Hailing Mr. Schwartz

[john messina]

I've reread your comments about my "Comprehensive Odds Line" and I believe you've made some valid points. So, I'm asking for your help in understanding what actually constitutes an oddsline.

I was under the assumption that if I could determine odds for the entries and my odds correlating closely to the final odds. I'd have a fairly good starting point.

Then if I performed a regression analysis on the difference betweem my predicted odds and the actual final odds and the result was a linear relationship between my predicted odds and actual odds with a correlation coefficent of nearly 1, I was astonished that numerous times my predicted odds vs actuals matched to the dime. I guess that's what "they" call beginners luck. Of course it's luck. No reasonable person would expect to achieve that level of accuracy in the long term. That I fully understand and agree with.... no matter how well intented it is a fantasy.

Let's put aside how I model each horse. The modeling is not an issue. My model could be inadequate or entirely wrong. The model isn't transparent to you. So, I couldn't expect you to comment on it.

My goal is to understand what constitutes an oddsline, so that I can adapt my work towards that definition.

Sadly to say, I thought I knew what constitutes an odds line. Obviously the consensus opinion on this forum is to the contrary. I humbly defer to the more seasoned, experienced and successful handicapping experts on this forum.

With that said, I hope you can find it within you to educate me on the matter of oddslines.

On the question of the DarkHorses, which have been showing some potential, what was I thinking they are picks. I should eliminate them. It's not fair to suggest horses, which appear contrary to what the "supposedly" oddsline
odds imply. For that I stand corrected. From this moment on I'll call them "Picks Contrary to the oddsline". I hope that this will be sufficient.

So, once again I apologize for so bold as to believe I have something of value and credible. And thank all of you who have pointed this out to in such a helpful manner.

Well it's back to the drawing board.

I humbly await your advice and the advice of others in this forum, who can direct path of making a "real" oddsline.

Thanking all of you inadvance.

John Messina

[PaceAdvantage]

Wow. In this thread, and also in the Non Bayesian Probabilities formerly Comprehensive Odds Line thread, you have gone to great lengths to engage Dave Schwartz in some sort of wild eyed debate. Now, one would understand it if Dave had somehow maligned you or spoken ill of you in some way. In fact, I haven't been on the board in 24 hours, and after noticing these thread titles upon initial login, I was fully expecting to go back to your original "Comprehensive Odds Line that Rocks" thread and see a full out war between you and Dave.

But, what I found was surprising. No additional posts from Dave since I last read the board. In fact, your "Dave Crusade" originated from the following THREE posts by Dave in the COLTR thread....I reproduce them here for our convenience:

1. With all due respect, these appear to be "picks" rather than an "odds line."
2. So, if I took the 99-1 shots and added up there actual wins I would find that they win about 1% of the time?
3. While I must respectfully disagree with your definition of "comprehensive odds line," I can certainly recognize your intention. I wish you well in your endeavors.

And that folks, as they say, IS IT! This is what has sparked our friend, John Messina, to take on his own personal "Dave Crusade."

Strange, isn't it? Obviously, there is more here than meets the eye. Hidden agendas seem to abound these days on this board.

[garyoz]

Originally Posted by john messina

Then if I performed a regression analysis on the difference betweem my predicted odds and the actual final odds and the result was a linear relationship between my predicted odds and actual odds with a correlation coefficent of nearly 1, I was astonished that numerous times my predicted odds vs actuals matched to the dime. I guess that's what "they" call beginners luck. Of course it's luck. No reasonable person would expect to achieve that level of accuracy in the long term. That I fully understand and agree with.... no matter how well intented it is a fantasy.

Run the same analysis with the morning line and you will find a coefficient approaching one if your sample is large enough. Nothing here. You'll end up with an ROI close to the vig.

You need to find overlays. You want variance in your odds line where you vary from the off odds on a valid and reliable basis.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by john messina

My goal is to understand what constitutes an oddsline, so that I can adapt my work towards that definition.

My definition of an ideal odds line would assign a probability of winning to each horse in a race so that the probabilities for all the entrants would add up to 100%. Over a statistically significant sample of races, horses would win at an overall frequency corresponding to the odds assigned to them by the odds line. Also (again, ideally), horses would win at a rate corresponding to their assigned odds, regardless of the actual odds they went off at.

[shanta]

Originally Posted by john messina

I hope you can find it within you to educate me on the matter of oddslines.
John Messina

"John",
If you are winning with what you call an odds line who gives a rat's tail what anyone else thinks of it or says it "should be"?

If you are a paisan time would be much better spent finding a vintage Barolo to spend some of your winnings on man

best of luck
Richie

[nobeyerspls]

I don't know a real odds line from a comprehensive one from a bag of apples. Don't know how to make one or use one or how it would help me to bet.
For example, I like the #7 horse in the first race at Gulfstream. She's listed at 6-1 but could go off lower. I'll bet her if she's 7/2 or higher because that's my minimum threshhold in every race. I'll also use her in doubles and a pick three.
As someone who made an oddsline what would you do? Is there any circumstance where you would not play a horse you picked to win?
Is this game about guessing final odds or picking winners? I'm not getting it.

[Cheap Speed]

Originally Posted by nobeyerspls

Is there any circumstance where you would not play a horse you picked to win?
Is this game about guessing final odds or picking winners? I'm not getting it.

To answer your question: yes, all the time.

This has been rehashed several times on separate threads.

If the fav is 1:1 on the tote but his real odds and lets assume my odds for him are the same and 5:2 and my 2nd fav on my odds line, again assuming its equal to his real odds is 4-1 but he is 8-1 on the tote. The I going to bet him instead of the favorite(the horse I think has the best shot to win) because over the long haul I would lose $ on the fav and win $ on the 2nd fav under these circumstances

[DanG]

Originally Posted by nobeyerspls

Is there any circumstance where you would not play a horse you picked to win?
Is this game about guessing final odds or picking winners? I'm not getting it.

Every day / several times a day for many years.

Picking winners is for the guy who writes for the NY Post; not the gambler who hopes to keep their car in repair imo.

You must place some sort of value on the commodity you are buying, regardless if it’s via a sophisticated odds line, or just intuition. Going to the races with a list of animals your betting regardless of price is a recipe to drive home a ‘smoker.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by DanG

Every day / several times a day for many years.

Picking winners is for the guy who writes for the NY Post; not the gambler who hopes to keep their car in repair imo.

You must place some sort of value on the commodity you are buying, regardless if it’s via a sophisticated odds line, or just intuition. Going to the races with a list of animals your betting regardless of price is a recipe to drive home a ‘smoker.

good post

[Robert Fischer]

When i make an odds line;
I start with the "best" horses , move on to the "unknowns" and do the "bums" last.
I make a +/- error range for each horse
I want the probabilities to add up to about 1 or 100%.

The way I tend to do it on paper, the odds line is focused on about the two best horses in the race. If I can get a value on them (or both of them), a play is on...

in "real life" I seldom "show my work" and put it down on paper. I actually do a great deal of my odds line process in my head for several pools, while doing the race selection process. I don't split hairs and do not even select a race where I don't see an inefficiency. My odds line is subjective and based on my opinion. Some handicappers make Objective odds lines based on data which can be great as well, with the added benifit of using computing power to quickly generate the odds line.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by nobeyerspls

As someone who made an oddsline what would you do? Is there any circumstance where you would not play a horse you picked to win?
Is this game about guessing final odds or picking winners? I'm not getting it.

It's not enough just to bet the horse that's most likely to win. As long as bottom-line success is measured by how much money you make, rather than how many winners you pick, the odds on the horses you are betting have to be high enough to compensate you for the losses from those inevitable times when they don't win. Even if you consider betting only the horse that you think will win, unless that horse has a 100% chance of finishing first, you have to make a judgment as to whether the payoff you stand to receive will compensate you for the risk you're taking in betting it. You seem to indicate a basic understanding of this concept by having a standard minimum threshold for acceptable odds. I don't know whether that's based on your own experience with the win rate of your particular handicapping method or not. But in any event, an odds line applies this principle to each horse in a race by asking, "What rate of return on a winning wager will compensate me for the possibility that this horse may not win?" If the horse's actual odds are higher than the odds associated with the probability of winning that you assign to it, you have value, and you bet. If they're lower, then you don't, and you pass the race. (Of course, only one horse can win any individual race, but I'm referring to long-term probabilities and returns.)

[toetoe]

My two chief worries online these days are log-ins and Messina.

Wait, that deserves another.

Duff Man says "Oh yeah."

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

First, apology accepted.

Second, I am not sure what you need from me - my definition is certainly not important here, it is really a matter of semantics, I suppose.

Nevertheless, I will do what I can to answer, although those who have responded before have answered similarly to what I would say.


To me, a "comprehensive odds line" would man two things:

1. It is an oddsline for the race.
2. It is made from a combination of many facets of the game.

As you have said, neither of these two items are requirements to winning. Either is a degree in mathematics or anything else (although these days I am really wishing I was a bit more statistically trained).

By "oddsline for the race" I mean that, if my line is good, I should be able to find one or more playable horse(s) beyond one or two main picks in a race.

This is not meant as a disparagement against your approach. Your approach can work - after all, you may have a fine measuring stick to watch two or three horses each race. (You spoke of "dark horses," but I don't really know what you mean.


Since you took the time to write such long posts on this matter, perhaps I should drone on a little longer.


I see winning at the races as a two-phased process: handicapping and wagering. In truth, the wagering phase should be called "exploitation." It is where, after your numbers, scores, probabilities, odds, whatever... are created, you look at the race and say, "How can I best make money from my handicapping in this race?"

The emphasis on "my handicapping" is not trivial. That is because it cannot ever be confused with "reality." My exploitation is always relative to my perception of the horses' relative values rather than reality. In other words, there are no "correct" odds lines. There are only odds lines that, when properly exploited, produce profit (i.e. "work") and those that don't.

Think of it this way: (I prefer to work with probabilities rather than odds (but admit that they are totally interchangeable.) If I say a horse has a 40% probability and the horse loses one could say that I was wrong by 40%. However, if he wins, then I was wrong by 60%. Either way I am wrong.

The point is that one cannot prove or disprove an oddsline by adding up a column of winners and comparing it to the expected winners. It can only be proven by adding up the exploitivability of the plays. (Yes, I just make these words up but you get the idea.)


More and more I have become convinced that exploitation is way more than "half the battle." It miught actually be 75% of the battle or more.

I have become convinced that one has a better chance of succeeding with average or even poor handicapping and excellent exploitation than poor exploitation and the best handicapping available.

This brings back the words of my old friend Dick Schmidt. Back in about 1991 we were talking about a common client - a fine, old man from Chicago, who is long passed I am sure. Dick said, "Alfred? Sure, great guy. But he couldn't win if you walked him to the window."

Ever known anyone like that? I sure have. (Sometimes it seems I have been him myself.)


Conversely, ever known anyone at the track who handicapped with the DRF consensus page but seemed to do very well? Back in the days when I actually went to the race track I did. Now, I don't know whether they were actually winning players - how would I? But there were a few who seemed to do very well.

IMHO, they did it by being excellent at risk-reward assessment. Somehow, they could look at a handful of opinions, formulate it into a conclusion - this was their "handicapping" phase. Then they managed to move to what they did best - exploit.


I hope This helps you understand where I am coming from and hope it helps you in some way. Feel free to contact me privately if you wish to discuss it a little more. (I rarely pass an opportunity to speak with someone that I might learn something from.)


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[kenwoodallpromos]

I never got into math, just arithmetic, but I guess he changed to probability because he is using just 1 factor. Then he expresses it as an odds? Problem is, it would take awhile of checking results to confirm that odds based on 1 factor really works. Nice if it did- even early speed would be a tough call in routes! Ability time?

[Foolish Pleasure]

I humbly await your advice and the advice of others in this forum, who can direct path of making a "real" oddsline

It is an idiotic, titanic waste of time.
You can't differentiate to the degree necessary it is folly.



You should have a gross idea of what the odds should be,
you should be able to answer any and all questions as to why there is a difference between what they should be and any good old gross estimate. Should be able to take that information and wager accordingly-i.e the rationale behind the odds is correct or it isn't.

If their rationale is incorrect it is idiotic to try and pinpoint specific animals who may hold some expectation. How stupid is it if the 4/5 shot should be 5/1 because they are overrating some factor or something,

and you are picking your ass trying to decide between which 8/1 shots to use?

THe trick is not necessarily coming up with some super accurate line as much as understanding who wants what and why.