Historical % of winning favs

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by 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

Why don't I think it will hold up? Well, the next time a track runs a full meet and ends up with a winning favorite percentage of 50%.....will be the FIRST time!

Do the favorites that win fit my models? Gee, I hope so for the sake of my models. Why wouldn't they fit? Just because they are favorites? Many times I find the favorite is a PREFECT MATCH to my model, but that doesn't mean I'm playing them. In fact, it's a good reason NOT to play them, since that is just further evidence that they are the correct horse and likely winner. So this a perfect "PASS RACE". I'm not looking for "action", I'm looking for "value" and with patience I will find that same perfect match at odds of 4/1 or higher.

Are the bettors smarter there? Meaning at Penn National as compared to some other track? That doesn't exist any longer as a result of simulcasting. With simulcasting money comes into the pool at all tracks from all over the country, so it is impossible to determine which track has the most intelligent bettors. In the old days, before simulcasting, the word was New York had the most intelligent bettors. IMAGINE THAT!!! lol

The quality of horses doesn't matter. History shows that be it Santa Anita or Charles Town, favorites win at the rate of about 33%.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by BJennet

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

I have to disagree with you on one point.
In 2001 the percentage of winners at odds greater than 6/1 was 20%.
In 2010 the percentage of winners at odds greater than 6/1 was still 20%.

I don't dispute Dave's findings. I have the same findings. When you accumulate the kind of volume that both Dave and I have, conclusions will match. My point is that this downward trend exist in odds less that 4/1. This doesn't disturb me at all since I'm not involved with these horses anyway.

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

I have to disagree with you on one point.
In 2001 the percentage of winners at odds greater than 6/1 was 20%.
In 2010 the percentage of winners at odds greater than 6/1 was still 20%.

I don't dispute Dave's findings. I have the same findings. When you accumulate the kind of volume that both Dave and I have, conclusions will match. My point is that this downward trend exist in odds less that 4/1. This doesn't disturb me at all since I'm not involved with these horses anyway.

Hi FTL,

Historically, horses have won at close to their odds. You may have been misreading your charts, but there was no time when horses at odds > 6-1 ever won at a rate even approaching 20%.

Take a look at Dave's 2010 8-horse field chart, which is about average size and roughly representative. Horses at all odds > 6-1, won approximately 4.3% of their races. Even starters at exactly 6-1, which historically have won about 14% of their races, in 2010 won 11.9%. It just confirms what Dave was saying more informally on the phone - there are dramatically fewer winners at high odds compared with the past, not just the odds range below 4-1.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by BJennet

Hi FTL,

Historically, horses have won at close to their odds. You may have been misreading your charts, but there was no time when horses at odds > 6-1 ever won at a rate even approaching 20%.

Take a look at Dave's 2010 8-horse field chart, which is about average size and roughly representative. Horses at all odds > 6-1, won approximately 4.3% of their races. Even starters at exactly 6-1, which historically have won about 14% of their races, in 2010 won 11.9%. It just confirms what Dave was saying more informally on the phone - there are dramatically fewer winners at high odds compared with the past, not just the odds range below 4-1.

Cheers,

B Jennet

Ok, let's make Dave's numbers the focus of attention. Here's a link to his web site and episode #1. http://thehorsehandicappingauthority...ing-episode-1/

When he puts up the slide that shows final odds for 2010, pause his presentation so you can examine that slide.

First let's look at the column header "pays". Actually, that can be replaced by "wins" since that it what it represents.

You'll notice that at the bottom of that column is the total, 38,166. That represents the total winners for the year.

Now if you add up the number of wins starting with odds of 6/1, the total of that group comes to 11,138. Dividing the total for that group of 6/1 or greater wins by the total number of wins, we get 29%.

You'll notice that in the left hand column Dave goes from 9/2 to 6/1, jumping over 5/1, so I don't know what number of wins there are in his database for horses going off at 5/1. I'm sure if we could add those in it would raise the percentage we already established of 29%, thereby resulting in an even higher percentage.

Further, if we add up the winners for the group starting at 9/1, we get total wins of 7,367. Dividing that total by the total amount of winners for the year (38166) we get 19% and we can't even be sure where he included the wins for odds of 7/1 or 8/1 so perhaps 19% is on the low side.

So as you can see, Dave's numbers confirm my numbers.

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

Why don't I think it will hold up? Well, the next time a track runs a full meet and ends up with a winning favorite percentage of 50%.....will be the FIRST time!

Do the favorites that win fit my models? Gee, I hope so for the sake of my models. Why wouldn't they fit? Just because they are favorites? Many times I find the favorite is a PREFECT MATCH to my model, but that doesn't mean I'm playing them. In fact, it's a good reason NOT to play them, since that is just further evidence that they are the correct horse and likely winner. So this a perfect "PASS RACE". I'm not looking for "action", I'm looking for "value" and with patience I will find that same perfect match at odds of 4/1 or higher.

Are the bettors smarter there? Meaning at Penn National as compared to some other track? That doesn't exist any longer as a result of simulcasting. With simulcasting money comes into the pool at all tracks from all over the country, so it is impossible to determine which track has the most intelligent bettors. In the old days, before simulcasting, the word was New York had the most intelligent bettors. IMAGINE THAT!!! lol

The quality of horses doesn't matter. History shows that be it Santa Anita or Charles Town, favorites win at the rate of about 33%.

I'm from New York and I'm still working like a dog

I'm sure its true that the 50% wont hold up because as the year unfolds most tracks start getting the horses and races that cause chaos like maidens , turf races, 2yo's in abundance which will even things out.
So I can see it being slow for you at Penn now but as time goes on it will even out for you too. What you must have that most people here don't is....PATIENCE ....to wait for those plays.

thxs
mike

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

Ok, let's make Dave's numbers the focus of attention. Here's a link to his web site and episode #1. http://thehorsehandicappingauthority...ing-episode-1/

When he puts up the slide that shows final odds for 2010, pause his presentation so you can examine that slide.

First let's look at the column header "pays". Actually, that can be replaced by "wins" since that it what it represents.

You'll notice that at the bottom of that column is the total, 38,166. That represents the total winners for the year.

Now if you add up the number of wins starting with odds of 6/1, the total of that group comes to 11,138. Dividing the total for that group of 6/1 or greater wins by the total number of wins, we get 29%.

You'll notice that in the left hand column Dave goes from 9/2 to 6/1, jumping over 5/1, so I don't know what number of wins there are in his database for horses going off at 5/1. I'm sure if we could add those in it would raise the percentage we already established of 29%, thereby resulting in an even higher percentage.

Further, if we add up the winners for the group starting at 9/1, we get total wins of 7,367. Dividing that total by the total amount of winners for the year (38166) we get 19% and we can't even be sure where he included the wins for odds of 7/1 or 8/1 so perhaps 19% is on the low side.

So as you can see, Dave's numbers confirm my numbers.

Hi FTL,

Clearly you were looking the figures that you deemed significant rather than the one I mentioned, although neither are actually the most relevant. But let's backtrack: the figure I mentioned 4.1 %, referred to the percentage of all *starters* in the odds-range of > 6-1 that won. Your figure of 19%, referred to the percentage of all *winners* > 6-1, which is accurate. If you want to extend that to the group of > 9/2, the figures are 5.3% of all starters in this odds range win, and, as you say, the total comprises 29% of all winners. (BTW, since you brought it up, Dave mentions that a given odds range comprises all odds ranges in between, i.e. 9/2 - 6-1, includes all horses at odds 9/2 or greater, but less than < 6-1.)

But, let's think about what would be the most relevant figures to look at for the average Sartin player. If, just for the sake of example, we take 4-1 as the starting point for profit with Sartin figures, and try to understand how high-odds winners have declined in recent years (as Dave's $Net chart clearly indicates they have) the most relevant stat to consider would be that of the $Net for all horses at 4-1 (i.e. looking at mutuel price rather than public choice rank) or above in the years from, say 2003 to the present. It seems to me the real dip came in 2007, and has continued until now.

In general, you seem to be resisting Dave's main point in this video - there's much less of what poker players would call 'dead' or 'sucker' money in mutuel pools than there used to be. And, as many have pointed out, the recent closing of NY OTB removed a large volume of this 'dead' money, not only from NY tracks, but from commingled tracks everywhere.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by BJennet

Hi FTL,

Clearly you were looking the figures that you deemed significant rather than the one I mentioned, although neither are actually the most relevant. But let's backtrack: the figure I mentioned 4.1 %, referred to the percentage of all *starters* in the odds-range of > 6-1 that won. Your figure of 19%, referred to the percentage of all *winners* > 6-1, which is accurate. If you want to extend that to the group of > 9/2, the figures are 5.3% of all starters in this odds range win, and, as you say, the total comprises 29% of all winners. (BTW, since you brought it up, Dave mentions that a given odds range comprises all odds ranges in between, i.e. 9/2 - 6-1, includes all horses at odds 9/2 or greater, but less than < 6-1.)

But, let's think about what would be the most relevant figures to look at for the average Sartin player. If, just for the sake of example, we take 4-1 as the starting point for profit with Sartin figures, and try to understand how high-odds winners have declined in recent years (as Dave's $Net chart clearly indicates they have) the most relevant stat to consider would be that of the $Net for all horses at 4-1 (i.e. looking at mutuel price rather than public choice rank) or above in the years from, say 2003 to the present. It seems to me the real dip came in 2007, and has continued until now.

In general, you seem to be resisting Dave's main point in this video - there's much less of what poker players would call 'dead' or 'sucker' money in mutuel pools than there used to be. And, as many have pointed out, the recent closing of NY OTB removed a large volume of this 'dead' money, not only from NY tracks, but from commingled tracks everywhere.

Cheers,

B Jennet

Well, you’re right. I was making a point for the numbers I deem significant right from the outset.

From the outset, I was simply making the point that regardless of whether one looks at 2010 or 2001, the average price of a winner is $12.00+. Further, the percentage of all winners at 5/1 or greater was 30% regardless of whether or not it was in 2010 or 2001.

From the outset, I was trying to make the point to readers that with all the “doom and gloom” about lower prices, smaller fields, more winning favorites,etc., etc., they can still make a profit.

From the outset I was never “resisting” the point Dave was making in his video. I wasn’t even discussing the merits of his numbers in the video. I can’t “resist” his numbers since I have the same numbers done in the exact same way, that is, what Dave refers to as “dollar nets”. There isn’t anything that Dave can put up there that I don’t already know. Dave and I happen to be two guys with massive databases of horse racing information. Save for any proprietary information, our research on certain basic things must match.

My point from the outset was that regardless of any downward trend for low odds winners for any reason(s), as long as the average winning mutual remains at $12.00+ and the percentage of all winners at 5/1 or better remains at 30%, what is the difference how the lower mutuals move? After all, the name of this game is value and profits and they are still there for those who know how to get them. And you certainly won’t find value among low odds horses.

Dave also mentions in his video the fact that the top two public betting choices win 59% of all races or 6 out of 10 races. This is something I have written about on this site several times over the past couple of years. The purpose of my writing was to inform the readers that if they are searching for value they only have 4 out of 10 races in which to be successful. That they must strive to know when they have a chance to beat these top two public betting choices and when they do not.

So, I trust that this clears up this matter and thank you for your responses.

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

Well, you’re right. I was making a point for the numbers I deem significant right from the outset.

From the outset, I was simply making the point that regardless of whether one looks at 2010 or 2001, the average price of a winner is $12.00+. Further, the percentage of all winners at 5/1 or greater was 30% regardless of whether or not it was in 2010 or 2001.

From the outset, I was trying to make the point to readers that with all the “doom and gloom” about lower prices, smaller fields, more winning favorites,etc., etc., they can still make a profit.

From the outset I was never “resisting” the point Dave was making in his video. I wasn’t even discussing the merits of his numbers in the video. I can’t “resist” his numbers since I have the same numbers done in the exact same way, that is, what Dave refers to as “dollar nets”. There isn’t anything that Dave can put up there that I don’t already know. Dave and I happen to be two guys with massive databases of horse racing information. Save for any proprietary information, our research on certain basic things must match.

My point from the outset was that regardless of any downward trend for low odds winners for any reason(s), as long as the average winning mutual remains at $12.00+ and the percentage of all winners at 5/1 or better remains at 30%, what is the difference how the lower mutuals move? After all, the name of this game is value and profits and they are still there for those who know how to get them. And you certainly won’t find value among low odds horses.

Dave also mentions in his video the fact that the top two public betting choices win 59% of all races or 6 out of 10 races. This is something I have written about on this site several times over the past couple of years. The purpose of my writing was to inform the readers that if they are searching for value they only have 4 out of 10 races in which to be successful. That they must strive to know when they have a chance to beat these top two public betting choices and when they do not.

So, I trust that this clears up this matter and thank you for your responses.

Hi FTL,

Since you seem to be pretty much repeating points you've already made, and I have nothing more to add on the issue of the declining odds of longshot winners, maybe we should bring this exchange to a close.

But, there is one more point I think worth making. While many people in the handicapping world cite statistics, and many more are misled by them, very few have the knowledge to interpret them. Among those few are people like Dave Schwarz, Jeff Platt, and Ken Massa of HTR, a former partner of Tom Brohamer's. To me, the most valuable aspect of their work is their willingness to provide objective measurements - generally acknowledged benchmarks - of the value of horseraceing statistics, such as $Net and Impact Value. Rather than the typical citation of isolated, and hence meaningless, handicapping statistics, they provide context, and statistical significance - factors crucial to making a profit in this difficult game.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by BJennet

Hi FTL,

Since you seem to be pretty much repeating points you've already made, and I have nothing more to add on the issue of the declining odds of longshot winners, maybe we should bring this exchange to a close.

But, there is one more point I think worth making. While many people in the handicapping world cite statistics, and many more are misled by them, very few have the knowledge to interpret them. Among those few are people like Dave Schwarz, Jeff Platt, and Ken Massa of HTR, a former partner of Tom Brohamer's. To me, the most valuable aspect of their work is their willingness to provide objective measurements - generally acknowledged benchmarks - of the value of horseraceing statistics, such as $Net and Impact Value. Rather than the typical citation of isolated, and hence meaningless, handicapping statistics, they provide context, and statistical significance - factors crucial to making a profit in this difficult game.

Cheers,

B Jennet

The most important things to take away from any conversation are those you feel will serve you best.

The things I find important are serving me well every day. I hope the things that you feel are serving you best are doing the same for you.