Small Fields Get A Bad Rap.

[Vegas711]

All you hear is that small fields are bad betting races that large fields are where the money is. This may be true for players who dive into trifectas but it is my opinion that this does not carry over to Win betting. If you are looking at betting a 3-1 horse would you rather try to bet 7 horses or 11. The horse is going to pay $ 8 for both situations, your chances of winning are a lot stronger in a 8 horse field than a 12 horse field. The thing that people do not take into account is that in large fields there is a greater degree of randomnous. In a 12 horse field non contenders have a greater effect of screwing up a race than in a smaller field.

[twindouble]

All you hear is that small fields are bad betting races that large fields are where the money is. This may be true for players who dive into trifectas but it is my opinion that this does not carry over to Win betting. If you are looking at betting a 3-1 horse would you rather try to bet 7 horses or 11. The horse is going to pay $ 8 for both situations, your chances of winning are a lot stronger in a 8 horse field than a 12 horse field. The thing that people do not take into account is that in large fields there is a greater degree of randomnous. In a 12 horse field non contenders have a greater effect of screwing up a race than in a smaller field.

There's many races with small fields where you can find value as a matter of fact horses that get clean trips will upset the chalks. Those are the ones I look for. Now if your playing the gimmicks looking for big scores, I'll take a large field anyday. Or, if I'm playing the picks with a key horse or two, I'll go deep in those open large fields. Depends on how you see the races.

T.D.

[JustRalph]

All you hear is that small fields are bad betting races that large fields are where the money is. This may be true for players who dive into trifectas but it is my opinion that this does not carry over to Win betting. If you are looking at betting a 3-1 horse would you rather try to bet 7 horses or 11. The horse is going to pay $ 8 for both situations, your chances of winning are a lot stronger in a 8 horse field than a 12 horse field. The thing that people do not take into account is that in large fields there is a greater degree of randomnous. In a 12 horse field non contenders have a greater effect of screwing up a race than in a smaller field.

I agree with everything you say. But I don't bet 3-1 shots......... I draw a line at about 4-1 or so. But not very often. I am usually betting a 6-1 or better or I am sitting on my hands. I will take 6-1 in a short field any day. Except in turf racing.

[MONEY]

I know this may sound dumb. And I know that there are quite a few people out there that make a living betting on the right horses at short prices in small fields. But I won't bet a horse I like unless it's 5/1 or more. So I stick to races with 10 horses or more, because in smaller fields I usually can't get the 5/1 or higher odds. I have gotten to the point where I don't even bother looking at a race with less than 10 horses. The losing streaks suck, but the winning streaks are awesome. And as of this printing I am in the middle of a wonderful winning streak. I guess I'll do what works for me, and you can do what works for you.

[gillenr]

The only problem with that is a 3/1 in an 11 horse race is 2/1 in a 7 horse race.

[twindouble]

The average race is going produce anywhere from 3 to 5 contenders, even by consensus, unless you have good reason to bet anything else. Those wide open races are norm firsters, career MD's, or very competive 3yo's on the improve. So short fields or fewer contenders are playable unless the chalks figures win, if so there's no value in the gimmicks.


T.D.

[bobsbet]

Money:

I too place a bottom odds limit on horses I bet. (3/1). You mentioned your bottom limit is 5/1. The problem I am increasingly facing is fewer and fewer bets as time goes by!! It sounds like you don't have that problem. I wonder if you might share with me the average number of bets you find in a day or week and a general idea of the selection criteria you are using.

Thanks

[twindouble]

Money:

I too place a bottom odds limit on horses I bet. (3/1). You mentioned your bottom limit is 5/1. The problem I am increasingly facing is fewer and fewer bets as time goes by!! It sounds like you don't have that problem. I wonder if you might share with me the average number of bets you find in a day or week and a general idea of the selection criteria you are using.

Thanks

Hold on, let me run that through my computer. :lol:

[skate]

Vagas 711;
you say:
""All you hear is that small fields are bad betting races that large fields are where the money is."

i don't know about "ALL small Fields" are bad, but i wont bother with small fields.many angels and angles exist and the bigger the field the more angels or angles.
sure sure sure, no doubt, that in a 2 horse race, you stand a really good chance to pick up some money. some puzzles are easier than others and if you like to play lots of races, and you like to cash lots of tickets, then play a smaller field.

but when you use the word "dive", then you must use it for all races that you play.
and when you say "trifectas, in your opinion, do not carry over to win betting", you are trying for an excuse.
i would not , ever, look to play a 3/1 horse, in a 7 horse field and think i have some advantage to a 8, 9, 10 horse field. or else i would most likely consider either not betting or betting the 8th, 9th or 10th horse. i.e. if i thought they would interfere with my (dived into) 3/1 horse.

so, i would like to say that, my reason for playing a larger field would be precisely the fact that i do have an improved chance at winners, and this chance would come about when i "somewhat" toss the chalk "at all times".
"somewhat", because if i think the chalk will win (or for that mater, either of the first 2 or 3 chalks) i'd prefer to chuck the race.

comes down to "limination"


scates



__________________

[MONEY]

Money:

I too place a bottom odds limit on horses I bet. (3/1). You mentioned your bottom limit is 5/1. The problem I am increasingly facing is fewer and fewer bets as time goes by!! It sounds like you don't have that problem. I wonder if you might share with me the average number of bets you find in a day or week and a general idea of the selection criteria you are using.

Thanks

I too have a hard time finding races to play. But I've been fortunate to hit some big winners and big exactas the last few days. Like at Santa Anita R6 on the 19th. The winner was $95. and Ex. $721. It was the only race I hit out of 8 that I played, but the payout was more than enough to pay for my losers, and make a few hundred profit for the day.
As for my selection criteria, I'm not too picky. I stick to the major tracks. As long as there are ten or more betting interest to handicap. If a scratch occurs later I will still play a race if the scratch does not affect my picks.

[Vegas711]

A few years ago I did a small study what I found as far as exactas goes is that the payoffs had maximum benefits in 10 horse fields going to 11 or 12 horse fields you had a diminishing return. The average exacta payoff did not go up that much like it does when you go from an 8 horse field to a 10 horse field.


I quit playing all exotics 3 years ago so I don't know if this still holds true.

As far as a 2-1 horse in a 8 horse field paying 3-1 in a 12 horse field I don't know if there is any way to prove this one way or the other, who knows.I just think that the optimal field size is 8 horses when it comes to win betting.11,12,13 horse fields from what I have seen have more bad trips, more crowding at critical times, maybe more suspiciousness etc.

[bobsbet]

Twindouble:

Thanks for your comment. It is always nice to hear from someone who has NOTHING to contribute. And by the way, who asked YOU??

[Dave Schwartz]

Vegas,

We have found the same thing as you. While it is downright impossible to find $40-winners in five or six-horse fields, that is more than compensated for by a much higher hit rate.

But do not give up on exactas in those races. ere is an interesting twist on exactas:the

In short-field races, we have found that exacta prices vary significantly between races with two horses under 3/1 and races with three horses under 3/1.

The introduction of the third low-priced horse does wonders for the exacta prices!

The catch is that to make the race playable, you need to find one of the three horses that you can take a stand against.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[twindouble]

Twindouble:

Thanks for your comment. It is always nice to hear from someone who has NOTHING to contribute. And by the way, who asked YOU??

Go back and check my posts, you won't find anywhere I asked dumb ass questions or responses from members that were rude, obnoxious, or challenged the merits of anything I offered. So, what's your problem?

[twindouble]

Twindouble:

Thanks for your comment. It is always nice to hear from someone who has NOTHING to contribute. And by the way, who asked YOU??

Hold on, let me run that through my computer. :lol:

That was meant to be a joke, everyone here knows I don't use a computer for handicapping, it was just little dig meant for the the computer geeks. Not you personally.

[Murph]

Hold on, let me run that through my computer. :lol:

;) Well TD, you've done it again. I, for one, was suitably offended by your comment! That's how I KNEW it was FUNNY!! ;)
Murph

[twindouble]

;) Well TD, you've done it again. I, for one, was suitably offended by your comment! That's how I KNEW it was FUNNY!! ;)
Murph

Thanks, shooting from the hip gets me in trouble that's for sure. I'll ask PA to delete that first responce to bobsbet, the dumb ass one. :D

[Jeff P]

posted by Twindouble - Hold on, let me run that through my computer.

That was meant to be a joke, everyone here knows I don't use a computer for handicapping, it was just little dig meant for the the computer geeks. Not you personally.
What if you could run it through a computer? And what if the computer told you that your own win bets in races of a given field size were unprofitable below a certain odds cutoff? And what if the computer also told you that your own win bets in races of the same field size were profitable above a certain odds cutoff? Would that information MATTER to you? Or would you rather not know so that you could just go on making losing bets below that odds cutoff forever?

-jp

.

[MONEY]

Here's an example of why I don't like small fields. First things first. I'm not a pro. So I'm not trying to make a living on the horses.
Yesterday 4/20, I made 30, $2. win bets cost $60 in 12 races. I had only 3 winners but cashed a little more than $100. The day before 4/19, I made 20, $2. win bets cost $40. in 8 races, and had only 1 winner, but it paid $95. You can not hit at this low % and still make a profit in small fields.
I kept records of six horse fields for all tracks a few years ago. And the winning % for post time favorites was 42% with a negative ROI. I just refuse to play against those odds.

[twindouble]

posted by Twindouble -
What if you could run it through a computer? And what if the computer told you that your own win bets in races of a given field size were unprofitable below a certain odds cutoff? And what if the computer also told you that your own win bets in races of the same field size were profitable above a certain odds cutoff? Would that information MATTER to you? Or would you rather not know so that you could just go on making losing bets below that odds cutoff forever?

-jp

.

I don't know jp, for 46 years now I didn't have a problem figuring out what the value was on horses I picked. What can I say? At one time watching movement on the tote had some value but not today. When I like the horses don't matter to me what the board says if I can make a buck. To each his own, if someone needs a computer to make dicissions be it handicapping or wagering good luck to them, if they can make money all the more power to them as well.

T.D.

[twindouble]

Here's an example of why I don't like small fields. First things first. I'm not a pro. So I'm not trying to make a living on the horses.
Yesterday 4/20, I made 30, $2. win bets cost $60 in 12 races. I had only 3 winners but cashed a little more than $100. The day before 4/19, I made 20, $2. win bets cost $40. in 8 races, and had only 1 winner, but it paid $95. You can not hit at this low % and still make a profit in small fields.
I kept records of six horse fields for all tracks a few years ago. And the winning % for post time favorites was 42% with a negative ROI. I just refuse to play against those odds.

Money, we all look for value with the horses we pick goes without saying, like I said the size of the field has very little to do with your wagering strategy or your handicapping. Take a 10 horses field, you know dam well 5 don't have a shot in hell, so your dealing with a 5 horse race.:bang: You by virtue of your handicapping reduce the size of the field. That's not hard to understand. The benefit of larger fields is, you can pick up on horses that trouble ESP the ones you figured to begin with were contenders, so they didn't hit board this time but it could be one heck of a play next time if the conditions are near the same.

I scratch my head when someone says, I'll only bet a horses I like if he's 5-1 or better. :bang: In other words if the horse drops to 4-1,3-1 or 2-1 he thinks he can't make money, that's not to smart in my opinion. Those horses open up a lot wagering opportunities in today's pools. To me it's indecisive thinking, I'll take a $10, $8.00 or a $6.00 horse anyday. What do you do when your horse drops to 2-1 and your second and third choice had real good value, skip the race, of course not. I just can't get it in my head where that type of thinking is a good wagering strategy.

[MONEY]

Money, we all look for value with the horses we pick goes without saying, like I said the size of the field has very little to do with your wagering strategy or your handicapping. Take a 10 horses field, you know dam well 5 don't have a shot in hell, so your dealing with a 5 horse race.:bang: You by virtue of your handicapping reduce the size of the field. That's not hard to understand. The benefit of larger fields is, you can pick up on horses that trouble ESP the ones you figured to begin with were contenders, so they didn't hit board this time but it could be one heck of a play next time if the conditions are near the same.

I scratch my head when someone says, I'll only bet a horses I like if he's 5-1 or better. :bang: In other words if the horse drops to 4-1,3-1 or 2-1 he thinks he can't make money, that's not to smart in my opinion. Those horses open up a lot wagering opportunities in today's pools. To me it's indecisive thinking, I'll take a $10, $8.00 or a $6.00 horse anyday. What do you do when your horse drops to 2-1 and your second and third choice had real good value, skip the race, of course not. I just can't get it in my head where that type of thinking is a good wagering strategy.

Yes I skip the races where my picks fall below a certain odds. Because after looking at my records, my win % is low at high odds and at low odds. Sometimes when I skip a race my pick wins but more often then not it loses. The last two days I hit only 4 out of 50 win bets and still made a profit. The day before that I hit 4 out of forty and again made money. Like I said before. I'm not a professional, so I'm not going to play $500 to win on that 7/5 or 3/1 sure thing. I'm not trying to pay my mortgage with track money. I just do it for entertainment and to see if I could beat the races. I've tried all the things that make sense, and they haven't worked for me. But ever since I started betting the way that I do now, I'm getting entertained and making a little money at the same time.

[kenwoodallpromos]

5 fields of 5. As a Pub Cap I can brag about my wins! maybe more 4f races are needed. Maybe year-round other breeds like the N Ca fairs.

[twindouble]

Yes I skip the races where my picks fall below a certain odds. Because after looking at my records, my win % is low at high odds and at low odds. Sometimes when I skip a race my pick wins but more often then not it loses. The last two days I hit only 4 out of 50 win bets and still made a profit. The day before that I hit 4 out of forty and again made money. Like I said before. I'm not a professional, so I'm not going to play $500 to win on that 7/5 or 3/1 sure thing. I'm not trying to pay my mortgage with track money. I just do it for entertainment and to see if I could beat the races. I've tried all the things that make sense, and they haven't worked for me. But ever since I started betting the way that I do now, I'm getting entertained and making a little money at the same time.


I think that's great MONEY, nice to hear when people are enjoying the game and not killing themselves to make big bucks or going broke. Good luck to you.


T.D.

[bobsbet]

twindouble:

I was just looking for some help, which is what I thought this board was all about.

If I misunderstood your reply, I apologize.

[kenwoodallpromos]

divide the # of runners by 2 and use that # over 1.
For example= 6 horse field, 3/1; 10 horse field 5/1; 20 horse gield (like Ky Derby) 10-1.
Often that also covers up to 50% of the field.
That is the blanket rule I use except that aometimes if like 10 horses a good 6-a horse can be a nice longshot, in 12+ horse fields sometimes 8-1 can be a special longshot play.

[Koko]

The horse is going to pay $ 8 for both situations, your chances of winning are a lot stronger in a 8 horse field than a 12 horse field.

The thing that people do not take into account is that in large fields there is a greater degree of randomnous. In a 12 horse field non contenders have a greater effect of screwing up a race than in a smaller field.

Vegas711,

Others have pointed out that your $8 horse is likely to be a $12 horse in a larger field. I think it's a fallacy to argue that your results are going to be hurt by randomness and getting a bad trip. You're getting a higher price to make up for the fact that you're naturally going to cash less. If your selection has value in either case, if the randomness hurts your horse's chances equally to the extent that it hurts the other horses, then it's a non-factor.

I'd like to believe that if I believe my selection is going to run a good race, that it's less likely to be the victim of a bad trip or randomness than the other horses, thereby more than justifying the desire for more competitors for the crowd to make a bad decision on and boost my mutual payout.

An analogy is people arguing against pre-season NFL betting not giving them the ability to use current form and other indicators that are regular season related. Well, if you can read the other indicators that do work for pre-season just a bit better than the crowd, you'll benefit from good current form information and other reg. season indicators not being useable for all involved.

[twindouble]

twindouble:

I was just looking for some help, which is what I thought this board was all about.

If I misunderstood your reply, I apologize.

Excepted, same here, bad timing on my part anyway. Get used to it. :D

[Vegas711]

Here's an example of why I don't like small fields. First things first. I'm not a pro. So I'm not trying to make a living on the horses.
Yesterday 4/20, I made 30, $2. win bets cost $60 in 12 races. I had only 3 winners but cashed a little more than $100. The day before 4/19, I made 20, $2. win bets cost $40. in 8 races, and had only 1 winner, but it paid $95. You can not hit at this low % and still make a profit in small fields.
I kept records of six horse fields for all tracks a few years ago. And the winning % for post time favorites was 42% with a negative ROI. I just refuse to play against those odds.

I agree with you that what you are doing will not work.

For me if i restrict myself to betting on horses that are 2-1 but NO HIGHER than 10-1 my win % is around 36% my place % varies in the low 50%s. When I only play races where I have very strong plays my %'s go up. I will take $3.80 place bet payoffs as long as my cashing % meets my minnimum demands.
The last 2 years i was dreadfull betting horses over 15-1, a matter of fact I only hit 1 winner. Since I found that concentrating most of my bets in the 2-1 to 7-1 odds range produced my greatest profits this is the place to be. Speaking only for myself i found that my results suffered when i played races with more than 10 horses, my greatest profits for 2005 where in races where there was 7 or 8 horses in a race. My goal is to hit 65 % on place betting with payoffs between 3.80 and 4.40 one horse betting.It is all about the roi, maybe my play is borring but if i make money with it that is all that matters.

[linrom1]

Here's an example of why I don't like small fields. First things first. I'm not a pro. So I'm not trying to make a living on the horses.
Yesterday 4/20, I made 30, $2. win bets cost $60 in 12 races. I had only 3 winners but cashed a little more than $100. The day before 4/19, I made 20, $2. win bets cost $40. in 8 races, and had only 1 winner, but it paid $95. You can not hit at this low % and still make a profit in small fields.
I kept records of six horse fields for all tracks a few years ago. And the winning % for post time favorites was 42% with a negative ROI. I just refuse to play against those odds.

High takeout and small fields are equally correlated to player’s ability to win. Most of the info here is pure disinformation. Common sense tells you that won’t make a dime betting into small fields, although many would like to suck you in because horseracing is a pari-mutuel game .

[Koko]

I agree with you that what you are doing will not work.

.

Vegas711,

I don't think you read MONEY'S post clearly. He didn't say what he's doing won't work. He said that what he's doing wouldn't work in small fields. His argument was in fact the opposite, that what he's doing is working fine is spite of having a low hit rate.

[twindouble]

I agree with you that what you are doing will not work.

For me if i restrict myself to betting on horses that are 2-1 but NO HIGHER than 10-1 my win % is around 36% my place % varies in the low 50%s. When I only play races where I have very strong plays my %'s go up. I will take $3.80 place bet payoffs as long as my cashing % meets my minnimum demands.
The last 2 years i was dreadfull betting horses over 15-1, a matter of fact I only hit 1 winner. Since I found that concentrating most of my bets in the 2-1 to 7-1 odds range produced my greatest profits this is the place to be. Speaking only for myself i found that my results suffered when i played races with more than 10 horses, my greatest profits for 2005 where in races where there was 7 or 8 horses in a race. My goal is to hit 65 % on place betting with payoffs between 3.80 and 4.40 one horse betting.It is all about the roi, maybe my play is borring but if i make money with it that is all that matters.

Vegas, please tell me you didn't bet just long shots just because they were long, that don't sound like you. :bang:



I don't bet long shots, I bet horses I like to win, if they end up long good for me, if they don't I try to bet them in a way I can make a buck.

Just to be clear, when I said you shorten the field by virtue of your handicapping your are more apt to come up with better value in larger fields, another key point is playing the gimmicks when that value crops up, good scores result. Your much better off playing the gimmicks in just larger fields, most here reconize that fact. What always worked better for me in the gimmicks is route races. The reason is speed isn't the boss like it is in sprints, also the Beyer figures or others are weaker because the pace varries and loss of ground isn't necessarly a killer.

[Tom]

High takeout and small fields are equally correlated to player’s ability to win. Most of the info here is pure disinformation. Common sense tells you that won’t make a dime betting into small fields, although many would like to suck you in because horseracing is a pari-mutuel game .

How does filed size enter into betting an overlay? By being an overlay, you have already indentified a horse whose chances of winning exceed his tote odds.

[Koko]

How does filed size enter into betting an overlay? By being an overlay, you have already indentified a horse whose chances of winning exceed his tote odds.

Tom,

You're right. I think the point is that you're less likely to find substantial overlays in short fields. Let's take the extreme case to illustrate. You have all match races. How many times are you going to find the public wrong to the tune of 25% so that you have a 10% value (assuming a CA. 15% win takeout)? Not very often I'd imagine. You need large fields to more often find horses significantly mispriced, since the public has many more chances to overplay the wrong horses.

[Jeff P]

posted by Tom - How does filed size enter into betting an overlay? By being an overlay, you have already indentified a horse whose chances of winning exceed his tote odds. Statistical analysis of just about any single factor or combination of factors I can think of will almost always show a higher flat bet roi for win place and show in larger fields vs the same in smaller fields. This doesn't mean that overlays can't be found in smaller fields. They can. But all the research I've done and seen in this area says that more true overlays exist in larger fields than can be found in smaller fields and the degree of overlay is generally greater in larger fields vs smaller fields.

-jp

.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Race #6 MCl, $8k, 1 1/16 mile

Longshot race- play longest 4 runners on tote, $2 or $5 each
__________-
This was the only field of over 6 horses yesterday at GGF- my only longshot pick; winner was the 4th longest of 7 runners, paid $20.80. Mainly because the type of race and post positions, not just a "large" field! LOL!
(I also caught a exacta that paid $2.60!LOL!!).

[Vegas711]

Vegas711,

I don't think you read MONEY'S post clearly. He didn't say what he's doing won't work. He said that what he's doing wouldn't work in small fields. His argument was in fact the opposite, that what he's doing is working fine is spite of having a low hit rate.


I didn't mean to say that MONEYs is a bad player, I was agreeing with him on his post that for him it wouldn't work based upon what he said.

Sorry for the missunderstanding.

[Vegas711]

Twin.

I only played longshots who I thought had a good chance to win, I bet a lot of horses over 20-1. I don't know, maybe the public is not that far off on long priced horses, maybe there is a reason why a horse is 20-1.


Dave.

I quit playing all exotics about 3 years ago... the reason being I totally sucked at it, sometimes the best thing is recognizing your weaknesses and learning from them and then eliminating falling into the same trap again and again. Since doing this my game is soooo much better. Most horseplayers that I know refuse to change what they are doing even though they lose year after year. I swore to myself that I never ever will bet another exotic bet so far like I said its been 3 years. Exactas were an addiction to me, every race I had to play a lot of exactas.

This is how bad I was: A 10 horse field.

This is all the same race. 10 minutes to post I bet the 2,3,4 exacta box.
I handicap the race further the 6 horse looks good I go again to the teller I say give me an exacta box 6 with the 2,3,4.
8 minutes to post I see the 5 horse is going off at 12-1 again I go to the teller... give me the 5 with the 2,3,4, i go back to my seat... I look at my tickets damn I forgot the 5 /6 exacta box its 3 minutes to post i run to the teller i get this exacta. 1 minute to post i see that the 7 horse takes a late hit ... what if he beats me.... i better get some insurance i run up to the teller i box the 7 with all my other horses plus the 9 horse i cant forget this one... he may beat me.


The result I only have one exacta that if it wins I will get 2-1 for my money.... if 3 or 4 of the others come in i get 6/5 for my money... if 2 of the others come in i lose only a little ... if the remaining ones come in i lose 1/2 my money..... Like i said i sucked at exactas.