Thoughts on limiting yourself to certain race types? Limiting yourself to 1-2 tracks?

[cutchemist42]

???

Seen varying opinions on this, and wonder what people thought.

[Inner Dirt]

I don't keep records but I know I hit a higher percentage of winners and larger
prices on dirt sprints. The opposite is turf routes where I have to go 3 deep
to hit a 6-5 shot in a pick 3. When I am playing I need to have something on
every race, but on multi race wagers of 4 and up they have to have 1/2 or more dirt sprints or I don't play. The best day I had so far was an all dirt sprint Pick 6 at Aqueduct. Only one favorite won and most were 4th on the
board or higher. I had the whole pool but there was no carryover so I ended
up with only $36K. Pretty sure I would have had the whole pool on a week long carryover. Was watching TVG and they said only one live ticket
after 4 races and the favorite won the last race.

[classhandicapper]

I think that's the best approach for serious players.

Each race type has certain factors that are more important than others. If you study one race type at a time, you will begin to recognize and gain expertise on the things that are significant in that type of race. It's certainly possible to gain some expertise in multiple race types if you are willing to work hard enough, but if you are playing everything in a similar way IMO you are almost certainly not maximizing your results.

[ebcorde]

know two players whose income comes from racing, one's been doing it since 1963. They only play one track per season. Belmont , Aqueduct, Saratoga. only exception occasionally if a NY trainer He knows is racing at GP,MTh he'll play races there.

I only play 2 tracks at the most. lol,1 too many.

[Robert Fischer]

1-2 tracks and maybe a certain division/type of races can benefit you because you have time to know the horses and watch the races and understand the betting action.
Otherwise, you aren't going to have time unless you make it a serious hobby/profession.

This focus is going to make single-race and maybe an occasional daily double your prime wagering.
If you want to do multi-race wagers you will need to usually cover different types of races.

[ebcorde]

know two players whose income comes from racing, one's been doing it since 1963. They only play one track per season. Belmont , Aqueduct, Saratoga. only exception occasionally if a NY trainer He knows is racing at GP,MTh he'll play races there.

I only play 2 tracks at the most. lol,1 too many.

And the other guy only plays one track, races under 6f. He wants to race over before they catch the Horse.

[raybo]

Record keeping will answer these questions for you, if you put in the effort to keep them consistently up to date. Every player is different in how much they can handle and still remain consistent and disciplined in their methods, what bet types work best for them, and what types of races and tracks they play well. Each has strengths and weaknesses that good record keeping will point out.

In short, there is no universal answer, each player must seek these answers himself/herself. Nobody else can answer them for you.

Personally, I play no more than 2 tracks at a time, with an occasional overlapping track that is just beginning or ending its meet. I check my records to see if there are certain days of the week at those tracks that are net losses, due to the races that are carded on those days. My automated track testing of each track's previous meets automatically produces several record keeping sheets that list every race that was played in each rankings method, along with all the applicable data necessary to analyze which race types should be played and which ones should be passed, and which days of the week play well or not. After my testing the same automated process keeps my current betting records in the same way as in the testing mode, so I can see how I am performing and track changes in the way each track is playing currently.

[pandy]

Good idea to key in on certain types of races.

I played baseball in school and little league and I pitched and played outfield but had trouble hitting. But then I got lucky. When I was 16 I played for an expert batting coach. He taught me something profound. He asked, "What pitch can you hit?" I said, "Fastball down the middle or on the outside corner." He said, "From now on, unless you have two strikes on you, only swing at fastballs out over the plate. If the pitch is inside, or if it's a breaking pitch, don't swing."

My batting average improved by 75 points.

[Stoleitbreezing]

I think its important to capitalize on certain aspects of your handicapping skills that are strongest.

For me, maiden races, conditional claimers, and off track races i'm most strong with. I guess identifying "who can't win" is easier then finding "who will win". In other words I do better when I have hopeless ponies to throw out rather then dissecting an allowance or stake race with horses coming off wins and msw breakers. I also have a preference towards early speed and that plays well over off tracks as well as my knowledge of off track pedigress. If only I could just stick to what I was good at. :bang:

[Stillriledup]

Record keeping will answer these questions for you, if you put in the effort to keep them consistently up to date. Every player is different in how much they can handle and still remain consistent and disciplined in their methods, what bet types work best for them, and what types of races and tracks they play well. Each has strengths and weaknesses that good record keeping will point out.

In short, there is no universal answer, each player must seek these answers himself/herself. Nobody else can answer them for you.

Personally, I play no more than 2 tracks at a time, with an occasional overlapping track that is just beginning or ending its meet. I check my records to see if there are certain days of the week at those tracks that are net losses, due to the races that are carded on those days. My automated track testing of each track's previous meets automatically produces several record keeping sheets that list every race that was played in each rankings method, along with all the applicable data necessary to analyze which race types should be played and which ones should be passed, and which days of the week play well or not. After my testing the same automated process keeps my current betting records in the same way as in the testing mode, so I can see how I am performing and track changes in the way each track is playing currently.
Isn't the record keeping cutting into your time that you could be handicapping or watching replays? Shouldn't you already have a "feel" what kinds of races fit in your wheelhouse?

[raybo]

Isn't the record keeping cutting into your time that you could be handicapping or watching replays? Shouldn't you already have a "feel" what kinds of races fit in your wheelhouse?

Nope, my program does it automatically with a click of a button. Takes only about twice the time of importing for daily play. I can test a 2 month meet in about 30 minutes, or test hundreds of races overnight, click the button and go to bed.

My win handicapping takes only a couple of seconds per race unless it is one of the big races with huge pools then I will spend extra time old-schooling it a bit.

The way I look at it, if you don't keep records you will never know all your strengths and weaknesses. You will never know for sure where you are at in your game, other than winning or losing. Since 98% are losing it would behoove them to take the time to keep good records, if they want to stop losing.

If you think you don't need to keep records, then don't. Maybe you are one of those guys with total recall, if so, good for you. Most aren't, so they need to track what they're doing in order to improve.

[Stillriledup]

Nope, my program does it automatically with a click of a button. Takes only about twice the time of importing for daily play. I can test a 2 month meet in about 30 minutes, or test hundreds of races overnight, click the button and go to bed.

My win handicapping takes only a couple of seconds per race unless it is one of the big races with huge pools then I will spend extra time old-schooling it a bit.

The way I look at it, if you don't keep records you will never know all your strengths and weaknesses. You will never know for sure where you are at in your game, other than winning or losing. Since 98% are losing it would behoove them to take the time to keep good records, if they want to stop losing.

If you think you don't need to keep records, then don't. Maybe you are one of those guys with total recall, if so, good for you. Most aren't, so they need to track what they're doing in order to improve.

I'm not suggesting total recall, I'm just asking if its time well spent, not everyone is computer savvy enough to have a machine handicap for them.

[no breathalyzer]

sometimes i wish a ran a couple of different programs just to compare them to my picks.. but i wouldn't even know where to start.. seems like too much work. and i wouldn't even know which one or ones to use.

[cutchemist42]

Hopefully I phrase this correctly, but what shares more similarities in handicapping? The surf/distance combination, or the type of race no matter the distance (Mdn/6f, Mdn/1M)

For the poster who likes dirt sprints, is that true for every type of race run over that distance?

[thaskalos]

Hopefully I phrase this correctly, but what shares more similarities in handicapping? The surf/distance combination, or the type of race no matter the distance (Mdn/6f, Mdn/1M)

For the poster who likes dirt sprints, is that true for every type of race run over that distance?

The way I see things...there is no handicapping similarity at all between sprints and routes.

[headhawg]

The way I look at it, if you don't keep records you will never know all your strengths and weaknesses. You will never know for sure where you are at in your game, other than winning or losing. Since 98% are losing it would behoove them to take the time to keep good records, if they want to stop losing.Agreed. Too easy for handicappers to lie to themselves. It's a lot like people who go to Vegas and tell their story about the big money they won. What they never tell you is all of the times they lost or how much money they gave back to the house. Or that they're $10k in credit card debt.

[Milkshaker]

I am on the "whatever works for you" bandwagon here.

Personally, for me, serious play means putting in intensive effort one circuit, focusing almost exclusively on studying replays and trainer patterns in maiden races.

I say "almost exclusively" because once I began tracking maiden races only on this circuit, I then figured out I might be getting an edge on a limited # of N2L and N1X spot plays as well.

I am satisfied with having only 2 or 3 serious plays a week. If the surrounding races lend themselves to spreading out, I will also handicap P3s and P4s based around singling my serious plays.

Having said that, I think for me, it is also fun/worthwhile/refreshing to take the occasional Saturday to handicap a big Saratoga/Keeneland/Gulfstream card strictly for fun, usually handicapping the night before on the fly so I have something to break up the next afternoon while I piddle around the house doing chores.

To give a $ example, I will bet as much on an entire afternoon "fun card" as I might on a single "serious" spot play.

The right balance between serious effort and fun is important to me.

[thaskalos]

The main thing, IMO, is not to get carried away and bet every race that we handicap...thinking that we are spotting "value" at every turn. Most of the people that I see jump from the 3rd at Parx to the 4th at Thistledown, and then back to the 1st at Arlington...frantically leafing through their programs as the horses are approaching the starting gate. When we are "value players", who like to bet even our 3rd or 4th-best horses when the odds are "right"...then it's easy to fall into the delusion that there is value in every race that we see. That's where theory and practice differ, in my opinion. Theory states that there can indeed be value in every single race that we see...but I have never seen anyone put this theory into actual profitable practice.

Painful actual experience has also convinced me that the player should always operate with a set bankroll...and avoid playing "out of pocket". And the best reason for this is because a bankroll keeps all the rest of our money SAFE. When we are playing "out of pocket"...then ALL of our money is at risk.

[raybo]

I'm not suggesting total recall, I'm just asking if its time well spent, not everyone is computer savvy enough to have a machine handicap for them.

How hard is it to note the date, day of the week, track, race #, distance, surface and condition, class, contenders, selections, bet type, and comments about why you bet your selections, then after the races add top 3 finishers, payouts/final odds and any pertinent race comments? If a few minutes per card is not worth improving your game, then don't do it and keep losing, it's up to them.

Anybody can create a spreadsheet with all those data labels, and fill in the data when time allows. Heck, if they don't know how I'll gladly create one for them, for free. Excel is not required, the free Open Office Calc app will work just fine, no macros or scripting needed.

[Inner Dirt]

Hopefully I phrase this correctly, but what shares more similarities in handicapping? The surf/distance combination, or the type of race no matter the distance (Mdn/6f, Mdn/1M)

For the poster who likes dirt sprints, is that true for every type of race run over that distance?

Sprints are all the same to me, the only exception are maiden races with too many first timers. I never did any trainer studies so I don't know what
workouts mean. I never figured out why an unraced horse that shows a 46 2/5 HG drill (Fastest by far in the field) goes off at 12-1 and doesn't run a lick. Another one I find baffling is when someone pays $200,000 for
a horse at an auction and his first start is in a maiden claimer and the sucker wins. Back in the old days they seemed to be automatic throw outs.

[highnote]

Good idea to key in on certain types of races.

I played baseball in school and little league and I pitched and played outfield but had trouble hitting. But then I got lucky. When I was 16 I played for an expert batting coach. He taught me something profound. He asked, "What pitch can you hit?" I said, "Fastball down the middle or on the outside corner." He said, "From now on, unless you have two strikes on you, only swing at fastballs out over the plate. If the pitch is inside, or if it's a breaking pitch, don't swing."

My batting average improved by 75 points.


Great advice! I'll remember that for my kids. :)

[johnhannibalsmith]

Great advice! I'll remember that for my kids. :)

It really is a great little metaphor for a lot of slumping bettors to mull over. Or batters.

I readily admit these days that most of my action isn't much action at all and I'm playing largely for my own entertainment and fun, but I still find myself adhering to some basic tenets. One of the big one of those is the idea of the thread - sticking primarily with one track - and the other is what pandy mentioned. When I start to get frustrated or endure what feels like a spat of total cluelessness in unraveling the race shape prior to the actual running, I retreat to those races and bets that may not offer the sort of fun and reward that I enjoy (multi-race primarily) but those that I feel I should be able to at least put the bat on the ball and get a feel for the game again.

[Track Collector]

Specialization (like limiting one's self to 1-2 tracks) is the way to go for a lot of folks, in that it cuts down the total number of variables one has to study. People are also creatures of habit, so staying with a track they are familiar with keeps them within their comfort zone. For me, I've always been at the other end of the spectrum. Almost any track is worth study and a potential wager. :faint:

As to keeping records, the percentage of horseplayers who are consistent winners year after year could be speculated to be far south of 1%. While perhaps time consuming, it is unimaginable that these elite successful handicappers do not keep detailed records on their strengths and weaknesses. One of the Handicapping books put it this way: "Winners do what Losers refuse to do, and that is to keep records".

[LottaKash]

I have 12 Major-Angles, and 12 Lesser Angles, so with me it's: "No Angle, No Play"... ... :cool:

[castaway01]

I have 12 Major-Angles, and 12 Lesser Angles, so with me it's: "No Angle, No Play"... ... :cool:

Do the angles work better for you at tracks you feel you "know", or is it totally automated where you just bet them wherever they come up?

[raybo]

As to keeping records, the percentage of horseplayers who are consistent winners year after year could be speculated to be far south of 1%. While perhaps time consuming, it is unimaginable that these elite successful handicappers do not keep detailed records on their strengths and weaknesses. One of the Handicapping books put it this way: "Winners do what Losers refuse to do, and that is to keep records".

I think, although I have no idea really, that the vast majority of players don't keep records, and some of the ones that do keep records don't do a good job of it. There is little doubt that record keeping is fundamental to success. What successful businesses do you know of that don't keep detailed records? Of course, most players are not in this game solely for profit, and many don't even care that they are losing money because they play the game for the fun and challenge of it. And, that's fine. But, if one's ultimate goal is to be profitable then good record keeping, seems to me to be required, not up for debate.

IMO, for record keeping to significantly impact your game, it must contain all the data that helps you make informed decisions regarding your strengths and weaknesses. While a pen and paper record keeping system is better than none at all, analyzing those records is cumbersome and time consuming at best. There is really no excuse for not creating a record keeping tool/app, because a simple spreadsheet tool can be done with almost any spreadsheet app, even the free one(s). The advantage of creating such an app is that you then have the ability to sort/filter by any of the data columns, and by any of the attributes existing in those data columns. In this way it is rather simple to find what you are good at and what you aren't.

[pandy]

It really is a great little metaphor for a lot of slumping bettors to mull over. Or batters.

I readily admit these days that most of my action isn't much action at all and I'm playing largely for my own entertainment and fun, but I still find myself adhering to some basic tenets. One of the big one of those is the idea of the thread - sticking primarily with one track - and the other is what pandy mentioned. When I start to get frustrated or endure what feels like a spat of total cluelessness in unraveling the race shape prior to the actual running, I retreat to those races and bets that may not offer the sort of fun and reward that I enjoy (multi-race primarily) but those that I feel I should be able to at least put the bat on the ball and get a feel for the game again.

Thanks guys, glad you liked the story. He was a brilliant coach, won a lot of awards and coached the best young players in the state in a tournament in Florida every year for several years.

[no breathalyzer]

I have 12 Major-Angles, and 12 Lesser Angles, so with me it's: "No Angle, No Play"... ... :cool:


i agree with this type of thinking.. i always need one of my angles to bet hard on my selection. the more i come up with the more i like to bet.

[LottaKash]

Do the angles work better for you at tracks you feel you "know", or is it totally automated where you just bet them wherever they come up?

Yes, it pays to know each track as intimately as possible, but, my Top Angles are Taxi Tested Tough, and they, with only a few exceptions, are pretty much Universal, in that they work just about at any tracks that I follow and am very familiar with....Of course, and often enough, the Connections don't know that they have a Major Angle going for them today... :D

I am a strictly a Pen and Paper guy, so by keeping it simple, and having strong rules for play for each angle, it simplifies the art of looking for a score, and keeps it quite manageable....

I know there is more, and maybe much more, but at my age, what I have is quite good enough for me, so I will never change any longer, as that would be harder for me than just merrily grinding along my way, just as it is.... :cool:... Of course, getting to this place in time was quite a journey... :eek:

[LottaKash]

My batting average improved by 75 points.

Oh, so you got it up to .175....It worked Bob... ;)

[Endearus]

Do your angles work for years or do they dry up causing you to search for new ones?

[LottaKash]

Do you find your angles work over many years, or do they work well for a time and then dry up?

They have worked very well, as is, only these past few years, and were quite useful before that...

It took a long time to take those ideas and create "rules" for them...They work almost all the time now, and the rest is up to the horse and the connections...There are cold spells for any racing item, but long term, they are my bread and butter...

[LottaKash]

Do your angles work for years or do they dry up causing you to search for new ones?

So far they are still wet....

I am always toying with ideas, but the state of my handicapping is pretty much going to be this way from hereon, as I am just out of ideas....Not to worry tho, it's good stuff all the same, and if they become way less effective over time, then I will just quit, after a most interesting lifelong run...

[hardboot]

I lurk here a lot and for a goodly number of years but don't find it necessary to post.

serious record keeping over a span of 40+ years of wagering has made me limit my picks to win bets on fast track dirt claimer 6fl sprints and Grade One routes.

the tracks upon which I wager is fairly well limited to OP, LaD, FG, GP, CD, Sar, AQ, Bel, and Arl. for the sprints .... Grade Ones all over the USA.

The past years I'm precluded from online wagering (living in Texas) so I bet either live at OP and Lad with simulcasting at LS.

I've gotten a bet down on opening day at OP for nearly 50 years.

[Robert Goren]

The trick to playing more than one track is to find tracks are almost twins of each other. When I start betting tracks that are quite different from each other, I tend to confused and start losing everywhere. Some tracks love front runners and others hate them. Some tracks card a lot of NW of 2 or 3 cheap claiming races. Others card optional claimers with the claiming price that has no touch with reality. Then there are crazy distances that different tracks run. Some tracks let shippers win a lot while others do not. The more tracks you play, the harder it is to keep things straight especially when a track bias appears on one of them. Not to mention that spotting a profitable bias is harder to spot when you try to keep track of a bunch of tracks at the same time.

[raybo]

The trick to playing more than one track is to find tracks are almost twins of each other. When I start betting tracks that are quite different from each other, I tend to confused and start losing everywhere. Some tracks love front runners and others hate them. Some tracks card a lot of NW of 2 or 3 cheap claiming races. Others card optional claimers with the claiming price that has no touch with reality. Then there are crazy distances that different tracks run. Some tracks let shippers win a lot while others do not. The more tracks you play, the harder it is to keep things straight especially when a track bias appears on one of them. Not to mention that spotting a profitable bias is harder to spot when you try to keep track of a bunch of tracks at the same time.

That's why we test each track separately, just to see if they can be played profitably or not. Every track is different, by varying degrees, so each must be played appropriately, according to what works at that track, not what we think will work at all tracks. Even tracks that are very similar we could play one profitably and the other unprofitably if we attack them using the same method.

[GatetoWire]

In order to win you have to have a lot of tools in your toolbox. Trainer angles, track bias, pace bias, jockey tendencies and you need to have trip notes to identify which horses are actually better than what their PP's look like.
That means watching every race run at that track 2-3X or more.
In order to be really proficient with all of these it's really hard to play multiple tracks.
Computer players have a slightly different approach and I have seen many of them be successful playing a multiple tracks.
For me it's just too time consuming to watch replays at for more than 1 or 2 tracks and if I don't put the time in I just don't confident enough to wager.

[pandy]

Obviously, if you know that you are more proficient at handicapping certain types of races, which I believe many are, that's a good approach.

My opinion on how many tracks to play, concentrating on one or two tracks is not necessarily the best approach. It depends on the methods that you're using to handicap.

Personally, I generate a higher ROI playing multiple tracks because the pace handicapping angles that work for me are easy to spot. If I stick to one track I may only get a few plays a week, whereas if I look over several tracks a day I can get several plays a day.

[no breathalyzer]

In order to win you have to have a lot of tools in your toolbox. Trainer angles, track bias, pace bias, jockey tendencies and you need to have trip notes to identify which horses are actually better than what their PP's look like.
That means watching every race run at that track 2-3X or more.
In order to be really proficient with all of these it's really hard to play multiple tracks.
Computer players have a slightly different approach and I have seen many of them be successful playing a multiple tracks.
For me it's just too time consuming to watch replays at for more than 1 or 2 tracks and if I don't put the time in I just don't confident enough to wager.

Couldn't say it any better

[Tom]

Couldn't disagree more.
Don't use hardly any of that stuff and play multiple tracks.
Never watch a replay.

[therussmeister]

Couldn't disagree more.
Don't use hardly any of that stuff and play multiple tracks.
Never watch a replay.
Sometimes I barely watch the race as it's happening.

Whenever I see a post that starts, "In order to win...", I know I'm going to read a lot of things I don't do while winning. That's why I will never submit any 'In order to win' posts.

[raybo]

Right, those posts should start "In order for ME to win". There are as many ways to win as there are winners, because no two use exactly the same methods, even if they use the same software/tools. Racing is such that all the winners could do things exactly right, at exactly the same tracks and in the same races, and still come up with different selections/bets.

[no breathalyzer]

I only play a couple of tracks cause i like to gather as much info as possible. everything gate to wire said plus a couple other angles. I also take notes on how the horse looks/appears during warm ups . I do not bet large if i can't. so i usually just keep nyra feed on and keep it on. It has saved me from making a bad bet many of times.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I usually follow NY tracks all the time, and it shows when I look back at how ive done for the year. Knowing the trends for trainers, jocks, ect have helped out immensely. For me it also depends on the quality of the races being run. I find that better quality horses run true to form most times, so at least I have an idea of what I am going to get. Some of these smaller tracks have me mystified. While I am at Monmouth usually weekly, I do ok. I stay away from west coast racing, just never have done well at it.

[Cratos]

???

Seen varying opinions on this, and wonder what people thought.
Myself and my associates keep it simple. We bet late April thru the Breeders Cup on races at the NYRA tracks and only on graded stakes races.

However we do bet the TC and BC races at their respective racetracks. Also in the spring we might bet several NYRA based horses in stakes at Gulfstream and Keeneland.

[GatetoWire]

Couldn't disagree more.
Don't use hardly any of that stuff and play multiple tracks.
Never watch a replay.

Hey Tom, if you don't mind take a minute to describe your approach to multiple tracks? Do you use computer software? How do you prepare beforehand?

Always interested to listen to other approaches.

[whodoyoulike]

In order to win you have to have a lot of tools in your toolbox. Trainer angles, track bias, pace bias, jockey tendencies and you need to have trip notes to identify which horses are actually better than what their PP's look like.
That means watching every race run at that track 2-3X or more.
In order to be really proficient with all of these it's really hard to play multiple tracks.
Computer players have a slightly different approach and I have seen many of them be successful playing a multiple tracks.
For me it's just too time consuming to watch replays at for more than 1 or 2 tracks and if I don't put the time in I just don't confident enough to wager.

I used to follow all of the replays of my track circuit but no longer. Now, I usually watch the replays of only the horses I consider contenders and since they run over multiple tracks and different distances I really don't limit myself to 1 - 2 tracks. But, I do try to limit myself to certain types of races and ignoring the others which saves me personal time and maybe some money.

[thaskalos]

Do those players who rely on replays for their handicapping needs also augment the information that they receive from the replays with other information that they get through other means...or are the replays enough all by themselves?

[whodoyoulike]

Do those players who rely on replays for their handicapping needs also augment the information that they receive from the replays with other information that they get through other means...or are the replays enough all by themselves?

Currently, I determine my contenders then watch replays then how the horse appears in the paddock and post parade. The pp's and replays are historical performances and things do change. Regarding replays, I watch several different parts of the race and some of them several times. To rely just solely on replays for all of the entries would be too time consuming and difficult for me. And, replays are not always available.

[ReplayRandall]

To rely just solely on replays for all of the entries would be too time consuming and difficult for me. And, replays are not always available.

That's why RTN is indispensable, especially for the gallop-outs.....

[classhandicapper]

Do those players who rely on replays for their handicapping needs also augment the information that they receive from the replays with other information that they get through other means...or are the replays enough all by themselves?

I watch replays, look at Trakus data, skim the official chart, look at the PPs and running styles of the horses that were in the race to get at quality and pace, look the pace figures for the race, look at the ultimate race flow, and look at any bias notes I have for the day all at one time until I think I understand the race. Then I make notes. Then all those notes are in my Formulator PPs when the horses come back so I can handicap quicker. It takes 5-15 minutes per race depending on field size. But I only do that for the handful of races in my little area of focus. For most races I just have bias notes and if I want to dig I have to dig.

[Robert Fischer]

I bet the race and I watch the race. When something happens that is going to be valuable to know about a horse or a race, I take note of it.

Then after the races, I look in the places were valuable information is most likely to have occurred (some of which uses video and some of which doesn't, some of which is at my best tracks, some of which is not) and I take note of any that I find.

At the end of the day, - I go to sleep.

Then I wake up the next morning, and I go through the horses that appear on my watch list. I look at the race they are entered in, via past performances. Then I watch the race where I saw valuable information in. I make a decision whether that horse is a contender and whether I am going to add that race to my list of races today. Then I go over the entries for the New York races for any races which I haven't already just handicapped. Then I watch the races for the favorites. Then I watch any so-called key races that several of the entries from the same race faced each other, possibly with different pace-relative trips. I note anything that looks worthy of a bet.

Then I bet the race and watch the race.[cycle continues]

[Valuist]

Do those players who rely on replays for their handicapping needs also augment the information that they receive from the replays with other information that they get through other means...or are the replays enough all by themselves?

I also use Trackus for grass races (for those tracks that have it) in addition to replays.

I don't bet horse racing all year anymore. Watching the replays can get exhausting.

[MJC922]

I'm only gambling on weekends these days so I'll pick maybe two tracks to focus on. If I see a horse that has some money on it, preferably the favorite, that's showing me some negative cues on physicality then I get very interested. I find that's the best cue for me to get involved. At that point I start looking closely at the higher ranked 2 or 3 class horses in the race. I'll watch a few replays of those, maybe take a quick look at some charts or trainer stats etc. These days I'm trying to focus intently on the class / physicality side of things, which is what I consider to be the closest thing to a Pittsburg Phil type of approach. All flat bets. If I went back to professional play I'd focus on one track with this approach and work harder on all areas of it, replays etc. There just isn't any comparison between what professional play is like and weekend play. Totally different. I have no real pressure, I'm not betting large amounts and if I win a few hundred on the month I'm delighted given all of the BS we're going up against.

[NorCalGreg]

I bet the race and I watch the race. When something happens that is going to be valuable to know about a horse or a race, I take note of it.

Then after the races, I look in the places were valuable information is most likely to have occurred (some of which uses video and some of which doesn't, some of which is at my best tracks, some of which is not) and I take note of any that I find.

At the end of the day, - I go to sleep.

Then I wake up the next morning, and I go through the horses that appear on my watch list. I look at the race they are entered in, via past performances. Then I watch the race where I saw valuable information in. I make a decision whether that horse is a contender and whether I am going to add that race to my list of races today. Then I go over the entries for the New York races for any races which I haven't already just handicapped. Then I watch the races for the favorites. Then I watch any so-called key races that several of the entries from the same race faced each other, possibly with different pace-relative trips. I note anything that looks worthy of a bet.

Then I bet the race and watch the race.[cycle continues]

Wow....all of you are very thorough. I'm basically a chart-guy. I don't get much from replays, to be honest. I look for claims, wire-to-wire wins, fast splits, chart-callers mentions of trouble, trainer notes, etc. Was thinking of hiring SRU to watch replays for me, while I scan charts...since we're both up all night anyway. :D

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Do those players who rely on replays for their handicapping needs also augment the information that they receive from the replays with other information that they get through other means...or are the replays enough all by themselves?

I watched every race replay for Saratoga this season and I agree it was very time intensive. I actually published a horses to watch list based on watching the races, and it produced some pricey winners. I tried to be judicious in putting a horse on the list - usually not more than 4-6 horses from a card - so if I saw a horse from the list I could feel pretty good about giving it an upgrade. In New York Andy Serling and Richard Migliore have a feature called Trips and Traps, and they do a pretty good job of finding races where horses had particularly troubled trips, but that can wind up being overly obvious or overused information. One of my primary objectives in watching the replays was to look for stuff that made a difference to a horse's chances, beyond just the more obvious stuff like blocked or bumped. For example, noting a horse that breaks a beat slow and then expends a lot of energy rushing to the front and then fading, or noting a horse that makes a eye catching middle move. You might be able to pick a lot of that up from the charts, but it is just about as tedious. The other notes I'll make are horses that close into deadly slow paces, horses that draw off after running very quick fractions, and on which part of the track closers or wire to wire winners were effective. It is especially effective to note dominating races against quality fields from first time starters. I was looking for "information" that wasn't obvious from the PP's.

All that being said, I still handicapped races as I always would, but I did have some level of bias in favor of horses from my watch list. I believe one of the important traps to avoid is selecting a horse based purely on a trouble line. If I had a horse running fastest, that would often trump trouble lines. Anyone who can handicap successfully purely by watching replays gets my applause.

[ReplayRandall]

Anyone who can handicap successfully purely by watching replays gets my applause.

I've watched over 300K replays in my lifetime(stopped counting in 2012), and can conclude that no one can do it dry. The reason for this is simply the fact of Trainers/Owners getting overly ambitious with their horse, next time out, putting them in tough races where they don't belong, distances they can't get and surfaces they don't belong on.......

[whodoyoulike]

I've watched over 300K replays in my lifetime(stopped counting in 2012), and can conclude that no one can do it dry. The reason for this is simply the fact of Trainers/Owners getting overly ambitious with their horse, next time out, putting them in tough races where they don't belong, distances they can't get and surfaces they don't belong on.......

If someone claims they can I wish they would explain how they do it.

I agree with your comments above if you were to just base your handicapping on just watching replays ....

... simply the fact of Trainers/Owners getting overly ambitious with their horse, next time out, putting them in tough races where they don't belong, distances they can't get and surfaces they don't belong on......

this is close to impossible to determine.

[ReplayRandall]

This is close to impossible to determine.

I believe it is impossible to determine.....for YOU.

[whodoyoulike]

I believe it is impossible to determine.....for YOU.

If someone claims they can I wish they would explain how they do it ...

Then show us instead of acting like a .....

I thought I was agreeing with your post.

Let's see what you've got?

300k replays, right!

[ReplayRandall]

Then show us instead of acting like a .....

I thought I was agreeing with your post.

Let's see what you've got?

300k replays, right!

There are at least 20 members of PA who KNOW I speak the truth. I don't have time for games with you. To be absolutely frank, you are clueless, and it's not the first time that I've put up with your nonsense......But, this will be the last.

[NorCalGreg]

I lurk here a lot and for a goodly number of years but don't find it necessary to post.

serious record keeping over a span of 40+ years of wagering has made me limit my picks to win bets on fast track dirt claimer 6fl sprints and Grade One routes.

the tracks upon which I wager is fairly well limited to OP, LaD, FG, GP, CD, Sar, AQ, Bel, and Arl. for the sprints .... Grade Ones all over the USA.

The past years I'm precluded from online wagering (living in Texas) so I bet either live at OP and Lad with simulcasting at LS.

I've gotten a bet down on opening day at OP for nearly 50 years.

Damn shame when a man in Texas can't go online and make a bet on a horse race. I was stationed there in the Army (Ft Hood), and the county around it was a "dry" county.....you had to drive across the county line to buy a six pack.

[ultracapper]

Do those players who rely on replays for their handicapping needs also augment the information that they receive from the replays with other information that they get through other means...or are the replays enough all by themselves?

+DRF

[ultracapper]

I also use Trackus for grass races (for those tracks that have it) in addition to replays.

I don't bet horse racing all year anymore. Watching the replays can get exhausting.


I have to limit myself to certain types of races at just one circuit just for this reason. If I tried to cap every race carded for a week, even for just one track, I'd be blitzed by the end of the week. This week, 11 races to handicap. Last week there were only 6. Rarely gets above 12 or 13.

[ultracapper]

I've watched over 300K replays in my lifetime(stopped counting in 2012), and can conclude that no one can do it dry. The reason for this is simply the fact of Trainers/Owners getting overly ambitious with their horse, next time out, putting them in tough races where they don't belong, distances they can't get and surfaces they don't belong on.......

I'm a religious replay guy and it's just another way of collecting info. I agree it will never be enough, alone, to consistently be profitable. Particularly since data collection and processing in this game is gleening more and better info than it ever has.

[whodoyoulike]

Then show us instead of acting like a .....

I thought I was agreeing with your post.

Let's see what you've got?

300k replays, right!


There are at least 20 members of PA who KNOW I speak the truth. I don't have time for games with you. To be absolutely frank, you are clueless, and it's not the first time that I've put up with your nonsense......But, this will be the last.

I find your recent posts both interesting and amusing.

Amusing because ….

I was agreeing with post #57 and yet now you seem to be reversing your stance which means to me you didn’t even understand your own post! I’ve noticed you always seem to crawl out to take shots at people and I’m guessing it’s just my turn or you’re just one of those BLEEPING MORONS I’ve been reading about in the other threads. Now I noticed you’ve just crawled back to where you came until next time and someone else.

Interesting because …..

You claim to have watched over 300k replays (since you stopped counting after 2012) and yet I’m skeptical because it seems you have no idea of how long it takes to watch a replay. And, I do realize you’ve been trying to present yourself as a replay expert. Here’s a CLUE, it’s approx. 4 minutes per replay which would be 1.2 million minutes or 20,000 hours which would be the equivalent of over 9.5 years watching 40 hours per week 52 weeks per year. You should’ve done the MATH!!!

Now, you’re claiming there are at least 20 members who can vouch for your veracity claim. Ask them to vouch for you, I’d like to see who also don’t know how long it takes to watch replays.

Or, is the 20 member number another exaggeration of your imagination?

[ultracapper]

I just watched the most recent replay of each of the 6 entrants of the 1st at Santa Anita in 13 minutes. Seemed about right. If you sit down and focus and know what you're looking for, you can run through a 12 horse field in under half an hour. 2 to 2 1/2 minutes per replay is a reasonable enough time to put aside for initial replay review. 4 minutes per replay may have been the rule when you had to rewind those old tapes on your VCR, but queuing them up on a computer is much faster now.

[whodoyoulike]

I'll still stand behind my 4 minutes per claim. At 2 to 2 1/2 mins., I'm wondering if you're watching the replays from start to the race being official? If not, you're missing a lot of valuable info. I always liked to watch thru the posting of the payouts to see what they were.

There's a simple way to gauge the time involved, just watch at least 30 or more replays which is really about 4 or 5 race cards (select random race cards). Total time divided by the # of races watched should give you a fair idea.

I was curious from your post and looked at last Friday at SA all 8 races was a little over 30 minutes. Then I looked at Tonalist's Jockey Club Gold Cup race which was over 5 mins. Also looked at some other races on Saturday at Belmont which were races 3 thru 5 and it was about 15 mins. in total. Now, soon there will be 2yo races at 2f which wouldn't be averaging 4 mins.

And, you are correct I came up with this number from watching 000's of replays on VCR tapes probably over 20 years ago. The lengths of the replay shouldn't change because it's now on the internet vs. VCR tape.

But, after reading your post are you one of the 20 who is vouching for his veracity?