|
|
07-22-2014, 03:21 PM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 6,330
|
How would you reconcile your picks with the tote-board?
Let's say your top 4 picks are A-B-C-D and watching the tote-board you note the action is B-E-A-F. How would you reconcile this difference and make a wager? Your A-B are in but you are not seeing E-F as contenders.
__________________
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 03:41 PM
|
#2
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,888
|
They were made contenders before I looked at the board.
That they are not in the top 4 is good news. A and B are out, E and F are now elevated.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 04:37 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,625
|
I think about odds 2 ways.
1. What do I think the odds will be? (like my own morning line)
2. What do I think the fair odds are?
If the actual odds disagree with my predicted odds significantly, then I think there's always possibility that I am missing something or someone knows something I don't. So I might double check those horses (trainer pattern, trip, etc..that I missed)
If the odds look around where I expected them to be, then the only thing that matters to me is #2.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 04:40 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
Depends on the track, depends on the accuracy of the morning line at that track, depends on whether "public selectors" have selected a different rank order, and depends on the result of some serious correlation between order of finish, morning line, and odds at that specific track--preferably on that specific distance/class/condition race.
Unless I had clear, compelling evidence that either the morning line is a more accurate predictor of the order of finish than I am, or the final odds are more accurate predictors of the order of finish than I am (neither of which I have found to be true), I would ignore both and go with my selections.
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 04:44 PM
|
#5
|
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,428
|
Why wouldn't you continue to evaluate A, B, C and D's chances? Is your wager to include all 4?
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 04:55 PM
|
#6
|
Screw PC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,728
|
You're not seeing E-F as contenders -- for what, the win?
How about hitting the board?
Too many variables to discuss but I might bet A-B/E-F as an exacta/Q.
__________________
Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth.
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 05:10 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,570
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capper Al
Let's say your top 4 picks are A-B-C-D and watching the tote-board you note the action is B-E-A-F. How would you reconcile this difference and make a wager? Your A-B are in but you are not seeing E-F as contenders.
|
Is the E horse the type of horse that the crowd would be attracted to? If it is...then I would toss it. Overbet horses with obvious attributes do not scare me. But if this E horse gets heavy betting action while looking nondescript on paper...then this is something that I cannot ignore.
But I would toss the F horse in all cases.
__________________
"Theory is knowledge that doesn't work. Practice is when everything works and you don't know why."
-- Hermann Hesse
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 06:17 PM
|
#8
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 7,706
|
Since my evaluation of a race field reflects a composite of weighted ratings from multiple fundamental handicapping categories for each horse, I can then nearly always account with confidence for differences between my opinion and the public's -- generally because the public is either overlooking/undervaluing or actually negatively viewing one or more factors that I know to be positive aspects of a horse's record (which makes the horse in question an overlay), or else overbetting one or more factors that may indeed be positive indicators, but not to the extent that the public believes in that particular race (which produces underlays). Under those circumstances, I would not allow the toteboard to change my opinion of a horse's or combination's chances. The only question would be whether the odds or probable payoff would compensate me for the risk of wagering on it.
Last edited by Overlay; 07-22-2014 at 06:21 PM.
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 06:33 PM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,570
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlay
Since my evaluation of a race field reflects a composite of weighted ratings from multiple fundamental handicapping categories for each horse, I can then nearly always account with confidence for differences between my opinion and the public's -- generally because the public is either overlooking/undervaluing or actually negatively viewing one or more factors that I know to be positive aspects of a horse's record (which makes the horse in question an overlay), or else overbetting one or more factors that may indeed be positive indicators, but not to the extent that the public believes in that particular race (which produces underlays). Under those circumstances, I would not allow the toteboard to change my opinion of a horse's or combination's chances. The only question would be whether the odds or probable payoff would compensate me for the risk of wagering on it.
|
What do you do when a horse that doesn't figure on paper gets suspicious, heavy play on the board?
__________________
"Theory is knowledge that doesn't work. Practice is when everything works and you don't know why."
-- Hermann Hesse
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 06:48 PM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 52
|
This happens a lot in cheap races with dirty trainers. I pass. When it happens in a Maiden Special at a big track I take notice but since I don't play chalk on top I'll usually pass on those races too.
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 06:52 PM
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlay
Since my evaluation of a race field reflects a composite of weighted ratings from multiple fundamental handicapping categories for each horse, I can then nearly always account with confidence for differences between my opinion and the public's -- generally because the public is either overlooking/undervaluing or actually negatively viewing one or more factors that I know to be positive aspects of a horse's record (which makes the horse in question an overlay), or else overbetting one or more factors that may indeed be positive indicators, but not to the extent that the public believes in that particular race (which produces underlays). Under those circumstances, I would not allow the toteboard to change my opinion of a horse's or combination's chances. The only question would be whether the odds or probable payoff would compensate me for the risk of wagering on it.
|
I agree. Changing one's opinion in response to tote action is fine, provided one has clear and compelling evidence that what one perceives as "insider action" validates a), that one's perceptions are accurate and b) that such action accurately predicts the race finish more often than not.
It is well to remember that people have tender, fragile egos that lead them to remember selectively. Detailed records help.
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 06:55 PM
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 6,330
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
They were made contenders before I looked at the board.
That they are not in the top 4 is good news. A and B are out, E and F are now elevated.
|
Tom,
Are you saying that you stick with your picks, or go with the tote-board?
My picks were A-B-C-D in that order
The tote-board has B-E-A-F in that order.
We agree on the A and B horse but not in that order.
__________________
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 06:58 PM
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 6,330
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I think about odds 2 ways.
1. What do I think the odds will be? (like my own morning line)
2. What do I think the fair odds are?
If the actual odds disagree with my predicted odds significantly, then I think there's always possibility that I am missing something or someone knows something I don't. So I might double check those horses (trainer pattern, trip, etc..that I missed)
If the odds look around where I expected them to be, then the only thing that matters to me is #2.
|
Class,
You sound the most like me. I accept that there is a lot going on that I don't know or that can't be found in print. Recently, I have changed to be more accepting of the tote-board.
__________________
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 07:01 PM
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 6,330
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlay
Since my evaluation of a race field reflects a composite of weighted ratings from multiple fundamental handicapping categories for each horse, I can then nearly always account with confidence for differences between my opinion and the public's -- generally because the public is either overlooking/undervaluing or actually negatively viewing one or more factors that I know to be positive aspects of a horse's record (which makes the horse in question an overlay), or else overbetting one or more factors that may indeed be positive indicators, but not to the extent that the public believes in that particular race (which produces underlays). Under those circumstances, I would not allow the toteboard to change my opinion of a horse's or combination's chances. The only question would be whether the odds or probable payoff would compensate me for the risk of wagering on it.
|
Overlay,
Are you saying that you stay with your picks period and wait for value only?
__________________
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France
|
|
|
07-22-2014, 07:02 PM
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 6,330
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
What do you do when a horse that doesn't figure on paper gets suspicious, heavy play on the board?
|
That's my question too.
__________________
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|