Why do most systems focus on the HORSE ?

[tailwag]

I have been reading most of the threads in this forum and almost exclusively every system or every theory or for that matter every comment revolves around the horse, why is that so?

For a long time I have known that the 'ability' of the horse is constrained to whether or not 'they' are trying. A direct response of this thinking is that they are trying when the money goes on.

So why then isn't the amount of money wagered on a horse more important or at least just as important as the inherent ability of the horse? Why isn't more weight attributed to the correlation between losing/winning favourites and the amount that does or does not go on them?

Because humans control the horse, the ability of the horse can be zero if the jockey puts on the brakes. I am yet to know of a camp that willingly or knowingly put their hard earned on with no intention of trying to win!

It seems to me that trying to numerically quantify a horses ability via a myriad of other factors such as weight, barrier, weather and so on and so forth, it's just so much waste of time. To my mind, it would be easier to quantify a set of numbers i.e. the amounts invested that have come back to the 'camp' or gone missing...lost due to bad luck or bad judgement.

Isn't it easier to feed a dollar value (a number) into a system than some ideological value that evaluates to a horses ability against another horse? In this respect you are really measuring apples against oranges and we all know you can't really do that, despite some clever attempts at expressions :-)

A very clever punter once told me a 'track' statement that I believe is amongst the top of the immutable laws of the track i.e. "the horse doesn't know what price it is". I had to think about that for years, whilst I watched him amass his empire, and now in my old age I understand exactly what he meant.

It's all about following the money, not the horse. So I put it to you all, that focusing on the horse for the ultimate racing/wagering system is just a waste of time. You would be better served watching the money and following it, provided of course you formulated a sensible set of rules and stuck to it.

I dare say I might get flamed a bit here for suggesting the noble steed is to some degree irrelevant, but I am not saying that unreservedly, I am saying that its a very difficult thing to actually score to any degree of accuracy. Even the times a horse runs against a measured distance can't really accurately be relied on because of track conditions and the underlying assumption that a horse can repeat that 'life time best' which by definition can't be done, else it would have only been a 'life time near best' :-)

Anyway, that's something I wanted to get off my chest. I am not trying to provoke a fight, just provoke a thought or two, plus it helps clarify my mind by telling you all what I think.

Ciao
Tailwag

[Shaun]

Following the money.....well thats an interesting idea......yes, there are those that can do this because they know where to look for the money that has gone on to a horse....or they follow several different places.

For most people they would rather look at the form and try to determine what the current or past form would sugest the horse capable of doing....i agree that you can find winners by following the money.....you just need to know where to look.....most times following the money also means sitting in front of the PC all day to see what is happening, this is something most people like myself, don't have the time to do....there for the form is the next best option.

[marcus25]

I have been reading most of the threads in this forum and almost exclusively every system or every theory or for that matter every comment revolves around the horse, why is that so?

For a long time I have known that the 'ability' of the horse is constrained to whether or not 'they' are trying. A direct response of this thinking is that they are trying when the money goes on.


You just about answered your own question.

[punter57]

More foolishness here, I fear.
Since we, who are not in the know, have to watch "the money", is that the early "smart" money which is than followed by the "uninformed" money chasing that early money? OR is that the late money taking advantage of the uninformed money chasing earlier uninformed money? OR is that the middle money hoping to sneak on "undiscovered" as it tries to get the best price? OR is that the money being drip-fed toward the end of betting as the false favourites get all the attention and the"real" favourite is ignored? OR is that a late plunge which brings the 20-1 shot into fives, which then fails 90% of the time? OR is there no way of knowing which is which in all this? Anyone care to hazard a guess?
Shaun. we agree on many things but not on the "utility" of form. Doing the form just means coming up with the "logical" favourite. Since the bookies/TAB odds do THIS for you with no effort at all, I can't see any point to bothering with it. It's like spending all night doing "the form" for "Wimbledon" and ending up with Federer #1, Roddick #2, Hewitt #3 etc when a quick glance at the seedings/rankings will show you EXACTLY the same thing (or the bookies odds), in FIVE SECONDS. Good luck and Good night.

[partypooper]

just my 2cents worth, we are told and re-told that the ONLY way to win at this game is to obtain a BETTER price than the animals chance of winning, which is the oppopsite to following the money (i.e. shorteners) really isn't it?

[w924]

"It's all about following the money, not the horse. So I put it to you all, that focusing on the horse for the ultimate racing/wagering system is just a waste of time. "

First of all I'll will agree with your other quote "A horse doesnt know what price it is"

"Following the money" is full of traps. A crazed punter ,with more money than sense, backs the bjeezes out of a selection on a whim, or a parlay bet, or a catch up on past losses...the list goes on....

I like to consider prices that I think the connections would be happy about. Generally, the bigger the price the better, although with some horses entered in some races, the connections dont care about the starting price..they are looking for the prizemoney or breeding stats for future earnings...in this scenario they dont really give a damn about starting price..

Generally speaking though, a horse stating at long odds is a more attractive proposition for connections and that's why I never set a maximum starting price when making selections...because, as you state "the horse doesnt know what price it is"..it isnt going to try harder or give up because of price..short or long.

The temptation for connections to get the best price is to wait for another day, if todays price is too short....and they can achieve this more easily if the horse turns in an ordinary effort today...a short-priced horse may not be what the connections want..the horse doesnt know this yet, but external factors may come into play in the running...

I will go as far as to state that a short priced horse is often a far riskier proposition than a longer priced horse. A short priced horse may encounter problems in running that a longer priced horse just isnt going to find. The longer priced horse usually be counted upon to put in an honest effort, and when they dont, there is something wrong.....owners connections and bookies all want the longer horses to win. I cant say the same thing about shorter priced horses.

Following the money may work, but you will have a lot of factors going against you...and, to me, punting is all about putting as many factors in your favour as possible...Getting "overs" on a horse's rated chances of winning is not perfect, and it isnt the ONLY way to make money in the long term, but it is ONE time proven method, and it is pretty easy to work.

Yesterday, Brindabella was a 41.00 avail odds selection that gave me great run and went around at a price that the owners and connections would have been happy with. This horse was rated second on the QLD tab ratings, (all about the horse) , being only one point less than the top selection and it was not mentioned in the top four selections as per NSW tab selections and late mail.. The price on offer, (according to those ratings) was way way over the odds and it came up in two of my plans. Ok, it deadheated for first, halving my return...big deal :) The prizemoney and Group 3 status were also probably attractive to connections... following the money..in this case, would have been a waste of money...

Rather than argue too hard about the actual existence of "smart money", I'll state that it would be very very difficult for most punters to be able to make a living using "smart money" as their foundation. I wont say its impossible..just because I personally do not know of anyone who can make it work doesnt mean that nobody can... If you can make it work, you will certainly have an edge and I will take my hat off to you. You will have mastered the seemingly impossible..

all the best

[punter57]

Another major problem (about the 20th MAJOR one!!) with following the money is that there has to be a LOT of money to show a distinct movement in the odds. Is this a single $100,000 bet or many $10,000 bets, or what??? How many are "in the know"??? Since 80 or 90% of the total wagered is on the top 3 or 4 then the only way to easily see shorteners is if they were relatively long to begin with. Can someone who believes "money talks" give an example of how you identify what it's "saying". Thanks.P57

[Mark]

What's the quickest way to the poorhouse?, follow the money & therefore take unders on every bet.

Would it be fair to say that 95% of punters lose long term?, if so, then it's mostly dumb money rather than smart money.

[topsy99]

Re the "horse doesnt know what price it is".
This wouldn't be right. Some of the longshots that i back i think win because the horse "knows what price it is".
of course this means that someone is acting for the horse.

yesterday i played golf so got to the computer late in the day.

i had my listed horses list printed on friday so picked it up.
the fist two races going down the list of listed horses i backed the first ones over 10/1.
race 8 caulfield was little chloe and brindabella and at belmont race 4 was stir park.
brindabella was a good thing not to win outright.
maybe we do try to be too fancy with our methods and maybe the horse does know what price it is.

[davez]

would the fact that most winners drift in betting put an end to this?

[BJ]

Where are you watching them shorten? Books or tote?

My personal opinion is that you should lay every shortener. I don't know where or how bookies come up with their prices, but they are generally pretty close to the mark.

I have sat here and seen many horses sit at about $6 on the books yet is paying $15 on the tote. Quite often I will be swearing at the tight bookie for being so miseable with his odds, until I watch the race and realise that the horse was never going to lose.

The thing with shorteners, is that everybody remembers the real shorteners that win. I remember a thread that copped a bit of flack a few months ago. It was Chucks lay of the day. It was backed in from $10 to about $3.80, and got up. Now on that occassion, the money was right. But for every time the money is right, there is multiple times that it is wrong.

I often sit here and watch a horse open at $2-3 favourites, and drift. I watch the price on BF and simply nobody wants it. Ends up you can get nearly $10 for this horse. Without providing statistics, it would be my bet that these drifters win more often than the shorteners.

I would personally prefer to back a horse that opened at $3 and I got $10 for, than back something for $3 that opened at $10.

Just an opinion though, won't provide any stats to support this....
Happy punting...

[w924]

"would the fact that most winners drift in betting put an end to this?"


Well, it should LOL

[Neil]

"Yesterday, Brindabella was a 41.00 avail odds selection that gave me great run and went around at a price that the owners and connections would have been happy with. This horse was rated second on the QLD tab ratings, (all about the horse) , being only one point less than the top selection.. The price on offer, (according to those ratings) was way way over the odds and it came up in two of my plans. Ok, it deadheated for first, halving my return...big deal :)
Comment:

The bookies didn't do the form for you here!

I guess punters who relied on the bookies to do their form for them, and so lost on the race, should lodge a complaint with the bookies telling them to do their form better.

I also fail to understand how relying on bookies' odds can give anyone an idea of what odds is "value" for any selection. Unless the aim is to look at the bookies' odds and then try and catch a better price on the tote - with no guarantee of better odds - particularly if you are betting one of the favoured runners.

Anyway, who wants to consistently try and beat a 120% tote market?

[BJ]

Comment:

Anyway, who wants to consistently try and beat a 120% tote market?

Me. I find it so much more rewarding than settling with losing to a 120% tote market. If you don't try and beat it then what is the point? Maybe it will beat me in the end, but will be damned if I don't put up a hell of a fight....

[tailwag]

Hi and firstly thank you to all the people who responded to the thread so far. I should have qualified the general sense of the statements by doing a little division :-)

Firstly, I am aware that there is a profound difference between Gallopers and Harness when following the money and I have since come to realise that this forum deals mainly (I assume) with gallopers.

Secondly, following the money needs to be clearly divided into two halves i.e. on course and off course, once again there is a profound difference.

I have many years of direct observation of both on and off course methodology, so I have no fear of making this statement.

Getting back to following money, the trots are the inverse of gallopers where most winners actually shorten and are very much in the red on an overwhelming number of occasions. Not much chance to get overs at the trots.

I accept the comment that some gallopers drift before they win, and I would like to place that into my off course comments further down this reply.

When you are on course (physically present at a racetrack), there is nothing equal to watching 'Heads' and 'following the money'. Clearly when the stable foreman or the runner for a jockey comes into the ring and claims a horses price with the bookies, you can bet it will do very well. Naturally, you have to serve your apprenticeship over time to learn these 'key' people, but in times of ever diminishing crowds, its not that hard.

Taking a line through this, there is also the situation where the 'smarties' find bowlers (people never been seen on a track before) to place their bets, thus not starting a stampede. Of course, the more astute of us, see this ruse and get on in even greater volume.

On a track, following the money is KING, and that is simply that, this is clearly distinct and different than following money on shorteners on the tote or even with bookmakers.

That is the other scenario that most of you replied to. This is a different art form, betting from home with a TV (or radio) and computer. When watching the pools there is an undeniable opportunity to make money but not on the day. Let me restate that, it is more about pools trends over time.

When sitting at home, you need to follow the money over a long period of time. If you retain the data you will see clear bias towards price points on both winning favourites to losing favourites and also for winning non-favourites.

Given enough time (data) you can make direct correlation between the volumes of money wagered when a fav wins to lose and vice versa and the averages of odds on offer (final tote price). The limitation is that you can only deal with empirical data and that restricts you to the 'Final' dividend, not opening prices. Because the money is pooled it is useless to factor in the opening 'bet' in any pool. Its only the final pool, less commission, divided by the live tickets that makes any difference.

The total pool is then a good guide (over time) to make comparisons against favs and winners that have both won or lost. Its all in the math v's amount of data you have. At the end of the day, your 'Best' scenario's can be used to advantage when you see a suitable race and the 'POOL' reaches the target you must have before you bet.

Given the pool is right, and you have a half decent bet selection criteria based on historical priced winners to pool volumes, you will see clearly when a suitable race becomes available to bet on. The horse (in this case) to bet on would be the horse at the price range (close to the close of betting) that met your criteria for that volume of pool.

This is no different than saying, only bet when your rules are all met, despite what system you use. In this case you are following money from a purely mathematical point of view, and couldn't give a hoot who the horse was.

As I said, there is a profound difference between these two styles (on course v's off course), but at the heart of each method is the money, not the horse. The horse of course is the medium via which the money is ultimately rewarded or lost.

Following the money does work, but not following the followers of the money, which was very astutely mentioned by a lister earlier. You must follow the smart money on course and there is only one 'BEST' smart money.

What if two camps think they can both win and both put on the 'Smart' money? You stop out of course!!!! I have seen this thousands of times, just stop out till the next race when there is only 'ONE' smart money. I do not mean the followers who run in at the drop of a hat when a bookie turns a horse in a point.

I have seem bookies turn the knob without taking a bet and then people will bet like crazy thinking that something significant happened to warrant the horse shortening. Of course, the bookie is just sucking you in, and when the money stops coming for it, he then turns it out again hoping to repeat the process over again.

Have you ever wondered why they have so long in between races? It's not to get the horses processed from race to race, it's to give plenty of time for the bookies to manipulate the swinging punters minds, by manipulation of those lovely little knobs which of course are dead in the water today and replaced by a keyboard.

I could (and should) write a book on this, but won't here because I believe that the essence of a good thread is that the replies are kept relatively short. This sadly is hard to do when trying to cover a topic as complex as the one in question here.

Btw, I respect and thank all that replied for them not being aggressive, you all made your points with clarity and your own opinion and that is healthy.

Tailwag

[Dale]

Trainers,jockey's,owners etc are all human,being in the know doesnt make you a smart punter all it does it give you a bit more confidence when you place your bet.

You could say these guys are over confident and let their emotions controll their punting pocket.

Tailwag i understand what you are getting at but feel it is a very dangerous game,all the same best of luck.

[Oaksnaf]

Trainers,jockey's,owners etc are all human,being in the know doesnt make you a smart punter all it does it give you a bit more confidence when you place your bet.

You could say these guys are over confident and let their emotions controll their punting pocket.

Tailwag i understand what you are getting at but feel it is a very dangerous game,all the same best of luck.
From personal experience in the greyhounds. Owners who have not backed thier dog to win the race, rarely have any regrets in doing so. I would say it would be much the same with the horses. But then again 90% of the owners back their horse anyway or have syndicates etc.

I dont think you can draw out too much on how much an owner backs their horse by. But if you were to know when they decided to put a few more on their horse this time, it might indicate they have more confidence. But not many people know the amount that is backed on his/her horse week in week out. So there goes that.

There are too many questions and not enough answers in racing. Thats what keeps people interested.

[tailwag]

Trainers, jockey's, owners etc are all human, being in the know doesnt make you a smart punter all it does it give you a bit more confidence when you place your bet.

That is exactly my point, by careful observation over a long period of time, you can rate the actual 'heads' the permanent, pro punters, you can watch their results, learn their styles. To be honest, there are so few people going to the track now that you can almost name them all and define their styles, who they bet for and so on. Really, its easy to follow the 'RIGHT' people at the track and to filter out the 'Wrong' people. This is tantamount to having a computer make a ranking for you based on weather, barrier and so on. Instead of inputting data about weights and numbers etc. you are measuring people and their better than 'normal' strike rates.

Have you ever been to the track and seen the same bloke always winning and another bloke always losing? There is a very simple form of filter, you would ignore the regular loser and afford a higher ranking to the regular winner.

Perhaps I am not writing this well enough, but if you have spent your whole life on the track, you just can't help but come to the conclusions I have that when you see certain people bet, you go with them. Mostly you will get a good run for your money.

Tailwag

[syllabus23]

Following the money is about following shorteners ???

Is it really ???

Thinking is about being single minded ????

Is it really ????

Betting trends are about fluctuation and variation.

Markets travel in all directions,attempting to understand the pattern is the essence of following the money.

You dont have to get it right "every" time,,, that's the beauty of punting.

KV hang in there mate,,I'm coming.

[Neil]

Comment:
Anyway, who wants to consistently try and beat a 120% tote market?My point was that serious punters betting for the win don't restrict themselves to 120% betting markets. They are outrageous. Top fluctuation bookmaker odds, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney, are regularly far superior - particularly for the horses most likely to win.

TF markets are consistently below 120%. They can often be below 110%.

For example, the last at Sydney on Saturday. The TF market was 105%. If I liked Lotteria, why would I accept $1.80 on the tote like hundreds of tote punters when $2.00 was available with the bookies? That's making 25% more profit.

[punter57]

G'day. You're right Neil. We've got plenty of on-line totes/bookies/exchanges to scan through, looking for "better" prices, if we wish to do so.
Tailwag. Write that book!!!!!
You're right about picking up on "who's who" when you're on-course;though, since I'm following the longer-priced runners, the trainer is often the one to "sniff" around. Sometimes this means actually seeing some lesser-known trainer (who knows what these one's look like?)puttimg a few hundred on some rank outsider, but this is VERY difficult. However, when you spot something "suspicious" with a trainer you DO recognise, then you have to start snooping.
For example (I already mentioned this once before) I saw Bruce McLachlan sitting in the owner's box at a mid-week Brisbane meeting when a 33-1 shot bolted in and the jubilation thereafter between Bruce and the two owners. The point, however,was that BM had THREE horses in that race, with not a sign of the (beaten, more-favoured) horseowners anywhere!! Lesson drawn: when Bruce has the horse "ready" he only bothers calling the "right" owner to sit with. Find out which horse that bloke with Bruce owns!!!!

[tailwag]

G'day. You're right Neil. We've got plenty of on-line totes/bookies/exchanges to scan through, looking for "better" prices, if we wish to do so.

Tailwag. Write that book!!!!!

You're right about picking up on "who's who" when you're on-course ... snip
It's all so very interesting when you stop and try and analyse it. For many years I went to the races and had a mindset of a punter. Then for a few other years I was an owner and I thought differently. These days I am harnessing computers to do the remembering for me as I get older, I have never had a good memory for dates, times, prices etc. but can wave and say G'day to almost every person on most local tracks from the gatekeeper to head Steward and everyone in between.

The point of this illustration is that there are many aspects to having a punt. You attack it from your point of view and your circumstances. You are in the main, either a race goer or stay at home punter (the TAB is home in this sense).

Whatever led you to today and this forum, along the many many highways and detours has prepared you for a unique mindset, one where you try to understand everyone else and for the most part try to neutralise your own impressions.

You do this, or should be trying to do this, so that your results are not tainted with too much of you, but rather a true neutral set of results based on data that is accurate, and sourced from wherever you get it to fulfil the purpose of your system.

Even the attribution of weighting your criteria for ranking purposes should be as neutral as possible in the early stages of formation of your system. Only after it has been developed to a high degree, might you then flavour it with your own opinions and tastes in the form of 'Tweaking' it for better results. At that stage you would have already had a baseline results percentage to work with.

So, my point is that there are differences, enormous differences between the home punter and race goer and unless you are one of those rare disciplined race goers who can stick to his system at the track whilst the whole world is yelling a one-goer, then you are indeed a unique and special breed, and a better man than I :-)

Okay, that's the rave for today. If you're young and reading this, it might sound like a crock, if you are middle aged it will sound feasible, if you are at the 'Bell-lap' of your life, then you will see overwhelmingly what I am on about.

Tailwag