Making money 'riding the whales'?

[lansdale]

Everyone is aware of the effect that whales have had on prices. It seems to me part of the fallout, which I've also seen references to on this site, is what I call the 'chalk-or-bomb' phenomenon. The whales totally dominate the lower end of the odds spectrum, leaving little for the average bettor, and seeming to have effectively diminished the 'middle-class' of mutuel prices in the range of say 4-1 to 10-1, so that a larger percentage of winners are either chalk or bombs - proportionally, of course, more of the former. Much more often than in the past, when I make my top two choices, say, 5/2 and 7/2, and they go off at 1-1 and 5-1, respectively, the lower-odds choice wins, reflecting, I assume the impact of (more accurate) whale money. Since these lower-odds horses having been winning at a hit rate above even their low odds recently - about 75%, I've been wondering whether the mid-range odds horses have been so thoroughly picked over and discarded by the whales that they're effectively dead money. I'm thinking of 'riding the whales', which has looked like a viable strategy on paper, but my sample-size is too small to make a move at this point. Any feedback appreciated.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Robert Fischer]

so whats the idea?

betting the whales low range odds ?

betting the low range odds with other-than the discarded(dead money) mid range odds?

[Gapfire]

Everyone is aware of the effect that whales have had on prices. It seems to me part of the fallout, which I've also seen references to on this site, is what I call the 'chalk-or-bomb' phenomenon. The whales totally dominate the lower end of the odds spectrum, leaving little for the average bettor, and seeming to have effectively diminished the 'middle-class' of mutuel prices in the range of say 4-1 to 10-1, so that a larger percentage of winners are either chalk or bombs - proportionally, of course, more of the former. Much more often than in the past, when I make my top two choices, say, 5/2 and 7/2, and they go off at 1-1 and 5-1, respectively, the lower-odds choice wins, reflecting, I assume the impact of (more accurate) whale money. Since these lower-odds horses having been winning at a hit rate above even their low odds recently - about 75%, I've been wondering whether the mid-range odds horses have been so thoroughly picked over and discarded by the whales that they're effectively dead money. I'm thinking of 'riding the whales', which has looked like a viable strategy on paper, but my sample-size is too small to make a move at this point. Any feedback appreciated.

Cheers,

lansdale

Even money winning at 75%. What tracks? And for how long?

[Stillriledup]

There's value in non favorites. Rebated whales are looking for 'churn' so they're really looking to slam 2 grand to win on an even money shot. This leaves value out there for the 2 dollar bettor. There are plenty of overbet favorites to bet against out there in simo land.

[raybo]

You're likely not going to see the "whale's" money until after post time, so, you wouldn't be able to capitalize on where their money is going, unless you can read their minds at 1 MTP, or you have some access to money placed after post time and the ability to wager after they do.

As has already been stated, these whales, often rely on rebates and churn for their profits. Going against that grain, by doing your homework and waiting until you have a good horse at a good price, is still a very viable method for success.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

There's value in non favorites. Rebated whales are looking for 'churn' so they're really looking to slam 2 grand to win on an even money shot. This leaves value out there for the 2 dollar bettor. There are plenty of overbet favorites to bet against out there in simo land.
This is not how successful whales operate. They make value plays. Whether a horse is 40-1 or 3-5, if their calculated odds are lower, they will bet, sometimes many many combos a race.

It isn't the whale hammering the chalk usually. It is the chalkers.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

This is not how successful whales operate.

Whenever a horse goes 8/5 to 4/5....it's a whale as they are always slamming chalk because they know that chalk horses win more often than other horses .

They get so much the best of it that they still win getting $3.60 on a horse they wanted $5.20 on. The 4%-9% rebates on win bets easily overcome the 50% drop in profit.

When a chalk doesn't win, they somehow know that it won't win and bet the winner. They just seem to know who is going to win every race. It's unfair.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Whenever a horse goes 8/5 to 4/5....it's a whale as they are always slamming chalk because they know that chalk horses win more often than other horses .

They get so much the best of it that they still win getting $3.60 on a horse they wanted $5.20 on. The 4%-9% rebates on win bets easily overcome the 50% drop in profit.

When a chalk doesn't win, they somehow know that it won't win and bet the winner. They just seem to know who is going to win every race. It's unfair.

Please explain the math on that.

[Mechanic]

[QUOTE= they somehow know that it won't win and bet the winner. They just seem to know who is going to win every race. It's unfair.[/QUOTE] :lol: :lol:

[CBedo]

Whenever a horse goes 8/5 to 4/5....it's a whale as they are always slamming chalk because they know that chalk horses win more often than other horses .

They get so much the best of it that they still win getting $3.60 on a horse they wanted $5.20 on. The 4%-9% rebates on win bets easily overcome the 50% drop in profit.

When a chalk doesn't win, they somehow know that it won't win and bet the winner. They just seem to know who is going to win every race. It's unfair.Really? :lol:
If you really believe this, why would you ever be dumb enough to bet into this situation?

[lansdale]

so whats the idea?

betting the whales low range odds ?

betting the low range odds with other-than the discarded(dead money) mid range odds?

Hi Robert,

No one really picked up the key question I was posing here, which is, have mid-range overlays been badly decimated to the point where the 'value' that I and others, who have discussed this phenomenon, thought we had seen is more mirage than real. Whether it's whale money or not, it's people with a clear information advantage over me in this scenario.

BTW, most of my play is relative longshots (over 5-1) on the grass, where this phenomenon is far less of an issue.

I only picked up on this after a few weeks of enforced dirt/artificial play, where it happened repeatedly. The pattern is for one of the two or three most obvious contenders, maybe 5/2, 3-1, and 7/2 on the ML, to get pounded and split so that the final odds are something like 7/5, 5-1, and 6-1, for no apparent reason, except obviously to whoever is doing the pounding. BTW, I'm not including races where there isn't one isolated favorite - where, for example, the odds end up more like 7/5 and 2/1 on the top two choices. FTR, this situation seems to occur more at smaller tracks with cheaper horses, than in a place like CA or NY with more competitive fields.

Remember, I'm only talking about making this bet when it is one of my two choices, but is being bet more heavily than seems justified. This kind of bet used to break maybe 60-40 between the lower and higher odds of the two - now it's breaking about 80-20. Clearly, I need a larger sample size before making serious bets, but I was really just wondering if anyone had tried this, or had even noticed how often it seems to be occurring. The comments of 'Inside the Pylons' below reflect that I'm not alone in this perception.

Cheers,

lansdale

[lansdale]

This is not how successful whales operate. They make value plays. Whether a horse is 40-1 or 3-5, if their calculated odds are lower, they will bet, sometimes many many combos a race.

It isn't the whale hammering the chalk usually. It is the chalkers.

Hi HPB,

I'm sorry, at this point that I used the word 'whale' since what I'm really talking about is an information edge, whoever has it, in mutuel pools. Re your comments though, I think it's natural to assume whales with rebates can afford to bet chalkier horses than those without rebates. And re 40-1 shots, this would only be true of the very small number of tracks that whales could be into without seriously damaging their expected value at those odds.

Cheers,

lansdale

[CBedo]

Hi Robert,

No one really picked up the key question I was posing here, which is, have mid-range overlays been badly decimated to the point where the 'value' that I and others, who have discussed this phenomenon, thought we had seen is more mirage than real. Whether it's whale money or not, it's people with a clear information advantage over me in this scenario.

BTW, most of my play is relative longshots (over 5-1) on the grass, where this phenomenon is far less of an issue.I just pulled a sample of about 3500 races from November and although the lowest odds horses do lose less than other odds ranges (small sample), they are still losing in the double digit percentages, and from 4/5 up to just over 6/1 the loss rate is pretty steady.

[Gapfire]

I just pulled a sample of about 3500 races from November and although the lowest odds horses do lose less than other odds ranges (small sample), they are still losing in the double digit percentages, and from 4/5 up to just over 6/1 the loss rate is pretty steady.

I just pulled up 4638 4/5 shots, of which 2075 won. Only 44% winners. I'm still having good success with the mid range runners that the Lansdale is talking about. I'm not experiencing what he talks about at all.

[misscashalot]

I just pulled up 4638 4/5 shots, of which 2075 won. Only 44% winners. I'm still having good success with the mid range runners that the Lansdale is talking about. I'm not experiencing what he talks about at all.
Break em down by circuit and see what you get.

[PhantomOnTour]

On the coattails of whales.

[Gapfire]

Break em down by circuit and see what you get.

I have all of that information. I could break it down any way you like. My point was that these 4/5 shots lose more than their fair share. I did ask Landsdale earlier in this thread where the 75% winners were coming from.

[Gapfire]

Break em down by circuit and see what you get.

eg. 71/148 on the SoCal circuit.

Slightly higher than the average, but still losing more than their fair share at 48%.


www.gapfire.com

[misscashalot]

eg. 71/148 on the SoCal circuit.

Slightly higher than the average, but still losing more than their fair share at 48%.


www.gapfire.com

NYRA, THIS YEAR, has 41%. So whenever I see huge sample stats I discount them out of hand. Circuit to circuit vary greatly. I'd rather see current (this current year) in individual circuits rather than 5 years at all circuits lumped which are mostly misleading. Some here think quantity makes stats more valid, which is often to the contrary.

[Valuist]

Everyone is aware of the effect that whales have had on prices. It seems to me part of the fallout, which I've also seen references to on this site, is what I call the 'chalk-or-bomb' phenomenon. The whales totally dominate the lower end of the odds spectrum, leaving little for the average bettor, and seeming to have effectively diminished the 'middle-class' of mutuel prices in the range of say 4-1 to 10-1, so that a larger percentage of winners are either chalk or bombs - proportionally, of course, more of the former. Much more often than in the past, when I make my top two choices, say, 5/2 and 7/2, and they go off at 1-1 and 5-1, respectively, the lower-odds choice wins, reflecting, I assume the impact of (more accurate) whale money. Since these lower-odds horses having been winning at a hit rate above even their low odds recently - about 75%, I've been wondering whether the mid-range odds horses have been so thoroughly picked over and discarded by the whales that they're effectively dead money. I'm thinking of 'riding the whales', which has looked like a viable strategy on paper, but my sample-size is too small to make a move at this point. Any feedback appreciated.

Cheers,

lansdale


I call it favorite/longshot syndrome, but I don't believe whales are necessarily responsible for this. Since the advent of synthetics, we've seen more of it. I look at a track like Arlington where the winners seem to be overbet 6-5 shots or hard to use 20-1s that look like 40-1 and that "sweet spot" of 4-1 to 15-1 has definitely diminished, although I'm not sure whales are the reason.

[Gapfire]

NYRA, THIS YEAR, has 41%. So whenever I see huge sample stats I discount them out of hand. Circuit to circuit vary greatly. I'd rather see current (this current year) in individual circuits rather than 5 years at all circuits lumped which are mostly misleading. Some here think quantity makes stats more valid, which is often to the contrary.

Yes, but as the sample size for each circuit grows larger, it gets closer to the norm. Funny how that works.


www.gapfire.com

[misscashalot]

Yes, but as the sample size for each circuit grows larger, it gets closer to the norm. Funny how that works.


www.gapfire.com

Yes I agree and we're concerned about current events not history. Bias' particularly, change like lightening, that's why postings about 2 year old track stuff is doing anyone who believe that stuff a great disservice.

[misscashalot]

...and talking about Whales...who here really knows? If you're really a whale fess up and tell us what you're into. But this speculation here by so-called experts is nonsense and laughable.

[Gapfire]

Yes I agree and we're concerned about current events not history. Bias' particularly, change like lightening, that's why postings about 2 year old track stuff is doing anyone who believe that stuff a great disservice.

Lansdale stated that horses at low odds were winning at a 75% clip. I provided evidence to the contrary. The data is not 2 years old either. How is anything I've said doing a great disservice to anyone?


www.gapfire.com

[misscashalot]

Lansdale stated that horses at low odds were winning at a 75% clip. I provided evidence to the contrary. The data is not 2 years old either. How is anything I've said doing a great disservice to anyone?


www.gapfire.com

Kevin, I wasn't in any way singling out you, On the contrary. I'm sorry if I phrased my post wrong. Matt

[Gapfire]

Kevin, I wasn't in any way singling out you, On the contrary. I'm sorry if I phrased my post wrong. Matt

No problem, I took your post the wrong way.

Cheers,

Kevin
www.gapfire.com

[lansdale]

I just pulled up 4638 4/5 shots, of which 2075 won. Only 44% winners. I'm still having good success with the mid range runners that the Lansdale is talking about. I'm not experiencing what he talks about at all.

Hi Gapfire,

You seemed to have become fixated on the 70% stat, which is unfortunate. I was talking about my own play only, not generic database research. I was talking about the phenomenon of an odds split between two top choices which I had rated as being closer in ability, and the chalkier horses winning an increasingly higher percentage of these races, at least on dirt/artificial surfaces. At certain tracks my top two win ca. 80%, and when I can get a race down to one horse, it wins at a rate of ca. 65-70%. 70% is also the approximate win rate of the lower-odds horse in the typical two-horse scenario I described.

BTW, I never said that it was no longer possible to make money with mid-range horse - nearly all of my play is 5-1 and above on the grass. And obviously they also still hit on other the other surfaces. However I would say that on dirt and articificial, the percentage of mid-range winners has been on the decline, as the percentage of winning favorites at many tracks has increased. A couple of posters in this thread have also mentioned it.

Cheers,

lansdale

[lansdale]

I call it favorite/longshot syndrome, but I don't believe whales are necessarily responsible for this. Since the advent of synthetics, we've seen more of it. I look at a track like Arlington where the winners seem to be overbet 6-5 shots or hard to use 20-1s that look like 40-1 and that "sweet spot" of 4-1 to 15-1 has definitely diminished, although I'm not sure whales are the reason.

Hi Valuist,

This diminishing mid-range is exactly what I'm talking about, and I think it's a general phenomenon. You're may be right that it can be attributed to the proliferation of artificial surfaces - the only reason I use the 'term' whale is that this all this seems to have happened simultaneously with the advent of rebates, and I can't imagine who else could be making money betting into these pools. What I'm talking about is betting on horses at, say 8/5 that really are 3/5, at least according to the hit rate I'm getting with them. The question I'm asking is, are these horses less overbet than is generally thought.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Gapfire]

Hi Gapfire,

You seemed to have become fixated on the 70% stat, which is unfortunate. I was talking about my own play only, not generic database research. I was talking about the phenomenon of an odds split between two top choices which I had rated as being closer in ability, and the chalkier horses winning an increasingly higher percentage of these races, at least on dirt/artificial surfaces. At certain tracks my top two win ca. 80%, and when I can get a race down to one horse, it wins at a rate of ca. 65-70%. 70% is also the approximate win rate of the lower-odds horse in the typical two-horse scenario I described.

BTW, I never said that it was no longer possible to make money with mid-range horse - nearly all of my play is 5-1 and above on the grass. And obviously they also still hit on other the other surfaces. However I would say that on dirt and articificial, the percentage of mid-range winners has been on the decline, as the percentage of winning favorites at many tracks has increased. A couple of posters in this thread have also mentioned it.

Cheers,

lansdale

I myself am having no problems finding decent mid-priced plays at most tracks, and most surfaces. This is coming from my personal play, and not generic data.

Others use different methods, and perhaps are experiencing the phenomenon that you speak about. I'm sure everyone gets different results in this regard, but my stats do bear me out.

Kevin
www.gapfire.com

[TrifectaMike]

Everyone is aware of the effect that whales have had on prices. It seems to me part of the fallout, which I've also seen references to on this site, is what I call the 'chalk-or-bomb' phenomenon. The whales totally dominate the lower end of the odds spectrum, leaving little for the average bettor, and seeming to have effectively diminished the 'middle-class' of mutuel prices in the range of say 4-1 to 10-1, so that a larger percentage of winners are either chalk or bombs - proportionally, of course, more of the former. Much more often than in the past, when I make my top two choices, say, 5/2 and 7/2, and they go off at 1-1 and 5-1, respectively, the lower-odds choice wins, reflecting, I assume the impact of (more accurate) whale money. Since these lower-odds horses having been winning at a hit rate above even their low odds recently - about 75%, I've been wondering whether the mid-range odds horses have been so thoroughly picked over and discarded by the whales that they're effectively dead money. I'm thinking of 'riding the whales', which has looked like a viable strategy on paper, but my sample-size is too small to make a move at this point. Any feedback appreciated.

Cheers,

lansdale

Lansdale,

I suggest you read post thread The realities of betting to win, starting with post #36.

" Pareto (Power Law) Distribution
The distribution of the final odds in a horse race shows a power law
P(Odds) is directly proportional to 1/Odds

The interesting aspect of this is that it agrees with empirical data (real life odds). And it fits the data only if you assume that bettors are irrational (bettors do not try to maximize their expected rewards (winnings)). If the assumption is made that bettors are rational (bettors try to maximize their expected rewards), we would obtain a different power law,
P(Odds) is directly proportional to 1/(Odds times Odds),
which is different from empirical data.

Looking at the distribution of the winners odds it also follows a power law distribution,
P(Odds) is directly proportional to 1/(Odds times Odds). "

I have codified much of what you are observing, but it has nothing to do with "whales".

Mike

[fmolf]

Hi Gapfire,

You seemed to have become fixated on the 70% stat, which is unfortunate. I was talking about my own play only, not generic database research. I was talking about the phenomenon of an odds split between two top choices which I had rated as being closer in ability, and the chalkier horses winning an increasingly higher percentage of these races, at least on dirt/artificial surfaces. At certain tracks my top two win ca. 80%, and when I can get a race down to one horse, it wins at a rate of ca. 65-70%. 70% is also the approximate win rate of the lower-odds horse in the typical two-horse scenario I described.

BTW, I never said that it was no longer possible to make money with mid-range horse - nearly all of my play is 5-1 and above on the grass. And obviously they also still hit on other the other surfaces. However I would say that on dirt and articificial, the percentage of mid-range winners has been on the decline, as the percentage of winning favorites at many tracks has increased. A couple of posters in this thread have also mentioned it.

Cheers,

lansdaleOf course you can get this win rate in cal.....home of the 5 horse field!

[ronsmac]

They bet win money, but really hammer exotics. It's not about favorites or non favorites , it's about value. Their computers will automatically bet lots of combos that will give them an expected profit after rebate.

[Gapfire]

They bet win money, but really hammer exotics. It's not about favorites or non favorites , it's about value. Their computers will automatically bet lots of combos that will give them an expected profit after rebate.

So, you are saying that they have access to last-second tote info that the average player can't get?

[lansdale]

Lansdale,

I suggest you read post thread The realities of betting to win, starting with post #36.

" Pareto (Power Law) Distribution
The distribution of the final odds in a horse race shows a power law
P(Odds) is directly proportional to 1/Odds

The interesting aspect of this is that it agrees with empirical data (real life odds). And it fits the data only if you assume that bettors are irrational (bettors do not try to maximize their expected rewards (winnings)). If the assumption is made that bettors are rational (bettors try to maximize their expected rewards), we would obtain a different power law,
P(Odds) is directly proportional to 1/(Odds times Odds),
which is different from empirical data.

Looking at the distribution of the winners odds it also follows a power law distribution,
P(Odds) is directly proportional to 1/(Odds times Odds). "

I have codified much of what you are observing, but it has nothing to do with "whales".

Mike

Hi Mike,

Your response here, like your exchanges in the thread you cite, is fairly cryptic to someone like myself, without training in advanced math, and apparently even to someone as well-versed as John Dineen. Thus, in response to your post, I'm not entirely sure whether you're saying that this odds split signifies irrational behavior - let's call it 'lemming' rather than 'whale' money for the sake of illustration, or whether you're saying that, as Dave Schwartz observed in the referenced thread, it reflects accurate, inside information, and is thus a profitable anamoly. Also, maybe we can dispense with the 'term' whale, although we know they're there, and rather define the impact of this money as 'public information plus rebate'.

Thanks for your input.

Cheers,

lansdale

[lansdale]

Of course you can get this win rate in cal.....home of the 5 horse field!

Hi fmolf,

This win rate is available during chalk cycles at a number of tracks, although, as you say the CA, and also the NY circuits are the most common in my experience. A strong track bias anywhere will also produce this kind of win rate.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Overlay]

I figure that a whale (whom I would consider a person or group who bets regularly, as opposed to a one-time bridge-jumper) will have both access to sophisticated odds-line/pool-analysis software, and the means to place their wagers at the latest possible time, when it is too late to profit from it. (Why would it be in their interest to tip their hand by wagering any earlier?)

I think that the best that can be done under those circumstances is to keep the winning chances of the entire race field or menu of exotic combinations in view (to minimize your chance of being adversely affected by action on any one horse or combination), and also try to wager as late as possible, hoping to zig when the whales zag (and are wrong).

The alternatives (to me) are to conclude either that the whales have an information edge across the full range of wagers that is too great to overcome from a pari-mutuel value standpoint, or that the whales' knowledge/activity is somehow a determining factor in how the race actually turns out. Under either of those scenarios, would it be rational to continue playing?

[Jackal]

No one who commented on this thread mentioned that we have a lot of small fields. I see so many races were the longshot in the race is 8 to 1. When you have 3 horses in a 6 horse field that are going off at less than 2 to 1 you will have a lot of chalk winning races.

I love NY and CA racing but I seldom bet the races. The math just doesn't add up. I know I can't beat the short odds the small fields produce.

[lansdale]

No one who commented on this thread mentioned that we have a lot of small fields. I see so many races were the longshot in the race is 8 to 1. When you have 3 horses in a 6 horse field that are going off at less than 2 to 1 you will have a lot of chalk winning races.

I love NY and CA racing but I seldom bet the races. The math just doesn't add up. I know I can't beat the short odds the small fields produce.

Hi Jackal,

The recent prevalance of small fields and consequent short mutuel prices has been a very frequently mentioned subject on this site. In the past couple of years the number of winning favorites has gone from 33% to 37%. If you read my original post carefully, you'll see that that was not the subject of this thread.

Cheers,

lansdale