How would you reconcile your picks with the tote-board?

[FocusWiz]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I didn't play today, so I don't know the specifics of this race...but it exemplifies what I have been trying to say here -- and in numerous other similar discussions that we've had in the past. This game is UNIQUE, as far as gambling games go...and assessing "value" while playing it is not a simple matter. There is pertinent information out there that some players know about...and this information cannot be accessed through the past performances.

I know that those who roll their eyes at the idea of "inside information" will be quick to point out that this "well-meant" 5-horse LOST in this race...but that's a small consolation to those who were enticed into betting the "overlaid" 3-horse.

This is why I say that experience is GOLDEN in this game...

You make an excellent point and my experience has taught me that there often is true "inside information." However, that does not necessarily mean that only one horse generates such information nor does it mean that the people with the inside information all have equally loose lips. It also does not mean that the information is worth betting on.

Suppose the and the and the and the all had inside information, not that the race is fixed, but say that some knew the would run well, others that the would run well, others that the would run well and still others that the was off her feed. Suppose the insiders of the and the are blabbermouths and broadcast this on Facebook and in coded methods on the antennas of their cars and in the color of their ties at the track. The folks with the inside knowledge of the and are more tight-lipped but did wager on the horse they expected to do well, with the insiders with knowledge of the putting their wagers into Exactas rather than in the more obvious pools.

This could definitely generate that wagering that was shown.

I have long believed that there is information in the wagering, but this information seldom tells you how the race will be won nor that only one horse is ready to win. There is also a ton of noise for a variety of reasons.

Odds are a factor to be considered, but just knowing that a horse is well backed by the crowd, does not mean it will run well enough to beat the best horse in the race.

[FocusWiz]

Robert,

I like your picks (for this race) much better than mine.

Just for fun, I replaced my derived picks with yours.

The spreadsheet suggested as the only play to play the $5 across the board as what I call a "Value Play" which means that in the order of your selections for a race this size and the wagering going on, the best value bet is your third choice, the .

I then put in the NYRA track handicapper's selections and it suggested that there was value for both the and the . I would generally not play this race, or would pick the name or color or number of letters I liked best (I would have played the due to my predilection for good Beef Chow Fun).

Playing around with this, I see that my sheets would have allowed me to play the only if it had been one of my top four choices based on the odds in this race.

This is what I mean when I suggest that the odds should influence our wagering, but not necessarily change who we consider as contenders.

[Capper Al]

Results for race #9 at Sar 7/26:

2-5-7

#2 paid $13.40 to win

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

The 9th today at Saratoga was an excellent example.

I briefly capped the race to look at how I would structure a pick-3.

Actual Morning Line = 3-8-6-2-5

the NYRA track handicapper = 6-3-2-7
and significantly, he mentioned that the 8 had a perfect trip last time and was stepping up in class, and both track handicappers mentioned that the trainer (Chad Brown) was causing this specific horse to be consistently over-bet.

I handicapped the race and came up with the same expected morning line as the track handicapper My Morning Line = 3-8-6-2-5
I would not have been surprised if the 8 were a slight underlay as the favorite, but the 3 was pretty clearly one of the main contenders, and after a good effort, the public would be betting this Mike Maker filly.


Then I picked my selections in order of win percentage My Picks = 3-6-2-8-5.
With the 8 looking like a potential false-favorite, the 3 was now somewhat exciting. He was my top pick, and you hope now that you see the public bet the false 8 horse because of the barn. I also wasn't crazy about the 6 even with the drop in class, and the 2 was coming off of that layoff in a low percentage move.

Finally the race approached and I could apply actual tote information.
First it was notable that the daily doubles were different than expected. = 8-5-6-2-3

next the race itself opened for wagering and the 3 opened at 10-1.
The final odds were = 5-8-6-2-3

After comparing the information (during the wagering), it was quickly clear that the 3 was unexpectedly very cold on the board.
It was also clear that the 5 was unexpectedly very hot on the board.


In all, five horses were taking significant action. The 5 was the unexpected favorite off an 8-1 morning line, who had been without fanfare from the track handicapper. The 8 was the 2nd choice and was expected to be blindly bet because of his hot barn. The 6 was the third choice and seemed a logical class include. The 2 was the fourth choice and was showing good support for a horse coming off such a layoff. The 3 was unexpectedly all the way down to fifth choice on the board, was extremely cold and sending up red-flags everywhere.

Thanks Robert. This discussion is on the mark for what I had in mind when I started this thread.

Results for race #9 at Sar 7/26:

2-5-7

#2 paid $13.40 to win

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Others will disagree, but in my process the 3 was a toss-out.

When I picked 3-6-2-8-5, I did so for a reality where the public would support 3-8-6-2-5, and did so for reasons which I felt I had a strong enough grasp of. I was comfortable taking the 3 over the 8 in that reality.

When the public actually supported 5-8-6-2-3, I realized that I had a poor understanding of who, and why the public was going to play.

Master of the tote-board! That's it the tote-board speaks to you and says there is something wrong with my picture. Well done.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by FocusWiz

Robert,

Thank you for sharing. I will also share how I approached this race.

My analysis of the wagering in that race was similar, but with a very different perspective.

My picks were 8-3-10-7-6

My Doubles analysis of Race 8 showed the unexpected wagering that was coming in on the (ignore the numbers but lower indicates greater wagering support).

Dbl Betting: / 1.54, / 2.41, / 2.48, / 2.83

The nearly .9 difference between the and the is significant (though it can be less meaningful if the were the ML favorite). Usually the Morning Line favorite will appear somewhere in this group due to the tendency of some players to pick the horses in the first race of the Daily Double and not want to leave out the Morning Line favorite in the next leg. That the was not in the top 4, would be significant.

My Exacta analysis also showed that thewas heavily favored (likewise, lower numbers mean greater wagering support). However, there was also significant support for the and (at least when compared to the ).

/ 36.0393, / 52.0230, / 53.2539, / 59.0775, / 69.1794

As you indicated, the final odds were favoring the as well with the bet well down from my adjusted M/L of 8/1 to 5/2. By my rules, more than half IS significant and would warrant a second look. Although the and were also bet down, they were not bet down as significantly as the .

Since there were no short money horses in this race (which can dramatically reduce the place and show returns), it appeared to be a "good betting race" so my figures (which generally give more weight to the Exacta wagering over the other pools) suggested the following wagers:

$2 WIN, $5 PLACE, $10 SHOW
Longshot bet on $2 WIN (My Longshot plays win often enough to make it interesting long term, but they seldom win.)

I have long ago lost track of the precise logic in the formulas in my spreadsheets, but the odds pushed me away from my top picks, but would never make me choose the in their place. I WILL frequently bet the top horse from the Doubles Analysis, but seldom if the difference is over .5 since such plays have not been profitable.

Net result of this race:
Obviously my Longshot ran up the track, (though third at the top of the stretch). The also gave me a run for the money.

Total wagered: $19.00
Return: $31.50

Thanks for sharing. Good analysis.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by FocusWiz

Robert,

I like your picks (for this race) much better than mine.

Just for fun, I replaced my derived picks with yours.

The spreadsheet suggested as the only play to play the $5 across the board as what I call a "Value Play" which means that in the order of your selections for a race this size and the wagering going on, the best value bet is your third choice, the .

I then put in the NYRA track handicapper's selections and it suggested that there was value for both the and the . I would generally not play this race, or would pick the name or color or number of letters I liked best (I would have played the due to my predilection for good Beef Chow Fun).

Playing around with this, I see that my sheets would have allowed me to play the only if it had been one of my top four choices based on the odds in this race.

This is what I mean when I suggest that the odds should influence our wagering, but not necessarily change who we consider as contenders.

Similarly, I mentioned previously that was what I'm testing- finding which horse to wheel on.

[Capper Al]

Last night (7/26) at Canterbury with my tote-board app.

This is truly after the race analysis because I'm experimenting. I do see some patterns emerging. It looks like my top 3 selection and 3 or more matching patterns on my app will hit the winner about 70% of the time, and about half of these paid over $10 to win. Still tweaking.

[HUSKER55]

Robert, do you ever bet a race when you are not 100% sure of why you are betting "this horse"?

I am thinking that most handicappers fail when they can not put a definite answer to that question but place a wager anyway.

I am finding out that my ROI goes up when I skip races, bet only when I feel good about the bet and increase the size of my wager. I am betting more per race but less number of races.

JMHO

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

Robert, do you ever bet a race when you are not 100% sure of why you are betting "this horse"?

I am thinking that most handicappers fail when they can not put a definite answer to that question but place a wager anyway.

I am finding out that my ROI goes up when I skip races, bet only when I feel good about the bet and increase the size of my wager. I am betting more per race but less number of races.

JMHO

I try to be selective. I agree.