What odds level would you consider a horse a contender?

[BIG49010]

Just wondering at what odds level you would use as a cut off for a quick elimiation of contenders?

I also would like suggestions of what percentage of the field being below the cut off makes a race contentious?


Thanks

[Jeff P]

I'd never use odds range as a way to decide which horses are contenders in a given field. Doing so could be accurately described as the complete opposite of the way I approach the game.

I let attributes found within the past performance records of the horses point me towards a contender or non contender decision for each horse.

Then I let the odds point me towards a play or pass decision on each contender.

-jp

.

[Hero547]

If he was long odds last time and ran badly and now is still long. But less than 2/3 of last time you can't pitch him. There is a formula for this, but don't remember it.

[Overlay]

Although I come up with an odds figure for each horse in a race, if I had to distinguish the horses that I would characterize as "contenders", it would be those with fair odds in my line that are lower than the horse's "random" chance of winning based on field size (for example, horses with fair odds below 6-1 in a seven-horse field, below 7-1 in an eight-horse field, etc.).

(Note that, as I said, those are fair odds according to my own line. The horses' public odds don't affect the contender/non-contender aspect at all for me.)

I also play based on individual wagering value, so the "contender/non-contender" distinction is mostly just semantic. However, I've found that it can be a useful place to start in considering exotic-wager combinations (that is focusing primarily on combinations involving only "contenders").

[fmolf]

Although I come up with an odds figure for each horse in a race, if I had to distinguish the horses that I would characterize as "contenders", it would be those with fair odds in my line that are lower than the horse's "random" chance of winning based on field size (for example, horses with fair odds below 6-1 in a seven-horse field, below 7-1 in an eight-horse field, etc.).

(Note that, as I said, those are fair odds according to my own line. The horses' public odds don't affect the contender/non-contender aspect at all for me.)

I also play based on individual wagering value, so the "contender/non-contender" distinction is mostly just semantic. However, I've found that it can be a useful place to start in considering exotic-wager combinations (that is focusing primarily on combinations involving only "contenders").
i alsomake my own line for each horse i deem to be a contender...i will not bet on any horse that i deem to be higher than 6/1(15%) chance of winning...the public may have the horse at 10/1... then i would make the bet because then i have an overlay according to the odds i assigned the horse

[BIG49010]

I agree with you all, I would never eliminate any horse because of his odds.

What I am trying to do is look at race's results, and say it was very competitive race with 5 horses out of 12 that were below odds of ? X

Now I compare horse "A" who came out of said race with a decent figure, against horse "B" who came out of a race with a better figure that had 2 out of 12 horses that were below odds of ? X.

Does this paint the picture a little better?

[fmolf]

I agree with you all, I would never eliminate any horse because of his odds.

What I am trying to do is look at race's results, and say it was very competitive race with 5 horses out of 12 that were below odds of ? X

Now I compare horse "A" who came out of said race with a decent figure, against horse "B" who came out of a race with a better figure that had 2 out of 12 horses that were below odds of ? X.

Does this paint the picture a little better?
i use brisnet ultimate and they give every horse a class rating(how they ran against said level of horses int the race)and every race in a horses pp's a race rating the higher the # the better the race so you can see which 10k claiming race had better horses in it....quite useful

[Overlay]

Based on your explanation, I think that I would still be inclined to view the competitiveness of a past race in terms of how many horses in the field went off at odds below random (that is, below odds corresponding to [Field Size minus 1] to 1), based on what the field size of the previous race was. The more such horses there were, the more competitive the race was. I would not use a flat odds level that would apply to all races, regardless of field size.

[Overlay]

Based on your explanation, I think that I would still be inclined to view the competitiveness of a past race in terms of how many horses in the field went off at odds below random (that is, below odds corresponding to [Field Size minus 1] to 1), based on what the field size of the previous race was. The more such horses there were, the more competitive the race was. I would not use a flat odds level that would apply to all races, regardless of field size.

To clarify, the odds that I was referring to in the above post would be actual odds, not calculated fair odds.

[BIG49010]

Based on your explanation, I think that I would still be inclined to view the competitiveness of a past race in terms of how many horses in the field went off at odds below random (that is, below odds corresponding to [Field Size minus 1] to 1), based on what the field size of the previous race was. The more such horses there were, the more competitive the race was. I would not use a flat odds level that would apply to all races, regardless of field size.

Thanks for input, I will add this to my little program and let you know how it works out.

I originally was looking at odds of 5-1, but I like the field size minus 1 better.

Thanks again

[ranchwest]

5/1?

Today I played a horse at 11/1. He won. Oh, and, uh, Chris Emigh was up for his 3,000th career win.

Then, when I couldn't make heads nor tales of a race, I picked a first on turfer to show -- at 31/1. He placed and paid $20 and $10 (approx.).

Don't lock yourself out of crazy stuff.

Just for the record, I also had some incredibly dumb plays today, but the two plays above left me with a satisfactory profit.

[Greyfox]

I'd never use odds range as a way to decide which horses are contenders in a given field. Doing so could be accurately described as the complete opposite of the way I approach the game.

I let attributes found within the past performance records of the horses point me towards a contender or non contender decision for each horse.

Then I let the odds point me towards a play or pass decision on each contender.

-jp

.

A post that I wished I had said myself.:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: