Jim et al, a point about ROTW, to illustrate an issue:
This week, for various reasons, the choice came down to the Futurity or the Starlet. I had to make the decision several days out (DRF ad deadline), and I didn\'t really have anything positive to say about any of the big 3 colts-- I thought individually they were vulnerable, but on balance one would win. I did know there was at least one point I could make about Sharp Lisa, that she had run the second best figure in the BC and it was concealed due to ground loss, which is factored into what we do. So I chose that, and when it turned out she was a strong second choice, we had a boring ROTW.
But let\'s say I had chosen the colt race. As you know from my post here, I liked Giacomo, and hit the race. If I did it as ROTW, I would have called him a live longshot, and value, but I would have also called DM a contender, yet vulnerable at a short price, and an underlay. Would I have been wrong?
\"Underlay\"and value are functions of how the public bets, RELATIVE to the ability of the horse. If you decide a horse is 40% t o win, and the public makes him 3/5, he\'s a bet against. If he\'s 5/2, he\'s a great bet. Since you give him almost the same of winning as losing, neither result proves you were right, or wrong, no matter the odds-- you can make him the most likely winner, but still more likely to lose than win.
The question is whether you correctly assess each horse\'s chances of winning in the long run, relative to the tote board.
I agree with Jerry 100%.
We shouldn\'t spend much time debating whether someone was right or wrong about a race because of the outcome vs. who they thought was the most likely winner.
Almost all the focus before the race should be on the appropriate odds for a specific horse in order to make him decent bet.
Then, over time, you will know whether you are making a decent odds line by whether or not you are winning.
I could spend a few hours with any total novice and have him picking 30% winners in no time - but he\'d be losing money. Picking winners is nothing. Finding value and making a good odds-line is where the skill is. That\'s how you make money.
picking winners is nothing?????
Jerry,
I have decided to give up directing any criticism at the ROTW. I understand your point in publishing it, you have explained numerous times that you view it ONLY as a teaching tool. I have tried to counter that argument with you by explaining that it is likely that a lot of your customer base are gamblers and would prefer to see some kind of \"conclusion\" or \"result\" at the end.
If you look at what you posted on this board about the Futurity, that really could be a \"conclusion\" type section of the ROTW - If you wanted it to be. You said that the favorites were vulnerable and a contrarian view could be to use Giacomo and protect under the fast horses. I, for one, would find a concluding statement like that at the end of the ROTW, very interesting. Yes, we would still have all the \"teaching and learning\" aspects of the race, but in the end, we can see how those tidbits of analysis are converted into a gambling opinion. There are probably some on this board who can have views and opinions that are good, but do a poor job of converting that into a gambling strategy.
But Jerry, it is a \"free\" product, so you put in it whatever you want, as I am sure you will. I am just throwing out a view of what one customer would find interesting.
Thanks for listening.
Jim
Jim-- That\'s not a bad idea. It\'s similar to what we do with the BC and Derby seminars-- we give an overview at the end of the race.
We\'ll give it a try. Of course, it makes it easier for people to throw fruit at us.
I think the analysis should go firmly in one direction or another.
There\'s nothing wrong with a general analysis of the horses\' figures and their likely direction going forward. That leaves the betting and value decisions in the hands of the reader.
There\'s nothing wrong with an analysis that includes an oddsline estimate other than the problems with making an accurate oddsline long before post time.
The ROTW has the obvious disadvantage of being done before late scratches and being able to see the track condition. For some people (like myself) that would be an enormous disadvantage because I place more weight on things like bias and race development.
If I were doing it I would refrain from using an oddsline and simply categorize the horses in some fashion.
1. Standout
2. Major contender
3. Similar in ability to \"X\"
4. Live second string contender
5. Non-contender
6. Other
Then I would add general comments about potential race development issues/biases that could impact my order of preference.
That way you could get the gist of how I was ranking the contenders and how closely matched they were WITHOUT spelling out the exact oddsline.
If you are going to do an oddline, then someone should actually track the results.
Jerry,
I do realize that you really open yourself up for fruit and other things to be thrown at you.
But putting your neck out there is more your standard style, that along with trying to answer every question posed to you, even if you don\'t like the subject of the question.
Your main competitor obviously has a different approach, specifically with answering \"tough questions\".
I for one, promise to only \"throw fruit\" BEFORE the race goes off, if I disagree with your conclusion. That is just healthy debate.
Sounds good, we\'ll try it. I don\'t always do it myself, so hopefully Alan has a fruit shield or a thick skin.
CH,
Isn\'t what you are asking for a lot more work? A complete odds line?
Have you ever purchased the seminars for the big events like BC and Derby? To me, they really are like a ROTW, except for the fact that at the end, Jerry gives an overall race strategy, which can help in formulating bets. I think it really adds to the horse by horse rundown. Of course it doesn\'t mean I blindly bet that, nor should any of us, but it presents the reader with ONE WAY to potentially attack the race.
Of course you are right in that it has the obvious disadvantage of not knowing the final odds. But any kind of analysis is stuck with that disadvantage.
Jimbo,
>Isn\'t what you are asking for a lot more work? A complete odds line?<
Actually, I was sort of hinting that I think he\'d be better off just eliminating any references to odds and more or less just rank the contenders with clues about how big an edge they have over each other.
I\'m not sure a \"strategy\" will work well. To put together a betting strateg you have to make very good guesses about the post time odds beforehand.
Many of my bets come as a complete shock to me. Sometimes I know a certain horse is going to be over/under bet so I am thinking long ahead of time for the right way to play the race. Sometimes I\'m on the phone/internet right up until a minute or so before post getting ready to bet on a horse I had no clue would be that long.
CH,
Interesting that you say \"many of your bets come as a complete surprise to you\". I guess we each have our different betting philosophies. I am a value shopper as well, but it is still pretty rare for me to make a bet that is a total surprise to me. I have a certain view on a race and if there is value on the odds board in supporting that view, I make the bet. Otherwise I skip. I don\'t shop for value in an opposing view.
Anyway, I think a \"strategy\" can work many times, but I agree that in some cases it might not. If you look at JB\'s view on the Futurity, it seems like his thesis was that the favorites were vulnerable and at least 2 of the 3 might not fire. Of the three non-favorites, Giacomo was his choice to step up and possibly win. I guess if somehow Giacomo became favored over Declan\'s Moon, Proud Accolade or Wilko, the \"strategy\" would have been skewed.
The strategy in the Starlet was that he thought it was a two horse race, but that Sharp Lisa\'s \"hidden figure\" probably gave her value on the win side over Splendid Blended. It is up to the bettor to determine if 8-5 is \"value\". For me, Sharp Lisa was a bet at 2-1. So no play.
When you read the ROTW analysis, you can tell theres been a lot of time put into it. I can\'t imagine calling a race until the track conditions are ascertained, the scratches, jockey and weight changes determined and the post positions assigned. I have to admit, I\'ve handicapped races the day before, selected my winners and then changed them and been burned race day. The reverse is closer to the rule though. (My race day alterations benefitting me.) You are asking a lot of the crew there to take all these factors as well as odds into consideration well before the race. From my perspective they already do this in the pay for product (altough the analysis is very light in that product) and you can review their selections in the Red Board. Personally, I don\'t think you can handicap a race that far in advance. I know I couldn\'t and win convincingly.
But I do like the ROTW. This week I felt TGraph orally made it the Futurity. And I have to say when I red boarded Giacomo, I was surprised to see paired 6\'s (I did not have as good a figure for the maiden win) though in my Fig Clock head I had him for about a TFig 6 in his prior. I also was a little off on DeClan\'s Moon I thought he was about TFIG 3\'s not 4\'s, so the bet TGJB discussed made even more sense in hindsight. Now I know he only cashed at 3-1 and only by the skin of a nose, (I\'m not sure with some luck he couldn\'t have won however) but cashing is better than passing and it is far better than losing. Had I been privy to those figures, I may have bet and if I did I would have eliminated PA and put Giamcomo below the other two in perfectas. Now, thats serious Red Boarding...lol
Giacomo didn\'t pass underneath my radar, but he fooled me. He was better than I realized. Theres gonna be some money opportunities coming up here and you can\'t fail to take advantage of a horse like Giacomo when you\'re taking down the favorite with a proven Fig horse. I may have to buy some select race figures for the early three year old races, so \"Giamcomo\'s\" don\'t ruin my parade.
CtC
Jerry,
In this business people have a basket of fruit whether you are right or wrong.
jimbo,
I often bet horses I do not believe are the most likely to win. I prefer betting horses I believe have a high probability of winning (my top pick) because it diminishes the chances of a random losing streak.
However, if my 3rd most likely winner figures close to my top 2 and he\'s going off at 12-1 I\'m going to the window even if prior to the race I thought he was going to be only 6-1 and I would not bet him. I may be shocked he\'s 12-1, but I\'ll take it. :-)
Post Edited (12-21-04 09:14)
For what it\'s worth, I\'d be willing to pay for an expanded ROTW with BC style comments, betting strategy, even and odds line with that program you had up a few years a go where you tediously input 3 likely figures, percentages that reflected the likelihood that each number would be run, and expected ground loss. (post time wt. maybe, too) I\'d pay $5 a race for that analysis. 1-5 races a weekend would be most practical, but here\'d be your chance to offer the most measurable opportunity to see how effective your product is when placed in the hands of a competent TG user. You could even post addendum once scratches and weather was known. Either way, it\'d be an interesting exercise. Let\'s face it: Alan, Jerry, and probably a few others do this for themselves anyway. Granted, you may \"ruin your price\" on that particular race, but I\'d really like to see empiracal evidence that sheet players ruin all the prices in big races with $500 plus bet into the pools. Maybe I\'m wrong. But I stand by my contention that it\'s the rebates that make a successful player, not getting 3-1 on a horse instead of the 9-2 you think is fair odds and everyone that hung on your every word in the analysis are the ones that ruined the price by mercilessly pounding your overlay horse.