@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".

My point here is that today the tote board doesn't help us much... certainly nowhere near as much as it once did. So, our best defense of ourselves is to have a line that protects us from being surprised that a horse goes to 1/9.

I agree with what you've written.

Value today is a challenge, that's for sure.

Most people confuse Price with Value anyway.

@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 .

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 ? — William Zayonce

None of it.

All the whale money shows up AFTER the gate is open.

Just like yours and mine.

Maybe I misunderstood your question.

But the point is that the whales bet ZERO money early enough for it to be viewed on the toteboard while you could still make a bet.
___________________
Without explaining the math - which is a bit rigorous - here are a few key points.

The higher the rebate, the higher the percentage of whale money at the track.
About 34% of total win pool at tracks like MNR, CT, DED, etc.
About 10% of total win pool at tracks like SA, CD, etc.

The higher the rebate, the greater the percent of pool that shows up after the gate opens.
About 60% of total win pool at tracks like MNR, CT, DED, etc.
About 45% of total win pool at tracks like SA, CD, etc.

Using that math, for every $100 wagered "late"
$57 will be whale money at tracks like MNR, CT, DED, etc.
(34 / 60 = 56.7%)
$22 will be whale money at tracks like SA, CD, etc.
(10 / 45 = 22.2%)

CONCLUSIONS
The pools at high rebate tracks have 2.6x the percentage of whale money LATE!
($57 / $22 = 2.59)
Since that money is (effectively) in the hands of JUST FIVE BETTORS, the pool swings will be FAR MORE VOLATILE at higher rebate tracks.
(Meaning: When they agree, you can easily see 4/1 become 4/5.)

Hope this helps.

Hope this helps. — Dave Schwartz

It doesn't help any. lol

But I really appreciate the explanation. Thanks, Dave.

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

They don't view their liability as the other money in the pool. Their liability is something weird happening.

@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.

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. — William Zayonce

Here's what they have:

• Excellent global How-They-Bet models
• An almost 2-decade history of tote data.

My newest release of HSH includes a much-improved How-They-Bet engine, that will make a huge difference for HSH users if they choose to use it.

What we don't have is that 2nd part: a tote model.

What the whales DON'T HAVE is a good handle on how the OTHER WHALES are going to bet.

I have that.

They don't view their liability as the other money in the pool. Their liability is something weird happening. — RanchWest

I don't understand that.

@RanchWest
"Liability" is the risk factor for failure.

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. — William Zayonce

Methinks you are right but for the wrong reason.

Yes, you are right but the fact that you think the smaller swings are going to allow you to use the old make-a-line-and-bet-into-it approach.

@RanchWest is right about that approach being dead.
It's as dead as a doornail.

So, what do you do?
Ranch and I have had some conversations and I think he's close.

It's found in anti-handicapping.
Loosely speaking, it's found in predicting who the whales are and aren't going to bet.

"Liability" is the risk factor for failure. — William Zayonce

Sorry, that does match anything I am aware of.

Can you lay that out for me?

Wait...
Are you speaking of their bet size relative to:
A. Total Pool size (i.e. they're eating their own profit)
or
B. Their total bankroll (i.e. optimum bet theory)

Of course they have A covered.
That is basic tote math.

Dave Schwartz
232
Wait...
Are you speaking of their bet size relative to:
A. Total Pool size (i.e. they're eating their own profit). Yes ,that's what I thought would limit them to some degree ..It means , effectively, that the more pools shrink the less they can bet effectively.
The "Liability threshold" is the point at which the anticipated returns are virtually guaranteed to show a significant loss.
My previous queries had more to do with odds "movement" than the odds line. I'm wondering how much of the "late" money that is not whale money effects those movements.

I highly suspect that the whales have a grip on what they are doing to the pools. Enough so that that is not their worry. They wouldn't be betting millions of dollars without an understanding of how they are impacting the pools.

Their worries would be like a girth not being cinched properly, a goose flying into their horse (I have seen it happen), a jock falling off, etc. Those are the things that they must compensate for long-term but have no control over short-term.

@RanchWest
I'm sure you're absolutely right !
But the less money that the other 99.999% of players put in the pools and the more small,high rebate tracks that go under , the more the $80 million per week that they push through the system will inevitably and necessarily shrink.

Wagering is likely to consolidate around a few large tracks, much like Hong Kong.

@Dave SchwartzYes, you are right but the fact that you think the smaller swings are going to allow you to use the old make-a-line-and-bet-into-it approach."
I actually don't use, nor have I ever used an odds line . Finding which contenders will likely take the most action is plenty good enough for my purposes.

@RanchWest
We can hope the collapse ends at a concentration around a few large tracks, but new fans still need to be generated. They are the fuel that makes this big engine run.

Finding which contenders will likely take the most action is plenty good enough for my purposes. — William Zayonce

I built that engine.
It loses 4-6% per wagered dollar for me.

@Dave Schwartz

I built that engine.
It loses 4-6% per wagered dollar for me.
3d

What about an engine that identifies win candidates in the 40% of races that those top 2 lose?

What about an engine that identifies win candidates in the 40% of races that those top 2 lose? — William Zayonce

How do you identify just those race?

I would think it's the same process that identifies false, vulnerable or" play against" choices in the top 2 spots. It certainly wouldn't find a play in every race since ,often enough, the 1st or 2nd choices would be a "play on" type.

I would think it's the same process that identifies false, vulnerable or" play against" choices in the top 2 spots. — William Zayonce

I'd completely agree.

Do you have such a process yourself?

If so, how effective is it?

I do not ..thought perhaps you'd have an interest in creating such a method from you vast archives of stats . I started toying with such a process 20 years ago but let it slide for lack of data .

I built such a product years ago: Vulnerable Favorites.