whales?

[acorn54]

thaskalos is the only person mentioning dime breakage, and believe me it is a HUGE chop off of the final payout when your winners are averaging 5/2 or thereabouts. whereas when you collect on a longshot at 13-1 or more it is peanuts.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

About $1 out of every $7 wagered is whale money.

Rules of thumb about tickets & wagering:
80-85% of all tracks (yes, they play PrM).
80-85% of all races at those tracks.
80-85% of all the pools in those races.

Typically multi-horse win bets, not so many place/show bets. ...

3. Do not use any kind of deep, regression analysis approach because that is what the whales do and you will wind up on many of the same horses. In the long run, they will crush you. ...

I've got more of this stuff, but it is late.

I think this is such a good topic that I'll do a short podcast about it next week.


Feel free to ask questions.


Best to all,
Dave Schwartz

I'm curious about this part of point 3.

Why would it be bad to wind up with the same horses?

Unless you're implying they have an algorithm which shows them how much to bet on each horse which no one else will have.

EDIT: Just read P Matties post but respond if different. Thanks.

[Dave Schwartz]

Why would it be bad to wind up with the same horses?

Because there will be no profit for anyone.

I am not saying that you can never bet the same horse. I am saying that if you follow their approach, you will agree with them a lot and when one of you is wrong, it will be you more often than them.

Remember, they are taking big bites out of your cheese. So much so that by the time you get to your "portion" it is smaller.

[AltonKelsey]

Just saw Matties post. Missed it before. I agree with him, so obviously, my comment that everything being said was off base, does not apply.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Almost no factual data exist about "whales", so I perceive them more like a myth rather than reality.

I am not saying that in horse racing big bettors do not exist. They do exist as in other other kind of gambling. Yes, they exists and like any other gambler they finally end up losing heavily. What I do not believe is that they posses some type of a betting model (like for example the naive Benter's paper about multinomial logit) that allows them to beat the game in a consistent basis.

You make this statement and then reference Benter despite his reputation and there are others i.e., Alan Woods who was a member on here.

Just sorry, I never had a chance to interact with him but, there's also Ernie Dalhman who I've seen post on here but it has been several years ago.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Just saw Matties post. Missed it before. I agree with him, so obviously, my comment that everything being said was off base, does not apply.

Ah...you had me worried there for a bit...

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

You make this statement and then reference Benter despite his reputation and there are others i.e., Alan Woods who was a member on here.

His reputation or whether he was a member have absolutely nothing to do with my reference to Benter's paper which I repeat that I find very primitive and conceptually useless. If you want to defend it, please go ahead, presenting analyze the underlined theory and also provide a concrete data based application; I will follow up with my objections and why I consider it a completely wrong approach.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

But all of the above can be overcome, even if you treat horses as machines and only use cold hard numbers in your handicapping. What you say might be true, but it still isn't a barrier to success treating it as such.

Agree, plus what is in the various race line publications is ALL us outsiders have to deal with on a consistent basis..

It is impossible for us to know the trainers intentions...and bet downs on the board cannot be assumed to be "inside intent"...
Nitro's whole assumption that odds can predict trainer intent is, IMHO, non-testable and non-provable...

There are probably skads of trainers over the years who have lost their shirts betting their "intents" who rarely bet anymore...as a result.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Even if , in theory, there could be all this last view cancelling going on, there is ZERO evidence that it is.

At a large track , you would have to cancel thousands, and eventually it would be noticed.

We've discussed this late cancelling on here several times but, the tracks still don't seem to notice or are showing they are trying to correct anything.

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

that's where you have a misunderstanding. the guy with the consul has the last view of the pool, you don't. cancelling bets in this game is as much a part of betting as placing bets now. he can cancel a $500 or $600 bet and know he's getting 3-1 for whatever he has left in the pool. you place your bet at 3-1 before the race and often times see the odds change on the first flash after the break to something lower and you now don't have value.

PA is right.

if someone places a large bet with 1 second or less to post, that money doesn't instantly show up in the pool, when it does, it's too late for anyone to 'asjust' to that bet.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Nitro

When you can finally acknowledge that horses are just flesh and blood and not machines, you’ll be able to rationalize that any so-called pace scenario is something subjectively conjured up based on some past performances. It also assumes that every entry in a race is trying to win and will run as its previously demonstrated.

Of course, Outsiders who aren’t privy to a horse’s immediate condition and temperament will always claim foul when some big favorite fails miserably, or some long-shot lights up the tote board. They have no idea why a horse is even entered in the race! Is it trying to actually Win? Is it a workout for a future event? Is it an experiment at a new distance or racing surface, or with a change in equipment?

The handicapper is literally handicapped because in spite of all the information available there are still some important unknowns that are generally taken for granted. Those in the know on the other hand may have the current information necessary to take advantage of certain situations and can make their (possibly larger) wager with less foreseeable risk.

I would think if they are betting hundreds of thousands in a race, they are also gathering their own info to supplement the avail current info.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Nitro

When you can finally acknowledge that horses are just flesh and blood and not machines, you’ll be able to rationalize that any so-called pace scenario is something subjectively conjured up based on some past performances. It also assumes that every entry in a race is trying to win and will run as its previously demonstrated.

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

But all of the above can be overcome, even if you treat horses as machines and only use cold hard numbers in your handicapping. What you say might be true, but it still isn't a barrier to success treating it as such.

Tell that to the majority of long term losers in this game, and those who gripe about seeing things happen in a horse race beyond their appreciation of the realities of the game.

The barrier might seem insignificant and even immaterial to the typical small time player, but it becomes a much riskier game when there’s a lot more at stake.

[EasyGoer89]

Long term losers lose because they aren't good enough at handicapping. None of this has anything to do w whales or how they bet.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

His reputation or whether he was a member have absolutely nothing to do with my reference to Benter's paper which I repeat that I find very primitive and conceptually useless. If you want to defend it, please go ahead, presenting analyze the underlined theory and also provide a concrete data based application; I will follow up with my objections and why I consider it a completely wrong approach.

I think you misread my post.

I was questioning your assertion that whales in horse racing were a myth. Unless your definition of a horse racing whale is different from those being discussed in this thread.

Btw, the members I had referenced were Alan Woods and Ernie Dalhman. I'm unaware if Benter was or is currently a member.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by EasyGoer89

PA is right.

if someone places a large bet with 1 second or less to post, that money doesn't instantly show up in the pool, when it does, it's too late for anyone to 'asjust' to that bet.

I interpreted Lambo's comment that the whales can and probably do manipulate the odds towards their expectations. How they do it, is way beyond my brain power when it's two minutes to post time.