Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 10-07-2018, 01:11 PM   #1
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,513
Whenever a horse takes 'too much' $💵$, is he 'live'... or is he an 'underlay'??

So how do you know??

Is the money telling you that this horse is live??
Or is the money irrational or uninformed money that is making the horse a good bet-against underlay??

Well, like they say in poker, “If you've been studying the race for 15 minutes, and you don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy.”

At that point you can pass and wait for a good bet, or roll the dice for some expensive but occasionally thrilling entertainment. Some Action.

Few and far between are the races where you fully expect a favorite or a low-odds 'contender' to take irrational or uninformed money, and fully understand why a horse is going to take that money, AND strongly disagree with the public's reasoning.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.

Last edited by Robert Fischer; 10-07-2018 at 01:12 PM.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 02:41 PM   #2
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,878
Quote:
Whenever a horse takes 'too much' $💵$, is he 'live'... or is he an 'underlay'??
So how do you know??

Is the money telling you that this horse is live??
Or is the money irrational or uninformed money that is making the horse a good bet-against underlay??

The real problem is, that even the very question is misleading in the sense that by the time you know it's too late because the horses are at least down the backstretch.

This is a great question, and one I (and a couple of HSH users) have been working on for several months. We've made great progress and our results are showing it.

When we look at "bet downs," we find that things have changed.
In the old days (maybe "good old days") the split worked pretty much like this:

30% of the winners were bet up from gate odds.
32% stayed about the same as their gate odds.
38% of the winners were bet down from gate odds.

Now we find it is more like:
12% bet up
20% about the same
68% bet down

The higher the rebate at the track, the more it shifts towards "bet down." At some tracks it is mid-70% range.



We had to begin with a definition:
"What is TOO MUCH MONEY?"

We decided against looking at final odds because (as mentioned above) we don't have those when the gate opens.

Besides, those late bet downs are simply the result of the smarter bettors taking advantage of the latest gate odds (and projections of what will follow, if they have the data and analysis tools).


So, what we finally came up with two definitions:
"A live horse is a horse that is EXPECTED to have MORE money bet on it than SOLID HANDICAPPING would dictate."

Conversely:
"A dead horse is a horse that is EXPECTED to have LESS money bet on it than SOLID HANDICAPPING would dictate."

If you read and understand this, you will find that it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. It encourages you to:
1. Make a line based upon how the public SHOULD bet the horse.
2. Make a line based upon your handicapping.
3. Prefer horses that FIGURE TO BE bet DOWN below your line.
4. Ignore the actual tote board.

Special note: a key point is that the focus must be placed JUST on the LOW ODDS horses. Note that I did NOT SAY that you can only BET low odds horses.

The big question: "Is there a DEAD horse among the low odds?" If there is, you now have a race to bet.

If there isn't then you have a race to pass.

Probably nobody will like hearing this because it means a change in how one looks at the races. We all know how much everybody wants to keep doing what they've been doing these last 30 years (even though the results have been horrible).
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 03:30 PM   #3
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,964
IMO, the answer is both. They are very live and they almost always are an underlay. Of course many of the folks betting them are getting fat rebates.

In this game 19 out of 20 betting are the "patsy", not just the lone fish on the table.

To go more in depth on the subject matter. I have researched Live/overbet horses in harness racing quite a bit(Mohawk). What I found is that no matter what I make a horse 8/5 or 6-1, if they are odds-on they win more often than they should, but not enough to be profitable. As the public line shifts over even money I find they win about the average of my projection and the public projection. So if the public give the horse a 30% chance of winning and I give the horse a 10% chance of winning the horse wins about 20% of the time. Where as on an odds on favorite, I can make him 6-1 or 10-1 or 2-1, but if he goes off at 4/5 he will win probably around 50% of the time no matter what I made him. Thus the key is to adjust your line on other horses to reflect the "insider" knowledge the public is giving you. But the problem of course is that late money doesn't come in until after off, so you have an inomplete picuture when it is time to bet (horse can be 6/5 and hammered to 3/5 which is a completely different story or vice versa). By the same token a lot of "value" horses do not become value until after the race is off.
Poindexter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 03:51 PM   #4
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz View Post
The real problem is, that even the very question is misleading in the sense that by the time you know it's too late because the horses are at least down the backstretch.

This is a great question, and one I (and a couple of HSH users) have been working on for several months. We've made great progress and our results are showing it.

When we look at "bet downs," we find that things have changed.
In the old days (maybe "good old days") the split worked pretty much like this:

30% of the winners were bet up from gate odds.
32% stayed about the same as their gate odds.
38% of the winners were bet down from gate odds.

Now we find it is more like:
12% bet up
20% about the same
68% bet down

The higher the rebate at the track, the more it shifts towards "bet down." At some tracks it is mid-70% range.



We had to begin with a definition:
"What is TOO MUCH MONEY?"

We decided against looking at final odds because (as mentioned above) we don't have those when the gate opens.

Besides, those late bet downs are simply the result of the smarter bettors taking advantage of the latest gate odds (and projections of what will follow, if they have the data and analysis tools).


So, what we finally came up with two definitions:
"A live horse is a horse that is EXPECTED to have MORE money bet on it than SOLID HANDICAPPING would dictate."

Conversely:
"A dead horse is a horse that is EXPECTED to have LESS money bet on it than SOLID HANDICAPPING would dictate."

If you read and understand this, you will find that it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. It encourages you to:
1. Make a line based upon how the public SHOULD bet the horse.
2. Make a line based upon your handicapping.
3. Prefer horses that FIGURE TO BE bet DOWN below your line.
4. Ignore the actual tote board.

Special note: a key point is that the focus must be placed JUST on the LOW ODDS horses. Note that I did NOT SAY that you can only BET low odds horses.

The big question: "Is there a DEAD horse among the low odds?" If there is, you now have a race to bet.

If there isn't then you have a race to pass.

Probably nobody will like hearing this because it means a change in how one looks at the races. We all know how much everybody wants to keep doing what they've been doing these last 30 years (even though the results have been horrible).
Baffled here. If I understand correctly, you are identifying a horse as being dead on the board, not because he is dead on the board, but because you expect him to be dead on the board. So we will take horse #1, you handicapping says he should be 3-1, but you expect that the public will make him 5-1. So this is defined by you as "dead on the board" even if goes off at 8/5? Since you have him labeled as dead on the board (even though he isn't in actuality) you now look to be some other top contender(#6) who you label as live on the board(because you expect him to be live on the board but he is a dead 8-1). So you are betting the race because you expected the 1 to be dead on the board which he isn't, and you are betting the 6 because you expected him to be live on the board, but he isn't.

This can't be right. What am I missing here?
Poindexter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 03:54 PM   #5
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,513
coming up Race 6 Bel #11 uncle benny was 2nd in DD to the r5 chalk, not yet showing in the win odds, but I fully expect that it will.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 03:58 PM   #6
jay68802
Registered User
 
jay68802's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 15,111
And in Race #6 at Keeneland the opens at 9/5?
jay68802 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 04:03 PM   #7
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poindexter View Post
Baffled here. If I understand correctly, you are identifying a horse as being dead on the board, not because he is dead on the board, but because you expect him to be dead on the board. So we will take horse #1, you handicapping says he should be 3-1, but you expect that the public will make him 5-1. So this is defined by you as "dead on the board" even if goes off at 8/5? Since you have him labeled as dead on the board (even though he isn't in actuality) you now look to be some other top contender(#6) who you label as live on the board(because you expect him to be live on the board but he is a dead 8-1). So you are betting the race because you expected the 1 to be dead on the board which he isn't, and you are betting the 6 because you expected him to be live on the board, but he isn't.

This can't be right. What am I missing here?
That would all be absolutely correct.

The results are amazing and have to be seen to be believed.

To sum it up in a single paragraph, "Since we know that the bet down horses win such a huge percentage of the races, our goal is to predict who the likely bet down horses will be. The end result is that when a horse looks like he should be a good bet, he is the most likely bad bet."

There are some exceptions. For example, a horse that figures to be (say) 3/5 or below, tilts the figures so badly that one cannot make sense of anything in the race. Perhaps we will discover a better understanding in the future.

BTW, I am certainly not saying that this strategy is perfect. What I am saying is that horses that are projected to be dead, generally return their backers around $1.30 or so for every $2 wagered. The goal is to identify horses like this because they add fuel the profit on whoever we eventually bet.

That $1.30 is a far cry from the $1.75 or more that is usually return on horses at 3/1 and below in this age.

[edit] One last clarification. I am not saying the horse will be "dead on the board," precisely. I am saying "dead" as in "won't run" or "won't persevere."

Last edited by Dave Schwartz; 10-07-2018 at 04:09 PM.
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 04:19 PM   #8
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Fischer View Post
coming up Race 6 Bel #11 uncle benny was 2nd in DD to the r5 chalk, not yet showing in the win odds, but I fully expect that it will.
11 is a big beast, and he's in peak condition for Jason Servis.
2 questions, will his odds finally come down to around 2nd choice to reflect his DD probables?? -And he's trying something new (turf) for the first time in a race.

handicapping stuff from the race - Favorite is the 6 DRAGIC she's in here against the boys again, and I wasn't thrilled with her last 1/16th in her last race

1-probably wants longer in US
2-too cheap
3-too cheap
4-like that he's cutting back. looked decent
5 too cheap
6 - dragic
12 interesting

out of time, but passing and watching to see odds and performance on 11 UNCLE BENNY
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 04:24 PM   #9
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,513
Surprised he stayed @ 5/1

didn't like the surface or going initially

capitalized on being the best horse in a nice late flow to steal the race late.

The focus horse won, but he didn't take win money, and I can't say he was much the best or anything. He showed up and fired and was fortunate.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 04:50 PM   #10
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,513
now in the 7th at Belmont;

CASSIE'S DREAMER is too cheap. But she is half her morning line odds. And i expected her to be half her morning line, as her pace numbers look good in spite of a race that fell apart late, and Andy picked her.

problem is that ALL the $$ is on a seemingly strong favorite

pass and watching the finish off the board
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 04:57 PM   #11
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz View Post
That would all be absolutely correct.

The results are amazing and have to be seen to be believed.

To sum it up in a single paragraph, "Since we know that the bet down horses win such a huge percentage of the races, our goal is to predict who the likely bet down horses will be. The end result is that when a horse looks like he should be a good bet, he is the most likely bad bet."

There are some exceptions. For example, a horse that figures to be (say) 3/5 or below, tilts the figures so badly that one cannot make sense of anything in the race. Perhaps we will discover a better understanding in the future.

BTW, I am certainly not saying that this strategy is perfect. What I am saying is that horses that are projected to be dead, generally return their backers around $1.30 or so for every $2 wagered. The goal is to identify horses like this because they add fuel the profit on whoever we eventually bet.

That $1.30 is a far cry from the $1.75 or more that is usually return on horses at 3/1 and below in this age.

[edit] One last clarification. I am not saying the horse will be "dead on the board," precisely. I am saying "dead" as in "won't run" or "won't persevere."

Okay, so I have a race lined as follows(your line, projected public line, actual)

1) 6-1, 4-1, 2-1
2) 6-1, 8-1, 8-1
3) 4-1, 3-1, 4-1
4) 5-2, 5-1, 5-1
5) 10-1, 6-1, 10-1
6) 3-1, 2-1, 5-2
7) 10-1, 12-1, 20-1


Based off your theory, the 4 figures to be dead so it makes the race playable against him (even though I feel the 4 should represent good value and is the best play in the race). The remaining low odds contenders based off of your perception of how the publc will bet are the 1, 3 and 6. So those would be your horses of interest. You don't look at odds so value isn't a determining factor. All 3 figure to be bet down significantly from your line, who is the bet and why?

Logically to me you would look at the 3 because he is at your projected line and thus offers the best value of the three horses, but that isn't your approach(based off what you posted above). Thus I remain confused.

One thing you seem to be doing is eliminating the horses who you like that you don't think the public will like(whether the odds reflect being dead or not). These are typically the horses most handicappers cherish(we see something in a horse that we believe the public does not see (trouble, trip, pace, barn change, workout, race flow, breeding, bias, or something even more subtle). I guess my question would be why a horse that has hidden attributes should be poor performing? They should be strong performers.

Are you sure your success with this does not have more to do with how you determine what the public will do. For instance(hypothetically) if you used solely bris prime power to determine what the public will do and the horses that your rated strongly that had poor numbers performed poorly, wouldn't that be more of a reflection of the Bris Power rating than anything else. I am basically saying that in your quest to determine what the public would do, my guess is that you have stumbled onto something very predictive of performance(or at least poor performance).
Poindexter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 05:04 PM   #12
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Fischer View Post
now in the 7th at Belmont;

CASSIE'S DREAMER is too cheap[disagreement with the class level]. But she is half her morning line odds. And i expected[I fully expected her to take $] her to be half her morning line, as her pace numbers look good in spite of a race that fell apart late, and Andy picked her[disagreement w/ pace interpretation]+[fully understand why she would probably take $].

problem is that ALL the $$ is on a seemingly strong favorite

pass and watching the finish off the board
got a nice patient ride and then sucking up to the rail, was able to get a late 3rd when i think the chalk tired. Never contended at 4/1 2nd-choice.

never looked like a winner, didn't fire, but this effort tends to make you ask whether her brilliant debut was aided by the easy pace. Just worth another look if you care to.

Controlled the pace, didn't tire like most others. Looked good doing it.



While this was a good example, it was a partial model. It lacked some needed factors to be complete and be a bet.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.

Last edited by Robert Fischer; 10-07-2018 at 05:11 PM.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 05:13 PM   #13
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz View Post
That would all be absolutely correct.

The results are amazing and have to be seen to be believed.

To sum it up in a single paragraph, "Since we know that the bet down horses win such a huge percentage of the races, our goal is to predict who the likely bet down horses will be. The end result is that when a horse looks like he should be a good bet, he is the most likely bad bet."

There are some exceptions. For example, a horse that figures to be (say) 3/5 or below, tilts the figures so badly that one cannot make sense of anything in the race. Perhaps we will discover a better understanding in the future.

BTW, I am certainly not saying that this strategy is perfect. What I am saying is that horses that are projected to be dead, generally return their backers around $1.30 or so for every $2 wagered. The goal is to identify horses like this because they add fuel the profit on whoever we eventually bet.

That $1.30 is a far cry from the $1.75 or more that is usually return on horses at 3/1 and below in this age.

[edit] One last clarification. I am not saying the horse will be "dead on the board," precisely. I am saying "dead" as in "won't run" or "won't persevere."
I think you are on to something BIG here.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 06:08 PM   #14
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poindexter View Post
Okay, so I have a race lined as follows(your line, projected public line, actual)

1) 6-1, 4-1, 2-1
2) 6-1, 8-1, 8-1
3) 4-1, 3-1, 4-1
4) 5-2, 5-1, 5-1
5) 10-1, 6-1, 10-1
6) 3-1, 2-1, 5-2
7) 10-1, 12-1, 20-1


Based off your theory, the 4 figures to be dead so it makes the race playable against him (even though I feel the 4 should represent good value and is the best play in the race). The remaining low odds contenders based off of your perception of how the publc will bet are the 1, 3 and 6. So those would be your horses of interest. You don't look at odds so value isn't a determining factor. All 3 figure to be bet down significantly from your line, who is the bet and why?

Logically to me you would look at the 3 because he is at your projected line and thus offers the best value of the three horses, but that isn't your approach(based off what you posted above). Thus I remain confused.

One thing you seem to be doing is eliminating the horses who you like that you don't think the public will like(whether the odds reflect being dead or not). These are typically the horses most handicappers cherish(we see something in a horse that we believe the public does not see (trouble, trip, pace, barn change, workout, race flow, breeding, bias, or something even more subtle). I guess my question would be why a horse that has hidden attributes should be poor performing? They should be strong performers.

Are you sure your success with this does not have more to do with how you determine what the public will do. For instance(hypothetically) if you used solely bris prime power to determine what the public will do and the horses that your rated strongly that had poor numbers performed poorly, wouldn't that be more of a reflection of the Bris Power rating than anything else. I am basically saying that in your quest to determine what the public would do, my guess is that you have stumbled onto something very predictive of performance(or at least poor performance).
Sorry, but no, completely off from where I would be.

First, the "morning line" is simply not good enough. It would be one of the factors, but perhaps only about 35% of determining "How the public should be this race."

But let's consider this and assume that the ML was my actual projected line.

3) 4-1, 3-1, 4-1
6) 3-1, 2-1, 5-2

These are the only two horses I am going to analyze because they are the only ones projected to be under 7/2. Please understand that our projected odds are way more accurate than the typical ML. (Not as good as the whales, but pretty good.)

Just an example of the 1st race I grabbed.



Back to your example...
3) 4-1, 3-1,
6) 3-1, 2-1,

(I've removed what holds no interest for me.)

I'd look at #3 and #6 and see them as:

#3 20% @ $8.00 = $1.60
#6 25% @ $6.00 = $1.50

I am looking for somebody that projects to about $1.10 or less to be live and $1.90 or more to be dead.

Therefore, this race has neither a must bet or a play against horse.

I will handicap and post an example race.
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-07-2018, 06:27 PM   #15
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,878
This was the next race that came up on the day I was handicapping. (Sept 9)



In the upper section, marked in yellow, are the two horses that projected to be <3.49/1. (My definition of low odds.)

A logical question would be, "How do I handicap?"

The answer is that the system created 5 "objects" for me, each pushing the winners to the top but with slightly different sorts.

The handicapping object I selected was the one that most agreed with the object that was used to project the odds.

The two hit rates, 38% and 30.5% respectively, when multiplied by the payoffs projected by the odds, resulted in $nets of $1.73 and $1.78 respectively, for the two horses.

If either had been $1.90 or higher, they would have been "Play Against." As it is, they are just "close" to "BetAg."
We're hoping that with more effort we'll be able to expand downward a little more with some added conditions in the future, but right now we're sticking with the extremes.
Down below I have show the running lines of the two horses in question. Both ran what I would call "dead races."

Notice the final odds off to the right.

The race ran 6-2, not that it matters.
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.