Belmont Morning line maker change this week

[Robert Fischer]

the absolute WORST thing some hotshot ODDSMAKER can do is accurately handicap the RESULTS.

[wisconsin]

The linemaker's job is to handicap the public play. For some reason, it is now that many oddsmakers will have one eye on the bettors and one eye on the horses actual chances. The mornig line is not supposed have anything to do with handicapping selections.

[HUSKER55]

THE linemaker is supposed to guess what the public will offer. You decide if the public will be right or wrong.


What am I missing?

[The Hawk]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

I don't agree. The best morning line odds-maker I ever encountered was B.J. O'Neill who made the NYRA program odds for many, many years up until around 1980. He would absolutely gloat when, for example, a horse he made 6/1 on the line would go off 17/1 on the tote and win.

During the time he "presided" as M/L oddsmaker for NYRA, he had an unwritten rule that he would NEVER list a horse at greater than 20/1. He made it a point to tell me that making a M/L is more art than science, and combines forecasting BOTH the likely betting of the public with the likely outcome of the race.

Why would he gloat when he made a bad line? And why would he not make a horse more than 20-1, when some horses go to post at better than 99-1? Everything about this is wrong, except the art vs. science part.

[Marlin]

Originally Posted by The Hawk

And why would he not make a horse more than 20-1, when some horses go to post at better than 99-1?

I can think of a few reasons.
1) He doesn't want to publicly humiliate a trainer.
2) He doesn't want to publicly out the racing office on a possibly "hustled" horse.
3) 20-1 on a M/L is high enough to get the point across to the public.

[DoughBoy]

Originally Posted by skipaway100

20-1 at Suffolk the other day went off at 7/2. but in the line maker's defense the horse did finish up the track.

Agree with the last poster. I have no idea why these tracks have these guys on the payroll when they can easily use simple software combiining a few basic principles that the public wagers on (Beyers, Trainer/Jockey, Recent placings, Class moves)

If you are talking about Brendan's Warrior 7th Race on June 20, I was watching and playing that day and an early $500 win bet sent the horse from 20-1 to 4/5 first flash. In an 11 horse field no way that horse should have been anything less than 20-1. He was easily the 10th or 11th likeliest winner of the race. Ended up 5-1 and only beat a 114-1 shot.

[Ocala Mike]

Originally Posted by The Hawk

Why would he gloat when he made a bad line? And why would he not make a horse more than 20-1, when some horses go to post at better than 99-1? Everything about this is wrong, except the art vs. science part.

The answer to your first question is that he gave the horse a better (more realistic) chance to win than the betting public by a factor of about 3/1. Conversely, he hated it when he made a horse 2nd or 3rd choice at 7/2 or 4/1, and it won as the 6/5 favorite.

For the second question, see Marlin's reply above.

Guess it was a different time 30 years ago. I remember working in the calculating room at NYRA, and (like Marlin said) trainers would call him to complain about the odds he had their horses at. It was about respect.


Ocala Mike


P.S. If all you guys are so sure that the M/L oddsmaker is ONLY concerned with predicting the off odds, answer me this:

1. Why do many (not all, I admit) track programs list the lowest 3 or 4 M/L horses in each race as "M/L Selections"?

2. Have any of you EVER seen a printed M/L where there was NOT a single favorite (i.e., the two or three lowest M/L horses had IDENTICAL odds assigned BEFORE SCRATCHES)? I never did; I contend that there always has been and always will be a handicapping component to the M/L oddsmaker's job.


Ocala Mike

[oddsmaven]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

P.S. If all you guys are so sure that the M/L oddsmaker is ONLY concerned with predicting the off odds, answer me this:

1. Why do many (not all, I admit) track programs list the lowest 3 or 4 M/L horses in each race as "M/L Selections"?

2. Have any of you EVER seen a printed M/L where there was NOT a single favorite (i.e., the two or three lowest M/L horses had IDENTICAL odds assigned BEFORE SCRATCHES)? I never did; I contend that there always has been and always will be a handicapping component to the M/L oddsmaker's job.
Ocala Mike

The actual odds are mainly based on factors that have been "handicapped by the crowd", so it's a huge component all right but not to reflect the linemaker's personal opinion.

1. (answer) Surely they don't want there to be any speculation that they are trying to influence/manipulate the odds for a personal bet. It's just meant as a simplistic guide.

2. (answer) It's merely a tradition to make a single favorite. If they estimate a toss-up, they'll just take a stab at which one and make them close.

[PICSIX]

Originally Posted by point given

Jayson Blewitt will be making the Belmont ML this week while Erik Donovan takes a vacation so beware and see how he does. Don't know which day he starts, look at Talking Horses.

In this day and age one would think the odds maker(s) is assisted with a computer program or template of some sort?

[Ocala Mike]

Originally Posted by PICSIX

In this day and age one would think the odds maker(s) is assisted with a computer program or template of some sort?

I watched B.J. O'Neill and, after him, Don LaPlace make the line at NYRA for years using the Daily Racing Form and grade-school arithmetic as their only "templates." Converting fractions to percentages, and getting the total of those percentages to add up to, say 120%, (to account for the takeout )does not require a computer program.


Ocala Mike

[jasperson]

I was watched against the odds this morning because there was nothing else on. The handicappers had nothing new that I had not all ready come up with. It's my practice is not to listen to any handicapper that is not at the track he is handicapping. I don't listen to track announcers that or doubling as handicappers because I don't think they have the time to do both jobs. The handicappers I like are Jill Brynes and Ron Nicollette. I know Jill is from the barn area and she does know what is going on there. What I am looking for is information like this horse was layed off because he was sick or lame. He has lost weight or his coat looks bad or other information like that. As far as handicapping strictlly from the information in drf I can do as good or better job than most of them.

[The Hawk]

Originally Posted by Marlin

I can think of a few reasons.
1) He doesn't want to publicly humiliate a trainer.
2) He doesn't want to publicly out the racing office on a possibly "hustled" horse.
3) 20-1 on a M/L is high enough to get the point across to the public.

Bookmakers should do this, to spare the feelings of college teams that are 40 point underdogs. They should make them 10 points, and let the public bet them into place.

The third is REALLY nonsense. Horses that are 20-1 on the line are sometimes live, for one thing. For another, if you have a full field there are four horses that are legitimate 50-1 shots are you make them 20-1 that translates to 12 points in the ML that you're off, which will be reflected somewhere else in the line. In other words, you're giving out blatantly wrong information intentionally.

[DoughBoy]

Originally Posted by The Hawk

Bookmakers should do this, to spare the feelings of college teams that are 40 point underdogs. They should make them 10 points, and let the public bet them into place.

The third is REALLY nonsense. Horses that are 20-1 on the line are sometimes live, for one thing. For another, if you have a full field there are four horses that are legitimate 50-1 shots are you make them 20-1 that translates to 12 points in the ML that you're off, which will be reflected somewhere else in the line. In other words, you're giving out blatantly wrong information intentionally.

You are absolutely right. These horses that are listed 20-1 and will be over 50-1 inflate the line on legitimate contenders. However I would not put all the blame on the linemakers. I guarantee they are under pressure from Racing Secretarys and Management not to go over 20-1 for fear of making their racing product looks unattractive and unbetable. Racing Secretarys also don't want to see a horse they "hustled" to make a race go listed at 30-1 or 50-1.

[The Hawk]

Originally Posted by DoughBoy

I guarantee they are under pressure from Racing Secretarys and Management not to go over 20-1 for fear of making their racing product looks unattractive and unbetable. Racing Secretarys also don't want to see a horse they "hustled" to make a race go listed at 30-1 or 50-1.

Understood. It's the same situation as making an odds-on horse 5-2 to make the race more attractive to bet. That doesn't make it right.