Regardless of the eventual outcome, good analysis.
Chris
For what its worth, I think Host towers over this field.
Where\'s Jimbo on this?
Despite a very wide trip, he still got the job done, so I\'ll stick by my \"towers\" comment. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and take the $5.40.
Post Edited (12-05-04 06:47)
I will accept even money on a horse I think is a standout. But doing so on a small Turf course is very hard to do. Sounds like TGraph was all over the winner. Sometimes the favorite is a good bet.
Chuckles_the_Clown2 wrote:
> I will accept even money on a horse I think is a standout. But
> doing so on a small Turf course is very hard to do. Sounds like
> TGraph was all over the winner. Sometimes the favorite is a
> good bet.
\"Rationally though, he's a
contender but an underlay.\"
The above is from the analysis. I don\'t think that is really being all over a horse. I respect the analyst found him to be a probable underlay, while I had him about 3-5 to win this race. Such is racing, it goes the other way sometimes.
CtC,
did you even read the analysis? they had the winner an underlay at 3-1. that must have made him a huge underlay in their opinion at half those odds. still, i always appreciate the ROTW from TG, it\'s free, and it always gives some interesting info. for full disclosure sake, i had pretty much the same opinion as TG on the top three, and missed the race.
Post Edited (12-04-04 18:12)
No I didn\'t read it. I don\'t bet Turf races at Calder.
I just skimmed it and I think its clear they liked the perfecta horses and hinted the big money third place finisher might surprise.
they did not like the winner in the least at those odds. they had him an underlay at 3-1, and he went off at half those odds.
Chuckles,
Come on. Be at least somewhat reasonable when you post a contrarian opinion. \"T-Graph was all over the winner\", is the worst post on this board in quite a while. The horse paid $5.40 and Jerry said that Silver Tree was the most likely winner, with Host only having one figure that put him in contention and was an underlay at 3-1.
That is about as far away from \"all over\" the winner as it gets.
I am not criticizing the ROTW. I don\'t bet horses in December, so I don\'t want to redboard the race. I know I would not have had Host at that price though. But don\'t post \"T-Graph was all over the winner\". That just isnt\' close to being accurate.
The analysis was super...Missed the superfecta because I dumped the 2 and inserted the 14. I had a good bet on the exacta to make money on the race. I tried to buy the analysis for Calder but it was not available. The superfecta,in my opinion was ripe, but what did Chop Chop do to the 2???? I think the tote board flickered as the 2 ran by.
Yeah, really super. The analysis has positive comments on 9 of the 12 horses listed. And the one it called an underlay at 3-1, won the race.
Spa, glad you had the exacta. But 8-5 over 8-5?
It was 1.70 over 1.70 $13...that\'s why the race was sooooo easy at the superfecta level....$2,500 x 10.....$25,000....get the picture ?????????????? It was all there in the analysis. The late scratch fooled me again....what a game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Spa,
If the race was easy for you, congratulations. But give the credit to yourself for hitting the race, not the ROTW.
Jim
You guys are really stretching things to say that analysis pointed to the winner and the super, I just don\'t get it.
don\'t bother beyer, as much as you are making sense, you aren\'t going to convince this spa guy of anything. he cashed, great for him. the ROTW was well written, they just didn\'t like the winner at the low odds, as many of us didn\'t (myself included).
Agreed Michael,
The ROTW was very well written. Excellent grammar and punctuation. :)
>the ROTW was well written, they just didn\'t like the winner at the low odds, as many of us didn\'t (myself included).<
I didn\'t look at the race, but just because the horse won doesn\'t mean that a lot of people that hated him that price weren\'t right.
class,
that last line really has me \"scratching my head\". were you just being facetious? as long as this is considered a betting game, somebody who calls a horse an underlay at 3-1, then watches the horse win at half those odds, is flat out wrong. (i apologize if i misunderstood your post).
Michael,
You did not misunderstand me.
I would happily bet against horses that I estimate have a 20% chance of winning that are going off at 8/5 every single day of my life. Even though they would win 20% of the time, I would consider myself right if that\'s actually how often they won (as a group). If they won 35% of the time, then I obviously screwed up and was wrong. One individual race does not prove whether or not you were right about the appropriate odds.
There is no \"right\" answer when it comes to picking winners. There are only probabilities.
As much as we would like to think our speed figures are perfect and our insights correct, they aren\'t. Horses are not machines. Sometimes they feel better or worse than they have recently. Sometimes they get lucky or unlucky trips. All that leads to the most likely horse not winning all the time. The way you judge is how horses do relative to your expectations over the long term, not from a single result.
Now if a group of TG\'s supposed underlays were coming in at rate consistent with their true odds instead of his own odds line, then he I would say he\'s been wrong a lot of the time.
Me personally, I often bet 10-1 shots that finish 9th and after the race I\'m still certain I was correct to make the bet because the value was there. The horse just didn\'t cooperate for some known or unknown reason. :-)
No it doesn\'t. Not even close. As a matter of fact that logic is absolutely ludicrous. Horses win all the time at even money that I wouldn\'t bet at 4-1 with your money. Doesn\'t mean I was wrong - it means I know what price I\'m willing to take. Right and wrong in this game is measured in one way - where does your bankroll sit at the end of the year.
twoshoes..... wow! if a horse wins at even money, and you wouldn\'t bet him at 4-1, you were wrong about the horse, period. i don\'t care what price you are willing to take, you misread the horse, and how dominant he was going to be in the race. skip the race if you don\'t think you understand it, that\'s fine. but if you won\'t bet a horse at 4-1, and he wins at even money, you clearly did not understand the horse\'s chances. if you think not understanding a horse\'s chances in a race is a good thing, which it appears you do, then good luck to you. personally, i like to understand the chance a horse has of winning the race, ESPECIALLY IF THE HORSE WINS THE RACE!. and class, over a period of time, you most likely lose money if you think 7/5 winners are underlays at 3-1.
The over and under on posts before this one dies out is 15.
Not that it should even be necessary to say so, but obviously CH hit it right on the head. If you try to beat this game by picking winners (rather than seeing it as a game of probabilities and looking for overlays) you will go broke. Which is why we put odds minimums in our plays in the analysis, and often don\'t say to play the most likely winner.
Michael - Dominant? Did our fictitious even money shot win by a neck, a nose, open lengths? Just because a horse wins doesn\'t make him a good wager even if he wins by daylight. It also doesn\'t mean he was dominant. Caught the track right - the other speed didn\'t break - an unlikely duel develops in front of him and he sits a garden trip. A lot of calculations go into making a value line and lots of stuff can happen during the race that renders many of the variables moot. If you don\'t understand that - good luck to you. Positive ROI - lots of ways to get there but it\'s the only thing that matters - even more than opinions.
Best of luck
TGJB,
you judged Host\'s chances of winning the race incorrectly. CtC said you were all over the winner. jimbo simply corrected CtC. understanding the winners chance in a horse race is a good thing. thinking that horse is not a good bet at 4-1, while the public knows he is a strong fav at 1-1 (and the horse wins), is a bad thing. nothing real complicated here.
Post Edited (12-07-04 14:06)
Michael,
>understanding the winners chance in a horse race is a good thing. thinking that horse is not a good bet at 4-1, while the public knows he is a strong fav at 1-1 (and the horse wins), is a bad thing. <
I\'ll grant you this much.
If I dislike a horse, the public loves him, I can\'t understand why, and then he wins for fun, I will sometimes re-examine the race to see if there\'s something I missed or can learn.
But generally at this stage, I know why I dislike him. I know why the public loves him, and I know why I think the public is wrong.
So I don\'t care if he happens to win. They are still wrong for overbetting him relative to his chances.
class,
do yourself a favor, in your post where you used the word \"sometimes\", do it \"always\". if you think a horse should be 2/1 or so, and he wins in a jog at even money, you most likely missed something. i always learn more from my losers than i do from my winners. and for sure, find out why you were wrong if you though a horse should be 4-1 and wins at even money, in that case you completely misread the race (a good thing in twoshoes opinion)....... hey, we used to agree on everything, on the opposite sides lately. i guess it comes in waves.
Post Edited (12-07-04 14:26)
I would say just because a horse wins doesn\'t mean a handicapper misjudged the horse if he calls him an underlay. Otherwise, after every race, you could say the winner should have been 1-20 on my line.
I\'ll give an example, lets say Host had won because he snuck through on the hedge while Silver was 3 wide on one turn and 4 wide on the next, and nearly ran down Host anyway. In that case, Silver was clearly the better horse, and Host might have been an underlay at 8-5.
I thought Host was absolutely dominant in this field for a few reasons, which don\'t matter much for this discussion. In this one, individual case, I was proven right in my opinion when he won despite have a much tougher trip than the runner up.
To set an odds line before the race is imperative for me, and probably most successful bettors. Of course, I am wrong many times, just as the Race of the Week is right many times, just not recently. I just disagreed with the analysis, before the race, and stated as much. For a few guys to then try to say the Analysis was spot on is a bit much, that\'s all.
Its one race, doesn\'t amount to much in the long run, but please don\'t come on like a couple of minions and try to tell us how right on the ROTW was when it wasn\'t. Anyone who bothers to read it, as I do every week because I always like to see what other good handicappers think, would know that it was off this week.
beyer,
if you are calling winners underlays on a regular basis before the race, you most likely are not making money (not that anyone is doing that, but that seems to be your point). over a period of time, i think you need to have a pretty good grasp (not perfect, but pretty good) on the chances of the winner in these races to make money.
Post Edited (12-07-04 15:21)
Michael,
I know this may sound pompous.
There was a time I used to do that all the time and it helped me learn. After 30 years of handicapping, I don\'t bother much. I almost always understand why I disagree with the public. So if the favorite wins and I thought he was overbet, I still feel very confident in my analysis. That wasn\'t always true, but it is now. To be clear, I am not talking about whether a horse should be 2-1 or 5-2. I am talking about real differences of opinion. I also feely admit there are some races I simply cannot make an odds line for because of the I lack the specific knowledge. I pass those.
not pompus...... i have been doing this for about 15 years, after 30 years, i might have the same attitude..... i agree on you point about passing races. might take me 30 years to learn that lesson.
Michael - Where was it I wrote that was a good thing. Where does it say I misread the race. I\'ll reiterate - just because the public goes nuts on a horse and he jogs doesn\'t make my line wrong. It could mean I rated other horses too highly as much as it could mean I underestimated the chances of the chalk. You look and check yourself out of due diligence. It could be I was right on and folks wound up getting $4 for a $10 horse. But I stand by my original comment which was - there are plenty of even money shots, that eventually win, that I want no part of even at 4-1. I retract the part about using your money. You deserve your fate.
twoshoes,
if you think a horse should be 4-1 or higher, and he wins at even money, you missed something. for one reason or another, you misjudged the race. the purpose of handicapping horse races is to judge them correctly.
Okay Michael - point taken. Thanks for the tip.
TGJB,
i\'m going the the gym, so i\'m finished, but i\'m still taking the over (15).
Michael D. wrote:
> beyer,
> if you are calling winners underlays on a regular basis before
> the race, you most likely are not making money
No argument from me there, I was just saying it will happen, and it doesn\'t mean you are wrong. If you are doing it consistently, then you need to reevaluate your methods.
I agree that winning can be reduced to a probability. I disgaree that picking a winner is not the way to handicap. The trick is finding a 10-1 or 20-1 winner that you think is about even money to win the race. If you start shopping odds at 7-1 or 15-1 and theres a horse running at 5-2 that you know is going to win unless he breaks down, thats the surest way to go broke.
CtC
CTC,
I like to seperate the horses into contenders and non-contenders and then rank the contenders in order of preference.
I give the non-contenders a percentage as a group that is dependent on how many contenders there are, how many non-contenders there are, and how dreadful they actually are relative to the contenders.
Then I assign percentages to the contenders that reflect their order of preference and the margins between them.
Then I tinker with the numbers until it equals 100% and reflects my feelings.
I prefer betting the horses high on the list if there are mutiple similar overlays because they have a higher probability of winning (avoids losing streaks) and because when you are assigning low probabilities it\'s easier to screw up big time.
If I assign a horse 25% and he\'s really 20% I\'m not going to screw up much as long as I require a decent margin of safety in the odds before betting. (say 9-2 or 5-1)
If I assign a horse 8% and he\'s really 5% (an easy mistake to make) I would wind up betting on underlays from time to time even if I had a bit of a margin of safety. So with these longer shots I require a bigger margin of safety.
I often pass races even when a horse is an overlay on my line because it isn\'t \"enough of an overlay\" to give me the required margin of safety. This tends to keep my ROIC very high, but it requires a lot of patience. I pass many races.
Those small margins between probability to win and off odds are what I refer to as \"racing arbitrage\". If you\'re out for some action or fun, you bet, otherwise I try to stay away from those races. My last decent odds horse was Wildcat Heir at 16-1, I thought he was 50-50 to win the race. At seven marks I would have decreased his probabilty to 20%. You need a little luck. It always helps.
CtC
CTC,
>Wildcat Heir at 16-1, I thought he was 50-50 to win the race. <
I hit that race but I didn\'t give him anywhere near that probability of winning. In fact I didn\'t even make him close to the most likely winner. I\'m happy we both hit the race, but for me to assign 50% to a horse he has to really lay over a field with very few contenders. IMO, that race was loaded with possibilities.