No ML and hidden win odds.

[Imriledup]

Would anyone love to see their favorite track have no morning line and the win odds not displayed anywhere? Just show the total money in the win pool and that's it.

I feel that the ML combined with the current odds on the toteboard give too much of an advantage to people who know absolutely nothing about racing. Some clueless bettor can look up and see so and so is 4-5 and from that, he can deduce that horse has at least a 50/50 shot to win. He can know that without doing a speck of handicapping the night before and he can know that without knowing anything about how to handicap races.

Would you bet on a race with no morning line and the win odds hidden for everyone?

This way, you would actually have to learn to handicap and not rely on the other big bettors to 'tell you' who the live runners are by watching the board.

[ryesteve]

This way, you would actually have to learn to handicap and not rely on the other big bettors to 'tell you' who the live runners are by watching the board.You also have no way of knowing whether or not you're getting sufficient value on the horse you were going to bet.

I always assumed most people around here were using the tote board to let them know whether or not the odds were high enough to be worth a bet, not whether or not they were low enough to be worth a bet.

[Imriledup]

You also have no way of knowing whether or not you're getting sufficient value on the horse you were going to bet.

I always assumed most people around here were using the tote board to let them know whether or not the odds were high enough to be worth a bet, not whether or not they were low enough to be worth a bet.

I think that you wouldn't know if you were getting sufficient value on any one individual bet, but in the long run, you would be getting more value because people would be pretty much on their own in the handicapping process. Average handicappers wouldn't be able to 'look over the shoulder of the better players and cheat of their exam'

[ryesteve]

I think that you wouldn't know if you were getting sufficient value on any one individual bet, but in the long run, you would be getting more value That depends... if the people who are "following the money" are chasing a horse other than the one you're betting on, then they're helping you not hurting you.

Another thing to consider: people are already suspicious enough as it is about tote manipulation. Can you imagine what it'd be like if you never saw the odds? You bet a horse that looks ugly on paper, and you assume will be 8/1 or 10/1, and when he wins, you collect $5.80. Everyone will be screaming that all of the money must've come in after the horses crossed the wire, since the odds make no sense otherwise. Even if it's totally legit, the appearance would stink.

[InFront]

[QUOTE=Imriledup]Would anyone love to see their favorite track have no morning line and the win odds not displayed anywhere? Just show the total money in the win pool and that's it.
QUOTE]

As in my other thread I just started I believe the ML to be the most influential factor among the hundreds available in a horse PPs. I always asked the question if the ML wasn't given out for one day of racing how would the public actually bet those races on that card. I think you would see big differences in betting patterns. Now even if the ML was given but no win odds where shown that would be very interesting on what would happen if you were able to look at final odds AFTER the race was run.

[Imriledup]

That depends... if the people who are "following the money" are chasing a horse other than the one you're betting on, then they're helping you not hurting you.

Another thing to consider: people are already suspicious enough as it is about tote manipulation. Can you imagine what it'd be like if you never saw the odds? You bet a horse that looks ugly on paper, and you assume will be 8/1 or 10/1, and when he wins, you collect $5.80. Everyone will be screaming that all of the money must've come in after the horses crossed the wire, since the odds make no sense otherwise. Even if it's totally legit, the appearance would stink.

I hear what you are saying. I guess the suspicions of bettors wouldn't let this type of thing work. Bettors who don't know much would think that a 5 dollar horse who looks 'bad on paper' must have had money come in on him after the start, i could see how that would be a problem. Its too bad, i would love to be able to gamble against bettors who aren't getting help from the very best players.

[Overlay]

I feel that the ML combined with the current odds on the toteboard give too much of an advantage to people who know absolutely nothing about racing. Some clueless bettor can look up and see so and so is 4-5 and from that, he can deduce that horse has at least a 50/50 shot to win. He can know that without doing a speck of handicapping the night before and he can know that without knowing anything about how to handicap races.

Would you bet on a race with no morning line and the win odds hidden for everyone?

This way, you would actually have to learn to handicap and not rely on the other big bettors to 'tell you' who the live runners are by watching the board.

Even if the odds weren't displayed, if one horse had far more money bet on it to win than any other horse in the field, wouldn't that also tell even the absolutely clueless bettor which horse the public thought was the "live" horse that had the greatest chance of finishing first (as long as the bettor had a basic understanding of the principles behind the pari-mutuel system)?

Or do you mean "live" not in the sense of which horses were attracting the most support, but which horses had connections that were trying to pull off some kind of hidden betting coup that would be detectable through analysis of tote action or odds fluctuations?

[Imriledup]

Even if the odds weren't displayed, if one horse had far more money bet on it to win than any other horse in the field, wouldn't that also tell even the absolutely clueless bettor which horse the public thought was the "live" horse that had the greatest chance of finishing first (as long as the bettor had a basic understanding of the principles behind the pari-mutuel system)?

Or do you mean "live" not in the sense of which horses were attracting the most support, but which horses had connections that were trying to pull off some kind of hidden betting coup that would be detectable through analysis of tote action or odds fluctuations?

That's my point however....the clueless bettor would not know which horse was taking 'live' action.....he would have to be an expert handicapper in order to figure it out. The way the system is set up, a clueless guy would be able to find out which horse was live even if he didn't know how to read a racing form.

I'm sure some owners who buy yearlings at public auction might start bidding on a horse that is also being bid on by someone who is known to be very smart. They can just 'follow' the smart money at auction and end up trying to buy a horse that a known genius yearling bidder is also trying to get.

[Overlay]

That's my point however....the clueless bettor would not know which horse was taking 'live' action.....he would have to be an expert handicapper in order to figure it out. The way the system is set up, a clueless guy would be able to find out which horse was live even if he didn't know how to read a racing form.

Even if the odds weren't displayed, it would seem that even a person who didn't know much about the sport could still track the progressive changes in the individual toteboard totals for each horse in the win pool, and be able to see when a particular horse's share of the pool was growing disproportionately from one flash to the next as a sign of tote action. (Not as easy as just looking at an odds figure, but not that difficult either.) Or am I still missing your point?

[njcurveball]

Would anyone love to see their favorite track have no morning line and the win odds not displayed anywhere? Just show the total money in the win pool and that's it.



I feel in the course of an entire year, the morning line hurts the experienced and computer handicappers much more than the casual fan.

Here is why. Many "smart" handicappers play a game (subconsciously) to show how "smart" they are. If their horse pays $5, they can still brag to their friends he was 6-1 in the morning line. Many horse getting bet down are not really getting bet down, they simply started with an incorrect morning line estimation.

Computer handicappers are influenced even more because they have to use some actual figure to pick a longshot. Often that is the morning line and if it is above a certain number, the horse becomes a spot play if it qualifies. The same qualifying rules could also be matched on a lower ML horse who winds up paying more. Over the course of a year, using post time odds will show a better profit then ML odds for longshots. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell what the actual post time odds will be until it is too late to bet.

As for the casual fan, if you go to simulcasting, MANY do not even use the program. They bet "the board". Often a morning line favorite stays high through the betting and then drops in the last 3 minutes. The crowd is all over that as "smart money".

NO morning line odds sounds great to me. I would definitely continue playing a track if they did away with them. Sounds like it is worth a try in my book. :ThmbUp:

[stu]

NO morning line odds sounds great to me. I would definitely continue playing a track if they did away with them. Sounds like it is worth a try in my book. :ThmbUp:

As a racing secretary, I would be open to this experiment except for two things:

1) the morning line is required by racing commission rules and/or policies in every jurisdiction to the best of my knowledge

2) management at a couple of tracks at which I have work have articulated that they believe the existence of a morning line drives handle

For the experiement, you are going to need cooperation between the commission, management, and the racing secretary.

[DSB]

As a racing secretary, I would be open to this experiment except for two things:

1) the morning line is required by racing commission rules and/or policies in every jurisdiction to the best of my knowledge

2) management at a couple of tracks at which I have work have articulated that they believe the existence of a morning line drives handle

For the experiement, you are going to need cooperation between the commission, management, and the racing secretary.

To point #1: Typical government edict. RC rules demand a morning line, but they don't require that it be balanced or representative of anything.

I've seen many ML's that are so out of balance as to be laughable. For the record, if a ML is not balanced, it is prima facie invalid, regardless of whether or not odds on some of the horses may be accurately assigned.

Point #2: I am in total agreement with this. But, what most people don't realize is why it drives handle.

I have always believed that there is a segment of any betting population that uses the morning line for its selections. Whatever pool they may participate in, they use the numbers at the bottom of the program page in their wagers, with no regard as to whether the odds line is accurate or not.

When I made morning lines, I went against the prevailing wisdom and made the horse I gave the best chance of winning the race the ML favorite. I figured it was the best use of the ML in light of what I've mentioned above.

Now, I had to hear time and time and time again "that's not the job of a ML handicapper. You're supposed to tell the public who the favorite is going to be and how low its odds are going to be."

Well, that's one opinion. My opinion is that the ML should provide the most help to the people who not only need it, but also who heed it. And that would be the bettors who look to the ML as a source of selections.

The majority of the time the horse who figured to be the favorite also figured to be the horse with the best chance of winning, so the two objectives were very often concurrent. My ML favorite went off the post time fave about 2/3 of the time.

A very good argument could be made that the way I approached the ML was the best for everyone.

Bettors who rely on the ML for picks are more likely to add to the betting the pools if they are winning. That's good for everyone.

Bettors who do their own handicapping shouldn't even need a morning line to form their opinions. Do you really care who somebody thinks the favorite will be? Of what use is it?

Finally, it should be noted that ultimately ML makers work for the track. However, I always felt that the way I approached the line was best for the bettors AND best for my employer.

Promoting churn and handle are good for everyone involved in betting.

[boomman]

To point #1: Typical government edict. RC rules demand a morning line, but they don't require that it be balanced or representative of anything.

I've seen many ML's that are so out of balance as to be laughable. For the record, if a ML is not balanced, it is prima facie invalid, regardless of whether or not odds on some of the horses may be accurately assigned.

Point #2: I am in total agreement with this. But, what most people don't realize is why it drives handle.

I have always believed that there is a segment of any betting population that uses the morning line for its selections. Whatever pool they may participate in, they use the numbers at the bottom of the program page in their wagers, with no regard as to whether the odds line is accurate or not.

When I made morning lines, I went against the prevailing wisdom and made the horse I gave the best chance of winning the race the ML favorite. I figured it was the best use of the ML in light of what I've mentioned above.

Now, I had to hear time and time and time again "that's not the job of a ML handicapper. You're supposed to tell the public who the favorite is going to be and how low its odds are going to be."

Well, that's one opinion. My opinion is that the ML should provide the most help to the people who not only need it, but also who heed it. And that would be the bettors who look to the ML as a source of selections.

The majority of the time the horse who figured to be the favorite also figured to be the horse with the best chance of winning, so the two objectives were very often concurrent. My ML favorite went off the post time fave about 2/3 of the time.

A very good argument could be made that the way I approached the ML was the best for everyone.

Bettors who rely on the ML for picks are more likely to add to the betting the pools if they are winning. That's good for everyone.

Bettors who do their own handicapping shouldn't even need a morning line to form their opinions. Do you really care who somebody thinks the favorite will be? Of what use is it?

Finally, it should be noted that ultimately ML makers work for the track. However, I always felt that the way I approached the line was best for the bettors AND best for my employer.

Promoting churn and handle are good for everyone involved in betting.

DSB: Stu obviously brings up 2 excellent points as to why the morning line exists in the first place, and for those folks attending the track as beginners with no clue of who to wager on, I certainly believe it drives handle. We know for a fact that "churn" drives handle, so the track has an interest in doing anything it can to help it's bettors have a chance of actually cashing tickets which obviously leads to additional wagers being made by them. But I do agree with you that a change in the traditional morning line of handicapping the race instead of the public could be a good thing in that it would most likely increase churn. Even if it changed the % of winning favorites from roughly the 33% that it stands now to 37-40%, the increase in handle would not only benefit the industry as a whole but even at this number there will still be plenty of overlay and value situations (especially with the tracks carding full fields) for those of us that wager full time...........;)

Boomer

[ryesteve]

Bettors who do their own handicapping shouldn't even need a morning line to form their opinions. Do you really care who somebody thinks the favorite will be? Of what use is it?To know which horses to avoid.

[Conquer]

Personally I wish there was a way I could get my hands on the past performances WITHOUT MLO's. This way my handicapping would not be the least bit influenced. I think I would have more confidence to be honest.

Anyone know if it possible to get PP's without MLO's?

[Imriledup]

Personally I wish there was a way I could get my hands on the past performances WITHOUT MLO's. This way my handicapping would not be the least bit influenced. I think I would have more confidence to be honest.

Anyone know if it possible to get PP's without MLO's?

No, they force their odds down your throat whether you like it or not.

Sorry.

[DSB]

Personally I wish there was a way I could get my hands on the past performances WITHOUT MLO's. This way my handicapping would not be the least bit influenced. I think I would have more confidence to be honest.

Anyone know if it possible to get PP's without MLO's?

I had the same problem many, many years ago. The way I overcame it was to have my girlfriend (now my wife of over 30 yrs) take a flair pen and cover them up.

It took some help from another but it did the trick.

[DanG]

How about learning to embrace the MLO?

It pays the most dividends in blind / serial bets when horses are routinely thrown in based on it. More people then will ever admit to it throw animals in leg 2, 3 4 etc with roughly 5-1 being a philological barrier many aren’t willing to exclude.

Sometimes; Cappers will find something they like in leg-1 and then try and maximize this opinion hooking up DD, P3 etc and at times; they are rushed into MLO madness. This is when preparation takes advantage of human nature and human nature...will NEVER change.

[DeanT]

I have wondered sometime if someone (who is a good handicapper) only took pick 3's and DD's when he did not overly like the ML chalk in any races in the sequence, and pitched them. I bet he/she would cash some nice tickets and be better off. JMO.

[so.cal.fan]

Bring the handbooks back!
;)

[Conquer]

I had the same problem many, many years ago. The way I overcame it was to have my girlfriend (now my wife of over 30 yrs) take a flair pen and cover them up.

It took some help from another but it did the trick.

The thought has crossed my mind several times. I may have to ask my GF to do this./

[Overlay]

Personally I wish there was a way I could get my hands on the past performances WITHOUT MLO's. This way my handicapping would not be the least bit influenced. I think I would have more confidence to be honest.

The way I get around this is to use a statistically-based approach that involves no subjective opinion, and that doesn't take morning-line odds into consideration. I let the quantitative data do the talking with regard to handicapping, and use a comparison of fair odds to actual odds as a basis for betting.

I may take a second glance at the record of a horse with public odds that are drastically higher than my fair odds, just to be sure that there wasn't some significant element that's not part of my handicapping algorithm and that I somehow didn't pick up on, but there almost never is. I have enough confidence in my handicapping model -- and I've seen the public overbet horses too many times -- so that I can resist being persuaded to bypass a horse that I like just because it's being relatively ignored in the betting.

[Conquer]

The way I get around this is to use a statistically-based approach that involves no subjective opinion, and that doesn't take morning-line odds into consideration. I let the quantitative data do the talking with regard to handicapping, and use a comparison of fair odds to actual odds as a basis for betting.

I may take a second glance at the record of a horse with public odds that are drastically higher than my fair odds, just to be sure that there wasn't some significant element that's not part of my handicapping algorithm and that I somehow didn't pick up on, but there almost never is. I have enough confidence in my handicapping model -- and I've seen the public overbet horses too many times -- so that I can resist being persuaded to bypass a horse that I like just because it's being relatively ignored in the betting.

I have been looking into your website and I think you are really onto something, although I have to admit I did not purchase with you because I am still unsure as to what it is you are selling? A program? A continuous pick service? A paper and pencil method?

Perhaps here or by contacting me through email you can elaborate?

I have one question to ask, and please do not be offended as I do not mean this to be undermining in ANY way possible, but it seems you are doing well enough (continuous positive ROI) to have a web site and service and a good following of character here, so then why bother? Why not just keep it to yourself?

Again, no disrespect. Thank you!
C.

[BeatTheChalk]

No, they force their odds down your throat whether you like it or not.

Sorry.


I use the ML all of the time. In fact there is system .. and er ..ooops
I KNOW you don't want the MORNING LINE anywhere close to you .. so I apologize for even talking about it .. :jump: :D :lol: :kiss: :D

[Overlay]

Perhaps here or by contacting me through email you can elaborate?

I just sent you a PM.

[socantra]

Anyone know if it possible to get PP's without MLO's?

BRIS and TSN Past Performance Generators give you the choice of displaying MLO or not, along with many other options in PP layout.

[Overlay]

Why not just keep it to yourself?

Your question is certainly a valid one for methodologies or selection systems that narrow a field down to a single horse by a process of elimination, or through reliance on one overriding factor or angle, with the result that mutuel prices are adversely affected if too many people start using them. That's why such approaches might involve the ongoing purchase of new information applying to specific races; or apply a limitation on the duration of the offer; or attempt to control the extent of distribution.

These concerns are addressed by maintaining visibility of full-field and exotic-wager probabilities, and being able to generate the data personally (rather than relying on an outside source). Sharing that information through a one-time, value-for-value exchange then becomes a win-win proposition.

[WinterTriangle]

This way, you would actually have to learn to handicap and not rely on the other big bettors to 'tell you' who the live runners are by watching the board.

....the clueless bettor would not know which horse was taking 'live' action......

I might take some heat for this, but I guess I don't understand the issue as you presented it: Are you concerned with ML odds as it affects your own handicapping methodology/psychology......or do you just want them to go away so that "certain people" who you don't think *deserve the information* will be unable to benefit from it?

Your posts in this topic contain so many put-downs, bettors who are "clueless" or "who don't do a speck of work", who aren't *experts*, who go on the weekends without any knowledge, blah blah blah .... just reminded me of that kid in 3rd grade who would "hide" his paper with his hand if you looked in his direction. ;)

Not all of us started out as *experts*. Taking a newbie to the track is such a thrill, and yes, to get their feet wet, I show them how to use the ML and the tote board and all the other stuff that gets them their *first* win on that $2 bet.

A few years ago I was a complete no-nothing. Some of you can remember back to that day, right? Then, one day you post your picks on a forum and get top money for the day........:jump:

Thanks to all the "expert handicappers" who were willing to help me, teach me, and give me tips. I credit them for getting me into the sport.

There were others who cold-shouldered and intimidated me. Guess they thought I was one of those "clueless" bettors you speak about. They do as much harm to our sport as the PETA folks do, IMHO.

EVERY bettor who patronizes a track with their $$ benefits our sport. Whether they can crunch a Racing Form or not.

[Imriledup]

I might take some heat for this, but I guess I don't understand the issue as you presented it: Are you concerned with ML odds as it affects your own handicapping methodology/psychology......or do you just want them to go away so that "certain people" who you don't think *deserve the information* will be unable to benefit from it?

Your posts in this topic contain so many put-downs, bettors who are "clueless" or "who don't do a speck of work", who aren't *experts*, who go on the weekends without any knowledge, blah blah blah .... just reminded me of that kid in 3rd grade who would "hide" his paper with his hand if you looked in his direction. ;)

Not all of us started out as *experts*. Taking a newbie to the track is such a thrill, and yes, to get their feet wet, I show them how to use the ML and the tote board and all the other stuff that gets them their *first* win on that $2 bet.

A few years ago I was a complete no-nothing. Some of you can remember back to that day, right? Then, one day you post your picks on a forum and get top money for the day........:jump:

Thanks to all the "expert handicappers" who were willing to help me, teach me, and give me tips. I credit them for getting me into the sport.

There were others who cold-shouldered and intimidated me. Guess they thought I was one of those "clueless" bettors you speak about. They do as much harm to our sport as the PETA folks do, IMHO.

EVERY bettor who patronizes a track with their $$ benefits our sport. Whether they can crunch a Racing Form or not.

I'm saddened that you feel put down. It wasn't meant to be a put down.

I feel that blind pools make everything more fair. Each person should be responsible for coming up with their own picks i believe, that's what makes this game great, the handicapping puzzle.

[thruncy]

This track doesn't show place or show pools on the the tote. More weird Texas thinking(?)