Hiding horses

[shoeless]

I have been reading the FU'S and just wanted to see if I had this right.
Did Doc want you to hide the low odds horses? If so it would seem to me
that you would be conceeding over 30% of the races if you did so.


If this is the case do people on board here still go with this way of hiding
horses.

[mikesal57]

Hopefully the value odds horses that you bet make up for it, Jeff

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by shoeless

I have been reading the FU'S and just wanted to see if I had this right.
Did Doc want you to hide the low odds horses? If so it would seem to me
that you would be conceeding over 30% of the races if you did so.


If this is the case do people on board here still go with this way of hiding
horses.

Hi Jeff,

One of Doc's basic teachings involves hiding the low-odds horses. This may seem a little simplistic but it serves a very important purpose - it keeps you away from betting horses that would yield long-term negative ROI. If you can find it, Doc has a good FU article title 'The 20% Solution'. In it, he explains why users of the Methodology aren't going to make money betting horses going off at odds of under 4-1 (20% of starters) - because, although the Methodology may be very good, it's not good enough to produce a profit at less than 4-1, especially if you're betting two horses. Incidentally, this is very similar to the advice of Dave Schwartz, that profitable play begins at the level of the 3.5-ranked starter, at odds of around 7/2. As Doc points out, the races with higher-odds are innately more difficult races, but you can only make a profit by beating them.

Cheers,

lansdale

[JimG]

I agree betting favorites to win on a consistent basis will result in losses, however, why hide the favorite? Isn't it important to note where he ranks and how strongly? If it was to keep you from betting the favorite, why not just skip him and look at the next horse or two on the line as opposed to hiding?

Jim

[KBROD]

agree jim,you must put their lines in for pace reasons,or just drop them after the fact

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by JimG

I agree betting favorites to win on a consistent basis will result in losses, however, why hide the favorite? Isn't it important to note where he ranks and how strongly? If it was to keep you from betting the favorite, why not just skip him and look at the next horse or two on the line as opposed to hiding?

Jim

Hi Jim,

Doc specifically referred to 'low-odds' horses, not necessarily favorites, but obviously, these are usually the favorites. However there's a big difference between a 6-horse field with 7/5 and 2-1 first and second favorites, and a 13-horse field, where the top two are 7/2 and 4-1.

Your example assumes that low odds implies handicapping value, an assumption that Doc didn't make. He observed, I think rightly, that these are two independent values. Only when the handicapping is finished is it worth checking the odds to see whether they offer value. For handicappers hitting 60% on their top two, a reasonable goal for Sartin players, they'll break even on two horses going off at 5/2, and lose at lower odds. For those hitting 50% (possibly more typical), they'll break even at 3-1, and lose at lower odds. This seems to be a very frustrating fact for many handicappers, since such a high percentage of races have winners at around these prices, but that's the way it is.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[shoeless]

Thanks guys for the input



BJ

Are you a 1 or2 horse bettor?

Let's say you win pct is 30% what would the break even point be
betting 2 horses.My math sucks so that's why Im asking.

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by shoeless

Thanks guys for the input



BJ

Are you a 1 or2 horse bettor?

Let's say you win pct is 30% what would the break even point be
betting 2 horses.My math sucks so that's why Im asking.

Hi Jeff,

I don't play the win pools much at this point, given the shrinking of win odds - my play is pretty much limited to P-4 and P-6 carryovers, although I will play longshots to win.

When you say 30%, I assume you mean two horses at 30% each. As I said the breakeven on this is 5/2.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[shoeless]

Thanks