Change Your Game Forever

[Rwahi1]

You might find this interesting...I have followed Kerry Thomas past three Kentucky Derby's and read his book. He's been right so far!

About Kerry Thomas

"Kerry Thomas is a groundbreaking researcher of behavioral genetics in horses. He created emotional conformation profiling, which measure’s the mental and emotional capacities of the equine. Horse owners around the world use him to profile and unlock the minds of their horses both in training and pre-purchase evaluations. Thomas’ work in the field of equine behavioral genetics has pioneering applications in all the sport horse industries, including Thoroughbred racing and breeding"...

http://kentuckyconfidential.com/author/kthomas/
http://www.thomasherdingtechnique.com/

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I kept running into the uncomfortable realization that something more than the "cold dope" was being reflected in the prices of some of the horses listed on the tote board. Some of the horses were bet as if their past performances were forgeries. They would be listed at odds of 7-1...when anyone with even half a brain could readily see that they should have been no better than 5-2. These inflated prices were screaming "value" to me in one ear...but my paranoid nature was whispering words of caution to me in my other ear...and my paranoid nature was proven right time and again.

What I've found useful in situations like that has been compartmentalizing and quantifying my handicapping from a full-field probability standpoint, rather than basing odds on an overall subjective estimate or opinion, or focusing exclusively on narrowing a field down to one horse through a process of elimination. In cases such as you describe, this has helped me in accounting for horses that are either higher or lower in odds than they "should" be. Horses that appear "dead on the board" can occur as a result of the presence of other horses in the race that have been overbet because of one or more factors that I have recognized, and to which I have given proper weight, but that the public has misjudged, causing the odds of other well-placed horses to rise by default, and to offer even more value than they otherwise might have.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Overlay

What I've found useful in situations like that has been compartmentalizing and quantifying my handicapping from a full-field probability standpoint, rather than basing odds on an overall subjective estimate or opinion, or focusing exclusively on narrowing a field down to one horse through a process of elimination. In cases such as you describe, this has helped me in accounting for horses that are either higher or lower in odds than they "should" be. Horses that appear "dead on the board" can occur as a result of the presence of other horses in the race that have been overbet because of one or more factors that I have recognized, and to which I have given proper weight, but that the public has misjudged, causing the odds of other well-placed horses to rise by default, and to offer even more value than they otherwise might have.

You may have defined a key problem (that) many otherwise astute race analysts encounter--evaluating entries in isolation, rather than within the context of a specific race, comprised of a specific set of entries, each with a specific set of attributes. That problem seems to have become more acute as the reliance on computer output has increased. (It is easier to code evaluations of one entry's attributes than it is to code evaluations of the attributes of that entry that take into consideration the presence, lack, and/or relative strength of each attribute and combination of attributes in each of the other entries.)

The same situation occurs when viewing past peformances to evaluate the entries. For example, some (or many) of the higher mutuels may be primarily the result of flukes (such as heavily bet favorites running into bad racing luck) rather than of a handicapping process (and hence are unlikely to be repeated).

Of course, the reverse is also true--there are cases in which the public is so blinded by the one best horse/one best number/one best whatever that profit can be found in considering other criteria.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by PICSIX

Me and 99% of the people that post here!! That's my point....it's nearly impossible to make an accurate odds line and even more impossible to incorporate the late odds changes of today.

Most of us are better off handicapping the most likely winner and betting when the odds are 2-1 instead of passing and watching the win because our acceptable odds were 5-2.

The bottom line is, if you don't bet on value, you will lose. Plain and simple. Mathematically, it can't work any other way.

If all you bet is 5-1 shots, if they don't win more than 1 out of 6 times (in other words, offer VALUE), then you can't win. It's as simple as that.

So if you are a winning player, you are a VALUE PLAYER, whether you know it or not...

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The bottom line is, if you don't bet on value, you will lose. Plain and simple. Mathematically, it can't work any other way.

If all you bet is 5-1 shots, if they don't win more than 1 out of 6 times (in other words, offer VALUE), then you can't win. It's as simple as that.

So if you are a winning player, you are a VALUE PLAYER, whether you know it or not...

That is true. The problem is the way many of the self-called Value Players figure value. If they are mincing whales they as many are, they haven't a chance.

[andicap]

Dave Schwartz wrote

My most profitable races are not the $70 winners because I usually have small wagers on them. It comes from the $11 winner that I loaded on, in a race that called for a large wager and he was (say) only 3/1, thereby gathering the largest wager.

You mean he was 3-1 on your "value" line, correct?

[Dave Schwartz]

You mean he was 3-1 on your "value" line, correct?

I do not use a "value line."

No, I was expecting him to be 3/1 on MY version of the morning line.

[erikeepper]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

Sounds like you have an awesome mentor.

He sure is awesome. He has been a professional gambler for 40+ years and is still going strong It was a turning point in my betting career when I met him couple of years ago and we became friends. He has been to Hong Kong, US, UK, all over Europe, knows math-models, does a lot of research but is also very grounded and uses intuition and just good old common sense.

edit: and I am out hijacking this thread. The value-discussion is far more interesting...

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I do not use a "value line."

No, I was expecting him to be 3/1 on MY version of the morning line.

If your line doesn't represent fair value or some function of value what good is it?

[PICSIX]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The bottom line is, if you don't bet on value, you will lose. Plain and simple. Mathematically, it can't work any other way.

If all you bet is 5-1 shots, if they don't win more than 1 out of 6 times (in other words, offer VALUE), then you can't win. It's as simple as that.

So if you are a winning player, you are a VALUE PLAYER, whether you know it or not...

If you are a good handicapper...it makes the most sense to bet your contender(s) that offer the MOST "value". It is much easier for the majority of handicappers to find value in their contenders vs. setting an odds line for all horses in a race.

Yes, I understand that makes one a Value Player.

[Dave Schwartz]

If your line doesn't represent fair value or some function of value what good is it?

That is what I would have said a year ago.

Instead, I (like many others) assess value in a different way.

Suppose you used data to determine which factors historically produce the greatest return. Theoretically, you are measuring public error. Thus, the horse with the highest expected return (i.e. greatest public error in your favor) should be the most profitable horse in the field. Same applies for the 2nd best, 3rd best etc.

Thus, the "line" has no value to me except as an estimate of how the public USUALLY wagers a race like today.

I bet my units based upon THAT wagering and take back what I get.

All I can say is that it works (for me) far better than making a line, betting into it, and finding that the line moved (after the gate was open) such that I mis-bet the race.

The key phrase is it works for me.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

That is what I would have said a year ago.

Instead, I (like many others) assess value in a different way.

Suppose you used data to determine which factors historically produce the greatest return. Theoretically, you are measuring public error. Thus, the horse with the highest expected return (i.e. greatest public error in your favor) should be the most profitable horse in the field. Same applies for the 2nd best, 3rd best etc.

Thus, the "line" has no value to me except as an estimate of how the public USUALLY wagers a race like today.

I bet my units based upon THAT wagering and take back what I get.

All I can say is that it works (for me) far better than making a line, betting into it, and finding that the line moved (after the gate was open) such that I mis-bet the race.

The key phrase is it works for me.

So you measure public error by how far off it is from a line that may or may not have any correlation to actual probability?

So how does public error tie into actual handicapping or do you just play the odds?

So walk me through your thought process. Horse #1 is by your handicapping the most probable winner, he is listed at 2-1 on the morning line. What needs to happen for you to make a bet?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

So if you are a winning player, you are a VALUE PLAYER, whether you know it or not...

Or a very lucky one who thinks they are betting value.

[PICSIX]

Don't want to hijack Dave's thread, so, I've posted a single selection for each race at Saratoga here:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=106066

All players that see this, and make an odds line, please post your fair odds for each selection.

Thanks,

Mike

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Using that logic, then all the handicappers would be rich.

Not so. Statistics is a closed process with a certain outcome over a long range application. The horse game is an open process with variables unknown. That's why no two races are the same while the number crunching is the same.