*Beware* new handicappers (rookies)

[porchy44]

This is what your up against. Excellent handicappers with sophisticated software.


One of the few races I bet today.
I Liked the #4 at Monmouth Park, 2nd race (Wednesday June 11).
Morning line, the horse was second choice at 3/1.
3 minutes to post horse was 5/2.
1 minute to post horse was 2/1.
I went to the window to make my bet on the #4 (horses name was "Depend on Bonnie").
They loaded the gate the horse drops to 7/5.
They sprang the gate the horse drops to 4/5.
Horse wins. Payoff was $3.60 win and $2.60 to place).
Don't let anyone tell you different how tough this game is !!

BTW, question for the veterans. What was your fair value for this horse ?

[Tom Barrister]

5-1 or so.

[46zilzal]

Handicapping is NOT wagering.
Wagering is NOT handicapping.

Knowing when the odds do not reflect the horse's chances of winning, and capitalizing on that knowledge, is what this game is all about.

Most of us pick lots of horses that are there at the wire. The successful ones know WHEN to bet and WHEN to watch.

[chickenhead]

sorry about that.

[Premier Turf Club]

I had her at 2-1. I had the 5 at 8/5. That was my play.

I almost bet the 4, but Levine's horses are almost always bet down late at MTH.

[GameTheory]

I had this horse as a win bet at any price. This is why I switched to using the morning line instead of post time odds -- I make money on these low-priced winners if they full into certain subsets.

[njcurveball]

I had this horse as a win bet at any price.

I am sure $2.10 is not in your "any price" category. 100% winners to make 5% profit would be a very tough nut to crack.

[ddog]

don't play in thin markets , you can avoid this kind of outcome.
leave it to the sure-fire guys to collect on these.

And m/l is plenty fine as well.

[GameTheory]

I am sure $2.10 is not in your "any price" category. 100% winners to make 5% profit would be a very tough nut to crack.Since $2.10 is below the minimum possible payout for a win bet, I don't think I have to worry about it...

[Overlay]

Since $2.10 is below the minimum possible payout for a win bet, I don't think I have to worry about it...

I'm not sure which racing jurisdiction you're referring to, but isn't $2.10 the normal win payoff in the event of a minus pool (for example)?

[GameTheory]

I'm not sure which racing jurisdiction you're referring to, but isn't $2.10 the normal win payoff in the event of a minus pool (for example)?I don't think so for a win bet. I think it is $2.40 most places, maybe $2.20 others. 1/9 odds would give you $2.20, so I think that is the absolute minimum.

[ranchwest]

I had this horse as a win bet at any price. This is why I switched to using the morning line instead of post time odds -- I make money on these low-priced winners if they full into certain subsets.

I've never had a life changing score, but I've had some week/month changing scores. Never on an odds-on horse, though.

[Dave Schwartz]

MTH02 (NM.Dirt.) Bet Int=7
sort:Pct+$Net Time: 16:37:12 Min: 6:21:12+
Prime Cont=4 FH Cont=50% +1
Prg Horse Con Odds Prob $Net Opt% Gr |
5 Tipsy Tonya C 2.70 39.8 $2.95 17.59% A+ |
4 Depend On Bonnie C 0.80 28.7 $1.03 -60.63% F |
6 Angelonmyshoulder C 3.70 19.3 $1.81 -2.57% B+ |
7 Lily Dilly C 11.20 4.2 $1.03 -4.33% F |
1 Creme de Menthe 19.70 3.9 $1.59 -1.04% C+ |
2 Shaker Up 65.80 2.2 $2.94 0.71% A+ |
8 Milliondollarbaby 26.90 1.9 $1.04 -1.78% F |


There are lots of ways to skin the handicapping cat but I had this horse as 29%, which means just under 5/2.

I could not have wagered on this horse myself.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Wait! Is this the "Redboard" thread? Yeah, I... uh, I, uh, yeah, I bet this horse... because...... he was born on a Tuesday!

[newtothegame]

Now this is a question to some of the "older" cappers in the business as I willingly tell you I am one of the "new" that I believe this post was directed at...
I am not so sure about all the numbers sides as of yet but I have one theory I try to use when I handicap. Also let me preface this by saying I have yet to start really betting much...I am still trying to learn more before I start using real money...
Here is an example of what I personally would stay away from....
Lets use BB for example...ML at .40 on a dollar. I dont see the value in that play. Could he have won?? YES, he should have asily won against that field IF healthy and wanted to run (my point is not to get into speculation about what happened with BB here)...but I dont see the value in betting on BB. If he WINS, I get 40 cents on the dollar providing thats the final odds...but if he loses or runs second and I have him to w/p/s even across, thats almost a guaranteed loss at those odds. I just see the risk to reward ratio way out of kilter. Risk high for a low reward. I would much rather try to find something 3-1 or better that I feel confident that can run in the money and bet it accordingly. I am not sure if this is making much sense but as of now if I feel confident a horse can WIN and he is 3-1 I might think I would make a play for second (increasing my odds of a score) and take the 1-1 (of course thats hoping he pays 1-1 in the middle). But my point is lower the risk for a higher reward ratio.
Hope someone can figure out what I just typed lol...

[Overlay]

You have the right idea about the importance of value. As a value bettor (compared to someone who's just trying to find and bet the one horse that's most likely to win), don't be hesitant about backing your opinion in the win pool. You'll have a greater chance of being sure that you're getting the better of the odds. Place bets do offer an added measure of security, but in the long run (especially as you refine your odds-setting ability), win bets provide a much better overall return.

[njcurveball]

Since $2.10 is below the minimum possible payout for a win bet, I don't think I have to worry about it...


I don't think so for a win bet. I think it is $2.40 most places, maybe $2.20 others. 1/9 odds would give you $2.20, so I think that is the absolute minimum.



REALLY? Do you mean in West Virginia? AND where is this magical $2.40 win mutuel place? I want to bet big money there. :jump:

[Dave Schwartz]

Some of us who went to the races in the '60s remember $1.90 minimums. You could actually bet $2, win the race and lose money!


Dave

[DeanT]

And here I thought Shwartz was some young handicapping prodigy. Damn Dave, the myth has been shattered :)

New,

This horse was around 7-5 in the ex's most of the time, and around 6-5 offshore with 5% juice, so you can assume he will end up around even money in that instance.

[Robert Fischer]

This is what your up against. Excellent handicappers with sophisticated software.


One of the few races I bet today.
I Liked the #4 at Monmouth Park, 2nd race (Wednesday June 11).
Morning line, the horse was second choice at 3/1.
3 minutes to post horse was 5/2.
1 minute to post horse was 2/1.
I went to the window to make my bet on the #4 (horses name was "Depend on Bonnie").
They loaded the gate the horse drops to 7/5.
They sprang the gate the horse drops to 4/5.
Horse wins. Payoff was $3.60 win and $2.60 to place).
Don't let anyone tell you different how tough this game is !!

BTW, question for the veterans. What was your fair value for this horse ?

I didn't handicap the race, so I can't give you an estimated win% or the "fair value".
It's tough.
If you really take it seriously you need to play with a tote feed on the regular everyday smaller pools.
Have to get a feel for the market. Some tracks and some pools tend to get some heavy late action. If your horse is one of the top 3 choices you really need to guess along with the big money, and make a low estimate.

If you do the fair odds thing, and your fair odds are say 5/2 = then he needs to be 3-1 third choice or 7-2 when you allow for that low estimate. Depends on how serious you want to take it.

[Dave Schwartz]

And here I thought Shwartz was some young handicapping prodigy. Damn Dave, the myth has been shattered

Yes... that's me.

LOL - I still recall my first trip to the track at age 14, but I did not become a player until age 27.


Dave

[GameTheory]

REALLY? Do you mean in West Virginia? AND where is this magical $2.40 win mutuel place? I want to bet big money there. :jump:So you're saying the minimum is $2.10 after all? I thought it only went down to 1/9. (For t-breds, anyway -- is harness different?) In any case, I'm not sure I've ever actually seen anything go off at less than 1/5, although maybe I have. Minus pools are great bets, anyway. No breakage.

[njcurveball]

So you're saying the minimum is $2.10 after all? .


I am confused that someone with the name Game Theory and 3,000 posts is even still asking this. The whole point was about "fair value" which is NEVER going to be ANY PRICE.

The only state I know with a $2.20 minimum is West Virginia. Every other state is $2.10 on EVERY bet. Win bets are not treated differently than Place or Show.

I think you would agree you have seen $2.10 to show. For a recent example of $2.10 to place, check out Race 3 at Delaware on Saturday

4 One More Trick............. $2.80 $2.10

or race 8 at Golden Gate on Friday.


3 Indyanne................... $2.40 $2.10 $2.10

Ok, I found 6 horses who paid $2.10 to win. They ran in the following races. You might recognize at least one of them, War Pass.

TDATE TTRK R# HORSE
--------- ---- ---------- ------------------------
06-JAN-07 CT 2 Carni Ends Well
08-SEP-07 BM 3 Indyanne
02-SEP-07 BM 1 Bertrand At Mr A's
18-OCT-07 BM 1 High Resolve
20-JAN-08 TUP 1 Roo N Aboo
24-FEB-08 GP 10 War Pass


Why do you think the track would have a different minimum for win betting or exotics?

[njcurveball]

This is what your up against. Excellent handicappers with sophisticated software.


One of the few races I bet today.
I Liked the #4 at Monmouth Park, 2nd race (Wednesday June 11).
Morning line, the horse was second choice at 3/1.
3 minutes to post horse was 5/2.
1 minute to post horse was 2/1.
I went to the window to make my bet on the #4 (horses name was "Depend on Bonnie").
They loaded the gate the horse drops to 7/5.
They sprang the gate the horse drops to 4/5.
Horse wins. Payoff was $3.60 win and $2.60 to place).
Don't let anyone tell you different how tough this game is !!

BTW, question for the veterans. What was your fair value for this horse ?

OK, let's get back on topic now.


HTR has a K rating which can be used to estimate fair odds. The rating gave this horse 111 and fair odds of 1.8 to 1. It had an advantage of 8 points as well.

Now add in the fact the trainer/jockey combo was an incredible 38 for 78 (49%) on dirt, and 21/41 (51%) at Monmouth.

I would say fair odds on this horse was a lil less than even money. Anything above 2-1 would have been a pretty good overlay, so maybe some "automatic" bets got triggered.

[Toss_DeLoser]

Oaklawn is still $2.20 for a min. payoff. I want to think there's only 3 states that have that min.

Ark.
WV
??

[GameTheory]

I am confused that someone with the name Game Theory and 3,000 posts is even still asking this.Sorry about that. Educate me.

The whole point was about "fair value" which is NEVER going to be ANY PRICE.My point was that if I bet using the morning line, that is what is determining beforehand whether or not I make my bet and whether it has "value". Therefore I have no knowledge of what the actual tote price will be. So I'm betting the horse because I think it is an overlay regardless of the tote odds which I won't know about until the race is over. This play falls into a subset that has built-in value if you will -- it will be hard for it to be bet-down "too much". If it ends up only paying $2.10, then so be it. If it loses, doesn't matter what the odds were. You can never actually tell if an individual horse was an overlay or not -- only whether whatever criteria you use to make bets makes you money or not over many plays (thus proving that you are in fact finding "value"). My criteria told me this horse was a play -- period. My criteria don't include tote board odds; that's why it was a play at any price. I still don't think I'm in much danger of a big string of below even money horses killing my prices when I don't ever bet on the ML favorite.

The only state I know with a $2.20 minimum is West Virginia. Every other state is $2.10 on EVERY bet. Win bets are not treated differently than Place or Show.I've never seen win odds on a toteboard less than 1/9. 1/9 would pay $2.20, right? When reading and they talk about the lowest possible odds, they always talk about 1/9. Like I said, while I've seen horses BE 1/9 on the board (usually at open at small tracks), I don't remember ever seeing actual FINAL odds of 1/9, but maybe I've forgotten. If I was watching the tote board for a race and I saw my selection at 3/5 or less at a couple of minutes to post, I'd probably stop watching. If it is going to pay $2.10, what does the board say? "MINUS POOL"?

[samyn on the green]

Oaklawn is still $2.20 for a min. payoff. I want to think there's only 3 states that have that min.

Ark.
WV
??
I think the other state is Massachusetts.

[Tom Barrister]

There have been five $2.10 win mutuels in the past year (not counting bush tracks): three at Bay Meadows, one at Gulfstream, and one at Turf Paradise.

In the same time period, there have been about 50 $2.20 payouts, these occuring at: BEL, BEU, CBY, CRC, CT, DEL, EMD, EVD, FL, HOL, IND, IND, LRL, , LS, MNR, MTH, OP, PEN, PHA, PIM, PRM, RD, SA, SUF, TDN, and TUP. Laurel had the most with 8, followed by Charlestown with 6.

[BCOURTNEY]

Fair value is contextual within your betting strategy that you choose only, even sharing fair values generally doesn't lead to super constructive discussions unless the pools chosen or bet types are considered. You might assign different values to horses based on the way that you plan on playing them, and they might represent more value in certain wagers. I sometime intentionally use a negative expectation horse such as a overbet favorite in an exacta if the total expectation of the play is positive for the wager being considered. So a horse could be a negative win pool wager, yet a high positive expectation when combined with another horse in a exacta or trifecta. It's probably safe to assume that the comparasions are made on win pools.

[lamboguy]

this guy is 50 percent win at monmouth. those guys bet out on their horses if they are right. the thing about it is they are not right all the time, i bet against them a few races later and got 5.60 on a horse that should have been even money. i bet right into them and got the money this time.

[WinterTriangle]

a horse could be a negative win pool wager, yet a high positive expectation when combined with another horse in a exacta or trifecta.

As a newbie, I do that and was wondering if I am practicing sound principle. For instance, numerous scratches, field shrinks to 4 or 5, I can't play my win bet and make money. And if there's a donkey in the group, it's almost like automatic wagering. :) The odds are close to homogenous when you've got a field of 4-5 decent horses. So I combine my win horse with another one for the EX.

I did that for BLMT today. Tremendous number of scratches. Won the 1st (EX), 2nd (Tri), 3rd (EX), 4th (EX). (as soon as I placed a P6 bet, it acted like a jinx though---my card wasn't quite right all day after that!)


GameTheory, I don't understand this: " My criteria don't include tote board odds; that's why it was a play at any price" .

I only make those wagers on races like the KY Derby, TCrown, etc. because I've already decided what my wagers are going to look like.

But how can you make $ doing that. If my win horse drops in price on the tote to where he's become unplayable, then I either sit out the race or combine in an exotic.

Maybe I'm lazy, but is putting $20 on a horse to win $2 worth setting my coffee down to go to the window? :D

When my horse goes from M/L 9/2 to 24, I need to look at that.:eek: I couldn't make my wagers without the tote in front of me.


Anyway, am I thinking this right? Given that I am not wagering with a huge bankroll. :)

[Robert Fischer]

As a newbie, I do that and was wondering if I am practicing sound principle. For instance, numerous scratches, field shrinks to 4 or 5, I can't play my win bet and make money. And if there's a donkey in the group, it's almost like automatic wagering. :) The odds are close to homogenous when you've got a field of 4-5 decent horses. So I combine my win horse with another one for the EX.
....

If my win horse drops in price on the tote to where he's become unplayable, then I either sit out the race or combine in an exotic.

Maybe I'm lazy, but is putting $20 on a horse to win $2 worth setting my coffee down to go to the window? :D

When my horse goes from M/L 9/2 to 24, I need to look at that.:eek: I couldn't make my wagers without the tote in front of me.


Anyway, am I thinking this right? Given that I am not wagering with a huge bankroll. :)

Sounds like you are looking for Value, and are doing the right things.


size matters?

BANKROLL SIZE = affects two major dynamics = not only affects the obvious (bet size), but with a relatively small Bankroll ---> Hit% is more important.


left brain / right brain

Some people may choose to play behind a calculator or spreadsheet, and others use intuition and common sense. Either way, the math is always churning "behind the scenes" and winning strategy should be mathematically sound.



Bankroll Size & Hit%
A Huge Bankroll allows for playing whatever the value plays are, regardless of Hit%.

They can play high value straight Trifectas for $2 all year. If they were right about the high value, they should eventually turn a nice profit given enough high value wagers.

A relatively small bankroll calls for higher HIT% plays. They can play high Value straight Tris all year = and be 100% right about the high value = and still ruin the bankroll in a matter of weeks because of good ol' probability.

The Win wager becomes attractive when the value is there. I will take 35%Hit rates @ 5-2 all year.
It doesn't mean that all exactas or tris or exotics are bad. You can work it out mathematically, or use good judgment.

I was overjoyed to get 1.90-1 on a play this week on a gelding called Hurrah, Monday at Delaware. There was an oversight or error in the morning line where he was listed at 6-1. Regardless of the ml he had an estimated Hit% of about 45-50% for the win slot. So even "bet down" from the morning line, he offered great value and great hit%.

[njcurveball]

I've never seen win odds on a toteboard less than 1/9. 1/9 would pay $2.20, right? When reading and they talk about the lowest possible odds, they always talk about 1/9. Like I said, while I've seen horses BE 1/9 on the board (usually at open at small tracks), I don't remember ever seeing actual FINAL odds of 1/9, but maybe I've forgotten. If I was watching the tote board for a race and I saw my selection at 3/5 or less at a couple of minutes to post, I'd probably stop watching. If it is going to pay $2.10, what does the board say? "MINUS POOL"?

You know I have never seen the odds on the tote board more than 99-1, but have seen horses pay $240 or more! If it is going to be $240, what does the board say? "YAHOO! GET YOUR BUCKET READY!" :lol:

[GameTheory]

You know I have never seen the odds on the tote board more than 99-1, but have seen horses pay $240 or more! If it is going to be $240, what does the board say? "YAHOO! GET YOUR BUCKET READY!" :lol:But in that case you're getting more than what it says. Can they post odds and then pay you less than that? If so, they should make the minimum posted odds 8-1 -- it would generate tremendous handle.

[njcurveball]

But in that case you're getting more than what it says. Can they post odds and then pay you less than that?


YES they can post odds and pay less! When you bet 1-9, you do not get 1-9 on a $2.20 payout, you get 1-10! And if the boards syas 1-9 and it is a minus pool, you only get 1-20! I would call my congressman quick! :faint:

I can see from your replies that you really are not serious about this game, so good luck to you. I think 46GameTheory maybe a good choice for a nickanme for you. :bang:

[BUD]

Hell even with the information that I'm privileged to access I always seem to make some fatal mistake....

Take the newbies money.

[46zilzal]

One of the reasons this game is losing newcomers is that it takes a LONG apprenticeship to be any good at it.

It is not something learned in a few months even with the great handicapping programs out here now.

[BUD]

I'll stick it out...While I empty my pockets some:bang:

I let loose a 20 minute bitch fest after Belmont's card.....Now its time to get ready for the next days card...

[46zilzal]

I'll stick it out...While I empty my pockets some.


Play ONE track, ON PAPER, making paper bets until you have the feedback to know it will work. It is so much cheaper that way.

[GameTheory]

YES they can post odds and pay less! When you bet 1-9, you do not get 1-9 on a $2.20 payout, you get 1-10! And if the boards syas 1-9 and it is a minus pool, you only get 1-20! I would call my congressman quick! :faint: I find that surprising that they can get away with paying less than the posted odds. In this day & age it is a miracle there hasn't been a class action suit. I guess that is proof it doesn't happen very often.

I can see from your replies that you really are not serious about this game, so good luck to you. I think 46GameTheory maybe a good choice for a nickanme for you. :bang:You're the one making wisecracks and acting like a jackass, not me. But if you think I'm not serious, then well... oh wait, who cares?

[ranchwest]

I'm just curious. How much do you bet on these odds-on horses? (ballpark)

[KMS]

I hate the parimutuel model. I wish we could go to a futures trading system, although action at most tracks would probably be too thin for it to be practical. Another alternative I could go for is to pay a premium to "lock in" a price before post time. In theory you should benefit from odds fluctuations as often as you're hurt. In practice, I hardly ever see my horse's odds go up. Usually it's the natural 3-1 shot with smart money flooding in hammering it down to 4/5.

[WinterTriangle]

One of the reasons this game is losing newcomers is that it takes a LONG apprenticeship to be any good at it.

It is not something learned in a few months even with the great handicapping programs out here now.

Also liked what you said about playing on paper. JMO, but newbies like me should learn to handicap the "old fashioned way", with pencil and paper and the DRF, starting out, because that is what helps me learn. This way, *when* I graduate in a few years to a computer system, I wouldn't fully comprehend what I'm looking at.

Not looking for immediate gratification; used to play chess---4-5 hours in a game was not taxing my concentration.

I enjoy pursuits that requires focus and/or analyzing information.

We'll see. To tell the truth, 1/2 the topics here on handicapping are WAY over my head. But it's good EXPOSURE for me at this point.

So, I had to really get up my NERVE to come onto a board like this, but I'm not overly sensitive to being looked at as a fledgling know-nothing. :lol:

(Why not mingle with the *best*? If I hung out with people going my speed, I'd never finish the race. :) )

[nobeyerspls]

If this trainer wins at a 50% clip, the chance of a win or a loss is the same. I've learned not to influenced by the odds board but I know enough about the fragility of the animals to insist on 7/2 or more for a straight win bet. If my selection is under that he may be used in exotics, preferably the horizontal ones.
Some of my best returns have been when short-priced, wise guy horses go down in flames. As to the geniuses with the computer programs, any positive change in the percentage of winning favorites can be assigned to shorter fields.

[Murph]

As to the geniuses with the computer programs, any positive change in the percentage of winning favorites can be assigned to shorter fields.BULLSHIT !!!

Any program can improve or decline in it's performance for any number of reasons. Don't start by telling lies to these new handicappers looking for a greater understanding of what we all are trying to do here. My program is as valid as your opinion. It's as simple as that. Your declaritive statement under serves these folks genuine interest in the game.

[DeanT]

I know that it is kind of sacreligious to say, but I disagree with the disregard the "influence of the board". The board is your market. It's everything. Knowing what the odds should end up, knowing what is live is one of the most important parts of wagering, imo.

There are thousands of sharp players out there, and it is reflected in a market that is the board. A horse off a 300 day layoff is a bad bet generally (everyone knows that) - but live on the board, respect it. A horse going from a 30% trainer to a 10% one off claim who is live on the board, you have to respect that. Your fair odds might be 10-1 on these types, but good luck betting against them and pitching them out if they are 4-1.

The late Alan Woods, with all his fancy programs, and all that gambling knowledge would go to betfair to see if his horses were live or not.

It is one of the most important tools we have in handicapping, imo. Disregarding it, would be like a stock trader disregarding a stocks trend.

[PaceAdvantage]

I can see from your replies that you really are not serious about this game, so good luck to you. I think 46GameTheory maybe a good choice for a nickanme for you. :bang:You've been on this board long enough to know better than to write such nonsense.

[njcurveball]

You've been on this board long enough to know better than to write such nonsense.

One thing is for sure, I definitely am on your radar! :lol:

[njcurveball]

I don't think so for a win bet. I think it is $2.40 most places, maybe $2.20 others. 1/9 odds would give you $2.20, so I think that is the absolute minimum.


In case you missed it though PA, here we have someone who thinks $2.40 is the minimum price for win bets and when told different chooses to go the 46 way. :bang:

Give me a break! $2.40 most places! :bang:

[GameTheory]

In case you missed it though PA, here we have someone who thinks $2.40 is the minimum price for win bets and when told different chooses to go the 46 way. I still don't know what you mean by this -- the "46 way". I asked some simple questions to try to get some simple answers to clear up this simple issue. What's the big deal? I'm sorry you found this hole in my knowledge so egregious -- but really it has never come up before and I can't see how it is very important (to me, seeing how it hasn't come up before). As to the $2.40 thing, I went looking around the net trying to find what the official minimums were different places, and that's what I found. Must be outdated info...

[njcurveball]

As to the $2.40 thing, I went looking around the net trying to find what the official minimums were different places, and that's what I found. Must be outdated info...


THIS is the 46 way (named after 46zilzal), answer with information that you would like to be true or go off on a tangent.

Please post the link where you found the $2.40 minimum. Thanks!

[GameTheory]

Getting back to the value question about how I could possibly use the ML instead of the tote board, let me repost something I said in another thread:

I've found recently that for my top-ranked contenders, the ML is actually a better tool for finding overlays than the actual (near) post-time odds. (If I don't adjust my own probabilities given what's going on with the tote board, anyway.) I get more bets and a higher win percentage. The ROI is about the same either way, but with more action and less risk using the ML; the overall actual profit is greater. I have been working on a method specifically to use the conditional wagering offered by PTC, and determining my bets beforehand based on the ML rather than using conditions based on the 0 minutes-to-post actual odds seems to work better. (I find ML rank to be more important that actual ML odds.) It just depends on the nature of your own selections and how they tend to interact with the odds (either ML or tote, or both).

and also about the possible reason this works:

I think it is because using the ML finds low-priced overlays, which I think are the best kind of overlays. They win at a high-rate with a similar ROI to betting on longshots. Plus they work better at small tracks with small pools where longshot betting can kill your odds if you bet very much at all.

For instance, if my top-ranked (meaning most likely to win, according to me) horse has a fair price of 2/1 (again, according to me), but it is ranked 3rd in the ML at 6-1; and ends up going off at actual odds of 9/5 -- what does this mean?

Well, if I was watching the tote board; I'd say it was a no bet -- no value, right? But since a certain segment of the public is always influenced by the ML, which has two other horses ranked as more likely to win; in order for the horse to go off at 9/5 it had to "overcome" that 3rd ranked 6-1 ML to be bet down that low. Which means once you account for that ML influence, it should be bet down even more! And so it could very well have better chances than either I or the final tote board indicates (I subscribe to the theory that the tote board has hidden information in it that you can never account for in your own lines), and therefore is actually a true overlay at 9/5. My records bear this out.

In other words, in the best case, you'd know the final or near-final odds and adjust your own line accordingly to reflect the final "true" odds (impossible, but anyway) and then make your bet. But if you are unable to adjust your line at the last minute, then using the ML instead of actual odds actually adjusts for you in a strange way because it puts you on more good bets. (Or a different set of good bets, anyway.) Make sense?

So I'm not ignoring value -- I'm finding a better way to get at it that works with what I'm doing. Just because the tote-board odds drop, we aren't necessarily "losing value" because (in general) as the odds get lower the win percentage also goes up. So your picks could still be overlays at this lower price. (This only makes sense in the aggregate -- I am not suggesting the odds themselves are affecting a horse's chances in a single race with mystical powers.)

[GameTheory]

THIS is the 46 way (named after 46zilzal), answer with information that you would like to be true or go off on a tangent.

Please post the link where you found the $2.40 minimum. Thanks!Here's an article:

http://horseracing.about.com/library/blbreakage.htm

I *actually* originally thought the minimum was $2.20 -- 1/9 odds -- which was why I said your figure of $2.10 was below the minimum. But I wasn't sure so I thought I'd check around to see and found the $2.40 figure, which is apparently mistaken. You act like I've been trying to hide something -- I've been trying to find out the actual facts. Look at my posts again, in order. I'm not trying to evade or argue anything. In any case, 46 is an idiot and I certainly don't want to be compared to him and his never-ending BS.

[njcurveball]

At 1/9, the fair payout for a horse is lower than $2.40, but the track is forced to pay the minimum.


Got it! See it! And understand your confusion. Would it be too late for an apology?

Jim

[GameTheory]

At 1/9, the fair payout for a horse is lower than $2.40, but the track is forced to pay the minimum.


Got it! See it! And understand your confusion. Would it be too late for an apology?

Not necessary, but maybe extreme sarcasm shouldn't be your first choice of response. Wait a second -- you compared me to 46zil, you'd better apologize for that at least. :)

[njcurveball]

Not necessary, but maybe extreme sarcasm shouldn't be your first choice of response. Wait a second -- you compared me to 46zil, you'd better apologize for that at least. :)


I humbly apologize!


If PA wants to delete my posts, go right ahead. Problem solved. :ThmbUp:

[46zilzal]

THIS is the 46 way (named after 46zilzal), answer with information that you would like to be true or go off on a tangent.

Please post the link where you found the $2.40 minimum. Thanks!
But he didn't did he?

[njcurveball]

But he didn't did he?

He sure did! :ThmbUp:

[GameTheory]

He sure did! :ThmbUp:I also found another article just today (about harness tracks) that said the minimum used to be $2.20, but then revised downward to protect the track from minus pools. But Schwartz tells me that there used to be no minimums (so you could actually lose on a winning ticket) and then they made one later, establishing the possibility of minus pools. Apparently I never found any of this important enough to pay attention to, or maybe I knew it once and had forgotten. I've only set foot inside an actual racetrack once in the last 10 years I think...

[njcurveball]

At least New York has it someplace where people can find it.

http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/thbred/Sec4005.1-4009.27.html

4009.6. Minimum payoff. (http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/thbred/sec4005.1-4009.27.html#4009.6)

Each association must in all cases of a pari-mutuel pool distribute not less than $ 2.10 on each winning two-dollar wager. No part of any minus pools resulting from such payments shall be charged against the State's participation in the total pools or the breaks.

[HUSKER55]

Please explain something to me. I was told, when I first started, to never bet a horse under 5/2. In the last 10 months I have found that if I stick to 3/1 for win flat bets I do alot better.

Somewhere along here I got lost. What is the importance of minimum payoff in relation to wagering. Especially since, apparently, damn few of us are going to bet any horse that low.

Obviously my ship came in and I am at the airport.

Your input is appreciated.

Thanks.

husker55

:)

[Overlay]

What is the importance of minimum payoff in relation to wagering. Especially since, apparently, damn few of us are going to bet any horse that low.

Not all players are value-oriented. Those who think that the object of the game is just to "pick winners" tend to eliminate horses in a race field one by one, and then bet the "last horse standing", with no (or the fewest) holes in its record. Under those circumstances, the mutuel prices on winners gravitate toward the lower end of the spectrum, since horses like that tend to be more obvious. That would increase the importance of the question of minimum payout.

Others specialize in distinguishing between, and betting, odds-on favorites, or in place and show betting, where a shift of a few cents in average mutuel can mean the difference between overall profit or loss. Minimum payouts would matter there, as well.

[DeanT]

Please explain something to me. I was told, when I first started, to never bet a horse under 5/2. In the last 10 months I have found that if I stick to 3/1 for win flat bets I do alot better.

Somewhere along here I got lost. What is the importance of minimum payoff in relation to wagering. Especially since, apparently, damn few of us are going to bet any horse that low.

Obviously my ship came in and I am at the airport.

Your input is appreciated.

Thanks.

husker55

:)

You can find value at many odds levels Husker, dontcha think?

Lotsa ways to skin a cat.

[WinterTriangle]

The board is your market.

<snip>

There are thousands of sharp players out there, and it is reflected in a market that is the board.

I can't help but see it like this. But we have already determined that I am a value-player.

But how could it not be? You're playing against other bettors. Why would it not be vital to know what your competition is doing? Changes on the tote board help me decide whether or not to play a race or certain picks.

So why would I NOT want to get an insight into that 33% or so correct win bets that "the public" is batting?

I'm actually asking this, it's not a rhetorical question. Thanks. :)
edit: Oh wait, I see Overlay made a post about this..........

[badcompany]

Please explain something to me. I was told, when I first started, to never bet a horse under 5/2. In the last 10 months I have found that if I stick to 3/1 for win flat bets I do alot better.

Somewhere along here I got lost. What is the importance of minimum payoff in relation to wagering. Especially since, apparently, damn few of us are going to bet any horse that low.

Obviously my ship came in and I am at the airport.

Your input is appreciated.

Thanks.

husker55

:)

Favorites tend to be overbet. So, for a win player, your overlays will come from betting against the favorite when you believe it to be vunerable.

[Robert Fischer]

It's good to know all the rules, even if you think they aren't affecting you.

[Robert Fischer]

Favorites tend to be overbet. So, for a win player, your overlays will come from betting against the favorite when you believe it to be vunerable.

Super point

[GameTheory]

Favorites tend to be overbet. So, for a win player, your overlays will come from betting against the favorite when you believe it to be vunerable.Actually, longshots tend to be overbet and favorites fairly bet or slightly underbet. That's why randomly betting on longshots will lose your money a whole lot faster than randomly betting on favorites. You've got to FIND those overbets favorites through handicapping...

[nobeyerspls]

I know that it is kind of sacreligious to say, but I disagree with the disregard the "influence of the board". The board is your market. It's everything. Knowing what the odds should end up, knowing what is live is one of the most important parts of wagering, imo.

There are thousands of sharp players out there, and it is reflected in a market that is the board. A horse off a 300 day layoff is a bad bet generally (everyone knows that) - but live on the board, respect it. A horse going from a 30% trainer to a 10% one off claim who is live on the board, you have to respect that. Your fair odds might be 10-1 on these types, but good luck betting against them and pitching them out if they are 4-1.

The late Alan Woods, with all his fancy programs, and all that gambling knowledge would go to betfair to see if his horses were live or not.

It is one of the most important tools we have in handicapping, imo. Disregarding it, would be like a stock trader disregarding a stocks trend.

Here are some "live" ones from yesterday at Belmont. Anachronism was 2/5 off of here superior beyer figure and finished 3rd. Back in the days a horse like this was a toss (finished 2nd in all four of her starts).
In the 3rd race Unbridled's Heart was 4/5 off of his 101 figure making him more than a little live. He too finished 3rd behind two horses with more experience.
Did their being live on the board attract even more money? Were their beyer speed figures predictive of their performance?
I manage security portfolios for clients and I want the stocks that I buy to be totally ignored when I buy them but very "live on the board" down the road.

[DeanT]

Just as you would not want someone to judge your ability as a stock picker on one or two cherry pick examples, I am sure you can see judging liveness on the board using the same ill-fated criteria is equally specious.

I am not speaking of publicly touted horses - they will always be live. I am speaking of horses that the crowd hates that are taking money - inexplicable money, or live money.

Bet against those horses at your own peril, imo.

Anyway, to each their own.

[badcompany]

Actually, longshots tend to be overbet and favorites fairly bet or slightly underbet. That's why randomly betting on longshots will lose your money a whole lot faster than randomly betting on favorites. You've got to FIND those overbets favorites through handicapping...

I remember reading that 1/2 shots win ~50% of the time. Doesn't sound like a way to make money to me. Betting on favorites to win has been, is, and, always will be, a sure way to lose money, no matter how good of a handicapper you are.

I'm going by my own experience. When I look back at the big horseracing scores I've made, almost all of them came as a result of throwing out a horse that was getting a lot of money. Then again, I play strictly exotics.

[GameTheory]

I remember reading that 1/2 shots win ~50% of the time. Doesn't sound like a way to make money to me. Betting on favorites to win has been, is, and, always will be, a sure way to lose money, no matter how good of a handicapper you are.And the percentage wins you get from 20-1 shots relative to their odds is much worse. Sounds like you can't make money from longshots either. Neither logic holds, but the truth is favorites are generally underbet, not the other way around.

Value can be found in all odds ranges, but I would agree that it is easiest to find in the middle ranges...

[46zilzal]

It is a tough game and requires PATIENCE, HARD WORK, GOOD educational sources (eclectic too, don't get stuck in one idea realm), HONEST review (tough sometimes to be objective with yourself and it pays to have a mentor or friend who was help you HONESTLY with a regular assessment), LOTS OF PRACTICE without real money as to not get discouraged and broke at the same time.

It is easier today to go through the preliminaries than if you started in the late 60's like I did. Case in point good friend Alvin C. started in the game ONLY after good software was available. Not going through all the old "horsey-isms" that we have to learn and then discard (inside information, the jockey stiffing the horse, etc etc.) He simply learned what readouts pointed towards the winner by repetition and KNOWING one course inside and out. After a few months, he was hitting some very good prices because he didn't "read anything into the rankings:i.e. what is the trainer trying here."

SECOND, a point that all the good ones do: KEEP RECORDS of both the application of your handicapping logic, and your wagering logic. REVIEW: see where your strengths and weaknesses are (I found that turf was my weakest, maiden my strongest so I knew I had to work on the blade runners and corrected it). You will only know those strengths and weakness from YOUR OWN RECORDS.

PRACTICE wager construction. I am learning that aspect in depth from the Thorograh redboard room where wager construction is a topic few (other than Cramer, Mitchell and Fiero) ever touch. This part of the game is usually the difference between the long term $$$$$ winner and the competent, "break even" handicapper.

Once you feel confident, explore how your style fits other race courses. My style is all about early pace and over the years I have found those courses that play the way my style is best. Secondly, you have to find courses where every Tom, Dick and Harry have not found out that dominant style (i.e. I played Penn National for awhile but the mutuels were pitiful).

Learn how shippers do in your circuit: I find that shippers FROM Mountaineer look too good at the track they ship to and you may discover the same thing over time.

GOOD LUCK, take it slow and remember even the greats (Tiger Woods is a good example) understand you have to keep your attention sharp by practice practice practice.

[Robert Fischer]

In the 3rd race Unbridled's Heart was 4/5 off of his 101 figure making him more than a little live. He too finished 3rd behind two horses with more experience.


You are on the right track with beating favorites.

Yesterday at Belmont it seemed like anyone could randomly decide to play against all favorites and come out ahead.

I just didn't see a lot of "vulnerable favorites", or have solid reasons to oppose them.

With Unbridled's Heart I gave him about a 45% chance of winning that race. That was my best guess estimate. The odds for Mint Lane were headed for about 2-1. I just didn't have another confident 40% to hand to Mint Lane to make it a good play.
I didn't have a real reason to make Unbridled's Heart a play-against.

If you did, you may have been right, and you may have done a good job on that race. I had to pass the race.

[Overlay]

I am not speaking of publicly touted horses - they will always be live. I am speaking of horses that the crowd hates that are taking money - inexplicable money, or live money.

Since the money the public bets determines the horses' odds, when you say "that the crowd hates", are you referring to a horse that is taking betting action, and you personally can't determine a reason why (based on the horse's published form, or in light of its morning-line odds, or even though there has been no pre-race "buzz" about it)? (I think that's your meaning, but I'm asking for clarification because, if the horse is at low odds in the betting, how are you to conclude whether the money responsible for that is "inexplicable" money on a horse that the "crowd" otherwise hates, or genuine public support? Are you referring to tote-reading of some form?)

[WinterTriangle]

PRACTICE wager construction. I am learning that aspect in depth from the Thorograh redboard room where wager construction is a topic few (other than Cramer, Mitchell and Fiero) ever touch. This part of the game is usually the difference between the long term $$$$$ winner and the competent, "break even" handicapper.

This is where I need help.

I played the Belmont card on Fri.(on paper) and did so miserably I almost talked myself into never wagering!

I was pretty confident about my picks, and they did "show up"--- but I didn't put them together right in the wager. :mad:

(As a fledgling I decided to only concentrate on Belmont, then Saratoga, for the summer. That way, I will learn *those* tracks before I move on to any others.)

[DeanT]

Since the money the public bets determines the horses' odds, when you say "that the crowd hates", are you referring to a horse that is taking betting action, and you personally can't determine a reason why (based on the horse's published form, or in light of its morning-line odds, or even though there has been no pre-race "buzz" about it)? (I think that's your meaning, but I'm asking for clarification because, if the horse is at low odds in the betting, how are you to conclude whether the money responsible for that is "inexplicable" money on a horse that the "crowd" otherwise hates, or genuine public support? Are you referring to tote-reading of some form?)

Hi T,

Generally what I alluded to above. You have a Prime Power ranked three horse. He is 5-2 in the exactas and three to one on the board, he is claimed off Bruce Levine, first start for nobody. Everyone and their brother at the track says "you are nuts to bet this horse; third ranked in speed/power figures, claimed off a 30% guy..... nuts to bet him at 3-1, I have him 10-1 fair odds"

If everyone on the surface hates a horse and he is live, I would not bet against this horse with a ten foot pole. Money is not stupid.

There are usually four or five a day. I used to be the guy who says "you people are nuts for betting this horse. I am betting against him because I am smarter than you are". That lasted about two months. My bankroll could not stand it.

The first race at MTH today the four was the live horse, not the other Rigat horse, eventho he was the logical one. Yesterday there was a great example. Race 7 or 8. 5-1ML third choice, ranked fourth in speed figures, 4th at BRIS, 4th with Jeff's program. He was chalk. The standout horse was an "overlay" who I loved. A year ago I hammer him. Now I sit it out. Too much sharp cash telling me I am cannon fodder, not the other way around.

If you can't explain an odds board, you have no business playing the race, imo. Like the old poker saying, if you cant spot the sucker at the table, chances are you are him.

Edit - sorry for not being overly clear perhaps. I have ran some numbers on this with a sample size of about 150 or so (after seeing it happen more and more and having an idea it was true). Dismal ROI betting the standout overlay in these situations. Something like 0.5.

[ranchwest]

This is where I need help.

I played the Belmont card on Fri.(on paper) and did so miserably I almost talked myself into never wagering!

I was pretty confident about my picks, and they did "show up"--- but I didn't put them together right in the wager. :mad:

(As a fledgling I decided to only concentrate on Belmont, then Saratoga, for the summer. That way, I will learn *those* tracks before I move on to any others.)

Your post suggests you were handicapping every race.

You might want to consider zeroing in on one type of race. Turf, maiden, sprints, routes, cheap, stakes, whatever. Get it down to where you're only looking at one or two races on a card. Learn that type of race to the max.

You'll probably eventually find that once you're a specialist you'll be able to make more money on those one or two races than you would be likely to make off of the full card.

Just my opinion.

[Dave Schwartz]

Ranchwest,

As a longtime member of this board, your posts are always well-thought out and often thought-provoking. This post is no different.

However, I must take almost an opposite viewpoint.

I believe that most players would be better-served by playing far more races than less.

When I work with private "coaching" clients (something I rarely do) the first thing I try to have them do is an exercise where they play the best "value" of their top 3 horses. In other words, I force them to play every race on at least 4 cards.

Now, I realize that this flies in the face of current logic - which is to be highly selective.

Generally, even on day one, the player finds that he does not do near as badly as he expected. (Each race is entered into a spreadsheet.)
When the exercise is repeated on day two, we add a new twist: we are going to compare the hit rate and $net of the horses that he bet to the other two contenders that he did not bet.

The goal is to see that the player is consistently making the correct final decision between his three contenders. If he can do that, he can make money.

It is an interesting exercise. I have created what I call the "baseball scoresheet" (because the races look like innings).
http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/BaseballScoresheet.pdf

The four rows represent:
1) Win payoff for my single play.
2) Win payoff for either of the other two horses taht make up my top 3.
3) Win payoff for an automatic contender source that also picks 3 horses.
4) Win payoff for the top 3 public choices at post time.

Now, remember that if there is a payoff on line 1, lines 2 & 3 will not have a payoff because it is only the winners you don't pick.

The 4th line is a little different because it is possible that you are making a play that is not one of the top 3 public choices. If that is the case, be sure to add a little "*" to indicate that there were actually 3 horses in that group instead of 2.


Every 10 races you compare how you are doing versus the horses you are not betting.

Try this exercise. I think many of you will be surprised at how good (or bad) you really are.



If you guys are interested in this, I will tell you how to analyze your results. Just let me know.


Regards,
Dave Schwarz

[ranchwest]

Dave, good post. One thing I've always felt is that there is more than one way to approach handicapping/wagering. I can see that there's likely merit in your approach, though I'd tend to think that it might not be best for everyone.

I'll put another twist into this puzzle. Do both.

Have a general contender scheme for most races and a specialized scheme for a certain class of races. Then use your methodology for the eliminations. I'm assuming that this is a paper (fake) bet approach.

Might be interesting. I think this might be a good means of finding out where a person should be. For instance, how long can the person maintain focus?

Hehehe. I played golf with a first time player one time. He asked how long it would take to play a round. When I told him that a scramble tournament would likely take at least 4 hours, he told me he'd never done anything in his life for 4 hours. lol

[Dave Schwartz]

RW,

Hehehe. I played golf with a first time player one time. He asked how long it would take to play a round. When I told him that a scramble tournament would likely take at least 4 hours, he told me he'd never done anything in his life for 4 hours.

Suggest that he watch that Viagra commercial (which has to be the finest example of a "side effect" being used as a selling point ever). :D



Dave

[ranchwest]

RW,



Suggest that he watch that Viagra commercial (which has to be the finest example of a "side effect" being used as a selling point ever). :D



Dave

Yeah, a friend of mine said that if his ever lasts 4 hours he's not calling the doctor, he's calling the newspaper. lol

[Robert Fischer]

...Call in a "specialist"! :cool:


Great posts Dave and Ranchwest




Coaching or Schooling on horseplaying is a tremendous resource for players, and Dave is doing some very cutting edge stuff here.


The goal is to see that the player is consistently making the correct final decision between his three contenders. If he can do that, he can make money.

It is an interesting exercise. I have created what I call the "baseball scoresheet" (because the races look like innings).
http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/BaseballScoresheet.pdf

The four rows represent:
1) Win payoff for my single play.
2) Win payoff for either of the other two horses taht make up my top 3.
3) Win payoff for an automatic contender source that also picks 3 horses.
4) Win payoff for the top 3 public choices at post time.

[Overlay]

I believe that most players would be better-served by playing far more races than less.

When I work with private "coaching" clients (something I rarely do) the first thing I try to have them do is an exercise where they play the best "value" of their top 3 horses.[/i]

Dave:

As you point out, one of the advantages of a value-oriented approach is that, if you are in fact able to consistently identify horses that are underbet in comparison with their true chance of winning (so that you have the percentages on your side), playing more often (rather than less) will increase your advantage by giving those favorable probabilities a greater chance to assert themselves.

Your reference to the "top three" horses approach reminds me of the methodology that William Scott described in Investing at the Racetrack, which involved limiting consideration to the top three betting choices in each race. Scott said that, since one of the top three choices wins an average of two out of every three races, being able to pick the one that would beat the other two in two races out of every three would result in an average of four winners out of every nine races. As I recall, Scott used form and time-related measures as his separation criteria, but the advantage of using value as the basis for play is that you can isolate occasions when the top-rated horses are also overlays (whether you're determining the "top" horses in the race strictly by odds (as Scott did), or by using your own ranking method).

[Dave Schwartz]

Good points, Overlay.

The ultimate goal is to open the player's mind to a new and different way of looking at things.

One of the biggest challenges a player faces is that he knows too much. He knows all the things that can and can't work because he read it in a book or someone told him so. In fact, he has spent years etching these restrictions - many of which are false - into his play. Over many years, these axioms, which are generally very infelxible, begin to restrict his play tremendously.


When I was a kid, I hustled pool. I recall being "on the road" with a small bunch of guys (I was the weakest player in the group and did most of the playing). Anyway, one of the superstars was playing and the spot he had to give up was that he had to wear a sport coat - buttoned.

LOL - Funniest thing... watching this guy discover just how difficult it was to make shots when he was all bound up. It was an excellent trap. Unfortunately, for the other guy, he was a world-class player, and generally they get the money.


Anyway, that is what these axioms do to so many players - it binds them.

Ironically, when I suggest something that the user thinks is somewhat off-the-wall (in comparison to his current belief system) he defends what he knows. Until I remind him that he is losing and, apparently, some of the things he knows must be bad ideas or else he would be winning.

That's kind of irrefutable - if we are losing players, then what we think is the right way to play must be wrong - yet we steadfastly resist changing anything.


Dave

[DeanT]

Anyway, that is what these axioms do to so many players - it binds them.

Ironically, when I suggest something that the user thinks is somewhat off-the-wall (in comparison to his current belief system) he defends what he knows. Until I remind him that he is losing and, apparently, some of the things he knows must be bad ideas or else he would be winning.

That's kind of irrefutable - if we are losing players, then what we think is the right way to play must be wrong - yet we steadfastly resist changing anything.


Dave

I agree, Dave.

Why don't people change when they are losing? Is it ego? Is it because we become unconcious competent losers and can not shake the old "rules"?

[Dave Schwartz]

Dean,

I think you have described why they resist change. I think the starting point is having something to change to and some confidence in the source.

That is why someone is willing to listen to a Tom Brohamer or Andy Beyer - they believe that the advice-giver is capable of doing what they want to do.


Dave

[newtothegame]

Ranchwest,

As a longtime member of this board, your posts are always well-thought out and often thought-provoking. This post is no different.

However, I must take almost an opposite viewpoint.

I believe that most players would be better-served by playing far more races than less.

When I work with private "coaching" clients (something I rarely do) the first thing I try to have them do is an exercise where they play the best "value" of their top 3 horses. In other words, I force them to play every race on at least 4 cards.

Now, I realize that this flies in the face of current logic - which is to be highly selective.

Generally, even on day one, the player finds that he does not do near as badly as he expected. (Each race is entered into a spreadsheet.)
When the exercise is repeated on day two, we add a new twist: we are going to compare the hit rate and $net of the horses that he bet to the other two contenders that he did not bet.

The goal is to see that the player is consistently making the correct final decision between his three contenders. If he can do that, he can make money.

It is an interesting exercise. I have created what I call the "baseball scoresheet" (because the races look like innings).
http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/BaseballScoresheet.pdf

The four rows represent:
1) Win payoff for my single play.
2) Win payoff for either of the other two horses taht make up my top 3.
3) Win payoff for an automatic contender source that also picks 3 horses.
4) Win payoff for the top 3 public choices at post time.

Now, remember that if there is a payoff on line 1, lines 2 & 3 will not have a payoff because it is only the winners you don't pick.

The 4th line is a little different because it is possible that you are making a play that is not one of the top 3 public choices. If that is the case, be sure to add a little "*" to indicate that there were actually 3 horses in that group instead of 2.


Every 10 races you compare how you are doing versus the horses you are not betting.

Try this exercise. I think many of you will be surprised at how good (or bad) you really are.



If you guys are interested in this, I will tell you how to analyze your results. Just let me know.


Regards,
Dave Schwarz


dave...good morning first off, but I have a few SERIOUS questions (and please forgive if they sound stupid). At least I can admit I am stupid when it comes to this game lol....
Anyways, being new, some of your thoughts intrigue me although ive got to admit I am lost on some as well. This is where my questions come in to play...
Providing I am not mistaken you mention having your "clients" do an excercise where they bet the probabilities or they horse they believe that has the best chance of winning. Isnt this what handicappers are attempting to do anyways??? I mean why would anyone want to bet a horse that doesnt have the highest probability to win the race? Now if we are referring to the fact that a horse with a lower probability to win (but might come in the money) and payer higher odds then the higher probability horse, then I understand. I would much rather bet the horse that will pay 10 dollars to run second versus the horse that will pay 4 dollars on top. Hell I would hope I would have the senses to play both in some form of an exotic bet.
My next question is that what one sees as a "high" probability horse, others may not. After all, isnt that why its called handicapping? I guess I am asking if everyone bet the highest probability horse, the final odds would be terrible and no one would be making anything. I believe this is where alot of people get the idea or concept about beating the "chalk". Although its a riskier proposition, I find myself trying to identify who the chalk will be and if I find another horse in the field that can "possibly" beat him, I will usually play the horse with the better odds (the lower percentage of winning probability horse).
Thirdly, it seems alot easier to assign percentages with computer programs, as most have actually scanned and shown those spreadsheets on here. How does that apply to someone like myself who uses paper and pencil? What I try to do is handicap the race without looking at morning lines or handicapper selections. I then find "my choice" to win (or at least narrow the field to a few that I think can win if there is no clear cut choice for me). Once I have done this, I return back and look at the morning lines. If the horse I picked is the ML favorite I feel I handicapped the race right but also am aware that as some have mentioned here, it will probably be overbet by the public. Or, do I have this logic wrong?? But by the public seeing the same thing, the odds will decrease thereby increase the needed percentage of a win which usually causes me to lay off of a horse as the odds wouldnt reflect what I need to place a bet. Does that make sense? Example..if a horse I like is in my estimation a 40% chance of winning (although I will tell you I have difficulties assigning percentages without a computer program lol), then I would need about 2.5-1 or better to play this horse. If its the morning line favorite and gets pounded down to 2-1, i am more likely not to play this horse as the odds do not reflect what I believe are the true odds of the horse winning the race. Now may he go on to win? Sure..but I dont see the value in that bet. Another Big Example was BB. .40-1.00 in belmont ML. Got bet down to .30 on a dollar. If my math is correct, he would of needed at least an 80% chance or better to win that race to even think of betting that. By the way, I find very few races where I see an 80% chance or better probability..so naturally I wouldnt play the race.
Anyways...thanks for your input in advance....
Paul
aka newtothegame
"without the horse...there is no sport"

[Overlay]

I mean why would anyone want to bet a horse that doesnt have the highest probability to win the race?
Since horse-race betting is a pari-mutuel game, it all comes down to what you assess the true winning probability (odds) of a particular horse to be (no matter where you happen to rank that horse in comparison to its competitors in the race) versus what the public assesses the winning probability of the horse to be (again, regardless of how the public ranks it in its field, and of whether it's the favorite or not). If you assign a greater winning probability to the horse than the public does, the bet offers value. If you assign a lower probability of winning to the horse than the public does, the bet doesn't offer value. Whether that horse is the one having the greatest probability of winning the race is not related to the question of value.
I guess I am asking if everyone bet the highest probability horse, the final odds would be terrible and no one would be making anything. I believe this is where alot of people get the idea or concept about beating the "chalk". Although its a riskier proposition, I find myself trying to identify who the chalk will be and if I find another horse in the field that can "possibly" beat him, I will usually play the horse with the better odds (the lower percentage of winning probability horse).
What makes value possible is that not everyone uses the same criteria to determine what a horse's true winning probability is, and that the public as a whole, while being notoriously hard to beat in the long-term aggregate, can make significant misjudgments about winning probabilities on a race-to-race, horse-to-horse basis. Even you yourself seem to be saying that you look for horses that may have a lower absolute probability of winning than the favorite, but where the payoff you will receive if you are right (as reflected by the horse's odds) will adequately compensate you for the recognized risk you are taking in betting it. (And any horse -- even the shortest-priced favorite -- carries such risk, unless you can say before the race is run that there is an absolute zero probability that the horse will lose.)
Thirdly, it seems alot easier to assign percentages with computer programs, as most have actually scanned and shown those spreadsheets on here. How does that apply to someone like myself who uses paper and pencil?
Paper-and-pencil methods of developing fair-odds lines are also available. :)
What I try to do is handicap the race without looking at morning lines or handicapper selections. I then find "my choice" to win (or at least narrow the field to a few that I think can win if there is no clear cut choice for me). Once I have done this, I return back and look at the morning lines. If the horse I picked is the ML favorite I feel I handicapped the race right but also am aware that as some have mentioned here, it will probably be overbet by the public. Or, do I have this logic wrong?? But by the public seeing the same thing, the odds will decrease thereby increase the needed percentage of a win which usually causes me to lay off of a horse as the odds wouldnt reflect what I need to place a bet. Does that make sense?
In making your line, the only thing that should matter is trying to rate each horse's true winning probability as accurately as you can. What other handicappers think, or what the public may or may not do, doesn't have to enter your considerations at that point. The public comes into play only after you've developed your line, in comparing your probability/odds for each horse with the actual odds established by the public. (Of course the true test of your line will be how your assigned probabilities compare to long-term actual results, as well as how accurate your probabilities are over various odds ranges. (That is, do horses that you say should be 3-1 (for example) win at a 25% rate both when they go off as overlays and when they go off as underlays?))
Example..if a horse I like is in my estimation a 40% chance of winning (although I will tell you I have difficulties assigning percentages without a computer program lol), then I would need about 2.5-1 or better to play this horse. If its the morning line favorite and gets pounded down to 2-1, i am more likely not to play this horse as the odds do not reflect what I believe are the true odds of the horse winning the race. Now may he go on to win? Sure..but I dont see the value in that bet. Another Big Example was BB. .40-1.00 in belmont ML. Got bet down to .30 on a dollar. If my math is correct, he would of needed at least an 80% chance or better to win that race to even think of betting that. By the way, I find very few races where I see an 80% chance or better probability..so naturally I wouldnt play the race.
What you've said is correct from a value-betting perspective, especially the part about accepting that the undervalued horse may beat you (which is why value betting (as opposed to betting the horse that is likeliest to win regardless of its odds) does not make sense to some people). The only thing I would add is that, if your top choice in the field is not offering value, there must be other horses in the race (as I believe you yourself indicated) that will be. You don't have to restrict yourself to your top choice in those cases. Go for the value, wherever in the field it may be.

[newtothegame]

thanks alot overlay......youve started to answer some NOT asked questions that maybe I didnt relay properly in what I was saying. But, bear with me for a moment. I think where I am getting confused is the whole parimutual thing. Ive got to tell you that if it were explained to me, I am sure I would get it. I may have it now and just not know it.
But i have seen those that see the "pools" and it appears they see thay can "grab" the pool with a modest bet. WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT??? And what are they "seeing". I am sure this is somehow related to what people like yourself is referring to the parimutual pools. Or am I wrong here?? I know this takes time to explain to someone like me but is there some info site where it gives exapmles so I can see what is being referred to?
Thanks again in advance....
Paul
aka newtothegame
"without the horse....there is no sport"

[Overlay]

The only way I see that they could literally "grab the pool" is if they had the only winning ticket on a given combination. (Otherwise they wouldn't be grabbing it. They'd be sharing it with however many other people also had that combination, and that would be something that they couldn't control.)

It sounds instead as if they're referring to betting as many combinations ("going as deep") as they have to in order to be confident (at least in their own opinion) that they'll have the winning combination.

I would assume that what they're "seeing" under such circumstances is that the number of combinations in question (as determined by the number of horses in the race that have (once again, in their opinion) a realistic chance of figuring in the winning combination) is sufficiently low that the player only has to make (as you say) a modest bet in order to cover all of them.

[Dave Schwartz]

dave...good morning first off, but I have a few SERIOUS questions (and please forgive if they sound stupid). At least I can admit I am stupid when it comes to this game lol....

This game never made me feel stupid. (Yeah, right.)


Anyways, being new, some of your thoughts intrigue me although ive got to admit I am lost on some as well. This is where my questions come in to play...
Providing I am not mistaken you mention having your "clients" do an excercise where they bet the probabilities or they horse they believe that has the best chance of winning. Isnt this what handicappers are attempting to do anyways??? I mean why would anyone want to bet a horse that doesnt have the highest probability to win the race?

Actually, that is not what I meatn and I don''t think it is what I said. Either way, permit me to clarify...

First, I did not say for them to play the highest probability horse. I have them play the "best value" among their top 3 probability horses, even if they perceive that horse to be a losing proposition.

See, most players handicap from a standpoint that they must leave a margin of error in their "line." In other words, if I make this horse 2/1 I am not going to bet him at 5/2 or even 3/1, but I will at 7/2 or 4/1. This is probably because they have been annhilated so many times trying to show profit on their low-priced horses.

What I want to teach them is "relative value." The goal in this exercise is not to make them profitable. It is for them to learn how to measure their performance against some logical benchmarks.

The analysis of those early sessions is very important. For example, suppose after 40 bets your plays are hitting 20% with a $1.80.

This would be a common response to a performance like that: "That is a reasonably healthy hit rate that many would be thrilled with, but a $net that will not take you anywhere."

But there is something more important. You played one of your contenders in each race. How did the non-plays do? If their hit rate was only 10% with a $net of $1.30 then you are making good value decisions.

How did the secondary contender process do? If the non-plays were bad bets, then you get another gold star.

And what about the top public choices that you did not bet?


See, when you compare who you bet to those three you begin to see where your slection and handicapping tactics are going bad.

For example, if you are consistnetly being beaten by good low-priced horses then you probably have developed a built-in bias against low-priced horses. Playing "beat-the-favorite" is a really bad idea when the favorite is not overbet relative to his chances.

Now, I realize that many people just say, "I'll just pass those races." I contend that it is a better idea to learn the difference between a good favorite and a bad one.


What I described in my previous post is only the first of several steps toward improvement. You just do not start by learning which races (and horses) to pass. That is actually the last step.

Suppose that you have gone through all the gyrations of improvement that I suggest - as mysterious as that may sound, there are only a few. Let's further suppose that, when all is said and done, you have raised your hit rate to a respectable 25% and a $net of $1.95, just short of profitable.

That is the point at which you begin concentrating on which horses and races should be skipped. And it is that last step that pushes you over to profitability.

Now if we are referring to the fact that a horse with a lower probability to win (but might come in the money) and payer higher odds then the higher probability horse, then I understand. I would much rather bet the horse that will pay 10 dollars to run second versus the horse that will pay 4 dollars on top. Hell I would hope I would have the senses to play both in some form of an exotic bet.

And I would rather wager $200 to win on a horse that will pay $3.00 with 70% ($2.10 $net) chance of winning than wager my money on a $10 horse with a 22% hit rate ($2.20 $net). And so would you if you had confidence in that 70% figure.

Part of the goal is to show you how to get that confidence.


My next question is that what one sees as a "high" probability horse, others may not. After all, isnt that why its called handicapping? I guess I am asking if everyone bet the highest probability horse, the final odds would be terrible and no one would be making anything. I believe this is where alot of people get the idea or concept about beating the "chalk". Although its a riskier proposition, I find myself trying to identify who the chalk will be and if I find another horse in the field that can "possibly" beat him, I will usually play the horse with the better odds (the lower percentage of winning probability horse).

Certainly, there is no single right answer.

I recall an in-person workshop in my home this year. It was the first of our "Monty Hall' workshops. We played live for 20-30 races - every race on every card - each betting different horses (always 1 per race). And we all had high hit rates - in the low-to-mid 40% range. (Well, one guy missed the concept completely but eventually got it. And a couple were actually in the 50's.)

My point is that, while we were in agreement on many horses, we bet a lot of different ones as well, and in the end we all did great. That is normal. for competant handicappers over a significant number of plays. (No, 20-30 is not significant.)

You must remember that "higher odds" does not always equate to "better bet."



Thirdly, it seems alot easier to assign percentages with computer programs, as most have actually scanned and shown those spreadsheets on here. How does that apply to someone like myself who uses paper and pencil?

My question to you is, "Why do you not use a computer?" You certainly have one or you wouldn't be posting here. Using paper and pencil puts you at a disadvantage.

If you have to do it with paper and pencil, then at least get a calculator.

The biggest challenge without a computer is that, as the odds change you cannot easily change the probabiltiies on the horses to reflect those changes.


What I try to do is handicap the race without looking at morning lines or handicapper selections. I then find "my choice" to win (or at least narrow the field to a few that I think can win if there is no clear cut choice for me). Once I have done this, I return back and look at the morning lines. If the horse I picked is the ML favorite I feel I handicapped the race right but also am aware that as some have mentioned here, it will probably be overbet by the public. Or, do I have this logic wrong?? But by the public seeing the same thing, the odds will decrease thereby increase the needed percentage of a win which usually causes me to lay off of a horse as the odds wouldnt reflect what I need to place a bet. Does that make sense? Example..if a horse I like is in my estimation a 40% chance of winning (although I will tell you I have difficulties assigning percentages without a computer program lol), then I would need about 2.5-1 or better to play this horse. If its the morning line favorite and gets pounded down to 2-1, i am more likely not to play this horse as the odds do not reflect what I believe are the true odds of the horse winning the race. Now may he go on to win? Sure..but I dont see the value in that bet. Another Big Example was BB. .40-1.00 in belmont ML. Got bet down to .30 on a dollar. If my math is correct, he would of needed at least an 80% chance or better to win that race to even think of betting that. By the way, I find very few races where I see an 80% chance or better probability..so naturally I wouldnt play the race.

Okay, in a nutshell, you have nicely defined the racing problem: I handicap a race and my top horse looks like he will be everyone else's top horse.

What a surprise! If you are a handicapper, that should probably happen 40%-60% of the time. You know why? Because the favorite usually IS the best horse in the race.

And what do we learn from that? We learn that the public isn't that stupid... which brings us to the great Catch-22 of racing. (just in case you are too young to know that one: Catch-22: the movie (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0065528/) )

The great Catch-22 is that in order to win I must exploit public error but, at the same time I have to be aware of the fact that the public is amazingly accurate.

When you make a horse 2/1 and he goes off at 40/1 he just never wins: the public isn't that stupid.

When you make a horse 10/1 and the public makes him 1/2, he almost always wins: the public isn't that stupid.

How to handle this is step 4 in the process. (Next-to-last step.)


Your handicapping approach is probably fine. It is probably your exploitation skills that need some help.




My fingers are overheating and running out of letters - and I only use three or four of them anyway, so time to let them cool down.


Dave

[newtothegame]

This game never made me feel stupid. (Yeah, right.)




Actually, that is not what I meatn and I don''t think it is what I said. Either way, permit me to clarify...

First, I did not say for them to play the highest probability horse. I have them play the "best value" among their top 3 probability horses, even if they perceive that horse to be a losing proposition.

See, most players handicap from a standpoint that they must leave a margin of error in their "line." In other words, if I make this horse 2/1 I am not going to bet him at 5/2 or even 3/1, but I will at 7/2 or 4/1. This is probably because they have been annhilated so many times trying to show profit on their low-priced horses.

What I want to teach them is "relative value." The goal in this exercise is not to make them profitable. It is for them to learn how to measure their performance against some logical benchmarks.

The analysis of those early sessions is very important. For example, suppose after 40 bets your plays are hitting 20% with a $1.80.

This would be a common response to a performance like that: "That is a reasonably healthy hit rate that many would be thrilled with, but a $net that will not take you anywhere."

But there is something more important. You played one of your contenders in each race. How did the non-plays do? If their hit rate was only 10% with a $net of $1.30 then you are making good value decisions.

How did the secondary contender process do? If the non-plays were bad bets, then you get another gold star.

And what about the top public choices that you did not bet?


See, when you compare who you bet to those three you begin to see where your slection and handicapping tactics are going bad.

For example, if you are consistnetly being beaten by good low-priced horses then you probably have developed a built-in bias against low-priced horses. Playing "beat-the-favorite" is a really bad idea when the favorite is not overbet relative to his chances.

Now, I realize that many people just say, "I'll just pass those races." I contend that it is a better idea to learn the difference between a good favorite and a bad one.


What I described in my previous post is only the first of several steps toward improvement. You just do not start by learning which races (and horses) to pass. That is actually the last step.

Suppose that you have gone through all the gyrations of improvement that I suggest - as mysterious as that may sound, there are only a few. Let's further suppose that, when all is said and done, you have raised your hit rate to a respectable 25% and a $net of $1.95, just short of profitable.

That is the point at which you begin concentrating on which horses and races should be skipped. And it is that last step that pushes you over to profitability.



And I would rather wager $200 to win on a horse that will pay $3.00 with 70% ($2.10 $net) chance of winning than wager my money on a $10 horse with a 22% hit rate ($2.20 $net). And so would you if you had confidence in that 70% figure.

Part of the goal is to show you how to get that confidence.




Certainly, there is no single right answer.

I recall an in-person workshop in my home this year. It was the first of our "Monty Hall' workshops. We played live for 20-30 races - every race on every card - each betting different horses (always 1 per race). And we all had high hit rates - in the low-to-mid 40% range. (Well, one guy missed the concept completely but eventually got it. And a couple were actually in the 50's.)

My point is that, while we were in agreement on many horses, we bet a lot of different ones as well, and in the end we all did great. That is normal. for competant handicappers over a significant number of plays. (No, 20-30 is not significant.)

You must remember that "higher odds" does not always equate to "better bet."





My question to you is, "Why do you not use a computer?" You certainly have one or you wouldn't be posting here. Using paper and pencil puts you at a disadvantage.

If you have to do it with paper and pencil, then at least get a calculator.

The biggest challenge without a computer is that, as the odds change you cannot easily change the probabiltiies on the horses to reflect those changes.




Okay, in a nutshell, you have nicely defined the racing problem: I handicap a race and my top horse looks like he will be everyone else's top horse.

What a surprise! If you are a handicapper, that should probably happen 40%-60% of the time. You know why? Because the favorite usually IS the best horse in the race.

And what do we learn from that? We learn that the public isn't that stupid... which brings us to the great Catch-22 of racing. (just in case you are too young to know that one: Catch-22: the movie (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0065528/) )

The great Catch-22 is that in order to win I must exploit public error but, at the same time I have to be aware of the fact that the public is amazingly accurate.

When you make a horse 2/1 and he goes off at 40/1 he just never wins: the public isn't that stupid.

When you make a horse 10/1 and the public makes him 1/2, he almost always wins: the public isn't that stupid.

How to handle this is step 4 in the process. (Next-to-last step.)


Your handicapping approach is probably fine. It is probably your exploitation skills that need some help.




My fingers are overheating and running out of letters - and I only use three or four of them anyway, so time to let them cool down.


Dave

Actually, that is not what I meatn and I don''t think it is what I said. Either way, permit me to clarify...

First, I did not say for them to play the highest probability horse. I have them play the "best value" among their top 3 probability horses, even if they perceive that horse to be a losing proposition.

My apologies...yeah I missed that. Percentages versus value... I like the value side alot more.

My question to you is, "Why do you not use a computer?" You certainly have one or you wouldn't be posting here. Using paper and pencil puts you at a disadvantage.
Well, your right in the fact that I am using a computer to post here. The reason I do not use a computer in my handicapping is that I feel it is best I learn to do it on paper with pencil first. Maybe it goes to the logic of crawl before I walk.

And what do we learn from that? We learn that the public isn't that stupid... which brings us to the great Catch-22 of racing. (just in case you are too young to know that one: Catch-22: the movie (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0065528/) )

The great Catch-22 is that in order to win I must exploit public error but, at the same time I have to be aware of the fact that the public is amazingly accurate.

When you make a horse 2/1 and he goes off at 40/1 he just never wins: the public isn't that stupid.

When you make a horse 10/1 and the public makes him 1/2, he almost always wins: the public isn't that stupid.

I agree completely that the public is not that stupid. Thats why I went on to say that if I came up with the favorite, I feel ive done it right. the problem for me comes in at at what point do I lose value in it.

And I would rather wager $200 to win on a horse that will pay $3.00 with 70% ($2.10 $net) chance of winning than wager my money on a $10 horse with a 22% hit rate ($2.20 $net). And so would you if you had confidence in that 70% figure.

See this is where I start to get lost...let me try to explain. I whole heartedly agree that the 70% horse should be bet to win (providing there is the same value in the odds you are recieving or better. But, with that being said, don't you have to take into account that someone has to run 2nd and third etc etc...???
If the 70% horse is your winner and the 22% horse is your next best horse, why not bet him to place or show? I apologize if you thought I was saying bet the 22% horse on top. What I was attempting to say is if a longer shot is YOUR second choice in the race, then you should get much better odds which would increase the value in the bet. Yes, the payout might not be in the win column but a hypothetical 10-1 would pay more to place then a 2-1 to win...correct? Now I know i used the 10-1 to make a point...but if my second choice was say 9-2 then yes, the place money might not be as good. Thats where looking for the value comes in to play providing I am correct.

But again...and I seriously want you to know this...I appreciate your time and efforts and Patience (lol) in dealing with me and some questions which may sound rather "unintellectual". I value your time and knowledge and especially your wanting to take the time with another person attempting to learn. Thanks again...
Paul aka newtothegame
"without the horse...there is no sport"

[Overlay]

What I was attempting to say is if a longer shot is YOUR second choice in the race, then you should get much better odds which would increase the value in the bet. Yes, the payout might not be in the win column but a hypothetical 10-1 would pay more to place then a 2-1 to win...correct? Now I know i used the 10-1 to make a point...but if my second choice was say 9-2 then yes, the place money might not be as good. Thats where looking for the value comes in to play providing I am correct.


The problem is that the place pool is separate from the win pool, and the horse with the 70% win probability will likely comprise a similarly large portion of the place pool. So, assuming that that the 70% win-probability horse wins or places (which would be greater than a 70% probability), the hypothetical horse that is 10-1 to win, if it does in fact manage to finish second or better, will be equally dividing up what's left of the place pool with the 70% horse (after subtracting the amounts bet to place on the 70% horse and the 10% horse off the top of the place pool before dividing it up). Win odds of 10-1 might sound in a vacuum as if they should return good prices to place and show, but if the odds-on horse wins or places, and the place and show wagers on the odds-on horse comprise an equal or greater share of those pools as of the win pool, the effect on reducing place and show payoffs will be just as great as if the odds-on horse had won.

[Dave Schwartz]

Overlay is dead on with his assessment.

Value in the place pool is more difficult to assess because it is complicated by the "other horse," who is most likely the favorite.

In other words, you can be really smart and pick a 60/1 shot who gets close to the $2.80 winner and for your trouble you might get back less than $2.80 in the place position.

This whole thing translates nicely into a question: "How do I best exploit the this race?"


Dave

[newtothegame]

true overlay.....and I am beginning to start to understand the pools a bit better as we discussed earlier. (amaxing what reading will do) lol. But in the hypothetical of the 70% 22% horse...I would almost be sure to say if a horse is about 70% to win, he will be bet as such. if the next best horse is 22% thats a little more then 3-1 win ratio for the 70% horse and again I would assume he would be bet as such. I doubt the win pool would be equal to the place and show pools on the 70% horse. If that were the case, he wouldnt be a 70% probablilty horse to win. Wouldnt it be more like 33-33-33 percentage wise for win place show? Or is the problem that I am coming to the fact that its harder to place a percentage on the PLACE and SHOW areas? I do agree its much easier to focus on who we think can win...but (and maybe I am trying to take this too far initially), someone has to finish second and third.
Lets say that I handicap any given 8 horse field. In my handicapping, I narrow it down to three horses....with odds of winning being 60% 30% 10%. Now, I find the odds to actually be 2-1 9-2 10-1 respectively. For me, I would think the greatest value would be on the 9-2 being 4.5-1. but again, thats to WIN...then I would try to asses the probabilities of him coming in second. And in this case (seeing that I have the 70% winning.)..I would think versus the remaining field he has a 70% chance to run 2nd. Now I know you dont see what a horse will pay for place but I would think a 9-2 should pay about between 3 and 2.5 to 1 in the middle. Now ive got almost a full point better on the odds versus the win bet. Does that make sense? I would much rather between 3 and 2.5 to one on a 70% horse versus 2-1 to win on a 70% horse.
Or is this logic way gone off in left field? Please tell me if I have gone astray from where I should be?
Thanks in advance...
Paul aka newtothegame
"without the horse...there is no sport"

[Dave Schwartz]

This is not really sound math but it will come close to estimating place and show probabiltiies.

Let's say that you have this 70% win horse.

What is his chance of losing? 30%, right?

So, if you think of him NOT running 1st or 2nd, it is kind of like losing twice in a row.

That would be 30% x 30% = 9%.

So, if his chance of not running 1st or 2nd is 9% then it must be 91% to place.


Better math would be:

chance of losing=(100%-WinProb)
chance of losing 2nd=100%-(WinProb/(100%-ActualWinnerProb)


Now the available probs are reduced by the amount of the Prob of the actual winner. Lets say it was a 10% horse.

So, the chances of our horse running 2nd are 70%/(100%-10%).
Therefore the chances of our horse NOT running 2nd are
100%-(70%/90%)= 22%

So, the chances of our horse not running 1st or 2nd is 30% x 22% = 93.4%

Technically, one must compute this for all the possible 1st place horses. The higher the probability on the actual winner, the less of a chance the other horses have of beating our horse for 2nd.

But, in round figures (especially for the highest prob horse) the LosingChance ^ 2 comes close enough to the chances of the horse NOT placing.


Dave

[Dave Schwartz]

One more thing... the lower the odds of a horse (or the higher the probability) the greater the likelihood that the horse will win than run second.

As an example, an "average" favorite:
wins=33%
2nds=19%
3rds=14%

As the odds go up, the ratios of wins/2nds and 2nds/3rds goes down.

When you get to the longer-priced horses they finish 3rd more often than 2nd, and 2nd more often than 1st.

That is one reason why I have never liked putting a favorite in the 3rd position of a trifecta. But, (truth be known) what do I really know about trifectas anyway.


Dave
(Again)

[newtothegame]

This is not really sound math but it will come close to estimating place and show probabiltiies.

Let's say that you have this 70% win horse.

What is his chance of losing? 30%, right?

So, if you think of him NOT running 1st or 2nd, it is kind of like losing twice in a row.

That would be 30% x 30% = 9%.

So, if his chance of not running 1st or 2nd is 9% then it must be 91% to place.


Better math would be:

chance of losing=(100%-WinProb)
chance of losing 2nd=100%-(WinProb/(100%-ActualWinnerProb)


Now the available probs are reduced by the amount of the Prob of the actual winner. Lets say it was a 10% horse.

So, the chances of our horse running 2nd are 70%/(100%-10%).
Therefore the chances of our horse NOT running 2nd are
100%-(70%/90%)= 22%

So, the chances of our horse not running 1st or 2nd is 30% x 22% = 93.4%

Technically, one must compute this for all the possible 1st place horses. The higher the probability on the actual winner, the less of a chance the other horses have of beating our horse for 2nd.

But, in round figures (especially for the highest prob horse) the LosingChance ^ 2 comes close enough to the chances of the horse NOT placing.


Dave


well I guess as with all things we can compute them to no end. Although I did follow some of what you were saying here, I think its flawed. The flaw in my opinion is that at some point, you have to place a bet where the value lies. If the value is on the win ,as I think you said.,..because those are the only true odds you will know ( as we both agree you wont actually know pay outs from the place and show pools). If you have done your homewrok right...and your horse wins, then all probabilities need to be recalculated with one less horse. You could still assign it WIN if you like as he would be the best remaining value in the race. It just would be that there would only be two spots left to fill (place and show) versus the three in your calculations. Having one less horse ( as you have to take him out of the equation based on your first bet), simplifies the odds more. If you dont remove the horse you originally assigned the highest probability, then your basically stating he wont fulfill your bet and its a losing bet anyways.

[newtothegame]

One more thing... the lower the odds of a horse (or the higher the probability) the greater the likelihood that the horse will win than run second.

As an example, an "average" favorite:
wins=33%
2nds=19%
3rds=14%

As the odds go up, the ratios of wins/2nds and 2nds/3rds goes down.

When you get to the longer-priced horses they finish 3rd more often than 2nd, and 2nd more often than 1st.

That is one reason why I have never liked putting a favorite in the 3rd position of a trifecta. But, (truth be known) what do I really know about trifectas anyway.


Dave
(Again)

this goes exactly to what I was saying.....Now if we are talking straight one horse bets, yes, your math would be right on. But with three spots to fill, you have to assign a horse to the top...move on and eliminate that horse from any further equations as his spot is already assigned. IE...ex , tri, super, anything other then a straight bet.

[newtothegame]

[QUOTE=Dave Schwartz]This is not really sound math but it will come close to estimating place and show probabiltiies.

Let's say that you have this 70% win horse.

What is his chance of losing? 30%, right?

So, if you think of him NOT running 1st or 2nd, it is kind of like losing twice in a row.

That would be 30% x 30% = 9%.

So, if his chance of not running 1st or 2nd is 9% then it must be 91% to place.
no...not really. This is where I think your math MIGHT be flawed. It must be 91% to run OTHER then 1st or 2nd. It could run fourth or fifth or however many horses are in the field.

The second part where I believe it to be flawed is if you placed a wager (based on you doing your handicapping and you determine a horse has a 70% chance to WIN..and he doesnt..well its a lost bet anyways).
There is no losing twice...its a one time wager. Now lets look at if your placing wagers across the board on a horse that you deemed at 70% to win the race. A horse with a percentage of 70% to win has to have a higher probablity to place and an even higher probability to show. After all, the 70% horse has to beat fewer and fewer horses as each position decreases.
But again...my math logic may be askew...trust me I am not a CEO of any corporation so I must not be doing all things right lol.

[Dave Schwartz]

The math is right - within its stated limitations.

[badcompany]

That is one reason why I have never liked putting a favorite in the 3rd position of a trifecta. But, (truth be known) what do I really know about trifectas anyway.


Dave
(Again)

You're 100% correct.

If you like a cold triple with the favorite third, you're way better off playing the exacta, cold, because if the triple comes in, it's not gonna pay much more than the exacta; and, if the favorite runs out, you give up a nice paying exacta.

Same holds true for playing an exacta with the favorite second. You're better off playing win or the triple.

[ranchwest]

well I guess as with all things we can compute them to no end. Although I did follow some of what you were saying here, I think its flawed. The flaw in my opinion is that at some point, you have to place a bet where the value lies. If the value is on the win ,as I think you said.,..because those are the only true odds you will know ( as we both agree you wont actually know pay outs from the place and show pools). If you have done your homewrok right...and your horse wins, then all probabilities need to be recalculated with one less horse. You could still assign it WIN if you like as he would be the best remaining value in the race. It just would be that there would only be two spots left to fill (place and show) versus the three in your calculations. Having one less horse ( as you have to take him out of the equation based on your first bet), simplifies the odds more. If you dont remove the horse you originally assigned the highest probability, then your basically stating he wont fulfill your bet and its a losing bet anyways.

Please keep in mind that what this thread has focused on is basic, fundamental theory of value. There's so much more involved in the real world.

One of the things Dave is trying to convey (I believe) is that you must evaluate both your ability to choose contenders and then your ability to make selections from those contenders and have it jive with value.

For me, one of the things I'm always looking for is what I think of as incredible value.

Here's an example.

I was listening to the "talking heads" from one of the tracks. This guy says that there is a horse in the race that was on the "also eligible" list that actually drew into the race. The horse was a shipper. The guy explains that at this track the shippers usually scratch from races where they draw in from the "also eligible" list (it was not a major track).

Not only did this horse not scratch, but they brought his regular jockey from the other track. Again, the talking head explains that this never happens at this track.

The funny thing was that the talking head then dismissed the horse from his selections (I'm not sure whether he was selecting three or four horses, but obviously he wrote off the horse even after pointing out the positives).

On paper, I found this horse did have at least some legitimate shot at winning.

With the knowledge of the drawing into the race and bringing the jockey situation, I then had to upgrade this horse in a major way.

His VALUE is then through the roof. This horse is 13-1. I probably figured him to be 6-1 or so on paper and then with this shipping situation I've got to figure his chances put him down to about 3-1.

He wins (hope nobody gets disturbed by this blatant red boarding).

Now, that's incredible value. It's finding the things other people miss. It could be anything. Joe Takach talks about the trainer who only wore her earrings when her horse was going to win. It could be that you have custom data printouts that show you things nobody else sees. It could be an impressive physical appearance of the horse. It could be some data that you found on the internet. Whatever it is that you THINK about when others are NOT.

Please don't think I'm suggesting looking for that isolated example situation above. It happens once in a "blue moon". However, there are thousands of things you can THINK about when handicapping.

Incredible value is a lot of the reason I suggested focusing on certain types of races. That makes it easier to recognize the factors that might go into incredible value.

Incredible value is not something you're going to find every race. Probably not every day and maybe not every week. But when you find it, you MUST take advantage.

I find that, over time, most of my bets are just a wash -- win some, lose some. It's the incredible value bets that really give my bankroll a boost.

From your posts, it appears you need to continue to study how parimutuel wagering works and the fundamentals of value as set out by Dave and Overlay.

Eventually, you'll see how all of this fits into bet construction and decisions on the type of bet to place.

[BUD]

This thread is helpful...As I said earlier for me I am Lucky because I receive some outside help....

But What I think would be cool and a help for us newbies is a dissection of a race....maybe have 1 thread devoted to it......Thus being able to point out the value from a real life example....It does not have to be a future race it could be a race already run...

I thank the person whom started this thread and all the answers.....This was the reason I chose to become involved here....To Learn some...

[newtothegame]

Please keep in mind that what this thread has focused on is basic, fundamental theory of value. There's so much more involved in the real world.

One of the things Dave is trying to convey (I believe) is that you must evaluate both your ability to choose contenders and then your ability to make selections from those contenders and have it jive with value.

For me, one of the things I'm always looking for is what I think of as incredible value.

Here's an example.

I was listening to the "talking heads" from one of the tracks. This guy says that there is a horse in the race that was on the "also eligible" list that actually drew into the race. The horse was a shipper. The guy explains that at this track the shippers usually scratch from races where they draw in from the "also eligible" list (it was not a major track).

Not only did this horse not scratch, but they brought his regular jockey from the other track. Again, the talking head explains that this never happens at this track.

The funny thing was that the talking head then dismissed the horse from his selections (I'm not sure whether he was selecting three or four horses, but obviously he wrote off the horse even after pointing out the positives).

On paper, I found this horse did have at least some legitimate shot at winning.

With the knowledge of the drawing into the race and bringing the jockey situation, I then had to upgrade this horse in a major way.

His VALUE is then through the roof. This horse is 13-1. I probably figured him to be 6-1 or so on paper and then with this shipping situation I've got to figure his chances put him down to about 3-1.

He wins (hope nobody gets disturbed by this blatant red boarding).

Now, that's incredible value. It's finding the things other people miss. It could be anything. Joe Takach talks about the trainer who only wore her earrings when her horse was going to win. It could be that you have custom data printouts that show you things nobody else sees. It could be an impressive physical appearance of the horse. It could be some data that you found on the internet. Whatever it is that you THINK about when others are NOT.

Please don't think I'm suggesting looking for that isolated example situation above. It happens once in a "blue moon". However, there are thousands of things you can THINK about when handicapping.

Incredible value is a lot of the reason I suggested focusing on certain types of races. That makes it easier to recognize the factors that might go into incredible value.

Incredible value is not something you're going to find every race. Probably not every day and maybe not every week. But when you find it, you MUST take advantage.

I find that, over time, most of my bets are just a wash -- win some, lose some. It's the incredible value bets that really give my bankroll a boost.

From your posts, it appears you need to continue to study how parimutuel wagering works and the fundamentals of value as set out by Dave and Overlay.

Eventually, you'll see how all of this fits into bet construction and decisions on the type of bet to place.

I agree completely ranch....this game seems to me to be about VALUE and the ability to find it. And I sincerely hope that dave knows I do UNDERSTAND that. I was not by any means trying to be contrite in my responses.
I believe that everyone has to have a "system" that they have tweaked and worked to suit their style of handicapping best. Whatever works for one might not work for another. For me personally, this game is about learning as of this moment.
Initially, I didnt understand his "lesson" that he was attempting to teach his "students". Now, I think I have a grasp on it. But when it got to the math part, we just disagree on some of the numbers and how they apply. I hope DAVE READS THIS..and sees that I by no means am saying that he doesnt know what he is talking about. The gentleman has been at this many more years and gone through many more races then I may in my lifetime. But, with that being said, the numbers just dont add up for ME.
Again, I agree with the value concept. I like the lesson being taught value. I guess I was just taking it to another step (as Dave had mentioned about last steps and next steps).
Value means alot of things to alot of people. To me, it means recieving a payout that has a higher reward ratio then risk ratio. Now of course we know this is not and can not be ONE race. All horses dont do what they are suppose to lol.
But over a period of time, you should be able to see the reward vs risk ratio play out.
Anyways...sorry I took this off of the original thoughts that Dave was trying to convey to the forum. In my initial response, I said I can get "stupid" at times :)

[newtothegame]

This thread is helpful...As I said earlier for me I am Lucky because I receive some outside help....

But What I think would be cool and a help for us newbies is a dissection of a race....maybe have 1 thread devoted to it......Thus being able to point out the value from a real life example....It does not have to be a future race it could be a race already run...

I thank the person whom started this thread and all the answers.....This was the reason I chose to become involved here....To Learn some...

I agree completely.....hell I am all for it!!! If I may, I would even suggest that one of the LONG term players (maybe Dave) providing he wished to participate be the kind of facilitator. And if we use a recent day such as say Saturday, I easily have the DRF available and am ready to learn....

[nobeyerspls]

Hi T,

Generally what I alluded to above. You have a Prime Power ranked three horse. He is 5-2 in the exactas and three to one on the board, he is claimed off Bruce Levine, first start for nobody. Everyone and their brother at the track says "you are nuts to bet this horse; third ranked in speed/power figures, claimed off a 30% guy..... nuts to bet him at 3-1, I have him 10-1 fair odds"

If everyone on the surface hates a horse and he is live, I would not bet against this horse with a ten foot pole. Money is not stupid.

There are usually four or five a day. I used to be the guy who says "you people are nuts for betting this horse. I am betting against him because I am smarter than you are". That lasted about two months. My bankroll could not stand it.


The first race at MTH today the four was the live horse, not the other Rigat horse, eventho he was the logical one. Yesterday there was a great example. Race 7 or 8. 5-1ML third choice, ranked fourth in speed figures, 4th at BRIS, 4th with Jeff's program. He was chalk. The standout horse was an "overlay" who I loved. A year ago I hammer him. Now I sit it out. Too much sharp cash telling me I am cannon fodder, not the other way around.

If you can't explain an odds board, you have no business playing the race, imo. Like the old poker saying, if you cant spot the sucker at the table, chances are you are him.

Edit - sorry for not being overly clear perhaps. I have ran some numbers on this with a sample size of about 150 or so (after seeing it happen more and more and having an idea it was true). Dismal ROI betting the standout overlay in these situations. Something like 0.5.

Here's a hypothetical regarding the influence of the board. Let's say you handicap a sprint for maiden fillies and the two you like equally are 20-1 in the morning line. With five minutes to post one is 9-1 and the other is 50-1. Do you bet the shorter price horse who is live on the board? Do you use both in exotics? From what you've posted I would guess that you drop the longshot and bet the 9-1.

[Dave Schwartz]

I did not take offense at your response... but the math is right. A horse that wins 70% of the time can be expected to run 1st/2nd about 92% of the time.


The math part is not as important as you would think, especially because place and show are just too difficult to find profit in anyway.

I think the most important point to remember about your development is that it is a "process." It is not like you learn something today and your results are improved the next day. It might take a week or two to see improved results at all.

And "improved" does not mean "profitable." Improvement comes incrementally, but ultimately should lead to profit.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[ranchwest]

I agree completely ranch....this game seems to me to be about VALUE and the ability to find it. And I sincerely hope that dave knows I do UNDERSTAND that. I was not by any means trying to be contrite in my responses.
I believe that everyone has to have a "system" that they have tweaked and worked to suit their style of handicapping best. Whatever works for one might not work for another. For me personally, this game is about learning as of this moment.
Initially, I didnt understand his "lesson" that he was attempting to teach his "students". Now, I think I have a grasp on it. But when it got to the math part, we just disagree on some of the numbers and how they apply. I hope DAVE READS THIS..and sees that I by no means am saying that he doesnt know what he is talking about. The gentleman has been at this many more years and gone through many more races then I may in my lifetime. But, with that being said, the numbers just dont add up for ME.
Again, I agree with the value concept. I like the lesson being taught value. I guess I was just taking it to another step (as Dave had mentioned about last steps and next steps).
Value means alot of things to alot of people. To me, it means recieving a payout that has a higher reward ratio then risk ratio. Now of course we know this is not and can not be ONE race. All horses dont do what they are suppose to lol.
But over a period of time, you should be able to see the reward vs risk ratio play out.
Anyways...sorry I took this off of the original thoughts that Dave was trying to convey to the forum. In my initial response, I said I can get "stupid" at times :)

Most of us have our issues. I've been at this for about 35 years and I still have mine.

One of mine is focus. I try all sorts of stuff to maintain focus, but it is a struggle for me.

[njcurveball]

I did not take offense at your response... but the math is right. A horse that wins 70% of the time can be expected to run 1st/2nd about 92% of the time.




You lost me here Dave. A horse has 70% chance to win, so they have .30 * .30 to NOT run 2nd?

So if a horse has 80% chance to win, they would have a 96% chance to finish 1st or 2nd?

And by this logic a true 1-9 shot (90% chance) has a 99% chance to finish 1,2?

One thing you may be missing is that as odds increase the ratio of 2nds to 1st increase.

So a horse with a 10% chance to win, may actually have a 15% chance to place (25% total). With your equation, it comes out to 19%. (.9 * .9 = .81).

I may have missed something in this long thread and perhaps you are talking more probability than horse racing.

Jim

[Dave Schwartz]

It is, as I said, an aproximation because, technically, you must do the precise calculation by removing the actual winner from the "new pool" of horses competing for 2nd.

In reality, it over-estimates the place chances somewhat. My point was that it is close enough to make an estimation.



Dave

[DeanT]

Here's a hypothetical regarding the influence of the board. Let's say you handicap a sprint for maiden fillies and the two you like equally are 20-1 in the morning line. With five minutes to post one is 9-1 and the other is 50-1. Do you bet the shorter price horse who is live on the board? Do you use both in exotics? From what you've posted I would guess that you drop the longshot and bet the 9-1.
Hi NBP,

I guess you could make a case to bet both. I don't mind betting two horses I like. I do that all the time if the odds are right. I try to make $X per win bet, so I don't have to bet much on a 50-1 to do that.

I guess to answer your question I would go through the process to find fair board odds (the game is easier when I have a good estimate of final odds, so I work hard at that). I would look at the consensus picks and see who is publicly touting who, look at the conventional things people bet to see if the 9-1 warrants tote action, look at exotics and pick 3's. If he is live in all pools and the trainer stats are brutal, programs like Jeff's and Dave's have nothing to like about him, and picks hate him I would dig deeper - there is nothing to show he should be 9-1, so maybe it is inexplicable. If I pop onto betfair and sharpies have the horse 12-13, with action, I know I have missed something and this horse's fair odds might be 10-1. Worth a bet? Maybe, or maybe not, but I would probably be wary of betting big $$ against this horse, and in any event I would know I have not figured this race out. There is no shame in swallowing some pride and say to yourself that you don't know what in the hell is going on. I do it 20 times a day.

I think, as Dave noted, we do not change in racing and we let our ego get in the way. One of the biggest misconceptions, imo, in racing is that the board odds are "the public". Nothing could be further from the truth. 60% of the tote action is made up of the top 5% of bettors. Over 80% of all bets are made from the top 10% of bettors. That means that these odds in the end are determined by the Schwartz's, Platt's, Robert Fischer's and Mike Maloney's of the world. Ignore that at your own peril. They are making the market, and they are not dumb.

Again, it is not a panacea; I am not trippng over stacks of 100's on my way to the kitchen. I just respect the board very much in this game and use it as a strong tool to make my betting decisions.

[TrifectaMike]

This is not really sound math but it will come close to estimating place and show probabiltiies.

Let's say that you have this 70% win horse.

What is his chance of losing? 30%, right?

So, if you think of him NOT running 1st or 2nd, it is kind of like losing twice in a row.

That would be 30% x 30% = 9%.

So, if his chance of not running 1st or 2nd is 9% then it must be 91% to place.

Dave

Dave,

There is a basic flaw in your presentation.

There isn't enough information to draw any conclusions. Losing doe not imply a second place finish. 30% losing encompasses all other positions excluding the win position. And not a second place finish. 91% to place is incorrect. The 9% strictly speaken is how many races this horse would lose in two successive trials, since the races are independent.

Mike

[Dave Schwartz]

Yes, I get that.

But if you do the computation for a 2nd place finish, you will find that it is remarkably close.

Dave

[TrifectaMike]

Yes, I get that.

But if you do the computation for a 2nd place finish, you will find that it is remarkably close.

Dave

Which computation would that be? Give me an example, please.

Mike

[Dave Schwartz]

The one I listed earlier.

Horse A: 70%
rest of field: 30%

If horse A does not win, his theoretical chance of running 2nd is now 70% / (100 - ActualWinnersProb).

Then add the chances of winning to the chances of 2nd and see what you get.


Dave

[ranchwest]

The one I listed earlier.

Horse A: 70%
rest of field: 30%

If horse A does not win, his theoretical chance of running 2nd is now 70% / (100 - ActualWinnersProb).

Then add the chances of winning to the chances of 2nd and see what you get.


Dave

Forest, trees... I hope someone is reading for the meat of the matter.

[ryesteve]

The one I listed earlier.

Horse A: 70%
rest of field: 30%

If horse A does not win, his theoretical chance of running 2nd is now 70% / (100 - ActualWinnersProb).I think "theoretical" is the key word here. I recall a critique of Dr. Z's work that demonstrated that this method of approximation overstates the actual place and show probabilities of horses at the short end of the odds board.

[Dave Schwartz]

Precisely what I said. And, logically, it underestimates at teh higher end.

Dave

[newtothegame]

Forest, trees... I hope someone is reading for the meat of the matter.

Don't worry..if referring to me, I am reading ..
And for the "meat", I am greatly appreciative. I never intended to start this disagreement regarding the numbers....but as I mentioned, the numbers dont add up for ME. hey if they work for others here, then GREAT. the object is to find what works for all of us. And yes, I understand that this "lesson" was never about the numbers. It was solely about probabilities and finding value in those probabilities. But anytime you are asking for probabilities, that initself is numbers. In order to find the right value...you have to be able to come to the right probabilities.
And please....can we just let the numbers go....this lesson which Dave was so generous to share with us was NOT originally about the numbers and I apologize for bringing it there and getting this way off what it was intended to be.

[Overlay]

But i have seen those that see the "pools" and it appears they see thay can "grab" the pool with a modest bet. WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT??? And what are they "seeing". I am sure this is somehow related to what people like yourself is referring to the parimutual pools. Or am I wrong here??

Since I wasn't definitely sure myself what the poster in question (Menifee) was referring to when he spoke of "grabbing the pool", I sent him a PM, to which he responded as follows:

"I don't really do this anymore, because I learned quickly it is not that profitable. What I mean by the phrase is being the only ticket to have the winning combination. Only really can do this in trifecta, superfecta and pick 3 pools. You have to have small pools (usually less than 6K). What I use to do is buy as many combinations as possible. I was doing this at Australia for awhile in their tri pool and in Charlestown in their super pools. In the Australia tri pool, I would usually box 7-9 horses (210-504) play. I would only do it if there were 14-20 horses entered and I thought the race was extremely wide open. I would look at the pp's and handicap it. I hit a bunch of them - usually for 2-4k depending on the size of the pool - so I was getting approximately 5-1 to 7-1 on my money. But if you miss it or if chalk comes in, it can hurt very quickly. Someone else started doing this in the Australian pools and I stopped doing it because it was cutting my returns and I started losing money. Hope that helps."

Of course, it's nice to have the only winning ticket on an exotic, but I'm still not understanding how you can be assured of that when you have no control over whether other people will bet the same combination also. Can anyone clarify this for me?

[newtothegame]

Since I wasn't definitely sure myself what the poster in question (Menifee) was referring to when he spoke of "grabbing the pool", I sent him a PM, to which he responded as follows:

"I don't really do this anymore, because I learned quickly it is not that profitable. What I mean by the phrase is being the only ticket to have the winning combination. Only really can do this in trifecta, superfecta and pick 3 pools. You have to have small pools (usually less than 6K). What I use to do is buy as many combinations as possible. I was doing this at Australia for awhile in their tri pool and in Charlestown in their super pools. In the Australia tri pool, I would usually box 7-9 horses (210-504) play. I would only do it if there were 14-20 horses entered and I thought the race was extremely wide open. I would look at the pp's and handicap it. I hit a bunch of them - usually for 2-4k depending on the size of the pool - so I was getting approximately 5-1 to 7-1 on my money. But if you miss it or if chalk comes in, it can hurt very quickly. Someone else started doing this in the Australian pools and I stopped doing it because it was cutting my returns and I started losing money. Hope that helps."

Of course, it's nice to have the only winning ticket on an exotic, but I'm still not understanding how you can be assured of that when you have no control over whether other people will bet the same combination also. Can anyone clarify this for me?


yes, this clears things up but i would pose the same question at the end as you have. How would you know other bettors combinations? As all winning tickets share the pool, you would hope to have the only winning ticket. I would gladly take 5-1 or 7-1 on my money at any given time....But I could see how the chalk running in could hurt greatly. Guess this is where you look for the "beatable" chalk...
But thanks greatly overlay for the reply in answering my question...
Paul...aka newtothegame
"without the horse...there is no sport"

[GameTheory]

Of course, it's nice to have the only winning ticket on an exotic, but I'm still not understanding how you can be assured of that when you have no control over whether other people will bet the same combination also. Can anyone clarify this for me?I think that's where the small pools and lots of horses come in. You can't be assured, but you can hope...

[TrifectaMike]

The one I listed earlier.

Horse A: 70%
rest of field: 30%

If horse A does not win, his theoretical chance of running 2nd is now 70% / (100 - ActualWinnersProb).

Then add the chances of winning to the chances of 2nd and see what you get.


Dave

Dave,

I'm a bit confused. How is that formula derived.

Let's make the rest of the field simply Horse B

According to your formula Horse A would have 100% chance of finishing second, add that to his 70% chance of winning and that would equal 170%.

Am I missing something?

Mike

[Overlay]

Let's say that you have this 70% win horse.

What is his chance of losing? 30%, right?

So, if you think of him NOT running 1st or 2nd, it is kind of like losing twice in a row.

That would be 30% x 30% = 9%.

So, if his chance of not running 1st or 2nd is 9% then it must be 91% to place.

I don't think it would be 30% x 30%, because the 70%-to-win horse would have a lower than 30% chance of failing to run second (assuming it didn't win), since the probability of the winner would have to be subtracted from the remaining field probability (as you did below).


Better math would be:

chance of losing=(100%-WinProb)
chance of losing 2nd=100%-(WinProb/(100%-ActualWinnerProb)


Now the available probs are reduced by the amount of the Prob of the actual winner. Lets say it was a 10% horse.

So, the chances of our horse running 2nd are 70%/(100%-10%).
Therefore the chances of our horse NOT running 2nd are
100%-(70%/90%)= 22%

So, the chances of our horse not running 1st or 2nd is 30% x 22% = 93.4%

I agree with 30% x 22%, but doesn't that then make the chance of not running first or second (100-93.4), or 6.6%, rather than 93.4%? Did you mean to say "So, the chances of our horse running 1st or 2nd" instead of "not running 1st or 2nd"?

[Dave Schwartz]

If "our horse" had a 70-out-of-100 chance to win and did not, a horse has now been removed in the quest for 2nd. Thus, his chances of running 2nd are no 70-out-of-100-(less the winner's probability).

See?

[nobeyerspls]

Hi NBP,

I guess you could make a case to bet both. I don't mind betting two horses I like. I do that all the time if the odds are right. I try to make $X per win bet, so I don't have to bet much on a 50-1 to do that.

I guess to answer your question I would go through the process to find fair board odds (the game is easier when I have a good estimate of final odds, so I work hard at that). I would look at the consensus picks and see who is publicly touting who, look at the conventional things people bet to see if the 9-1 warrants tote action, look at exotics and pick 3's. If he is live in all pools and the trainer stats are brutal, programs like Jeff's and Dave's have nothing to like about him, and picks hate him I would dig deeper - there is nothing to show he should be 9-1, so maybe it is inexplicable. If I pop onto betfair and sharpies have the horse 12-13, with action, I know I have missed something and this horse's fair odds might be 10-1. Worth a bet? Maybe, or maybe not, but I would probably be wary of betting big $$ against this horse, and in any event I would know I have not figured this race out. There is no shame in swallowing some pride and say to yourself that you don't know what in the hell is going on. I do it 20 times a day.

I think, as Dave noted, we do not change in racing and we let our ego get in the way. One of the biggest misconceptions, imo, in racing is that the board odds are "the public". Nothing could be further from the truth. 60% of the tote action is made up of the top 5% of bettors. Over 80% of all bets are made from the top 10% of bettors. That means that these odds in the end are determined by the Schwartz's, Platt's, Robert Fischer's and Mike Maloney's of the world. Ignore that at your own peril. They are making the market, and they are not dumb.

Again, it is not a panacea; I am not trippng over stacks of 100's on my way to the kitchen. I just respect the board very much in this game and use it as a strong tool to make my betting decisions.

If you had bet them both you would have cashed a $107 ticket as the longer priced horse won and the 9-1 ran 2nd. Huge exacta and trifecta that would have been missed if the horse that wasn't bet was tossed. I wanted to use a real-time example without redboarding so I used this one from last September (I have had several nice ones since then but I didn't post them in advance).

Fifty or so years ago I was headed for the track with my father who was touting a 5-1 entrant in the 3rd race. As post time approached, the horse was 12-1. He said that he couldn't play it because "they weren't betting it". The horse won and he didn't have it. Since then I ignore all the "theys" out there with a few exceptions. If an otherwise non-descript horse is bet early at my local track you have to look twice at his chances. They do not always win but they usually outperform their recent past performance.

[rrbauer]

Schwartz:
"The biggest challenge without a computer is that, as the odds change you cannot easily change the probabiltiies on the horses to reflect those changes."

Comment:
This may have been handled in another post that I missed, but why would the probabilities change as the odds change? The expected value of the play would change, but not the probabilities....IMHO.

[ryesteve]

Comment:
This may have been handled in another post that I missed, but why would the probabilities change as the odds change? The expected value of the play would change, but not the probabilities....IMHO.
Because no matter how good your algorithms are, you can't escape the fact that the odds board DOES impact the probabilities. In other words, suppose without knowing the odds, you make a horse 3/1; would you still assign this horse the same probability of winning whether or not his actual tote odds were 6/5 or 30/1?

[ranchwest]

Because no matter how good your algorithms are, you can't escape the fact that the odds board DOES impact the probabilities. In other words, suppose without knowing the odds, you make a horse 3/1; would you still assign this horse the same probability of winning whether or not his actual tote odds were 6/5 or 30/1?

You seem to be suggesting that a horse that is live on the tote board should be upgraded in probability.

When I see great disparity between my probability ratings and the tote board, I feel that it is prudent to review my evaluation of the horse, but I don't think that the disparity should necessarily impact my probabilities. Sometimes the public is just wrong.

[Dave Schwartz]

One of the great dichotomies of racing is found in the odds line vs. odds question:

"In order to win we must explot the public error, yet the public is an excellent handicapper."

My favorite way to express this is through an example. Imagine that you are using a program that creates an odds line (or you have created the ine yourself).

In this race you have two horses, both that you have made precisely 2/1.

As the race nears post time, one of the two horses is going off at 1:1 and the other at 30:1.

I like to say, "Only in some dream world are these two horses equal."

Now, I am not questioning that the 30:1 shot is a good bet. Possibly the best bet (for you) of the day, week, or month. But, if you stack 100 of such bets up over a period of time I seriously doubt that they will win 30% of the time.

"The public isn't that wrong."



Conversely, imagine that you have a horse that you have given a 10% chance of winning to that is going off at 1/2. He may be a horrible bet but you have most likely underestimated his probability.

"The public isn't that wrong."

Many of our users do it routinely in every race.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[ryesteve]

Sometimes the public is just wrong.I think Dave addressed this very well. When you see a great disparity, you have to reassess, because it's just not reasonable to expect that any bet has an expected edge in the neighborhood of 1000% profit.

[rrbauer]

One of the great dichotomies of racing is found in the odds line vs. odds question:

"In order to win we must explot the public error, yet the public is an excellent handicapper."

My favorite way to express this is through an example. Imagine that you are using a program that creates an odds line (or you have created the ine yourself).

In this race you have two horses, both that you have made precisely 2/1.

As the race nears post time, one of the two horses is going off at 1:1 and the other at 30:1.

I like to say, "Only in some dream world are these two horses equal."

Now, I am not questioning that the 30:1 shot is a good bet. Possibly the best bet (for you) of the day, week, or month. But, if you stack 100 of such bets up over a period of time I seriously doubt that they will win 30% of the time.

"The public isn't that wrong."



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

It's seldom (maybe once a month or less) that a person will encounter such an opportunity and when he/she does and does not bet the overlay and instead opts for the underlay in defiance of what was defined as a "probabilistic" evaluation then you need to find a new term to define what you're doing, because it's outside the realm of probability and expected value.

That said, you give me 100 30-1 shots that win at just 15% of the time (much less than 30%--your criteria) to back against even-money shots that are underlaid and I will admit that my probability estimate overstated their chance of winning; and, I will laugh all the way to the bank!

[ryesteve]

It's seldom (maybe once a month or less) that a person will encounter such an opportunity and when he/she does and does not bet the overlay and instead opts for the underlay in defiance of what was defined as a "probabilistic" evaluation then you need to find a new term to define what you're doing, because it's outside the realm of probability and expected value.I think you may be misunderstanding. One shouldn't allow the tote to DETERMINE one's probability, but it will have an effect. For example, if you have two horses evaluated at 3/1, and one of them is going off at 6/5 and one of them is going off at 10/1, no one is suggesting that you bet the 6/5 shot; the argument is that despite your odds line, these horses can't have the same probability of winning. In order for your expected values to be in the realm of what's reasonable, perhaps the 6/5 shot should be 9/5 and the 10/1 shot should be 7/1. After such an adjustment, you're still seeing the underlay as an underlay, and the overlay as an overlay; you're just adjusting the degree to which they're underlaid or overlaid, in order to have expected values that are feasible numbers.

[Robert Fischer]

Using the live tote odds to adjust your probability estimate is an interesting idea.
For me it would primarily affect bet size.

Lets say that that there is 1 minute to post.
When I handicapped my low-estimate for the horse is 25%. So I would wager @ >3-1.
He is 10-1 on the tote.

ignoring the tote:
16.5 = low-estimate of FINAL $2 payout
0.25 = low-estimate of win probabilty
2.0625 = value
0.515625 = value*probability
5000 = my bankroll size
$85.00 = my bet size = (0.515*5000*0.033)

adjusting for the tote:
16.5
0.19 = notice that my low-estimate for probability was adjusted for Tote
1.5675 = therefore lower value
0.297825
5000
$49.00 = bet size is then lower

[rrbauer]

I think you may be misunderstanding.

I'm not misunderstanding anything.

One shouldn't allow the tote to DETERMINE one's probability, but it will have an effect.

Gobbledygook!

For example, if you have two horses evaluated at 3/1, and one of them is going off at 6/5 and one of them is going off at 10/1, no one is suggesting that you bet the 6/5 shot; the argument is that despite your odds line, these horses can't have the same probability of winning.

Why can't they? Where does it say that there won't be races when a horse with a .25 chance of winning will have odds of 1-1 and other races where a horse with a .25 chance of winning will have odds of 10-1? Where, in what textbook on probability theory or betting horses, does it say that? I want to see the mathematical proof!

In order for your expected values to be in the realm of what's reasonable, perhaps the 6/5 shot should be 9/5 and the 10/1 shot should be 7/1. After such an adjustment, you're still seeing the underlay as an underlay, and the overlay as an overlay; you're just adjusting the degree to which they're underlaid or overlaid, in order to have expected values that are feasible numbers.

Already you're waffling! Perhaps? adjusting the degree? feasible numbers?

Here's what is what: Either you have a methodology that will develop win-probability estimates or you don't. If you do, you use those estimates and bet into the pools that offer you value. You win some. You lose some.

Now, if you're going to tinker with your win-probability estimates because you fear that you've missed something and the crowd must see something that you don't; or, because your friends around you tell you that there's no way that a 25-1 shot has a 15% chance of winning and represents the best value on the board; or, because you feel better and more confident when the crowd gives confirmation to what you're doing, then that's fine. But don't confuse that behavior with pursuit of probabilities of winning and the resultant expected value.

Understand?

[GameTheory]

Here's what is what: Either you have a methodology that will develop win-probability estimates or you don't. If you do, you use those estimates and bet into the pools that offer you value. You win some. You lose some.Why can't that methodology include an analysis of the tote board? Basically, the tote-board adjusters don't have their win-probability estimates until just before they bet. Anything they have before that is preliminary, but excludes one of their factors, which happens to be the tote board. This is not in conflict with your point of view once you look at it that way, is it?

Now, if you're going to tinker with your win-probability estimates because you fear that you've missed something and the crowd must see something that you don't; or, because your friends around you tell you that there's no way that a 25-1 shot has a 15% chance of winning and represents the best value on the board; or, because you feel better and more confident when the crowd gives confirmation to what you're doing, then that's fine. But don't confuse that behavior with pursuit of probabilities of winning and the resultant expected value.It has nothing to do with fear, but with being smart. Using the tote board can remove bias from your line and easily be the difference between winning and losing (as it was for Bill Benter, who ran with the idea and made millions). How is applying a technique that makes you more money being stupid or fearful? Seems to me this resistance to using the board is in most cases ego-based, not reason-based. IT WORKS. How can you argue with that?

[njcurveball]

Value is a fact of life. Walk onto a car lot and if you see a used car with a book value of $20,000 selling for $10,000, most sharp shoppers run the other way.

The past performances can be analyzed and get you a "book value", but until you see the less than one minute odds there is no assurance something has not been missed that would impact the price.

One of the most overlooked factors is to have a horse UNDER bet, you need one that is OVER bet. Natural 5-1 shots do not go off at 10-1 unless the crowd goes "Big Brown" on the favorite.

[ranchwest]

I think Dave addressed this very well. When you see a great disparity, you have to reassess, because it's just not reasonable to expect that any bet has an expected edge in the neighborhood of 1000% profit.

I know that's generally true, but I'm looking for the race where it isn't true. And, it does happen.

The first race I saw at SA years ago, a horse had an abysmal record in CA but his last start he went down to AC and won for fun at Agua Caliente -- by about 10. Did he find his class or did they solve the puzzle? My pace figures said they solved the puzzle. He goes off at 15/1 and wins for fun again. $5 exacta paid over $400.

The public does pretty good most of the time, but sometimes they go nuts for a horse that is set up to fail and sometimes they ignore a horse that is moving into his own.

Those live action horses might be good, but those hidden gems are better when you can find them.

[GameTheory]

I know that's generally true, but I'm looking for the race where it isn't true. And, it does happen.

The first race I saw at SA years ago, a horse had an abysmal record in CA but his last start he went down to AC and won for fun at Agua Caliente -- by about 10. Did he find his class or did they solve the puzzle? My pace figures said they solved the puzzle. He goes off at 15/1 and wins for fun again. $5 exacta paid over $400.

The public does pretty good most of the time, but sometimes they go nuts for a horse that is set up to fail and sometimes they ignore a horse that is moving into his own.

Those live action horses might be good, but those hidden gems are better when you can find them.I agree with this too -- you don't HAVE to adjust. If you know the reason why the public hates the horse and also the reason you like him -- if it all "makes sense", then no or little adjustment needed. When you really need to reassess the most is when you don't know why the horse is being bet or not being bet.

[ranchwest]

I agree with this too -- you don't HAVE to adjust. If you know the reason why the public hates the horse and also the reason you like him -- if it all "makes sense", then no or little adjustment needed. When you really need to reassess the most is when you don't know why the horse is being bet or not being bet.

Yes, agreed.

[ryesteve]

Gobbledygook!
First off all, calm the f down.

Second of all, I'm not the one who needs to prove this. I'm taking the reasonable position by stating that astronomical ROIs are NOT attainable. So YOU show me ANYONE who can produce selections that generate a 500% ROI, and you will have proven YOUR point that the tote is irrelevant.

[Robert Fischer]

I think adjusting your low-estimate probability for the tote to a small degree is a reasonable idea.

I think in the example I gave on the other page I went from 25% to 19% which is basically going form 3-1 to 4.3-1 as a slight adjustment to the 10-1 tote odds.

I wouldn't be in favor of drastic adjustments. A small adjustment errs on the side of caution, and the only thing it really affects is betsize and risk.


and then an excellent question:

Why can't they? Where does it say that there won't be races when a horse with a .25 chance of winning will have odds of 1-1 and other races where a horse with a .25 chance of winning will have odds of 10-1? Where, in what textbook on probability theory or betting horses, does it say that? I want to see the mathematical proof!
This is important. Value wagering/investing is math-based. Whether you are a left-brained "math" or a right-brain "intuition", there is always the math churning in the background. Probability is working it's magic behind the scenes. So everything has to be logical and mathematically sound.

The easiest way that I can personally comprehend any logic for a small adjustment for the live tote action, is to treat the tote board as a separate factor. Is it true that a horse who looks like a 25% is probably closer to 29% if he is 1-1, and probably closer to 20% if he is 10-1? This is something that a handicapper could look for in his records if he is aware of it. If it is a logical thing for you, or your records show it, then it is like adding an additional factor to your handicapping "formula".

Do I personally adjust from the tote? I make my probability estimates in my head without a numbers based system. I do intuitively knock off a little probability when the odds go UP, however I do not adjust when my horse is bet down.

[ranchwest]

First off all, calm the f down.

Second of all, I'm not the one who needs to prove this. I'm taking the reasonable position by stating that astronomical ROIs are NOT attainable. So YOU show me ANYONE who can produce selections that generate a 500% ROI, and you will have proven YOUR point that the tote is irrelevant.

The tote can't tell you what you know and the tote board doesn't run the race.

The tote can only suggest what you might not know.

If you're a good computer handicapper, you can find circumstances where horses consistently fail and yet are bet. You don't need the tote board to tell you what's going to happen.

[ryesteve]

The tote can only suggest what you might not know.That is PRECISELY the point; since it's suggesting something I might not know, I need to use that information accordingly.

[ranchwest]

That is PRECISELY the point; since it's suggesting something I might not know, I need to use that information accordingly.

The flip side is that if it offers up something you already know, you don't need to use it.

[chickenhead]

I think Dave addressed this very well. When you see a great disparity, you have to reassess, because it's just not reasonable to expect that any bet has an expected edge in the neighborhood of 1000% profit.

I think it is reasonable, so long as you're willing to cope with the knowledge that some of your other bets, that appear equally good, have conversely bad ROI's.

The tote can be and often is VERY wrong on a race by race basis.

That's an accurate description of what actually is, I believe. The fact that using the tote improves results should never be taken to mean that the tote isn't often very wrong in real time. The lack of a stratospheric ROI just means that you need to recognize that you (me/we) are also often very wrong.

[ryesteve]

I think it is reasonable, so long as you're willing to cope with the knowledge that some of your other bets, that appear equally good, have conversely bad ROI's.You're trying to look at ROI on a race-by-race basis after-the-fact. It doesn't work that way. You can't say a 1000% ROI is "attainable" by only counting the races you win.

Let me try this: take all the horses you assess should be around 4/1. Now, divide them into those that end up going off at 2/1 or less and those that end up going off at 10/1 or more. Do you really believe both groups will show the same win%?

[ryesteve]

The flip side is that if it offers up something you already know, you don't need to use it.So tell me, in situations where you perceive you have a 500% edge, are you maintaining a 500% ROI?

[chickenhead]

You're trying to look at ROI on a race-by-race basis after-the-fact. It doesn't work that way.

If the odds on a horse were obviously wrong after the race, they were just as wrong before the race...just not obviously. You are confusing *what actually IS* with what you can reliably predict. They are two completely separate issues. Hardly anything we do has to do with what actually is, it has to do with our (both us and the tote) models of what is, and are subsequently quite often very wrong...which is my entire point.

I have beef with any statement that says the tote is "never" that wrong. The tote is often that wrong, but so are you. You and the tote are often both wrong when you agree with one another, and you're often wrong when you disagree with the tote. And hopefully, the tote is often wrong when it disagrees with you. And you can't tell when any of those is true precisely...which is why you can't have a starospheric ROI....but that is what is actually happening, in real life.



Let me try this: take all the horses you assess should be around 4/1. Now, divide them into those that end up going off at 2/1 or less and those that end up going off at 10/1 or more. Do you really believe both groups will show the same win%?

Uhhh...I never said anything to indicate I thought they would. Read what I'm actually saying, not what you think I'm saying.

[ryesteve]

Uhhh...I never said anything to indicate I thought they would.If you're not saying they would, then you're not saying the tote is irrelevant, then we're not in disagreement.

[chickenhead]

I never said the tote was irrelevant, just that is often wrong. Just like any other factor.

[ryesteve]

Sure we disagree, I was disagreeing with you ;) Nah, you were agreeing with the premise, but disagreeing with the explanation... which must mean my explanations need work :D

[ryesteve]

That's weird... the part of your msg I quoted disappeared, but it doesn't say you edited the msg... cue the Twilight Zone music...

[GameTheory]

That's weird... the part of your msg I quoted disappeared, but it doesn't say you edited the msg... cue the Twilight Zone music...
If you edit in the first 30 seconds or so after posting, it won't say edited. (Or maybe until it gets its first "view" by another person.) I edit practically all of my posts, so it is often a race against time so no one knows that I have...

[ryesteve]

If you edit in the first 30 seconds or so after posting, it won't say edited. (Or maybe until it gets its first "view" by another person.)Yeah, I always thought it was first view... and obviously I viewed it. So I guess it must be time-based after all. I learned something in this thread :D

[chickenhead]

yeah you caught me waffling....I actually opted for the deplete and replace, tho an edit would have worked just as well.

[GameTheory]

yeah you caught me waffling....I actually opted for the deplete and replace, tho an edit would have worked just as well.Delete and replace?! This guy is in another league!

[Dr.SwineSmeller]

I humbly apologize!


If PA wants to delete my posts, go right ahead. Problem solved. :ThmbUp:

I've had a few hundred posts deleted here and there, so you won't be the lone ranger.

Dr. SwineSmeller

[ranchwest]

So tell me, in situations where you perceive you have a 500% edge, are you maintaining a 500% ROI?

My apologies. Please stick with the 1/2 horses that show tote action. You'll be pleased with your results.

[ryesteve]

My apologies. Please stick with the 1/2 horses that show tote action. You'll be pleased with your results.I didn't say I did that. Did I? I do nothing of the kind. But a good job of deflecting the question. So I'll ask it again.

Look over your records. Find all the cases where your line showed that you had an edge of 200% or 300% or 500%... something huge. Now tell me what your ROI was in those races. You'd be doing well if it was 30%. That's because in this set of races, taken as a whole, where the tote was saying your tendency was to overstate your probability of winning, you were.

Am I telling you not to bet overlays? Hardly. Read what I'm saying, and you'll see I'm not. I'm just saying that when your line is telling you that you have 500% overlays, you don't. Any rudimentary analysis of your betting records would tell you that.

[ranchwest]

I didn't say I did that. Did I? I do nothing of the kind. But a good job of deflecting the question. So I'll ask it again.

Look over your records. Find all the cases where your line showed that you had an edge of 200% or 300% or 500%... something huge. Now tell me what your ROI was in those races. You'd be doing well if it was 30%. That's because in this set of races, taken as a whole, where the tote was saying your tendency was to overstate your probability of winning, you were.

Am I telling you not to bet overlays? Hardly. Read what I'm saying, and you'll see I'm not. I'm just saying that when your line is telling you that you have 500% overlays, you don't. Any rudimentary analysis of your betting records would tell you that.

You cannot possibly know that.

I bet very few horses that are at a huge price (over 20/1) and have had excellent returns when I have bet such horses. I only bet such horses when I see something extraordinary.

The reason I make so few of such bets is that I know that those prices generaly wreak of bad investments. I have to have a strong reason to bet big priced horses. However, when I do see such horses, I don't hesitate to pull the trigger.

A rudimentary review of my betting records indicates that most of my bets are just a shuffle game -- money out, same money in. For me, profits come from relatively big scores -- exotics or wins at prices of at least 5/1. Now, if I can just be more selective....

[ryesteve]

I don't disagree with anything that came after "You can't possibly know that", so I guess this is a good time to adjourn.