Go Back   Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up > General Discussion
Mark Forums Read
Google Site Search Get RDSS Sartin Library RDSS FAQs Conduct Register Site FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts

General Discussion General Horse Racing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-25-2010, 11:14 AM   #11
Ted Craven
Grade 1
 
Ted Craven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 8,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by ted craven View Post
blindly betting in the win pool against a strongly ranked, low odds contender is a rather brute force method which I have found pretty costly over the years.ted
Quote:
Originally Posted by for the lead View Post
ted, i found this statement very intriguing. Perhaps you could expand on this, in particular the usage of the word "blindly".

Do i understand correctly that you are not a proponent of throwing out the top horse or the top two horses on the bl/bl and going to the third, fourth or fifth horse just for the sake of getting odds?
FTL,

I will accept your statistics here re post-time odds of winners (you say ~ 60% 5/2 or less), and the frequency of Top 2 betting favourites winning (for argument sake, let's say about 50% give or take a few points and a few tracks). It has to be an uphill battle if one doesn't have a good strategy for dealing with the favourite. That's why I have long been trying to observe when a favourite is legitimate and when not.

Some of my personal tricks so far (e.g. for a favourite at 5/2 or less, and I'll reference a few RDSS/Val/Spec readouts):

- fave is Top on BLBL/VDC but has tied or close competition (e.g. within a point). If 2nd ranked is also VDC #1 and going for 4-1 or higher, so much the better - weakness

- fave is not Top ranked (e.g. BLBL / VDC) - weakness

- fave has not run in 180+ days (where other contenders have); even better if workout intervals are not dead-regular and recent, and not pushing upper 80 SRs recently - weakness

- fave is not also the Tote Xray 0.0 or within 1% of it - potential weakness

- fave is dead-meat in a matchup: e.g. not the fastest Early of 3 Earlies, not the best closer (with Late Energy) in an Other Than Early setup - strong weakness

- fave breaks from (e.g.) inside or outside post which EVERYBODY (but me) knows is a toss in a specific situation (Looking for Lucky in the Derby ) - weakness

- your more detailed analysis of the #7 horse in a recent post of Bill V's (and his approach specifically to skipping that weak favourite for a nice 5-1 payoff) - weakness

If none of the above examples apply, which they often don't, the favourite is likely legitimate and I'm backing off more and more from simply skipping over it and trying to get 2-1 net from a 2 horse bet. Aside from PASSING, I've tried hedging that legitimate favourite if I have another strong horse (i.e. to break-even or only lose a little - 'insure the loss') waiting for the other better odds horse to pay off. Same trick with dutched Win/Place bet on the other horse (say at 5-1+).

If there are not too many top ranked low odds horses (e.g. < 2-1 and < 3-1 = forget it) I will try a variety of exacta types (other than boxes). I'm not yet too much into horizontal bets, but I should be.

All my analysis revolves around what to do with the favourite. It's like a galvanizing attractor point in a horse race - from the point of view of making money, that is. But I think it's wastefull of resources (and even more importantly, of emotional energy) to simply hope the favourite will not run well today and bet against it without a deeper analysis seeking weakness or misfit to whatever model or matchup analysis you may be making.

Ted
__________________

R
DSS -
Racing Decision Support System™
Ted Craven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 05:09 PM   #12
For The Lead
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Craven View Post
FTL,

I will accept your statistics here re post-time odds of winners (you say ~ 60% 5/2 or less), and the frequency of Top 2 betting favourites winning (for argument sake, let's say about 50% give or take a few points and a few tracks). It has to be an uphill battle if one doesn't have a good strategy for dealing with the favourite. That's why I have long been trying to observe when a favourite is legitimate and when not.

All my analysis revolves around what to do with the favourite. It's like a galvanizing attractor point in a horse race - from the point of view of making money, that is. But I think it's wastefull of resources (and even more importantly, of emotional energy) to simply hope the favourite will not run well today and bet against it without a deeper analysis seeking weakness or misfit to whatever model or matchup analysis you may be making.

Ted

Ted,
You are absolutely correct. Aside from everything else one does in preparing to bet a race, the focal point has to be the favorite and other low odds horses. If you cannot determine that they can be beat, there is no sense in investing money into that race. Again, this is from a “win betting” point of view. As you said, you cannot just go along betting blindly and “hoping for the best”.
__________________
"It's suppose to be hard. If it was easy, everybody would do it." Jimmy Dugan, A League of Their Own
For The Lead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 07:49 PM   #13
For The Lead
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Craven View Post
FTL,

I will accept your statistics here re post-time odds of winners (you say ~ 60% 5/2 or less), and the frequency of Top 2 betting favourites winning (for argument sake, let's say about 50% give or take a few points and a few tracks). It has to be an uphill battle if one doesn't have a good strategy for dealing with the favourite. That's why I have long been trying to observe when a favourite is legitimate and when not.


Ted
Ted,
I understand that your efforts are all based on line selection, software and readouts. That makes sense for you. Unfortunately, I don’t use the same method for evaluating favorites and/or short odds horse, so I really can’t comment on that. You do have some other ways to evaluate favorites and/or short odds horses on your list that I could comment on, but more on that later.

I started in this game many, many years ago, more than I care to count, and it was at a time when there were no computers, no software programs and all the other tools that are available today. My point is, in order to make a profit in those days you had to LEARN about the entire game from beginning to end. I mean you just had to have an understanding of everything. However, I was never one to sit back and not accept new things, so when I first heard about the Sartin Methodology in the 80’s, I naturally got involved. Although I understand that “Doc” wanted everybody to forget “horsey” things, that just wasn’t acceptable for me, as I’m sure it wasn’t acceptable for Brohamer when he joined PIRCO. You don’t spend 20+ years of your life learning every single thing you can possibly learn and then just forget it because “Doc” said so. So what I did, was “incorporate” the concepts of the methodology into what I already knew, adhering to the things I found useful and discarding the things I knew to be, well, not so useful.

Look, I don’t know how much thought you have given this, but “Doc” made his bones, so to speak, in the 80’s and early 90’s. Computers were new at that time. 286 machines with 5 ¼” floppy disks and no hard drives and no internet, no downloads, no nothing, really. It was just a step above pencil and paper. I mean, there wasn’t much room for building databases, which means there was limited information to research. If you think about it, how much data could he have possibly had in order to come up with the rules, guidelines or however you want to refer to the things he set down in writing? I am not trying to disparage his work, it was new, innovative and very useful! And it remains that way today. However, you yourself are building a sizeable database of information, as I have already. At some point in time you might begin to ask yourself, who had more information to draw from, “Doc” or you? Who is in a better position to make rules and/or guidelines? Who has the best information? I’m sure you will agree that the information you accumulate is head and shoulders above the information “Doc” had to work with, so my money would be on you. Thought about in the right way and with a database constructed in the right way, there is no end to what you can discover.

Ok, so at any rate, I do not use software and readouts in an effort to determine the viability of the favorite and/or low odds horses. I rely on good old fashion knowledge of horse racing. Personally, I can’t rely on readouts alone that are made up of information derived from a single line. There is more to a race horse than a single line.

In your list you mentioned my detailed analysis of the #7 horse, the favorite, in Bill V’s post. What I was indicating was the reasons I thought the public made the horse the favorite. I was also stating the “strengths” of the horse when compared to the field it was running against, in other words, the legitimacy of the horse being the favorite. Unfortunately for that horse, it had designs on going for the lead and that wasn’t going to happen with the #6 horse in the race. One has to understand that using the second line back for the #7, as they should have, you can conclude that this horse is going for the lead off that race, dropping down and etc. However, where Bill made a mistake, in my opinion, was not leaving the #6 horse “in” (and of course, not using the last line) for evaluation of the match up of the race. You can’t eliminate the horse that is going to have the early lead. This horse dictates how the entire race will unfold. Also with regard to the #6, as I stated in my post to Bill V., the #6 has physical problems that will not allow it to run much past the second call. Now I don’t KNOW that to be a fact, but in my many years of handicapping, I have to make “a call” on such matters and my best guess is that the horse has physical problems. NO HORSE should be showing lines from almost 600 days ago, unless it has problems that have caused it to be OFF.

Now to your list.

- fave has not run in 180+ days (where other contenders have); even better if workout intervals are not dead-regular and recent, and not pushing upper 80 SRs recently – weakness I don’t know about workouts. I never use them. I have never found workouts to be useful. But 95% of all winners have a race in the last 90 days, so I think you could shorten up on this qualification.

- fave is not also the Tote Xray 0.0 or within 1% of it - potential weakness This is another area that I followed many years ago, manually, to no conclusion. Perhaps doing it manually just didn’t provide me with enough information.

- fave is dead-meat in a matchup: e.g. not the fastest Early of 3 Earlies, I have to agree with this one! not the best closer (with Late Energy) in an Other Than Early setup - strong weakness I’m not so sure on this one.

- fave breaks from (e.g.) inside or outside post which EVERYBODY (but me) knows is a toss in a specific situation (Looking for Lucky in the Derby ) – weakness Yes, in certain situations I have to agree with this as well. From my point of view, it is particularly important when dealing with early types breaking from an outside most in a route race with a short run to the first turn with other early types inside.

If none of the above examples apply, which they often don't, the favourite is likely legitimate and I'm backing off more and more from simply skipping over it and trying to get 2-1 net from a 2 horse bet. Aside from PASSING, I've tried hedging that legitimate favourite if I have another strong horse (i.e. to break-even or only lose a little - 'insure the loss') waiting for the other better odds horse to pay off. Same trick with dutched Win/Place bet on the other horse (say at 5-1+).

If there are not too many top ranked low odds horses (e.g. < 2-1 and < 3-1 = forget it) I will try a variety of exacta types (other than boxes). I'm not yet too much into horizontal bets, but I should be.

I never find any problems with PASSING races. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.
__________________
"It's suppose to be hard. If it was easy, everybody would do it." Jimmy Dugan, A League of Their Own
For The Lead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2010, 06:29 PM   #14
For The Lead
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Craven View Post
FTL,

If there are not too many top ranked low odds horses (e.g. < 2-1 and < 3-1 = forget it) I will try a variety of exacta types (other than boxes). I'm not yet too much into horizontal bets, but I should be.

Ted
I failed to mention that I agree with you on "horizontal" bets.

I have always been a "win" bettor as well as a "win" handicapper. For me, exacta's and trifecta's have never been a strong suit. My opinion on trifecta's is that you just have to throw a bunch of horses in there and hope for the best. I have always felt that "ANY" horse can run 3rd, while there are only certain horses that can win. For this reason, I too, have been considering horizontal wagers.

A pick three wager is nothing more than a three horse parlay, the same as a daily double is a two horse parlay. However, I have noticed with the one extra race in the parlay, the prices can really be worth while. Now don't get me wrong, any bet that consists of and results in all favorites is worthless, but all you need is one horse at good odds and you do get rewarded. The payout always seems to surpass the actual parlay if you take the time to calculate the parlay. And should you be fortunate enough to hit one of these pick three's with only modest prices ($10 to $20) the payouts are really worth the investment. Some of these prices have really got my attention.

I have been considering these types of bets more and more and there is a good chance that I may venture into them in the near future.

Should you, too, decide to make these wagers a part of your overall betting scheme, I wish you the best of luck!
__________________
"It's suppose to be hard. If it was easy, everybody would do it." Jimmy Dugan, A League of Their Own
For The Lead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2020, 10:01 AM   #15
kevbrim
AlwNW1X
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Craven View Post
FTL,

I will accept your statistics here re post-time odds of winners (you say ~ 60% 5/2 or less), and the frequency of Top 2 betting favourites winning (for argument sake, let's say about 50% give or take a few points and a few tracks). It has to be an uphill battle if one doesn't have a good strategy for dealing with the favourite. That's why I have long been trying to observe when a favourite is legitimate and when not.

Some of my personal tricks so far (e.g. for a favourite at 5/2 or less, and I'll reference a few RDSS/Val/Spec readouts):

- fave is Top on BLBL/VDC but has tied or close competition (e.g. within a point). If 2nd ranked is also VDC #1 and going for 4-1 or higher, so much the better - weakness

- fave is not Top ranked (e.g. BLBL / VDC) - weakness

- fave has not run in 180+ days (where other contenders have); even better if workout intervals are not dead-regular and recent, and not pushing upper 80 SRs recently - weakness

- fave is not also the Tote Xray 0.0 or within 1% of it - potential weakness

- fave is dead-meat in a matchup: e.g. not the fastest Early of 3 Earlies, not the best closer (with Late Energy) in an Other Than Early setup - strong weakness

- fave breaks from (e.g.) inside or outside post which EVERYBODY (but me) knows is a toss in a specific situation (Looking for Lucky in the Derby ) - weakness

- your more detailed analysis of the #7 horse in a recent post of Bill V's (and his approach specifically to skipping that weak favourite for a nice 5-1 payoff) - weakness

If none of the above examples apply, which they often don't, the favourite is likely legitimate and I'm backing off more and more from simply skipping over it and trying to get 2-1 net from a 2 horse bet. Aside from PASSING, I've tried hedging that legitimate favourite if I have another strong horse (i.e. to break-even or only lose a little - 'insure the loss') waiting for the other better odds horse to pay off. Same trick with dutched Win/Place bet on the other horse (say at 5-1+).

If there are not too many top ranked low odds horses (e.g. < 2-1 and < 3-1 = forget it) I will try a variety of exacta types (other than boxes). I'm not yet too much into horizontal bets, but I should be.

All my analysis revolves around what to do with the favourite. It's like a galvanizing attractor point in a horse race - from the point of view of making money, that is. But I think it's wastefull of resources (and even more importantly, of emotional energy) to simply hope the favourite will not run well today and bet against it without a deeper analysis seeking weakness or misfit to whatever model or matchup analysis you may be making.

Ted


I know this a super old post. But as a person new to this game this has been one of the most educational post I've read so far. I know that I'm suppose to find vulnerable or false favorites, but I didn't know exactly what to look for. I know they are just one persons opinion but they give someone new like me a starting point. Thanks so much Ted!

Kevin
kevbrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2020, 11:57 AM   #16
mick
Abiding Student
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 711
Kevin,

As you continue with P&C and RDSS, I think you'll find, as I have, that Ted Craven is not only a thoroughly good and decent person, he's also an excellent horseplayer. FTL could be an obnoxious prick and in this post, Ted has responded in a calm, gracious and constructive manner. Also, I commend you for digging around and finding this post. It is a good one.
__________________
mick

Illustrated Glossary
mick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2020, 07:07 PM   #17
dlivery
Grade 1
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Thornhill ON
Posts: 437
Keep Digging

Quote:
Originally Posted by mick View Post
Kevin,

As you continue with P&C and RDSS, I think you'll find, as I have, that Ted Craven is not only a thoroughly good and decent person, he's also an excellent horseplayer. FTL could be an obnoxious prick and in this post, Ted has responded in a calm, gracious and constructive manner. Also, I commend you for digging around and finding this post. It is a good one.
Nuggets will be revealed after carefully through participation.
__________________
May all wagers be Winners...
dlivery is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My twenty race cycle hansend General Discussion 15 06-08-2010 11:51 AM
Tampa R6 4/24 SilentRun RDSS 6 04-26-2010 01:19 PM
Daily Racing Form Abbreviated Race Conditions For The Lead Previous 'Handicapping Discussion' Forum 1 11-12-2009 03:15 AM
Jim Bradshaw's 5 Step Approach to learning the Matchup RichieP Hat Check - How Can We Help You? 1 05-25-2009 09:52 AM
Bread and Butter Race... lueylump RDSS 2 05-11-2009 05:05 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:28 AM.