Picking winners or finding value?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by adwplayingfool

With the current state and high takeout percentages what is the way to go? finding a 10-1 who CAN win or a 2-1 that SHOULD win? in the end it comes down to cashin your ticket or throwing it out but what is the generzl consensus on the best way to make your play.

I recognized years ago that "value" is number one, however, I also recognized that wagering in the WPS pools is not the best value opportunity available.

Sure you can find value in those pools but your hit rate has to be pretty damn good to show a profit, over the long term.

IMO, the exotics are where the best opportunities for consistent, long term profits lie. I personally prefer superfectas, especially since the advent of the 10c supers. I look for odds spreads that offer at least a minimum expected payout of $300 for a $1 super ($30 for a dime super). My average ticket cost is $12 in a $1 super, that's about 25 wagers that can be lost and still recouped with one hit.

You can do the math, but, my hit rate is 8%, long term and I show ,consistently, year in year out, over 45% profit. By accepting no less than $300 per $1 super wager I stay in the game until the big ones produce the long term profit.

[HUSKER55]

my system creates odds so if I think the horse should be 3/5 and I am getting 1/1 or better then I place my wager because I have value.

However, If I don't get my price I check the exactas and again, if I don't get my price I pass

JMHO

Good luck

[bisket]

i've found a blend of exotics, and win wagering has worked best for me. i don't play supers though. strictly exacta's and trifectas. although it does require a stiff upper lip to be an exotic wagerer.

[GaryG]

I have concentrated my play on the P3 and P4 for the last few years. It took a while but I have developed the equanimity to deal with the ups and downs. Looking forward to that 19% at Tampa.

[OverlayHunter]

IMO, the exotics are where the best opportunities for consistent, long term profits lie. I personally prefer superfectas, especially since the advent of the 10c supers. I look for odds spreads that offer at least a minimum expected payout of $300 for a $1 super ($30 for a dime super). My average ticket cost is $12 in a $1 super, that's about 25 wagers that can be lost and still recouped with one hit.

Raybo, could you please explain the "odds spreads" you refer to and how to do the calculations.

Thanks.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by adwplayingfool

With the current state and high takeout percentages what is the way to go? finding a 10-1 who CAN win or a 2-1 that SHOULD win? in the end it comes down to cashin your ticket or throwing it out but what is the generzl consensus on the best way to make your play.

In all due respect, this game is about choosing who “should” win based on your handicapping. Who “can” win is not part of the handicapping and wagering decision.

Once the “should” decision is made, then a wager is made based on your odds threshold. It doesn’t matter whether the horse’s odds are 1-9 or 90-1 because you should know what odds you will or will not wager at.

It is worth nothing that the closing odds from the tote board are the estimation made by the betting public on which horse “should” win. Your job is to either accept their decision by betting with them, rejecting their decision by betting against them, or passing the race.

Betting in horseracing is being a decision maker and handicapping is being an analyst. You have to be a combination of both to win at this game.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Cratos

In all due respect, this game is about choosing who “should” win based on your handicapping. Who “can” win is not part of the handicapping and wagering decision.

Once the “should” decision is made, then a wager is made based on your odds threshold. It doesn’t matter whether the horse’s odds are 1-9 or 90-1 because you should know what odds you will or will not wager at.

It is worth nothing that the closing odds from the tote board are the estimation made by the betting public on which horse “should” win. Your job is to either accept their decision by betting with them, rejecting their decision by betting against them, or passing the race.

I (equally respectfully) disagree. By your use of the phrase "should win", as well as your option to bet with or against the public's choice, you're acknowledging that there is no one horse that "must" win any given race. So, just as you would then determine what odds make the one horse that is most likely to win (by your handicapping) an acceptable risk, that same assessment can (and, in my opinion, should) be made for every horse in the race, based on a comparison between its actual odds, and what you judge each horse's chance of winning to be (provided that you're willing to look beyond the one most likely winner).

[Trotman]

I have to agree with JP. Why tickle when a slap is required.
4) bet sizing to maximize returns.

[JohnGalt1]

Originally Posted by adwplayingfool

With the current state and high takeout percentages what is the way to go? finding a 10-1 who CAN win or a 2-1 that SHOULD win? in the end it comes down to cashin your ticket or throwing it out but what is the generzl consensus on the best way to make your play.

Both.

When I believe a 3-5 should win--no win bet--but I will single in pick 4 and 6's. Or pas the race. I will not bet against with a high odds value play and have the 3-5 win. I may include another angle longshot in an exotic, but that's it.

If I like a 3-1 or higher I bet 20/40 win/place, and may use in exotics if win/reward warrants it.

I never make a win bet on a horse than can win, but only on horses that should win. Should win horses lose more than I'd like, so I certainly won't trust my money on maybe horses.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by Overlay

I (equally respectfully) disagree. By your use of the phrase "should win", as well as your option to bet with or against the public's choice, you're acknowledging that there is no one horse that "must" win any given race. So, just as you would then determine what odds make the one horse that is most likely to win (by your handicapping) an acceptable risk, that same assessment can (and, in my opinion, should) be made for every horse in the race, based on a comparison between its actual odds, and what you judge each horse's chance of winning to be (provided that you're willing to look beyond the one most likely winner).

I will try to explain this a different way by example. In a given race there are “X” horses in a race, no odds are shown, and no past performances are given. Therefore the bettors without any information might rationally say any one of the “X” horses in the race “CAN” win the race.

However we change the above example by giving out past performances and allowing the bettors to wager against each other and the dynamics will change dramatically. What was a “CAN” win without information becomes a “SHOULD” win (and a “CAN’T” win) with information and given that it is pari-mutuel wagering with displaying odds the “SHOULD” winner as determined by the wagering of the bettors will be displayed on the tote board as the favorite.

You are absolutely correct; if the race is run there must be a single winner of the race with the exception of a dead heat.

The word “SHOULD” is used because there isn’t certainty and you the bettor are gambling that your choice is the correct choice. Semantically speaking, you might change “SHOULD” to “CAN” within an individual bettor’s decision-making process, but the net result is that the bettor is wagering on the horse that he/she thinks “SHOULD” win the race; it is a either win or lose decision.

[Tom]

I disagree with that. It is does the horse pay better than it's odds. If three horses are overlays, and you dutch them all, you don't care who should and you don't really have a big opinion on any of them. You are playing the odds, not the horses.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Cratos

However we change the above example by giving out past performances and allowing the bettors to wager against each other and the dynamics will change dramatically. What was a “CAN” win without information becomes a “SHOULD” win (and a “CAN’T” win) with information and given that it is pari-mutuel wagering with displaying odds the “SHOULD” winner as determined by the wagering of the bettors will be displayed on the tote board as the favorite.

It appears that our main area of difference, then, is at what point that "CAN'T" category should be employed, or, in other words, when (if ever) it is possible (or desirable/advisable in some respect) to treat a horse as having absolutely no chance of winning a particular race, and to completely disregard it from a handicapping perspective.

For me, it requires no more time to come up with an odds figure for every horse in a field than it would to rate only the horses that others might designate as the "contenders" in a race. In light of that, and because the great majority of high-odds winners (when they occur) will be among horses that most comprehensive (i.e., non-angle) handicappers would classify as non-contenders, I find it advantageous to include those horses in my considerations, and let the public odds determine when they will be worth a wager, since the wager size will normally be very small in any event (because of the relatively minor difference between my fair odds for them and the public's odds), but which will at least assure that I won't end up kicking myself when one of them comes in and I haven't bet it at all, despite having known before the race that it had a better chance to win than its odds gave it credit for.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by Overlay

It appears that our main area of difference, then, is at what point that "CAN'T" category should be employed, or, in other words, when (if ever) it is possible (or desirable/advisable in some respect) to treat a horse as having absolutely no chance of winning a particular race, and to completely disregard it from a handicapping perspective.

For me, it requires no more time to come up with an odds figure for every horse in a field than it would to rate only the horses that others might designate as the "contenders" in a race. In light of that, and because the great majority of high-odds winners (when they occur) will be among horses that most comprehensive (i.e., non-angle) handicappers would classify as non-contenders, I find it advantageous to include those horses in my considerations, and let the public odds determine when they will be worth a wager, since the wager size will normally be very small in any event (because of the relatively minor difference between my fair odds for them and the public's odds), but which will at least assure that I won't end up kicking myself when one of them comes in and I haven't bet it at all, despite having known before the race that it had a better chance to win than its odds gave it credit for.

I understand what you are saying and if one apply set theory then within the universal set (the field of horses in the race) each horse would be assigned a probability (inversely an odds) of winning and therefore there aren’t any SHOULDS, CANS, or CAN’TS; just degrees of probability of winning or the bettor's risk of losing.

[Pell Mell]

When I bet I have no idea who should win but I know they all can win. What I mean is that I play outside the box and when I play one I don't have much of an idea if it should win or not, I just play it. When I try to decide if a horse should win, and decide that it shouldn't, and I toss it, that means it's an automatic winner.

[valueguy]

Great discussion guys .Personally i play for value.I used to try and pick winners but i would find lots of winners but still lose money.Unless you have
some information that is not available to the public that allows you to focus on a specific horse then i think its better to focus on value.

Once again ,good thread.