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 03-20-2018, 01:55 PM   #31
CincyHorseplayer
Registered User
 
CincyHorseplayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cincinnati,Ohio
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by AltonKelsey View Post
Shouldn't have to say it, but the number of bets you make has nothing to do with winning or losing IN ITSELF.

Some of you are confused. Many ?

A small sample is more likely to WIN even if the long term roi stinks.

A large sample will almost surely lose.


Thus, the confusion, thinking that many bets is somehow a negative.

For positive long term roi's its exactly what you want, as many plays as possible
Absolutely. I think a 100 bet cycle covers all the swings of variance. The more of these you can go through a year the better.
CincyHorseplayer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 02:28 PM   #32
ultracapper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy View Post
Again, that's a theory, and I get the theory, but it doesn't work in real life. Many years ago I said the same thing in some of my columns, but I was wrong. That's why testing is better than theory. A great handicapper, someone who is great at picking winners, is still not going to be able to show a profit on win bets on 8/5 shots, or favorites in general. If you can get to something like a 5% loss betting favorites, you're a master handicapper. Everytime I've had a good year and actually went back and checked the results, the favorites I bet only provided a mental stability that cut down on a series of losing bets, but they were not profitable. All of my profit came from longshot winners that I keyed in winning exotics. Most winning players get the bulk of their profit from several nice hits each year. 8/5 shots don't provide that, and you simply can't overcome the takeout with favorites.

There are also a lot more overlays in the higher odds range because it requires a really sharp handicapper to see that a 15-1 shot should actually be 6-1. But with favorites, everyone can see why the horse is favored.

Now, I agree, that it's good to have the ability to spot bad favorites and bet against them. But that doesn't mean that it's smart to bet on the horses that appear to be legit favorites. Bet against the bad favorites, pass the races where the favorite appears legit.

The best and fastest horse in the race still loses more than it wins, so you simply can't take short prices.
Not a thought out of place.

Great post.
ultracapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 04:02 PM   #33
PaceAdvantage
PA Steward
 
PaceAdvantage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer View Post
Absolutely. I think a 100 bet cycle covers all the swings of variance.
I can personally attest to the fact that this is VERY false...
PaceAdvantage is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 04:04 PM   #34
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
"Know thyself"...

There is a psychological aspect to horse-betting that I feel has been largely ignored in this discussion. Even more important than adopting the most "profitable" betting techniques is the all-important matter of selecting a style of play which matches with our temperament and personality as players. Before we decide to "ignore the legitimate favorites, even in our exotics wagering"...we should spend a little time determining if we are individually capable of doing such a thing consistently in our actual play. TALKING about doing something isn't the same as actually DOING it. "Most knowledge is self-knowledge" the ancient sages have declared...and I feel that this applies most strongly and directly in gambling.

In my own play, I have learned enough about myself as a player to know that limiting my bets to horses that go off at odds of 6-1 or higher would drive me absolutely crazy...especially in today's horse-betting landscape. How many legitimate 6-1+ betting choices am I supposed to find when all I see -- especially on weekdays -- are short fields of 7 horses or less? If I confine myself to only my "longshot" plays, then I run the risk of becoming lethargicly unprepared for the prime betting opportunities which pop up unannounced during the course of the day's play. To play my best, I must remain sharp during the course of the day...and passing race after race causes me to lose track of the "flow" that I have to be in, in order to play my "A" game. Consequently, I have created a rational style of play which INCLUDES betting on some favorites, not as a cure for my "boredom", but as a device for keeping me sharp and aware of the betting opportunities that may still lay ahead. My prime consideration as a horseplayer isn't to employ the most "long-term-profitable" handicapping and betting techniques, whatever those may be. My main horse-betting concern is to create a betting style which matches my temperament and personality...on which I can rely upon for a nice balance between "profit", and "performance". A few of my well-meaning friends have suggested to me that I might be losing "ROI points" by utilizing my looser betting style...but I know from personal experience that a higher ROI does not necessarily translate to a higher long-term profit. The vital thing is to discover what works best for us as individuals.

"Know thyself...and then you will know all important things" declared Socrates...who purportedly made a fortune wagering on the chariot races in ancient Athens.
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 04:15 PM   #35
AltonKelsey
Veteran
 
AltonKelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage View Post
I can personally attest to the fact that this is VERY false...
I agree, 100 is too small a sample. Maybe 500 or more plays over a full season might give you a pretty good idea, but nothing is written in stone, as the game is constantly morphing (as are payoffs) .

Depends on the kind of bets you're making.
AltonKelsey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 04:30 PM   #36
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy View Post
Another thing I'm testing, something that has always been a puzzle for handicappers is, do you play your top pick, or do you handicap contenders and then look for value? So say you handicap a race and come up with four horses ranked in order of preference. Regardless of what method you're using to handicap, I think you could make a case that you should never bet the favorite. So if your top pick is the favorite, you should either pass the race, or look over your other three ranked horses to see if there's any value there. But I'm not sure that you should ever bet the second choice, either. The first two choices win around 54% of the races, but the value is usually in the horses that win less often... it's sort of a paradox because you have to find the best value among the horses that are less likely to win the race.
There is theory and there is reality.

I theory, you should make a betting line and bet the best value regardless of where the horse ranks. The reality is that we are all working with incomplete information and understanding. So making odds lines is fraught with peril.

I've found that "in general" I am better off sticking to my top choices and passing the race when the horse is below 5/2. I am a little flexible on that bottom limit if I think the horse has a huge edge and get a little tighter if I have some extra concerns or the field seems deep.

I will occasionally bet someone further down my ranking, but only if the horse figures so close to my top choice it was a real struggle to separate them. Then I might even bet both of them if the odds are right.

I will also occasionally use a live longshot that ranks further down by trying to get him into the exacta, trifecta or super, but I won't key the horse on top. I'll use him in different spots.

If I totally hate the favorite I will also spread a little trying to beat him even if I don't have a strong opinion.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 05:31 PM   #37
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by AltonKelsey View Post
I agree, 100 is too small a sample. Maybe 500 or more plays over a full season might give you a pretty good idea, but nothing is written in stone, as the game is constantly morphing (as are payoffs) .

Depends on the kind of bets you're making.
We have had players who did very large live-play tests. One in particular comes to mind who was very profitable at 1,500 races played and was slightly loser after 2,400.

That is a lot of races to bang in by hand without making any real bets.
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 05:40 PM   #38
CincyHorseplayer
Registered User
 
CincyHorseplayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cincinnati,Ohio
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage View Post
I can personally attest to the fact that this is VERY false...
Not here. Usually a losing streak in there over 100 bets. And a run or two. My last 10 years of bets aren't any different than my last 100 bets. Or very little. I don't know how that could be for you!
CincyHorseplayer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 05:51 PM   #39
PaceAdvantage
PA Steward
 
PaceAdvantage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,183
I have turned a superb ROI and win% over 100+ races into a pile of dogshit in no time flat...recently...
PaceAdvantage is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 05:57 PM   #40
CincyHorseplayer
Registered User
 
CincyHorseplayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cincinnati,Ohio
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage View Post
I have turned a superb ROI and win% over 100+ races into a pile of dogshit in no time flat...recently...
I find myself usually flat or plain total dogshit for about 20-30 bets with anywhere from 40-60% loss on everything I put into play. Things mysteriously change back again to normal as they did when going south.

Maybe it's the time of the year but I've been doggy paddling recently. I don't think it's any coincidence that it is at a time where sub 2-1 shots are crushing.
CincyHorseplayer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 05:57 PM   #41
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage View Post
I have turned a superb ROI and win% over 100+ races into a pile of dogshit in no time flat...recently...
Don't feel bad. I've done this more than a few times.
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 06:41 PM   #42
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBL View Post
P.S. to the above in light of overlays: Just like overlaid favorites, not every high priced-overlay is a good, bet-able overlay. The 15/1 in your assessment system going off as 25/1 doesn't necessarily makes it a good bet.
why?
if your probs are as correct as possible, and your 15/1 chances win at that percentage(or greater if you set your probs to less than 1) then there can be but one result.
if not, then that insinuates that your 15/1 horses should have been given longer prices.
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 09:44 PM   #43
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb View Post
why?
if your probs are as correct as possible, and your 15/1 chances win at that percentage(or greater if you set your probs to less than 1) then there can be but one result.
if not, then that insinuates that your 15/1 horses should have been given longer prices.
and i should have added.....if they win at a greater price than your assessed price.
it's no good if your 15/1 chances are winning at that rate, but at lesser average odds.
that would be negative expectation, but it's not what you stated.
25/1 about 15/1 pops is a GREAT bet, provided your probs are reasonable.
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 10:02 PM   #44
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage View Post
I have turned a superb ROI and win% over 100+ races into a pile of dogshit in no time flat...recently...
One system I tested was profitable for 2015 and 2016 but fell apart in 2017.

I have another one that was hovering around break even for the latter part of 2014 (when testing began), all of 2015, all of 2016, and all 2017, but is getting killed so far in 2018. That's for about 500-600 horses per year that are a mix of favorites, 2nd choices, and 3rd choices, with an occasional longshot mixed in. I have no idea how 2018 will end up, but I think to really be certain you need some serious samples sizes.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2018, 11:38 PM   #45
JerryBoyle
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 845
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
One system I tested was profitable for 2015 and 2016 but fell apart in 2017.

I have another one that was hovering around break even for the latter part of 2014 (when testing began), all of 2015, all of 2016, and all 2017, but is getting killed so far in 2018. That's for about 500-600 horses per year that are a mix of favorites, 2nd choices, and 3rd choices, with an occasional longshot mixed in. I have no idea how 2018 will end up, but I think to really be certain you need some serious samples sizes.
I've been struggling with this as of late. I've attached some charts of cumulative profit for a model I backtested. First image is a cumulative profit chart that I was proud of, which covers ~3000 races from 20160201 to 20170501. Utilized kelly betting with a fixed $1k bankroll at the start of each race (no reinvestment). Second attachment is the same model from 20170901 to 20180301. I agree that 500 bets may not be enough...

I think it comes down to having a good way to evaluate how much better our predictions are doing than the publics. No strategy is going to last forever, as we're only winning when we're doing something that no one else is. It has taught me that having a way to i.d when to turn a strategy off is as valuable as i.d'ing the strategy in the first place.

Attached Images
File Type: png P1.png (31.8 KB, 31 views)
File Type: png P2.png (31.6 KB, 17 views)
JerryBoyle 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 08:05 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.