Overlays?

[pandy]

I have question for all of you who are interested in participating.

Are there really overlays under double-digit payoffs? Yes, I've had win bets on favorites and horses that were second choices that seemed like great value at the time. I remember when I bet Easy Goer in the Belmont, I thought he was a lock and I think he paid $5.20 but the price was lowered because he was part of an entry. Still, I thought it was great value because I just couldn't see him losing that race and I bet about five times more than I normally did.

But, over the many years of betting horses, I know that in that price range, favorites, second choices in particular, I had to lose money on those bets. But I know that on higher odds horses, especially longshots, 6-1 on up, I had so many nice hits, particularly in exactas, but also in doubles and trifecta keys, that I made money on those bets.

So, here is my question. As either a win bet or an exotic key in exactas or trifectas, in other words, same-race exotics, is it worth betting horses at say 3-1 or lower odds?

Now let me preface this, I'm only interested in mathematics. I know that some people bet the lower odds horses and longshots even though they know the lower odds horses are losers, they also know it helps keep run outs down so it's easier mentally. Forget about that. The question is, can you possibly show a profit betting horses at 3-1 or lower odds? And if you can't, are there really overlays in that price range?

[thaskalos]

Of course there are overlays at odds of 3-1 or lower. In today's 5 and 6 horse fields...a horse could be a legitimate overlay even at odds of 8/5. If a horse is obviously the best in a 6-horse field, and there is only one other legitimate contender in the race...then what odds do you expect to get?

[Poindexter]

Mathematically, value is value. Whether a horse that should be 2-1 is 3-1 or a horse that should be 4-1 is 6-1. However, I feel like the big money(whatever you want to call those pulling the trigger) hammers the obvious low price value most of the time. So if I have 2 horses in a race one is 2-1(my line) at 3-1 with 5 minutes to post and the other is 6-1 at 10-1 , the first likely will be close to 2-1 by the time the race goes off while the 10-1 will likely pay 8-1 or better. So I think in this day and age the bulk of your value plays will bet 5-1 and up. I actually am beginning to track my value wagers, so in about 3 months I will have an idea what percentage of my plays are 5-1 plus, but over the first week's sample, just about all are 5-1 plus actual odds.

One final note, going back to the race where I have the 2-1 who is 3-1 and 6-1 at 10-1, assuming the 2-1 is dropping to 2-1 by the bell and the value maintains on the 10-1, does not mean I am not playing the 2-1 shot. My key and straight play is the 10-1 shot, but certainly I am going to have exactas, tri's, supers, pick 3's.......using or keying that 2-1 shot, it is just my main focus is on the 10-1 shot.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Of course there are overlays at odds of 3-1 or lower. In today's 5 and 6 horse fields...a horse could be a legitimate overlay even at odds of 8/5. If a horse is obviously the best in a 6-horse field, and there is only one other legitimate contender in the race...then what odds do you expect to get?

Theoretically I would agree with you. But at that odds range, especially with win bets, the chances of showing a profit over any significant period of time aren't very good. Now I know some would say that the chances of showing a profit aren't good in any odds range. But the bottom line is, the chances of showing a profit are significantly better in the higher odds range.

In the various handicapping contests, which are based on ROI, all of the successful contest players bet longshots every race. I've tested various methods that I've developed on my website and several have produced positive ROI's, because of longshot winners. But none of them have shown a positive ROI in that price range.

Here's another example, there are various newspaper handicappers who make picks for the NYRA tracks every day. Over the years, Steve Matthews of Newsday has had many profitable meets on his top picks. But he also has the lowest win percentage of all of the newspaper handicappers. I doubt that any of the other newspaper handicappers have come close to him on positive outcome meets. Of course, Steve doesn't pick the horse he thinks has the best chance of winning, as most public handicappers do. He picks horses that he thinks may be good value.

This is always the pattern I've seen, not only with my own picks, but with every winning player I've ever met.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Mathematically, value is value. Whether a horse that should be 2-1 is 3-1 or a horse that should be 4-1 is 6-1. However, I feel like the big money(whatever you want to call those pulling the trigger) hammers the obvious low price value most of the time. So if I have 2 horses in a race one is 2-1(my line) at 3-1 with 5 minutes to post and the other is 6-1 at 10-1 , the first likely will be close to 2-1 by the time the race goes off while the 10-1 will likely pay 8-1 or better. So I think in this day and age the bulk of your value plays will bet 5-1 and up. I actually am beginning to track my value wagers, so in about 3 months I will have an idea what percentage of my plays are 5-1 plus, but over the first week's sample, just about all are 5-1 plus actual odds.

One final note, going back to the race where I have the 2-1 who is 3-1 and 6-1 at 10-1, assuming the 2-1 is dropping to 2-1 by the bell and the value maintains on the 10-1, does not mean I am not playing the 2-1 shot. My key and straight play is the 10-1 shot, but certainly I am going to have exactas, tri's, supers, pick 3's.......using or keying that 2-1 shot, it is just my main focus is on the 10-1 shot.

Yes, I realize that most players, myself included, are going to use low odds horses in multi race exotics. But I'm talking about either win bets or the key horse in same-race exotics, such as exactas or trifectas. Your 5-1 base makes sense and I would guess that it will prove to produce a higher ROI than lower odds.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by pandy

Theoretically I would agree with you. But at that odds range, especially with win bets, the chances of showing a profit over any significant period of time aren't very good. Now I know some would say that the chances of showing a profit aren't good in any odds range. But the bottom line is, the chances of showing a profit are significantly better in the higher odds range.

In the various handicapping contests, which are based on ROI, all of the successful contest players bet longshots every race. I've tested various methods that I've developed on my website and several have produced positive ROI's, because of longshot winners. But none of them have shown a positive ROI in that price range.

Here's another example, there are various newspaper handicappers who make picks for the NYRA tracks every day. Over the years, Steve Matthews of Newsday has had many profitable meets on his top picks. But he also has the lowest win percentage of all of the newspaper handicappers.

This is always the pattern I've seen, not only with my own picks, but with every winning player I've ever met.

You can't make any blanket statements about overlays, nor can you restrict them to particular odds ranges...because the circumstances are different in every race. The size of the field, and the true contenders in the race, dictate what return we should be willing to accept for the risk that we are being asked to take.

In a contentious 10-horse field...I may be reluctant to wager on my pick even if I am getting odds of 5-1...while a true stick-out in a non-contentious 6-horse race may be a bargain at 8/5.

There is a very good reason why the tournament players are betting mostly longshots; they are not only trying to show a profit...but they are also trying to outperform the OTHER profitable contest participants. In real-life horseplaying, we don't have to restrict ourselves to longshot betting...because we are not trying to finish on top of any contestant list. All we are trying to do is show a decent profit.

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by pandy

Theoretically I would agree with you. But at that odds range, especially with win bets, the chances of showing a profit over any significant period of time aren't very good. Now I know some would say that the chances of showing a profit aren't good in any odds range. But the bottom line is, the chances of showing a profit are significantly better in the higher odds range.

In the various handicapping contests, which are based on ROI, all of the successful contest players bet longshots every race. I've tested various methods that I've developed on my website and several have produced positive ROI's, because of longshot winners. But none of them have shown a positive ROI in that price range.

Here's another example, there are various newspaper handicappers who make picks for the NYRA tracks every day. Over the years, Steve Matthews of Newsday has had many profitable meets on his top picks. But he also has the lowest win percentage of all of the newspaper handicappers. I doubt that any of the other newspaper handicappers have come close to him on positive outcome meets. Of course, Steve doesn't pick the horse he thinks has the best chance of winning, as most public handicappers do. He picks horses that he thinks may be good value.

This is always the pattern I've seen, not only with my own picks, but with every winning player I've ever met.

I presume these tournaments are all based on a small number of races. Such events will always favor going for broke. Furthermore, that playing longshot can be profitable, does not mean playing low priced horses can't also be profitable.

Likewise, in your second example, if you must make a pick in every race, picking longshots gives you a better chance of having a winning meet. The only way betting low priced horses can succeed is if you are very selective of the races you bet.

[PressThePace]

Originally Posted by pandy

Theoretically I would agree with you. But at that odds range, especially with win bets, the chances of showing a profit over any significant period of time aren't very good. Now I know some would say that the chances of showing a profit aren't good in any odds range. But the bottom line is, the chances of showing a profit are significantly better in the higher odds range.

In the various handicapping contests, which are based on ROI, all of the successful contest players bet longshots every race. I've tested various methods that I've developed on my website and several have produced positive ROI's, because of longshot winners. But none of them have shown a positive ROI in that price range.

Here's another example, there are various newspaper handicappers who make picks for the NYRA tracks every day. Over the years, Steve Matthews of Newsday has had many profitable meets on his top picks. But he also has the lowest win percentage of all of the newspaper handicappers. I doubt that any of the other newspaper handicappers have come close to him on positive outcome meets. Of course, Steve doesn't pick the horse he thinks has the best chance of winning, as most public handicappers do. He picks horses that he thinks may be good value.

This is always the pattern I've seen, not only with my own picks, but with every winning player I've ever met.

I have no doubt that people can show a profit, even over the long haul, by betting 3/1 and lower overlays. But just because these plays are still overlays, it's not like there are an abundance of them, even when compared to "higher" overlays. I think people can easily make the mistake of thinking that there are spot plays everywhere within that range....not so. My play consists of making win bets at odds of 5/1 or higher. It's what works for me based on years and years of record-keeping. I can't show a profit on anything less.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by pandy

I have question for all of you who are interested in participating.

Are there really overlays under double-digit payoffs? Yes, I've had win bets on favorites and horses that were second choices that seemed like great value at the time. I remember when I bet Easy Goer in the Belmont, I thought he was a lock and I think he paid $5.20 but the price was lowered because he was part of an entry. Still, I thought it was great value because I just couldn't see him losing that race and I bet about five times more than I normally did.

But, over the many years of betting horses, I know that in that price range, favorites, second choices in particular, I had to lose money on those bets. But I know that on higher odds horses, especially longshots, 6-1 on up, I had so many nice hits, particularly in exactas, but also in doubles and trifecta keys, that I made money on those bets.

So, here is my question. As either a win bet or an exotic key in exactas or trifectas, in other words, same-race exotics, is it worth betting horses at say 3-1 or lower odds?

Now let me preface this, I'm only interested in mathematics. I know that some people bet the lower odds horses and longshots even though they know the lower odds horses are losers, they also know it helps keep run outs down so it's easier mentally. Forget about that. The question is, can you possibly show a profit betting horses at 3-1 or lower odds? And if you can't, are there really overlays in that price range?

If you're talking about restricting play only to low-odds horses, then it would be more difficult. But, in my opinion, if you look at the winning chances of each horse in a field -- and, particularly, if you have a methodology that allows you to know exactly why and "how much" you "like" any particular horse (such as through the production of a full-field odds line, for example, where that line is based on statistical data rather than subjective intuition) -- it will produce a mixture of short-priced overlays as well as long-priced ones. The short-priced overlays can then represent better betting risks on a case-by-case basis, both because they have a better chance of winning than a longer-odds horse (that is, because you're playing the percentages), and because it doesn't take as much of an odds disparity between their fair odds and their actual odds to make them a greater proportional overlay.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

I presume these tournaments are all based on a small number of races. Such events will always favor going for broke. Furthermore, that playing longshot can be profitable, does not mean playing low priced horses can't also be profitable.

Likewise, in your second example, if you must make a pick in every race, picking longshots gives you a better chance of having a winning meet. The only way betting low priced horses can succeed is if you are very selective of the races you bet.

That's a valid point, obviously to have a chance to show a profit on horses 3-1 or lower you would have to be very selective. But, this is yet another pitfall of lower odds range horses. To win at betting horses, it's not just the ROI, it's also the number of plays that count towards a potential winning season. If you can find one 2-1 shot a week that produces a long term profit of 5% and you bet $100 on it at the end of the year you will have a profit of $250, which is insignificant. Any profitable method in the lower odds range must be able to produce a pretty substantial amount of plays, otherwise it is worthless.

With longshots, this isn't true. One good longshot a week keyed in say a $50 exacta box with the favorite can produce a sizeable profit at the end of the year. But, with longshots, I've found that if you have a method that is good at picking longshots, you do not need to limit your plays. You should be able to find anywhere from 25 to 50 good longshot bets a week.

Years ago some computer handicapping website was selling longshot picks with a money back guarantee. They would literally give out 20 to 30 longshot picks a day and they showed a profit, on paper, almost every month. I've never seen anyone come close to doing that with 3-1 or lower priced horses.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by Overlay

If you're talking about restricting play only to low-odds horses, then it would be more difficult. But, in my opinion, if you look at the winning chances of each horse in a field -- and, particularly, if you have a methodology that allows you to know exactly why and "how much" you "like" any particular horse (such as through the production of a full-field odds line, for example, where that line is based on statistical data rather than subjective intuition) -- it will produce a mixture of short-priced overlays as well as long-priced ones. The short-priced overlays can then represent better betting risks on a case-by-case basis, both because they have a better chance of winning than a longer-odds horse (that is, because you're playing the percentages), and because it doesn't take as much of an odds disparity between their fair odds and their actual odds to make them a greater proportional overlay.

Totally agree with everything you just said...in theory. Again though, in real life, I don't see it.

One of the biggest problems with these lower odds range horses, there isn't enough leverage. As you say, it would appear that they could be proportionally better overlays. But, unless you're an absolute master handicapper, most of these will be merely "perceived" overlays. As I said earlier, I've hit horses, many in fact, that were 8-5 to 3-1 and they won and I thought they were great bets. But there were many that I thought were great bets that lost, and in reality, many of those were probably either underlays or about what they should be, no value.

With the horses I bet that are, say, between 6-1 and 20-1, even though some of these are also underlays, because no methodology is always right, I know that in the long run, most of them are clear overlays because I know that the methodology that I used to pick the horse is sound and therefore the horse is a legitimate contender and should not be going off that high.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by pandy

Totally agree with everything you just said...in theory. Again though, in real life, I don't see it.

One of the biggest problems with these lower odds range horses, there isn't enough leverage. As you say, it would appear that they could be proportionally better overlays. But, unless you're an absolute master handicapper, most of these will be merely "perceived" overlays. As I said earlier, I've hit horses, many in fact, that were 8-5 to 3-1 and they won and I thought they were great bets. But there were many that I thought were great bets that lost, and in reality, many of those were probably either underlays or about what they should be, no value.

With the horses I bet that are, say, between 6-1 and 20-1, even though some of these are also underlays, because no methodology is always right, I know that in the long run, most of them are clear overlays because I know that the methodology that I used to pick the horse is sound and therefore the horse is a legitimate contender and should not be going off that high.

I agree with much of what you've posted, Pandy. However, when you're speaking of overlays, they're not confined to the win pools only. I've seen many a race where my line on a horse was pounded down below profitability, but was an overlay in the exacta or DD pools. It's not as if I'm telling you something new, it's just that for the most part, horseplayers are just too lazy to do the work it takes to find the overlays in ALL pools, giving them enough EV+ plays to grind out an extra or full-time income. I get tired of seeing so many posts lately of how tough the game is now, when it just takes more hard work than many players are willing to give.....

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by pandy

That's a valid point, obviously to have a chance to show a profit on horses 3-1 or lower you would have to be very selective. But, this is yet another pitfall of lower odds range horses. To win at betting horses, it's not just the ROI, it's also the number of plays that count towards a potential winning season. If you can find one 2-1 shot a week that produces a long term profit of 5% and you bet $100 on it at the end of the year you will have a profit of $250, which is insignificant. Any profitable method in the lower odds range must be able to produce a pretty substantial amount of plays, otherwise it is worthless.

With longshots, this isn't true. One good longshot a week keyed in say a $50 exacta box with the favorite can produce a sizeable profit at the end of the year. But, with longshots, I've found that if you have a method that is good at picking longshots, you do not need to limit your plays. You should be able to find anywhere from 25 to 50 good longshot bets a week.

Years ago some computer handicapping website was selling longshot picks with a money back guarantee. They would literally give out 20 to 30 longshot picks a day and they showed a profit, on paper, almost every month. I've never seen anyone come close to doing that with 3-1 or lower priced horses.

You should be able to find several low-priced overlays per day, not one per week. And longshot picks are much easier to sell than favorite picks, even if the favorite picks are profitable.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by pandy

Totally agree with everything you just said...in theory. Again though, in real life, I don't see it.

One of the biggest problems with these lower odds range horses, there isn't enough leverage. As you say, it would appear that they could be proportionally better overlays. But, unless you're an absolute master handicapper, most of these will be merely "perceived" overlays.

That was the point of my comment about the use of statistical data, rather than subjective opinion, in the formulation of the odds line. It provides a more substantial basis for the calculation of winning probabilities and the detection of betting value (even at low odds ranges) than intuitive perception.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

You should be able to find several low-priced overlays per day, not one per week. And longshot picks are much easier to sell than favorite picks, even if the favorite picks are profitable.

If you mean sell, like a selection service or tip sheet, favorites that show a profit would be much easier to sell than longshots that show a profit. I know, I sell picks and I do picks for a sheet (Lawton). Most people who buy selections actually only play on weekends, with Saturday by the far the biggest day, and it's actually very difficult to generate sales if you pick 15% winners and show a profit. Most people who go to the track want to win as many races as possible.

The question I've been asked the most has been something like, "Can you provide picks or a method that generates a small profit on 35 to 40% winners?" Everyone wants the easy way out, but it really doesn't work like that, usually lower win percentages produce higher profits.


I've been testing a new handicapping method on my website. It's profitable so far and hitting at 25% with an average win price of 7-2, and the exactas are profitable. But I think I could increase the profit if I eliminate most of the favorites that it picks.

For the Del Mar and Saratoga meets I'm also tracking my Diamond System top pick based on "best of last 3" option and the top pick is hitting at 20% with a profit. If it picked more favorites, or lower odds range horses, the win % would go up but the profit would be gone.