RED HOTS?
 

WELL AFTER BEING IN THE INDUSTRY FOR A PERIOD OF 15 YEARS IT IS A BIT LIKE ANY FORM OF RACING. I DID AN APPRENTICESHIP FOR A MAJOR STABLE AT THAT TIME WHO HAS RECENTLY JUST CAME BACK INTO THE GAME. IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO WHO YOU KNOW AND HOW MUCH INSIDE INFORMATION YOU CAN GET. I WAS HAVING A GREAT TIME FOR THAT TIME BUT IN THE END IT WAS TOO HARD TO CONTINUE TO MAKE A LIVING IN TRAINING OR DRIVING. A LITTLE EXAMPLE WHEN ROWLEYALLA WON THE N.S.W DERBY IN ITS HEAT IT WAS A BEATEN ODDS ON FAV. I NEW THAT IT HAD MISSED 2 DAYS FAST WORK LEADING UP TO THE HEAT AND HENCE BACKED THE 2ND FAV WHO EVENTUALLY WON. WHEN THE FINAL CAME AROUND WELL WE GOT 5/1 ROWLEY WHILE VINNY KNIGHTS HORSE ANOTHER BART WAS A ODDS ON FAV. ROWLEY LED ALL THE WAY AND NEVER LOOKED LIKE GETTING BEATEN AND DID THE SAME A FEW WEEKS LATER IN QLD. AS FAR AS SITTING UP ON A HORSE, WHAT YOU HAVE TO REALISE IS THAT IF THAT HORSE HAS RAN CERTAIN SECTIONALS THERE IS MORE CHANCE OF IT WINNING BY SITTING UP ON IT THAN BEATING THE CRAP OUT OF IT THE DRIVERS KNOW HOW FAST THERE HORSES CAN GO (E.G WHAT MILE RATES THERE HORSE CAN RUN) SO THERE IS NO NEED TO USE THE WHIP AND THE STEWARDS MUST KNOW THIS BECAUSE THEY DONT GET CALLED IN VERY OFTEN. IT IS A VERY TOUCHY SUBJECT THOUGH AS THERE IS LOT MORE CHANCE OF HUMAN AND HORSE ERROR THAT CAN BEAT YOU WHERE AS EXAMPLE IF A HORSE GETS CHECKED IT CAN GO THE RAIL AND SAVE GROUND THEN GET AN INSIDE RUN. CANT DO THAT WITH A PACER EVEN WITH THE FAST LANE NOW IT IS VERY HARD TO RECOVER. GOT MORE TO SAY ON THIS AND IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED I DONT MIND ANSWERING QUESTIONS BUT DINNER IS READY AND I AM VERY HUNGRY LOL. SO HOPE THIS IS HELPFUL TO SOMEONE.

CHEERS

The sport of harness racing seems to be growing in popularity as is seen by just looking at the hits on my trot tip thread.I do concde that it has a prblem with its reputation of red hots.Seems to me that too many odds on pops getting rolled.This is the time of year when i go a bit quiet because of Sire stakes races which dish up a lot of short priced horses

It's simple really, you cannot back every short priced harness horse, galloper or greyhound, one has to be selective.

The reason the harness horses are so short is that they are more consistent (the favourites) than any other code.

One has to take into account race mapping and driver ability...

e.g. can this horse lead or will it get caught up on the rail?
can this horse win from the back?
what is this horse's main rivals and how strong are they?

Nothing can get around a poor drive or a galloper mid race, but they are called "red hots" because they go down at really short odds often.

This is often not the drivers fault, nor the horse's fault, but the betting public.

Sometimes it is the driver or horse's fault, in which case, you take note and never take short odds on that horse or driver until they redeem themselves.

When it's not a case of fault, but simply meeting a better horse in the race, the public got it wrong. Or overlooked better value or potential.

Although it's not an easy task, here is a formula I use for all codes, which does eliminate many false bets.

Take the strike rate and dividend for horses at this price and compare it to:

The drivers stats at the same price
The trainers stats at the same price
The horse's stats at the same price

Is there a glaring difference between the raw stats and this horse, trainer, driver combo, seperately and combined?

If so, let it pass.

If not, have a dip!

For example: we might have an odds on horse, let's say the strike rate for odds on is 65% (plucking a figure out of the air).

When the horse goes around at odds on, it wins 60% of the time.
When the trainer has a horse at odds on, it wins at 40% of the time.
When the driver has a horse at odds on, it wins 70% of the time.

When the combo are together, they win 65% of the time.

I'd have a go.

If it were:

When the horse goes around at odds on, it wins 30% of the time.
When the trainer has a horse at odds on, it wins at 50% of the time.
When the driver has a horse at odds on, it wins 40% of the time.

I'd let it pass.

Of course opposition and class are not factored in here, but it's a good guide to glaringly obvious poor value.

Someone made a post on here a long time ago regarding strike rate to prices - it didn't add up because an ingredient was missing....the horse's strike rate is not significant in the races it was not favoured in. The public did not give it a chance of winning, therefore for price purposes, it's performance at that price was insignificant to today's race.

It's strike rate at a favoured price IS significant.

Some horses continue to lose, some continue to win - regardless of the market.

Here's an example that sticks in my mind - Shania Dane

Shania Dane had obviously shown a great deal of ability, but had failed to break through for a while in good company.

The horse won at 50/1 in a G2 at Rosehill and ever since that time was well backed at each start, without breaking through or actually winning. Because she ran some very good placings, punters kept backing her to under the odds - but the bottom line is that she didn't actually win at anywhere near the strike rate of odds.

She won a Group2 and Group3, but look what happened when she stepped up to G1 level....

PLACING LEVEL ODDS
3/8 G1 $11
3/14 G1 $10
5/9 G1 $5
3/15 G1 $4.5F
3/16 G1 $5
5/13 G1 $3.75F
2/8 G1 $3.5F

The horse went around well fancied at least 5 times at a level she'd never won at.

Even al???ing for the two starts @10/1 and 11/1, the horse's average odds was $6.10 at a level she had not won at.

But when fancied it even looks worse - average odds $4.35!!!

Easy to say in retrospect, but she was favourite on at least three occasions and shouldn't have been.

Her strike rate was 0 at Grp 1 level!

P.S. I know it's not harness, but the theory remains the same.

Top Post Chrome.

I couldn't agree more.

Good Luck.

Been also thinking a great deal about this topic over the last few days while working on my car engine (great time to think).

Anyway, it struck me that when betting on horses with a greater than 50% chance of taking out the race, sometimes up to 95%, then one wants to remove all doubt.

Of course not all horses will win, but one can remove a lot of losers.

Is there any doubt over the jockey, going, distance, days break / first up?
Has the horse won in this class or higher before - (watch this one, horses that have consistently won higher grade races, are NOT a good bet at odds on, there is a reason why the horse is not competeing at it's normal level).

Is the horse proven to carry the weight?

All this thinking also relates back to the "red hots".

I went back through some results, and it's amazing that if one is clinically judgemental, one can remove a lot of horses and be left with some very good odds on bets.

food for thought.

Yeah CP, in relation to your post13, it provides good food for thought.
I will always listen to the opinions of other punters as the only day we stop learning(or eliminating our own ingrained biases) is our last day on earth.

Cheers.

Bankstown R3....well!......,

If anyone needed to be alerted to the monetary disadvantages of betting on the "red hots" then this race should confirm their reticence:
"red hot" fav quickly tails out last at least 1/4 to 1/2 lap behind the other runners.
Need I say any more.

Cheers.

Does anyone really bet on the "red hots" these days?
With the recent revelations that even prominent professional punters have abandoned this betting medium then surely the officials should finally take action to alleviate the lack of confidence of the betting public!
Maybe it is time for the government to take control and appoint an ICAC officer to monitor the running of this industry.
I can assure you that in the venues which I frequent the wagering on the "red hots" is the last priority of everyday punters........
Why?........no confidence!
Don't they(the officials/politicians) get it......?
Does anyone contemplate the adage of "killing of the golden goose"....well, guess what....it is about to happen!
When are we punters going to get some action?

Cheers.

In the press on 6.1.07 a headline quoted:
"It's just a rort"
"Newcastle trots loses last bookie"
Need I say any more?

I noticed that ICAC is interested in some happenings in this sport/industry.
We, the long-suffering betting public welcome close official scrutiny of happenings.
A permanent ICAC officer should be appointed with a roving commission to investigate any rumours/dubious results/betting activities etc. to determine whether further action is deemed necessary.
He/she can decide which matters require further scrutiny.
Congratulations to the authorities for their action so far!

Cheers.