Nomenclature confusion

[Beginner]

Can anyone tell me what is the proper definition of \"underlay\"?   When I google it, the definition is the exact opposite depending on the site.  For example on DRF - it states: UNDERLAY- A horse racing at longer odds than he should.  On many other sites it states: A horse racing at shorter odds than seems warranted by past performances.  Obviously very confusing to someone new - I also saw a highly charged verbal fight break out at the Pelham OTB 2 weekends ago over this issue...

[MonmouthGuy]

Underlay = Overbet

[smalltimer]

Ditto to monmouth.
Underlaid means Underpaid.

[miff]

Real problem with underlay/overlay is that it\'s all opinion.Someones underlay may be someone elses overlay. No real answer to that side of the debate.

Mike

[Lost Cause]

Beginner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can anyone tell me what is the proper definition
> of \"underlay\"?   When I google it, the definition
> is the exact opposite depending on the site.  For
> example on DRF - it states: UNDERLAY- A horse
> racing at longer odds than he should.  On many
> other sites it states: A horse racing at shorter
> odds than seems warranted by past performances.
> Obviously very confusing to someone new - I also
> saw a highly charged verbal fight break out at the
> Pelham OTB 2 weekends ago over this issue...

DRF said what???!!!  
Underlaid is when, in your opinion, the horse\'s odds are too low...
I\'ll use it in a sentence.
Big Brown is going to be a huge underlay in the derby..

[alm]

Let me pitch in on this one, since I base my betting philosophy on scoping out bettable underlays.  

There is only one definition of underlay that is useful AS A STARTING POINT for determining smart money action on a horse.  That is: an underlay is a horse that is overbet in comparison to the morning line.

Determining that a horse is an underlay to your personalized odds line is almost useless as it distorts the baseline.  Simply put, if you think a horse has a hole in its record and are correct about it, there is no reason to think anyone else sees OR DOESN\'T SEE what you see.  In other words, you need some sort of firm baseline.

Since there are usually several underlays in every race, your main task is to determine which is bettable.  Again, to put this simply, it is usually the horse that should NOT be overbet.  That\'s hard to determine.  It takes thousands of experiences to make good judgements.  However, the payoffs on overbet horses can sometimes be exceptional and, for me, it\'s worth the exercise.

This is more of an art than a science (and it is totally useless in major races, where the pools are so large that betting action by a horse\'s connections is almost impossible to discern.)  I have a dozen rules I use (a primary rule is to NEVER chase any overbet horse at 2-1 odds or lower), but I can tell you this is the best way I have found to cover 4 or 5 tracks at the same time and hit a high number of winners: about 1 in 3...never the favorite.

Before anyone chimes in to say how ridiculous this is, let me say two things:

First, I have absolute respect for Thorograph and for those of you who are experts in the Thorograph methodology.  It is by far the best scientific approach there is to the subject.

Second, I have been in the business of breeding and racing horses and I came to base my betting on betting action because I know that 95% of the people in the business survive on it themselves.  It behooves all of us to take their betting action seriously, because it is the basis of their livelihood.  The only problem: it is NOT easy to read the board...once you learn how, however, it is profitable.

[MO]

\"Determining that a horse is an underlay to your personalized odds line is almost useless as it distorts the baseline. Simply put, if you think a horse has a hole in its record and are correct about it, there is no reason to think anyone else sees OR DOESN\'T SEE what you see. In other words, you need some sort of firm baseline\"



OK,but what if my personal morning line is consistantly more accurate than those of individual race track morning line handicappers? Just a thought.

[alm]

No problem...I would expect that from a good horseplayer...but you need a firm \'uninformed\' baseline to see where the exaggeration is taking place in the odds.  You will lose that if your handicapping smooths the bumps.

For example, your handicapping may take into account what you believe a trainer\'s intentions are.  If you are right and you\'ve adjusted the odds accordingly, you won\'t see how important the trainer\'s own betting action is.  You will have \'smoothed\' his action out of the equation.

The entire idea is to find betting exaggerations that are meaningful and to follow them.  The morning line is a useful baseline in that regard.

[Beginner]

Thanks all - much appreciated for the knowledge - especially ALM - quite insightful  -the parallels to Wall Street (where I make my living) are quite obvious...by the way, here\'s the link to DRF\'s glossary:
http://www.drf.com/help/help_glossary.html