How do you pick the best horse if down to 2-3 horses

[fishorsechess]

I think my handicapping is good enough so that I can
narrow down a field to 2-3 contenders. The problem
is I am having a problem knowing how to pick the
best horse out of those 2 or 3.
I have used speed figs, brisnet power
figs,class, but nothing so far that's been consistent.
Can anyone suggest something better?

[dav4463]

To me, that is the hardest part of handicapping. Sometimes class, especially in route races seems to be the key. Early speed in sprints. Mainly though, let the odds dictate your play. Track the odds of your contenders and see what odds they are winning at and play the ones that fit your odds requirement.

[charleslanger]

if i can't separate them i'll dutch all, or eliminate the one worst in at least two categories: odds, unfavorable run style vis a vis track profile, ditto post position, under 10% win jock / trainer(general or specific move categories)....

track each, as Dave says-- and/or is the exacta gettable often enough in those 3(not me, for instance)....

Good luck.

[The_Knight_Sky]

Isn't the crux of horseplaying:
making the right wager and not picking the "best horse"?

If you've got three inseparable horses,
why not let the odds guide you?

If this was a 3 horse race, you'd shouldn't be considering any
of the three unless they were offering fair value 2/1.
Given the presence of the racing luck and the probability
that someone in the remainder of the field will show
a sudden form reversal (see Colonial Colony in the Stephen Foster),
I'd take nothing less than 4/1 on a win wager,
if I were playing for the long term.

[thelyingthief]

(*prefatory material to the following conclusion has been deleted to preserve value and positive return on investment* i had written about some of the methods i use to direct my decision making process. but i simply cannot and will not reveal what forms a basis of my play. the problem with writing about handicapping, if youre successful at it, is that everything thereafter becomes common property. and by that i mean not so much a public consciousness, but an object of use for other professionals, whose betting habits can and do impact one's edge. i even feel uncertainty about expressing generalities like the following, because clever men may find its uses and employ them. i am not yet rich, but i'm going to be; and until that object is reached, it's just too dangerous to say anything substantial.)

so, while the following is probably meaningless to you, i say it in hope that it will open up another route for your thinking. if you can "get it down to three", you have in fact gone as far as the numbers can take you. there are exceptions to this, true, but they prove the rule. now you have to look at your data in a different way, or look at new data altogether. on the other hand, the hard part is done, isn't it?

i have made the acquaintance of a large number of handicappers, and i can comfortably say that prominent among their flaws is a consistent and universal obliviousness: for instance, they may ignore the relationship of their selection procedure to any given race as a totality; or they live and die by the data they accumulate, mesmerized by the quantity of it, but not its relevance; or, lastly, they pursue a number or formula that absolutely finalizes and "solves" the races for good and all.

another thread here likens chess to horseracing--and the widely expressed opinion that they are similar could not be more fallacious. chess is based upon a stationary table of rules that is played in a precisely defined topological space: therefore the game of chess is a deductive one. horse racing is not so, it is a moving target: and the principal enemy (thank god for him, too) is the horseman who feeds his children by spotting where, when, and how a horse is to be run. the trainers, owners, and other ancillary professionals, as a fraternity, fight against the popular wisdoms because those jeopardize their livelihood: and it will not be any number of years before some wing-zinger of a method (e.g. lately speed, or more recently pace) loses its parimutuel force: the horseman will adapt his operations to take advantage of its prominence in the common mind, or circumvent it altogether. this may seem tangential to your simple question, but i assure you it is not. the answer that you seek erupts from this fundamental ground of wagering on horses. and i can also assure you that no sooner have you "solved" the riddle, and trumpeted abroad your panacea, than the ground will move beneath your feet and what seemed so immutable yesterday will be gainsaid today.

[JustMissed]

Fish, You failed to mention the following handicapping factors for final selection:

Race shape
Track bias
Trainer intent
Angles

Knight is so right on about betting. For many races where there is no clear cut winner you may have a very good betting opportunity depending on the odds and your bet selection OR

some races just are not playable. You don't have to bet every race you know.

JM
:)

[NoDayJob]

Originally posted by fishorsechess
I think my handicapping is good enough so that I can
narrow down a field to 2-3 contenders. The problem
is I am having a problem knowing how to pick the
best horse out of those 2 or 3.
I have used speed figs, brisnet power
figs,class, but nothing so far that's been consistent.
Can anyone suggest something better?

You need to know the percenatge of winners among your top 2-3 horses. It may be profitable to play more than just one horse. Go back and check your records if you keep them. See what percentage of the time each horse wins. Then the odds will determine whether to bet or not.

NDJ

[kenwoodallpromos]

I assume the 2-3 are the best ones.
You have to determine for each race which other factors are going to be most helpful in deciding the race If you cannot, then do not use the race.
Track speed/bias, pp in sprints, horse fitness, best placement by specialist trainer, EP scenario. Different races need different factors to decide. You may or may not want a speed jockey on a horse on the rail, depending on the distance ann track speed and bias. You may want to consider "class" more for stakes and female non- claiming. You may use closers with better trainers more for slow tracks.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by fishorsechess
I think my handicapping is good enough so that I can
narrow down a field to 2-3 contenders. The problem
is I am having a problem knowing how to pick the
best horse out of those 2 or 3.
I have used speed figs, brisnet power
figs,class, but nothing so far that's been consistent.
Can anyone suggest something better?

Quit trying to be consistent. Pick the winner. Learn to recognize the winner yourself.

[andicap]

For me I look at several areas and as others have said, depends on the race which one is most relevant. There is no one "answer"


1. Form Cycles -- who's going to improve and who's going backward. Skip races where you don't have insight unless you have several longshot contenders you can dutch/key. Try this exercise. Take your 3 contenders and eliminate all horses coming off tops and back within 21-28 days, except for 2 and 3 yr olds. Eliminate 3 yr olds only if they are coming off BIG tops -- vast improvement -- without adequate rest.
The older the horse, the bigger the top, the more likely it will go backward.
Be careful of horses making small, steady improvements in their tops and coming back every 2-4 weeks. They are in raging form and tough to bet against.. One day, however, the bubble will burst, and they will hit the wall.


2. Energy -- who's most suited to the track and/or today's pace match-up. Only use pacelines from races where the horse was close at the finish or extremely competitive in most of it. Don't use slow paced races -- they distort the pace picture. Look at the average for the race and the model and try and find patterns for a particular track and/or day. Most of the time, extremes can be eliminated.

3. Trainer angles. I only use positive ones. I never eliminate a horse because his trainer is 0-15 off a layoff, but I will reward a horse with positive angles, especially if there's a strong short-term pattern.

4. track bias. Is one of your contenders highly rated because he benefited from a bias in a past race that makes him one your top horses? Did one of them race well against a bias?

5. Consistency. -- Does one of the horses qualify due to one good race and the rest are ordinary? (See form cycles)

6. Paddock appearance -- I suck at this, but if you know what you're looking at, probably one of the best ways to fine tune your contenders. Go to the track with someone who knows animals -- not necessarily racing -- and you'll be surprised how well they can pick out the horses ready to run.

Ron Ambrose used to give all his contenders the same odds and bet the overlays. If he had 3 contenders, they would all be 3-1 and the rest of the field 3-1. He'd bet anyone with a 50% advantage. I've never tried this myself, but who knows? Goofier things have worked.

Best advice came from the guy who said to keep records.

[hurrikane]

eenie - meenie - miinee - MO! :D

[JustRalph]

I used to rack my brain in this scenario. I started going with the '

"youngest horse (if there is a considerable difference in age)"

and when there is not................

" Whichever is in the best shape" this can mean many things. Sometimes it has to do with the bounce theory and other times a horse may be coming off a layoff etc.

In general these rules have served me pretty damn well the last year or so.

[Blackgold]

Out of the 3,

Bet the one with the highest odds to win.

Back that one up in 2nd with the lower odds 2 runners on top in the exacta.

If the runner is 8-1 or higher, key him in the 3rd hole with your first two on top and many, if not ALL in the 2nd hole in the tri.

Good Luck!