How much is it worth to NOT have robotic wagerers in the pools?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

My message wasn't very well written. I am aware of the probables I was just countering the notion that DDs had a larger pool than the win pool.

I was talking about the opening win betting.

In the early betting, the win pool will often be very small and the odds much different than they will be at the close. If you look at the double "will pays", that double pool is already closed, as large as it's going to get, and fairly efficient.

So using the "will pays" can give you a clue as to how the win odds are going to move later in the betting in the win pool.

If in CA the opening betting on win is already larger than the closed double pool then maybe this wouldn't be as useful a tool for prediction.

What I'm wondering is how much people looking at the "will pays" for doubles, pick 3s, pick 4s, exactas etc.. is driving the win odds and how much is the pools coming into sync naturally and independently.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I was talking about the opening win betting.

In the early betting, the win pool will often be very small and the odds much different than they will be at the close. If you look at the double "will pays", that double pool is already closed, as large as it's going to get, and fairly efficient.

So using the "will pays" can give you a clue as to how the win odds are going to move later in the betting in the win pool.

If in CA the opening betting on win is already larger than the closed double pool then maybe this wouldn't be as useful a tool for prediction.

What I'm wondering is how much people looking at the "will pays" for doubles, pick 3s, pick 4s, exactas etc.. is driving the win odds and how much is the pools coming into sync naturally and independently.

My problem with will-pays is as follows: Santa Anita's average DD pool is less than $30,000 but I will use $30,000 in my example. If a 4-1 horse wins the first half of the DD it will mean that approximately 16.9% of the DD pool will be used in determining the DD will-pays. So there will be $5,070 of live tickets to compute the winning amounts. In a 10 horse field for the second half of the DD that comes to just a little bit over $500 per horse. I doubt that volume of betting will provide much efficiency to rely on. The math for P-3s and P-4s gets even worse for efficiency.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

My problem with will-pays is as follows: Santa Anita's average DD pool is less than $30,000 but I will use $30,000 in my example. If a 4-1 horse wins the first half of the DD it will mean that approximately 16.9% of the DD pool will be used in determining the DD will-pays. So there will be $5,070 of live tickets to compute the winning amounts. In a 10 horse field for the second half of the DD that comes to just a little bit over $500 per horse. I doubt that volume of betting will provide much efficiency to rely on. The math for P-3s and P-4s gets even worse for efficiency.

Good point, but since the pools are closed and all the action is in, the double pools should be relatively efficient. Any crazy overlays in the doubles would have been noticed by the sharpest players and corrected late in the double betting.

In the early win pools, none of that corrective action has taken place yet.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Good point, but since the pools are closed and all the action is in, the double pools should be relatively efficient. Any crazy overlays in the doubles would have been noticed by the sharpest players and corrected late in the double betting.

In the early win pools, none of that corrective action has taken place yet.

Been doing this for a while now and while it isn't perfect, it has saved a lot of bets from being made that looked good at post time but ended up being bad. I can't predict the odds with perfection, but I know for example if I'm predicting 4-1 and the horse is sitting at 8-1 at post time, it will almost always go off at less than 8-1. The majority of times it will be closer to 4 than 8 when the final odds are posted.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by cj

Been doing this for a while now and while it isn't perfect, it has saved a lot of bets from being made that looked good at post time but ended up being bad. I can't predict the odds with perfection, but I know for example if I'm predicting 4-1 and the horse is sitting at 8-1 at post time, it will almost always go off at less than 8-1. The majority of times it will be closer to 4 than 8 when the final odds are posted.

That is smart.

Agree that when a horse is well-bet in doubles, he usually comes down late in the win pool(if he isn't already down early).
The other horses that I expect to drop late are
-Strong obvious favs generally get hammered late
-Rare ML chalk that is sitting 'COLD' at higher odds tend to get lowered somewhat late.
-Horses who break well (half kidding)


I look at doubles and multis(p3 etc) and just do a simple 'odds ranking'. (e.g. 1Fav, 2Second, 3Third, 4Fourthchoice,...) and then compare it to the morning line.

Want to see what to expect, and also if anything is happening that I didn't expect and can't explain. 'UOB'(Unexpected Odds Behavior')


/with Doubles - if a long shot won, I go back and check the 'probables' from the chalky horses, rather than using will-pays

Notice some trends. For example, Favorites slightly more with favorites, while 'wise guy/value' horses tend to reflect a little more action onto the 'wise-guy' values in the following race, particularly odds ranking.

[linrom1]

It's not the way i see DOUBLE POOLS with robotic wagering playing a large role.
I often see a logical contender hammered with 4-5 horses in probables in a relatively tight range.

But then, one of them opens up at 9/5 while the others languish at 4-8 win odds and don't lift a hoof.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Good point, but since the pools are closed and all the action is in, the double pools should be relatively efficient. Any crazy overlays in the doubles would have been noticed by the sharpest players and corrected late in the double betting.

In the early win pools, none of that corrective action has taken place yet.

At what point does the betting cease to be efficient? When $4,000 determines the prices, $2,000 or $500? Sharp players trying to correct for overlays in the DD pools are dealing with a hair trigger. It doesn't take much betting to flip a bet to the underlay column.

I have been studying pools for over 30 years. I have suggested to Del Mar that they implement what I call a pick tote. It is a 1 page matrix showing all the money that has been bet on each horse in each leg of the DD, P-3, P-4, etc. In addition a matrix could show the odds equivalent for each horse in each leg. So if there was a P-4 with $100,000 in the pool, the matrix would have 4 columns showing how the $100,000 is distributed in each race by horse. It could also show that horse 3 in leg 4 would be 6-1 if the $100,000 were in a win pool.

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

At what point does the betting cease to be efficient? When $4,000 determines the prices, $2,000 or $500? Sharp players trying to correct for overlays in the DD pools are dealing with a hair trigger. It doesn't take much betting to flip a bet to the underlay column.

I have been studying pools for over 30 years. I have suggested to Del Mar that they implement what I call a pick tote. It is a 1 page matrix showing all the money that has been bet on each horse in each leg of the DD, P-3, P-4, etc. In addition a matrix could show the odds equivalent for each horse in each leg. So if there was a P-4 with $100,000 in the pool, the matrix would have 4 columns showing how the $100,000 is distributed in each race by horse. It could also show that horse 3 in leg 4 would be 6-1 if the $100,000 were in a win pool.

That is a really good idea so I'm sure it won't be done in my lifetime.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

At what point does the betting cease to be efficient? When $4,000 determines the prices, $2,000 or $500? Sharp players trying to correct for overlays in the DD pools are dealing with a hair trigger. It doesn't take much betting to flip a bet to the underlay column.

I have been studying pools for over 30 years. I have suggested to Del Mar that they implement what I call a pick tote. It is a 1 page matrix showing all the money that has been bet on each horse in each leg of the DD, P-3, P-4, etc. In addition a matrix could show the odds equivalent for each horse in each leg. So if there was a P-4 with $100,000 in the pool, the matrix would have 4 columns showing how the $100,000 is distributed in each race by horse. It could also show that horse 3 in leg 4 would be 6-1 if the $100,000 were in a win pool.

To answer your first question, I don't know the answer. What I would do is look at the double "will pays" and then see if they were adding any value to my ability to predict the final odds to win.

I don't play a lot of small tracks, but I love mule racing as a hobby and get into those ridiculously small pools all the time when they are in season . I'd like to think I help make those odds more efficient sometimes. I see some crazy payoffs where it's obvious the pools are not in sync. It's tough to exploit though because of the large late swings.

I love your idea.