Racers who beat their odds- top PP race

[kenwoodallpromos]

Are racing Tbreds who beat their odds last out likely to ITM in the current race?

[Overlay]

Pardon me if I haven't picked up on something that's common knowledge, but could you clarify the term "beat their odds"?

[wolsons]

I think he's referring to horses who finish in better position than their odds - a horse who's 4-1 who finishes 3rd or better, a horse who's 8-1 finishing 7th or better...

[Overlay]

That occurred to me, but then any horse that goes off at double-digit odds would beat its odds, regardless of where it finished (unless the field size was huge), so I wasn't sure how that would have any significance from a handicapping standpoint, and I thought that the term must mean something else.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I see PP's containing results charts style odds; I remember Ainslie had a chart of horse's odds and the win and maybe ITM % listed for those odds. I'll settle for top PP final odds expressed as a % chance of win, since place and show odds are not found on PP's.
If the horse is listed at odds of 2-1 and wins or at least finishes close up the next race over 33% of the time I say it beat the odds- do they wiin next out? At 6-1 I would consider 15%+ to be beating the odds. Do these horses do well next out? If so, I'm wondering about a horse that has beaten the odds consistently and is given "contender odds" in the ML, maybe that in itself indicates a good bet?

[SMOO]

I prefer "beat their expected position": a 2nd favorite that wins, a 3rd favorite that runs at least 2nd, etc.

[ryesteve]

The problem is that the higher the odds rank, the easier it is for the horse to "beat their odds". EG, the favorite can NEVER beat its odds...

[kenwoodallpromos]

The problem is that the higher the odds rank, the easier it is for the horse to "beat their odds". EG, the favorite can NEVER beat its odds...
I'll settle for over 50% chance of horses tying their odds if they won last out!
Or a hoirse with a win last out having a record of winning not 1 in a row but 2 in a row many times!!

[Overlay]

So you're asking, "What is the relationship between the winning percentage corresponding to the horse's odds in its last race, versus the percentage of times that it wins its next race after that race? (Such as (for example), do horses that were 2-1 in their last race win at 33% (or whatever the winning percentage is that corresponds to 2-1 odds, after take and breakage have been factored in) or more of their next starts?") Is that correct?

[Overlay]

Scratch that last post. Since you're talking in-the-money percentage in today's race rather than winning percentage, I'm still trying to sort out my thoughts.

[Overlay]

How about this:

Say that the total group of horses at a certain odds level wins at a rate equal to or greater than the mathematical winning percentage associated with that odds level (after take and breakage are factored in). After one of those wins, does the horse in question then finish in-the-money its next time out at a rate that is equal to or greater the mathematical in-the-money percentage (again adjusted for take and breakage) corresponding to its odds in its latest race?

[ryesteve]

No, they're not talking about correlating previous races odds to today's performance... the metric is prior finishes relative to the odds in those races.

[SMOO]

No, they're not talking about correlating previous races odds to today's performance... the metric is prior finishes relative to the odds in those races.
Right, and I understand it makes the chalk have to win to just stay even. But if you bet the 6th favorite in a series of races and they all run 3rd or 4th that is a positive within a small sample size, even though they didn't actually win.

[BIG HIT]

Where have i been i thought out running thier odds meant horse double digit on m\l or more so on tote beating 1\2 field

[kenwoodallpromos]

Can a Tbred who does better than expected last out be expected to do well in the current race? I'm using crowd odds as a guage rather than speed or time factors.

[Overlay]

Saying "better than expected" must mean in comparison to the winning and/or in-the-money percentages associated with each possible odds figure, since what other standard of comparison is there? However, that implies dealing with a group of horses or a series of races, since, no matter what an individual horse's probability of winning one specific race may be, the actual result will be that it will either win the race (a 100% probability of success), or it won't (a 0% probability of success), with no middle ground possible.

So you must be asking, "If a group of horses at a specific odds figure wins (or finishes in the money) at a higher rate than the winning (or in-the-money) percentage associated with that odds figure, what is the probability that a horse from that group that wins (or finishes in the money) in one race will also win (or finish in the money) in its next race?"

If that's still not what you have in mind, I welcome anyone who can give me a knock upside the head and help me see this through the proper paradigm.

[Overlay]

I should have added the assumption that you're also talking in terms of absolute odds-to-$1.00 figures, since, if you're referring to the relative odds ranking of a horse in its field, saying "better than expected" has no meaning when it comes to top-ranked horses (i.e., favorites), since a horse can't do better than finishing first.

[ryesteve]

However, that implies dealing with a group of horses or a series of races, since, no matter what an individual horse's probability of winning one specific race may be, the actual result will be that it will either win the race (a 100% probability of success), or it won't (a 0% probability of success), with no middle ground possible.Why not? If you can use the tote to compute the probability that the horse wins, you can also compute the probability that the horse will come in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

[Overlay]

Why not? If you can use the tote to compute the probability that the horse wins, you can also compute the probability that the horse will come in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

Say a horse is 2-1, and you have statistics that indicate the percentage of times that a horse with 2-1 odds finishes in each of the possible positions (first, second, third, etc.). I grant that that can be predictive of the horse’s chances of where it will finish in this race. However, since we are dealing with just one horse and one race, the horse will finish where it finishes, and have an after-the-fact 100% probability of finishing in that position, and a 0% probability of finishing in any other position. To me, talking about a horse “beating its odds” in the context of just one race makes sense only if statistics show that horses at a given odds figure have a 0% chance of finishing in a given position, and the horse subsequently does in fact finish in that position. Otherwise, I don’t see how discussion of beating a given odds figure can apply to anything other than the performance of a group of horses.

[ryesteve]

To me, talking about a horse “beating its odds” in the context of just one race makes sense only if.....
I don't believe the folks who started this thread were talking about just looking at one race; I believe the idea was to look at a horse's record and evaluate all of its races in terms of how its finishes measured up to expectations (as derived via its odds)

[misscashalot]

If you believe there's an implication that a horse horse should run to its odds, then you're setting the standard of expectation. Low odds implies that he should run or finish creditably. Then the Regression Towards the Mean theory may apply. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean. Therefore a horse who is not well bet and runs well, should next time, at lower odds, NOT improve his effort, but run a poorer race. ONLY A THEORY My experience tells me that this is so. I look for a Mdn who went off at low odds first time and ran a poor race without an excuse. I expect this horse to go off higher second time out and run a better race. If he did have an excuse first time out then the odds will probably be lower the second time around.

[Overlay]

I don't believe the folks who started this thread were talking about just looking at one race; I believe the idea was to look at a horse's record and evaluate all of its races in terms of how its finishes measured up to expectations (as derived via its odds)

I was just going by the title of the thread ("Racers who beat their odds -- top PP race"), the wording of the opening post ("Are racing Tbreds who beat their odds last out likely to ITM in the current race?"), and the subsequent elaboration ("Let me try this: Can a Tbred who does better than expected last out be expected to do well in the current race? I'm using crowd odds as a guage rather than speed or time factors.") From that, it seems clear that it's just one race that is being discussed, which is why I'm having trouble defining the terms "beat their odds" and "does better than expected", for the reasons that I stated.

[BeatTheChalk]

Scratch that last post. Since you're talking in-the-money percentage in today's race rather than winning percentage, I'm still trying to sort out my thoughts.

I have been trying to sort out my thoughts since the day somebody asked
me ..." Do you take your lunch or walk to the office ..?" And finally ...
When George Carlin was asked.... If He had a Moto == He replied ....
" My motto is .. Everyone should have a motto .." :lol:

[mountainman]

I think you guys aren't onto something.