A Question of Value

[David McKenzie]

A Question of Value

If you simply bet your top horse to win regardless of the odds, then skip this as it’s not applicable. Otherwise, read on.

After experiencing a couple of wretched days at the virtual windows, I wondered what would have happened if I’d changed my factor weights.

I did and the results were favorable; even though the sample size was too small to validate a hypothesis it was nevertheless encouraging.

Although serendipity didn’t strike it did give me a mild slap in the face and made me question betting for value. Or, rather, I should say how to bet for value.

Let’s take a step back and look at the process –- back to basics.

Assuming you’ve handicapped the race, isolated the contenders and created a betting line, you now have to figure out if you want to bet the race, which horse(s) to bet and how much to bet.

Let’s simplify the equation and assume the race is playable. You’re going to make a $2 Win bet(s). Now the only question is how to invest your money.

Oh, we are only considering win bets for this exercise. We are also going to assume your top horse is not an overwhelming favorite probability wise or in the mutuel pools.


Basically, there are three ways to proceed:

1) Bet the Top Horse, if he’s an overlay.
2) If the Top Horse is not an overlay, then proceed to the next contender and bet that horse is he’s an overlay.
3) Bet all the contenders that are overlays.

Of course you can make adjustments, set parameters, constrictions, etc. For example, you might insist on 5-1 odds for your Non-Top contenders before placing a wager. Or, you might demand 8-1 or more for multiple horse bets. You could also insist your top horse go off no lower than 7/2 regardless of the probability you’ve assigned him. There are lots of ways to proceed.

Let’s ignore all that for the time being and only consider the three scenarios above –- the primal value betting ooze.

Which is the most profitable?

Although statistically insignificant, I’ll use yesterday’s races I re-handicapped with my new weights for illustration as this is what got my wheels spinning.

A) Top Horse only when overlaid:

12/21/03 AQU01 d 8.32fst f3 CL- # 3 6.20
12/21/03 AQU02 d 8.50fst 3 CL- # 2 2.75*
12/21/03 AQU03 d 8.50fst f3u MS- # 7 2.90 $7.80 $3.10 $2.40
12/21/03 BEU03 D 5.50gd f4u CL- # 7 9.20 $20.40 $5.80 $4.60
12/21/03 CRC01 D 7.00fst f2 MD- # 7 2.30 $3.40 $2.20
12/21/03 CRC05 D 8.50fst 3 CL- # 7 4.50 $11.00 $5.40 $5.00


B) Above plus the next good bet when the Top Horse was not an overlay:

12/21/03 AQU01 d 8.32fst f3 CL- # 3 6.20
12/21/03 AQU02 d 8.50fst 3 CL- # 4 7.00*
12/21/03 AQU03 d 8.50fst f3u MS- # 7 2.90 $7.80 $3.10 $2.40
12/21/03 AQU05 d 6.00fst 4u CL- # 9 6.00 $6.70 $4.50
12/21/03 AQU07 d 6.00fst 3u NW- # 3 4.50
12/21/03 AQU08 d 6.00fst 3u GR- # 3 5.30 $2.90
12/21/03 AQU09 d 8.32fst 3u NW- # 1 12.50 $10.00
12/21/03 BEU01 D 6.00gd f3u ST- # 9 6.70
12/21/03 BEU03 D 5.50gd f4u CL- # 7 9.20 $20.40 $5.80 $4.60
12/21/03 BEU04 D16.00gd 4u CL- # 6 6.00
12/21/03 CRC01 D 7.00fst f2 MD- # 7 2.30 $3.40 $2.20
12/21/03 CRC02 D 8.50fst 3u CL- # 4 4.90 $5.20 $4.20
12/21/03 CRC05 D 8.50fst 3 CL- # 7 4.50 $11.00 $5.40 $5.00
12/21/03 CRC06 T 8.50fm f3u NW- #11 6.80 $3.80
12/21/03 CRC07 D 8.50fst 2 NW- # 1 6.20 $9.20 $5.40
12/21/03 CRC10 T 9.00fm 3u OC- # 3 4.50


C) Add all contenders to the A)list which have a minimum 2.3% Opt% (which are overlays), even if the race should be passed due to the top horse being a short-priced, legitimate favorite:

12/21/03 AQU01 d 8.32fst f3 CL- # 2 4.50 $11.00 $5.80 $3.30
12/21/03 AQU02 d 8.50fst 3 CL- # 4 7.00*
12/21/03 AQU05 d 6.00fst 4u CL- # 9 6.00 $6.70 $4.50
12/21/03 AQU07 d 6.00fst 3u NW- # 6 6.80 $2.90
12/21/03 AQU08 d 6.00fst 3u GR- # 3 5.30 $2.90
12/21/03 AQU08 d 6.00fst 3u GR- # 2 14.00
12/21/03 AQU09 d 8.32fst 3u NW- # 1 12.50 $10.00
12/21/03 BEU01 D 6.00gd f3u ST- # 9 6.70
12/21/03 BEU04 D16.00gd 4u CL- # 6 6.00
12/21/03 CRC02 D 8.50fst 3u CL- # 4 4.90 $5.20 $4.20
12/21/03 CRC03 D 6.00fst 4u CL- # 4 5.90 $2.60
12/21/03 CRC07 D 8.50fst 2 NW- # 1 6.20 $9.20 $5.40
12/21/03 CRC08 D 7.00fst f3u NW- # 2 8.60
12/21/03 CRC08 D 7.00fst f3u NW- # 5 8.30
12/21/03 CRC10 T 9.00fm 3u OC- # 3 4.50

* AQU02
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
2 Jay Black C 5/2 32.4 $2.27 5.4 5/2*
7 Runaway Russy C 3 19.1 $1.53 -7.8 9/2
4 Xanthos C 7 17.1 $2.73 5.2 5
8 Festy Eskimo C 9/2 11.7 $1.29 -7.9 8

It’s readily apparent that the greatest ROI for me would have been achieved by wagering ONLY on the Top Horse yesterday.

Obviously, one day’s results don’t prove anything, but it does give one pause to consider. What *is* the best way to bet value? And what is the best minimum Opt% requirement?

And to think, I used to know all this as fact. :>)

[shanta]

I BET 2 HORSES TO WIN IN EVERY RACE. THE SOFTWARE I USE HAS AN ODDS LINE BUT THERE IS NO "FAIR ODDS" LINE WITH MINE. A LOT OF HORSES SHOW UP AS OVERLAYS. NOW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM. I USED TO BET ONLY LONGSHOTS (8/1 OR UP). HAD REAL LONG RUNOUTS AND A LOT OF TIMES WHEN THE HORSE WOULD WIN I WAS JUST ABLE TO GET BACK TO EVEN AFTER ALL THE LOSSES.WHAT I DO NOW IS IF 1 OF MY CONTENDERS IN THE TOP 2 ARE 5/2 OR HIGHER(MY MINIMUM WIN ODDS) I MAKE HIM MY FIRST BET. I THEN TAKE THE HIGHEST ODDS HORSE IN MY TOP 3 AND TIES FOR MY 2ND BET AS LONG AS HE LOOKS OK ON THIS OTHER SCREEN I USE TO ELIMINATE HORSES.I THINK IT WAS DICK SCHMIDT WHO SAID THAT AROUND 50 % OF THE RACES ARE WON BY 1 OF THE TWO BETTING FAVS IN THE RACE. SO BY TAKING A 5/2 TO 7/2 SHOT I GIVE MYSELF A CHANCE TO GET THAT LOW ODDS GUY. AND I ALSO HAVE A SHOT AT LANDING A "BOMBER". I DO NOT BET A RACE WHERE I DO NOT HAVE AT LEAST 6/1 ODDS ON MY 2ND BET. THERE IS NO REAL REASON FOR BETTING THE RACE. I AM SEEING WHAT THE "CROWD" IS SEEING.

YOUR ODDS LINE SEEMS VERY "REAL"! IF YOU HAVE RECORDS OF YOUR TOP GUY WHEN A VALUE PLAY IS SHOWING A NICE PROFIT THEN "FIRE AWAY"! ARE YOU ABLE TO CHECK THIS OUT WITH YOUR PROGRAM? DO YOU HAVE A DATA BASE? THE ANSWERS SHOULD BE THERE. DO YOU EVER BET 2 HORSES TO WIN? IF SO HOW HAS THAT GONE? HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU AND YOURS
RICHIE

[BillW]

David,

Please explain Opt% (You've strayed off the HSH board :)).

Bill

[lsbets]

David,

The HSH wheels must be spinning. Last night I couldn't sleep, so I decided to look back at Sat and Sunday's races. I wanted to look at something real simple. I looked at my top 2 contenders, and "played the races" two ways - when one of the top two was at either a minimum odds of 4-1 or 5-1. I only played one horse per race, so if my top condender was over the minimum, I did not play my second choice. This made me "pass" a lot of races, and I was a little surprised at the reults. I thought the 5-1 minimum would perform better, but since I had a few $10-11 winners, the 4-1 minimum gave a better performance. Obviously two days is not enough time to make any real judgements, but I am going back now and looking at all of last week.

I decided that I wanted to try and make life simple, and thats why I looked at this. The results have been encouraging, assuming $2 win bets:

37 races "played"
8 races "won"
$74 bet
$108.60 return

My real money plays this weekend were nowhere close to this, so I am going to lok at it more. What it had me thinking is, do we as handicappers(or me specifically) sometimes go too deep in a race and make handicapping too complicated? I think it relates to your question in this way -

Is it better to dig deep for value in a race, or just pass, be patient and wait till it comes along in the top contenders?

[so.cal.fan]

David,
What would be the results if you bet your top horse to win, regardless of the odds? Ignoring the value issue?
Now, getting the best price is of primary importance.....on paper.
However, I am beginning to doubt if it is psychologially sound.

[alysheba88]

Not large enough of a sample size to draw any conclusions. I am on a streak where my third choice (which as expected gets very few plays) is 5 for my last 6. Just doesnt mean anything in the scheme of things.

I don't think you need 5,000 races or anything to draw conclusions but would go with at least 250 and preferably 500 before concluding anything. And even then would still keep an open mind

[Dave Schwartz]

BillW,

David sent me an email asking me to respond top your question.

In the example he posted, there is a column titled "Opt%."

Since we have a (theoretical) probability and we know the odds of the horses, we can computer a $net. From that $net we can easily extrapolate an advantage (or disadvantage).

The Opt% is nothing but advantage / odds.


Dave

[BillW]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
BillW,

David sent me an email asking me to respond top your question.

In the example he posted, there is a column titled "Opt%."

Since we have a (theoretical) probability and we know the odds of the horses, we can computer a $net. From that $net we can easily extrapolate an advantage (or disadvantage).

The Opt% is nothing but advantage / odds.


Dave

Thanks Dave,

I thought that's what it was from looking at the bottom of David's post, but figured I'd ask anyway as someone would be wondering eventually. This topic has been my main focus since the SAR trip, and I have been disecting every pixel that I can find about it.

Happy holidays,

Bill

[JustMissed]

David,

In your post you said "Let’s simplify the equation and assume the race is playable."

Why would you include unplayable races in your results and draw a conclusion based upon inacurate results?

Wouldn't that be the same as a farmer including culls in with his best apples and then asking the county fair judges to rate his orchard based on a bushel of fruit that included good and bad apples?

I could be wrong but when I look at my results I am only concerned the races I play, not the races I don't play.

I just don't get it. What are you trying to accomplish?


JustMissed

[David McKenzie]

Richie,

YOUR ODDS LINE SEEMS VERY "REAL"! IF YOU HAVE RECORDS OF YOUR TOP GUY WHEN A VALUE PLAY IS SHOWING A NICE PROFIT THEN "FIRE AWAY"! ARE YOU ABLE TO CHECK THIS OUT WITH YOUR PROGRAM? DO YOU HAVE A DATA BASE? THE ANSWERS SHOULD BE THERE. DO YOU EVER BET 2 HORSES TO WIN? IF SO HOW HAS THAT GONE? HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU AND YOURS

The Odds Lines can be “real” in a variety of ways.

One way is to create a probability for each horse and simply be done with it.

Another way is to separate the contenders from the pretenders and assign the contenders a group probability. That’s what I’m currently doing, assigning the contender group a combined probability of 88%. The remaining 12% is given to non contenders.

A third way is to allow Odds smoothing, whereby the public odds influence the probability to a degree you’ve established. When I first started using HSH I assigned a 0.55 public influence. I’m now alternating between 0.00 and 0.20 and looking at both.

Yes, I have a database. However, the selections I make are not 100% automatic. It’s therefore impossible to precisely quantify something that involves subjective judgment.

For example, if you and I were both using the exact same set of tools, yet selected different horses as our contenders, then our final outputs would obviously be different.

Yes, I sometimes bet two horses to win. Sometimes I’ll bet as many as five horses to win. Hello, Mountaineer Park.

How has it gone? Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, whether it’s a prime single play or multiple horse hedge/dutch. I’ve won and I’ve lost. You know the routine.

When I first started betting using The Sheets I only bet one horse to win. When I got into the Sartin Methodology I was *forced* to bet two horses to win. Then when I switched to value betting I bet one horse to win. Then that turned into multiple win betting as well. Now I do both.

Have a wonderful holiday yourself, Richie.

----------

Bill,


Please explain Opt% (You've strayed off the HSH board).


I asked Dave Schwartz to personally comment on that as I thought it was too important for me to explain something that was “his.” He graciously responded quickly.

This is probably old hat to you, but perhaps some other people aren’t familiar with it. So, I’ll explain how to create your own version of Opt% or Wager Value.

Let:

P= Probability
O= Odds
P(L)= Probability of Losing
P(W) = Probability of Winning

P = 1 / (Odds + 1)

Odds = P(L) / P(W)

Edge = P(w) * [Odds – P(L)]

Wager Value = Edge / Odds

----------

so.cal.fan,


What would be the results if you bet your top horse to win, regardless of the odds? Ignoring the value issue?
Now, getting the best price is of primary importance.....on paper.
However, I am beginning to doubt if it is psychologially sound.


Betting the top horse to win every race usually results in a dollar loss due to the track take. However, in this day of 8% rebates that may no longer necessarily be the case.

I think everyone considers the value issue whether they realize or not. They may think to themselves, “Yes, that’s the horse, but no way am I going to bet her at 2-1.” What they’ve done is subconsciously create their own value line. Experienced handicappers and professional horse people like you have seen so many past performances and so many races that they have a Gestalt for the race without so much as a second thought. It just comes to them naturally. However, that coming naturally part required years of experience. It wasn’t inexpensive in terms of time and/or money invested. You paid for that education.

You raise an astute point about the psychological impact of wagering on your second, third or even fourth selection only to watch in horror as your top choice romps home by five lengths. If that kind of thing gets to you, then you may be best off only wagering on your top choice when you consider it a good bet. Otherwise the mental side affects may influence your future judgment as well as causing you immediate discomfort.

----------

Isbets,


Is it better to dig deep for value in a race, or just pass, be patient and wait till it comes along in the top contenders?

Bingo! That’s the $64 question, isn't it? :>)

----------

alysheba88,


And even then would still keep an open mind.


Exactly, that’s what I meant about “I used to know all this as fact.”

I’m most curious about yours and others' thoughts concerning this topic. Thanks for the reply.

----------

JustMissed,


In your post you said "Let’s simplify the equation and assume the race is playable."

Why would you include unplayable races in your results and draw a conclusion based upon inacurate results?


That was for clarification -- illustrative purposes only. What one person may consider a playable race, another person may consider as unplayable.

For example, look at the CRC 12th race today:

CRC12
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
1 Terry Dancer C 2 34.9 $2.09 2.3 2
6 Cut Back C 2 21.6 $1.30 -17.5 4
2 Gambling Time C 20 11.8 $4.94 7.4 8
7 Red and Royal C 5 9.4 $1.12 -8.8 10


Is this race playable? Some might say, “Yes,” while others might say, “No.”

Contrast it to BEU 6th today:

BEU06
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
6 Bama Belle C 9/2 30.2 $3.32 14.7 5/2
4 Precious Sea C 5/2 18.5 $1.30 -14.0 9/2
8 Fly Over Early C 5/2 18.5 $1.30 -14.0 9/2
7 Speedy Buster C 15 9.5 $3.04 3.5 10


Where everyone can see the top horse is clearly an overlay.

----------

I'm looking forward to more discussion on this most interesting topic!

[JustMissed]

I know it took a lot of time to prepare your responses to the various post.

I appreciate your willingness to contribute.

JustMissed
:)

[Niko]

I used to go three to four deep in my contenders to find longshots, now I only go two deep. Very simple reason why. Although I didn't play as many races I won more money.
I've also done something else. Instead of using just best speed last race or best race in last 90 days or best speed last 3 etc I use multiple ways to find the best horse in todays race. I'll look at the top contender in each category with a little other handicapping.
Now instead of 1-2 strong horses I can be looking at 3-4 best horses in a race. There's almost always a few of these horses on each card that are overlaid depending on what the public is looking at in a particular race. I'm getting worse at picking winners because there's usually a few that can win a race but I'm getting better at betting using this approach.

[Dave Schwartz]

David McKenzie has just been kicking butt lately. In this thread he was giving an example of how he views "value."

His picks at Calder today (posted all at once, so I can only assume he used the morning line) was perhaps the best example ever. (Note that these picks were posted in HSH's private section of our BBS, but I moved the thread public because of its teaching value.)

For those who may be interested, here is a link:

12/23 Calder (http://www.horsestreet.com/messageboard/forumdisplay.cgi?action=displayprivate&number=20&topic=000593)


Please note that my purpose in posting this is not to hype HSH - frankly, it was David's work more so than HSH.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

Apparently I posted the wrong link. Sorry.

http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000962.html

[JustMissed]

Hey Dave,

I took a look at your results and am having a little trouble figuring out what took place.

I might be considered simple minded but I usually write down my bets on one side of a sheet of paper and write the results and payoffs on the other side.

When I reviewed the results chart for CRC 12/23/2003, I noted that David had the top horse in 4 of the 12 races:R3 paid $4.80, R7 paid $7.20, R11/DH paid $3.80 & 3.40, R12 paid $7.40.

What's got me confused is on your printout you show payoff amounts for w/p/s. Like Comical Judith, the second horse from the top, you show w/p/s as $4.80,$3.20,$2.40. Did he play Comical Judith across the board and spend $6.00 to collect $10.40?

Also on Miss Delia, the 7th horse from the top, you show a trifecta payoff of $244.00 for the $2 ticket. His picks in order were 6-2-5-8. They came in 6-2-8-3. Did he box the 4 horses for a cost of $24 or play a part wheel 6/2/5-8.

Also Dave, if he played a trifecta in the 7th race as you show, did he also play trifectas in the other 11 races? I don't guess any of the other trifectas hit or you would have showed the payoffs?

The same for the exactas. Your show 4 exacta payoffs, did he play the exactas in the other 8 races and if so, what combinations?

Don't mean to burden you with extra work, but it is more meaningful to me, and others I'm sure, to know what the ticket cost was compared to how much a guy cashed for.

Thanks,

JustMissed




:)

[hdcper]

Dave M and Dave S,

Some great questions Dave M about how do we look at value. One of the biggest factors of this great game, Investing in Livestock!

Dave S, how about a recap of Dave M's selections for Aqu on Dec. 18th and the picks he posted today(Dec 24th) for Philadelphia Park.

Dave M, would enjoy reviewing your selections for say this Friday or Saturday at any of the tracks you play. And the approach you plan to take on the positive Opt% horses in your win wagers and any other type of wagers you recommend.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts,

Bill

[Dave Schwartz]

Any particular reason why you mentioned those days? I have never looked at them.

Let me guess... he didn't do well?


Dave

[JimG]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Any particular reason why you mentioned those days? I have never looked at them.

Let me guess... he didn't do well?


Dave

Odd remark. Actually from looking at the results he had a good day Dec. 18th and December 24 is running right now.

Jim

[Dave Schwartz]

JM,

I have no idea how he played the horses. I simply grabbed the results as best as I could.

My point was that his "better" plays (i.e. those that had higher Opt%) significantly outperformed his lesser positive expectancy horses.

Specifically, he had 19 positive expectancy bets that I saw (i.e. those with a 1% or higher Opt%).

If you rank them from highest to lowest opt% and break them into two groups, you get 9 and 10 bets in the high and low groups, respectively.

He had only 5 winners, 4 coming in the top group.
He had 10 places, 8 coming in the top group.

This is David's thread, not mine, so I really don't wish to say much, BUT...

sometime back I suggested that any handicapper could improve their long term results if they could simply find a way to rate each race/play with a letter grade - A,B,C,D,F. Applying a bit of logic, I further suggested that a given player's A-B plays should outperfom his C-D-F plays.

The reason I posted this link was it was an obvious example of this in action.

In this case David does not use an A-B-C approach because he has a better measuring tool. Nevertheless, I think it is a good example of the concept.


Again, I stress that the issue is not whether his picks were profitable, whether his approach works or whether or not HSH is a great product. This was merely meant as an opportunity to illustrate a point about value.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
JM,

I have no idea how he played the horses. I simply grabbed the results as best as I could.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Thanks Dave for taking the time to respond.

When I saw your comments below, I assumed you had an intimate knowledge of David McKenzie's play:

"kicking butt lately"

"best example ever"

"What an awesome day! It is beginning to look like the McKenzie school of handicapping around here!"

Maybe with it being the holidays and all you were just a tad bit overzealous with his 4 out of 12 winning picks.

Hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas.

JustMissed




;)

[Dave Schwartz]

JM,

While it might seem overzealous to you, I assure you that it illustrates the point very well.

Here is today, as requested by hdcper (sorted by opt%):


Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
3 Showmethebook C 2 45.0 $2.70 17.5 7/5

3 Unique Opportuni C 10 15.9 $3.50 7.5 6
2 Hildy's Struggle C 5/2 33.7 $2.36 7.2 2 $2.60
7 Spooky Mulder C 8/5 42.7 $2.22 6.9 3/2 $3.00 $2.80 $2.10
1 Fort Rocky C 8 16.2 $2.91 5.7 6 $8.80
1 Parade of Music C 4 23.6 $2.36 4.5 7/2
9 Della n' Time C 13 11.1 $3.11 4.3 9
6 Lonche C 6 17.7 $2.48 4.0 5
4 Thunder Punch C 8 14.3 $2.58 3.6 6 $4.60 $3.60
5 Danzig Good Time C 4 22.3 $2.23 2.9 7/2

10 Imaginary Man C 5/2 30.6 $2.14 2.8 5/2 $8.80 $4.80 $6.00
3 Laser Con C 9/5 36.9 $2.07 1.9 9/5 $3.20 $2.60 $2.20
6 Seeds of Peace C 16 6.9 $2.36 1.1 14




I took the liberty of removing the 4th and the 8th as one of the contenders scratched which would necessitate a complete recalc of the screen and invalidate the analysis.

This day, while obviously a poor showing overall, actually illustrates the point more than ever. Compare the Opt% of the Calder day to this one... In reality, there was really only one standout play (which lost) and the rest were marginal.

Now, understand that my approach to the game would never tolerate an approach that centered on so much chalk... but I emphasize that I am not trying to critique his HANDICAPPING, but rather his WAGERING.

This day COULD be seen as a day to watch most of the races.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: DavieMac has been doing very well lately in the contests. Perhaps someone that has access to the HSH picks could verify that for you if you need that. He has been posting daily and scoring "alot."

[Dave Schwartz]

JimG,

You may well be right. Perhaps I was out of line. I guess I assumed that there was a negative expectation.

Hdcper, I apologize.

It takes quite a bit of work to format a day. Not sure that I can do it.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[hdcper]

Dave,

No problem, I have broad shoulders and understand how you might read my post that way.

I like Dave M, feel value, money management or whatever you want to call it, is more than 50% of the game. Further, most of the good handicapping software programs can provide the logical contenders, but what we do with those contenders and playable races are the big question.

Thanks Jim, your comments were appreciated.

Bill

[JimG]

Originally posted by hdcper


I like Dave M, feel value, money management or whatever you want to call it, is more than 50% of the game. Further, most of the good handicapping software programs can provide the logical contenders, but what we do with those contenders and playable races are the big question.

Bill

Very well put. The more you read it, the more it hits home. It took me a couple of losing years to realize this, but I concur wholeheartedly.

[Dave Schwartz]

I concur, gentlemen.

In fact, I am convinced that risk/value assessment may well be as much as 75% of the game.

Merry Christmas to all.

Dave

[David McKenzie]

JustMissed,

I'm responding to this here rather than the selection thread as it works well to demonstrate the Value concept.

When I initially posted these selections I had no idea what the actual odds would be. I therefore inserted the Morning Line Odds into the Odds column to get a feel for the race. Obviously, the actual odds are not always the same as the morning line odds. I've posted the final odds here beneath the original printout. You can see the differences can sometimes be substantial.


According to my charts you hit 50% winners.

R1 #10 paid $8.80

R2 #3 paid $3.30

R6 #7 paid $3.00

R7 #6 paid $4.40

Had you bet $2 to win per race you would have netted $3.40 for the day.


The only Top Horse value play was in the first race:

PHA01 Bet Int=10
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
10 Imaginary Man C 5/2 30.6 $2.14 2.8 5/2

12/24/03 PHA01 D 7.00sly 3u MD- #10 3.40 $8.80 $4.80 $6.00

Fair Odds = 5/2
*Actual Odds = 3 to 1
Overlay = BET
-------------

PHA02 Bet Int=9
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
3 Laser Con C 9/5 36.9 $2.07 1.9 9/5

12/24/03 PHA02 D 5.50sly 4u CL- # 3 0.60 $3.20 $2.60 $2.20

Fair Odds =9/5
Actual Odds = Odds On Fave
Underlay = Pass
---------------

PHA03 Bet Int=9
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
3 Showmethebook C 2 45.0 $2.70 17.5 7/5

12/24/03 PHA03 D 7.00sly 3u MD- # 3 1.00

Fair Odds =7/5
Actual Odds = Even Money
Underlay = Pass
---------------

PHA04 Bet Int=6
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
4 Risen Warrior C 8/5 36.6 $1.90 -3.1 9/5

12/24/03 PHA04 D 6.00sly 4u CL- # 4 0.70 $2.20 $2.10

Fair Odds = 9/5
Actual Odds = Odds On Fave
Underlay = Pass
---------------

PHA05 Bet Int=10
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
2 Hildy's Struggle C 5/2 33.7 $2.36 7.2 2

12/24/03 PHA05 D 7.00sly f2 MD- # 2 2.10 $2.60

Fair Odds = 2 to 1
Actual Odds = 2 to 1
Fair Value = Pass [I'm not interested in betting Fair Value, I want an Edge)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PHA06 Bet Int=5
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
7 Spooky Mulder C 8/5 42.7 $2.22 6.9 3/2

12/24/03 PHA06 D 5.00sly 4u ST- # 7 0.50 $3.00 $2.80 $2.10

Fair Odds = 3/2
Actual Odds = Odds On Fave
Underlay = Pass
---------------

PHA07 Bet Int=5
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
6 Reine des Neiges C 8/5 38.8 $2.02 0.6 8/5

12/24/03 PHA07 D 6.50sly f4u AL- # 6 1.20 $4.40 $3.40 $2.20

Fair Odds = 8/5
Actual Odds = 6/5
Underlay = Pass
---------------

PHA08 Bet Int=7
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
8 Tazotee C 6 31.0 $4.34 19.5 5/2

12/24/03 PHA08 D 7.00sly f4u ST- # 8 2.80

Fair Odds = 5/2
Actual Odds = 5/2
Fair Value = Pass
----------------

*The only Top Horse value play, #10 Imaginary Man in the first race, was actually a better bet just before the race went off:

REAL TIME ODDS:
PHA01 [At One Minute to Post]
Prg Horse Cont Odds
10 Imaginary Man C 5

His Fair Odds were 5/2.
At one minute to post time he was 5-1.
After the late simulcast money was tallied he paid 3-1.

[David McKenzie]

hdcper,


Dave M, would enjoy reviewing your selections for say this Friday or Saturday at any of the tracks you play. And the approach you plan to take on the positive Opt% horses in your win wagers and any other type of wagers you recommend.


When I play online I use every advantage available and that includes a live tote. I use the tote to smooth the probabilities. The F-table and Tote influence of 0.20 also influence the betting decisions. I like to view it both ways -- "pure" and with a tote influence. Most of the time the same decision is reached, but not always.

For example, look at the second race at PHA on December 24.

Here is the race as I posted it before the day's races began:

PHA02 Bet Int=9
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
3 Laser Con C 9/5 36.9 $2.07 1.9 9/5
6 Navajo Code C 6 14.3 $2.00 0.0 6
4 Thunder Punch C 8 14.3 $2.58 3.6 6
2 Nocturnal Visitor C 21 3.9 $1.73 -0.6 25

Here is what the same race looked like when it was time to decide whether the bet or pass the race.


REAL TIME ODDS:
PHA02 [At Zero Minutes to Post]
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
3 Laser Con C 3/5 49.1 $1.57 -35.8 6/5
6 Navajo Code C 5 14.1 $1.70 -3.0 7
4 Thunder Punch C 9 14.1 $2.83 4.6 7
2 Nocturnal Visitor C 45 3.9 $3.57 1.7 25


#3 Laser Con went off as an Odds On Fave. Therefore, this was a Pass race whether you used the 9/5 Fair Odds established well in advance, or the 6/5 Fair Odds established at post time.

What I'm really looking for is a Top Horse that's going off with a positive Opt%. When that Opt% gets up to 10% I sit up and take serious notice. On those fortunate occasions when the Opt% gets up to 20% it's time to take the rubber band off the old bankroll and send it in.

Note, the horse doesn't have to be a longshot to have tremendous wager value. For example, if you figure a horse is worth 6/5 and he's going off at 5/2, then it's time for a maximum Win bet.

[JustMissed]

David, Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.

You did not answer whether you played the exotics.

I went though your picks and the chart and only saw one potential hit on an exacta in the 2nd. You picked 3/6/4. They ran 3/4/6 and the exacta paid $20.20. Had you played 3/4-6 for $40, you would have cashed for $404.00.

Unfortunately, you did not have enough good place & show picks in the other races to make many exotic plays.

If you don't mind I would like to give you a little advice. Forget this value business for a week or two and do nothing but focus on picking the place horses. I'll bet within two weeks you will be able to get the place contenders down to two or three horses in about 70%+ of your races.

Couple this with your ability to pick the win contenders and it will be like owing your on personal ATM machine.

As far as value goes, just look at the tote to get the exacta payoffs for your combination and try to get at least 2-1 or better. For example in your race #2, the 3/4-6 ticket would cost $8 and with a $20.20 payoff, not a bad payoff considering the huge gap between probability you assigned your top three horses and your fourth horse(36.9,14.3,14.3,3.9 @21-1 MLO). Acutally David, if you had liked the 4 a little better than the 6 you could have played 3/4 for $56 and 3/6 for $24 and even done better.

Also David, even though the trifecta only paid $67.40, with the huge gap you could have, with confidence, played a $50 trifecta 3/4-6/4-6, cashed for $1,685 and taken a couple of days off.

Hope you will think about this a little bit anyway.

JustMissed
:)