|
|
07-31-2015, 03:25 PM
|
#61
|
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,428
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy
... In my opinion, a good computer handicapping program should be able to show you legitimate contenders that are not likely to be the favorite. ...
|
I'm not sure I'm presenting this correctly but shouldn't a good computer program provide legitimate contenders and it would be up to the handicapper to decide whether the best ones are worth a wager?
If it so happens to select the favorite and the horse really was the best and wins, where's the flaw?
A program which doesn't consider current odds wouldn't be capable of adding additional weight to the favorite. I see a number of people who wager on the higher odds contender(s) because the #1 selection happens to be the favorite. If the payout(s) aren't acceptable for the wager, they should pass the race.
|
|
|
07-31-2015, 03:35 PM
|
#62
|
EXCEL with SUPERFECTAS
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,206
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodoyoulike
I'm not sure I'm presenting this correctly but shouldn't a good computer program provide legitimate contenders and it would be up to the handicapper to decide whether the best ones are worth a wager?
If it so happens to select the favorite and the horse really was the best and wins, where's the flaw?
A program which doesn't consider current odds wouldn't be capable of adding additional weight to the favorite. I see a number of people who wager on the higher odds contender(s) because the #1 selection happens to be the favorite. If the payout(s) aren't acceptable for the wager, they should pass the race.
|
I think what he was getting at is the quality of your program's contenders. A program that selects only low priced contenders is no better than what the public does as a whole, it loses money. So, programs that use similar factors as what the public is betting does you little good.
Let's say that you are using only your program's top 3 or 4 contenders, and those top 3 or 4 contenders are almost always low priced. You probably will not be able to show a long term profit with those contenders. You are looking at the same horses that the public is, and that will not make you a profit.
So, if your program uses common traditional contender selection methods then your program is not very good, if your goal is to make profit. The only thing your program is good for is predicting what the public odds rankings might be.
|
|
|
07-31-2015, 05:15 PM
|
#63
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA.
Posts: 7,464
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodoyoulike
I'm not sure I'm presenting this correctly but shouldn't a good computer program provide legitimate contenders and it would be up to the handicapper to decide whether the best ones are worth a wager?
If it so happens to select the favorite and the horse really was the best and wins, where's the flaw?
A program which doesn't consider current odds wouldn't be capable of adding additional weight to the favorite. I see a number of people who wager on the higher odds contender(s) because the #1 selection happens to be the favorite. If the payout(s) aren't acceptable for the wager, they should pass the race.
|
The reason why so many computer programs are pace-based it that they don't put the obvious contenders on top. Programs like E-Ponies, for instance, gives you some obvious contenders but you can see those easily yourself just by glancing at the pps. Good point about the odds. E ponies uses the ML in its calculations, and of course that means more favorites on top.
|
|
|
07-31-2015, 11:33 PM
|
#64
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 7,706
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capper Al
The best long shots are horses that the public should have handicapped as a favorite, but for some unknown reason didn't.
|
That unknown reason may reflect the fact that the public didn't necessarily have a negative opinion about the horse that is going off at higher odds, but became oversold on the attributes of one or more other horses in the race, raising every other horse's odds by default.
Also, arriving at a selection by narrowing a field down to a single horse through a process of elimination, while giving no consideration at all to the winning chances of other horses in the field, can lead to the same situation.
Last edited by Overlay; 07-31-2015 at 11:40 PM.
|
|
|
08-04-2015, 07:17 PM
|
#65
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA.
Posts: 7,464
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodoyoulike
I'm not sure I'm presenting this correctly but shouldn't a good computer program provide legitimate contenders and it would be up to the handicapper to decide whether the best ones are worth a wager?
If it so happens to select the favorite and the horse really was the best and wins, where's the flaw?
A program which doesn't consider current odds wouldn't be capable of adding additional weight to the favorite. I see a number of people who wager on the higher odds contender(s) because the #1 selection happens to be the favorite. If the payout(s) aren't acceptable for the wager, they should pass the race.
|
I responded to this the other day but I didn't have that much time and wanted to get back to your questions. I think this is a good subject. Do you use a computer program, or any type of handicapping, to rank contenders using the standard and obvious factors and then just look for value based on the morning line, or an odds line that the system produced? This is not necessarily a bad approach and could pay off with patience, providing you have a pretty good idea of what the odds should be.
Another approach is to use a method or methods that just points out longshots that have a shot and bet the ones that actually go off over a certain odds, say 6-1, or whatever seems to work in the long run.
A related subject pertaining to win betting in particular would be, "is it ever smart to bet lower odds overlays?" In other words, say your program or method picks a horse on top and makes it 8-5 but it's going off at 5-2. Is this really a good bet? In the long run, will 5-2 shots produce a profit? You'd have to hit at least 28% of these bets on 5-2 shots to show a small profit.
To me, horses in the lower range odds are difficult to profit on. Naturally, if you're playing a pick 4 or something like that, you have to use horses that look like they can win. But for win wagers, longer odds overlays are better bets. Most handicapping contests are decided by highest ROI and the contest winner is usually someone who bet all longshots. To win the contest betting 5-2 shots would be virtually impossible.
|
|
|
08-06-2015, 07:37 PM
|
#66
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 147
|
Don`t bet your contenders under 4/1.
|
|
|
08-06-2015, 09:56 PM
|
#67
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesal57
Here's the dilemma I foresee..
you start to make other horses look better but at the same time you make the real winners look bad...
What to do?
Mike
|
I saw that in the Haskell on Sunday. Even at his low odds, AP was still a likely overlay, but many horseplayers try to zig when the world is zagging.
|
|
|
08-07-2015, 06:56 AM
|
#68
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA.
Posts: 7,464
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6
I saw that in the Haskell on Sunday. Even at his low odds, AP was still a likely overlay, but many horseplayers try to zig when the world is zagging.
|
If you really think a horse is a lock, the best thing to do is pass the race. But there are ways to take a shot against a horse like this and still profit. I made one bet in the Haskell, I boxed Keen Ice and AP in the exacta and got $10.80, a return of more than 3-2 odds and a better return than a win bet on AP who was 1-10. The Frosted/AP Exacta box was also a good bet in the Belmont and of course would have paid more if Frosted upset.
I do sometimes wonder, are there players who only bet great horses and can you profit doing that? Betting 1-10 shots, obviously, you will lose in the long run. But what if the only time you bet an odds on horse it was a horse like Zenyatta, AP Pharoah, Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Ruffian, etc. Would you show a profit? If wouldn't be much action, since there are very few great horses. And most 1-10 shots are terrible bets.
|
|
|
08-07-2015, 07:26 AM
|
#69
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy
If you really think a horse is a lock, the best thing to do is pass the race. But there are ways to take a shot against a horse like this and still profit. I made one bet in the Haskell, I boxed Keen Ice and AP in the exacta and got $10.80, a return of more than 3-2 odds and a better return than a win bet on AP who was 1-10. The Frosted/AP Exacta box was also a good bet in the Belmont and of course would have paid more if Frosted upset.
I do sometimes wonder, are there players who only bet great horses and can you profit doing that? Betting 1-10 shots, obviously, you will lose in the long run. But what if the only time you bet an odds on horse it was a horse like Zenyatta, AP Pharoah, Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Ruffian, etc. Would you show a profit? If wouldn't be much action, since there are very few great horses. And most 1-10 shots are terrible bets.
|
I agree that the best course of action Sunday was to not bet the Haskell without AP in your bets. I personally would never bet a 1-10 horse as a single, not even Secretariat or The Bid. Neither would I throw them off my tickets in hopes of scoring some rare coup. Both of those options are losing propositions. You bring up a good way for the OP to use chalk with an opportunity for a greater ROI.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|