Most Morning Lines are just Wrong

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Yes, there is a solution. But many would be disappointed in their search for finding value. At least, their ML would be better.

Your title says that most Morning lines are just wrong. You also mention that many would find that their own Morning lines would be better.

However, I find that sometimes the Morning lines are right on the button. For example, at Aqueduct the Morning lines ending with 5 (i.e. 2/5, 3/5,,,,9/5 etc.) have been doing quite well since January 1, 2016.



So far Morning lines ending with 5 have been winning at a rate of 67% and have hit the board at rate of 87%. They have won 21 of their last 31 attempts

Now obviously, they will not be able to continue at this pace throughout the year and I attribute this high win percentage is in part due to the extremely warm weather we have been enjoying for the first half of January.

However, once the temperatures drop and we have full racing days of the severe cold weather that we are used to seeing in Queens New York I suspect that these percentages will drop off dramatically but until then it might be advantageous to just go with the flow at least for now


Trying to beat the Morning lines ending with 5 at this time might prove to be quite difficult what ever method you choose. It would probably be best if you have patience and wait for these percentages to subside at least for the moment at Aqueduct

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Quirin proved that over the long run the public does a descent job at setting odds. Some handicappers like ranking their horses based on their own odds line.

Myself included, however I'd much prefer a predictive ranking which is based upon what's actually value-added. The horse you think is third best may have the most profit potential; IMO this has nothing to do with what odds you set on the horse or what the horse is going off at near post time. If you know it has specific factors that are intrinsically not well understood that is in theory all that matters.

This type of ranking would be based more upon where the profits are concentrated and less upon this predictive line many of us try to conjure up looking for crowd 'mistakes'.

[mickey_arnold]

Originally Posted by cj

I have system I use also that is part of the line making. If I think only three horses are contenders in a 10 horse field, I average that (30%) with 100% and set my line as if I'll have the winner in those three 65% of the time. If I have 4 of 6 as contenders, I use 83.333%, and so on. I then divvy up the percentage among the horses I have as contenders. It works for me, been doing it a long time now.

CJ,

Your linemaking approach has dramatically simplified for me the task of setting a threshold win% for the set of contenders.

But I don't use it to for apportioning that percentage to each contender and help to make a fair odds line.... I use it with a little tweaking to create a group overlay scenario...

Can't use it for every race and have several race elimination criteria...Ultimately, it is a high win%, low average mutuel method....Averages 2-3 races per card and recent set of 500 races shows 10% return...Still needs some tightening to set acceptable overlay edge...

As with any method, you need a solid approach to select contenders....The drawback is that board watching is a must, so late flash drop-downs can hurt....Working on strategy to identify and handle inevitable odds drop-downs...If I develop one , I'll be sure to share here..

Congrats on your approach to targeting of total contender %age.

P.S. Been looking for the PA link to the fuller description of your method.... Have the write-up, didn't save the link... Can you share it on the forum ?

Thanks again,
Mickey

[Stillriledup]

It's a math problem.

[cj]

Originally Posted by mickey_arnold

CJ,

P.S. Been looking for the PA link to the fuller description of your method.... Have the write-up, didn't save the link... Can you share it on the forum ?

Thanks again,
Mickey

Thanks for the nice words.

As for the method, I have it quasi-automated in a spreadsheet after I manually select contenders, but in all honesty I've been doing it so long now I can usually just do "close enough" calculations in my head. I focus on speed figures and figure patterns, trainers (especially changes), and surface/distance. I try to use what is most relevant for each horse. If a horse is first time on grass, speed figures on dirt don't count much...I'll focus on breeding ratings and trainer ratings. If it is a first claim by a "super trainer", again speed figures are out the window.

I could go on and on, but I don't want to bore people to death with all the various combinations. Basically I'm focusing on the most important factor(s) for each horse, putting them on the same scale, then mathematically creating a line.

[mickey_arnold]

I hear you, CJ...I can just take a gander at the figs I use and can see at a glance whether a horse fits in the group edge I am looking for...helps a lot to have memorized how odds translate into probabilities.

..My approach is to to look for the classic fundamentals in a horse that the public has overlooked in the process of trying to outsmart everyone else...Happens more often than people realize..

It's using unappreciated strengths against the obvious ones in the classic factors impacting a race.

The basics of my approach are semi-automated in a spreadsheet also....In fact, i just use a little "cut and and paste" to utilize the basic method, then either do the overlay calculations in my head or a use a basic calculator...going to automate the overlay edge fairly soon , but at this point, with quick eyeballing of the prospects for an overlay fit on ,it is less critical.

Sure, The algorithm I devised mostly contains predictable contenders (and result in a skipped race), but sometimes even some of those have a nice odds spread that meets
overlay requirements.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by hopbet

VIC,
I believe 99.9% of the people who post or read your (post), WITHOUT question acknowledge you care about horse racing. I personally feel, that I'm being SHORTCHANGED (again 99.9% of the people who post or read AGREE)> The years and different positions you have held, and INSIGHT (knowledge) especially on the handicapping(betting) you have and have obtained would benefit ALL. I fully understand providing information would cause your ROI to DECLINE. Sharing and or providing information ultimately is your choice/decision. Thanks HOPBET

I'm a totally open book. I'm more than happy to share anything and everything I've learned during my 40 years in the business.

My ROI will take care of itself. Especially because I'm predominantly a tournament player these days.

I love talking attacking the windows theory anytime.

Fire away.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Your title says that most Morning lines are just wrong. You also mention that many would find that their own Morning lines would be better.

However, I find that sometimes the Morning lines are right on the button. For example, at Aqueduct the Morning lines ending with 5 (i.e. 2/5, 3/5,,,,9/5 etc.) have been doing quite well since January 1, 2016.



So far Morning lines ending with 5 have been winning at a rate of 67% and have hit the board at rate of 87%. They have won 21 of their last 31 attempts

Now obviously, they will not be able to continue at this pace throughout the year and I attribute this high win percentage is in part due to the extremely warm weather we have been enjoying for the first half of January.

However, once the temperatures drop and we have full racing days of the severe cold weather that we are used to seeing in Queens New York I suspect that these percentages will drop off dramatically but until then it might be advantageous to just go with the flow at least for now


Trying to beat the Morning lines ending with 5 at this time might prove to be quite difficult what ever method you choose. It would probably be best if you have patience and wait for these percentages to subside at least for the moment at Aqueduct

The morning line is NOT a selection process.

[Capper Al]

I don't know where this thread is at, but the first point I was trying to get people to see is that we are blind to about 20% of the winners, some maybe more and some maybe less.

A common mistake is that most mistakenly take their numbers for the horse's ability. A true morning line is not as much a measure of the horses ability, but better a reflection of our understanding of the game. Start the with the permission that we are blind to about 20% of the winners. Then consider that the public has first choice, so if you like a horse and the public likes a horse- the public bets it down first. To wager against the public for value, one must exclude the public. Let's use the old fashion measure that the public wins one third of the time. What's available to you? On average out of 10 races, we won't be able to pick the winner after the race on two of them. The public will hit about three of them across the 10 races. Most likely, these three that the public hits will be in your vision, at least you could have pick these after the race. It's looking like around 5 winners out of ten races are available to hit at a price to be denoted by your personal morning line. What I'm getting at here is not the horse's odds of winning, but rather your odds needed to profit.

[NorCalGreg]

Not following your meaning, Al.....picking "after" the race. I can pick 10 out of 10 winners "after" the race---so I'm sure I'm not understanding. Explain?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

Not following your meaning, Al.....picking "after" the race. I can pick 10 out of 10 winners "after" the race---so I'm sure I'm not understanding. Explain?

The concern here was what is visible in your handicapping to you after the race. How many winners are from your top ranked horses? Those that are not in the top half are most likely blind to your methods. Most of these bottom half horses are not seen by the handicapper, they might not honestly be able to justify the winner after the race. These are one's blind spots and need to be accepted and figured into one's odds line.

[caper]

I literally just came down stairs to start a topic on the same subject.

I'm beginning to hate MLO's Yesturday at Freehold (harness track) was a great example. There was a p4 carryover so i was studying the program pretty good. A lot of favorites hit at that track, but if you follow it as closely as I do, you can find the false favorites. 2 legs were pretty easy picks, singles. There was a big favorite in the last leg, that I suspected might have problems negotiating the tight turns. So I had that down to two or 3. The toughest leg was a trot race where the 1st 4 horses (best post positions) were all really poor. The 5ht horse I liked, had the highest win percentage and could really leave. But she was in poor form over the last month or so. But still all the horses leaving inside were poor. It's all my fault I admit, I should have known better, but the reason I didn't pick her was that she was 20-1 morning line. I ended up going with the "safer pick" (who I could not stand). The race goes off, she ends up at like 9-1 and wins easy. The p4 goes favorite- 9-1- favorite- 2nd favorite. Pays 2k. I was sick.

[Dave Schwartz]

Not following your meaning, Al.....picking "after" the race. I can pick 10 out of 10 winners "after" the race---so I'm sure I'm not understanding. Explain?

My POV is a little different than "The Capper's."

After a race is over, to me the question is, "Can the winner be justified?"

I have about 30 core factors. Specifically, that means can I see at last 2 factors where the winner was 1st or 2nd? If so, then there was a logical reason why the horse won the race.

This does not mean that my handicapping could have pushed him up high enough to get as a contender.

In my experience around 12% of all winners will fall into this category.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

My POV is a little different than "The Capper's."

After a race is over, to me the question is, "Can the winner be justified?"

I have about 30 core factors. Specifically, that means can I see at last 2 factors where the winner was 1st or 2nd? If so, then there was a logical reason why the horse won the race.

This does not mean that my handicapping could have pushed him up high enough to get as a contender.

In my experience around 12% of all winners will fall into this category.

This is what I mean about picking the winner after the race. Can I verify a couple of plus factors for the winner after the race.

[ebcorde]

as the effort to compete for the dollar, excitement races are more competitive. The odds makers are accurate majority of the time.

I think most races the Horses fit in that competitive level hence you see tons of 3-1-4-1,-5-1,6-1,8-1.

what I suggest is creating 3 levels for Morning line odds

level 1 8-1 and lower (for me I give Horses 8-1 and lower the same chance to win)

level 2 12-1/10-1.

level 3 above 12-1.

now count the number of Horses 8-1 and lower in a race. that's a sure sign to be careful. test it out.