How to get your Contenders the fast and easy way.

[BETKING]

One of the best ways to cull out your non contenders is to use the "Natural Odds Method". As you all know if you have a 8 horse field the natural odds of that race is 7-1. If you have a 10 horse field the natural odds or 9-1, etc. All that you have to do is through out every horse that is not within this perimeter. Will you through out the winner once in a while, yes you will. Would you have had the horse that you through out, probably not. This proceedure has speeded up my handicapping 50%. Give it a try, you will like it

This method is from a report sold by ITS for 19.95. You can make you own odds line or use the morning line. I use the morning line and it work just fine.

BETKING

[sq764]

save the $19.95 for a grammar book..

[Jed]

You could save even more time by just selecting the favorite.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by sq764
save the $19.95 for a grammar book..

Classic .......sq764......!

[kenwoodall]

Several grammar errors in your Kobe! posts. No sweat! As long as posts are readable OK by me!
Above natural odds would be a longshot? I think most payoffs are between 1-1 and 4-1.

[lousycapper]

Originally posted by sq764
save the $19.95 for a grammar book..

:D "S--t fire and save money on matches! Spell check is free. Use it and we won't worry about da' grammurr." :D

-L.C.

[VetScratch]

Thanks BetKing,

I wasn't aware that ITS has added scientific journals to their library of available publications!

[Bob Harris]

Betking,

I assume you're referring to the "Betting Techniques" booklet. Eric is speaking about random odds and the relationship to your betting oddsline, not the tote odds. If the game was totally random, the odds of any runner in a 10 horse field winning would be 9-1. A horse listed on your oddsline at 10-1, for example, should not be considered an "overlay" just because he's going off at 20-1...you've already determined that he has a "less than random" chance of winning.

On the other hand, a runner with a few negatives listed at 5-1 on your oddsline could be an excellent wager at double digit odds. If what you're doing works for you, great! I just go into cardiac arrest whenever I hear handicappers dismissing logical longshots...but that's the end of the board I like to play on and everybody's different!

Bob

[Secretariat]

I got bored by the software contest thread, so decided to do some research on the posted contender method you listed above. Applied it to DMR for 2001 and 2002.

Here were the results over 711 races:

Qualifiers: 3455
Winners :599
Win Pct% playing all qualifiers: 17.34
One of qualifiers Winning the Race: 84.2%
Return on Investment: -.1513

A loss of 15 cents on the dollar. Slightly above the track take. Not sure how it will hold up over other tracks.

My initial impression is for the hurried handicapper it is adequate, but beleive that a contender method should perform a bit better. I like Scott's method he used at one Handicapping Expo which was best speed last, best speed showing in Past Performances, and 2nd best speed showing in past performances. I have modified this slightly to use his PCR figure for the 2nd best speed showing.

[BETKING]

Do you have the stats on Scott's method? This sounds very interesting and I am always open to something better.
Thanks,

BETKING

[VetScratch]

Secretariat,
Here were the results over 711 races:
Qualifiers: 3455
Winners :599
Win Pct% playing all qualifiers: 17.34
One of qualifiers Winning the Race: 84.2%
Return on Investment: -.1513
An interesting follow-up study might be averaging the sums of true pari-mutuel probabilities for the qualifiers in all of your 711 races. If your average of the sums of true (not natural) probabilities is not in the "vicinity" of 84.2%, I would be surprised.

[rmania]

Questions for the board......

What is the definition of a contender prior to the race ?

and

What is the definition of a contender after the race ?

[Amazin]

Betking:

Along the lines of your original post,I use a slightly different
version.Once I get my contenders in a race,I only play the ones that are 7-2 and up.Using my computer generated picks for example that will on the average give me 2 contenders,I get a 14%ROI using blind betting all the contenders regardless of odds.I get almost 100%ROI betting 7-2 and up only.One big reason for the huge increase is that when the criteria is 7-2 and up, I'm not able to bet as much and when I do hit,I'm hitting prices that will make my overall ROI in either case go up.So I go for the price even though I may like the smaller odds horse more.But I like my ROI even better.

[VetScratch]

Rmania,
Questions for the board......
What is the definition of a contender prior to the race ?
and
What is the definition of a contender after the race ?
Contender Before: "Get serious, how can you pass up 2/1 on the top jock switching to a double drop with a 5-point Beyer edge?"

Contender After: "Get outta here! I don't want to hear about your $34 hoax for a horse. I'll bet you a buck right now that he doesn't win the rerun!"

[rmania]

Originally posted by VetScratch
Contender Before: "Get serious, how can you pass up 2/1 on the top jock switching to a double drop with a 5-point Beyer edge?"

Contender After: "Get outta here! I don't want to hear about your $34 hoax for a horse. I'll bet you a buck right now that he doesn't win the rerun!"
I was serious...

Unless you're using that morning line technique, what types and how many horses are you hoping to find.

And after the race how do you determine if what you thought were contenders before the race turned out to be contenders.

I mean how else are you going to know if your method for picking contenders is working?

[rmania]

Originally posted by rmania
Questions for the board......

What is the definition of a contender prior to the race ?

and

What is the definition of a contender after the race ?
I’m not surprised that no one has attempted to provide a sensible answer to either of these questions.

The fact is the definition of “contender” will vary from player to player. One player may attempt to spot the top two “most likely to contend” where another player could be looking for the top 5. It all depends on the types of wagers being placed. So maybe this answers the first question.

As for the second question...logically, the actual contenders should be those that finished within the boundaries of your selection criteria. In other words, if you were trying to find the top 5 and your selections finished 5th or better then they were indeed contenders. Right?

IMO contender selection is the ABSOLUTE KEY to success in this game. If you can consistently identify the contenders (based on your definition) then you should be able to find a way to win. If not, maybe you should find something else to do with your spare time.

Of course, if your pre-race contenders fall short of becoming post-race contenders then you probably should look for a better method.

[Tom]

Unless you have only one pre-race contender, they are all post-race contenders except the winner.

[VetScratch]

Tom,
You get my vote as Top Banana in the colts and horses division! :) :) :)