Good job on the ROTW

[jimbo66]

Agreed Michael,

The ROTW was very well written.  Excellent grammar and punctuation.

>the ROTW was well written, they just didn\'t like the winner at the low odds, as many of us didn\'t (myself included).<

I didn\'t look at the race, but just because the horse won doesn\'t mean that a lot of people that hated him that price weren\'t right.

[Michael D.]

class,
that last line really has me \"scratching my head\". were you just being facetious? as long as this is considered a betting game, somebody who calls a horse an underlay at 3-1, then watches the horse win at half those odds, is flat out wrong. (i apologize if i misunderstood your post).

Michael,

You did not misunderstand me.

I would happily bet against horses that I estimate have a 20% chance of winning that are going off at 8/5 every single day of my life. Even though they would win 20% of the time, I would consider myself right if that\'s actually how often they won (as a group). If they won 35% of the time, then I obviously screwed up and was wrong. One individual race does not prove whether or not you were right about the appropriate odds.  

There is no \"right\" answer when it comes to picking winners. There are only probabilities.  

As much as we would like to think our speed figures are perfect and our insights correct, they aren\'t. Horses are not machines. Sometimes they feel better or worse than they have recently. Sometimes they get lucky or unlucky trips. All that leads to the most likely horse not winning all the time. The way you judge is how horses do relative to your expectations over the long term, not from a single result.

Now if a group of TG\'s supposed underlays were coming in at rate consistent with their true odds instead of his own odds line, then he I would say he\'s been wrong a lot of the time.

Me personally, I often bet 10-1 shots that finish 9th and after the race I\'m still certain I was correct to make the bet because the value was there. The horse just didn\'t cooperate for some known or unknown reason. :-)

[twoshoes]

No it doesn\'t. Not even close. As a matter of fact that logic is absolutely ludicrous. Horses win all the time at even money that I wouldn\'t bet at 4-1 with your money. Doesn\'t mean I was wrong - it means I know what price I\'m willing to take. Right and wrong in this game is measured in one way - where does your bankroll sit at the end of the year.

[Michael D.]

twoshoes..... wow! if a horse wins at even money, and you wouldn\'t bet him at 4-1, you were wrong about the horse, period. i don\'t care what price you are willing to take, you misread the horse, and how dominant he was going to be in the race. skip the race if you don\'t think you understand it, that\'s fine. but if you won\'t bet a horse at 4-1, and he wins at even money, you clearly did not understand the horse\'s chances. if you think not understanding a horse\'s chances in a race is a good thing, which it appears you do, then good luck to you. personally, i like to understand the chance a horse has of winning the race, ESPECIALLY IF THE HORSE WINS THE RACE!. and class, over a period of time, you most likely lose money if you think 7/5 winners are underlays at 3-1.

[TGJB]

The over and under on posts before this one dies out is 15.

Not that it should even be necessary to say so, but obviously CH hit it right on the head. If you try to beat this game by picking winners (rather than seeing it as a game of probabilities and looking for overlays) you will go broke. Which is why we put odds minimums in our plays in the analysis, and often don\'t say to play the most likely winner.

[twoshoes]

Michael - Dominant? Did our fictitious even money shot win by a neck, a nose, open lengths? Just because a horse wins doesn\'t make him a good wager even if he wins by daylight. It also doesn\'t mean he was dominant. Caught the track right - the other speed didn\'t break - an unlikely duel develops in front of him and he sits a garden trip. A lot of calculations go into making a value line and lots of stuff can happen during the race that renders many of the variables moot. If you don\'t understand that - good luck to you. Positive ROI - lots of ways to get there but it\'s the only thing that matters - even more than opinions.

Best of luck

[Michael D.]

TGJB,
you judged Host\'s chances of winning the race incorrectly. CtC said you were all over the winner. jimbo simply corrected CtC. understanding the winners chance in a horse race is a good thing. thinking that horse is not a good bet at 4-1, while the public knows he is a strong fav at 1-1 (and the horse wins), is a bad thing. nothing real complicated here.



Post Edited (12-07-04 14:06)

Michael,

>understanding the winners chance in a horse race is a good thing. thinking that horse is not a good bet at 4-1, while the public knows he is a strong fav at 1-1 (and the horse wins), is a bad thing. <

I\'ll grant you this much.

If I dislike a horse, the public loves him,  I can\'t understand why, and then he wins for fun, I will sometimes re-examine the race to see if there\'s something I missed or can learn.

But generally at this stage, I know why I dislike him. I know why the public loves him, and I know why I think the public is wrong.

So I don\'t care if he happens to win. They are still wrong for overbetting him relative to his chances.

[Michael D.]

class,
do yourself a favor, in your post where you used the word \"sometimes\", do it \"always\". if you think a horse should be 2/1 or so, and he wins in a jog at even money, you most likely missed something. i always learn more from my losers than i do from my winners. and for sure, find out why you were wrong if you though a horse should be 4-1 and wins at even money, in that case you completely misread the race (a good thing in twoshoes opinion)....... hey, we used to agree on everything, on the opposite sides lately. i guess it comes in waves.



Post Edited (12-07-04 14:26)

[beyerguy]

I would say just because a horse wins doesn\'t mean a handicapper misjudged the horse if he calls him an underlay.  Otherwise, after every race, you could say the winner should have been 1-20 on my line.  

I\'ll give an example, lets say Host had won because he snuck through on the hedge while Silver was 3 wide on one turn and 4 wide on the next, and nearly ran down Host anyway.  In that case, Silver was clearly the better horse, and Host might have been an underlay at 8-5.

I thought Host was absolutely dominant in this field for a few reasons, which don\'t matter much for this discussion.  In this one, individual case, I was proven right in my opinion when he won despite have a much tougher trip than the runner up.

To set an odds line before the race is imperative for me, and probably most successful bettors.  Of course, I am wrong many times, just as the Race of the Week is right many times, just not recently.  I just disagreed with the analysis, before the race, and stated as much.  For a few guys to then try to say the Analysis was spot on is a bit much, that\'s all.

Its one race, doesn\'t amount to much in the long run, but please don\'t come on like a couple of minions and try to tell us how right on the ROTW was when it wasn\'t.  Anyone who bothers to read it, as I do every week because I always like to see what other good handicappers think, would know that it was off this week.

[Michael D.]

beyer,
if you are calling winners underlays on a regular basis before the race, you most likely are not making money (not that anyone is doing that, but that seems to be your point). over a period of time, i think you need to have a pretty good grasp (not perfect, but pretty good) on the chances of the winner in these races to make money.



Post Edited (12-07-04 15:21)

Michael,

I know this may sound pompous.

There was a time I used to do that all the time and it helped me learn. After 30 years of handicapping, I don\'t bother much. I almost always understand why I disagree with the public. So if the favorite wins and I thought he was overbet, I still feel very confident in my analysis. That wasn\'t always true, but it is now. To be clear, I am not talking about whether a horse should be 2-1 or 5-2. I am talking about real differences of opinion. I also feely admit there are some races I simply cannot make an odds line for because of the I lack the specific knowledge. I pass those.

[Michael D.]

not pompus...... i have been doing this for about 15 years, after 30 years, i might have the same attitude..... i agree on you point about passing races. might take me 30 years to learn that lesson.