having a terrible year, thinking of giving it up

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Not4Love

Does he REALLY BELIEVE WALL ST ISN'T RIGGED.

Of course it's rigged in various ways and depending on your strategy it will impact you way more than other strats.

But that doesn't mean you can't win.

[crestridge]

Back in 1998, Mark Cramer came out with a book, "Value Handicapping", and the "players" were beginning to see the price one gets from wagering on a entrant was important. But how to do this? Well, Cramers work was important because Sartin hadn't really developed the idea yet, so it started to make sense to begin the process. Computer programs developed this idea in their programs. But it wasn't very robust, but as time goes on, the idea developed into some very good ideas, like Benter, etc. But now, the computer's have really become robust, not like when Mark Cramer, kind of esoterically developed a "personal line".

So what I see, the "whales, computer scientist", have made a impact on what we call a overlay, and they are hard to find. Especially considering the fact of odds at 0 minutes, not being accurate. Because odds at 0 minutes impact your choice of wager. So really, is a "underlay" now, a good "underlay" something to consider?

[Robert Fischer]

Crestridge yea, the whales try to eat any analytic-driven overlays. We need something additional, or unique, or even contrarian.

You mention Mark Cramer and Benter. I was just reading some posts by Alan Woods ( one of his names here was "Entropy" ).

[crestridge]

I have only read slightly about Mr. Woods, it seems there was a split between him and Benter, but both did very well, financially. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Benter stated, until he put the public odds, in his algorithms/computer program, he wasn't properly successful. It's vital to understand the public's odds accurately, or as close to guessing accurately.

There's some guys on this forum who swear by tracking odds and utilizing a strategy connected to public odds; not sure how they do, whether it's successful or not. Guy named Nitro swears by it.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by crestridge

I have only read slightly about Mr. Woods, it seems there was a split between him and Benter, but both did very well, financially. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Benter stated, until he put the public odds, in his algorithms/computer program, he wasn't properly successful. It's vital to understand the public's odds accurately, or as close to guessing accurately.

There's some guys on this forum who swear by tracking odds and utilizing a strategy connected to public odds; not sure how they do, whether it's successful or not. Guy named Nitro swears by it.

Guy named Nitro is long gone, thankfully. It was pretty easy for him to claim he "won" when his brilliant technique was listing 6 or 7 horses a race and then any combination of those was a "winner". We all could win if we only count the returns and not what we wagered boxing 6 horses every race. But some stupid people felt because he said in every post he was winning on Hong Kong and you were an idiot if you weren't, then it must be true.

Tote handicapping probably had some merit 50 years ago when you could only bet on track. Now when 70% of the pool is bet in the last two minutes (or less) and virtually all of the big bettors wager then, what exactly are you tracking 15 minutes to post? Late odds drops are where it's at and we only see those after the race is over.

[crestridge]

Good observation "cast", things have definitely changed with odds, in last few years. Thanks for your input!

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Guy named Nitro is long gone, thankfully. It was pretty easy for him to claim he "won" when his brilliant technique was listing 6 or 7 horses a race and then any combination of those was a "winner". We all could win if we only count the returns and not what we wagered boxing 6 horses every race. But some stupid people felt because he said in every post he was winning on Hong Kong and you were an idiot if you weren't, then it must be true.

Tote handicapping probably had some merit 50 years ago when you could only bet on track. Now when 70% of the pool is bet in the last two minutes (or less) and virtually all of the big bettors wager then, what exactly are you tracking 15 minutes to post? Late odds drops are where it's at and we only see those after the race is over.

I can not say for certain but over the long hall, the way I calculate my bet size for betting favorite could be independent of the final odds change wrt profit. its a big bag of numbers I use, wps and exacta.
I have a current data base of 600 (mostly final odds). it would make for a beautiful paper, but one never knows until the work is done.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by crestridge

Benter stated, until he put the public odds, in his algorithms/computer program, he wasn't properly successful. It's vital to understand the public's odds accurately, or as close to guessing accurately.

Originally Posted by castaway01

Tote handicapping probably had some merit 50 years ago when you could only bet on track. Now when 70% of the pool is bet in the last two minutes (or less) and virtually all of the big bettors wager then, what exactly are you tracking 15 minutes to post? Late odds drops are where it's at and we only see those after the race is over.

Today the quality teams have their own morning line, and then they read the will pays, and when things are different than they expected, they respect that in their probability estimates. Of course they do so while allowing for their own wagers being a significant driver of the will pays as well.

Normal players can look to the multis and see if their horses or key rivals are being bet dramatically different than they expected

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Guy named Nitro is long gone, thankfully.

I missed that.

When/why did he exit?

[lefty359]

NO4love, I don't see jockeys pulling horses an alarming rate and I am winning


If you or anybody thinks races are mostly fixed then why bet?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I missed that.

When/why did he exit?

very thin skin

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Crestridge yea, the whales try to eat any analytic-driven overlays. We need something additional, or unique, or even contrarian.

You mention Mark Cramer and Benter. I was just reading some posts by Alan Woods ( one of his names here was "Entropy" ).

The way I look at it is you aren't going to beat the CAWs with 7 MIT grads crunching numbers and putting forth 1,000 factors into each and every wager they make. They will dilute the pools and hammer any possible overlay out there from a shear numbers standpoint.

I have to use my 30+ years of handicapping experience and draw from things that aren't easily recognizable from a pure numbers standpoint. Speed ratings, jockeys, trainers, and easily identifiable figs are readily available on any search engine that pushes out numbers. They already know Graham Motion is 5 for 12 on turf at KEE when off a 90+ day layoff. I have to be better than that.

I need to concentrate more on the intangibles that can't be easily described.

[classhandicapper]

I never understood how the public odds helped Benter. I can see how it would help you make a more accurate odds line, but not how it changes your bets.

Let’s say I have a model with 10 factors. It says a horse should be 2-1 and the horses is 5-1. That looks like a bet. If I use the public odds to adjust the fair odds to 7/2 I’m still going to bet him. Even if 7/2 is more accurate it doesn’t change anything.

Maybe on rare occasions if a made a horse 2/1 and he’s 3-1 I’ll make the fair odds 5/2 and decide I don’t have enough margin of safety to make the bet, but I could have done that to begin with by insisting on a significant difference.

To me the odds board matters when you think it reflects information the public doesn’t have like the horse is not ready off a layoff, a horse was sick, missed a couple of works and will need a race, the horse is training way better since his last start etc….

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I never understood how the public odds helped Benter. I can see how it would help you make a more accurate odds line, but not how it changes your bets.

Let’s say I have a model with 10 factors. It says a horse should be 2-1 and the horses is 5-1. That looks like a bet. If I use the public odds to adjust the fair odds to 7/2 I’m still going to bet him. Even if 7/2 is more accurate it doesn’t change anything.

Maybe on rare occasions if a made a horse 2/1 and he’s 3-1 I’ll make the fair odds 5/2 and decide I don’t have enough margin of safety to make the bet, but I could have done that to begin with by insisting on a significant difference.

To me the odds board matters when you think it reflects information the public doesn’t have like the horse is not ready off a layoff, a horse was sick, missed a couple of works and will need a race, the horse is training way better since his last start etc….

Odds boards are just a factor you have to deal with.

Yesterday, playing the 1st at KEE, I liked the 5. I bet him at 7/1, and I made that bet with 0 MTP thinking I may well get 9/2. 9/2 was fair odds to me. He eventually paid 5/1, but that is the part of the game you have to anticipate anymore when making any wager.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by PalaceOfFortLarned

The way I look at it is you aren't going to beat the CAWs with 7 MIT grads crunching numbers and putting forth 1,000 factors into each and every wager they make. They will dilute the pools and hammer any possible overlay out there from a shear numbers standpoint.

I have to use my 30+ years of handicapping experience and draw from things that aren't easily recognizable from a pure numbers standpoint. Speed ratings, jockeys, trainers, and easily identifiable figs are readily available on any search engine that pushes out numbers. They already know Graham Motion is 5 for 12 on turf at KEE when off a 90+ day layoff. I have to be better than that.

I need to concentrate more on the intangibles that can't be easily described.

+1

With every factor there are general truths, but there are also exceptions and misunderstandings that aren’t in the books or public discussion (at least yet). The value is not necessarily in the information, it’s when the commonly held opinions and uses of it are wrong among experienced players and the confidence level of those people is high. Finding things like that is not easy. I think bias, pace/race flow is still fertile ground because the they impact different horses in different ways but generally get applied uniformly. Trainer patterns are also still interesting because the trainers, stock, owners, and even their focus changes.