|
Quote:
For the sake of clarity, the 20/1 mark is NOT the horses actual odds, but rather, the horses ML. I play many horses whose actual odds are greater than 20/1, but not the ones whose ML is greater than 20/1. Again, this is for "win" betting, since that is all I do. As you suggested, I cannot answer for New Pace or any other method, but you may recall that I use an "automated" line selection method. Naturally, from time to time, one of these ML 20/1 horses are among my automated contenders. On that basis I can tell you that they are not worth using. The "net" is just not there. And again, I am speaking of the "win" position only. For those using some other type of automated selection method, all I can say is, it takes quite some time to build up enough information to reach a valid opinion on the worth of certain statistical information. A day, a week or even a month, is not enough. Finally, some may think that I am looking for the shorter priced, high win percentage horses. I am not! I don't even bet a horse unless I am getting at least 4/1, so my whole approach is geared toward high priced winners. Over the years I have spent a great deal of time in evaluating the profitability of horses that pay higher prices. Of course, although I use or handicap with all the "Sartin" numbers, as well as many other numbers of my own, and "model" all of them, I also incorporate "actual" handicapping in my analysis of a race. No, I don't care about jockeys, trainers, weight or even the color of the horse, just knowledge of horse racing. |
Quote:
Too bad I wasn't aware of the latest STATS about 2O+:1 shots before the race. ;) Oh, and I didn't need to box 4 horses to nail the exacta. |
20/1
Hi FTL
Right on a 20/1 post time horse and a 20/ 1 ML horse is something else Back in the pre casino pre PARX days of Philly Park I was weary of 15/1 M/L horses let alone 20/1. When looking back on nice price horses more often its was a 6/1 or so horse that just got ignored or a horse that was way over bet and all the other horses were overlays. Looking at Teds line selection and field size from race 6 It looks like a very strange race to say the least. with sprint lines poly dirt route Looking at the 7 horses lines I think about Tom Brohamer laughing at a seminar, but they do win. Getting back to Race 4 It was a 7 horse field with 3 of the horses being 2/1 5/2 and 7/2 Do you have any data in your records for horse that pay over $40 and the odds of the 3 favorites Thanks Bill |
Quote:
I feel the need to take huge issue with your approach, especially as it relates to NewPace. What you are essentially doing is adding ML as an elimination factor. I do not believe that is a good approach, especially considering that many line makers are not very good at distinguishing between a 15/1, 20/1, 25/1 or 30/1 (the usual breakpoints). IF a player has studied their own personal contenders and determined that historically eliminating such horses from that sample would have been beneficial, then by all means apply such elimination. BTW, here is a table from a Dirt Claiming Sprints, 2010 filter I just happen to have open at the time of writing this response. Code:
CS: 2010."Below" means under 20/1 and "above" means 20/1 and above. In looking at this table one could easily build a case for NEVER betting a horse above 20/1, arguably, a bad idea IF YOU ARE SHOWING AN EDGE with such horses. Please note that the $2.06 $net for below/above is, I expect aberrational. (i.e. horses under 20/1 who were ML'ed at 20/1 or higher) Regards, Dave Schwartz |
Quote:
I think if you re-read my post, here is what I did say, "As you suggested, I cannot answer for New Pace or any other method", so no need to take issue with anything in regard to "New Pace". I took a couple of years and got "the net" for ML=>20. In one year the "net" was $1.14 In the second year "the net" for ML=>20 was $1.15 Take note that this is about $0.40 below the "net" for all winners at any ML. In the same years ML=>20 won 5% of all the races. I did not limit this to any particular category of races, distance or surface. I agree that one needs to evaluate their own method to determine the validity of anything. I'm just offering some statistical advise. One may do as they please with this. I also said, "you may recall that I use an "automated" line selection method. Naturally, from time to time, one of these ML 20/1 horses are among my automated contenders. On that basis I can tell you that they are not worth using. The "net" is just not there." Hope this clears things up for you. |
Quote:
Obviously you didn't understand my post. My point pertained to "MORNING LINE" odds of 20/1 or greater NOT to the actual "off" odds. Nevertheless, this exercise is not in vain. In the race you mentioned the winner was 12/1 MORNING LINE odds, before three scratches, and paid $45.60. Both Bill V. and I are in agreement on this. Many times the bigger prices come from lower ML odds horses, not the higher ML odds horses. Thank you for bringing this example to light. It was perfect. |
FTL,
No, I understood. And I am not trying to be difficult here - I simply disagree STRONGLY with what you are saying. The problem with this approach is that it can be repeated for any category of horse. You do not have to limit yourself to morning line. For example, statistically, ANY horse over 40/1 is a hugely bad bet, therefore, NEVER bet a longshot. Favorites lose almost 20% of every bet, therefore NEVER bet a favorite. And they are the BEST bet at the race track, therefore, one should NEVER make any bet. The point is that whatever category you choose to eliminate on (and especially those pertaining to odds) are misleading based only upon that category. When one applies their own subset they better be getting a reason to play rather than a reason not to. Just my opinion. Regards, Dave Schwartz |
Quote:
I think you read my reply to "tfm" and thought it was my reply to you. I was very confident that you would understand my actual reply to your post. At any rate, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe we are coming at this from opposite ends of the spectrum, but I have just one last thought. I have been at this game for a very long time. Longer than I care to think about. As you can imagine, along the way you develop friends and come in contact with a lot of interesting characters. There was this one guy, who use to say, "Forget about betting money. Let's bet "body parts!" As funny as that sounds, he had a point. How much did you "really" like your selection? How sure were you that your selection would or could win the race? When you look at in that light, it makes you stop and think, "do I really like this horse? Do I really think it can win?" Some guys take a $2 "flyer" on a horse and if they hit it, they think they are king of the world. There are other guys who play several "flyers" in a race and if any one of those flyers hit they think they are king of the world. But if you "put them to the test", they may not like their selection that much after all. They may have second or third thoughts as to whether or not their selection can actually win the race. These are generally the people that end up on the "red" side of the ledger. When you find a horse that you are willing to bet a finger on, or a toe, or an ear, or even more harsh your.....I think you got the idea... then you have found what you believe to be, "the winner". The only question left to be answered is, are the odds acceptable to you? And I seriously doubt that this horse would be of the ML=> 20/1 or "off" more than 90 days (among other things) variety. There are so many more to choose from that look like the winner and pay prices that are just as good as those "other" horses. If you would like to continue our discussion, drop me a "PM". I'll be happy to talk to you. |
Actually, I think it would be intelligent for us to continue this discussion right here.
First, we are playing a game. To whatever degree of seriousness one may play the game - even for very significant money - it is still a game. "Playing for body parts" borders upon sickness to such a degree that I will assume you are far from serious. I feel that it is still worth discussing because whatever form of "Russian roulette" one might choose to play it is still far short of healthy. Do you recall the Stephen King movie where Ann Margaret was constantly wagering a finger against big $$$ that her lighter would light 10 times in a row? The ultimate result of such an endeavor is that you win most of them but the losses are so devastating as to make the wins not worthwhile. She was destined to wind up with lots of money and no fingers. The point I am striving for here is that our game is a game of chance. The goal is to enjoy the game - whatever it takes to achieve that end, within the realm of healthiness. When I play, I truly could not tell you who is going to win a given race. I will certainly have an idea of each horses chances but beyond that, I would be deluding myself. Regards, Dave Schwartz |
Quote:
Obviously, no one was, or is, wagering body parts, nor did I imply that such a thing actually took place. If you came away with the idea that betting body parts was a serious wagering game, you missed the entire point of my post. This was simply an attempt by a guy to make you think about the chances of the horse you are about to wager on. I have heard many a horse player declare "I LOVE THIS HORSE!". This guy's response was, "HOW MUCH?" Blackjack is also a game of chance, unless you are among the "informed" blackjack players, at which point it is no longer a game of chance, at least not for the player. I know I don't have to explain further since you have "been there and done that". Horse racing, too, presents a similar scenario and there are those for whom the game is no longer a game of chance. A lot of people strive for that lofty goal, but few ever achieve. I guess I missed something along the way. I thought the idea was to "win", not to lose and enjoy it. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.