Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SentToStud
Couple things...
I was at the race and did not bet it, so no rationalizing here, either.
You leave out the effect of takeout. To me that means it's often the case that there's no horse in any single race worth betting if the actual odds do not exceed your own handicapped line for every horse in that given race to the extent you require to make a wager.
When I looked at this race, I was close in my estimation of what the horses would go off at. I figured JAzil would go off at 4/5, Corinthian at 5/2 and King of Jazz at 7/2. The others I was close on. I would have bet Jazil at 3/2, Corinthian at 7/2 or KoJ at 9/2. None of these were at those numbers.
Total "acceptable" odds for these three horses alone add up to about 1.15-1, so I knew going in it was a race I would not be very likely to bet.
Most races look this way to me. You?
|
STS, I didn't leave out the effect of track takeout. I said that not being willing to bet Corinthian at 2-1 suggests that one does not think Corinthian has a 33% chance to win the race. That statement is independent of takeout. If Corinthian has better than a 33% chance to win the race, then 2-1 is a good bet. (even more so when 2-1 represents everything from 2-1 to 2.49-1). I also wrote that if Corinthian has at most a 33% chance to win the race, then the other horses must have at least a 67% chance to win the race. That's also independent of takeout. The chance of all the horses has to add to 100%.
I agree with you that most races don't have a good bet. I usually won't bother to make a line unless I have good reason to think the public will seriously over- or underestimate a particular horse. Even then, I often end up with no horse to bet.
I didn't cap the Corinthian/Jazil race, so I can't really comment on the odds you came up with.
--Dunbar