Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
There is an exorbitant TAKEOUT that the horseplayer has to overcome in this game!
|
We agree on this point. The higher the takeout the more the player is hurt. Takeout is the crux of the argument about Keeneland.
Some believe higher takeout will reduce handle. Others believe it will increase handle because purses will increase and there will be larger fields and larger fields produce more betting handle.
I don't doubt that larger fields improve handle.
What I don't believe is that higher takeout and larger fields make it easier to win.
I think it is easier to win with a lower takeout regardless of field size, but it depends on the skill of the handicapper. I explain it below with an example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
Yes, I've heard you. "The short fields are better"
|
If I said that short fields are better, I misspoke, because there is no context to that statement. I don't think they are better or worse, in general, because a 2-1 shot in a short field has the same chance of winning as a 2-1 shot in a large field. I have no doubt about the validity of that statement. Anyone who disagrees does not understand basic probability.
If short fields are worse it is only because there is a perception by handicappers that it is harder to win in short fields. Therefore, handicappers prefer larger fields because they correctly perceive that there are more overlays in larger fields. This in turn drives handle higher.
However, there is a big caveat. More overlays in larger fields compared to smaller fields does not mean more profits. In the long run, the overlays in larger fields will tend to be smaller because the overlays have to be shared by more horses. There is only one overlay pie and each horse gets a piece of it, albeit in different sizes.
Now, I have no doubt that there are some handicappers who prefer large fields and can pick their spots and find big overlays and in the long run they will win. But the same is true of small fields.
What I'm saying is that if you handicap every race, at every track, every day, for the long run, field size does not make a difference. The only reason there is a difference is because of handicappers' bias toward larger fields. It's not mathematical. It psychological. And perhaps physiological due to brain function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
..."the overlays are created by the horseplayer's skill"..."the guys who complain about the the field sizes need to work on their handicapping"..."the handicapping errors are the same whether there are 2 horses in the race or 20"...you've made all these assertions...and they are all wrong.
|
This last quote is where we disagree. If I said "overlays are created by horseplayer's skill" I misspoke. I meant that it is up to horseplayers to find overlays.
There might be more overlays in a 20 horse field than in a 2 horse field, but the overlays will be smaller in the long run because they have to be shared by every horse in the field.
Let's say you have a large field. One horse has odds of 99/1 and another has odds of 50/1 can you tell the difference in value and probability of each winning?
Now look at a short field. One horse has odds of 3/5 and another has odds of 2/5. Which one has more value and what's the difference in probability?
I argue that it is easier to find value between the 2/5 and 3/5 than the 50/1 compared to the 99/1.
Why? I'm glad you asked.
A 99/1 shot has a 1% chance of winning. A 50/1 has a 2% chance. If someone can tell the difference between a 1% and 2% chance of winning on a regular basis then why are they here reading this. They should be making a killing at the track.
The difference between a 3/5 and 2/5 is 20%. You have a lot more margin of error to work with.
Hell, the difference between a 3/1 and 5/2 is only about 4.3%!
I will give you this, though. Large fields are better for the $2 bettor because they can bet on and cheer for more longshots.
Computerized professional teams will make more money betting on low priced horses because they can bet a lot more money and not affect the odds as much. Professionals can assess low priced horses' relative chances better than the average $2 bettor who likes the larger fields simply because the $2 bettor doesn't have much to lose and will tend to treat the bet more like a lottery pick. It's cheap entertainment. $2 bettors don't like 3/5 shots. $2,000 bettors don't care as long as it's an overlay.
In summary, betting $2,000 on a 3/5 shot that should be 2/5 is more profitable than betting $2 on a 50/1 that is just as likely to be 99/1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
But, since you appear to be a nice-enough guy...everybody here has been "gentle" in their criticism of your erroneous opinion.
|
My gambling name given to me by my friends at OTB used to be Gentleman John.