the slide continues

[Jayhawk6191]

Not everyone has the desire, or even the ability, to watch a computer screen update odds or will-pays in the last 30 seconds before the window closes. Those that do that have a decided advantage, and as bob astutely points out

Originally Posted by bob60566

The tracks lifeblood is the pools and if they are happy to keep there handle up and the pools get there rebate, We all bet happily ever.

The original point of this topic was the slide in handle. For me that is the only reason I bet way less than I otherwise would. I suspect it is for many others as well.


As for the Preservationist situation, $1.25M was in the pool. I would guess $75k to $100k was added on that horse in the last 30 seconds.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

If everybody made a synthetic win bet via the DD then the difference in your winnings would equal the difference in the track take.

Given a DD with 10 horses in each race you would have 100 possible bets. The win bet in the 2nd race would have only 10 choices. I would have to believe that the win bet would be much more efficient.

The thing is, back when I was doing it manually, those pools were NOT totally in line. Sometimes there was better value in one pool or the other. It was tough though because you had to manually calculate the bet sizes in the last minute or so and then still get all the bets in (there weren't even Sam machines back then) only to find that sometimes the prices changed enough last flash to screw you up. I stopped because it was more of a pain in the ass than it was worth.

With computers everything is probably way more efficient.

On the 2nd point, I probably wasn't clear.

There may be 100 combinations in total, but only 10 with each horse (same as the win bet). Each individual of those 10 per horse might be more likely to be screwed up, but the synthetic wheel could still be in line because other combinations are slightly off in the other direction (especially because the overall pool is larger).

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by castaway01

CAW teams' programs finding the inefficiencies and ordering bets on them at the last minute, bringing the win pools back in line with the will-pays?

That's the part that doesn't quite make sense.

Implicit in that is a belief that the will pay prices for the Double, Pick-3 etc... are a better odds line than the Win odds. Therefore these really smart guys with computers are dragging the Win prices towards the Will Pay prices.

Where is it written that the Will Pay prices are the perfect odds line?

Let's say some horses is 2-1 in the Will Pays but 4-1 to win right now.

Then he gets dragged down to 2-1 to win in the last flashes.

Whose to say that 4-1 wasn't the fair price and 2-1 was a huge underlay?

To me, we know that those Will Pays are predictive, but we don't know they are necessarily better/fairer odds. That's why I don't understand the betting action. Perhaps their models show the Will Pays ARE more accurate at that stage of the betting.

[Robert Fischer]

The strong correlation between will-pays&final-odds is not because of C-W teams that are primarily "correcting for will-pays", but primarily because will-pays simply offer a better picture(than early/current win odds) of the opinion of the money that drives the pools.

That's not to say that will-pays have no direct effect whatsoever on final odds. There are minor models where players who use will-pays as a "factor" or players that hope to correct for rare combinations that are out of line with the will-pays, but it's to say that it isn't a major model in regards to the value of will-pays

The primary value of the will-pays is that they give you a heads-up, as to how the field is actually being bet.

If the fourth choice morning-line is 2nd choice in will-pays, you have to expect that the morning line possibly may not have been perfect, and you should expect that 'live' horse to take money, whether it's throughout the betting, or late.

And, that's not because these teams who have faith in the will-pays are pumping in money in order to correct for supposed inefficiencies, it's because the will-pays and doubles etc.. pools are significant pools, and they reflect the opinion of the public.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

......On the 2nd point, I probably wasn't clear.

There may be 100 combinations in total, but only 10 with each horse (same as the win bet). Each individual of those 10 per horse might be more likely to be screwed up, but the synthetic wheel could still be in line because other combinations are slightly off in the other direction (especially because the overall pool is larger).

If you are looking at the will pays after the first race has run you will not be seeing the 10 combinations for each horse you will only see the 1 combination from the winner of the first race. If the winner of the first race is 5-1 then the will pays will only reflect about 14% of the total DD pool. With such a small amount determining payoffs the results are necessarily less efficient than the win pools.

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

If you are looking at the will pays after the first race has run you will not be seeing the 10 combinations for each horse you will only see the 1 combination from the winner of the first race. If the winner of the first race is 5-1 then the will pays will only reflect about 14% of the total DD pool. With such a small amount determining payoffs the results are necessarily less efficient than the win pools.

With most ADWs you can still get the pool info from the prior race for all the horses by looking at the closing "probables".

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by AndyC

If you are looking at the will pays after the first race has run you will not be seeing the 10 combinations for each horse you will only see the 1 combination from the winner of the first race. If the winner of the first race is 5-1 then the will pays will only reflect about 14% of the total DD pool. With such a small amount determining payoffs the results are necessarily less efficient than the win pools.

A lot of good points and ideas lately, Andy.....

[SG4]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's the part that doesn't quite make sense.

Implicit in that is a belief that the will pay prices for the Double, Pick-3 etc... are a better odds line than the Win odds. Therefore these really smart guys with computers are dragging the Win prices towards the Will Pay prices.

Where is it written that the Will Pay prices are the perfect odds line?

Let's say some horses is 2-1 in the Will Pays but 4-1 to win right now.

Then he gets dragged down to 2-1 to win in the last flashes.

Whose to say that 4-1 wasn't the fair price and 2-1 was a huge underlay?

To me, we know that those Will Pays are predictive, but we don't know they are necessarily better/fairer odds. That's why I don't understand the betting action. Perhaps their models show the Will Pays ARE more accurate at that stage of the betting.

I've been under the impression that the CAW groups control so much of the pools that their algorithms drive prices to be similar in all pools since if the mathematics work out precisely they would repeat it in all pools per race. This is just my theory, but the numbers so often come in to line late that I imagine it has to be driven by this way & not any kind of value hunting.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by cj

With most ADWs you can still get the pool info from the prior race for all the horses by looking at the closing "probables".

That would certainly be helpful but would be unnecessary with some simple and cheap matrix presentations.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

If you are looking at the will pays after the first race has run you will not be seeing the 10 combinations for each horse you will only see the 1 combination from the winner of the first race. If the winner of the first race is 5-1 then the will pays will only reflect about 14% of the total DD pool. With such a small amount determining payoffs the results are necessarily less efficient than the win pools.

Ah, that's the mixup.

I went off on a tangent and was talking about creating synthetic win bets using the probables and explaining why that's a different thing than Will Pays.

The Exacta and Double pools should be in line with the Win Odds because all 3 pools are open at the same time and people can arbitrage better value by creating synthetic win bets in the other pools.

The Will Pays are closed pools and shouldn't necessarily remain in sync with the Win Pool even though they often do late in the betting.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by SG4

I've been under the impression that the CAW groups control so much of the pools that their algorithms drive prices to be similar in all pools since if the mathematics work out precisely they would repeat it in all pools per race. This is just my theory, but the numbers so often come in to line late that I imagine it has to be driven by this way & not any kind of value hunting.

That could very well be it.

It's not intentional. It just happens because they dominate every pool and are betting the same horses to the same degree in each pool. Makes more sense.

[NY BRED]

meanwhile Hong Kong and Europe are overflowing with huge fields..

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by NY BRED

meanwhile Hong Kong and Europe are overflowing with huge fields..

Might as well compare soccer's popularity in Europe with America but it's about as relevant.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

What's crazy to me is that the secretaries at every track are causing races to not fill. In their desperate attempt to write conditions that imo are crazy where you get multiple classes of horse in the same race, they're causing trainers and owners to spend more time in condition books looking for spot than necessary. This problem is fixed by writing open claimers and non-conditioned allowance races

Ahh. Good point..BUt the only way to make a level playing field among horses of unequal ability is to add weight to the superior horses.
And trainers HATE weight.
So, unless every track follows along (with your idea) trainers will take their horses elsewhere.
Or did I misunderstand your idea?
BTW, I look at conditions. Yes , some are just confusing.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Hambletonian

Shorter fields: very good for breeders, owners, trainers, and jockeys.

Bad, as we all know, for bettors.

So who should racing be run for?

We could shrink the number of tracks running and have full 10 race cards and also eligibles in each race. This would probably help handle, by concentrating the betting dollars across fewer venues, and small pools would be a thing of the past. It would also lessen the impacts of those guys dumping thousands of bets in at the last minute, since pool inefficiencies should be less common as the per race handle increases dramatically.

This would, of course, reduce the number of jockeys and trainers needed, which all things. considered would probably be a good thing.

Whether those who object realize it or not, contraction in the industry is already well underway.
And in order for horse racing to survive, more contraction is required.
There are STILL too many tracks operating simultaneously in close geographic proximity competing for similar racing stock.
That combined with an annual foal count that is down a full 50% in the last 25 years, is in my opinion a recipe for closing up shop