do you eat chalk?

[Half Smoke]

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



I admit I'm sometimes a chalk eater - if I think the horse is way stronger than the rest of the field

how about you?

if a horse is 6/5 do you say no way?

4/5 out of the question?

IMO the greatest amount of chatter among horseplayers is about finding value


I think that may lead some to toss horses who should not be tossed


yeah, I know many use them on top in the exotics
I think you can only get a good payout if one or more shots are in your wheel

I've seen an odds on horse on top of the 2nd fave pay less than a straight win bet on the fave...............................pretty sad




.

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

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



I admit I'm sometimes a chalk eater - if I think the horse is way stronger than the rest of the field

how about you?

if a horse is 6/5 do you say no way?

4/5 out of the question?

IMO the greatest amount of chatter among horseplayers is about finding value


I think that may lead some to toss horses who should not be tossed


yeah, I know many use them on top in the exotics
I think you can only get a good payout if one or more shots are in your wheel

I've seen an odds on horse on top of the 2nd fave pay less than a straight win bet on the fave...............................pretty sad




.

My theoretical low odds where it's a play is 8/5, but we all know what happens to that after the gate closes. So when I'm fairly certain that one of these plays looks uber strong, I try to find one or two place horses for a straight exacta, and/or one longshot to box with the 6/5 "sure thing."

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by FakeNameChanged

My theoretical low odds where it's a play is 8/5, but we all know what happens to that after the gate closes. So when I'm fairly certain that one of these plays looks uber strong, I try to find one or two place horses for a straight exacta, and/or one longshot to box with the 6/5 "sure thing."

When I played for a living 3/2 was my prime bet lower-odds limit. I played using the Beyer money management plan set forth in Picking Winners and had my first winning year as a fulltime 'pro' at age 19 strictly adhering to that plan. If I recall it was 5% of bankroll on Prime bets, that is, horses you make even money or less that are going off at 3/2 or more. No more than 2 prime bets on any one day. Total action bets per day were something 2/3rds the amount of one prime and no more than 1/3rd of a prime bet on any one action bet race.

I would also do some things that I figured out on my own over time, e.g. cap the bankroll and then profit-take whenever it went over a certain amount, an amount tied to how much a large bet would move my own odds and also how much I was actually comfortable losing per day.

Someone can correct me on those percentages, I don't have the book handy anymore. Davidowitz put forth essentially the same money management plan. But yea as you said the 'after the gate' thing made all of that 'board shopping' stuff come to a halt. That's ok, I'd had my fill mentally by 2000 anyway. There are far better ways to live life IMO at least until you're retired or something like that.

[cj]

Originally Posted by MJC922

When I played for a living 3/2 was my prime bet lower-odds limit. I played using the Beyer money management plan set forth in Picking Winners and had my first winning year as a fulltime 'pro' at age 19 strictly adhering to that plan. If I recall it was 5% of bankroll on Prime bets, that is, horses you make even money or less that are going off at 3/2 or more. No more than 2 prime bets on any one day. Total action bets per day were something 2/3rds the amount of one prime and no more than 1/3rd of a prime bet on any one action bet race.

I would also do some things that I figured out on my own over time, e.g. cap the bankroll and then profit-take whenever it went over a certain amount, an amount tied to how much a large bet would move my own odds and also how much I was actually comfortable losing per day.

Someone can correct me on those percentages, I don't have the book handy anymore. Davidowitz put forth essentially the same money management plan. But yea as you said the 'after the gate' thing made all of that 'board shopping' stuff come to a halt. That's ok, I'd had my fill mentally by 2000 anyway. There are far better ways to live life IMO at least until you're retired or something like that.

What was the Beyer money management plan? I have the book somewhere, but probably easier to ask here than dig it out!

[pic6vic]

What can we do if playing vertical. sometimes you wind up with 3/5

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by cj

What was the Beyer money management plan? I have the book somewhere, but probably easier to ask here than dig it out!

His plan was to bet a certain percentage on prime bets and a much lesser amount on action bets. It's probably suitable for a player who gets out once a week or less. They want action. The problem with the plan is that prime bets have a way of popping up in direct correlation to the number drinks consumed.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by AndyC

His plan was to bet a certain percentage on prime bets and a much lesser amount on action bets. It's probably suitable for a player who gets out once a week or less. They want action. The problem with the plan is that prime bets have a way of popping up in direct correlation to the number drinks consumed.

I had 14 prime bets today.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by jay68802

I had 14 prime bets today.

Your post suggests you lost them all...

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Your post suggests you lost them all...

Lost 1, consumed 13.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

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



I admit I'm sometimes a chalk eater - if I think the horse is way stronger than the rest of the field

how about you?

if a horse is 6/5 do you say no way?

What percentage of your 6/5 bets do you have to win to break even? Do your records show you accomplishing that?

[porchy44]

Some tracks make sure you wont bet the chalk to win. Thistledown and Mountaineer particularly. This happens several races a day at those tracks. I am starting to see it more frequently at other tracks.

What happens is the horse opens 1/9, keeping most of the chalk bettors from betting the horse, at least to win. He stays there throughout most of the betting than may drift up a little late.

[Aerocraft67]

Yes, but I try to avoid it.

"What do do with the favorite" is one of the primary handicapping questions. Determining whether or not a favorite is prohibitive has a couple aspects.

Most agree that overlays can be short prices. Probing the absolute limits of odds you'll take, below the threshold of randomness or desired ROI size, is another issue.

If the horse is 4/5, you think he's 3/5, that's an overlay for you. Maybe the horse is 3/5, you think he's 2/5, but you deem 2/5 below the threshold of randomness, or below the ROI threshold you'll accept (betting a lot to make a little). That makes even this overlaid favorite prohibitive.

I can't play with that kind of precision. Final odds variance makes this even tougher when parsing out short prices.

I regard odds-on faves with inherent skepticism. I probably err on overlooking short-priced overlays and overbetting alternatives. Might qualify as a cognitive bias. But I justify this by adhering to the "bet a little to win a lot" principle. Requiring a decent ROI, not just a positive one.

Short prices lead the public to play more verticals, which pushes underlays into those pools. So if you believe in the favorite and don't have other opinions, best to bet it on the nose. But, low (if positive) ROI.

Probably another bias here. With everyone wheeling to catch something underneath the favorite, do you really have a good idea underneath? The more I like the underneath horse, the more I'll accept the favorite on top. But I play tight as I can. F/K, F1/F2,F3/K, stuff like that.

Sometimes I do just go chalktastic. Cold exactas, tiny trifectas. But even here, with my fuzzy precision, I'm basically telling myself that my 4/1 exacta proposition is really 3/1. It's an overlay by association. More bias?

Short fields give us short prices and sometimes there's little choice but to reckon with short odds. Or pass. Things aren't so bad right now with full fields. Favorites have salvageable odds. Many alternatives are plausible. Good times.

Now, an underlaid short priced favorite gets more interesting. Still more bias, but nearly every favorite has a vulnerability of some kind. When I see 3/5 and think that's just too low, then the rest of the field just got closer to overlay. I think the data tell us that's not precisely true, but there's more margin for error out there in fourth choice territory. Let the whales fight out the precision on the top choices (not that I'm under any illusion they're not playing the entire board).

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by MJC922

When I played for a living 3/2 was my prime bet lower-odds limit. I played using the Beyer money management plan set forth in Picking Winners and had my first winning year as a fulltime 'pro' at age 19 strictly adhering to that plan.

I find that incredibly impressive at age 19. It was hard to learn back in those days.

I read that book when it came out, started making my own figures, looking for biases, looking at trainers etc..and stuck with the betting rules, but had a number of small losing years before eventually breaking through with trainer patterns on longshots. I never made a dime in my life with plays based on speed figures (especially short priced ones below 5/2) even though figures were almost always part of my game. I actually did better with speed figures in harness racing in those early days that were adjusted for ground loss, post position, and fractions. I had a few small winning years before focusing exclusively on thoroughbreds and struggling again for a time.

[JerryBoyle]

I eat chalk for sure, but I don't hate it. Most of my $ is made on races where the 1st or 2nd favorite runs as expected. If I see a race where a huge longshot has won, I don't scan my tickets and just assume the race was a loser for me.

I'd imagine anyone who bets using an odds line, regresses his estimates with the market's in some way, and sizes bets using some type of kelly staking strategy will have similar experiences. Basically, I'm hoping to produce a slightly better estimate in the 5-1 and lower range then collect a decent rebate.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I find that incredibly impressive at age 19. It was hard to learn back in those days.

I read that book when it came out, started making my own figures, looking for biases, looking at trainers etc..and stuck with the betting rules, but had a number of small losing years before eventually breaking through with trainer patterns on longshots. I never made a dime in my life with plays based on speed figures (especially short priced ones below 5/2) even though figures were almost always part of my game. I actually did better with speed figures in harness racing in those early days that were adjusted for ground loss, post position, and fractions. I had a few small winning years before focusing exclusively on thoroughbreds and struggling again for a time.

Even though they're not considered "speed figures", you must have never been a "sheets" or "rags" user/player.....Were far ahead of their time and the game itself.