How often do races run to form?

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

So knowing nothing at all about Turf Paradise R2 , if I were to use the board I'd toss the 4 from the top spot and use both 2 and 6 in the win spot.


for fun: Turf Paradise 2 $2.00 WN (PWHL) 2, 6 $4.00

Nice! We see tote things like this all the time. The thing I could never get over is that seeing this and thinking you are on a good thing, what is actually happening? You are betting a mediocre price on a horse you think is a mediocre contender and betting on it because someone else is. I just couldn't buy into the the Wizard of Odds Horseracing conspiracy theory that it is all controlled by the barns and bettors who know the barns!

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Nitro, do you follow NYRA racing ? If yes, please tell me your thoughts on sundays 1st race. To me , I thought Id walk in and see my single and top pick , the 5 at 2/5. He was dead on the board (NY dead) as he was 7/5 ML AND there was a a scratch in the field. The 1 was crushed for no legitimate reason. Not just in the win pool but in the DDS . Nevertheless, I singled the 5 in the pick 5 , ex and sups. I didn't see any large moves on the 5 in any Exactas or DDs. The horse finally and slowly dropped down to almost his ML price. He won well. I am not red boarding some 8/5 in a 5 horse field. Just wondering if you can speak to how the board speaks to you as you imply. The 5 was the most in form horse in the race and the lone tactical horse. We all know horses can go out of form in 1/2 a second and we all know a lone speed can lose their advantage in 1/4 of a stride. Id appreciate your insights as to how the board and money might've pointed you to the 5 as in this case the board said the 5 is not where juice is flowing to.

Thanks

Honestly I haven’t been following the NY tracks lately. So I’m not able to produce the tote analysis for Sunday’s races. Even if I could get the tote data and attempt to back into it, I would only be able to show the analysis for the final pool totals and not the progression of betting during the entire betting cycle. That’s really an important aspect of the total analysis because it shows how betting patterns develop. In reality I personally would have passed on a race with a 5-horse field, only because I’ve learned that the analysis is very discriminatory. In other words, the more entries there are the clearer the betting patterns become. Very often entries that are odds-on skew the entire betting pattern, only because the way they’re being bet impacts every pool so heavily. I will say that when such an entry exists and another longer priced entry is also getting solid betting action that occasionally it paves the way for a nice betting opportunity.

Since today's (4/11) 2nd Race at Turf Paradise was mentioned, I thought it might be of interest to just see how the tote analysis faired when looking at all the final pool totals. Keep in mind when using the analysis we're not looking for Winners. We're looking for Winning plays!

PAR is the analyzed result of ALL the betting pools combined.
The numbers in RED are the individual entry values.
The objective is simply to observe and compare PAR with each Entry value.

Turf  Paradise Race2			1st Int	2nd Int	3rd Int	PAR		
# Name.....	Jockey........	M/L	OD1	OD2	OD3	136	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
1 Sky T......	Ramgeet, Andre	6.0	2.5			104	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
2 Go Max.       Stevens, Scott	4.0	1.8			129	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
3 Sindys Luck	Hernandez, Isr	3.5	3.5			119	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
4 Nutty Futty	Beauregard, Sh	2.5	6			142	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
5 Peaknatastar	Bridges, Kelly	15	45			358	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
6 A P Phantom	Barton, Jake	1.6	2.5			158	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!

Results:
1st….2-Go Max……….$5.60……..$3.40………$2.20
2nd…1-Sky T…………...….-………..$3.80………$2.80
3rd….4-Nutty Futty………-……….…..-….………$2.80
4th….3-Sindys Luck……..-…….……..-….....…….-
$2.00 EXACTA 2-1 ………….....….$19.20
$2.00 QUINELLA 1-2………...….. $11.80
$2.00 TRIFECTA 2-1-4………...… $91.80
$2.00 SUPERFECTA 2-1-4-3….. $149.00

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Did anyone say the "board" can tip you off every single race?

Absolutely not! Great observation!
.
.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

Nice! We see tote things like this all the time. The thing I could never get over is that seeing this and thinking you are on a good thing, what is actually happening? You are betting a mediocre price on a horse you think is a mediocre contender and betting on it because someone else is. I just couldn't buy into the the Wizard of Odds Horseracing conspiracy theory that it is all controlled by the barns and bettors who know the barns!

I agree 100%.
You never want to "follow" the crowd,
just want to know what's going on.


To me, the money is another tool (as if we don't already have enough to consider in our brain's 'supercomputer'...)

(my brain feels like an old PC at the moment but while we're onto something here, I'll try to contribute)



Each tool creates models or patterns

Luckily 80 or 90 different models(from our tool set) cover about 90% of the races.

also lucky, this isn't baseball, - we don't have to swing


FIRST RULE: Have an Opinion about the horse, and Have an Opinion about how that horse will be bet by the public.

NEXT: Observe how the betting plays out. The money, the Odds Behavior, will either be about what you expected, or it will be Unexpected ...?



***UOB***


Unexpected Odds Behavior


What is UOB?, and why does it make your expected ML important?

When the Odds Behave differently from what you Expected, this is telling you in real time, that YOU WERE WRONG.

For whatever reason, you thought that the Odds would be wayyy different from what they actually are.

Safest thing to do at that point is 'fold em'.
Pass the race and move on.

OR
there are more advanced ways to 'read' that hand.


When the Odds behave unexpectedly, there are 3 primary reasons:

• Randomness (public 'gravitated' to a 'default' fav, a 'high roller' went on 'tilt', dumb money following after dumb money, etc...)

• Errors (We made a bad line! WE made a mistake. We were Wrong!!)

• Inside Information (Trainer/Owner/Pro loves/hates this horse today, etc..)

Beginners should always pass, except for fun/practice.


Advanced horseplayers should usually pass, but also attempt to read their ERRORS and why they screwed up and misjudged the odds and how they can learn from it.

Once in a while they can adapt on the fly and re-calculate their bet.



Once in a blue moon, - they realize that word is out, and a horse is Hot or Cold on the board, and the player is sharp enough to tell the difference between a screw-up, and a horse that is UNEXPECTEDLY Hot-or-Cold-on-the-board that may be a horse to key or toss on a few tickets or whatever.



...


So one of the Main Models is simply a safety mechanism. The odds are a big part of this game, and if you weren't in the ballpark about a horse's odds, then your information isn't as strong for that horse or race as you need it to be.




You don't have to like or dislike a horse -
- to be right or wrong about the public's opinion.

Pletcher or Baffert have a FTS or something and the morning line may be 5/2 and they may be 8/5 on the board and it may not mean a thing. You know the Public loves Pletcher and Baffert. You know the reason for the Public's opinion, whether you agree with it or not, or whether you have no idea about the horse. At least you understand the public. Now if he's 1/9, you have to figure that word is out and the horse is thought of as stakes material, and reassess.

[CincyHorseplayer]

A UOB. That's classic Robert!

I get everything you are saying and I wasn't trying to come off condescending in my last post. I've been watching odds changes and wondering this and that for 20 years and all it has made me think is I'm glad somebody else is chasing that money because I'm not betting "hot" horses that look mediocre and win at 9/5. A lot more of them go down in flames. I win plenty and I'm not devoting the time to follow what other people think. It doesn't work in theory for me and it doesn't work in practice. Other players can have it! Golf clap for them! I know you're with me on this.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

I agree 100%.
You never want to "follow" the crowd,
just want to know what's going on.


To me, the money is another tool (as if we don't already have enough to consider in our brain's 'supercomputer'...)

(my brain feels like an old PC at the moment but while we're onto something here, I'll try to contribute)



Each tool creates models or patterns

Luckily 80 or 90 different models(from our tool set) cover about 90% of the races.

also lucky, this isn't baseball, - we don't have to swing


FIRST RULE: Have an Opinion about the horse, and Have an Opinion about how that horse will be bet by the public.

NEXT: Observe how the betting plays out. The money, the Odds Behavior, will either be about what you expected, or it will be Unexpected ...?



***UOB***


Unexpected Odds Behavior


What is UOB?, and why does it make your expected ML important?

When the Odds Behave differently from what you Expected, this is telling you in real time, that YOU WERE WRONG.

For whatever reason, you thought that the Odds would be wayyy different from what they actually are.

Safest thing to do at that point is 'fold em'.
Pass the race and move on.

OR
there are more advanced ways to 'read' that hand.


When the Odds behave unexpectedly, there are 3 primary reasons:

• Randomness (public 'gravitated' to a 'default' fav, a 'high roller' went on 'tilt', dumb money following after dumb money, etc...)

• Errors (We made a bad line! WE made a mistake. We were Wrong!!)

• Inside Information (Trainer/Owner/Pro loves/hates this horse today, etc..)

Beginners should always pass, except for fun/practice.


Advanced horseplayers should usually pass, but also attempt to read their ERRORS and why they screwed up and misjudged the odds and how they can learn from it.

Once in a while they can adapt on the fly and re-calculate their bet.

Once in a blue moon, - they realize that word is out, and a horse is Hot or Cold on the board, and the player is sharp enough to tell the difference between a screw-up, and a horse that is UNEXPECTEDLY Hot-or-Cold-on-the-board that may be a horse to key or toss on a few tickets or whatever.

So one of the Main Models is simply a safety mechanism. The odds are a big part of this game, and if you weren't in the ballpark about a horse's odds, then your information isn't as strong for that horse or race as you need it to be.

You don't have to like or dislike a horse -
- to be right or wrong about the public's opinion.

Pletcher or Baffert have a FTS or something and the morning line may be 5/2 and they may be 8/5 on the board and it may not mean a thing. You know the Public loves Pletcher and Baffert. You know the reason for the Public's opinion, whether you agree with it or not, or whether you have no idea about the horse. At least you understand the public. Now if he's 1/9, you have to figure that word is out and the horse is thought of as stakes material, and reassess.

Cincy is Right! A Classic Delusion if I’ve ever seen one!

Well Robert with all due respect, you and many like yourself who have been indoctrinated by so many misconceptions about the game fail miserably at understanding what a tote analysis really is and what it can provide when properly applied.

The fact that you continually refer to the “Odds” as the foundation for the tote evaluation is a TOTAL underestimation of what’s involved. It’s about as accurate as saying that fastest horse in today's race is the one who won its last race. The “Odds” reflect the activities of ONLY one of mutual pools and NONE of the exotic pools. So as far as I’m concerned anyone who mentions just “Odds” or “UOB” knows about as much about the betting pools and the betting activities as someone who pretends to know more about a horse’s condition then its trainer.

The other obvious fallacy is the attempt to downplay the activities in betting pools as a reflection of the so called “crowd” or betting public. Over and over again the use of this terminology provides an oversimplification and obtuse description of the actual betting population. As far as I’m concerned anyone who actually believes that they’re JUST betting against some other player reading a racing form or even using some elaborate handicapping program is really kidding themselves.

This game is not about the horses. It’s about those who control every aspect of these horses in the racing game. And although it might be hard for some to swallow, you can bank on every assertion I've made!
.
.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Cincy is Right! A Classic Delusion if I’ve ever seen one!

Well Robert with all due respect, you and many like yourself who have been indoctrinated by so many misconceptions about the game fail miserably at understanding what a tote analysis really is and what it can provide when properly applied.

The fact that you continually refer to the “Odds” as the foundation for the tote evaluation is a TOTAL underestimation of what’s involved. It’s about as accurate as saying that fastest horse in today's race is the one who won its last race. The “Odds” reflect the activities of ONLY one of mutual pools and NONE of the exotic pools. So as far as I’m concerned anyone who mentions just “Odds” or “UOB” knows about as much about the betting pools and the betting activities as someone who pretends to know more about a horse’s condition then its trainer.

The other obvious fallacy is the attempt to downplay the activities in betting pools as a reflection of the so called “crowd” or betting public. Over and over again the use of this terminology provides an oversimplification and obtuse description of the actual betting population. As far as I’m concerned anyone who actually believes that they’re JUST betting against some other player reading a racing form or even using some elaborate handicapping program is really kidding themselves.

This game is not about the horses. It’s about those who control every aspect of these horses in the racing game. And although it might be hard for some to swallow, you can bank on every assertion I've made!
.
.

Yes it is about horses and it is about constructing the game around your strengths and laughing at the hot payoffs and odds we see every day for years on end because they all lead to the same place=getting paid less money for equal work. Getting paid less and essentially worshiping at the altar of someone else's opinion as a divinity isn't just someone likely to be a loser at this game but also a half a human being and a fool of the highest order especially given the deafening roar of the self applause. The only thing we out here bank on is your money being in our pockets at the end of the year.

BTW start your own thread about this BS. Nobody mentioned betting on tote money when this thread started. It's about the formfulness of races or lack of. I have a methodology I talk about amongst players. You have a crusade for validation because you throw this around all over the place in the forum on threads it doesn't even relate to.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by raybo

If a horse drifts down to his morning line of 7/5, etc., then IMO he/she wasn't "dead on the board". People bet differently for different reasons. In this case it appears that the big money (or a good portion of the betting public), was waiting until late, waiting for the pool size to increase enough to damper the the effect on the odds, or making it appear that the 5 had some problem that was not evident in the PPs, etc.. Pool manipulation takes many forms so you have to be careful about what you "perceive" is happening, because you could be (probably are, quite often) completely wrong.

Yup. You got me Raybo. Everyone knows that at NYRA the 7/5 ML favs who are 3/1 - 5/2 for most of the betting are mortal locks when they get late money down to 8/5.

What was I thinking?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Yup. You got me Raybo. Everyone knows that at NYRA the 7/5 ML favs who are 3/1 - 5/2 for most of the betting are mortal locks when they get late money down to 8/5.

What was I thinking?

I didn't say they would be "mortal locks", only that they weren't "dead on the board" as most here perceive that phrase to mean, as in "doesn't have a chance". It is not unusual, at any track or circuit, to see a horse sit "dead" throughout most of the early betting, only to drift down to at or near its ML odds via the late money. It can mean that the horse got some serious money late, by someone knowing something, or it could mean that the downward drift was just a normal function of the public correcting towards the ML.

By the way, my previous post was just my opinion, not meant to denigrate anyone nor a statement of absolute fact.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

Yes it is about horses and it is about constructing the game around your strengths and laughing at the hot payoffs and odds we see every day for years on end because they all lead to the same place=getting paid less money for equal work. Getting paid less and essentially worshiping at the altar of someone else's opinion as a divinity isn't just someone likely to be a loser at this game but also a half a human being and a fool of the highest order especially given the deafening roar of the self applause. The only thing we out here bank on is your money being in our pockets at the end of the year.

BTW start your own thread about this BS. Nobody mentioned betting on tote money when this thread started. It's about the formfulness of races or lack of. I have a methodology I talk about amongst players. You have a crusade for validation because you throw this around all over the place in the forum on threads it doesn't even relate to.

From your response it sounds like my comments were not only hard for you to swallow but you might be actually choking on them. I’m not sure why you play the game, but I play to make money. As an Outsider I’m not stupid enough to believe that I can know at any given time the health and well-being of every animal in a race. Nor am I gullible enough to believe that any information found in the form or elsewhere is going to provide that information or the intentions of those on the inside.

I’m certainly NOT on any sort of crusade as you put it. I deal strictly with the realities of the game and I’m humble enough to realize that as an Outsider my personal opinions have nothing to do with making a profit. I’m not looking to inflate my ego by saying that I picked this or that winner based on some subjective interpretation of racing information.

I also find it very amusing that you take the time to lecture me on my approach, but conveniently venerate Robert’s comments discussing the same topic (on this thread) with an opposite opinion. It’s called being hypocritical and as far as I’m concerned your opinions of my comments are certainly not going to affect my game. But perhaps something I mention will make others take notice of the fact that there’s more information available to them (free of charge) that might improve their game.
.
.

[Dave Schwartz]

I have been thinking about this thread and it begs a question:

What is the definition of runs true to form?

Logically, one could say, "Runs as expected by the public, which translates to final odds," but is there a better way?


Opinions?

[Magister Ludi]

Originally Posted by zerosky

...what proportion of races finish with the top three in the betting finishing in the top three places?

country = USA
number of races = 77,060
percentage of races in which the lowest three final odds finish in the top three finishing positions (any order) = 17%

As usual, one classifier can change things dramatically.

example:

percentage of races in which the lowest three final odds finish in the top three finishing positions (any order) where race entropy < median = 23%
percentage of races in which the lowest three final odds finish in the top three finishing positions (any order) where race entropy > median = 9%

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

Yes it is about horses and it is about constructing the game around your strengths and laughing at the hot payoffs and odds we see every day for years on end because they all lead to the same place=getting paid less money for equal work. Getting paid less and essentially worshiping at the altar of someone else's opinion as a divinity isn't just someone likely to be a loser at this game but also a half a human being and a fool of the highest order especially given the deafening roar of the self applause. The only thing we out here bank on is your money being in our pockets at the end of the year.

BTW start your own thread about this BS. Nobody mentioned betting on tote money when this thread started. It's about the formfulness of races or lack of. I have a methodology I talk about amongst players. You have a crusade for validation because you throw this around all over the place in the forum on threads it doesn't even relate to.

First off, Robert brought up odds, and second off, I'll be the one who decides what should and shouldn't be posted in a thread. And will someone please PM me why Nitro gets such a hard time on here? I must have missed a whole lot, because I don't get why you bust on this guy so badly (not just you).

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Honestly I haven’t been following the NY tracks lately. So I’m not able to produce the tote analysis for Sunday’s races. Even if I could get the tote data and attempt to back into it, I would only be able to show the analysis for the final pool totals and not the progression of betting during the entire betting cycle. That’s really an important aspect of the total analysis because it shows how betting patterns develop. In reality I personally would have passed on a race with a 5-horse field, only because I’ve learned that the analysis is very discriminatory. In other words, the more entries there are the clearer the betting patterns become. Very often entries that are odds-on skew the entire betting pattern, only because the way they’re being bet impacts every pool so heavily. I will say that when such an entry exists and another longer priced entry is also getting solid betting action that occasionally it paves the way for a nice betting opportunity.

Since today's (4/11) 2nd Race at Turf Paradise was mentioned, I thought it might be of interest to just see how the tote analysis faired when looking at all the final pool totals. Keep in mind when using the analysis we're not looking for Winners. We're looking for Winning plays!

PAR is the analyzed result of ALL the betting pools combined.
The numbers in RED are the individual entry values.
The objective is simply to observe and compare PAR with each Entry value.

Turf  Paradise Race2			1st Int	2nd Int	3rd Int	PAR		
 # Name.....	Jockey........	M/L	OD1	OD2	OD3	136	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
 1 Sky T......	Ramgeet, Andre	6.0	2.5			104	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
 2 Go Max.       Stevens, Scott	4.0	1.8			129	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
 3 Sindys Luck	Hernandez, Isr	3.5	3.5			119	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
 4 Nutty Futty	Beauregard, Sh	2.5	6			142	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
 5 Peaknatastar	Bridges, Kelly	15	45			358	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
 6 A P Phantom	Barton, Jake	1.6	2.5			158	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!

Results:
1st….2-Go Max……….$5.60……..$3.40………$2.20
2nd…1-Sky T…………...….-………..$3.80………$2.80
3rd….4-Nutty Futty………-……….…..-….………$2.80
4th….3-Sindys Luck……..-…….……..-….....…….-
$2.00 EXACTA 2-1 ………….....….$19.20
$2.00 QUINELLA 1-2………...….. $11.80
$2.00 TRIFECTA 2-1-4………...… $91.80
$2.00 SUPERFECTA 2-1-4-3….. $149.00

Absolutely not! Great observation!
.
.

Looks like some good stuff

Amazing how often Tote analysis correlates with performance.

Didn't mean to post right after you last night, we both must have been doing a write-up about the same time.

[Robert Fischer]

Back on-topic

I think that the pace scenario is also important to races "running to form".

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Back on-topic

I think that the pace scenario is also important to races "running to form".

Yeah, I used to look at the charts to see how the top 4 stretch horses finished, and what happened early regarding start, call positions and beaten lengths, to see if the track has been running normally. Just a visual analysis, nothing mathematical.