Quote:
Originally Posted by Houndog
Your response to the original post makes valid points also. I am trying to sort this out for myself and am trying to adopt some of these concepts in my handicapping.
I asked the author if he meant double digit odds or double digit mutuels in his article. He stated double digit odds or something close to that. For myself holding out for double digit odds would mean longer runouts which at this stage of my game I am not ready to do. Double digit mutuels seems more reasonable to me. Following is part of his article I would like to comment on. The bolded part is part of Jerod's original article.
I have a pretty strong theory of how to win at the races that has very little to do with value as it is commonly purveyed. I don’t care where the horse “should be” priced because I never bet on low-priced animals. As such, I analyze all appropriate angles, past performances, race replays, and utilize all other handicapping tools to determine the most logical winner. If that horse is less than double-digit odds, I will rarely, if ever, play that horse to win or use it as a key to vertical and horizontal wagers.
One thing that was pointed out me is you have to be careful about the "Too Good To Be True Syndrome" or "Why Am I The Lucky One"? If you are getting 10-1 and above after careful analysis of the PP's, and your other tools that you use to determine the most logical winner something might be amiss. My experience has been that horses going off at double digit odds are usually not the most logical winner and may have one or more apparent flaws as perceived by the betting public's perceptions. Bad last race; layoffs; etc.
All comments and suggestions are most welcome.
|
Hi Houndog,
The main problem with the using this article to improve your own play is that it's so vague, it's impossible to use, as far as I can tell. There is no inherent value in playing double-digit horses, and no value in playing them at all if their true probability of winning is less than their odds. This seems almost too obvious to even be worth stating, but he never does so in this article.
There is no way you can know your edge on such a bet (or any bet) unless you are either using a database, or have some relatively long-term records of your performance, or at least of the performance of the method, technique, or software that you're using.
In asking the question, 'Is this bet too good to be true', you're asking exactly the question that Soros would be asking, and demonstrating that you understand Soros better than Jerod Dinkin. Only long-term records can give you the answer to that question.
Cheers,
B Jennet