Historical % of winning favs

[RichieP]

Has always been around 33%. Times are a changing, shorter field sizes, year round racing etc etc

Here are current realities with Brisnet as the info source:
Aqueduct - 42%
Beulah - 40%
Charlestown - 38%
Delta - 34%
Fair Grounds - 39%
Golden Gate - 37%
Gulfstream - 30%
Hawthorne - 36%
Laurel - 44%
Oaklawn - 30%
Parx - 38%
Penn National - 50%
Sam Houston - 34%
Santa Anita - 39%
Sunland - 36%
Tampa Bay - 36%
Turf Paradise - 34%
Turfway - 34%

[noddub62]

Good info Richie. I think I'll just bet Penn Favs!

Hope all is well,
Bud

[Houndog]

Originally Posted by RichieP

Has always been around 33%. Times are a changing, shorter field sizes, year round racing etc etc

Here are current realities with Brisnet as the info source:
Aqueduct - 42%
Beulah - 40%
Charlestown - 38%
Delta - 34%
Fair Grounds - 39%
Golden Gate - 37%
Gulfstream - 30%
Hawthorne - 36%
Laurel - 44%
Oaklawn - 30%
Parx - 38%
Penn National - 50%
Sam Houston - 34%
Santa Anita - 39%
Sunland - 36%
Tampa Bay - 36%
Turf Paradise - 34%
Turfway - 34%

Richie you might find this short video by Dave Schwartz interesting also.

http://thehorsehandicappingauthority...ing-episode-1/

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by RichieP

Has always been around 33%. Times are a changing, shorter field sizes, year round racing etc etc

Here are current realities with Brisnet as the info source:
Aqueduct - 42%
Beulah - 40%
Charlestown - 38%
Delta - 34%
Fair Grounds - 39%
Golden Gate - 37%
Gulfstream - 30%
Hawthorne - 36%
Laurel - 44%
Oaklawn - 30%
Parx - 38%
Penn National - 50%
Sam Houston - 34%
Santa Anita - 39%
Sunland - 36%
Tampa Bay - 36%
Turf Paradise - 34%
Turfway - 34%

Hi Richie,

Thanks for posting this. I think it reflects what most of us have been finding - that it's become much tougher to come by decent prices in the past couple of years.

I highly recommend Houndog's link to the Dave Schwarz video, which provides very useful charts laying out exactly how much the situation has deteriorated since 2002.

One of the things Dave doesn't go into here, is the extent to which whales are now effectively setting prices, and the devastating impact of rebates thereupon. When you think of the word 'whale' you tend to think of an individual, but as Dave pointed out to me in an interesting phone conversation a couple of months ago, the most influential 'whales' are essentially betting corporations, with many employees, using extremely powerful proprietary software a la Benter. Since they're getting much bigger rebates than are available to the average player, they can afford to hammer down the price on favorites and still profit.

The theme of our conversation was actually low-odds price movements, and Dave used the metaphor of a poker showdown between and among these large players, who are well known to each other, to describe the strategy behind these price moves. One also might use the metaphor of the game of 'chicken', if that makes sense.

I think the key thing for the average player to extract from all this is that your play and your software is as good as it ever was, but that the combination of whales, rebates, small fields, and lower handle, are making the game tougher than ever to beat.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[For The Lead]

I sometimes wonder what stimulates the discussion over the deterioration of prices. Here's the reason why.

The first thing I did was go back to 2001, 2002 and 2003 and averaged all the winning prices for each year separately. Then I did the same for 2010. Here are the results.

2001 = $12.37 average winning price
2002 = $12.44 average winning price
2003 = $12.72 average winning price
2010 = $12.37 average winning price

Since the average winning price for those years was $12.00+, I decided to go back to the same year(s) and see what percentage of winners paid $12.00+. Here are the results.

2001 = 30%
2002 = 30%
2003 = 31%
2010 = 30%

Keep in mind that each year consists of more than 40,000 winners, so the numbers are pretty solid.

Myself, I don’t see the problem. In the end:
RACE selection
Contender selection
Line selection
Value
and just plain solid horse racing and handicapping knowledge makes the difference.

As far as the whales are concerned, the best of everything to them, I’m not betting on those short priced horses anyway.

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by Houndog

Richie you might find this short video by Dave Schwartz interesting also.

http://thehorsehandicappingauthority...ing-episode-1/

Thanks "Dog" just watched the video. Very informative and well presented

[mikesal57]

FTL....would you add "Track" selection to your list also?

cause if you play a track , like Penn , then that "value" part might be long a waiting

mike

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

I sometimes wonder what stimulates the discussion over the deterioration of prices. Here's the reason why.

The first thing I did was go back to 2001, 2002 and 2003 and averaged all the winning prices for each year separately. Then I did the same for 2010. Here are the results.

2001 = $12.37 average winning price
2002 = $12.44 average winning price
2003 = $12.72 average winning price
2010 = $12.37 average winning price

Since the average winning price for those years was $12.00+, I decided to go back to the same year(s) and see what percentage of winners paid $12.00+. Here are the results.

2001 = 30%
2002 = 30%
2003 = 31%
2010 = 30%

Keep in mind that each year consists of more than 40,000 winners, so the numbers are pretty solid.

Myself, I don’t see the problem. In the end:
RACE selection
Contender selection
Line selection
Value
and just plain solid horse racing and handicapping knowledge makes the difference.

As far as the whales are concerned, the best of everything to them, I’m not betting on those short priced horses anyway.

FTL,

As to your basic point, that it's still possible to win and find value, I agree. However, Dave's charts indicate why it's become more difficult in recent years. More winners are now concentrated at lower odds everywhere.

The 'average' figures you cite don't reveal this shift in the way that a median, or better, a scatter-graph of winners would. Even though the average price of all winners may be constant, the median has shifted downward. Unlike in the recent past, when horses won at about their odds, as Dave's charts indicate, as the odds go up past 5/2, they're winning at one or two ticks lower then their odds would previously have indicated. And, as you say, 30% of horses win at odds of 5-1 or greater, but if you check Dave's chart, you'll see that of winners going off at 9/2 or greater (roughly the range you're talking about), 75% are going off at between 9/2 and 6-1. All winners above 6-1 would include only about 7.5% of all winners.

Many professional players, including Dave and Jeff P., have discussed this phenomenon on PA, and I don't think there's much question of it's reality.
As you say, the cause may ultimately be irrelevant, and it's still possible to make money, but it's become necessary to look much longer and harder than ever, in the past.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

FTL....would you add "Track" selection to your list also?

cause if you play a track , like Penn , then that "value" part might be long a waiting

mike

No, I wouldn’t add “track selection” based on the percentage of winning favorites. Short term results are meaningless. In the long run things will work out to the more “expected” number, as they should.

I suspect you mentioned Penn National since the winning favorite percentage posted for that track was 50%. (lol) I don’t expect that number to hold up over time, do you?

Also, Penn National happens to be one of the tracks I play on a regular basis and I am I’m not having any problems there. Of course, I only play horses at 4/1 or better and I’m not in every race, only the races were I have better than expected chance of winning based on my own information and handicapping.

The other thing readers may want to pay attention to in Dave’s video that was posted, is something I have written about several times on this site. The top two choices win 6 out of 10 races. This leaves the bettor with just 4 out of 10 races in which to pick a winner that wil return a decent price to them. And the bettor still has to pick the right horse in those 4 races, which they will not.

As you can see, it is imperative that the bettor know which races they have the best chance to beat the top 2 choices and which races they don’t have the best chance of beating the top 2 choices, in which case they can pass those races in favor of the races where they stand the best chance of cashing a ticket, otherwise, the bettor will incur severe financial difficulty.

Handicapping horse races for profit is not “a game”. It is a job, a business and as any successful busines owner will tell you, it takes a lot of hard work to achieve that goal.

[mikesal57]

Yes FTL I was referring to the 50% of races won by the favorites at Penn...

I know you have done work in modeling and profiling.....

My question is why do you think that 50% wont hold up?

Are the winners falling in the decision models you have ?

Are they much smarter bettors there?

Is the quality of horses there really that bad?

Your take in this

thxs
mike