Handicapping Mud

[azeri98]

I have always had a hard time picking winners in the mud, I have tried using the wet track #, I have tried betting speed, I have tried using pedigree like anything with AP Indy or Mr. Prospector in the family and obviously PPs of the ones who have run in the mud. Its always been a losing proposition for me. I don't bet races in the mud anymore.I didn't play gp at all today. Anybody have any tips to share on "playn in the mud"

[ultracapper]

JMO, you're handling it exactly the way you should.

In the immortal words of Roger Waters.......Run Like Hell

[Racey]

Had Gp & Tampa picked out ended up skipping playing..Mud & off the turf no thanks.

[azeri98]

Guess I'm not alone. :D

[Hoofless_Wonder]

"Good", muddy, sealed and drying out tracks are tough for me as well. I prefer sloppy or fast. The breeding numbers associated with "off" seem to work best in the slop.

When the track is muddy, the only selections I'll go with are horses that have done well over the same track, same conditions - which means very few bets. It's frustrating at times, 'cause you'll often see the 6/5 chalk with front bandages stepping gingerly on the track in the post parade, and just ache to bet against it.

[v j stauffer]

Betting winners in the mud is VERY difficult. Making money because the track is a mess is much easier.

Use the time you'd normally fire away to watch the replays of the mud races and take super accurate notes.

Did the mud move one way up?

Did it make another chanceless because they couldn't handle it.

Remember "footing" on off tracks is only a small part of the story.

Watch closely for horses that were effected by kickback of all the muck.

Don't be as tough on front runners who get beat by miles. Don't assume they were ok with the footing because they showed speed.

Sometimes a horse will hate it but still lead for a ways. But since they were not comfortable they used all their energy to be competitive for half the race then backed out. Often times they tossed it so readily because just doing what they did on a track they didn't handle sapped all their steam.

The more factors to weigh, the more chances to exploit players who aren't willing to put in the extra work you are.

Off tracks can be the road to riches. Sometimes you have to wait 3 weeks to follow that path.

[no breathalyzer]

bet all bellamy road i n NY

[HorsemenHeist]

Bet the gray in the mud

Haha just kidding, but one thing to remember is that all wet tracks aren't the same. A sloppy sealed track is very different from a good harrowed track, yet they count the same in the 'wet' track line.

Don't hold one bad mud performance against a horse if it appeared that he showed some potential or had trouble. This often leads to a big overlay when you can find an alibi for a bad race in the mud, especially for young horses.

[thaskalos]

As usual...the inimitable Tom Ainslie addressed this topic much more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could.

"When the rains come...I gather my belongings and go home"...he wrote.

Wisest words I've ever heard or read. :ThmbUp:

[Hoofless_Wonder]

One of the best examples of the treachery of an off track is the 2009 Kentucky Derby, won by Mine That Bird who absolutely frolicked on a sealed, drying out track. He ran a Beyer of 105 and won by a widening 6 3/4 lengths over Pioneerof the Nile at odds of 50-1.

He had never raced on an off track in his previous eight starts, and coming off a Beyer of 80 and a 4th place finish in the Sunland Park Derby, he hardly seemed poised for an all-world performance.

But he obviously loved that surface, while the other Derby horses seemed to struggle.

[Capper Al]

As usual...the inimitable Tom Ainslie addressed this topic much more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could.

"When the rains come...I gather my belongings and go home"...he wrote.

Wisest words I've ever heard or read. :ThmbUp:

Exactly. Who has enough stats or experience to handle the mud. The beauty today that wasn't available in Ainslie's time is simulcast. One can always find a fast track somewhere.

[classhandicapper]

The biggest problem I have is evaluating the horses when they run back.

If a horse runs poorly in the mud, it may have been the mud, but he may have simply gone off form that day. How do you know which? There will be some of both in a large sample. Automatically throwing those races out on the assumption it was the mud can be perilous, especially because that's what almost everyone else does.

The same thing occurs in reverse. If some horse runs a new top in the mud, did he move up in the mud or did he just happen to improve and reach a new peak on a day when the track was off. If you dismiss them all you'll be throwing out a lot of very sharp improving horses.

It's not always clear even when you look at pedigrees, the horse's other recent races on off tracks etc..

[Tom]

The biggest problem I have is evaluating the horses when they run back.

I count off tack races as just workouts.
I never penalize a horse for a bad race on a wet track.

The only time I will use an off tack line on a new race is if a horse woke up in the mud and might today.

[Redboard]

Say it's been a dry year, and the track hasn't had rain in quite awhile. A glance at the pps and nobody has run in the mud or soft turf in the past.
I'll have a tendency to look for a horse that has run on different surfaces. If the race is on dirt, I'll look for a horse that has run well on poly or turf. The theory being that the horse can adjust to different surfaces.
I haven't had luck with MTO entries. Maybe it's just bad luck on my part or maybe the trainer really doesn't have him amped up.

[Robert Fischer]

i look for a few quick patterns in live play (also will affect bet-backs)

speed favoring?

inside runners getting buried?

any interesting alternate entries at higher odds than a favored turf horse?


Most of the time, if it rains and you don't have something really great coming in (or happen to see a really strong pattern), the quality of play is diminished, field size is diminished and the relative randomness is increased.

[Robert Fischer]

Betting winners in the mud is VERY difficult. Making money because the track is a mess is much easier.

Use the time you'd normally fire away to watch the replays of the mud races and take super accurate notes.

Did the mud move one way up?

Did it make another chanceless because they couldn't handle it.

Remember "footing" on off tracks is only a small part of the story.

Watch closely for horses that were effected by kickback of all the muck.

Don't be as tough on front runners who get beat by miles. Don't assume they were ok with the footing because they showed speed.

Sometimes a horse will hate it but still lead for a ways. But since they were not comfortable they used all their energy to be competitive for half the race then backed out. Often times they tossed it so readily because just doing what they did on a track they didn't handle sapped all their steam.

The more factors to weigh, the more chances to exploit players who aren't willing to put in the extra work you are.

Off tracks can be the road to riches. Sometimes you have to wait 3 weeks to follow that path.

:ThmbUp: agree with a lot/all of this

[castaway01]

On your basic Saturday with 30 tracks running, there's no reason to mess with the few that might be muddy. If all the tracks you like are muddy, take the day off and watch some football (or watch the races for future reference but don't bet).

[Tom]

Bingo.

[JohnGalt1]

Another problem is off track records of horses.

It includes mud, good and sloppy surfaces, all as different from each other as dirt, turf, Tapeta, and Polytrack.

So are off track breeding ratings useless for the above reasons.

[Tom]

I haven't seen a superior mud runner mark * in years!

[therussmeister]

Another problem is off track records of horses.

It includes mud, good and sloppy surfaces, all as different from each other as dirt, turf, Tapeta, and Polytrack.

So are off track breeding ratings useless for the above reasons.
And furthermore, Belmont's mud may be different than Gulfstream's mud.

[stu]

Since I live/work in the land of synthetics, I am not sure it is still true, but descendants of IN REALITY used to be the "go-to's" for mudders.

[howardjim]

A post from the HTR board in 2009...I still avoid all "off" tracks.

Dan, I haven't been to CRC since the mid 70's. Is that Holiday Inn still around the 1/4 pole with balconies to view the morning or afternoon action. It was the best damn spot of the chain.

BillW, the pleasure of an afternoon with a dozen others and the late Bonnie Ledbetter on a early 80's February sloppy/muddy (unsealed I think) SA displayed the willingness to "see" how a horse's purchase and stride over individual wet surfaces was the preferred, if not only, way to predict results.

We watched the paddock saddling, subsequent sheltered and downpoured walking, ran to the apron to see each horse step onto the main track and observe the stride and willingness to put comfortable weight into the goo. We stood at the rail, raining torrents, as she warned us that allowed free rein most of these entrants would find a tree to stand under.

We could see what she pointed out but it was obviously a skill requiring dedication and years. She had no form nor newspaper and dismissed a half-dozen favorites as "won't lift a hoof", they didn't, and offered a dozen or so 10-50/1 horses as "very comfortable, regardless of printed DRF form, bet across the board". I don't remember the exact #'s but her ROI for those 12+ suggestions was well over 3.00.

I vowed to learn the skill, but hadn't the patience and gave up betting any wet dirt surface about 10 years and many thousands ago, except on Triple Crown Saturdays and Breeder's Cup events. Last Saturday's Louisville haircut has me reconsidering any exceptions.

Bonnie has at least one book available co-written with Tom Ainslie many years ago, there may be others. Good luck but please consider treading lightly.

[Stillriledup]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126293&highlight=Garbage

More comments about mud

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

For me it is quite simple wagering on a muddy track is a variable and I attempt to eliminate as many variables as possible that are in my control...so I wager only on fast tracks fully aware that when the gates open I have zero control of the race.

[v j stauffer]

For me it is quite simple wagering on a muddy track is a variable and I attempt to eliminate as many variables as possible that are in my control...so I wager only on fast tracks fully aware that when the gates open I have zero control of the race.

With all due respect I think you might want to look at this from a different perspective.

Variables are our friends.

The more the better.

More chances for others to miss something we find with hard work.

If there are less variables the % of winning favorites would skyrocket.

We all know that's a BAD thing.

[Robert Fischer]

With all due respect I think you might want to look at this from a different perspective.

Variables are our friends.

The more the better.

More chances for others to miss something we find with hard work.

If there are less variables the % of winning favorites would skyrocket.

We all know that's a BAD thing.

good points

I agree 100% with your perspective here.

the variables work best when either they correlate to identifiable advantages for certain horses, or identifiable chaos. If we don't have a grip on the variable, and it 'muddies up' our projection of the race, then it is best to skip all together.