I'm currently trying to revive some of my old "spot plays" to see if they're still profitable.
Haven't made a "real money" bet since January 2011...

There's also the horses that match what you know works and nobody has it.

• Yes indeed!

There's also the horses that match what you know works and nobody has it. — RanchWest

Nobody has it for the same reason.

Nobody has it because sometimes it helps to think like a trainer.

And sometimes it's hidden in plain sight but few people notice it...

Yep, they don't know what to look for.

Well, if it's working, keep doing it.

@Dave Schwartz
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 would like to revisit this thread.. It was just getting interesting and enlightening when it was derailed While the first question was well answered ,the second was not. And I have further questions as well. It could make an interesting group discussion.
I'm confident that you'll also be able to address the next question on my list, which is;
What percentage of the total pool would,in your opinion, be sufficient to cause "significant" odds drops on 3 or more horses ? Thank-you!

For easy reference; part of your posted reply.
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 CD, SA, 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.)

Fixed MY typo in the original and your repost.

@Dave Schwartz
Thanks. What you intended was pretty clear but the correction has better optics .

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 CD, SA, etc.
(10 / 45 = 22.2%) — William Zayonce

Well, it was WRONG.
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 MNR, CT, DED, etc.
(10 / 45 = 22.2%)

A different perspective on the "Monty Hall" problem.
After many years ,I've decided to go public with my personal and simple solution to the "Monty Hall" problem. I'm doing so here because there seems to be some interest.
It seems that others who've tried solving this problem,including mathematicians and statisticians ,did so by starting with the presumption that the " player" gets 1 and only 1 pick of the 3 doors to find the car. In fact, they get 2 picks .
If the doors are goat,goat ,car, then any randomly chosen 2 doors will find the car 2/3 times. When the game begins ,the player is asked to "select" a door .This is not a "pick" . It is a "provisional" pick and can be swapped at the game's end. The fixed odds for this "selection" are 1/3 for finding the car and 2/3 for finding a goat. At this point the host (Monty Hall) will open 1 door and reveal a goat .THIS is the players first pick. It belongs to them and is a integral part of their 2 pick set. It's not the property of the host or anyone else. The fact that it's a goat simply tells the player that the final 2 doors are not BOTH goats . This means ,of course,that there is a 100% probability of the car being behind 1 of them.
The host then asks them if they want to "switch" their "provisional" pick and own the remaining door. There is more than one way to reason this out . The simplest is to know that our "provisional" pick carried odds of 1/3 chances of being the car and that the total chance for the last 2 is 100% ,then switching must necessarily have a 2/3 chance of finding it, so they must "switch" .
Another way would be to reason that 2/3 of the possible 2pick sets contain the car which would mean that they need a 2/3 probability of finding the car (with half of the set already occupied by a goat). The fixed odds of 1/3 on the provisional pick are not enough and they must therefore switch. I'm sure anyone can see how simple this is.

This is a solution to the "problem" that I found 40 years ago. It's purpose is mainly to make the math and reasoning clear.

William- Thanks. love the topic!! This type of math revs me up. I recall taking my SAT's back in the late 70's and I was positive I scored a perfect 800. As it turns out, I answered one problem incorrectly and it was this Monty Hall problem. It's also featured in one of my favorite movies, 21.
But I have never been able to convince myself to incorporate it into my handicapping. Dave wrote a compelling article on this subject some time ago.

Perhaps I should have noted,in the post, that the Principal purpose of the post was to demonstrate that,as in many areas of life, a seemingly difficult problem can be solved by viewing it from a different PERSPECTIVE,much as you showed in your video .

Tony;
Thanks for your comments! I'm hoping that everyone can see the benefits of ,at least, "considering" different perspectives!

I have been considering different perspectives a lot.

Would this process of choosing which contenders to bet (or "not bet") be considered "unique"?

LoL! (56) . Of course ..

There's nothing "Wiz bang" or "super secret",
about the approach. It's merely a process of viewing the data from a different perspective . To use your example; imagine that my objective is to isolate a "unique" 3 horse "set" from your group using "best of last 3 speed ratings. I might set the parameters to be " best of last 3 is at or above par" . To find a usable set I must find 1 and only 1 set in which ALL 3 horses fit within that parameter, making it a unique set . I might not find such a set or I might find 4 or 10 (in a very competitive event) .In either case there is no play at all , other than using different parameters. I simply apply this method ,using multiple factors , to isolate a single horse which possesses a unique "set" of factors that fit the parameters I've set for that race.

( the "order" of placing in the "set" is irrelevant, thus each set can present itself in 6 different "orders")

The "process" is certainly not unique but it's objective is find selections which are "unique in that field". A white horse is not unique (there are plenty of white horses in the world) however ,a white horse in a field of horses which are not white is unique in that field. This is,of course, not a relevant handicapping factor ( unless we know that white horses run faster than nonwhite ones and a large portion of players can't see that it's white )

Ah... I was referring to unique permutations.

The "process" is certainly not unique but it's objective is find selections which are "unique in that field". A white horse is not unique (there are plenty of white horses in the world) however ,a white horse in a field of horses which are not white is unique in that field. This is,of course, not a relevant handicapping factor ( unless we know that white horses run faster than nonwhite ones and a large portion of players can't see that it's white ) — William Zayonce

We see this differently.

I don't get this at all. If Monty Hall always works, why aren't you making millions?

I had hoped that this forum would be a place where players could exchange "different" ideas, perspectives and opinions.
It can't hurt to consider different ideas and there's always the possibility,however small, that something new will help.

Most of my different ideas get poo poo'ed. lol

@RanchWest
You're not alone .. LoL