Racetrack computer generated morning lines

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Quesmark

If the ML correlates with certain #'s than could capping differently generate better returns...

In my opinion, these are two distinct issues:

1. Predicting the odds.

2. Predicting winners (i.e. probabilities).


I use #2 to bet into #1.

Before I do that, I pick contenders and severely penalize the non-contenders. My record with those non-contenders is excellent, which is why I can penalize them far more than they truly deserve.

In that way I am merely deciding which of my contenders are the logical best bets. (I never bet a non-contender.)

BTW, that "use #2 to bet into #1" thing does not mean I generate accurate probabilities. They are meant to be "relative." That is, of my contenders, which are likely to be the better bets?



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

In my opinion, these are two distinct issues:

1. Predicting the odds.

2. Predicting winners (i.e. probabilities).


I use #2 to bet into #1.

Before I do that, I pick contenders and severely penalize the non-contenders. My record with those non-contenders is excellent, which is why I can penalize them far more than they truly deserve.

In that way I am merely deciding which of my contenders are the logical best bets. (I never bet a non-contender.)

BTW, that "use #2 to bet into #1" thing does not mean I generate accurate probabilities. They are meant to be "relative." That is, of my contenders, which are likely to be the better bets?



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave, Without giving away the key to the mint, I'm interested in what you consider a non contender. For example, if your program says a horse has only a 15-1 or 20-1 probability, do you throw the non-contender tag onto them? Or is it a combination of odds probability and apparent poor form? Thx.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Whosonfirst

Dave, Without giving away the key to the mint, I'm interested in what you consider a non contender. For example, if your program says a horse has only a 15-1 or 20-1 probability, do you throw the non-contender tag onto them? Or is it a combination of odds probability and apparent poor form? Thx.

First, it isn't just "my program." It is an approach I have developed.

Does it work better in my software than doing it by hand? Sure. It's just easier because we have so many factors to work with.

When I say a horse is a "non-contender," specifically, I am looking for an under-performing horse. That is, one that figures to be way overbet relative to his chance of winning.

Even more specifically, I am concentrating my efforts on low-odds horses. My measuring stick is "how well do non-contenders who ultimately go off at 3/1 and below perform?"

For the past 3 years those horses have returned approximately $0.89 per $2 wager for me. In other words, they lose 55% for there backers.

For most players a realistic target is a $1.20 $net. That is, a 40% loss.

So, to address your original question, I might have a N/C that goes off at 3/1 and loses 40%, leaving him with a projected hit rate of 15% --- ($120 / $8.00 = 15%) This is the perfect example of a bet-against horse.

Another example: A 3/5 horse at -40% has a projected hit rate of 37.5% --- ($120 / $3.20 = 37.5%) Another bet against horse.

These "bet against horses" are what fuels positive results.


Dave

[Franco Santiago]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Even more specifically, I am concentrating my efforts on low-odds horses. My measuring stick is "how well do non-contenders who ultimately go off at 3/1 and below perform?"

For the past 3 years those horses have returned approximately $0.89 per $2 wager for me. In other words, they lose 55% for there backers.

Purely out of curiosity, do you analyze your performance of "low odds" horses as a group, or do you break 'em down even further? The reason I ask is that I can see you getting a return of .89 per $2 bet on horses in the 2-1 to 3-1 range, but getting that type of return on 4/5s and less seems quite difficult. If you are doing it, congrats! But I'd have to see it to believe it (and no, I don't care to :-) (saying this in case you were gonna invite me...I am comfortable with my own methods)).

[mountainman]

With strong factions making move and countermove now in the win pool at Mnr, it's extremely difficult to do an accurate morning line.

In this era of the volatile tote, I more pride myself on watching where the early money lands and then accurately predicting tote movement and closing odds. It's a more doable than crafting a good morning line, but does require guts and a feel for live action.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Franco Santiago

Purely out of curiosity, do you analyze your performance of "low odds" horses as a group, or do you break 'em down even further? The reason I ask is that I can see you getting a return of .89 per $2 bet on horses in the 2-1 to 3-1 range, but getting that type of return on 4/5s and less seems quite difficult. If you are doing it, congrats! But I'd have to see it to believe it (and no, I don't care to :-) (saying this in case you were gonna invite me...I am comfortable with my own methods)).

While it is more difficult to find a 3/5 or 4/5 horse to toss, the tosses are actually better (at losing money).