Value-is an uderlay and overlay?

[Tom]

WE have talked a lot about overlays but how about the underlay for no apparent reason? I see tis a lot-three or four horses pretty evenly matched, all with similar Beyers, same class,no jock or trainer stickouts, yet c ouple will be 5-2,7-2, or 3-1, and then one is 7-5?
Last race it was 3-1, no big move, just comparable performance of maybe even got beat by a couple of these today.
Why is this horse getting so mych money? Is it that "smart money" we have heard about, is it the backstretch getting on the juice of the day, or what?
Logic tells you to take the longest price amoung the contenders, but the underlay wins so many tieme it is hard not to bet it. I like a good price, but I like to bet also, and if I pass all of these I get not action, or worse, a loser. I know in the long run you are supposed to win if you only bet overlays, but that assems you bet every day and never miss the ovverlays. I can't play every day nor would I want to-then it's a job and the benefits stink. My question is, if there is no reason for the low odds, is that in itself a reason to make the bet?
Tom

[GR1@HTR]

Overlay and Underlay...On the limited testing I have done, and I do mean limited...The best value is from an ROI standpoint is when the horse is about 1.25 times the MLO. In other words, if the MLO is 4-1, a good bet (ROI wise) might be if the horse goes off at 5-1. A 4-1 horse that goes off at 12-1 is not a good bet from an ROI standpoint. Truth is that 4-1 MLO going off at 2-1 is going to win a lot more than 4-1 MLO going off at 4-1. Sad but true...

To be honest, I have become a better better/wager this year vs last year because I have be who I have thought was going to win...instead of betting the best value...Which is contrary to most books...Tom Walters has a good wagering book on exotic formulas that I use that has also aided me quite a bit. Allows me to wager on the most likely winner and best value on top of exotics....

[Jake]

GR1,

Good post. I have a friend who says he's learned that he has to bet the horse that's likely to win, not the horse he would like to win. Obvious but mentally very different. Also, glad to see you mention the Walters' book. I found it good as well.

B. Meadows has already posted here that a ML 4-1 horse going off at 2-1 wins long term roughly at the 2-1 odds rate; while a ML 4-1 going off at 4-1 wins rougly as the 4-1 rate. What I do is look for a betdown (or within 1/2 point, which is within your guidelines) on any horse I'm looking to bet below 3-1, but I ignore betting action totally on any horse 5-1 or above. Horses that have been cut in half in odds that I did't have as a contender in a race usually pulls me out of that race.

Originally posted by GR1
Overlay and Underlay...On the limited testing I have done, and I do mean limited...The best value is from an ROI standpoint is when the horse is about 1.25 times the MLO. In other words, if the MLO is 4-1, a good bet (ROI wise) might be if the horse goes off at 5-1. A 4-1 horse that goes off at 12-1 is not a good bet from an ROI standpoint. Truth is that 4-1 MLO going off at 2-1 is going to win a lot more than 4-1 MLO going off at 4-1. Sad but true...

To be honest, I have become a better better/wager this year vs last year because I have be who I have thought was going to win...instead of betting the best value...Which is contrary to most books...Tom Walters has a good wagering book on exotic formulas that I use that has also aided me quite a bit. Allows me to wager on the most likely winner and best value on top of exotics....

[Rick Ransom]

I've found that I can either bet all of my top rated horses at morning line odds of 4-1 or more or all of them going off at 3-1 actual odds or more. It comes out about the same either way and if I use MLO, I don't need to monitor odds all day long. I can do a little better if I adjust for scratches, but usually it's not too significant unless the morning line favorite scratches.

Trying to calculate an accurate odds line and looking for overlays is pretty difficult. I think you would need a different calculation for each track because the predictability of any ratings scheme seems to vary from track to track. And if you really want an accurate odds line you have to include actual odds in your calculation because they do contain some information not available to you.

What you really want is a "dumb money" line to compare against and morning line odds is about as good as anything. Another thing to try is earnings. This information is available to those with only a program, and a horse with other good factors but low average earnings is a better bet than one with high average earnings.

[hurrikane]

I spent a lot of time betting value only to see the horse I thought had the best chance come in and leave me frustrated.

I believe if you can't bet the horse you feel is the best then don't bet at all.

In your example Tom you say 4 evenly matched horses and one goes off at half the odds of the others.

I have 2 thoughts with I run into this:

1. If I can't find a reason why and I still truly think they are all even horses I would go against him..maybe in some exotics.

2. If on the other hand, I find he is the better horse just not THAT much better. Pass the race. He is after all the better horse and you're just not getting the value you want for him

[Bob Harris]

Value betting is very hard on the stomach...run-outs of 20 or more happen all the time. A weekend player doing just one track could go winless for an entire month!

Even if a player is willing to put up with the losing streaks, without analyzing the board action and avoiding the countless false overlays which show up, the casual value player is doomed to fail anyway.

I strongly believe value betting is the best way to reach long-term, consistent profits but it is easier to handle emotionally for the player who plays several cards a day/week.

Playing your top choice (at a predetermined acceptable price) is certainly a viable way to be profitable at the track but unless you're betting sizable amounts I'm not sure you'll get enough plays in each month to make the effort worthwhile. I've never played that way so I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong.

I had the opportunity to spend some time in May with trainer specialist Ed Bain (publishes layoff and claim stats) and he plays his top choice only if he's getting an acceptable price but he's also putting 200.00 to win on each of the 4-5 plays he finds from scanning the entire country!! I for one am much more comfortable making small win and exacta wagers on LOTS of races and keep turning my money over as many times as possible.

There are certainly lots of ways to "skin a cat" in this game!

[Dave Schwartz]

Bob,

Great post!

What you have found coincides with what the most successful players I know tell me.

In addition, some of them suggest that playing your value bet with a hedge on a high win pct horse takes the sting away. Some even do multiple value horses with a hedge (especially if the value is coming from big longshots).

At our most recent seminar we had one of our users explain how he has made a good living at the track for over 15 years dutching his best 2,3 or even 4 horses.

If the situation meets his standards for return on investment he plays, otherwise he spectates.

It was a worthwhile learning experience listening to him.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Bob Harris]

Dave,

I agree, hedging is a wonderful way to retain one's sanity! While I usually do it in the form of exacta wagers,
multiple win wagers probably has merits.

Group,

For those of you interested in multiple win wagers, go to www.horsestreet.com and locate the article called "The Key to the Mint System"...some guy named Schwartz penned it. While I haven't ever tried something like that, the concept has always intrigued me. One of the biggest problems with traditional value betting is the huge swings your bankroll can take. These swings force the player to expose a smaller amount of his bankroll if he hopes to remain solvent thru the down-turns.

Would it be better to use a value method (like described in the article) which might cost you some in the ROI department but would even out the bankroll swings and therefore allow the player to safely expose a larger percentage of his bank? The "in the pocket" profits at the end of the month just might be better! Any thoughts??

Bob