Alternatives to Swallowing Chalk...
Published by BG on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 at 8:08 AM.
Alternatives to Swallowing Chalk...
Subtitle: At Least When I'm Wandering Today, I Have A Point
Originally published 1/14/2006
If anyone wants to play horses with April and me tomorrow, hands in the air. Assuming she can drag her hungover ass out of bed before 11AM her time tomorrow, we're going to be playing the card at Tampa Bay Downs via our YouBet accounts.
Why Tampa? Why not Aqueduct or Santa Anita? Well, for one I don't like gambling against people who are smarter than me. I'm going to get that everywhere I bet, don't get me wrong, but the percentage of skilled professional horseplayer dollars at Tampa has to be smaller than at a big, brand-name track*. Secondly, Tampa offers a nice variety in the lower-middle class of racing, where I believe more value can be found. Consider a Grade II stakes race at Santa Anita. Most of those horses have a well-established form, obvious pedigree, and their past performances indicate at a glance how well prepared they are for their competition. Compare this to a lower-level allowance race at Tampa. It attracts a field of ten, with some horses just having broke their maiden, some coming out of claiming class, and some who have raced at different allowance levels with different starter restrictions (i.e. "Non-winners of two, except for claiming or maiden..."). In other words, you can't really go apples-to-apples with most of these horses, which means the casual gambler isn't usually able to make a good decision. Tampa's card on Saturday has four allowance races, three low/mid-level claimers, three maidens and one stakes, with three turf and eight dirt races overall. A nice mix on the menu.
*Of course, I have no evidence to prove that point
The best reason to play Tampa, however, is field size and competition. Throwing the "alternate entries" in the three turf races out the window (horses who are entered just in case the race is moved to the dirt due to weather reasons), Tampa's card on Saturday features an average of 10.2 starters per race. Contrast that with Bay Meadows' awful average of 7.7 starters (many of whom inexplicably scratch, as has been my experience), and you've got quite a few horses to consider. Now, assuming you're trusting the trainers and owners of at least 2/3 of the horses to enter them in a spot they feel they can win, you've got seven horses at Tampa per race worth looking at, versus five at Bay Meadows. With five horses to consider, the odds you're given on the contenders will be depressed considerably (and on the longshots too, usually). With seven, there's more of a chance you'll get a good price - especially if "the chalk" is severely overbet**. When the favorite in the race edges toward even money, you should theoretically see no more than one other contender in the 7/2 neighborhood, with good prices coming on some of the others.
**2/1 or worse is really tough to swallow for me in a large field. If the horse is jumping off the page at you with every possible advantage over the field then maybe it's worth a play at almost any price, but it's difficult to make a bet at 6/5 when a 5/1 horse is sitting out there as a possible overlay. But we’re getting there…
The only value I can see to playing a short-field track's card would be that it's usually painfully obvious which horse deserves your money - but good luck getting a value play on that bet. A horse that should be 5/2 which offers 8/5 will probably win the race most of the time. But in the long run, playing underlays is just like calling that bet when you almost have the odds to do it. Sometimes it'll pay, but in the long run you'll get eaten by the odds and the rake. And with 20% takeout on every dollar you gamble at the track, you can't afford to play an overbet favorite, even if you really think he's going to win.
To be fair, if you take all those goofy exacta and trifecta wheels I've played in the last few years out of the picture, I can state with confidence that betting bigger on the chalk has been the biggest hole in my game.
That seems counter-intuitive, right? That when a horse looks like an obvious winner on paper you should bet the bank no matter what the price?
Well, no. Obviously, if these overbet favorites cumulatively win 40 races out of the 100 you bet, are you making money playing them at 6/5 or even money? At 6/5 you return $4.40 ($2.40 plus your $2 back) on your $2 bet. You've made the bet 100 times for a $200 outlay. You've cashed $4.40 forty times for a return of $176. To profitably play a horse at 6/5 you need to expect that horse will win the race 46% of the time. 8/5 odds mandates a 39% winning clip to profit. 2/1 means 34% to profit***.
***2/1 pays out $4 plus your $2 back. $200 on the outlay divided by $6 return equals 33.33 percent on the win in order to simply break even.
If you believe that a horse will win the race 50% of the time, then 6/5 on the oddsline represents a value play. And instinct says you should demand a good return on your investment, not a piddling $2.40 profit on a min bet. But when you're looking at claiming and allowance races, how many times do you really see a favorite that won't lose unless the jockey falls off?
It isn't as frequent as the tote board would have you believe. The preponderance of 2/1 and worse favorites in any single race is a sign of lazy money. It's a signal that players with a few bucks to drop don't want to bury their nose in the form for more than ninety seconds to divine their selection. It's groupthink, plain and simple, and playing the groupthink game leaves you less margin for error than you think.
I remember back in August, in the wee hours of Brad-o-Ween festivities, DoubleAs was holding court and brought up "The QJs Hand." Pulling chunks from the post:
In horse racing, as in poker, you're presented with a set of incomplete information on which to make your decision, and there is usually an obvious choice established as the most-favored decision. So does "correct strategy" in horse racing equate directly with the poker groupthink of slamming the door on the flop draws in an effort to win the pot without further contest?
Both situations are similar. In DoubleAs example, the expectation is that your flop bet to cut drawing odds is intended to thin the field, hopefully eliminating all draws and will win a small pot some percentage of the time. However, some other percentage of the time your intended strategy will result in a loss.
In horse racing, groupthink gravitates the lazy and casual horseplayers to the horse in the pack that presumably has "the best chance" to win regardless of price. Since a winning ticket will never be unprofitable, a winner provides a small, but positive result to the bettor some percentage of the time. However, this wager will result in a total loss some other percentage of time. So would following the pack to the betting window and allowing the consensus to drive your decision be the right move?
In the book Six Secrets of Succcesful Bettors: Winning Insights into Playing the Horses, the contributors establish that one of the most important tools in your wagering arsenal is the ability to go against the flow. If the crowd is backing it, it's probably wrong. If your gut is telling you to chase it, don't. Whatever else you're thinking, just do the opposite. This is referred to as the "Contrarian Strategy." In other words: think, then think again.
Back to DoubleAs scenario, his decision to ignore the "correct" play and do the opposite turned a small pot into a monster. He managed to mentally justify his decision-making, never incorrect in his assumptions, but by looking at the problem from a different angle he was able to more than balance the risk he took with an ample reward.
I have a hard time believing any horse in a seemingly somewhat competitive race should be bet under 2/1, but all too often the groupthink overbets and takes value out of the equation for the "best chance" to win the race. And when you look at the differences in the break-even points for various oddslines, it becomes instantly apparent that following the money to the window rarely provides value. If a race has a relatively large field (=> seven starters) and over half the field has some chance of winning, playing the chalk becomes unpalatable:
The contrary solution isn't necessarily to gravitate towards high-risk/high-reward plays. It's about understanding why the money is going where it is, and what impact that has on that betting choice's value. Well, understanding it and then making a case for your disagreement. The public is rarely wrong about who the favorite should be, but that doesn't mean the price tag is going to be good enough to take the risk. As a matter of fact, finding value is about finding the appropriate price for your risk, much like a No Limit Hold 'Em player will choke the odds on your flush draw with a pot-sized bet on the flop. Is he aggressive and dumb enough to pay you off if you make a bad call here and hit your flush? Is it worth chasing for the implied odds alone?
If you can find a legitimate 3/1 shot that's going off at 5/1? Play it. Ignore the 3/1 horse that's been bet down to 2/1, you're going to get your ass kicked on that one over the long run. Bet the overlay and accept the risk. Why play the slim edges in the even money area in a competitive race? Is the horse really strong enough to win this race 50 times out of 100?
And as far as bet size is concerned? The instinct is to mortgage the farm when a strong favorite lines up in the gate, regardless of price. But if that favorite isn't worth the even money oddsline he's holding, why wager bigger even if the horse is more likely to win than others? I liken this mentality to the guys at the NL ring games who are willing to call an all-in on a four-flush flop draw. The odds aren't exactly right, and they're going to lose this more often then they'll win, but they still seem to like their chances. It's a losing play, so why burn big dollars chasing it?
This is what pulls me back to "The QJs Hand" post from time-to-time. Sitting with DoubleAs and others, it wasn't unlike one of those scenes where an ascetic monk asks the most simple of questions, expecting the most common of answers, only to pose a contrary query in retort that sets his pupils on the road to enlightenment. Except Scott's not Asian, nor is he bald. Regardless, the slow-played flopped straight with danger lurking at every turn (and river, excusing the puns) is illustrative of the fluid nature of decision-making in an environment cluttered with textbook thought, but fraught with the ministrations of luck and variance. I continue to be intrigued by the thought process behind the play, as each successive step in the reasoning continued down a contrary path, but all followed the same fundamental theory, which was "if you're going to lose, lose a small one - but if you can, try to win a big one."
I tend to bet the same amounts through my entire session, which is a discipline masochism as much as anything. Ideally, I'm identifying value and picking spots and ending up happy with the results - win or lose (well, happier one way than the other) - because I made good selections. Part of the discipline certainly involves not chasing the huge scores (with goofy trifectas and such), but the other part is not taking poor shots at doubling up on low odds horses just because they look to be "the best" in the race. How much the best? And does the overlay justify the wager? I'm trying to develop and nurture (through my reading and the lumps I've taken) that contrarian view, as I think that any game played against other players demands a mindset that can challenge conventional wisdom. Especially with money on the line.
And although the numbers don't always necessarily agree, I know I'm making progress. I'm making fewer bets, hitting a better percentage, and am starting to see things in the programs (first-time flashes of speed as a MCL spike indicator, for instance) and on the track (watching for the early fraction times to see if my predicted pace scenario is setting up) that I hadn't seen before. I've got a long way to go to really establish my own philosophies on this stuff, but if half of gambling is swagger, I'm one third of the way there (whatever that's supposed to mean).
Then again, if you just want to play horses by name on Saturday, here's some selections for you to consider:
Subtitle: At Least When I'm Wandering Today, I Have A Point
Originally published 1/14/2006
If anyone wants to play horses with April and me tomorrow, hands in the air. Assuming she can drag her hungover ass out of bed before 11AM her time tomorrow, we're going to be playing the card at Tampa Bay Downs via our YouBet accounts.
Why Tampa? Why not Aqueduct or Santa Anita? Well, for one I don't like gambling against people who are smarter than me. I'm going to get that everywhere I bet, don't get me wrong, but the percentage of skilled professional horseplayer dollars at Tampa has to be smaller than at a big, brand-name track*. Secondly, Tampa offers a nice variety in the lower-middle class of racing, where I believe more value can be found. Consider a Grade II stakes race at Santa Anita. Most of those horses have a well-established form, obvious pedigree, and their past performances indicate at a glance how well prepared they are for their competition. Compare this to a lower-level allowance race at Tampa. It attracts a field of ten, with some horses just having broke their maiden, some coming out of claiming class, and some who have raced at different allowance levels with different starter restrictions (i.e. "Non-winners of two, except for claiming or maiden..."). In other words, you can't really go apples-to-apples with most of these horses, which means the casual gambler isn't usually able to make a good decision. Tampa's card on Saturday has four allowance races, three low/mid-level claimers, three maidens and one stakes, with three turf and eight dirt races overall. A nice mix on the menu.
*Of course, I have no evidence to prove that point
The best reason to play Tampa, however, is field size and competition. Throwing the "alternate entries" in the three turf races out the window (horses who are entered just in case the race is moved to the dirt due to weather reasons), Tampa's card on Saturday features an average of 10.2 starters per race. Contrast that with Bay Meadows' awful average of 7.7 starters (many of whom inexplicably scratch, as has been my experience), and you've got quite a few horses to consider. Now, assuming you're trusting the trainers and owners of at least 2/3 of the horses to enter them in a spot they feel they can win, you've got seven horses at Tampa per race worth looking at, versus five at Bay Meadows. With five horses to consider, the odds you're given on the contenders will be depressed considerably (and on the longshots too, usually). With seven, there's more of a chance you'll get a good price - especially if "the chalk" is severely overbet**. When the favorite in the race edges toward even money, you should theoretically see no more than one other contender in the 7/2 neighborhood, with good prices coming on some of the others.
**2/1 or worse is really tough to swallow for me in a large field. If the horse is jumping off the page at you with every possible advantage over the field then maybe it's worth a play at almost any price, but it's difficult to make a bet at 6/5 when a 5/1 horse is sitting out there as a possible overlay. But we’re getting there…
The only value I can see to playing a short-field track's card would be that it's usually painfully obvious which horse deserves your money - but good luck getting a value play on that bet. A horse that should be 5/2 which offers 8/5 will probably win the race most of the time. But in the long run, playing underlays is just like calling that bet when you almost have the odds to do it. Sometimes it'll pay, but in the long run you'll get eaten by the odds and the rake. And with 20% takeout on every dollar you gamble at the track, you can't afford to play an overbet favorite, even if you really think he's going to win.
To be fair, if you take all those goofy exacta and trifecta wheels I've played in the last few years out of the picture, I can state with confidence that betting bigger on the chalk has been the biggest hole in my game.
That seems counter-intuitive, right? That when a horse looks like an obvious winner on paper you should bet the bank no matter what the price?
Well, no. Obviously, if these overbet favorites cumulatively win 40 races out of the 100 you bet, are you making money playing them at 6/5 or even money? At 6/5 you return $4.40 ($2.40 plus your $2 back) on your $2 bet. You've made the bet 100 times for a $200 outlay. You've cashed $4.40 forty times for a return of $176. To profitably play a horse at 6/5 you need to expect that horse will win the race 46% of the time. 8/5 odds mandates a 39% winning clip to profit. 2/1 means 34% to profit***.
***2/1 pays out $4 plus your $2 back. $200 on the outlay divided by $6 return equals 33.33 percent on the win in order to simply break even.
If you believe that a horse will win the race 50% of the time, then 6/5 on the oddsline represents a value play. And instinct says you should demand a good return on your investment, not a piddling $2.40 profit on a min bet. But when you're looking at claiming and allowance races, how many times do you really see a favorite that won't lose unless the jockey falls off?
It isn't as frequent as the tote board would have you believe. The preponderance of 2/1 and worse favorites in any single race is a sign of lazy money. It's a signal that players with a few bucks to drop don't want to bury their nose in the form for more than ninety seconds to divine their selection. It's groupthink, plain and simple, and playing the groupthink game leaves you less margin for error than you think.
I remember back in August, in the wee hours of Brad-o-Ween festivities, DoubleAs was holding court and brought up "The QJs Hand." Pulling chunks from the post:
$10/25 NLHE - 10 HandedPoker presents you with a set of incomplete information on which to make your decisions, and there is a textbook-defined way to address most situations that is generally accepted as "correct" strategy. What DoubleAs is doing in this (and presumably many other) situation is challenging the groupthink and redefining the situation in his own terms. In poker, the benefit is disguise and surprise, as well as the opportunity to play a thin edge into a situation that continues to become more favorable.
EP raises to $85. MP calls. You call with QsJs. Button calls. Blinds fold.
Pot is $375 and flop is Th9h8c.
EP and MP check. What is your line?...
Every single person I've asked has said that they would bet. They have said to bet small, pot or go all-in. I've read the justification, but I haven't really heard any meta-thinking about the hand. I've just heard that folks don't want to give a free card.
My first thought in this hand is how to bust somebody. I first consider stack sizes and then I consider what hands my opponents will pay me off with. This is a scary board to any hand. Overpairs, TPTK and even 2 pair have to be concerned here and would not gift me their stack. I also think that most of those hands would lead out on the flop to find out where they stand. Of the three other players in this hand, the button is the most likely to have hit this flop hard for that reason and because of that, how coordinated the board is and the stack sizes, I think the best option is to check and slowplay my thin edge...
By betting I will probably win a small or medium pot. Other times, I'll lose a medium pot. By checking, I'll lose a small pot when it gets checked around and I have to fold on the turn, will win a small pot when I win it uncontested, or I may bust somebody for over 100 big blinds when they are deceived about my hand and improve to 2nd best...
Another reason this hand is so interesting is because I can see valid reasons for any action on the flop. I just happened to pick the one line and action that nobody else chose, which is kind of cool to me.
In horse racing, as in poker, you're presented with a set of incomplete information on which to make your decision, and there is usually an obvious choice established as the most-favored decision. So does "correct strategy" in horse racing equate directly with the poker groupthink of slamming the door on the flop draws in an effort to win the pot without further contest?
Both situations are similar. In DoubleAs example, the expectation is that your flop bet to cut drawing odds is intended to thin the field, hopefully eliminating all draws and will win a small pot some percentage of the time. However, some other percentage of the time your intended strategy will result in a loss.
In horse racing, groupthink gravitates the lazy and casual horseplayers to the horse in the pack that presumably has "the best chance" to win regardless of price. Since a winning ticket will never be unprofitable, a winner provides a small, but positive result to the bettor some percentage of the time. However, this wager will result in a total loss some other percentage of time. So would following the pack to the betting window and allowing the consensus to drive your decision be the right move?
In the book Six Secrets of Succcesful Bettors: Winning Insights into Playing the Horses, the contributors establish that one of the most important tools in your wagering arsenal is the ability to go against the flow. If the crowd is backing it, it's probably wrong. If your gut is telling you to chase it, don't. Whatever else you're thinking, just do the opposite. This is referred to as the "Contrarian Strategy." In other words: think, then think again.
Back to DoubleAs scenario, his decision to ignore the "correct" play and do the opposite turned a small pot into a monster. He managed to mentally justify his decision-making, never incorrect in his assumptions, but by looking at the problem from a different angle he was able to more than balance the risk he took with an ample reward.
I have a hard time believing any horse in a seemingly somewhat competitive race should be bet under 2/1, but all too often the groupthink overbets and takes value out of the equation for the "best chance" to win the race. And when you look at the differences in the break-even points for various oddslines, it becomes instantly apparent that following the money to the window rarely provides value. If a race has a relatively large field (=> seven starters) and over half the field has some chance of winning, playing the chalk becomes unpalatable:
Oddsline vs. Break-Even Win %Even the horses who appear perfectly placed and primed for a victory may not win a competitive race (were it run 100 times) 38% of the time. When you factor the track's takeout (vig) on each dollar wagered, you have to be 20% better than true "break-even" just to truly break even. So why are you playing a true 3/1 shot in a contested field at 2/1 or worse? Not only do you have to be 20% better than average to beat the vig, you've got to beat the true 3/1 shot's variance (should win 25% of the time) to the tune of being 33% luckier than usual (33%-25% / 25%) in your plays. Very few people are capable of sitting on the happy side of the variance wave over the long run.
EVEN (1/1) = 50%
6/5 = 45%
8/5 = 38%
2/1 = 33%
3/1 = 25%
4/1 = 20%
5/1 = 17%
10/1 = 9%
15/1 = 6%
20/1 = 5%
The contrary solution isn't necessarily to gravitate towards high-risk/high-reward plays. It's about understanding why the money is going where it is, and what impact that has on that betting choice's value. Well, understanding it and then making a case for your disagreement. The public is rarely wrong about who the favorite should be, but that doesn't mean the price tag is going to be good enough to take the risk. As a matter of fact, finding value is about finding the appropriate price for your risk, much like a No Limit Hold 'Em player will choke the odds on your flush draw with a pot-sized bet on the flop. Is he aggressive and dumb enough to pay you off if you make a bad call here and hit your flush? Is it worth chasing for the implied odds alone?
If you can find a legitimate 3/1 shot that's going off at 5/1? Play it. Ignore the 3/1 horse that's been bet down to 2/1, you're going to get your ass kicked on that one over the long run. Bet the overlay and accept the risk. Why play the slim edges in the even money area in a competitive race? Is the horse really strong enough to win this race 50 times out of 100?
And as far as bet size is concerned? The instinct is to mortgage the farm when a strong favorite lines up in the gate, regardless of price. But if that favorite isn't worth the even money oddsline he's holding, why wager bigger even if the horse is more likely to win than others? I liken this mentality to the guys at the NL ring games who are willing to call an all-in on a four-flush flop draw. The odds aren't exactly right, and they're going to lose this more often then they'll win, but they still seem to like their chances. It's a losing play, so why burn big dollars chasing it?
This is what pulls me back to "The QJs Hand" post from time-to-time. Sitting with DoubleAs and others, it wasn't unlike one of those scenes where an ascetic monk asks the most simple of questions, expecting the most common of answers, only to pose a contrary query in retort that sets his pupils on the road to enlightenment. Except Scott's not Asian, nor is he bald. Regardless, the slow-played flopped straight with danger lurking at every turn (and river, excusing the puns) is illustrative of the fluid nature of decision-making in an environment cluttered with textbook thought, but fraught with the ministrations of luck and variance. I continue to be intrigued by the thought process behind the play, as each successive step in the reasoning continued down a contrary path, but all followed the same fundamental theory, which was "if you're going to lose, lose a small one - but if you can, try to win a big one."
I tend to bet the same amounts through my entire session, which is a discipline masochism as much as anything. Ideally, I'm identifying value and picking spots and ending up happy with the results - win or lose (well, happier one way than the other) - because I made good selections. Part of the discipline certainly involves not chasing the huge scores (with goofy trifectas and such), but the other part is not taking poor shots at doubling up on low odds horses just because they look to be "the best" in the race. How much the best? And does the overlay justify the wager? I'm trying to develop and nurture (through my reading and the lumps I've taken) that contrarian view, as I think that any game played against other players demands a mindset that can challenge conventional wisdom. Especially with money on the line.
And although the numbers don't always necessarily agree, I know I'm making progress. I'm making fewer bets, hitting a better percentage, and am starting to see things in the programs (first-time flashes of speed as a MCL spike indicator, for instance) and on the track (watching for the early fraction times to see if my predicted pace scenario is setting up) that I hadn't seen before. I've got a long way to go to really establish my own philosophies on this stuff, but if half of gambling is swagger, I'm one third of the way there (whatever that's supposed to mean).
Then again, if you just want to play horses by name on Saturday, here's some selections for you to consider:
Eights and Aces (Beulah 4th, featuring Kenneth "The Hammer" Deonauth on board [yes, that's only funny to me and Bob])I'll post some picks for Tampa early tomorrow, but don't fret. This blog isn't going that deep into horse shit.
I Will Win (Philadelphia 10th)
Queens Over Jacks (Tampa 4th)
Ferndelps April Dawn (Sunland 2nd)
Fearless B.G. (Sunland 11th)
Fabulous Al (Philadelphia 3rd)
Valentino Bob (Sam Houston 9th)
Woodtown Bob (Turf Paradise 7th)
Always Gamble (Philadelphia 1st)
B.G.'s Gem (Philadelphia 1st - what's with two BG horses?)
Derek Man (Charlestown 12th)
Don'twakeupadrunk (Charlestown 6th)
