Best type of race to take a price

[porchy44]

A good time to bet a long shot when the favorite is going off 5/2 or greater. This a general rule at all tracks. The reasoning behind this, is the race tends to be a "chaotic" race.

[ultracapper]

Obviously if a favorite is 5/2 or higher it has some holes in it and looks beatable, that's why significant money has been bet against it on other choices.

[thaskalos]

A good time to bet a long shot when the favorite is going off 5/2 or greater. This a general rule at all tracks. The reasoning behind this, is the race tends to be a "chaotic" race.
It depends on what you mean by "longshot". When I see a favorite at 5/2 or higher, it usually means that there are several horses offered at odds between 5/2 and 5/1...and the winner is usually one of those.

[salty]

What is the point?

That statement reminds me of a 5-2 favorite.

full of holes and about to sink

[porchy44]

Everyone knows the takeout is the biggest obstacle to beating this game. The takeout on win betting averages around 17-18%. Eliminating the 5/2 false favorite almost negates the takeout. Having the discipline to focus on these races gives the sharp handicapper the best shot at beating the racing game. It seems obvious and everyone knows this BUT but what percentage of bettors actually do this? I prefer these races above all others. Blessed is the man who can eliminate the 3/5 favorite. I feel more comfortable beating a 5/2 than a 3/5. I know a lot of players who bet against a 3/5 but they really have nothing against the 3/5. They are just "trying to beat him".

[Some_One]

5/2 in a 5 horse field is a soft fav, in a 14 horse field, it's a strong fav.

[Overlay]

Blessed is the man who can eliminate the 3/5 favorite. I feel more comfortable beating a 5/2 than a 3/5. I know a lot of players who bet against a 3/5 but they really have nothing against the 3/5. They are just "trying to beat him".
I especially like to find a race where the public has become oversold on a horse, and I can identify the reason why. (I may even "like" the horse myself, but not at the price that the public has bet it down to.) I like such situations even more if there are one or more other solid horses in the race that the public has comparatively ignored and turned into overlays, for erroneous reasons that I can also identify.

[Some_One]

I especially like to find a race where the public has become oversold on a horse, and I can identify the reason why. (I may even "like" the horse myself, but not at the price that the public has bet it down to.) I like such situations even more if there are one or more other solid horses in the race that the public has comparatively ignored and turned into overlays, for erroneous reasons that I can also identify.

My research has found something similar, rather take on the solid fav then a race with a weak fav. The races with weak favs tend to produce very erratic results, like the form doesn't matter in those.

[Flysofree]

Related question on percentages. What % of the so called professional gamblers in Nevada, actually make a living from playing the races only?

[DeltaLover]

Everything depends on how you handicap the race and how you decide whether a specific horse offers value or not.

I think that that most objective and accurate way of how to achieve this, is to create a 'matching engine' which will be able to mine a data base with past races trying to identify clusters of highly similar (and dissimilar) groups and from them to identify the horses that tend to either win more than their fair share or are presenting a high ROI (a signal that they tend to trick the betting public to the wrong betting directions..

[DeltaLover]

Related question on percentages. What % of the so called professional gamblers in Nevada, actually make a living from playing the races only?

This sounds like a rhetoric question as it is impossible to gather related and accurate data.. More than this, I had to add that somebody who is serious about betting horses for a living, should be inclined to move to more advanced from a betting perspective countries, where he will be able to take advantage of betting exchanges and fixed odds...

The bitter truth (either if we want to accept it or not), is simply that the way the game is conducted, here in the States, is extremely difficult to be beaten...

[castaway01]

Related question on percentages. What % of the so called professional gamblers in Nevada, actually make a living from playing the races only?

Since the vast majority of people who could make a living from horse race wagering are getting rebates and betting via phone/computer/tablet/whatever, there would be no need to be in Nevada. So I'd say close to 0%.

[Flysofree]

This sounds like a rhetoric question as it is impossible to gather related and accurate data.. More than this, I had to add that somebody who is serious about betting horses for a living, should be inclined to move to more advanced from a betting perspective countries, where he will be able to take advantage of betting exchanges and fixed odds...

The bitter truth (either if we want to accept it or not), is simply that the way the game is conducted, here in the States, is extremely difficult to be beaten...

Once upon a time I read a statement that : 98% of all horse players are losers... I guess that I accepted that and believed that 2% actually did it successfully and made a living at it.. But as a senior citizen, I find each day a little more of what I once thought as fact is pure fiction..

[JohnGalt1]

A good time to bet a long shot when the favorite is going off 5/2 or greater. This a general rule at all tracks. The reasoning behind this, is the race tends to be a "chaotic" race.


To answer the question initially posed---If my memory is correct, claiming NW2 favorites win about 25% because of poor/inconsistent horses and larger fields in these races, but maiden special weights favorites win at the highest percentage of all race types.

Someone please correct if you have more accurate or current information.

[whodoyoulike]

A good time to bet a long shot when the favorite is going off 5/2 or greater. This a general rule at all tracks. The reasoning behind this, is the race tends to be a "chaotic" race.

I don't really understand your statements. If you're trying to identify a false favorite, I don't think this is a good way of doing it. A legit favorite going off at 5/2 or greater, I would think is what one would try and attempt to find.

Which long shot would you bet since there are always more long shots than the favorite in every race?

Are you in your opinion just opposed to betting favorites?

[porchy44]

A legit favorite going off at 5/2 or greater, I would think is what one would try and attempt to find.



At first blush yes. But my point is this. "Legit" and "5/2 favorite" is almost a racing oxymoron, because if the horse is legit, It will be a much lower price.

[porchy44]

5/2 in a 5 horse field is a soft fav, in a 14 horse field, it's a strong fav.

14 horse fields. I think I saw a field that size 12 years ago. But seriously, fields that size are definitely the exception, not the rule.

[porchy44]

It depends on what you mean by "longshot". When I see a favorite at 5/2 or higher, it usually means that there are several horses offered at odds between 5/2 and 5/1...and the winner is usually one of those.

I bet Gulfstream. Todays 1st and 11th race at Gulfstream today fit this statement.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I bet Gulfstream. Todays 1st and 11th race at Gulfstream today fit this statement.

Looks like the 1st race was very evenly matched, and the 11th was won by one of the three close second favorites. Total guessing in those races.

The sixth and seventh races were the ones you wanted to snag.

The field size also needs to be factored in when playing a "price" horse, but the actual odds of the chalk are not something I consider. I'll bet a 8-1 shot in a six horse field with a 4/5 favorite, or I'll bet a 15-1 shot in 12 horse field with a 3-1 favorite.

If you're goal is to beat takeout, then betting the races with the lower odds favorites would seem to be the way to go.

[porchy44]

If you're goal is to beat takeout, then betting the races with the lower odds favorites would seem to be the way to go.

1. Only if you have a validated way to eliminate those very low odds favorites.

2. The 5/2 race time favorite "built in elimination" toss.

[salty]

If you pick a long shot to beat a 5/2 favorite in a wide open type of race you are more likely taking a lower price than you would hope for. If you like a 10-1 ml horse and he is in a race with a high priced favorite you most likely end up taking 8-1 on the horse when the gates open. But when you find a long shot that is a 10-1 ml horse vs a low priced,clear cut favorite you are much more likely to get unbalanced betting and can usually get better than the 10-1 ml. It only makes sense to focus more on finding horses going off at even money or below and trying to find angles against them.

Examples:

8 horse field with high priced favorite

5/2
7/2
7/2
5/1
7/1
10/1
15/1
25/1

8 horse field with low priced favorite

1/1
3/1
6/1
10/1
12/1
15/1
25/1
30/1

[raybo]

Everyone knows the takeout is the biggest obstacle to beating this game.

Wow! That's quite a sweeping statement. I find that the biggest obstacle for the vast majority of players is a lack of discipline and self control. And a fundamental lack of basic understanding regarding probability versus price.

It seems to me that, regardless of the era or time period involved, or the amount of takeout involved, there has always been about the same percentage of winners versus losers among horse players.

[acorn54]

as to the question of % of people stateside who make a living on betting horses stateside, only the irs records would divulge that if the irs released such records.
my GUESS is due to the fact that it is an outdoor sport, at the mercy of the weather and also the racing seceratarites carding good betting races, it can not be a regular and reliable means of income, like a job.
others may chime in with their experiences such as thaskalos and raybo who i believe have or had once been professional gamblers, could provide a better answer than my guess.

[raybo]

my GUESS is due to the fact that it is an outdoor sport, at the mercy of the weather and also the racing seceratarites carding good betting races, it can not be a regular and reliable means of income, like a job.
others may chime in with their experiences such as thaskalos and raybo who i believe have or had once been professional gamblers, could provide a better answer than my guess.

Hmmmm. Most "jobs" produce a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly paycheck. That would tend to support your theory.

However, in today's economic state, and under the resulting business philosophy and reality, "regular and reliable means of income" assumes one would not lose one's job, or one has job skills in high enough demand to ensure very short periods of unemployment or work volume downturns.

When you put things in that perspective, a long term positive ROI player is almost on equal footing with many regular job holders. Having had a short personal explanation of Gus's foray through the minefield of gambling full time, I'm sure he can attest that short term gambling losses require tremendous amounts of confidence and intestinal fortitude, when gambling is your only means of income. But then, the same could be said for the full time salesman who works strictly on commission. The primary requirement is supreme confidence in one's abilities and a refusal to consider long term failure as an option (fearlessness).

[porchy44]

Wow! That's quite a sweeping statement. I find that the biggest obstacle for the vast majority of players is a lack of discipline and self control. And a fundamental lack of basic understanding regarding probability versus price.

It seems to me that, regardless of the era or time period involved, or the amount of takeout involved, there has always been about the same percentage of winners versus losers among horse players.

If the takeout in horse racing was 1% instead of around 17%-22% (depending on the type of bet), I would quit my day job tomorrow and play full time for a living. I don't even recall a losing year that my -ROI wasn't a lot less than the takeout.

So yes, I am going to stick to my guns and say absolutely the takeout is the biggest obstacle to beating the races.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Wow! That's quite a sweeping statement. I find that the biggest obstacle for the vast majority of players is a lack of discipline and self control. And a fundamental lack of basic understanding regarding probability versus price.

It seems to me that, regardless of the era or time period involved, or the amount of takeout involved, there has always been about the same percentage of winners versus losers among horse players.

Wow. That seems to be even more of a sweeping statement.

What do you base this on? Seems to me, there is a lower percentage of winning players today versus the 1980s, as well of course as of course of far fewer players overall. I don't have any numbers to back up the former, but the latter statement is quite obvious based on lower handles and attendance.

As for the biggest hurdle, oddly enough I agree with both Raybo and Porchy44. For the better than average handicapper (ROI 0.85 to 0.99), with no changes to their game other than lower takeout or a juicy rebate, they can become winning players or they lose less - perhaps increasing their wagering handle as a result. So takeout is the biggest hurdle to beating the races.

For the less than average handicapper, or one whose results vary dramatically from year to year, then lower takeout helps, but lack of discipline and self control keep them from beating the races. And, I'll also agree with Delta, this is probably true for the vast majority of players (though again, we don't have numbers to back it up).

[PaceMasterT]

Wow! That's quite a sweeping statement. I find that the biggest obstacle for the vast majority of players is a lack of discipline and self control. And a fundamental lack of basic understanding regarding probability versus price.

It seems to me that, regardless of the era or time period involved, or the amount of takeout involved, there has always been about the same percentage of winners versus losers among horse players.

I definitely agree with you Raybo. The only way the takeout is your biggest obstacle is if you have to play every race. If you are betting when you don't have enough of an edge, then takeout is going to kill you.

The general sweeping statement that everyone should adhere to if they want to be successful in anything in life is that, "you are not going to be right all the time, so check your ego at the door".

I'm still working on that. That ego is one persistent SOB.

[PaceMasterT]

If the takeout in horse racing was 1% instead of around 17%-22% (depending on the type of bet), I would quit my day job tomorrow and play full time for a living. I don't even recall a losing year that my -ROI wasn't a lot less than the takeout.

So yes, I am going to stick to my guns and say absolutely the takeout is the biggest obstacle to beating the races.

The way I see it is the way you beat the takeout is less bets, greater percentage of bankroll per bet. You have to have your advantage dialed in and believe in it. You may go weeks between bets. Not many able to do that. I don't know who would rely on horse race betting for their livelihood with the amount of "juicing" and other cheating that seems rampant these days, short fields, etc. If you have the mentality where you could make money betting the horses, you should just trade stocks, commodities, and forex. The playing field is more level and the stakes are a lot higher. And, it is a more legitimate form of gambling.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

The successful (profitable) horse player has his or her own set of unbreakable rules governing his play based on years of research and attained knowledge. And this extensive base is slowly shifting with the ever changing variables of racing today. They adapt or fade away!

In my years the few "professionals" I had contact with on a fairly regular basis had a few quite obvious characteristics CONFIDENCE in there abilities to make a profit. A brutal honesty of there strengths and weaknesses and the willingness to work hard.

[raybo]

Wow. That seems to be even more of a sweeping statement.

What do you base this on? Seems to me, there is a lower percentage of winning players today versus the 1980s, as well of course as of course of far fewer players overall. I don't have any numbers to back up the former, but the latter statement is quite obvious based on lower handles and attendance.

As for the biggest hurdle, oddly enough I agree with both Raybo and Porchy44. For the better than average handicapper (ROI 0.85 to 0.99), with no changes to their game other than lower takeout or a juicy rebate, they can become winning players or they lose less - perhaps increasing their wagering handle as a result. So takeout is the biggest hurdle to beating the races.

For the less than average handicapper, or one whose results vary dramatically from year to year, then lower takeout helps, but lack of discipline and self control keep them from beating the races. And, I'll also agree with Delta, this is probably true for the vast majority of players (though again, we don't have numbers to back it up).

Believe this or not, it makes no difference to me, I have been profitable every year since 2004 (except 2005 when I did not play at all due to burnout from playing full time), and when comparing my yearly ROIs versus any ridiculously low rebates I received, those rebates were negligible. And, despite the "takeout" I was profitable each year, because I am disciplined, patient, and consistent. The honerous takeout may have trimmed a point or 2 off my ROIs but would have made no difference regarding profitability. Yes, I would like lower rebates but mostly because of their impact on other handicappers (perceived or otherwise), and as a result, the viability of the game.