Late money "still king" Mahoning 7th

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Apparently your reading comprehension really hasn't improved very much! Do you suppose that Turf Monster is suggesting that "everybody" is an an insider?
I know its difficult for you to rationalize, but perhaps someday my point about the insider betting influence will sink into that skull of yours. They have as much right to bet to their heart's content as anyone. Why any horse player would be concerned about this reality tells me just how much they understand the game.

It was you who brought the "$2 bettors" into this conversation...not The_Turf_Monster. And you are also the only one here who pretends not to understand what the Monster meant by his post. You know very well whot the Monster meant...but you couldn't pass up the opposrtunity to remind us all once again of how greater your understanding of this game is when compared to ours.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It was you who brought the "$2 bettors" into this conversation...not The_Turf_Monster. And you are also the only one here who pretends not to understand what the Monster meant by his post. You know very well whot the Monster meant...but you couldn't pass up the opposrtunity to remind us all once again of how greater your understanding of this game is when compared to ours.

My understanding of what Turf Monster implied was that “everybody” waiting for the last minute to play were a mass of smaller bettors ($2 or maybe more) that was causing huge late minute dramatic fluctuations in the odds on the tote board. I totally disagree with this rationale.

And if you or anyone else believes otherwise, that’s certainly your prerogative, but as far as I’m concerned it demonstrates (to me anyway) a lack of awareness of what the true nature of the betting side of this game is all about.

BTW, who’s taking the "opportunity to reminding us all"? Who’s us?
Now you’re attempting to speak for everyone on this forum?
I’m sure there might be some who actually get it.

Take my opinion for whatever its worth, but I stand by my convictions.
If you personally believe that my insight into this topic might be greater than yours then so be it.
I have no problem with that. In fact, whether others like my comments or not, I enjoy sharing my thoughts like many others around here.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Nitro

My understanding of what Turf Monster implied was that “everybody” waiting for the last minute to play were a mass of smaller bettors ($2 or maybe more) that was causing huge late minute dramatic fluctuations in the odds on the tote board. I totally disagree with this rationale.

And if you or anyone else believes otherwise, that’s certainly your prerogative, but as far as I’m concerned it demonstrates (to me anyway) a lack of awareness of what the true nature of the betting side of this game is all about.

BTW, who’s taking the "opportunity to reminding us all"? Who’s us?
Now you’re attempting to speak for everyone on this forum?
I’m sure there might be some who actually get it.

Take my opinion for whatever its worth, but I stand by my convictions.
If you personally believe that my insight into this topic might be greater than yours then so be it.
I have no problem with that. In fact, whether others like my comments or not, I enjoy sharing my thoughts like many others around here.

I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that there isn't even a single person on this board who thinks that these drastic odds dropdowns that we so often see are caused by a mass of small bettors. And I know this because we've discussed this topic here ad nauseam. EVERYBODY here knows that these dropdowns are caused by some ultra-sophisticated hi-tech bettors. You keep using the word "insiders"...a word that usually implies intimate knowledge of backstretch information. Are these hi-tech bettors really "insiders"? Are you using the word "insiders" to mean something ELSE? Who knows?

Forty years ago, a couple of hi-tech wiz kids got together and created some sports-betting software which beat the sportsbooks out of hundreds of millions of dollars. And these wiz kids didn't deserve the "insider" label any more than you or I do.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that there isn't even a single person on this board who thinks that these drastic odds dropdowns that we so often see are caused by a mass of small bettors. And I know this because we've discussed this topic here ad nauseam. EVERYBODY here knows that these dropdowns are caused by some ultra-sophisticated hi-tech bettors. You keep using the word "insiders"...a word that usually implies intimate knowledge of backstretch information. Are these hi-tech bettors really "insiders"? Are you using the word "insiders" to mean something ELSE? Who knows?

Forty years ago, a couple of hi-tech wiz kids got together and created some sports-betting software which beat the sportsbooks out of hundreds of millions of dollars. And these wiz kids didn't deserve the "insider" label any more than you or I do.

The question was not what everyone on this board believes. It was about the term "Everybody" in that context implied. As far as I'm concerned there are an awful lot of people at different levels of play using computers for betting purposes.

So you're thinking is that when Turf Monster used the term "Everybody" that he's implying that "Everybody" that's waiting at their computer with bated breath to make a last minute is a heavy hitter (or insider or whatever)?
I don't think so, and I'll leave it at that because I may be wrong, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that there isn't even a single person on this board who thinks that these drastic odds dropdowns that we so often see are caused by a mass of small bettors. And I know this because we've discussed this topic here ad nauseam. EVERYBODY here knows that these dropdowns are caused by some ultra-sophisticated hi-tech bettors. You keep using the word "insiders"...a word that usually implies intimate knowledge of backstretch information. Are these hi-tech bettors really "insiders"? Are you using the word "insiders" to mean something ELSE? Who knows?

Forty years ago, a couple of hi-tech wiz kids got together and created some sports-betting software which beat the sportsbooks out of hundreds of millions of dollars. And these wiz kids didn't deserve the "insider" label any more than you or I do.

Bang on. Tons of late money comes in on winners from barns that don't tout or bet. I could expound much further on this, but i'm sure most posters get the point.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that there isn't even a single person on this board who thinks that these drastic odds dropdowns that we so often see are caused by a mass of small bettors. And I know this because we've discussed this topic here ad nauseam. EVERYBODY here knows that these dropdowns are caused by some ultra-sophisticated hi-tech bettors. You keep using the word "insiders"...a word that usually implies intimate knowledge of backstretch information. Are these hi-tech bettors really "insiders"? Are you using the word "insiders" to mean something ELSE? Who knows?

Forty years ago, a couple of hi-tech wiz kids got together and created some sports-betting software which beat the sportsbooks out of hundreds of millions of dollars. And these wiz kids didn't deserve the "insider" label any more than you or I do.

i was betting Eugene Mayday split line hockey in 1974 and 1975. i had a guy in the western union office that would give me the lineups 10 minutes before he put them over the wire. you could do a ton of damage in those 10 minutes. i didn't have a computer program, and i wasn't an insider. i did know the difference between the starting goaltender and the second stringer though.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Viewing the odds by the time the horses are loaded is obviously too late to make or change a bet.

There is of course more than one mutual betting pool available for viewing along with the involvement of both the Exacta and Quinella pools. Detailed observations of all these pools simultaneously at any given time is still not sufficient. In order to really understand what’s happening all these pools have to monitored and documented at specific betting intervals. This will permit a superior evaluation when the overall betting on each entry can be compared among themselves. The documented comparisons made at each betting interval will further illustrate the actual betting flow among the entries. This permits ample time to make that bet by at least 3 min to post (at the smaller tracks with reduced betting pools) and 5 minutes to post (at the larger tracks with bigger betting pools).

I don't look for Winners. I look for Winning Plays because I'm only interested in the bottom line for playing this game.
.

Here's a few examples of the sophisticated Tote analysis I use illustrating the last betting interval prior to post time. I don't rely on late money. I view the betting patterns over an entire betting cycle to determine the contenders for potential Vertical play.
From the information posted below see if you can determine the contenders. Then check the results.

4-1-21
TOTE ANALYSIS for GP Race #1 @ 5 minutes to post –
(Entries w/Computed Values lower than or closest to PAR are always of interest)

5 Min	Ent#
205	1
353	2
124	3
000	4
191	5
000	6
166	7
198	8
132	9
299	10
000	11
000	12
000     13
000	14
000	15
000	16
161	PAR

4-1-21
TOTE ANALYSIS for GP Race #2 @ 5 minutes to post –
(Entries w/Computed Values lower than or closest to PAR are always of interest)

5 Min	Ent#
99	1
91	2
77	3
93	4
107	5
000	6
000	7
000	8
000	9
000	10
000	11
000	12
000	13
000	14
000	15
000	16
89	PAR

4-1-21
TOTE ANALYSIS for GP Race #3 @ 5 minutes to post
(Entries w/Computed Values lower than or closest to PAR are always of interest)

5 Min	Ent#
000	1
199	2
140	3
167	4
270	5
266	6
139	7
212	8
176	9
181	10
294	11
000	12
000	13
000	14
000	15
000	16
169     PAR

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i was betting Eugene Mayday split line hockey in 1974 and 1975. i had a guy in the western union office that would give me the lineups 10 minutes before he put them over the wire. you could do a ton of damage in those 10 minutes. i didn't have a computer program, and i wasn't an insider. i did know the difference between the starting goaltender and the second stringer though.

This was probably the same time you were making those million dollar show bets

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by the little guy

This was probably the same time you were making those million dollar show bets

That's really the perfect note to end this wonderful thread.

[Half Smoke]

.......................


if I show you guys a race where there was a big late drop in the odds on the fave - like the one in the OP...... and the fave finished last.........


are you guys going to say:




racing is rigged to make the insiders lose





real doubtful..........................(~:\



*

[johnhenry81]

Nitro, if those results are typical, you have either arrived or are on your way!
BTW, would you care to loosely share how you arrive at "Par"

jh

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by castaway01

That's really the perfect note to end this wonderful thread.

Yeah, like that would happen.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.......................


if I show you guys a race where there was a big late drop in the odds on the fave - like the one in the OP...... and the fave finished last.........


are you guys going to say:




racing is rigged to make the insiders lose





real doubtful..........................(~:\



*

One Race??
show me 500 and you got my interest.

[Tape Reader]

Nitro: Is there a user group for the software that you use?

[Half Smoke]

.....................


a lot of angst about late money causing the odds to drop
95% of the time or more it's on the fave

solution - don't bet faves
they lose about 2 out of 3 anyway

yes, you miss some opportunities
but you still have lots of opportunities for good bets
lots and lots and lots


*