The Racing Betting Market Gets Sharper, Even with Bombs

Great post I saw today (h/t to @dennycaps) about the favorite-longshot bias. The author looked at over 32,000 races run in Australia and New Zealand, and their expected wins by odds level at the exchange. 

It found what's historically always been found about the favorite-longshot bias in racing literature - longshots are terrible bets. 

It's funny because coincidentally I noticed this yesterday watching Keeneland. Someone on the teevee noted they didn't mind a certain horse (I can't remember which one) who was 15-1 on the board. On the exchange the horse was 80-1. According to this study, he should've been even higher. 

Historically on the exchange I don't think it's always been like this.

When I was playing full time for almost ten years I played betfair religiously, until it was pulled in 2013 here in the Tundra. I kept my personal statistics by bet level and was lifetime ROI positive on horses over 20-1. 

This, of course, had selection bias. I built longer shot models, which clicked just enough to be profitable. I generally played longer horses who could show speed, and the dirt tracks at the time were harder and somewhat faster where speed could carry. Klein's DRF book "The Power of Early Speed" with stats from the 1990's were kind of still relevant in certain subsets. Getting these horses at 70 when they were 20 on the tote board was something good. 

Clearly today that would not work. But it doesn't work with even more longshots than yesteryear and I think this study proves it. 

Why?

I think the CAW's know that field size doesn't equal field depth, and the 9 or 10 horse fields today are peppered with some serious no-hopers. These horses are literally 1000-1 or more to win. Sharp players are fading them to more reasonable levels, and no doubt making a profit on them on the exchange. 

As @quantum_sport noted to me on twitter awhile back, and I think he's super sharp, the teams do not use these horses at all, and it's reflected in exotics. There's no alls for fourth in their super tickets. 

As usual, I think they're onto something. 

Does this mean we should never use longshots? Returning to subsets, not on your life - because these horses are not covered by the teams. 

Longshots clunk up supers. And when they do, they pay, so if you're on one you love, using them in the two-three slots on supers is gangbusters. 

Just yesterday in the 6th at Keeneland, the super paid $10k for $1. Logical horse in first, logical horse third. The two bombs in the two and four slots resulted in a monster payoff. If you liked one of those bombs and swung them 2nd, or 3rd or 4th, for a modest 10 cent ticket investment you got paid. 

Markets move and adjust over time, and our betting markets have done exactly that, exchanges or otherwise. Yes, longshots - whether it be in exotics, on the board, or even on exchanges - are terrible bets if you bet them all. Fortunately for us though we don't bet them all and if we like one, we can still take a poke, and bet a little to win a lot. 

Have a great Monday everyone. 

There's More Top-Notch Betting Content Than Ever in Racing

 Hello Friends (I'm in Masters mode, sorry @barchyman). 

I find myself on a different horse racing betting journey than I am used to. Namely I am not grinding away in jcapper, or watching replays, looking for horses I can make some scratch on. 

No, now, I find myself consuming more and more horse racing content. It's simply fitting my current process, and for me, process is just about everything in this difficult game. 

Here's a few things I currently look at. 

First, the best podcast for selections of a big day or a big sequence, in my view, is the Sport of Kings podcast, featuring Scott Carson and Chris Larmey. I start my Fridays with this pod, and as I listen it forces me to handicap each race in real time with the guys. I have the lay of the land on a sequence after the episode, and am prepared to how I may want to bet it. This can change as I analyze prices and other factors, but it's lays a solid foundation for me to build upon. 

Oh, and the selections are often quite good. The two pod hosts and guests are very smart players. I have gotten an idea or two over the years that I wouldn't have come up with myself. Tossing in a neat bomb you may agree with is rarely a bad idea on days like these. 

For Keeneland, I often find myself checking Eric Solomon's analysis over at the inthemoney blog. Eric puts effort into it, and he's quite sharp. I don't dedicate the time it takes to wager the tough Keeneland cards like I used to, and Eric gives me things to think about. 

I am an unabashed Hawthorne fan. When I was playing full time I built some models for the start of the spring meets and had some success, so year in and year out it stuck in my mind, and was a part of my play, full time or casual. 

When I open the form in the morning, I follow it up reading Emily Gullikson's analysis on the Hawthorne website. Emily might talk in boxes and circles (Optixspeak) but it's clear, concise and sharp. If I like a trainer move, a perceived bias horse, or something a little sneaky and she's open to the same horse, I am definitely more confident wagering a few dollars. 

Others in the space - 

In the land where trackside tents are apparently very expensive despite subsidies that would make the Canadian dairy industry blush, Marcus Hersh's Kentucky Downs thoughts are welcomed. Marcus watches races I can not. 

David Aragona is one of the best handicappers in the country. I'd use "in my view" as a qualifier on that usually, but this is too obvious for that. His NYRA analysis is interesting, informative and offers players some good alternatives in a tough (especially in the winter) short field circuit. I'd rather eat a plate of thumbtacks than use a chalk defensively, but I use a David Aragona bomb selection defensively very often. 

Kevin and Joe at Churchill and various tracks in their Death Star Evil Empire (sorry, you know me, I can't help myself CDI) are sharp. They offer alternatives to the chalk and you can tell they work at it. 

CDI Board Meeting

Over in harness telecast land - it pays to pay attention to Chad Rozema over at Mohawk-Woodbine-WEG Park (or whatever the new branding is calling that place). Chad takes his work seriously and is often chatting backside, watching qualifiers and adding some very interesting ideas to the mix. 

So friends, as I watch my Masters bet on Colin Morikawa go up in smoke this weekend, I'll be leaning on my other friends - a few of them above - to help my process to hopefully get back a little scratch. 

Have a great day, and good luck at the windows.