Hiding?

[dcox]

Ted,

I keep reading in Follow-Up about "hiding" horses, makes it sound different than eliminating horses. Does RDSS do this?

[Ted Craven]

David,

Hiding is one of those useful little navigational tricks or interaction do-hickies which I simply haven't gotten around to yet, but certainly intend to. It does help some to clear an unbettable horse (i.e. for Win pool) from the readouts so you can concentrate on a good wager decision from your next grouping.

RDSS hiding will look a little different (more like peaking around the corner, and unranked, uncoloured, but still visible).

Many folks, depending on the readouts they focus on, simply ignore lines not germane to their decision making process.

But yes, hiding, watch for it!

Ted

[JimG]

Although it is technically not hiding, unclicking a pace line is so easy in RDSS and if you want to reinstate it, that is pretty quick as well. Personally, I am not a fan of hiding to get to a long shot. If a horse is favored and on or near the top in factors or readouts I consider important, I want to know that. I prefer to simply pass and find another race. That is the beauty of simulcasting.

Jim

[dcox]

I kind of lean that direction myself but the FU articles that I have read so far all say to hide the low odds horse. If you take out the favorite at low odds does it sometimes change stuff on the screens more than just moving up one?

[JimG]

Originally Posted by dcox

I kind of lean that direction myself but the FU articles that I have read so far all say to hide the low odds horse. If you take out the favorite at low odds does it sometimes change stuff on the screens more than just moving up one?

The short answer to your question is yes. The FU's are a great source of info and to me can serve as a guideline, but certainly not gospel. I was not around when Sartin was introducing this particular concept of hiding the favorite, but my guess is he advocated that to "force" his followers to bet value-type horses. Many people have a strong aversion to betting the 3rd or 4th horse on a readout (I am not one of them), and hiding the favorite served to bring better value horses closer to the top.

In my way of doing things, there is no way I want to hide an obvious contender. I want to view all of his strengths and weaknesses then make a play or pass decision. The neat thing about the Sartin Methodology and this board is it is all there for the learning. It is up to each individual to decide how/if the methodology works for them.

Best of luck to you.

Jim

[dcox]

Thanks for your post, Jim!

[RichieP]

Howard always stressed the need to keep 2 sets of readouts.

1) Win Betting or "After Hides":
He instructed everyone to determine a minimum odds requirement comfortable for THEM as individuals. If it was 2/1 or less he prescribed a 60% bet on lower odds and 40% on the higher odds choice. At 5/2 minimum (which was his) and higher he suggested splitting the bet equally.

OK regardless of one's minimum he and folks such as Tom Brohammer stressed the importance of eliminating ANY and ALL horses one was NOT prepared to bet.
This could be for any reason including things like odds too low, neg form, etc.

When "hiding" the low odds horse and all others the plan was to have users "Wagercap" the remaining top 3 tier horses on BL/BL. Then 2 potential wager methods were described.
A) Take your minimum odds horse as 1st bet if he is in first 2 tiers of BL/BL. Then for the 2nd wager take highest odds horse of remaining horses in top 3 tiers(going to tier 4 only on occasions where he has strong corollary support).
B) A more aggressive approach by betting the 2 highest odds horses in the top 3 tiers.

2) Exotic Betting or "Before Hides":
NO horses are hidden for odds etc and records kept will help "find" the place horse.

The hardest thing about "Wagercapping" and "Value Betting" is being able to establish an ability to PASS races where the chalk is going to win.

[Rverge]

Originally Posted by RichieP

Howard always stressed the need to keep 2 sets of readouts.

1) Win Betting or "After Hides":
He instructed everyone to determine a minimum odds requirement comfortable for THEM as individuals. If it was 2/1 or less he prescribed a 60% bet on lower odds and 40% on the higher odds choice. At 5/2 minimum (which was his) and higher he suggested splitting the bet equally.

OK regardless of one's minimum he and folks such as Tom Brohammer stressed the importance of eliminating ANY and ALL horses one was NOT prepared to bet.
This could be for any reason including things like odds too low, neg form, etc.

When "hiding" the low odds horse and all others the plan was to have users "Wagercap" the remaining top 3 tier horses on BL/BL. Then 2 potential wager methods were described.
A) Take your minimum odds horse as 1st bet if he is in first 2 tiers of BL/BL. Then for the 2nd wager take highest odds horse of remaining horses in top 3 tiers(going to tier 4 only on occasions where he has strong corollary support).
B) A more aggressive approach by betting the 2 highest odds horses in the top 3 tiers.

2) Exotic Betting or "Before Hides":
NO horses are hidden for odds etc and records kept will help "find" the place horse.

The hardest thing about "Wagercapping" and "Value Betting" is being able to establish an ability to PASS races where the chalk is going to win.

The hardest thing about "Wagercapping"...etc.
Was my problem yesterday at mnr w/ tdh, pha, ind, "blucko"!
Rverge