How to make money in horse racing

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If Benter wasn't a tote board watcher, but relied on handicapping instead...one has to wonder why Nitro is so enamored of him.

Back then 65% of his probabilities came from the tote.

[Robert Fischer]

Benter is an authority.

smart guy.. and he's an eloquent guy

somebody successful like that, they articulate the shit you're supposed to do, and then we read it and it's a 'thing'

look, you got a FTS today r5 at Horseshoe Indy..

chisel.

trainer Klop has two FTS in the race and

they hid (intentional or not) the workout results, or else they worked in PERFECT tandem ... you can't compare the works, because they are the same, but you look five! lol works back and the apparently dusted the before they're works became exactly the same.

trainer rides a first call jock on the for this debut.

the race has entropy.

the two favorites and are both flawed horses. They could contend or they could stagger home for a piece or worse.

it's ripe for a horse like the

READ THE BOARD
will pays, tote etc.. You want the to have at least some $$
these guys BET and TALK and the CAWs are often 'in tune' to valuable info.

anybody that plays, understands that the tote is a factor/model/"x" that we have to consider as a source that can correlate to a horse's condition.

Benter is the man.
he did it he has a right to articulate it

He had his shit together and he could SEE. He had the insight to see what was going on. He had the money and the opportunity to have a good idea and capitalize on it.

easy to say "ahhh... he caught lightning in a bottle"

but the guy saw how it worked, and he went out to a lightning hotspot and climb up on a lightning rod with a bottle or whatever stretched a lightning proof metaphor over his

Twitter

__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

look, you got a FTS today r5 at Horseshoe Indy..

chisel.

trainer Klop has two FTS in the race and

they hid (intentional or not) the workout results, or else they worked in PERFECT tandem ... you can't compare the works, because they are the same, but you look five! lol works back and the apparently dusted the before they're works became exactly the same.

trainer rides a first call jock on the for this debut.

the race has entropy.

the two favorites and are both flawed horses. They could contend or they could stagger home for a piece or worse.

it's ripe for a horse like the

READ THE BOARD
will pays, tote etc.. You want the to have at least some $$
these guys BET and TALK and the CAWs are often 'in tune' to valuable info.

anybody that plays, understands that the tote is a factor/model/"x" that we have to consider as a source that can correlate to a horse's condition.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If Benter wasn't a tote board watcher, but relied on handicapping instead...one has to wonder why Nitro is so enamored of him.

Twitter

Benter may notice that the a 5/2 morning line is DEAD on the tote
is taking $$
maybe could be players

just another factor/model of information

__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.

---

Last edited by Robert Fischer; 05-09-2023 at 04:24 PM.

[Robert Fischer]

"what a surprise"

Twitter

__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.

[thaskalos]

Benter was a MAVERICK...and he deserves all the accolades and the money that he enjoys. But he stopped betting 30 years ago because his methods no longer worked...so his value to us as an informational source is questionable at best, IMO. As a motivational tool, sure...but as a "role model" to currently emulate, I don't think so.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Benter is an authority.

smart guy.. and he's an eloquent guy

somebody successful like that, they articulate the shit you're supposed to do, and then we read it and it's a 'thing'

look, you got a FTS today r5 at Horseshoe Indy..

chisel.

trainer Klop has two FTS in the race and

they hid (intentional or not) the workout results, or else they worked in PERFECT tandem ... you can't compare the works, because they are the same, but you look five! lol works back and the apparently dusted the before they're works became exactly the same.

trainer rides a first call jock on the for this debut.

the race has entropy.

the two favorites and are both flawed horses. They could contend or they could stagger home for a piece or worse.

it's ripe for a horse like the

READ THE BOARD
will pays, tote etc.. You want the to have at least some $$
these guys BET and TALK and the CAWs are often 'in tune' to valuable info.

anybody that plays, understands that the tote is a factor/model/"x" that we have to consider as a source that can correlate to a horse's condition.

Benter is the man.
he did it he has a right to articulate it

He had his shit together and he could SEE. He had the insight to see what was going on. He had the money and the opportunity to have a good idea and capitalize on it.

easy to say "ahhh... he caught lightning in a bottle"

but the guy saw how it worked, and he went out to a lightning hotspot and climb up on a lightning rod with a bottle or whatever stretched a lightning proof metaphor over his
https://twitter.com/jason_kassa/stat...27336851046401

I stated that I would champion him if, to rephrase, his methodology was universal, rather than a singularity--"caught in a bottle". Don't get tripped up over the phrase- perhaps consider Beyer's last paragraph I cited as a better description of the experience. Mainly, I simply asked for evidence since I consistently read in these parts that the most sophisticated teams today are in need of rebates.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I stated that I would champion him if, to rephrase, his methodology was universal, rather than a singularity--"caught in a bottle". Don't get tripped up over the phrase- perhaps consider Beyer's last paragraph I cited as a better description of the experience. Mainly, I simply asked for evidence since I consistently read in these parts that the most sophisticated teams today are in need of rebates.

I don't disagree. You are probably right.

I just pay homage to Benter and a bunch of others known and unknown.

Benter never mentored me. He never funded a project of mine.
He's a 'hall of famer' or whatever to me. I just pay Homage.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Benter is an authority.

smart guy.. and he's an eloquent guy

somebody successful like that, they articulate the shit you're supposed to do, and then we read it and it's a 'thing'

look, you got a FTS today r5 at Horseshoe Indy..

chisel.

trainer Klop has two FTS in the race and

they hid (intentional or not) the workout results, or else they worked in PERFECT tandem ... you can't compare the works, because they are the same, but you look five! lol works back and the apparently dusted the before they're works became exactly the same.

trainer rides a first call jock on the for this debut.

the race has entropy.

the two favorites and are both flawed horses. They could contend or they could stagger home for a piece or worse.

it's ripe for a horse like the

READ THE BOARD
will pays, tote etc.. You want the to have at least some $$
these guys BET and TALK and the CAWs are often 'in tune' to valuable info.

anybody that plays, understands that the tote is a factor/model/"x" that we have to consider as a source that can correlate to a horse's condition.

Benter is the man.
he did it he has a right to articulate it

He had his shit together and he could SEE. He had the insight to see what was going on. He had the money and the opportunity to have a good idea and capitalize on it.

easy to say "ahhh... he caught lightning in a bottle"

but the guy saw how it worked, and he went out to a lightning hotspot and climb up on a lightning rod with a bottle or whatever stretched a lightning proof metaphor over his
https://twitter.com/jason_kassa/stat...27336851046401

just an FYI

I have been tracking the late money recently. between the first 0 to minuets to the final 0 to minuets the odds on the winner #1 dropped 42%.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Benter was a MAVERICK...and he deserves all the accolades and the money that he enjoys. But he stopped betting 30 years ago because his methods no longer worked...so his value to us as an informational source is questionable at best, IMO. As a motivational tool, sure...but as a "role model" to currently emulate, I don't think so.

Am I misinterpreting your post?

You think he stopped betting?

-jp
.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

I don't disagree. You are probably right.

I just pay homage to Benter and a bunch of others known and unknown.

Benter never mentored me. He never funded a project of mine.
He's a 'hall of famer' or whatever to me. I just pay Homage.

I do as well. My entire participation was to suggest that he did rely on conventional information, and his methodology has become relatively common.

I owe my initial foray into value, rather than selection handicapping to Benter. Also the importance of comprehensive factors- Beyer set me off on an isolated fascination with trip handicapping for decades- mea culpa.
In particular, as a layman I roughly half the difference between my estimation and the public's when I'm unsure. In a May '09 Contingencies article, he stated that if he estimates a 20 percent chance and the public 10 percent, the true odds are roughly 15 percent.

[Robert Fischer]

Sorry I had two cups of coffee/

Originally Posted by formula_2002

just an FYI

I have been tracking the late money recently. between the first 0 to minuets to the final 0 to minuets the odds on the winner #1 dropped 42%.

that's interesting information.

this info just comes to us from the market. Often correlates to condition. Often shows us a snapshot of CAW/Syndicates/Insider opinion/late-correction...

All this info. Should we wait and chase it? That's one way.
What is that?

"the Hyena"

try to read the lions and get a bite? Don't get your kneck broke.

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

the race has entropy.

the two favorites and are both flawed horses. They could contend or they could stagger home for a piece or worse.

Twitter

vulture has some dark connotations
for the CAWs (the Lions) it's the crow "caw caw"


anywho

that's one way to do it.

the market always gives us info.
animal spirits aside; if we aren't able to read the event better than the market we shouldn't be wagering on this event.

Originally Posted by Mr. Charlie

But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to either ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence. Indeed, if you aren’t certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don’t belong in the game.


As they say in poker, “If you’ve been in the game 30 minutes and you don’t know who the patsy is, you’re the patsy.”

hey Formula 2002,
do you ever feel like 'winning' is a scary thing?

__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

The point I responded to was that he succeeded as an outsider, without the baggage of conventional handicapping, against an informed public and with a sizeable ROI %.

Yet like any neophyte, he consulted such conventional sources to even begin to know the relevant factors (under "Features Engineering")...https://medium.com/parimutuel-racetr...t-db747c250e77 ...

Beyer visited him in late '94, although Andy made use of that "literary license" again, identifying him as a Brit https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-b2a6a2421aee/

...but even Andy concludes that Benter caught lightning in a bottle (last paragraph)... https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-5a04fdec3aa9/

I'd say roughly thirty years of significant computer analysis of horseraces has moved from a revolution to a burgeoning, commonplace approach.

Thanks for your clear and concise response!
Sorry if I read too much into your previous comment.
BTW that link was a great read! Thanks

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Well Dave I’m bit skeptical about your “prove your point” comment. So, I hope you won’t mind if I can corroborate your comments by having my mentor (who on occasion has been in touch with Mr. Benter) forward them directly to him. When I receive a response I’ll be sure to post it.
.
.

Why would I mind?
Or even care?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Back then 65% of his probabilities came from the tote.

I never understood this.

I totally understand how incorporating the tote helps you make a more accurate odds line, but I don't really understand how it helps you win.

Hear me out and maybe you can explain what I'm missing.

Let's says I make a horse's fair price 10-1 and he's 2-1 on the board. I think he's a huge underlay. If I incorporate the tote, I'm going to make him somewhere between 10-1 and 2-1. That may be more correct, but he'll still be an underlay.

Now let's says I make a horse 2-1 and he's 10-1 on the board. I think he's a huge overlay. If I incorporate the tote, I'm going to make him somewhere between 2-1 and 10-1, but he'll still be an overlay.

I can't see a situation where a horse switches from overlay to underlay or vice versa. It's just the degree that changes. I suppose if you are giving yourself a margin of safety like "I want the horse to be a 25% overlay" it would eliminate some of the closer calls. But beyond that, I don't see it being a critical piece of information for determining whether the horses is an overlay or underlay even if it's improving accuracy.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I never understood this.

I totally understand how incorporating the tote helps you make a more accurate odds line, but I don't really understand how it helps you win.

Hear me out and maybe you can explain what I'm missing.

Let's says I make a horse's fair price 10-1 and he's 2-1 on the board. I think he's a huge underlay. If I incorporate the tote, I'm going to make him somewhere between 10-1 and 2-1. That may be more correct, but he'll still be an underlay.

Now let's says I make a horse 2-1 and he's 10-1 on the board. I think he's a huge overlay. If I incorporate the tote, I'm going to make him somewhere between 2-1 and 10-1, but he'll still be an overlay.

I can't see a situation where a horse switches from overlay to underlay or vice versa. It's just the degree that changes. I suppose if you are giving yourself a margin of safety like "I want the horse to be a 25% overlay" it would eliminate some of the closer calls. But beyond that, I don't see it being a critical piece of information for determining whether the horses is an overlay or underlay even if it's improving accuracy.

It may help to consult the original...https://gwern.net/doc/statistics/dec...994-benter.pdf

Look at table 4, then table 7. These are the horses he's betting on.
In table 4, before incorporating the public as a separate variable, there are 5016 horses at roughly 5-10% chance of winning, that the public is underestimating. After incorporating the public estimate, this 5-10% group is reduced to 4511 candidates for being overlays,. Most of the residual spread went to the 1-5% group. 1426 horses he considered 5-10% win rates were now in this lesser chance group.

His model was erroneously suggesting that substantial wild longshots, 30-50 to 1, were being underestimated by the public. Incorporating public percentages apparently narrowed his overlays to more frequent chances of winning, while still maintaining overlay status.