Betting Stategy?

[mikesal57]

Hi Guys...

Would like to throw this out to all...

Posted plays last 2 days...
With winners in 12 out of 16 races..But still lost money

How can this be turned into a profitable day(s)?

Handifast Delaware 7/28
Race 1...7-5-3 #7 $5.40
Race 2...6-4-10 #6 &3.40
Race 3...8-2-4 #8 $3.80
Race 4...9-8-6 OUT
Race 5...8-6-10 #6 $6.40
Race 6...5-9-2 OUT
Race 7...3-5- (1&7 tied) #7 $4.60



Handifast Saratoga 7/27


Race 1...3-1-6 #3 $6.10
Race 2...4-3-7 OUT
Race 3...1-4-6 #1 $3.00
Race 4...2-6-10 #2 $7.10
Race 5...1-2-4 #1 $6.60
Race 6...6-9-7 OUT
Race 7...9-1-3 #1 $4.70
Race 8...10-7-4 #4 $19.20
Race 9...6-4-3 #6 $4.80



Thxs

Mike

[horses4courses]

Unless you list how you wagered (amounts not necessary, just units)
it's like trying to read a map in the dark. ;)

[cj]

Obvious answer is flat win bets.

[mikesal57]

I have 3 contenders per race...

So bet each and hope one of the price horses comes in and live with the losing on days like the last 2?

[wonatthewire1]

I have 3 contenders per race...

So bet each and hope one of the price horses comes in and live with the losing on days like the last 2?

You'll have to stop dutching 3

if it were me, i'd need 6-1 and up to bet 3 to win but I never go that many deep

[cj]

I have 3 contenders per race...

So bet each and hope one of the price horses comes in and live with the losing on days like the last 2?

Only way to answer that is to consult your records for a long period of time. If you don't have records, you should start.

[Dave Schwartz]

Mike,

Simply put, when you catch a string of favorites/low prices like this, you are lucky if you come close to even.

Even the whales lose with prices like that. (Especially?)

[ReplayRandall]

Even the whales lose with prices like that. (Especially?)

Now that's funny.... :cool:

[EMD4ME]

I'll just throw out an idea if you like chalk.

Find the 4 chalks you like the most for the day.

Play 4 parlays.

All 4 horses to win for a $20 parlay.

Play a 3 race parlay with Horses in race 123, races 124 and races 234.

If each horse wins and pays $4 you make the following:

Bet #1 (4 parlays) $300 ($320 minus cost of bet $20)
Bets #2,3&4 (the other 3 parlays make $160 each X3 = $480 minus $60 cost of bet-$420 profit).

You score out for $720 profit on 80 wagered for the day.

If 1 horse loses and the other 3 win. You wagered $80 and made $80 for the day. (because 1 parlay clicked for $160)

If 2 win, you lose $80.

If you bet them all to win for $20 bucks and hit all 4, you make $80 for the day. If you hit 3/4 you win $40 bucks. If you hit 2 you break even. If you hit 1, you lose 40. Go 0/4 you lose $80.

Al depends what you're looking to do in this game.

As others mentioned. Keep records.

Was just giving you a quick idea, just in case you like to bet to win/place/show and have some more fun vs. straight wps bets.

[Robert Fischer]

I'm looking at your Saratoga only right now. (past my bedtime)

chalky numbers overall.

If your top selections are that chalky, the best choice is generally to pass those races altogether and build around the races where you have contenders at better value. (races 3 and 9 were probably the worst offenders from the info given). Races 4,5 were a decent sequence and race 8 obviously turned out well.



For a more 'fun' way, - You also hit 4/8 doubles. Not that costly to bet a caveman double (abc x abc) for each race and then back it up with ab x ab , and then some slightly heavier a's with abc , or axa etc... combos, so if the favs do hit, you will still be in the game.

[raybo]

Not sure about Delaware but at Saratoga, that was just a chalky day. "Chalk" it up as a bad day and keep going. Delaware, according to last year, plays to below average win prices, so I suggest that you drop that track and play one that offers higher average win payouts, if you're going to bet 3 horses flat.

You could opt to dutch all 3, and pass races that are not possible to dutch 3. That will help protect you against days like this where too many low prices come in, and against tracks that are generally more chalky.

Your contenders look good, but if you don't try to get down to a single horse, and prefer to bet all 3, then you almost have to dutch or concentrate your efforts at tracks with higher average win payouts.

[Dave Schwartz]

IMHO, eventually there must be some kind of Value Component to the process.

That is, there must be a way to decide if the race is playable and to what extent the race (or a horse in the race) should be bet.


Some significant percentage of these races probably (with the OP's handicapping) had less value than should be required to make a wager.

[raybo]

IMHO, eventually there must be some kind of Value Component to the process.

That is, there must be a way to decide if the race is playable and to what extent the race (or a horse in the race) should be bet.


Some significant percentage of these races probably (with the OP's handicapping) had less value than should be required to make a wager.

I agree, the OP needs good record keeping data in order to know what to expect in specific tracks, race types, surfaces, distances, etc.. For example, your record keeping might show that in 6f dirt races for claimers, in order to make a flat win bet profit at that track in those races, you need at least 5/2 odds on the lowest priced horse of the 3, etc.

[Dave Schwartz]

I agree, the OP needs good record keeping data in order to know what to expect in specific tracks, race types, surfaces, distances, etc.. For example, your record keeping might show that in 6f dirt races for claimers, in order to make a flat win bet profit at that track in those races, you need at least 5/2 odds on the lowest priced horse of the 3, etc.

In my experience, I have issues with the bold part. I have not ever been able to say that playing above (say) 5/2 is profitable. Sure, perhaps on a particular horse that was once possible, but with the extreme movement of the tote, not any more.

Your experience may differ, of course.

My reality is that the few odds-on horses I wager are marginal losers but, since I don't use the tote board in my decision process, I don't know they will be odds-on until the horses are down the backstretch of later.

I do have the occasional race where I win the 2-horse bet and barely break-even.

Instead, I have chosen to create a bet-size metric based upon the percentage of theoretical pool I am NOT betting and the pool that is made up of my NON-CONTENDERS.

Thus, going into a race with 2 horses projected to be (say) 8/5 and 2/1 could only become a playable race for me if they were the ONLY contenders I had in the race.

BTW, one of my favorite spot exacta plays is when I have 2 low-odds contenders and there is a 3rd low-odds horse that I have tossed. These exactas return amazing money - often as much as $24 (5/1 net) or more.

[taxicab]

You have to change your approach.
It would be a very good idea to lose your chalk leaning ways.

A) Betting on 3 horses in a race to win,and leaning towards the short prices to boot is a sure fire way to go broke in a hurry.

B) You listed 16 races.
In 14 of those races your top choice was the morning line favorite.

C) Go find a thread on value plays on the board,and pay attention to what some of the PA sharpies have to say.
There's alot of talented horseracing minds on this board,see if you can pick up some of the knowledge they have.

[Poindexter]

If you are interested in using 3 horses in each race. Roll pick 3's. If you want to make money betting flat bets, as mentioned keep records, but more importantly require a certain price, such as 2-1/5-2/3-1 on your top choice 4/9-2/5-1 on your second choice and 5-1/6-1/7-1. The first odds criterion would be for field sizes of 7 or less, the second for field sizes of 8 or 9 and the 3rd for field sizes 10+. check your records and see if requiring these prices puts you into the profit zone. You may decide to go a little lower or a little higher once checking your records. In general, I think it is better to bet one horse a race win/place, or if you find 2 bet them both to win. I would make betting 3 horses the very rare exception,. Also as far as bet sizing I suggest a base bet of $25 to $30 per $1000 bankroll on your top choice, maybe $20-$23 on your second choice and about $15-$18 on your 3rd choice. The bigger fields would be on the bottom end of the range the smaller fields, will be on the top end of the betting $ range.

Also why you are checking records, see how the exacta key(top horse with bottom 2 horses each way) or trifecta box with extra key with top horse on top......


The fun never ends in this game. :)

[pandy]

I have 3 contenders per race...

So bet each and hope one of the price horses comes in and live with the losing on days like the last 2?


You'd probably be better off just betting one horse to win, the "contender" that's going off at the highest odds, and you should key that horse in exacta boxes with your other two contenders, and play an extra exacta box with the contender that's the favorite. I've found that if you show a profit on your win bets you'll most likely show a bigger profit on the exactas. Exactas aren't that tough to hit. You'll also have an excellent chance of hitting the exacta when you highest odds contender finishes second since you are boxing it with two logical contenders.

To be honest, I'd bet that if you only bet exactas you'd have the best return. For instance, no win bets, key the highest odds contender in exacta boxes with the other two horses and if one of those horses is the favorite, play that exacta box twice. This way you have way more leverage and you can show a profit on the race even when your horse finishes second. Yes, sometimes your horse will win at a price and you won't hit the exacta, but the higher payoffs of the exactas more than make up for this.


End4me's parlay idea is a good one and a fun way to play but you have to be able to make the bets live so that may not work for you. It's too bad ADW's don't let us bet parlays.

[Buckeye]

whatever they "let you do" is what you do? Therefore do the opposite?

Pretty simple. Otherwise, go home:

There is no substitute for superior analysis.

If I know American Pharoah is going to win, why not bet on him?

[Buckeye]

ok, so basically I don't know anything and therefore it gets complicated. On the one hand I think and on the other hand, so what if I think.

Been that way for a long time. Situation Normal,

SNAFU. Horse Racing is just a microcosm of the reality.

[mikesal57]

its a funny thing..

if I wrote for the Daily News or the New York Post , my picture would be on the back page with days like these...

You guys are great...thxs

Somehow I need to get "value" into play..

Dave...your right on with days that favorites win...

Also Dave, I ran into your 2013 video on "Elimination Percentage"
I'm going to use that in my decision making and see how it pans out..

mike

[Capper Al]

The best book that I have found on wagering is 'Ten Steps to Winning' by Danny Holmes. Your wagering style might differ, but Danny's wagering points are invaluable.

Also there's a thread here in PA on ' The One and Only Absolute Truth'. The discussion is on value play using natural or random odds. In that thread you'll also find references to Dave's webner 'The Basics of Winning' which also covers wagering on natural or random odds.

[Aerocraft67]

If you're betting flat on three horses, you need a 2/1 shot to come in just to break even. Five of your Saratoga selections went off at less than 2/1. The average odds of all the horses you bet was less than 9/2, and you only had 8 of the 27 horses with odds above 5/1, and only one above 9/1. As others have said, you're up against the chalk here.

By my reckoning, you could have netted $9.60 with flat $2.00 bets on only your top contender in each race. That's the easiest answer to your question. A quite handsome 53% profit on horses that all won at less than 3/1. 5/7 of your winners came from your top selection. Not too shabby; high hit rate on low odds runners. We'd all be delighted to maintain that performance!

Had you dutched your three contenders instead of placing flat bets, you could have eked out a 4% profit. Dutching only the top two contenders nets you a 23% profit. What's interesting here is that even though you catch your biggest odds horse with your third choice in the 8th, it barely keeps you afloat when dutching three horses in every race. Dutching two tosses that 9/1 winner and only catches you one more modest 7/5 winner from your second choices, but saves you a lot of extra losing bets on third choices. Rounding errors could swing these figures quite a bit though if you're playing for small units.

Exactas are another option to play more than one horse per race if you're keen to consider pace scenarios, but probably ill-advised if you're just combining second and third win choices in exactas.

It's also ill-advised to speculate much from a small sample of your picks, but unless you're blending in some higher odds horses into second choices and exotics, looks like you're best off just playing your top pick to win each race. And identifying the type of race you tend to win and lose will help a lot, too.

[Robert Goren]

If you trying to make a flat wager on 3 horses a race, you have no chance. With a 17% takeout, there are very few races where you can dutch 3 horses races and none where all 3 horses are the top 3 favorites. To dutch 3 horses successfully, you must have race where you can safely toss one of the top two favorites. It basically boils down to arithmetic. Unless the longest shot of your 3 horses wins more often than the other two when playing the 3 favorites, you are doomed. Now if you are getting huge rebates, there maybe a way, but barring that, you out of luck.

[Robert Fischer]

If you like the favorite, he had better be only moderately favored on the board while you can see that he's dominant in terms of expected performance.

Otherwise, you agree with the public. You will not make up the 15% of the pool that the house takes out.

If you are just having some fun gambling, then it doesn't matter. Bet who you like, and maybe double or triple your bet at an opportune time and if you are fortunate, you may come out ahead that day.

[pandy]

Agree with some others here. Betting favorites, almost impossible to win unless you're extremely selective and a very good handicapper, and even then, the margin's are so low that without a rebate it's a waste of time.

All win bet strategies have to point towards overlays and preferably overlay longshots. It always comes down to the same thing, playing conservatively rarely works because anything that produces a high hit rate generally produces a low return. Keying an overlaid prime contender in exacta boxes with two other contenders, however, you should cash at least 20% and the hit rate could be higher, and if your rime contender is a true overlay you'll win.

[Robert Fischer]

Agree with some others here. Betting favorites, almost impossible to win unless you're extremely selective and a very good handicapper, and even then, the margin's are so low that without a rebate it's a waste of time.

All win bet strategies have to point towards overlays and preferably overlay longshots. It always comes down to the same thing, playing conservatively rarely works because anything that produces a high hit rate generally produces a low return. Keying an overlaid prime contender in exacta boxes with two other contenders, however, you should cash at least 20% and the hit rate could be higher, and if your rime contender is a true overlay you'll win.


I agree, but there is a very important point.

His selection/handicapping process can not change.

It's very easy to fall in the trap of manipulating your selection process, and all of a sudden you like a longshot in every race...

To the man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

You still have to say, "hey I think the ml fav will probably win this, and should be about a $5 horse, but so does the public, I'll wait until races 5 and 8 when I like horses that should go off at a relatively juicy price.".

[Luckycreed]

You bet any horse in the race that is a longer price than you think it should be, it's as simple as that.

Of course given you are betting into a 117% market, in most races you will struggle to find one horse that fits that criteria let alone three, but every now and then in a big field that the market thinks is fairly evenly matched it can happen and when it does you bet all three.

Then it simply comes down to your ability to price fields, if your good enough at it in the long run you win (if you can discipline yourself to only bet overlays and not chase winners which leads to taking unders which equals losing), if you are not then in the long run you loose.

How do you price fields?Practice is a good way to start,keep records of every race you price, the way the market priced the race and of course the results.By the time you have priced a thousand races you will have learnt quite a bit and you will have records that will help you keep getting better at the craft .and also indicate which type of races you are better at pricing,

These are the races you will eventually be betting on but if you are not pricing fields and keeping records you will never know what races you should be betting on.

You will never be able to price more accurately than the market in a generic way, across a random sample of a thousand races the market will always beat you, but you might find there are niches where you can outperform the market if you have an aptitude for it and are prepared to work hard at it.

You are not going to learn to play Rahkmaninov by sitting at the piano once a week for an hour and bashing out some boogie woogie, it takes years of practice and the same applies to learning to price horse races with the required degree of accuracy.

[Capper Al]

I agree, but there is a very important point.

His selection/handicapping process can not change.

It's very easy to fall in the trap of manipulating your selection process, and all of a sudden you like a longshot in every race...

To the man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

You still have to say, "hey I think the ml fav will probably win this, and should be about a $5 horse, but so does the public, I'll wait until races 5 and 8 when I like horses that should go off at a relatively juicy price.".

Agree. One's wagering method has to fit their handicapping. If one sees only chalk then their method must be built around the chalk they see.

[mikesal57]

Agree. One's wagering method has to fit their handicapping. If one sees only chalk then their method must be built around the chalk they see.


Thxs...I'm back to square one...LOL

[Aerocraft67]

You'd probably be better off just betting one horse to win, the "contender" that's going off at the highest odds, and you should key that horse in exacta boxes with your other two contenders, and play an extra exacta box with the contender that's the favorite.

To be honest, I'd bet that if you only bet exactas you'd have the best return. For instance, no win bets, key the highest odds contender in exacta boxes with the other two horses and if one of those horses is the favorite, play that exacta box twice.


I like this advice, but in this particularly chalky scenario, flat win bets prevail. Cruelly, keying the highest odds pick in each race yields only one won exacta, in race 1. Loss of 27% on $72 wagered including straight win best on top contenders. Without the win bets, 53% loss on $54.

If you only box the top two contenders and buy an extra with the favorite in the mix, again only one hits for a 23% loss.

Boxing all three picks in the exacta picks up two more exacta wins. The favorite is in all the won exactas, which yields the extra box each time. This just misses profit with $70.80 payout on $72 wagered. Throw in straight win bets on top choices and you're back in the black 9% ROI, but now you're $90 invested.

You might try dutching exactas using the probable payouts. That makes things more complicated and raises the investment still higher, but it's a more efficient way to play.

Tough to profit on chalk, basically, and the more you spread (without catching high prices), the harder it gets. The favorite won 5/9 races on the card, and missed the exacta only twice. Only five horses with win odds over 6/1 made the exacta on the entire card, and most of those had a chalky companion. Exacta propositions averaged 35/1. Only three above 50/1, and the rest below 20/1.

[thaskalos]

If you wagered on only your top choice in every race, then you would have chalked up a 25.6% ROI over the 2-day span. Your average winning mutuel was only $5.02...but you had the winner in 8 of the 16 races that you played. If this brief sample exemplifies what your NORMAL results look like...then you don't need any advice from us; WE need advice from YOU!

When you earn a 25% ROI while betting on every race...then you are odds-on to become one of the wealthiest bettors in the game...and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If these results are typical for you, then bet on your top choice in every race...and your biggest problem will be figuring out what to do with all that money.

[mikesal57]

If you wagered on only your top choice in every race, then you would have chalked up a 25.6% ROI over the 2-day span. Your average winning mutuel was only $5.02...but you had the winner in 8 of the 16 races that you played. If this brief sample exemplifies what your NORMAL results look like...then you don't need any advice from us; WE need advice from YOU!

When you earn a 25% ROI while betting on every race...then you are odds-on to become one of the wealthiest bettors in the game...and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If these results are typical for you, then bet on your top choice in every race...and your biggest problem will be figuring out what to do with all that money.

Thank you ...for not spinning my head with a response :jump:

even though these guys were awesome with their suggestions
I was getting ready to go Back to School with Rodney ..

Watch, now the 2nd and 3rd choices will start winning :eek:

mike

[green80]

Just keep records for a couple of hundred races and see where you are at. If you can show a profit betting your top horse it makes no difference if your 2nd or 3rd pick win sometime. If you are like me sometimes the 2nd or 3rd pick show a greater ROI than the top pick over time. Everybody need to find what works for them over time.

[mikesal57]

Just keep records for a couple of hundred races and see where you are at. If you can show a profit betting your top horse it makes no difference if your 2nd or 3rd pick win sometime. If you are like me sometimes the 2nd or 3rd pick show a greater ROI than the top pick over time. Everybody need to find what works for them over time.


:ThmbUp:

[pandy]

You can't rely on two days to form an approach. Normally, if you have a reliable approach, method, whatever you want to call, at picking 3 contenders, you should be betting any one of the three that's an overlay, or skipping the race.

[pandy]

Just keep records for a couple of hundred races and see where you are at. If you can show a profit betting your top horse it makes no difference if your 2nd or 3rd pick win sometime. If you are like me sometimes the 2nd or 3rd pick show a greater ROI than the top pick over time. Everybody need to find what works for them over time.

Right, a lot of people don't realize that they're actually handicapping a lot better than they think, but the profit is in their underneath picks, not the top pick.

[thaskalos]

You can't rely on two days to form an approach. Normally, if you have a reliable approach, method, whatever you want to call, at picking 3 contenders, you should be betting any one of the three that's an overlay, or skipping the race.

Picking three contenders is easy. Assigning odds requirements to those three contenders to identify whether they are "overlays" or not, is very difficult.

[raybo]

As has been stated here by several, record keeping is a must! By tracking what tracks you play, and what races at those tracks you play, tells you what you need to do in order to profit, if it's even possible. Some tracks, and some races at those tracks, just can't be played profitably over time. Analyze your records and concentrate your play at tracks, and in races, that produce profit.

I keep records by track, and at each track I keep records of win, place, show, exacta, and trifecta performances by my top 3 ranked horses. I filter my records by day of the week, distance, surface, surface conditions, and class. Each time I filter I scan the summary reports for my top 3 ranked horses, looking at hit rate, ROI, profit, and "consistency" (winning streaks versus losing streaks in both frequency and length). I also have a minimum odds report, that shows all the important data, to see if lower odds horses can successfully be tossed, over time. I choose to play either one horse, 2 horses, or 3 horses, based on their individual summary results, after checking for outliers and adjusting as needed.

In other words, playing is only part of the process, record keeping analysis is the other part. Without the record keeping activity there can be no play activity, IMO.

At Saratoga, we know the average win price is very good, that's a fact. So, you can afford to cut a little slack for your outliers there, because you will get more of them there than at most other tracks. At other tracks with lower average payouts, the outliers are far fewer so you have to adjust for that, either by discounting them or by reverting to the mean/median. Don't let a couple of longshots skew your perception above where they really should be.

[raybo]

Picking three contenders is easy. Assigning odds requirements to those three contenders to identify whether they are "overlays" or not, is very difficult.

No truer words were ever spoken! I've never been able to assign odds for any period of time, successfully, and I doubt any significant number of players can either, at least not to the extent that long term profit comes from it.

[thaskalos]

No truer words were ever spoken! I've never been able to assign odds for any period of time, successfully, and I doubt any significant number of players can either, at least not to the extent that long term profit comes from it.

:ThmbUp:

Me neither.

[cj]

No truer words were ever spoken! I've never been able to assign odds for any period of time, successfully, and I doubt any significant number of players can either, at least not to the extent that long term profit comes from it.

I think this is a case where a computer can do it much more reliably, and certainly faster, than a human...if the human can accurately program his logic.

[raybo]

I think this is a case where a computer can do it much more reliably, and certainly faster, than a human...if the human can accurately program his logic.

I agree, but the bolded part is the key, and that ain't no small thing!

[Tom]

Does the program give you rankings or anything to differentiate between the three selections? You could try the 4 Quarters book by Fioro(?)

[Overlay]

Picking three contenders is easy. Assigning odds requirements to those three contenders to identify whether they are "overlays" or not, is very difficult.
Removing qualitative factors and subjective judgment from the process can assist in that regard (whether restricting consideration to perceived contenders, or looking at the full field).

[thaskalos]

Removing qualitative factors and subjective judgment from the process can assist in that regard (whether restricting consideration to perceived contenders, or looking at the full field).
True...but that doesn't mean that employing "objective" factors in line-making will necessarily lead to profits.

Many have spoken of the usefulness of a profitable betting line...but no one has proven to us that one such betting line actually exists.

[whodoyoulike]

Thxs...I'm back to square one...LOL

Can you provide more info?

What's your BR?

Are you capable of identifying strong contenders?

You're wagering on every race. Do you see a problem with this?

I see you've wagered about $100 for the two days. I suggest you identify two or three races you feel your selection is fairly strong. I'm not suggesting the chalkiest horse but which horse you feel will come in 1st or 2nd.

Wheel your selection in a $1 exacta with the rest of the field as 1st and 2nd. You're probably looking at $60 +/- total. You're already ahead. Buy yourself a drink and hotdog with the saved $$.

Good luck and try to enjoy watching a few w/o wagering.

[pandy]

A lot of this boils down to how confident you are in your contenders. During the Aqueduct meets, for instance, any horse that I have listed in my top 3 contenders that's going off as a longshot, say 6-1 or higher, is a good bet because the races aren't crazy competitive and my contenders are live. At Saratoga, some of these turf races in particular, I could narrow it down to 5 or 6 contenders and there's still a good chance that none of them will win, so creating some sort of value line is extremely difficult. You have to be realistic about your chances depending on the type of race and degree of difficulty. In some of these contentious races, a true odds line isn't going to be much help.

[Capper Al]

A lot of this boils down to how confident you are in your contenders. During the Aqueduct meets, for instance, any horse that I have listed in my top 3 contenders that's going off as a longshot, say 6-1 or higher, is a good bet because the races aren't crazy competitive and my contenders are live. At Saratoga, some of these turf races in particular, I could narrow it down to 5 or 6 contenders and there's still a good chance that none of them will win, so creating some sort of value line is extremely difficult. You have to be realistic about your chances depending on the type of race and degree of difficulty. In some of these contentious races, a true odds line isn't going to be much help.

Wow! This is a constant dilemma for me. My apps are designed to be universal with the same formula used for every track and are not track specific. I hear that you are interpreting what appears to be universal output for specific tracks. Maybe this comes from experience on how ones numbers work at a specific track. This is a whole other level of handicapping.

There are some concerns here. Do we blame our different results by track on the track, or is there something amiss in our universal applications of our formula? For instances-- if my speed figures aren't as good at Del Mar as they are at Arlington, is it the tracks or am I missing something in how I compute speed that shows up at Del Mar? This is a tough one.

[pandy]

I love watching Mike Beer and Andy Serling's Pick 4 breakdown every day, it's shown on TVG and in house. In contentious races Andy will sometimes say something like, "this is a tough race, anyone can win" and Mike Beer agrees. These guys are sharp and they are at the track everyday, they really know the horses racing at the NYRA tracks. And even they sometimes admit that there are races that are puzzling. How can you make a good line for some of these races? I tend not to bet races like that, but others see them as great betting races. But if you have no idea what each horse's chances are, is it really a good race to bet?

[pandy]

I love watching Mike Beer and Andy Serling's Pick 4 breakdown every day, it's shown on TVG and in house. In contentious races Andy will sometimes say something like, "this is a tough race, anyone can win" and Mike Beer agrees. These guys are sharp and they are at the track everyday, they really know the horses racing at the NYRA tracks. And even they sometimes admit that there are races that are puzzling. How can you make a good line for some of these races? I tend not to bet races like that, but others see them as great betting races. But if you have no idea what each horse's chances are, is it really a good race to bet?


More on this, in my Speed And Class Handicapping book the methodology tells you to focus on races where you can eliminate at least half of the horses. I prefer overlays in races that aren't that wide open, because these are true, identifiable overlays and with patience you can find them, you just have to skip the confusing races and watch the odds board. Some of the best bets I've ever made were the longest odds horse in a 5 horse field.


This is the reason why I play many tracks, not just one circuit. It's much easier to find a good race to bet when you have more choices.

[aaron]

More on this, in my Speed And Class Handicapping book the methodology tells you to focus on races where you can eliminate at least half of the horses. I prefer overlays in races that aren't that wide open, because these are true, identifiable overlays and with patience you can find them, you just have to skip the confusing races and watch the odds board. Some of the best bets I've ever made were the longest odds horse in a 5 horse field.


This is the reason why I play many tracks, not just one circuit. It's much easier to find a good race to bet when you have more choices.
I spend most of my time handicapping NY races. Saratoga,at least for me has been very hard and I am not finding many good bets.Fortunately,I have held my own,by betting some out of town races. What,continually amazes me,is that many times,I find good bets,with less work out of town. I guess that is what makes this a great game.

[pandy]

I spend most of my time handicapping NY races. Saratoga,at least for me has been very hard and I am not finding many good bets.Fortunately,I have held my own,by betting some out of town races. What,continually amazes me,is that many times,I find good bets,with less work out of town. I guess that is what makes this a great game.


Agree. I can handicap a Delaware Park or Parx race in two minutes. It was at Saratoga some years ago, probably close to 15 years ago now, that I had an epiphany. I had bet a 3-1 shot in a big sprint field that was a NW3. The race was loaded with multiple winners that had way more than 3 wins, earned in claiming races, a "salty" field of solid raceway horses. Half way through the race the little bell went off. "Why would I, or anyone, bet any horse that's 3-1 in a race like this where so many horses have a chance to win?" It was a defining moment in my handicapping and betting of horses.

[Robert Fischer]

So this thread was actually asking for compliments?


If you wagered on only your top choice in every race, then you would have chalked up a 25.6% ROI over the 2-day span. Your average winning mutuel was only $5.02...but you had the winner in 8 of the 16 races that you played. If this brief sample exemplifies what your NORMAL results look like...then you don't need any advice from us; WE need advice from YOU!

When you earn a 25% ROI while betting on every race...then you are odds-on to become one of the wealthiest bettors in the game...and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If these results are typical for you, then bet on your top choice in every race...and your biggest problem will be figuring out what to do with all that money.

Thank you ...for not spinning my head with a response :jump:

even though these guys were awesome with their suggestions
I was getting ready to go Back to School with Rodney ..

Watch, now the 2nd and 3rd choices will start winning :eek:

mike

[raybo]

Agree. I can handicap a Delaware Park or Parx race in two minutes. It was at Saratoga some years ago, probably close to 15 years ago now, that I had an epiphany. I had bet a 3-1 shot in a big sprint field that was a NW3. The race was loaded with multiple winners that had way more than 3 wins, earned in claiming races, a "salty" field of solid raceway horses. Half way through the race the little bell went off. "Why would I, or anyone, bet any horse that's 3-1 in a race like this where so many horses have a chance to win?" It was a defining moment in my handicapping and betting of horses.

Maybe you guys ought to watch some of Michael Pizzola's "rants" videos. His software assigns odds to each horse and also tries to predict how the public is going to bet each horse. I don't know how good his lines are, but invariably, when he encounters one of these "chaos" races, he often overrides his betting line, sometimes doubling those odds to 20/1 or more. And, he bets relatively small amounts on those races.

Perceived value is fine, I guess, but honest acceptance that you have very little, if any, confidence in betting those races at all, is necessary. Michael looks at many, many races every day, from all over the country, and passes a whole lot of those races every day also.

My philosophy is that there are some tracks I can play profitably, and there are many more that I cannot play profitably. "Universal" algorithms/formulas for rating/ranking horses just do not work at all tracks, IMO. If you are determined to use these "universals" then you must determine which tracks produce with them and which ones don't. Everything I do is track specific, with rigorous testing of past meets at each track, and continual testing of past races at current meets at each track. Things change during meets, things are different at different time periods in meets, weather conditions change during meets, etc.. Surfaces, the way races are carded, the horse, trainer, and jockey colonies, etc., all those things can change during meets, and from meet to meet. It only makes sense to me that one must look at the past, both previous meets and previous recent races in the current meet, in order to be able to play knowledgeably and with the confidence that what you perceive, is actually what is currently happening at each track you play.

[raybo]

So this thread was actually asking for compliments?

I don't think Mikesal was looking for compliments at all. I think he was just getting frustrated that with his high contender hit rate he was still losing money. The problem that I see is that, first of all it was only 2 cards, much too small to determine anything at all. Secondly, he "played" every race on both cards, not the way to go about making a profit for 99+% of players. Thirdly, he was "playing" two totally different kinds of tracks. And, he was "playing" 3 contenders in every race. All using the same contender selection method, I assume. IMO, his chance of being successful, under all of those conditions, is extremely low and needs to be addressed immediately.

Yes, his top contenders did very well, and that may indeed be the way to go in the future. But, it is just as likely that at some point in the future, probably the very near future, those top picks will cease to produce profit. My opinion is that he must pay close attention to what is really going on, recently, by keeping good records, every day, not just the days he plays, and continually adjust to changes that are really happening at each track he plays. This is a slippery slope though, because short term results may just be normal variance, so one must be relatively sure that things have changed before adjusting one's methods. Sometimes, it's just time to stop playing a track and concentrate on others that are performing well. If the track you quit playing reverts back to being profitable then start playing it again, if not then stay away until it does, if it does.

[green80]

ok, show us the same results for 200 races and maybe we can give you a better idea of what to do. Group by track.

[mikesal57]

I don't think Mikesal was looking for compliments at all. I think he was just getting frustrated that with his high contender hit rate he was still losing money. The problem that I see is that, first of all it was only 2 cards, much too small to determine anything at all. Secondly, he "played" every race on both cards, not the way to go about making a profit for 99+% of players. Thirdly, he was "playing" two totally different kinds of tracks. And, he was "playing" 3 contenders in every race. All using the same contender selection method, I assume. IMO, his chance of being successful, under all of those conditions, is extremely low and needs to be addressed immediately.

Yes, his top contenders did very well, and that may indeed be the way to go in the future. But, it is just as likely that at some point in the future, probably the very near future, those top picks will cease to produce profit. My opinion is that he must pay close attention to what is really going on, recently, by keeping good records, every day, not just the days he plays, and continually adjust to changes that are really happening at each track he plays. This is a slippery slope though, because short term results may just be normal variance, so one must be relatively sure that things have changed before adjusting one's methods. Sometimes, it's just time to stop playing a track and concentrate on others that are performing well. If the track you quit playing reverts back to being profitable then start playing it again, if not then stay away until it does, if it does.


Ray...you hit it on the head...
I'm in the process of "evaluating" the Handifast software..
Out of the 2 freebies being offered here , I found this one to be more unique and have possibilities and of course the ease of use. So far I entered weights of a universal sort before I venture into track specifics.
I've started posting selections to get others out of the dark and to see if it can pick a wide range of winners , pricewise and possibly discuss strategies.
While posting , I saw the high percentage of winners coming up and starting asking myself ..."thats great, but how can I make money with low price horses" ..which prompted this post. I thank you all on your responses and have seen the complexity of some answers. I will sort out which ones that can best be used by me.

Here's the dilemma I foresee..

Using proven factors and weights , you can get many winners at a low price..
Changing factors and weights , you start to make other horses look better but at the same time you make the real winners look bad...
What to do?

Mike

[pandy]

To me, a software handicapping program that picks logical horses isn't the way to go. In many races, any decent handicapper can look over the race and in a minute pick the horse that has the best chance of winning. In my opinion, a good computer handicapping program should be able to show you legitimate contenders that are not likely to be the favorite.

The problem with favorites, a computer program often can't see the vulnerability of a favorite. For instance, it may pick a horse on top because it has a high win percentage and recent strong speed figures, but the horse will be a bad bet today because it was claimed away from a known juice trainer to a regular trainer. Or the computer can't see that even though the horse won last start it was bearing out badly and is probably sore and ready to bounce. Or the computer can't see that even though the horse won big last start the track was extremely speed biased and the favorite was left at the gate which gave the winner an easy lead, and so on, and so on. There are so many favorites that look good on paper but are terrible bets.

[thaskalos]

Ray...you hit it on the head...
I'm in the process of "evaluating" the Handifast software..
Out of the 2 freebies being offered here , I found this one to be more unique and have possibilities and of course the ease of use. So far I entered weights of a universal sort before I venture into track specifics.
I've started posting selections to get others out of the dark and to see if it can pick a wide range of winners , pricewise and possibly discuss strategies.
While posting , I saw the high percentage of winners coming up and starting asking myself ..."thats great, but how can I make money with low price horses" ..which prompted this post. I thank you all on your responses and have seen the complexity of some answers. I will sort out which ones that can best be used by me.

Here's the dilemma I foresee..

Using proven factors and weights , you can get many winners at a low price..
Changing factors and weights , you start to make other horses look better but at the same time you make the real winners look bad...
What to do?

Mike

Mike,

My advice to you is to abandon the idea of betting every race, if your main objective is showing a profit. There isn't a horseplayer in the WORLD who can beat this game by betting every race.

[Capper Al]

The best long shots are horses that the public should have handicapped as a favorite, but for some unknown reason didn't.

[whodoyoulike]

... In my opinion, a good computer handicapping program should be able to show you legitimate contenders that are not likely to be the favorite. ...

I'm not sure I'm presenting this correctly but shouldn't a good computer program provide legitimate contenders and it would be up to the handicapper to decide whether the best ones are worth a wager?

If it so happens to select the favorite and the horse really was the best and wins, where's the flaw?

A program which doesn't consider current odds wouldn't be capable of adding additional weight to the favorite. I see a number of people who wager on the higher odds contender(s) because the #1 selection happens to be the favorite. If the payout(s) aren't acceptable for the wager, they should pass the race.

[raybo]

I'm not sure I'm presenting this correctly but shouldn't a good computer program provide legitimate contenders and it would be up to the handicapper to decide whether the best ones are worth a wager?

If it so happens to select the favorite and the horse really was the best and wins, where's the flaw?

A program which doesn't consider current odds wouldn't be capable of adding additional weight to the favorite. I see a number of people who wager on the higher odds contender(s) because the #1 selection happens to be the favorite. If the payout(s) aren't acceptable for the wager, they should pass the race.

I think what he was getting at is the quality of your program's contenders. A program that selects only low priced contenders is no better than what the public does as a whole, it loses money. So, programs that use similar factors as what the public is betting does you little good.

Let's say that you are using only your program's top 3 or 4 contenders, and those top 3 or 4 contenders are almost always low priced. You probably will not be able to show a long term profit with those contenders. You are looking at the same horses that the public is, and that will not make you a profit.

So, if your program uses common traditional contender selection methods then your program is not very good, if your goal is to make profit. The only thing your program is good for is predicting what the public odds rankings might be.

[pandy]

I'm not sure I'm presenting this correctly but shouldn't a good computer program provide legitimate contenders and it would be up to the handicapper to decide whether the best ones are worth a wager?

If it so happens to select the favorite and the horse really was the best and wins, where's the flaw?

A program which doesn't consider current odds wouldn't be capable of adding additional weight to the favorite. I see a number of people who wager on the higher odds contender(s) because the #1 selection happens to be the favorite. If the payout(s) aren't acceptable for the wager, they should pass the race.


The reason why so many computer programs are pace-based it that they don't put the obvious contenders on top. Programs like E-Ponies, for instance, gives you some obvious contenders but you can see those easily yourself just by glancing at the pps. Good point about the odds. E ponies uses the ML in its calculations, and of course that means more favorites on top.

[Overlay]

The best long shots are horses that the public should have handicapped as a favorite, but for some unknown reason didn't.
That unknown reason may reflect the fact that the public didn't necessarily have a negative opinion about the horse that is going off at higher odds, but became oversold on the attributes of one or more other horses in the race, raising every other horse's odds by default.

Also, arriving at a selection by narrowing a field down to a single horse through a process of elimination, while giving no consideration at all to the winning chances of other horses in the field, can lead to the same situation.

[pandy]

I'm not sure I'm presenting this correctly but shouldn't a good computer program provide legitimate contenders and it would be up to the handicapper to decide whether the best ones are worth a wager?

If it so happens to select the favorite and the horse really was the best and wins, where's the flaw?

A program which doesn't consider current odds wouldn't be capable of adding additional weight to the favorite. I see a number of people who wager on the higher odds contender(s) because the #1 selection happens to be the favorite. If the payout(s) aren't acceptable for the wager, they should pass the race.


I responded to this the other day but I didn't have that much time and wanted to get back to your questions. I think this is a good subject. Do you use a computer program, or any type of handicapping, to rank contenders using the standard and obvious factors and then just look for value based on the morning line, or an odds line that the system produced? This is not necessarily a bad approach and could pay off with patience, providing you have a pretty good idea of what the odds should be.

Another approach is to use a method or methods that just points out longshots that have a shot and bet the ones that actually go off over a certain odds, say 6-1, or whatever seems to work in the long run.

A related subject pertaining to win betting in particular would be, "is it ever smart to bet lower odds overlays?" In other words, say your program or method picks a horse on top and makes it 8-5 but it's going off at 5-2. Is this really a good bet? In the long run, will 5-2 shots produce a profit? You'd have to hit at least 28% of these bets on 5-2 shots to show a small profit.

To me, horses in the lower range odds are difficult to profit on. Naturally, if you're playing a pick 4 or something like that, you have to use horses that look like they can win. But for win wagers, longer odds overlays are better bets. Most handicapping contests are decided by highest ROI and the contest winner is usually someone who bet all longshots. To win the contest betting 5-2 shots would be virtually impossible.

[Harvhorse]

Don`t bet your contenders under 4/1.

[tucker6]

Here's the dilemma I foresee..

you start to make other horses look better but at the same time you make the real winners look bad...
What to do?

Mike
I saw that in the Haskell on Sunday. Even at his low odds, AP was still a likely overlay, but many horseplayers try to zig when the world is zagging.

[pandy]

I saw that in the Haskell on Sunday. Even at his low odds, AP was still a likely overlay, but many horseplayers try to zig when the world is zagging.


If you really think a horse is a lock, the best thing to do is pass the race. But there are ways to take a shot against a horse like this and still profit. I made one bet in the Haskell, I boxed Keen Ice and AP in the exacta and got $10.80, a return of more than 3-2 odds and a better return than a win bet on AP who was 1-10. The Frosted/AP Exacta box was also a good bet in the Belmont and of course would have paid more if Frosted upset.

I do sometimes wonder, are there players who only bet great horses and can you profit doing that? Betting 1-10 shots, obviously, you will lose in the long run. But what if the only time you bet an odds on horse it was a horse like Zenyatta, AP Pharoah, Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Ruffian, etc. Would you show a profit? If wouldn't be much action, since there are very few great horses. And most 1-10 shots are terrible bets.

[tucker6]

If you really think a horse is a lock, the best thing to do is pass the race. But there are ways to take a shot against a horse like this and still profit. I made one bet in the Haskell, I boxed Keen Ice and AP in the exacta and got $10.80, a return of more than 3-2 odds and a better return than a win bet on AP who was 1-10. The Frosted/AP Exacta box was also a good bet in the Belmont and of course would have paid more if Frosted upset.

I do sometimes wonder, are there players who only bet great horses and can you profit doing that? Betting 1-10 shots, obviously, you will lose in the long run. But what if the only time you bet an odds on horse it was a horse like Zenyatta, AP Pharoah, Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Ruffian, etc. Would you show a profit? If wouldn't be much action, since there are very few great horses. And most 1-10 shots are terrible bets.
I agree that the best course of action Sunday was to not bet the Haskell without AP in your bets. I personally would never bet a 1-10 horse as a single, not even Secretariat or The Bid. Neither would I throw them off my tickets in hopes of scoring some rare coup. Both of those options are losing propositions. You bring up a good way for the OP to use chalk with an opportunity for a greater ROI.