Santa Anita Morning Line

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

I'm interested in anything that brings horse racing into the modern age. And there are countless improvements within easy reach. It would be fairly simple to write a ML program, so that the process is computerized (and standardized, possibly for all tracks...). My own horse racing and sports programs are far more complex than something like this would require. It would take about a month to get the basic outline, and another two months to finetune and optimize everything.

TRACKMASTER, is already doing just that, using a computer algorithm for making a Morning-Line for 12 different HARNESS tracks that have adopted them so far....They supply them for free for any Harness track that would ask for them...

From my own personal experience, I find them to be quite formful....Of course nothing is perfect, and occasionally there are some discrepancies, and sometimes a few funny ones too, but for the most part, I think they are very solid, accurate and consistent overall... A great guide for the novice and intermediate players, I'd say..

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Pertaining to morning-line point totals, I'm a stickler and stay within narrow parameters, but my thinking on odds-makers that overshoot the number (even drastically) has evolved a bit.

Before just such an odds-maker stepped up and gave a sharply critical Steven Crist a surprisingly credible debate on this topic, I was dismissive, even contemptuous of soaring point totals. Being a traditionalist in at least one regard- the guy's personal template did not include 7-1, 9-1, 11-1 (etc..etc..) price points- he had reasoned that rounding each, or at least numerous horses down to his next lower price point could logically result in staggering point totals.

And his argument was not without merit. Imagine an actual field with the real-time tote rounding each horse down nearly a full point (even as opposed to said odds-maker's near 2 point round-downs), and the board totals surprisingly high. Check out an actual tote board, and you will see that this DOES happen. Not often, but on occasion.

Even Crist was somewhat receptive to the guy's explanation.

I agree that the tote board does not necessarily show the accurate odds. This is another reason why digital numbers would be much preferable, as it would lower the possibility that the bettor is presented with value that's not there.

The easiest example is a big favorite who is about to go from, say, 4/5 to 1/1.
Before this movement, even when it is already in the books (as measured by the total odds), the odds of all the others are adjusted first. In other words, the total for the field will be greatly inflated with the horse still at 4/5, and drop to 120% when the player, in his own program, enters that horse at the 1/1 price. The 4/5 horse, in reality already at 1/1, may sit at the 4/5 price for several minutes.

Why are they doing this? Could it be because the horse in the 4/5 to 1/1 range (not including 1/1) has far greater value to the track? If the horse is a true 1/1, and shown as such, the track gets nothing extra. But if the horse is 0.89 or 0.98, the track gets a nice added bonus, because the payout is rounded down to the lowest dime.

I've seen instances of a lot of money coming in on a lower odds horse, with all the other horses adjusted accordingly (by the same percentage), except the one favorite with odds lower than the horse receiving that big bet. Miraculously, that one horse was unaffected by the big money on the other horse. In all likelihood it's dishonest business practice, but it would take someone filming the tote board to have a record of it. Without such a record, this type of stuff comes and goes too fast, and the bettor, the person in the best position to observe it, doesn't focus on it, because it sidetracks from what he's trying to accomplish.

[mountainman]

A lines-maker should take pains in his work, but, ironically, the public shouldn't always take track-program odds TOO literally. In some races it's feasible to aggressively guesstimate each horse with precision. In other races, with favorites likely to get pounded 1/9, or 1/5, and other entrants be held at outlandishly high odds, it's not possible, or even desirable to strive for minute precision. No lines-maker, for instance, is going to set price points at 40-1, 60-1..or 85-1 etc-which a real-time tote might well look like in such instances. For one reason, it implies a precision no lines-maker can achieve. And for another (to be blunt), such a line would simply look like crap.

Making a morning-line that conforms, roughly, at least, to any traditional template, but still comes up accurate, thus requires a certain "feel." I have, over the years, dispensed somewhat with aesthetics and become more practical. I don't hesitate, for instance, to set two horses at 5-1-an odd-numbered price point customarily used no more than once per-race by some old-school pros I was taught by. The theory there, once again, was that repeating an odd-numbered or "tweener" price point-5/2, 7/2, etc...implies a precision no morning line can deliver. Conversely, I now sometimes employ generic, even-numbered-6-1, 8-1 10-1 price points as many as three (or, very occasionally four) times in a single race.

I know it appears in such instances that the odds-maker is slapdash, lazy, or unwilling to commit. But in some races, I've come to believe that a repetitive, or even slightly obtuse morning line, at least pertaining to secondary contenders, sends the correct message that not only is exact precision impossible, but that a morning line is merely a guesstimate.

On a closing note, while I'm not an apologist for Jon White, nor particularly a fan of his commentary, I do think setting track odds is a thankless and more difficult task than even exceptional handicappers realize. You're only noticed when you error, and we all error, sometimes badly.

I've set the odds on nearly 50,000 races , and in this era of cancelled bets, cat and mouse factions that buffet the board, quirky 'mad bombers,' whales, and very fallible whale wannabes, I occasionally miss so badly that I simply cringe and hope nobody notices.

A t-bred win pool may well be the most accurate market known to man, but the public's legendary accuracy is still somewhat mysterious, and a bit unknowable in advance. No matter how skilled the lines-maker.

[Dark Horse]

Very insightful. Thanks.

Originally Posted by mountainman

A t-bred win pool may well be the most accurate market known to man, but the public's legendary accuracy is still somewhat mysterious, and a bit unknowable in advance. No matter how skilled the lines-maker.

Wouldn't NFL closing lines, that have a week to sit and attract much more action than a horse race, be a lot more accurate? A market that lasts for a half hour may lack the time to become highly accurate, which, if true, could offer more value (for overlay hunters) than for instance a NFL game.

[maliksealy210]

Originally Posted by LottaKash

TRACKMASTER, is already doing just that, using a computer algorithm for making a Morning-Line for 12 different HARNESS tracks that have adopted them so far....They supply them for free for any Harness track that would ask for them...

From my own personal experience, I find them to be quite formful....Of course nothing is perfect, and occasionally there are some discrepancies, and sometimes a few funny ones too, but for the most part, I think they are very solid, accurate and consistent overall... A great guide for the novice and intermediate players, I'd say..

I posted a link to their formulation and all of their research a few posts back. It's a facinating paper if you have not read it.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks for that link. Just the kind of read for a lazy Sunday morning. Love that kind of research.

[zico20]

Originally Posted by mountainman

A lines-maker should take pains in his work, but, ironically, the public shouldn't always take track-program odds TOO literally. In some races it's feasible to aggressively guesstimate each horse with precision. In other races, with favorites likely to get pounded 1/9, or 1/5, and other entrants be held at outlandishly high odds, it's not possible, or even desirable to strive for minute precision. No lines-maker, for instance, is going to set price points at 40-1, 60-1..or 85-1 etc-which a real-time tote might well look like in such instances. For one reason, it implies a precision no lines-maker can achieve. And for another (to be blunt), such a line would simply look like crap.

Making a morning-line that conforms, roughly, at least, to any traditional template, but still comes up accurate, thus requires a certain "feel." I have, over the years, dispensed somewhat with aesthetics and become more practical. I don't hesitate, for instance, to set two horses at 5-1-an odd-numbered price point customarily used no more than once per-race by some old-school pros I was taught by. The theory there, once again, was that repeating an odd-numbered or "tweener" price point-5/2, 7/2, etc...implies a precision no morning line can deliver. Conversely, I now sometimes employ generic, even-numbered-6-1, 8-1 10-1 price points as many as three (or, very occasionally four) times in a single race.

I know it appears in such instances that the odds-maker is slapdash, lazy, or unwilling to commit. But in some races, I've come to believe that a repetitive, or even slightly obtuse morning line, at least pertaining to secondary contenders, sends the correct message that not only is exact precision impossible, but that a morning line is merely a guesstimate.

On a closing note, while I'm not an apologist for Jon White, nor particularly a fan of his commentary, I do think setting track odds is a thankless and more difficult task than even exceptional handicappers realize. You're only noticed when you error, and we all error, sometimes badly.

I've set the odds on nearly 50,000 races , and in this era of cancelled bets, cat and mouse factions that buffet the board, quirky 'mad bombers,' whales, and very fallible whale wannabes, I occasionally miss so badly that I simply cringe and hope nobody notices.

A t-bred win pool may well be the most accurate market known to man, but the public's legendary accuracy is still somewhat mysterious, and a bit unknowable in advance. No matter how skilled the lines-maker.

I am sorry but I have to disagree with you. If the favorite is going to be 1-5 with 3 horses at 99-1 then that is what you put as the ML. The idea is to have the ML accurately reflect what the betting public is going to do. So what if it looks like crap. Are you trying to be honest or are you trying to bring in the most money to the track. If track management gives you direct orders to inflate the ML, then nothing you can do about it. But if you have free reign and you distort the ML then you are dishonest and not trust worthy on anything, including your picks.

That ML on Sam Houston pick 4 was a total and purposeful disgrace. There is no way track management didn't intervene. Nobody is that bad. And I mean nobody.

I should be making the ML at any track. Posters here can confirm how many times I said a horse listed at 2-1 or higher on the ML would go off at 4-5. I have called a whole bunch of them. And I haven't been wrong compared to the guy who does it yet.

Lastly, when I say "you" I am not referring to you personally, I mean all the ML makers. Just want to be clear about that.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by maliksealy210

I posted a link to their formulation and all of their research a few posts back. It's a facinating paper if you have not read it.

I read it and it looks like they solved the puzzle. It's more of a summary than a paper, but their research was deep and their results are impressive.

ML problem solved. Now we can sit back and wait half a century before the industry makes the transition to superior lines.

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by maliksealy210

I posted a link to their formulation and all of their research a few posts back. It's a facinating paper if you have not read it.

Sorry, I missed that Maliksealy...I just got in late to this thread...Being a Santa Anita title and all, and me being mostly a harness guy..

Good read on that paper too...

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by zico20

I am sorry but I have to disagree with you. If the favorite is going to be 1-5 with 3 horses at 99-1 then that is what you put as the ML. The idea is to have the ML accurately reflect what the betting public is going to do. So what if it looks like crap. Are you trying to be honest or are you trying to bring in the most money to the track. If track management gives you direct orders to inflate the ML, then nothing you can do about it. But if you have free reign and you distort the ML then you are dishonest and not trust worthy on anything, including your picks.

That ML on Sam Houston pick 4 was a total and purposeful disgrace. There is no way track management didn't intervene. Nobody is that bad. And I mean nobody.

I should be making the ML at any track. Posters here can confirm how many times I said a horse listed at 2-1 or higher on the ML would go off at 4-5. I have called a whole bunch of them. And I haven't been wrong compared to the guy who does it yet.

Lastly, when I say "you" I am not referring to you personally, I mean all the ML makers. Just want to be clear about that.

It's extremely hard to make the numbers fit when you make a horse1/9. Believe me. And if you do that and miss, it's a HUGE miss. I've done the line on about 50,000 races ranging from nickel claimers to 750k stakes, and was rated 12th most accurate in America by a study once posted here. My hunch is that last year I ranked higher. In addition, the accuracy of my work was noted in a recent edition of hana's handicapping magazine.

That said, you seem like a really sharp guy, and I'm sure you would make an excellent linesmaker. But believe me, on occasion you would shoot an air ball-just like the rest of us. With all respect sir, detached theorizing is very different from actually putting the numbers together-and putting them out there in front of the public on a daily basis. Incidentally, boosting handle is beyond the abilities of any linesmaker and would never cross my mind. And I've never heard from management in about 25 years of doing mnr's line.

Where are you from, pal? And what's your line of work?

[cj]

Originally Posted by mountainman

It's extremely hard to make the numbers fit when you make a horse1/9. Believe me. And if you do that and miss, it's a HUGE miss. I've done the line on about 50,000 races ranging from nickel claimers to 750k stakes, and was rated 12th most accurate in America by a study once posted here. My hunch is that last year I ranked higher. In addition, the accuracy of my work was noted in a recent edition of hana's handicapping magazine.

That said, you seem like a really sharp guy, and I'm sure you would make an excellent linesmaker. But believe me, on occasion you would shoot an air ball-just like the rest of us. With all respect sir, detached theorizing is very different from actually putting the numbers together-and putting them out there in front of the public on a daily basis.

Where are you from, pal? And what's your line of work?

I agree, you can't go too low on the favorites. But you should get the favorite right, particularly in your track's signature race. At Sam Houston last night, anyone with a pulse knew which horses would be favored in the stakes races, and that all would be odds on. The linesmaker could have made each 7 to 5 or 8 to 5 and been fine. This was an embarrassment.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by cj

I agree, you can't go too low on the favorites. But you should get the favorite right, particularly in your track's signature race.

Absolutely, sir. And two particular misses on our wv derby still haunt me.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Absolutely, sir. And two particular misses on our wv derby still haunt me.

A horse with a blue tail, by any chance?

[cj]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Absolutely, sir. And two particular misses on our wv derby still haunt me.

I don't remember those, and some races are tough. I don't expect perfect morning lines or all of them to be right. But these at Hou were clearly done by a person that either doesn't care or doesn't know horse racing, or both.

Now to be fair, I don't play Sam Houston enough to know if this is the norm there.

[Maximillion]

of the tracks i play, i think most of them have decent MLs for the most part.

The exception seems to be the Texas tracks,not just yesterday but seemingly year round,at least for the last 2 years or so.