View Full Version : Why good cappers miss races...
sq764
12-11-2004, 08:11 PM
I have been going back over my wagers very closely of late and have found some interesting 'shortcomings' in my wagering.. I was curious, when everyone goes back to their losing bets, do the majority fall into:
a) Had the right horse, capped the race correctly, made the right wager, the horse or jock just didn't fire..
b) I had the right horse, but made the wrong wager (use horse in exacta, horse wins, exacta does not)
c) Looking back, I missed another horse or overrated my horse in the race.
kenwoodallpromos
12-11-2004, 10:53 PM
My answer is b.
If a horse fails to fire, you picked the wrong horse and it could be due to unknowns like last minute physical problem. Most of the time overwork should be predictable.
Overall losing could be incorrect betting or betting when value is insufficient compared to actual risk/chances, which of course covers a lot of ground.
Almost all losers i have met have money management/emotion problems with betting in addition to varied other problems. Most do not know how to properly assess true risk.
so.cal.fan
12-11-2004, 11:50 PM
I would have to say c.
Why good cappers miss races?
Good capping doesn't equate to good wagering!!
I think you need to trust what you are doing and not look back. It is all a game of percentages. I expect to lose 7 out of 8 races and when I do (or 40 in a row) it is no surprise. I've got to the point where I'm not really bothered by losing photos; I figure it all evens out.
so.cal.fan
12-12-2004, 11:24 AM
I haven't been betting for nearly a year now....because I reviewed records and found that I wasn't making good enough selections, for whatever reason.
Short fields in Calif. where I play, combined with illegal drugs accounted for some of the poor showing.......however........
I believe that when you are handicapping, your top selections should be "live" horses at least 75% of the time, by live, not necessarily winners.....just horse who run near winning races.
I wasn't hitting that number, so I decided to re-group.
My husband is currently betting turf races in Calif. because he is selecting live horses over the 75% mark.
I need to come up with a better/winning handicapping plan or "retire" as a gambler.
I'll continue to work on my game, as I think a mistake many make is to give up too quickly when things aren't working.
sq764
12-12-2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by sjk
I think you need to trust what you are doing and not look back. It is all a game of percentages. I expect to lose 7 out of 8 races and when I do (or 40 in a row) it is no surprise. I've got to the point where I'm not really bothered by losing photos; I figure it all evens out.
You don't look back at all? Wouldn't that help in determining where your strengths are?
hurrikane
12-12-2004, 11:31 AM
Horse racing
losing races is guarenteed
winning money is optional.
I'm with slk - next!
sq764,
I have done enough back-testing to have the same degree of confidence across all my plays. On a day like yesterday with muddy tracks just about everywhere and not too much success I was tempted to recheck to be sure. Over the long haul I've done just as well on off tracks as on fast ones, so all I can do is keep firing.
sq764
12-12-2004, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by sjk
sq764,
I have done enough back-testing to have the same degree of confidence across all my plays. On a day like yesterday with muddy tracks just about everywhere and not too much success I was tempted to recheck to be sure. Over the long haul I've done just as well on off tracks as on fast ones, so all I can do is keep firing.
Ok, to each his own.. I haven't spoken with many successful players that don't go back and see where their strengths are, that's all.
sq764
12-12-2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by hurrikane
Horse racing
losing races is guarenteed
winning money is optional.
I'm with slk - next!
You don't think there's anything to learn from a losing race?
If I were to have poor results in a certain type of race over a full year or a 500 bet runout I might want to rethink my approach. The last thing I would want to do is start adjusting things based on the result of a single race.
sq764
12-12-2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by sjk
If I were to have poor results in a certain type of race over a full year or a 500 bet runout I might want to rethink my approach. The last thing I would want to do is start adjusting things based on the result of a single race.
Ok, we will have to agree to disagree..
No problem. I get disagreed with all the time.
socantra
12-12-2004, 01:55 PM
I glance back over the races all the time, just to see if I missed anything. If I didn't, (A) is my answer. If I did miss something, I try not to make the same stupid mistake again.
socantra...
kenwoodallpromos
12-12-2004, 02:22 PM
Short fields in Calif. where I play, combined with illegal drugs accounted for some of the poor showing.......
___________
Finding false favs in critical in short fields.
I allow a 2% loss for illegal doping. And I do not bet if the horses' eyes are redded out.
I lay off doped horses after they get claimed- new trainer may not dope them.
The most doping is done in early winter when soreness sets in, and when the horses turn 4 and start competing vs. older.
Early speed trainers seem to dope more, epecially with sprinters.
Overlay
12-12-2004, 03:31 PM
For myself, I would have to say (a). Since I start from the premise that no horse can be assigned a 100% chance of winning a race before it is run, I realize that any horse I bet has the potential to be beaten. As long as my long-run results show that horses are winning at a rate that is acceptably close to the fair odds (based on a 100% line) that I calculate for them, and as long as I stay focused on betting the horse that represents the best pari-mutuel value (rather than necessarily being the most likely winner), I'm satisfied. I have found that this allows me to maintain a more consistently positive outlook, rather than the uncertainty that would result if I tried to fine-tune my handicapping model every time the results of a race didn't go my way.
thoroughbred
12-12-2004, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Overlay
For myself, I would have to say (a). Since I start from the premise that no horse can be assigned a 100% chance of winning a race before it is run, I realize that any horse I bet has the potential to be beaten. As long as my long-run results show that horses are winning at a rate that is acceptably close to the fair odds (based on a 100% line) that I calculate for them, and as long as I stay focused on betting the horse that represents the best pari-mutuel value (rather than necessarily being the most likely winner), I'm satisfied. I have found that this allows me to maintain a more consistently positive outlook, rather than the uncertainty that would result if I tried to fine-tune my handicapping model every time the results of a race didn't go my way.
Overlay,
Your paragraph should be copied and kept in front of anyone who is doing handicapping. In my opinion, it is the most fundamental factor to maiking a profit. With the state and track takeout, the many unknows in horse racing, etc. it is absolutely essential, that in order to make a consistent profit, that you only wager when the actual odds, compared to your handicapping assessment of the race, provides you with a good risk-to-reward ratio.
For exotics definately answer c, overlooking a horse. For winners there's a few a's.
socantra
12-12-2004, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Overlay
For myself, I would have to say (a). Since I start from the premise that no horse can be assigned a 100% chance of winning a race before it is run, I realize that any horse I bet has the potential to be beaten. As long as my long-run results show that horses are winning at a rate that is acceptably close to the fair odds (based on a 100% line) that I calculate for them, and as long as I stay focused on betting the horse that represents the best pari-mutuel value (rather than necessarily being the most likely winner), I'm satisfied. I have found that this allows me to maintain a more consistently positive outlook, rather than the uncertainty that would result if I tried to fine-tune my handicapping model every time the results of a race didn't go my way.
I don't use a 100% odds line, but I do bet for value, and I look over races not to fine tune my handicapping model, but to make sure I'm still following it. I'm not concerned if one of my contenders beats me, but when a non-contender wins, I like to make sure it was not something that I should have seen.
socantra...
Exactaman
12-13-2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
Short fields in Calif. where I play, combined with illegal drugs accounted for some of the poor showing.......
Well the answer is easy then. Wait till after the races for the drugs.
I agree wholeheartedly with Overlay as well.
so.cal.fan
12-13-2004, 02:22 PM
Ken and Exactaman:
I'm very confident that the "drug problem" will end.
Santa Anita is cracking down.......we have a new director of the HBPA, Ingrid Fermin, who will be a major factor in finally giving some power to the stewards and the tracks to get rid of cheaters.
Unfortunately, it will take a while for the short field problem.
I was talking to a couple of Press Box people last night at dinner and they expressed concern about some of the big barns going elsewhere to race, not just because of drugs, but because we don't have slots to supplement the purses here in Calif.
We have workman's comp. insurance issues, burdens to the trainers and more importantly the owners.
Trainers have to demand big day fees to pay for WC and it makes it very tough for owners to even break even, let alone make money......these guys are afraid they will go to other states.
You are right about waiting for false favorites......which is true anywhere if one is to make profits.....but even more of an important factor here in Calif.
Can't win without it.
kenwoodallpromos
12-13-2004, 04:18 PM
Northern Ca there is also veryy few races like ALW where fast runners can be kept from claims. I sometimes think shippers come up to be claimed.
Guessing about So to North shippers can make deciding between a, b, or c tough when the So Cal monster runs lousy at GGF or BM!
pmd62ndst
12-13-2004, 06:45 PM
sq764,
I'm not so much interested in the question as to why you asked it.
I, too am evaluating my systems after an especially bad week. SJK, you said it about lots of muddy tracks this week but off tracks have never impacted me this badly.
/hurtin'
PMD
pmd62ndst,
The past week I have had 6 winners out of 151 bets with a handful of savers that did little better than breaking even. About a week ago I thought that things were going so well that I was due for a bad streak and it came true.
Same thing happened back around the beginning of October after September went very well. Both times the weather in the middle of the country where most of the tracks I play are located turned colder.
December and February are almost always be my worst months.
Any theories about how changing weather affects the horses?
ElKabong
12-13-2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by so.cal.fan
Ken and Exactaman:
I'm very confident that the "drug problem" will end.
Santa Anita is cracking down.......we have a new director of the HBPA, Ingrid Fermin, who will be a major factor in finally giving some power to the stewards and the tracks to get rid of cheaters.
Unfortunately, it will take a while for the short field problem.
Great move, getting her in that position. Only "problem" is that so Cal racing will get worse (as in shorter fields) before it gets better, BUT, it had to happen. If so Cal is ever going to get back near to where they were, they had to address the drug issues. Speaking for myself, I'm damn glad someone is doing something about it.
Valuist
12-13-2004, 10:12 PM
I think simulcating and the circuits you play can play a role in missing out on good bets. Say you play 3 circuits but they all overlap. There may be two or sometimes even 3 races at those tracks going off simultaneously. I think we've all had this happen. One has to be prepared beforehand.
wonatthewire1
12-14-2004, 06:01 AM
Valuist,
I would have to agree with you as I'm a strictly weekend player...there are many times when I have 3 to 4 races that are running at the same time at the tracks I wager on.
But I also run into times when a race doesn't come up with bettable odds (happens quite a bit). I'm still working on the best ways to stay organized - but that makes the game worthwhile for me as well.
kenwoodallpromos
12-14-2004, 06:53 AM
Is that 151 bets or about 30 bets per day?
I would guess if there is 1 major reason for colder weather equating to bad results my wild guess would be something to do with the amount of water on the track; even without rain, track crews may put less water on and assume it will not evaporate as fast.
kenwood,
Yes that was 151 races bet; that's a typical weekly number for me.
I was wondering if the animals react differently to the cold; or maybe the exercise riders do. Probably nothing to it. You have to take the bad weeks with the good weeks.
hurrikane
12-14-2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by sq764
You don't think there's anything to learn from a losing race?
From 'A' losing race - no. I cannot make a realistic judgement about what is happening from one race. A lot of people do. I can not.
I do however look at what is winning, losing, what my stats are on certain types of races, tounaments, tracks, etc.
But I seldom if ever look back at a race. Hell, a lot of the time i dont' even watch the race when it's running.
nomadpat
12-14-2004, 10:15 PM
I think there is a lot of value at looking back at a race I've lost. I look to see how that horse looked, if there was any factors I missed or didn't emphasize. At times, there is no way I would have had it, so I move on. But I think by looking at losing races, it kind of triggers something in your brain, perhaps a pattern that can catch a future winner.
Valuist
12-14-2004, 11:02 PM
Wonatthe--
Of all the books out there, I don't see much on determining how many tracks you should play. I had been on a nice roll for several years before simulcasting came along in the mid 90s; I would say it took two more years to really figure out how many tracks I could play, as well as which ones. Three is the most circuits I play, and I take two breaks during the year.
Fastracehorse
12-16-2004, 03:11 PM
My good friend,
I am forever learning in this game.
I have some good ideas - and even innovated a speed figure - but
I enjoy unearthing new insights to make myself a better player.
I have a contrarian approach - and I am happy about this. New insights make things more complicated - but I can't help myself - I luv this game because it is hard.
Thanx for the thread,
Merry X-Mas from Canada,
fffastt
maxwell
12-18-2004, 02:35 PM
Laziness is right up there.
When there is a top Beyer horse in a race that towers over the field, I just concede the race and move on. What if the horse is a late scratch?
There was a nice score at HollyPark yesterday that fit the bill. Race 4 : Hot Market looked real tough ... scratchhhh. That opened the door and a $34 winner walked in.
I have no idea if I could have caught that winner but I took myself out of the ballgame before it started.
Same holds true for turf races that are washed off. :(
JackS
12-18-2004, 03:10 PM
The contrarian concept mentioned by FastRh is also where I'm at.
Common knowledge and an ability to read the Form is all it takes for the general public to come up with a respectible win percentage and at the same time lose money over any period of time.
Go against some of the "well known rules" and you may not hit at the same pct'age as the public but, you do have a chance in the long run to out perform them in the Money Won Column.
Fastracehorse
12-18-2004, 05:47 PM
1. Connections
2. Class
3. Beyers
Although, every once-in-a-while I think a horse wil be favored and he'll pay $20.
That's bad if I'm not aware of the odds :(
fffastt
wonatthewire1
12-19-2004, 06:33 AM
Valuist ~
Thanks for the reply...
Being a weekender only has its drawbacks - mainly because I'll overdo it as I've always had to travel about an hour each way to the races. Therefore, I'd try to get as many bettable races as I possibly could to make the trip worthwhile.
Now that NJ has internet betting (legal) - I'm much more likely to sit out races that I'm not as certain about. It also opened the ability to bet a race or two in the evenings at the night tracks. That alone has completely changed my game - I'll especially look for trainer angles on weeknights and have been doing well.
The primary reason why I can play as many tracks as I do is that I keep the information load relatively low. I've found that whenever I try to take too many different factors into consideration - I become very hesitant and uncertain. Trainer angles help and I use some of the esoteric stuff that Cramer has worked on to come up with bets. The main thing that I'm working on lately are trifectas - both structuring the bet and coming up with contenders...
Thanks for your insights - as always - appreciated!
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.