Benter & public odds

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by delayjf

After observing and betting several “bad trip” horse some years back, I started to see a pattern whereby the bad trip horse did not run an improved race in its next start after the bad trip, Rather they showed the anticipated improvement in the second start after the obvious bad trip.

I have had similar experiences at times.

I started thinking that some of them were such extreme trips, the horses were unlikely to duplicate that effort consistently.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by delayjf

I can’t help but wonder; just as Beyer has changed the way he applied his speed figures back from when that book was written, so to has the application of trip handicapping changed.

Back in the 70’s with the public masses not using speed figures, Beyer could make a profit focusing on those horses with the best last race speed figures. In that same light, I’m guessing that Charlie was able to focus on the kinds of bad trips that were ignored then, but are now more obvious and available to the public.

It would be interesting to hear from those who used trip handicapping back in its infancy to see if what worked then, works today or what kind of trips they look for today compared to the good old days. Maybe THELITTLEGUY could comment, as I believe he’s big into trip handicapping.

I’ve a sneaking suspicion that some trainers, in an attempt to stay ahead of the crowd, have changed their SOP when running back horses that have had obvious and well documented bad trips. After observing and betting several “bad trip” horse some years back, I started to see a pattern whereby the bad trip horse did not run an improved race in its next start after the bad trip, Rather they showed the anticipated improvement in the second start after the obvious bad trip. Leaving me to believe that the first race back was used as a kind of conditioner to maintain or improve their fitness, while at the same time throwing the informed public off the scent. Then go for the money in the second race back at higher odds.

Im not one who was even playing during the early trip days you speak of, as I was just a kid,but trip handicapping is a big part of the way I play now.

My experience,FWIW, is somewhat related to yours,but specifically more so towards class-droppers.It has been a real bad play (for me)

An example---horse has a somewhat rough/difficult trip ( but not overly obvious) Its now dropped in class,when it would appear that without the trouble/trip in the last race, its clear (at least to me) that the horse could have done much better.

My suspicion is in most cases the trainer is quite aware of the "trouble" that occurred in the last race,and the drop is often a signal that the horses form could be going south.

A lot of this is just speculation on my part,and it doesent really answer your (very interesting) questions.....but only speaking about my own poor results with this type of play.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by delayjf

I can’t help but wonder; just as Beyer has changed the way he applied his speed figures back from when that book was written, so to has the application of trip handicapping changed.

Back in the 70’s with the public masses not using speed figures, Beyer could make a profit focusing on those horses with the best last race speed figures. In that same light, I’m guessing that Charlie was able to focus on the kinds of bad trips that were ignored then, but are now more obvious and available to the public.

It would be interesting to hear from those who used trip handicapping back in its infancy to see if what worked then, works today or what kind of trips they look for today compared to the good old days. Maybe THELITTLEGUY could comment, as I believe he’s big into trip handicapping.

I’ve a sneaking suspicion that some trainers, in an attempt to stay ahead of the crowd, have changed their SOP when running back horses that have had obvious and well documented bad trips. After observing and betting several “bad trip” horse some years back, I started to see a pattern whereby the bad trip horse did not run an improved race in its next start after the bad trip, Rather they showed the anticipated improvement in the second start after the obvious bad trip. Leaving me to believe that the first race back was used as a kind of conditioner to maintain or improve their fitness, while at the same time throwing the informed public off the scent. Then go for the money in the second race back at higher odds.

Delay...I've never heard or read a player who focused on the subtleties the way Beyer relates "Charlie" as having done. According to Beyer in a WaPo article I read in the '80's, "Charlie's" observations (of the jockey's hands, I suspect) in the early '70's led him to announce to the grandstand the race-fixing going on one afternoon at one of the New York tracks.

I briefly discussed "Charlie" with TLG over a year ago here. TLG stated that he knew him personally, but thought of him more as a "physicality" specialist, rather than trips.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by lansdale

You should certainly wait for Dave's answer, but I'm sure he didn't say that Benter claimed that public odds contributed 75% toward the creation of his model. If you are interested in pursuing this line, you should pick up a copy of 'Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Models' which contains the well-known article in which Benter describes his methods. Unfortunately this is no longer available online. If Magister Ludi is around, I have no doubt he has a copy of this work and might be willing to share the algorithm Benter used to combine his model's estimate with that of the public.

Cheers,

lansdale

I did finally locate what I thought I had read.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...5&postcount=71

My point is that I need this reinforcement from good authority periodically, in order to refrain from straying too far from the game's percentages.

[arkansasman]

70% was never a correct percentage.

[Sapio]

Originally Posted by arkansasman

70% was never a correct percentage.

It would be incorrect to define any specific percentage. I would think that the actual percentage would vary depending on the model that is combined with the tote odds.

Thomas Sapio

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I did finally locate what I thought I had read.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...5&postcount=71

My point is that I need this reinforcement from good authority periodically, in order to refrain from straying too far from the game's percentages.

I'm not sure what Dave meant here or what you mean by 'straying too far from the game's percentages' but his quote wasn't close to anything in Benter's article. Possibly there's a source elsewhere.

Benter used the phrase 'public estimate' but he was only using the public odds to extract inside information, i.e. relevant information that was neither available to the vast majority of the betting public nor to his model. If you read his article, you can see that he was betting multiple and often huge overlays in single races.

To really learn from Benter, it might be helpful to hear more from arkansasman, who constructed a successful logit model and had a correspondence with the late Alan Woods, who was for years Benter's partner. Together they made hundreds of millions of dollars betting on horseraces using exactly the type of model Benter describes.

Cheers,

lansdale

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by arkansasman

70% was never a correct percentage.

Hi arkansasman,

Seems to be a very long time since you posted here. You've described in the past your success handicapping with logit (or probit) models, as well as your relationship with Benter's partner Alan Woods. Benter and his work seem to be discussed fairly frequently on this site and it would be very helpful if you could clear up any misconceptions while you're here.

Before his recent disappearance Trifecta Mike was wondering what happened to you. I don't think he was the only one. Glad to have you back.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by lansdale

Hi arkansasman,

Seems to be a very long time since you posted here. You've described in the past your success handicapping with logit (or probit) models, as well as your relationship with Benter's partner Alan Woods. Benter and his work seem to be discussed fairly frequently on this site and it would be very helpful if you could clear up any misconceptions while you're here.

Before his recent disappearance Trifecta Mike was wondering what happened to you. I don't think he was the only one. Glad to have you back.

Cheers,

lansdale

I would like to see him posting again, also.

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Gee, I wish Magister Ludi or TrifectaMike would chime on this discussion with their opinions; I sure sure they would be enlightening.

Good to see you posting again Cratos....I have always enjoyed your inputs...

Still, on a more than a few occasions I have been befuddled a bit by some of your foumulae, but I read them thru and thru, and enjoyed the posts all the same.....

[Hosshead]

Originally Posted by delayjf

I’ve a sneaking suspicion that some trainers, in an attempt to stay ahead of the crowd, have changed their SOP when running back horses that have had obvious and well documented bad trips. After observing and betting several “bad trip” horse some years back, I started to see a pattern whereby the bad trip horse did not run an improved race in its next start after the bad trip, Rather they showed the anticipated improvement in the second start after the obvious bad trip. Leaving me to believe that the first race back was used as a kind of conditioner to maintain or improve their fitness, while at the same time throwing the informed public off the scent. Then go for the money in the second race back at higher odds.

In trip handicapping I noticed similiar patterns of no improvement in the next race.
But usually it was a horse that had an obvious trip problem and everybody knew it. You know, like getting shut off when making a move, taking up sharply, bad break etc.

But the ones who DID run super the next out were the ones who did not have an obvious problem in that previous race.
This led me to suspect that the jockey had been givin specific instructions to hide a horse's form by just plain not trying, .. in a very subtle way.
Maybe he finished within 5 lengths of the winner, with a "cold ride" etc.
That performance was followed by a drop in class in the next race, to "seal the deal". It looked like a drop because he couldn't compete at the higher level. But it wasn't.
They were Two different reasons for a poor performance.
~~ Racing Luck and Man-Made

[delayjf]

In trip handicapping I noticed similiar patterns of no improvement in the next race.
But usually it was a horse that had an obvious trip problem and everybody knew it. You know, like getting shut off when making a move, taking up sharply, bad break etc.

That’s exactly what I was talking about – the obvious bad trip.

Ray Taulbot also championed the idea of the beaten angle horse – meaning, a trainer would give the horse a dull race after some obvious indicator of pending improvement (i.e. flash of early speed or in this case a bad trip).

And speaking of class drops, Since the tendency is for the odds to drop on horses dropping in class; if a trainer wanted to “take out insurance” by dropping his improving horse in class, he could still get a good price if the horse ran a dull race in that first race at the lower class level. The crowd would be thrown off by a) dull effort off the obvious bad trip and b) the dull effort after the drop in class.

[delayjf]

I started thinking that some of them were such extreme trips, the horses were unlikely to duplicate that effort consistently.

I'm always dubious about those horses that have to run their lights out but get beat by a bad trip, for example; contesting a hot pace while wide only to get caught inside the final 1/16.

[Sapio]

Originally Posted by lansdale

Hi arkansasman,

Seems to be a very long time since you posted here. You've described in the past your success handicapping with logit (or probit) models, as well as your relationship with Benter's partner Alan Woods. Benter and his work seem to be discussed fairly frequently on this site and it would be very helpful if you could clear up any misconceptions while you're here.

Before his recent disappearance Trifecta Mike was wondering what happened to you. I don't think he was the only one. Glad to have you back.

Cheers,

lansdale

Let me premise my comments by saying that I am no expert in modelling.

Nearly two years ago, I made an attempt at a regression model (in Excel). I spent six months trying to make it work, I failed repeatedly. My model was never able to achieve an R2 of .135. (no matter how many attributes I used). The best I was able to do was to use Brisnet's Prime Power and public odds. And still no cigar.

The model was always overfit... How does one overcome overfitting the data?

Thomas Sapio

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by Sapio

Let me premise my comments by saying that I am no expert in modelling.

Nearly two years ago, I made an attempt at a regression model (in Excel). I spent six months trying to make it work, I failed repeatedly. My model was never able to achieve an R2 of .135. (no matter how many attributes I used). The best I was able to do was to use Brisnet's Prime Power and public odds. And still no cigar.

The model was always overfit... How does one overcome overfitting the data?

Thomas Sapio

Hi Thomas,

I'm really not the person to answer your question, since I'm not a model-builder, and it's been 7 or 8 years since I read Benter's article, which I no longer have. But I seem to remember him saying that testing the model on a 'take-out' sample of races of a type quite different from the sample or samples used to create the model is the best way to avoid over-fitting. I believe his model was based on 2000-2500 races, and his take-out sample (or samples) were composed of about 200 races. Again, don't hold me to these exact figures, but I think the general idea is correct. Again, if you can pick up a copy of 'Efficiency etc.', which I mentioned previously, that would be the best way to go.

Two people in this thread, who have built successful models are the ones who can give you an accurate answer: arkansasman and Magister Ludi. I'm sure there are also others on the site who could help you with this.

Cheers,

lansdale