Selecting playable races

[dkithore]

I use Cramer's criteria to handicap races as there are so many races to choose from. Simply stated they are,

1] Eliminate horses that have lost two times at today's class level or lesser; 2] Eliminate trainers with a less than 12% win rate;
Do not play any race unless you can eliminate at least half the field.

I know some of you believe in different strategies because you use computers. But I am pencil and pencil guy and must allocate limited time to potentially profitable races.

How do you select playable races?

[Some_One]

Should the fav be the fav?

[dkithore]

Should the fav be the fav?
Good one!

[Stillriledup]

If i think i have a really strong opinion that one of the runners is overbet, i'll try and find something to beat that horse. If i have a strong opinion that a horse is better than his lines indicate he might be, than i feel like that's another edge that will get me to search for a play. In general, i'm just looking for what i feel are mistakes from the crowd...the bigger the mistake, the more i'm likely to make some sort of wager into that race.

[Krudler]

I also think the Cramer Short Form methodology has a lot of merit. One wrinkle is that it doesn't leave a lot of playable races, however.

As per Cramer's suggestion, remember that there are important exceptions to be made to the guidelines. As noted in his book Handicapping on the Road, the exceptions are:

(1) Trainer specialty stats: For specialty trainer stats fitting today’s race (a) trainer shows at least a 16% win rate PLUS a flat-bet profit for that specialty stat

(2) Horse for course: Horse clearly overachieves at a particular racing venue. The proof is in the good results at higher odds.

(3) Horse for jockey: Horse is switching to the rider with whom the horse ran an overachieving – the horse ran much better than its odds – performance.

You've indicated that you're a P&P guy but, for the record, RPM puts out the Short Form Paradigm Software that uses $1 BRIS files. I have the program but can't really recommend it as it doesn't recognize any of the exceptions. By ignoring those "maybe" horses outright, the program often fails to include the really juicy winners in its picks. That said, the program would save time at finding those that have lost 2 at the level and the low % trainers. Search "Short Form" on this forum and you'll find a thread from earlier in 2013 about the pros and cons of the product.

If you haven't done so already, I recommend picking up a copy of Handicapping on the Road as it does a great job of highlighting the philosophy behind the method and shows Cramer's artistry in working with it. If you prefer a free option, you can access Mark Cramer's C&X Report (http://markcramercx.blogspot.com.au/2009_10_24_archive.html) - a blog that contains a lot of info on the Short Form.

[dkithore]

If i think i have a really strong opinion that one of the runners is overbet, i'll try and find something to beat that horse. If i have a strong opinion that a horse is better than his lines indicate he might be, than i feel like that's another edge that will get me to search for a play. In general, i'm just looking for what i feel are mistakes from the crowd...the bigger the mistake, the more i'm likely to make some sort of wager into that race.

So, I infer from your response that you have oddsline (in your head or on paper) that allows you to decide whether a race is playable or not based on value you seek. Fair enough.

[dkithore]

I also think the Cramer Short Form methodology has a lot of merit. One wrinkle is that it doesn't leave a lot of playable races, however.

As per Cramer's suggestion, remember that there are important exceptions to be made to the guidelines. As noted in his book Handicapping on the Road, the exceptions are:

(1) Trainer specialty stats: For specialty trainer stats fitting today’s race (a) trainer shows at least a 16% win rate PLUS a flat-bet profit for that specialty stat

(2) Horse for course: Horse clearly overachieves at a particular racing venue. The proof is in the good results at higher odds.

(3) Horse for jockey: Horse is switching to the rider with whom the horse ran an overachieving – the horse ran much better than its odds – performance.

You've indicated that you're a P&P guy but, for the record, RPM puts out the Short Form Paradigm Software that uses $1 BRIS files. I have the program but can't really recommend it as it doesn't recognize any of the exceptions. By ignoring those "maybe" horses outright, the program often fails to include the really juicy winners in its picks. That said, the program would save time at finding those that have lost 2 at the level and the low % trainers. Search "Short Form" on this forum and you'll find a thread from earlier in 2013 about the pros and cons of the product.

If you haven't done so already, I recommend picking up a copy of Handicapping on the Road as it does a great job of highlighting the philosophy behind the method and shows Cramer's artistry in working with it. If you prefer a free option, you can access Mark Cramer's C&X Report (http://markcramercx.blogspot.com.au/2009_10_24_archive.html) - a blog that contains a lot of info on the Short Form.

Thanks for the thorough response. Yes, I have his book and I refer to it often as I engage with UK racing where his approach originated from. In US much of this data is available handily. Elsewhere it needs a lot more research as you probably know having read his book. I was honestly hoping from more enlightened players whether they have insights in making a quick decision to handicap a race or not. Certainly short Form is definitely one I use depending in data availability.

[Robert Goren]

I don't believe you can throw out any dirt race except maybe the first one or two on a card. There might be a strong bias that day. A strong bias makes every race playable.

[Stillriledup]

So, I infer from your response that you have oddsline (in your head or on paper) that allows you to decide whether a race is playable or not based on value you seek. Fair enough.

I have an oddsline in my head on what each horse should be, but that oddsline is obviously flexible depending on how each horse looks warming up....for example, if a 2 year old filly is bucking and acting like an ass in the warmup and banging her body against the outrider pony, i'm going to give her a massive downgrade.

[dkithore]

Thanks for the thorough response. Yes, I have his book and I refer to it often as I engage with UK racing where his approach originated from. In US much of this data is available handily. Elsewhere it needs a lot more research as you probably know having read his book. I was honestly hoping from more enlightened players whether they have insights in making a quick decision to handicap a race or not. Certainly short Form is definitely one I use depending in data availability.
Correction. It was on the road in France.

[Robert Fischer]

How do you select playable races?

I usually start with the way the parimutuel pool is working for that race.
Then I try to determine if there is money to be made.

However, some races I can look at and see at a glance that I want no part of them.

[thaskalos]

I use Cramer's criteria to handicap races as there are so many races to choose from. Simply stated they are,

1] Eliminate horses that have lost two times at today's class level or lesser; 2] Eliminate trainers with a less than 12% win rate;
Do not play any race unless you can eliminate at least half the field.

I know some of you believe in different strategies because you use computers. But I am pencil and pencil guy and must allocate limited time to potentially profitable races.

How do you select playable races?

I hate all three of these elimination rules.

1.) Losing two times at today's level means nothing until we investigate the circumstances surrounding those defeats. A horse can run a winning-type race even while losing.

2.) It isn't the trainer's overall winning percentage that tells the story; it's how the trainer is handling the particular horse.

3.) The odds offered by our horse is the determining factor in whether or not we make the bet...not whether or not we can eliminate half the field.

I don't know if Mark Cramer indeed suggested these elimination rules, but if he did...then that might explain why he is currently handicapping harness races in France... :)

[dkithore]

I hate all three of these elimination rules.

1.) Losing two times at today's level means nothing until we investigate the circumstances surrounding those defeats. A horse can run a winning-type race even while losing.

2.) It isn't the trainer's overall winning percentage that tells the story; it's how the trainer is handling the particular horse.

3.) The odds offered by our horse is the determining factor in whether or not we make the bet...not whether or not we can eliminate half the field.

I don't know if Mark Cramer indeed suggested these elimination rules, but if he did...then that might explain why he is currently handicapping harness races in France... :)
Thask,

I hear you loud and clear. As for the point #1, do you disagree that two or more losses at the level of today's competition an indication whether the horse belongs in this race?

Point #2. Aren't winning trainers (16%+) at this type of race (say Maidens) an indication of higher probability of him/her increase the relative chances of this horse competing and finishing well?

Point #3 you are absolutely on mark.

[dkithore]

I usually start with the way the parimutuel pool is working for that race.
Then I try to determine if there is money to be made.

However, some races I can look at and see at a glance that I want no part of them.
When you look at the board, there are flags that tell you to stay away like your selection is an underlay, contentious race ,,What specifically turns you away, if you don't mind sharing?

[thaskalos]

Thask,

I hear you loud and clear. As for the point #1, do you disagree that two or more losses at the level of today's competition an indication whether the horse belongs in this race?

Point #2. Aren't winning trainers (16%+) at this type of race (say Maidens) an indication of higher probability of him/her increase the relative chances of this horse competing and finishing well?

Point #3 you are absolutely on mark.

1.) No...two or more losses at a particular level are not an indication that the horse does not belong at that level. There are losses...and then there are LOSSES.

ALL horses have two are more losses at whatever level they happen to be competing in. Should we expect that the horses win ALL the races at a particular level, before we can say that they belong at that level?

2.) Instead of looking at the trainer's overall winning percentage...I look at his competence in handling the horse in question. If he is getting good results with that particular horse...then his winning percentage is not a concern for me.

[MJC922]

12% is a pretty harsh cutoff for trainers, for just a generic (non pattern-specific) cutoff I would probably knock that down a bit or even in half. A trainer can be 12% overall but near 20% off the layoff for example.

The bottom half of the field ('eliminated' or not) can be very dangerous. Does Cramer provide stats regarding how many eliminated horses win in 'playable' races? Eliminated horses as a group carry a win% and that win% varies with each race. Factors like the number eliminated and field size will be important here too, someone who writes a book should be providing these metrics.

Building a stable of live horses is really IMO a better way for let's say a recreational handicapper to reduce the handicapping piece down a bit. In that case you're only forced to handicap races where your horses are entered and if you've done a good job building a stable there's inherently value in every horse you're investing in. This can be done much easier today with the availability of replays and can be done at any time of day.

[Robert Fischer]

When you look at the board, there are flags that tell you to stay away like your selection is an underlay, contentious race ,,What specifically turns you away, if you don't mind sharing?


It all goes back to the parimutuel system. I look at the parimutuel system for the race.

The part that turns me away is either the parimutuel system being efficient, or me being ignorant to whether or not it is efficient. One of these two pitfalls happens most of the time where you to give me a random race.

This is why go into the day with horses to bet, and horses to bet against. Even these spot plays are subject to the parimutuel system. I also know the connections very well, and I know what looks like a possible favorable situation for them.
Rarely will I pass a race on things other than parimutuel system and/or ignorance.

A rare example of that would be 6.5Downhill Turf @ SA. I guess technically that is in the ignorance category. I simply do not process those races well in my brain, so while I continue to try, I do not ever play them. Some of the Keeneland poly races are the same way. -If I don't have a slew of value horses with which a spread approach offers big value(which does happen, but not nearly enough), I tend to pass.

I'm not a big enough player yet for large spreads(although to my dismay I have hit some vertical exotics on paper this meet), and these races contain an unpredictable element that I can not exploit within the confines of my wagering rules. These types of eliminations are the exception.

Again, we play this parimutuel game. Let me directly tackle that issue before I worry about any kinds of qualifications or stats.

[UncleBuck]

For playing the harness horses, I use two rules:

1. I don't handicap races where there is not at least one horse who is a
20% or better winner;

2. I don't further handicap a race where the overall field's good race %
(win and place %) is less than 20%.

This seems to cut down losing money trying to figure out if a 2 for 29 horse
can beat an 0 for 18 horse.

[dkithore]

12% is a pretty harsh cutoff for trainers, for just a generic (non pattern-specific) cutoff I would probably knock that down a bit or even in half. A trainer can be 12% overall but near 20% off the layoff for example.

The bottom half of the field ('eliminated' or not) can be very dangerous. Does Cramer provide stats regarding how many eliminated horses win in 'playable' races? Eliminated horses as a group carry a win% and that win% varies with each race. Factors like the number eliminated and field size will be important here too, someone who writes a book should be providing these metrics.

Building a stable of live horses is really IMO a better way for let's say a recreational handicapper to reduce the handicapping piece down a bit. In that case you're only forced to handicap races where your horses are entered and if you've done a good job building a stable there's inherently value in every horse you're investing in. This can be done much easier today with the availability of replays and can be done at any time of day.

I suppose I am guilty of not providing the context in which he suggested the strategy. Like another poster state earlier there are certain other conditions that must be looked into before eliminating the horses. (pl. refer to earlier post).

No, I believe he was on the road when he came up with the "short form" idea and perhaps still testing the aspects you are asking about. I do not know for sure.

My own application over a period of time indicates that this approach of class and trainer is a good indicator to include the horse as a contender but not to exclude those that do not outright. My records showed that (of 300 races) about 50 to 60 % of winners qualified under those criteria. However, Cramer did mention to experiment with the trainer stats and keep records to see how well it worked in my specific situation (non-us races). That means there is a hole from which some long shots slip out that may not meet the criteria.

I will consider your suggestion of stable and following certain horses that makes less work for handicapping. Thanks.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I use what I can only call a 1-2-4 method(s) for deciding playable races.

1 horse reality-if the favorite is suspect,bet.If it's legitimiate and 2-1 or higher but you think has 1-1 chances,bet.

2 horse reality-you whittle a race down to 2 equal contenders.If the odds are disproportionate on 1 of them,bet.

4+ horse reality-if 4 or more horses can win the race,one or more of them are going to have odds out of whack,wether it's because of an overbet trainer-jockey combo,doesn't fit the probable pace,peaked out form etc etc.These to me are almost always will plays.

Beyond that it's a matter of taste IMO.I like distance races.I like maidens with a fair amount of FTS.I love interpreting form cycles at some of the cheapest racetracks in the country.There's not much I don't like!Tracks where favorites win in droves.I pass.Even cherry picking races I'll play usually half of any card I look at.I only try to avoid winning everything because I'm winning or playing everything because it's late and/or I'm losing.I know the more I deviate from a profile or archetypal winning play for a specific race type or specific situation I'm just playing to play.Handicapping yourself when selecting races is big.I don't hear too much about eliminating yourself from races very often!

[MJC922]

I use what I can only call a 1-2-4 method(s) for deciding playable races.

1 horse reality-if the favorite is suspect,bet.If it's legitimiate and 2-1 or higher but you think has 1-1 chances,bet.

2 horse reality-you whittle a race down to 2 equal contenders.If the odds are disproportionate on 1 of them,bet.

4+ horse reality-if 4 or more horses can win the race,one or more of them are going to have odds out of whack,wether it's because of an overbet trainer-jockey combo,doesn't fit the probable pace,peaked out form etc etc.These to me are almost always will plays.

Beyond that it's a matter of taste IMO.I like distance races.I like maidens with a fair amount of FTS.I love interpreting form cycles at some of the cheapest racetracks in the country.There's not much I don't like!Tracks where favorites win in droves.I pass.Even cherry picking races I'll play usually half of any card I look at.I only try to avoid winning everything because I'm winning or playing everything because it's late and/or I'm losing.I know the more I deviate from a profile or archetypal winning play for a specific race type or specific situation I'm just playing to play.Handicapping yourself when selecting races is big.I don't hear too much about eliminating yourself from races very often!

Do you flat bet mostly or play exotics?

[CincyHorseplayer]

Do you flat bet mostly or play exotics?

I play win on odds 2-1 to 3-1 and win/place on 7/2 and up.60% of my bet will go here.The other 40% I'll use for exotics,if I use them.I don't always play exotics.Usually exactas or target a sequence of races for rolling doubles.I like to play the pick 4 if the sequence looks beatable but without a likely heavy favorite in there.If I get higher odds I'll play a tri or super.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The other thing I would like to add that we all are capable of reacting to is the random distribution of playable races.You have to prepared to deal with both.I can't recall the exact dates but at Belmont in 2011 I bet 7 races in a row one day and I wasn't getting sloppy,greedy,angry,aggressive,stupid,frivolous etc etc.It was one of those days where in addition to the horses you got your standard playable odds on,horses I thought would be 1-1 or 8/5 were 5/2 or 3-1.Good day!On the other hand don't feel like you are betraying your gameplan because you are watching sorry races go by and you aren't squeezing blood from it.It happens.After so many days of trying to carve sculptures out of $hit piles I feel just fine having my money in my pocket.

[classhandicapper]

If i think i have a really strong opinion that one of the runners is overbet, i'll try and find something to beat that horse. If i have a strong opinion that a horse is better than his lines indicate he might be, than i feel like that's another edge that will get me to search for a play. In general, i'm just looking for what i feel are mistakes from the crowd...the bigger the mistake, the more i'm likely to make some sort of wager into that race.

This is exactly my game also.

[Bennie]

As far as playable "races" for me, I start with turf races and my pet peeve races with blinkers-off horses involved. I do okay with the turf races based on class ratings. Off turf races are a toss no matter how much time I took handicapping the race. blinkers-off races are hit and miss as I will only play races where the horse has shown some early pace and some fade, thinking the equipment change will help relax and have some energy left at the end. They must also show somewhere in the past races the ability to run numbers that would make them contenders. For what it is worth, I have found that horses with ML odds between 4-1 and 10-1 seem to have the best chance in these races and when the horse comes up the favorite, for some reason they almost always lose and many times are completely off the board.
2 yr old, synthetic tracks and fields filled with first time starters are a pass for me. (like the complete cards at Belmont and Churchill tomorrow)