I might have been a little fast at denouncing Hedge Fund the only possible \"after the facts\"-value bet, the winner probably fits that bill as well, but I guess that wasn\'t really the point I was trying to make, either.
I guess the point I was trying to make, is that horse racing is really often times a sucker game. You think you know something just to find out that boy, you really didn\'t have a chance. It differs from most big money betting markets like i.e team sports, in that a lot of things are kinda \"pre-decided\" when the gates opens. In a soccer match or hockey match, a team can win 5-0 but if you could play that particular match many times more you would get totally different results every time. There are so much coincidents, game dynamics, psychology, luck and mistakes involved that influence how one particular match is going. There are these things in horse racing too, but not nearly as much. As Illinois Derby was a good example of, a horse that looked a perfectly fine bet on paper in St Louis Guy were ice cold in the markets, and couldn\'t have defended odds of 100-1 \"after the facts\". I can\'t see one way that race unfolds that would give him any shot of winning that day (it certainly wasn\'t due to ground loss, that\'s ridiculous).
So, what is value in horse racing and how do you go about finding it on a consistent basis? (without watering it down with poor bets in the meantime).
I have no problem accepting that given what one knew, by looking on the form and the sheets, and by comparing hundreds of similar situations - one is perfectly \"entitled\" to say they feel St Louis Guy is value at odds of 7/1. I\'d even bet a few successful bettors did. The problem I\'m trying to raise though, is that in this particular race he wasn\'t. In the real world, this time, he wasn\'t. It wasn\'t due to a lucky strike against early, or a poor referee decision, or an unlucky own goal, no it was because this horse, this day, didn\'t have the legs to compete. That\'s what makes horse racing an almost impossible game to beat, because if value isn\'t subjective, and really, math isn\'t, one will end up putting ones money in bad A LOT. It\'s an inevitable part of this cruel and beautiful game.
Now what does one do about it? That\'s where these discussions could get interesting. Is there a solution to the problem?
I guess the best way to go about solving this problem, is simply by putting in the extra work. What I have in mind, more precisely, is an excercise I first heard about in Philip Tetlocks \"Superforecasting\" called \"calibrating\". It\'s about calibrating oneself with the \"real world\", and it\'s as easy as it\'s time consuming, and difficult. All you have to do is make your own lines, if you will, ascribing win-percentages to preferably every horse in many, many horse races. You could also do this with 2nd place and even 3rd place.. Now, after a while, just run the numbers. How many of the horses you\'ve given a 10 % chance to win, end up winning? 15 %? 5 %? Or, do they really win 10 %? What about the big favorites, the \"sure things\", let\'s say you\'ve given them a 70 % chance. If they only win 50, well then you are too sure of yourself and will end up losing your money. And what about the \"easy tosses\", that Jimbo ascribes \"zero shot of winning\", let\'s say we give them 1 % chance of winning. Wouldn\'t it be interesting if those came back as 5 % winners?
Well, now you have the info. You could adjust, identify your flaws as a predictor of the future and then test again in a while. And changing your betting accordingly. If one does this, and maybe even demand an edge like at least 10 % if one is perfectly calibrated, more if not, so that you won\'t have a bet unless you get 10 or 20 % more than what you have assessed as fair, well then at least one stands a chance. IMO, first then would it really make sense to talk about value before a race.
But maybe others have another, easier solution to this problem?
Back to my hole..
