@RanchWest
Perhaps that "odor" is unconscious "processor" sending a big "CAUTION" message. "PASS" would seem the prudent course..for me.

Ranch, you ask some interesting and thoughtful questions. For me, I find myself involved in a lot of races every day. I play horizontals, primarily P4 and P5's. As a rule, there are usually 1-3 races in each sequence where I have a strong opinion for or against a horse. That leaves 2-3 races on each wager where I don't have a strong opinion. Many of those races include low percentage riders and trainers. I do my best to evaluate each of those races and build tickets that make sense to me. Sometime my instincts are wrong. I manage these situations by varying the size of each bet. I may have some 50 cent P5's using fringe horses while my stronger opinions may be in $3, $5 or $10 denominations.
If I was a WPS player it would be prudent to pass the race but I rarely pass a horizontal sequence due to a race or two.

Thanks, interesting answer. I follow my top 4 contenders and find that I have a lot of P5 sequences in my top 4 contenders, but there are usually some races with my 4th choice in there. It's mighty tough to single many races. I remember singling a P6 at FG many years ago. I missed the last leg. The consolation paid $12.30. lol Too many favorites.

I am watching a YouTube video called "Luck vs. Skill: Gambling Analytics". It's very interesting and talks, in part, about how as market efficiencies increase, the luck level increases. Something to think about. It is not about horse racing, but I see parallels. Time: 1:00:46.

One thing they talk about is speed of information. Just think about that in terms of horse racing. We hear a lot about seeing the posted odds dropping after the gates open, but have you considered how much variance there is in internet speeds and the speed of the data source? If you are trying to bet based on the odds, how much difference does it make if your odds data is 1 second slower? 3 seconds? What if you are watching Finger Lakes on YouTube, where they tell you that on THEIR end there is a 10 second delay?

To be competitive on Betfair, the standard is that your software must update 29 times per second.

I don't understand. Is that for horse racing? Update what? Odds? Parimutuel odds?

Getting back to the original topic in this thread, every horse has some chance of winning. So, our task is to be reasonable in both directions... to select horses in each portion of the odds continuum in various races. We know that favorites win about 35-41% these days. But if you're selecting favorites more frequently or less frequently over time, then you're probably not making optimal selections. If we NEVER give any real probability to that 19/1 horse mentioned previously, then we're likely below optimum. Any thoughts?

@RanchWest
I think you're right about giving fair consideration to both favorites and nonfavorites according to their relative chances of winning. This is why we need to be able to, first, identify the likely top 1 or 2 in the betting and ,second, to identify situations where 1 or both are weak or vulnerable (or simply not deserving) thus raising the relative chances of "non favorites".

Good point.

I have started comparing my odds line (after scratches) to the morning line (adjusted to a base of 100 after scratches). This tells me which horses are not being evaluated the same by me and the morning line maker. So, a horse that is way off may be an exceptionally good bet or an exceptionally bad one. At least, that's what I am looking at.

@RanchWest
While thats not a "bad" way to start,I prefer to ignore the "morning line" altogether and I don't make a "true" odds line either. I'm trying to see how the money is likely to flow but not in what proportions. Then, if the real possibility of failure (for the top 2) exists , I can choose another option in the knowledge that I'll get "random odds +" on that option. (Your 19/1 shot only had "random odds" of 4/1 but because of the presence of that 3/5 "weak" favorite the odds were much higher.

don't understand. Is that for horse racing? Update what? Odds? Parimutuel odds? — RanchWest

The game at Betfair is about arbitrage.

So, it's all about current take & lay price.

By the time a good bet is put up, it's gone in a 5th of a second or less.

My odds line is not a predictor of tote odds. I try to make it a predictor of likelihood to win. Since it is purely mechanical, I still have to handicap the race, but at least I know what my favorite factors are telling me. I like what you're saying about real possibility of failure. I wonder if that can meaningfully be expressed as a number.

Wow! So, there must be a lot of computerized wager placement on Betfair.

@RanchWest
2 things. The first regarding the "morning line" This line is not a "probability line " such as your own. It is a "guess where the money will go" line. To achieve this the line maker must,of course, do some handicapping but they must be careful not to guess too low. They get enough flak without making a legitimate 2/5 shot 2/5 , instead they'll make it 6/5. And they won't make a 100/1 shot 100/1 , instead they'll make it 40 or 50/1. To manage the whole field they'll use a "base" of 110% to 130% depending on the difficulty of the field.So comparing "your" line to "theirs " is "apples and oranges".
As to " real probability of failure " being expressed as a number, I think "maybe" the "global" win/loss percentages might prove useful in that regard. After all, when we strongly believe that a highly valued contender (favorite) is unlikely to win , the "winning" probabilities of our legit contenders must necessarily increase. I'll give it some thought to see if I can find a balanced equation that works.
.

To manage the whole field they'll use a "base" of 110% to 130% depending on the difficulty of the field.So comparing "your" line to "theirs " is "apples and oranges". — William Zayonce

As I stated, I adjust the morning line to a base of 100 plus I remove scratches, still maintaining the 100 base.

I know it is apples and oranges, but it is a simple way to seek out discrepancies in the lines.

@RanchWest

I am watching a YouTube video called "Luck vs. Skill: Gambling Analytics". It's very interesting and talks, in part, about how as market efficiencies increase, the luck level increases. Something to think about. It is not about horse racing, but I see parallels. Time: 1:00:46.

This was an interesting and fascinating watch.

Glad you liked it. I enjoy YouTube... a big variety of content.

@RanchWest
I wouldn't have thought to search that category.lol
I liked their perspective concerning how luck "co exists" with the probabilities and becomes more of a factor as the "game" gets more efficient. I'm of the view that we've probably reached very close to the limit of our efficiency in racing. So we need to find ways to enable "luck" to assist.

We will see more and more sophisticated means of handicapping. But I still believe that racing will always be undergoing change. So, if we become convinced that we are "there", we won't be for long.

If I ever figure out how to enable luck, I'm not wasting it on horses...I'm going LOTTO! :)

"Luck" might also be described as "that moment when randomness trumps the probabilities"...

Johnny Oates said that luck is when preparation and opportunity meet.

@RanchWest
That would certainly apply!

My thoughts on the racing "market" being at or near its limit of efficiency stem from the following observations;
1; North Horseplayers (and owners/breeders) appear to obsessed with "Speed" ,almost to the exclusion of other factors.
2; Prior to 1990 most players used only the DRF for PPs which contained only raw times and daily track variants. Some would pay for "speed figs" or analysis from various sources such as Beyer figs or Brisnet (or any of the various "sheets") In the early 90s, much of this information became widely available either by the "Beyer " figs being included in the DRF or the "Brisnet" figs in those PPS. There may also be others of which I'm unaware .
3: Winning favorites (and second favorites) only slightly increased in their winning percentage) but "The Age of Speed Figs" was born and it wasn't long before a seemingly endless variety of Figs for both speed and pace hit the market. The winning figures in 1992 for the top 2 in betting were
roughly 32% for favorites and 18% for second favorites.
4; By 2002 ,interest in computer analysis for handicapping was gaining support and the Tracks started offering rebates, which paved the way for the "whales" . Although other players had also already started using computers ,the majority were still a bit wary of it . Still "The Age of Computer Handicapping" and the "Age of the Whales " were born.
5: By 2012, computer analysis continued to get better results (as did the whales) and analysis of all of the thousands (or tens of thousands)of possible permutations of all of the speed and pace figs as well as class ratings and jockey/trainer stats (and any other factors that were quantifiable) was not only possible, but likely tested in every possible way. The quantity of data ,however, is a (large) but finite number and ,of course, so is the number of permutations.
6: Now,in 2022 ,we see the winning percentage of winners at roughly 38% and second choices at 22% .( An increase of 18.75% for favorites and 22.22 % for second favorites) For the pair this is ONLY a collective 20% increase in 30 years including 20 years of extensive computer study. In the absence of significant new information,I don't see any significant change over the rest of this decade.
While my exact numbers may be off a bit, I think it's clear that we're near peak market efficiency and need to alter our methods significantly.
If everyone is using the same data ,they'll get the same or similar results and since that data is largely "speed oriented" data , it'll be "baked into the odds" and yield low rewards .

I respectfully disagree. I think the next wave of computer handicapping will be decision tree based and will be much better than today.

@RanchWest
What about the inherently unpredictable nature of the sport , the "randomness" factor?

Results are not often really random Yes, sometimes an animal bumps into a horse or the jockey falls off or there is a breakdown or something. But those are fairly rare. I believe that most unexpected results are set up by pace and class drops that were not discerned (including MSW to MCL) as well as second time starters.

I think a good contender list will usually have at least one longshot and the question must always be whether the longshot(s) have a legit chance. Never play a longshot and you will never hit a longshot. Always bet a longshot and you will go broke.

Just my thoughts.

@RanchWest
While I largely agree with your reasoning, I think those occasions are more the rule than the exception. Why is it so difficult for any ,except the most exceptional horses , to win more than 20/25 % of their starts?

Form cycle. Dave has a product that deals with form cycles. Gives some insight into what we often miss. Horses aren't cars.