Best Betting Strategies for Long-term Success?

[Running Amok]

I used to think that betting to win gave a punter the best chance to turn a profit over the long-haul. Making bets on horses that have a chance to win while trying to beat over-bet favorites just seemed to make sense as a viable strategy.

Of course I never felt there's anything wrong with taking a stab at exactas and trifectas once in awhile. But I didn't think it was where I should allocate a large percentage of my bets.

After being out of the game for awhile I now have a renewed interest in thoroughbred racing. But after only a few months I have come to the realization that successful long-term win betting seems practically impossible with the CAW whales attacking the pools and dropping the odds.

I was not even aware of CAWs until a couple months ago when I read an article that was posted here in the forum.

One fellow's reply in that thread really hit home for me.

Fascinating article, thanks. When I discuss CAWs at the track with friends, I find most people are unaware of them. What I had always assumed is that every horse in a race is bet to some extent by the CAW's, because, at tracks like Saratoga, the odds seem to be compressed, that is, even a no-hoper is rarely more than 30-1, when it should be 90-1.

So I asked myself, how do we small guys even compete? I don't want be a sucker that bets 50 bucks on a horse at 7-1 only to see his odds drop to 7/2 after the gates open.

It's hard enough trying to beat the 20% take and now we have to compete with elite groups wagering at the last second, armed with a ton of data and algorithms to exploit errors in the crowds line?

Doesn't sound like betting horses to win that you perceive as good value is a smart bet anymore.

So I know there are a lot of folks here that's been in the game for a long time and I'd like to get your take on what you feel are the best pools to wager in.

Which betting strategies, if any, do you guys think have the best chance at overcoming the disadvantages we all face today?

[MJC922]

Process the DD probables matrix from the previous race using Excel and obtain projected win odds from that. CAWs and rebates are then a non-issue for you anymore unless of course you see no overlays in the actual final odds, in which case why would such a person even be betting anymore? Clearly there are overlays, look at the Haskell and yet people go on and on about unbeatable teams. The odds are just too good, yea right.

My own records over the past year show solid positive ROIs in betting on doubles, followed by win bets at major league tracks like @ NYRA and SoCal which is not surprising as the projected odds for example at NYRA are generally +/- one tick of final odds plus you have them 20 min to post so there's zero excuse in not being able to profit. It should be well within any good handicapper's capabilities to show some sort of win profits at these tracks.

You also have to find where you have an edge in the first place, if you struggle on synthetic and / or turf you'll have to find the venue that best fits your style. For obvious reasons I don't like messing around with any track that doesn't offer rolling doubles.

Good luck!

[Running Amok]

MJC922, thanks.

I was going to suggest that perhaps doubles are bets that offer a better chance at long-term success. Horizontal wagers in general would seem to be less affected by CAWs because no last second change in odds can take place since wagers must be placed before the first leg.

I use Excel a lot and created a spreadsheet using speed and pace for making an odds line. But like you said though, you have to find where you have an edge.

It doesn't do so well in maiden races with several first-time starters and doesn't do well in turf races. But I've tweaked it some and so far I like what I'm seeing.

Would I be correct to assume when you process the DD probable matrix from the previous race, the Will Pay prices are used to project win odds from it for the second leg?

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Running Amok

MJC922, thanks.

I was going to suggest that perhaps doubles are bets that offer a better chance at long-term success. Horizontal wagers in general would seem to be less affected by CAWs because no last second change in odds can take place since wagers must be placed before the first leg.

I use Excel a lot and created a spreadsheet using speed and pace for making an odds line. But like you said though, you have to find where you have an edge.

It doesn't do so well in maiden races with several first-time starters and doesn't do well in turf races. But I've tweaked it some and so far I like what I'm seeing.

Would I be correct to assume when you process the DD probable matrix from the previous race, the Will Pay prices are used to project win odds from it for the second leg?

I personally wouldn't bother with longer horizontals, those are blind pools, you may be betting on an overlay, then again you may instead be betting on a significant underlay, it's entirely unknown in the latter legs of the sequence. The 'edge' anyone has on this game is only a tick in odds anyway so chasing after blind pools to me is a non-starter, half of the wagering decision to bet or not to bet is invisible to people doing this, but whatever. I understand why people do it because if they hit they can score out big and if they're recreational that's simply the end game for them. As for the DD probables, I process the whole matrix once the wagering completes for the race, you can get it from Amwager and do a copy/paste into excel. The willpays I don't have a need for. Willpays are the race winner's probables from the first leg, nothing more, it's a subset of what I've already processed. If that's all someone is using it means they're looking at just a slice of the wagering that was actually done, i.e. they're looking at less than 10% of the actual wagering in the pool if a 10-1 horse wins the first leg. You want to process all of the combinations to get the best projected odds for yourself. Anyone who does this I can say with certainty it's the single biggest change anyone can implement to their game today. I would go so far as to say none of us should be betting a red cent without it.

[pandy]

Betting to win, a lot depends on the average odds range of your bets. If your average is low, say, under 4-1, you don't have much room for error. In other words, you're less likely to be betting on overlays. How many 5-2 shots are great value? Not many. There are far more overlays in the 6-1 to 19-1 range, but then you're going to lose many bets in a row.

Betting exotics gives you more leverage but the key is not only finding good value but also not over-leveraging (betting too many combinations). Of course, if you try to crush cold numbers all the time, that's very difficult, too. You have to find the sweet spot between not betting too many combinations and not covering enough combinations. A lot depends on the odds. If your key horse is 17-1 and you're betting Doubles, you want to hedge a bit (use several horses in the next leg) so that if the horse wins you actually hit the double. If your key horse is 5-2, you really can't use more than one or two horses in the next leg of the Double.

There are players who are very good at constructing tickets and that's really important.

[Dave S]

I have begun to be much more risk averse in my win betting lately. I would much rather be betting 2,3, or sometimes even 4 of my contenders if the odds warrant it and I have a low odds non-contender to play against. Bankroll preservation is something not to be taken lightly.

[thaskalos]

The "proper" betting strategy depends on the individual player's temperament and personality. It seems strange to me that most of the horseplayers -- from what I see on this board at least -- appear to favor win-betting...because win-betting goes against the temperament of most horseplayers with whom I have become acquainted. Almost all the horseplayers that I know hate losing streaks, and once they fall behind in their betting they get very impatient and look to get even right away...and win-betting goes against this sort of mentality. The win-bettor must be patient and resolute...and these aren't personality traits that are commonly found in the typical horseplayer.

More important than what betting strategy we should use is the question of what sort of person we are as far as temperament and personality are concerned. Because if our betting style doesn't match our "inner horseplayer"... then our chances of surviving in this game hover around zero.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Dave S

I have begun to be much more risk averse in my win betting lately. I would much rather be betting 2,3, or sometimes even 4 of my contenders if the odds warrant it and I have a low odds non-contender to play against. Bankroll preservation is something not to be taken lightly.

I hear you. This is where I think doubles are particularly useful because you can use several horses in a double and can even pull in some fringe longshot that gives you a legit chance to score out large on occasion. It's essentially a win dutch parlayed. It also cuts way down on the variance. I always was primarily a win bettor as a full-time player but the majority of my largest win bets on a day were on very high percentage situations, like 40% and up. Now as a recreational player I'm favoring doubles, especially with the evidence of my strongest ROI as a recreational being there. The high percentage win bet play is more aligned with the player who is there everyday focusing on one track and has every detail in their head from previous races both handicapped and viewed. It works for someone who can be there on the regular but there's zero room for error.

[Running Amok]

Originally Posted by MJC922

Process the DD probables matrix from the previous race using Excel and obtain projected win odds from that. CAWs and rebates are then a non-issue for you anymore unless of course you see no overlays in the actual final odds, in which case why would such a person even be betting anymore?

OK, I'm trying to follow you here. So why would the CAWs no longer be an issue? They can still wager large amounts up until the last second and drop the odds.

Say I see a horse at 6-1 and I think his fair odds should be 3-1. If the projected odds are 7/2, are you saying don't bet because the projected odds are likely going to be what the final odds are when the final wagers have been tabulated and thus, no overlay?

[ranchwest]

If you bet the "best" horse in every race, you'll usually be on the favorite, hitting a respectable percentage and LOSING. You have to seek out ways to be a contrarian (at least to some extent and/or in some situations) and still win. That may mean being selective in the races you play. Find the false favorite. Find the setup for a non-favorite. Keep records, especially of how your contenders fare and your areas of success.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Running Amok

OK, I'm trying to follow you here. So why would the CAWs no longer be an issue? They can still wager large amounts up until the last second and drop the odds.

Say I see a horse at 6-1 and I think his fair odds should be 3-1. If the projected odds are 7/2, are you saying don't bet because the projected odds are likely going to be what the final odds are when the final wagers have been tabulated and thus, no overlay?

If projected odds are 7-2 and you make the horse 3-1 then I probably wouldn't bet much on the horse (if anything), I'd prefer a 50% overlay so 9-2 would be the target price on a horse that's 3-1 in my mind. I mean sure I could include the horse as part of a double play even at 7-2 projected since it's likely a net to break even over the long-term if I'm right about it, it boosts win rate at no cost to me, that's valuable, however I wouldn't bet much to win on the horse. The 6-1 business is irrelevant because once I know the projected odds I'm not interested in what the odds are on the board, that's a waste of time, we've been wasting time on that for 25 years, it's utterly useless to expect to get those prices no matter how late in the wagering it is. I've done studies on it where 40% of the horses on my line when bet as 50% overlays at 0 MTP, 40% of those horses actually went off at lower odds than my line. Yes 50% overlays become underlays after the betting is closed. This is the reason people have blown the teams out of proportion, because they're piling on and the rank and file have no prayer unless they start ignoring those late tote odds and start using projected odds. Projected odds make the CAW irrelevant to me because when I accept 3-1 on a horse that I make 2-1 I actually do get the 3-1 over the long term, as stated I do NOT get that 3-1 if I'm not using projected odds but instead using 0 MTP odds.

[classhandicapper]

Instead of just building a regression model to try to select winners or make an accurate odds line, it may make sense to also build one to project the final odds. If you use that along with the DD matrix when available that would give you two good weapons to project final odds.

[Running Amok]

Originally Posted by MJC922

As for the DD probables, I process the whole matrix once the wagering completes for the race, you can get it from Amwager and do a copy/paste into excel. The willpays I don't have a need for. Willpays are the race winner's probables from the first leg, nothing more, it's a subset of what I've already processed. If that's all someone is using it means they're looking at just a slice of the wagering that was actually done.

You want to process all of the combinations to get the best projected odds for yourself.

I agree, processing the WillPays to project the final odds doesn't paint the whole picture.

So you're saying after the first leg wagering has closed and the race has run, you then process the entire DD matrix to project the odds of the second leg, correct?

So I'm pretty proficient with Excel and I like to ask, after you've copied and pasted the matrix into Excel, could you explain the process you use for projecting the odds, or perhaps point me to a webpage that explains the process?

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Running Amok

I agree, processing the WillPays to project the final odds doesn't paint the whole picture.

So you're saying after the first leg wagering has closed and the race has run, you then process the entire DD matrix to project the odds of the second leg, correct?

So I'm pretty proficient with Excel and I like to ask, after you've copied and pasted the matrix into Excel, could you explain the process you use for projecting the odds, or perhaps point me to a webpage that explains the process?

Correct. I'll upload some screenshots for you. First one is the race before the Haskell, matrix highlighted from Amwager. Second one is showing it pasted into my Excel sheet, projected odds. Third image is the actual result with the final odds highlighted.

For a better understanding of the process you can google "doc constructed a situation" and that will bring up google books hopefully, then see page 138 of the Winning Horseplayer, (google for now if you don't own it... but we all should on this board anyway)

[biggestal99]

move to jersey and bet fixed odds.

half of my play is now fixed odds win betting.

it just a matter of time before it becomes the my majority betting capital.

no worries about the CAW, what you see is what you get, odds wise.

Allan