Tracks ML odds maker

[turfbar]

Here is a question I've never heard answered,every track has thier oddsmaker,
if I knew his formula for setting odds wouldn't I be better served. Does he have a formula? Is the oddsmaker more than ONE guy? Is he influenced by track politics? What makes him so good?Why doesn't a former oddsmaker write a book explaining the methods. I realize how I can make an odds line but it always doesn't jive with the tracks odds maker.

Turfbar

[jonnielu]

Here is a question I've never heard answered,every track has thier oddsmaker,
if I knew his formula for setting odds wouldn't I be better served. Does he have a formula? Is the oddsmaker more than ONE guy? Is he influenced by track politics? What makes him so good?Why doesn't a former oddsmaker write a book explaining the methods. I realize how I can make an odds line but it always doesn't jive with the tracks odds maker.

Turfbar

For the most part, the track oddsmaker is making the line in accordance to how the public will see the race through past performances, not personal opinion.

jdl

[Cangamble]

Here is a question I've never heard answered,every track has thier oddsmaker,
if I knew his formula for setting odds wouldn't I be better served. Does he have a formula? Is the oddsmaker more than ONE guy? Is he influenced by track politics? What makes him so good?Why doesn't a former oddsmaker write a book explaining the methods. I realize how I can make an odds line but it always doesn't jive with the tracks odds maker.

Turfbar
They usually have a set formula and various templates. They usually start off with percentages, and add them up to between 118-121% to take into account the track takeout. The percentages are usually converted to odds in the template. For example, they might have 3 or more odds variations for a 7 horse field, and the same goes for other sized fields.

That is pretty much how I was told it happens, but I'm sure there are odds makers who use other methods.

They are supposed to be predicting who the public will bet, not necessarily who they think are the best horses. That being said, I'm sure they are prejudiced by their own judgment of trainers and jockeys to some degree.

I've noticed that for some reason the person that does Fort Erie usually makes Daniel David horses much higher than they should be constantly....almost like he wants to cash bets on the guy:)

Jen Morrison does the odds for Woodbine. I'll email her about your post.

[CBedo]

I would just add that besides for trying to project what the public is going to do, they tend to give higher odds than expected for heavy favorites, and give lower odds to longshots (you very rarely see higher than 20 or 30/1 when many of these should be 99/1).

[Bejilla]

Here is a question I've never heard answered,every track has thier oddsmaker,
if I knew his formula for setting odds wouldn't I be better served. Does he have a formula? Is the oddsmaker more than ONE guy? Is he influenced by track politics? What makes him so good?Why doesn't a former oddsmaker write a book explaining the methods. I realize how I can make an odds line but it always doesn't jive with the tracks odds maker.

Turfbar


Hi,
I am an oddsmaker..
yes there is a formula for doing the morning line - each horses odds in a race has to add up to about 120 percentage points taking into account breakage.
there is usually just one person doing the odds - in this case a woman, not a guy .
Factors for making the odds include a horse's last race, trainer, jockey workouts etc.
The public bets the horse with the best Beyer Figure, the best finish or the horse from the red-hot stable...
I make the odds by trying to project who the public will bet on.
But it is also hard to leave your own opinion totally out of it - so I am happy when people say - you made this horse 4 to 1, you must have liked it a bit - and it wins at 8 to 1.
But they are not my picks at all and only recently did we get programs to put PROBABLE FAVOURITES on the bottom instead of "selections"

[kenwoodallpromos]

Richard Somers.

[fmolf]

Here is a question I've never heard answered,every track has thier oddsmaker,
if I knew his formula for setting odds wouldn't I be better served. Does he have a formula? Is the oddsmaker more than ONE guy? Is he influenced by track politics? What makes him so good?Why doesn't a former oddsmaker write a book explaining the methods. I realize how I can make an odds line but it always doesn't jive with the tracks odds maker.

Turfbar


Hi,
I am an oddsmaker..
yes there is a formula for doing the morning line - each horses odds in a race has to add up to about 120 percentage points taking into account breakage.
there is usually just one person doing the odds - in this case a woman, not a guy .
Factors for making the odds include a horse's last race, trainer, jockey workouts etc.
The public bets the horse with the best Beyer Figure, the best finish or the horse from the red-hot stable...
I make the odds by trying to project who the public will bet on.
But it is also hard to leave your own opinion totally out of it - so I am happy when people say - you made this horse 4 to 1, you must have liked it a bit - and it wins at 8 to 1.
But they are not my picks at all and only recently did we get programs to put PROBABLE FAVOURITES on the bottom instead of "selections"
I can usually tell when a certain horse will be 6/5 or lower from the pp's.why do the oddsmakers always have these horses no lower than 9/5 and extreme longshots no higher than 20/1 in shorter fields 30/1 in longer ones?Is this to spur betting interest?

[jballscalls]

Is this to spur betting interest?

that's a big reason why you rarely see horses under 8/5 in the ML unless it's a really small field or a superstar horse

[kenwoodallpromos]

"AUGUSTE J. GRENET, RACE HANDICAPPER; Figured Odds on Horses for 50 Years-Dies at Saratoga
E-MAIL

August 18, 1938, Thursday

Page 20, 270 words

Auguste J. Grenet, leading pricemaker of American race tracks, who made the odds for most of the bookmakers at the metropolitan courses, died late Tuesday night of a heart attack in Saratoga Springs, N. Y., in a cottage he had rented for the racing season. He was 77 years old. [ END OF FIRST PARAGRAPH ]"

[CBedo]

Hi,
I am an oddsmaker..
yes there is a formula for doing the morning line - each horses odds in a race has to add up to about 120 percentage points taking into account breakage.
there is usually just one person doing the odds - in this case a woman, not a guy .
Factors for making the odds include a horse's last race, trainer, jockey workouts etc.
The public bets the horse with the best Beyer Figure, the best finish or the horse from the red-hot stable...
I make the odds by trying to project who the public will bet on.
But it is also hard to leave your own opinion totally out of it - so I am happy when people say - you made this horse 4 to 1, you must have liked it a bit - and it wins at 8 to 1.
But they are not my picks at all and only recently did we get programs to put PROBABLE FAVOURITES on the bottom instead of "selections"Thanks for your input. Good to hear from someone who actually does it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

But they are not my picks at all and only recently did we get programs to put PROBABLE FAVOURITES on the bottom instead of "selections"

I wish that I could implore the system that we use to do the same thing for our program.

I hate making a line and having it referred to as 'selections'. The best that I can do is override the M/L as 'selections' and substitute it with my own handicapping, but that is at best confusing to readers and at worst cause for complaints about my lack of faith in the betting public's tendencies. :)

[Bejilla]

I can usually tell when a certain horse will be 6/5 or lower from the pp's.why do the oddsmakers always have these horses no lower than 9/5 and extreme longshots no higher than 20/1 in shorter fields 30/1 in longer ones?Is this to spur betting interest?

Racetracks would prefer to have horses listed at 9 to 5 rather than 4 to 5 or even-money so that people will not shy away from the race.
so, yes, keep the betting interest up is the key.
A 'soft' morning line is when the odds are a bit higher than they perhaps should be.

[fmolf]

I can usually tell when a certain horse will be 6/5 or lower from the pp's.why do the oddsmakers always have these horses no lower than 9/5 and extreme longshots no higher than 20/1 in shorter fields 30/1 in longer ones?Is this to spur betting interest?

Racetracks would prefer to have horses listed at 9 to 5 rather than 4 to 5 or even-money so that people will not shy away from the race.
so, yes, keep the betting interest up is the key.
A 'soft' morning line is when the odds are a bit higher than they perhaps should be.
the only time i look at the morning line is in two year old races and a maiden race with a lot of firsters

[oddsmaven]

I can usually tell when a certain horse will be 6/5 or lower from the pp's.why do the oddsmakers always have these horses no lower than 9/5 and extreme longshots no higher than 20/1 in shorter fields 30/1 in longer ones?Is this to spur betting interest?
I asked one of the track linemakes this and he indicated that since they aren't infallible, they don't want to look foolish in case they misjudged it and they'd rather not make a mistake when it comes to listing a heavy favorite, which apparently would be considered a glaring error.

[ryesteve]

I asked one of the track linemakes this and he indicated that since they aren't infallible, they don't want to look foolish in case they misjudged it and they'd rather not make a mistake when it comes to listing a heavy favorite, which apparently would be considered a glaring error.
I don't get the logic here. I'd think it'd look worse if 95% of your 9/5 shots go off at 6/5, rather than having 5% of your 6/5 shots go off at 9/5. But maybe that's just me.

[InFront]

Everyone must remember that to win at this game you must find and use certain factors or combined factors that point to a horse that "on average" will win at a higher rate than how the public "on average" wagers on such a horse. No maybe not this exact race or this exact horse but "overall". That's it cause by doing so then and only then you must make money. So whether if creating your own line is able to accomplish that very difficult task or handicapping in some other way then so be it.

I always believed that out of the 1,500+ dbfields and thousands more of conditions within all those fields in any horse's PPs that the morning line factor influences the public more than ANY other factor. I know some don't agree and may say power ratings, speed, jockeys, etc. I'm pretty sure Ken at HTR also agrees and wrote an article on this once. While all these other racing factors may have influence in final betting the MLO uses many of those factors already and incorporates them into an easy to read number. This may be why since it is so logical and that is why it influences the public so greatly. So while we all want to beat the final odds, beat the public what I also try to do is first beat the MLO. Since it is a human opinion of course there will be mistakes in it "sometimes in some races".

[oddsmaven]

I don't get the logic here. I'd think it'd look worse if 95% of your 9/5 shots go off at 6/5, rather than having 5% of your 6/5 shots go off at 9/5. But maybe that's just me.
I agree with you that they'd be better putting what they expect...I was sure that they were putting them intentionally high and wanted to know why & that is what I was told, more or less...it must be a long tradition but if I did the line, I'd scrap it.

[DSB]

I had to think for a few minutes before deciding to respond, because what I am about to write could open a can of worms and a debate in which I really don't feel like engaging.

But, here goes....

I made morning lines - both for harness and T-breds - for nearly 30 years. My approach was somewhat different from what most ML makers take.

I would handicap a race, come up with my selections, then make my choice the ML favorite, second choice second in the line, etc. I would assign odds as close to what I thought the closing odds would be, regardless of how high or low. Several times I made a horse 1-9, and each time the horse closed at 1-9. The highest I recall making a horse was 75-1, and that horse closed at 99-1.

With regards to making my choice the ML favorite, here was my reasoning: The winning percentage of my choices was fairly close to the percentage of winning favorites. I agree with InFront, who said, "the morning line factor influences the public more than ANY other factor". Because such a high percentage of the public actually uses the ML as a basis for their selections, doesn't it serve the greatest good to supply - through the morning line - a quality set of picks for those who need them? The bottom line is (was), as an employee of the track, I had a responsibility to service our customers, and I never thought that making an accurate morning line and giving a segment of the betting population a chance to cash tickets were incompatible.

Now, I know that the vast majority of people have the opinion that "the ML maker's job is to predict how the public will bet, and nothing else".

Well, I never shared that opinion. A good argument could be made that expert handicappers couldn't give a hoot about anyone's guess - educated or otherwise - about the closing odds. I know I sure don't. Especially if you take into account that the majority of ML makers admittedly don't assign a ML that reflects what the final odds actually will be.

If the ML is of the most use to novices - which is what I believe - then doesn't it make sense to tailor it to give them the best usage?

Approaching the ML the way I did is not for everyone. Any ML maker that does would have to be able to approach the % of winning favorites with their handicapped selections - not an easy task within itself.

Concerning the politics of the ML, yes it can enter into the picture under certain circumstances.

I was lucky enough to make the line removed from anything to do with the racing dept. Some ML makers aren't. If they make a horse 3-5, they have to face the trainer who says "why did you go and make my horse so low? Now if he doesn't win, I'm going to look bad". If they make a horse 35-1, they have to face the trainer or owner who says "We've been training the hell out of this horse for weeks and you think he won't be able to beat a horse? Why, that's an insult!".

Sometimes that is why a ML maker is conservative with his line. Higher favorites and lower priced longshots make for less flack from the horsemen.

Some management doesn't like favorites to be too low in the line because they want the (often) illusion that the race is competitive and worth betting. I recall one track in Md. where the standing order was "no favorite less than 6-5 in the ML".

Luckily, the GM's I worked for liked the way I produced the line and every single one of them wanted the line to be as accurate as possible, consequences to betting be damned.

Finally, the math of the ML depends on two things: the takeout and the breakage. I did the line where the win take was 17% and the break to a dime. My line would have to add up to a range of 120.5 - 125.4. Anything higher or lower would mean the line is not viable.

[Mr Q]

At very least morning line odds makers should get those horses at the front of the market in a logical order. I appreciate with a field containing unexposed horses that task can be difficult but there are no excuses with seasoned campaigners.



Time after time the line at Indiana Downs seems an advert for not taking alcohol while at work. In yesterdays A J Foyt (S) Stakes Heza Wild Guy was listed at 5/1 4th choice. He had been competing well against some fair types in open company at Canterbury and the last time he came to Indiana to take on his fellow state breds he won the 2008 renewal by over 8 lengths as the favourite with one of the vanquished the morning line 2nd choice.



The line maker must have been shocked Heza Wild Guy was a comfortable winner as the 13/10 favorite.



On a similar note, how can the line maker at Presque Isle Downs price up SIX 8 runner races on the same card from 108 to 128%. I would have thought if the take out in the win pool is 17% at Presque Isle a line at a similar percentage would be not bad idea.

[InFront]

I had to think for a few minutes before deciding to respond, because what I am about to write could open a can of worms and a debate in which I really don't feel like engaging.

But, here goes....

I made morning lines - both for harness and T-breds - for nearly 30 years. My approach was somewhat different from what most ML makers take.

I would handicap a race, come up with my selections, then make my choice the ML favorite, second choice second in the line, etc. I would assign odds as close to what I thought the closing odds would be, regardless of how high or low. Several times I made a horse 1-9, and each time the horse closed at 1-9. The highest I recall making a horse was 75-1, and that horse closed at 99-1.



I always said and posted much on this before that I believe that the MLO is such a infuential factor that a MLO handicapper could make profits on the side from it. For example say a track runs about 60 races with over 400 horses a week. And within all those 400+ MLO he/she decided to throw in some klinkers that is assign a logical horse with a much higher MLO for example a horse they really think should be 4/1 but list it as 10/1. Now we know statisticaly 4/1 MLO horses will win at a much higher rate than 10/1 MLO horses. Now of course the public is not that stupid and may bet such a horse down BUT the big question will they bet it down enough if it was say listed as a true 4/1 MLO. I say no way !!!

And if so now a MLO handicapper "overtime" could have a nice edge basically by screwing and cheating on the public. Of course they can't do this constantly so it is not obvious to the track or public but with over 400 horses to choose from each week who will notice a few?

I'm not saying that there are MLO handicappers that do this out there right now and shouldn't even post this again giving them some good ideas on it. But I would love to be able to play 4/1 MLO horses that are always listed as 10/1 horses scaring some of the money off of them. Hec, let me even know when a horse should have a 6/1 MLO but is now faked and listed as 2/1 MLO so I could bet against these types of horses overall cause now I know the opposite will happen and too much money may end up on that horse leaving nice overlays among other horses in the race. Man, I really shouldn't be posting this in case some MLO handicappers read this forum.

[DSB]

ML handicappers are given a huge responsibility to safeguard the public trust and to do the best job they can possibly do.

Anyone who makes a line that attempts to manipulate betting for his own gain should be fired immediately and, if possible, prosecuted.

[InFront]

ML handicappers are given a huge responsibility to safeguard the public trust and to do the best job they can possibly do.

Anyone who makes a line that attempts to manipulate betting for his own gain should be fired immediately and, if possible, prosecuted.

I agree but how will you ever catch them. They have hundreds of horses to work on EVERY WEEK. Throwing in some klinker MLO on certain horses each week you'll never notice. Hec, they can probably do a few every day and you'll never even notice. When it comes to money humans can be the dirtiest animals on this planet. Madoff is just one of a million examples.

[Marlin]

I agree but how will you ever catch them. They have hundreds of horses to work on EVERY WEEK. Throwing in some klinker MLO on certain horses each week you'll never notice. Hec, they can probably do a few every day and you'll never even notice. When it comes to money humans can be the dirtiest animals on this planet. Madoff is just one of a million examples.If you can think of it, it has and probably is being done. I've done the M/L at multiple tracks. I would never sandbag a M/L. I've also noticed when there has been a mistake, wrong line in program, it always is bet properly by the public in the win pool. If you were to assign a high M/L to an obvious contender the public will not be fooled in the win pool. Where the public will be fooled is typically in horizontal wagers that are bet races in advance. So if I did sandbag a morning line I would look to capitilize in the pick three or four pool.
BTW when creating a M/L I use 117% and add 1% per horse in the race. I have no pre-done M/L's and every one can be different. It always starts the same I find my favorite and the longshots (20-1) or higher. I predict the favorites price and assign 20-1 to the longshots. If I think the fave will be 4-5 I put 4-5. If I think a horse will be 30-1, I put 20-1. I am not aware of the circumstances of the entry and do not wish to embarrass anyone or hobble the attempts of the racing office to hustle horses.

[InFront]

If you can think of it, it has and probably is being done. I've done the M/L at multiple tracks. I would never sandbag a M/L. I've also noticed when there has been a mistake, wrong line in program, it always is bet properly by the public in the win pool. If you were to assign a high M/L to an obvious contender the public will not be fooled in the win pool. Where the public will be fooled is typically in horizontal wagers that are bet races in advance. So if I did sandbag a morning line I would look to capitilize in the pick three or four pool.
BTW when creating a M/L I use 117% and add 1% per horse in the race. I have no pre-done M/L's and every one can be different. It always starts the same I find my favorite and the longshots (20-1) or higher. I predict the favorites price and assign 20-1 to the longshots. If I think the fave will be 4-5 I put 4-5. If I think a horse will be 30-1, I put 20-1. I am not aware of the circumstances of the entry and do not wish to embarrass anyone or hobble the attempts of the racing office to hustle horses.


I agree that the public is not stupid and that "most" of the time they will bet down any horse that should be. But if a MLO capper did it not so obvious such as a 3/1 giving it a 8/1 MLO I believe overall it will help the average payoff on such horses that should be 3/1 to begin with. In otherwords by increasing the MLO on some horses will increase it's average post odds overall.

As with any handicapper how many times we like a horse and get excited when we see it have a 10/1 MLO only to find out it is bet way down by post time. But on occasion we do get near those MLO. I'm just saying if you take a group of horses that should have 3/1 MLOs and gave them a dishonest 8/1 MLO those horses overtime will have much higher average post odds than 3/1 MLO horses in general and that may be all you need to get a slight edge. But if it does happen at any track I hope such MLO cappers get enough complaints so the track can look into it and if foul play is there they would be fired on the spot cause to me that would be cheating since they are not doing their job correctly for their own personal gain. But once again since this sport has so many variables going for it in every I think it would be tough to prove.

[Marlin]

I agree that the public is not stupid and that "most" of the time they will bet down any horse that should be. But if a MLO capper did it not so obvious such as a 3/1 giving it a 8/1 MLO I believe overall it will help the average payoff on such horses that should be 3/1 to begin with. In otherwords by increasing the MLO on some horses will increase it's average post odds overall.

As with any handicapper how many times we like a horse and get excited when we see it have a 10/1 MLO only to find out it is bet way down by post time. But on occasion we do get near those MLO. I'm just saying if you take a group of horses that should have 3/1 MLOs and gave them a dishonest 8/1 MLO those horses overtime will have much higher average post odds than 3/1 MLO horses in general and that may be all you need to get a slight edge. But if it does happen at any track I hope such MLO cappers get enough complaints so the track can look into it and if foul play is there they would be fired on the spot cause to me that would be cheating since they are not doing their job correctly for their own personal gain. But once again since this sport has so many variables going for it in every I think it would be tough to prove.If a MLO consistently placed 8-1 on 3-1 horses, my guess is that someone else would be doing the job in the near future. Or at least I would hope so.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I agree that the public is not stupid and that "most" of the time they will bet down any horse that should be. But if a MLO capper did it not so obvious such as a 3/1 giving it a 8/1 MLO I believe overall it will help the average payoff on such horses that should be 3/1 to begin with. In otherwords by increasing the MLO on some horses will increase it's average post odds overall.

As with any handicapper how many times we like a horse and get excited when we see it have a 10/1 MLO only to find out it is bet way down by post time. But on occasion we do get near those MLO. I'm just saying if you take a group of horses that should have 3/1 MLOs and gave them a dishonest 8/1 MLO those horses overtime will have much higher average post odds than 3/1 MLO horses in general and that may be all you need to get a slight edge. But if it does happen at any track I hope such MLO cappers get enough complaints so the track can look into it and if foul play is there they would be fired on the spot cause to me that would be cheating since they are not doing their job correctly for their own personal gain. But once again since this sport has so many variables going for it in every I think it would be tough to prove.
Well, in Stockton ,Richard Somers-Cal M/L maker- admitted doing it at the fairs, especially the first day at each fair. I do not think he puts the favs at 8-1 anymore, maybe 4-1 or close to that.

[oddsmaven]

I would handicap a race, come up with my selections, then make my choice the ML favorite, second choice second in the line, etc. I would assign odds as close to what I thought the closing odds would be, regardless of how high or low.
These two sentences are conflicting...you were not assigning odds based on what you thought the closing odds would be, you were lining them up in order of your preference and that can't be the same unless your selections would always match the public's money.

You chose to change what your job was...however if your ML favorite won as you claim at about the same rate as the actual favorite, it would be noticed and before long your choice would be the favorite or co-favorite every race...I doubt that...some programs offer "selections" listed separately and that's where your selections belonged.

[DSB]

Your opinion.

Obviously not mine.

NO ML maker's oddlines always match the public. And yes, the choices won at a high enough % that they would often close as the favorite, so in essence a self-fulfilling prophecy...


As far as "changing what my job was", I always find it amusing that others profess to know what my job "should be". If you read my original post in its entirety, you know my reasoning. And, FYI, my selections and comments were in a seperate place in the program - they just coincided with the morning line.

I also said that producing a line the way I did it is not for everyone. I would imagine that there are good ML makers who are not particularly good handicappers, and vice versa. To successfully employ my method would take both.

This is the can of worms I alluded to in my post.

[ryesteve]

If a MLO consistently placed 8-1 on 3-1 horses, my guess is that someone else would be doing the job in the near future. Or at least I would hope so.
Try this one:

In today's 2nd at Delaware, Warm Climate has been favored in 9 of her last 10 races. She has 7 seconds, a win and a third in his last 9 races. She won her last at even money. Her last race fig is 5 points better than anything else in the field... her prime power number is 11 points higher than the next best horse.

And somehow the ML figured that the crowd was going to let her get away at 8/1.

(at 10 minutes to post, she's currently 1/5)