Good job on the ROTW

[twoshoes]

Michael - Where was it I wrote that was a good thing. Where does it say I misread the race. I\'ll reiterate - just because the public goes nuts on a horse and he jogs doesn\'t make my line wrong. It could mean I rated other horses too highly as much as it could mean I underestimated the chances of the chalk. You look and check yourself out of due diligence. It could be I was right on and folks wound up getting $4 for a $10 horse. But I stand by my original comment which was - there are plenty of even money shots, that eventually win, that I want no part of even at 4-1. I retract the part about using your money. You deserve your fate.

[Michael D.]

twoshoes,
if you think a horse should be 4-1 or higher, and he wins at even money, you missed something. for one reason or another, you misjudged the race. the purpose of handicapping horse races is to judge them correctly.

[twoshoes]

Okay Michael - point taken. Thanks for the tip.

[Michael D.]

TGJB,
i\'m going the the gym, so i\'m finished, but i\'m still taking the over (15).

[beyerguy]

Michael D. wrote:

> beyer,
> if you are calling winners underlays on a regular basis before
> the race, you most likely are not making money

No argument from me there, I was just saying it will happen, and it doesn\'t mean you are wrong.  If you are doing it consistently, then you need to reevaluate your methods.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

I agree that winning can be reduced to a probability. I disgaree that picking a winner is not the way to handicap. The trick is finding a 10-1 or 20-1 winner that you think is about even money to win the race. If you start shopping odds at 7-1 or 15-1 and theres a horse running at 5-2 that you know is going to win unless he breaks down, thats the surest way to go broke.

CtC

CTC,

I like to seperate the horses into contenders and non-contenders and then rank the contenders in order of preference.

I give the non-contenders a percentage as a group that is dependent on how many contenders there are, how many non-contenders there are, and how dreadful they actually are relative to the contenders.  

Then I assign percentages to the contenders that reflect their order of preference and the margins between them.

Then I tinker with the numbers until it equals 100% and reflects my feelings.

I prefer betting the horses high on the list if there are mutiple similar overlays because they have a higher probability of winning (avoids losing streaks) and because when you are assigning low probabilities it\'s easier to screw up big time.

If I assign a horse 25% and he\'s really 20% I\'m not going to screw up much as long as I require a decent margin of safety in the odds before betting. (say 9-2 or 5-1)

If I assign a horse 8% and he\'s really 5% (an easy mistake to make) I would wind up  betting on underlays from time to time even if I had a bit of a margin of safety. So with these longer shots I require a bigger margin of safety.

I often pass races even when a horse is an overlay on my line because it isn\'t \"enough of an overlay\" to give me the required margin of safety. This tends to keep my ROIC very high, but it requires a lot of patience. I pass many races.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Those small margins between probability to win and off odds are what I refer to as \"racing arbitrage\". If you\'re out for some action or fun, you bet, otherwise I try to stay away from those races. My last decent odds horse was Wildcat Heir at 16-1, I thought he was 50-50 to win the race. At seven marks I would have decreased his probabilty to 20%. You need a little luck. It always helps.

CtC

CTC,

>Wildcat Heir at 16-1, I thought he was 50-50 to win the race. <

I hit that race but I didn\'t give him anywhere near that probability of winning. In fact I didn\'t even make him close to the most likely winner. I\'m happy we both hit the race, but for me to assign 50% to a horse he has to really lay over a field with very few contenders. IMO, that race was loaded with possibilities.