Wednesday's wrap is usually about a lot of things, but since there is so much news about the life-blood of the sport, this Wednesday we focus on the player.
There is a long article on Alan Woods by Tony Wilson. If you have time, and are interested it is well worth reading. It shows and talks about how the computer was used (the formation of today's computer betting like jcapper) and how overlays were sought.
It does all come down to overlays, and it is the simplest (but hardest to find) thing about the game, or any game for that matter: If your probability of success is greater than board odds you win. In the article this simple law is touched on by the multi-billion dollar bettor:
Heaven's form guide has four important columns: the horse's number, its current odds, its computer-calculated probability of winning (expressed to three decimal places) and a figure Alan calls its 'Win Expectation'. Win Expectation, which is obtained by multiplying a horse's computer-calculated probability by its current odds, identifies the amount a team can expect to receive for each dollar bet on a particular horse. The formula goes:
E (return) = P (win) x current odds
If the Win Expectation is greater than one, the horse is an overlay - an attractive, potentially profit-making horse. If the Win Expectation is less than one, the horse is an underlay and should be avoided. If the Win Expectation is between 0.82 and 1, the horse is a small overlay but an unwise investment because of the Jockey's Club rake.
That is also a good primer for racetrack management: If your E(x) is 0.82 you can't beat the rake so you sit the race out. Up it to 0.90? Well then a whole lot more bets are made.
The article is filled with gems, and is in interesting look at an interesting man.
Alan Woods was a sharp computer player and speaking of that,here is a good look at one track's view on computer betting (thank you Equidaily for pointing us to this). As people who follow the blog know, we have proposed that pools are open to everyone, and tools used by players should be promoted. It is a market, and constricting the market makes people play other games. It is also said here that we need winners. If everyone is a loser, the sport is a loser. This article seems to think the same way. It is refreshing to read more and more of this. North American execs seem to do everything they can to kick people out of their pools and seem to have this visceral disdain for winners.
"a general belief in the pari-mutuel industry that high-volume players are taking money out of pools and making losers out of on-track patrons".
This was a question that vexed former Jockey Club chief executive Lawrence Wong Chi-kong when he first arrived at Sports Road more than a decade ago. And his remedy was as wrong then as it would be today, closing big accounts and making life tough on those who were succeeding.
Thankfully the new guard promoted winners and embraced them. And boy, did they grow.
We understand that Wong ultimately regretted these decisions and the new guard at the Jockey Club welcomes all customers, big and small, professional or recreational. After all, their only concern should be in creating turnover, assuming the money is from clean sources. And surely if someone is given the right to play, they should have the right win as well as to lose.
The US could save itself some pain and embrace the lessons Hong Kong learned the hard way. Or is American racing to become cynical like casino gambling, where losing heavily makes you a valued customer but using your intellect to win is considered an offence?
Using your intellect to win is the game of racing. It is pari-mutuel chess. Players know this, tracks seem not to understand it. Heck a pile of ADW's out there do not even let you track your ROI. Their focus should be on making them winners, I think they'd be happily surprised if they did.
In another look at the player, our poster here Phil has a blog. And he is doing "Phil's Play of the Day". You have to have some guts to place picks up on the net. Phil has that, and right now he has a positive ROI. We're following Phil, so please keep track and we can maybe use your stats to look at bet sizing, hit rates, edge, et al. If you are interested and want to play around during the day on a bet or two, pop in and see Phil.
His play today looks like it will be in the Laurel 5th. Seems to me the three horse will be tough to beat, however I think I have not made an accurate pick at LRL since the Reagan administration. [edit, I just checked and he picked the same horse as I did. Hmm. Not good]
As for me, I am testing something at the thoroughbreds for betting. I will post up how I come to a conclusion about an angle or (I hate the word) "system" on whether it is proven worthwhile or not. I am kind of confident with this so far, although I believe I will have to tweak it. I am 19 for 46 with a 1.29ROI. Will it continue? We'll see.
Speaking of betting a system - in thoroughbred wagering everything can be chucked right out the window with track bias', which we tend not to have in harness. Last night at Mountaineer, the weather was poor. The inside was a speed way. This inside bias resulted in these prices in the first four races: $22, $86, $101 and $47. Wow.
From the funny file for us players - heck we have to laugh sometimes while playing - the 9th at Mountaineer last night had, just after the quarter pole, an extra horse in the running. He wasn't wearing a saddle pad, so I am not sure.... oh hold it, it wasn't a horse, it was a deer. He ran for a bit, realized he wasn't a horse I guess, and took off. I think he ran better than my bet.
Now today, at Turfway, there are four deer running around on the backstretch. Hilarious. They are just running around. I think they worked out in 36 flat, which may make each of them a bet next time. People say I have outside the box ideas here. Well here is another one: Deer racing. Hell, they seem to like racetracks :)