Most Morning Lines are just Wrong

[Capper Al]

Forget the fact that most handicapper's prime numbers hit around 30%, some more and some less. Forget that the lines need to be split into two, one for the winning contenders and one for the in the money contenders. Most have been seduced into to believe their numbers are it= a reflection of reality, not something that their top number just hits a winner one out of about three times with no other correlation to reality.

What most do is add up their scores. Divide each horse's score by the sum to determine the probability of each horse according to their total score for the probability. And then convert their probability into odds by subtracting one. What a shame. They still haven't caught on to the game. It's not numbers, it's contenders and separating contenders.

One has to pick 80% contenders or better over the long haul. One does need their 30% or so winners, but this isn't the true odds. Why? I know you're baffled by now. What's this crazy guy talking about? And frankly, I'm amazed that people will think this way. Most that have made an odds line probably tried it out for value against post time odds and lost money, but you're thinking what I'm saying is crazy. If you so believe your math to be fundamental, then why are you losing when you play it against the post time odds? And I can hear the excuses now. -- The odds change too much in the last minute. That's a small cost. Your line should be able to cover this within reason.

Let's see if anyone else has a different way to make an odds line before I pipe in with a solution? I'll be surprised if we get one alternative.

[GameTheory]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

One has to pick 80% contenders or better over the long haul.

This means what? That one of your contenders must be the winner 80% of the time? Well that's easy if there are no limitations on number of contenders per race. Heck, I can make it 100%. So how many contenders per race am I limited to when calculating whether or not I've hit the magic 80%?

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

... What a shame. They still haven't caught on to the game. It's not numbers, it's contenders and separating contenders.

One has to pick 80% contenders or better over the long haul. ...

Let's see if anyone else has a different way to make an odds line before I pipe in with a solution? I'll be surprised if we get one alternative.

You're on to to something here. But, I'm uncertain what the % should be, whether 80% or maybe even 60% could be the correct number. Probably it's a lot greater than 50% to be successful. I think it's always been about identifying contenders. And, not just price horses but whether horses are legit and then determining whether it's worth the risk to make the wager.

Do you actually have a solution because I'm very interested?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by GameTheory

This means what? That one of your contenders must be the winner 80% of the time? Well that's easy if there are no limitations on number of contenders per race. Heck, I can make it 100%. So how many contenders per race am I limited to when calculating whether or not I've hit the magic 80%?

Sorry for the omission. Usually, 3 or 4 contenders. Sometimes 5 especially in larger fields of 10 or more horses. But it's okay to say anyone could win this race and skip it also.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

You're on to to something here. But, I'm uncertain what the % should be, whether 80% or maybe even 60% could be the correct number. Probably it's a lot greater than 50% to be successful. I think it's always been about identifying contenders. And, not just price horses but whether horses are legit and then determining whether it's worth the risk to make the wager.

Do you actually have a solution because I'm very interested?

Yes, there is a solution. But many would be disappointed in their search for finding value. At least, their ML would be better.

[MJC922]

Anytime I see a method which has a dependency upon post time odds in order to show a profit on paper then I know I'm in a world of trouble. YMMV.

[Tom]

Why do you need a ML?
People make their own value lines, what purpose does the ML serve?
Anytime there is a scratch, it is meaningless.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Tom

Why do you need a ML?
People make their own value lines, what purpose does the ML serve?
Anytime there is a scratch, it is meaningless.

I agree. I use random(natural) odds when I'm serious. But I still think there's a lot of people out there just like to take a ML as if they're facts like 1 out of for any side of a dice to come up. (May not your dice, Tom. I hear that you play with loaded dice.)

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

I agree. I use random(natural) odds when I'm serious. But I still think there's a lot of people out there just like to take a ML as if they're facts like 1 out of for any side of a dice to come up. (May not your dice, Tom. I hear that you play with loaded dice.)

For me.....the ML has a very good purpose. It's a starting point. When I sit down to 'cap a race, my field is lined up ML fav to bottom--and I begin. I can usually see false favorites in a heartbeat, and potential price plays quickly ( I do most of my 'capping with software, pad and pencil in front of me for notes). Sometimes the ML Fav is a Fav for good reason, and it's time to move on.
My software can give me the top-3 contenders with no problem--that's no great feat, Al.
Without going "Trifecta Mike" on us----what's the deal?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

For me.....the ML has a very good purpose. It's a starting point. When I sit down to 'cap a race, my field is lined up ML fav to bottom--and I begin. I can usually see false favorites in a heartbeat, and potential price plays quickly ( I do most of my 'capping with software, pad and pencil in front of me for notes). Sometimes the ML Fav is a Fav for good reason, and it's time to move on.
My software can give me the top-3 contenders with no problem--that's no great feat, Al.
Without going "Trifecta Mike" on us----what's the deal?

Hey, I'm not talking about using the ML just making one using your own power figures. I look at the ML too and try to guess at what the public will be doing.

[Capper Al]

What's being handicapped?

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Hey, I'm not talking about using the ML just making one using your own power figures. I look at the ML too and try to guess at what the public will be doing.

ahhh...I thought you were saying you had discovered an odds-line solution that renders any need for a ML useless.....(which isn't saying much---so far) and is still effective vs post time odds swings. Am I right so far?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

ahhh...I thought you were saying you had discovered an odds-line solution that renders any need for a ML useless.....(which isn't saying much---so far) and is still effective vs post time odds swings. Am I right so far?

Yes. It will be just like many handicappers are attempting to do with their own power ratings. It will be better fitted for their system.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

What's being handicapped?

What's being handicapped by your homemade odds-line?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

What's being handicapped by your homemade odds-line?

Are you trying to "teach" here Al? Please don't, that's what the "Trifecta Mike" reference was about earlier in the thread. If you have something to contribute, then contribute it. Simple!

Why make it one of those "I have the answer, can you guess it" things. Most of us don't like silly games and ego displays.