|
|
10-15-2018, 03:41 PM
|
#46
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: burnaby bc canada
Posts: 332
|
I regard pretty much everything Nitro posts as satire. Please give the $10 to the United Way
Mike
|
|
|
10-21-2018, 06:15 PM
|
#47
|
$2 Showbettor
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: The Villages
Posts: 2,584
|
Fascinating thread. I just wanted to add my two cents, which, I’ll admit, aren’t even worth that much .
Any profitable method involves betting overlays, I don’t think anyone here can deny that. You can’t bet on underlays over a period of time and break even, let alone come out ahead.
The challenge is finding those overlays. Dave claims that you can’t do it anymore with the tote, not even using DD probables, which is mind-boggling. So, YOU have to come up with two numbers for each horse, 1) the predictive betting odds (what the ML makers have been trying to do since time immemorial, but can’t). 2) the actual mathematical odds (a number which I believe does exist, but a lot of people don’t). We have to do this without inside information, so I’m assuming that Dave uses the same crap we all use, unless he pays rail-birds, etc. Dave’s method, like any other method, just boils down to being smarter than the whales who have tons of information and data analysts on their payroll doing the same thing.
I’m still confused about how Dave determines which races he bets and which he passes, but Dave has explained that many times on this board so I’m not going to suggest he do it again.
|
|
|
10-22-2018, 11:27 AM
|
#48
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,520
|
Here's a good example.
Saturday 1st race at Ascot.
Stradivarius the European staying champion 1-1 (2.14 on the exchange)
Sir Erec, an AOB that I love at 5-1 (6.40 on the exchange)
now sir erec looks to have talent and is unexposed but going way up in class.
I figured 10-1 or so, nope all the wise guys in Europe are all over this horse.
Yikes an underlay on a good horse.
I made a small wager on the X and cashed out halfway though the race and took the small profit.
I was really hoping for 10-1. cut way back on my wager and made an itty bitty profit.
He was live just not good enough to beat the champ.
Allan
|
|
|
10-22-2018, 01:06 PM
|
#49
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,958
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redboard
Fascinating thread. I just wanted to add my two cents, which, I’ll admit, aren’t even worth that much .
Any profitable method involves betting overlays, I don’t think anyone here can deny that. You can’t bet on underlays over a period of time and break even, let alone come out ahead.
The challenge is finding those overlays. Dave claims that you can’t do it anymore with the tote, not even using DD probables, which is mind-boggling. So, YOU have to come up with two numbers for each horse, 1) the predictive betting odds (what the ML makers have been trying to do since time immemorial, but can’t). 2) the actual mathematical odds (a number which I believe does exist, but a lot of people don’t). We have to do this without inside information, so I’m assuming that Dave uses the same crap we all use, unless he pays rail-birds, etc. Dave’s method, like any other method, just boils down to being smarter than the whales who have tons of information and data analysts on their payroll doing the same thing.
I’m still confused about how Dave determines which races he bets and which he passes, but Dave has explained that many times on this board so I’m not going to suggest he do it again.
|
Dave doesn't say that DD probables don't work. In fact, that (and other multi-race bets) MIGHT be the only solid tools that there are.
WHY IS THAT?
Because, in the 2nd race of the daily double, BEFORE you make your wager as the horses load the gate... the whale money is already in the DD pool.
IOW, you actually get to see who they (and the other guys who are as sharp as you) bet.
And that brings up another point: IT ISN'T JUST THE WHALES!
As for how I am approaching this, it is a mixture of picking contenders using a logical approach, and, among those contenders looking at which projected low odds horses FIGURE to be bad bets based upon how the public usually wagers.
A logical question is, "What about the horse that is NOT even a logical contender who gets bet down?" (Example: A horse who figures to be say 8/1 but is actually going off at 2/1.)
Here's the thing about those horses... They win way more races than they should at 8/1 but do not win like 2/1 shots. They will lose their backers a lot of money.
BTW, the same thing applies on the other end.
That is, let's say that you have a horse that should be around 2/1 but instead is (say) 8/1. He will not win like a 2/1 horse, but he will probably win like a 6/1 horse. IOW, he will likely be long-term profitable.
|
|
|
10-22-2018, 02:19 PM
|
#50
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,289
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redboard
......The challenge is finding those overlays. Dave claims that you can’t do it anymore with the tote, not even using DD probables, which is mind-boggling.......
|
Walk me through how you would use the DD probables to find overlays. Are you using the probables just to find where the whale money is being bet?
In looking at the DD pools at Santa Anita yesterday, only one of them had significant play, the last one with $107,936 in the pool. The second largest was the first one with only $32,307 in the pool. The other 6 ranged from $11,020 to $28,038. It seems unlikely that there was/is major play in the DD pools by the whales.
|
|
|
10-22-2018, 02:45 PM
|
#51
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: toronto
Posts: 545
|
Keeneland October 18 R3
The winning double into the 4th was paying $20 with 10 minutes or so to post.
All the win money on the winner of the 3rd was hidden in the doubles.
|
|
|
10-22-2018, 03:48 PM
|
#52
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,289
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by parlay
The winning double into the 4th was paying $20 with 10 minutes or so to post.
All the win money on the winner of the 3rd was hidden in the doubles.
|
There was $19,169 total bet in the DD pool for races 3 & 4. With 10 minutes or so to post how much money would you expect that there was in the pool? 5K? 7K?
Why would smart money forgo betting win money in the 3rd race to make a "score" in a pool of $19,169 by hiding their action?
|
|
|
10-22-2018, 04:23 PM
|
#53
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
There was $19,169 total bet in the DD pool for races 3 & 4. With 10 minutes or so to post how much money would you expect that there was in the pool? 5K? 7K?
Why would smart money forgo betting win money in the 3rd race to make a "score" in a pool of $19,169 by hiding their action?
|
They don't
Another thing people don't account for is noise.
Last edited by AltonKelsey; 10-22-2018 at 04:25 PM.
|
|
|
10-22-2018, 04:32 PM
|
#54
|
Buckle Up
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AltonKelsey
They don't
Another thing people don't account for is noise.
|
Sure, there's normal "noise" in every pool....But that's not the focus here, nor can "normal noise" be made as a convenient excuse for error.
|
|
|
10-22-2018, 04:54 PM
|
#55
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,831
|
We're talking about assuming every 'betdown' is some wise guy or whale making a score.
There are 100 bad (losing) punches for every winner, but somehow , only the random winners get noticed by the intelligentsia
Last edited by AltonKelsey; 10-22-2018 at 04:56 PM.
|
|
|
10-22-2018, 05:19 PM
|
#56
|
Buckle Up
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AltonKelsey
There are 100 bad (losing) punches for every winner, but somehow , only the random winners get noticed by the intelligentsia
|
Bingo!
|
|
|
10-22-2018, 09:22 PM
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,176
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redboard View Post
......The challenge is finding those overlays. Dave claims that you can’t do it anymore with the tote, not even using DD probables, which is mind-boggling.......
Disagree with this, although it hasn't been as productive as in the past. Some tracks better than others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
Walk me through how you would use the DD probables to find overlays. Are you using the probables just to find where the whale money is being bet?
In looking at the DD pools at Santa Anita yesterday, only one of them had significant play, the last one with $107,936 in the pool. The second largest was the first one with only $32,307 in the pool. The other 6 ranged from $11,020 to $28,038. It seems unlikely that there was/is major play in the DD pools by the whales.
|
How would one use DD's probables and will pays to find live horses? First thing I do is rank the ML with the lowest ML as Rank #1, and so on. I also look for a track where the ML is consistent. But your own ML or odds line would work as well.
Below is an actual example of using the DD's to find plays from Parx
Example #34-3rd race-Parx-4/16/18-1M70Yds Md 10K claimer. It's #34 with #1 in my notebook starting 9/9/17. I restarted recording them again after retiring, and I don't record them all or play every day, sometimes miss a week occasionally as I still consult part time. So here's my method on using double probables and will pays to find plays.
I first started using this at PENN, but quit playing there for various reasons. I've used this at literally every track in the country, but prefer the small to medium tracks.
Favorite tracks where it works well(for me): Parx, Laurel, GP, TB, Bel.
No. - - -ML - - -EM$ - - -- - - - - - -DD$ - - - - -Prop. Odds - - -Ranks- - - - -
1- - - -20-1 - -17-1 - - - - - - - - $209 - - - - - -10.4 - - - - - - 7 -10 =
2- - - -10-1 - - 6-1 - - - - - - - - -65.60- - - - - -6.56 - - - - - -5 - 3 = +2
3 - - - -3-1 - - -7-2 - - - - - - - - -23.60- - - - - -7.8 - - - - - - -2 - 5 =
4 - - - 20-1- - *9-1 (55% drop)- 70.20- - - - - -3.5 - - - - - - -8 - 1 = +7*
5 - - - 20-1- - -14-1- - - - - - - - 192.00- - - - - -9.6 - - - - - --9 - 8 =
6 - - - 9-2 - - *2-1 - (55% dr)- - 34.00- - - - - -7.5 - - - - - --3 - 4 =
7 - - -6-1 - - - 7-1 - - - - - - - - - 31.60- - - - - -5.2 - - - - - - -4 - 2 = +2
8 - - -15-1 - - 10-1- (33% dr)- - 132.80- - - - --8.8 - - - - - - -6 - 7 =
9 - - -20-1- - -25-1- - - - - - - - 165.00 - - - - - 8.25 - - - - - - 10-6= +4*
10- - -2-1 - - - 8-1 - - - - - - - -- -20.20 - - - - -10.1 - - - - - - -1-9 =
Ranks explanation is 1st number is ML subtracting the rank of the lowest prop. DD odds ranks. So in the above example, Discomania was a standout in that he was the lowest prop. odds ranks and also a +7 in rankings from his ML rank. To be fair, I borrowed the Proportionate odds idea from the late Al Illich but it has been modified with the rankings by me. He only proposed using actual 2nd half payoffs while I discovered many years ago that it works as well with DD probables and exacta pools "almost" as well. in the above example I dutched the and to win, and used them in exactas with the and
The won and paid $26.20-11.00-6.40. The ran 2nd so I missed the exacta. In case you think the ML was bad on the in his previous two races he ran 5th-18 BL's and 5th -12.5 BL's at 15K Md.
Does this method work all the time? Absolutely not, selective plays are key. I also showed the Early money which I use as a confirming factor, if the play has a 50% drop from his ML. Not all DD plays show EM$. Why do I spell out this method in detail? Because I know many on here will doubt it works, or accuse me of redboarding. I will gladly provide the link of several of these picks called live here on PA. One day it hit four double digit winners in a row, right here. I used it to pick Mo Don't Know in a Mahoning Stakes live on Greg's thread, although he won thru a DQ and paid 13.80. Like handicapping, it can run hot and cold, I often suppliment my handicapping with this method.
__________________
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
|
|
|
10-22-2018, 11:03 PM
|
#58
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 19,133
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AltonKelsey
We're talking about assuming every 'betdown' is some wise guy or whale making a score.
There are 100 bad (losing) punches for every winner, but somehow , only the random winners get noticed by the intelligentsia
|
Excellent observation!
There may be an occasional “ bet-down”, but assuming it turns out to be a profitable score is entirely another story. As an avid tote user, I respectfully disagree with the premise that the betting by “Whales” proliferate the majority of racing events in North American horse racing. Now don’t get me wrong. Just the opposite can be said about the racing in Hong Kong.
In my humble opinion, I would only like to add that the term “ Intelligentsia” used in the context mentioned is an accurate description of those who use (and comprehend) the underlying betting patterns predicted by a tote analysis which incorporates all of the available betting pools (mutual and exotic). More often then not, there’s an obvious deficiency between that scenario and using just the Win pool (the Odds).
As another example, and referring to the racing events at Santa Anita yesterday (Sun 10/21), some may have noticed the betting action (from early to late) on Mandella’s horse, #7 Erotic in Race #9. Its Morning Line was 12/1 and opened at 6/1! When the wagering on the ALL entries was observed during the entire betting cycle (among ALL the pools), its obvious contender status was easily established even beyond the late money pouring in on #7-Factorial (2.4/1, #6-Shaky Alibi (3.3/1), and #10-Pitino (3.4/1) (None of which even finished in the money!).
In fact, the Exacta pool was heavily biased even though the Winner, Erotic went off at what some might deem as deflated odds of 11.5/1.
As far I’m concerned, it was just another observed illustration of latent overall Win pool deficiencies!
Code:
Race: 9 Win Place Show
1st 7 Erotic 25.00 9.60 6.80
2nd 8 Big Buzz 10.00 5.80
3rd 4 Raging Tiger 9.20
4th 2 Blitzkrieg
5th 6 Shaky Alibi
$2 Exacta 7-8 213.00
$2 Trifecta 7-8-4 2175.00
$2 Superfecta 7-8-4-2 13674.60
|
|
|
10-23-2018, 12:16 AM
|
#59
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,289
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whosonfirst
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redboard View Post
......The challenge is finding those overlays. Dave claims that you can’t do it anymore with the tote, not even using DD probables, which is mind-boggling.......
Disagree with this, although it hasn't been as productive as in the past. Some tracks better than others.
How would one use DD's probables and will pays to find live horses? First thing I do is rank the ML with the lowest ML as Rank #1, and so on. I also look for a track where the ML is consistent. But your own ML or odds line would work as well.
Below is an actual example of using the DD's to find plays from Parx
Example #34-3rd race-Parx-4/16/18-1M70Yds Md 10K claimer. It's #34 with #1 in my notebook starting 9/9/17. I restarted recording them again after retiring, and I don't record them all or play every day, sometimes miss a week occasionally as I still consult part time. So here's my method on using double probables and will pays to find plays.
I first started using this at PENN, but quit playing there for various reasons. I've used this at literally every track in the country, but prefer the small to medium tracks.
Favorite tracks where it works well(for me): Parx, Laurel, GP, TB, Bel.
No. - - -ML - - -EM$ - - -- - - - - - -DD$ - - - - -Prop. Odds - - -Ranks- - - - -
1- - - -20-1 - -17-1 - - - - - - - - $209 - - - - - -10.4 - - - - - - 7 -10 =
2- - - -10-1 - - 6-1 - - - - - - - - -65.60- - - - - -6.56 - - - - - -5 - 3 = +2
3 - - - -3-1 - - -7-2 - - - - - - - - -23.60- - - - - -7.8 - - - - - - -2 - 5 =
4 - - - 20-1- - *9-1 (55% drop)- 70.20- - - - - -3.5 - - - - - - -8 - 1 = +7*
5 - - - 20-1- - -14-1- - - - - - - - 192.00- - - - - -9.6 - - - - - --9 - 8 =
6 - - - 9-2 - - *2-1 - (55% dr)- - 34.00- - - - - -7.5 - - - - - --3 - 4 =
7 - - -6-1 - - - 7-1 - - - - - - - - - 31.60- - - - - -5.2 - - - - - - -4 - 2 = +2
8 - - -15-1 - - 10-1- (33% dr)- - 132.80- - - - --8.8 - - - - - - -6 - 7 =
9 - - -20-1- - -25-1- - - - - - - - 165.00 - - - - - 8.25 - - - - - - 10-6= +4*
10- - -2-1 - - - 8-1 - - - - - - - -- -20.20 - - - - -10.1 - - - - - - -1-9 =
Ranks explanation is 1st number is ML subtracting the rank of the lowest prop. DD odds ranks. So in the above example, Discomania was a standout in that he was the lowest prop. odds ranks and also a +7 in rankings from his ML rank. To be fair, I borrowed the Proportionate odds idea from the late Al Illich but it has been modified with the rankings by me. He only proposed using actual 2nd half payoffs while I discovered many years ago that it works as well with DD probables and exacta pools "almost" as well. in the above example I dutched the and to win, and used them in exactas with the and
The won and paid $26.20-11.00-6.40. The ran 2nd so I missed the exacta. In case you think the ML was bad on the in his previous two races he ran 5th-18 BL's and 5th -12.5 BL's at 15K Md.
Does this method work all the time? Absolutely not, selective plays are key. I also showed the Early money which I use as a confirming factor, if the play has a 50% drop from his ML. Not all DD plays show EM$. Why do I spell out this method in detail? Because I know many on here will doubt it works, or accuse me of redboarding. I will gladly provide the link of several of these picks called live here on PA. One day it hit four double digit winners in a row, right here. I used it to pick Mo Don't Know in a Mahoning Stakes live on Greg's thread, although he won thru a DQ and paid 13.80. Like handicapping, it can run hot and cold, I often suppliment my handicapping with this method.
|
Thanks for your detailed response. A few questions. How did you assign M/L ranks to the horses with the same M/L? How were did your DD probables determined?
|
|
|
10-23-2018, 05:07 AM
|
#60
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,176
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
Thanks for your detailed response. A few questions. How did you assign M/L ranks to the horses with the same M/L? How were did your DD probables determined?
|
If horses have the same ML such as 20-1, the horse with lowest last race odds gets the lower number. FTS'rs are considered a higher number than one with any odds in last race. While I didn't say which races were better plays, lone FTS are usually better plays if their proportionate odds rank them lower. Graded stakes not as much, but lower stakes are still in play.
In the old days, pre-internet and simulcasting, there were old guys with their coke bottle glasses sitting in front of the exotic boards at the track recording the will pays for doubles and exactas onto their clip boards. Today I just load this link to my laptop or phone:
https://www.drf.com/live_odds
You then just pick your track and current race and click on doubles or exactas. The best way to look at will pays, is check the payoffs with the next race ML favorite, or any horse you deem to be the probable favorite. That link also shows pool numbers for WPS as well as exotics. When I have my laptop, I can use an excel program to do the math for me quickly.(edit) I usually downgrade any 30-1 ML to 20-1 to double check if it would still be a play. And never use a 50-1 ML, change it 30-1 or even 20-1. Big class drops with high ML's are usually a bad play. This will sound counter-intuitive to normal handicapping logic, but horse with terrible lines that are looking to be the play are the best plays using this. Ask yourself, who the h_!! is playing this dog?
If you don't already have an account, you can register for free.
__________________
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
Last edited by FakeNameChanged; 10-23-2018 at 05:13 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|