Last Minute Odds Drop Analysis

[JohnGalt1]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

The pools these days are very shallow until about 4MTP. He would be tipping his hand by betting at 8MTP. At some tracks and on some races money doesn't start to roll in until almost post time. For instance 2yo maiden races with a lot of firsters are unlikely to get much action until very late especially at tracks with small handles. If you have not watched pool sizes as the MTPs decrease, you are in for a real education. The % of the final pool that does not show up until the race has started is very high. We don't have numbers for the pre-simulcast days, but I suspect that was always true at least on weekdays. Weekends always presented the prospect of being shut out so people bet a little earlier. Now days if you are sitting in front of your computer and are able to watch the horses load live, there is no reason to bet before the last possible second hoping to catch one more flash. There is no way to get almost of the money in before you bet. You will be always be guessing on what the final odds will be.

Isn't this because the simulcast and ADW facilities transfer their bets in late so that 75% of the money is shown the last 3 minutes before post time?

[JohnGalt1]

I have to disagree.

About 75% of my bets are win bets. I avoid losing streaks this way.

If you look at pool totals for almost all races, exactas have more money, win bets second, and I would guess trifecta bets third.

Another reason for my high percentage if win betting is the proliferation of $.20 minimums and jackpot bets.

I love tracks like Hawthorne. But since they instituted $.20 jackpot pick sixes and $.20 minimum exotics my handle has gone down, but I will make my win bets.

Of the last 10 days I bet horses, some days I played more than one track, 8 were profitable.

That would not be the case if I only played pick fours or trifectas.

[barn32]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

My opinion is that roughly 1-of-every-7 dollars wagered in the U.S. originates from 6 primary and about 40 secondary sources. That's 14% of all handle!

Side note:
Consider, then, that this figure (logically) goes up at high rebate tracks and down at lower tracks. I concluded that at the highest rebate tracks 28% would not be an unreasonable pool percentage and at the low rebate tracks around 4%.

At what point would the higher odds at the low rebate track more than compensate for the higher rebate?

And wouldn't the whales also notice this phenomenon and pounce on it?

Ex:

Track A No rebate
Track B 7% rebate

Horse #1, Track A, 0 MTP 3-1 (goes off at 5/2)
Horse #1, Track B, 0 MTP 3-1 (Goes off at 6/5)

It's true they couldn't bet as much money as they are normally accustomed to, but at some point getting 5/2 (or close to it) has to compensate or surpass a 7% rebate...no?

Betting $1500 to win at 6/5 with a 7% rebate nets you about $1905.
Betting $500 to win at 2/1 with no rebate nets you $1000. You won almost half but you only had to risk 1/3 as much.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by traynor

Out of curiosity, did you ever try to layer it by track, or by track groups? One of the most useful patterns I have seen (and described in detail in other posts) is that at certain tracks, there seems to be a continuous feed of wagers (rather than a dump at the end) that keep a particular entry close to even money, rarely higher than 2/1. It seems almost as if betting is being fed into the pools in a manner that discourages late money. That is, the "value bettors" who might otherwise dilute the pools with last minute wagers either pass the race or bet on other entries offering "better value."

It would be less interesting if it were not for the fact that such entries win a very large percentage of their races--much more so than "normal"--and provide a healthy ROI as a result.

You may find it more interesting (and possibly rewarding) to track the wagering patterns over a larger span of time, broken down by track. One of the odd things about that particular scenario is that the final odds are usually close to even money--the opposite of what one would expect with last minute wagers by serious bettors. When the odds take a sudden drop at the last minute to less than 3/5 (0 MTP), the win rate plummets. In short, the complete opposite of what one would expect of "smart money betting on a sure thing."

Of course, that is only my opinion, and I have no interest in "proving" it. If you have the software already, locating such a pattern should be relatively trivial, if you layer by track, and/or by open races for winners, rather than races carded for non-winners.

Since I always try to avoid betting many tracks, I had limited my research only to AQU and Tampa which were running by the time I was conducting my experiments.

Again, I was not able to find any kind of logic or pattern, to predict with significant accuracy the direction of the late money and simply gave up on the idea.

[barn32]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Let me tell you what I think: It isn't just the "whales" who are taking over after the 0 MTP mark at the minor tracks. It's the too-late betting insiders too...who are mimicking those mysterious whales.

I have been doing my own research into these very late adds dropdowns...and these horses often do not warrant the late action that they get. The guys who are making these bets possess more than the normal handicapping information that the rest of us have access to.

Forgive me if I am overly paranoid here...but I don't think that the whales are solely responsible for this late-late betting phenomenon.

If we eliminate the whales from the above analysis, then who exactly are the informed late bettors? Are they trainers? Owners? Jockeys?

In my experience, knowing a lot of the above kinds of "racetrackers," and with only few exceptions, they are some of the worst gamblers out there. Oh sure, they make some scores from time to time, but they blow a lot too--especially jockeys.

Aside from maybe some owners, the trainers, jockeys, grooms and backsiders aren't all that big of bettors anyway. Perhaps collectively they might add up to a significant amount, but individually I'm not so sure.

[And speaking of owners: many if not most of them have a tendency to fall in love with their own horses.]

And how often are these "insiders" right? The evidence presented in this thread suggests (at least to me) that the informed late money is right a very high percentage of the time.

Take the case of the 9/2 horse going off at 6/5 and winning in hand. This example could very well be insiders (racetrackers) taking advantage of a horse they know is ready to pop. But if that's true, then you have to take into consideration all 9/2 horses going off at 6/5 and computing their win percentage. If all of these types of dropdowns win a high percentage of the time then you have something to hang your hat on. If just some of them win from time to time, not so much.

[Dave Schwartz]

At what point would the higher odds at the low rebate track more than compensate for the higher rebate?

And wouldn't the whales also notice this phenomenon and pounce on it?

I have no idea.

If we eliminate the whales from the above analysis, then who exactly are the informed late bettors? Are they trainers? Owners? Jockeys?

Asch and Quandt wrote about this back in 1986 or so.

They showed (at a single meet at one track - LOL - ATL, BTW) that people who wager in the last 5 minutes get better results (based upon the tote board money wagered). IOW, the supposition was that later bettors are smarter.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

In order for the largest bettors in the game to get the "proper amount" on a horse to win and not win too much of their own money, they have to keep the horse they like at market value or below....if that horse who SHOULD be 1-1 drifts to 8-5 at the gate load, there's a shot the horse could go lower than 1-1.

If a big bettor wants 10k to win on a horse who figures to close at around 1-1, he can start betting 1k to win each flash starting at 8 or 9 MTP (depending on the track and their propensity to not start the race at 0 MTP) as opposed to sinking the entire 10k to win as the last horse is loading.

He's much better off dripping and drabbing the cash rather than taking a huge chunk at the end.

I agree. I think it is unwise to believe that "whales" betting millions at a crack sit poised with fingers on the Bet Now button with wagers contingent on "available odds." The whales create the odds--not respond to them. The more they expose their selections via last minute dumps, the less value those selections have. The more of their money they can get down on a high-probability winner without attracting chump money chasing the rainbow of "following insider betting trends" the more value those selections have.

The ideal situation is one in which every winning wager on a given horse (that wins) is made by the whale.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Since I always try to avoid betting many tracks, I had limited my research only to AQU and Tampa which were running by the time I was conducting my experiments.

Again, I was not able to find any kind of logic or pattern, to predict with significant accuracy the direction of the late money and simply gave up on the idea.

Two suggestions. First, there are fairly distinct categories of "more predictable" races and "less predictable" races, usually based on race conditions. The greater the tendency of conditions to favor non-winners (in general) the less predictable the race. And the less likely it is that there will be correlations between "smart money" and race results.

Second, comparisons of near-post time odds, post time odds, and final odds. Most people are followers--they tend to overbet low-odds entries on the (usually correct) assumption that others know more than they do. However correct, that assumption does not guarantee those others know which horse will win--the rather dismal performance of odds-on favorites should be a warning sign of the futility of such wagers.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by barn32

If we eliminate the whales from the above analysis, then who exactly are the informed late bettors? Are they trainers? Owners? Jockeys?

In my experience, knowing a lot of the above kinds of "racetrackers," and with only few exceptions, they are some of the worst gamblers out there. Oh sure, they make some scores from time to time, but they blow a lot too--especially jockeys.

Aside from maybe some owners, the trainers, jockeys, grooms and backsiders aren't all that big of bettors anyway. Perhaps collectively they might add up to a significant amount, but individually I'm not so sure.

[And speaking of owners: many if not most of them have a tendency to fall in love with their own horses.]

And how often are these "insiders" right? The evidence presented in this thread suggests (at least to me) that the informed late money is right a very high percentage of the time.

Take the case of the 9/2 horse going off at 6/5 and winning in hand. This example could very well be insiders (racetrackers) taking advantage of a horse they know is ready to pop. But if that's true, then you have to take into consideration all 9/2 horses going off at 6/5 and computing their win percentage. If all of these types of dropdowns win a high percentage of the time then you have something to hang your hat on. If just some of them win from time to time, not so much.

That is the point at which human psychology dictates actions, rather than reality. If one believes in a given premise, results that seem to validate that premise will be strongly remembered, while results that conflict with the premise will be easily (and routinely) forgotten. Those wagering from "experience" rather than solid research are the most subject to such distortions.

The actual probabilities of various categories of final odds entries winning seems to be one of the most avoided areas of research--probably because it conflicts with some of the most cherished beliefs of bettors.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by barn32

If we eliminate the whales from the above analysis, then who exactly are the informed late bettors? Are they trainers? Owners? Jockeys?

In my experience, knowing a lot of the above kinds of "racetrackers," and with only few exceptions, they are some of the worst gamblers out there. Oh sure, they make some scores from time to time, but they blow a lot too--especially jockeys.

Aside from maybe some owners, the trainers, jockeys, grooms and backsiders aren't all that big of bettors anyway. Perhaps collectively they might add up to a significant amount, but individually I'm not so sure.

[And speaking of owners: many if not most of them have a tendency to fall in love with their own horses.]

And how often are these "insiders" right? The evidence presented in this thread suggests (at least to me) that the informed late money is right a very high percentage of the time.

Take the case of the 9/2 horse going off at 6/5 and winning in hand. This example could very well be insiders (racetrackers) taking advantage of a horse they know is ready to pop. But if that's true, then you have to take into consideration all 9/2 horses going off at 6/5 and computing their win percentage. If all of these types of dropdowns win a high percentage of the time then you have something to hang your hat on. If just some of them win from time to time, not so much.

Is this based on tips you got from them? They do not tell outsiders squat. Big money from the backstretch almost always wins. How to tell if it is backstretch money or just some fool who has too much money is another story.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Is this based on tips you got from them? They do not tell outsiders squat. Big money from the backstretch almost always wins. How to tell if it is backstretch money or just some fool who has too much money is another story.

The question would then be, how do you know this to be true? It may be, but how could you (or anyone else) ever really know?

[barn32]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Is this based on tips you got from them? They do not tell outsiders squat. Big money from the backstretch almost always wins. How to tell if it is backstretch money or just some fool who has too much money is another story.

Finally, after 70 posts we have gotten to the bottom of things.

Now, if I want to be successful playing the horses, all I have to do is to follow the strategy my best friend used back in the 70s...follow the trainers to the windows.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by barn32

Finally, after 70 posts we have gotten to the bottom of things.

Now, if I want to be successful playing the horses, all I have to do is to follow the strategy my best friend used back in the 70s...follow the trainers to the windows.

That didn't work in the 70s and it won't work now because when the big money is bet, the trainer has somebody else do it for him. My dad was one of those people for a while for a trainer in the late 1960s. That ended when a couple people got wise and started following my dad to the window. Of course the people on the other side of the glass figured it almost immediately.
My rule has always been if you see trainer anyplace near a window, you can scratch that horse off of your possible wagers. He is making a small bet for the jockey or the owner just in case 5 horse go down and his horse wins. $20 across the board or $50 win tickets used to popular amounts for those types of bets. I know this because I was a teller for a while many, many years ago. I also hung out on the backstretch some because my dad was close friends with a few trainers.