How do you handicapp a race?

[Speed Figure]

Are these automatic Throw outs for you? Just asking for some opinions!

1. Would you ever say a horse is a non contender if it has not raced in the last 90 days?

2. Would you automatically toss a horse because it is 20/1 or higher on the ML?

3. Would you say a horse is a non contender without an in the money finish in the last 90 days?

4. If your a paceline picker, would you ever select a paceline older than 90 days?

[DJofSD]

Are these automatic Throw outs for you? Just asking for some opinions!

1. Would you ever say a horse is a non contender if it has not raced in the last 90 days?

2. Would you automatically toss a horse because it is 20/1 or higher on the ML?

3. Would you say a horse is a non contender without an in the money finish in the last 90 days?

4. If your a paceline picker, would you ever select a paceline older than 90 days?


1. No. What do the PPs show? Do some digging -- did the horse break its maiden in it's first race?

2. I do not consider the ML, initially. I find it can be of indue influence.

3. Again, what has the horse been able to do before?

4. I look for patterns. If I see a pattern for a race and a pace line is old, old, old, I will use it.

[letswastemoney]

I just pick names out of a hat.

[thaskalos]

Are these automatic Throw outs for you? Just asking for some opinions!

1. Would you ever say a horse is a non contender if it has not raced in the last 90 days?

2. Would you automatically toss a horse because it is 20/1 or higher on the ML?

3. Would you say a horse is a non contender without an in the money finish in the last 90 days?

4. If your a paceline picker, would you ever select a paceline older than 90 days?



1. If the horse was in sharp shape before the layoff, then I would not consider it a win contender after a 90-day layoff. The thinking behind shelving a sharp horse for 90 days just does not register with me...unless we are talking about the classiest horses on the grounds.

2. The morning line has never meant anything to me, and I would not rely on it for any part of the handicapping process.

3. No. IMO...out-of-the-money finishes cannot eliminate a horse from our list of contenders. I can envision several scenarios where a horse can demonstrate that it is in winning form, even without having an in-the-money finish in the last 90 days.

4. I am not a paceline picker...because I believe that a horse cannot be properly rated off of just one paceline. But if I were a paceline picker...then I would not restrict myself to the last 90 days in my paceline selection. If the conditions are right...then the older races can be acceptable as well, IMO.

[Robert Goren]

Are these automatic Throw outs for you? Just asking for some opinions!


1. Would you ever say a horse is a non contender if it has not raced in the last 90 days? depends on the trainer and whether it is running on the dirt or turf or it is at beginning of a meet with most if not all of the other horses have not run in 90 days. Generally, it is bad thing except in turf routes 0r is sitting on a cinch track bias.

2. Would you automatically toss a horse because it is 20/1 or higher on the ML? No

3. Would you say a horse is a non contender without an in the money finish in the last 90 days? No

4. If your a paceline picker, would you ever select a paceline older than 90 days? Yes
Some trainers win all the time with horses that have not raced in 90 days. Some almost never do. The answer lies with who is training the horse. M/L don't mean anything. Front running horses often win without an IM finish in the last 90 days.
I will go back as far it takes to determine running style and whether a horse has enough early speed to get the lead in today's race. I may not like doing it, but sometimes you have no choice.
You start apply a 90 day rule to everything and you will eat a lot of chalk.

[Johnny V]

Are these automatic Throw outs for you? Just asking for some opinions!

1. Would you ever say a horse is a non contender if it has not raced in the last 90 days?

2. Would you automatically toss a horse because it is 20/1 or higher on the ML?

3. Would you say a horse is a non contender without an in the money finish in the last 90 days?

4. If your a paceline picker, would you ever select a paceline older than 90 days?


1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Yes

[PICSIX]

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Yes

You copied my answers :lol:

[Segwin]

I just pick names out of a hat.

And I thought I was the only one :D

[Segwin]

On another forum I talked about a horse by the name of Central Banker. He was off for 270+ days (I think he was going off at about 20/1 as well). I tossed him because of the time off. Well it appears that he had healed fine after the layoff and smoked the field - he passed them like they were standing still :eek:. Central Banker was a stakes horse running in a two bit race for his comeback. After I picked my jaw up off the floor I decided that wasn't going to happen again.

As I comb through a card I now look for these opportunities as they can pay large. If you're looking to bet on these they must have won before the layoff and they must have had recent workouts. Also you want to make sure that they are in a race that should be an easy win for them.

[Dave Schwartz]

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Yes

[Tall One]

1. If the horse was in sharp shape before the layoff, then I would not consider it a win contender after a 90-day layoff. The thinking behind shelving a sharp horse for 90 days just does not register with me...unless we are talking about the classiest horses on the grounds.

2. The morning line has never meant anything to me, and I would not rely on it for any part of the handicapping process.

3. No. IMO...out-of-the-money finishes cannot eliminate a horse from our list of contenders. I can envision several scenarios where a horse can demonstrate that it is in winning form, even without having an in-the-money finish in the last 90 days.

4. I am not a paceline picker...because I believe that a horse cannot be properly rated off of just one paceline. But if I were a paceline picker...then I would not restrict myself to the last 90 days in my paceline selection. If the conditions are right...then the older races can be acceptable as well, IMO.



Similar guidelines that I follow. Some additions:

1) While I agree that layoffs of that sort are a head scratcher, when a horse is sharp, sometimes feel the trainer lays off the horse for a series of races they're pointing for down the road.

2) Nothing to add. If my horse is 20-1 on the screen/tote so be it.

3) Exactly. Lots of variables why a horse has been out it's past few races. Namely, running over it's head, unfavorable PP, bias, etc...

4) Pace of past races that are close to today's conditions can't be over looked, and I'll go back 90 days. Granted, those races, and pace probably won't be identical, but, it gives an idea where my horse "might" be placed during the race at this distance. Usually this notion is squashed 2-3 jumps outta the gate..:bang:

[Overlay]

When I first started handicapping, the prevailing advice that I found at that time was to narrow a race field down by eliminating horses one by one using criteria related to the various handicapping factors (form, class, speed, pace, etc.), until I had either thrown out the entire field (in which case the race was "unplayable"), or else arrived at a single selection. The problem with that was that it normally left me with chalk horses that were obvious to everyone, where the payouts on the winners weren't enough to cover the losses on the horses that (for whatever reason) failed to win. And I ended up kicking myself when horses that had positive factors or angles going for them, but that I had thrown out because they didn't meet all my selection criteria, won at high odds.

As a result, I switched to an approach where I never discard any horse completely, or treat it as if has an absolute zero chance of winning the race. I develop a broadly-based, weighted fair odds line for all the horses in a race field, taking both their positive and negative aspects into account, and let their tote odds determine whether they're worth a bet, regardless of whether they're the horse that I think is most likely to win the race or not.

[Speed Figure]

On another forum these are guidelines to follow. I'm only asking do others believe in these guidelines because when I didn't at all and love when a horse with a 20/1 ML or higher shows up BIG on my program. It was said that 95% of all winners have raced within the last 90 days and that horses with a 20/1 ML only win 5% of the time.

[Quagmire]

horses with a 20/1 ML only win 5% of the time.
That number is surprising, I would have thought it would be much less than that.

[HUSKER55]

I throw out horses who haven't raced in less than 65 days. Do I get clipped once in a while, this is horse racing. Check the work outs.

I like the odds on my pick to be over 20:1 ...yes I am a greedy little boy

I will use a pace line over 90 days if I think it is the proper line to use.

[raybo]

4 N0s. Each field is different, so how would you know if any of the 4 reasons should be upheld? Automatic tosses, without analyzing the field just makes no sense.