Hiding Horses Why?

[JimG]

Forgive me if this seems like a stupid question, but I am being serious. I do not have the many years of Sartin-type skills you all possess, however, I am curious about one thing.

Why do you hide horses or eliminate them from consideration when working races with Val4, RDSS, Spec160, etc.?

The reason I ask is many horses can affect the pace of the race and it would logically seem to me that horses you toss should be low ranked in most categories anyhow. If not, wouldn't it be advantageous to know in what area they may have merit? For those of you that do hide (toss) horses, have you done any studies to get a feel for how that affected the final BL/BL or VDC rankings?

I am not a win-only bettor, so tossing horses to me can mean tossing the 2nd or 3rd place horse that hits at a price.

I look forward to all responses and thanks. Have a safe and happy 4th of July.

Jim

[admin]

Thanks Jim Happy 4th to you too

Hiding on the advanced programs was a part of wagercapping
that is to bet your top 2 of the top 4 BL/BL or VDC readouts
and not to bet = out of sight / out of mind - the favorites
for win only

It makes sense what you say about by hiding your changing the match
up The BLBL screen does get changed, but starting with Synthesis
with The chaos stick graph and the LSP -long shot detector sticks
These readouts were the beginning of Doc's work with
chaos forumulas and deceleration that measured How the horse ran its pace line .. they and later the VDC readout were more of a grading of
deceration factors and with Probability convergance
Doc used various other factors to rate the way the horse ran the paceline
these factors moved the horses very close together in the final rating
So hiding was a good way to lead us to better longshots
I don't hide any longer because I bet 60/40 or even 70/30
on the two horses I think are going to win
I look at many patterns in the Readouts that are based on 5
horses If I don't see five horses the readouts don't show the same pattern
Hope I have started to get this topic going
Hiding was a part of a method It was never a rule

GS
Bill

[Ted Craven]

Jim,

FWIW, in RDSS, that big blank space beneath the data on the main Analysis screens is reserved for a place to group Win contenders and in-the-money (IM) contenders (2nd, 3rd, 4th) separately. You could 'hide' from Win and see the relative rankings of the remaining Win contenders, but also see remaining lines in a separate grouping so you don't forget who might affect the pace or to identify, for example, that the best bets might be in other than the Win Pool, etc. Also, Unhide back into the Win or IM groupings.

Ted

[JimG]

Bill and Ted,

Thanks for the replies. I can understand the need to hide from a wager capping perspective if the user intends to play the top two ranked horses, regardless. In my case, I tend to look at all the horses on the BL/BL screen and look for races with vulnerable favorites, (ie. favorite not top ranked or if top ranked, the scores are within a narrow range.)

While I realize hiding is not a rule but more of a method, that seems to be the norm for many that use the software. I personally learned from watching Bill's great videos, and had he not taken the time to make them, I would have not known about all of this. Bill would hide horses, so I did. Guess I was kinda wondering if not hiding would make the readouts, indiscipherable. For me that has not been the case, but I was wondering about the experience of others here.

I suppose "hiding" is kinda like betting 2 horses to win. Many are successful playing that way while others prefer the different path.

Ted, I like the options you are setting up in RDSS as you mentioned. The software is coming along. Thanks again for the replies and I hope the many more knowledgeable veterans out there will chime in.

Jim

[alydar_ David]

Hi Jim,

Here's a reprint of a post I wrote several eons ago.

Please note, this is for win wagering only.

Also note, this is not for exotics. For exotic wagering you need to keep the high probability, low odds horse in your bets. You also need to keep him in your multi-race wagers -- Daily Doubles, Pick 3s, etcetera. Whether you elect to play the multi-wager or not due to how much chalk you have is another matter entirely and won't be broached here.

Additionally, when you "hide" a horse sometimes the sort changes. For example, a horse that was listed fourth on BL/BL (assuming five horses listed) may jump up to second (not third, as you would logically assume) after you "hide" the low odds top horse.

And "hiding" doesn't work at places like MTH or CRC where chalk rules.
Be careful with your application. I rarely "hide" anymore, but that's up to the individual.

In an event here's the reprint:

Wagercapping with flexibility.

Here's the approach I've been using lately.

1) Endeavor to get down to three horses you think can win the race.
Sometimes I can't narrow it down past four or even five. Sometimes I
can only see two horses with a real shot. Remember, if the horse has
no chance of winning he's not a real overlay; he's a false overlay
and I don't want those. I win horses that can win, then I'll look for
price.

Okay, so assume we are down to three horses. Let's assume none of
these are "Lost in the Fog" types you wouldn't bet against.

2) Bet the top choice if he's 5/2 or more providing you have a second
choice or third choice paying 5-1. Bet them both to win.

3) If two of your three choices are under 5/2 then pass the race,
unless your other choice is 10-1 or more. In that case bet the other
choice to win and place.

For example, in the second race at AQU today I liked #5, #1 and #3 in
order.
At two minutes to post these were the odds:
#5 1.7 to 1
#1 17 to 1
#3 1.7 to 1

Heh, I just noticed they all have a "1" and "7," maybe I should buy a
lotto ticket?
Anyway, the only bet here for me is the #1 to Win and Place at 17 to
1.

Result: 3-2-4. Okay, I lost this one, but you get the idea.

----

Here's another example using a different situation. Suppose you like
A, B and C in order. At two minutes to post (or using morning line,
if that's your preference) suppose the odds are:

A 4-1
B 3-1
C 7-1

Here I'd bet A and C to win.

---

Suppose you like C, D and E to win, but you think C is a legitimate
favorite and you don't want to bet against him. Say the odds are:

C 2-1
D 15-1
E 14-1

I'd hedge the chalk here. By that I mean I'd bet enough on him that
I'll break even if he wins. I don't really like doing this, but it
beats ripping up tickets when the obvious winner is staring you in
the face. This probably happens two or three times at most on a ten
race card and usually only on weekends.

I'd bet like this for every $10 multiple:

$4 Win on C
$3 Win on D
$3 Win on E

That way I'd break even if C wins, but stand to make some nice dough
if D or E pull off the upset.

---

How do you handle "Lost in the Fog" type horses? Generally, if
there's a 3/5 shot in the race hedging won't work as your anticipated
ROI will be too small even if you do hit a longer price. In that case
I play Pick3 or Pick4s and small trifecta tickets for $2: C/ D-E/ D-E
and a straight superfecta ticket for a dollar: C-D-E-F.

Personally, I make more with Pick3s than any other exotic bet. I
mostly spend $8 a bet and go like this: A-B/ A-B/ A-B. It's a great
feeling when you hit three or four of these rolling babies and the
cash doesn't hurt either. On the other hand you'll be experiencing a
lot more "2 out of 3" misses than hits. So, be prepared for it.
That's another reason I like to only bet them for $1. The $8 doesn't
hurt, but sometimes you can catch $300 or $400 if a couple of bombs
come in. Even when you don't have price horses the takeout is so low
the payoff is generally better than a parlay.

---

What do you do at place like BM where there are five horse fields?
Mostly, I pass a lot of races.

---

None of this is carved in stone, but it might give you some ideas to
use in your own pari-mutuel wars. :>)

[chris]

Good question, good responses. I don't know if I'm one of those knowledgeable veterans, but that's never stopped me from having an opinon; And that's what this is.

When I'm absolutely, unequivocably, and unhesitatingly, not going to bet the top program choice, then I hide. For me, compelling reasons are; animal won his last race with a peak effort, and his history strongly suggests he's unlikely to do so again; horse is trying to win 3 consecutive races, unlikely under any circumstances, unless of course he's "Superhorse" and they're not a common occurence; horse is a professional hangar - often found in the maiden claiming ranks.

The thread that the binds these three is their prohibitively low odds. And I believe the intent behind hiding was to steer us away from these parimutual dead-ends. And wagercapping was born.

If the animal in question is the real thing, I leave him in; if I can't find a way to take respectable money from the race, I leave it alone.

This is a concept that begs judgment, restraint, and judicious application; it's not intended as a reflexive response to to a low odds public choice.

Regards,
Chris