The \"alleged\" genius in question is derby1592, who I am glad decided not to take me up on my Cards/Giants offer. I still think the Giants have some huge holes as a team & despite last night that the Cards have a shot. I\'ve never used \"alleged\" re his handicapping & now think that it was used improperly re his baseball analysis.
My pt re the \"crowd\" is that with few exceptions(TC,BC, weekends at Sar,etc), we & people like us are the \"crowd.\" The implication in David\'s remarks, which is repeated over & over in handicapping books, is that there is some never defined group of casual fans who don\'t really understand the game very well & have never heard of or don\'t know how to apply concepts like the bounce theory. I wish it were so, but the reality was confirmed in an exhaustive NTRA which establishes that nearly all of the handle is generated by the same group, which they defined as hardcore fans. Given the close relationship between horses\' odds & no. of wins, as well as Steve Klein\'s study proving that lower class favs win at a higher % rate than any other group, it\'s my opinion that the crowd David thinks is overbetting certain types of horses does not exist. With respect to the bounce theory, moreover, even the casual fan is bombarded with discussions in drf, by track commentators,etc. As I see it, this theory has been part of mainstream handicapping for many yrs & it\'s more likely that one would gain an edge with an anti-bounce theory than the opposite.
Mall,
I would agree that you can go \'bounce crazy\' and there are plenty of times that the anticipated bounce does not materialize.
However, even if you are right and the horse doesn\'t bounce, doesn\'t the previous big effort kill your price? I remember having this debate with Chuckles (not to put you on the same level). He kept saying Lemon Drop Kid would keep running holes in the wind after three negative numbers. Even if he was right (and he wasn\'t), Lemon Drop Kid was too short a price and too inviting a target as a \'bet against\'. If he doesn\'t bounce you get your $4.00. If the bounce doesn\'t materialize and you get 6-1 that\'s a different story. Maybe you hit a lot of cold exactas with those 2-1 shots on top. There are lots of variables.
What are your results? If you tell me how to get prices on this \'anti-bounce\' thing I\'d love to hear it. In the meantime, I think David is right and I still see the public overbetting the last race often enough to make some hay, your points notwithstanding. Maybe it would be better to try to precisely determine where the bounce is more likely than not. Of course, there will always be exceptions and arguments. Some specifics would be great, and I won\'t rip you for not posting them ahead of time if you want to cite past history. HP
I suppose I could pt to Evening Attire as a recent example, but my overall pt has little to do with the bounce theory, which I\'ve probably beaten into the ground too much already. Favs have been winning at a 33% rate for a very long time. The 3 horses with the lowest odds have been accounting for 66% of wins for just as long. The rest win at about the same rate at their odds suggest they should. Whether they\'re using sheets or not, in the main the competition is among hardcore fans who are very good & very shrewd dopesters. The days when going to the races was a mainstream pastime for casual fans ended a long time ago. The idea that there is any easy money out there anymore is one I disagree with.
Alright. Someday there will be a statistical breakdown of bounce by age, distance, surface and sex (there are probably other good categories). Until then, I guess I\'m going to give you credit for not mentioning any good books.
I\'m rooting for the Cards too. The last half of the season was such a spectacular anti-Yankee run (beginning with the acquisition of, heh-heh, that underpaid talent Raul Mondesi) that I can only dare to dream of Tino Martinez hitting 10 homers in the World Series to make my life complete. HP
Mall,
As a general rule (e.g., Thursdays at Aqueduct) you are right about where the majority of the handle comes from. Two comments on that:
1) On the biggest racing days of the year (KY Derby, Preakness, Belmont, BC), the ones I really concentrate on (out of necessity more than anything else), the % of handle that comes from the \'unwashed\' is more than substantial. I don\'t know the percentages but it has got to be over 50% of the mutuel pools.
2) Just because big bettors rule the parimutuel roost does not mean that they are all smart, sharp, or adopt the same handicapping theories about the \'bounce\'. A lot of these guys believe in theories that are shaky at best and a lot of them are probably terrible money managers. You can probably count on one hand the percentage of guys who are good enough to beat the takeout and as a % of total handle I\'ll bet it\'s well below 50%.
BTW, my standard deviation analysis project is stalled for now. I have had no time to work on it for the past few weeks. I\'ll get it done but it will be awhile. Maybe by the X-mas holidays.