I have recently started to use your product on a more consistent basis. My results have been very positive.
My primary concern is on rating my individual plays. I do not play every race, usually I play 3 or 4 races per card. How do you rate which races are prime bets and which races are passes?
Thank You
Cozzene
Which product are you talking about? If you mean the analysis (picks), we rate each play (B, B+ etc.), and give minimum acceptable odds. If you mean using your own handicapping using TG, which I strongly recommend, this becomes a very broad subject, and I\'m guessing there are a lot of regular board contributors who will have opinions. Guys?
For me it all has to do with the odds.
Here are my \"VERY GENERAL\" rules for the \"AVERAGE RACE\". I obviously make exceptions on occasion to fit the specifics of the race (the edge the horse has, the number of contenders etc..) but not that often.
1. If the favorite looks really solid, has a significant edge and is at short odds, I rarely bet against it unless there is something dramatically wrong on the board elsewhere.
2. I almost never bet a horse, even if I believe it is the most likely winner, unless it is 3-1 or greater and there are no more than 3 contenders. I know that sounds arbitrary, but I find that it is extremely difficult to be exact enough when making odds lines to get much if any value on shorter priced horses. If I have any edge on short priced horses at all, it is so small as to not be significant. All I am doing in spinning money through the windows and reducing my ROIC.
3. If I bet the second most probable winner in a race with 3 contenders, I want in the
5-1 range or greater.
4. If I bet the third most probable winner in a race with 3 contenders, I want in the
12-1 range greater.
Again, if there are fewer contenders or the differences between contenders are very slight, I might make adjustments. These are only guidelines.
The key points are that all my bets are ODDS driven and I avoid all very short priced horses. I think TG plus similar guidelines will get the job done if you are fairly competent.
Post Edited (11-15-03 09:40)
Classhandicapper,
Your A horse is 3-1, Your B horse is 5-1. You rate these horses as the most likely to run their number. The race favorite is the fastest horse off of its last race but is most likely to bounce. The rest of the field looks too slow but it is a full field and their are several horses who have either equipment changes or trainer changes. What\'s the bet? Additionally, I find this situation to be very common.
Thank You
Cozzene
cozzene,
It would depend on these things:
1. How likely I thought the fastest horse was to bounce and by how much. I would determine that on a horse by horse basis (not a general rulebook) based on his overall record and typical range of figures, his age, time to recover since last race, if there were any special conditions that might have contributed to that big figure that aren\'t present today (loose lead or other easy trip, off track, track bias last out), whether he was a young generally improving lightly raced horse or one that was older, had peaked, and was on his way out etc....
2. If any of the trainer/equipment changes were clearly huge statistical positives like a switch to a so called super trainer I would consider it a much bigger threat without being able to quantify it very well.
If I were very confident the fastest horse was going to bounce big and the trainer change was no big deal I might actually bet both A and B horses to win and box the exacta. I have no problem betting multiple horses to win. I did it several times BC day.
On the flip side, if I was having trouble quantifying the probability or degree of bounce and/or the switch was to a super trainer etc... I would admit to myself I have no clue what the hell is going on. So I would just pass the race.
Quantifying the \"value\" of trainer moves is my weakest skill. So I tend to not try to make a profit by betting on them (unless I like the horse and get the new trainer for free on the board), but simply avoid betting against them.
I try to maximize my ROIC. So I tend to avoid situations where I can\'t quantify the probabilities very well - which is lot of things. :-)
My skillset may be \"WAY\" different than yours. It took me many years of keeping records of my bets (and losing a little and then breaking even) before even knew what I knew. Now I win steady.
The suggestion to keep careful records is obviously a good one. Reading between the lines, it sounds like you\'re already more disciplined than a lot of players, and that you\'re primary focus is win betting. Oftentimes, mine is not, so you might think twice before listening too carefully to my few very general thoughts on the matter. Theoretically, your win bet size should increase as the difference between the percentage chance you think the horse has of winning and the percentage chance the crowd thinks the horse has of winning increases. In other words, bet more on a horse you think is a legitimate 5-1 shot which is going off at 10-1 than if he is going off at 8-1. A related concept which seems almost counterintuitive, & imho is hard to get in the habit of actually doing, is to bet increasingly higher amounts as the odds increase. Last, but not least, your largest plays should be in races where you honestly feel you have some insight which is better, or at least different, than other dopesters.
If memory serves, when this question was raised previously, the thought was that the best way to conduct a meaningful discussion was in the context of a particular betting strategy in a specific race. I played the role of the guinea pig that time, so why don\'t you pick one out this time around & perhaps we, & a few others, might learn a thing or two.
mall,
From a theoretical perspective I agree with every word you said.
Unfortunately my experience is not consistent with theory. I found that when I started varying bet sizes based on the edge I thought I had all it did was create greater volatility in my results. I also found that I didn\'t have as much skill at recognizing the exact edge I had as I thought. The \"edge\" per se leaped off the pages at me after awhile, but I couldn\'t measure it too well in most instances. My lines are not that accurate. So now I just make flat bets. If you or others have that skill - more power to you!
I think most people play WAAAY too many exotics trying to make a bigger score.
Unless you are hooking a value horse to a value horse you really aren\'t gaining much and may be losing something because of the higher track take.
For example.
If a horse is 5-1 in the win pool, he will be approximately 5-1 in the exacta pool on top.
There is little or nothing to be gained by putting him over a few contenders \"unless\" there is one or more very short priced horses you absolutely hate from a value perspective that you can leave off in the place spot.
Similarly, if you play saver tickets, you are probably putting an underlay horse on top of your overlay horse and thus reducing or eliminating any edge you might have.
I can\'t tell you how much I\'ve blown over the years playing savers and other exotics trying to make a bigger score or at least cash something.
One the flip side. If I think there are 2 overlays in the same race, I will box them in addition to my win bet because the exacta is often a HUUUGE overlay. Similar with daily doubles.
Post Edited (11-15-03 09:44)
Just to add a thought to Mall\'s comment, don\'t forget about multi-race wagers with those 8 and 10-1 shots. It may not work for you if you are only betting 3-4 races per day, but I like to concentrate on pick 3\'s where I have a strong conviction on at least 1 leg with this type of shot. The return over a simple parlay is typically in the vicinity of 50%; significantly greater if you can get 2 legs with this type of shot.
Just a few thoughts since this discussion area is of interet to me.
I started tracking my betting by types races, tracks and bets.
Found I was profitable with MCL but not MSW.
Profitable in claiming and allowance sprints but not claiming routes
Profitable in stakes
Modestly profitable on grass.
Then, I tracked my type of bets and found
1) modestly profitable win betting
2) profitable with exactas
3) loser with pick 3
4) breakeven on triples
5) supers were too limited as were pick 6 (although I hit 2 6\'s my sample is too small)
6) pick 4 was most profitable bet
So,
1) I limit my individual bets to those categories and pass the rest.
2) I focus on vulnerable favorites. As classh notes, if you can\'t poke a hole or two in the fave, it is often best to go Tittle to Shofner(that\'s a pass for you youngsters)
I try to focus on the Pick 4\'s naturally. My main tracks are the S. Cal circuit...will play elsewhere but prefer a track with \'handle\' as many Pick 4 pools are just too small (Charlestown, Penn etc.).
I think you could probably track which \'sheet plays\' work for you as well. (haven\'t done this myself as I put a lot of credence into the \'shape\' of a race and trainer changes). Pairups on young horses. 3yo\'s matching 2 yo top first or second time out, circling patterns, condition moves etc.
One might find that he is very adept at spotting a particular pattern that is profitable over time and other patterns that just don\'t work out at the window.
Other than that, I look forward to exploring these concepts further.
Tip
I will give you today\'s plays at CD.
Race 1 My Cat\'s Meow and Twilight Gallop basically a 2 horse race. I like My Cat\'s Meow over Twilight Gallop.
$25 to Win My Cat\'s Meow
$15 Exacta Twilight Gallop over My Cat\'s Meow
$10 Exacta My Cat\'s Meow over Twilight Gallop
Race 3 Maisie\'s Son
$25 to Win
$25 to Place
Race 4 Porifirio Cadena
$25 to Win
$25 to Place
Race 9 Grand Steal
$25 to Win
$25 to Place
So far so good 2 winners,1 second,1 loser.
Here\'s my question Porifirio was 10-1 morning line (I bet early and leave). My other possible play was Twin Strips morning line 5-1. At 3-1 (about) what was a better play Twin Strips or Porifirio. At 10-1 Porifirio and 5-1 Twin Strips what was a better play.
Thank You
Cozzene
Cozzene,
There is no right answer to your question but there is a pretty simple math formula that can help answer your question. This is not original and pretty well documented as the \"Kelly\" formula that came out of research at Bell Labs.
Formual: Edge/odds
Edge - How much of a an advantage you have. In this case, it is what you think your advantage is based on your assessment of a horses chances of winning vs. the public\'s chances as reflected on the odds board.
Odds - The odds of the horse that you are wagering on.
I will really simplify this using your example.
Let\'s say that you think that you had a 50 percent \"edge\" on both Twin Strips and Porifirio based on the near-post time odds (or the morning line if you are going to bet \"blindly\").
Then the edge/odds for each is:
Twin Strips: 0.50 / 5 = 0.10
Porifirio: 0.50 / 10 = 0.05
A bigger number is better. In this case, Twin Strips is a much better wager.
The reasoning is that you have the same edge in both cases but you are much more likely to cash on Twin Strips than Porifirio. In essence, you want to demand a bigger edge with longshots and you can get by with a lower edge with favorites.
Of course, this is very simplistic and assumes you have developed an odds line at least for the horses you are thinking about betting on. It also does not factor in your personal tolerance for risk and your desire to either grind out a profit vs. make a big score, etc.
As Mall would say, \"it all depends on why you play the game...\"
Cheers.
Chris
Post Edited (11-07-03 19:21)
Please explain what you mean by edge. In both instances I thought if the race were run 100 times; Twin Strips would win 50 times and Porifirio 40 times and that with Porifirio being 2x larger on the morning line Porifirio would be a better bet.
However if I understand your point correctly Twin Strips is the better bet. Additionally this problem is my largest downfall as I always go with the larger morning line odds and never seem to win in these circumstances.
Thank You
Cozzene
You might want to see if you can get your hands on a copy of Dick Mitchell\'s \"Winning Thoroughbred Strategies\", which contains a chapter which explains this concept & other alternative approaches in pretty good detail. The book also contains an extensive chapter on place betting which I think you\'ll be interested in. IMHO, you can skip over the chapters on handicapping. Let me know if you aren\'t able to locate a copy.
Cozzene,
Based on your last example, I can show you how to estimate edge.
Before I start though, I would seldom assign 90% of the win probability to only 2 horses in a race. That means the rest of the field has only a 10% chance of winning, which seems very low. But let\'s go with what you outlined.
You felt Twin Strips would win half the time so his \"fair\" odds would be even money. You were getting 5 times what you felt were fair odds. This is a tremendous edge if you are correct given the high probability of winning and the big overlay.
Edge is Probability of winning times the odds minus the probability of losing.
In this example it is 0.5*5 - 0.5 = 2.00 or a 200% edge. It is hard to go wrong if you can consistently come up with that sort of play.
Similarly the edge for Portofino is 0.4*10 - 0.6 = 3.4 or a 340% edge. Even higher!
But which is the \"better\" bet?
This is where you use the Kelly formula for edge/odds.
For Twin Strips you get 2.5/5 = 0.5
For Portofino you get 3.4 / 10 = 0.34
So Twin strips is the \"better\" bet although both are good bets and you would actually make more money long term if you made flat wagers on \"Portofino-type\" bets rather than \"Twin Strips-type\" bets assuming you had an infinite bankroll and no chance of tapping out. Typically, if you want to play longer priced horses or exotics, you need to limit your wagers to a smaller percentage of your bankroll then you would if you were playing favorites.
This was real quick and dirty and I may have even made an arithmetic error but I hope it gets the basic idea across.
You can learn more about this from the book Mall mentioned or go to this link which is a little bit technical: http://www.racing.saratoga.ny.us/kelly.html
Cheers
Chris
To All,
Thanks for the help.
Cozzene