Whenever a horse takes 'too much' $💵$, is he 'live'... or is he an 'underlay'??

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

That's true. I agree these betting coups are more likely to be perpetrated in lower class races. I think this effect of late money was first widely seen in a high class race which was more widely publicized.

IMHO, not so much "betting coup" as "standard operating procedure," race in and race out.

[porchy44]

Also I recommend to look at the early money. If a horse looks the best by all
conventional handicapping methods. If he opens up say 4/1 to 7/1 and stays there until the last minute. He may come down to 4/5 very late or after the bell. Often they are bad bets.
I think big bettors want to keep you off a horse so many chalk are hammered early.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by porchy44

Also I recommend to look at the early money. If a horse looks the best by all
conventional handicapping methods. If he opens up say 4/1 to 7/1 and stays there until the last minute. He may come down to 4/5 very late or after the bell. Often they are bad bets.
I think big bettors want to keep you off a horse so many chalk are hammered early.

This is a problem with identifying alleged smart money. As soon as the public recognizes their betting pattern they change it. Just like the armed forces in the war changed their code as soon as the code breakers broke it. Fortunately for us we broke both the German and Japanese naval codes long before they realized it. Plus different big betters may employ different patterns.

It now appears that these big betting syndicates can hide their bets by using computers to bet at the last second before betters can react.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

This is a problem with identifying alleged smart money. As soon as the public recognizes their betting pattern they change it. Just like the armed forces in the war changed their code as soon as the code breakers broke it. Fortunately for us we broke both the German and Japanese naval codes long before they realized it. Plus different big betters may employ different patterns.

It now appears that these big betting syndicates can hide their bets by using computers to bet at the last second before betters can react.

Pretty much the same as you or I can do, except we make less bets.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

So how do you know??

Is the money telling you that this horse is live??
Or is the money irrational or uninformed money that is making the horse a good bet-against underlay??

Well, like they say in poker, “If you've been studying the race for 15 minutes, and you don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy.”

At that point you can pass and wait for a good bet, or roll the dice for some expensive but occasionally thrilling entertainment. Some Action.

Few and far between are the races where you fully expect a favorite or a low-odds 'contender' to take irrational or uninformed money, and fully understand why a horse is going to take that money, AND strongly disagree with the public's reasoning.

My favorite pattern is when a horse gets a big hit when the race goes up on the tote, rises in odds, gets another hit, not as big.

[Nitro]

I’m sure that many here (who consider themselves handicappers) may find my response to be outside the realm of their accepted wisdom as it pertains to this topic. Be that is it may, I thought that perhaps a few others might find it revealing to some extent. I’m sure that the level of acceptance or rejection of my paradigm shift will ultimately be based upon how ingrained their handicapping methodology has become.

I wasn’t really planning on responding to this thread because I knew that anything I offered would involve a lengthy explanation. However, I thoroughly believe that the entire premise for the argument being presented seems to be based on a comparison of 2 very flawed and narrow observations:

1) An individual’s subjective appraisal of the entries based on a pseudo-intellectual analysis of past performances that would suggest revealing the actual contenders in a race.

2) An individual’s use of the live tote odds to determine whether or not the amount of money being wagered in just the “Win” pool on a particular entry could possibly substantiate it as a significant contender in a race.

As far as item “1” goes I’m not going to reiterate my feelings about the pitfalls of using just the interpretations past performances to make any real determinations. That’s only because a past performance can only reveal one thing: How an entry has competed under specific race conditions against particular entrants. Neither of those race conditions or competitors may be involved in the race under consideration. One might only perceive a superficial potential revelation of how entry might perform under certain circumstances.

However, the single most important dynamic that an Outsider must consider when evaluating an entry’s true competitive potential is its current physicality. The mental and physical condition of a horse varies from time to time due to any number REAL environmental factors. Unfortunately, these sort of things more often than not are taken for granted by those who have no direct contact with the animal itself. In fact, many handicappers also assume that every entry entered in a race is there in an attempt to win it. This may be true in stakes races that unfortunately make up only a small portion of the races run.

So what some players attempt to do is rely on item “2”. They believe that viewing the odds on the tote board might reveal some telling information about a particular entry that’s getting heavy action in the Win pool. Well, this might be true if it was the only betting pool available, but it certainly isn’t. (Issue #1) Even it were, the problem with this whole scenario is the idea of focusing this entire relationship on a single entry just because of evidence of elevated betting activities. In actuality, (one pool or not) there’s betting activity being applied to any number of entries. Any attempt to arrive at a foregone conclusion drawn based on the movement of money has to take into consideration ALL of the entries in a race. (Issue #2) This seems easy enough if you really believe the Win pool has all the answers. Unfortunately it doesn’t, and common sense indicates that this can be (more often than not) very misleading when you simply consider the percentage of how many betting favorites actually win a race.

I’ve just scratched the surface with regard to recognizing tote board activities, but because that’s my only tool for playing this game, I thought it might be of interest to get a different perspective.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Nitro

I’m sure that many here (who consider themselves handicappers) may find my response to be outside the realm of their accepted wisdom as it pertains to this topic. Be that is it may, I thought that perhaps a few others might find it revealing to some extent. I’m sure that the level of acceptance or rejection of my paradigm shift will ultimately be based upon how ingrained their handicapping methodology has become.

I wasn’t really planning on responding to this thread because I knew that anything I offered would involve a lengthy explanation. However, I thoroughly believe that the entire premise for the argument being presented seems to be based on a comparison of 2 very flawed and narrow observations:

1) An individual’s subjective appraisal of the entries based on a pseudo-intellectual analysis of past performances that would suggest revealing the actual contenders in a race.

2) An individual’s use of the live tote odds to determine whether or not the amount of money being wagered in just the “Win” pool on a particular entry could possibly substantiate it as a significant contender in a race.

As far as item “1” goes I’m not going to reiterate my feelings about the pitfalls of using just the interpretations past performances to make any real determinations. That’s only because a past performance can only reveal one thing: How an entry has competed under specific race conditions against particular entrants. Neither of those race conditions or competitors may be involved in the race under consideration. One might only perceive a superficial potential revelation of how entry might perform under certain circumstances.

However, the single most important dynamic that an Outsider must consider when evaluating an entry’s true competitive potential is its current physicality. The mental and physical condition of a horse varies from time to time due to any number REAL environmental factors. Unfortunately, these sort of things more often than not are taken for granted by those who have no direct contact with the animal itself. In fact, many handicappers also assume that every entry entered in a race is there in an attempt to win it. This may be true in stakes races that unfortunately make up only a small portion of the races run.

So what some players attempt to do is rely on item “2”. They believe that viewing the odds on the tote board might reveal some telling information about a particular entry that’s getting heavy action in the Win pool. Well, this might be true if it was the only betting pool available, but it certainly isn’t. (Issue #1) Even it were, the problem with this whole scenario is the idea of focusing this entire relationship on a single entry just because of evidence of elevated betting activities. In actuality, (one pool or not) there’s betting activity being applied to any number of entries. Any attempt to arrive at a foregone conclusion drawn based on the movement of money has to take into consideration ALL of the entries in a race. (Issue #2) This seems easy enough if you really believe the Win pool has all the answers. Unfortunately it doesn’t, and common sense indicates that this can be (more often than not) very misleading when you simply consider the percentage of how many betting favorites actually win a race.

I’ve just scratched the surface with regard to recognizing tote board activities, but because that’s my only tool for playing this game, I thought it might be of interest to get a different perspective.

So what is this different perspective? We heard about what you don't like. What method do you use instead?

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

So what is this different perspective? We heard about what you don't like. What method do you use instead?

The "different perspective" from my point of view at this stage of my playing capacity is to first of all ignore the past performances entirely. (Item #1 above). As I mentioned, (and have stated many times before) I only use a very sophisticated tote analysis that was developed by my friend and mentor at the turn of the millennium. I started using it because I felt there was an elusive aspect of this game that was absent from my intricate handicapping method.

I have to admit that when I was first introduced to it I was as skeptical as the next guy, and I continued to rely on my handicapping (probably more as a crutch than anything else). I soon discovered that in many instances there were conflicts between one methodology and the other. The handicapping would point to the logical choices (usually with lower odds). While the betting patterns of the tote analysis indicated that something else was going on.

The entire foundation of the analysis is based on formulas used to assimilate and solve the questions regarding money movement in all the available pools during a typical betting cycle.
The resulting betting patterns are revealed at specific time intervals prior to post time. At each of these intervals the actual analysis illustrates a PAR value for the overall betting on all the entries combined. At the same time a separate value is generated for each entry. Then it just becomes a matter of visually comparing the PAR value with each Entry value at each Betting interval. When viewing this information in its entirety the betting patterns in many cases become very obvious because there's a definite relationship between the PAR value and each Entry value. That relationship and whether or not it changes during the overall betting cycle determines which entries are of interest. (Especially if those entries show significant value!)

Because this method doesn’t generally point to a single entry for play, the straight “Win” bet (other than perhaps Dutching) isn’t even considered. But it certainly lends itself very nicely toward Vertical type exotic bets. The only Horizontal wagering that I might think about would include a parlay.

As other posters here, I’ve done a lot of writing about my preferred method of play. The obvious difference is that I also post live selections from time to time in the Selection Forum. So, if there’s any issue with the credibility about what I’ve been saying anyone interested can view demonstrations of those shared selections.

[AltonKelsey]

Maybe Nitro just got interested at the 'turn of the millennium' as he so poetically puts it, but I have news for him


Folks have been watching the exotic pools since the day they were introduced, what , 40+ years ago?



It's no deep dark secret. It doesn't require the wizardry of a mysterious mentor, to clock the exacta and doubles.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Maybe Nitro just got interested at the 'turn of the millennium' as he so poetically puts it, but I have news for him

Folks have been watching the exotic pools since the day they were introduced, what , 40+ years ago?

It's no deep dark secret. It doesn't require the wizardry of a mysterious mentor, to clock the exacta and doubles.

I think perhaps you should try comprehending the written word before making such ridiculous comments. My previous response was to simply offer some rationale for my feelings about the topic of this thread. Apparently, that went right over your head as well.

Not that it makes any difference, but I didn’t start using the tote analysis at the “turn of the millennium”. That’s when it was developed (and not by me). I only became aware of its existence around 2005.

I’m sure some players might have been watching the mutual and exotic betting pools for time immemorial. However, its apparent that you can’t appreciate the difference between just looking at something and actually analyzing it with the aid of a computer program. BTW in 1978 (“40 years ago”) home PC’s were in their infancy and the Internet was not really a public utility at that point.

I would enjoy watching you or anyone else attempt to manually take down all the tote information during a typical betting cycle and then better yet arrive at some conclusion.

Neither the tote analysis or its originator is mysterious by any stretch of the imagination. (Even yours!) There’s no “wizardry” involved unless of course you characterize computer programs or their developers as having that sort of trait.

[AltonKelsey]

Nitro fancies himself a master of the tote, and assumes everyone but him is still using a clipboard and writing down the payoffs by hand.



Too funny.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Nitro fancies himself a master of the tote, and assumes everyone but him is still using a clipboard and writing down the payoffs by hand.

Too funny.

Is this how you garner attention to yourself? By posting nonsensical replies that have absolutely nothing to do with anything accept your misguided beliefs.

You know nothing about me and have absolutely “0” comprehension about what I think others might be doing.

Personally, I find your posts rather sad and probably a good example of what trolling is all about.

[AltonKelsey]

Cmon Nitro, your words


"I would enjoy watching you or anyone else attempt to manually take down all the tote information during a typical betting cycle and then better yet arrive at some conclusion."




So please, lets keep it real. Otherwise I'll have to stop taking you seriously

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Cmon Nitro, your words

"I would enjoy watching you or anyone else attempt to manually take down all the tote information during a typical betting cycle and then better yet arrive at some conclusion."

So please, lets keep it real. Otherwise I'll have to stop taking you seriously

So, in other words you’re taking my satirical statement at face value? Now that’s funny! Really funny!

I didn’t think you took anything I posted “seriously”. WOW! That’s news to me.

I’ll have to make my future posts clearer so you can make the distinction.

[AltonKelsey]

I'll donate $10 to the fave charity of anyone that thought your comment was ,as you strangely describe it, 'satire'