Why You Can't Win Betting to Win

[rdiam]

Why you can't win betting to win: in a nutshell, the win betting market is too efficient...

Remember, we do not bet ON horses, we bet against OTHERS in the pari-mutuel pools. Due to current conditions, the win pool is generally efficient (of course, there are always exceptions on a case-by-case basis), and it is extremely difficult to find positive expected value (+EV) these days betting horses to win. Let me explain:

Betting favorites are currently winning roughly 38% of races, probably closer to 40% as time goes by. The main reason for this is smaller field size, closely followed by cheating (MTH had favorites winning close to 50% in 2019, with Navarro (cheater) the leading trainer, not a coincidence), and finally, rebate syndicates.

Can we bet these favorites and achieve +EV? Well, consider that horses going off below 1-1 ONLY win around 50% of the time, and horses going off below 3-2 ONLY win around 40% of the time. If you do the math, betting on such horses still produces -EV. Even favorites that "only" win 33% of the time (the old "standard" for winning favorites) on average go off below 2-1. No Bueno...

The problem with betting favorites is that, as a group, they won't produce +EV. What about favorites that go off 3-1? They, on average, win less than 25% of the time.

What is going on? Small fields, cheating, and rebate syndicates. Small fields and cheating should be obvious in how it causes favorites to become underlays. What about rebates? Consider that in 2019, if you bet every horse in every race, you LOST $0.25 out of every $1.00 bet. Wait, you say? The takeout and breakage on win bets is only somewhere between 15-20%, so how does one lose 25%? The answer: the winning horses are "overbet" by rebate syndicates, who are getting up to 10% back on every dollar bet. They are willing to "pound" low odds favorites to odds where they breakeven or even lose a bit, making up the difference in their generous rebate. It is no coincidence that the 0.75 ROI betting every horse in 2019 roughly corresponds to the extra spread below the takeout and breakage. MORE IMPORTANT, swimming in the pool with the big rebate syndicates has the effect of actually RAISING the takeout on those with smaller or zero rebates. If you thought beating a 20% takeout game was tough, how do you feel about playing into a 25% takeout?

Those are the facts, boys and girls. So how do we play the game? Well, there is not a whole lot we can do about cheating, so we have to live with that. But we can try to avoid playing in the win pool with the rebate syndicates and playing races with small fields:

First, pass on the win pool if there are fewer than 8 runners. Yes, I know there will be exceptions, but the rebate syndicates prefer chalk in small fields. As a corollary to this, pass on races taken off the turf: it tends to cut down on field size, and you do not know which horses are "stuck" (grass horse that the racing secretary has asked the trainer to leave in to have enough horses to run the race). Similarly, pass on races on "wet" tracks, as it is hard enough to handicap a race without having to deal with how a horse will respond to running on a wet trace.

Second, if you are going to bet a horse 7-2 or lower, make sure you can identify at least one other horse with 20% of the win pool (i.e., going off 3-1 or lower) that has little or no chance to win today's race. If you can do this, and your handicapping is superior to that of the rebate syndicates, you can swim in the pool and create +EV. Otherwise, stay away.

Third, try to find races where the rebate syndicates are staying away: start with looking for a race where the ML favorite is 5-2 or higher. Make sure your horse or horses you are looking to bet have a ML or 5-1 or higher.

Finally, bet into pools where the rebate syndicate "sharks" are not playing. Exactas are difficult to handicap due to the place horse (IMPORTANT: READ and RE-READ "The 55% Solution", probably the most important contribution Sartin has made to racing literature), so if you can analyze contra-energy and other factors, you can create +EV with Exactas. Similarly, rebate syndicates tend to stay away from most horizontal pools. DD and p3 pools are generally too small, and there is too much uncertainty for them in p4 and p5 pools. Look to structure your horizontal bets properly, and let the takeout spread over a series of races allow you to lower the ROI requirements in each race to create +EV relative to the win parlay.

In sum, minimize your win bets as discussed above. The win pool has been bastardized by small fields, cheating, and rebate syndicates. Chalk wins a lot these days, but the prices on the chalk are too low to actually make $ betting them to win (see Selections by LT1 in recent days -- lots of winners, no prices). Be more selective in choosing races where you bet to win, and use horizontals and verticals to "fish" in larger fields where the cheaters and rebate syndicates don't swim. Good luck.

Richard

[mick]

Excellent post, Richard. Thanks. I've been sweeping cards and losing money. :rolleyes:

[Mitch44]

Good stuff Richard.

There is no doubt that win betting has become much harder. The advent of computers has also been a huge contributing factor. There also hasn't been much innovation in the field of handicapping lately, most of it is just massaged in a different way or weighting of importance etc.

In racing the cream comes to the top or water seeks its own level. With that in mind there are more cheap horses or lower class horses than better or Graded horses. These cheaper horses tend to be less form full and more inconsistent. I'd say look to the lower class races on the card barring MSW. They'll have fuller fields and better prices. While a Grade 1 can have a full field normally there are only 25% real contenders or 3 horses. Ditto for other race classes. The best races for prices are full fields that are competitive with multiple true contenders. Smaller tracks can produce good prices with fuller fields. Even so they have their own hierarchy of classes and can also produce favorites but generally are more productive.In real competitive fields( 4 or 5 true contenders) it pays to take the longer priced contenders as the public tend to be wrong in those situations.

The use of something different from the masses will get better prices. In RDSS tools such as % Med., concepts such as the Counter Energy horse. While many today are using pace few are using advanced concepts of pace such as compounding of Fractions and Sartin's later advancements. They tend to be very generic in their approach and prefer factors such as Phase 1 because they can comprehend it. Well everyone is using that and their overly bet down and no longer profitable. The masses shy away from anything that's hard to understand or too complicated, especially if it involves work. The Sartin concept as a whole is a difficult discipline which doesn't come easy or overnight, although its never been easier.

I think angles are place for great opportunity. They require search, patience and discipline but employed properly are still very profitable. Sometimes form isn't hidden and is right before your eyes for good prices. They could be repeaters or trainers moves etc. Risk reward must always be evaluated.

Good capping,

Mitch44

[MJS6916]

Why you can't win betting to win: in a nutshell, the win betting market is too efficient...

Remember, we do not bet ON horses, we bet against OTHERS in the pari-mutuel pools. Due to current conditions, the win pool is generally efficient (of course, there are always exceptions on a case-by-case basis), and it is extremely difficult to find positive expected value (+EV) these days betting horses to win. Let me explain:

Betting favorites are currently winning roughly 38% of races, probably closer to 40% as time goes by. The main reason for this is smaller field size, closely followed by cheating (MTH had favorites winning close to 50% in 2019, with Navarro (cheater) the leading trainer, not a coincidence), and finally, rebate syndicates.

Can we bet these favorites and achieve +EV? Well, consider that horses going off below 1-1 ONLY win around 50% of the time, and horses going off below 3-2 ONLY win around 40% of the time. If you do the math, betting on such horses still produces -EV. Even favorites that "only" win 33% of the time (the old "standard" for winning favorites) on average go off below 2-1. No Bueno...

The problem with betting favorites is that, as a group, they won't produce +EV. What about favorites that go off 3-1? They, on average, win less than 25% of the time.

What is going on? Small fields, cheating, and rebate syndicates. Small fields and cheating should be obvious in how it causes favorites to become underlays. What about rebates? Consider that in 2019, if you bet every horse in every race, you LOST $0.25 out of every $1.00 bet. Wait, you say? The takeout and breakage on win bets is only somewhere between 15-20%, so how does one lose 25%? The answer: the winning horses are "overbet" by rebate syndicates, who are getting up to 10% back on every dollar bet. They are willing to "pound" low odds favorites to odds where they breakeven or even lose a bit, making up the difference in their generous rebate. It is no coincidence that the 0.75 ROI betting every horse in 2019 roughly corresponds to the extra spread below the takeout and breakage. MORE IMPORTANT, swimming in the pool with the big rebate syndicates has the effect of actually RAISING the takeout on those with smaller or zero rebates. If you thought beating a 20% takeout game was tough, how do you feel about playing into a 25% takeout?

Those are the facts, boys and girls. So how do we play the game? Well, there is not a whole lot we can do about cheating, so we have to live with that. But we can try to avoid playing in the win pool with the rebate syndicates and playing races with small fields:

First, pass on the win pool if there are fewer than 8 runners. Yes, I know there will be exceptions, but the rebate syndicates prefer chalk in small fields. As a corollary to this, pass on races taken off the turf: it tends to cut down on field size, and you do not know which horses are "stuck" (grass horse that the racing secretary has asked the trainer to leave in to have enough horses to run the race). Similarly, pass on races on "wet" tracks, as it is hard enough to handicap a race without having to deal with how a horse will respond to running on a wet trace.

Second, if you are going to bet a horse 7-2 or lower, make sure you can identify at least one other horse with 20% of the win pool (i.e., going off 3-1 or lower) that has little or no chance to win today's race. If you can do this, and your handicapping is superior to that of the rebate syndicates, you can swim in the pool and create +EV.
Otherwise, stay away.

Third, try to find races where the rebate syndicates are staying away: start with looking for a race where the ML favorite is 5-2 or higher. Make sure your horse or horses you are looking to bet have a ML or 5-1 or higher.

Finally, bet into pools where the rebate syndicate "sharks" are not playing. Exactas are difficult to handicap due to the place horse (IMPORTANT: READ and RE-READ "The 55% Solution", probably the most important contribution Sartin has made to racing literature), so if you can analyze contra-energy and other factors, you can create +EV with Exactas. Similarly, rebate syndicates tend to stay away from most horizontal pools. DD and p3 pools are generally too small, and there is too much uncertainty for them in p4 and p5 pools. Look to structure your horizontal bets properly, and let the takeout spread over a series of races allow you to lower the ROI requirements in each race to create +EV relative to the win parlay.

In sum, minimize your win bets as discussed above. The win pool has been bastardized by small fields, cheating, and rebate syndicates. Chalk wins a lot these days, but the prices on the chalk are too low to actually make $ betting them to win (see Selections by LT1 in recent days -- lots of winners, no prices). Be more selective in choosing races where you bet to win, and use horizontals and verticals to "fish" in larger fields where the cheaters and rebate syndicates don't swim. Good luck.

Richard


I like everything you wrote here. Excellent advice Richard

[MJS6916]

So let's just quit?
I don't buy that for two reasons.
Number one I don't think like the masses.
Number two there is so much chaos in life.
And I'm not going to change my opinion.

The only rule is (and I borrow this from Pizzolla) there are No Rules.

If you win you win-- and that could be by betting to win.


Raptor,


Richard (aka rdiam) was just sharing observations and putting out general advice on how to deal with today's wagering market in the win pools.

Didn't see anything about him suggesting we should quit handicapping.

Mike

[MJS6916]

Touche and Glad to discuss it further Mike.
It's chaos out there and nobody has it all figured out.
I contend it is patently incorrect to say win betting is the problem.
That's why I got involved in this thread. The problem is, in a gambling sense, how good is your vision?
It's definitely not in my opinion a question of bet type or so called market efficiency.

Earlier, in #4, I should have wrote "I agree with the main point.", instead of liking everything.

I still think, overall, rdiam's advice is solid on how to deal with: if a handicapper is having more struggles finding winners in the odds range they used to get .

The whales/syndicates are an issue to deal with today, more so than years past.

Your point of "It's chaos out there and nobody has it all figured out." still holds and the apocolypse is not approaching.

The whales clearly love their "sure things" and I think it's now a matter of us
regular people having to sit out a few more hands per 100 than we used to before cashing in on their mistakes.

Just like us, they make mistakes too.........and more of their money is in the pools than mine.

As long as I keep staying at the table, their chips ultimately come my way.

[Mitch44]

FWIW it was Sartin who said; "There are no rules." Pizzolla stole that from him along with other stuff and was kicked out of the group along with Dick Schmitdt.


Sartin believed in guidelines and not hard and fast rules which some people need.


Mitch44

[Mitch44]

Only given credit to where the no rules comment originated. That's not my argument but Sartin's as it pertains to guilt, no one would be in a better position to make that call them him and therefore definitely not hearsay.


The post was on topic and about your post and comments. Yes lets stick to the main topic of which I'm a firm believer in.


Mitch44

[MikeB]

I am a win bettor, and a winner at the window. I only bet win, rarely more than 1 or 2 races on a full card. It is not a style for those looking for action.

[Mitch44]

What rdiam was saying is that the market or game is very efficient or the public has become very good today verses yesterday or yesteryear. Many reasons for that but the facts are there for all to see on a daily basis.

Where there is inefficiency and the general public has problems are in races with limited data such as Maiden races where form belongs to the connections. Now the public does make mistakes on a daily basis but few. Those that have a great deal of patience such as MikeB and wait for spots and situations where the general public makes a mistake do very well. Few have the discipline to employ that.

There are other situations where the public has holes in their game such as Ex. betting (getting the place horse), dealing with stretch out and cutbacks etc. Another huge mistake the masses make is hammering down a horse that's no longer sound or the same horse.

They are also inefficient in horizonal betting such as DD. P3,P4. P5 & P6 betting. With these bets they tend to play too many combinations causing larger payoff than they should. Additionally get just one good paying horses in a series and the payoffs increase tremendously. It only takes one good race sometimes and even in that race one can play more than one horse.

All rdiam was saying is that its more efficient to play multiple winners in multiple races for profits than to only play single win betting. Even in these bets if there isn't a good paying horse in the sequence(preferably two or more) the payoffs are paltry. There usually is one or two out of ten where they're wrong.

To get these horses become more efficient that the public and exploit their weaknesses.

Mitch44

[barryt]

Just for the record
WO 2020 Favs 37% avg odds 7-1

[Mitch44]

Here you go barryt:

This is dated 29 June20 and is from Bris, besides that 35% favs there are many others that are low paying besides the favorite. You can look at the averages for Exotics and it reinforces rdiam whole point of his post and approach. Happy hunting. I would say the sweet spots here are the EX, DD,P3 & P4 after that the degree of difficulty greatly increases. Sure beats the low lying fruit of favorites and low priced horses. Also the EX is a good bet, with insight but is more difficult than the other Exotics in many cases.



Mitch44



<table><tbody><tr align="center"><th colspan="2">WOODBINE AT A GLANCE</th></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="2">Avg. Winning Odds: 5.31 – 1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="2">Favorite Win%: 35%, Favorite Itm%: 67%</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>EXOTICS</td><td align="right">PAYOFF</td></tr><tr><td>Exacta</td><td align="right">109.07</td></tr><tr><td>Daily Double</td><td align="right">82.18</td></tr><tr><td>Trifecta</td><td align="right">720.37</td></tr><tr><td>Pick 3</td><td align="right">548.81</td></tr><tr><td>Superfecta</td><td align="right">6,340.82</td></tr><tr><td>Pick 6</td><td align="right">7,552.30</td></tr><tr><td>Pick 4</td><td align="right">5,149.99</td></tr><tr><td>Pick 5</td><td align="right">35,804.05</td></tr><tr><td>Pick 6 Jackpot</td><td align="right">24,394.80</td></tr><tr><td>Super High Five Jackpot</td><td align="right">77,118.81


</td></tr></tbody></table>

[ScottB]

I have to totally disagree with Richard and agree with MikeB. MikeB and I are in the same boat. I am a spot player who bets only win (exacta occasionally) and I cash enough tickets to stay in the black.

I think most guy's who use computer programs to handicap and select their bets lose out on the human factor that is critical in making selections.

My guru Ray Taulbot not only taught pace but he taught angles to teach how trainers race their horses into form and top physical condition to get ready for a winning effort. Horses in top physical condition have an edge. A valuable tool in picking winners.

Just this past Tuesday (7/1) I was looking at the 10th race at Gulfstream Park and I was considering a horse #10 Uncle Curly as one of my contenders. Uncle Curly ran a nice race on (6/14) and was coming back in 17 days with a 3F breeze workout.

When you saw Uncle Curly in the post parade and on the track it was obvious he was fit and ready to run a big race. I wound up with a 26.80 winner for my observations.

If you look for the right spots you can get good prices if you have the patience to wait for them. I have that patience.

[mick]

... if you are going to bet a horse 7-2 or lower, make sure you can identify at least one other horse with 20% of the win pool (i.e., going off 3-1 or lower) that has little or no chance to win today's race. If you can do this, and your handicapping is superior to that of the rebate syndicates, you can swim in the pool and create +EV. Otherwise, stay away.

I am always looking for a vulnerable favorite. When you find one, the money bet on it will cover the track take and as Dave Schwartz says, "You can almost throw darts and break even."

I have a list of things in my head that I'm constantly looking for and you probably do too. Here are a few examples.

A returning winner, especially a returning maiden winner - they just don't win often when they come back. A new top speed figure with an older horse or better yet, paired top speed figures with an older horse - expect a regression. A closer in a sprint with little speed - there's nothing to run into. An early in a longer race, e.g. 7f or 9f, with a lot of early speed - there's more distance for that early speed to fail. An early breaking from an outside post in a route - the jockey will have to use the horse to gain a favorable position near the rail and they often fade in the last furlong. And here's one that many don't think about - an early presser or presser breaking from post 1 with speed outside. The jockey will have to send to put the horse where he wants to be, i.e. close to the pace. Otherwise he'll be smothered and covered up off the pace.

I think of them as "negative" angles and they help me find the "play against" favorites. Once I find one, I know I'm betting into a bigger win pool.

[ScottB]

As a spot player I like to bet 3-1 or bettor and I look for those spots. I usually don't bet against horses going off at odds-on.

If I like a horse say at 4-1, I don't worry about the odds of others horses because I know if I catch the winner I got a 10 horse.

I will take lower odds if I see Johnny V getting legged up on a Todd Pletcher horse that looks solid or a horse like Maximum Security going off at 6/5. Sometimes you have to take what they give you.

You make a lot of good points but betting every race on a card is putting yourself up against it.

[ScottB]

I went to Monmouth one time with a few guy's and I had 2 horses I liked from my handicapping work the night before.

One horse scratched and the other horse didn't look good at race time. I passed any betting for the day. I didn't like anything else.

The guy's I was with couldn't believe that I would go to the track and not make a play. Some days that is the way it is for spot players.

[ignacio todoberto bernal]

"THERE ARE NO RULES" RIGHT ON MITCH 44 !!!!

ignacio

[rdiam]

I am amused by some of the responses from those who "disagree" with my premise and support their argument by indicating their "success" at win betting using a selective, spot play approach.

If these same posters would re-read my original post, they would see that the last sentence reads "Be more selective in choosing races where you bet to win, and use horizontals and verticals to "fish" in larger fields where the cheaters are rebate syndicates don't swim." So unless those who profess to "disagree" did not read the entire post, they seem to be trying to make a point that does not need to be made. Yes, roughly 40% of races are won by a horse OTHER than the top 2 betting choices. Find those races and the winner of those races, and there is +EV to be had. I even provided guidelines to finding those races.

So my conclusion is either those who disagree had a pre-conceived notion and did not read the entire post, or that some just like to argue for argument's sake.

Richard

[Mitch44]

Right now favorites at PRX are winning 55%.While the public as a whole pound the favorites they are weak and tend to make mistakes in other pools. Such as an EX play. How many look at the EX & DD pools to see the payoffs? They frequently go overboard on the top two choices and accept ridiculous payoffs of $8,12 or 15. If you can't make double your investment one should not bet it. Double allows for loses incurred. Anyone getting a 48% or higher win % with EX's is doing exceptional work. The rate for DD's should be higher.

Even an angle or spot player can make a lot more money from other pools. BTW the DD is a much better bet than an EX. Its much easier to pick winners than the place horse. Many times the place horse gets there by default because legit contenders are out of form or have peaked and go out of form today.

I always try to design a bet to capitalize on my analysis and true contenders. I have made a lot of money off favorites winning by getting a good price horse underneath in an EX or getting a decent price in the DD. These underneath and connecting races can't be just any horse with good odds, that will get you to the poor house, they must be contenders or have a sound basis for using it. I.e. on the improve, hasn't disgraced itself to todays conditions, an unknown factor, vulnerable favorites, a horse that does something for the first time such as stretching out in distance to a route etc.

Profits are there but look at expected value for your investment and stay out of poor return situations. Thanks for the reminder Richard, great post.

Mitch44

[mick]

I am always looking for a vulnerable favorite. When you find one, the money bet on it will cover the track take and as Dave Schwartz says, "You can almost throw darts and break even."

I have a list of things in my head that I'm constantly looking for and you probably do too. Here are a few examples.

A returning winner, especially a returning maiden winner - they just don't win often when they come back. A new top speed figure with an older horse or better yet, paired top speed figures with an older horse - expect a regression. A closer in a sprint with little speed - there's nothing to run into. An early in a longer race, e.g. 7f or 9f, with a lot of early speed - there's more distance for that early speed to fail. An early breaking from an outside post in a route - the jockey will have to use the horse to gain a favorable position near the rail and they often fade in the last furlong. And here's one that many don't think about - an early presser or presser breaking from post 1 with speed outside. The jockey will have to send to put the horse where he wants to be, i.e. close to the pace. Otherwise he'll be smothered and covered up off the pace.

I think of them as "negative" angles and they help me find the "play against" favorites. Once I find one, I know I'm betting into a bigger win pool.

I apologize for quoting my own post but I should have included another "negative" angle. My friend Mitch, who may be the best exacta player I've ever known, is always looking for the "Need to Lead" horse. Why? Because the NTL doesn't win much. Occasionally, they'll get an easy lead and keep going, but most of the time they won't. They'll be pressured and fade late. When they do, they usually fade right out of the exacta.

I once spent an hour on the phone with Mitch handicapping a single race. He was giving me a lesson and it was a good one. The favorite was a NTL and he tossed it completely. When we finished, I bet $4 on a part wheel, something like 1 over 2, 3. It ran 1-2 and I cashed for $103. (I still have the notes of that conversation from early September 2017.)

[ScottB]

One can bet any way possible-- I don't care if it's win place show or exotics . . .

My contention is, it's not the bet type per se that's the problem.

The Problem is are you beating the Expectation?

That's a mathematical certainty reflected in your account balance.

Picking winners is only one part of the equation. Mick said in one of his posts that he was sweeping cards but losing money.

That indicates that his betting philosophy is flawed. I bet Delaware and some years the favorites were winning at 40% plus. I learned to live with it and bet many favorites and put them in exactas.

In this game you need to be flexible and be willing to make adjustments as required.