Four Contender Selection Software

[crestridge]

A dream software program would be one which has the ability to select 4 top contenders 80-90% of the time. Is this realistic? What would need to be involved in such a software program? Would you need filters such as: track, distance, surface, class--parameters to achieve a high contender selection, maybe 500-1000 parameters--the ability to view and use these parameters on real time races and apply for handicapping purposes. A large data base pre-installed for query? I think the prime "button" would be the "goal" button; maybe other "goal" buttons could be implemented also. Is there such a program available?

[Dick Schmidt]

80-90% in the top 4 isn't that hard. There are several programs that can do it. I used to regularly average 70% in the top 3 for months at a time. A program that can accomplish exactly what you want (and much more) is Dave Schwartz's HSH. I think Dave is out of town this week, but give him a call when he gets back and he can give you all the particulars.


Dick

"One may speak of peace only with those who are peaceful. To talk peace with he who holds a drawn sword is foolish, unless one is unarmed, and then one must talk very fast indeed." - Louis L'Amour

[RichieP]

Trackmaster/Equibase past performances:

Best SR in the last 2 races (comparable dist/surf when possible)

Keep top 4 and anyone within 2 points of the 4th guy.

You will have more winners in that "mix" than you will believe including plenty of price horses.

[llegend39]

A dream software program would be one which has the ability to select 4 top contenders 80-90% of the time. Is this realistic? What would need to be involved in such a software program? Would you need filters such as: track, distance, surface, class--parameters to achieve a high contender selection, maybe 500-1000 parameters--the ability to view and use these parameters on real time races and apply for handicapping purposes. A large data base pre-installed for query? I think the prime "button" would be the "goal" button; maybe other "goal" buttons could be implemented also. Is there such a program available?

Try horsetrackace-they give your 4 selections a race-the top 2 win 50%,top 3 67% and the 4 given 80% and their selections are free. Ive documented this for 14 months Also alot of exactas and tris contained in the four selections.

[crestridge]

Thanks Dick, RichieP, Llegend---Thanks so much for your input; I've only been able to achieve about 70% contender selection (4 horses) and if I can improve a few more percentage points, my results will improve considerably! I'm very grateful for this forum, what a blessing!!


Thanks

Crest

[Kelso]

Keep top 4 and anyone within 2 points of the 4th guy.
How 'bout the other side of this,Rich ... do you use a maximum gap, beyond which you will consider only fewer than 4 contenders?

Thank you.

[Tom Barrister]

According to my database, from the beginning of the year until the end of June (in other words for six months), at all non-bush tracks, HSH's PSR rating would have the winner in the top four horses 77.8% of the time, playing all races.

[RichieP]

I'm curious what the "K" rating in Htr,"JPR" rating in Jcapper and "Prime Power" with Bris get as far as win % top 4. Would anyone have stats on this and be willing to share them?

[JimG]

I'm curious what the "K" rating in Htr,"JPR" rating in Jcapper and "Prime Power" with Bris get as far as win % top 4. Would anyone have stats on this and be willing to share them?

Using the races I have downloaded this year using bris files:

JPR Rank in top 4: 71.48%

Prime Power : 71.85%

[RichieP]

Using the races I have downloaded this year using bris files:

JPR Rank in top 4: 71.48%

Prime Power : 71.85%

:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:
Big thank you Jim!!

[ryesteve]

Using TSN files, and most likely a different set of 2008 races, my numbers look different. From 27,174 races, I've got 21,305 winners with with a Prime Power in the top 4 (78.4%) and 20,502 with a JPR in the top 4 (75.4%). A couple things to keep in mind though: due to ties, there were substantially more horses with a PP rank of 4 or better than there were horses with a JPR in the top 4 (109,894 vs. 107,840). This accounts for a good deal of that 3 point difference. The other thing to keep in mind is that JPR isn't necessarily trying to maximize win%... the nature of its construction can sacrifice wins in favor of ROI; and in this sample, comparing the ROIs of the top 4, JPR was clearly better.

[barn32]

According to my database, from the beginning of the year until the end of June (in other words for six months), at all non-bush tracks, HSH's PSR rating would have the winner in the top four horses 77.8% of the time, playing all races.

How do you make money with this information? Also, what is the average field size? Having the winner in the top four in a seven horse field doesn't say much.

Question: How do the top four favorites do? The top three?

[applebee]

that is a very good stat tom I would imagine a weak subset would kick her up a notch!

[Wizard of Odds]

Top 4 ranked actual odds would easily be over 70%, Top 4 M/L would probably be over 70% also.

Now, can you make money with just this info? NO

[Tom]

HTR K ratings: Ranked 1-4

2008 to June 30

All Races 25,881, 20,217 winners 78%

Field size over 8, 10,428, 7,327 winners 70%

Field size under 9, 15,453, 12,845 winners 83%

[InFront]

I never seen any thing, factor, proprierity ranked formula, etc. that can select 4 horses in every race and win over 80% of all races that run. 90% not in anyone's dreams. Think about it. The 4 post time favorites barely win that much, the 4 morning line odds favorites only win at 76%. So what factor will outperform them? Even Jcappers best ratings such as Qrating, Prating or JPR rating won't do it. HTR's best ratings such as K rating, HTR rating or Fig2 ratings won't do it either. Even the strong Power ratings won't do it. If you find something that can rank and select 4 horses each race and they win over 80% of all races run even regardless of their overall roi keep it to yourself.

[podonne]

That sounds like a bet.

[Tom]

Two thing to keep in mind.....

How many longshots does the 4 contender rule keep in?
Obviously, the top 4 fovs will not have too many.

Short term stats are important. It is not unusual for me to see a factor hitting over 80% top four for short periods. Everything we have seen here is all burger,not specific. When you find short term pockets, jump on them. LAst year, DelMar, top 2 SP horses - for a few weeks, it was a bank with the doors unlocked at night.

[pandy]

A dream software program would be one which has the ability to select 4 top contenders 80-90% of the time. Is this realistic? What would need to be involved in such a software program? Would you need filters such as: track, distance, surface, class--parameters to achieve a high contender selection, maybe 500-1000 parameters--the ability to view and use these parameters on real time races and apply for handicapping purposes. A large data base pre-installed for query? I think the prime "button" would be the "goal" button; maybe other "goal" buttons could be implemented also. Is there such a program available?


I believe Bris and TSN Prime Power accomplishes this.

[podonne]

A dream software program would be one which has the ability to select 4 top contenders 80-90% of the time. Is this realistic? What would need to be involved in such a software program? Would you need filters such as: track, distance, surface, class--parameters to achieve a high contender selection, maybe 500-1000 parameters--the ability to view and use these parameters on real time races and apply for handicapping purposes. A large data base pre-installed for query? I think the prime "button" would be the "goal" button; maybe other "goal" buttons could be implemented also. Is there such a program available?

This is a great approach, but the problem is with 500-1000 parameters you have millions, maybe billions of combinations that have to be individually tracked. This kind of computing power is beyond the means of most handicappers, including myself...

[Tom]

The trouble with too many filters is you never get a sample size worth using. I think this is the big problem with MultiCaps software. Keep the filters to really significant differences. As you get more samples, you can add filters. But a sample of 3 is not to predictive.

I break down by surface, distance (sprint or route) most of the time, but not always, sex, age, and class - maiden and non maiden, maybe stakes.

For example, 3yo, males, allowance/stakes, dirt routes. This is my filter for triple crown preps.

[Light]

Don't understand the point here. Even if you found a program that gets you 80% winners from its top 4 it would still be difficult to make a profit betting them all to win. Your average mutuel win would have to be $10 just to break even.

[barn32]

Don't understand the point here. Even if you found a program that gets you 80% winners from its top 4 it would still be difficult to make a profit betting them all to win. Your average mutuel win would have to be $10 just to break even.
Which is my point. Apparently there is some magical way of combining your wagers to play (or not play) these top four horses profitably.

And no one has answered the question: you're able to put the winner in your top four contenders (whether they be the top four favorites or otherwise) 80% of the time...how do you make money with this information?

I'm probably a nut case, but I don't see any way of taking this knowledge to the bank. You'd have to take it much further. For example: after you've narrowed it down to four contenders, you are then able to select the winner from amongst those four 30% of the time at average odds of 4-1. Now you'd have about a 20% return. But that is something completely unrelated to the idea of having the winner there 80% of time and being able to make money with that knowledge.

If there is a way to do this, could someone please give an example--or two?

[crestridge]

The book, "The Four Quarters Of Horse Investing", answers your question, "how to make a profit from 4 contender selections"---by the way, a very good "read".

[Light]

I get it now. I believe Fiero makes wagering templates for 4 contenders where the winner is in the top 4 80% of the time. Never read the book but have read about this on this site. Fiero occasionally posts here. Once since 2003. Wonder if he's still making a living from the track.

[Speed Figure]

If your top 4 are say 2/1 - 7/2 - 6/1 - 10/1 and I were betting $100. I would bet $40 on the 2/1, $30 on the 7/2, $20 on the 6/1 and $10 on the 10/1. After using this style of betting, your guaranteed to make a profit right?

[raybo]

Which is my point. Apparently there is some magical way of combining your wagers to play (or not play) these top four horses profitably.

And no one has answered the question: you're able to put the winner in your top four contenders (whether they be the top four favorites or otherwise) 80% of the time...how do you make money with this information?

I'm probably a nut case, but I don't see any way of taking this knowledge to the bank. You'd have to take it much further. For example: after you've narrowed it down to four contenders, you are then able to select the winner from amongst those four 30% of the time at average odds of 4-1. Now you'd have about a 20% return. But that is something completely unrelated to the idea of having the winner there 80% of time and being able to make money with that knowledge.

If there is a way to do this, could someone please give an example--or two?

You would have to dutch them to make a profit.

[raybo]

If your top 4 are say 2/1 - 7/2 - 6/1 - 10/1 and I were betting $100. I would bet $40 on the 2/1, $30 on the 7/2, $20 on the 6/1 and $10 on the 10/1. After using this style of betting, your guaranteed to make a profit right?

Profits for this scenario, respectively: $20, $35, $40, $10. But you only hit this 80% of the time, so you'd have to do some more figuring to assure that you would be able to dutch all 4 contenders in every race you wager and still overcome the 20% losses.

Doubtful.

[raybo]

Wonder if anyone has worked out a formula that would figure the correct wager for all 4 horses when you insert the odds for all 4 and the total amount of wager? I'd like to put it in Excel and play around with it a little, using my program's top 4 grades.

[JeremyJet]

Wonder if anyone has worked out a formula that would figure the correct wager for all 4 horses when you insert the odds for all 4 and the total amount of wager? I'd like to put it in Excel and play around with it a little, using my program's top 4 grades.

The Kelly Criterion can tell you how much to bet based on the odds.

Question for the veteran computer handicappers ... what program out there produces the most accurate odds line? Let's cut to the chase. You can keep all the bells & whistles, just give me an accurate odds line and I'll take it from there.

JeremyJet

[raybo]

The Kelly Criterion can tell you how much to bet based on the odds.

Question for the veteran computer handicappers ... what program out there produces the most accurate odds line? Let's cut to the chase. You can keep all the bells & whistles, just give me an accurate odds line and I'll take it from there.

JeremyJet

Just thought someone might have the Excel formula already worked out.

It appears to me that any knowledgeable handicapper can come up with 4 horses, of which the winner will come from those 4 a very large percentage of the time. If I couldn't do that, I'd be wasting my time as a handicapper. Wouldn't you agree?

[Pace Cap'n]

Here is one that does three horses. Says it's $29.95 with a money-back guarantee.

smartbet.homestead.com/ (http://smartbet.homestead.com/)

P.S.: NO wagering system can turn a negative expectation into a positive one.

[Tom]

The premis of the thread.....
A dream software program would be one which has the ability to select 4 top contenders 80-90% of the time.

The idea is not to bet 4 horses and make money it is to get contenders. Then you seperate the contenders, using velocity, the 4 Quarters approach, whatever.

[llegend39]

I never seen any thing, factor, proprierity ranked formula, etc. that can select 4 horses in every race and win over 80% of all races that run. 90% not in anyone's dreams. Think about it. The 4 post time favorites barely win that much, the 4 morning line odds favorites only win at 76%. So what factor will outperform them? Even Jcappers best ratings such as Qrating, Prating or JPR rating won't do it. HTR's best ratings such as K rating, HTR rating or Fig2 ratings won't do it either. Even the strong Power ratings won't do it. If you find something that can rank and select 4 horses each race and they win over 80% of all races run even regardless of their overall roi keep it to yourself.

Ive tracked horsetrackace selections personally for 14 months One of their top 4 wins 80% of the time without question. I tested betting the top 2 to win and its about a break even proposition. I use it for contenders in pick3 and pick 4's. Instead of handicapping 8-10 horses I handicap 4. im using it in conjuntion with the PP's in the Mth survival contest-Im 456/740. At Mth on 6-14 the top pick won the first 8 races. Heres the link:
http://horsetrackace.com/Todays%20T...06142008&tc=MTH (http://horsetrackace.com/Todays%20Tracks/Past%20Picks.htm?d=06142008&tc=MTH).

[ryesteve]

Ive tracked horsetrackace selections personally for 14 months One of their top 4 wins 80% of the time without question.
Sorry, but I'm going to HAVE to question it, based on the last few days of results they have posted:

APX: 24-39 (62%)
BEL: 27-38 (71%)
CDX: 36-44 (82%)
CRC: 39-50 (78%)
HOL: 24-37 (65%)
MTH: 21-41 (51%) OUCH!

Total: 171-249 (69%)

If you have actual hard data for 14 months that shows their top 4 is winning 80%, I'd be curious to see it, since their recent performance wouldn't suggest it's likely.

[llegend39]

Sorry, but I'm going to HAVE to question it, based on the last few days of results they have posted:

APX: 24-39 (62%)
BEL: 27-38 (71%)
CDX: 36-44 (82%)
CRC: 39-50 (78%)
HOL: 24-37 (65%)
MTH: 21-41 (51%) OUCH!

Total: 171-249 (69%)

If you have actual hard data for 14 months that shows their top 4 is winning 80%, I'd be curious to see it, since their recent performance wouldn't suggest it's likely.

Well I cant argue if thats the results Ive tracked PHA MTH BEL There have been days where the top 4 are all ITM-some good ex and tri and super hits. On Belmont Day I followed the selection for the pick 4 and the winner of the first 3 legs was in the top 2 and if I hadnt been an idiot and used Big brown I could have cashed a $17000 pick 4- Oh Well Ive had good results and its still free so you cant beat the price!

[llegend39]

I just checked the weekend at BEL and PHA and CD
BEL-14/20 70%
PHA-13/15 87%
CD-19/22 87% including the winner in the top 4 on Sunday in all 11 races The last race the top picked won and paid $27.40

[cj]

Just out of curiosity, I checked into non-maiden dirt races in my program. I only track the top 3 with my performance ratings.

Dirt
33,782 races, 21,757 winners (64%)
1-9,866 (29%)
2-6,834 (20%)
3-5,057 (15%)

To get to 80% winners, I had to include all horses within 16 points on the Beyer scale. This gave me 27,104 winners (80%).

There were 155,811 horses meeting the criteria out of 263,331 total horses. So you needed to include 59% of the horses to get 80% winners. With an average field size of a hair under 8, it means I would need to include an average of 4.6 horses to reach the goal.

I would imagine any decent program will have similar results.

[ryesteve]

if I hadnt been an idiot and used Big brown I could have cashed a $17000 pick 4
Aside from a hindsighted application of the ALL button, where exactly were you going to get D'Tara from?

[Light]

Wonder if anyone has worked out a formula that would figure the correct wager for all 4 horses when you insert the odds for all 4 and the total amount of wager?

Here's a link to a free dutching calculator. It allows dutching up to 4 horses and a bet size from $20 to $200. I rarely use it anymore. The problem for me with dutching is that I rarely get the odds I think I'm getting. At small tracks,its a nightmare. You think you're getting 3-1 going in the gate,and they pay $4.00. Or you pass on a horse you like cause he's 2-1 as they load and he pays $12. Unless you can lock in your odds,dutching is too unstable.Instead of dutching, I basically use cover bets.

http://www.bettorsolutions.net/Ordering/FreeStuff.html

[barn32]

I don't use software, and I can get the winner in my top 4 80% of the time easily. I even do pretty well with my top 3.

For someone to say their software gets the winner in the top 4 80% of the time or more doesn't prove profitability. In reality, no reasonable human being is going to consistently dutch 4 or even 3 horses race after race, especially in this day and age of not knowing your final prices with any degree of accuracy.

It's theoretically possible to profit this way, but I would never try and attempt it.

If you and/or your software program can do this, then why not just take it a step further and try to pick the winner from your contenders a reasonable amount of the time--reasonable enough to show a profit, which I'm sure is what a lot of handicappers do. They reduce to a certain number of contenders (I'm guessing between two and four) and then try to come up with the winner.

Saying you get the winner in your top four proves absolutely nothing to me. In fact, that's the easy part. Picking the winner consistently from those four contenders is where the skill really lies.

[ryesteve]

I don't use software, and I can get the winner in my top 4 80% of the time easily.Do you at least use software to track and verify that you actually get 80%?

[cj]

Do you at least use software to track and verify that you actually get 80%?

Maybe he is only capping BM and GG.

[BillW]

Maybe he is only capping BM and GG.

Looks like you could beat that at BEL and DEL today. :D

[Fred]

The Kelly Criterion can tell you how much to bet based on the odds.

Question for the veteran computer handicappers ... what program out there produces the most accurate odds line? Let's cut to the chase. You can keep all the bells & whistles, just give me an accurate odds line and I'll take it from there.

JeremyJet

In my opinion CAPSHEET made a good and useful odds line. I used it for years. Unfortunately Mr. Cody passed away and the software went with him.

Freddy

[raybo]

Here's a link to a free dutching calculator. It allows dutching up to 4 horses and a bet size from $20 to $200. I rarely use it anymore. The problem for me with dutching is that I rarely get the odds I think I'm getting. At small tracks,its a nightmare. You think you're getting 3-1 going in the gate,and they pay $4.00. Or you pass on a horse you like cause he's 2-1 as they load and he pays $12. Unless you can lock in your odds,dutching is too unstable.Instead of dutching, I basically use cover bets.

http://www.bettorsolutions.net/Ordering/FreeStuff.html

Appreciate the link, Light!

[raybo]

I don't use software, and I can get the winner in my top 4 80% of the time easily. I even do pretty well with my top 3.

For someone to say their software gets the winner in the top 4 80% of the time or more doesn't prove profitability. In reality, no reasonable human being is going to consistently dutch 4 or even 3 horses race after race, especially in this day and age of not knowing your final prices with any degree of accuracy.

It's theoretically possible to profit this way, but I would never try and attempt it.

If you and/or your software program can do this, then why not just take it a step further and try to pick the winner from your contenders a reasonable amount of the time--reasonable enough to show a profit, which I'm sure is what a lot of handicappers do. They reduce to a certain number of contenders (I'm guessing between two and four) and then try to come up with the winner.

Saying you get the winner in your top four proves absolutely nothing to me. In fact, that's the easy part. Picking the winner consistently from those four contenders is where the skill really lies.

The last paragraph is the absolute truth. If whatever method you use to come up with win contenders doesn't allow you to get the winner a huge percentage of the time maybe you should use another method.

I hit 67% with 3 contenders and 82% with 4, using my spreadsheet program.

As the man said, "that's the easy part".

[Light]

I hit 67% with 3 contenders and 82% with 4, using my spreadsheet program.

And the ones we miss seem to always be neatly inserted to break up our Pk3,4's and 6's.Not sure how Fierro plays his 4 contenders,but I would think being selective in playing Pk3's or pk4's where you can play ALL your contenders,would be more profitable and offer more of a safety net than selecting 1 or 2 of your contenders to win. As mentioned,its not that easy to seperate contenders.

Part of what I'm focusing on now is to note,what horses seem to slip by my contender list.In other words,what areas am I weak in. One area I noticed was first time turfers. But I've found a pattern to isolate the ones that seem to win and caught 2 out of 3 of them on a Belmont card a week or so ago,when I normally would not pick them. Another type of contender that has eluded me is horses with long layoffs,come back and run a so so race,then pop. In both cases,the speed numbers these horses earned is either artificially low or non existant so most programs and spreadsheets will not point to them as contenders. I now make asterisks or notes when I see these types of horses,for further analysis.

[barn32]

Do you at least use software to track and verify that you actually get 80%?

No, just a spreadsheet. (OK, I guess that is software.)

[Kelso]

Instead of dutching, I basically use cover bets.Light,
What is a "cover bet?"

Thank you.

[Light]

Light,
What is a "cover bet?"

I'm sure you are aware of them. If I'm alive in the final leg of a pk3 or a pk4 and there is a horse or 2 I left off the ticket that I feel could beat me,I may "cover",my bet by betting the horse(s) I'm afraid of. Sort of like buying "insurance"when playing Blackjack.I'll usually put enough on them to not take away significantly from the potential profit of my pk3 or pk4 payoff. But enough to feel like a consolation prize should they beat me.

[njcurveball]

The K rating in HTR is a good contender selector, but even with that you would be doing your wallet wrong just sticking to the top 4. Below are the number of winners and K rank out of 61,870 races in my database.

48,038/ 61,870 is a very impressive 77.6% which includes all races and all field sizes. But look at the average prices of the horses ranked 5 and higher! Even horizontal bettors need those bombs to make a profit!

There were some sartin players getting over 60% winners with 2 horses and still no making money. The K rank has a max of 9 so many horses 9 or more are included in that rank.

The betting favorite with a lower avg price did even better. 81.4% in the top 4! The trick is not getting 80%, the trick is getting 80% which includes juicy mutuels to show a profit. :ThmbUp:

Even smarter is only playing into races where your opinion has shown to be profitable and not worrying about this. :ThmbUp:

K rank total wins avg $$
1 18723 5.59

2 12777 7.93

3 9460 10.27

4 7078 13.46 (48038)

5 5187 17.89

6 3558 23.96

7 2295 30.49

8 1333 40.97

9 1207 57.11

Just for comparison below is a table by betting choice

RODD tot wins AVG$$
1 22353 4.74
2 12718 7.73
3 9021 10.69
4 6276 14.71 (50368)
5 4624 20.67
6 2894 28.65
7 1815 39.73
8 1061 53.35
9 512 70.90
10 230 92.14
11 78 109.31
12 25 129.94
13 3 110.26
14 1 129.60

[raybo]

And the ones we miss seem to always be neatly inserted to break up our Pk3,4's and 6's.Not sure how Fierro plays his 4 contenders,but I would think being selective in playing Pk3's or pk4's where you can play ALL your contenders,would be more profitable and offer more of a safety net than selecting 1 or 2 of your contenders to win. As mentioned,its not that easy to seperate contenders.

Part of what I'm focusing on now is to note,what horses seem to slip by my contender list.In other words,what areas am I weak in. One area I noticed was first time turfers. But I've found a pattern to isolate the ones that seem to win and caught 2 out of 3 of them on a Belmont card a week or so ago,when I normally would not pick them. Another type of contender that has eluded me is horses with long layoffs,come back and run a so so race,then pop. In both cases,the speed numbers these horses earned is either artificially low or non existant so most programs and spreadsheets will not point to them as contenders. I now make asterisks or notes when I see these types of horses,for further analysis.

I have conditional formatting in my spreadsheet that highlights 2nd race after a layoff so I don't miss it, along with other miscellaneous spot plays.

[Light]

I love 2nd races off a layoff . But the ones I'm talking about are a bit trickier in that they are off 6 months to a year,come back with a so so race and then take another break of a month and a half to 2 1/2 months off. The repeated break in action and poor return race makes them look like they still havent recuperated from whatever is ailing them and they slip by one's contender list and pay double digits. I've seen this pattern busting up my plays enough to have to take a closer look at these types when handicapping.

[Jeff P]

By way of comparison here is how Bris Prime Power Rating and JCapper's QRating fared (all surfaces all distances) for approximately 27,600 races that I have in my own calendar year 2007 database:


By: QRating Rank


Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -6259.50 55198.00 0.8866 8574 27599 .3107 2.5367
2 -8069.00 55196.00 0.8538 5662 27598 .2052 1.6752
3 -10189.60 55194.00 0.8154 4086 27597 .1481 1.2090
4 -11361.20 55138.00 0.7939 3159 27569 .1146 0.9357

5 -13195.10 54536.00 0.7580 2301 27268 .0844 0.6890
6 -14277.50 51322.00 0.7218 1644 25661 .0641 0.5231
7 -15073.80 43552.00 0.6539 1045 21776 .0480 0.3919
8 -11122.40 33096.00 0.6639 614 16548 .0371 0.3030
9 -5897.70 22820.00 0.7416 377 11410 .0330 0.2698
10 -5444.40 14758.00 0.6311 201 7379 .0272 0.2224
11 -2907.60 7826.00 0.6285 104 3913 .0266 0.2170
12 -2571.10 4216.00 0.3902 27 2108 .0128 0.1046
13 -526.10 760.00 0.3078 5 380 .0132 0.1074
14 -306.00 382.00 0.1990 1 191 .0052 0.0428
15 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
16 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
17 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
18 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
19+ -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000



By: Prime Power Rank

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -8255.90 55802.00 0.8521 8670 27901 .3107 2.5374
2 -9301.80 56414.00 0.8351 5656 28207 .2005 1.6373
3 -9320.70 56810.00 0.8359 4144 28405 .1459 1.1913
4 -11007.60 56688.00 0.8058 3083 28344 .1088 0.8882

5 -13127.50 56114.00 0.7661 2323 28057 .0828 0.6761
6 -15500.10 51954.00 0.7017 1588 25977 .0611 0.4992
7 -13876.20 43166.00 0.6785 1037 21583 .0480 0.3923
8 -10256.80 32114.00 0.6806 636 16057 .0396 0.3234
9 -7832.30 21432.00 0.6346 337 10716 .0314 0.2568
10 -5337.80 13072.00 0.5917 187 6536 .0286 0.2336
11 -1227.50 6466.00 0.8102 99 3233 .0306 0.2500
12 -1656.40 3124.00 0.4698 32 1562 .0205 0.1673
13 -341.50 570.00 0.4009 5 285 .0175 0.1433
14 -154.90 264.00 0.4133 3 132 .0227 0.1856
15 -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000
16 -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000
17 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
18 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
19+ -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000


-jp

.

[raybo]

Does anyone have data on win% of top 4 M/L odds in races with 8 or fewer entries?

[njcurveball]

Does anyone have data on win% of top 4 M/L odds in races with 8 or fewer entries?


I can assure they win 100% of the time in fields of four or less. :jump:

[raybo]

I can assure they win 100% of the time in fields of four or less. :jump:

LOL

[raybo]

Does anyone have data on win% of top 4 M/L odds in races with 8 or fewer entries?

Seems like I got information from somewhere that in races of 8 or fewer entries, the winner comes from the top 4 M'L about 80% of the time.

Can anyone verify this in their DB?

If so, this would seem to be something that would lend itself to "Dutching" the top 4 M/L horses and possibly allow the wagerer to win small profits longterm, if, when figuring the dutching $, one hedged a little. In other words, to protect oneself from late money lowering the actual payouts, say when a horse is at 5/2 at 1 MTP, figure his dutching odds at 2/1. If you were to do this for all 4 dutched horses then you would come closer to having the finish odds/payouts right.

[njcurveball]

Seems like I got information from somewhere that in races of 8 or fewer entries, the winner comes from the top 4 M'L about 80% of the time.

Can anyone verify this in their DB?

If so, this would seem to be something that would lend itself to "Dutching" the top 4 M/L horses and possibly allow the wagerer to win small profits longterm.


I can verify this when I get home, but dutching the top 4 will not yield the profits you are "gold mining".

Probably the percentages are close to the following

5 horse fields 93%
6 horse fields 88%
7 horse fields 83%
8 horse fields 80%

Let's say you have typical win prices of $4, $6, $8, $10. The $4 horse will win over 33% of the time and the $10 horse will win a lil over 10% of the time.

It is very hard to show a profit just betting two of these top four choices. Using all four will certainly push you very close to the track take.

Look at it this way

#1 choice loses 10%
#2 choice loses 12%
#3 choice loses 14%
#4 choice loses 16%

Just because the winner is within these four 80%, it does not make it profitable. No dutching scheme in the world could turn a loss of 10% into a profit in the long run.

[raybo]

I know, for a fact, when a track is running normally on a particular day, that if one can figure which horses will be in the first 4 positions at the stretch call, the winner comes from these 4 horses a huge % of the time. But then, figuring stretch positions is as hard as figuring the winner, at least for me anyway.

[Tom]

I have HTR K ratings winning 67% top 2 in 5 horse fileds, all burger, and beating take out.

I had two short term plays at Hollywood - top 2 of this rating were hitting 63% and showing 10% profits on the scond rated horse and 23% profit on the top.
The other was hitting 56% top 2 and showing 33% profint on the top rated and a loss of 1% on the second rated.

Short term stuff is nice if you catch it while it is happening. I crushed some races for three weeks, now it's gone and I have nothing of interest right now. But for three weeks, I was cashing on a unique occurrence that may never come back and will never show up in long term stats.

[raybo]

I can verify this when I get home, but dutching the top 4 will not yield the profits you are "gold mining".

Probably the percentages are close to the following

5 horse fields 93%
6 horse fields 88%
7 horse fields 83%
8 horse fields 80%

Let's say you have typical win prices of $4, $6, $8, $10. The $4 horse will win over 33% of the time and the $10 horse will win a lil over 10% of the time.

It is very hard to show a profit just betting two of these top four choices. Using all four will certainly push you very close to the track take.

Look at it this way

#1 choice loses 10%
#2 choice loses 12%
#3 choice loses 14%
#4 choice loses 16%

Just because the winner is within these four 80%, it does not make it profitable. No dutching scheme in the world could turn a loss of 10% into a profit in the long run.

Maybe I'm on the wrong track here but, if the top 4 ML losses are what you say they are, wouldn't you take the average losses of all 4 and compare it to the 20% total losses of the top 4 as a group? The average of the losses you stated is 13%. That's 7% better than the 20% average losses of the group as a whole, in 8 horse fields for example. I realize these are only estimations of the actual losing percentages at this time.

There are some scenarios where one cannot "dutch" the top 4 ML, depending on the odds of those 4 horses. How would you figure out if the 80% win rate (in 8 horse fields) will average enough profit to overcome the $ losses in the remaining 20% that you will lose, assuming the same total bet size? It seems that the first step would be to hedge the "dutch" in order to cover yourself in cases where some of these horses pay less than the odds available when the dutch wager was placed.

Maybe I'm all wet in my "off the top of my head" thinking!

[njcurveball]

It seems that the first step would be to hedge the "dutch" in order to cover yourself in cases where some of these horses pay less than the odds available when the dutch wager was placed.



There really is no first step. If you have four slot machines all returning 90%, putting coins in all four will not lead to profits.

As a general rule, the top 2 choices will take the most late money. A four horse dutch would have to waste too much money on these two choices, so anything won on the other two would be minimal.

Look at the prices of $5, $7, $9, $11 typically for the first 4 choices.

Now look at a dutch where you bet $10 (return of $25), $8 (return of $28), $6 (return of $27), and $5 (return of $27.50).

With simple bets you have put in $29 and cannot even get that back. Covering four horses is near impossible to make money unless you toss the favorite or play into very large fields.

The problem you need to figure out if you continue this thinking is hOW do you dutch those four to win enough to cover losses 1 out of 5 times and still make a profit?

The way to profits is not embracing the crowd, but going the other way. You probably would be better concentrating on the horses who are NOT in the top four if you care more about profit than cashing tickets.

Jim

[John]

Tom, There was a guy named Green, that had something called HOG. I think he showed a profit using his dutch method with 4 horses

:) :) :)

[lsosa54]

Tom, There was a guy named Green, that had something called HOG. I think he showed a profit using his dutch method with 4 horses

:) :) :)

Don't know if he showed a profit but his name was George Green and the software I think was Hedgehog. I think he was down in San Diego but I'm not sure he's still around.

[raybo]

Tom, There was a guy named Green, that had something called HOG. I think he showed a profit using his dutch method with 4 horses

:) :) :)

Appears to me that in races that can be dutched using a hedge on the odds, there would, indeed, be potential for long term profits. Not that I would actually use one, I'm still a superfecta only bettor. But for those who make win wagers it's an interesting idea.

[raybo]

There really is no first step. If you have four slot machines all returning 90%, putting coins in all four will not lead to profits.

As a general rule, the top 2 choices will take the most late money. A four horse dutch would have to waste too much money on these two choices, so anything won on the other two would be minimal.

Look at the prices of $5, $7, $9, $11 typically for the first 4 choices.

Now look at a dutch where you bet $10 (return of $25), $8 (return of $28), $6 (return of $27), and $5 (return of $27.50).

With simple bets you have put in $29 and cannot even get that back. Covering four horses is near impossible to make money unless you toss the favorite or play into very large fields.

The problem you need to figure out if you continue this thinking is hOW do you dutch those four to win enough to cover losses 1 out of 5 times and still make a profit?

The way to profits is not embracing the crowd, but going the other way. You probably would be better concentrating on the horses who are NOT in the top four if you care more about profit than cashing tickets.

Jim

Your example is not a dutch wager. In a dutch wager you are guaranteed to make a profit if any of your selections hit. All races cannot be dutched. Also, if you hedge the odds on the dutch and some of the horses' odds go up after your wager is placed and one of them hits, you make more profit than on a straight dutch.

[njcurveball]

Your example is not a dutch wager. In a dutch wager you are guaranteed to make a profit if any of your selections hit. All races cannot be dutched. Also, if you hedge the odds on the dutch and some of the horses' odds go up after your wager is placed and one of them hits, you make more profit than on a straight dutch.


Here are the first 5 races from Belmont today, tell me how you would dutch them to make a profit?

Race 1 : 6-5 (won $4.3), 7-2, 4-1, 6-1

Race 2: 9-5 (won $5,70), 5-2, 5-2, 7-1

Race 3: 3-5, 4-1 (won $10.20), 5-1, 5-1

Race 4: 6-5, 3-1 (won $8.80), 4-1, 5-1

Race 5: 2-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-1 (all lost)

So there you have 80% winners in the top 4. If you can dutch these 20 horses (so you make money no matter who wins) and still make a profit, you are a mathematical genius! :ThmbUp:

[Light]

NJ

Using the dutching calculator I gave out ,it warns you (when you enter the values given) that you will not make a profit dutching any of those 1st 4 races. So it does not even calculate how much to bet. In the 5th leg you will only break even if one of your horses wins,so its a pass.

Apparently Dave Schawrtz has a "Monty Hall" system that he claims will make a profit if you can pick 62% winners from your top 3 picks.I believe most here can pick 2 out of 3 with their top 3 contenders. I dont believe its a dutching method but narrows the contenders down to one horse. Says he has a book coming out around Christmas time. We shall see.

Personally I think its good to get your 3 or 4 contenders down to 2(for win betting,more breathing room in pk3's and pk4's). Narrowing down contenders is hard,but in some cases can be easy when oversights are noticed like no workouts in almost a month (unless trainer has done this in the past) or 3 of your contenders have high percentage trainers and the 4th is under 5% or one has a no win type of jockey.(Yes I've been burned by that elimination method in the past. I don't use that criteria in maiden races as that elimination factor is not as effective in a field of non winners). There are many more elimination factors for contenders,its just a question of studying the percentages of elimination factors that pay.Sort of like the percentage edge a blackjack player uses by card counting to know when and how much to bet.

[njcurveball]

NJ

Using the dutching calculator I gave out ,it warns you (when you enter the values given) that you will not make a profit dutching any of those 1st 4 races.


FINALLY! Someone is getting the point! :ThmbUp:

[ezrabrooks]

Dutch three horses for a profit..and a break even on the favorite.

[raybo]

Here are the first 5 races from Belmont today, tell me how you would dutch them to make a profit?

Race 1 : 6-5 (won $4.3), 7-2, 4-1, 6-1

Race 2: 9-5 (won $5,70), 5-2, 5-2, 7-1

Race 3: 3-5, 4-1 (won $10.20), 5-1, 5-1

Race 4: 6-5, 3-1 (won $8.80), 4-1, 5-1

Race 5: 2-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-1 (all lost)

So there you have 80% winners in the top 4. If you can dutch these 20 horses (so you make money no matter who wins) and still make a profit, you are a mathematical genius! :ThmbUp:

The first 4 races are not "dutchable". In the 5th, if you dutched the 4 horses you listed ($50 total bet, note that the individual dutch bets have to be rounded off to whole dollars so the actual total bet may be slightly more or less than your normal total bet, in this case $51), and one of those 4 had won, the payouts would have been (actual total bet is $51 due to rounding to whole dollars): $54, $52.50, $54, $54 -----the individual bets would have been: $18, $15, $9, $9 --- your profit would have been $3, $1.50, $3, $3.

As I stated earlier, all races are not dutchable. Low priced favorites tend to make them non-playable.

[njcurveball]

the individual bets would have been: $18, $15, $9, $9 --- your profit would have been $3, $1.50, $3, $3.

.

So if you bet $51 to win $3 you make $24 for your eight winning bets. Then you lose $100 for the two losers so you wind up betting $500 and lose $76. Which is pretty much the same 15% you lose if you flat bet all of them.

You cannot take four losing bets and dutch them and make them a winning bet in the long run.

I really do not know what you are looking for, but how could the 80% top 4 winning be a factor if you are not going to play the races that sample is based upon?

If a $3 profit for your $50 is what you think is a WIN, show betting on 1-9 shots may be a much better bet for you. :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

So if you bet $51 to win $3 you make $24 for your eight winning bets. Then you lose $100 for the two losers so you wind up betting $500 and lose $76. Which is pretty much the same 15% you lose if you flat bet all of them.

You cannot take four losing bets and dutch them and make them a winning bet in the long run.

I really do not know what you are looking for, but how could the 80% top 4 winning be a factor if you are not going to play the races that sample is based upon?

If a $3 profit for your $50 is what you think is a WIN, show betting on 1-9 shots may be a much better bet for you. :ThmbUp:

First of all, I would not have played the first 4 races because they could not be dutched. I would have played the 5th race and, in that case, would have lost $51. We already know that we will have 20% losers. It's just a loss, like any other loss, dutched or not. I'm not suggesting that you can play all races. You would have to wait until a race is dutchable, to play it. Also I haven't researched this dutching scenario to see if the 80% wins will overcome the 20% losses, I am merely exploring the possibility of using a dutching system with the top 4 M/L horses (in races that can be dutched).


This is all hypothetical, njcurveball, I didn't invent dutching, just messing with it as part of this thread. If you want to be all negative about something you obviously have already determined "can't be done", then please pick on someone else because I personally believe that if you believe, with all your heart, that something can't be done, then , in your case. you're right.

[njcurveball]

Also I haven't researched this dutching scenario to see if the 80% wins will overcome the 20% losses, I am merely exploring the possibility of using a dutching system with the top 4 M/L horses (in races that can be dutched).


.

I guess if you want to believe you can walk on water and people tell you that you are going to fall in and drown, you will cry about that as well.

I take all posts on here as valid since I learn a lot from contrary ideas. I then look at the "reality" of them, challenge the idea and see if there is something I can learn.

Most people, like yourself, simply want to "wish" a "system" to work. Your premise (and a valid and true one) is that the top 4 choices win 80%. BUT if you play only 1 race in 5 where that premise was computed, how would you know the top 4 win 80% in the 5th case?

Dutching 4 horses may be a viable strategy in races where the top 2 favorites have an 80% chance of running out. Dutching the top 4 horses on a steady basis is NEVER a viable strategy. And dutching 4 horses who show flat bet losses will also NEVER show a win.

Sorry I had to burst your bubble on the way to lifelong riches. I was hoping you actually had some good ideas. I will leave you to your "high hopes" now. :ThmbUp:

[podonne]

Using the Morning Line isn't likley to work because with such a simple strategy someone has a computer somewhere watching this and if it happens they will bet it to unprofitability

Instead of dutching, I'd suggest a monte carlo analysis coupled with an independent evaluaion of each horses odds. Monte carlo can give you a wider dispersion of bets on more horses and using an independent evaluation means (by definition) you aren't acting on the same information as some guy's computer. A race is then betable when the median return is over some established level and the standard deviation is within acceptable risk tolerances.

[Jeff P]

The better your ability to select contenders the better your starting point and the better your chances for success. But blindly dutching your top X contenders in each race is not the path to long term profits.

IMHO, the real key lies in understanding that your top X contenders are not created equal. Some have more hidden positives going for them than others. Every race is unique.

IMHO a far better strategy than dutching is to pick your spots in a disciplined manner:

Wait for only those races where one of your top contenders has something going for it that makes it a legit threat to win the race outright. Even better if the public makes another horse the favorite in the same race. Pull the trigger in those situations only. Otherwise sit on your hands.


-jp

.

[barn32]

Sorry I had to burst your bubble on the way to lifelong riches. I was hoping you actually had some good ideas. I will leave you to your "high hopes" now. :ThmbUp:
Maybe we should all purchase HTR, and then we can make six figures a year like you.

[njcurveball]

Maybe we should all purchase HTR, and then we can make six figures a year like you.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but purchasing a piece of software is not going to make a 4 horse dutch of the favorites a winning proposition.

I have won with many different tools, but I never discuss my income. Makng 6 figures a year is a pretty nice to be, hope you get there someday. :ThmbUp:

Jim

[podonne]

I think there's a mathematical answer to this question. There is some number that wou can measure that would indicate that a 4-horse dutch would be profitable at 80% win rate.

Something like:
-Total % of the pool represented by the horses in the dutch (very small amount would indicate profits)
-Average odds of horses in the dutch (high average odds would indicate profits)

I was trying to do the math, but its actually a bit difficult to wrap your head around.

[BeatTheChalk]

Don't know if he showed a profit but his name was George Green and the software I think was Hedgehog. I think he was down in San Diego but I'm not sure he's still around.

I can not believe my Eyes @ @ George Green !! Years ago .. George would
stay up all nite and all day. I could call him anytime...he was awake..doing
something. And this is over 20 25 years ago. I know he did a ton of work
with the original Apple Computers. Wonder if he is still around. Nicest guy
on the planet

[raybo]

I guess if you want to believe you can walk on water and people tell you that you are going to fall in and drown, you will cry about that as well.

I take all posts on here as valid since I learn a lot from contrary ideas. I then look at the "reality" of them, challenge the idea and see if there is something I can learn.

Most people, like yourself, simply want to "wish" a "system" to work. Your premise (and a valid and true one) is that the top 4 choices win 80%. BUT if you play only 1 race in 5 where that premise was computed, how would you know the top 4 win 80% in the 5th case?

Dutching 4 horses may be a viable strategy in races where the top 2 favorites have an 80% chance of running out. Dutching the top 4 horses on a steady basis is NEVER a viable strategy. And dutching 4 horses who show flat bet losses will also NEVER show a win.

Sorry I had to burst your bubble on the way to lifelong riches. I was hoping you actually had some good ideas. I will leave you to your "high hopes" now. :ThmbUp:

Ok, you say it can't be done so I guess that's gospel. I'm not looking for "lifelong riches" from this dutching thing. Just merely exploring possibilities. If you'd read many of my other posts on PA you'd know I bet superfectas strictly, and do quite well, as you would know if you'd read the thread where I posted my Brisbet account activity. It just riles me when someone comes on here and flatly states that something can't be done and then don't go on to produce facts to back it up, facts that are true in all cases forever.

Again, you didn't burst my bubble, I'm just messing around with this idea, with no intentions of using it myself. Maybe someone else reading the thread might get something from it.

[jhilden]

All races for the past 6 + years = about 341195 races. For the top 4 win %:

Public Choice = 81.56 % $Net of $1.61
Morning Line = 79.56 % $Net of $1.59
PSR* = 76.49 % $Net of $1.66

*Projected Speed Rating in HSH

[John]

All races for the past 6 + years = about 341195 races. For the top 4 win %:

Public Choice = 81.56 % $Net of $1.61
Morning Line = 79.56 % $Net of $1.59
PSR* = 76.49 % $Net of $1.66

*Projected Speed Rating in HSH

Could you explain your workout a little better. When you say Net of $ is that a plus or minus.

Thanks
:) :) :)

[Overlay]

$1.61 and $1.59 mean that for every $2.00 bet, an average of $1.61 and $1.59 were received back (net losses of 19.5% and 20.5%, respectively). Jhilden is saying that, if you bet the same amount on every public favorite among the top four w% horses, you would end up with a net loss of 19.5% of your bankroll. Betting the same amount on every morning line favorite among the top four would lose 20.5%. Betting the horse among the top four with HSH's top projected speed rating would lose 17%.

[Overlay]

Betting the horse among the top four with HSH's top projected speed rating would lose 17%.

What I meant to say on that last one was that if you bet the same amount on each horse that was among the top four w% horses in a race, and that also had the best HSH projected speed rating of any horse in that race, you would lose 17%.

[Inglewood Flamingo]

I purchased Hedgehog from him a few years back. It will not turn losses into profits but it is one of the better dutching tools I have come accrosss. His website has some nice detailed examples:

http://www.crowncity.com/speedplus/

[Light]

This thread has rekindled my interest in dutching for win betting.Personally think pk3's and 4's which are really a form of dutching,have a much better ROI than straight win dutching. So this weekend I used the dutching calculator in the Dmr handicapping contest which is WPS betting only. The contest gives you $100 a day play money to bet the designated race. I use the entire amount to bet. Basically I dutched my 2 picks Saturday which turned out to be the 2 chalk.My second choice won (went off as favorite) and the dutch netted $50. Normally I would have bet my first choice in the contest and lost the entire $100. So that's a $150 swing.Yesterday I ended up not being able to seperate 3 horses who turned out to be the 3 chalk. So I dutched all 3 which ended up having the longest price of the 3 win it. Again it was a profit of $50. Betting my top pick would have resulted in a break even return as he ran second and I normally would bet WP. So for the weekend it was a $200 swing. Instead of -$100,it was +$100. I know this thread is about 4 horse dutching,but my point is

A) Normally you are not going to have 4 horses to dutch and
B) Dutching can be quite profitable if you also consider the total swing not just the net ROI (i.E.$-$100 not dutching to +$100 dutching),.