3 profound quotes on the importance of value...

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Related to the thread on Benter, what appears to be value is often not because others have inside knowledge about these horses that you don't have but that info winds up being reflected on the board.

That's the giant "hole" in the odds line approach.

Your odds line reflects the information you have and the data/figures you are using, but sometimes what you have is incomplete or in error. So what appears to be good value is not.

The trick (no easy task) is knowing when you know something that is not reflected on the board but should be.

The insider information can be either positive or negative. Where Benter and others fail to recognize (or mention) is that there is just as much betting action going on in the HK Quinella pools. As a result, the odds alone don’t always measure intent.

That’s what causes the “Giant Hole” in any observer’s perception.

I don’t agree with creating a personal odds line based on the PP data. The end result and any subsequent interpretation becomes purely subjective. Value as far as I’m concerned is determined by the actual odds shown. If your selections happen to fall into the “Decent Value” category then perhaps it’s a play.

No, the “trick” is recognizing when an entry is (or is not) being played in earnest. It can only be acknowledged when observing all of the money flow during a typical betting cycle.

Perhaps you haven't seen some of my recently posted HK selections: (They're ALL based on JUST the tote board activities)
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=160663

[Appy]

Originally Posted by Nitro

I also disagree with the entire narrative because the quoted sayings (and most of the responses) seem to imply an effort to find value with individual entries for purposes of playing them to win. I’ve never thought of myself as player who attempts to simply “Picking Winners”. I would prefer to characterize my involvement as an endeavor to make "Winning Plays". This will of course include those pre-race tote observations to determine if the results of making any play that will result in a reasonable profit margin.

I’ve never had a problem including a short-priced entry among others when playing the variety of Vertical exotics that are available, or even when making a 3-entry Dutch Win bet. The bottom line for me is always the relationship between a known hit frequency and an anticipated profit margin. This is based on a quick examination of a combination of the odds of the selected contenders and the amount necessary to cover the entire bet properly. If either component shows a marginal outcome the race simply becomes a pass.

This has proven to me to be a significant facet in improving the overall hit frequency %.

Although I generally try to maintain a disciplined approach, I will admit to playing an Exotic now and then with a low hit frequency, but only when the anticipated profit margin is substantial. This applies primarily to playing Supers.
Every once and while that always tempting Siren song will play in our mind in order to entice us to attempt snatching that excessive Profit. Those womanly-birds certainly know our human weaknesses in the betting area.
.

A lot of solid in that one, pard.

[Half Smoke]

Originally Posted by Nitro

No, the “trick” is recognizing when an entry is (or is not) being played in earnest. It can only be acknowledged when observing all of the money flow during a typical betting cycle.

Perhaps you haven't seen some of my recently posted HK selections: (They're ALL based on JUST the tote board activities)
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=160663

that was definitely an interesting post
although I have to admit I'm highly skeptical
it's definitely unusual to hear from a bettor who basically disregards the info on PPs and elsewhere

I'm guessing you know about the book (or maybe it was just a pamphlet) by Louis Holloway called "The Talking Tote"

I saw at your link that when dutching 3 horses you look for a minimum 50% profit - I guess that means that you have to throw out a lot of low price faves and look at the next 3 - correct? - and that also it will usually only work with a large field - unless you would consider in a small field throwing out a 4/5 fave and going with 2 who might be - 7/1 and 5/1 - I don't know if you would consider odds such as that to reflect serious betting interest

I might try this with a very small bank to see how I do
thanks for your reply if you choose to give one


https://www.amazon.com/Talking-Tote-.../dp/B00UR0P882




*

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

that was definitely an interesting post
although I have to admit I'm highly skeptical
it's definitely unusual to hear from a bettor who basically disregards the info on PPs and elsewhere

I'm guessing you know about the book (or maybe it was just a pamphlet) by Louis Holloway called "The Talking Tote"

I saw at your link that when dutching 3 horses you look for a minimum 50% profit - I guess that means that you have to throw out a lot of low price faves and look at the next 3 - correct? - and that also it will usually only work with a large field - unless you would consider in a small field throwing out a 4/5 fave and going with 2 who might be - 7/1 and 5/1 - I don't know if you would consider odds such as that to reflect serious betting interest

I might try this with a very small bank to see how I do
thanks for your reply if you choose to give one

https://www.amazon.com/Talking-Tote-.../dp/B00UR0P882

To be honest when I first got involved with following the money I was also very skeptical. Actually I initially thought I would be able to combine my long time handicapping skills with anything gleaned from the tote analysis. Instead I found myself second guessing because the handicapping and the tote results weren’t always in agreement especially when it came to the longer priced entries.

Now (as you mentioned) I completely ignore any PP data and fly solo with what’s happening in the money market. BTW I’ve never heard of the book or author you mentioned, perhaps my mentor who developed the tote analysis has.

When it comes to playing HK I do believe that the reason the 3-entry Win Dutch works so well is because of the larger fields. With that in mind I can say from experience that at least half the races on any given card become playable. Beyond that though, the value from their Vertical (Quinella & Triple) returns always seems to make a play worthwhile. Had another great day at Sha Tin on Sunday:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=160790

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by Nitro

To be honest when I first got involved with following the money I was also very skeptical. Actually I initially thought I would be able to combine my long time handicapping skills with anything gleaned from the tote analysis. Instead I found myself second guessing because the handicapping and the tote results weren’t always in agreement especially when it came to the longer priced entries.

Now (as you mentioned) I completely ignore any PP data and fly solo with what’s happening in the money market. BTW I’ve never heard of the book or author you mentioned, perhaps my mentor who developed the tote analysis has.

When it comes to playing HK I do believe that the reason the 3-entry Win Dutch works so well is because of the larger fields. With that in mind I can say from experience that at least half the races on any given card become playable. Beyond that though, the value from their Vertical (Quinella & Triple) returns always seems to make a play worthwhile. Had another great day at Sha Tin on Sunday:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=160790

The above resonates with my experience on tote analysis as well.
Nitro, you earlier said the following statement:

"No, the “trick” is recognizing when an entry is (or is not) being played in earnest. It can only be acknowledged when observing all of the money flow during a typical betting cycle."

Have you ever noticed that occasionally, what looks to be an obvious insider play in the quinella, exacta or doubles but it's somewhat cold in the win pool? Or vice versa, but in the latter case, the crowd usually picks up on those plays. Yes, sometimes it may not being played in earnest, but sometimes it is. I always like to look for something confirming the play; for instance, maybe it's played heavily in one of the exotics but not in win pool, BUT, a rather large place or show bet was made early or late in the betting cycle.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by FakeNameChanged

The above resonates with my experience on tote analysis as well.
Nitro, you earlier said the following statement:

"No, the “trick” is recognizing when an entry is (or is not) being played in earnest. It can only be acknowledged when observing all of the money flow during a typical betting cycle."

Have you ever noticed that occasionally, what looks to be an obvious insider play in the quinella, exacta or doubles but it's somewhat cold in the win pool? Or vice versa, but in the latter case, the crowd usually picks up on those plays. Yes, sometimes it may not being played in earnest, but sometimes it is. I always like to look for something confirming the play; for instance, maybe it's played heavily in one of the exotics but not in win pool, BUT, a rather large place or show bet was made early or late in the betting cycle.

I generally find that the exotic pools will occasionally point to the longer priced entries not getting much play in the mutual pools. I think the earnest factor becomes a more profound when the betting in specific pools dominates those of lesser value. After all isn’t the overall goal from the bettor’s perspective to maximize the return on a good thing? I believe the tote analysis I use views heavy betting in the lesser pools as a negative vacillating indicator.

[ronsmac]

The quinella is one of the dumbest bets ever created. Not as bad as the grand slam but pretty close.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

The quinella is one of the dumbest bets ever created. Not as bad as the grand slam but pretty close.

Apparently you've never seen the Quinella payoffs from HK racing. They average the same value as a typical Exacta return here in the States, but at half the cost of making an Exacta box play. So in essence those who make those type of bets are as dumb as a fox.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

The quinella is one of the dumbest bets ever created. Not as bad as the grand slam but pretty close.

You must love the omni/swinger!

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

The quinella is one of the dumbest bets ever created.......

You beg the question, how so?

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by AndyC

You beg the question, how so?

Do I really have to explain why? It’s self explanatory.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

Do I really have to explain why? It’s self explanatory.

Because weighted exacta plays are stupid? Perhaps you don't understand what a quinella offers.

[dnlgfnk]

Because the bettor is not emphasizing his stronger opinions over his other opinions. Do the horses in the bettor's quinella have an equal chance of finishing first? Then it may be no different than an exacta.

[classhandicapper]

Since the quinella pool is sperate from the exacta pool, there's always a chance it's less efficient and you can get better value in that pool.

[Robert Fischer]

Cream Rises. That's value ove3r time.




quibble about quinellas , but don't curtail the conundrum of value...