[blueguitar]

I've seen this happen many times at small racetracks. A plunger makes a big win bet early on a less than mediocre nag who will probably be pulling an Amish buggy in a few months. So, this starts the crowd buzzing. The odds drop on this horse from maybe 12/1 to 9/5. They all start saying and thinking "there's inside money on the 8 horse, there's inside money on the 8 horse." More money and attention is attracted to this horse and the legitimate favorite is underbet. Then one minute before post the plunger cancels his big bet on the hopeless 8 horse and bets on the true contender and he gets better odds and maybe an edge. Some tracks and/or online services will monitor and/or disallow cancellations but some will not. I'm not saying that this is any great way to get an edge. But it's kind of interesting. A player who realizes what is going on might be able to piggyback on the plunger's play and get good odds.

[unusialsusp5]

the problem with this is that there are no people with any money to bet on this hopeless horse. if they have any money it would be going into the .10 super pool or a .50 pik 3 or 4. lucky if there is a couple of hundred dollars in win pools these days. this may have worked 35 years ago but not now. anyone with money at a small track are betting the simulcast tracks with the big pools. if the original plunger ends up cancelling his bet and bets more than 50.00 on the true contender that alone will drive the odds down.

[blueguitar]

the problem with this is that there are no people with any money to bet on this hopeless horse. if they have any money it would be going into the .10 super pool or a .50 pik 3 or 4. lucky if there is a couple of hundred dollars in win pools these days. this may have worked 35 years ago but not now. anyone with money at a small track are betting the simulcast tracks with the big pools. if the original plunger ends up cancelling his bet and bets more than 50.00 on the true contender that alone will drive the odds down.

Actually at Sam Houston and Turf Paradise this past Saturday in race #1 a little more than 25K was bet in the win, place show pool at each track which means probably about 15K was bet in the win pool and maybe about 6k would be bet on the favorite. A $50 bet on the favorite wouldn't do much damage. In race #2 at Camerero on the 18th the win, place, show pool was a little more than 10K and the win pool was probably 6K. The favorite probably got 3K in action. It does still happen but not as often. At the small tracks at least for the thoroughbreds most of them are not as nickel and dime as you are saying.

http://www.equibase.com/premium/char.../18/2016&cy=PR

[sshz]

Policies at some tracks and on-line have changed to stop this practice.......especially on larger bets. Small bets, no problem. Bigger bets though, now it's often declined, especially within 5 minutes to post. Everyone is well aware this used to be a common problem. No so much anymore.

[blueguitar]

Policies at some tracks and on-line have changed to stop this practice.......especially on larger bets. Small bets, no problem. Bigger bets though, now it's often declined, especially within 5 minutes to post. Everyone is well aware this used to be a common problem. No so much anymore.

There is another play plungers sometimes make which cannot be stopped. If there is an overwhelmingly strong favorite the plunger will make a huge bet very early about 20 minutes before post. The odds will plummet to 1/9 or even worse. So then the crowd can't stand to bet on a horse with odds like this and they start looking around at other horses for "value" and the track commentator right on cue seconds that emotion. So, then the bettors start to go with other horses. By post time the odds on the strong favorite are back up sometimes as high as 4/5 on a horse who's true odds are probably around 2/5. Nobody is going to brag about a 4/5 payout but hey, an edge is an edge. I've piggybacked on this play a few times.

[indio]

There is another play plungers sometimes make which cannot be stopped. If there is an overwhelmingly strong favorite the plunger will make a huge bet very early about 20 minutes before post. The odds will plummet to 1/9 or even worse. So then the crowd can't stand to bet on a horse with odds like this and they start looking around at other horses for "value" and the track commentator right on cue seconds that emotion. So, then the bettors start to go with other horses. By post time the odds on the strong favorite are back up sometimes as high as 4/5 on a horse who's true odds are probably around 2/5. Nobody is going to brag about a 4/5 payout but hey, an edge is an edge. I've piggybacked on this play a few times.

Not trying to be mean, but that whole paragraph embarrasses you. First off, what crowds? There are no crowds at racetracks anymore unless they're in the racino. Most bets are placed at simulcast centers and they could care less what any horses early odds are. And trust me, there is no edge playing a 4/5 favorite at any track in North or South America. You not only are fighting a 16 to 20%+ take out in the win pool, you then have to combat the archaic method of breakage, in which the effect is magnified on short priced horses. I've seen pools with 18% holds turn into 23% holds simply because of breakage.

Let's say your playing at a track that has 100,000 in win bets in a 6 horse field, and 47,000 of those bets are on the #1 horse. The market is giving the #1 horse a 47% chance to win (+113) but after they take their 18% (18,000), you are now 47,000 out of 83,000 and getting a price of 56.6% chance (-130). Then, if the horse wins, it should pay back 3.54 in the win mutual, but alas, most tracks have dime breakages (New York has nickel breakage) so they ALWAYS ROUND DOWN to the nearest .20 cent. So your price of 3.54 just became 3.40, which means your final payoff was -143, and the true takeout was not 18%, but rather 21.8% in this example.

If a horse has 47% of the win money bet on him, and you ultimately are getting paid like he had an almost 59% chance, and you think there could be a small edge there, then this horse would need to have had a realistic 62% or better chance to win that race, which is preposterous 499/500 times.

Horse racing wagering is designed to be a leisure recreational activity to fund the horse owners, breeders, jockeys and the states. Since they can't sustain themselves through this model anymore, they now subsidize purses and breeding with racino's and lotteries, which is a form of extortion. Having a recreational pricing model means you will not beat horses betting WPS pools over and over with any volume, you might be ale to get up in the short term sticking to long shots, but the market disparity will catch up with you eventually there too. Only if you're getting generous rebates is there even any point to betting horses regularly, unless you love the sport that you'll concede losses for entertainment. Best way to attack racing is go for home run shots like Superfectas and pick 3's and 4's where you just might be able to run good and hit some big prices that just might have some small value because those pools are so irregular.

[blueguitar]

Indo: The points you make except for your point about breakage are nonsense. By crowds I obviously meant at simulcast outlets and behind computer screens. The superfectas and pick 3s 5s and 6s that you like almost always feature a higher takeout by usually between 6 to 10% more. Since 65% of the bettors are looking for a big score with a longshot this very often makes shots in the exotics poor bets. Having said that I don't love 4/5 shots but I'm not going to throw them out either. Even if you were right (you're not it's high) on your 499 out of 500 statement a person can leisurely track odds on a great no. of races. Saying that bettors don't care what a horse's odds are 10 minutes before a race is absolute nonsense. I wasn't saying this happens often. If a horse is way faster than another horse (5 lengths using speed figures as a guide) particularly in a very short race such as 4.5 furlongs and is of a higher or the same class and is in good form and the field is small I would generally rate his true odds at 2/5. I would surmise that he would normally only lose if he stumbles or has an incident or if he has an undetected injury or illness. These things happen but not all that often. This is not an exact science but any horse at almost any odds including 4/5 can be an overlay. I give you credit for your point about breakage which is true. It's unfortunate but you have to live with it. It will reduce an edge but not necessarily eliminate it. It requires a bettor to accurately perceive a large edge. Many races that feature an overpowering favorite also feature very small fields such as 5 runners due to to trainers scratching or avoiding the race due to the unlikeliness of beating such a strong horse. The very small field increases the likelihood of the race going as predicted. You're just dead wrong. You have an arrogance about the way you respond to people that have a different point of view than you which is why I have responded in kind. I normally don't respond in this manner. You say that all that bet horses unless they use rebates are doing something pointless and losing. Not true. I'm not going to say that there are a lot of winners but there are a few some betting in tournaments and some just off the tote. It's all not as dismal as you indicate. The bettors love longshots and there is a well documented favorite/longshot bias. In a great many races a few hopeless longshots are bet down giving an astute bettor a few percentage points back from the takeout which he can use by picking among the legitimate contenders.

[matrix1022]

its a waste of time ,,,just handicap the race and make a play if its decent for you instead of this NONSENSE come on give us a good idea on money management or something not this wasted stuff

[indio]

Indo: The points you make except for your point about breakage are nonsense. By crowds I obviously meant at simulcast outlets and behind computer screens. The superfectas and pick 3s 5s and 6s that you like almost always feature a higher takeout by usually between 6 to 10% more. Since 65% of the bettors are looking for a big score with a longshot this very often makes shots in the exotics poor bets. Having said that I don't love 4/5 shots but I'm not going to throw them out either. Even if you were right (you're not it's high) on your 499 out of 500 statement a person can leisurely track odds on a great no. of races. Saying that bettors don't care what a horse's odds are 10 minutes before a race is absolute nonsense. I wasn't saying this happens often. If a horse is way faster than another horse (5 lengths using speed figures as a guide) particularly in a very short race such as 4.5 furlongs and is of a higher or the same class and is in good form and the field is small I would generally rate his true odds at 2/5. I would surmise that he would normally only lose if he stumbles or has an incident or if he has an undetected injury or illness. These things happen but not all that often. This is not an exact science but any horse at almost any odds including 4/5 can be an overlay. I give you credit for your point about breakage which is true. It's unfortunate but you have to live with it. It will reduce an edge but not necessarily eliminate it. It requires a bettor to accurately perceive a large edge. Many races that feature an overpowering favorite also feature very small fields such as 5 runners due to to trainers scratching or avoiding the race due to the unlikeliness of beating such a strong horse. The very small field increases the likelihood of the race going as predicted. You're just dead wrong. You have an arrogance about the way you respond to people that have a different point of view than you which is why I have responded in kind. I normally don't respond in this manner. You say that all that bet horses unless they use rebates are doing something pointless and losing. Not true. I'm not going to say that there are a lot of winners but there are a few some betting in tournaments and some just off the tote. It's all not as dismal as you indicate. The bettors love longshots and there is a well documented favorite/longshot bias. In a great many races a few hopeless longshots are bet down giving an astute bettor a few percentage points back from the takeout which he can use by picking among the legitimate contenders.

You're missing the bigger picture because you have no grasp of basic math as it applies to investments/gambling or statistical probabilities. You have demonstrated this in other threads. There is never any value betting 4/5 shots at a track with an 18% rake and breakage. It doesn't happen. Horse racing is a rip off which is why there are almost no professional horse racing bettors who solely bet into pari-mutual pools, and NONE of them do it betting into WPS pools. And trust me, many of these frauds you see on TV who claim to be are PAID personalities to try and encourage players to bet, and could never pay their bills playing horses alone. This has nothing to do with handicapping tournaments, which are structured completely different, and can have many winning players.

Your analysis of exotic bets was completely wrong. These bets are actually more chalk heavy, which creates more disparity, and offers better value for long shots. Keep in mind, in a 12 horse field, there are 11,880 superfecta possible combinations, as opposed to 12 different win bets. Where do you think more value can be obtained? 20% rake distributed among 12 different variables, or 25% rake distributed among 11,880 different variables?

And we haven't even brought up the simple fact that these are drugged animals ridden by people (known to cheat) and being trained by trainers who often don't really care about the horse's well being. Trust me, I've been around the block many times. There is a reason that horse racing cannot survive without state subsidies.

[blueguitar]

Indio: I'm not going to argue math with you. But I will say that I'm not mathematically challenged as you seem to think. Your diatribe was full of math and equations. I'd be willing to bet big that you know little or nothing about evaluating the ability of horses which is what handicapping is all about. You say "trust me," sorry but I can't do that. I changed my betting habits and have won for 2 calendar years in a row betting horses - not a great amount, I'm not a big bettor, but I'm ahead and also ahead so far this year. I'm sure you'll say you don't believe that but I could care less what you believe. In comparing horse racing opportunities to other gambling opportunities such as sports betting I'm not going to say that horse racing offers a greater chance for an edge but there is one thing it has going for it. In a race with 9, 10 or 12 horses in a field there is a good chance that the bettors will have confusion about the way the race is going to be run. An astute player can take advantage of that confusion. When the Giants play the Eagles there isn't going to be any confusion. You mention drugging and mistreatment of horses. I'm totally against that and have voiced my disgust with it on many different forums. But you could write a book on how that affects handicapping. It can't be covered in one sentence. Good luck in scoring big with a shot in an extreme exotic bet. If you do hit it the tax man Federal and State is going to be all over you like white on rice. What do you think that's going to do to your edge? Sure, you can write off you offsetting losses but you can't carry forward prior years and it will force you itemize which means you lose your standard deduction and not every state will allow you to deduct losses. Sure, you could declare yourself a professional gambler but that opens up a whole other can of worms. You said that betting on horses was basically pointless. I suggest that you research the career of Alan Woods who made tens of millions betting horses in Hong Kong and he didn't do it using rebates. When he died at age 62 in 2008 his fortune was estimated at 670 million. He bet into Hong Kong pools because of their giant size. The prior poster indicated his dislike for this thread and this is my last post here. I'm sure you're going to get the last word. Go for it. What happened to you here is you tried to humiliate someone who knows a great deal more about this subject than you do. Good luck in your lifelong mission to prove that anyone who disagrees with you is an imbecile.

[Foxx]

Horse racing is a rip off which is why there are almost no professional horse racing bettors who solely bet into pari-mutual pools, and NONE of them do it betting into WPS pools.

That's a very bold statement. How can you be so sure unless you've met every professional player? In fact, I know someone who is certainly a pro and does indeed bet into the WPS pools.

[indio]

Indio: I'm not going to argue math with you. But I will say that I'm not mathematically challenged as you seem to think. Your diatribe was full of math and equations. I'd be willing to bet big that you know little or nothing about evaluating the ability of horses which is what handicapping is all about. You say "trust me," sorry but I can't do that. I changed my betting habits and have won for 2 calendar years in a row betting horses - not a great amount, I'm not a big bettor, but I'm ahead and also ahead so far this year. I'm sure you'll say you don't believe that but I could care less what you believe. In comparing horse racing opportunities to other gambling opportunities such as sports betting I'm not going to say that horse racing offers a greater chance for an edge but there is one thing it has going for it. In a race with 9, 10 or 12 horses in a field there is a good chance that the bettors will have confusion about the way the race is going to be run. An astute player can take advantage of that confusion. When the Giants play the Eagles there isn't going to be any confusion. You mention drugging and mistreatment of horses. I'm totally against that and have voiced my disgust with it on many different forums. But you could write a book on how that affects handicapping. It can't be covered in one sentence. Good luck in scoring big with a shot in an extreme exotic bet. If you do hit it the tax man Federal and State is going to be all over you like white on rice. What do you think that's going to do to your edge? Sure, you can write off you offsetting losses but you can't carry forward prior years and it will force you itemize which means you lose your standard deduction and not every state will allow you to deduct losses. Sure, you could declare yourself a professional gambler but that opens up a whole other can of worms. You said that betting on horses was basically pointless. I suggest that you research the career of Alan Woods who made tens of millions betting horses in Hong Kong and he didn't do it using rebates. When he died at age 62 in 2008 his fortune was estimated at 670 million. He bet into Hong Kong pools because of their giant size. The prior poster indicated his dislike for this thread and this is my last post here. I'm sure you're going to get the last word. Go for it. What happened to you here is you tried to humiliate someone who knows a great deal more about this subject than you do. Good luck in your lifelong mission to prove that anyone who disagrees with you is an imbecile.

Kid, I owned thoroughbreds, and played in high stakes poker games with trainers and jockeys, and I've been around horse racing and betting a LONG time. Take my advice and stop embarrassing yourself, seriously. I was handicapping racing forms when you were in junior high bathrooms, wondering why you didn't feel the same as the other boys. Heck, I gave Slew O' Gold a pat on the head when I visited his barn as a guest of John Hertler at Saratoga in 1984 when he won the Whitney. As far as exotic bets go, I've hit numerous 5 figure scores, and only a moron would end up paying full taxes on those. You can write all the lengthy paragraphs you want, but you'll still come of looking foolish, which you do.

[indio]

That's a very bold statement. How can you be so sure unless you've met every professional player? In fact, I know someone who is certainly a pro and does indeed bet into the WPS pools.

Nobody can repeatedly earn a net yearly profit of 50k+ betting daily/weekly over 500+ races betting exclusively into WPS pari-mutual pools at racetracks without significant rebates or rake reduction. Period. Does not happen. Can not happen. There were a few who bet 100k a race on certain Show pools in West Virginia because state law forces them to pay 2.20 minimum per bet, and they could win 90% + if they picked their spots right, but that didn't work too well when Shared Belief pulled up lame at Charlestown as a 1/5 chalk in the Grade 2 $1.5 Million Dollar Classic when they did it.

That statement is no bolder than saying you or I will never run a sub 4 minute mile. Simple deductive reasoning. And I've been a winning gambler/investor all my life, and been around lot's of bright people who can earn a living investing and gambling on practically everything. But it can't be done in a pari-mutual pool of limited options and out of control variables with a rake of 20%+, period. You can find the occasional value play, you can hit some nice priced horses that could get the front relaxed, or horses to close into a pace duel that was hidden to some degree, you can have winning months, you can even run hot and have a winning year or two, but NOBODY can beat WPS pari mutual pools for a significant income every year for 5+ years if they play a volume of races. Can not happen. And add to the fact, that there are only a few tracks in the US that has enough volume to where you're not betting against yourself and changing the odds against you. Try making $500 win/place/show bets at a track like Emerald Downs and see how you do for the year.

[Foxx]

Nobody can repeatedly earn a net yearly profit of 50k+ betting daily/weekly over 500+ races betting exclusively into WPS pari-mutual pools at racetracks without significant rebates or rake reduction. Period. Does not happen.

Lol. You just changed your statement by adding a qualifier of "without significant rebates or rake reduction".

[Foxx]

Kid, I owned thoroughbreds, and played in high stakes poker games with trainers and jockeys, and I've been around horse racing and betting a LONG time. Take my advice and stop embarrassing yourself, seriously. I was handicapping racing forms when you were in junior high bathrooms, wondering why you didn't feel the same as the other boys. Heck, I gave Slew O' Gold a pat on the head when I visited his barn as a guest of John Hertler at Saratoga in 1984 when he won the Whitney. As far as exotic bets go, I've hit numerous 5 figure scores, and only a moron would end up paying full taxes on those. You can write all the lengthy paragraphs you want, but you'll still come of looking foolish, which you do.

Now you're the one who sounds foolish talking about junior high bathrooms and something that happen decades ago.

[Thunderground]

It's an interesting topic. Quite possibly, late cancellations/early price manipulation may have the most tangible effect in the exotic pools. It is not rare for me to cash an exacta at a small track that I estimate to pay in the range of twice as much as the same exacta at one of the main tracks. WPS bets at the same small track suck, because of the big odds changes after the race goes off. I haven't researched this, so I could be wrong, but it could be a sound strategy to get the public off some horses with value.