how many overlays on a 9 trace card

[Steve 'StatMan']

I'm not questioning the math, just wondering why one's method has to pick 270 horses at 3/1, although it is just an example, of course.

If you're using 'a method' to select the horses, they could be at a wide variety of odds.

Unless were talking about only betting 3/1 shots. But unless there is a reason to prefer some 3/1 shots over others, the long run future for the bets is dim.

[thoroughbred]

Originally Posted by toetoe

Tbred,
No, we always forget to add 1 to the denominator when we estimate probability. 25% = 1/4. Bet one to gain 4, incl. orig. bet, which isn't yours anymore, anyway (like playing with "the track's money"). We call that 3 to 1.
Always add one to every ratio and you'll know the correct relationship between prices. Ex.: 3 to 1 is not 50% better than 2 to 1. It is 33% better3 + 1)/(2 + 1) = 4/3 = 1.33.

All I was saying was, (and let's forget the track takeout). if the odds on anything are 3/1, the win rate is 25%. In other words it wins one out of four times. The 1 in the denominator you speak of doesn't apply to this simple odds question.

[Jeff P]

Anyone agree with the math?

Joe, your math looks okay but I tend to thimk your basic premise of only looking at horses within a very narrow odds range close to 3-1 will make the game harder to beat not easier.

I'll say this: I think it's far easier to beat the game by handicapping for and win betting the types of horses that win as overlays in the odds range of between 6-1 and 15-1 than horses going to post at 3-1.

[Brian Flewwelling]

When i was much younger i was told that 1 plus 1 is 2.


Was that true? and is i still true?


Fleww

[Dave Schwartz]

I am joining this discussion late but I would liek to give an answer.

The answer would be about 78% of the races contain one or more overlays.

Now, whether or not they are "playable" (or even visible) from the handicapper's unique perspective is another matter.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Doesn't anybody here ever HATE a favorite?

Don't really bet much just to win anymore and don't have time to form a rock solid odds line. Isn't the right idea to form a line based on your personal opinion and not what you think the horse will go off at?

If you hate a 8/5 favorite and you give him an actual 20-1 chance to win in a 8 horse field, probably all 7 of the other horses in the race are going to be an overlay..........or am I missing something?

It takes a strong opinion to exploit value and extract the most money possible from a race.

Obviously dealing with mostly the unopinionated in this thread.

[GR1@HTR]

IMHO, for each underlay in a race, it creates one or more overlays. A heavy pounded favorite that might only have a 40% chance of winning that goes off at 3/5 creates 3 to 4 strong condending overlays.

Im not a poker player, but I was explaining to some fellow co workers the other day about horse racing: That each race is like a hand of poker...you either fold when you don't have an advantage or you play through it knowing you might have an some favorable possibilities (odds, inside information...) on your side.

[formula_2002]

JP,
Thanks for the math review.

[hurrikane]

this, i think, is the issue with Joe's thinking.

He is assuming all 3-1 shots are created equal. They are not.
And that premise is the starting point for a winning horse player.

If we can get joe to that place maybe he will turn.

And maybe tomorrow when I wake up the snow will be gone and it will 80 degrees outside. Right.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by hurrikane

this, i think, is the issue with Joe's thinking.

He is assuming all 3-1 shots are created equal. They are not.
And that premise is the starting point for a winning horse player.

If we can get joe to that place maybe he will turn.

And maybe tomorrow when I wake up the snow will be gone and it will 80 degrees outside. Right.

H.. you are correct about me thinking that all 3-1 shots are created equal (within a certain statistical range).
But I also think there are a groupe of people that don't.

I'm simply attempting to determine what is necessay to prove them RIGHT.

[hurrikane]

that's easy Joe,

everyone has been tell you..

it's winning bets.

[alysheba88]

If I make lines on all 9 races, typically will find an overlay on 7-8 of them. I just make lines on 4 contenders usually.

[Dave Schwartz]

Alysheba,

Your approach is much like mine.

And I see it exactly as you do.

GR1 said about the same thing and it is very logical.

I think of it this way: The only race without overlays is the race where we agree so closely with the public's position that all the horses suffer from the disadvantage of the takeout. Very few races per day fall into that category.

Now, some races only provide overlays among the non-contenders and are typically not betable (by me). At least not in the win pool.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[alysheba88]

Absolutely Dave.

The one thing I am fine tuning is the idea of not all overlays being equal. For me, that means my track record on the race in question. Ie; my best race type is maiden special weights. I also do better on routes compared to sprints. Do better on certain odds categories than others and so on. Right now compiling a fairly large sample first before I start making rush judgments. Using the Bettor Keep Track program. Wish I had been using this for years.

[GR1@HTR]

A88,

In better keep track, i set up and tested senarios of the number of overlays I had per race...
Working off memory here...but it went something like this.

1 overlay= -.02 ROI
2 overlays = 1.08 ROI
3 overlays = 1.20 ROI
4 overlays = 1.50 ROI (and thats betting all 4 horses to win)

Not to say that the above will work for everyone...