Roll With Joe
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Odds-on favourites stats in Vic

  1. #11
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year arlington will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Wayne Hayes
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by Dot View Post
    Not sure your comparing apples with apples Kev, if the other codes don't have as many odds on favs then they can't have as many lose at a meeting so no I can't imagine the uproar but of course all codes can have a short priced favourite lose.

    Most but not all of these races were Vicbred heats which were clearly seeded to spread the better performed, and or likely to be better supported horses across the card which resulted in the short priced favourites in these events. I imagine that pattern will continue across the remainder of the Vicbred series. Perhaps at the conclusion of the series it is time to review the structure of the series.

    Currently it operates as an all in concept during the heats before the cream rise to the top into the semis and then rises further into the final with one or two consolations conducted for those not making the final. It's designed to keep the best horses apart before reaching a crescendo and crowning a champion, not maximise wagering along the way. Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that not all starters are equal and tier the series from the beginning into "gold" and "silver" divisions ( and even "bronze" if there are enough horses) with the "gold" horses competing for higher levels of prizemoney in both the heats and final then horses engaged in the "silver" series, and likewise for horses engaged in a "bronze" series if there was one. Just have heats into a final and consolations and use the prizemoney allocated for the semi finals to fund the two/three tiered series. I'd like to think there are more then some 70 odd 2yos available to race in Vic and a tiered Vicbred series may draw more starters and make more participants feel a part of the Vicbred series and "family". It would pit more like against like from the beginning and as a result should even up the starting prices somewhat though it won't of course guarantee an odds on pop doesn't get beaten.

    An interesting take on it Dot, the heats. Pretty sure it's owner and trainer splits not seeding. Would be appalled if it was seeding. If the heats were, and will continue to be, formed due to splits, would that change your thoughts and what you've proposed? Is splitting outdated with the increase and promotion of syndication?

    edit: Kyle's relevant post #12 reminded me of the thread topic. Splits are causing odds on faves.
    Last edited by arlington; 4 Weeks Ago at 11:43 AM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year Amlin will become famous soon enough Amlin's Avatar
    Real Name
    Kyle Galley
    Posts
    581
    The Quad at Sale dogs last week was due to pay $9 with the fav in the last leg, small reward for picking one third of the nights winner. The fav got rolled!

  3. #13
    Member Filly Dot will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Dot Schmidt
    Posts
    90
    Wayne seeded may not be entirely accurate terminology and trainer/owner driver splits contribute to the process but the situation is we had a series of heats with odds on favourites in them, along with much longer priced, including over 100 to 1 runners, creating a poor wagering environment, and only around 70 2yos participating in the Vicbred series.

    While any series involving heats will need to have a process to determine the runners in each heat be it seeding, trainer owner splits or random draw or a combination of those, what I'm proposing is intended to be a tiered Vicbred series which encourages greater levels of participation in the series from all sectors of the industry, not continuation of the current concept that the series is just for the best and which sees horses of similar abilities pitted against each other from the start, creating a better wagering product and more people with a Vicbred Super Series trophy on the mantle at the end of it.

    At the beginning of the season Wayne it would be presumed that all horses are targeted at the "gold" level of the series, by the time the series rolls around it should be established by performance which are the "gold" tier horses regardless of the connections and which are not at that standard. It may be that all horses in the series must have been racing prior to commencement of the series ( in the case of juveniles in particular) and in some instances the handicappers may have to make a determination of which tier of the series a horse belongs in.

    Dividing a series such as Vicbred is not unprecedented Wayne, the sires stakes series in Ontario operates on "gold" and "grass roots" levels and there may be others.

  4. #14
    Super Moderator Stallion Messenger will become famous soon enough Messenger's Avatar
    Real Name
    Kevin O'Donoghue
    Location
    The Gap
    Occupation
    Retired
    Posts
    6,222
    Horses
    A long, long time ago
    A 2yo series is probably distracting from the point I wanted to make (although I wonder whether Dots idea might have merit - tricky with 2yo's however: would first starter Tiger Storm have been in the Gold or Bronze heats?)

    With 40% of Odds On pops losing my first thought was that their Odds/Assessment was wrong or that "Trots punters are terrible punters" (as we make the odds) but on further investigation, maybe they are not as bad as I thought.

    We all know that Even money means you have a 50/50 chance but taking into account the 'take out' from the pool we are only ever going to get $1.90 about Even money chances and we should expect 50% of them to lose.
    The other one my simple maths brain can get its head around is that 1/2 (or $1.50) odds suggest that a horse is assessed as likely to beat the rest of the field 2 out of 3 times you run the race or only lose 33% of the time . After the pool 'take out' we are only going to get $1.40 about a true 1/2 fav.

    So working on these assumptions we can expect
    $1.90 favourites to lose 50% of the time
    $1.40 favourites to lose 33% of the time.


    So splitting the difference we could expect $1.60 favs to lose 40% of the time

    We are only a little below this (for the month of June) with the average of Odds On favourites being $1.50 so far so you would expect them to have been beaten just a little less than 40% of the time

    Overall it surprised me and I may even stop highlighting how often Odds On favs get beat but it sure confirmed for me

    "Odds On Look On"
    The Thin Green Line - Supporting the Rangers who protect the world's endangered animals against poachers

  5. #15
    Senior Member Stallion aussiebreno is just really nice aussiebreno is just really nice
    Real Name
    Brendan Bryce
    Posts
    2,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Messenger View Post
    A 2yo series is probably distracting from the point I wanted to make (although I wonder whether Dots idea might have merit - tricky with 2yo's however: would first starter Tiger Storm have been in the Gold or Bronze heats?)

    With 40% of Odds On pops losing my first thought was that their Odds/Assessment was wrong or that "Trots punters are terrible punters" (as we make the odds) but on further investigation, maybe they are not as bad as I thought.

    We all know that Even money means you have a 50/50 chance but taking into account the 'take out' from the pool we are only ever going to get $1.90 about Even money chances and we should expect 50% of them to lose.
    The other one my simple maths brain can get its head around is that 1/2 (or $1.50) odds suggest that a horse is assessed as likely to beat the rest of the field 2 out of 3 times you run the race or only lose 33% of the time . After the pool 'take out' we are only going to get $1.40 about a true 1/2 fav.

    So working on these assumptions we can expect
    $1.90 favourites to lose 50% of the time
    $1.40 favourites to lose 33% of the time.

    So splitting the difference we could expect $1.60 favs to lose 40% of the time

    We are only a little below this (for the month of June) with the average of Odds On favourites being $1.50 so far so you would expect them to have been beaten just a little less than 40% of the time

    Overall it surprised me and I may even stop highlighting how often Odds On favs get beat but it sure confirmed for me

    "Odds On Look On"
    Kev as you point out in a 100% market $ 1.50 should win 66% of the time. You suggest average of odds on fave are $1.50 and that 40% are losing. This means 60% are winning. 66% / 60% is only a 10% loss to the punter. Given TAB take out is 14.5% that means the odds on horses are actually providing some value.

    In a 114.5% market with $1.50 fave rest of field would be $2.10. $2.10 shots should win 48% of time. Your figures suggest they are only upstaging the $1.50 shots just shy of 40% of the time. 48%/40% = 20% so they doing even worse than the 14.5% TAB takeout.

    Sure if you find the right non-odds horse to back the rewards are there, but by the same token it can be about finding the right odds on horse to back. As a mere philosophy your stats point to odds on chances providing more value than the non-odds on horses.

    Of course the statistic about $1.50 winning 40% of the time is only worked on an average $1.50 so may not be entirely accurate. And sample size etc.

  6. #16
    Super Moderator Stallion Messenger will become famous soon enough Messenger's Avatar
    Real Name
    Kevin O'Donoghue
    Location
    The Gap
    Occupation
    Retired
    Posts
    6,222
    Horses
    A long, long time ago
    I was hoping you would post Brendan - very interesting indeed
    The Thin Green Line - Supporting the Rangers who protect the world's endangered animals against poachers

  7. #17
    Member Filly Dot will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Dot Schmidt
    Posts
    90
    As an actual non punter I'll leave the punting math to you and Brenno Kev. As to whether a Tiger Storm would be gold or bronze as a first starter I'd suggest first starters would be ineligible to the series, with all participants required to have had at least one start previously. There's no perfect system Kev but I suggest participation in the gold series be a reward for effort, and those horses who have established the best form and highest levels of prizemoney be the ones in the gold series ( similar to the jewels) so a Tiger Storm would be a bronze starter. At that level yes she's probably a very short priced favourite or her connections may have made sure she had the runs on the board to be contesting a tier at a higher level for more prizemoney and prestige or the series could have a clause that facilitates the handicappers having some descretion to insert a horse into a higher level of the series.

    I wouldn't suggest the tiers be limited to 2yos but used across the whole series and based on seasonal earnings.

    On the subject of Math what percentage of Vicbred 2yos actually contested the series? Foals conceived and foaled in Vic, SA and Tas are eligible, as are, subject to a fee, foals by a stallion based in those states but foaled intestate. There are other benefits to being Vicbred such as first win bonuses and eligibility to other races but the Vicbred Super Series is the premier event and I'd suggest participant involvement in our premier Vicbred event is not high enough as it currently stands

  8. #18
    Super Moderator Stallion Messenger will become famous soon enough Messenger's Avatar
    Real Name
    Kevin O'Donoghue
    Location
    The Gap
    Occupation
    Retired
    Posts
    6,222
    Horses
    A long, long time ago
    Quote Originally Posted by arlington View Post
    An interesting take on it Dot, the heats. Pretty sure it's owner and trainer splits not seeding. Would be appalled if it was seeding. If the heats were, and will continue to be, formed due to splits, would that change your thoughts and what you've proposed? Is splitting outdated with the increase and promotion of syndication?

    edit: Kyle's relevant post #12 reminded me of the thread topic. Splits are causing odds on faves.
    Interesting point Wayne. If owner and trainer splits are happening isn't that a reason for a person with a good horse to place his horse with the trainer of his hottest opposition as in early rounds there is an excellent chance they will not draw each other.
    The Thin Green Line - Supporting the Rangers who protect the world's endangered animals against poachers

  9. #19
    Senior Member Stallion aussiebreno is just really nice aussiebreno is just really nice
    Real Name
    Brendan Bryce
    Posts
    2,795
    Most series finals have 3 or 4 genuine winning chances. Half the final field is hoping for a good draw and sneak a place. Grossly unfair to have the also runs in the Gold series receive less prize-money than Bronze winners. Nobodies rankings are perfect and trainers would complain about being ranked too low/high. While the top tier of the state are at the semi finals there is more opportunities for the also runs from the heats to win ordinary 2C front races and get their bonus.

  10. #20
    Member Filly Dot will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Dot Schmidt
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by aussiebreno View Post
    Most series finals have 3 or 4 genuine winning chances. Half the final field is hoping for a good draw and sneak a place. Grossly unfair to have the also runs in the Gold series receive less prize-money than Bronze winners. Nobodies rankings are perfect and trainers would complain about being ranked too low/high. While the top tier of the state are at the semi finals there is more opportunities for the also runs from the heats to win ordinary 2C front races and get their bonus.
    Fortunately for racing Brenno most owners and breeders have a more colourful view of their involvement then a profit and loss sheet at the office and the dollars won/lost on the punt. Sure there are often only a few genuine winning chances in a race but I think we've already established that racing doesn't always go to script. Whilst I'd envisage a very significant differential in prizemoney between tiers it would be possible for an unplaced runner in the higher tier to earn less then the winner of another tier, happens in consolations now doesn't it? But does every grade cricket player long to play on some suburban ground every weekend and score a ton or do they think of representing their state, and dream of a baggy green, or coloured clothing, rock music and fireworks on the sideline these days, even though their chance of scoring a duck has increased exponentially?

    Covering costs and rate of return is in owners minds Brenno but those could never solely be first thing in the minds of all owners for there could be no racing if they were. Don't know if there are figures for Australia but from the U.S. gallops investment in the breeding industry runs at 2.5 times the available prizemoney, and training fees haven't been factored in yet.

    Your right though, nobodies rankings are perfect, but what is it they say about all publicity is good publicity, a little controversy in the rankings wouldn't go astray. Or perhaps you'd find it more appealing to assign rankings purely on dollars earned, black and white, no controversy there. Having been a trainer on a communal training centre for twenty years let me tell you regardless of what you do trainers will find something to complain about, they always do.

    Not sure your last sentence makes sense, presumably the top tier at the semis would predominately have already won their first win bonus and not eligible to contest 2A0 races that the also rans from the heats that haven't won their first win bonus are.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts