Are you confused before placing a wager?

[Capper Al]

With all this technology, one might think confusion is a thing of the past. But if you're not confused, you should be. There's lots to be confused about. Obviously, our selections. We are going to be wrong most of the time. When we finally get our selections down then the question is how to wager? Maybe you have determined that you only bet to win. There's a lot to be said for straight wagers until you see a $500 trifecta. Or you play trifectas and hit upon a $20 horse but don't hit the tri. Oh, you have made up your mind and only play them as your system picks them and only to win at certain odds or better. Good luck trying to fit your races into a cookie cutter window. What I've found is that I have to be flexible on many levels and depend heavily on my understanding of the racing game. What have you found?

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

There is no confusion with my betting. I wager to win with an occasional exacta box or double. No edge no bet no exceptions. Yes, there are times when there might be some last minute tough decisions depending on the value offered but playing the game with well thought out win wagers is a lot less complicated then the world of exotic and super exotic wagers. I take my hat off to the profitable exotic wagering horseplayers (the rewards are great), for me it would be chaos. LOL:bang:

[Overlay]

Oh, you have made up your mind and only play them as your system picks them and only to win at certain odds or better. Good luck trying to fit your races into a cookie cutter window. What I've found is that I have to be flexible on many levels and depend heavily on my understanding of the racing game. What have you found?
I'm not sure that I understand your confusion. How could there be anything wrong with the concept of knowing what the acceptable odds or payout on a wager are? I'll grant you that odds or payouts can still sometimes change significantly after the last flash, but full-field, value-based wagering (encompassing not only win bets, but exotics) has to be preferable to narrowing down a field to one horse or combination that ends up getting hammered at the mutuel windows because everyone else can also see that it's the most likely to come in. And even if one horse's odds go down after the race starts, that means that every other horse's odds will go up, making even better betting propositions out of horses that may have already been overlays to begin with (unless you believe that those late droppers will never disappoint their backers).

[DeltaLover]

Thask likes to say, that although he can be wrong handicapping the race he almost always makes the proper bets 'betting like a machine'.

I completely understand himand have similar comments to make about my own approach, although I have to admit that there are a few cases where I make a silly mistake, just because I am either tired, I do not have enough time to make my bets or I am steaming.

The least I am concerned when gambling is confusion about how to place my bets. My whole handicapping approach is developed around very specific attributes and demands that are dictated by the type of a horse I am trying to pick. My final handicapping about a race consists of a parlay of opinions that are easy to be transformed to bets.

[dkithore]

Al,

Your point is well taken. However, I use a product that helps me reduce this confusion a lot. Dave has a good product that reduces confusion for me. It is Renegade Handicapper. It presupposes that you already have contender selection ready to plug into excel worksheet. A tool that often points to me which contenders are attracting money and those that don't. It even says how much to bet given the bank size suggested by the program. Nothing fancy but does work for decision making.

It helps me to know my odds range I am willing to venture into, or call it "sweet spot". For me, that range is between 5 and 12 to 1, most of the time. Sometimes i take liberties and go for higher odds horse(s) if am chasing place or show bets (since races I play have 12 to 18 entries.

I find superfecta too daunting to venture in and have a little luck with exacta. So, avoiding those lessens the confusion. However, after reading some enlightening discussion in another thread (one and only absolute truth) by the experienced and articulate players I am rethinking my wagering strategy (inner game), not for greater thrill but greater rewards.

I wish others who missed that thread look it up.

[OCF]

There is no confusion with my betting. I wager to win with an occasional exacta box or double. No edge no bet no exceptions. Yes, there are times when there might be some last minute tough decisions depending on the value offered but playing the game with well thought out win wagers is a lot less complicated then the world of exotic and super exotic wagers. I take my hat off to the profitable exotic wagering horseplayers (the rewards are great), for me it would be chaos. LOL:bang:

You pretty much took the words right out of my mouth.

I'm really attracted to the simplicity of win betting. There's a kind of essential or elemental quality to it that is very satisying. I don't confuse simple with easy though.

[PhantomOnTour]

Confused?...never.

Al, half the time I have no clue what you are talking about.
Sometimes I think you are PKTruckdriver in disguise, or you two are related.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

You pretty much took the words right out of my mouth.

I'm really attracted to the simplicity of win betting. There's a kind of essential or elemental quality to it that is very satisying. I don't confuse simple with easy though.

OCF

All I can say is that it works for me as I can stay with win wager value and on occasion improve the return from the win wager with the exacta box or double limiting to one combination. I actually admire the all inclusive players that take advantage of the win and exotics...it's just would not be profitable for me.

[DeltaLover]

In the past, I used to handicap for hours, burning the night oil going through very detailed analysis of every possible angle I was able to think. Watching replays, creating custom programs to simulate specific situations, creating custom ratings and track variants and many more....

Today, handicapping a race takes a few minutes for me. While I like to casually glance tomorrow's cards just to have an idea of what is coming up, I no longer spend and handicapping time in advance.

I start my handicapping process when the horses are entering the paddock and by the time they are going to the gate I have formed my opinions. At this point I inspect the exacta (and double if available) pools concluding to my final selection which is transformed immediately to bet. I try never to overthink the race, keeping my filters as generic and simple as possible. I also never use 'visual' handicapping, pay no attention at all at how the horse is looking, warming up and gate behavior. If I cannot find a bet that returns at least 5-1 to my complete investment I am usually passing. I never - ever dutch, instead I always have some tickets with the potential of returning at least 10-1 of my total bet. I never - ever try to cover my positions. I will either get back at least six times my investment or loose every dollar I bet in the race.

Sorry, this posting was intended for another thread:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104754

[cj]

If I'm confused before placing a wager, I shouldn't be wagering. I wager around the opinions I have formed that offer value.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

In the past, I used to handicap for hours, burning the night oil going through very detailed analysis of every possible angle I was able to think. Watching replays, creating custom programs to simulate specific situations, creating custom ratings and track variants and many more....

Today, handicapping a race takes a few minutes for me. While I like to casually glance tomorrow's cards just to have an idea of what is coming up, I no longer spend and handicapping time in advance.

I start my handicapping process when the horses are entering the paddock and by the time they are going to the gate I have formed my opinions. At this point I inspect the exacta (and double if available) pools concluding to my final selection which is transformed immediately to bet. I try never to overthink the race, keeping my filters as generic and simple as possible. I also never use 'visual' handicapping, pay no attention at all at how the horse is looking, warming up and gate behavior. If I cannot find a bet that returns at least 5-1 to my complete investment I am usually passing. I never - ever dutch, instead I always have some tickets with the potential of returning at least 10-1 of my total bet. I never - ever try to cover my positions. I will either get back at least six times my investment or loose every dollar I bet in the race.

Simple, value oriented, effective and part of a plan.

[OCF]

OCF

All I can say is that it works for me as I can stay with win wager value and on occasion improve the return from the win wager with the exacta box or double limiting to one combination. I actually admire the all inclusive players that take advantage of the win and exotics...it's just would not be profitable for me.

You touched on another aspect of exotic wagering that is hard for me to get behind. Just about everybody would tell us multiple combinations need to be bet. If that is done, losing wagers are guaranteed, which to my mind is effectively increased takeout, which is already higher for exotics to begin with. Those are obstacles that I'm not willing to voluntarily set for myself.

I hope I don't reignite the debate regarding whether or not the takeout on horizontals is effectively reduced - that's not my intention!

Back to the thread topic - win wagering decreases confusion, at least for me.

[jerry-g]

The only confusion I have is when to bet a low priced horse or not.
This is because I have noticed they sometimes wind up paying even
less when they reach the wire. So, the other day I opted out on a
horse and guess what? By the time he won he was even higher
odds than when he left the gait. Sometimes you just have to say,
"Hell, I'm a gambling man and take your chance like all the others."

[DeltaLover]

You touched on another aspect of exotic wagering that is hard for me to get behind. Just about everybody would tell us multiple combinations need to be bet. If that is done, losing wagers are guaranteed, which to my mind is effectively increased takeout, which is already higher for exotics to begin with. Those are obstacles that I'm not willing to voluntarily set for myself.

I hope I don't reignite the debate regarding whether or not the takeout on horizontals is effectively reduced - that's not my intention!

Back to the thread topic - win wagering decreases confusion, at least for me.


I will not tell you that you need to bet multiple combinations.

Certainly not.

What I can tell you is that multiple combinations represent a more complete opinion about the outcome of a race any might offer exponentially higher return if you are correct on your assessments.

For example betting a 10-1 shot to win can easily be converted to a 20-1 proposition if one of the reasons who are picking it is because you believe the favorite is very weak and will run out of the money most of the time.

The fact that there are guaranteed losing wagers when betting exacta's instead of win has nothing to with the final outcome. To convince yourself you can calculate the ducthing amount for each starter using exactas or doubles. Doing so you will notice that the win price is very close to what is offered by both the exacta and the double. Betting to win is very much similar to dutching the exacta using all the contenders for second. Obviously if you can eliminate some of them (especially those among the crowd's favorites) you are increasing your return by betting into a more specific opinion.

[DeltaLover]

The only confusion I have is when to bet a low priced horse or not.

It is easy to eliminate this confusion by simply deciding that you will never bet a low priced horse and base your whole approach on this.

[OCF]

I will not tell you that you need to bet multiple combinations.

Certainly not.

What I can tell you is that multiple combinations represent a more complete opinion about the outcome of a race any might offer exponentially higher return if you are correct on your assessments.

For example betting a 10-1 shot to win can easily be converted to a 20-1 proposition if one of the reasons who are picking it is because you believe the favorite is very weak and will run out of the money most of the time.

The fact that there are guaranteed losing wagers when betting exacta's instead of win has nothing to with the final outcome. To convince yourself you can calculate the ducthing amount for each starter using exactas or doubles. Doing so you will notice that the win price is very close to what is offered by both the exacta and the double. Betting to win is very much similar to dutching the exacta using all the contenders for second. Obviously if you can eliminate some of them (especially those among the crowd's favorites) you are increasing your return by betting into a more specific opinion.

I can't disagree with anything you said. Not enough to get me into the exotic pools though. Am I leaving money on the table so to speak? Maybe. The exotics just aren't for me, at least for now.

[iceknight]

No I am not confused. If you had read through Jeff's long and detailed post on "being at an imaginary location" in your other "the one and only ultimate truth thread", then there is NO reason to be confused.

And also cj's comment is spot on. Don't wager if there is confusion. You can always cheer on the horses in a race without wagering too.. I do that on many occasions when the odds are low but where I do like the horses (easy example - Wise Dan)

[Jeff P]

If I'm confused before placing a wager, I shouldn't be wagering. I wager around the opinions I have formed that offer value.I can't improve on that. So I'll just quote it and give it a thumbs up. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:



-jp

.

[cj]

I can't improve on that. So I'll just quote it and give it a thumbs up. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:



-jp

.

Thanks...for those wondering, here is a little more detail.

If I think one horse is an overlay, I'll bet it to win. I'm not going to try to force bets in other pools combining with horses I don't think are value. If I think two are value, I'll play them in exactas, or trifectas in the 1-3 slots.

If I think the value is in betting against a horse (always a heavily bet horse) but have no strong opinion on the others, I'll be more liberal in my bets and lean more on exotic pools, exactas and trifectas.

I'm pretty much a race at a time better. I used to play A LOT of P3s, but they lost a lot of value over time as people became smarter about the bet, and fields became less competitive. About the furthest I'll stray in horizontal bets is the daily doubles, playing value horses in both legs or a value horse in one leg, and against a big underlay in the other leg.

[Tom]

I take what the race offers.
If not much, I always remember there is another one coming up in 10 minutes.

[thaskalos]

What I've found is that I have to be flexible on many levels and depend heavily on my understanding of the racing game. What have you found?

I have found the exact same thing. I have to be flexible, and rely on my understanding of the game. And the more experience I gather, the less "confused" I get...either before I place my wagers, or afterwards...when I contemplate a surprising result.

The confusion subsides once you realize that the game is what it is...and it will never be what you want it to be.

[cj]

I take what the race offers.
If not much, I always remember there is another one coming up in 10 minutes.


There are usually three or four coming up in 10 minutes...EXACTLY 10 minutes.

[Robert Goren]

How do you know what odds you are going to get. With Win and exacta you get a number and you can guess which way it will go. With Tris and supras , you are betting blind.

[Capper Al]

I take what the race offers.
If not much, I always remember there is another one coming up in 10 minutes.

That eases the pain for me.

[Tom]

It should - why would you bet into a race that confused you?
You may be wrong, never confused.

[Capper Al]

It should - why would you bet into a race that confused you?
You may be wrong, never confused.

Agree. The choice of the word confusion may not be the most descriptive here. As understanding of the game grows, so does confidence and so does awareness. So I feel more assured over the long run, but am more aware of why other horses may defeat me in the current race.

[Capper Al]

I expected some of these replies. It's probably more a matter of temperament. Some keep it simple, while others will taut they have arrived as complete gamblers and have overcame the diversities within the game. Nothing is ever simple in my life, even the simple stuff. Given three doors to pick from, I'll always second guess myself.

[pondman]

Nope. Kept records on my betting pattern. I bet to win. If it loses, I move on.

The only exceptions is if I'm sitting on a 25-1 shot at a bullring, and can't get anything large on it. Then I struggle with the ALL buttons in a vertical. But that's a rare event. Happens but not often.

[OCF]

I expected some of these replies. It's probably more a matter of temperament. Some keep it simple, while others will taut they have arrived as complete gamblers and have overcame the diversities within the game. Nothing is ever simple in my life, even the simple stuff. Given three doors to pick from, I'll always second guess myself.

Well said, I was just thinking the simplicity of my win-only betting is reflected in a lot of areas in my life. Pretty vanilla really.

[DJofSD]

There is confusion, then there is uncertainty and then there is greed.

A clear understanding of each is essential.

[DeltaLover]

Nope. Kept records on my betting pattern. I bet to win. If it loses, I move on.

This is the correct attitude.

When gambling, you should not allow a photo that just cost you a month's income affect your temper.

Steaming is one of the worst enemies of the gambler and should be avoided as much as possible.

The topic is deep and can be discussed endlessly. What I try to do, is not thinking about my bankroll, just trying to make correct decisions regardless of the outcome of the race. It is not always easy, especially when you are behind several grands for the day, but paying too much attention to your short term results is one of the deadly sins of the horseplayer.

As a gambler the best you can do, is place your bets trying to maximize your EV. You certainly cannot influence the outcome of the race thus whether you are going to win or loose a specific is just a matter of luck that you should not care about. Ideally you should feel like playing a video game where dollars are just your score.

[raybo]

In win betting the race is either a pass or play, the betting is determined by post time odds. They either meet the minimum odds or they don't, no confusion at all.

In superfectas, the average pool at that track determines if there is potential value at that track at all. The odds rankings spread on my lowest odds ranked selections tells me whether to bet or not, if the race is a value race in the first place. Again, no confusion.

[Delta Cone]

Nope. Kept records on my betting pattern. I bet to win. If it loses, I move on.

Keep records of your betting pattern. I've read this a thousand times, and know that it is smart advice. Unfortunately I've never done it, until recently. Probably because I knew the truth...I am a losing player.

Discouraged by my results over the past 12 months, I finally decided to look at my records in detail. I looked at win, exacta, tri, super, pick-3 & 4. Over a five-year period it was clear that I shouldn't be involved in the exacta, trifecta or superfecta pools.

But I do show consistent near break-even results with win and pick-3 bets.

Betting to win cuts through the confusion for me, as my results show.

Now, of course the real secret is to change my habits. :bang:

[Capper Al]

There is confusion, then there is uncertainty and then there is greed.

A clear understanding of each is essential.

Uncertainty leading to a moment of confusion and then the final play is how it sbould go even for the experts. The more experienced one is the better they can understand why they might not win.

[Capper Al]

Uncertainty leading to a moment of confusion and then the final play is how it sbould go even for the experts. The more experienced one is the better they can understand why they might not win.

I should add only a moment of regret if I blew it then off to the next race. And yes, I keep records and study races for lessons learned.

[raybo]

Uncertainty leading to a moment of confusion and then the final play is how it sbould go even for the experts. The more experienced one is the better they can understand why they might not win.

The individual bet either succeeds or fails, how confusing can that be? An individual bet has only a very minute affect on long term results, unless they become more than just individual bets, then you're in trouble. IMO, discipline, patience, and consistency are paramount to long term success.

[Capper Al]

The individual bet either succeeds or fails, how confusing can that be? An individual bet has only a very minute affect on long term results, unless they become more than just individual bets, then you're in trouble. IMO, discipline, patience, and consistency are paramount to long term success.

It's not difficult. The moment has to be dealt with. Ignoring it might make one miss an opportunity on another horse or wager. If one is unaware of this moment then they are in trouble.

[raybo]

It's not difficult. The moment has to be dealt with. Ignoring it might make one miss an opportunity on another horse or wager. If one is unaware of this moment then they are in trouble.

If your method works, long term, and your method says that the selection(s) are worthy of a bet, then there is no decision to be made, you bet. If your method says the selection(s) are not worthy of a bet, again there is no decision to be made, you pass.

[Fingal]

There is confusion, then there is uncertainty and then there is greed.

A clear understanding of each is essential.

Eliminating the first & last is paramount to survival at the track.

And when faced with the 2nd, pass.

[DJofSD]

Eliminating the first & last is paramount to survival at the track.

And when faced with the 2nd, pass.
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[castaway01]

There is confusion, then there is uncertainty and then there is greed.

A clear understanding of each is essential.

I think that's an interesting point, but I think you have to be a little greedy. For me, being more of a spot player, I need to hammer the really juicy opportunities I get. And that used to lead to some confusion because it's not always clear the best way to do so. In the end, I switched from a mostly exotics player to 95% win bets because I felt that was the best way to hammer those opportunities. Others probably could do it better with exotics, but for me it cuts down on the confusion and the uncertainty you mentioned.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Once a player has the records to prove his or her method is profitable it enables his operation to play on day after day in a businesslike manor. The wins and losses are of little significance except when they are tabulated every month or meeting.

Good plays lose all the time so why put a 'costly' reaction to an individual wager..it simply doesn't make sense when you have the confidence and records to justify the wager beforehand. With this attitude playing the game becomes more or less a regular routine in search of a value situation where you feel you are ahead of the crowd, then win or lose turn the page accepting the result as simply a part of the game. Just my opinion.

[JohnGalt1]

Since I knew how I'll bet after handicapping a race, the only confusion I experience is if my horse is scratched.

Since my second choice may not become my new first choice, I have to handicap the race again, and half the time I pass.

I don't know if this is confusion, though.

[pondman]

The topic is deep and can be discussed endlessly. What I try to do, is not thinking about my bankroll, just trying to make correct decisions regardless of the outcome of the race. It is not always easy, especially when you are behind several grands for the day, but paying too much attention to your short term results is one of the deadly sins of the horseplayer.

The game is consistent enough that a player should have a reasonable ideas as to how many races they will bet during a season. I do anyway. And I play consistent amounts-- generally the same unit throughout a meet on the same type of horse. For example I already know I'll have about 5 grand out on maiden winners at Del Mar. And I commit the money 3 or 4 days in advance, so I don't have this type of stress, worrying about what happened today, or what will happen. The only considerations I make is to cancel, if for some reason the crowd slams it. Maiden winners generally don't get bet, so I'm usually okay. I definitely wouldn't chase a loss. I also agree that the game is similar to a broken video game. And you hope you are in the right bet at the right time.

[raybo]

Once a player has the records to prove his or her method is profitable it enables his operation to play on day after day in a businesslike manor. The wins and losses are of little significance except when they are tabulated every month or meeting.

Good plays lose all the time so why put a 'costly' reaction to an individual wager..it simply doesn't make sense when you have the confidence and records to justify the wager beforehand. With this attitude playing the game becomes more or less a regular routine in search of a value situation where you feel you are ahead of the crowd, then win or lose turn the page accepting the result as simply a part of the game. Just my opinion.

Exactly! :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

Since I knew how I'll bet after handicapping a race, the only confusion I experience is if my horse is scratched.

Since my second choice may not become my new first choice, I have to handicap the race again, and half the time I pass.

I don't know if this is confusion, though.

Scratches can be very frustrating for players who spend some time in their handicapping. Having the ability to mark a scratched horse and then click a button that completely re-handicaps the race, as if that horse was never entered, is certainly an advantage.

[Capper Al]

If your method works, long term, and your method says that the selection(s) are worthy of a bet, then there is no decision to be made, you bet. If your method says the selection(s) are not worthy of a bet, again there is no decision to be made, you pass.

I do bet in a pattern format based off my research from my results. Although, I'm in the camp of repeatability that doesn't mean that I disagree with those who claim that no two races are the same. If one isn't fully aware of what's at stake, they'll probably lose money no matter what proven approach they take. This is probably why some players can win with a software package while others fail. When the moment to push the submit wager bottomn comes, they should have a feeling for both why their horse should win and why their could lose at the same time or they are in for trouble over the long run.

[Capper Al]

Once a player has the records to prove his or her method is profitable it enables his operation to play on day after day in a businesslike manor. The wins and losses are of little significance except when they are tabulated every month or meeting.

Good plays lose all the time so why put a 'costly' reaction to an individual wager..it simply doesn't make sense when you have the confidence and records to justify the wager beforehand. With this attitude playing the game becomes more or less a regular routine in search of a value situation where you feel you are ahead of the crowd, then win or lose turn the page accepting the result as simply a part of the game. Just my opinion.

Not so unless a player has the understanding that today's race is similar to their statistics. This only comes from understanding the racing game not statitics.

[Capper Al]

Exactly! :ThmbUp:

Close not exact.

[raybo]

Not so unless a player has the understanding that today's race is similar to their statistics. This only comes from understanding the racing game not statitics.

I'm certainly not into statistics, but what he said is exactly what I do. A single bet is just that, a single bet, among many, insignificant to the big picture, it will not make you a winner, nor will it make you a loser, unless you throw your confused, emotional, psychological, "in the moment", good feeling/bad feeling, inconsistent wagering methodology into the mix. When you do that your proven, record keeping based, approach goes right out the window, and in my experience that will inevitably lead to failure long term.

[raybo]

Close not exact.

Nope, exactly!

[pondman]

In win betting the race is either a pass or play, the betting is determined by post time odds..

Not my win betting... A horse is either going to win or lose. I don't care about anything else but my horse. If it scratches I'm out. It's odds in relationship to it's chance of winning at post time determines if it's a play.

[Capper Al]

I'm certainly not into statistics, but what he said is exactly what I do. A single bet is just that, a single bet, among many, insignificant to the big picture, it will not make you a winner, nor will it make you a loser, unless you throw your confused, emotional, psychological, "in the moment", good feeling/bad feeling, inconsistent wagering methodology into the mix. When you do that your proven, record keeping based, approach goes right out the window, and in my experience that will inevitably lead to failure long term.

You probably have enough understanding to know a comparable race to your stats.

[Capper Al]

Nope, exactly!

Not exactly!

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Not so unless a player has the understanding that today's race is similar to their statistics. This only comes from understanding the racing game not statitics.

When you are selective in your wagers(avoiding certain races) which are not profitable according to your records you can stay in the game during normal downswings. The key is 'the edge' with the well thought out value wager, betting with a reason and not on the concept of value alone.

[OCF]

Not my win betting... A horse is either going to win or lose. I don't care about anything else but my horse. If it scratches I'm out. It's odds in relationship to it's chance of winning at post time determines if it's a play.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

You probably have enough understanding to know a comparable race to your stats.

Not in individual races, no.

[raybo]

Not my win betting... A horse is either going to win or lose. I don't care about anything else but my horse. If it scratches I'm out. It's odds in relationship to it's chance of winning at post time determines if it's a play.

That's what I said, wasn't it? :bang:

[raybo]

Not exactly!

I said what I meant, and I stand by it. If you want to start the old "my daddy is bigger than your daddy" thing, no thanks. Grow up.

[thaskalos]

When the moment to push the submit wager bottomn comes, they should have a feeling for both why their horse should win and why their could lose at the same time or they are in for trouble over the long run.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

The best a horseplayer can do is control those things that are within his control. And whether or not his wagering selection wins a given race is not within his control!

The horseplayer is trying to come up with a solid handicapping opinion...and then he converts that handicapping opinion into a wagering selection. Once the bet is made...the entire process that remains is out of the player's hands.

Of course I have a feeling of why my horse should win. If I didn't have such a feeling...I would never be placing my bet. And I also have a feeling that my horse could lose. How could I not have such a feeling...considering that I -- along with every other horseplayer on the planet -- lose most of the time. There are many ways to lose...and we are destined to experience every one of them at one time or another.

There isn't a horseplayer alive who doesn't have a feeling of why his selection could win or lose a given race. And this feeling has nothing to do with whether or not the player will encounter "trouble over the long run".

[raybo]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

The best a horseplayer can do is control those things that are within his control. And whether or not his wagering selection wins a given race is not within his control!

The horseplayer is trying to come up with a solid handicapping opinion...and then he converts that handicapping opinion into a wagering selection. Once the bet is made...the entire process that remains is out of the player's hands.

Of course I have a feeling of why my horse should win. If I didn't have such a feeling...I would never be placing my bet. And I also have a feeling that my horse could lose. How could I not have such a feeling...considering that I -- along with every other horseplayer on the planet -- lose most of the time. There are many ways to lose...and we are destined to experience every one of them at one time or another.

There isn't a horseplayer alive who doesn't have a feeling of why his selection could win or lose a given race. And this feeling has nothing to do with whether or not the player will encounter "trouble over the long run".

I agree, you make your analysis, or your automated method does (not going to argue about this one), you pass or play, and that's that, the result is that you win or lose. If you performed in a disciplined and consistent manner then it was a good bet, win or lose. Then you go to the next one, forgetting the previous one, except for adjusting your bankroll, and you calculate your next bet amount (or you computer method does that for you).

Unless!! Unless you know your exact edge in each race, in which case you would set your bet amount according to your edge in that race. But, I have never met or heard of any "single" player (syndicates don't count) who knew his exact edge in any given race, or even a close enough estimation of his edge to be able to use it for bet sizing, and still be profitable.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, there are some here that say they can bet varying amounts depending on their confidence in specific races, but I have not seen any real proof of that being the case. Sorry, I don't buy it, and I highly suspect that those players are not profitable players long term.

[Capper Al]

I said what I meant, and I stand by it. If you want to start the old "my daddy is bigger than your daddy" thing, no thanks. Grow up.

I think you want to start it. I'm not biting, thank you.

[Capper Al]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

The best a horseplayer can do is control those things that are within his control. And whether or not his wagering selection wins a given race is not within his control!

The horseplayer is trying to come up with a solid handicapping opinion...and then he converts that handicapping opinion into a wagering selection. Once the bet is made...the entire process that remains is out of the player's hands.

Of course I have a feeling of why my horse should win. If I didn't have such a feeling...I would never be placing my bet. And I also have a feeling that my horse could lose. How could I not have such a feeling...considering that I -- along with every other horseplayer on the planet -- lose most of the time. There are many ways to lose...and we are destined to experience every one of them at one ttomeime or another.

There isn't a horseplayer alive who doesn't have a feeling of why his selection could win or lose a given race. And this feeling has nothing to do with whether or not the player will encounter "trouble over the long run".

All I'm saying is that I might like the three horse because of his class, but the five horse has a better pace figure and could beat the three. My point is one needs an opinion on how they could lose as well as how they are going to win. And like with win picks, we'll be wrong as much as how we lost as to why we won. This is a complete understanding of race and where a comprehensive player should be.

[pondman]

That's what I said, wasn't it? :bang:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you not running a spreadsheet on a race? I don't play this way. I'm looking for the ringer to show up with a bunch of unknowns. There is nothing in my method of betting to calculate. You wouldn't want to do any speed calculation on the horses I bet, because you'd miss the bet. If the horse isn't in the race, I don't bet the race. It's the horse.

[raybo]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you not running a spreadsheet on a race? I don't play this way. I'm looking for the ringer to show up with a bunch of unknowns. There is nothing in my method of betting to calculate. You wouldn't want to do any speed calculation on the horses I bet, because you'd miss the bet. If the horse isn't in the race, I don't bet the race. It's the horse.

Our methods definitely differ, but the bottom line, in both our play, is that if the method tells us to pass, we pass, and if we play, the odds have to be right. That's all I meant by my post, not that our method of determining which horse or horses are win contenders, are the same, because obviously they aren't even close. I don't look for a single horse who I will live or die with, I bet whatever horse, or horses (up to 3) my method puts me on, if their odds meet my odds requirement..

[DeltaLover]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you not running a spreadsheet on a race? I don't play this way. I'm looking for the ringer to show up with a bunch of unknowns. There is nothing in my method of betting to calculate. You wouldn't want to do any speed calculation on the horses I bet, because you'd miss the bet. If the horse isn't in the race, I don't bet the race. It's the horse.

This is a good approach to the game.

'Dark' horses providing very little clues as speed and recent performances are going are always candidates for a large score.

Usually I pick a horse expecting him to accomplish something for first time or matching a very well known bad angle that even novice horse bettors are well aware that has a very small winning probability.

[raybo]

"Recent performances" are not a part of my play either. I consider all pacelines that match in surface and sprint/route. So, I end up on horses that range from very low odds to very high odds, and everything in between. It is seldom that I bet odds under 5/2, but depending on the track, there are a couple that allow me to bet under those odds. So, single digit payouts to triple digit payouts can all be hit.

[DeltaLover]

It is seldom that I bet odds under 5/2, but depending on the track, there are a couple that allow me to bet under those odds. So, single digit payouts to triple digit payouts can all be hit.

Are the tracks that are allowing to make these bets or the horses and the race composition in general?

I really cannot see how the track can influence this type of a decission...

[Segwin]

My betting is recreational and I only play trifectas. I don't need anymore help with being confused.

Out of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most.

[Longshot6977]

With all this technology, one might think confusion is a thing of the past. But if you're not confused, you should be. There's lots to be confused about.

Why should I be confused? One should never be confused about a bet, otherwise don't place the bet. Pass the race and wait 2 minutes for another one.

Also, I used to bet only win/place with no exotics. In recent years, ALL of my wagers are vertical exotics with the vast majority as tris and evil dime supers (:p to SRU, lol) . I decided I wanted in on the bigger payoffs when I hit my win/place bets and a large exotic came in and I thought I could have certainly won that since I liked the bottom slot horses as well.

It is much more satisfying to know you have another chance, when, at the top of the stretch, your win or place bet you would've made by itself clearly isn't going to make it but you have another 1 or 2 horses in the top slot and mid/bottom slots of your tris/supers. I enjoy that feeling and the large win that follows. To those that are relunctant to make exotic bets, don't be afraid, jump right in. If you are good at selecting winners, you shouldn't have too much of a problem betting exactas and tris.

[shoelessjoe]

Segwin,

Using RDSS will not help you regain your mind,it will just further confuse
you. They have a readout that will get you a winner in every race after
the fact.


Do yourself a favor take that subscription money and buy Handicapping
Magic.

[raybo]

Are the tracks that are allowing to make these bets or the horses and the race composition in general?

I really cannot see how the track can influence this type of a decission...

Each track is tested, individually, and minimum odds requirements are determined by the hit rate, ROI, and profit displays. Most tracks' average win payouts will not produce a long term profit at very low minimum odds, most require 5/2-7/2 minimums. The horses have nothing to do with the minimum odds requirement, it is the average win payouts at the track, over typically an entire meet (or two), that determines that.

[pondman]

Each track is tested, individually, and minimum odds requirements are determined by the hit rate, ROI, and profit displays. Most tracks' average win payouts will not produce a long term profit at very low minimum odds, most require 5/2-7/2 minimums. The horses have nothing to do with the minimum odds requirement, it is the average win payouts at the track, over typically an entire meet (or two), that determines that.

But if you reasonably believe a horse should be 9/5 why consider the average payout for the meet? I have a number of methods (more than 1 and there is no similarity between them) that do assign 9/5 to a horse. And the crowd is all over the place from 3/5 to 80-1. If I was sophisticated and wanted to spend my time on bells and whistles, I probably could squeeze another 5 grand out of this, betting at 2-1 and 5-2. I do belong to a pick 5 group that does use these picks. But for my win betting it's easier on people in my life and myself if I stick with 5-1, and show up once in awhile with a paper bag. There are some people who want to do this quant betting, but I don't. The reality for me is showing up for those +8-1 shots is the way to go.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Each track is tested, individually, and minimum odds requirements are determined by the hit rate, ROI, and profit displays. Most tracks' average win payouts will not produce a long term profit at very low minimum odds, most require 5/2-7/2 minimums. The horses have nothing to do with the minimum odds requirement, it is the average win payouts at the track, over typically an entire meet (or two), that determines that.

12 years ago I simply imposed a no horse less than 2-1 minimum odds limit.Just felt it wasn't worth it.Looking at this lately I noticed by doing so that favorites in races I play only win 15% of the races I play.Going back over the last 100 races.This creates an edge in itself.

[Robert Goren]

When at the track, OTB, etc, the you should only be confused about which line is moving the fastest.

[raybo]

But if you reasonably believe a horse should be 9/5 why consider the average payout for the meet?

Because, just because we consider a horse to be 9/5 doesn't mean that it really should be those odds, it is only our individual opinion. And, we never know if the horse will win or not, even at 1/9 we are not guaranteed that a horse will win. My program is a black box and operates profitably based on long term results and long term minimum odds levels, at each individual track.

Abandoning the long term portion of the equation means abandoning the profitability of the method.

In other words, "Dance with who brung ya".

[raybo]

12 years ago I simply imposed a no horse less than 2-1 minimum odds limit.Just felt it wasn't worth it.Looking at this lately I noticed by doing so that favorites in races I play only win 15% of the races I play.Going back over the last 100 races.This creates an edge in itself.

I think any "good" handicapper who sets a minimum odds requirement, and sticks with it precisely, will increase their ROI, substantially. Lower costs, higher payouts.

However, most players do not have the required patience, discipline, and consistency to wait for those odds on good horses, so for those players there is little hope of ever becoming better players than they are now.

[raybo]

Don't get me wrong! Anyone who has a "very good/near perfect" fair odds line, should definitely use that line for their betting. But, keep in mind that there are probably only 2 or 3 of these "very good" lines among the members of this forum. So, if you think you have one of these, and you are not a profitable player "long term", you better do some research into your plays and assure that your line is really as good as you think it is. I would wager that it is not.

[TrifectaMike]

I think any "good" handicapper who sets a minimum odds requirement, and sticks with it precisely, will increase their ROI, substantially. Lower costs, higher payouts.

However, most players do not have the required patience, discipline, and consistency to wait for those odds on good horses, so for those players there is little hope of ever becoming better players than they are now.

I agree. For most players, this is a very good idea. And as Raybo and others have pointed out, 2-1 is a good minimum.

My research shows that 2-1 is near optimum in 8-9 horse fields, 3/2 in 6-7 horse fields and 5/2 in 10-11 horse fields.

And as Raybo has pointed out. Unless you have a oddsline that has good resolution below 2-1, set the min point and move on.

Mike

[raybo]

I agree. For most players, this is a very good idea. And as Raybo and others have pointed out, 2-1 is a good minimum.

My research shows that 2-1 is near optimum in 8-9 horse fields, 3/2 in 6-7 horse fields and 5/2 in 10-11 horse fields.

And as Raybo has pointed out. Unless you have a oddsline that has good resolution below 2-1, set the min point and move on.

Mike

So far, my testing of my program at many tracks, individually, shows that the optimum minimum odds requirement varies by track. The reason for that variance is tied to the average win payouts at each track. And it also depends on how many contenders you are betting. For instance, at Belmont, betting only one contender, the minimum odds for profitability in my program is .01/1, or, any odds. While at other tracks the minimum odds for a single contender might be 1/1 to 2/1. As the number of bet contenders increases, the minimum odds required for profitability also increases, and some tracks will simply not support multiple contender betting. But, at those tracks that have higher average win payouts, the typical multiple contender bet model is about 5/2-7/2.

For multiple contender betting I am leaning towards, at or around, natural odds, after eliminations from win contention. So generally, if you have 3 contenders, and the track's average win payouts are good, the minimum odds for "break even" play are around 2/1. To make a profit they would be around 5/2. With 4 contenders those odds are around 3/1 to break even and 7/2 to make a profit, etc..

I'm still researching this but so far that is about what it takes, at least for my program anyway. Other programs, using other elimination methods might be better or worse.

Now, if you have a very good odds line, and you are consistent in using it, for every bet, then a minimum odds requirement would not be needed, you could simply bet the line, with or without any eliminations. But, again, creating a "very good" odds line is a daunting task, and few will ever achieve it.

[DeltaLover]

So far, my testing of my program at many tracks, individually, shows that the optimum minimum odds requirement varies by track. The reason for that variance is tied to the average win payouts at each track. And it also depends on how many contenders you are betting. For instance, at Belmont, betting only one contender, the minimum odds for profitability in my program is .01/1, or, any odds. While at other tracks the minimum odds for a single contender might be 1/1 to 2/1. As the number of bet contenders increases, the minimum odds required for profitability also increases, and some tracks will simply not support multiple contender betting. But, at those tracks that have higher average win payouts, the typical multiple contender bet model is about 5/2-7/2.

For multiple contender betting I am leaning towards, at or around, natural odds, after eliminations from win contention. So generally, if you have 3 contenders, and the track's average win payouts are good, the minimum odds for "break even" play are around 2/1. To make a profit they would be around 5/2. With 4 contenders those odds are around 3/1 to break even and 7/2 to make a profit, etc..

I'm still researching this but so far that is about what it takes, at least for my program anyway. Other programs, using other elimination methods might be better or worse.

Now, if you have a very good odds line, and you are consistent in using it, for every bet, then a minimum odds requirement would not be needed, you could simply bet the line, with or without any eliminations. But, again, creating a "very good" odds line is a daunting task, and few will ever achieve it.

I am skeptical about minimum odds criteria as in todays game you can never be sure about it. Almost always odds are chaning drastically after the bell.

In my systems I am always seeking for a horse near natural odds at post time that will become my key. When it comes to low odds horses, I do not discriminate them based in odds. Usually I treat them as the top crowd's choice and the cofavorites. Ideally I will try to eliminate all of the top picks at least for the top spot. I if cannot do that I will try to completely eliminate the top choice. If I find the the crowd is picking the correct horse, I will try to eliminate most of the cofavorites allowing at maximum one of them. If I cannot do that I either pass or bet my longshot to win.

I never make a decession comparing 4-1 to 3-1 odds or even 2-1 if the 2-1 is not the favorite of the race as these will most likely change shortly...

[raybo]

I am skeptical about minimum odds criteria as in todays game you can never be sure about it. Almost always odds are chaning drastically after the bell.

In my systems I am always seeking for a horse near natural odds at post time that will become my key. When it comes to low odds horses, I do not discriminate them based in odds. Usually I treat them as the top crowd's choice and the cofavorites. Ideally I will try to eliminate all of the top picks at least for the top spot. I if cannot do that I will try to completely eliminate the top choice. If I find the the crowd is picking the correct horse, I will try to eliminate most of the cofavorites allowing at maximum one of them. If I cannot do that I either pass or bet my longshot to win.

I never make a decession comparing 4-1 to 3-1 odds or even 2-1 if the 2-1 is not the favorite of the race as these will most likely change shortly...

That is why one must become adept at forecasting which way the odds will move after you have placed your bet. Sometimes you will come out on the lower end of the odds and other times you will come out on the higher end of the odds. If you are good at forecasting the direction of odds travel, the two directions of the odds movements will pretty much nullify themselves, leaving you with about what you were attempting to accomplish with your minimum odds requirements. Generally, the lower the pre-race odds, the more likely those odds will decrease, and conversely, the higher those pre-race odds, the more likely they are to increase. My testing shows that if you have a low priced horse in your win contenders, lower than your track tested optimal minimum odds requirement, then you don't bet the horse, but you do bet your other higher odds win contenders. No low odds horse is guaranteed to win, so not betting that horse is not a negative at all, in the long term.

One of the big problems with good handicappers failing to make long term profit, is that they are not focused on "long term" they are focused on making profit, in this race, right now. Seeking immediate gratification, at the expense of long term growth, is the downfall of many a good handicapper.

[DeltaLover]

One of the big problems with good handicappers failing to make long term profit, is that they are not focused on "long term" they are focused on making profit, in this race, right now. Seeking immediate gratification, at the expense of long term growth, is the downfall of many a good handicapper.


Of course I agree with what you say here.

The point I have to make is that experience is proving to me that the long run when betting horses is not as long as I expected it to be.

In other games like poker of BJ, the long run is really long, I am convinced that this does not necessary holds true for horses. The variance of a horse betting strategy can be way smaller than poker or BJ assuming proper handicapping and betting execution.

[raybo]

Of course I agree with what you say here.

The point I have to make is that experience is proving to me that the long run when betting horses is not as long as I expected it to be.

In other games like poker of BJ, the long run is really long, I am convinced that this does not necessary holds true for horses. The variance of a horse betting strategy can be way smaller than poker or BJ assuming proper handicapping and betting execution.

When this happens, the long term seems to shorten, it's time to retest. I do this frequently, and often my retesting tells me to change my method and/or my minimum odds requirement. One cannot remain static in ones overall method, for all time. Re-evaluating the method, as it's "long term" value decreases, is imperative.

You cannot compare poker or blackjack to horse racing, they are fundamentally different.

[DeltaLover]

When this happens, the long term seems to shorten, it's time to retest. I do this frequently, and often my retesting tells me to change my method and/or my minimum odds requirement. One cannot remain static in ones overall method, for all time. Re-evaluating the method, as it's "long term" value decreases, is imperative.

You cannot compare poker or blackjack to horse racing, they are fundamentally different.


I think you misunderstood me.

Having low variance is a good thing if you have positive expectation as it suppresses loosing streaks. Since this year's Preakness that I resumed my betting, I never had two consecutive loosing days while (God forbids) not even a single loosing week!

Although correct that one cannot remain static still I believe that after a certain level changes should be very infrequent and carefully planned.

Sure, BJ, poker and horse betting are different games but still have similarities especially when seen from a macroscopic view. All three can be beaten thus they can be described by their EV and variance. Horse racing is without a question the best choice as far as final results are going but it also needs much more dedication and effort.

[TrifectaMike]

I am skeptical about minimum odds criteria as in todays game you can never be sure about it. Almost always odds are chaning drastically after the bell.

In my systems I am always seeking for a horse near natural odds at post time that will become my key. When it comes to low odds horses, I do not discriminate them based in odds. Usually I treat them as the top crowd's choice and the cofavorites. Ideally I will try to eliminate all of the top picks at least for the top spot. I if cannot do that I will try to completely eliminate the top choice. If I find the the crowd is picking the correct horse, I will try to eliminate most of the cofavorites allowing at maximum one of them. If I cannot do that I either pass or bet my longshot to win.

I never make a decession comparing 4-1 to 3-1 odds or even 2-1 if the 2-1 is not the favorite of the race as these will most likely change shortly...

I've posted below an aprior oddsline (without any updates) for PARX.


PRX 2013 0723 2 1320 D C
PGN Horse Odds
1 WILD KAY 1.25
2 TAKING A CHANCE 2.33
3 TANASI 6.08
5 HA HA FOOLED YA 15.23
4 JUDY'S QUEST 28.47


PRX 2013 0723 3 1320 D R
PGN Horse Odds
4 TRUE COMPASS 1.61
7 ROYAL SHAMUS 2.78
6 PART ONE 4.83
2 P. A. THUNDER 10.69
1 CO PILOT 16.92
5 JOHNNY LOVE NOTE 31.97


PRX 2013 0723 4 1430 D C
PGN Horse Odds
2 CATINGUA 1.54
4 MALIBU LOVE 3.09
6 LUCY'S FINALE 7.28
1 HOT CAT PROSPECT 9.82
3 YOUR LOVELY 12.65
5 SPEED ZONE 21.57
7 ECHO'S CUTIE PIE 49.63


PRX 2013 0723 5 1320 D R
PGN Horse Odds
6 MAJOR HIGHWAY 1.10
1 CRAZY COUSIN JOHN 4.06
3 SHOW YA LUV 5.45
4 J C'S DREAM 14.85
5 RUNNIN BULL 22.17
2 RIMYANNA 35.25


PRX 2013 0723 7 1100 T R
PGN Horse Odds
4 XMAS SKY 1.34
1 ELLIPSE 3.37
7 PHIL DANCER 4.86
6 TUCKED IN FRONT 10.75
9 RIDE CANDY RIDE 16.84
2 COULDBEAGHOSTRIDER 38.20


PRX 2013 0723 8 1870 T A
PGN Horse Odds
10 FIRST WHIPPOORWILL 1.45
11 QUEEN OF ROCK 3.20
1 MINESHAFT DREAM 7.49
5 WELL POLISHED 10.56
3 OASIS AT MIDNIGHT 14.11
8 CALYPSOGIRL 22.43
6 LITTLE MISS 41.55


PRX 2013 0723 9 1760 D C
PGN Horse Odds
2 PROVIDENTIAL BID 2.15
11 ROYAL AFFAIR 3.30
4 SLIPPERY SLEWP 7.20
8 STRIKE DOWN 9.75
7 CLOSING DATE 13.13
10 AFLEET AHEAD 15.67
1 FIDDLERS CELT 21.99
9 EXCHANGE CAN RATE 30.97
5 EARNEST HOPE 67.18


Let's see how stable or unstable this line is.

Mike

[DeltaLover]

I've posted below an aprior oddsline (without any updates) for PARX.



Let's see how stable or unstable this line is.

Mike

Doc,

is your line predicting the public or represents a 'real' one?

[TrifectaMike]

Doc,

is your line predicting the public or represents a 'real' one?

Delta,

It's a real one (but aprior.... meaning that I'll predict where the public should be in a separate oddsline and also the migration of the final odds). Also, keep in mind that the aprior oddsline has not been subjected to any updates that maybe necessary... you yet don't know if a Guido ior several Guido's may show themselves...( that is when the Bayesian updates kick-in).

For this demonstration assume this is your betting line.

Mike

[Capper Al]

Are you guys all retired? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands.

[DeltaLover]

Delta,

It's a real one (but aprior.... meaning that I'll predict where the public should be in a separate oddsline and also the migration of the final odds). Also, keep in mind that the aprior oddsline has not been subjected to any updates that maybe necessary... you yet don't know if a Guido ior several Guido's may show themselves...( that is when the Bayesian updates kick-in).

For this demonstration assume this is your betting line.

Mike

This is very interesting....

Clearly the best way to test any handicapping method...

[iceknight]

Are you guys all retired? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands. We make time for our passions in life. Does this address your question without directly answering it?

[raybo]

Are you guys all retired? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands.

Yup! Ain't it great!

[TrifectaMike]

Let's try MNR


MNR 2013 0723 1 1320 D C
PGN Horse Odds
6 EL MARTILLO 1.84
5 HANDSOME BRUNO 3.59
1 MOLLY'S SHIP 6.28
4 STREATERVILLE 8.92
7 LAWTONCIRCLE 10.84
2 SHORE TEE 16.08
9 MIG ALLEY 35.47
3 SPEEDY TUXEDO 59.11


MNR 2013 0723 2 990 T C
PGN Horse Odds
10 WOLFMANLEX 1.76
1 GENERAL PERFECT 3.46
4 DR. COPPER 5.20
3 ROYAL RED SECRET 8.28
5 VALUED ASSETS 12.40
7 DURANTS AFLEET 22.52
2 FAVORITE FLASHBACK 39.09


MNR 2013 0723 3 1650 T C
PGN Horse Odds
1A SKIPPING THE SCORE 1.93
1 PURELY BOY 2.95
5 ODOM 5.08
8 GAME DRIVE 10.09
3 KNOWURBREW 21.16
6 MASTER NOBLE 26.06
2 ROMAN RAIDER 34.62
7 LAGOON 77.94


MNR 2013 0723 4 1760 D C
PGN Horse Odds
3 RAIL JUMPER 2.15
9 CAVE CREEK ROAD 3.68
1 VIA DELOROSA 5.65
2 PAST TIME PARADISE 6.89
6 DONATI 11.05
7 JABBAWOKEE 15.81
8 EL GATO NEGRO 36.97
5 ARUMAGON 60.47


MNR 2013 0723 5 1100 D C
PGN Horse Odds
3 THIS CATS ON FIRE 1.44
1 BEA'S HARD SIX 3.34
6 SPANISH SALSA 6.15
4 HELEN'S TROLLIE 8.53
5 KUTLOOSE 17.15
7 DRY WITH A TWIST 29.03
2 ERIKA'S BUDDY 79.11


MNR 2013 0723 6 1100 D C
PGN Horse Odds
1 SHE'S A LISTENER 1.41
5 CLAY BASKET 3.76
2 RENO STAR 5.71
7 BURNING TWITCH 8.86
3 GOOD'S SECRET 16.00
6 ANGEL IN BLUE 24.97
4 LIL DIVA 63.99


MNR 2013 0723 7 1210 D C
PGN Horse Odds
3 CITIZEN'S ARREST 1.91
5 PUBLISH 3.16
8 GONE PROSPECTING 5.29
2 PALMETTO MOON 9.63
7 GASTON 16.95
1 TETON MOTEL 21.59
4 KING THOU ART 31.33
6 CAPTAIN BOB JO JR. 56.47


MNR 2013 0723 8 1760 D C
PGN Horse Odds
1 BRICKYARD 1.44
7 WAYNE THE TRAIN 3.84
8 HARPERS LAND 5.57
3 ELLENBERGER PARK 8.67
6 SWAP UP 13.29
5 COPPER CASCADE 33.43
2 KING HARRY 63.51


MNR 2013 0723 9 1320 D C
PGN Horse Odds
4 AVOID 2.43
5 PENNANT CHASE 4.69
10 SARGE'S 5.81
2 EASY GALLOP 7.49
9 EVAN'S EMERALD 10.22
1 AMERICAN CLASSIC 13.47
3 HAIL TO THE CHIEF 24.73
8 GOALTOGOAL 32.73
7 IM GOOD AT THAT 43.02
6 LOVE CONNECTION 77.86