Why has technology left handicapping in the dust?

[Gekish]

1. Accuracy of the win odds
2. The odds set by the crowd, despite the vast differences among the
betting styles, are actually very accurate; on average the chance that
a given horse will win a race is very close to what the crowd as a
consensus thinks it is.
3. The crowd has a considerable bias against favorites and for longshots.
The thrill and bragging rights are just not there by wagering on short
odds favorites, hence they are shunned and are considerably underbet. Longshots on the other hand are the crowd pleasers and they are
significantly overbet.

Up to 6-1 the crowd is pretty accurate in predicting the out come, after that their accuracy exponentially declines.

See Ziemba, Fabricand and other authors.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

You might have missed the point but it was all dirt.

I was making another point about the change in the distribution of races between dirt and turf over time potentially impacting the overall win% of favorites.

The point was irrelevant though because your sample was just dirt. That's what I was asking.

[Gekish]

Andy Beyer said a few years ago.
"Years ago the sharks were playing against the fishes, now the sharks are playing against the sharks."

Back in those good old days big fields. No off track or internet betting. Big crowds betting lucky numbers, grandma's birthday, hunches etc. Basically lot of sucker money. You could find overlays. By the way I am handicapping since I was 14 years old. Now I am 86. You are old when you remember Ted Atkinson was dynamite on a speed horse at old Aqueduct and there was daytime harness racing at Santa Anita.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Gekish

Andy Beyer said a few years ago.
"Years ago the sharks were playing against the fishes, now the sharks are playing against the sharks."

Back in those good old days big fields. No off track or internet betting. Big crowds betting lucky numbers, grandma's birthday, hunches etc. Basically lot of sucker money. You could find overlays. By the way I am handicapping since I was 14 years old. Now I am 86. You are old when you remember Ted Atkinson was dynamite on a speed horse at old Aqueduct and there was daytime harness racing at Santa Anita.

You are also old when you declare that a 20-1 winner is better than sex.

[Speed Figure]

https://equinedge.com/ Is supposed to use AI technology! I will give Scotty McKeever credit because he does a live show on YouTube where he makes real time bets! I know he's won tournaments and Big pick 6 and pick 5 bets.

[romankoz]

The gaps in the market do not JUST apply to roughies which is a point I believe many punters don't think about.
To my mind there are three types of favs: true, 50/50 and false. Any bet against a false favourite even in a field of five must be value. That's mathematical. The problem is determining which of the other four should be the favourite. Probably most times it will be the second favourite and less times the fifth horse in the field. The bettor able to nut out the answer of which horse to bet and collects an acceptable percentage of times simply wins.

Conversely selecting the true favourites enough times correctly finds the bettor also winning. Let's suggest all true favs are 3/2 favs (6/4 in old Aus, now $2.50 or 1.5 to one) and there are 100 of them. To break square the bettor needs to back 40 winners. If the bettor can select 45 winners at 3/2 the profit is 11.25% on turnover (POT).

The 50/50 favs just leave as you are not sure either way. I know it's not as simplistic as I am suggesting but I believe my case has merit.

It's past my bedtime. I will have a look at David Schwarz's figures tomorrow.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You are also old when you declare that a 20-1 winner is better than sex.

That might also depend on how much you had on it.

I made some pretty big bets on 20-1 shots in my 20s.

[Scamper]

I have to admit I've tossed my computer software
systems out several time during the years and
started from scratch again and again.

There is no simple solution to this game. It has
always been complicated and will continue to
remain that way.

[Scamper]

Some might say that racing is like a carnival
game run by con artists. They often times try
to fool you so they can run up the odds on
their entries.

It seems to me that they are pretty good
at what they do.

[romankoz]

Pardon my ignorance but when David has $1.71 as $net is that the same as saying it's minus 14.5% on turnover..
I have to think twice as you bet $2 as the minimum about such figures.

[Jeff P]

Yes.

Dave's $1.71 $Net is ROI (return on investment) on a $2.00 base wager amount.

You'll also see ROI (return on investment) posted on these pages based on a $1.00 base wager amount.

The most commonly used calculation in North America (The US and Canada) is the same for both methods:

ROI = (Amount_Collected / Amount_Wagered) x (Base_Wager_Amount)

The difference being that Dave is using Amount_Collected and Amount_Wagered based on a $2.00 Base_Wager_Amount.

Whereas the other method uses Amount_Collected and Amount_Wagered based on a $1.00 Base_Wager_Amount.

Hope that helps,


-jp

.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Scamper

Some might say that racing is like a carnival
game run by con artists. They often times try
to fool you so they can run up the odds on
their entries.

It seems to me that they are pretty good
at what they do.

Based on the percentage of favorites winning these days (near 40%), they're not as good as they used to be....

[romankoz]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Yes.

Dave's $1.71 $Net is ROI (return on investment) on a $2.00 base wager amount.

Thanks Jeff: appreciate your kindness.
I thought it had to be 14.5% LOT (Loss On Turnover) which is, to me, a staggering figure compared to Australian racing as most of our OZ studies show a loss of about 10% average over several years (some years 8, some years 12).

My 10% covers all field sizes, btway, and not just 8 horse fields.

As a matter of interest why couldn't US bettors bet on OZ racing simply through the Internet? Are there restrictions via the internet companies not allowing persons inthe USA onto gambling sites?

If it is illegal why couldn't a US bettor find someone in OZ to bet for them?
Sorry, if they seem somewhat silly questions but I guess no question is silly if you are unsure of the answer!

[sjk]

I wrote a handicapping program 25 or so years ago and have used it since and it has gotten enormously harder to have satisfying results.

I think if I were to start now rather than years ago there would not be enough encouraging scores to keep me going. There is a clear downward trend in ROI through the years using a consistent process.

Using the same screens for playable bets I get less action all day than I used to get in the first hour of races. Used to be you could find a horse or two in most races that seemed overlaid and it seemed to work out well to play them. Now I sit there all afternoon and find very few horses with the edge I require. Barely worth the time to stay involved.

It has been a fun 25 years for me. I can't imagine there is any way I could have done the same starting with today's racing.

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by sjk

I wrote a handicapping program 25 or so years ago and have used it since and it has gotten enormously harder to have satisfying results.

I think if I were to start now rather than years ago there would not be enough encouraging scores to keep me going. There is a clear downward trend in ROI through the years using a consistent process.

Using the same screens for playable bets I get less action all day than I used to get in the first hour of races. Used to be you could find a horse or two in most races that seemed overlaid and it seemed to work out well to play them. Now I sit there all afternoon and find very few horses with the edge I require. Barely worth the time to stay involved.

It has been a fun 25 years for me. I can't imagine there is any way I could have done the same starting with today's racing.

I suspect a secondary purpose in rebating the whales is that the those whales contribute to keeping the odds orderly or fair. The house only wants the players to all feel like they are getting a fair bargain. Of course, it doesn't matter to the house who collects the winnings. But, even the suspicion of odds manipulation is bad for the house. But, hey, if you can out think the whales, even one race a day, you can still claim it's a beatable game.