Eliminating Horses

[DigitalDownsJoe]

How many of you start with eliminating the horses you dont think will hit the board??I have found that I do better when I go and look for reasons not to bet horses rather then looking for the good. Like if a horse is not well rested, coming off a layoff, moving from one surface or distance to another, poor trend at distance, weather factors, dont like the jockey or post position in this spot etc. If I go and get rid of 6 horses in a 12 horse field, it makes it much easier. After I narrow it down, then comes the tricky part of trying to figure out which way to be to maximize my value. I wish I was better at this part as I often pick the right horses but bet in a way where I find a way to lose.( key on the wrong horse, box them all and end up with the 2 favorites coming in, box 5 and the 6th one sneaks in etc)

[Overlay]

Part of the field in most races might have a discernibly better chance of winning than the other horses in the race, but those "contenders" are also often bet down to an odds level that requires you to maintain an unsustainable hit rate on them to achieve positive returns. In my opinion, eliminating those horses' rivals (the "non-contenders") at the very beginning of the selection process (with no consideration whatsoever) increases the difficulty of overcoming that impediment.

[PhantomOnTour]

Once i have all my necessary data on hand for a race i begin by determining how the race is likely to be run...the pace dynamics.
Those pace dynamics will determine where i begin to break down the race and utilize my pace/speed figs...it all kinda falls into place after that as i move from horse to horse.

I have 2 types of eliminations:
1) not to win, but can get a share (exotics only)
2) not to use in any spot (a total toss, an X)

[Capper Al]

Once i have all my necessary data on hand for a race i begin by determining how the race is likely to be run...the pace dynamics.
Those pace dynamics will determine where i begin to break down the race and utilize my pace/speed figs...it all kinda falls into place after that as i move from horse to horse.

I have 2 types of eliminations:
1) not to win, but can get a share (exotics only)
2) not to use in any spot (a total toss, an X)

I do the same, not to win and those to toss.

[therussmeister]

I start by looking for horses with the profile of a long-shot in the money, then look for favorites out of the money.

[Elliott Sidewater]

I do it exactly the same as Phantom On Tour, and haven't felt that the approach has hurt my results in any way.

[fmolf]

I first look to see if the favorite is solid.If i feel he is i will set a price i am willing to take on him and begin to look for value in the exacta.When betting begins i watch the exacta matrix to determine if any combos i like are overlayed.If price is too low on fav. and no combos pay well enough i pass the race....
I will only eliminate obvious horses out for exercise,those in way above their heads.If i think a fav. is vulnerable i begin to look for my win horse in earnest.Sometimes their is just not another strong or logical contender to bet then this race becomes a pass as well.

[Robert Goren]

It is pretty rare to able to completely toss any low priced horse. Most the easy tosses are at very long odds. Most of the time if you toss only horses that have no chances of winning, you end up with tossed horses that have less than 10% of money wagered on them total in a race.
A few years ago I spent over a month trying to make this idea work, reading every thing I could get my hands on very low % winners. There is actually quite a bit out there and Dave's new book will probably shed some more light on low % winners. It is just very hard to find a horse with 25+% of the money bet on it that has almost no chance of winning. That is what you need to find in order to make this idea profitable with takeouts being what they are today.
I wish good luck in your endeavors along this line, but I found it unfruitful.

[Dave Schwartz]

I assure you, Robert, that it is not as difficult as you think, but it takes some work.

[Capper Al]

Robert,

It's a mixed bag for me with both low odd horses and high odds horses getting tossed.

[Uncle Salty]

One situation that I came across this spring and summer a number of times is when you have a relatively young stakes-caliber horse coming off of his winter layoff, entered in some kind of non-winners allowance race. They usually go off as the chalk and they are usually just out for a run. This type of race can produce some overlays.

Many times however, the low-odds horse is a logical contender and hard to toss.

[Robert Goren]

One situation that I came across this spring and summer a number of times is when you have a relatively young stakes-caliber horse coming off of his winter layoff, entered in some kind of non-winners allowance race. They usually go off as the chalk and they are usually just out for a run. This type of race can produce some overlays.

Many times however, the low-odds horse is a logical contender and hard to toss. That happens about 20 times a year if you include things like state bred races and some times the young stakes horse wins anyway even though they are just out for exercise. They are not good bet, but hardly an automatic toss out.

[thaskalos]

How many of you start with eliminating the horses you dont think will hit the board??I have found that I do better when I go and look for reasons not to bet horses rather then looking for the good. Like if a horse is not well rested, coming off a layoff, moving from one surface or distance to another, poor trend at distance, weather factors, dont like the jockey or post position in this spot etc. If I go and get rid of 6 horses in a 12 horse field, it makes it much easier. After I narrow it down, then comes the tricky part of trying to figure out which way to be to maximize my value. I wish I was better at this part as I often pick the right horses but bet in a way where I find a way to lose.( key on the wrong horse, box them all and end up with the 2 favorites coming in, box 5 and the 6th one sneaks in etc)
This is one area in which the win-bettors may hold an edge over the exotics players.

As an exotics player myself, I don't feel comfortable eliminating more than the obvious throwouts at the very start of the handicapping process.

Sometimes I will toss out a horse or two...and other times I won't be able to eliminate any.

I rate all the horses in the race according to their abilities, and then I begin the elimination process.

A horse that looks impossible for the win can figure quite prominently for a minor spot, usually at a great price...and these are the situations I am looking for.

I can't even remember one case in which I was able to eliminate half the field right at the start of my handicapping...

Factors like..."not well rested", "coming off a layoff", "switching distances", "weather factors", and "jockey and post-position concerns"...may very well eliminate a horse from the win slot -- but they do not safely eliminate it from finishing in-the-money.

IMO...the exotics player needs to play it safe, and err on the side of caution...

[teddy]

In the Hollywood park high 5 that had a carryover a couple days ago, the obvious throw out was the 8, everyone tosssed him that handicapped and he ran 5th, a nose from 8th. He runs 4th instead of 5th and i bet the payoff would have been insane.

[DigitalDownsJoe]

I would like to further understand what you are looking for in an overlay..I understand the concept..I get that if you like the chalk in a ten horse field and you run down the list on the computer and find some longer prices on horses you feel have a good chance of placing, but what exactly are you looking for in relation to win odds(or even better your idea of the value/odds per horse) and price of the exacta.

For instance in a ten horse field you like the 7/5 favorite.

The rest of the field is pretty wide open, but there is probably 5 or 6 horses who have a really good shot at second. What are you looking for a two dollar payout. Is there some type of formula that you use to come up with a set price for a value exacta? Like multiply the two odds together and then multiply by 1.5(Not sure if these is even close, but just an example.

I also realize that you cant see the prices for trifectas, so how do you find value in tri/super bets when you have no clue what the payouts could be? I often times will think I am going to hit a big one, then the price pops up and I about lose my lunch.

[Dave Schwartz]

I would like to further understand what you are looking for in an overlay..I understand the concept..I get that if you like the chalk in a ten horse field and you run down the list on the computer and find some longer prices on horses you feel have a good chance of placing, but what exactly are you looking for in relation to win odds(or even better your idea of the value/odds per horse) and price of the exacta.

Joe,

Who are you asking?


Dave

[pondman]

How many of you start with eliminating the horses you dont think will hit the board??

I scan the form looking for the green flags. If any show up, I'll take another look, wait for the house handicapper, and the morning line. If I don't get the odds I need I'll sit out. I never force a bet, just to have a bet.

[DigitalDownsJoe]

The question was open to whoever wants to answer..I believe you can never have too much info..Even if you dont agree with something, its always nice to look at something from another point of view or way of doing something. Often times you can incorporate it into your own style. :) I was really looking for an answer to how you determine your own odds for overlays in exactas..

[HUSKER55]

I probably don't understand what you are after but...I will give it a shot.

If your strike is 25% then your odds need to keep from losing is 3:1. In ten races you have invested $60. (I am using two horses). Your return needed is $180 so each race has to pay $60.

Is that on track or am I lost...again?

JMHO :)

[Dave Schwartz]

Personally, I do it by the numbers.

Win bets are bets if they are profitable. Now that I have the probabilities really working, Kelly has become my new best friend.

Exactas work the same way. Still in development there, but that would be the concept. The exacta combinations that are profitable are played like the win bets: according to Kelly.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[DigitalDownsJoe]

What I really want to know is how do i look an exacta board(like a power tool at thr track)

like if i like the 1 horse who is 2/1 in a ten horse field
(exacta combo/exacta probable/ win odds on 2nd place horse)
1/2-24(the 2 is 5/1)
1/3-55(the 3 is 20/1)
1/4-28(the 4 is 15/1)
1/5-70(the 5 is 30/1)
1/6-20(the 6 is 7/2)
1/7-88(the 7 is 15/1)
1/8-40(the 8 is 7/1)
1/9-90(the 9 is 40/1)
1/10-55(the 10 is 9/2)

Ok so how would consider who is an overlay..where is the value? Do any any of you have a formula you use to figure out which are the good value bets on exactas?

[thaskalos]

What I really want to know is how do i look an exacta board(like a power tool at thr track)

like if i like the 1 horse who is 2/1 in a ten horse field
(exacta combo/exacta probable/ win odds on 2nd place horse)
1/2-24(the 2 is 5/1)
1/3-55(the 3 is 20/1)
1/4-28(the 4 is 15/1)
1/5-70(the 5 is 30/1)
1/6-20(the 6 is 7/2)
1/7-88(the 7 is 15/1)
1/8-40(the 8 is 7/1)
1/9-90(the 9 is 40/1)
1/10-55(the 10 is 9/2)

Ok so how would consider who is an overlay..where is the value? Do any any of you have a formula you use to figure out which are the good value bets on exactas?
When betting exactas...you don't just cavalierly define the rest of the field by the tote board odds that the horses are displayed at.

You RATE the other horses in the race, using the methods that led you to your top choice...and you come up with a list of contenders that you would like to use along with your "1 horse".

Then...you observe the exacta payouts of said combinations...to see if the reward is worth the risk.

There are no shortcuts in this game...

[HUSKER55]

do you make your own odds line? if you don't then I don't understand where your reference point is.


somebody...throw me a rope...please.

thanks :)

[Dave Schwartz]

Joe,

Theoretically, you could make a win PROBABILITY (not an odds line, but easily transferable from one to the other). Then you would take that win prob and mathematically compute the chances for each possible combination in the exacta.

From there you would know what the "break-even" or "fair" price on each exacta would be. That is how you decide who to bet.

It can be done relatively easily in a spreadsheet.

Hmm. That would make a great, useful little product.

BTW, the math guys will probably step in and tell me what is wrong with this approach - and they'd be right. It is not perfect the way I just defined it, but it is a step in the right direction.


Think of exactas like win bets... You can't know what a "good bet" is without having an idea of what the payoff "should be" as a minimum.


The exception to that would be a guy who can pick good contenders who, collectively (that is, betting all of them) do not lose more than (say) 8%. Those horses could probably be bet in exacta boxes and be profitable. Would even work better if he could pick a good key horse, but the key horse must be profitable as a win bet.

Hope this helps.

Dave

[bertyruss]

It would be interesting to see an exacta study. For example, we know that betting the favorite returns more than the average bet (or so I'm told), though not enough for a net positive return. What about the "favorite" exacta, i.e., the first and second public choices to win. How does that pay? When I look at the board, it usually seems to pay poorly, but does it really, or is it just like betting the public's choices to win, not great, but better than average bet. One could extend this study to types of combinations, e.g., odds on with distant second choices, etc., and I suppose someone has.

Berty

[bertyruss]

The more I think about it, the obvious thing to do would be to develop a set of expected/break even exacta returns based on the first and second choice horses's odds to win and figure out when the exacta payoff is an overlay. Undoubtedly there are arbitrage players doing this, since it would seem like fairly easy pickings if you know what you are doing, since the public is giving you good information with the win betting, and the game is to simply see if the more opaque exacta board is out of sync. I think Beyer wrote years ago about guys doing this ...and also with the place and show pools....

[Overlay]

The more I think about it, the obvious thing to do would be to develop a set of expected/break even exacta returns based on the first and second choice horses's odds to win and figure out when the exacta payoff is an overlay. Undoubtedly there are arbitrage players doing this, since it would seem like fairly easy pickings if you know what you are doing, since the public is giving you good information with the win betting, and the game is to simply see if the more opaque exacta board is out of sync. I think Beyer wrote years ago about guys doing this ...and also with the place and show pools....
It seems to me that the more factors that you would use to develop your win odds, the more accurate such a projection would be. However, there are still "place horse" types, such as Dick Mitchell discussed (the unbalanced horse that has class or speed, but not both; the horse that has strong numbers, but has to fight a bias, such as a frontrunner on a track that favors closers (or vice-versa), a horse breaking from the 1 post when the rail is dead, or a turf horse breaking from the 12 post in a two-turn race); a "seconditis" horse, with a record that shows a disproportionate number of second-place finishes; both the public favorite and the morning-line favorite in races where the two are different horses; and the Form's consensus best bet horse (in bold-face type)), which would not necessarily be the horse with the second-highest probability to win, but that would figure more prominently than that horse with respect to the likelihood of specifically finishing second and completing the exacta.

As another thought, there was also a book several years ago called Exacta Expose by Douglas Railey that dealt with exactas from the standpoint of the historical probability for each possible combination of betting ranks (for example, the favorite over the second-favorite; the favorite over the third-favorite, etc.), without regard to the winning probabilities of the horses involved, or to calculating the exacta probability based on the winning probabilities of the horses involved. I don't recall too much about it, but it seems to me that would have the same weakness as assuming (for example) that a favorite with odds over 2-1 would automatically be an overlay since favorites (in general) win one-third of the time.

[thaskalos]

The second-best horse in the race is often a poor candidate to finish second.

The "dynamics" of the race often have more to do with it than the win-odds of the horses in the field.

For example...if the two best horses in the race are both speed types, their chances of finishing one-two are diminished...and the same can be said if the two best horses are stretch runners.

[Robert Fischer]

If X wins, what is the chance that Y will finish 2nd??


I like Xhorse to win @ 2-1. I feel that 33% is a low estimate of his chance of winning.

If X wins, what is the chance that Y will finish 2nd??
- If Xhorse wins, I feel that a conservative low estimate of Y finishing 2nd is 1 out of 4, or 25%.

multiply 33% x 25%
=.0825 OR 8.25% probability that this exacta will hit.

break even minimum = $2/0.825 = $24.24 or $25

i want 10% = $2.20/0.825= $26.67 or $27



So 2-1 shot on top , horse I feel has a 1in4 chance of placing if 2-1 shot wins, I want $27 minimum for my low estimate exacta probable.

[Robert Fischer]

The second-best horse in the race is often a poor candidate to finish second.

The "dynamics" of the race often have more to do with it than the win-odds of the horses in the field.

For example...if the two best horses in the race are both speed types, their chances of finishing one-two are diminished...and the same can be said if the two best horses are stretch runners.

good point, this is why I feel the most accurate way (although tedious) is to consider the Win horse when selecting the Place horse.

Usually pace scenario works against like-running styles. Exceptions could be with strong bias.

[pondman]

So 2-1 shot on top , horse I feel has a 1in4 chance of placing if 2-1 shot wins, I want $27 minimum for my low estimate exacta probable.

I hope most people would sit out of a race like this...because In this case there is no margin on the first horse-- it's a push. The margin would have to be on the second place horse. In this case you'd should look at the chances of the second horse placing plus possibly winning, because it's possible the combined chances could be at 40%, which in real term is approximately a +7/5 place bet overtime. And the place bet would be optimal if you insist on play this race.

IMO... a longshot with a high % chance of winning is easier on a handicapper than trying to throw the kitchen sink on the second spot. Exactas can be rough on the wallet, especially when you are playing chalk in the 1st spot.

[Robert Fischer]

I hope most people would sit out of a race like this...because In this case there is no margin on the first horse-- it's a push. The margin would have to be on the second place horse. In this case you'd should look at the chances of the second horse placing plus possibly winning, because it's possible the combined chances could be at 40%, which in real term is approximately a +7/5 place bet overtime. And the place bet would be optimal if you insist on play this race.

IMO... a longshot with a high % chance of winning is easier on a handicapper than trying to throw the kitchen sink on the second spot. Exactas can be rough on the wallet, especially when you are playing chalk in the 1st spot.

agree completely.

Used the 2-1shot on top for the sake of simplicity.

The math and process should be the focus. It is a bit easier when done on a spreadsheet. For those interested I recommend looking looking at a few patterns to see what kind of price is needed. Often players will use a certain odds- range more often due to their style of play.

I purposely used a somewhat low (25%) figure for the place horse here. A lot of players new to estimating probabilities will tend to over-estimate the chances of different horses.

Ideally your exacta would include one or two overlays, or else you are hoping for pool inefficiencies.

[classhandicapper]

The second-best horse in the race is often a poor candidate to finish second.

The "dynamics" of the race often have more to do with it than the win-odds of the horses in the field.

For example...if the two best horses in the race are both speed types, their chances of finishing one-two are diminished...and the same can be said if the two best horses are stretch runners.

I definitely agree about the two front runner scenario because the superior one will often "put away" the other without extreme stress on itself.

Are you sure about the two closers scenario?

Closers don't tend to have as much of an impact on each other (other than perhaps ground loss) and do their best when a race collapses. When it does collapse, several can hit the board.

What I do think often happens is the best closer getting up for second when the pace was not hot enough to kill off a solid speed horse.

[riskman]

The problem for me is when you have a balanced or honest field in terms of running style where no one really has an edge in terms of race shape.
Usually, I will go with the EP horse for the win assuming he stacks up with the speed, class and pace and is offering some value. This does not always work out for me and has led me to pass on these type of races and to also pass on horizontal wagers that contain these races. Sort of limits my wagering options although I take stabs at the Double and usually stick to win and vertical exotics for the races that contain a lot of early speed or slow paced races.

[thaskalos]

Are you sure about the two closers scenario?

Closers don't tend to have as much of an impact on each other (other than perhaps ground loss) and do their best when a race collapses. When it does collapse, several can hit the board.

What I do think often happens is the best closer getting up for second when the pace was not hot enough to kill off a solid speed horse.

When the two best horses in the race are both closers, it is very unlikely that they will finish one-two...and the reason has nothing to do with the impact that they have on one another.

They fall prey to race dynamics of a different sort...

The closer lacks the consistency of the front-runner, and cannot show his best closing ability every single time...unlike the speed horse, who can be relied to be always on the lead.

This "inconsistency" that the closer displays is only partially due to the "trouble" and the "pace" that it encounters in the race; there is a certain amount of inconsistency built into the closer's very nature.

You will never see stretch runners go on long winning streaks, or long streaks of finishing first or second, no matter what the circumstances may be...and that's what made Zenyatta so special, IMO.

Any review of the past performances of stretch runners will clearly show that this inconsistency is apparent...and to expect BOTH of them to display their best closing kick IN THE SAME RACE is a longshot possibility.

But the main reason that the two closers will not finish one-two, when they are the two best horses in the race, is one of PACE.

When the two best horses in the race are both closers, the early pace is not likely to be as strong as it might otherwise be.

It might be "contested"...but it will not be "heated".

There is a certain type of "heated" early pressure, which only the BEST horses in the race are capable of applying...and, when the two best horses in the race are languishing in the back of the field in the early going...the odds are very much against BOTH of them completing the exacta.

They might both finish in the money, like you said, but they are not likely to finish one-two.

Without the early pressure that only the best horses in the race can apply...one of the "speedier" horses will almost certainly spoil it for them.

[classhandicapper]

But the main reason that the two closers will not finish one-two, when they are the two best horses in the race, is one of PACE.

When the two best horses in the race are both closers, the early pace is not likely to be as strong as it might otherwise be.

It might be "contested"...but it will not be "heated".

There is a certain type of "heated" early pressure, which only the BEST horses in the race are capable of applying...and, when the two best horses in the race are languishing in the back of the field in the early going...the odds are very much against BOTH of them completing the exacta.



Good point.

[1st time lasix]

getting back to the thread point or original concept about "entry eliminations" i find that that is much more helpful in multi race wagers because it is win only concept

In same race deep exotics it is much more difficult to eliminate from underneath. i feel you must key two in that scenario and must structure your tickets with intelligent care to only seek overlays

[Capper Al]

I probably don't understand what you are after but...I will give it a shot.

If your strike is 25% then your odds need to keep from losing is 3:1. In ten races you have invested $60. (I am using two horses). Your return needed is $180 so each race has to pay $60.

Is that on track or am I lost...again?

JMHO :)

This reasoning works for dice but not for horses. With dice one finds their odds out of all the known possible outcomes. With horses, one finds their probability from betting against the unknown stream of public information. Therefore, what is known is your ability against the public, nothing else. ( I have posted this formula several times and haven't received any support anywhere except from making money with it. ) Given that your knowledge predicts 1 out of 4 and the publics' picks them 1 out of 3, in battle against the public your needed average minimum odds needs to be:

2 out 3 (that the public fails) times 1 out of 4 that you are correct.

2/3 x 1/4 = 1/6 probability or 5 to 1 odds.

All the math guys in racing forms everywhere don't seem to get this because they think dice like from their textbook examples and don't understand horse racing in the real world.

[Capper Al]

getting back to the thread point or original concept about "entry eliminations" i find that that is much more helpful in multi race wagers because it is win only concept

In same race deep exotics it is much more difficult to eliminate from underneath. i feel you must key two in that scenario and must structure your tickets with intelligent care to only seek overlays

This is difficult. Many players key their exacta longshot on the top and bottom with the top 2 favorites. I did a small sampling once and found a higher ROI than keying my longshot with my top two picks (or third horse if needed). Did I apply this lesson to my handicapping? Of course not, favorites have the cooties.

[Dave Schwartz]

With horses, one finds their probability from betting against the unknown stream of public information. Therefore, what is known is your ability against the public, nothing else.

Sometimes (often, actually) the public is right. You cannot indescriminantly "bet against the public."


Dave Schwartz

[HUSKER55]

thanks for your reply capperal. I appreciate your efforts. so my odds of beating the public is 5:1 which means if the exacta pays more than $12 it is a good bet?

[TrifectaMike]

This reasoning works for dice but not for horses. With dice one finds their odds out of all the known possible outcomes. With horses, one finds their probability from betting against the unknown stream of public information. Therefore, what is known is your ability against the public, nothing else. ( I have posted this formula several times and haven't received any support anywhere except from making money with it. ) Given that your knowledge predicts 1 out of 4 and the publics' picks them 1 out of 3, in battle against the public your needed average minimum odds needs to be:

2 out 3 (that the public fails) times 1 out of 4 that you are correct.

2/3 x 1/4 = 1/6 probability or 5 to 1 odds.

All the math guys in racing forms everywhere don't seem to get this because they think dice like from their textbook examples and don't understand horse racing in the real world.

I get it, but it has nothing to do with dice, horses nor pumkin pie.

If you view yourself as Player B and the favorite as Player A (essentially two teams) and

Player A wins at a rate A and
Player B wins at a rate B then

in a single iteration Player B wins with probability B(1-A).

However, the favorite will beat you (using your numbers) 60% of the time.

Glad to help Al,
Mike (Dr Beav)

[Dave Schwartz]

I appreciate your efforts. so my odds of beating the public is 5:1 which means if the exacta pays more than $12 it is a good bet?

Absolutely NOT!

[dansan]

$12 exacta you joking right

[Capper Al]

Sometimes (often, actually) the public is right. You cannot indescriminantly "bet against the public."


Dave Schwartz

The circumstances the player faces is that one will need to get their minimum odds. The favorite at odds of 2 to 1 or less, most of the time, puts the player out at bay for higher odds. In other words, a player needing 3 to 1 odds (which is typical) is forced to wait out the public favorite and, thereby, bet against the favorite to get their odds. If their minimum odds where 2 to 1, like the public which very few cappers a capable of, with the takeout they still will have to wait out the public to get their odds. The scenario doesn't submit to knowing when the public is right. It only knows the premise that the public is right 1 out of 3 and the average player is right 1 out of 4.

[Dave Schwartz]

Al,

I truly have no idea what you just said.


Sincerely,
David Schwartz

[Capper Al]

Sometimes (often, actually) the public is right. You cannot indescriminantly "bet against the public."


Dave Schwartz

Dave you are getting a double with this one. The case is actually worse if one tries to determine which favorites will win. Fortunately, the set of favorites overlaps with the capper's top picks or it would be disastrous trying to figure which favorite is likely. If it was just using a cappers knowledge at 1 out of 4 with the publics' 1 out of 3, independently of one another, it would be 1/3 * 1/4 or 1/12. That would be 11 to 1, but since the public is made of cappers using similar methods there is a high overlap and this is not independent bringing the odds down to something less.

[Capper Al]

Al,

I truly have no idea what you just said.


Sincerely,
David Schwartz

A triple for Dave. You have given me lots of free info on your web page. Let's forget numbers. Simply put, one must wait out the public if they set minimum odds. There is no way around it. And by doing so, they are forced to bet against the public. The public gets first choice.

[Capper Al]

thanks for your reply capperal. I appreciate your efforts. so my odds of beating the public is 5:1 which means if the exacta pays more than $12 it is a good bet?

Much more than that. Now you have to figure your second choice against the favorite again times your 1/4 and have to demand that the second favorite fails to get in the top two also. It gets too complicated for here.

[Dave Schwartz]

Al,

Thanks for the great sense of humor!


I think I get what you are saying (LOL - although that scares me a little). And I think we would be in agreement.

The confusing part about racing is that the public makes a very good line and cannot be ignored. In other words, we need to agree with their opinions.

The Catch-22 of that is that we must make money by betting against that line.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Capper Al]

Al,

Thanks for the great sense of humor!


I think I get what you are saying (LOL - although that scares me a little). And I think we would be in agreement.

The confusing part about racing is that the public makes a very good line and cannot be ignored. In other words, we need to agree with their opinions.

The Catch-22 of that is that we must make money by betting against that line.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

We're on the same page. I respect the public's opinion. I am both excited and concerned when I get my odds.

[Overlay]

The confusing part about racing is that the public makes a very good line and cannot be ignored. In other words, we need to agree with their opinions.
I would change or clarify that to: We need to understand the public's line/opinion, which then provides the basis for agreeing with it, or (if we disagree with it) for betting against it.

[Capper Al]

I get it, but it has nothing to do with dice, horses nor pumkin pie.

If you view yourself as Player B and the favorite as Player A (essentially two teams) and

Player A wins at a rate A and
Player B wins at a rate B then

in a single iteration Player B wins with probability B(1-A).

However, the favorite will beat you (using your numbers) 60% of the time.

Glad to help Al,
Mike (Dr Beav)

The trick is not in the math. It is in understanding the game. Too many players, for example, say when I see this scenario the horse wins 1 out of 4 times. That may be true, but they'll need not 3/1 odds or better. They need 5/1 per the above posted example. This misunderstanding is what breaks players.

[bob60566]

The trick is not in the math. It is in understanding the game. Too many players, for example, say when I see this scenario the horse wins 1 out of 4 times. That may be true, but they'll need not 3/1 odds or better. They need 5/1 per the above posted example. This misunderstanding is what breaks players.

Is this how the general players handicap eliminating contenders on lifetime starts and putting a bet on.

Mac:confused:

[Dave Schwartz]

The trick is not in the math. It is in understanding the game. Too many players, for example, say when I see this scenario the horse wins 1 out of 4 times. That may be true, but they'll need not 3/1 odds or better. They need 5/1 per the above posted example. This misunderstanding is what breaks players.

Here is where we differ.

I believe it is absolutely in the math. I also believe that those who say it isn't do so because they cannot get their math to work.

(That doesn't mean they are stupid or uneducated - I can qualify for both of those at times. It means that the horses that they say will win 40% of the time usually don't win 40% of the time.)

[thaskalos]

The trick is not in the math. It is in understanding the game.

"He who understands the game, is strong.
He who understands the math, is mighty.
But he who understands HIMSELF, is mightier still."

-- thaskalos...race track philosopher

[bob60566]

[QUOTE=thaskalos]"He who understands the game, is strong.
He who understands the math, is mighty.
But he who understands HIMSELF, is mightier still."

-- thaskalos...race track philosopher[/QUOTE
]
Have to agree on that big time

Mac:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[HUSKER55]

ok boys and girls, I must be having a senior moment. not to worry...I have them often.:D

if you bet four races and win 1 (25%) your cash out is $8 and your cash back is $8 (3:1) and you are back to zero.

what did I make a mistake on?

thanks guys!

[Capper Al]

ok boys and girls, I must be having a senior moment. not to worry...I have them often.:D

if you bet four races and win 1 (25%) your cash out is $8 and your cash back is $8 (3:1) and you are back to zero.

what did I make a mistake on?

thanks guys!

What you are missing is that something that happens 1 out of 4 times won't work that way when you go to bet. The public gets first choice when one sets the minimum odds. This gives the bettor second best on what ever algorithm that their wager is based on.

[Capper Al]

Here is where we differ.

I believe it is absolutely in the math. I also believe that those who say it isn't do so because they cannot get their math to work.

(That doesn't mean they are stupid or uneducated - I can qualify for both of those at times. It means that the horses that they say will win 40% of the time usually don't win 40% of the time.)

Math is based on a premise. One's wagering formula is deduced from a premise. Your premise suggests that anything happening 1 out of 4 times is worth odds of 3/1. The other factors that your wagering premise misses, and you are betting against, are the factors that the public is taking into account. The public senses that something like speed is worth 1 out of 4. The only other way one will get 3/1 on that speed figure is if the public chooses to downgrade that horse for other reasons. When these other reasons don't exist the player won't get their 3/1 odds. The consequences of this is that when the odds are right the horse is likely to be wrong if one doesn't include a margin for the public being right.

[Capper Al]

"He who understands the game, is strong.
He who understands the math, is mighty.
But he who understands HIMSELF, is mightier still."

-- thaskalos...race track philosopher

That's right. And he who bets in a vacuum and ignores the public doesn't understand his game and, therefore, who he is in the game.

[Dave Schwartz]

What you are missing is that something that happens 1 out of 4 times won't work that way when you go to bet. The public gets first choice when one sets the minimum odds. This gives the bettor second best on what ever algorithm that their wager is based on.


Math is based on a premise. One's wagering formula is deduced from a premise. Your premise suggests that anything happening 1 out of 4 times is worth odds of 3/1. The other factors that your wagering premise misses, and you are betting against, are the factors that the public is taking into account. The public senses that something like speed is worth 1 out of 4. The only other way one will get 3/1 on that speed figure is if the public chooses to downgrade that horse for other reasons. When these other reasons don't exist the player won't get their 3/1 odds. The consequences of this is that when the odds are right the horse is likely to be wrong if one doesn't include a margin for the public being right.

And your point is what?

[Capper Al]

And your point is what?

Okay, this is the PA vendor's forum, not mine. The math isn't wrong, the premise is. Whatever factor one measures, like top speed for example, doesn't happen in a vacuum like a typical study might imply. I've said enough. That's my point.

[Dave Schwartz]

Sorry to sound so obtuse. I guess I am not understanding.

I think what you are saying is that when you take (say) the top-ranked horse for a factor and he wins at 25% rate, you cannot simply bet horses above 3/1 and be profitable because as the odds go up (or down) the probability changes. Yes?

(I am in total agreement.)

The problem is that the fact that THIS methodology does not work does not relieve one of the need to turn their handicapping into a probability number and, ultimately, into a line.

Can we get back on the same page now?

[Capper Al]

Sorry to sound so obtuse. I guess I am not understanding.

I think what you are saying is that when you take (say) the top-ranked horse for a factor and he wins at 25% rate, you cannot simply bet horses above 3/1 and be profitable because as the odds go up (or down) the probability changes. Yes?

(I am in total agreement.)

The problem is that the fact that THIS methodology does not work does not relieve one of the need to turn their handicapping into a probability number and, ultimately, into a line.

Can we get back on the same page now?

Yes, we can get back on the same page. Barry Meadow handles this unknown factor by including a fudge factor to the odds to cover it. Many other authors followed suit. One still needs a number. The number must include the fact that the public has first choice on the horse and are right about 1 out of 3 times. The formula for break even odds for a 1 out of 4 factor can be more accurately computed by including the probability the public does fail 2 out 3 times for the handicapper's factor to work. The formula in this case is 1/4(a typical factor for example) times 2/3 (that the public is wrong) equaling 1/6 or odds of 5/1. If we used the old fudge factor method, 50% add on is popular, we get similar results but not accurate, 4/1 3/1 add 1.5 = 4.5/1 or 9/2.

[TrifectaMike]

Yes, we can get back on the same page. Barry Meadow handles this unknown factor by including a fudge factor to the odds to cover it. Many other authors followed suit. One still needs a number. The number must include the fact that the public has first choice on the horse and are right about 1 out of 3 times. The formula for break even odds for a 1 out of 4 factor can be more accurately computed by including the probability the public does fail 2 out 3 times for the handicapper's factor to work. The formula in this case is 1/4(a typical factor for example) times 2/3 (that the public is wrong) equaling 1/6 or odds of 5/1. If we used the old fudge factor method, 50% add on is popular, we get similar results but not accurate, 4/1 3/1 add 1.5 = 4.5/1 or 9/2.

You guys (Al and Dave) are worlds apart on this.

Al, as I said in an earlier post, your probability estimate is ONLY valid if this were a head to head match-up between your factor and the public favorite. In horse racing that premise is INVALID!

Mike (Dr Beav)

[Capper Al]

You guys (Al and Dave) are worlds apart on this.

Al, as I said in an earlier post, your probability estimate is ONLY valid if this were a head to head match-up between your factor and the public favorite. In horse racing that premise is INVALID!

Mike (Dr Beav)

Mike,

How can this not be? One sets up their hypothesis and bets it against the public every time. The other way when we say the 1 out of 4 needs 3/1 odds, we are saying everything else doesn't matter. I should add to this that I am a comprehensive handicapper believing that everything adds up to rate a horse against the field not a single factor like pace or class. Maybe this will explain my thinking.

[PaceAdvantage]

Okay, this is the PA vendor's forum, not mine.Huh?

[Capper Al]

Huh?

Yeah!

[ranchwest]

Thread implosion.

[keilan]

Huh?

Thread killer ;)