Paceless Races

[cj]

I am looking over today's 9th at Crc, and there are 6 horses running. Not one of them shows even the slightest trace of speed. I almost always pass these contests, rare as they may be, but was wondering if anyone plays these and what they look for to get an edge.

CJ

[Sekrah]

Scan the form and look to see who's posting the fastest fractions..


If I had my book here, I would handicap the race, but I left it at the OTW with a cheapass friend.

[justin]

I disagree...whoever makes the lead in a race where none are true E or E/P types probably isn't going to be around at the end. Maybe other people's results are different than mine, but my experience has been to PASS PASS PASS.

-Justin

[dav4463]

I like paceless races. I have a simple approach that guides you toward contenders. Look at each horses last 6 races, add the running positions of the 1st and 2nd calls. Then take the best 3 races, and add those six calls together, any horse scoring 24 or less can be considered a contender. Sometimes it will narrow a race to 1 or 2 horses and although I have only used this so far on 150 races or so, it has pointed me in the right direction.

Example Horse 6-6 (1st and 2nd call)
5-6
11-11
4-3
7-6
10-10

this horse would score 30 points and be a non-contender. Try it out for a while, and see if it helps. sometimes simple approaches work pretty well.

[andicap]

Is this approach only for paceless races or ALL races?

[andicap]

I get 31 points, 11 +7+ 13

[ranchwest]

Andi,

I think you overlooked the first one because of the formatting of the message.

6+6
5+6
4+3

Total is 30.

This is similar to the early speed calculations of Quirin and William Scott. Simply counting up the positions is a strong indicator of speed.

Of course, you have to hope you're not watching a race like when Wise Times won the Super Derby from 25 lengths off.

[delayjf]

CJMILKOWSKI,
When I used to play Calder when living in FL, I thought I noticed that on a very consistant basis, horses that raced there were never able to pass one another in the stretch. By your post, I assume you currently play Calder. So I was wondering if you or anybody else out there have noticed the samething??? Perhaps its just me, but whenever I watch a calder race (dirt) it seems that you could post the results after quarter pole.
Also, I'm still interested in your pace figures. I sent you an email through this bb, but not sure you got it. Anyway, you can reach me at delayjf2002@yahoo.com.
Thanks

[dav4463]

The top numbers were offset, so it is 30. It works best in paceless races, because in most races, it will only eliminate about 3 or 4 horses. Sometimes though if all but one or two horses score less than 15 points, the deep closer has to be considered. It is just one part of the method I use and over time it works best in paceless races.

[cj]

The only horse who was below 24 was the 4 horse, and he was the leader for about a half. He was a HUGE longshot and quit badly. Two favorites ran 1-2.

As for playing Crc, usually just on Monday and Tuesday. I had success with front types, but those are my specialties at all tracks. I have seen races won from all positions, so there has been some stretch passing.

CJ

[delayjf]

CJMILKOWSKI,
Again, I'm not a big Calder player, but I noticed that horses were able to make moves on the turn, but once they hit the stretch, nobody did anything. I also noticed that a lot of horses would win their races by wide margins while on paper they didn't look that much better than the competion. Just my observations though, Any other Calder players care to comment.
Saudi Arabia?? How's the heat treating you???

[freeneasy]

ok cj
let me throw this little twist into the pie, could turn out to be a monkey wrench, could turn out to be tasty little cherry. here goes.
Each of these 6 races have a field size, possibly like this:

(a) 6-6 fs of 8
(b) 5-6 fs of 10
(c) 11-11 fs of 12
(d) 4-3 fs of 6
(e) 7-6 fs of 12
(f) 10-10 fs of 12

if horse (a) in the 6-6 race was 6th and 6th in a field of 8 and horse (e) in the 7-6 race was 7th and 6th in a field of 12, AND if the closer position to the lead was determined by the inclusion of the field size, then position wise, that is percentagely speaking wise, horse (e) in the 7-6 race was closer to the lead then horse (a) in the 6-6 race.

(6th div. fs of 8= 75%) + (6th div. fs of 8=75%). 75 +75 = 150
next.
( 7th div. fs of 12=58.33%) + (6th div. fs of 12=50%). 58.33 + 50 =108.33

so with each horse being calculated in this manner the results would look like this

(a) 75 +75 = 150
(b) 50 + 60 =110
(c) 91.66 + 91.66 = 183.33
(d) 66.66 + 50 =110.66
(e) 58.33 + 50 = 108.33
( f) 83.33 + 83.33 = 166.66

and the rankings accordingly would be

(e) 108.33
(b) 110
(d) 110.66
(a) 150
( f) 166.66
and
(c) 183.33

personally it really doesnt look like things have been bent to far out of place, seems to have a lodgical order to it, has a
mathimatical sense of probability, and hey, maybe this will prove out to have a bit more accuracy cj.
gotta go

[cj]

I agree with your point free...in my programming to assign running styles, I give more credit according to field size. As an example, a horse 4th in a 12 horse field gets more credit than one 4th in a 6 horse field. I've not tried dav's method, but I'll keep it in mind the next time I see a similiar field. Seems to happen a lot in 7f races, I guess trainers with speed types are more reluctant to enter.

CJ

[ranchwest]

This is similar to a portion of Scott's PCR rating, which includes the field size.

[dav4463]

I had tried using the field size before, but since it is just one part of my method I just use the running position. I figured a horse that runs 6th in a 12 horse field probably won't contend for the lead in 6 horse field either. I'll try it both ways and see if there is that much difference. Mainly though, I just use it as a guide to see if there might be a standout horse. As far as the longshot that quit badly at Calder, I would rather have taken a chance on him than to bet the top 2 favorites. Sometimes they hold on at a price.

[Doug]

When you are dealing with 6th in a 12 horse field and 6th in say a9 horse field, probably no biggie. When dealing wht 3rd or 4th big difference in a 6 or 7 horse field than an 11 or 12 horse field.

Finish position is also interesting in this regard and also when a horse is 3rd or 4th , but only beaten a half length (about) by the 2nd place horse.

Years ago a guy named Barry Burkan sold an entire method of play aroung the beaten horse technique.

Doug

[cj]

Originally posted by dav4463
...As far as the longshot that quit badly at Calder, I would rather have taken a chance on him than to bet the top 2 favorites. Sometimes they hold on at a price.

I couldn't agree more. I passed the race this time, but I'll keep an eye out for similiar races.

CJ

[freeneasy]

yeah and it certinley cant be taken as an absolute, like dav said, some horses goto the front whatever the field size is and same with the trailers, kinda like Kona Gold this weekend, it wouldnt have mattered if he was in a 6 horse field or a 12 horse field he still would have won off the way he did. But in a situation with no front speed you might see 3 or 4 of those horses changing their styles and going closer up then normal for obvious tactical purposes. Reminds me of a little class gauge I devised, worked in a good way too.

[Tom]

Just off the top of my head, I would look closely at Turn Time of the paceless horses - something has to win and it will probably be making its move midway into the race. I would also think speed figs would be effective here-the fastest horse shold not be disadvantaged.

[karlskorner]

I guess it's something that I will never understand. It must be the challange, to say I would have rather wagered on the "longshot" than the favorite, or to say I passed the race rather than wager on the favorite. I wagered on the winning horse, for none of the reasons mentioned above, added another $64.00 to my winnings for the day and went home before the 10th race, as I had reached my goal for the day. I cannot afford to miss a winner.

Karl

[cj]

karl,

that way may work for you, but we all play differently. I do not select enough low price winners to show a profit if I bet on them. Most of my winners fall in the 7-2 to 10-1 range, so why would I bet 8-5 or 2-1 shots?

CJ

[karlskorner]

cjmilkowski;

It's 4 AM in Saudi Arabia, don't you ever sleep ?

Everybody seems to have the opinion that all I wager on is short priced horses. No so. I wager on the horse I belive will win, regardless of the price. I have had more than my share of double diget winners, the highest was $144.00. I need a certain amount of winners per day, "value" does not enter my mind, never has, never will. I enter the track with intent to play just about every race and from this have 4-6 winners per day. To repeat, I cannot afford to pass a winner.

Karl

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
karl,

that way may work for you, but we all play differently. I do not select enough low price winners to show a profit if I bet on them. Most of my winners fall in the 7-2 to 10-1 range, so why would I bet 8-5 or 2-1 shots?

CJ

I agree that everyone has to do what works for them, but I very seldom look at the board at all. In fact, I seldom even have a chance. I take the horse whether it is paying $2.40 or $8.00 or whatever. I take the low prices because they win.

[cj]

Originally posted by karlskorner
cjmilkowski;
It's 4 AM in Saudi Arabia, don't you ever sleep ?
Karl

I work 6pm to 6am, pretty nice actually, avoiding the heat for the most part!

CJ

p.s. It's 5am, we are +7 hours EDT

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by karlskorner
cjmilkowski;

It's 4 AM in Saudi Arabia, don't you ever sleep ?

Everybody seems to have the opinion that all I wager on is short priced horses. No so. I wager on the horse I belive will win, regardless of the price. I have had more than my share of double diget winners, the highest was $144.00. I need a certain amount of winners per day, "value" does not enter my mind, never has, never will. I enter the track with intent to play just about every race and from this have 4-6 winners per day. To repeat, I cannot afford to pass a winner.

Karl

Karl,

We don't have a lot in common on our handicapping, but this is one point on which we certainly agree. Missing out on a horse who is going to win barring the 1 in 1,000 fluke is ridiculous.

[dav4463]

Some handicappers are very successful in playing their top choice no matter the odds because they are very good at picking winning horses. I have play my way because I know through my own experience that simply backing my top choice does not show a profit for me. It is an individual thing. I rate each race and assign numbers 1-4 in 8-12 horse fields and 1-3 in small fields. I know that my top choice does not show a profit until it is at least 2-1 in a large field and 9-5 in a small field. My second and third choices start showing a profit only at 9-2 through 17-1 and my fourth choice occasionally hits big. The profit is shown only at 9-1 or higher odds. I just bet each horse that fits the odds that I require. If I bet more than one horse, I need slightly higher odds.
I also play exactas involving the top 4 horses and my first and second horse over the fifth and sixth rated if I get the required payout. A trifecta is playable as well, if the 1st or 2nd favorite can be eliminated from my top 3 rated picks. If one of the top 2 faves rank 4th, 5th,, or 6th, I toss it out and use the 7th rated in the trifecta. I also use the 7th rated in place of the favorite in the show spot because favorites in the 3rd spot decrease trifecta payoffs. I enjoy reading other players betting methods, this is what works for me. I know a couple of guys who only play superfectas and they make money. They don't mind the losing streaks and they have deep pockets so I guess that fits their style. Any way is a good way if it works for you.....

[dav4463]

correction: my second choice shows a profit at 9-2 to 17-1, My third and fourth choices show a profit only at 9-1 and up with the fourth choice showing a much better profit than the third for some reason.

[Derek2U]

Free ... trying to quantify all that BS is just a waste of good
arithmetic. What you got 2 do is both (a) more difficult and
(b) more intellectual. YOU must decide ------- DECIDE--------
what horses WILL NOT WIN regardless of any Point System.
I will never understand why anyone would bet a horse unless
it withstood someones scrutiny by a real brain, not some silly
arithmetic system. Yes, the ONLY way to win in horseracing is
to exercise judgment: distance/form/speed ........ FIRST, get
rid of the debris then RATE the remaining. To the degree any1
throws "the bums out" is the degree to which you can Win ....
think of it this way: You face a 10 horse field. You eliminate 5
dead woods. You now face a 5 horse field. Even if you guess,
you've improved your chances incredibly. DO NOT EVER JUST
RATE ALL HORSES: get rid of the bums first.

[dav4463]

Horses that rate lower than sixth for me are the "bums" I throw out. Sometimes the "bums" complete the trifecta so I do take a look at them. Why should I try to decide between my top three horses regardless of price when I know what odds I need to start showing a profit? I really liked (loved) Momoney Moe to win the 6th at Charlestown on 5/30, but he went off at 1.80 to 1. My second choice was Resusuitate at 3.90 to 1. My third choice was Blackhearted at 9.60 to 1, and my 4th choice was Hail Boppie at 25.50 to 1. I bet my third and fourth choice to win and collected on a 53.00 horse. Since I was betting two horses to win that were at a big price, the price on my top choice just wasn't worth a bet. That is just one example. It only takes me about 10 minutes to rate all the horses and I enjoy it so what's wrong with a little arithmetic?

[LoganDimes]

I have to agree with Barry and with the very earnest Derek that there's either there's no way to generate an acceptable ROI with mathematical systems alone or that it's very difficult and few people have managed to do so thus far. I'm as lazy as the rest of you, but I lose money if I depend on mathematical systems and the latest greatest software, and I've tried many. The mind/brain is the most powerful handicapping tool, and it's first and foremost the best tool at your disposal. Or at mine, anyway.

[ranchwest]

There's no one way to win at horse racing!

I rely VERY, VERY heavily on computer computations and it works fine for me. One of the reasons it works for me is that I wrote the programming myself and I have the computer do exactly what I want it to do after years of research and querying databases.