- This race is wide open...

[DeltaLover]

One of the most common comments I hear from horse players, is about a specific
race been wide open. What exactly that means and how it should affect our
betting decisions?

Is there any way to quantify how wide or narrow open a race is and how this kind
of a metric can be utilized for betting purposes?

[Greyfox]

For starters, the tote board is one metric.

The other day at Hollywood Park in a race the public betting favorite was 7/2.
Several horses were 5-1.
Others 7-1, 8-1 and up.
When the odds on a favorite are that high, it tells you that the public does not have great certainty with respect to the outcome.

[JohnGalt1]

After handicapping a race and I find any horse could win I either pass or if playing a pick 3,4,5,6 will hit the all button if the cost of the ticket is within reason.

Though my chaotic race may include YOUR best bet of the day depending upon our method and vice versa.

[Clocker]

One of the most common comments I hear from horse players, is about a specific
race been wide open. What exactly that means and how it should affect our
betting decisions?


Mark Cramer talks about contentious races and lesser-of-evils races. The first is a race where many horses appear capable of winning. He advises passing on the race. I have generally found that to be the best option also. I haven't tried it yet, but depending on odds, such a race might be a good spot for an exotic box of some kind, especially if you can identify a false favorite.

Cramer defines a lesser-of-evils race as one where none of the horses appear capable of winning. All the horses are below par speed, and all are proven losers at this class level. He says that such races are rarely won by the fastest or classiest horse, and that a race like this is usually best for angle plays, especially those based on trainer patterns.

[DeltaLover]

Mark Cramer talks about contentious races and lesser-of-evils races. The first is a race where many horses appear capable of winning. He advises passing on the race.


I have to disagree with Mark Cramer on that. I think that one of the fundmental truths of this game is exactly that any horse in the race can eventually become the winner.

[Clocker]

I have to disagree with Mark Cramer on that. I think that one of the fundmental truths of this game is exactly that any horse in the race can eventually become the winner.

He is talking about a race when you can't identify any horse as a contender based on your normal handicapping methods.

[Robert Goren]

There comes up a race every now and then with 2 horses that running together and taking turns beating each other. Throw in a couple of drop downs that have shown some ability in he past. Now add a good looking shipper and you have a mess to bet.
You get a lot of lesser of evils races in the last race. It is general filled a bunch of horses whose PPs read like telephone numbers with a bunch of trainers that win about 1 race a meet. Unless I have some angle going for me on a horse with a price, I pack it up, do a little bookwork, open a beverage and watch the race. I use to bet the favorite a lot in these last races on the card figuring I was getting a good price because other bettors were looking to get back to even with a long shot. Now days those bettors just bet tris and supras. There are a million and one theories involving jockeys and a lesser of evils last race. I never found any validity to any of them.

[PhantomOnTour]

An important question is, why is this race wide open?

Take the BrCup Marathon (the 2013 version, although most runnings will do :D )...this race had a favorite around 4-1 if I recall. This was the case because many hadn't run the distance, some hadn't raced on dirt, and some hadn't run in North America, and there was no class or speed standout (I think).

Now take your low level n2l claimer at Low Level Downs. This may be wide open because the entire field has a record of 1-24 or worse. Who is the least slow of this bunch?

Consider the Kentucky Derby. No one has gone the distance, and very rarely has a runner had a race over the track during the current meet (only Derby Trial runners will have this), which means we have 20 shippers.

How about a nice MSW turf route at Bel or Sar filled with regally bred 1st and 2nd time starters, trained by Mott-Brown-McLaughlin-Pletcher-Motion etc...?

The above races may appeal to some of us some of the time, and outside of the Derby, these maybe should be watched and not wagered on.
But who knows when you have a bad ass trainer angle or pedigree angle or whatever in play. All of the above races are playable for me if the circumstances and the price are right.

[Robert Fischer]

One of the most common comments I hear from horse players, is about a specific
race been wide open. What exactly that means and how it should affect our
betting decisions?

Is there any way to quantify how wide or narrow open a race is and how this kind
of a metric can be utilized for betting purposes?

Who's perspective ?

The public thinks it's wide open ?

I think it's wide open ?

Metric = the probables of the favorite. The top 2. The top 3... 4,5, etc...

[Stillriledup]

You know what i hate?

I hate looking at a race and thinking "anyone can win" and then seeing that the favorite is 5-1 and the longest shot is 11-1. That bugs me. It makes me think that racing is not doing a good enough job at making the races tough to handicap and if the game is 'too easy' than it becomes 'too hard'.

I want the game to be more difficult, i want to be able to leave a few people behind, horse racing needs to be able to really think about carding harder races and not catering to horsemen so much.

[thaskalos]

You know what i hate?

I hate looking at a race and thinking "anyone can win" and then seeing that the favorite is 5-1 and the longest shot is 11-1. That bugs me. It makes me think that racing is not doing a good enough job at making the races tough to handicap and if the game is 'too easy' than it becomes 'too hard'.

I want the game to be more difficult, i want to be able to leave a few people behind, horse racing needs to be able to really think about carding harder races and not catering to horsemen so much.

99% of the players currently lose in this game...and you want the game to get "more difficult"?

[thaskalos]

I have to disagree with Mark Cramer on that. I think that one of the fundmental truths of this game is exactly that any horse in the race can eventually become the winner.

Any horse can eventually become the winner in a race...but we have to draw certain lines when we play this game. Either we are able to eliminate a certain part of the field...or we are ending up rolling the dice.

And playing dice with a 17%+ takeout is not advisable...

[DeltaLover]

Any horse can eventually become the winner in a race...but we have to draw certain lines when we play this game. Either we are able to eliminate a certain part of the field...or we are ending up rolling the dice.

And playing dice with a 17%+ takeout is not advisable...


The elimination process should not be a function of the winning chances of horse alone but the anticipated level of the crowd's error.

[Stillriledup]

99% of the players currently lose in this game...and you want the game to get "more difficult"?

Good players lose because average players get handed the winners too often without having to do a speck of work on the races. Whether its a trainer interview on TVG, or a clocker report touting a horse as the second coming, or the horse sitting up there at 3-5 with 0 MTP, or sophisticated pace and speed figures that incorporate ground loss, wind and run up or any other way the average handicapper can be 'fed' information that serious players stayed up till 5am to uncover.

When the game had no Beyer figs, no Rags/TG, no tvg, no clocker reports and no social media a few decades ago, the game was "harder" for idiots and that made it 'easier' for people who paid attention. Now, the game is too "easy" for the people who don't really do the work when it wasnt that case back in the day.

[thaskalos]

The elimination process should not be a function of the winning chances of horse alone but the anticipated level of the crowd's error.

Do you mean that the player should never eliminate a horse strictly because he thinks that the horse simply win not be able to win the race?

Is it your opinion that all the horses in the race have realistic chances of winning?

[cj]

To me, a "wide open" race is one of two things:


There just isn't enough information for many of the horses making estimating probabilities extremely hard
Several horses are closely matched on ability and the outcome will likely be decided by secondary handicapping factors

[dkithore]

The elimination process should not be a function of the winning chances of horse alone but the anticipated level of the crowd's error.
In theory I agree with you but in reality to find "what public should not like that you like" requires a highly skilled handicapper. Isn't that the first and only aim in contender selection process?

[DeltaLover]

Do you mean that the player should never eliminate a horse strictly because he thinks that the horse simply win not be able to win the race?

Is it your opinion that all the horses in the race have realistic chances of winning?

Exactly.

ALL the horses have chances to win despite of how high of low they are while each horse chance to win is not enough to tell us if it is a good bet or not. This decision needs the additional information of how well the winning chance is reflected on the market.

What is significant for betting purposes is not the probability of a horse to win but to what extend this probability is accurately reflected to the odds offered. I think that failure to realize this concept represents the number one fallacy of the horse bettor.

As as extreme example consider the case of a very probable favorite whose probability to win a race is 0.8. If this horse is offered at 1-5 it represents a wash, since its high winning chance is perfectly reflected to the market. The same horse at 1-9 is a terrible bet. Another horse having only 0.05 probability to win while offered at 25-1 is a great betting opportunity.

The value of eliminating a horse from our betting decisions is inversely proportional to its odds. The lower the odds the more value we gain by eliminating it. If a horse has extremely low probability to win but is offered at 1000-1 we do not really gain much by ignoring it from out selections as this is exactly what pretty much everyone else is doing. The elimination value is coming from the top selections of the crowd where the greatest inefficiencies can occur, the more horses you think are over bet within the top 3 or 4 the more playable the race should be.

[1st time lasix]

in a multi-race exotic that you are playing {pk 4,pk 5 or pk 6} when one has examined the particular race in the sequence back to front...and front to back and still determines that it is wide "open." {it happens} I consider eliminating the morning line favorite and go "all." I see no advantage of simply pressing the all button and getting a chalk- when I determined that any of the entries could win without much surprise. I find these no firm opinion "open" races are more frequent when 1) maiden races are washed off the turf and no real form has been established. 2} the class level is low and it is a 2L race 3} when you have several suspicious drops, layoffs, distance unknowns, and/or the early pace is difficult to determine from available info.

[shouldacoulda]

To me a wide open race is when there is no clear contenders. When they all look like crap or they all look good. I like to pass races like that. If you really find it necessary to play a race like that I would go with best combo of jockey, trainer and class history at the highest odds. If you're going to bet into a field like that you may as well look for a decent payoff.