Ditto. :ThmbUp:

Also noticed this long long ago. Old Florida racing , 20-1 ml's off at 2-1 .



Rarely win, pay nothing when they do .


Hard to make a profit with those.

I remember maybe a month ago I had played the late pick-4 at Gulfstream and in two of the races I used the 9 horse. One race it was 12-1 ML and the other race was 20-1 ML. I swear that the 12-1 went off at 6/5 and the 20-1 went off at 5/2. The 6/5 ran third and the 5/2 won and paid $7 and change. I loved them at 12-1 and 20-1 but would never had bet them at those final odds.

Overlays are way better than bet downs. Good example in the 8th at Aqueduct today. A Freud Of Mama was 8-1 on the morning line. I picked the horse to win, David Aragona picked it to win, Mike Beer and Andy Serling both picked it third. Obviously, the horse was a prime contender. It won and paid $48.20. A bad morning line maker may have made the horse 15-1 but NYRA's line is one of the best, so 8-1 was a good line and about what the horse should have been.

I wonder if the fact that she had no dirt races threw the computer whales off? I thought the favorite was a legit bounce prospect there, too. I bet A Freud Of Mama pretty good. Aqueduct has had very good cards all fall. She had a good dirt and off track pedigree.

I think you're on to something because an 8-1 ML horse in NY that gets picked by the analysts and is showing up as a choice in software very rarely goes up from the ML odds. I mean, it happens but it doesn't happen much.

That's true, this was an exceptionally good overlay. But, there were a lot of excellent overlay winners at the Aqueduct fall meet this year.

Sure, its nice to think that you might have found an overlay, and this argument may sound appropriate to the average handicapper. However, logically from a betting perspective I’m sorry to say that its completely illogical. Why?

Well first off you shouldn’t compare totally Subjective information interpreted from whatever data you’re using (the “on paper” stuff) with completely Objective information gathered from the live tote board activities. It’s like mixing oil and water.

I’ve also listed a few situations that can often contradict this argument:

1) The entry is 10/1 on the M/L and is currently 10/1 on the board (not much action), but you think it should be 4/1. Why? When the majority of players betting see the same (on paper) information. Maybe the horse is in the race for other reasons than trying to win.

2) The entry has say a 20/1 M/L and looks good on paper (say 4/1) and goes off @ 10/1. Why shy away from this bet?

3) The entry had a 20/1 M/L and looks marginal on paper yet opens at 4/1 and later drifts up to 10/1.
Early money should be very often be respected, especially at the tracks with the larger betting pools.

4) The entry was originally part of a coupled entry (Say a M/L of 3/1) and the better looking half (on paper) scratched. Very often the one left in the race is left there for a reason, and yes may go off at much higher odds and yes: Win

5) The entry’s odds value may have been impacted by the scratch of another horse which could enhance its chances of winning.

6) The entry’s odds value may be affected by a change in the current track conditions. This could both enhance or lessen its chances of running well.

7) Etc., etc.