odds line

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I always thought that odds-line makers didn't deal in terms like "contenders" and "non-contenders". I thought they only viewed the horses as "underlays" and "overlays"...

Sure, but some use the option of lumping those they don't think can win in a group of non-contenders, and assign that group a bulk line.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

Sure, but some use the option of lumping those they don't think can win in a group of non-contenders, and assign that group a bulk line.

Not very "precise"...if you ask me.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Not very "precise"...if you ask me.

I agree, but I also have enough experience to know that nobody's line is as precise as they think it is, and I don't want to waste time making a line on a horse I would never bet anyway. As I mentioned earlier, if I don't think a horse has a better chance than "natural odds" (5 to 1 in a 6 horse field for example), I'm not betting him anyway. Those kinds are almost always, at least for me, false overlays. If I make a horse 30-1 and he goes off 50 to 1, no thanks.

[Tom]

Why be precise with horse you will never bet?

You can be precise and say that the group of non contenders has a 2% chance of having the winner in it, but who cares how that 2% is divided among the horses?

If you make a horse 100-1 on your line, and he goes off 300-1, is that a good overlay bet? Don't waster your time on the small stuff- focus on the ones who will win 90% of the time.

[classhandicapper]

IMO it's easier to identify a group of horses with a 40% chance of winning than a group of horses with an 8% chance of winning. Plus, if you are off by a few % with the 40% horses, they could still be profitable. If you are off by a few % with the 8% horses, it could be a disaster. I think that's why people tend to group those low percentage horses into the non contender area and not even may individual lines. It's tougher to be precise and you don't want to leave yourself more vulnerable to error.

[Tom]

You know what you call a horse with no shot at winning?
The place horse.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Tom

Why be precise with horse you will never bet?

You can be precise and say that the group of non contenders has a 2% chance of having the winner in it, but who cares how that 2% is divided among the horses?

If you make a horse 100-1 on your line, and he goes off 300-1, is that a good overlay bet? Don't waster your time on the small stuff- focus on the ones who will win 90% of the time.

I agree with your general reasoning, but since it takes me no longer to come up with fair odds for the longest shot in a field than it does for the horse with the best chance of winning, I'd just as soon have visibility of all of them (whether I end up actually betting any particular horse or not), so that I can make the most informed wagering judgments possible.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Tom

You know what you call a horse with no shot at winning?
The place horse.

Or, "my horse".

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by raybo

You still don't get it. You eliminate your non-contenders, BEFORE, you create your odds line, not after. And you could be eliminating them for reasons other than what the general public is betting, so you absolutely could be eliminating low priced horses. You don't eliminate your low priced contenders because of their odds, they are still win contenders, you just don't think their actual odds are worth the risk in betting them.

But, the key point you're missing is that you eliminate horses as win contenders, not because of their odds, but because you don't like them to win the race, you think they have no way of winning unless the other contenders break their dang legs, etc..

And, the next time you call me an "old man" I might decide to get really serious. I did not disrespect you, I just stated something that was obvious to most here, except you, you didn't get it.

Okay, Raybo. We had a disconnect. To me, a proper odds line is made from taking a score from every horse in the field including non-contenders. An odds line is a simple math function applied across the field. Actually, eliminating horses before creating an odds line acknowledges giving non-contenders a null value in the line which started this thread.

Sorry about the old man. You didn't explain yourself which forced me to defend myself because of your remarks.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Okay, Raybo. We had a disconnect. To me, a proper odds line is made from taking a score from every horse in the field including non-contenders. An odds line is a simple math function applied across the field. Actually, eliminating horses before creating an odds line acknowledges giving non-contenders a null value in the line which started this thread.

Sorry about the old man. You didn't explain yourself which forced me to defend myself because of your remarks.

Actually, a null (absence of) value is what you want, those non-contenders would actually be removed from wager consideration, completely. The "null" in this case tells your system "don't bet this horse, at any odds". You can more easily understand the concept, if you had ever seriously considered "automated" betting systems, based on overlays between your line and the live odds. In such a system, if you assigned odds to every horse in the field, your automated betting system could actually place wagers on those non-contenders, because your line's odds are lower than the actual odds. Such a system would actually be wasting money on horses that should never be bet, at all.

[Tom]

If get the race down to say three contenders, how often do one of them win?
Make that your odds. IF they win 85% of the time, then 15% is the percentage you assigning the non-contenders, 15% divided up by how many there are. If there are 3, then each is given a 5% chance. By eliminating them you will not bet them, so it doesn't matter. Now divvy up the 85 percent among the three you might bet. You elimination method identifies two groups of horses, potential bets and no bets.

[dnlgfnk]

I'll be the contrarian.

I focus on the bottom group, whose percentages collectively add up to an equal chance as the favorite. Unless they are all uninteresting, I insist that one or more of them fill out a leg of an exotic, beginning with, but not limiting them to the last slot (4th in super, or one or two of a multirace leg, etc.) Then I lean heavily on the 2nd and/or 3rd ranked horse, unless they are significant underlays (both saved ground in their last two races to look sexy on paper and are potentially very wide today, etc.). Then fill in the blanks, always giving the favorite a chance to run out.

Mostly defensive plays, but emphasizing the few most attractive combos.