Time to wake youse guys up!!!
With Capital OTB and DRF in ongoing contract disputes with CD the Fairgrounds wonderful card is not available for MOI from living room downs. I no longer use off shore for horses so it was open up a TVG account or take a trip north to Saratoga Casino & Raceway. I\'m heading north for some Spa in January.
5th:
The Sandman, Coin Broker & Tarpy\'s Goal all have back #\'s to take this heat at nice ML prices and we will add our old friend Commanding Curve.
6th:
Super competitive heat with all in the TG 6-9 range pending turf course trips.
3 are heading south and 2 of them will be good prices. Hottap probably ends up the favorite but Same As & Allamerican Music will have lots of value.
The Louisiana:
At half the ML price Coupe de Grace is an incredible bet and he will get a healthy win bet from me as well as the lions share of my pick 4 ticket, saving with Ride On Curlin.
Jones and Geroux lethal together, trainer is solid off a long layoff, all of his big numbers came without blinkers and an advantageous pace scenario = the perfect storm here.
8th:
I planned on only using the Cox horses unless the 16 drew in, with the scratch of Cash Control I can\'t single Street of Gold at 2 for 27 on the lawn. So I\'ll dilute the ticket and use Prayed For & Haunted Heroine as well.
4 X 3 X 2 X 3 = $72 for a buck X a few.
A big single on Coupe de Grace makes 36 X ???
Good luck,
Frank D.
Guess I\'ll take the contrarian view here, the anti-Eagle position is a bit of a head scratcher here, especially given the small field and odds you are going to get on the other horses.
Eagle looks about as solid a horse can on a sheet, improvement from 2 to 3 was solid, but not over done, and he paired up his last 3 races. Everything from his sire profile to the TG pattern predictor (which I get isn\'t much of a tool) says this race should be just as good, if not better than his previous ones.
I\'m gonna agree with the ThoroPattern that he is 2/3 likely to at least pair up, if not move forward.
What I\'m really missing is the prediction that all of these other horses are going to suddenly pair up or beat life-time tops today.
CDG has miserable route figures and this is a 2-turn route. Perhaps there were excuses in those 2 races, but there is nothing on his sheet the last 2 years that suggests he will be at his best on a 2 turn race. I would want 15 or 20 to 1 on the speculation that those other 2 route failures were aberrations, but we are getting 8-1.
ROC, even at the weights, has only 2 races out of 13 the last 2 years that will definitively beat Eagle and only 3 others that are close if Eagle only pairs. But it does appear there is no speed advantage today and this might be the place where he finally runs better. Still seems pretty speculative, especially given he hasn\'t even approached his top after a long injury layoff, and 7-1 isn\'t great odds for him here.
International Star, same thing, except even slower figures and the same injury concern, not yet approaching where he used to be prior to the injury/layoff.
If any horse is going to have trouble with 3 races in the 2 range recently, I would much more expect it would be Majestic Harbor, who is now 8 years old, as opposed to Eagle. This guy is a solid performer and likely for the tri, but I just think Eagle is a younger, still-improving horse and will get by him when the chips are down
2-1 is very fair for Eagle IMO, tho guessing he may be bet down near 3-2 by race time. GL either way
Nice analysis TreadHead. I took CDG and ROC for the win and lost. Also had an Exacta box. Do you think the result would be different if the bumping incident near the rail did not take place? IMO it did not look like any of the horses involved would have a clear shot at passing Eagle or Intl. Star even if they had unobstructed stretch runs. Maybe one of them could and up placing but did not look like a threat to Intl. Star.
TreadHead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guess I\'ll take the contrarian view here, the
> anti-Eagle position is a bit of a head scratcher
> here, especially given the small field and odds
> you are going to get on the other horses.
TG Analyst tries to beat the favorite, knock him
clear out of the exacta most every week.
Frankly, it\'s like watching Roy McAvoy trying to
make the last green in Tin Cup: painful.
You\'re right, we should just go with the public.
Don\'t forget how much value you were getting on Eagle at 8/5 who ran 2nd keying a $19.40 exacta with International Star at 5/2. The pick 4 paid amazing well but its a very tough sell to use International Star if you\'re buying T-graph figures?
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You\'re right, we should just go with the public.
You guys do 999 things right for every 1 thing not so
good, maybe I should mention the good things more often
for balance.
This obsession with obliterating the favorite almost
every week, however, probably costs people money.
Favorites finish first or second over 50% of the time;
throwing the favorite straight out seems as silly as
throwing the top TG number horse out of every race. Who
would do that?
No, the bumping made no difference and the 2 best horses yesterday ended up in the exacta. It\'s apparent that International Star both loves FG and made some growth during his time off, which of course would be perfectly normal for a healthy 3 year old, but something was just not right with his first return race from the layoff and that new ability was completely hidden.
Again, the real head-scratcher to me overall is how often it is discussed here that it is very normal both for healthy 3yr olds to improve and that 1st out 4 year olds are many time making further improvements, yet we were asked to assume that the opposite would be true of Eagle despite how solid and impressive his sheet looked.
Read somewhere that Intl Star had a ridiculous van ride to Zia Park. I know, is there any other kind... A toss out race?
I look at the ROTW as a buyer beware deal and am appreciative of TG sharing their insights as well as the other posters here. I just want to learn and you can\'t learn if you can\'t explain what just happened. Ok, once in a while it is just pure randomness but 9 out of 10 times there is a good explanation whether you know it or not. I\'m looking fwd. to find out what TG figure Intl. Star and Eagle will be given. For all I know, Intl. Star may have bested his former best of 3 by a large margin. He was charging furiously making the rest of the field looking like ponies. So far the best argument I hear is that he physically improved vastly during his layoff. But when I check his workouts there is not much of anything that\'s truly impressive there. HIs last workout in fact was very underwhelming. In fact, I would rate his workouts in the lower half (in the middle at best) vs. rest of the field. Ok, maybe he really likes Fair Grounds, but yesterday it looked like he was running on a conveyor belt while others were stuck in the sand.
Rick. The whole point of ROTW is to demonstrate how what we do is different than what the public does. That\'s HOW we choose which race to do. It\'s not a coincidence.
I don\'t think anyone would argue that Eagle had a nice healthy pattern. The bet against stance was due to his projected number being 2-2.75 (at least by me) which at the weights would equate to 3-3.75, slower than what I could see others running and at very short odds. I didn\'t bet the race as I couldn\'t narrow down the field to make a reasonable bet but completely agree that the right approach was to toss the top two out of the first spot. It obviously didn\'t work out in this case but would play it the same way next time.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick. The whole point of ROTW is to demonstrate
> how what we do is different than what the public
> does. That\'s HOW we choose which race to do. It\'s
> not a coincidence.
TGJB, I get it.
IMO, this is the worst place to try to battle \"the
public\" -- as a group, they are the most efficient
handicapper in the game.
So, the TG ROTW Analyst\'s first task each week --
\"select race with disposable favorite\" -- is to play
into a ~ 55% disadvantage. If he chooses wrong,
it\'s over before any other work is completed.
Am I wrong? Too simple? I\'m listening.
Rick B,
Happy New Year.
I think you are over simplifying, the previous week Sandiva was the selection at Gulf at 3/5 and it looked for some exotic value with him on top only. I understand where you are coming from and you\'ve posted before about being well rewarded using the favorite with a TG value horse.
IMHO one of TG data\'s greatest strengths is eliminating a bad favorite in a race. ROW is a very small sample that gets posted 40 some times per year. I\'m an 80% horizontal player when I can toss 1 or 2 public choices out of a sequence that may be on 75 or 80% of the tickets that is a tremendous payoff advantage. If you\'re looking at 40 races a day 3-5 times per week this opportunity presents itself several times in the course of the day.
I don\'t look at a deserving favorite as the boogie man! Everyone has their own opinion, tenet, rule or standard on the value of a bet, be it real or perceived.
Flat bets at 2/1 or 5/2 along with $20 exacta\'s do not constitute value in my camp for others it does and its their money to do as they please with. I prefer to maybe single a stick out in horizontals or play him over some prices in verticals maybe even pass the race rather than being on the light end of risk vs reward.
Good luck,
Frank D.
Rick, you\'re right. All favorites are created equal, none are worth betting against, and the public is the best handicapper. And the most likely winner is always the right bet.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick, you\'re right. All favorites are created
> equal, none are worth betting against, and the
> public is the best handicapper. And the most
> likely winner is always the right bet.
Jeez, talk about assertions, even if coated in
dripping sarcasm.
One of them is true: the public is the best win
handicapper, always has been. Ask your math guru,
that Rocky fellow.
When TG tries to beat the favorite in ROTW every
week, it is TG intimating that \"all favorites are
created equal\", in that they all stink and can be
tossed.
How has that been working out? About 45 / 55,
over time.
\"When TG tries to beat the favorite in ROTW every
week, it is TG intimating that \"all favorites are
created equal\", in that they all stink and can be
tossed.\"
Rick: On a typical weekend, across the country, how many favorites do they try to beat, and how many favorites do they not try to beat?
\"The public is the best handicapper\".
You know this how? By how some of them do against others of them?
Re those assertions, they\'re yours. To put it another way, for your conclusion to be true, they would have to be true as premises.
And on the 45/55 thing, even if we accept that split, this ain\'t betting football. If you\'re right 45% of the time and get 3-1 (for example) I\'m pretty sure you\'ll make out okay.
Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick: On a typical weekend, across the country,
> how many favorites do they try to beat, and how
> many favorites do they not try to beat?
Dunno. Talking ROTW only.
So am I. ROTW only.
Guess nobody played the Jan 9th ROTW where the suggested play was keying the favorite on top?
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rick. The whole point of ROTW is to demonstrate
> > how what we do is different than what the
> public
> > does. That\'s HOW we choose which race to do.
> It\'s
> > not a coincidence.
>
> TGJB, I get it.
>
> IMO, this is the worst place to try to battle
> \"the
> public\" -- as a group, they are the most
> efficient
> handicapper in the game.
>
> So, the TG ROTW Analyst\'s first task each week --
> \"select race with disposable favorite\" -- is to
> play
> into a ~ 55% disadvantage. If he chooses wrong,
> it\'s over before any other work is completed.
>
> Am I wrong? Too simple? I\'m listening.
On a day-to-day basis, the soul of the game is to isolate and fade vulnerable favorites -- especially if markedly-overbet. Always happy to steer clear of races featuring what can be fairly-labelled as solid -- and fairly-priced -- favorites, a circumstance which typically doesn\'t leave much value to be had on outsiders. But races featuring overbet chalk which appear eminently-beatable figure-wise, pattern-wise, and/or (too often, alas) PHYSICALLY . . . I\'ll look to work those, pretty hard.
I think the main point here is that yes there are a ton of races looked at on a daily/weekly basis where the top 2-3 favorites look tough and there doesn\'t look to be much value underneath. Those are probably 50-60% of the races across country these days, with field size shrinking and the public at large becoming smarter.
The point of ROTW is to find a race in the other 40% where there is a reason to either key a runner who offers value, or structure a play around beating the favorite(s) who will be overbet. That stat about the favorite being first or second x % of the time may be true; no one is disputing that. The ROTW is generally designed to isolate the y % of the time that the favorite isn\'t expected to be first or second based on TG methodology/data. If Jerry\'s assertion on the race is that the top 2-3 favorites look strong, I would assume they would not be considered for ROTW, as that provides little value to the customer base. He isn\'t in the business of telling us stuff we already know.
Trying to lay low with the ponies while the quality of racing in my home region, NY, is extremely poor....
But can\'t resist this thread. Certainly no shill for the house here, but Rick you make ZERO sense. Everybody knows that favorites win more races than longshots. What exactly would be the point if Thorograph had their choice of every major race over a weekend and decided to put up a race where the sheet numbers suggested the favorite would win? Yippee. I can pay $2.95 for the DRF and see that. I (and the customer base), need to see something that justifies paying $25 vs the $2.95.
And besides the obvious business sense from a TG perspective, playing short-priced underlays because they are the most likely winner is a DUMB strategy. The best bet isn\'t the horse most likely to win. It can be, but the game is a bit more complex than that. Sure, you can \"stand\" with a short priced favorite in multi-race bets and potentially build value around the \"stand\", but within a race, betting the chalk because he has the best chance to win is a nice strategy to be ground into the ground with the 16 to 25% rake.
This is like your 10th attack on the ROTW in the last year. Perhaps a different topic might suit you? Like how you bet $3.40 shots and make a living off of it?
Rob
ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trying to lay low with the ponies while the
> quality of racing in my home region, NY, is
> extremely poor....
>
> But can\'t resist this thread. Certainly no shill
> for the house here, but Rick you make ZERO sense.
> Everybody knows that favorites win more races than
> longshots. What exactly would be the point if
> Thorograph had their choice of every major race
> over a weekend and decided to put up a race where
> the sheet numbers suggested the favorite would
> win? Yippee. I can pay $2.95 for the DRF and see
> that. I (and the customer base), need to see
> something that justifies paying $25 vs the $2.95.
>
> And besides the obvious business sense from a TG
> perspective, playing short-priced underlays
> because they are the most likely winner is a DUMB
> strategy. The best bet isn\'t the horse most
> likely to win. It can be, but the game is a bit
> more complex than that. Sure, you can \"stand\"
> with a short priced favorite in multi-race bets
> and potentially build value around the \"stand\",
> but within a race, betting the chalk because he
> has the best chance to win is a nice strategy to
> be ground into the ground with the 16 to 25%
> rake.
>
> This is like your 10th attack on the ROTW in the
> last year. Perhaps a different topic might suit
> you? Like how you bet $3.40 shots and make a
> living off of it?
>
> Rob
As has been said elsewhere, I think the basic topic here is fully covered in the book \"Fooled By Randomness\"
In a crowded field, this ROTW-tossing-favorites complaint is one of the most ridiculous ones ever to appear on this board. Next up, someone will probably complain that the ROTW is intimating that people should never play non-stakes races, should never play races on weekdays, or should play only one race a week.
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rick, you\'re right. All favorites are created
> > equal, none are worth betting against, and the
> > public is the best handicapper. And the most
> > likely winner is always the right bet.
>
> Jeez, talk about assertions, even if coated in
> dripping sarcasm.
>
> One of them is true: the public is the best win
> handicapper, always has been. Ask your math guru,
> that Rocky fellow.
Rick B. – it's true that in aggregate, the public gets the probabilities right, but that doesn't mean you can't create a probability estimate of your own that is better than the public's (ie. one that identifies overlays and underlays, which is essentially what the ROTW analysts are doing each week).
I'll defer to Bill Benter, who explains it much better than I ever could:
\"An important feature of the parimutuel system is that public betting tends to produce odds that conform to the public's estimate of the horse's probability of winning. This is sometimes referred to as market efficiency, in the sense that the public betting forms an efficient market which accurately reflects all of the available information about the horse's chance of winning. The independent actions of the individual bettors – the invisible hand of the market you might say – cause them to effectively set odds which are an accurate reflection of the horse's chance of winning.
[Looking at] actual Hong Kong racing data - a sample of about 6,700 races - I've broken down the public betting on those races into ranges. There were 4,906 cases where the public had bet between 0 and 1% of the pool on a particular horse. Those cases averaged out to have 0.007% of the pool bet on them in that case. The actual frequency of winning actually worked out to be exactly 0.007% as well, so the public in aggregate – all the horses they put in that range – their probability estimate was quite accurate. Looking right down the range, you can see that in every range the public gets the probability about right.
You could summarize this situation by saying that the fraction of the pool bet is approximately equal to the probability of winning. This then leads to the problem in horse racing – the fact that the fraction bet equals the probability of winning, and given the track take, then the expected return for a bet on any horse in any of those ranges is uniformly -17%, which is the track take.
You could state that the problem in racing is that the native expectation is minus the track take. What's needed then to overcome that in horse racing is you need a new and different probability estimate for the horse's chance of winning.
You could ask the question at this point, 'Well, if we established that the public's estimate of the probability is approximately right, how can you have a different estimate of the probability? I thought we just saw from the chart that the public had the probability right.' Well, the truth is that there can be more than one probability estimate for the race, and they can both be 'true' estimates, or I prefer to use the word 'unbiased' estimates. It all depends on your state of knowledge, what estimate you would put on the horse's chance of winning.
Let's look at the exact same set of races, and let's say you were a person that had zero knowledge of the horses or anything about them. And all you could say when you looked at a particular race, when you look at the number of entrants in the race – in this case the races all had around 12 horses in them – and you would make an estimate on each horse then that each horse's probability of winning is 1/12, or 8.8%. So a zero knowledge person would have ranked all of the horses in all of those races as each having an 8.8% chance of winning, and if he had done a chart summarizing how he did, he would find that he was correct – the average probability he gave those horses was 8.8% and lo and behold they came in exactly 8.8% of the time. It's not a good estimate, but it's correct – it's unbiased, it's not an over or underestimate of the horse's probability of winning.
Now let's move to the other extreme, call it the omniscient estimate. If you were God, or the God of horse racing, and you were able to correctly estimate the winner in every race prior to the race, your probability estimates would look like this: in 6,700 races, you were able to assign a probability estimate of 100% to the winning horse, and 0% to all the other horses. This also is an exactly correct probability estimate, it's unbiased. It's very much different than the [prior example], or even the [first example] which showed the public's estimate.
Obviously we're not omniscient, and we don't have zero knowledge, so we want to try to make another estimate that will be different from the public but also true. What we talk about doing here is making a fundamental estimate. The fundamentals that we use to predict the outcome to determine the true worth of a horse are facts about the horse – past performances, the conditions of the race, the skill of the jockey – all of the fundamental factors that go into actually presumably determining the race outcome. This is not the lazy man's way to make money at horse racing. This is a big effort. To set out to fundamentally create a comprehensive and accurate probability estimate for a horse's chance of winning a race is a very big project, but you're well rewarded when you do this.\"
-- Bill Benter, 12th International Conference on Gambling & Risk-Taking
Rocky R.
That\'s pretty good. But hopefully his computer isn\'t programmed with 1/12th coming out to 8.8%.
Since God was mentioned here, can say that when asked to explain/quantify overlay/underlay in norm,he said he had no idea and the existence of such is pure perception but no reality.
From the book of Miff 23:5
The board has gone Biblical!!!!!
Frank,
Truth is the bible cant save us horse players from the chop.Recently passed by under the Brooklyn Bridge, fires in the barrels blazings,all the system, math, overlay/underlay horse players hovered around trying to keep warm.....sad!
Mike
Got to be tough these days with everyone going paperless. No racing forms or TG books to keep the fires going.
Frank
Rags friends are religious,had their hard copies with them.Those 1/4 point move up sheets really good for the fire.
Mike
Surprised there has been no mention of the TG analysis for Santa Anita on Monday 18 January. Excellent analysis and a lesson on how to bet the TG numbers. Five winners on top (including the eight race analysis to box the 3 fastest resulting in a $60 exacta) plus 5 exactas and the winner included in each analysis line races 2-8.
I\'ve been following the Ask the expert forum for too many years out here in No Legal Gambling Hawaii. Thanks to TG Redboard Room I get to play a couple times a week 24 hours too late. Retired in 1988 and played daily and traveled around the country 1989-99. Incidentally, The Best of the Forum would make a great book. Good Luck to all.
I don\'t understand why so much discussion on eliminating/including favorites in the ROTW. The bottom line is whether there is a positive ROI or not. If the ROI is positive then the ROTW analyst is doing it right. If the ROI is negative, then I think we have to question the capability of the analyst. Do the numbers and then reach your conclusion about whether the ROTW analyst\'s approach to favorites is working or not.
ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trying to lay low with the ponies while the
> quality of racing in my home region, NY, is
> extremely poor....
> Rob
I\'ll take it a step further Rob. Winter racing at NYRA has never been worse.
Stakes races with 4, 5 and 6 runners. Full fields of dirt cheap 10K, 12K and
14K claimers. The always formful winter grade NYBs. The occasional $170 winner
put over by top breeder Ken Sherman (if there was truly a pari-mutuel God, this
one would have been taken down by the stewards, the bane of the \"Shermanator\"\'s
existence).
Bad quality racing, but why? A lot of things broke in NYRA\'s favor this winter,
with both Parx and soon Laurel going on hiatus. NYRA has done the right thing
by offering Parx and Laurel horses free shipping to and from NYRA during the
respective closures.
The purse structure for the Winter meet at AQ compares very favorably with the
two winter homes of \"quality\" racing, Gulfstream and Santa Anita.
So why aren\'t we seeing better quality racing at AQ? What can be done to
improve the quality in racing at Ozone Park during the dead of winter?
1) Inner Dirt racing should have its own Racing Secretary or assistant racing
secretary, who concentrates year round on planning for racing over the
inner dirt.
2) Only trainers who have stock which is ready to run over the Inner should be
stabled at the NYRA tracks. I know NYRA will never do this (Stronach might),
but winter racing could really benefit from the construction of a huge indoor
training facility somewhere on Long Island. Move all the horses who are more
than 6 weeks from a race out to the training facility; fill the stalls vacated
by these \"lay ups\" with horseflesh from New Jersey and Finger Lakes; with
horseflesh which has been \"orphaned\" by the closure of tracks in Va. and New
England. NYRA or its successor would be wise to offer incentives (beyond an
already lucrative purse structure) to trainers willing to relocate to NYC for
four or five months every year.
Even if the incentives are offered, maybe no owners/trainers would take the
bait. What could be the reasons for this?
a) Condition books which feature too many races restricted to NYBs. I\'ve said
it before--while there are some advantages of restricted races, I believe that
restricted racing has diluted the year round quality of NY racing for the last
two decades, while at the same time devaluing NY bred runners. End most
restricted racing (maybe only running NYB MSWs and stake races) and let NYBs
run versus open company with a purse enhancement and a weight allowance.
b) I think the perception of a Pa. or Md. owner or trainer with a formful 20K
claimer is that if he/she ships to NYRA, the following will happen: the formful
20K claimer (i) will get beaten by a DJAKE runner dropping from 40K first off
the claim or (ii) will get beaten by a RUDYROD runner who RR claimed for 10K
four days ago; and of course (iii) the 20K shipper will probably be claimed by
DJ or RR.
As you all know, I could go on and on. There are a lot of problems with NYRA
now that have to do with motivation or the lack thereof, which stems from the
fact that there is no job security at NYRA given the imminent (?) privatization
of the NYRA tracks.
I guess one could ask what am I whining about, why don\'t I just sit in Living
Room Downs and watch racing from Stronach Anita or Gulfstro, but for some
reason when racing in what Ringato calls the \"home region\" is poor, I somehow
disconnect from racing on a national level.
But there it is Messrs. Kay and Panza: more free advice. Hire someone who
focuses only on the four or so months that racing is conducted over the inner
tube; for those four months write a realistic condition book and fill the
stable areas with horses who fit those races. This inner dirt \"specialist\"
should be offered an adequate salary, but most of the compensation should be
pegged to something like field size or overall handle.
Richie,
I love you buddy but you have been trying to get NYRA to make some sensible business decisions for the good of racing for the 8-9 years that I\'ve known you.
IT AIN\'t HAPPENING!!!
There will be no privatization of NYRA unless it\'s a group linking racing to a casino. The political football game in NY will and has scared the hell out of anyone with any business sense. Besides with the states top leaders all boarding the Dannemora express shortly, NYRA will be the last bastion left where one of them can get their dim witted brother-in-law a job.
Klueless Kay says the NYRA world is wonderful, they turned an operating profit on their own setting the stage for King Andrew to steal the slot money out from under the horseman. Their business plan is simple GOUGE the @#$% out of the tourists and everyday bettors at 3 big Belmont days a year and kill the Spa. God forbid this group ever gets a Breeders Cup at Belmont or even the Spa?
What\'s their ROI on $100 seats, $8 beers and $5 hot dogs? I guarantee it\'s a hell of a lot higher than WE IDIOTS paying those prices while churning our dollars at
minus 15-25%.
This is what happens on a cold winter day with only a moderately interesting Gulfstream card to work on.
Good luck,
Frank D.