Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Yesterday, 10:29 AM   #91
sjk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,037
I convinced myself to attempt the 7th grade math and think I have it right.

If a is a number between 0 and 1 and you make a combination line of

a*hp+(1-a)*pp where pp is the normalized public line and hp is home-made

b is (1+cushion pct) so betting when a*hp + (1-a)*pp > b *pp is the same as

when hp > (b+a-1)/a * pp.

For example, a half and half line a=1,

.5*( hp+pp)> 1.5* pp when hp>2*pp
sjk is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 10:39 AM   #92
FakeNameChanged
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarchCapper View Post
Wouldn't average field size play a huge factor in this? Using unrealistic field size numbers just for examples' sake, if it was 67% when field size averaged 10, if it goes up to even 90% when field size averages 4, it's a much less powerful factor for weighting, right?
Huge. I think someone posted a chart here a good while back, that showed how the public did on different field sizes. But yes it's huge.
__________________
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
FakeNameChanged is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 11:42 AM   #93
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 14,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeNameChanged View Post
Didn't you say that your research shows that the top three betting choices has risen to 73% when it was at 66-67% twenty or thirty years ago. That's a 9% to 11% improvement on the public selection, whether it's from handicapping, or money flow on picking the winners. Why would anyone drop their weighting of something that is a reliable factor?
Because the goal is not to agree with the public but to find the spots when the public is wrong.

If we used your approach to the letter we'd simply give the horses the precise probabilities indicated by the tote board.

Where would that leave us?
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 11:57 AM   #94
Onesome
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 63
Maybe it's time to think like a turtle and accept the markets is moving in a direction and not fight it. A little tougher to make money at the racetrack vs in the stockmarket where many who followed Richard Dennis and the turtles had made millions following this strat. But it is the foundation of your Renegade Handicapper product isn't it?
Onesome is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 12:24 PM   #95
Nitro
Registered User
 
Nitro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 15,429
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPRanger View Post
My favorite lines from this editorial because of how TRUE these factual statements are:
Quote:
Well, Bill Benter figured out, if you canít get insider knowledge you could at least incorporate it into your model. Wait, but didnít we just say that Benter had no access to insider knowledge? How can he then incorporate it in his model?
Quote:
Therefore, Benter argues, only a combination of a modelís estimate with the one of the market provides a true measure for its quality.
Quote:
After all, Bill Benter has written it in 1995, more than 20 years ago. There has certainly been a myriad of much more sophisticated and advanced models written in the meantime, which could easily beat Bill BenterĎs model on the racetrack.
Nitro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 12:36 PM   #96
formula_2002
what an easy game.
 
formula_2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 38,466
I'll state the obvious. If i want to compare win probability of say the top public choice in different time periods, say monthly, I would normalize the monthly top choice win probability and compare that sum to the actual number of winners. Of course, the best analysis, is to compare these two sums, expected wins to actual wins by incremental odds. I would seek to minimize the increment for the largest
sample size . I always want to know the ratio of actual wins/expected wins . Repeat this for 2nd and 3rd choice.
formula_2002 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 01:40 PM   #97
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,440
public odds modeling (known vs. unknown)

also 'obvious' category -

'Unknowns' (first time starters without Super(debut) Trainers, certain layoff situations, etc...)
  • 'unknown' that is cold 'dead' or hot 'live' on the board may correlate to performance, sometimes more than pedigrree, workout, trainer stat,, etc... models models that we have available...
correlated
also, occasionally see more established ('known') horses whose odds on the board stand in significant distance from their projected performance models.
  • maybe this is exactly the opportunity which we've been waiting for! and overlay, or an underlay... Time to Wager!!
  • and/or maybe this horse has a 'narrative' (a fan favorite, an obvious trip, etc...) that is being overbet...
  • and/or maybe this horse has some inside informatiion that is pertinent to today's performance, while not evident in past performance

When the odds 'don't make sense' you want to do everything you can to be able to distinguish overlays from inside-info. Addiing some models, and/or blending today's projected odds into the model are ways to overcome this.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 02:31 PM   #98
FakeNameChanged
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz View Post
Because the goal is not to agree with the public but to find the spots when the public is wrong.

If we used your approach to the letter we'd simply give the horses the precise probabilities indicated by the tote board.

Where would that leave us?
I think you're missing the point. You don't know which ones are the top three, especially #1, until after the race is over, or halfway around the track. I defy anyone to give me the #1 odds horse at post time, and get a win bet down on it in 20 straight races. The top three, NFW.

Trust me, I understand what overlays and underlays are. I think Benter was wise in using the public along with his other 9 hcp factors. The public has an outstanding record of consistently picking the exact order of how often horses finish, 1 thru 10 positions.

I thought it was interesting in Benter's article, that he also used the picks of 47 newpapers pickers or touts(Only in Hong Kong I suppose) and their R2 value in selecting the winner almost duplicated his Fundamental Hcp model: .1016 to .1014. That makes perfect sense, since the majority of those newpaper picks come from hcapping the PP's.
I wasn't proposing betting the top three,(even though we currently don't know), but how can we use that info to improve our models. Top four, and it must be closer to 90%, granted not that hard in a 5 horse race, but 10 or 12, that's a lot of toss outs.
At no time did I say follow Wm. Scott's method, "to the letter" as you say. I was just suggesting focusing on the top three or four using whatever model you use, pace, money flow, hieroglyphics, it doesn't matter to me. When I attempted his method 3-1/2 decades ago, you couldn't tell who the top three were going to be. I was suggesting a model to get us closer to that as a starting point.
__________________
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
FakeNameChanged is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 02:32 PM   #99
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 16,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz View Post
Because the goal is not to agree with the public but to find the spots when the public is wrong.

If we used your approach to the letter we'd simply give the horses the precise probabilities indicated by the tote board.

Where would that leave us?
Right.

That's why I've been saying winning is not so much about making an odds line for every horses as it is about finding situations where the public tends to screw up.

At first Benter probably identified a handful of inefficiencies, but his odds lines weren't inclusive enough to be playing all the overlays he "thought" he was finding. Adding public money was a breakthrough for him because it made his overall odds lines more inclusive and accurate, but the key to winning was actually located in the inefficiencies he found to start.

I'd WAY rather find a few inefficiencies than worry about having a better quality odds line for every horse in every race. Find me some trainer pattern that wins at 25% at average price of $10.00 and I'll take care of winning without an odds line. Find me 10 things like that and I'll keep myself quite busy even though I won't be able to make profitable odds lines in many races.
__________________
"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned." Fast Eddie Felson

Last edited by classhandicapper; Yesterday at 02:42 PM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 04:15 PM   #100
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 14,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeNameChanged View Post
I think you're missing the point. You don't know which ones are the top three, especially #1, until after the race is over, or halfway around the track. I defy anyone to give me the #1 odds horse at post time, and get a win bet down on it in 20 straight races. The top three, NFW.
I think I have a very clear grasp of the point.

I've got zero interest in predicting who the top 3 public choices are. IMHO, that is a waste of time because - as you (basically) said - it's a moving target.

That's why I concentrate on what the odds SHOULD be.

If anything, the difference between what they should be and what they ARE would indicate the smart money.

But, still the same problem: How to accomplish that when that info isn't available until after the race is over.

For the record, our SHOULD BE predictions are "good." About 84% of the time the top horse goes off as either fav or 2nd choice.

Of course, a small percentage of the time a horse predicted to be under 3/1 goes off at 12/1 or above. Those horses are worthy of automatic bets.
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 04:18 PM   #101
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 14,914
Quote:
I'd WAY rather find a few inefficiencies than worry about having a better quality odds line for every horse in every race. Find me some trainer pattern that wins at 25% at average price of $10.00 and I'll take care of winning without an odds line. Find me 10 things like that and I'll keep myself quite busy even though I won't be able to make profitable odds lines in many races.
That approach will not work.

If it did, one could just use a number like BPP that produces a win rate around 30% in the top rank. Using your theory, a horse at 2/1 is break even and 4/1 should be a killer.

The problem is that the 30% hit rate goes higher or lower based upon the odds.

Same thing with trainer stats.

Or any other factor.
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 04:56 PM   #102
Maximillion
Registered User
 
Maximillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,001
Are races where your selection to bet is one of the top 2 or 3 betting choices profitable long term for anyone?
Maximillion is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 05:38 PM   #103
mountainman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk View Post
Mark,

Anyone who makes a line and looks for overlays is using the public odds in making the comparison.

Most would have a requirement that there be a cushion between the value presented by the public odds and the expected return based on a personally derived line, such as looking for opportunities where the overlaid value is 100% greater than the oddsline expected return. (I am using a requirement along those line)

Making a composite odds line really does nothing more than adjust the required cushion percentage. You can manipulate the inequalities and turn a requirement about a composite line into a requirement on the oddsline at a higher cushion percent.


SK
TX very much for the response. It's well known that I'm an intuitive handicapper who constructs no handicapping line, but instead goes by feel in assessing value-which, of course, traces directly to closing odds.

So, you are saying that "smoothing" means blending the actual odds with the computer-churned line before comparing that product with the raw, real-time odds to assess value?
mountainman is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 07:19 PM   #104
FakeNameChanged
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz View Post
I think I have a very clear grasp of the point.

I've got zero interest in predicting who the top 3 public choices are. IMHO, that is a waste of time because - as you (basically) said - it's a moving target.

That's why I concentrate on what the odds SHOULD be.

If anything, the difference between what they should be and what they ARE would indicate the smart money.

But, still the same problem: How to accomplish that when that info isn't available until after the race is over.

For the record, our SHOULD BE predictions are "good." About 84% of the time the top horse goes off as either fav or 2nd choice.

Of course, a small percentage of the time a horse predicted to be under 3/1 goes off at 12/1 or above. Those horses are worthy of automatic bets.
Okay, my bad. I thought this thread was about how Benter's model of betting overlays was a loser until he incorporated the tote board into his model. On my original post, I said maybe there's a way to predict the tote before post time. It sounds like your method arrives at that 84% of the time(fav or 2nd choice). Then congratulations, you've cracked the code.
__________________
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
FakeNameChanged is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old Yesterday, 08:03 PM   #105
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 14,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeNameChanged View Post
Okay, my bad. I thought this thread was about how Benter's model of betting overlays was a loser until he incorporated the tote board into his model. On my original post, I said maybe there's a way to predict the tote before post time. It sounds like your method arrives at that 84% of the time(fav or 2nd choice). Then congratulations, you've cracked the code.

LOL - Not exactly cracked the code but it is proving to be solidly profitable.

The real question I need to get answered is, "Will it stand the test of time?"

What we've been finding is that our approach to the world has been needing an overhaul every January.

I'm hoping that the things I learned from the Covid Era will carry over. Really started looking strong a few weeks ago.

Sadly, just in time for the Winter Doldrums.
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
How do you prefer your Coffee !?
Cream and Sugar - 28.57%
30 Votes
Cream only - 20.00%
21 Votes
Black - 41.90%
44 Votes
Decaf - 9.52%
10 Votes
Espresso - 12.38%
13 Votes
Starbucks etc... - 9.52%
10 Votes
Other - 23.81%
25 Votes
Total Votes: 105
This poll is closed.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2020 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved -- Best Viewed in a modern browser @ 1280x720 Resolution Or Higher
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.