@Dave Schwartz
Thanks for your time Dave . After crunching, and understanding your numbers you've given me my answer. Clearly the track rebate is critical when choosing which one to play. Picking a high rebate track will mean bucking huge off swings by the 56.7% of whale generated "late" money. While at SA they only influence the odds to the tune of 22.2% of the "late" money.

@Dave Schwartz
So whales make ALL of their win bets "late"?

@Dave Schwartz
You misunderstood but answered anyway!
I was definitely looking for the percentage of the "late" money . I'm wondering how they calculate their bet sizing when they don't know the final pool totals . I would have thought that they'd have a "liability threshold" , a % of the total pool, beyond which they would be at severe risk. Perhaps my assumption that their bet sizes were predicated upon the dollar amounts already in the pools.

@Dave Schwartz
Just a few questions regarding the Whales ,odds drops and ADW users.
We see that in @20% of races at all track sizes, the win pool increases by 20/40% from 30sec to post to the off. In the other 80% of races ,the win pool increases by 100/120% in that same time frame. What percentage of that final wagering amount do you think might be "whale "money and how much is due to late betting from online ADWs & OTBs ?
Next question is about rebates. Where does the money for rebates originate? Is it money that would otherwise be given to the tracks and horsemen? We often hear that on track betting generates far more for these groups than off track betting .
I have some speculation on both of these matters but,given your knowledge and expertise in this area,
I'd like to hear your thoughts .

@RanchWest
Think you're exactly right. The probability line is a strong indicator of where the money might land and should be useful when deciding whether or not to shift to a "possibility".

@RanchWest
It's exciting to see you delving into the realm of "What If". The realm of the "possible" rather than the "probable". It seems that our imagination is the one factor that cannot be quantified..

Dustin Korth
49
Anyone ever done any analysis on this? I was just wondering if Kentucky's move to penny breakage would have enough impact to create situations where this is worth considering.
11hReplyOptions

. In my view, the parlay is always preferable to the P3+, and sometimes preferable to the DD. You're able to pick your spots and avoid buying tickets that are "automatic losers"

Dustin Korth
48
Seems a paradox though, no? If I bet both, I'm guaranteed one loss and have effectively cut my paying odds to 3/1 and 7/1. So now I have two underlays instead of one overlay.
7h

Just bet the expected best odds horse !When "dutching" multiple outcomes you're still playing just a single event and must calculate your received odds based on your TOTAL wager .In this instance ,assuming that the final odds remain the same ,your best result is 7/2 if the 8/1 shot wins (or3/2 if the 4/1 wins) and even less if you "weight" your wagers. Is that still an overlay? This amounts to betting to "not lose" rather than betting to win.

Interesting insights might include common races for more than one competitor, troubled trips not mentioned in the trouble line, an alternate view of the likely pace scenario , mentions of jockey /trainer proclivities and/or skills or track bias comments. The list is long!

In defence of Andy Serling, he'll be the first to admit that he'd rather not make selections in every race but is obliged to do so by his job description. He does ,however, sometimes offer interesting insights that players might have overlooked. For my money ,the best shows offer such information in detail for select races and not for a whole card. Many races are best left unplayed.

It seems that you've found the solution to your "too many plays" problem. Passing races in which we have a poor win rate or which we find confusing can only help to boost our win rate and profit.. Personally, I tried to play only those races in which I had a strong and "articulatable" opinion.

Thanks Conley!

Thank-you Tony!

Thanks Dave! This is another concept that will twist my brain in x directions. LoL

This is a very intriguing article.Its complex and will require several readings to fully understand.

One solid hit like that per day will keep you going. Nice score!

Tony Kofalt

Although maiden races are not my forte, I took a look at these. I found no reason to disagree with your strategy in race 1. Any of these could win. In race 4 ,I like your reasoning in taking the improving "Inkblot". It won't take much more improvement to outfoot the logical favorite Just a Nyquist. I did, however, give the inside horse, Valentia Island ,a long hard look ,mostly due to the strong connections and rider. She had an acceptable debut while staying close to the leaders in her debut, then a 5 month layoff . She came back in a sprint with a bit of a troubled trip. Now, after a shorter layoff and 5 works in the interim ,I have to think Castellano will have her close to today's pace, if not setting it. Personally, I'd have both "Inkblot" and "Valentia Island" as strong contenders on top with "Just a Nyquist" in close pusuit.

Enjoy the new job Conley and Best of LUCK !!

Recurrent troubled trips for jockeys might prove to be a sound downgrading factor.

Ranchwest

You might be on to something with the negative information data . One of my angles involves an attribute which a contender does NOT have.