Most Important Factors in Handicapping Turf Races

[PressThePace]

Years ago, I started specializing, if you will, in high level claiming races and open allowances...on the dirt. I would consider my handicapping skills on the dirt to be above average. However, the turf is an entirely different animal for me. I still do not play turf races, but the payoffs are too juicy to ignore entirely. I've started looking at class as a primary factor in addition to looking for lone speed in races where other entries do not show a recent ability to pass runners in the stretch.

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this subject, as it would surely behoove all of us to learn more about handicapping these contests.

P.S. ---I'm not interested in maiden races or low-level events on the grass.

[DRIVEWAY]

Rail Setting- zero to 120 feet

Early, Middle, Late Meeting weather variables

Depth Of Grass - when is the grass cut

Consistency Of Turf - Brown out areas and hard ground

Track variables such as tightness of turns, hills, banking, runup distance

Does the track change the runup distance as the rail setting changes, starting area surface get chewed up etc.

Once you know and understand the general impact of the above variables then assess the impact on each horse and the assigned post.

Maybe the grass is greener on the dirt. :lol:

[no breathalyzer]

trip handicappers love to bet the grass.. the problem with them is they don't understand trip doesn't matter when the horse is too slow anyways. post matters more on grass. and i only bet horses that have a great turn of foot and proven they have that 11sec flat gear available and can finish if given the rite situation .also class matters much more on the lawn

[thaskalos]

The only thing I can say with certainty about turf handicapping is that the importance of the fast last fraction has been greatly exaggerated.

[no breathalyzer]

The only thing I can say with certainty about turf handicapping is that the importance of the fast last fraction has been greatly exaggerated.
why do you say that? can you please explain?

while i don't think its the only factor its still of very importance

[pandy]

Conditioning is important because you need stamina, so lack of recent workouts or any sign of declining form are red flags. Otherwise, most winning horses have this in common, Competitive Speed Figures, Fits well on class, has a strong late kick, has a good turf trainer.

[PressThePace]

The only thing I can say with certainty about turf handicapping is that the importance of the fast last fraction has been greatly exaggerated.

I've come to feel the same way. Often in high level turf routes, most of the field shows an impressive last fraction.

[pandy]

Not all the turf races are won by horses with the best late pace figures. Sometimes, just like dirt races, turf races are won by the horse with the best early pace figures. But, horses with the best late pace figures win more turf races than they win dirt races. I tested this for almost a year in New York and I was amazed at not only how many turf races are won by either the horse with the best late pace figure or second best late pace figure, but how often they win as longshots. The first time I tested this the top ranked late pace figure horse showed a substantial profit over a 6 month period. This would never happen on dirt. I wasn't using last quarter, I used my Kick rating, which is a longer segment of the race, but the old Sartin 3rd Fraction works well, too.

[Tom]

General statements cost you $$$.
At Belmont, Jun-July, Main Turf course, FR3=1 wins 30%, WP 70%, 1.30 ROI for turf routes.
Inner routes, 17% win, .92 roi.

If you are playing exacta on the main turf course, you better be putting the top third fraction horses in them.

This is why I prefer small samples - play what is happening now.

At WO, 14% winners with a .86 roi.
At PRX, 20% winners, 60% WP, but roi is only .61

you not only need to know what is winning, how it is paying. Horse that are great bets to fill out exacta might be terrible win bets.

First think i do every day I play is run the HTR Robot and see where the opportunities are. I run the last two or three months and my report list performance on a day by day basis so I can when a short term trend has ended.

[AndyC]

The only thing I can say with certainty about turf handicapping is that the importance of the fast last fraction has been greatly exaggerated.

Put me down for a major dissent!

[EMD4ME]

Knowing how many turf routes were run on a certain day is key. Many figures are complete guesses as there is only 1 turf route on some cards.

Knowing exactly who was in that specific race is key, what form was each contender in and more importantly how did each horse's trip affect the outcome of the race.

Detailed trip notes are essential. Accurate final kick #'s are essential.

Visual handicapping is more essential. I can not feel confident betting a turf race without watching replays for all horses involved, even more so than on dirt.

My 2 cents.

[davew]

I feel the higher 'class' horses have an edge


class is hard to define, but includes the ability for a 'spurt' of speed when needed to discourage the others...

[thaskalos]

Put me down for a major dissent!
I know how good you are on the turf, Andy...but those last fractions just don't work for me. I've blended them into the mix in every conceivable way...and the turf is still the weakest link of my game. Luckily...I can still find some dirt races to wager on.

[pandy]

Knowing how many turf routes were run on a certain day is key. Many figures are complete guesses as there is only 1 turf route on some cards.

Knowing exactly who was in that specific race is key, what form was each contender in and more importantly how did each horse's trip affect the outcome of the race.

Detailed trip notes are essential. Accurate final kick #'s are essential.

Visual handicapping is more essential. I can not feel confident betting a turf race without watching replays for all horses involved, even more so than on dirt.

My 2 cents.


Your point about trip handicapping, very much a key and probably the most frustrating thing about betting turf races is those tough trips, especially getting blocked along the inside. But good trip handicappers can take notes and get some good horses to watch.

[Secondbest]

On turf horses can move up in class more easily than dirt. I believe this is because of the nature of turf racing Big fields different courses At Belmont the inner and the main are not the same in the way they run yetmost people bet them as if they were.
I agree with Tom and Emd.

[Aerocraft67]

The only thing I can say with certainty about turf handicapping is that the importance of the fast last fraction has been greatly exaggerated.

And overbet?

[classhandicapper]

I'm not especially good at turf racing, but several things I know are true.

1. A lot of the final speed figures out there are not actually final time figures. There are so many complications to making turf speed figures (especially slow paces) that many figures are just broken out projections of how fast the figure maker thought the horses should have run based on past performances. They often have nothing to do with the final time. In fact, if anyone made strict final time figures for turf, they would probably perform poorly.

2. On turf, especially in routes, slow paces generally do not help front runners as much as they do on dirt. High quality closers are still often able to run down leaders setting a slow pace on turf unless the slow pace is very extreme. Moderately fast paces also don't have as much of a negative impact on front runners over and above that style typically being less advantageous.

3. Average winning margins are smaller because of the typical race development. So rather that judging dominance by winning margins, you are better off judging it by win% and the way the horse wins and goes out.

4. Ground loss is more significant than on dirt because there are fewer days/tracks where the outside paths are a little better than the inside paths like on dirt, the races typically really pick up on the far turn so being wide is a major problem for improving position and using up excess energy, and the turns are tighter.

[classhandicapper]

The only thing I can say with certainty about turf handicapping is that the importance of the fast last fraction has been greatly exaggerated.

I like the idea of looking at final fractions from a theoretical perspective because so many turf routes are slow paced affairs won by the horse with the best late kick. Intuitively it seems that final fractions should be a great way to go. The major problem is that even in generally slow paced turf races the last fraction is dependent on the early fractions. I have yet to find a formula that correctly adjusts for all the possible variations in pace.

I'm in the process of trying to build a model that gets at late kick in a comparative way. I have no idea if it will work better, but I hope to test it by the end of the year.

[classhandicapper]

On turf horses can move up in class more easily than dirt.

At the highest levels I suspect it has something to do with the fact that our very best turf horses are not as good as our very best dirt horses. So it's easier to move from the ALW ranks into stakes. The gap between males and females is also narrower.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

trip handicappers love to bet the grass.. the problem with them is they don't understand trip doesn't matter when the horse is too slow anyways. post matters more on grass. and i only bet horses that have a great turn of foot and proven they have that 11sec flat gear available and can finish if given the rite situation .also class matters much more on the lawn

I agree with this completely. Tough trips in past races help with the price, but class is still the essential ingredient along with the projected trip in today's race. Post position, jockey, bias and the mix of running styles can help make an educated guess for determining the top contenders.

Then just bet the longer priced mule(s).

[AndyC]

I'm not especially good at turf racing, but several things I know are true.

1. A lot of the final speed figures out there are not actually final time figures. There are so many complications to making turf speed figures (especially slow paces) that many figures are just broken out projections of how fast the figure maker thought the horses should have run based on past performances. They often have nothing to do with the final time. In fact, if anyone made strict final time figures for turf, they would probably perform poorly.

2. On turf, especially in routes, slow paces generally do not help front runners as much as they do on dirt. High quality closers are still often able to run down leaders setting a slow pace on turf unless the slow pace is very extreme. Moderately fast paces also don't have as much of a negative impact on front runners over and above that style typically being less advantageous.

3. Average winning margins are smaller because of the typical race development. So rather that judging dominance by winning margins, you are better off judging it by win% and the way the horse wins and goes out.

4. Ground loss is more significant than on dirt because there are fewer days/tracks where the outside paths are a little better than the inside paths like on dirt, the races typically really pick up on the far turn so being wide is a major problem for improving position and using up excess energy, and the turns are tighter.


I agree with 1 & 2 for sure. Number 3 is true but it is mostly due to how turf races are run in general. They are basically a 1/4 to 3/8 sprint. In such a short race it is hard to win by a big margin in a field of accomplished turf runners.

As for #4, everything you listed has an effect but I believe that ground loss in a turf race is over rated in the pre-sprint portion of the race. It doesn't really matter where a horse is running if they can maintain a comfortable cruising rate. Of course position becomes paramount once they get about 3/8s from the finish line.

[Robert Fischer]

1. How good you expect a horse to perform

2. How good the public expects that horse to perform



^ those are the 2 main ones, but they are the same for turf or dirt.


One of the ways that I look at turf races, is to make sure that I can have a ballpark idea of how a horse's trip will develop, and also a relatively precise idea of what position a horse will be in once asked the question.

A lot of these turf races are too chaotic for me. If I can't answer the above questions, I don't really know how the horse will perform.
Of course it is nice when a chaos race fits a pattern or 'model' that I am familiar with and then can be capitalized(multiple horses, longshot angles...), but if not, then I have to skip those races.

[classhandicapper]

I agree with 1 & 2 for sure. Number 3 is true but it is mostly due to how turf races are run in general. They are basically a 1/4 to 3/8 sprint. In such a short race it is hard to win by a big margin in a field of accomplished turf runners.

As for #4, everything you listed has an effect but I believe that ground loss in a turf race is over rated in the pre-sprint portion of the race. It doesn't really matter where a horse is running if they can maintain a comfortable cruising rate. Of course position becomes paramount once they get about 3/8s from the finish line.

I agree on your first point.

The issue then becomes how do you tell the difference between the horse that won by a length that was barely better than the rest of the field and the horse that won by a length that would dominate that group if they kept running against each other. On dirt, the really good horses tend to draw off. The only things that have helped me on turf are visual observation (how easily he was striding and how well the horse went out after the wire) and the horse's overall win record. Horses that consistently get it done tend to be better than the figures and margins indicate.

I agree on your second point entirely.

[Stoleitbreezing]

Good discussion here.

Thinking about this weekend and going to the Arlington Million this Saturday, is there anything you look at for this specific event? As we know we'll have some local horses and some Euros shipping in, last year if you remember the local horses, especially those that raced over the Arlington grass before seemed to have an advantage and won most of the big races. This was something I wasn't expecting, as usually the shippers are of much better quality for this event and tend to win more of the bigger races. Much to my surprise, a horse from PARX won the Million albeit in short weak field then in years past. The field from what I'm reading won't have a "big" international standout this year. What do you look for in terms of capping these big turf events?

[JayTris07]

Rail Setting- zero to 120 feet

Early, Middle, Late Meeting weather variables

Depth Of Grass - when is the grass cut

Consistency Of Turf - Brown out areas and hard ground

Track variables such as tightness of turns, hills, banking, runup distance

Does the track change the runup distance as the rail setting changes, starting area surface get chewed up etc.

Once you know and understand the general impact of the above variables then assess the impact on each horse and the assigned post.

Maybe the grass is greener on the dirt. :lol:

DRIVEWAY, or anyone else , can you please explain what it means when the rails are out. What rails are they speaking of and why do they put them out?

I'm new to the game and I would like to know. I always hear the announcers say this but I don't know what they are talking about.

Thanks.

[RXB]

DRIVEWAY, or anyone else , can you please explain what it means when the rails are out. What rails are they speaking of and why do they put them out?

I'm new to the game and I would like to know. I always hear the announcers say this but I don't know what they are talking about.

Thanks.

The rail is moved in/out to try to protect the turf course from being overused in specific paths. There's typically a standard 0' setting where the rail is at its innermost and then a few settings where the rail is out wider so that the horses are running on different paths.

[Secondbest]

If your looking at speed ratings on turf I suggest taking CJ's advice and duct a point or point and a half from the fig for each beaten length. A loss by 3 lengths for example is common and is not as close as it looks.
As far class goes its always who did he or she beat.And in turf that's huge

[FlintAtTheFetlock]

I like freshened horses coming off dull effort with spotty running lines but showing a big number 2 - 3 back against similar. If a jock upgrade detected even better.

Hoping for some value with these types as form looks questionable.

[classhandicapper]

I'd like to bring up a specific race that I found a little confusing. Maybe someone can shed some light onto it because I must be missing something.

On Saturday, the 7th race at Saratoga was the DeLaRose.

Recepta was made the favorite and won at odds of 3.15 - 1.

Excuse the redboarding. I did not bet or cash the race.

In that race, I was expecting the pace to be lively. I downgraded the chances of Miss Frost, Daring Kathy, and to a lesser extent Pink Poppy who I thought did her best racing up close. That left me focusing primarily on Recepta and Nellie Cashman, with others like Token of Love, Ticking Katie, and Tittipaesi in my second tier.

I don't mind when a horse I think might be an overlay doesn't run well. Lots of obviously good horses have bad days. What I don't understand is how Recepta could be 3-1 and Nellie Cashman could be over 18-1. That question is reinforced by Pink Poppy, who was coming out of the same race, being over 19-1.

On the surface, Recepta and Nellie Cashman have similar running lines and figures off their last race. There was no strong difference in their overall records, trainer, or jockey that could account for it. I can see some arguments for making Recepta the shorter odds of the two. In fact, I did. But I don't understand the gap or even the morning line odds of 15-1 on Nellie Cashman.

I don't mind anyone redboarding here.

What was it that everyone disliked about Nellie Cashman and to a lesser extent Pink Poppy that accounts for those two being much higher odds than Recepta and several other horses in the race?

[thaskalos]

I'd like to bring up a specific race that I found a little confusing. Maybe someone can shed some light onto it because I must be missing something.

On Saturday, the 7th race at Saratoga was the DeLaRose.

Recepta was made the favorite and won at odds of 3.15 - 1.

Excuse the redboarding. I did not bet or cash the race.

In that race, I was expecting the pace to be lively. I downgraded the chances of Miss Frost, Daring Kathy, and to a lesser extent Pink Poppy who I thought did her best racing up close. That left me focusing primarily on Recepta and Nellie Cashman, with others like Token of Love, Ticking Katie, and Tittipaesi in my second tier.

I don't mind when a horse I think might be an overlay doesn't run well. Lots of obviously good horses have bad days. What I don't understand is how Recepta could be 3-1 and Nellie Cashman could be over 18-1. That question is reinforced by Pink Poppy, who was coming out of the same race, being over 19-1.

On the surface, Recepta and Nellie Cashman have similar running lines and figures off their last race. There was no strong difference in their overall records, trainer, or jockey that could account for it. I can see some arguments for making Recepta the shorter odds of the two. In fact, I did. But I don't understand the gap or even the morning line odds of 15-1 on Nellie Cashman.

I don't mind anyone redboarding here.

What was it that everyone disliked about Nellie Cashman and to a lesser extent Pink Poppy that accounts for those two being much higher odds than Recepta and several other horses in the race?

That's easy. Nellie Cashman had the second-worst Tomlinson Turf Rating in the field (272). :)

[Steve 'StatMan']

Quick points about the Arlington Million and the Secretariat:

Normally contested on the furtherst out lane on the turf course.

Starting gate is positioned at an angle out of the far turn. The gate is usually angled with the outer posts being a bit further back and losing more ground, the further out the post, the worse it gets. So esp. with a large fields, the outer posts (say 9 and out) are at a disadvantage early.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Also quick note about AP and IL as well: There are no coupled entries this year - the horsemen got a rule change to make all horses run as separate betting interests in order to keep the number of betting combinations from falling (or falling further that it already has.)

I saw that Chad Brown has 3 horses entered, but they will all have separate program betting numbers, so beware of running style strategies - coupled program numbers no long exist to help possibly warn the bettors.

[cnollfan]

Quick points about the Arlington Million and the Secretariat:

Normally contested on the furtherst out lane on the turf course.

Starting gate is positioned at an angle out of the far turn. The gate is usually angled with the outer posts being a bit further back and losing more ground, the further out the post, the worse it gets. So esp. with a large fields, the outer posts (say 9 and out) are at a disadvantage early.

Also, 1 1/4 turf races at Arlington start on a slight curve. It's a major advantage for pp 1. Don't have the history close at hand but pretty sure pp 1 is a flat-bet profit in the Million.

[whodoyoulike]

Also quick note about AP and IL as well: There are no coupled entries this year - the horsemen got a rule change to make all horses run as separate betting interests in order to keep the number of betting combinations from falling (or falling further that it already has.)

I saw that Chad Brown has 3 horses entered, but they will all have separate program betting numbers, so beware of running style strategies - coupled program numbers no long exist to help possibly warn the bettors.


I'm just thinking out loud. When they don't couple entries do you think the trainers want each of their horses to win on their own?

Or, is it possible for trainer manipulation i.e., have one or in this case two just go for it which will hopefully benefit the third entry?

[AndyC]

I'm just thinking out loud. When they don't couple entries do you think the trainers want each of their horses to win on their own?

Or, is it possible for trainer manipulation i.e., have one or in this case two just go for it which will hopefully benefit the third entry?

I think in big races it is fairly obvious of the trainer's intentions. If a horse doesn't look like it belongs in a race and has speed to take the lead it can probably be assumed that it is entered as a rabbit. I can't imagine a trainer sacrificing a good horse with tactics and expect the owner of the horse to be happy.

[raybo]

Turf sprints are not interesting to me, but turf routes offer such value much of the time that they do get play, if qualified on other criteria. I use a combination of my class rating, my distance capability/preference rating, a power rating, a form rating, and a total velocity rating. I don't add extra weight to early or late velocities, but obviously the horses that have both higher early velocities and late velocities will have a better total velocity rating. If the early rating, in turf routes, is very high then that can have a positive effect on the total velocity rating even with a much lower late velocity, and vice versa for late versus early.

I do watch replays occasionally, for turf and dirt, when I have a question about a horse, like in the Whitney, I watched Liam's Map's replays closely, and liked what I saw!

[delayjf]

2. On turf, especially in routes, slow paces generally do not help front runners as much as they do on dirt. High quality closers are still often able to run down leaders setting a slow pace on turf unless the slow pace is very extreme. Moderately fast paces also don't have as much of a negative impact on front runners over and above that style typically being less advantageous.

Every now and then I have been able to hit some front running long shots on the turf using the following criteria:

The horse must indicates that the can run on the turf by either previously winning on the turf or coming close. They also still need to show the ability to run a "decent" final fraction. For the higher class levels, my general cut off off point is 12 seconds per furlong in the final fraction. The closers will be running sub 12 second furlongs. I adjust up or down depending on what the closers are running in their final fractions.

The one thing I've noticed about front running turf winners is that they tend to run an even race, pace wise. By that I mean they run each fraction at about the same time i.e. fractional splits of 24-48-112 etc. The more they are forced to accelerate outside that even paced range (depending on class), the less of a chance they have of winning. So it’s also imperative that they be the lone speed of the race.

I also want a price, as you point out, front running is not the name of the game on turf.

As far as trip handicapping on the turf, I think it’s important to take note of who gets the first jump on starting their late kick. I’ve seen lots of horses finish on even terms (running the same velocity or actually closing on the winner) but lost because the winner was able to get rolling earlier in the race than they did.

[TonyMLake]

Years ago, I started specializing, if you will, in high level claiming races and open allowances...on the dirt. I would consider my handicapping skills on the dirt to be above average. However, the turf is an entirely different animal for me. I still do not play turf races, but the payoffs are too juicy to ignore entirely. I've started looking at class as a primary factor in addition to looking for lone speed in races where other entries do not show a recent ability to pass runners in the stretch.

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this subject, as it would surely behoove all of us to learn more about handicapping these contests.

P.S. ---I'm not interested in maiden races or low-level events on the grass.


I stay away from the turf in general. A few times I break the rule, an occasional graded stakes or spot play; and even then, it better be 100% dry... and by "dry", I don't mean the track calls fast and firm, I mean the track is actually dry.

I honestly think the Tomlinson/Mudder numbers are pretty decent!

EDIT: No Sprints.

[PressThePace]

My takeaway from this thread is that it appears as though turf races are a total crapshoot.....so many differing opinions. Someone mentioned earlier that turf routes are basically a pacing event until the top of the stretch. I agree. It's like a quarter horse race but without the horses starting across the track. It seems to me that the jock is much more important, especially in routes on the lawn. For now, I'm going to try to predict where the contenders may be at the top of the stretch and then who has the tactical advantage from that point. Thanks for all of the replies.

[JayTris07]

The rail is moved in/out to try to protect the turf course from being overused in specific paths. There's typically a standard 0' setting where the rail is at its innermost and then a few settings where the rail is out wider so that the horses are running on different paths.



Thank you RXB. :)

[raybo]

For now, I'm going to try to predict where the contenders may be at the top of the stretch and then who has the tactical advantage from that point. Thanks for all of the replies.

If you figure that one out, let me know and we'll both be millionaires in quick order! That's almost as hard to predict as the winner.

[PressThePace]

If you figure that one out, let me know and we'll both be millionaires in quick order! That's almost as hard to predict as the winner.

Lol...no doubt. I'm sure this will be short-lived.

[pandy]

Every now and then I have been able to hit some front running long shots on the turf using the following criteria:

The horse must indicates that the can run on the turf by either previously winning on the turf or coming close. They also still need to show the ability to run a "decent" final fraction. For the higher class levels, my general cut off off point is 12 seconds per furlong in the final fraction. The closers will be running sub 12 second furlongs. I adjust up or down depending on what the closers are running in their final fractions.

The one thing I've noticed about front running turf winners is that they tend to run an even race, pace wise. By that I mean they run each fraction at about the same time i.e. fractional splits of 24-48-112 etc. The more they are forced to accelerate outside that even paced range (depending on class), the less of a chance they have of winning. So it’s also imperative that they be the lone speed of the race.

I also want a price, as you point out, front running is not the name of the game on turf.

As far as trip handicapping on the turf, I think it’s important to take note of who gets the first jump on starting their late kick. I’ve seen lots of horses finish on even terms (running the same velocity or actually closing on the winner) but lost because the winner was able to get rolling earlier in the race than they did.


To your last point, about horses get the first jump on the deeper closers, everyone who bets turf has gotten beaten many times by the first or second run horse while we bet the third run horse who comes on too late. Some of this is jockey style. Julian Lepaurox, for instance, likes to wait and wait and wait...Cornelia Velasquez likes to send at the quarter pole and get the jump on the other closers....

I find it interesting how you can analyze all of the supposedly top turf riders and there are different styles of riding the turf that work.

[pandy]

Lol...no doubt. I'm sure this will be short-lived.

Actually, you have the right idea. Look for horses that have good late pace figs/closing kick that also have pretty good pace figures (so they're not likely to be far back).

[raybo]

Lol...no doubt. I'm sure this will be short-lived.

Not if you're serious about it. Determining who the top contenders will be at the stretch call is well worth the study and frustration. I've been trying to get it right for years, haven't got it yet, but still trying.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Class/Pedigree/Jockey/Trainer

And lastly, can the horse actually run fast enough to hit the "par".

Even then, above all else, ...on TURF, I'll take... CLASS.

[raybo]

Class/Pedigree/Jockey/Trainer

And lastly, can the horse actually run fast enough to hit the "par".

Even then, above all else, ...on TURF, I'll take... CLASS.

Yeah, class is weighted the most in my turf handicapping, and if I could only use one factor for grass races that would be it, I'd still pass sprints though at most tracks.

[cj]

For the last few years I've done better on turf than dirt. I stick to allowance and stakes races, but that is mostly true on dirt as well.

The main thing I use is my speed figures. But, I avoid "suck along" figs like the plague and I look for bad trips that dirty up horse's form. Bad post position and wide trips when the pace is hot are my two favorite toss out races. But nothing for me tops the horse that is able to make up a lot of ground and positions closing into a slow pace and still run a good speed figure that is competitive with today's field.

[Secondbest]

[QUOTE=classhandicapper]I'd like to bring up a specific race that I found a little confusing. Maybe someone can shed some light onto it because I must be missing something.

On Saturday, the 7th race at Saratoga was the DeLaRose.

Recepta was made the favorite and won at odds of 3.15 - 1.

Excuse the redboarding. I did not bet or cash the race.

In that race, I was expecting the pace to be lively. I downgraded the chances of Miss Frost, Daring Kathy, and to a lesser extent Pink Poppy who I thought did her best racing up close. That left me focusing primarily on Recepta and Nellie Cashman, with others like Token of Love, Ticking Katie, and Tittipaesi in my second tier.

I don't mind when a horse I think might be an overlay doesn't run well. Lots of obviously good horses have bad days. What I don't understand is how Recepta could be 3-1 and Nellie Cashman could be over 18-1.


After looking at the race.In my opinion most people downgrade parx and monmouth .Recepta ran mostly at belmont and keenland nellie was at lower class tracks evan if some races were graded those tracks are just downgraded in ny.

[cj]

I'd like to bring up a specific race that I found a little confusing. Maybe someone can shed some light onto it because I must be missing something.

On Saturday, the 7th race at Saratoga was the DeLaRose.

Recepta was made the favorite and won at odds of 3.15 - 1.

Excuse the redboarding. I did not bet or cash the race.

In that race, I was expecting the pace to be lively. I downgraded the chances of Miss Frost, Daring Kathy, and to a lesser extent Pink Poppy who I thought did her best racing up close. That left me focusing primarily on Recepta and Nellie Cashman, with others like Token of Love, Ticking Katie, and Tittipaesi in my second tier.

I don't mind when a horse I think might be an overlay doesn't run well. Lots of obviously good horses have bad days. What I don't understand is how Recepta could be 3-1 and Nellie Cashman could be over 18-1. That question is reinforced by Pink Poppy, who was coming out of the same race, being over 19-1.

On the surface, Recepta and Nellie Cashman have similar running lines and figures off their last race. There was no strong difference in their overall records, trainer, or jockey that could account for it. I can see some arguments for making Recepta the shorter odds of the two. In fact, I did. But I don't understand the gap or even the morning line odds of 15-1 on Nellie Cashman.

I don't mind anyone redboarding here.

What was it that everyone disliked about Nellie Cashman and to a lesser extent Pink Poppy that accounts for those two being much higher odds than Recepta and several other horses in the race?

Jimmy Toner isn't much more likely to be bet than Francis Abbott?

These are the last two speed figures I had for each:

Recepta 114, 116
Nellie Cashman 110, 104

Daring Kathy was the only horse in Recepta's league figure wise and was bet like it at 8-5, but she didn't run like it. On Saturday Recepta ran a 117 and Nellie Cashman a 108.

The point is that margins mean more on turf. A four point edge on dirt doesn't mean as much as a four point edge on turf in my opinion.

[Secondbest]

CJ. your reason makes moré sense than mine.

[cj]

CJ. your reason makes moré sense than mine.

I was piggybacking, I agree that races from tracks like Parx just don't get bet very much in the higher level racing of Saratoga.

[classhandicapper]

Jimmy Toner isn't much more likely to be bet than Francis Abbott?

These are the last two speed figures I had for each:

Recepta 114, 116
Nellie Cashman 110, 104

Daring Kathy was the only horse in Recepta's league figure wise and was bet like it at 8-5, but she didn't run like it. On Saturday Recepta ran a 117 and Nellie Cashman a 108.

The point is that margins mean more on turf. A four point edge on dirt doesn't mean as much as a four point edge on turf in my opinion.

I understood why Daring Kathy was the favorite. I didn't like her, but I understood why.

I understood why Recepta was the 2nd choice.

It's the odds on Nellie Cashman and to a lesser extent Pink Poppy (trained by Graham Motion) coming out of the same race I did not understand. If Recepta was the 2nd choice, Nellie Cashman the 3rd or 4th choice at between 8-1 and 12-1, and Pink Poppy 4th or 5th choice that would have made some sense to me. But the only horse bet less than the two of them was Joint Return who looked like she had no shot at all and was making her turf debut.

I like to distinguish between the times I understand the betting but have reason to disagree and the times I don't understand the betting. It's rare that I don't understand the betting in a major race on dirt. It's less rare on turf. That tells me the the problem is probably not the odds. It's my model of thinking about turf racing. The public is generally very good on turf too.

If you don't understand the odds (it's OK to have reason to disagree) it's usually you that's missing something. There's a hole in my understanding of turf racing that keeps me out of those races unless I have some special insight because I can't trust my own line making.

[ebcorde]

Does anyone look at the Racingpost ratings (RPR)?

[cj]

Does anyone look at the Racingpost ratings (RPR)?

Obviously I'm biased as an employee of TimeformUS, but I said this long before that happened in public and on my own site---the Timeform ratings are much better. I was very disappointed in the change DRF made way back in the day to go to RPRs.

Same thing applied when I lived in Europe. I bought a few Racing Post's on my travels to various tracks and downloaded Timeform ratings. I much preferred the latter.

[Robert Goren]

I started doing better in turf races when I went back to the way I handicapped in the 1960s before pace scenarios and Beyer type speed ratings. After handicapping the race, I look for money being bet on horses that is not supported by my handicapping. I think in turf racing, "smart money" is smarter than it is on the dirt.

[pandy]

One of the biggest keys in turf racing, bet longshots. The races are wide open, especially when it's a full field, and there's rarely any value in the first or second choices. There are so many ways to get beat in turf races, the value is in the higher odds horses. There are exceptions in short fields or major stakes race where there's a stand out, but generally, turf racing is for longshot bettors.

[raybo]

One of the biggest keys in turf racing, bet longshots. The races are wide open, especially when it's a full field, and there's rarely any value in the first or second choices. There are so many ways to get beat in turf races, the value is in the higher odds horses. There are exceptions in short fields or major stakes race where there's a stand out, but generally, turf racing is for longshot bettors.

I agree, some of my largest payouts have been on turf. The typical cavalry charge in the stretch offers several horses the chance to come out on top. And, it's not always the horse who has the best final quarter that wins, so there is quite a lot of value to be had, if you're on the right one.

[RXB]

One of the biggest keys in turf racing, bet longshots. The races are wide open, especially when it's a full field, and there's rarely any value in the first or second choices. There are so many ways to get beat in turf races, the value is in the higher odds horses. There are exceptions in short fields or major stakes race where there's a stand out, but generally, turf racing is for longshot bettors.

I don't see any particular difference in the ROI of favourites on turf compared to dirt. The average field size is quite a bit larger in grass races so the average payouts are higher, but in terms of win % relative to odds I don't see any significant disadvantage against turf favourites.

[pandy]

I don't see any particular difference in the ROI of favourites on turf compared to dirt. The average field size is quite a bit larger in grass races so the average payouts are higher, but in terms of win % relative to odds I don't see any significant disadvantage against turf favourites.

Try betting them. LOL. Sometimes reality is different than numbers. Of course, it's really a moot point because betting favorites in general is the quickest way to go broke.

[highnote]

How does the HTR robot work? I've heard of it, but never used it.

General statements cost you $$$.
At Belmont, Jun-July, Main Turf course, FR3=1 wins 30%, WP 70%, 1.30 ROI for turf routes.
Inner routes, 17% win, .92 roi.

If you are playing exacta on the main turf course, you better be putting the top third fraction horses in them.

This is why I prefer small samples - play what is happening now.

At WO, 14% winners with a .86 roi.
At PRX, 20% winners, 60% WP, but roi is only .61

you not only need to know what is winning, how it is paying. Horse that are great bets to fill out exacta might be terrible win bets.

First think i do every day I play is run the HTR Robot and see where the opportunities are. I run the last two or three months and my report list performance on a day by day basis so I can when a short term trend has ended.

[RXB]

Try betting them. LOL. Sometimes reality is different than numbers. Of course, it's really a moot point because betting favorites in general is the quickest way to go broke.

I have no idea what you mean by "Sometimes reality is different than numbers." Your claim is that turf favourites are easier to beat than dirt favourites and that is not the case.

The win percentages and ROI across the board at the various odds levels are almost identical for turf and dirt. The only reason turf favourites win less often is because the average turf field size is significantly larger. Once field size is accounted for, it's pretty much six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

And by the way, the quickest way to go broke is not to blithely bet favourites, it's to blithely bet longshots. Anybody with half a brain knows not to take low odds in contentious races, but overall ROI declines quite substantially as the odds increase on any surface.

[classhandicapper]

Someone explain to me how The Pizza Man was 5.90 -1 ?

[cj]

Someone explain to me how The Pizza Man was 5.90 -1 ?

Home field.

[classhandicapper]

Home field.

I guess that makes some sense, but did you consider him a 5-1 shot in that field?

[cj]

:) I guess that makes some sense, but did you consider him a 5-1 shot in that field?

No, I just know that horse always gets bet, and even more so at Arlington. He fools me every time.

[raybo]

Someone explain to me how The Pizza Man was 5.90 -1 ?

7 wins in his last 10, 5 of those at AP, and of those last 10, at an average distance of 10.8f, longer than any other horse in the field, with the 4 being the 2nd longest at 10.7f.

[classhandicapper]

:)

No, I just know that horse always gets bet, and even more so at Arlington. He fools me every time.

He's probably an example of the kind of horse I referred to earlier in thread where their win records on turf might be telling you something that their figures and winning margins can't, but I was shocked he was 5-1.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

He's probably an example of the kind of horse I referred to earlier in thread where their win records on turf might be telling you something that their figures and winning margins can't, but I was shocked he was 5-1.

Yep. He is one of those horses that you just can't look past the win column. 9 for 12 at AP and 11 for 12 hitting the board.

We can drudge through his numbers and scoff at them 12 ways to Sunday, but the horse shows up constantly at AP and wins. On paper, he should have been 10-12/1.

[raybo]

He's probably an example of the kind of horse I referred to earlier in thread where their win records on turf might be telling you something that their figures and winning margins can't, but I was shocked he was 5-1.

I suspect that you put a bit too much weight on class in that race. Sometimes class is overshadowed by other factors, as you know. His speed figures were competitive, he is almost always in the mix with a shot, and he can handle off tracks. He was relatively fresh, and you know he can handle the distance.

[classhandicapper]

I suspect that you put a bit too much weight on class in that race. Sometimes class is overshadowed by other factors, as you know. His speed figures were competitive, he is almost always in the mix with a shot, and he can handle off tracks. He was relatively fresh, and you know he can handle the distance.

He wasn't particularly competitive on recent speed figures from several providers. Granted the gap between him and the others was not huge (as is often the case on turf), but there were quite a few horses ranked ahead of him that had also been facing tougher competition.

I wasn't shocked by the win, just the odds.

I've been saying that whatever the "correct intellectual model" is for thinking about turf races, I still don't know what it is. I pick lots of winners on turf, but I often don't understand the odds. That gives me pause when playing them. To have any chance of profit, I have to stick with a very small number of situations I think the public misplays. I can't just look at the odds and play what I think are overlays because my own lines are too shaky.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Years ago, I started specializing, if you will, in high level claiming races and open allowances...on the dirt. I would consider my handicapping skills on the dirt to be above average. However, the turf is an entirely different animal for me. I still do not play turf races, but the payoffs are too juicy to ignore entirely. I've started looking at class as a primary factor in addition to looking for lone speed in races where other entries do not show a recent ability to pass runners in the stretch.

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this subject, as it would surely behoove all of us to learn more about handicapping these contests.

P.S. ---I'm not interested in maiden races or low-level events on the grass.

Two articles that appeared in Horseplayer Magazine.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=102
http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=105

[pandy]

I have no idea what you mean by "Sometimes reality is different than numbers." Your claim is that turf favourites are easier to beat than dirt favourites and that is not the case.

The win percentages and ROI across the board at the various odds levels are almost identical for turf and dirt. The only reason turf favourites win less often is because the average turf field size is significantly larger. Once field size is accounted for, it's pretty much six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

And by the way, the quickest way to go broke is not to blithely bet favourites, it's to blithely bet longshots. Anybody with half a brain knows not to take low odds in contentious races, but overall ROI declines quite substantially as the odds increase on any surface.


I've heard this nonsense about ROI declining with longer odds. Yes, that's true, if you bet every favorite you'll have a better ROI than if you bet every 20-1 shot. But, no one does that. Again, as i said, reality is different than the numbers. The bottom line is, you can't win betting favorites and believe me, regardless of what your numbers say, if you bet favorites in turf races you will lose even more money than if you bet favorites in dirt races.

You have to be careful how you evaluate broad-based stats. I do actual live testing, and I bet while I'm testing. Actual results speak louder than some broad based stats.

Here's some reality for you. Try to find two solid favorites a day and bet $20 to win and a $10 exacta box with the second choice on said favorites. Then try as hard as you can to find two good longshots that are going off between 9-1 and 20-1 odds and bet $20 to win and a $10 exacta box with the favorite.

In the long run, if you are a good handicapper, your ROI on the longshot bets will be dramatically higher than the favorites, regardless of what your stats say. Dirt or turf.

[thaskalos]

Here's some reality for you. Try to find two solid favorites a day and bet $20 to win and a $10 exacta box with the second choice on said favorites. Then try as hard as you can to find two good longshots that are going off between 9-1 and 20-1 odds and bet $20 to win and a $10 exacta box with the favorite.

In the long run, if you are a good handicapper, your ROI on the longshot bets will be dramatically higher than the favorites, regardless of what your stats say. Dirt or turf.

And if you can find good longshots that are going off between 21-1 and 32-1 odds...your ROI will probably go up further still. :ThmbUp:

[RXB]

I've heard this nonsense about ROI declining with longer odds. Yes, that's true, if you bet every favorite you'll have a better ROI than if you bet every 20-1 shot. But, no one does that. Again, as i said, reality is different than the numbers. The bottom line is, you can't win betting favorites and believe me, regardless of what your numbers say, if you bet favorites in turf races you will lose even more money than if you bet favorites in dirt races.

You have to be careful how you evaluate broad-based stats. I do actual live testing, and I bet while I'm testing. Actual results speak louder than some broad based stats.

Here's some reality for you. Try to find two solid favorites a day and bet $20 to win and a $10 exacta box with the second choice on said favorites. Then try as hard as you can to find two good longshots that are going off between 9-1 and 20-1 odds and bet $20 to win and a $10 exacta box with the favorite.

In the long run, if you are a good handicapper, your ROI on the longshot bets will be dramatically higher than the favorites, regardless of what your stats say. Dirt or turf.

There's a big difference between ROI and profit potential. Obviously we need to be on the positive side with ROI to be profitable but it doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of profit if the bets have to be very small.

If somebody hits 10% winners at exactly 10/1 odds, he has a +10% ROI expectation, which is very good. But if he makes 200 bets at that hit rate, it's greater than 50/50 that he will lose 50 in a row somewhere in those 200 plays. If he makes 5000 of those bets he's more likely than not to lose 80 in a row at some point. So his bets will have to be very small. Plus, a long losing streak, unless everything is 100% automated, tends to have a psychological effect on betting-- and it's not a positive effect.

And boxing two 10/1 shots? Even if you're very good, you won't hit more than 3% in the long run. The losing streaks will be huge. Your bet has to be so small compared to your bankroll, that unless you've got massive financial backing you're going to make peanuts.

Football teams don't throw long passes on every play. Baseball hitters don't swing for the fences all of the time. There's a good reason. Just like there's a good reason why the most profitable horseplayers don't restrict themselves to longshots; they take whatever the specific situation offers to them. If someone is good enough to be able to identify the favourites that are really weak and should definitely be wagered against, he should be equally able to tell when a favourite is very strong and worth a wager. And he can bet more money on the strong favourite than on a viable longshot because the probability of cashing is much higher and therefore bankroll protection against long losing streaks is less of an issue.

[pandy]

I've corresponded with hundreds of bettors over the years, RB, and there are many that bet all or mostly longshots. Now, it's true that you can get run outs and bets on lower odds horses will help that, but there simply aren't many favorites that are worth betting because there's not enough room for error. In other words, if you think a horse that's 2-1 should be 7/5, you're going to be wrong more often than you are right. If, however, you think a horse that's 15-1 should be 7-1, you have more leverage.

The bottom line is, I've known many successful bettors including several professional harness and thoroughbred bettors and NOT A SINGLE ONE of them bets favorites, except when they use a favorite in exotics, such as an pick 3. But they always key on overlays that are not favorites. They are looking for real value, not 2-1 on a horse they think should be 7/5.

Again, I'm talking about the real world, not math. I run tests of my methods on my website on the free picks page and most show a profit, in fact I'm running a few tests right now and they're doing well. But the profit always comes from the longshot winners. I've tested various methods with lower odds horses and never showed a profit, not with thoroughbreds.

One winter at Aqueduct years ago my Best Bet won 24 out of 25 days and three of the winners were not favorites. One was 7-1, one was 7-2...but that is extremely unusual and I never came close to duplicating that streak. In fact, even a good handicapper can easily get 6 to 8 losers in a row betting favorites that look like locks.

The key with betting longshots, you have to be good at picking longshot winners.

Another thing, as you said, you can bet more on the favorites. Well, you have to! That's one of the problems. With longshots you bet a little to win a lot.

[ultracapper]

50 losers in a row at 10/1 or higher in a 200 race sample?

I gotta think any 'capper worth his salt can avoid a streak like that.

[pandy]

By the way, RXB, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I totally understand what you're saying about the math. But I'm interested in what actually happens, not what's supposed to happen. Theoretically there are a lot of things that look like truth's on paper, but many mathematical theories fall apart when you actually put them in action.

[thaskalos]

By the way, RXB, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I totally understand what you're saying about the math. But I'm interested in what actually happens, not what's supposed to happen. Theoretically there are a lot of things that look like truth's on paper, but many mathematical theories fall apart when you actually put them in action.
When you say that you are "good at picking longshots", Pandy...what exactly do you mean? When you find one of those longshots at odds of, say, 15-1...do you honestly feel that this is the best horse in the race...or is it just an "interesting-looking" horse that you are only attracted to because of the price?

[Robert Goren]

50 losers in a row at 10/1 or higher in a 200 race sample?

I gotta think any 'capper worth his salt can avoid a streak like that.I really doubt that they can. Longshot winners tend to be streaky things. You hit a bunch and you think you have it figured out. Then reality sets in.

[pandy]

When you say that you are "good at picking longshots", Pandy...what exactly do you mean? When you find one of those longshots at odds of, say, 15-1...do you honestly feel that this is the best horse in the race...or is it just an "interesting-looking" horse that you are only attracted to because of the price?


I know some people look at the board and bet horses that they think are overlays but my approach is to find horses that I think are live longshots before the betting starts. So trying to find live longshots is an integral part of my handicapping process. So say I find a potential longshot horse today that fits certain criteria, angles and ratings that I use. I know that this horse is a legitimate contender because I believe in the methodology that I used to select it. At this point, the only thing I have to do is wait to see if the horse actually goes off as a longshot so I can make my bet. I usually want at least 6-1 odds but if the morning line is off and the horse is between 4-1 and 5-1 odds I'll make a judgement call on whether or not I think the horse is worth a bet at that price.

I don't get too cute with the odds. In other words, I'm not going to say, I'll bet this horse if it goes off at 15-1 or higher, and I'll bet this other horse if it goes off at 8-1 or higher. If the horse is 6-1 or higher, I'm betting. I know the horse is a legitimate win contender. That's all I need to know.


Longshots that win tend to have certain similar characteristics.

[RXB]

50 losers in a row at 10/1 or higher in a 200 race sample?

I gotta think any 'capper worth his salt can avoid a streak like that.

You're correct because I had plugged in the wrong formula.

A losing streak of at least 30 is greater than 50/50 over 200 wagers, assuming a constant hit rate of 10%. (58% likelihood, to be precise). The chances of losing at least 40 in a row is 23%; at least 50 in a row is 8%.

For a sample of 5000 with a 10% win rate, the likelihood of losing 50 in a row is 92%. It's 59% for losing at least 60 in a row, and 10% for at least 80 in a row.

[pandy]

You're correct because I had plugged in the wrong formula.

A losing streak of at least 30 is greater than 50/50 over 200 wagers, assuming a constant hit rate of 10%. (58% likelihood, to be precise). The chances of losing at least 40 in a row is 23%; at least 50 in a row is 8%.

For a sample of 5000 with a 10% win rate, the likelihood of losing 50 in a row is 92%. It's 59% for losing at least 60 in a row, and 10% for at least 80 in a row.

Again, this is based on ALL horses 10-1 or higher. Yes, if you blindly bet on longshots you will likely get long losing streaks. You can't just bet on every horse that goes off at 10-1 or higher, which is what you're basing this math on. The horses I pick that go off at 10-1 or higher are much different because they fit certain criteria that I know makes them legitimate contenders. Consequently, they are overlays. Now, some of them run poorly, so you could say that some are actually underlays. But that's okay, as long as the methodology is sound, more than enough win to show a profit.

Of course, even if you're betting 3/5 shots some will run poorly, horse's aren't machines.

[thaskalos]

I know some people look at the board and bet horses that they think are overlays but my approach is to find horses that I think are live longshots before the betting starts. So trying to find live longshots is an integral part of my handicapping process. So say I find a potential longshot horse today that fits certain criteria, angles and ratings that I use. I know that this horse is a legitimate contender because I believe in the methodology that I used to select it. At this point, the only thing I have to do is wait to see if the horse actually goes off as a longshot so I can make my bet. I usually want at least 6-1 odds but if the morning line is off and the horse is between 4-1 and 5-1 odds I'll make a judgement call on whether or not I think the horse is worth a bet at that price.

I don't get too cute with the odds. In other words, I'm not going to say, I'll bet this horse if it goes off at 15-1 or higher, and I'll bet this other horse if it goes off at 8-1 or higher. If the horse is 6-1 or higher, I'm betting. I know the horse is a legitimate win contender. That's all I need to know.


Longshots that win tend to have certain similar characteristics.

I have been on a lookout for "live longshots" for the better part of the last 32 years...and what I have found is that these longshot winners do not necessarily share common characteristics. Some drop in class, while others rise. Some wire their fields...while others come charging from dead last. Some have strong "connections"...while others don't. Of course...I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong. I am just saying that the notion that the "longshot winners tend to have things in common" isn't exactly a foregone conclusion.

It isn't that the players are infatuated with the first two betting choices; everybody would rather bet on a 15-1 horse than a 5-2 horse. It's just that these legitimately "live longshots" don't exactly grow on trees. Sometimes you have to take what the game gives you. There may not be much profit in betting the short prices...but doing so keeps you in the game until the big payoff comes. You can't really "force" things...IMO.

The great baseball player doesn't step to the plate with the home run in mind. He will often foul off pitch after pitch, and may even choose to slap a single up the middle...as he awaits for that fat pitch in his wheelhouse.

[pandy]

I'm not saying that they all have the same characteristics. But there are legitimate longshot angles. Pace handicapping alone points to a lot of legit longshots.

Going up in class is not a good longshot angle. Yes, some horses do step up and win at a price, but many more drop down and win at a price.

[RXB]

Again, this is based on ALL horses 10-1 or higher. Yes, if you blindly bet on longshots you will likely get long losing streaks. You can't just bet on every horse that goes off at 10-1 or higher, which is what you're basing this math on. The horses I pick that go off at 10-1 or higher are much different because they fit certain criteria that I know makes them legitimate contenders.


It's not "based on ALL horses 10-1 or higher." All horses 10/1 or higher win far less than 10%. Horses at exactly 10/1 will only come in at about 7%.

It's based on a 10% win rate, and as I said, if you win 10% at odds of exactly 10/1, you are on the ROI expectation plus side by 10%. Which, in a game with a takeout of typically 15%-20% in the win pool, is very good. But we're faced with two realities:

1. These good longshots don't grow on trees; and

2. The math in terms of runouts is irrefutable.

[pandy]

It's not "based on ALL horses 10-1 or higher." All horses 10/1 or higher win far less than 10%. Horses at exactly 10/1 will only come in at about 7%.

It's based on a 10% win rate, and as I said, if you win 10% at odds of exactly 10/1, you are on the ROI expectation plus side by 10%. Which, in a game with a takeout of typically 15%-20% in the win pool, is very good. But we're faced with two realities:

1. These good longshots don't grow on trees; and

2. The math in terms of runouts is irrefutable.

I'll agree that runouts is factor when betting longshots. But to actually show a nice profit, you have to put up with the risks. That's the way gambling is. I've had so many people contact me over the years and asked me something like this, "Do you have a method where I can grind out 35 to 40% winners with a consistent 5% profit?"

Not in the real world.

[raybo]

From what I read, Pandy did not suggest betting only longshots, he suggested trying to find a couple of strong favorites and betting them to win, and also boxing them with the second favorite, and also trying to find a couple of longshots and betting them to win and also boxing them with the favorite.

Originally Posted by pandy

Here's some reality for you. Try to find two solid favorites a day and bet $20 to win and a $10 exacta box with the second choice on said favorites. Then try as hard as you can to find two good longshots that are going off between 9-1 and 20-1 odds and bet $20 to win and a $10 exacta box with the favorite.

So, he's not suggesting that one bet longshots only and ignoring strong favorites. However, betting longshots, if you are very good at finding live ones, while the win rate is much lower, can make you a positive ROI player, betting win only. And if you also use them in exotics, you can be quite profitable also, especially when they win some of those exotics. It only takes a one of those big payouts to make your whole meet.

[pandy]

From what I read, Pandy did not suggest betting only longshots, he suggested trying to find a couple of strong favorites and betting them to win, and also boxing them with the second favorite, and also trying to find a couple of longshots and betting them to win and also boxing them with the favorite.



So, he's not suggesting that one bet longshots only and ignoring strong favorites. However, betting longshots, if you are very good at finding live ones, while the win rate is much lower, can make you a positive ROI player, betting win only. And if you also use them in exotics, you can be quite profitable also, especially when they win some of those exotics. It only takes a one of those big payouts to make your whole meet.


Exactly. I used to bet a mix of favorites and longshots but when I looked over my stats at the ends of the year I realized that the favorites and second choices were losing bets, unless they were hooked up in exactas with a longshot key.

And every winning player I've ever met, at the end of the year, the profit comes from several big scores,usually in exotic wagers keyed by a longshot. I've yet to actually meet one person who grinds out a profit betting favorites or any sort of high percentage play in thoroughbred races.

[raybo]

Exactly. I used to bet a mix of favorites and longshots but when I looked over my stats at the ends of the year I realized that the favorites and second choices were losing bets, unless they were hooked up in exactas with a longshot key.

And every winning player I've ever met, at the end of the year, the profit comes from several big scores,usually in exotic wagers keyed by a longshot. I've yet to actually meet one person who grinds out a profit betting favorites or any sort of high percentage play in thoroughbred races.

My experience since 2004 when I started my "brief" full time play, is similar. My much more frequent "normal" superfecta payouts produced a positive ROI, by themselves, but my much less frequent big superfecta payouts produced the brunt of the profit. The last few years I have been using win play, with no maximum odds, to support my superfecta play allowing me to spread wider and include more longshots. Invariably I hit a few of those longshot supers, almost every meet there will be one or two big payouts that put the icing on the cake for the whole meet, and combined, for the whole year. I never look for favorites to bet, although I will bet favorites in my superfectas, I look for longer priced horses to make a big score if they hit. My superfecta hit rate has only been between 7%-9% for years now, and that is all I need to make good profit long term.

[pandy]

It's unfortunate, but generally speaking, high hit rates = low ROI.

If a player is getting rebates, you can afford to bet some lower odds horses that show a small loss, just to boost your win percentage. For instance, even the bulk of my profit comes from horses 10-1 or over, if my bets in the 7-2 to 6-1 range are only showing a small loss, such as 1 or 2%, I would considering including them because that would increase the overall win percentage, cut down on run outs, and with the rebate they would still be profitable bets. So there are different ways to approach betting to try to keep your psyche upbeat.

[Poindexter]

There are very logical reason why favorites have a good roi, relative to longshots and why if you actually go through the process of lining races and betting value the majority of your plays will be longshots(7-1 + typically).

1st off is live horses. These are horses that insiders know are ready to put in a big effort or is a lot better than the betting public knows. Some of these guys may be even money on the board but win like a 2/5 shot should(or bet down to 2-1 and win like a 4/5 should.....). They exist and they win (not claiming they are easy to identify in advance) and they bring up the roi on favorites. 2nd there is a nature for most players to play the horse they like or the horse who is best or the horse that fits their system or their model.......This tendency tends to drive the prices on these obvious horses down. Factor in whales and rebated players who also tend to drive these horses down and it is very hard for these obvious horses to ever be good value(they can be fair value, but good value not too often). They are more likely to win, they have a lower roi in random than longshots, because in the group of horses called longshots are horses that might have very little chance of winning. But very seldom will they ever on their own present value. That doesn't mean they are of no use. You can key them in exactas or trifectas or supers, double or pick 3,4,5's if they are not over bet, but in general the chances of betting a horse at 2-1 because he really is a 8/5 shot in this day and age is very small. Either you are wrong, you are seeing something that the public isn't(which is hard to do) or some other horse is erroneously being tilted on the board(too often that tilted horse will likely beat you). Value come from you seeing something in a horse the betting public either doesn't see(forming a different opinion on a horse than the public does which can happen for many reasons) or maybe because there are so many "live" or interesting horses in a race they just neglect 1 or 2. But in general these value horses tend to be up there in odds. Since August 1st I have made 45 "value" plays. 40 were 7-1 and up, 5 were in the 7-2 to 5-1 range(final odds). Now I am talking about Del Mar where races are competitive. It is not like I have horse A at 6-5 and horse be at 5-2, it is more like I have horse A 3-1 and horse b 4-1......But in general turf racing tends to be competitive just like this so these stats definitely applies in this thread. Another point about turf racing is it is similar to harness racing in one regard. In closely matched fields, trip often dictates the results. Rail opens up horse wins for fun, doesn't open up, he is hopelessly blocked. One horse rides the rail and gets a dream run the other horse goes 5 wide ft they rail rider wins by a head. Harness same thing. Leader goes too fast early, too fast 3rd quarter and 2 hole horse nails him at the wire..............

One other advantage to betting longshots over favorites is that at random horses do not fire, get left at the gate, get blocked and/or locked, clip heels, lose their jockey, get into an unexpected duel, get fanned 6 wide far turn.... in harness break stride,get locked in, get stuck first over(some horses just can't do it) have dead cover.....When these things happen it is far better it happen on 10-1 shots that only needs to win 1 in 11 times to break even than on a 3-1 shots that need to win 1 out of 4 times to break even.

[pandy]

I totally agree.

[RXB]

But in general turf racing tends to be competitive just like this so these stats definitely applies in this thread. Another point about turf racing is it is similar to harness racing in one regard. In closely matched fields, trip often dictates the results. Rail opens up horse wins for fun, doesn't open up, he is hopelessly blocked. One horse rides the rail and gets a dream run the other horse goes 5 wide ft they rail rider wins by a head. Harness same thing. Leader goes too fast early, too fast 3rd quarter and 2 hole horse nails him at the wire..............


Post-time favourites only comprise about 11% of turf starters, so for sure there will be more chances to bet on the other 89% of runners. That said, half of the skill of successful longshot wagering is knowing when the favourites are average, weak or strong relative to their odds. For example, horses that go off at 3/2 odds win about 33%-34% of the time. If we can occasionally find the truly weak ones at those odds that will win only 15-20% of the time, the ones that you can really take a stand against, surely we can also occasionally find the 45-50% winners from that group.

Turf races are no more competitive than dirt races. The stats are fairly clear on that.

Regarding trips, the higher likelihood of grass favourites encountering some form of inconvenience is basically evened out by the fact that the degree to which any similar trouble actually affects a favourite's chances is generally worse on dirt, because it's easier to pass other horses on grass.

[ultracapper]

I have been on a lookout for "live longshots" for the better part of the last 32 years...and what I have found is that these longshot winners do not necessarily share common characteristics. Some drop in class, while others rise. Some wire their fields...while others come charging from dead last. Some have strong "connections"...while others don't. Of course...I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong. I am just saying that the notion that the "longshot winners tend to have things in common" isn't exactly a foregone conclusion.

It isn't that the players are infatuated with the first two betting choices; everybody would rather bet on a 15-1 horse than a 5-2 horse. It's just that these legitimately "live longshots" don't exactly grow on trees. Sometimes you have to take what the game gives you. There may not be much profit in betting the short prices...but doing so keeps you in the game until the big payoff comes. You can't really "force" things...IMO.

The great baseball player doesn't step to the plate with the home run in mind. He will often foul off pitch after pitch, and may even choose to slap a single up the middle...as he awaits for that fat pitch in his wheelhouse.

I agree with this 100%. In today's handicapping where collecting data is paramount, common angles and/or characteristics that lead to any kind of winner will ultimately get included in the grinder and become output that will lead bettors to it. I tend to notice most of my longshot winners have a positive or two that, in my estimation, trumps the negatives that the horse's form is showing. Those positives always seem to be something different, and usually they more or less just lead to a "hunch" on my part. The ultimate reason I may play the horse is that the shorter priced horses all show something that I'm comfortable tossing them because of. I usually land on longshots as much through the elimination process as I do on actually picking it as a solid play. I would say, that from my observation, one of the more common characteristics of live longshots is weaker connections. Even the 4% trainer gets a horse ready at times and happens to catch a field of poor favorites. After all, he does win 1 in 25 somewhere along the way.

[pandy]

There are a lot of different says to find longshots. You mentioned trainers. John Barile, The Tampa Downs Handicapper, is coming out with a book on his trainer angles. He wins consistently betting Tampa and the key element of his handicapping is trainer patterns, and the bulk of his profit comes from longshots.

[Aerocraft67]

I agree with this 100%. In today's handicapping where collecting data is paramount, common angles and/or characteristics that lead to any kind of winner will ultimately get included in the grinder and become output that will lead bettors to it. I tend to notice most of my longshot winners have a positive or two that, in my estimation, trumps the negatives that the horse's form is showing. Those positives always seem to be something different, and usually they more or less just lead to a "hunch" on my part. The ultimate reason I may play the horse is that the shorter priced horses all show something that I'm comfortable tossing them because of. I usually land on longshots as much through the elimination process as I do on actually picking it as a solid play. I would say, that from my observation, one of the more common characteristics of live longshots is weaker connections. Even the 4% trainer gets a horse ready at times and happens to catch a field of poor favorites. After all, he does win 1 in 25 somewhere along the way.

This is a good thread, but I like this post in particular. Of course the sharpies will ask, "is this method profitable," but I'm willing to go with it on logic alone. After all, 1 in 25 starts to sound pretty reasonable when you consider what we're up against. You have to find plays the grinder rejects.

[Luckycreed]

Never met a serious player who invests much of their money in longshots, not saying they don't exist but I have never met one.

The one market inefficiency that no one can dispute exists is that long shots are overbet relative to shorter priced horses.

So if you are playing longshots rather than trying to take advantage of this inefficiency you heading right into the teeth of it.Indirectly you are following the recreational players money into the pool of horses the recreation player most heavily overbets.

You are digging through a lot of rock to try and find the odd diamond, you are plating were value is pretty rare and most of the horse pool are horribly overbet.

[Aerocraft67]

The one market inefficiency that no one can dispute exists is that long shots are overbet relative to shorter priced horses.

So if you are playing longshots rather than trying to take advantage of this inefficiency you heading right into the teeth of it.Indirectly you are following the recreational players money into the pool of horses the recreation player most heavily overbets.


Often the advice attached to this is to focus on mid priced runners, which may well extend the underlay range, but an underlay here means an overlay there, right? How low does this longshot underlay bias extend these days? Lots of discussion here about finding 8/5 shots priced at 2/1 and focusing on "longshots" 6/1 or higher.

[pandy]

Never met a serious player who invests much of their money in longshots, not saying they don't exist but I have never met one.

The one market inefficiency that no one can dispute exists is that long shots are overbet relative to shorter priced horses.

So if you are playing longshots rather than trying to take advantage of this inefficiency you heading right into the teeth of it.Indirectly you are following the recreational players money into the pool of horses the recreation player most heavily overbets.

You are digging through a lot of rock to try and find the odd diamond, you are plating were value is pretty rare and most of the horse pool are horribly overbet.


Totally disagree with your last line "most of the horse pool are horribly overbet"....my research shows that most favorites are horribly overbet....there really aren't many overlays below 4-1 odds and the best bets tend to be between 6-1 and 20-1, and wagers on horses between 20-1 and 40-1 can be profitable with the right methods.

We had this overlay discussion in another thread I started about overlays. Are there really low odds overlays? Yes, I've hit 2-1 shots that won by 10 lengths and seemed to be an overlay. But if I bet every 2-1 shot that I feel is an overlay, at the end of the year there is no profit in the 2-1 range. So, these are perceived overlays, not true overlays. Overlays show a profit.

[lamboguy]

when dealing with turf horses i find the distance is a key factor especially the races that are over 1 1/8 miles.

as far as favorite being overlays, its basically true they are far and few between. the last real good one that i had was AMERICAN PHAROAH in the Belmont. i had him 8 cents to the dollar, he went off 75 cents to the dollar. if i could find about 1 of them a week in big stakes day pools, i would be a millionaire in about 8 months. i keep looking but don't find to many.

[pandy]

I see that so far this meet at Saratoga, favorites are winning at 31% and the average win payoff is 6-1. I can't find turf stats to compare. Try showing a profit betting favorites during a meet like this.

[Pick 'em Charlie]

So after 7 pages of posting, is there any consensus on the most important factors in a turf race?

[classhandicapper]

So after 7 pages of posting, is there any consensus on the most important factors in a turf race?

Betting on overlays. ;)

[Luckycreed]

Overlay is a purely subjective term, meaningless really, one mans overlay is another mans unders.

What can't be denied is the shorter priced horses are the closer they come to breaking even over a large sample, unless North American markets are very different to Australian and Asian markets.

Some figures from Australia city tracks dating back 1991

Horses priced between $1,00 and $4.90

Runners 64120 Winners 17715 Return $57810 Loss - 9.84%

Horses priced between $10.00 and $26.00

Runners 181524 Winners 9868 Return $ 148798.80 Loss - 18.03%

My post was not directed at those who are currently winning, if you are winning you don't need advice.

It was directed at the vast majority who are currently losing, the first step for them on the road to winning is to get longshots out of their betting.

[pandy]

Overlay is a purely subjective term, meaningless really, one mans overlay is another mans unders.

What can't be denied is the shorter priced horses are the closer they come to breaking even over a large sample, unless North American markets are very different to Australian and Asian markets.

Some figures from Australia city tracks dating back 1991

Horses priced between $1,00 and $4.90

Runners 64120 Winners 17715 Return $57810 Loss - 9.84%

Horses priced between $10.00 and $26.00

Runners 181524 Winners 9868 Return $ 148798.80 Loss - 18.03%

My post was not directed at those who are currently winning, if you are winning you don't need advice.

It was directed at the vast majority who are currently losing, the first step for them on the road to winning is to get longshots out of their betting.


Totally disagree. This is one of the reasons why most bettors lose, they use misleading data. You are using numbers that are meaningless. You are using ALL horses in a certain odds range. NO ONE bets every horse. Yes, if you did, you'd lose less money with lower odds horses. But if you actually handicap and pick the horses in the higher range that are good value, you will find more overlays in the $10 to $26 range and therefore in reality your ROI will be much higher.

I've never met a single person who bets short priced horses that actually shows a profit. Many people who bet in the odds range you don't like do show a profit. I've corresponded with hundreds of horseplayers and I've done many live tests.

You cannot rely on these type of stats you posted. You have to actually make the bets or find other people who are betting and go over their stats.

[classhandicapper]

I think I can sum it up.

If you aren't particularly skilled at recognizing horses that are better than they look on paper and bet a lot of longshots you are probably going to get killed.

If you ARE very skilled at recognizing horses that are better than they look on paper, there is more fertile ground for profit among mid priced and longshot horses than favorites.

Of course, I think there's another phenomenon at work.

Betting longshots can sometimes mislead you into thinking you are profitable over the long haul when you actually aren't because if you hit a few bombs by luck it will distort the results over the short term.

All that sad, I wish were talking more about how to find overlays on turf.

[Pick 'em Charlie]

Betting on overlays. ;)

Always a good thing!

[pandy]

I think I can sum it up.

If you aren't particularly skilled at recognizing horses that are better than they look on paper and bet a lot of longshots you are probably going to get killed.

If you ARE very skilled at recognizing horses that are better than they look on paper, there is more fertile ground for profit among mid priced and longshot horses than favorites.

Of course, I think there's another phenomenon at work.

Betting longshots can sometimes mislead you into thinking you are profitable over the long haul when you actually aren't because if you hit a few bombs by luck it will distort the results over the short term.

All that sad, I wish were talking more about how to find overlays on turf.


Good points but your comment about being mislead into thinking you are profitable, well, with internet betting doesn't everyone know if they are profitable? Years ago when I did all of my betting at the track,yes it was possible to go through the entire year without knowing if you won or lost. But I make almost all of my bets on the internet. I can easily see how I've done, how much I've withdrawn or deposited.

The most common overlays I've found on turf, through my testing and handicapping, is horses that have big late energy numbers, either the best or second best in the field, and are going off as longshots. This is the single best angle I've seen. By the way, I tested a computer generated late speed rating for 7 months at Aqueduct/Belmont/Saratoga one year and the top two late speeds showed a substantial profit and the profit was consistent. Top two early speed and top two final speed (speed ratings) both showed losses in turf routes.

[thaskalos]

Totally disagree with your last line "most of the horse pool are horribly overbet"....my research shows that most favorites are horribly overbet....there really aren't many overlays below 4-1 odds and the best bets tend to be between 6-1 and 20-1, and wagers on horses between 20-1 and 40-1 can be profitable with the right methods.

We had this overlay discussion in another thread I started about overlays. Are there really low odds overlays? Yes, I've hit 2-1 shots that won by 10 lengths and seemed to be an overlay. But if I bet every 2-1 shot that I feel is an overlay, at the end of the year there is no profit in the 2-1 range. So, these are perceived overlays, not true overlays. Overlays show a profit.
Are you just a weekend player, Pandy? Because there is no way you can be an everyday player and still claim that "the 2-1 horses are perceived overlays, not true overlays". During the weekdays, the racing cards are dominated by short fields...where the odds severely restrict the longshot betting style that you are advocating here. How many bets at the 6-1 to the 20-1 odds range do you expect to find when the fields are comprised of 5 to 7 horses?

Saying that the longshot betting style works best for you is one thing. But when you say things like, "there in no profit to be made betting 2-1 shots"..."the short-priced horses are only PERCEIVED overlays"...and "the expert players don't bet the first two favorites to win"...then you are projecting your own handicapping and betting weaknesses onto the other players here. Just because YOU can't show a profit while betting on horses at below 5-1 odds doesn't mean that the same goes for everybody else. You keep on using the term "in the real world"...but I don't understand what world that is that you are talking about. In MY "real world"...a 5-1 winner is often considered a "longshot", and those 20-1 "live horses" that you keep talking about are mighty rare sightings indeed.

There is no "real world" out there when we are talking horses. We paint the world that we see with the colors of our experience, and the resulting opinions that these experiences instill in us. There are as many winning methods of play as there are winning players...and all the winning players do not share common handicapping or betting characteristics. You are a longshot player...and that's fine. But there are surely other players out there whose "bread-and-butter" are those 5-1 and under horses that you hold in such disdain. I know that there are players like that out there...because I am one of them.

When you play the game everyday...then you have to deal with the short fields which dominate the weekday cards. And that means, to me at least...that you have to revise your definition of the word "overlay". You can't expect a steady diet of 6-1 to 20-1 winners...when the fields are 5 to 7 horses. Of course...I am not advocating everyday play here. Most players bet only on weekends...and that's perfectly fine. It's just that every single winning player that I've ever met bets a little more often than that.

[ReplayRandall]

The most common overlays I've found on turf, through my testing and handicapping, is horses that have big late energy numbers, either the best or second best in the field, and are going off as longshots. This is the single best angle I've seen. By the way, I tested a computer generated late speed rating for 7 months at Aqueduct/Belmont/Saratoga one year and the top two late speeds showed a substantial profit and the profit was consistent. Top two early speed and top two final speed (speed ratings) both showed losses in turf routes.

I want anyone who is reading the bolded part of Pandy's post, to write it down in your notes and HIGHLIGHT it. He has just given you one of the biggest truths to finding overlays on turf. The next step is being able to make your own line through your own records to establish what is an EV+ play for your style of handicapping. Lastly, to verify big late energy numbers, you'd be wise to watch replays.....

[thaskalos]

Lastly, to verify big late energy numbers, you'd be wise to watch replays.....
What does this mean? A big late-energy number isn't a "big late-energy number", if I don't watch replays?

[cj]

What does this mean? A big late-energy number isn't a "big late-energy number", if I don't watch replays?

I'm a big believer in "suck up" numbers, especially on turf. Horses that have running lines that fit that for me will often have "numbers", but I need a big price to bet them. I want to see not just the numbers, but actual stretch gains and passing of horses that aren't just backing up.

[ReplayRandall]

What does this mean? A big late-energy number isn't a "big late-energy number", if I don't watch replays?

Do you blindly accept speed, pace or performance numbers without verifying them through analyzation of replays?.....I must be the only one... :cool:

[thaskalos]

I'm a big believer in "suck up" numbers, especially on turf. Horses that have running lines that fit that for me will often have "numbers", but I need a big price to bet them. I want to see not just the numbers, but actual stretch gains and passing of horses that aren't just backing up.
Yes...but you don't need to watch replays in order to see if a horse passed horses or gained ground in the stretch.

[cj]

Yes...but you don't need to watch replays in order to see if a horse passed horses or gained ground in the stretch.

It helps to see horses that were actually passed while trying as compared to horses that were passed while not being asked. I won't pretend to watch replays for every horse I'm interested in betting, but I do watch some.

For example, a horse that is 7th 4 lengths behind and finishes 4th 2.5 lengths behind, I want to see it.

[thaskalos]

Do you blindly accept speed, pace or performance numbers without verifying them through analyzation of replays?.....I must be the only one... :cool:
Yes...I "blindly accept speed and pace numbers without verifying them through finalization of replays". I watch replays in order to see the horses were hampered in any way...not to verify their speed and pace ratings. The speed and pace ratings are what they are.

[ReplayRandall]

Yes...I "blindly accept speed and pace numbers without verifying them through finalization of replays". I watch replays in order to see the horses were hampered in any way...not to verify their speed and pace ratings. The speed and pace ratings are what they are.

I'm glad to see that you watch replays, for whatever reason you benefit from them... :)

[thaskalos]

It helps to see horses that were actually passed while trying as compared to horses that were passed while not being asked. I won't pretend to watch replays for every horse I'm interested in betting, but I do watch some.

For example, a horse that is 7th 4 lengths behind and finishes 4th 2.5 lengths behind, I want to see it.
I watch replays too...but it can be as misleading an endeavor as anything else in the handicapping process. In my opinion...it takes a keen knowledge of pace to properly analyze most of the replays that we see. A "bad trip"...isn't always as bad as it seems...nor is an overland route always the disadvantage that most players perceive it to be.

[cj]

I watch replays too...but it can be as misleading an endeavor as anything else in the handicapping process. In my opinion...it takes a keen knowledge of pace to properly analyze most of the replays that we see. A "bad trip"...isn't always as bad as it seems...nor is an overland route always the disadvantage that most players perceive it to be.

No argument from me on that. I always watch replays with the figures in mind. As has been said, there are no trips in slow races.

I also use replays looking for horses that are wide during the fast part of the race, if there is one. I simply don't trust the chart makers to be accurate with ground loss.

[cnollfan]

Bad post position and wide trips when the pace is hot are my two favorite toss out races.

6th at Saratoga today, :3: last race comments include "5 wide first turn, 5 wide upper, faltered." Pace figs not shaded red on Timeform but the numbers look faster than average, E1 + 12 on Brisnet figs, so pretty fast either way you slice it. Horse's name? CJ's Awesome. Is that karma or what!

[Luckycreed]

You might think the data is meaningless but others here might be interested in thinking about it.

Those figures I provided come from a tote market with a takeout a fraction over 16% after rounding down with an average field size of 11.1

What others might note is if you restrict your betting to horses shorter than 4-1 you are effectively getting that takeout down to 10% .

If you are playing between 9 and 25-1 you are pushing the takeout higher than the random 16%

As I said my original post was not directed at any other contributor, I was simply pointing out the downside of playing longshots.People can do what they like, it is no skin off my nose.

I do have some things to say about turf racing but I have bored everyone enough for one night, so I will leave that for another time.

[cj]

6th at Saratoga today, :3: last race comments include "5 wide first turn, 5 wide upper, faltered." Pace figs not shaded red on Timeform but the numbers look faster than average, E1 + 12 on Brisnet figs, so pretty fast either way you slice it. Horse's name? CJ's Awesome. Is that karma or what!

:)

We also have that day coded in red as highly speed favoring.

Leparoux though. He'll probably be 6 wide, 7 wide today. He is 1 for 71 at Saratoga after going 1 for 28 at Belmont. He'd have found a way to lose on American Pharoah in the Haskell. In his last 99 mounts on a NYRA track, he has 2 more wins than I do.

Last year he was 4 for 81 at the Spa.

[pandy]

Are you just a weekend player, Pandy? Because there is no way you can be an everyday player and still claim that "the 2-1 horses are perceived overlays, not true overlays". During the weekdays, the racing cards are dominated by short fields...where the odds severely restrict the longshot betting style that you are advocating here. How many bets at the 6-1 to the 20-1 odds range do you expect to find when the fields are comprised of 5 to 7 horses?

Saying that the longshot betting style works best for you is one thing. But when you say things like, "there in no profit to be made betting 2-1 shots"..."the short-priced horses are only PERCEIVED overlays"...and "the expert players don't bet the first two favorites to win"...then you are projecting your own handicapping and betting weaknesses onto the other players here. Just because YOU can't show a profit while betting on horses at below 5-1 odds doesn't mean that the same goes for everybody else. You keep on using the term "in the real world"...but I don't understand what world that is that you are talking about. In MY "real world"...a 5-1 winner is often considered a "longshot", and those 20-1 "live horses" that you keep talking about are mighty rare sightings indeed.

There is no "real world" out there when we are talking horses. We paint the world that we see with the colors of our experience, and the resulting opinions that these experiences instill in us. There are as many winning methods of play as there are winning players...and all the winning players do not share common handicapping or betting characteristics. You are a longshot player...and that's fine. But there are surely other players out there whose "bread-and-butter" are those 5-1 and under horses that you hold in such disdain. I know that there are players like that out there...because I am one of them.

When you play the game everyday...then you have to deal with the short fields which dominate the weekday cards. And that means, to me at least...that you have to revise your definition of the word "overlay". You can't expect a steady diet of 6-1 to 20-1 winners...when the fields are 5 to 7 horses. Of course...I am not advocating everyday play here. Most players bet only on weekends...and that's perfectly fine. It's just that every single winning player that I've ever met bets a little more often than that.

As I said, I've never met ANY thoroughbred player who calls himself a winning horseplayer who bets favorites as anything else but savers in exotics, or in bets like Pick 3's, etc. Not one. Furthermore, I've run many tests myself of various methods and I've seen other tests of other methods and handicapper selections and the horses that were picked that were below 4-1 odds in particular always showed a loss and the loss increased as the odds decreased. I've never met a professional bettor who bets favorites, not one.

The best bets over a period of time, depending on the size of the field and your methodology, are going to be between 4-1 and up, some players may start at 5-1, some at 6-1 as the minimum, depending on the type of methods you're using. Anything below 4-1 it starts getting near impossible, especially if you're a win bettor.

I've seen proof of winnings from many players, none of them bet low odds horses. That's my experience. I need to see proof before I believe something.

Look at the tournaments. Try winning one betting horses that are paying single digits. Why do you think the successful tournament players bet all longshots? Because the contests are won by the highest ROI.

[thaskalos]

I do have some things to say about turf racing but I have bored everyone enough for one night, so I will leave that for another time.
If you could find the time...I, for one, would like to hear your turf racing opinions TODAY. Believe me...I've read WAY more boring posts on this board than the ones that you've submitted. :)

[pandy]

I want anyone who is reading the bolded part of Pandy's post, to write it down in your notes and HIGHLIGHT it. He has just given you one of the biggest truths to finding overlays on turf. The next step is being able to make your own line through your own records to establish what is an EV+ play for your style of handicapping. Lastly, to verify big late energy numbers, you'd be wise to watch replays.....

In my test, the top ranked late speed horse won 19% and showed a substantial flat bet profit. The 2nd ranked late speed horse won 15% with a smaller profit. that's pretty damn good considering that there were no other qualifiers...in other words, it didn't make any difference what the speed figure was, who the jockey or trainer was, what class the horse had been racing in....only late speed was used.

[classhandicapper]

I simply don't trust the chart makers to be accurate with ground loss.

I look at the charts for a lot of tracks. Some guys are way more accurate than others and some don't even care enough to mention if the horse was inside or outside let alone how wide he was. Other will say "inside" but that could mean the rail or just inside the other horses while 3 wide.

Sometimes in very big fields I have trouble figuring it out after watching a replay 5-6 times because the horses are in and out of the picture while making moves making it almost impossible to keep tabs on everyone during the race. It's a very tough job. The handful of really good chart makers are pretty amazing, but it's hard to trust everything without watching yourself.

[cj]

I look at the charts for a lot of tracks. Some guys are way more accurate than others and some don't even care enough to mention if the horse was inside or outside let alone how wide he was. Other will say "inside" but that could mean the rail or just inside the other horses while 3 wide.

Sometimes in very big fields I have trouble figuring it out after watching a replay 5-6 times because the horses are in and out of the picture while making moves and it's almost impossible to keep tabs on everyone during the race. It's a very tough job. The handful of really good chart makers are pretty amazing, but it's hard to trust everything without watching yourself.

It is only a tough job because of the methods used to compile the data. I doubt it has changed much since 1890.

[ReplayRandall]

In my test, the top ranked late speed horse won 19% and showed a substantial flat bet profit. The 2nd ranked late speed horse won 15% with a smaller profit. that's pretty damn good considering that there were no other qualifiers...in other words, it didn't make any difference what the speed figure was, who the jockey or trainer was, what class the horse had been racing in....only late speed was used.

Whose late speed figures are you using?

[Secondbest]

You might think the data is meaningless but others here might be interested in thinking about it.

Those figures I provided come from a tote market with a takeout a fraction over 16% after rounding down with an average field size of 11.1

What others might note is if you restrict your betting to horses shorter than 4-1 you are effectively getting that takeout down to 10% .

If you are playing between 9 and 25-1 you are pushing the takeout higher than the random 16%

As I said my original post was not directed at any other contributor, I was simply pointing out the downside of playing longshots.People can do what they like, it is no skin off my nose.

I do have some things to say about turf racing but I have bored everyone enough for one night, so I will leave that for another time.
Why wait? I agree with Thas. I for one would be interested in what you have to say.

[thaskalos]

As I said, I've never met ANY thoroughbred player who calls himself a winning horseplayer who bets favorites as anything else but savers in exotics, or in bets like Pick 3's, etc. Not one. Furthermore, I've run many tests myself of various methods and I've seen other tests of other methods and handicapper selections and the horses that were picked that were below 4-1 odds in particular always showed a loss and the loss increased as the odds decreased. I've never met a professional bettor who bets favorites, not one.

The best bets over a period of time, depending on the size of the field and your methodology, are going to be between 4-1 and up, some players may start at 5-1, some at 6-1 as the minimum, depending on the type of methods you're using. Anything below 4-1 it starts getting near impossible, especially if you're a win bettor.

I've seen proof of winnings from many players, none of them bet low odds horses. That's my experience. I need to see proof before I believe something.

Look at the tournaments. Try winning one betting horses that are paying single digits. Why do you think the successful tournament players bet all longshots? Because the contests are won by the highest ROI.

What do you do when you play during the weekdays, Pandy? Do you still stick to those horses who are 6-1 odds and up? When you look at a 6-horse field at Finger Lakes, and a "standout" is being offered at 3-1 odds...you don't think that a price like that warrants the risk? Shouldn't the size of the field and the competitiveness of the race be the real determining factors in our definition of what an "overlay" is...instead of relying on blanket statements like "over 5-1"?

Who cares what the tournament players do? They are trying to finish at the top of the standings...while all we are trying to do is show a decent profit. There are tournaments for poker too...but they involve a completely different playing strategy than what the competent CASH-GAME player employs. The tournament player is bound by certain rules which the cash player doesn't have to concern himself with. Why should the cash-playing horseplayer give a hoot about what the tournament horseplayer does? They are two completely different ANIMALS.

[pandy]

Whose late speed figures are you using?

My Diamond System creates a rating called Kick rating, but for the test we used a rating we call Late Speed, which is printed out on the consensus box feature. This takes 3rd fraction (last quarter) and Kick and averages it. Kick is simple, it's the horse's speed after 4 furlongs. For instance, in a one mile race, it rates the horses speed for the last 4 furlongs.

I actually think third fraction alone might produce similar results. I remember when tsr was still running I used to run the Procaps and compare it to my Diamond System and the LP in Procaps seemed to do very well in turf races and I believe that was just 3rd fraction.

[pandy]

What do you do when you play during the weekdays, Pandy? Do you still stick to those horses who are 6-1 odds and up? When you look at a 6-horse field at Finger Lakes, and a "standout" is being offered at 3-1 odds...you don't think that a price like that warrants the risk? Shouldn't the size of the field and the competitiveness of the race be the real determining factors in our definition of what an "overlay" is...instead of relying on blanket statements like "over 5-1"?

Who cares what the tournament players do? They are trying to finish at the top of the standings...while all we are trying to do is show a decent profit. There are tournaments for poker too...but they involve a completely different playing strategy than what the competent CASH-GAME player employs. The tournament player is bound by certain rules which the cash player doesn't have to concern himself with. Why should the cash-playing horseplayer give a hoot about what the tournament horseplayer does? They are two completely different ANIMALS.


Yes, of course the odds requirement should change depending on the size of the field, and I've hit horses that paid as high as $48 in 5 horse fields, but even in a 5 horse field, I still don't want below 4-1 odds. The problem is, you can't be right enough with lower odds horses. Yes, sometimes you'll find a legit 2-1 overlay but most of those 2-1 horses that you think are overlays aren't and that's why you will lose on those bets over a period of time. Not enough leverage, period.

As for the contest, Ask any top contest player who has cashed repeatedly why he or she bets longshots in the contest and they will say, "Because that's the best way to produce a big ROI on win bets." The contests ARE NOT completely different animals. You're deluding yourself. The goal of any horse player is to generate the highest possible ROI possible, and that's the exact same goal of the contest player.


Keep in mind, I showed a profit of 25% on my harness Best Bets over a 7 year period. I did that with about 28% winners. However, if you eliminated all of the favorites I picked, the win percentage dropped and the ROI went up. No one came close to me during that time and the reason why, I picked longshot winners. So I have a lot of experience with showing profits on horse bets. I'm not pulling this out of my butt. I would like to see someone on this board post selections of horses under 4-1 odds and show a profit on paper.

[ultracapper]

I think we all have been given the advise, or at least heard as part of a discussion, that we should "never bet a horse under x/y odds", and I bet most of us have even tried to live by it at some time or another. I know I have. I've come to find it to be senseless. Over the years I've left thousands on the table watching a 3/1 standout park a field and not bet it because it's "too low a price". I don't miss those anymore.

Maybe a better rule would be to not bet anything you feel isn't a x% overlay. Maybe it would be better, I don't know. I've found I do better when I don't put arbitrary restrictions on myself.

[thaskalos]

As for the contest, Ask any top contest player who has cashed repeatedly why he or she bets longshots in the contest and they will say, "Because that's the best way to produce a big ROI on win bets." The contests ARE NOT completely different animals. You're deluding yourself. The goal of any horse player is to generate the highest possible ROI possible, and that's the exact same goal of the contest player.


Keep in mind, I showed a profit of 25% on my harness Best Bets over a 7 year period. I did that with about 28% winners. However, if you eliminated all of the favorites I picked, the win percentage dropped and the ROI went up. No one came close to me during that time and the reason why, I picked longshot winners. So I have a lot of experience with showing profits on horse bets. I'm not pulling this out of my butt. I would like to see someone on this board post selections of horses under 4-1 odds and show a profit on paper.

One of us is deluding himself...but I doubt that it's me. It isn't I who is out there touting my horse and sports picks for a price. Is that what those who know how to "maximize their ROI" are relegated to doing? Selling their picks to the public?

[pandy]

One of us is deluding himself...but I doubt that it's me. It isn't I who is out there touting my horse and sports picks for a price. Is that what those who know how to "maximize their ROI" are relegated to doing? Selling their picks to the public?


Hey, you haven't proven a damn thing buddy, I have. Show us your picks, let's see how good you are.

The point I made about ROI and contests is not arguable.

[thaskalos]

Hey, you haven't proven a damn thing buddy, I have. Show us your picks, let's see how good you are.

What have YOU proven? That you beat the harness horses 30 years ago? I've bought some of your books, Pandy, and, while they contain some interesting ideas...they are hardly the "winning systems" that you advertise them to be.

You want me to post some picks here? Fine! Why don't you join me! You and me, man-to-man...a handicapping contest right here at the selections forum. Let's show the folks here who we really are. We've both done enough talking.

[cj]

You guys want to do that, fine, start a thread and do it. Lets move on in this one.

[thaskalos]

You guys want to do that, fine, start a thread and do it. Lets move on in this one.
Let's have Pandy agree to do it...and we'll move on to another thread.

[pandy]

What have YOU proven? That you beat the harness horses 30 years ago? I've bought some of your books, Pandy, and, while they contain some interesting ideas...they are hardly the "winning systems" that you advertise them to be.

You want me to post some picks here? Fine! Why don't you join me! You and me, man-to-man...a handicapping contest right here at the selections forum. Let's show the folks here who we really are. We've both done enough talking.

I've been posting free picks on my website all meet, testing a new method,which has shown flat bet profits for win and exactas. I also posted picks for every race at Del Mar and Saratoga using my Diamond System (except when there are a lot of firsters) and yes, both meets are showing a profit. I've done these things for years on my site and showed a profit consistently with various methods I've developed. It's right there on the website for all to see.

I'm not trying to piss you off, but your comment about the contests roi is simply not debatable.

[cj]

I've been posting free picks on my website all meet, testing a new method,which has shown flat bet profits for win and exactas. I also posted picks for every race at Del Mar and Saratoga using my Diamond System (except when there are a lot of firsters) and yes, both meets are showing a profit. I've done these things for years on my site and showed a profit consistently with various methods I've developed. It's right there on the website for all to see.

I'm not trying to piss you off, but your comment about the contests roi is simply not debatable.

The only difference with contests is that bettors are trying to have a high ROI for one day or two days, not for life. If they win one weekend and have a 0 ROI for the next two months, they still won a contest. In non-contest life you are in the hole.

[thaskalos]

I've been posting free picks on my website all meet, testing a new method,which has shown flat bet profits for win and exactas. I also posted picks for every race at Del Mar and Saratoga using my Diamond System (except when there are a lot of firsters) and yes, both meets are showing a profit. I've done these things for years on my site and showed a profit consistently with various methods I've developed. It's right there on the website for all to see.

I'm not trying to piss you off, but your comment about the contests roi is simply not debatable.
Does this mean no handicapping contest between you and me? Come on, Pandy...I wanna show you "how good I am".

[pandy]

Does this mean no handicapping contest between you and me? Come on, Pandy...I wanna show you "how good I am".

Sorry Thask, I don't have time for something like that, I'm quite busy. But I already post picks on my website, and other people post picks on this site. You are free to show us your picks.

[pandy]

The only difference with contests is that bettors are trying to have a high ROI for one day or two days, not for life. If they win one weekend and have a 0 ROI for the next two months, they still won a contest. In non-contest life you are in the hole.


It doesn't make any difference. If it was so easy to show a big positive ROI by picking a lot of winners, the contest guys would try to pick a lot of winners. They go for prices because that's the smartest way to show a big roi, and it doesn't make any difference if it's two days or two years. These top contest players who consistently cash are good.

[raybo]

The goal of any horse player is to generate the highest possible ROI possible, and that's the exact same goal of the contest player.




This statement is patently untrue. That may be the goal of some players, but certainly not all. If you believe your own statement then you have very incomplete data and are kidding yourself as to what players' goals are. My personal goals are : consistency (short and less frequent losing streaks), turnover, and good positive ROI. Others' goals are high hit rate, turnover, and rebate. Others' goals may fall somewhere between those two.

Tournament play is not even close to the same things we face playing every day.

[thaskalos]

This statement is patently untrue. That may be the goal of some players, but certainly not all. If you believe your own statement then you have very incomplete data and are kidding yourself as to what players' goals are. My personal goals are : consistency (short and less frequent losing streaks), turnover, and good positive ROI. Others' goals are high hit rate, turnover, and rebate. Others' goals may fall somewhere between between those two.

Tournament play is not even close to the same things we face playing every day.
That's right! :ThmbUp:

If you ask them...I'll bet you that even the tournament players will tell you that they play different when they play for cash.

[cj]

It doesn't make any difference. If it was so easy to show a big positive ROI by picking a lot of winners, the contest guys would try to pick a lot of winners. They go for prices because that's the smartest way to show a big roi, and it doesn't make any difference if it's two days or two years. These top contest players who consistently cash are good.

No doubt they are good at contests. But they are two completely different things in my opinion. Most of them aren't even real money contests. A contest player's ROI is based on entry fees and cashes, not ROI of horses selected. A contest player could show a +10% ROI on his "selections" every single week and never cash. A regular player would be thrilled to pieces with that ROI.

Another contest player could show a -50% ROI with selections over the year, but win two contests and also be thrilled to pieces and show a profit.

[lamboy]

Look at the tournaments. Try winning one betting horses that are paying single digits. Why do you think the successful tournament players bet all longshots? Because the contests are won by the highest ROI.
I believe one needs to access the situation. Look at NYRA's recent tournament. Weiner won 100K betting place and show.

Whether you're playing stocks, poker or horses, you need to grind out a profit in order to stay in the game. At the end of a session, your biggest profits may come from longshots but if you play for a living it's impossible to pass up the overlay chaulk.

[pandy]

This statement is patently untrue. That may be the goal of some players, but certainly not all. If you believe your own statement then you have very incomplete data and are kidding yourself as to what players' goals are. My personal goals are : consistency (short and less frequent losing streaks), turnover, and good positive ROI. Others' goals are high hit rate, turnover, and rebate. Others' goals may fall somewhere between between those two.

Tournament play is not even close to the same things we face playing every day.


Okay, I can't argue with your points here. I actually don't always bet to generate the highest roi myself because I don't want to get into losing streaks, which is why I use saver bets like exacta boxes.

[pandy]

No doubt they are good at contests. But they are two completely different things in my opinion. Most of them aren't even real money contests. A contest player's ROI is based on entry fees and cashes, not ROI of horses selected. A contest player could show a +10% ROI on his "selections" every single week and never cash. A regular player would be thrilled to pieces with that ROI.

Another contest player could show a -50% ROI with selections over the year, but win two contests and also be thrilled to pieces and show a profit.

I agree to a certain extent. But my point is, if the goal is to show a profit betting to win only, which is what these contest usually are, then choosing higher odds horses gives you a much better chance. If it gives you a better chance in a contest, it gives you a better chance in real betting, too. Of course, if they really want to run better contests, they should require the players to actually bet the horses, that would be a good contest.

[pandy]

That's right! :ThmbUp:

If you ask them...I'll bet you that even the tournament players will tell you that they play different when they play for cash.


This is a very good question. I've read interviews with many of these contest winners and I'm not sure they have been asked that.

[cj]

This is a very good question. I've read interviews with many of these contest winners and I'm not sure they have been asked that.

I've seen it asked and they've all said contest play is unique and requires a different style of play and mindset. You also, of course, need to be well aware of the rules of each contest as they are all different.

[thaskalos]

I've seen it asked and they've all said contest play is unique and requires a different style of play and mindset. You also, of course, not to be well aware of the rules of each contest as they are all different.

You see, Pandy? My initial tournament comment was right all along.

[lamboy]

I've seen it asked and they've all said contest play is unique and requires a different style of play and mindset. You also, of course, not to be well aware of the rules of each contest as they are all different.
Absolutely!! Fictitious bets vs live money contests employ different strategies. Real bankroll betting yet another strategy-- no different in poker.

[thaskalos]

Absolutely!! Fictitious bets vs live money contests employ different strategies. Real bankroll betting yet another strategy-- no different in poker.

Yeah...I was watching that TV show that was on recently, about horseracing tournaments...and I saw these guys making those huge bets to win and on the exotics. I'd like to see them try that with "real cash". :rolleyes:

[pandy]

There are some people who would like to see these contests played with real cash, that would make it more interesting.

Still, I'll stand by the original statements that keying favorites or even second choices, especially in turf races, very tough to show a profit. Double digit key horses are where the money is.

[raybo]

Okay, I can't argue with your points here. I actually don't always bet to generate the highest roi myself because I don't want to get into losing streaks, which is why I use saver bets like exacta boxes.

I think you just got a little carried away in this discussion. I'm of the opinion that shorter priced plays, if you are a good handicapper, are essential to the hit rate part of the ROI calculation. Higher priced horses, again if you are a good handicapper, is also part of the ROI calculation. ROI is money bet divided by money paid. Regardless of how you play, the result of that calculation, plus rebate on the amount bet, must be positive. High profit, which is a very big deal for professional players, does not require a high ROI, it requires turnover and a high enough ROI, with or without rebate, to produce high profits. A high ROI by itself may result in only a very small profit, if one bets small amounts of money or small numbers of races. While that's fine for me (because I only play for supplemental income), that sucks big time for someone else who is not satisfied with only a small profit.

Goals differ for each player, some are similar, and others are completely different.

[Poindexter]

Thaskalos, you are pretty passionate on this subject. I could be wrong, but I get the sense that you focus on the superfecta pools, to maximize your edge. If that is indeed what you do, in your world an overbet 2-1 shot is probably much more valuable to you then a valued 20-1 shot(but you can actually key both if you wanted to).

Do you really believe that in the whale age that there is a lot of money to be made on 2-1 and 5/2 shots without a rebate in the wps pools? I feel that they gobble up all the value out of low priced horses. Now if you tell me that your goal is to break even on them but your are getting a 7 or 8% rebate, I can see that happening if you are very sharp. Also as I previously mentioned, keying them in the exotics gives you a lot of leverage. I just think there are too many rebated whales and sharps and too many non-value oriented bettors in the betting world sucking out all of the value from these horses and coupled with the fact you can bet them at 3-1 as they are loading the gate and get 9/5 when they win, making a profit on them(without rebates) is very tough. But I am not biased. If I make a horse 6/5 and he goes off at 8/5, I make him 3/5 and he pays 1-1, I will bet him. I just do not get that opportunity very often(I am not as sharp as the whales I need a profit margin even with a rebate :lol: ).

[cj]

I agree to a certain extent. But my point is, if the goal is to show a profit betting to win only, which is what these contest usually are, then choosing higher odds horses gives you a much better chance. If it gives you a better chance in a contest, it gives you a better chance in real betting, too. Of course, if they really want to run better contests, they should require the players to actually bet the horses, that would be a good contest.

I find horses that are overlays at all odds ranges to be honest, but I also think we can be fooled by the longer priced ones more than the short priced ones if we do our homework.

I thought the Secretariat winner was a cinch, 4 to 5 on my line, and paid $6.80. It would be silly to pass that up because of some odds limit. In my experience, you have to allow a bigger margin of error for longshots when you decide one of them is an overlay. Where as with a shorter priced horse I might only want a 20% edge, with a 10 to 1 that moves to 50%, and 20 to 1 and up 100%.

[pandy]

I think you just got a little carried away in this discussion. I'm of the opinion that shorter priced plays, if you are a good handicapper, are essential to the hit rate part of the ROI calculation. Higher priced horses, again if you are a good handicapper, is also part of the ROI calculation. ROI is money bet divided by money paid. Regardless of how you play, the result of that calculation, plus rebate on the amount bet, must be positive. High profit, which is a very big deal for professional players, does not require a high ROI, it requires turnover and a high enough ROI, with or without rebate, to produce high profits. A high ROI by itself may result in only a very small profit, if one bets small amounts of money or small numbers of races. While that's fine for me (because I only play for supplemental income), that sucks big time for someone else who is not satisfied with only a small profit.

I'm the same way, by the way. I've always just wanted to show a profit at the end of the year, and consequently, I probably play too many saver bets, but if you get a rebate, that makes it easier to grind out a consistent profit. I've never wanted to be a professional gambler, way too stressful. If you can supplement your income, even if it's only a few thousand bucks a year, it's fun and it's not an unreasonable goal. I've known professional bettors. Some of them don't worry that much about losing streaks because they have a lot of money, but most do and that can wear on a person.

[pandy]

I find horses that are overlays at all odds ranges to be honest, but I also think we can be fooled by the longer priced ones more than the short priced ones if we do our homework.

I thought the Secretariat winner was a cinch, 4 to 5 on my line, and paid $6.80. It would be silly to pass that up because of some odds limit. In my experience, you have to allow a bigger margin of error for longshots when you decide one of them is an overlay. Where as with a shorter priced horse I might only want a 20% edge, with a 10 to 1 that moves to 50%, and 20 to 1 and up 100%.


Yes, there are 2-1 shots that seem like great overlays. But at the end of the year, go back into your records, which are available through these various adw's, and see if your 2-1 bets actually showed a profit. The only time I've ever shown a profit on 2-1 or under wagers throughout the course of the year was with harness racing bets.

That's my point. Is an overlay really an overlay if it doesn't show a profit long term?

[cj]

Yes, there are 2-1 shots that seem like great overlays. But at the end of the year, go back into your records, which are available through these various adw's, and see if your 2-1 bets actually showed a profit. The only time I've ever shown a profit on 2-1 or under wagers throughout the course of the year was with harness racing bets.

That's my point. Is an overlay really an overlay if it doesn't show a profit long term?

I do track these things. I wouldn't bet them if my records told me not to do so.

[raybo]

I'm the same way, by the way. I've always just wanted to show a profit at the end of the year, and consequently, I probably play too many saver bets, but if you get a rebate, that makes it easier to grind out a consistent profit. I've never wanted to be a professional gambler, way too stressful. If you can supplement your income, even if it's only a few thousand bucks a year, it's fun and it's not an unreasonable goal. I've known professional bettors. Some of them don't worry that much about losing streaks because they have a lot of money, but most do and that can wear on a person.

Yup, but my posts were based only on win play. I play superfectas for the bulk of my profit, my win play only needs to be positive, not large, because win play is only used to support my superfecta play, basically letting me buy larger (and/or with more spread) super tickets than I would without win play support. That being said, for win play at some tracks, which have larger average win payouts, I require a higher minimum odds, but at other tracks, with lower average win payouts, I require a lower minimum odds, or no minimum at all. But, regardless, a good lower odds horse can be used anywhere on my superfecta ticket, because I look at my 4 highest odds ranked horses (odds ranked not actual odds) and estimate the minimum superfecta payout if those 4 horses all hit the ticket, and I require a $300 minimum estimated payout on those 4 before I will play it. If all 4 don't hit and I still hit the super with other horses, the payout is almost always higher, some times much higher, which of course is what I'm hoping for.

[pandy]

I do track these things. I wouldn't bet them if my records told me not to do so.

You must be very disciplined. It's extremely difficult to show a profit on horses 2-1 or below, even for good handicappers.

[raybo]

You must be very disciplined. It's extremely difficult to show a profit on horses 2-1 or below, even for good handicappers.

I doubt seriously that there are many "good" players out there who only play horses at 2/1 or less. That would be very difficult if positive ROI is your goal, even with rebate. The vast majority of "good" players also play good higher odds horses when they find them.

[pandy]

Yup, but my posts were based only on win play. I play superfectas for the bulk of my profit, my win play only needs to be positive, not large, because win play is only used to support my superfecta play, basically letting me buy larger (and/or with more spread) super tickets than I would without win play support. That being said, for win play at some tracks, which have larger average win payouts, I require a higher minimum odds, but at other tracks, with lower average win payouts, I require a lower minimum odds, or no minimum at all. But, regardless, a good lower odds horse can be used anywhere on my superfecta ticket, because I look at my 4 highest odds ranked horses (odds ranked not actual odds) and estimate the minimum superfecta payout if those 4 horses all hit the ticket, and I require a $300 minimum estimated payout on those 4 before I will play it. If all 4 don't hit and I still hit the super with other horses, the payout is almost always higher, some times much higher, which of course is what I'm hoping for.

Minimum $300 for $1.00 or $2.00?

[cj]

You must be very disciplined. It's extremely difficult to show a profit on horses 2-1 or below, even for good handicappers.

I try, it isn't always easy. I am a big exacta player so that helps...I rarely go beyond the place spot when betting verticals.

[raybo]

Minimum $300 for $1.00 or $2.00?

Sorry, $1. $1 supers was what I started playing supers at, before the dime super came along. Plus it's easy to convert for lower or higher base bets if the estimation is based on a dollar.

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos, you are pretty passionate on this subject. I could be wrong, but I get the sense that you focus on the superfecta pools, to maximize your edge. If that is indeed what you do, in your world an overbet 2-1 shot is probably much more valuable to you then a valued 20-1 shot(but you can actually key both if you wanted to).

Do you really believe that in the whale age that there is a lot of money to be made on 2-1 and 5/2 shots without a rebate in the wps pools? I feel that they gobble up all the value out of low priced horses. Now if you tell me that your goal is to break even on them but your are getting a 7 or 8% rebate, I can see that happening if you are very sharp. Also as I previously mentioned, keying them in the exotics gives you a lot of leverage. I just think there are too many rebated whales and sharps and too many non-value oriented bettors in the betting world sucking out all of the value from these horses and coupled with the fact you can bet them at 3-1 as they are loading the gate and get 9/5 when they win, making a profit on them(without rebates) is very tough. But I am not biased. If I make a horse 6/5 and he goes off at 8/5, I make him 3/5 and he pays 1-1, I will bet him. I just do not get that opportunity very often(I am not as sharp as the whales I need a profit margin even with a rebate :lol: ).

The superfecta became my focus because I felt that it was the "neglected" wager...where the great majority of the players only dabbled in after they had already made their "more serious" bets. I had observed that the superfecta payoffs were abnormally large when the longer-priced horses won the race...and I theorized that the reason for this was that the majority of the players were not spending the kind of money on the superfecta which would allow them to spread sufficiently enough on top. So, to capitalize on this theory of mine...I started betting most of my money on the superfectas. In the pre-10 cent days...I would find a super-contentious race, and bet something like a 1-2-3-4/1-2-3-4-5/1-2-3-4-5-6/1-2-3-4-5-6-7 combination...and it used to cost me around $260. My friends were making fun of me and saying that what I was doing wasn't really "handicapping", because I was using so many horses...but I didn't care, because what I was doing made sense to me...and I was CLEANING UP! I was hitting MONSTER tickets...and I had no reason to expand my handicapping horizons to include other types of bets. I used to bet superfectas exclusively...using "caveman" tickets ranging in price between $81 and $320...depending on the circumstances. I used to bet the most money on the races that the "normal" player wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole...and that was how I thought a true "contrarian" should approach the game.

Alas...the short fields, and -- to a lesser extent -- the 10-cent superfecta wager, has forced me to expand my horse-playing horizons...and I now make a wide variety of bets. And...because of those short fields...I can no longer ignore the 5-2 standout. What price can I possibly expect to get in a 6-horse field...where my stick-out horse has only one real opponent in the race? If I get 5-2...I have to count my blessings. You can't make blanket statements like "all my bets must be 5-1 or higher"...when you play this game. Every race is DIFFERENT...and you have to adjust your thinking in order to compensate.

I know that my horse will go down sometimes because of these enigmatic "whales"...but, what can I do? The most I can do is keep away from those 7-5 or 8-5 horses...because THOSE are the ones who are usually hammered to the 4-5 levels. I still bet on the 2-1 or 5-2 standouts when the circumstances are right...because I still feel that THAT'S the thing to do. You dance to the tune that the orchestra is playing.

I long for those full-field days, but I doubt that they will be coming back...so, I've had to make the adjustment. That's what this game is...IMO. A game of "adjustments".

[pandy]

When I first started betting as a 17 year old, I mostly bet superfectas. They still seem pretty popular, based on the pools. I know the takeout is lower in the multi race exotics, but you have to go with your strengths. The last race in NewYork is usually a good super race.

[cj]

When I first started betting as a 17 year old, I mostly bet superfectas. They still seem pretty popular, based on the pools. I know the takeout is lower in the multi race exotics, but you have to go with your strengths. The last race in NewYork is usually a good super race.

Was that a harness thing? I remember CharlesTown had the bet for a while, called the Jackpot in the 80s, but widespread super offerings around the country didn't come until much later if memory serves.

[pandy]

Yeah, back in 1971 was the first year I bet and Roosevelt and Yonkers harness only had 1 superfecta a night, with a minimum wager of $3. The pools were huge. They dilute the pools by having too many superfectas and other wagers available now.

A Greek guy named Bernie owned a small diner in my town (Malverne) on Long Island and I went there to eat because I worked in the bowling alley which was around the corner. Bernie was a pretty good handicapper. Bernie said that the super was the best bet because of the pool size and chance for a score, so we went partners every night. We did very well, but then they canceled the damn bet because they thought that a few drivers were holding their horses.

[raybo]

The superfecta became my focus because I felt that it was the "neglected" wager...where the great majority of the players only dabbled in after they had already made their "more serious" bets. I had observed that the superfecta payoffs were abnormally large when the longer-priced horses won the race...and I theorized that the reason for this was that the majority of the players were not spending the kind of money on the superfecta which would allow them to spread sufficiently enough on top. So, to capitalize on this theory of mine...I started betting most of my money on the superfectas. In the pre-10 cent days...I would find a super-contentious race, and bet something like a 1-2-3-4/1-2-3-4-5/1-2-3-4-5-6/1-2-3-4-5-6-7 combination...and it used to cost me around $260. My friends were making fun of me and saying that what I was doing wasn't really "handicapping", because I was using so many horses...but I didn't care, because what I was doing made sense to me...and I was CLEANING UP! I was hitting MONSTER tickets...and I had no reason to expand my handicapping horizons to include other types of bets. I used to bet superfectas exclusively...using "caveman" tickets ranging in price between $81 and $320...depending on the circumstances. I used to bet the most money on the races that the "normal" player wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole...and that was how I thought a true "contrarian" should approach the game.

Alas...the short fields, and -- to a lesser extent -- the 10-cent superfecta wager, has forced me to expand my horse-playing horizons...and I now make a wide variety of bets. And...because of those short fields...I can no longer ignore the 5-2 standout. What price can I possibly expect to get in a 6-horse field...where my stick-out horse has only one real opponent in the race? If I get 5-2...I have to count my blessings. You can't make blanket statements like "all my bets must be 5-1 or higher"...when you play this game. Every race is DIFFERENT...and you have to adjust your thinking in order to compensate.

I know that my horse will go down sometimes because of these enigmatic "whales"...but, what can I do? The most I can do is keep away from those 7-5 or 8-5 horses...because THOSE are the ones who are usually hammered to the 4-5 levels. I still bet on the 2-1 or 5-2 standouts when the circumstances are right...because I still feel that THAT'S the thing to do. You dance to the tune that the orchestra is playing.

I long for those full-field days, but I doubt that they will be coming back...so, I've had to make the adjustment. That's what this game is...IMO. A game of "adjustments".

Interesting, we got to, basically, the same position in quite different ways. I started out handicapping for winners, and maybe an infrequent exacta or quinella, but after tracking my selections and results, for quite some time, I found that there was not enough margin of error for me, and started exploring trifectas, which at the time were paying some huge payouts, and superfectas seemed "out of my league" and a whole lot more difficult and expensive. So, I tracked my trifecta play and it showed much better results, long term, than win or exacta/quinella had. So, I was convinced trifectas were the best way for me to play the game. But, my mentor had been studying superfectas while I was working on trifectas and became convinced that they were better than trifectas. He did his best to change my thinking and although I finally did, it took a lot of time for me to come around. Anyway, we both started playing superfectas, and using small tickets because my tracking showed that, long term, the average cost of the tickets was directly proportional to the ROI (at the existing pool sizes back then). Straight tickets of course, had the highest ROI, but the lowest profit, and an almost nonexistent hit rate. And, higher cost tickets had the lowest ROI with a good hit rate. So, we ended up in the middle, with a medium ticket cost, which produced a relatively low hit rate, but with good ROI and decent profit.

The advent of the dime super at Sam Houston (which had by that time become my favorite track) increased the superfecta pools dramatically. We rode that ride for quite a while as more and more tracks started offering the dime. Then we started seeing smaller payouts on our medium sized tickets than we were seeing before, even though our hit rates were about the same so we knew something was changing in the market. More players were in the pools and more were also on the same horses we were, so the ROI started decreasing. We weren't getting those big payouts as often as we were before. The proliferation of the dime supers, and the improvement of some of those early dime players who had initially just tested the waters simply because it was cheap, and the entrance into the pools of much better players (including some whales, we assumed, who had decided that it had become a very good wager type), all combined to lower our ROIs. So, the super had become rather stagnant, still profitable, but declining.

We had a lot of discussion about what was going on, and the only solution to the situation appeared to be improving our "hit rate". We needed to hit more of our tickets because the average payout was decreasing. That motivated me to work on a method to increase my win line hits, because that had always been the limiting factor in my superfecta play. The majority of tickets that I missed were due to my win horse not winning. I often had the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th horses, but the winner was alluding me too often to raise my superfecta hit rate.

So, how could I increase my superfecta hit rate? Obviously, get more of the win horses. That quest is what became my "Black Box" program. It was designed to pick winners, specifically, regardless of the odds. And it resulted in, at some tracks, betting more than one horse to win, which I had always thought was illogical and self defeating. I was wrong in that thinking. Once my win program evolved to become fully automated and testable, by track, I found that win betting (and multiple win horse betting at some tracks), could be profitable by itself, which I had previously thought was improbable if not impossible. The multiple horse win betting thing was a revelation, but the implications, regarding superfecta play, was even more of a revelation. Not only was I getting better with win selection, I also had a financial support system for betting larger, more costly superfecta tickets. I had a revenue stream that could produce enough profit to allow me to spend more on superfecta tickets, allowing me to bet more than one horse on the win line, and/or to spread deeper below. I'm now hitting more tickets and I have almost negated the drop in payouts due to being able to include lower odds ranked horses who make the payouts higher.

So, we got to the same place regarding superfectas, in different ways. And we both have become players who play more than one wager type. You are correct, we have to "adjust" or "evolve" with the game, if we want to remain profitable.

[classhandicapper]

Wow, this became a very interesting thread. Some very lofty goals and accomplishments. I may have to raise my expectations. I'm just hoping to find a way to confidently play against Beholder this weekend. :lol:

In all seriousness, if there was one thing I could identify as a turning my point in my results, it came about 25 years ago when Jeff Litvin suggested that I look through all my past bets and break them out between 3-1 and above vs. everything else. It was very revealing. I was crushing on my bets higher than 3-1, breaking even in the 5-2 range, and losing at 2-1 or less. The sad part was that my biggest bets were all at 2-1 or less. That's why my results were so mixed for a lot of years.

These days, I'm much less sure what's right. I am light years better now than I was then, but I think the odds board is also much more efficient. It never gets easy.

[pandy]

I thought it was a very interesting thread. And Thaskalos, I still love you, baby. :)

The detail on the superfecta wagers I also find interesting. It might be a good idea to start another separate superfecta thread.

When Bernie introduced me to superfectas, after a nice score one night I told him that I thought he was a very smart gambler. He had been doing the brunt of the picking, I just tossed a horse in here and there, I was 17 and had a lot to learn. But he got real serious and told me that he had been losing for decades and he only started winning when he starting taking more chances and shooting for the superfecta, which had been about the last two years. There was no pick 3, 4 or pick 6 back then.

I was surprised to hear that from such a good handicapper. But, and I'll never forget this because it helped shape my theories on gambling, he said, "Bob, you can't try to grind it out. I learned the hard way. The only bet I've ever won at is the superfecta and that's because of the big scores I get once in a while."

[raybo]

I was surprised to hear that from such a good handicapper. But, and I'll never forget this because it helped shape my theories on gambling, he said, "Bob, you can't try to grind it out. I learned the hard way. The only bet I've ever won at is the superfecta and that's because of the big scores I get once in a while."

I thought that way too, "you can't grind it out". But, I was wrong, you can, but unless you are betting large or betting lots of races, the profit is not great.

[pandy]

I agree about grinding if you are getting rebates and betting stuff like exactas, but if you're betting favorites to win, or making place or show bets...nope. I consider myself a grinder because my preferred bet is an exacta.

[EMD4ME]

There is one player, who I have seen his account history time and time again, who ONLY bets to win (90%) of the time. He bets large amounts of money. $5000-$20,000 ($20,000 on MAJOR RACES). He mostly bets the favorite, sometimes the 2nd choice. He is extremely profitable.

He'll go 4 weeks without a wager. He'll wait. Delta Lover knows him as well.

He only bets when it's a lock.

He follows every race at NYRA. He takes notes on every race. He only bets when there is no horse that can beat his horse. He only bets after the first couple of dirt races have been run (he is huge on track bias). He is someone I admire and respect. Someone who, I thank god, has not been duplicated or cloned 10000000 times as then all favorites would be crushed beyond belief. He is a whale.

He has tought me discipline, he has tought me to wait till your sure if you're pounding it in.

You CAN win betting chalk. You have to make believe your life is on the line if the horse loses. You can't bet sloppy tracks, can't bet the first couple of dirt races, you can't bet if the trainer isn't a supertrainer. Many rules but he almost never ever loses. (I don't mean just long term, I mean he doesn't lose 2 bets in a row in a 10 bet sequence.).

He is AWESOME at watching replays and sees things in a replay that 99% of horse players can not see.

[raybo]

I agree about grinding if you are getting rebates and betting stuff like exactas, but if you're betting favorites to win, or making place or show bets...nope. I consider myself a grinder because my preferred bet is an exacta.

You totally skipped betting win, with a mixture of favorites and higher priced horses, with or without rebates. "Grinding" doesn't necessarily require betting only favorites or low priced horses. I would never attempt win betting under those conditions. I don't want to be restricted by the odds, I want to be able to bet horses that I feel are offering the best chance of making long term profit, for me, while being consistent. The consistency portion is important to me, and that doesn't mean just betting low odds horses. The odds are just what the public is expressing by their bets, they can be, and often are, wrong.

[pandy]

There is one player, who I have seen his account history time and time again, who ONLY bets to win (90%) of the time. He bets large amounts of money. $5000-$20,000 ($20,000 on MAJOR RACES). He mostly bets the favorite, sometimes the 2nd choice. He is extremely profitable.

He'll go 4 weeks without a wager. He'll wait. Delta Lover knows him as well.

He only bets when it's a lock.

He follows every race at NYRA. He takes notes on every race. He only bets when there is no horse that can beat his horse. He only bets after the first couple of dirt races have been run (he is huge on track bias). He is someone I admire and respect. Someone who, I thank god, has not been duplicated or cloned 10000000 times as then all favorites would be crushed beyond belief. He is a whale.

He has tought me discipline, he has tought me to wait till your sure if you're pounding it in.

You CAN win betting chalk. You have to make believe your life is on the line if the horse loses. You can't bet sloppy tracks, can't bet the first couple of dirt races, you can't bet if the trainer isn't a supertrainer. Many rules but he almost never ever loses. (I don't mean just long term, I mean he doesn't lose 2 bets in a row in a 10 bet sequence.).

He is AWESOME at watching replays and sees things in a replay that 99% of horse players can not see.

There was someone on this forum who posted picks, almost all favorites, and showed a profit. He was using e-ponies as his base. Pretty good.

[EMD4ME]

There was someone on this forum who posted picks, almost all favorites, and showed a profit. He was using e-ponies as his base. Pretty good.

I seriously never take someone's opinion 1000000% but this is the only horseplayer that I do as he does the work to have a rock solid opinion. If I miss a day or two and need to know how the track played, I have a choice. Handicap two cards, make selections, watch all replays 5 times and see how the track played. In lazy moments or more realistically moments where I just don't have the time, I call him and he never steers me wrong about the details of the day.

I know because many times I tested him (knew how the track played and still asked).

Don't be offended, I don't believe in any "system" or pc generated picker. I believe in watching all races, timing them yourself if need be, taking a lifetime's worth of notes, visually seeing things with your own eyes, having "life experience" guide you through tough handicapping decisions, super common sense, an insationable thirst to do the work, an undying will to find nuggets or mistakes that the masses will make etc.

Again, I don't doubt e-ponies or anything you said, I just come from a different world. Manual work is more accurate than a computer doing my work for me.

I will say PC's have a huge benefit. Algorithms, note taking, math crunching, etc. etc.

God could come down and tell me : Bet this horse, he can't lose. My first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and four hundredth question will be WHY? Point is, no PC will tell me what to play.

PC's don't watch gate breaks, properly capture how much a horse was used early for that "pace" number he/she earned and many other detailed variables that only a human mind can process.

[pandy]

The comparison of manual handicapping vs computer generated deserves a long thread by itself and can be a fascinating discussion. Anything that works is good. :)

[EMD4ME]

I agree that anything can work in pockets. It is my belief that in order to be the best, you need to look and leverage ALL angles. (Figs, trainer patterns, workouts, replays, betting patterns, trip notes, breeding notes, paddock notes, gallop outs, bias notes, class, key races, you name it, etc etc etc etc etc).

Just to be clear, it is my opinion, that no other PC in the world can beat the human brain in processing information, prioritizing it and in "selecting" a winner.

It would be a fascinating debate.

Back to the thread :(.... To me the turf is all about intanglibles. Slight checks into turns, rank horses, poor traffic decisions, following the wrong horse, following live cover, dynamics, energy distribution are all so important on the green.

[ReplayRandall]

I believe in watching all races, timing them yourself if need be, taking a lifetime's worth of notes, visually seeing things with your own eyes, having "life experience" guide you through tough handicapping decisions, super common sense, an insationable thirst to do the work, an undying will to find nuggets or mistakes that the masses will make etc.

Again, I don't doubt e-ponies or anything you said, I just come from a different world. Manual work is more accurate than a computer doing my work for me.

I will say PC's have a huge benefit. Algorithms, note taking, math crunching, etc. etc.

God could come down and tell me : Bet this horse, he can't lose. My first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and four hundredth question will be WHY? Point is, no PC will tell me what to play.

PC's don't watch gate breaks, properly capture how much a horse was used early for that "pace" number he/she earned and many other detailed variables that only a human mind can process.

Why are you repeating what I've already posted here on PA for the past year?... :cool:

[whodoyoulike]

...

God could come down and tell me : Bet this horse, he can't lose. My first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and four hundredth question will be WHY? ...

You wanted a new handle .... how about Moses?

Don't ever question God!!

[raybo]

I agree that anything can work in pockets. It is my belief that in order to be the best, you need to look and leverage ALL angles. (Figs, trainer patterns, workouts, replays, betting patterns, trip notes, breeding notes, paddock notes, gallop outs, bias notes, class, key races, you name it, etc etc etc etc etc).

Just to be clear, it is my opinion, that no other PC in the world can beat the human brain in processing information, prioritizing it and in "selecting" a winner.

It would be a fascinating debate.

Back to the thread :(.... To me the turf is all about intanglibles. Slight checks into turns, rank horses, poor traffic decisions, following the wrong horse, following live cover, dynamics, energy distribution are all so important on the green.

I've done both, and after 35+ years, I'm am convinced that no human being can remain totally unbiased and focused with their analysis, enough of the time, to make better selections, over the long term, than a good computer selection program. In individual races, yes, but not long term. Respond if you must, but the thread is not about computer versus human analysis. And, the subject has been discussed many times, at length, in the past, with no definitive result. In other words, it's a waste of time and effort.

[MitchS]

Years ago, I started specializing, if you will, in high level claiming races and open allowances...on the dirt. I would consider my handicapping skills on the dirt to be above average. However, the turf is an entirely different animal for me. I still do not play turf races, but the payoffs are too juicy to ignore entirely. I've started looking at class as a primary factor in addition to looking for lone speed in races where other entries do not show a recent ability to pass runners in the stretch.

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this subject, as it would surely behoove all of us to learn more about handicapping these contests.

P.S. ---I'm not interested in maiden races or low-level events on the grass.


As we all know, there are many handicapping factors that differ between the mirage of race classifications. The #1 factor for turf route races is late pace, bar none! Quite obvious, but true. IMHO

[thaskalos]

As we all know, there are many handicapping factors that differ between the mirage of race classifications. The #1 factor for turf route races is late pace, bar none! Quite obvious, but true. IMHO
Just because the majority of the turf races are won from off the pace does not mean that you can select those winning closers by consulting their final fractions. The horse's late fraction depends on how much running the horse did earlier in the race...and this applies to the turf as well. Late pace alone does not tell the story, IMO. Look at a variety of races run by the same horse...and tell me if his final fractions remain consistent. Regardless of what the conventional wisdom dictates...I believe that the entirety of the horse's performance needs to be assessed, even on the turf. The more running the horse does early...the less he will have to offer late. And if he changes tactics and rations his speed more efficiently the next time...then his final fraction will improve noticeably. Early and late depend on one another...they don't work in a "vacuum".

[pandy]

The most common overlays I've found on turf, through my testing and handicapping, is horses that have big late energy numbers, either the best or second best in the field, and are going off as longshots. This is the single best angle I've seen. By the way, I tested a computer generated late speed rating for 7 months at Aqueduct/Belmont/Saratoga one year and the top two late speeds showed a substantial profit and the profit was consistent.


Top two late speeds, generated from my Diamond System consensus box feature, did well at both Del Mar and Saratoga on Wednesday. I'll test them for the rest of the meet on my website. Here are Thursday's.

SARATOGA

2). 7,4
4). 1,4
5). 2,5

DEL MAR
1). 2,1
3). 6,7
7). 4,10

[EMD4ME]

You wanted a new handle .... how about Moses?

Don't ever question God!!

Please don't take that the wrong way :(

I am deeply religious. It was a compliment to god, not a critique of him. I did err though. I should have never used his name in that context.

[EMD4ME]

Why are you repeating what I've already posted here on PA for the past year?... :cool:

Great minds think alike ??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I swear I wasn't copying you. But it is the greatest form.of flattery :)

Raybo,

I apologize. Don't want to go off topic too much. You're right.

Turf-the 3 NYRA tracks have unique turf courses. Its so important to know the quirks of the courses. 9F IT at Belmont is so much different vs. 9 F at Aqu.

[pandy]

Top two late speeds, generated from my Diamond System consensus box feature, did well at both Del Mar and Saratoga on Wednesday. I'll test them for the rest of the meet on my website. Here are Thursday's.

SARATOGA

2). 7,4
4). 1,4
5). 2,5

DEL MAR
1). 2,1
3). 6,7
7). 4,10


Yesterday there was a 2yo turf stakes at Saratoga where most of the horses had not raced on dirt, so the system didn't have the regular late speed rankings for that race. In the other 8 turf races at the two tracks yesterday the winner was ranked either 1st or 2nd in Late Speed in all 7 races. I checked the Bris pps for Saratoga yesterday and the best LP had the same winners ranked either 1st or 2nd.

Wednesday, August 19
Saratoga

4). 2,11 ($6.10)
5). 6,7 ($8.00)
8). 9,11 ($11.00)
9). 8 ($6.60),5

Del Mar
3). 2,7 ($21.00)
5). 6,10 ($19.00)
7). 1 ($12.60),9

[classhandicapper]

Just because the majority of the turf races are won from off the pace does not mean that you can select those winning closers by consulting their final fractions. The horse's late fraction depends on how much running the horse did earlier in the race...and this applies to the turf as well. Late pace alone does not tell the story, IMO. Look at a variety of races run by the same horse...and tell me if his final fractions remain consistent. Regardless of what the conventional wisdom dictates...I believe that the entirety of the horse's performance needs to be assessed, even on the turf. The more running the horse does early...the less he will have to offer late. And if he changes tactics and rations his speed more efficiently the next time...then his final fraction will improve noticeably. Early and late depend on one another...they don't work in a "vacuum".

I agree with this.

Part of me understands that since turf horses often don't expend a lot of energy early and closers can often win despite a slow early pace, late speed has to be significant factor.

The problem is that there are still wide variations of pace that impact closing times. Creating some kind of formula that captures the interrelationship between slowish early paces and closing times is no easy task.

One possible approach is looking at how the horses do relative to each other within the same race. That can be useful when comparing horses with a similar style. But that this leaves complications when comparing front runners to closers or horses from different races.

I'm working on something that I think will help, but it's going to take time to accumulate the data and test it.

[AndyC]

The problem is that there are still wide variations of pace that impact closing times. Creating some kind of formula that captures the interrelationship between slowish early paces and closing times is no easy task....

Every horse has a top cruising speed from which they can run their fastest closing fraction. Going slower than the cruising speed won't make the final fraction faster. When I came to grips with that reality handicapping turf became a lot easier. Horses can be outclassed in their inability to run at a high cruising rate or by having too slow of a top closing fraction.

[EMD4ME]

Every horse has a top cruising speed from which they can run their fastest closing fraction. Going slower than the cruising speed won't make the final fraction faster. When I came to grips with that reality handicapping turf became a lot easier. Horses can be outclassed in their inability to run at a high cruising rate or by having too slow of a top closing fraction.


Great point AndyC. Once they lose the ability to be "natural" (at cruising speed), they spend energy they need for the "final kick", which compromises their final kick.

[classhandicapper]

Every horse has a top cruising speed from which they can run their fastest closing fraction. Going slower than the cruising speed won't make the final fraction faster. When I came to grips with that reality handicapping turf became a lot easier. Horses can be outclassed in their inability to run at a high cruising rate or by having too slow of a top closing fraction.

I totally agree on the last sentence.

I understand what you are saying prior if we are talking about extremely slow paces. There's only so fast a horse can come home. But at times I see some crazy fast late fractions from very mediocre horses in very slow paced races and also see significant variance of late fractions from race to race among the most consistent high quality horses. When I see those things, I don't lose faith in what I am trying to measure, but I lose faith in my ability to measure it well.

[pandy]

Time vs how the time was achieved can be quite perplexing. Obviously if a horse sits close up behind a slow pace and runs a fast last quarter, that quarter time was aided by the slow pace. A horse that is far back behind a slow pace and finishes fast should be given more credit. But when the pace is fast, that's what really confuses me sometimes. For example, a horse is far back off a slow pace and rallies to finish 2nd. Some would say that the horse benefited from the fast pace. But what if the horse's actual final quarter is very fast? Does it not deserve some credit for running a fast final quarter? If we discredit fast last quarter times off slow and fast paces, what's left? Medium paces I guess.

[pandy]

One thing that is a turn off to me is when a horse runs a fast last quarter but so did several other horses in the race. For instance, there is a pace fallout and three horses rally from far back to run 1-2-3 in a blanket finish. They all record solid final quarters but how hard could it be to run a fast last quarter if three horses all finished in tandem? Then again, it could just be that it was a competitive bunch. It can get confusing. That's why early speed is so much easier to analyze and understand.

The only thing we know for certain with closing times, horses that are far back behind a modest pace and finish fast, that is a legit last quarter....unless of course the track was dead and favored closers...Oh, no here we go again...

This is why I don't like to bet favorites. There is quite a bit of uncertainty and error in handicapping, quite a bit. Low odds gives you very little room for error, not enough leverage.

[AndyC]

The only thing we know for certain with closing times, horses that are far back behind a modest pace and finish fast, that is a legit last quarter....unless of course the track was dead and favored closers...Oh, no here we go again...

There is finishing fast (fast final fraction)and there is closing ground on the front runners. They can happen at the same time but they don't have to.

When there is a modest pace I would expect horses far back to finish fast. Their energy expended early would be minimal so there should be no reason for them not to run their best closing fraction.

[AndyC]

I totally agree on the last sentence.

There's only so fast a horse can come home. But at times I see some crazy fast late fractions from very mediocre horses in very slow paced races and also see significant variance of late fractions from race to race among the most consistent high quality horses.....

Mediocre horses may have a very fast top closing fraction but a very slow top cruising speed. On the days where they are allowed to optimally cruise they will exhibit their closing speed. Usually they will be pushed past their cruising speed and have little left for the finish.

[classhandicapper]

Mediocre horses may have a very fast top closing fraction but a very slow top cruising speed. On the days where they are allowed to optimally cruise they will exhibit their closing speed. Usually they will be pushed past their cruising speed and have little left for the finish.

Got it.

I am very geared towards "comparative class" handicapping, bias, and race flow. I use speed and pace figures for dirt racing, but I am not as literal as many other handicappers. I'm interested in whether a race/pace was very fast, fast, average, slow or very slow for the class but I don't worry much about a couple of lengths here or there. My goal for turf handicapping is to combine my subjective class analysis with actual closing times. I think I understand what's happening on the track in turf races well enough. It's the translation to some kind objective view or number that's been tough for me.

[classhandicapper]

One thing that is a turn off to me is when a horse runs a fast last quarter but so did several other horses in the race. For instance, there is a pace fallout and three horses rally from far back to run 1-2-3 in a blanket finish. They all record solid final quarters but how hard could it be to run a fast last quarter if three horses all finished in tandem? Then again, it could just be that it was a competitive bunch. It can get confusing.

Right, this is where it can get dicey.

You can view these things in terms of fractions/closing times or you can view them in terms of race flow - meaning how the horses with similar trips inside the race did relative to each other (assuming you are familiar with the horses). But on turf, I seem to run into more races where I'm not really sure what happened because it's tough to quantify the relationship between slowish paces of varying degrees and closing times.

[pandy]

There is finishing fast (fast final fraction)and there is closing ground on the front runners. They can happen at the same time but they don't have to.

When there is a modest pace I would expect horses far back to finish fast. Their energy expended early would be minimal so there should be no reason for them not to run their best closing fraction.

Well then you're going against the grain. If a horse is far back off a slow pace, it will be rallying into a faster last quarter against fresher horses, so one could argue that that is a strong closing effort.

[AndyC]

Well then you're going against the grain. If a horse is far back off a slow pace, it will be rallying into a faster last quarter against fresher horses, so one could argue that that is a strong closing effort.

My comment was geared toward your use of the term "fast finish". To most people that would mean a reference to time and not how positions changed.

Given a moderate or slow pace wouldn't you expect every horse to run their top closing fraction?

To your point. If many horses were rallying into the soft pace that would be a reflection of either weak early horses or a track surface favoring a late running style. If only one were able to rally then that performance is certainly exceptional but probably not hidden for good odds on future bets.

[Tom]

When you have a slow pace, there is not much separation in the filed, so when they come home, the closers do not have as much ground to make up, and they are the better horses to show a late kick.

[AndyC]

When you have a slow pace, there is not much separation in the filed, so when they come home, the closers do not have as much ground to make up, and they are the better horses to show a late kick.

Unfortunately horses have to carry jockeys and often times jockeys will position a horse where he/she feels it needs to be irrespective of the pace.

[classhandicapper]

To your point. If many horses were rallying into the soft pace that would be a reflection of either weak early horses or a track surface favoring a late running style. If only one were able to rally then that performance is certainly exceptional but probably not hidden for good odds on future bets.

Right.

You can usually tell if the front runners were weak by looking at their PPs. If they looked strong, but the race fell apart anyway, either the track surface played a part in it or the closers were terrors. You can usually tell something about the track by looking at how the rest of the races on the card played or how that track typically plays at that distance.

I agree on your last sentence also, but if there isn't much value in that information, you start running out of ideas because people also have all the closing times.

That's why I think the value is in some kind of very refined understanding of the relationship between the early pace/closing fractions and the relative stretch performances of the horses.

I actually have a good idea for doing it, but it takes forever to accumulate data and test these things.

[thaskalos]

Put me down for a major dissent!
Andy...would you be reluctant to back a speed horse in a turf route race?

[AndyC]

Andy...would you be reluctant to back a speed horse in a turf route race?

Not at all. Some of the best turf runners run on or near the lead. They have a high cruising speed with an ability to run a decent final fraction.

I have also found that with cheaper horses the turf routes resemble dirt routes at times with the winner staggering home on the lead.

[thaskalos]

Not at all. Some of the best turf runners run on or near the lead. They have a high cruising speed with an ability to run a decent final fraction.

I said in my initial post in this thread that I felt the importance of the horse's final fraction was greatly exaggerated on the turf...and you disagreed. Noting how enamored most people are with the horses' final fractions when they handicap the turf...wouldn't these speed horses with the "decent" final fractions be at a decided disadvantage when matched against the "superior" closing fractions of the closers?

If late speed is indeed as significant an advantage as most players believe...then why shouldn't we be reluctant to bet the speed horses in the turf routes?

And if late speed ISN'T as significant an advantage as most players think...then why did you object when I called it an "overrated" handicapping factor?

[classhandicapper]

Not at all. Some of the best turf runners run on or near the lead. They have a high cruising speed with an ability to run a decent final fraction.

I have also found that with cheaper horses the turf routes resemble dirt routes at times with the winner staggering home on the lead.

One last question.

Do you put much energy into trying to determine the probable early position of the horses in a race in combination with their closing ability?

"this horse's cruising speed should have him sitting 3rd or 4th early and he has enough of a kick to get past the horses that are likely to be in front of him".

"this horse has a tremendous late kick but in this 12 horse field he figures to be too far back to pick up horse A and B who will be midpack and also have very good kicks".

Stuff like that?

[AndyC]

One last question.

Do you put much energy into trying to determine the probable early position of the horses in a race in combination with their closing ability?

"this horse's cruising speed should have him sitting 3rd or 4th early and he has enough of a kick to get past the horses that are likely to be in front of him".

"this horse has a tremendous late kick but in this 12 horse field he figures to be too far back to pick up horse A and B who will be midpack and also have very good kicks".

Stuff like that?


Yes to all of that. Plus all turf courses are not created equally. Your numbers could be dead on but if the turf is acting more like dirt then the closing fraction will not have the same affect. Not only should you know your home turf course but you need to know ALL of the major turf courses.

[AndyC]

I said in my initial post in this thread that I felt the importance of the horse's final fraction was greatly exaggerated on the turf...and you disagreed. Noting how enamored most people are with the horses' final fractions when they handicap the turf...wouldn't these speed horses with the "decent" final fractions be at a decided disadvantage when matched against the "superior" closing fractions of the closers?

If late speed is indeed as significant an advantage as most players believe...then why shouldn't we be reluctant to bet the speed horses in the turf routes?

And if late speed ISN'T as significant an advantage as most players think...then why did you object when I called it an "overrated" handicapping factor?

And I still disagree! If I was only given one stat to use to handicap a turf race I would use late pace. If I was handicapping a dirt sprint I would pick the half mile split.

I never said late speed was the ONLY factor just the most important.

[thaskalos]

And I still disagree! If I was only given one stat to use to handicap a turf race I would use late pace. If I was handicapping a dirt sprint I would pick the half mile split.

I never said late speed was the ONLY factor just the most important.
I'm sorry, Andy, but I just can't wrap my mind around this type of thinking...and the fault could easily be mine. I've read the comments in this thread...and the vast majority of the posters have expressed the opinion that a fast last fraction is a great advantage for a horse to have in a turf race. Some have even called late speed a "stand-alone" profit venue...while others have called it the "key" to successful turf handicapping. If these opinions are true...then there is no question about it: There is a bias which strongly favors closers on the turf, and speedsters should be only reluctantly considered by the bettor...just as closers are looked upon with extreme scepticism when the track exhibits a strong bias fovoring early speed. But I asked you if you would be reluctant to wager on a speed horse in a turf route...and you answered..."No, not at all".

If late speed is the "key" on the turf...then there is an inherent bias against the speed horses on that surface...because the speed horses sport inferior closing fractions when compared to the closers. That should make the speed horses undesirable bets...just as the closers are undesirable bets when a track bias exists which strongly favors the performance of speed horses.

[Tom]

A lot of the "late paced" turf horses I bet on are up close all the way.
#1 third fraction may not be at all likely to pass the leaders if he is too far back.

A particular turf model I have used in the past is best two third fractions of horses i the front half of the field, best late of the earlies.

[classhandicapper]

Speaking in very general terms, I don't think there's a bias against speed on turf. I think it's more that, unlike dirt, you can win from almost anywhere on turf even though the paces tend to be slower. At times, the paces are so slow, the result becomes a function of position and late sprint speed home (assuming you are classed properly) because everyone is pretty fresh.

When you are used to thinking in terms of dirt racing, understanding why this is so can become dizzying.

[thaskalos]

Speaking in very general terms, I don't think there's a bias against speed on turf. I think it's more that, unlike dirt, you can win from almost anywhere on turf even though the paces tend to be slower. At times, the paces are so slow, the result becomes a function of position and late sprint speed home (assuming you are classed properly) because everyone is pretty fresh.
If there is no inherent bias against early speed on the turf...then how can late speed be widely considered to be the "key" to profitable turf handicapping? Isn't this the prevailing opinion expressed in this thread?

[RXB]

Grass doesn't really favour late speed, generally it favours even-paced running.

[classhandicapper]

Isn't this the prevailing opinion expressed in this thread?

Not by me.

My limited wisdom about turf racing was expressed early in the thread. I qualified it by saying I'm not particularly good at turf racing. That's why I'm so interested in the topic. Any success I have had on turf has been limited to classing foreign shippers better than the public (which is tougher now than it used to be because the public is getting better). If there are no foreign shippers, I often turn the page. Other than that, I occasionally make a play off some kind of fast pace + wide trip, but I don't play much turf.

Intuitively, I think late speed matters a lot. A lot of races are just sprints home. So knowing a horse's late sprint speed would seem to be very useful. That's why I am trying to accumulate data to test it.

[raybo]

Turf is inherently different than dirt. It's easier to run on turf than on dirt, simply due to the surface resistance differences of each and the differences in the "grip" or "traction" of both. Because it's easier to run on turf, it takes less energy to run the same rate of speed on turf than on dirt. Because it is easier and less tiring to run on turf than on dirt, lots of horses can handle a moderate to fast pace and still finish well. Because of that, we often have several horses in the front of the pack that are close up at the stretch call, and the one with the best closing speed often gets to the wire first, and those horses in the back of that pack, unless they have a far superior final kick, just can't get there because the horses in the front still have adequate energy reserves left.

It is because of this energy expenditure difference, between turf and dirt, that predicting turf winners is so difficult, too many horses have an equal chance to win at the stretch call. On dirt, the first 4 positional horses at the stretch win about 80% of all races, when the track is playing normal. That can't be said of turf races, because often there are more than 4 horses closely vying for those good positional spots at the stretch call, and often they all have enough energy left to run well down the stretch, and it becomes a crap shoot, and sometimes it comes down to which jockey is best on the turf, and that particular turf course, the one who ran the race most optimally on that turf course, for his/her horse.

All that being said, I believe that the best late kick horse has an advantage on turf, but that "best" must be more than just "better", it has to be better by quite a bit. And that's just for the front end of the pack, the horses in the rear end of the pack, if they are separated by several lengths, have to not just be better by quite a bit, they have to be far superior late, and those horses are fewer and farther between, and are often obvious to everyone.

Can early horses win their fair share on turf, yes, because they have position, they often run a shorter distance, and they don't tire as much as they would on dirt. But, if that front runner runs too slow, he lets other horses get into the game late, unless he has a superior late kick. Most early horses don't also possess a superior late kick, even when they get to run slow, because they have allowed several others, who have good late kicks, to stay close to them.

Turf is a conundrum; run fast early and get out kicked, run slow early and get out kicked, run in front on a fast pace and face several others up close in the stretch, and lose, run in front on a slow pace and face almost the whole field in the stretch, and get beat, run in the back against a fast pace and you still can't catch all the leaders, run in the back against a slow pace and everyone in the race is there in the stretch, and you get beat.

So, what do you have to have to win turf races? IMO, first, you have to be able to handle the distance and the course configuration, whether short or long, and/or tight or wide, rails in or out, and you have to have heart, that intrinsic trait that refuses to lose. Running style is less important than on dirt, early speed is less important on turf than on dirt, moderate early speed and a strong closing kick is more important on turf than on dirt. As others have said, a horse with a good comfortable cruising speed and a strong closing kick is an advantage, but may not be enough because of the mass stampede down the stretch, anything can happen to get you beat.

I guess my turf philosophy is to choose horses that will be there in the stretch and are offering very good prices. Because you will often get beat, with a horse that looks best on paper. So, you better get a price when you do win.

[AndyC]

Grass doesn't really favour late speed, generally it favours even-paced running.

Generally I don't want my turf horses running even-paced in the last fraction. I want them accelerating.

[Secondbest]

There as been a lot of mention of the final fraction but unless I missed it no one has defined what fraction their talking about.For instance at a 1 1/16 is your last fraction the last 5/16 6f to finish or the last 1/16 mile to finish.
I use the last 5/16 but lately I've been looking at the shorter one.

[whodoyoulike]

There as been a lot of mention of the final fraction but unless I missed it no one has defined what fraction their talking about.For instance at a 1 1/16 is your last fraction the last 5/16 6f to finish or the last 1/16 mile to finish.
I use the last 5/16 but lately I've been looking at the shorter one.

Where exactly is the 5/16 or the 1/16 point on the track where you start paying particular attention?

I watch my horse's effort at various parts of the race but especially from the top of the stretch to the finish whether it's turf or dirt racing.

[Secondbest]

I'm looking at the times from the pps not watching the actual race.

[ReplayRandall]

I'm looking at the times from the pps not watching the actual race.

You might want to rethink "not watching the actual race", it's costing you money, IMO........

[Secondbest]

What I am asking is this.1 mile on the one horse comes home in 24 another in24.2 .in the last 1/8 horse A closes in 12 horse B in11.3wWhich fraction would you use to make your bet

[Pick 'em Charlie]

What I am asking is this.1 mile on the one horse comes home in 24 another in24.2 .in the last 1/8 horse A closes in 12 horse B in11.3wWhich fraction would you use to make your bet

Too close to call.

[AndyC]

What I am asking is this.1 mile on the one horse comes home in 24 another in24.2 .in the last 1/8 horse A closes in 12 horse B in11.3wWhich fraction would you use to make your bet

The only way the B horse comes home in 24.2 with a 11.3 last 1/8 is if it had no place to run until the last 1/8 or didn't need to run until the last 1/8.

If the first horse can run 1:08 for the first 6 furlongs and then finish in 24, I would bet that horse.

[ultracapper]

ALL DAY LONG

[delayjf]

there is a pace fallout and three horses rally from far back to run 1-2-3 in a blanket finish

In cases like this I watch the reply to see if one of the horses was able to get the jump on the other two. I would also attempt to determine visually which horses was actually moving the fastest in the lane.

[pandy]

the 5th at Saratoga today was a classic example of how dramatically different turf racing is from dirt racing. Elementsofharmony, lone speed, coming off a sharp maiden win in debut, went out and shook loose while setting a slow pace and then got passed by three horses who ran noses apart in a blanket finish.

[classhandicapper]

I thought the Turf Monster was an interesting race.

I didn't make a play in the race, but I didn't understand how Pure Sensation was 2-1 in that field. There were 5 horses in the 5-1 range. I thought he basically fit well with that group and should have been similar odds.

[Swiss]

Maggie Wolfendale has on several occasions mentioned how she doesn't think this or that horse is a turf horse etc. often looking for "big horse" to determine "good turf horse".
What constitutes a *turf* horse to you? Size? type of hoofs? More muscle? Less muscle? Grey? Long? Short (body)?

In the early beginnings of my handicapping era I used to give greater impact value to the grey that "looked like a donkey". Small, short bodied gray with big ears, lol. I found at least a couple that seemed to confirm my "theory" and at WOX a mare Santa Amelia also qualified as such.