Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro
As a former handicapper, I can certainly appreciate your comments about how you and many others have perceived how much the game has changed from the perspective of typical and even advanced handicapping methodologies. It may in fact create a dilemma for many playing the game these days. I look at this apparent quandary differently from the awareness of this being a parimutuel type game.
Although there have been both obvious and even subtle alterations to the many of the variables associated with our game the one factor that has remained the same is the money involved in filling the betting pools during each race. I believe the disparity between the subjective interpretations of the various handicapping factors and the objective analysis of the betting money flow offers an additional advantage when making selections.
I say this only because I recently completed statistical study of nearly 500 races from the CA circuit. Now I know from many of your past posts that you were concerned with favorites, particularly false favorites. I wanted to do this study because I’m not one who is very interested in betting favorites. However, I was interested because I felt that if the tote analysis could identify false favorites, I could feel more comfortable when betting a higher valued entry that was also of interest.
So, I was only interested in those races where the favorite’s odds were between 9/5 to 3/1 at 3 minutes to post. Of those 500 races about 50% showed lower odds and of no interest. What I discovered from the remaining races was that 57% of those entries illustrating a specifically analyzed value relative to the unique Par value won the race. Of the remaining 43% that lost, 18% of them Placed. Aside from finding this distinct evaluation, I later realized what I had stumbled upon when considering that the average final odds for these winning entries was around 2.3/1. Using a $2 base line Win bet the total bet would be $500. The gross return would be about $940 which produced a net profit of $440.
So, while I was able to isolate a majority of false favorites the true favorites discovered at the odds value range specified could certainly become decent plays.
Regarding your comment about “flawed information” I once again refer to the ever present statement made by someone who has taken the game far beyond ANY author of handicapping the horses:
.
.
|
I don't think the game has changed at all, in terms of the inner dynamics of pace (not a snapshot of an early quarter) and position on the straights and turns determining winners.
In tomorrow's opener at Gulfstream which should remain on the turf, the focus will be on the #'s 3-4-5-6. Asking myself, "If the horse wins, what are the most likely reasons, what would her trip likely resemble?", & similarly "if she loses, what will be the likely difficulties encountered"? may consist in some fuzzy logic imprecision, but also addresses
this race,
this horse,
this one-time scenario. If one reads that critical commenter on Amazon regarding the book, citing Barry's frequent use of "might, maybe", regarding data mining, then I am allowed to do the same when speculating on today's trip. "Will #3 Egoz Unit challenge #5 Light and Path for the lead? Will one of them clear? Will they likely contest the pace before the far turn? #6 Always Royal had her best fig (brisnet) last out, and her best beaten lengths effort two races ago. Was that because she saved much ground to the stretch in both? And it was at a mile, a faster pace in context of today's 8.5f. Did that assist her mild rally on 12/22? Did #4 Love Mami Love benefit from the outside on the straightaways, and undergo a subtly slower rail trip today? #1 Mystic Sunrise finally draws a rail trip on the turns. Can she stalk, being only 8-1 vs. the favorite last out?" And then like successful players, weighing the values presented.
It's my conviction that Benter benefitted most from the reportedly unsophisticated competition and huge units and pools. I speculate that he would have done as well manually in terms of ROI were he experienced, though of course lacking the volume of plays. But he spawned a subculture of protégés.
