. In my younger days I was stupid with nerve, now I'm stupid with no nerve. Why do I do this research-because it's fun and it keeps me mentally active and it cost almost nothing to download the PP from Twin Spires. But that's going to change in 2008. Twin Spires is changing the cost structure of their data and it will now cost a lot more so my research will be coming to an end.

[sligg]

I keep reading about vulnerable or false favorites. If we as handicappers accept this premise, then there has to be the premise of True Favorites. And this has been my pursuit for the last four months.

I was looking for the perennial Black Box-no judgment needed. I used most of the tracks (flats) listed in the Twin Spires website that ran the typical distances except no turf races. My results are as follows:

Month Sept Oct Nov Dec Tot
Bets 13 15 10 15 53
Won 12 10 8 12 42
Won % 92.3 66.7 80 80 79.2
$ ret 34.8 30.8 26.1 41.0 132.7
$ net 8.8 0.8 6.1 11.0 26.7
ROI % 33.8 2.7 30.5 36.7 25.2

Do these results make the case that there are True Favorites? I think so. Yes, I know, not enough plays to make this determination. But at 82, I don't have enough time left in my life to gather thousands of plays so I will never know-and so my research will probably end with this post.

It's obvious that this is a spot bet with a limited number of plays. These are real plays with no back fitting. There was also a profit in the place slot but a loss for show.

The question is how much did I make? Nothing to speak of. I have difficulty in betting large sums. Back in the 1970's my typical bet was $200 win and on Pro Football $2000-6000 on a game. But those days are long gone. Age does a number to your head. In my younger days I was stupid with nerve, now I'm stupid with no nerve. Why do I do this research-because it's fun and it keeps me mentally active and it cost almost nothing to download the PP from Twin Spires. But that's going to change in 2008. Twin Spires is changing the cost structure of their data and it will now cost a lot more so my research will be coming to an end.

The table did not come out the way I typed it. How can I get it to align?

[Cheap Speed]

Thanks Sligg, Congrats on staying on top of things and being able to cap into your 80's. It's hard for me in my 40's;)

I would guess you have seen a lot of changes in handicapping over the years. When did you place your very first bet and what factors was it based on?

How did you pick your true favorites? through positive factors or by not having negative factors that make a horse a false or vulnerable favorite?

[Pace Cap'n]

Sligg--have enjoyed following your quest the past few years. Hate to hear about the looming data shortage.

While this may not provide enough info for research, it will get you lots of free PP's to look at...


www.horse-races.net/library/links-pastperformances.htm
(http://www.horse-races.net/library/links-pastperformances.htm)

[Old Timer]

Hang tough, Sal. I'm 88 and I ain't giving up yet - Like Cheap Speed, I'd like to know how you separated false favorites from true favorites in your research.

Old Timer

[banacek]

Those results look quite promising. The results remind me of some of the work Robert C. Farran did in the 70s - anyone remember him? He did very selective play and claimed to get 90% of the selections winning and 95%+ placing.

[Gambleonclaimers]

His data looks pretty impressive but what was he using to choose these true favorites was it based on his handicapping, final odds. an this really be obtained knowing wheher favories ae true or false we arlready know favories win abot 1/3 of the races so I guess the question is how do you eliminate those other 2/3 of races.

[sligg]

His data looks pretty impressive but what was he using to choose these true favorites was it based on his handicapping, final odds. an this really be obtained knowing wheher favories ae true or false we arlready know favories win abot 1/3 of the races so I guess the question is how do you eliminate those other 2/3 of races.


There is no handicapping involved. The selection is a black box pick if it qualifies on two factors. Averaging 12 to 15 plays a month, this is an extremely selective method that showed a profit in each of the four months tested.

I use the information from the TwinSpires data that was free to download in 2007. No longer free in 2008.

The selection had to be the morning line favorite and go off as the short priced favorite. Most of the picks were at the smaller tracks so betting even $200 would be self defeating. I don't think my method is practical for making a lot of money.

[badcompany]

Age does a number to your head. In my younger days I was stupid with nerve, now I'm stupid with no nerve

I don't see why it's stupid to take fewer risks as you get older. The older you get, the less you can afford to go broke.

[ryesteve]

my research will probably end with this post.
If you laid out the criteria, I'm sure that folks with large databases would be happy to extend your research.

[Gambleonclaimers]

Sig, after rereading your initial post and the reply to my post I think your method could definetly be used to grind out a small profit, just curious on your criteria if a horse was 5/2 ML favorite then at 2MTP was 8/5 would this be a play for you or would an 8/5ML was then 4/5 2MTP would this be a play.
Thanks

[sligg]

If you laid out the criteria, I'm sure that folks with large databases would be happy to extend your research.


There are two factors needed for a horse to qualify and these would not be covered in any data base. These factors would require all the data in Twinspires Quick Play and Insider Picks and Power Plays.

[sligg]

Sig, after rereading your initial post and the reply to my post I think your method could definetly be used to grind out a small profit, just curious on your criteria if a horse was 5/2 ML favorite then at 2MTP was 8/5 would this be a play for you or would an 8/5ML was then 4/5 2MTP would this be a play.
Thanks


In the first scenario, no play. In the second scenario, maybe, if the horse qualifies on three factors garnered from the Quick Play and Insider Picks data from TSN, Brisbet, or Twinspires. This info was free in 2007 if you made at least one bet on any track. For 2008, this information is free only if you make a bet on every track you download. This can be expensive because I only average one bet every two days from the 20 or so tracks I download each day.

This method is so selective that almost all selections go off at less than even money. The average win mutual for the four months was $3.16. That my friend is grinding it out and that's why I call the method True Favorites.

[sligg]

In the first scenario, no play. In the second scenario, maybe, if the horse qualifies on three factors garnered from the Quick Play and Insider Picks data from TSN, Brisbet, or Twinspires. This info was free in 2007 if you made at least one bet on any track. For 2008, this information is free only if you make a bet on every track you download. This can be expensive because I only average one bet every two days from the 20 or so tracks I download each day.

This method is so selective that almost all selections go off at less than even money. The average win mutual for the four months was $3.16. That my friend is grinding it out and that's why I call the method True Favorites.

I have my data entered in a spread sheet and it's fascinating the way you can tweak results. If I add a logical recency rule: must have raced last in 29 days or less, look what happens to the results:

36 bets
31 won
86.1 won %
37.1 ROI

What's next-100% winners? You can back fit to infinity.

[sligg]

I have my data entered in a spread sheet and it's fascinating the way you can tweak results. If I add a logical recency rule: must have raced last in 29 days or less, look what happens to the results:

36 bets
31 won
86.1 won %
37.1 ROI

What's next-100% winners? You can back fit to infinity.


What's important is that these results occurred at mostly second and third tier tracks that are not the model of consistency. In fact of the 53 bets there was only one bet at a major track: Aqueduct. Wow, even I'm impressed.

[sligg]

Thanks Sligg, Congrats on staying on top of things and being able to cap into your 80's. It's hard for me in my 40's;)

I would guess you have seen a lot of changes in handicapping over the years. When did you place your very first bet and what factors was it based on?

How did you pick your true favorites? through positive factors or by not having negative factors that make a horse a false or vulnerable favorite?

My first bet was in 1946 and it was based on nothing.

There is nothing magical in selecting a True Favorite. The selection requires no handicapping and no judgment. Everyone would come up with the same horse.

The latest tweaks to this black box method is up to 86.1% winners with a 37.1 ROI. See my replies further down the list.

[trying2win]

Sligg:

This has been one of the more enjoyable threads I've read in awhile. Your posts were really interesting to read here. Thanks very much! :ThmbUp:

T2W

[ryesteve]

There are two factors needed for a horse to qualify and these would not be covered in any data base. These factors would require all the data in Twinspires Quick Play and Insider Picks and Power Plays.
Not familiar with that content. But it sounds like there may a subjective component here that could affect results at some point.

[bobphilo]

This method is so selective that almost all selections go off at less than even money. The average win mutual for the four months was $3.16. That my friend is grinding it out and that's why I call the method True Favorites.

I once tried a similar experiment using the Bris Power ratings and had a similar experience. In dirt races, horses with a 6-point or more edge win 46% of the time and with a 10 or more point edge win 55%. They even sell a report telling you all the 6-point or more horses racing at all tracks that day along with the morning line.

I had the same problem with price however. Horses going off with 10-point edges listed at 2-1 on the ML would invariably end up going off at odds on.

You really have to wait for the opportunities where the price stays right.
I basically broke even over a couple of days. I might try it again with strict pay-off limits


Bob

[andicap]

sligg,

I love that people want to know your secret WITHOUT doing any of the work -- you put in hundreds, if not thousands of hours of work. Why should you give it to leeches for free?

Besides it would kill the prices even more!!

(P.S. -- you can just email it to me quietly and I promise not to tell anyone else.)

[sligg]

Not familiar with that content. But it sounds like there may a subjective component here that could affect results at some point.

There is no subjectivity here. It's a black box, everyone comes up with the same selection which can be a negative if a lot of people were betting the method-reduced payoffs.

[sligg]

I once tried a similar experiment using the Bris Power ratings and had a similar experience. In dirt races, horses with a 6-point or more edge win 46% of the time and with a 10 or more point edge win 55%. They even sell a report telling you all the 6-point or more horses racing at all tracks that day along with the morning line.

I had the same problem with price however. Horses going off with 10-point edges listed at 2-1 on the ML would invariably end up going off at odds on.

You really have to wait for the opportunities where the price stays right.
I basically broke even over a couple of days. I might try it again with strict pay-off limits


Bob


No, Bob, I'm not looking for a price. I'm betting extreme favorites. That is one of the requirements to qualify. Horse must go off as the favorite with maximum odds of 3/2 which doesn't happen often. How else can I show 86%
win and 95% place where the average win mutual is $3.16.

I definitely am not betting overlays where too much subjectivity is involved. It's a good feeling to have a method that acts as a black box, one size fits all and no thinking required and get a return of 26 cents on the dollar for each bet made. Sounds like the Holy Grail...Utopia...Your Own Private Bank.

It's called: True Favorites.

[sligg]

No, Bob, I'm not looking for a price. I'm betting extreme favorites. That is one of the requirements to qualify. Horse must go off as the favorite with maximum odds of 3/2 which doesn't happen often. How else can I show 86%
win and 95% place where the average win mutual is $3.16.

I definitely am not betting overlays where too much subjectivity is involved. It's a good feeling to have a method that acts as a black box, one size fits all and no thinking required and get a return of 26 cents on the dollar for each bet made. Sounds like the Holy Grail...Utopia...Your Own Private Bank.

It's called: True Favorites.

It sounds just like the hype from a system seller. I'm not selling anything but just the joy and excitement of creating a winning method from the vast amount of redundant, convoluted, and complex data in existence.

How sweet that I can handicap more than twenty races a day in less than 15 minutes...no more drudgery...no more boredom...no more confusion...no more second guessing. It's all there to be plucked.

Until Murphy's Law is invoked and then it's back to square one-hopefully not.

[1st time lasix]

Use all the stats you can conjure up gentleman but in my opinion.....betting extreme favorites is inherently a losing proposition over time in this paramutual game. Surprised that anyone with more than a few years of experience would even consider it. The 15% plus takeout and the 33-50% win ratio of "odds-on" entries will eventually grind you into the dirt. The hurdles of the takeout and the chatic nature of some races{favorites stumble, jocky error, get cut off, break poorly, get hurt, get dq'ed, etc} will get you. I just do not believe that you ever should wager large sums to win a little in racing. At smaller tracks you would further depress the returns. If that is your MO....I would think you are much better off either trying to catch high quality lower risk equities on down market days for their dividends or arbitraging announced take over merger deals.

[ryesteve]

There is no subjectivity here. It's a black box, everyone comes up with the same selection which can be a negative if a lot of people were betting the method-reduced payoffs.
Let me clarify; it's a black box from your perspective, but if you're using something called "Insider Picks", I have no idea how the "insiders" arrive at them, so from their perspective, there could be some subjectivity involved, upon which you are relying.

[mrharness]

Use all the stats you can conjure up gentleman but in my opinion.....betting extreme favorites is inherently a losing proposition over time in this paramutual game. Surprised that anyone with more than a few years of experience would even consider it. The 15% plus takeout and the 33-50% win ratio of "odds-on" entries will eventually grind you into the dirt. The hurdles of the takeout and the chatic nature of some races{favorites stumble, jocky error, get cut off, break poorly, get hurt, get dq'ed, etc} will get you. I just do not believe that you ever should wager large sums to win a little in racing. At smaller tracks you would further depress the returns. If that is your MO....I would think you are much better off either trying to catch high quality lower risk equities on down market days for their dividends or arbitraging announced take over merger deals.
Nonsense.
Let me repeat what I posted to another thread:

I knew a guy that only bet if a horse was 4/5 or lower. And if the odds were going to move before post time, he only wanted them to move in one direction - down. However, 1/9 was too low. He had money coming in from other interests but he could have lived on what he made at the track.

[badcompany]

Nonsense.
Let me repeat what I posted to another thread:

I knew a guy that only bet if a horse was 4/5 or lower. And if the odds were going to move before post time, he only wanted them to move in one direction - down. However, 1/9 was too low. He had money coming in from other interests but he could have lived on what he made at the track.

The relatively small number of betting opportunities where you can apply this system combined with the odds-moving size of the wagers needed to conceivably make a living from this, make the guy's story a bit hard to swallow.

[mrharness]

The relatively small number of betting opportunities where you can apply this system combined with the odds-moving size of the wagers needed to conceivably make a living from this, make the guy's story a bit hard to swallow.

We attended harness races for years. The tickets were in plain sight on the table. Winning streaks of wins for 30-60 straight days were common. Took a few days to make up a loss - but he made good money everyday and more than compensated for any losses. Of course, I am not saying he blindly bet every odds on favorite - he had his ways of picking when to bet.

[jma]

Sligg, whether or not the True Favorites method keeps hitting at such a great rate, you are THE MAN for still being out there coming up with new theories at age 82.

I hope you get that win rate up to 100%. :ThmbUp:

[1st time lasix]

Nonsense.
Let me repeat what I posted to another thread:

I knew a guy that only bet if a horse was 4/5 or lower. And if the odds were going to move before post time, he only wanted them to move in one direction - down. However, 1/9 was too low. He had money coming in from other interests but he could have lived on what he made at the track. MMMM.....Very skeptical. The term "I knew a guy" makes me even more skeptical but I am sure you believe it sir It makes no difference to me if you percieved that he hit thirty winners in a row....{which my experience in thoroughbred racing makes me doubt} for just nickels and dimes. The one or two times you lose your entire wagering principal on "odds-on" due to all the factors in racing will make you a loser over time. Some call 'em "bridge jumpers" Hey....different strokes for different folks. Some people like to "have" the winner. I believe you must capitalize on overlays with the mistakes the betting public is making in a paramutual pool to overcome such an onerous take out. Rarely does that include horses at 2 or 3 to 5! Call it "nonsense" if you will....you are entitled to your opinion.

[Bubba X]

Sligg,
Good luck with your endeavors. I think any work you do to identify worthy or phony favorites is worthwhile.

After several decades of play, I'm pretty firmly convinced there are only four possible winning wagering strategies:

4. Be wired into overlay first-time starters. I'm anything but wired in, so that's not for me.

3. Multi-race wagers (P-3,P-4, P-6), adhering to Crist (or some variation of Crist).

2. Second time starters from modest (yet capable) stables at perceived overlays based on above average trip handicapping expertise plus first race action.

1. Single race vertical (tri/super) wagering when I can confidenly exclude what I consider to be a bad favorite.

My action is soley on second time starters and single race verticals, though I do know many successful multi-race bettors.

In any event, I think any successful strategy includes, at least to some extent, consideration of a vulnerable favorite.

Determining good chalk vs bad chalk is a big part of the game. I'm looking for the bad to determine wagering opportunities.

Whatever you do, good luck....

[Cratos]

I keep reading about vulnerable or false favorites. If we as handicappers accept this premise, then there has to be the premise of True Favorites. And this has been my pursuit for the last four months.

True Favorite, now that is an oxymoron by the truest definition because all favorites are true in the race track betting pool. Betting favorites on the tote board and handicapping favorites can and are many times different. Although the tote board changes the odds on each horse relative to how much money is wagered on the horse, it doesn’t change the horse chance to win. A 2-1 favorite has the same chance to win a given race as 3-5 favorite. The difference is that in the betting pool the relative amount of money wagered on the 3-5 favorite is much larger than there is on the 2-1 favorite.

My advice is handicap the race you desire to bet and set an odds minimum (mine is 3-1) and bet the horse of your choice. It doesn’t matter what the other bettors are doing because if your handicapping is good, you will be a winner more times than not.

[46zilzal]

One of the BIGGEST bets I ever cashed was one having the highest level of confidence. Medalia D'Oro went off at 5/2 and should have been 6/5 he was so dominant. That was free money.

A "missed favorite." A substantial overlay.

[Tee]

In his 8 career wins Medaglia d'Oro never paid 5/2.

Maybe it was a place bet? :)

[46zilzal]

In his 8 career wins Medaglia d'Oro never paid 5/2.

Maybe it was a place bet? :)
Your weren't betting through the Canadian pools were you? Different ones as I still found it hard to believe.

[Tee]

That's what I thought. What race did you get 5/2? Approximately how much was in the pool & what was the wager amount?


Your weren't betting through the Canadian pools were you? Different ones as I still found it hard to believe.

[46zilzal]

That's what I thought. What race did you get 5/2? Approximately how much was in the pool & what was the wager amount?
I don't have that information (pools) off the top of my head. I just read what they offered on the colt and took it.

Ask a database guy. I don't waste my time with that.

[1st time lasix]

Medaglia D'or cost me the biggest one race score of my life { I figured around $38,000} in the Belmont by not not getting by that darn longshot {Savara? I think} Would have had the the win bet....Pick $2 Four,.....$10 Pick Three, .....$10 trifecta and a Superfecta. I had that longshot in the two hole in the verticals. That tough beat still haunts me since the horse who won never was to be seen again! I can still still the photo in my mind!

[sligg]

True Favorite, now that is an oxymoron by the truest definition because all favorites are true in the race track betting pool. Betting favorites on the tote board and handicapping favorites can and are many times different. Although the tote board changes the odds on each horse relative to how much money is wagered on the horse, it doesn’t change the horse chance to win. A 2-1 favorite has the same chance to win a given race as 3-5 favorite. The difference is that in the betting pool the relative amount of money wagered on the 3-5 favorite is much larger than there is on the 2-1 favorite.

My advice is handicap the race you desire to bet and set an odds minimum (mine is 3-1) and bet the horse of your choice. It doesn’t matter what the other bettors are doing because if your handicapping is good, you will be a winner more times than not.

If True Favorites is an oxymoron, then what is a False Favorite?

There we go again, handicap the race, set the minimum acceptable odds, or generate an odds line and wait for the overlay. All very subjective and tenuous at best. I don't have the talent to compete with all the good handicappers that are successful doing this. Handicapping a horse's value at 2/1 that goes off at 10/1 and wins is the stuff dreams are made of. Kind of says that most horse players are dumb to let a sure winner go off at 10/1.

There are no absolutes in horse racing other than every race has a favorite true or false. And this is the game I want to play in. I have been developing my method going back to April 2007, tweaking and back fitting until now. The method has shown a profit for every month though small in the beginning and gradually increasing as I added the tweaks until the last four months, a respectable 26%. And there is where I'm at. I'm going to stop for January and maybe continue in February. Even at 86% winners horse racing is a boring, tedious pursuit that glues you to a monitor for long hours every day.

But it's still a challenge.

[Overlay]

True Favorite, now that is an oxymoron by the truest definition because all favorites are true in the race track betting pool. Betting favorites on the tote board and handicapping favorites can and are many times different. Although the tote board changes the odds on each horse relative to how much money is wagered on the horse, it doesn’t change the horse chance to win. A 2-1 favorite has the same chance to win a given race as 3-5 favorite. The difference is that in the betting pool the relative amount of money wagered on the 3-5 favorite is much larger than there is on the 2-1 favorite.

I agree that an individual's handicapping may conclude that a horse other than the public favorite has the greatest chance of winning. I also agree that public favorites as a group have a given historical win percentage (roughly 33%) associated with them. But you seem to be saying that, any public favorite (regardless of odds), thus has that same historical chance of winning, regardless of its actual odds, just because it is also the favorite. If you're saying, for example, that 5-2 favorites win as often as a group as even-money favorites do, I don't think statistics would support that.

[ryesteve]

A 2-1 favorite has the same chance to win a given race as 3-5 favorite.This is clearly false. Otherwise, we'd all be rich betting >2-1 favorites, since they'd be winning 33% of the time.

[Cratos]

I agree that an individual's handicapping may conclude that a horse other than the public favorite has the greatest chance of winning. I also agree that public favorites as a group have a given historical win percentage (roughly 33%) associated with them. But you seem to be saying that, any public favorite (regardless of odds), thus has that same historical chance of winning, regardless of its actual odds, just because it is also the favorite. If you're saying, for example, that 5-2 favorites win as often as a group as even-money favorites do, I don't think statistics would support that.

You are absolutely correct that statistically a 3-5 favorite over time win more races that a 2-1 favorite, but that is not what is being said. What I am saying is that a favorite under random probability has about a 33% chance of winning. Therefore it doesn’t make a difference what the odds are.

However using your assertion and calculating a conditional probability then the lower odds (higher probability) the favorite would win more races. Also several years ago I calculated the average winning favorite payoff at Saratoga and I believe it was $4.43 or about 6-5, but I don’t remember how the distribution was skewed with respect to the odds.

[Cratos]

This is clearly false. Otherwise, we'd all be rich betting >2-1 favorites, since they'd be winning 33% of the time.

The logic in my assertion is the difference between random probability and conditional probability. If you randomly bet favorites without discrimination your chance of winning will be about 33%. However if you conditionally bet favorites and depending on the odds you select your winning percent will increase.