Question about place/show pools

[dav4463]

I never really look at place/show pools. I just use win odds and sometimes bet to place at big odds. I'm not so great at math!

My question is if a horse for example has 45% of the win pool, but only 22% of the place pool, is this a horse that should be bet to place?

Or, sometimes I notice a horse will be say 2nd in the win pool with around 30% of the money, but will be way down in the show pool with for example 12%. Should that horse be bet to show?

[BlueShoe]

Runners bet like this often have been bet by insider stable money or very informed handicappers;ie,the "smart money" horse.At just about every track today,the out of line place and show pools get filled in the last couple of minutes by players looking for such oddities,and often will become overfilled and thus become very bad bets.For tote watchers,these out of line pool types might still be good win bets.

[Robert Fischer]

I never really look at place/show pools. I just use win odds and sometimes bet to place at big odds. I'm not so great at math!

My question is if a horse for example has 45% of the win pool, but only 22% of the place pool, is this a horse that should be bet to place?

Or, sometimes I notice a horse will be say 2nd in the win pool with around 30% of the money, but will be way down in the show pool with for example 12%. Should that horse be bet to show?

Some online tote feeds actually show an estimated plc and shw payouts.
The problem is that depending on the track there are hundreds to thousands of other dollars (your competition) watching the same pools as you.
Almost all the great "steals" will get at least some money thrown on them and lose value late.

You have to guess what the payouts will be AFTER all your competition plays that money.

A couple weeks ago I was messing around with the Maronas Uraguay simulcast at Laurel park. Very small pools. One of the ml contenders got a hundred to win on it with a minute left making it the favorite. The show pool had about $5 on that horse! Paid about $28 to show.
Tried to duplicate that strategy in future Maronas races and was consistently burned by the late money. :bang:

[dav4463]

Many times I think it is just better to stick with your pick and not worry about odds.

[raybo]

Many times I think it is just better to stick with your pick and not worry about odds.

Most informed handicappers will agree that there must be value on a horse in order to make a profit, unless you are a multi-track, automated bet player who churns lots of dollars per day.

My suggestion would be to look at your long term win % and your average return on those winners. After adjusting for one or 2 huge payouts that skew the average payout, figure your ROI. If your ROI isn't where you want it to be (a positive ROI, the level of which you are satisfied with) then you aren't paying enough attention to the odds (value betting), or your win% is too low which means your selection method needs work.

[podonne]

The dissapearing edge is not anecdotal. Studies on racetrack efficiency have shown profitable betting strategies if you have access to the final pools, but when forced to play at even 1 mtp the edge dissapears.

Course those studies were done at large tracks with high liquiditity. Your results may differ at smaller tracks, but you are limited in how much you can make.

[raybo]

The dissapearing edge is not anecdotal. Studies on racetrack efficiency have shown profitable betting strategies if you have access to the final pools, but when forced to play at even 1 mtp the edge dissapears.

Course those studies were done at large tracks with high liquiditity. Your results may differ at smaller tracks, but you are limited in how much you can make.

I know you're not suggesting that we bet regardless of the odds "at even 1 mtp". What happens after the window closes is beyond our control and requires us to "fudge" the odds at 1 mtp, for example, assuming that the odds may decrease after we place our bet. The odds could also, increase, which is all the better. Decrease or increase, we can only do so much regarding our search for value. If a horse is 3/1 at 1 mtp I assume it will be 5/2 after all the betting is done. If the horse is not a value at 5/2, I don't bet. This is a general example as I don't bet WPS bets anyway. But for those that do, they should make an effort to extract as much value on each bet as they can, don't you think?

[ranchwest]

I never really look at place/show pools. I just use win odds and sometimes bet to place at big odds. I'm not so great at math!

My question is if a horse for example has 45% of the win pool, but only 22% of the place pool, is this a horse that should be bet to place?

Or, sometimes I notice a horse will be say 2nd in the win pool with around 30% of the money, but will be way down in the show pool with for example 12%. Should that horse be bet to show?

Yeah, these days the pools do "correct" quite a bit in the closing seconds. Makes it tough to place a mid-sized wager on uneven pools.

I'd rather look for a top-to-bottom overlay that has a real shot to beat the favorite unless you're content with a small wager.

[dav4463]

I get burned sometimes when a horse I pick as my top contender goes off at too low odds for me to bet.

For the most part though, my selection method picks high odds horses or at least horses I think will be high odds.

I remember one that I liked and he got bet down to 5/2 and I didn't bet at those odds. Then the payoff was $12.00! He went up to 5-1 after I had passed the race! So maybe I just have to live with the few that I bet at 4-1 at 2mtp that end up going off at 5/2 or 2-1.

[ranchwest]

Yeah, it can go both ways. I was betting "blind" a few years back, placing my bets early in the day. There was a horse I was afraid would get bet way down, but I bet more than normal on it anyway. The horse went off at 16-1. I called to get my account balance and actually thought it was a mistake. lol

[podonne]

I know you're not suggesting that we bet regardless of the odds "at even 1 mtp". What happens after the window closes is beyond our control and requires us to "fudge" the odds at 1 mtp, for example, assuming that the odds may decrease after we place our bet. The odds could also, increase, which is all the better. Decrease or increase, we can only do so much regarding our search for value. If a horse is 3/1 at 1 mtp I assume it will be 5/2 after all the betting is done. If the horse is not a value at 5/2, I don't bet. This is a general example as I don't bet WPS bets anyway. But for those that do, they should make an effort to extract as much value on each bet as they can, don't you think?

Sorry, I should've been clearer. This study tried to develop a betting strategy based on the inefficiencies between the win, place, and show pools. If the program was allowed to run its calculation and place it's bets by looking historically at the final values in the pools after the race was over, it was profitable. But if the program was forced to make it's place and show bets at 1 mtp, it was unprofitable.

The authors thoerized that there were large bettors somewhere with fast computers able to place bets seconds before "post" that were betting according to an effeiceint markets algorithm and altering the pools enough to greatly enhance the efficiencies at the last moment, presumably profiting from the activity, but wiping out the smaller players.

[raybo]

Sorry, I should've been clearer. This study tried to develop a betting strategy based on the inefficiencies between the win, place, and show pools. If the program was allowed to run its calculation and place it's bets by looking historically at the final values in the pools after the race was over, it was profitable. But if the program was forced to make it's place and show bets at 1 mtp, it was unprofitable.

The authors thoerized that there were large bettors somewhere with fast computers able to place bets seconds before "post" that were betting according to an effeiceint markets algorithm and altering the pools enough to greatly enhance the efficiencies at the last moment, presumably profiting from the activity, but wiping out the smaller players.

Ok, that makes sense. And, I wouldn't doubt that some of this is going on. There are always those who will figure out how to beat any game.

[Robert Fischer]

A couple weeks ago I was messing around with the Maronas Uraguay simulcast at Laurel park. Very small pools. One of the ml contenders got a hundred to win on it with a minute left making it the favorite. The show pool had about $5 on that horse! Paid about $28 to show.


shows you how a fish story gets started :lol:

http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/433/wpsdi7.jpg
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/9426/wps2eu6.jpg

[Robert Fischer]

oh memory isn't dead yet after all
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2188/wps3vy6.jpg
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/7844/wps4ez5.jpg

[oddsmaven]

My question is if a horse for example has 45% of the win pool, but only 22% of the place pool, is this a horse that should be bet to place?

Not for the reason that you cite...for example, there are horses that are threats to win off a layoff on class "if ready"...if not ready, they may easily run out of the money...so people will bet a horse on top if they perceive a possible clear edge, but not for place and show...a hot first-time starter will generally be bombed to win, but light in place & show...that's because if he's good as suspected, he'll win, and if not the runner they thought, probably out of the money.

Conversely, you have horses that finish in the money often and rarely win because they are not comfortable leading, etc. People bet those types heavy underneath exactas and in place pools but they get a lesser % of win money. As a result, common sense causes these type of distributions to appear and when a horse is low in a certain pool, it is with good reason.

[podonne]

Not for the reason that you cite...for example, there are horses that are threats to win off a layoff on class "if ready"...if not ready, they may easily run out of the money...so people will bet a horse on top if they perceive a possible clear edge, but not for place and show...a hot first-time starter will generally be bombed to win, but light in place & show...that's because if he's good as suspected, he'll win, and if not the runner they thought, probably out of the money.

Conversely, you have horses that finish in the money often and rarely win because they are not comfortable leading, etc. People bet those types heavy underneath exactas and in place pools but they get a lesser % of win money. As a result, common sense causes these type of distributions to appear and when a horse is low in a certain pool, it is with good reason.

This is actually an excellent point. If you are looking for a inefficiency play, you might find one by adjusting the efficiency calculation by some measure that identifies this. Anything other than a pure win v place v show approach might be successful.