Optimal Field Size?

[Kelso]

In the Circular Quay thread, DanG noted that his Kentucky Derby bets are less than his customary bets; due, primarily, to the large field. This brought several questions to mind:

1) To the more accomplished horse players here at PA ... what, if anything, is your ideal field size, from both the handicapping and wagering perspectives?

2) Does your answer vary with such considerations as class/surface/track/etc.?

3) Has your answer(s) changed over time?

3) Do you think optimal field size should be different for a less experienced 'capper/bettor? (If so, please explain.)

Thank you.

[SMOO]

Two turn races are rough on the outside horses, so I would say 12, 14 for a one turner.

[sjk]

The larger the better. Much more likely to find a value play in a good sized field. These days where most of the races are 5 and 6 horse fields make you wonder if its worth the time.

[mhrussell]

I am at a point where I won't even handicap a race without the entries showing a minimum of 9 betting interests.

Not only the 'obvious' potential value present in larger fields; but when you consider the increased frequency of scratches (and LATE scratches in particular), all too often you have races actually run with 6 or fewer betting interests... just not enough for my taste and longshot playing style.

It's getting tougher and tougher for me to find enough races to play.. of any value. It just requires more time to look over more tracks and more races to find enough 'nuggets'.

[DanG]

In the Circular Quay thread, DanG noted that his Kentucky Derby bets are less than his customary bets; due, primarily, to the large field.
In all fairness Kelso if I had a better record in the Derby, I’m sure I would have more gambling enthusiasm for it. I think I’m probably one win ahead of Beyer in our greatest race. :eek: Too bad because it’s our “squarest” betting pool of the year. War Emblem is my only notable achievement that comes to mind.

Personally I love full fields…the more the merrier.

The Derby however is completely unique in what it throws at a young animal. So many “firsts” in a horse’s life that they will never experience again. Many lose the race well before the gates open. Unfortunately I’m just not adept enough with body language to gain an edge from it.

[bobphilo]

Kelso,



With varying field sizes it’s always a trade off between a better chance of cashing when the field is small but a bigger payoff, in general, when the field is large. Personally, I like a balance with a field of 8 or so. Others may prefer other sizes depending whether they’re more interested in win % or pay-off price.



I think the worst scenarios are when there is an extreme, such as a 3 horse filed in one case or the huge 20 horse field in the Derby in the other extreme. Derby pay-offs are usually large because there is so much trouble in the race making luck too much of a factor for my liking.


Bob

[Robert Fischer]

size 12+
distance 8.5+

dirt- give me some sprinters with huge beyers and a sprinting pedigree trying to stretch out
or
turf - give me maidens(alw n1x aren't terrible), especially if a couple horses that aren't bred for the turf have low ml-odds.


Yes I love the Triple Crown , I love BC day.

With the large fields - if you agree with the public, then you pretty much have to pass (not a bad idea in most cases). You are working with lower percentages to start with and then the public dumps their money on the "known quantities".
When you have to go look at the video, look at the pedigree, consider the first-time-starter, weigh running styles etc... then you get a reward for that effort if you can be lucky enough to find these races.

[jma]

My favorite bets are Pick 3s and Pick 4s. Usually I try to concentrate on a single who isn't odds-on and then build around it. I'd say that for the race with the single, 7 to 9 horses would be the optimal field size. As part of a Pick 4, it's always good to have large fields (9+ horses) and contentious races where it's hard to narrow down the bet. You always have a chance of getting a big payoff when you include a few horses that the general public might not have been able to. So an 8-horse field with my single and big fields around it is perfect.

[Cratos]

In the Circular Quay thread, DanG noted that his Kentucky Derby bets are less than his customary bets; due, primarily, to the large field. This brought several questions to mind:

1) To the more accomplished horse players here at PA ... what, if anything, is your ideal field size, from both the handicapping and wagering perspectives?

2) Does your answer vary with such considerations as class/surface/track/etc.?

3) Has your answer(s) changed over time?

3) Do you think optimal field size should be different for a less experienced 'capper/bettor? (If so, please explain.)

Thank you.
A large field in a race typically occurs because of a large purse, a prestigious race, or many of the connections think that their horse(s) have a chance of winning a certain race. Also at some minor ovals trainers/owners are encouraged by the racing secretary to enter their horse in the exotic betting races like the daily double races or the superfecta races. Large fields yields more betting combinations in exotic races, hence a larger revenue take to the track.

However my personal preference is a large field because with more betting entities in a given race, I have a good chance of getting better odds on my choice.

[46zilzal]

Larger fields on bigger ovals continue to be fair (Belmont, Saratoga, Holly, Arlington), but are a pain at bull rings.

[shanta]

In the Circular Quay thread, DanG noted that his Kentucky Derby bets are less than his customary bets; due, primarily, to the large field. This brought several questions to mind:

1) To the more accomplished horse players here at PA ... what, if anything, is your ideal field size, from both the handicapping and wagering perspectives?

2) Does your answer vary with such considerations as class/surface/track/etc.?

3) Has your answer(s) changed over time?

3) Do you think optimal field size should be different for a less experienced 'capper/bettor? (If so, please explain.)
Thank you.

1) I don't have any ideal size and will look at any race with at least 5 betting entries

2) No

3) Yes

4) No

Richie

[classhandicapper]

The larger the field the more I like it. You will get more bad trips and won't cash as often, but in large fields there are always a lot of totally dead horses that take at least some money. That creates greater potential for finding value among the legit contenders.

I think the Derby is one of the best betting opportunities every year. If you are worried about the lower win percentage that will result etc.... you can always spread or play more than one horse to win. I can't remember the last time I wasn't chomping at the bit to bet the Derby and I'm one of the tightest players I know. There are almost always a few very overbet horses to play against.

[DJofSD]

For any grass route, I will not even look at the race unles there's a minimum of 8 separate betting interests.

[badcompany]

I like to play cold numbers, so I tend to favor smaller fields. Seven is about right.

[boomman]

I am at a point where I won't even handicap a race without the entries showing a minimum of 9 betting interests.

Not only the 'obvious' potential value present in larger fields; but when you consider the increased frequency of scratches (and LATE scratches in particular), all too often you have races actually run with 6 or fewer betting interests... just not enough for my taste and longshot playing style.

It's getting tougher and tougher for me to find enough races to play.. of any value. It just requires more time to look over more tracks and more races to find enough 'nuggets'.

Although I will look at smaller field sizes than 9 in multi-race wagers (even though I prefer every field to have 9 or more, that just isn't happening now days) I agree with Matt that I always begin the handicapping process with field sizes of 9 or more. For those of you that HATE small fields like I do, there is something we can do about it-DON'T BET 'EM!!!! When racetracks experience huge handle decreases (ALA Bay Meadows and Hollywood a couple of years ago) it at least gets the track management's attention that bettors are "mad as hell and they aren't going to take it anymore"! I realize this hasn't made much of an impact on Bay Meadows except that now when they have those tiny fields on tap they cancel the card. There have honestly been many days where I have taken one look at that track and discarded it from further consideration. Also why I'm on the subject: What the hell has happened to the field sizes at Oaklawn? Keep your dollars in your pocket there also until they get a "wake-up call"!!

Boomer