trifectaMikes pure oddsline formula

[maddog42]

Someone wanted me to post the rest of these oddslines, so I am. I don't recommend using these, but they are fun to play with and may serve some purpose. I didn't want to hijack Thasks thread anymore than I have.

11 horse field

1 .271 5-2
2 .181 9-2
3 .136 6-1
4 .106 9-1
5 .084 11-1
6 .066 12-1
7 .051 18-1
8 .038 25-1
9 .027 40-1
10 .017 60-1
11 .008 120-1

10 horse line

1 .292 5-2
2 .192 9-2
3 .142 6-1
4 .109 9-1
5 .084 11-1
6 .064 15-1
7 .047 20-1
8 .033 30-1
9 .021 45-1
10 .01 100-1

9 horse field

1 .314
2 .203
3 .147
4 .1106
5 .082
6 .060
7 .033
8 .026
9 .012

8 horse field:

1 .339
2 .214
3 .1522
4 .1105
5 .079
6 .054
7 .033
8 .015

7 horse field:

1 .370 or 9/5
2 .227 or 7/2
3 .156 or 6-1
4 .108 or 9-1
5 .072 or 15-1
6 .044 or 25-1
7 .02 or 50-1

6 horse field

1 .408 or 3-2
2 .241 or 7-2
3 .158 or 6-1
4 .102 or 9-1
5 .06 or 16-1
6 .027 or 50-1

5 horse field

1 .456 or 6-5
2 .256 or 3-1
3 .156 or 6-1
4 .090 or 10-1
5 .040 or 25-1

4 horse field

1 .520 or 1-1
2 .279 or 3-1
3 .145 or 6-1
4 .062 or 15-1

[classhandicapper]

Would you mind consolidating all your posts on this subject inside this thread?

[cj]

Would you mind consolidating all your posts on this subject inside this thread?

Done, but moving to handicapping section.

[maddog42]

Done, but moving to handicapping section.

Thanks CJ.

[maddog42]

12 horse line

1 .257 3-1
2 .174 9-2
3 .136 6-1
4 .105 9-1
5 .084 11-1
6 .067 14-1
7 .054 18-1
8 .038 25-1
9 .031 30-1
10 .022 50-1
11 .014 70-1
12 .006 160-1

The odds I assigned to various percentages may be off. I ran down Barry Meadow's column's In Money Secrets at the Racetrack and just tried to get close. I still consider this the best Money management/odds book in this entire genre.

[classhandicapper]

Thanks to both of you. :ThmbUp:

[MPRanger]

Someone wanted me to post the rest of these oddslines, so I am. I don't recommend using these, but they are fun to play with and may serve some purpose. I didn't want to hijack Thasks thread anymore than I have.

11 horse field

1 .271 5-2
2 .181 9-2
3 .136 6-1
4 .106 9-1
5 .084 11-1
6 .066 12-1
7 .051 18-1
8 .038 25-1
9 .027 40-1
10 .017 60-1
11 .008 120-1

10 horse line

1 .292 5-2
2 .192 9-2
3 .142 6-1
4 .109 9-1
5 .084 11-1
6 .064 15-1
7 .047 20-1
8 .033 30-1
9 .021 45-1
10 .01 100-1

9 horse field

1 .314
2 .203
3 .147
4 .1106
5 .082
6 .060
7 .033
8 .026
9 .012

8 horse field:

1 .339
2 .214
3 .1522
4 .1105
5 .079
6 .054
7 .033
8 .015

7 horse field:

1 .370 or 9/5
2 .227 or 7/2
3 .156 or 6-1
4 .108 or 9-1
5 .072 or 15-1
6 .044 or 25-1
7 .02 or 50-1

6 horse field

1 .408 or 3-2
2 .241 or 7-2
3 .158 or 6-1
4 .102 or 9-1
5 .06 or 16-1
6 .027 or 50-1

5 horse field

1 .456 or 6-5
2 .256 or 3-1
3 .156 or 6-1
4 .090 or 10-1
5 .040 or 25-1

4 horse field

1 .520 or 1-1
2 .279 or 3-1
3 .145 or 6-1
4 .062 or 15-1


This is absolute meaningless nonsense.

Is anyone actually going, "Ok, there's 8 horses
in the field . So, after I rank them in order, I'm
going to assign these pre determined values
to them"? Hmmmm...? Is that what this is
supposed to be? Hahahaha HaHaHahahah :bang:

[setup]

This is absolute meaningless nonsense.

Is anyone actually going, "Ok, there's 8 horses
in the field . So, after I rank them in order, I'm
going to assign these pre determined values
to them"? Hmmmm...? Is that what this is
supposed to be? Hahahaha HaHaHahahah :bang:

Yo

Don't mess with TrifectaMike. I have good info that he's on the brink of actually posting a pre-race selection. Stand by. It will happen very soon (my sources are very reliable).

[proximity]

This is absolute meaningless nonsense.

Is anyone actually going, "Ok, there's 8 horses
in the field . So, after I rank them in order, I'm
going to assign these pre determined values
to them"? Hmmmm...? Is that what this is
supposed to be? Hahahaha HaHaHahahah :bang:

thaskalos is obviously a pretty good handicapper who is ranking the horses pretty well to succeed in the exotics. it seems to me mike's formula would be quite useful to an experienced handicapper like him. he could use it as a template with his ranks to make a first draft oddsline on a race and use his judgement to adjust the line. for a lot of players i think it would be easier (and faster) to correct a line than to struggle to make one up from scratch.

and thanks to trifecta mike for sharing his idea here for free. (no workshop) :eek: :eek: THAT is what makes p.a. a great board.

[MPRanger]

thaskalos is obviously a pretty good handicapper who is ranking the horses pretty well to succeed in the exotics. it seems to me mike's formula would be quite useful to an experienced handicapper like him. he could use it as a template with his ranks to make a first draft oddsline on a race and use his judgement to adjust the line.


These numbers are arbitrary with no more value than they may fit.
Different values would also fit.

If you need a template the morning line would be a better place
to start. Or divide 100 by the number of horses and start them all
out at that value then adjust as you say. 100/8=12.5 .

With that said, these aren't presented as templates but as predetermined
values based on the number of horses.


for a lot of players i think it would be easier (and faster) to correct a line than to struggle to make one up from scratch.


Struggle? Making an oddsline is a joyful thing to be embraced, to master,
to perfect. It gives you power! It is the essence of successful sports betting.

The morning line maker at the race track does it every day for all the
races at his track and probably others for similcasting in the racebook.
His lines are valued with the track takeout added to the total value
for his own track though.

Every horse player makes a line or a judgement to some extent or the other
if only in an unspoken or un-defined way. Making a line is an extension of
what you are already thinking. You think one horse has a 30 percent chance
to win but have no definite opinion on the the others? That's just an
incomplete line. You think his fair value is 2-1 so if he's 7-2, you might bet
him. The act of "making an oddsline" is just finishing what you started and
drawing a judgement about the rest of them. Then you are prepared for the
fight. But each horse should be evaluted on his own merits. IMHO.

[TrifectaMike]

These numbers are arbitrary with no more value than they may fit.
Different values would also fit.

If you need a template the morning line would be a better place
to start. Or divide 100 by the number of horses and start them all
out at that value then adjust as you say. 100/8=12.5 .

With that said, these aren't presented as templates but as predetermined
values based on the number of horses.



Struggle? Making an oddsline is a joyful thing to be embraced, to master,
to perfect. It gives you power! It is the essence of successful sports betting.

The morning line maker at the race track does it every day for all the
races at his track and probably others for similcasting in the racebook.
His lines are valued with the track takeout added to the total value
for his own track though.

Every horse player makes a line or a judgement to some extent or the other
if only in an unspoken or un-defined way. Making a line is an extension of
what you are already thinking. You think one horse has a 30 percent chance
to win but have no definite opinion on the the others? That's just an
incomplete line. You think his fair value is 2-1 so if he's 7-2, you might bet
him. The act of "making an oddsline" is just finishing what you started and
drawing a judgement about the rest of them. Then you are prepared for the
fight. But each horse should be evaluted on his own merits. IMHO.

Can you suggest an alternate formulation, so that we may test it against empirical data.

I'll award you a $500 check for such a formulation, Of course a formulation that has to be universal.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[proximity]

Struggle?........

yes, struggle.

you wrote a pretty helpful post to thaskalos in the other thread but he did reply with this:

I have toyed with odds lines for years, but did not really enjoy the experience...

that to me, sounds like struggle. it doesn't sound like thaskalos has found the linemaking process to be "a joyful thing to embrace."

since at least one person (me) can see some value in mike's post i don't think it is "meaningless nonsense."

i can respect that you don't find the equation helpful, but we should be allowed to share concepts that not everyone may embrace without being blasted.

[TrifectaMike]

These numbers are arbitrary with no more value than they may fit.
Different values would also fit. Be a nice guy and offer up some of these values

If you need a template the morning line would be a better place
to start. Or divide 100 by the number of horses and start them all
out at that value then adjust as you say. 100/8=12.5 . Yea, this IS really good. I'm feel so terrible that I never thought of such an obvious approach. Why not just think of a number and list it. That should should work equally as well.

With that said, these aren't presented as templates but as predetermined
values based on the number of horses. I don't believe you'd have an idea on how a probability generating function can be derived. You REALLY have shown your ignorance and without any help.


Struggle? Making an oddsline is a joyful thing to be embraced, to master,
to perfect. It gives you power! It is the essence of successful sports betting.

The morning line maker at the race track does it every day for all the
races at his track and probably others for similcasting in the racebook.
His lines are valued with the track takeout added to the total value
for his own track though. Now, this is a discovery we all need to take note of. How have we missed this for so many years.

Every horse player makes a line or a judgement to some extent or the other
if only in an unspoken or un-defined way. Making a line is an extension of
what you are already thinking. I think you are an idiot! You think one horse has a 30 percent chance
to win but have no definite opinion on the the others? This is idiotic! That's just anincomplete line. You think his fair value is 2-1 so if he's 7-2, you might bet him. Is this the thinking man's approach to line making? I think you are full of shit! The act of "making an oddsline" is just finishing what you started anddrawing a judgement about the rest of them. Then you are prepared for thefight. But each horse should be evaluted on his own merits. IMHO.

The crap you offer REALLY stinks!

Mike (Dr Beav)

[thaskalos]

Wow...

[Turkoman]

Wow...

This must be your shortest post ever! ;)

[douglasw32]

This may have nothing to do with this since I did not read the other post, but I rank my horses, then take the morning line and from lowest to highest give the odds the ML has to my horses. so if the fav on the ml is 9/5 my top ranked gets the 9/5 and on and on. maybe that is a dumb way to do it ? the only thing I have trouble with is how high the public makes a horse where I say...okay I have something wrong here and it is not an overlay but a dumb bet... like I have one at 5-1 and it is 30-1

[MPRanger]

Can you suggest an alternate formulation, so that we may test it against empirical data.

I'll award you a $500 check for such a formulation, Of course a formulation that has to be universal.

Mike (Dr Beav)

Hi Trifectamike,

Certainly. Now, this isn't the way I usually do it but you asked for a
universal formulation. This way is much better than your tables.

1.) Start with the morning line.

2.) convert the fractional odds into decimal values.
1-1=50%, 2-1=33.33%, 3-1=25% etc.
Take the track win pool takeout and multiply by .01
ex; GP takeout = 17% 17*.01=.17

3.) Subtract .17 from 1 1-.17=.83

4.) Multiply .83 times the decimal values ofthe ML odds
1-1=50 50*.83=41.5, 2-1=33.33 33.33*.83=27.69

Now we have stripped the takeout from the odds.

5.) Use the decimal values to make adjustments between the
horses where you disagree with the ML oddsmaker.

As you know the oddsmaker is supposed to be predicting the
publics behavior so he's just keying the obvious. Theoretically,
he could have an opinion different from his line. But you are
a handicapper so you are looking for a place where he and the
public will be wrong. You make your adjustments on these points.

6.) Convert your new numbers back into fractional odds.

Now you can watch the toteboard for overlay opportunities in the
win pool.

It's handy to use a booking table to convert between fractional
and decimal values.

There is a universal way to make an accurate oddsline.

[TrifectaMike]

Hi Trifectamike,

Certainly. Now, this isn't the way I usually do it but you asked for a
universal formulation. This way is much better than your tables.

1.) Start with the morning line.

2.) convert the fractional odds into decimal values.
1-1=50%, 2-1=33.33%, 3-1=25% etc.
Take the track win pool takeout and multiply by .01
ex; GP takeout = 17% 17*.01=.17

3.) Subtract .17 from 1 1-.17=.83

4.) Multiply .83 times the decimal values ofthe ML odds
1-1=50 50*.83=41.5, 2-1=33.33 33.33*.83=27.69

Now we have stripped the takeout from the odds.

5.) Use the decimal values to make adjustments between the
horses where you disagree with the ML oddsmaker.

As you know the oddsmaker is supposed to be predicting the
publics behavior so he's just keying the obvious. Theoretically,
he could have an opinion different from his line. But you are
a handicapper so you are looking for a place where he and the
public will be wrong. You make your adjustments on these points.

6.) Convert your new numbers back into fractional odds.

Now you can watch the toteboard for overlay opportunities in the
win pool.

It's handy to use a booking table to convert between fractional
and decimal values.

There is a universal way to make an accurate oddsline.

I'm going to get some poor soul to apply for food stamps and send them to you. You are going to need them based on what you have described.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[MPRanger]

The crap you offer REALLY stinks!

Mike (Dr Beav)


Doe this mean I'm not gonna get the $500.00?

[maddog42]

This is absolute meaningless nonsense.

Is anyone actually going, "Ok, there's 8 horses
in the field . So, after I rank them in order, I'm
going to assign these pre determined values
to them"? Hmmmm...? Is that what this is
supposed to be? Hahahaha HaHaHahahah :bang:

I posted the results of a very clever formula, that trifectamike came up with. This is a mathematical representation of an oddsline based on horses rank. No one, no way, no how said it was to be used to bet. If you think that it is easy to come up with such a formula, my hat is off to you, but I think you are mistaken. I posted these results to get people INTERESTED in making an oddsline. It is a good starting point.
I personally like the betting line templates that Steve Fierro devised in The Four Quarters of Horse Investing. I HATE horse racing books with Investing,
or Wall Street or similar titles, that make this game seem like investing in CD's.
So I was prepared to hate this one too, but it is very good.

[stu]

When I did the morning for a couple of tracks in the Mountain time zone I used a set of templates for each field size. I constrained myself with a couple of rules to limit the number of templates.

My rules:


The First Three Favorites Have Different Odds
Favorite Is No Lower Than 9:5 and No Higher Than 3:1
The Longest Shot Is No Lower Than 12:1 and No Higher than 20:1
All Percentages Total to +/- 1% of 100 plus the field size plus the take out


I know that the rules are arbitrary but they were meant to reduce the options for the purpose of saving time.

For 7-horse fields I had 14 templates from which I would select what seemed to match the race. First, I would guess what horse that the crowd would make the highest price and the corresponding price. Then I guess how low the favorite would be.

e.g. If I thought that the bomb would be 15-1 and the favorite 9-5 I would then chose from the following templates:


7 HORSE FIELDS - (9:5 5:2 7:2 x x x 15:1)

9:5 5:2 7:2 9:2 10:1 15:1 15:1

9:5 5:2 7:2 9:2 12:1 12:1 15:1

9:5 5:2 7:2 5:1 10:1 12:1 15:1

9:5 5:2 7:2 6:1 8:1 12:1 15:1

Each race was different so I would try to best match the race to one of the four templates. The templates were designed to keep me from perpetually redoing the math everyday to add up the percentages.

I had 15 pages of templates within which I would work (never just one per field size). If the race had an outlier that deserved heavy favoritism or serious shunning I would abandon the templates and add up the percentages to accommodate a 4:5 or 50:1.

[proximity]

Doe this mean I'm not gonna get the $500.00?

at this point i'd just be happy with the food stamps and the equation......

[MPRanger]

at this point i'd just be happy with the food stamps and the equation......



Why? Do you think your unhinged friend has made some point?
Do bluster and name calling pass for premises and conclusions
here? I'm not impressed yet.

Actually, since you and him are so happy with that method.
Then I am happy for you both.

[MPRanger]

I posted the results of a very clever formula, that trifectamike came up with. This is a mathematical representation of an oddsline based on horses rank. No one, no way, no how said it was to be used to bet. If you think that it is easy to come up with such a formula, my hat is off to you, but I think you are mistaken. I posted these results to get people INTERESTED in making an oddsline. It is a good starting point.
I personally like the betting line templates that Steve Fierro devised in The Four Quarters of Horse Investing. I HATE horse racing books with Investing,
or Wall Street or similar titles, that make this game seem like investing in CD's.
So I was prepared to hate this one too, but it is very good.


Thanks for the explanation.
I can see its usefullness.

[thaskalos]

Thanks for the explanation.
I can see its usefullness.
Be careful, my friend...

I was an infrequent poster once too, and then I got into an argument similar to the one you have gotten into here...and I have been addicted to posting here ever since...

I would hate to see this happen to you too...:)

[maddog42]

Be careful, my friend...

I was an infrequent poster once too, and then I got into an argument similar to the one you have gotten into here...and I have been addicted to posting here ever since...

I would hate to see this happen to you too...:)


He's right mpranger, you just fell into our evil trap. Brouhahaha!!! Brouhahaha!!!Brouhahaha!!!Brouhahaha!!!Brouhahaha! !!Brouhahaha!!!Brouhahaha!!!Brouhahaha!!!Brouhahah a!!!Brouhahaha!!! Now you must post 5,000 posts and we MIGHT let you go. This place is like Heroin and internet porn. The first ones are always free. Brouhahaha!!!Brouhahaha!!!Brouhahaha!!!Brouhahaha! !!

[Dave Schwartz]

There is a universal way to make an accurate oddsline.

I will venture a small comment:

IMHO, if one were to wager using Ranger's line, the underlays would return more than the overlays.

That is what happens when you use "How the Public Usually Bets" to make the line and bet into "How the Public Actually Bet." I know - I tested it.

The opposite is actually a pretty good approach: "Take how the public DID bet and use THAT to bet (backwards) into what the odds should have been.

Let that sink in and you will see a methodology that actually has promise.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[proximity]

do you mean ranger or douglasw32 ?? i think ranger was making race specific adjustments in step 5 of his process.....

[TrifectaMike]

I posted the results of a very clever formula, that trifectamike came up with. This is a mathematical representation of an oddsline based on horses rank. No one, no way, no how said it was to be used to bet. If you think that it is easy to come up with such a formula, my hat is off to you, but I think you are mistaken.

Why use mathematical equations (formulas)?

Mathematical equations (formulas) contain information in densely packed form. That is the single most important reason why data is subjected to the process of formulation. Just imagine having to describe processes and experimental data by pages and pages of derived and raw data. Not only would would careful study of the data be tedious and unlikely, but data trends would be most difficult to discern.

Mathematical equations can tell us at a glance the efect of one variable on another. How much of an increase or decrease of a variable is impotant or not? What is the shape of the increase or decrease?

Mathematical equations remove undesired variations from data ( noise or artifacts ). which can range from strictly random events to systematic effects.

Mathematical equations can be used to derive theoretical implications concerning the underlying principles relating variables to one another. Is one variable related to another in a linear, exponential, periodic or some combination of forms? Each of these forms carries with it a fundamental notion concerning the connection between one variable to another. There is confidence that the relationship means MORE than just a blind attempt at describing data, and that interpolation or extrapolation can be obtained without the expectaion of too much error.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[classhandicapper]

I think everyone understands that these probabilities are not meant to be automatic formulas for creating an odds line in various size fields. However, if they are reasonably accurate on "AVERAGE" in various field sizes, IMO they are a pretty good guideline for starting the process of making an odds line. You would then simply tweak them to reflect the actual horses in the race. That's better than a totally arbitrary process.

[MPRanger]

When I did the morning for a couple of tracks in the Mountain time zone I used a set of templates for each field size. I constrained myself with a couple of rules to limit the number of templates.

My rules:

The First Three Favorites Have Different Odds
Favorite Is No Lower Than 9:5 and No Higher Than 3:1
The Longest Shot Is No Lower Than 12:1 and No Higher than 20:1
All Percentages Total to +/- 1% of 100 plus the field size plus the take out
I know that the rules are arbitrary but they were meant to reduce the options for the purpose of saving time.

For 7-horse fields I had 14 templates from which I would select what seemed to match the race. First, I would guess what horse that the crowd would make the highest price and the corresponding price. Then I guess how low the favorite would be.

e.g. If I thought that the bomb would be 15-1 and the favorite 9-5 I would then chose from the following templates:


7 HORSE FIELDS - (9:5 5:2 7:2 x x x 15:1)

9:5 5:2 7:2 9:2 10:1 15:1 15:1

9:5 5:2 7:2 9:2 12:1 12:1 15:1

9:5 5:2 7:2 5:1 10:1 12:1 15:1

9:5 5:2 7:2 6:1 8:1 12:1 15:1

Each race was different so I would try to best match the race to one of the four templates. The templates were designed to keep me from perpetually redoing the math everyday to add up the percentages.

I had 15 pages of templates within which I would work (never just one per field size). If the race had an outlier that deserved heavy favoritism or serious shunning I would abandon the templates and add up the percentages to accommodate a 4:5 or 50:1.



Thanks for your input Stu. That's interesting.
I think it's important to also make your own
actual equivalent of a ML too as well as a
fair odds line as part of a larger picture.
I use a program which I wrote to do it as well
as to gen up my odds line.

Why do you add the field size to the takeout?

[MPRanger]

I will venture a small comment:

IMHO, if one were to wager using Ranger's line, the underlays would return more than the overlays.

That is what happens when you use "How the Public Usually Bets" to make the line and bet into "How the Public Actually Bet." I know - I tested it.



First, I started off by saying "This isn't the way I usually do it". I was just
answering the guy who offered me $500.00 to present a universal way to
make an oddsline that could be tested. By the time you make the
adjustments I suggested, then it would be your own line not the line of
the ML oddsmaker. It would be your own evaluation of the field. I didn't
say this was a toteboard scheme. - (However, for fun because I don't
mind raw ass gambling sometimes, I do use the toteboard for .10 supers
but thats a different story. That's about getting loud and partying and
moving some guy out of the way for a second while you glance at the
speedfigures on his racing form....;) he was wasting them anyway)

If I don't have my computer with me my preference is to start from scratch
which the posters here seem abhorant to undertake. I don't have a problem
with it. I enjoy doing it.

Numero dos, it's just an oddsline. An evaluation of the field. I said nothing
about who to bet on in this thread. Maybe you are thinking about my
comment in the other thread about only betting overlays at 4-1 or less.
That's 4-1 on my line, not the toteboard. In other words I'm leaving money
on the table over the issue of frequency.

Tres, we could discuss market efficiency and how to use the toteboard
to find overlays in other than the win pool sometime.

I will always welcome your comments Dave.






The opposite is actually a pretty good approach: "Take how the public DID bet and use THAT to bet (backwards) into what the odds should have been.

Let that sink in and you will see a methodology that actually has promise.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz



I'm still thinking about this. You might have to explain for me to
understand it though.

[stu]

Why do you add the field size to the takeout?

I was taught that field size and takeout should be added to 100 as convention. (I can speculate on the origins on a less busy weekend).

I tried to follow odds-making conventions like this and other rules such as not including non-standard odds (e.g. 7-1, 9-1, 23-1, 72-1, 999-1)

[Dave Schwartz]

I'm still thinking about this. You might have to explain for me to
understand it though.

In about a month I will be able to.

[BetHorses!]

Someone wanted me to post the rest of these oddslines, so I am. I don't recommend using these, but they are fun to play with and may serve some purpose. I didn't want to hijack Thasks thread anymore than I have.

11 horse field

1 .271 5-2
2 .181 9-2
3 .136 6-1
4 .106 9-1
5 .084 11-1
6 .066 12-1
7 .051 18-1
8 .038 25-1
9 .027 40-1
10 .017 60-1
11 .008 120-1




This means if my personal 3rd ranked horse in the preakness is 6-1, thats fair value? Just want to make sure I understand correctly, thanks

[Overlay]

I was taught that field size and takeout should be added to 100 as convention. (I can speculate on the origins on a less busy weekend).
If you want an accurate fair-odds line to compare to toteboard odds/payoffs, you should use 100%, since you're looking for a comparison to what the horses/combinations will actually pay after the take and breakage have been deducted from the pool, which is what the toteboard odds/payoffs reflect.

[stu]

I agree - remember I was on a tangent for a morning line.

[proximity]

This means if my personal 3rd ranked horse in the preakness is 6-1, thats fair value? Just want to make sure I understand correctly, thanks

it would be for 11 horse fields in general, but not necessarily for any individual race. for example in one race you might feel the top three contenders are closer together than the formula odds and maybe 4-1 would be the correct line. in another race maybe you feel your top two are well ahead of the third and 8-1 or 9-1 would be the proper line.

i do feel that trifecta mike has provided a good starting point though where a player should be able to look at his line and easily adjust it up or down to reflect the unique relationships between the contenders that exist for each particular field.

[BetHorses!]

it would be for 11 horse fields in general, but not necessarily for any individual race. for example in one race you might feel the top three contenders are closer together than the formula odds and maybe 4-1 would be the correct line. in another race maybe you feel your top two are well ahead of the third and 8-1 or 9-1 would be the proper line.

i do feel that trifecta mike has provided a good starting point though where a player should be able to look at his line and easily adjust it up or down to reflect the unique relationships between the contenders that exist for each particular field.


got it thanks.

[MPRanger]

May it please God Almighty that some trusting soul doesn't stumble
over these pre-assigned charts even on a 100% scale and try to use
them in a field with closely matched contenders or even multiple
non-contenders who should have been thrown out or false favorites or
a bunch of other things....

Ok, as a starting point if you need a crutch, fine but it's totally
unnecessary. If you proportion your opinion of the field in decimal
values on a 100% scale, it's so much simpler. You don't have to
have a PhD. The better you are at handicapping, the better you will
be at making a good line.

That's really the important thing in making the line - RATIONALLY
WEIGHTING THE ELEMENTS OF HANDICAPPING as they apply to
the individual contestant and the field.

Why complicate such a simple thing?

[TrifectaMike]

May it please God Almighty that some trusting soul doesn't stumble
over these pre-assigned charts even on a 100% scale and try to use
them in a field with closely matched contenders or even multiple
non-contenders who should have been thrown out or false favorites or
a bunch of other things....

Ok, as a starting point if you need a crutch, fine but it's totally
unnecessary. If you proportion your opinion of the field in decimal
values on a 100% scale, it's so much simpler. You don't have to
have a PhD. The better you are at handicapping, the better you will
be at making a good line.

That's really the important thing in making the line - RATIONALLY
WEIGHTING THE ELEMENTS OF HANDICAPPING as they apply to
the individual contestant and the field.

Why complicate such a simple thing?

You definitely are not a deep thinker. Are you?

Let me ask you, what can (do) you infer from the fact that a model rank to probability is extremely respresentative of the empirical data without the need to look at the empirical data (except to validate the model)? In simple terms, what are the implications?

Mike (Dr Beav)

[MPRanger]

You definitely are not a deep thinker. Are you?



Not if I can avoid it.


Let me ask you, what can (do) you infer from the fact that a model rank to probability is extremely respresentative of the empirical data without the need to look at the empirical data (except to validate the model)? In simple terms, what are the implications?

Mike (Dr Beav)

If you have a hundred thousand items to evaluate , then your
representative model might be the way to go. But if you have
only eight or ten then examining the individual possible outcomes
allows you to specifically consider the strengths of each contender.

__

[Dave Schwartz]

PMFJI, Mike, but I would like to make a comment or two that I think has merit in the discussion.

I said elsewhere on PA that most people do not know how to recognize a good bet when they see one. I would carry that a step further and say that most people do not know how to recognize a good SYSTEM when they see one.

The purpose of a system or method is NOT to combine factors together to become flat-bet profitable. (It took me a long time to understand this. And I mean years.)

The purpose (or goal, if you prefer) is to make good assessments of a race so that one may tell the difference between races/horses that should be bet and those that should be passed.

In other words, your system should allow you to exploit SOME races for profit.

The more powerful a system is, the higher the profit and/or the more common the playable races are.

For all that we beat up Pondman for his approach to the game, I think he gets what I am saying. Now, 25-50 plays a year holds no interest for me, but the CONCEPT he operates under is that he is looking for a few plays each year that get him (say) a 50% advantage.

Just as he is looking for a few high-profit, high hit rate plays each year, most of us should be trying to build a system that finds a few plays on each card. Obviously, we are going to lower our expectation of both hit rate and profit margin to achieve significantly more plays.


Ranger asked:
Why complicate such a simple thing?

I suggest that Ranger was answering a different question than was actually asked. He was answering, "How to MAKE and oddsline," while the real question was probably more like, "How to make an oddsline that works."

Making an oddsline is, of course, simple. Adding the qualification that the oddsline must "work" demands a definition of "works." That is why I wrote this post to begin with.


But in asking such an obvious question he really uncovers the truth behind it all: "Is all that extra work really worth it?"

I believe the answer lies in the final outcome of one's efforts: Those who are successful and build a system that works will say, "Yes, it was worth it," while those who do not succeed will say it was not.

I close with a summary of what I have just said: The purpose is NOT to build a system that is flat-bet profitable across all races. The purpose is to build a system that points to races/horses that are COLLECTIVELY profitable.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[TrifectaMike]

Not if I can avoid it.



If you have a hundred thousand items to evaluate , then your
representative model might be the way to go. But if you have
only eight or ten then examining the individual possible outcomes
allows you to specifically consider the strengths of each contender.

__

You REALLY don't have a clue. The distributions of distributions model I presented is NOT how I determine a "working" oddsline.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[maddog42]

May it please God Almighty that some trusting soul doesn't stumble
over these pre-assigned charts even on a 100% scale and try to use
them in a field with closely matched contenders or even multiple
non-contenders who should have been thrown out or false favorites or
a bunch of other things....

Ok, as a starting point if you need a crutch, fine but it's totally
unnecessary. If you proportion your opinion of the field in decimal
values on a 100% scale, it's so much simpler. You don't have to
have a PhD. The better you are at handicapping, the better you will
be at making a good line.

That's really the important thing in making the line - RATIONALLY
WEIGHTING THE ELEMENTS OF HANDICAPPING as they apply to
the individual contestant and the field.

Why complicate such a simple thing?

Let me help you guys out, by showing what works for me. These are some of the odds templates made up by Steve Fierro:

8/5
6-1 80%
6-1
6-1


9/5
9/2 81%
6/1
6/1

9/5
5/1 81%
5/1
6/1

2/1
4/1 81%
6/1
6/1

5/2
3/1 81%
6/1
6/1

5/2
7/2 80%
5/1
6/1

3/1
3/1 80%
5/1
6/1

3/1
7/2 81%
4/1
6/1

7/2
7/2 80%
7/2
6/1
These last few were made up by me, to reflect my lower percentages in some categories.

8/5
7/1 76%
7/1
7/1

3/1
3/1 77%
5/1
8/1

4/1
4/1 77%
4/1
5/1

You guys are probably thinking, what a pain-in-the-ass to make up these odds lines. It is a lot easier than you think. Once you assign odds to the favorite, the second choice usually falls between 1 or 2 choices. Lets say you think your first choice should be 5/2, that really only leaves 3 choices for the "B" choice, either 3/1, 7/2, or 4/1. Running down Steve's templates, then if B is 3/1 then c and d are 6/1 and 6/1.
Whammo! Chango!! You are done!!!
Steve gives 3 contender oddsline, but honestly I don't use them very much,
and besides you should go buy his book.

Goren and others have given very honest and intelligent criticisms of the odds/value line approach. And for the most part I THINK THEY ARE RIGHT!!!
Then why the hell am I posting these odds templates? The main reason that it doesn't work for them is Steves main discovery in his book: If you make a legitimate favorite 3/2 or less and so does the crowd, and you bet the inflated odds on the other 3 contenders, you are screwed. This happens a lot to me. I am trying to get away from this behaviour. This Beat The Legitimate
Favorite Crap will get you beat. Steve said he was losing 40 cents on the dollar in this scenario. This situation occurs at least once or twice on every racing card. Imagine how much money this is costing line makers.

I have read on this Forum by many people that the so called low odds underlays out perform the high odds overlays. I have seen computer simulations in my own and other data bases showing this to be the case. Steve's discovery explains part of it. Maybe some of you guys have good ideas on why this occurs. I will give you more of my views later. But for now there is this: If you are losing you are betting false overlays. Period.