Gender-specific handicapping

[nobeyerspls]

When I decided to become serious about this, I realized that I needed to know more about my strengths and weaknesses so I handicapped myself. I kept detailed records of wagers by track, type of race, and wager. I still don't know why some tracks are more difficult than others and I never will because I have eliminated those that consistently produced a loss. The most striking stat was gender-based; I did better in filly/mare races than I did with the boys. That has held true over the years as my three largest scores this year were in filly races.
There are three specific gender-based angles that work for me:
1. Fillies can run fresh but colts usually need a race.
2. Long to short seems to help the boys but not the girls.
3. Turf to dirt works with fillies and mares but not with colts and geldings. (When it appears to work with the boys, it is often just long to short).

Have any of you found other gender-based angles? Or, do you handicap or wager differently based on gender? Let me know.

[Grits]

Bottomline. How large is your sampling? Races, years, months, etc, etc.

And, I certainly don't believe only three large scores to be a large enough indicator for the results you've found to be exact or near probable.

Good racing luck rears its head often. And plays a part in our handicapping.

I hear all the time, individuals that state their strengths, dirt, turf, maidens, etc. I haven't known anyone to tell me--they are better with fillies and mares, than with colts. Gender based.

This is new, but it is not to say that your strengths are not your own, I understand that they are, indeed.

[1st time lasix]

based on your other posts and your handle.....maybe because fillies are not as reliable with their speed figures and you have stated that you don't use them? :confused: Just guessing! Good luck.

[northerndancer]

When I look to buy or claim horses I am always on the look for a filly or mare vs a colt or gelding........ why....... because the level of competition is easier for the girls.

If you have a filly or mare that has ability you will be able to spot her more correctly than a colt or gelding. The boys are just a much more competitive group.

I have found this to be present at all tracks that I have raced and or wagered.

Fillies and mares tend to have much shorter racing careers as well. You do not see a plethora of girls running at age 7 and beyond. This will also reduce the number of horses available to fill the F&M class of races at the tracks.

If you can have a 2yo filly that runs long when she is a 3yo than you have struck the gold mine.

[DeanT]

I would dig depper into this if I were you NBS. I currently am.

I have heard from many a trainer (those in the know please share your thoughts) that have said that fillies are simply different beasts than colts. Their tendancies are simply different.

I have a couple of goofy theories but I will see how they play out. It is an interesting question to me.

[nobeyerspls]

Bottomline. How large is your sampling? Races, years, months, etc, etc.

And, I certainly don't believe only three large scores to be a large enough indicator for the results you've found to be exact or near probable.

Good racing luck rears its head often. And plays a part in our handicapping.

I hear all the time, individuals that state their strengths, dirt, turf, maidens, etc. I haven't known anyone to tell me--they are better with fillies and mares, than with colts. Gender based.

This is new, but it is not to say that your strengths are not your own, I understand that they are, indeed.

The detailed record keeping was for just one year but the angles discussed have been in play for twenty years. I am better with both maidens and turf and especially maidens on the turf. Within that though is the gender thing. Those three big scores this year were two maiden filly races and an allowance race on the grass for fillies and mares.
If I had to bet older males sprinting in open company, I couldn't afford a bus ticket to the poorhouse.

[nobeyerspls]

based on your other posts and your handle.....maybe because fillies are not as reliable with their speed figures and you have stated that you don't use them? :confused: Just guessing! Good luck.

You're probably right. I don't even see that column in the form.
Freshened fillies often come off a bad series of races so their recent figures would be low. When I caught one at a large price a buddy of mine told me she was coming off two zero beyer races. I told him that she was clearly the most consistent.

[jotb]

When I look to buy or claim horses I am always on the look for a filly or mare vs a colt or gelding........ why....... because the level of competition is easier for the girls. Absolutely right.

If you have a filly or mare that has ability you will be able to spot her more correctly than a colt or gelding. The boys are just a much more competitive group. Absolutely right again.

I have found this to be present at all tracks that I have raced and or wagered. I believe that.

Fillies and mares tend to have much shorter racing careers as well. You do not see a plethora of girls running at age 7 and beyond. This will also reduce the number of horses available to fill the F&M class of races at the tracks. Very true.

If you can have a 2yo filly that runs long when she is a 3yo than you have struck the gold mine.This I was not aware of.

How many fillies and mares do you presently have and what part of the country are you at? Do you have multiple trainers or stick with one trainer and do you believe that some trainers do much better with fillies over colts? If you can please pm me with your trainers names.

Thank you in advance,
Joe

[Kelso]

[QUOTE=nobeyerspls]
I am better with both maidens and turf and especially maidens on the turf.
/QUOTE]

NBP,
Do you play races with first-timers? Any rules you've developed there?

Thank you.

[northerndancer]

Joe,
I currently have 14 Fillies or Mares. I race in both Canada and the US. I stick mainly to slot revenue tracks (Delaware, Woodbine, Charles Town, Mountaineer, Philadelphia Park) but I do end up running horses in non sot revenue tracks (Laurel, Pimlico, Keenland, Churchill Downs, Turfway) if those tracks provide quality claiming opportunities.

I have multiple trainers. I do not use the super trainers.

You can email me and I will provide the trainers names via email not on the board.
ND

[FUGITIVE77]

When I decided to become serious about this, I realized that I needed to know more about my strengths and weaknesses so I handicapped myself. I kept detailed records of wagers by track, type of race, and wager. I still don't know why some tracks are more difficult than others and I never will because I have eliminated those that consistently produced a loss. The most striking stat was gender-based; I did better in filly/mare races than I did with the boys. That has held true over the years as my three largest scores this year were in filly races.
There are three specific gender-based angles that work for me:
1. Fillies can run fresh but colts usually need a race.
2. Long to short seems to help the boys but not the girls.
3. Turf to dirt works with fillies and mares but not with colts and geldings. (When it appears to work with the boys, it is often just long to short).

Have any of you found other gender-based angles? Or, do you handicap or wager differently based on gender? Let me know.

STATEBRED FILLIES ARE MY BREAD AND BUTTER. Learned this tough game from some of Chicago's finest: Jimmy Bats, Bud Choate and Creamy McCain.

[nobeyerspls]

[QUOTE=nobeyerspls]
I am better with both maidens and turf and especially maidens on the turf.
/QUOTE]

NBP,
Do you play races with first-timers? Any rules you've developed there?

Thank you.

Many of the races I play have first timers so they have to be dealt with. I discount firsters in races at seven furlongs or longer. Those that draw the one post are also discounted. The next step is evaluating workouts and trainer stats. Jockeys are seldom a part of my handicapping in any race.
Breeding comes into play with the issues of precocity and surface. For two year olds, if the dam won early or produced others that did, that's a positive. If a firster is entered in a dirt sprint and the track comes up sloppy, I look to see if there's any turf breeding on the dam's side. If so, the horse is a toss.

The lower the claiming price, the more likely I am to toss a first time starter no matter how well they're working. If someone has $40,000 into a horse with acquisition price and training costs and starts him/her in a $7,500 maiden race, what are they telling you?

Lastly, I seldom bet firsters going two turns on the turf. I made an exception on Saturday and posted it in the Selections area. It wired the field but was declared "purse money only" when the other half of the entry was scratched at the gate. Getting a refund on a winner was a first for me. You would think I'd be angry over it but, at my age, a first time event of any kind is most welcome. It tells me that I haven't seen it all yet.

[nobeyerspls]

STATEBRED FILLIES ARE MY BREAD AND BUTTER. Learned this tough game from some of Chicago's finest: Jimmy Bats, Bud Choate and Creamy McCain.

I'm assuming that you are talking about Illinois breds. Are there more races for them at Hawthorne than at Arlington? I am lousy at Arlington but do well at Hawthorne.

[Kelso]

Those that draw the one post are also discounted.


Thanks, NBP. Lots of new/good stuff for me in your reply.

Is the one post a matter of new runners being intimidated by the rail, or not being to handle a tighter turn ... or something else? Does it make any difference to you if the track actually leaves the one hole vacant, when possible, and the #1 PP is actually the #2 gate?

Thank you, again.

[Robert Fischer]

For the most part I pass on fillies and mares.

Once in a while I get an offer I can't refuse and play. Baroness Thatcher in the Black Eyed Susan(preakness day) was a clear bet-against due to distance and pedigree. Or for example I am looking up, and I happen to see a filly named Red Birken breaking her maiden (gulfstream?), and physically she was impressive enough to write her name down and make some money in her future races.

Also with fillies & mares, I am most likely to take interest in a classy turf race, and have little interest in their dirt races. With the males dirt is my main love, with turf a close second.

[nobeyerspls]

Thanks, NBP. Lots of new/good stuff for me in your reply.

Is the one post a matter of new runners being intimidated by the rail, or not being to handle a tighter turn ... or something else? Does it make any difference to you if the track actually leaves the one hole vacant, when possible, and the #1 PP is actually the #2 gate?

Thank you, again.

That post is a tough draw for all runners in a sprint. A horse with controlling speed is OK with it but others have to take back and find a way off the rail.
I don't think that leaving the one hole blank helps as some tracks position the gate well off the rail and that does not make a difference.
You need to be flexible with these self imposed rules. For example, a filly named Indian Blessing breaks from the one post in Saratoga's 6th race. She's a first time starter for Bob Baffert and is working so well that it's hard to leave her off your ticket.