Past posting

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i love the CRW. they are the best thing to ever hit pari-mutuel betting. all you have to do is figure out how to beat them at their own game. its really just a question of how much you want to pick up.

I'm kind of with you on that, to some degree. They do make mistakes, but they also correct even some of their most grievous ones. Just before the temp shutdown, I played a horse at Santa Anita that went into the gate at 30-1, and at the 1/2 mile pole, went to 17-1, still a great price on the horse, but 30-1 was just down right ridiculous.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by Nitro

To hell with all these opinions! Why not just face the facts?

So, all you lofty players who think this game (or industry) owes you something? Think again! Try humbling yourself to accept the fact that you’re an outsider playing an insider’s game. That statement should be accepted by any rationale mind. In spite of any skepticism, the connections will always function on multiple levels from knowing each and every aspect of a horse’s condition to the money being wagered in an array of betting pools at various times during a typical betting cycle.

Why are so many concerned about what other players (that operate at different levels) might be doing? Maybe they’ve got the resources to play the game much more seriously in terms of gathering accurate information and acting on it accordingly with sufficient funding.

If you feel you can’t compete with just guesswork based on feeble attempts to analyze the PP data or statistics, then by all means do yourself a favor and get out of the game. The industry doesn’t care one way or the other. They certainly know and understand who has the most to lose or gain from their exploits and its certainly not an outsider looking to cash in once and while.

It's not a zero sum game, and without handle growth, the insiders can all take all their information and write an encyclopedia with it, because all that info won't be worth a wooden nickel at the windows.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

I'm kind of with you on that, to some degree. They do make mistakes, but they also correct even some of their most grievous ones. Just before the temp shutdown, I played a horse at Santa Anita that went into the gate at 30-1, and at the 1/2 mile pole, went to 17-1, still a great price on the horse, but 30-1 was just down right ridiculous.

If there was a way to take advantage of what they do I am at a loss. Maybe I am misunderstanding it.

They essentially handicap the entire field with extensive knowledge and set approximate odds to finish first, second, third or fourth (win odds and other finishes are not always the same %).

From there they load it into a program, that program then gets a feed into all the pools and payouts so that they can find anywhere that they either have a very slight loss to a expected edge.

Right before the race hundreds if not thousands of bets are sent in.

So in essence unless you have an opinion that is very contrary to theirs how would you get any really value over time?

I think the best way to probably do this is find maybe 1 or 2 win bets per day where you have a strong opinion. For example Thousand Words last week, I really liked his chances compared to what most would expect, and in this case obviously much stronger than the CAW teams or I would have never gotten that price. Over time I am going to be wrong more than right, and more times than not I probably am going to closer align to the CAW opinion than not so my value in most cases will never be there.

A bit of a ramble but thats how I see it.

[ultracapper]

The only small crack that I have been able to fathom, and like you, exactly how the whole system of handicapping and weighing different info in their programs is greek to me, is that valuing back class may be a challenge that hasn't been mastered yet. Particularly horses that have gone up and down in class seem to get missed. A horse that ran well at 10k, dropped to 5k for a couple races and ran so so, then gets bumped back up to 8k or even 10k, seem to get away from them. I've noticed most of the overlays, in SoCal anyway, that I've been able to confidently identify, are kind of difficult to get a read on exactly what their proper class level is. Those programmers must have difficulty dealing with class valuations and tying performance values and class values together. It's those horses that get bumped around the class ladder that seem to get away from them from time to time.

The clock is no help. There is no adjustments to time that they don't have figured out. It's the "quantify by opinion" data that gives us a sliver of hope.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

The clock is no help. There is no adjustments to time that they don't have figured out. It's the "quantify by opinion" data that gives us a sliver of hope.

agree on this, anything with clock, track, bias adjustments it feels like they will have an upper hand.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

It's not a zero sum game, and without handle growth, the insiders can all take all their information and write an encyclopedia with it, because all that info won't be worth a wooden nickel at the windows.

I beg to differ! If a “zero sum game” is defined as the sum of the amounts won by some players equals the combined losses of the others. Granted there are takeouts, but fortunately those percentages are known and removed from the betting pools prior the odds and will pays being displayed. So all players (with some common sense and recognition of risk vs. return) can estimate what the value of their play might produce (assuming their bet wins). They always have a choice to play or pass.

There’s no need to have a constant "growth of the handle" as long as there are competing players willing to put up their money where the strength of their varied beliefs may lie. You seem to have forgotten how the Sport of Kings actually started. Today’s pari-mutual betting system is simply an mechanized advancement in order to handle a multitude of bettors while simply replicating those (outsiders) who were making side bets on the competing Royalty's (insiders) charges.

If it weren’t "worth a wooden nickel" as you suggest then maybe you could explain why the game has endured for so many generations all over the world. You might also want to try and clarify why the typical O.A. handle for approx. only 765 races in Hong Kong averages 12 to 15 BILLION US $$$ each and every season.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Nitro

...If it weren’t "worth a wooden nickel" as you suggest then maybe you could explain why the game has endured for so many generations all over the world. You might also want to try and clarify why the typical O.A. handle for approx. only 765 races in Hong Kong averages 12 to 15 BILLION US $$$ each and every season.

Hong Kong will probably be the last circuit standing, in what appears to be a grim future for the sport. I've been thinking for years that economic decline would turn North American racing closer to what you see on the LAR circuit from south of the border in about a decade. But COVID has pulled the timeline forward quite a bit - and tons of small owners and trainers will be out of the game this time next year.

It amazes me that track connections and the "alphabet groups" were so short-sighted in their embracing of rebates and slot revenue. And these are business experts? The business of suicide maybe.

As for past posting, I think it's more likely it's "past canceling", with a similar effect. Place various bets in relation to the approximate odds (ie, $50 to win on a 20-1 shot, $500 to win on a 2-1 shot, and so on) and let your wagers get lost in the "noise" of the late rush of money.

Then cancel the losers with a random timestamp "before" the start. Trivial, for a semi-competent programmer with root/Administrator access, whether a hacker or track flunky. Now takeout just got bumped up a few more points with the pools being skimmed.

I don't think it matters much any longer. Discretionary dollars for entertainment are going to be hard to come by in the future, and racing, professional sports, education, government at all levels, and the racket known as health care will all be fiercely competing for the shrinking pie....

[classhandicapper]

I've noticed most of the overlays, in SoCal anyway, that I've been able to confidently identify, are kind of difficult to get a read on exactly what their proper class level is. Those programmers must have difficulty dealing with class valuations and tying performance values and class values together.

Competent classing requires that you look at the horses that were in a specific race, what level they've been competitive at, how consistently well they perform at that level, how they ran relative to each other, whether the lightly raced winners have anything in reserve etc.. and then convert that into some kind of number.

That's no easy task when there are dozens of tracks, thousands of class conditions, statebreds, strong and weak fields within each class, young horse development issues, dominant winner/runner up issues etc..

So what almost everyone does is fall back on the speed figure of the race and the prior speed figures of the horses to gauge both the performance and the competition instead. That's fine, but we all know there are accuracy, subjective, and methodology issues with figures too. So there are also mistakes. And since everyone is using figures, everyone is making the same mistakes.

Now just find them without making too many of your own. It's not so easy.

[lamboguy]

these guys that are calling the break have no clue how to call an outside horse. they call inside horses all day. i hardly ever like inside speed, so when i know there is a horse going to the lead on the inside and i am playing something further out and not as fast, i LOVE it.

when i called the break i used to memorise the outside saddle cloths. if i could call the break i would have a picnic with these amateurs.

[Half Smoke]

Originally Posted by zerosky

I've also seen ones where the price collapsed and they finish up the track.
The ones that do win or run close tend to stick in the mind, I'd like to see some hard data on this which would include the all the late bet downs.

I think it's true that there are late bet downs and it can cause the horse that you've bet to become a bad bet

but these late bet downs seem to me to be maybe 90% faves and its often very predictable when the fave is very strong

it also seems to me that there is a simple solution - don't bet faves
then it's likely the horse you bet will pay as much or more than what you saw when you bet

so, you lose the opportunity to bet faves that you like - that's unfortunate

but it doesn't have to ruin your chances of being a winning player




..

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

If there was a way to take advantage of what they do I am at a loss. Maybe I am misunderstanding it.

They essentially handicap the entire field with extensive knowledge and set approximate odds to finish first, second, third or fourth (win odds and other finishes are not always the same %).

From there they load it into a program, that program then gets a feed into all the pools and payouts so that they can find anywhere that they either have a very slight loss to a expected edge.

Right before the race hundreds if not thousands of bets are sent in.

So in essence unless you have an opinion that is very contrary to theirs how would you get any really value over time?

I think the best way to probably do this is find maybe 1 or 2 win bets per day where you have a strong opinion. For example Thousand Words last week, I really liked his chances compared to what most would expect, and in this case obviously much stronger than the CAW teams or I would have never gotten that price. Over time I am going to be wrong more than right, and more times than not I probably am going to closer align to the CAW opinion than not so my value in most cases will never be there.

A bit of a ramble but thats how I see it.

Honestly this is actually something that has ALWAYS been true about horse racing.

Assuming someone is a good handicapper, the ONLY profitable strategy for the smaller player is to wait for the rare +EV spots where you have some insight not shared by the rest of the public. Mathematically, this actually has to be true- if you bet every race, over time, you should lose the amount of the takeout over time unless you are in some rare situation where the betting public is unaware of some really profound fact.

That was true in 1950 and it is still true now. The average bettor bets way too many spots where she has no edge. It is also true in other advantage gambling games- the average sports bettor bets way too many games (and always bets the Super Bowl, probably the most efficient gambling pool in all of sports), the average poker player plays too many hands, the average stock trader makes too many trades.

Nothing has changed here. In most races, the post time odds are going to be efficient. The public favorite has always won upwards of 30 percent of the time. You have to wait for a spot, even though it is boring.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Assuming someone is a good handicapper, the ONLY profitable strategy for the smaller player is to wait for the rare +EV spots where you have some insight not shared by the rest of the public.

I'm not even sure one value oriented insight into a race is enough to put you over the top unless you are very picky and are getting a solid rebate.

Even when you find a bad favorite or horse that may be better than it looks on paper, the mistakes are not extreme. Even if you are correct, you are probably just putting a major dent in the take. I like to have two value oriented insights into the same race. Maybe there's one horse I think is getting overbet relative to the others and another that's being underbet for a different reason. That combination has a better chance to get you into the black if you know what you are doing, especially with any rebate. But how often do you find two mistakes in the same race?

[aaron]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Honestly this is actually something that has ALWAYS been true about horse racing.

Assuming someone is a good handicapper, the ONLY profitable strategy for the smaller player is to wait for the rare +EV spots where you have some insight not shared by the rest of the public. Mathematically, this actually has to be true- if you bet every race, over time, you should lose the amount of the takeout over time unless you are in some rare situation where the betting public is unaware of some really profound fact.

That was true in 1950 and it is still true now. The average bettor bets way too many spots where she has no edge. It is also true in other advantage gambling games- the average sports bettor bets way too many games (and always bets the Super Bowl, probably the most efficient gambling pool in all of sports), the average poker player plays too many hands, the average stock trader makes too many trades.

Nothing has changed here. In most races, the post time odds are going to be efficient. The public favorite has always won upwards of 30 percent of the time. You have to wait for a spot, even though it is boring.

Agree with most of what you say. The only difference that I can see and I may be wrong is that the win pool has become more efficient. It used to be if you had an 6/5 or even money shot you were against, you might find a 5-1 shot or higher to bet. In today's racing you are more likely to have a 2-1 or 5/2 shot. The spreads are closer together. With that said there are races with live bombs. They are just harder to find, especially if you only look at one track.

[porchy44]

My friend claims money comes off horses that break "real bad" sometimes. He said he has documented numerous times less money on a horse after the break than before ! I have heard crazier theories. I told him if you go to the track enough, you will see about everything.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by porchy44

My friend claims money comes off horses that break "real bad" sometimes. He said he has documented numerous times less money on a horse after the break than before ! I have heard crazier theories. I told him if you go to the track enough, you will see about everything.

I wonder how many of those times the horse was acting up while loading? Those with direct access to the tote could cancel bets on those horses, but it wouldn't necessarily reflect until a flash or two after the off.