View Full Version : I am only beginning to learn how to punt and need some advice
thisbarb
12-30-2007, 04:18 PM
I am a beginner getting into horse racing for the first time. I have been making paper bets on favorites to show and I've made a profit of something like $6.00 relative to my starting bet bank of $100.00 after 21 bets. The payout doesn't seem to be all that much, on average about $2.20 for a bet of $2.00.
I have a few questions regarding how to punt.
(1) All of the form guides have so much information and statistics. How do you know which statistics are good to use and which are not?
For example, the track conditions of a horse's previous races. How do you know if that actually affects the chances for the horse to win in the present race?
(2) Also, are there any real discrete criteria to determine what the favorites are of any particular race? I have read its the "most-backed horse" but doesn't say much about what its odds should be or the difference between its odds and the next-best horse's odds.
(3) I've read that favorites tend to win ~30-40% of all the races but their win payouts are sometimes far below even money. Is it profitable to bet win on favorites or is it better to bet on higher odds horses or maybe even outsiders?
Sorry for all of the questions. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Dan
andicap
12-30-2007, 04:57 PM
Are you from the U.K? Your jargon seems to give you away -- if so what part?
thisbarb
12-30-2007, 05:02 PM
Are you from the U.K? Your jargon seems to give you away -- if so what part?
I am actually from the US. :P
kenwoodallpromos
12-30-2007, 05:33 PM
Your questions mostly seem to center on the actual value of the runner (actual anticipated payoff of any bet type vs. your determination of the horse's actual chances of finishing where needed). If you are good at looking at the tote board or figuring how close to the Morning/Line (program odds) the horse will actually be bet, then you can see if the horse is an overlay (being overly laid off from betting, the % of the total that is being bet on that horse being smaller than your estimate of the % of the horse's chances of winning).
You should get you money back plus 10% on most bets, 5% to 10% on place and show to cover unusual events in the race.
When I bet to show I do not use track condition- only consistency (trainer 10%+ wins; horse finishing ITM last 2 races and over 50% on the PP's; no multiple gaps in races or big changes in workout schedule; no stakes or straight maidens; bet only if 1 or 2 qualifiers in a race.
I hit 90.3% in my 380 horse paper test, well over 3% profit. I also had in the same testing 63% place, and 43% wins using ther DRF western edition on various days. I did lousiest on slowest tracks.
Overlay
12-30-2007, 05:54 PM
Welcome to the board. I would suggest that you do a search for previous threads on this site on a topic such as "best handicapping books", for one or more titles that will give you a good grounding in the basics of both the sport and wagering sides of the game. Just to address the specific questions you brought up, I might recommend Winning at the Races by William Quirin as an introduction (although somewhat dated) to statistical analysis of thoroughbred performance patterns, and as a means of developing a feel for the relative validity of various statistics; the degree to which different factors influence race outcomes; and effective ways of combining factors to predict the winning chances of horses.
Betting favorites indiscriminately produces a smaller loss than randomly betting just any horse, but a loss nonetheless. The favorite has no defined odds range. It's just the horse in any given race on which the most money is wagered to win, and thus the horse with the lowest odds in that race. The odds can vary from very low (below even money, as you indicated) to moderate, depending on the number of horses in the field, and how closely matched the horses are. The more horses there are, or the more competitive the race is in terms of the quality of the entrants, the higher the odds on the favorite are likely to be.
The overall key is to be selective (as kenwoodallpromos touched on); to develop a sense for occasions when the odds on a horse (whether it's the favorite or not) are longer/higher than are justified by the horse's actual chance of winning (an overlay, as he called it); and then to try to target your wagers to such horses as much as possible.
thisbarb
12-30-2007, 06:21 PM
Betting favorites indiscriminately produces a smaller loss than randomly betting just any horse, but a loss nonetheless. The favorite has no defined odds range. It's just the horse in any given race on which the most money is wagered to win, and thus the horse with the lowest odds in that race. The odds can vary from very low (below even money, as you indicated) to moderate, depending on the number of horses in the field, and how closely matched the horses are. The more horses there are, or the more competitive the race is in terms of the quality of the entrants, the higher the odds on the favorite are likely to be.
I have actually been betting on favorites but not randomly. I have a self-imposed system that I use to choose what I bet on but I can't even be sure if the rules that I apply have any real effect on the chance for the horse to win.
I have a success rate of approximately 90% on my show bets, which doesn't seem to be all that good considering I only place my bets on races with 6-7 horses.
I will look into getting the books you were talking about.
And, about the overlay bit. Is that what most professional punters do? Is it not possible to make decent money from just show betting or place betting?
toetoe
12-30-2007, 06:46 PM
barb,
Good luck and congratulations on not having any "conventional wisdom" to unlearn. I know some great handicappers that came to the sport relatively late in life, and they soon passed me by. :ThmbUp:
Cratos
12-30-2007, 06:55 PM
I am a beginner getting into horse racing for the first time. I have been making paper bets on favorites to show and I've made a profit of something like $6.00 relative to my starting bet bank of $100.00 after 21 bets. The payout doesn't seem to be all that much, on average about $2.20 for a bet of $2.00.
I have a few questions regarding how to punt.
(1) All of the form guides have so much information and statistics. How do you know which statistics are good to use and which are not?
For example, the track conditions of a horse's previous races. How do you know if that actually affects the chances for the horse to win in the present race?
(2) Also, are there any real discrete criteria to determine what the favorites are of any particular race? I have read its the "most-backed horse" but doesn't say much about what its odds should be or the difference between its odds and the next-best horse's odds.
(3) I've read that favorites tend to win ~30-40% of all the races but their win payouts are sometimes far below even money. Is it profitable to bet win on favorites or is it better to bet on higher odds horses or maybe even outsiders?
Sorry for all of the questions. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Dan
I would suggest that you spend as much time as possible learning to read and understand the Daily Racing Form. There other providers of horseracing data and statistics, but to me the DRF is the class of the lot.
I don’t typically recommend books, but the following two are the foundation to many of the handicapping methods and theories over last 40 years.
Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing by Tom Ainslie
Picking Winners by Andrew Beyer
Overlay
12-30-2007, 07:06 PM
And, about the overlay bit. Is that what most professional punters do? Is it not possible to make decent money from just show betting or place betting?
I'm not saying that it's not possible, but, to me, win wagering is preferable because of the advance knowledge (at least approximately) of how much you would stand to receive back on a winning wager, and the progressive increase in winning percentage (even with the greater probability of cashing a bet) required to achieve a profit with place or show betting, as well as the relatively smaller size of the potential profit per unit wagered as compared to win betting.
Hajck Hillstrom
12-31-2007, 02:02 AM
Are you from the U.K? Your jargon seems to give you away -- if so what part?Don't you think he would have spelled it favourites? Andy, ol' bean, how goes the transplant?
Hajck Hillstrom
12-31-2007, 02:28 AM
Dan,
There are many data sources in which to build your analysis foundation, and I find Bloodstock Research to be the most useful. Not to disparage the Daily Racing Form, but I just find Brisnet's Ultimate Past Performances data brings more to the table.
My suggestion would be to log on to http://www.brisnet.com and check out their Race of the Day contest. You can download a copy of the selected race free of charge, and see how they fit your eye. They also have a complete tutorial on how to best utilize the data.
You sound rather mathamatically inclined, so will probably approach the sport more as a science. I view it more as an art, so I won't cross any wires, but I find a useful book to read is Kinky Handicapping (The Path to Promiscuous Profits) by Mark Cramer.
Value is the name of the game. Your decision making process has to produce contenders with value. If you play "undervalued" selections, your bankroll will disappear quickly.
There are lots of ways to approach the game, so find one that fits your eye and maybe even develop one of your own. Patience and perserverance are the key.
I could go on at length, but these concepts and tools should keep you busy.
Greyfox
12-31-2007, 09:13 AM
Betting show is not the way to go. Try win and place.
betchatoo
12-31-2007, 09:25 AM
I agree with the others on reading as much as you can to begin your journey. I would recommend Steve Davidowicz' "Betting Thoroughbreds" in addition to those already mentioned. I think that one and Beyer's "Picking Winners" provide a great introduction to the game.
Once you learn the basics you need to learn more about yourself. Why are you interested in racing? Is it a fun hobby? Are you determined to be a professional? Then you need to figure out what aspects of the game you are most interested in. Are you a "numbers" guy? Are you interested in the people connections? Are you great at noticing when a horse looks like it's jumping out of its skin? We have successful players here who are specialists at all of these. Some are comprehensive players. They study all aspects of a race and put together the most likely finish based on a great number of details. Some are strictly statistical. They put together a series of numbers and when these combine with the right odds they spring into action. Others concentrate strictly on trainers and their intent in today's race. Then there are those who watch the horses and when they see one that just exudes health, well being and an eagerness to run, they bet with both hands. You need to figure out what you like doing and what you are good at.
After this, you need to know what kind of betting style works for you. Are you a "grinder," someone who bets on short price horses, wins often and takes a small profit per race? Or are you a risk taker, someone who can stand long losing streaks knowing that when your horses hit the reward will be worth it?
Finally, when you have all this down, you need to learn discipline. How to wait and bet ONLY when you have an advantage. If you love playing the horses this can be the most difficult thing to learn. Never bet just to have action.
The most important thing is to have fun. There are many easier ways to make money. If the thought of being right in the next race doesn't excite you, this is not the right game for you.
thisbarb
12-31-2007, 09:28 AM
You all have been so thankful! Thank you very much. Keep those nuggets of wisdom coming :P
Capper Al
12-31-2007, 10:18 AM
ThisBarb,
Welcome aboard. Don't give up on what you are doing. 90% plus of handicappers don't show a profit at all. You are already ahead of the game. I'll second the Quirin book Winning at the Races to get a feel for the stats. I would also recommend Brad Free's book Handicapping 101. It's great for beginners and is a good review for seasoned players. Good luck to you.
Capper Al
thisbarb
12-31-2007, 12:08 PM
I have a question. Is the Morning Line an accurate estimate of a horse's ability? Should I incorporate ML odds into my strategy or disregard it altogether?
sally
12-31-2007, 12:17 PM
I would suggest you join in on our handicapping contests---when you have a group of people analyzing the same race it's very helpful to see how others approach the race...there are some very astute cappers on this board --I'm learning a lot (although maybe not that last race :blush: :D ).
Overlay
12-31-2007, 12:30 PM
I have a question. Is the Morning Line an accurate estimate of a horse's ability? Should I incorporate ML odds into my strategy or disregard it altogether?
This is another topic on which there have been discussions in previous threads, which can be searched. There are also several track linemakers who post regularly on the board. My own take on it is that, since each track makes its own morning line, there are no standard procedures for doing it, or for assessing its reliability, apart from doing a study of how accurate the line is at each individual track. I believe in general, though, that the morning line does not reflect the personal opinion of the linemaker, but instead represents the linemaker's attempt to estimate how the public will bet.
To me, the operative factor is not the morning line, but the actual odds established by the public. The only time I might factor the morning line into my considerations would be if the odds set by the linemaker are decidedly higher or lower than either my own line or the public's odds. In that case, I would take another look at the record of the horse(s) in question to see whether there was some factor or aspect in its record that I (or the public) might have overlooked or misjudged. Other than that, though, I consider only the toteboard odds established by the public in comparison to my own odds line.
thisbarb
12-31-2007, 12:41 PM
This is another topic on which there have been discussions in previous threads, which can be searched. There are also several track linemakers who post regularly on the board. My own take on it is that, since each track makes its own morning line, there are no standard procedures for doing it, or for assessing its reliability, apart from doing a study of how accurate the line is at each individual track. I believe in general, though, that the morning line does not reflect the personal opinion of the linemaker, but instead represents the linemaker's attempt to estimate how the public will bet.
To me, the operative factor is not the morning line, but the actual odds established by the public. The only time I might factor the morning line into my considerations would be if the odds set by the linemaker are decidedly higher or lower than either my own line or the public's odds. In that case, I would take another look at the record of the horse(s) in question to see whether there was some factor or aspect in its record that I (or the public) might have overlooked or misjudged. Other than that, though, I consider only the toteboard odds established by the public in comparison to my own odds line.
Ah thanks. I was just wondering if the ML was a professional opinion of the horse's odds. And if it was, one could compare it to the tote a couple minutes before post to see whether a horse is an under or overlay. Thanks for clearing it up.
DJofSD
12-31-2007, 12:41 PM
I have a question. Is the Morning Line an accurate estimate of a horse's ability?
Only if you think the racing secretary is a good handicapper.
In general, the morning line is what the racing secretary thinks the general public's estimation will be of winning. Not his estimation of the horses chances.
ranchwest
01-01-2008, 03:24 AM
Ah thanks. I was just wondering if the ML was a professional opinion of the horse's odds. And if it was, one could compare it to the tote a couple minutes before post to see whether a horse is an under or overlay. Thanks for clearing it up.
Knowing whether the ML and the tote odds are accurate assessments is a huge advantage.
The tote favorite wins about 33% of races. So, generally the public is good.
Every once in a while, the public is miserably dead wrong. If you can find those races, you'll have an advantage.
thisbarb
01-01-2008, 10:33 AM
Knowing whether the ML and the tote odds are accurate assessments is a huge advantage.
The tote favorite wins about 33% of races. So, generally the public is good.
Every once in a while, the public is miserably dead wrong. If you can find those races, you'll have an advantage.
Yep, that is true. My problem is creating a working strategy, starting from scratch. I don't have enough understanding to correctly handicap but there are a couple things I do to minimize my chances of loss, such as only considering races that have a small amount of horses.
I have a question. Is the Morning Line an accurate estimate of a horse's ability? Should I incorporate ML odds into my strategy or disregard it altogether?
As someone who has done the morning line on occassion at four different tracks, I will suggest that the morning line is more accurate when the racing secretary is not producing the line.
The racing secretary will minimize using 15-to-1 and higher odds in order not to insult connections. Often this is done when a horse is hustled into the race by the racing secretary. It is hard to beg a man to run his horse to increase field size and then hang a 30-to-1 label on him.
I also suggest looking twice at morning lines on Handicaps. Some line makers, especially the ones who also work in the racing office, will make the lines correspond to the weights assigned and not to the expected post time odds. Imagine the arguments that arise -- e.g. "Why am I the highweight but 7-to-2 on the morning line? Why do I as a 20-to-1 have to carry 4 more pounds than the 12-to-1?"
jonnielu
01-01-2008, 11:36 AM
I am a beginner getting into horse racing for the first time. I have been making paper bets on favorites to show and I've made a profit of something like $6.00 relative to my starting bet bank of $100.00 after 21 bets. The payout doesn't seem to be all that much, on average about $2.20 for a bet of $2.00.
I have a few questions regarding how to punt.
(1) All of the form guides have so much information and statistics. How do you know which statistics are good to use and which are not?
Assume that none of them are good to use to any large degree, because there will always be 3 - 4 horses in every race that will show up statistically as good bets to win, while only one will actually do it, most of the time.
For example, the track conditions of a horse's previous races. How do you know if that actually affects the chances for the horse to win in the present race?
You don't, but many handicapper's find it terribly handy for excuse-making. Now, never take my word for it, analyze it within the scope of your consideration of what is actually happening today.
(2) Also, are there any real discrete criteria to determine what the favorites are of any particular race? I have read its the "most-backed horse" but doesn't say much about what its odds should be or the difference between its odds and the next-best horse's odds.
No, the criteria is obvious, it is the public perception of the horse's past performances.
(3) I've read that favorites tend to win ~30-40% of all the races but their win payouts are sometimes far below even money. Is it profitable to bet win on favorites or is it better to bet on higher odds horses or maybe even outsiders?
Analyze the mythology for the actual truth that it holds. The ML favorite wins 26% of the time and the other 6 - 8% is the horse that gets overbet to be the post time favorite, when the ML favorite does not get overbet. This shows that the odds have more to do with public perceptions, and less a reflection of the horse's actual chance of winning.
Sorry for all of the questions. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Dan
As you head down this road, remember that your journey continues as long as you are learning, you will not arrive at your destination until you have learned completely. You will know that you have arrived when what you know is presented consistently at the wire at every distance and surface.
A gallon of expensive gas to get you going - 4 - 1, the average mutual payout.
jdl
thisbarb
01-01-2008, 11:49 AM
Analyze the mythology for the actual truth that it holds. The ML favorite wins 26% of the time and the other 6 - 8% is the horse that gets overbet to be the post time favorite, when the ML favorite does not get overbet. This shows that the odds have more to do with public perceptions, and less a reflection of the horse's actual chance of winning.
That's very good insight. So the ML favorite statistically wins more compared to the post-time favorite (assuming they are different)? I would have thought the opposite. Does this differ between tracks? As some people have pointed out, how one sets the Morning Line differs between tracks.
Robert Fischer
01-01-2008, 12:15 PM
Yep, that is true. My problem is creating a working strategy, starting from scratch. I don't have enough understanding to correctly handicap but there are a couple things I do to minimize my chances of loss, such as only considering races that have a small amount of horses.
There are a few things I would teach a promising beginner.
The first thing I would want them to learn is an understanding of the game itself.
3 main parts each with it's elements.
The Players (you vs. The Public)
The Rules (wager types and pools)
The Sport (racing,riding,training,owning etc..)
It seems simple but so many players do not have a grasp of the basic fundamentals of the game.
To begin I would focus on the "rules".
Less than 10% of the rules with each specific wager type is the wager structure, and the events that result in a payout or loss. The other 90% of the the "rules" with that wager type is the market itself. The market will fluctuate up until, and many times after post time. Your opinion of the various betting entries is going to be mostly static, but the market is dynamic. The dynamic market causes value to be dynamic.
Whatever wager type and pool you wish to learn, it has to be experienced in real time "in" that dynamic market. You literally must have an understanding of the rules and a "feel" for the market to play at your potential.
ranchwest
01-01-2008, 06:01 PM
Yep, that is true. My problem is creating a working strategy, starting from scratch. I don't have enough understanding to correctly handicap but there are a couple things I do to minimize my chances of loss, such as only considering races that have a small amount of horses.
Backfit.
Find the races where the post time favorite finishes out of the money and then see if you can determine why. Over time, you'll see signs of why post time favorites fail.
jonnielu
01-01-2008, 06:58 PM
That's very good insight. So the ML favorite statistically wins more compared to the post-time favorite (assuming they are different)? I would have thought the opposite. Does this differ between tracks? As some people have pointed out, how one sets the Morning Line differs between tracks.
The horse bet down to favorite will win more reliably then the ML favorite. Showing that there are consistencies that should be considered. Mostly, where does the consistency come from, or why is it consistent?
The public and the morning line, in general, are amazingly accurate, and extremely consistent. This varies little from track to track. Your undertaking is to work a little better with that consistency.
jdl
Kelso
01-01-2008, 11:06 PM
The horse bet down to favorite will win more reliably then the ML favorite.
Interesting. Could you please provide some stats in support?
Thank you.
jonnielu
01-02-2008, 07:56 AM
Interesting. Could you please provide some stats in support?
Thank you.
I believe that you are asking for data in support of the stat, this data was painstakingly collected decades ago by those having much more patience for such things then I. Check with Quirin, Quinn, and Ainsley for the good raw data.
If the stat is true and correct over the thousands of races studied way back in yesteryear, there is no need to do the study over again, here in the 21st century, if it can be shown that the effect is still valid. As long as the validity can be easily and quickly verified today, the research is done.
If a statistic is valid, true, correct, and valuable for its consistency, it will present itself in today's card for your verification.
jdl
Overlay
01-02-2008, 08:19 AM
I'm just speaking from memory (and after having glanced in Quirin's Winning at the Races) , but I don't recall seeing any hard statistics from Quirin, Quinn, Ainslie, Nunamaker, etc. with regard to the relative performance of morning-line favorites versus actual post-time favorites. All the findings I remember pertained only to post-time favorites. And, to me, even if there were such data on the performance of past morning-line favorites, it would have no value as a predictor of future results, since morning lines are dependent on different, solitary individuals from track to track (as opposed to the public as an aggregate), and each of those individuals uses varying (and possibly non-performance related) criteria (see Stu's earlier comment) to arrive at their lines, which would make it impossible to develop meaningful groupings of the data, or or to draw valid conclusions from it.
jonnielu
01-02-2008, 08:33 AM
I'm just speaking from memory (and after having glanced in Quirin's Winning at the Races) , but I don't recall seeing any hard statistics from Quirin, Quinn, Ainslie, Nunamaker, etc. with regard to the relative performance of morning-line favorites versus actual post-time favorites. All the findings I remember pertained only to post-time favorites. And, to me, even if there were such data on the performance of past morning-line favorites, it would have no value as a predictor of future results, since morning lines are dependent on different, solitary individuals from track to track (as opposed to the public as an aggregate), and each of those individuals uses varying (and possibly non-performance related) criteria (see Stu's earlier comment) to arrive at their lines, which would make it impossible to develop meaningful groupings of the data, or or to draw valid conclusions from it.
Okay, so if 3 ML favorites win today at your track, it doesn't mean anything to you.
Overlay
01-02-2008, 08:43 AM
I was speaking of the validity of grouping morning-line data from different tracks. If you're talking only one track, where you know that the same individual made the line from day to day, using the same criteria each time, and those lines had a record of past accuracy, then perhaps you could draw some valid inferences from comparing actual odds to the morning line odds. But with regard to your specific example, it's hard for me to see how a linemaker putting three winners on top on a single day's card would be either significant (since the public as a whole does that well, even though the morning line provides the public's starting point), or a sufficient basis from which to draw general conclusions. And, as I said earlier, my understanding is that the morning line commonly does not represent the linemaker's personal opinion at all, but only his projection of how the public will bet. If the public proves him wrong, it would thus seem to me that any findings of interest would be in the area of what caused the public to differ from the morning line, rather than the performance of the morning line itself.
thisbarb
01-05-2008, 02:10 PM
I have one other question:
How often do statistical trends change? i.e. could I use statistics extrapolated from data from a year ago, or two years ago, etc and still be on solid footing with my handicapping?
Capper Al
01-05-2008, 02:48 PM
I have one other question:
How often do statistical trends change? i.e. could I use statistics extrapolated from data from a year ago, or two years ago, etc and still be on solid footing with my handicapping?
Actually, this may be a bad time to go back a few years. Some of the major tracks have changed their surfaces from dirt to all weather polytrack. This has baffled the hell out of the pace boys. Better make sure your stats are from the same surface type.
DJofSD
01-05-2008, 03:51 PM
This has baffled the hell out of the pace boys.
Says who? You?
This is the same kind of statement that was made about pace just being a west coast phenomena. Balderdash.
Overlay
01-05-2008, 08:38 PM
I have one other question:
How often do statistical trends change? i.e. could I use statistics extrapolated from data from a year ago, or two years ago, etc and still be on solid footing with my handicapping?
I don't think there's a cut-and-dried answer to that. I believe that it's best to start with the latest available data on a balanced blend of fundamental factors that have retained a record of strong predictive power over an extended period of time, and then tweak the handicapping model as needed over time, based on personal record-keeping that will tell you when the performance of any particular component of it is underperforming to a degree that cannot be accounted for by random variation.
jonnielu
01-05-2008, 09:34 PM
I have one other question:
How often do statistical trends change? i.e. could I use statistics extrapolated from data from a year ago, or two years ago, etc and still be on solid footing with my handicapping?
Some statistics are unchanging, those are the important ones. The combined win percentage of the top four ML, without regard to what the actual numbers are, has been sound for decades. The favorite's win percentage is as solid as a rock. Just like the losing percentage. Your job is to figure out why.
jdl
August 2006 – November 2007
All tracks, All races
ML Favorites:
NH - 75,372
NW – 23,304 31% Roi .80
Favorites that were not MLO = 1
NH – 27,315
NW - 8,233 30% Roi 31%
Overlay
01-06-2008, 10:11 AM
I'm not disputing Tom's data, but to me it would seem that if a horse was not the morning-line favorite, its post-time odds (even if it went off as the actual betting favorite) would have been higher on average than in cases where the morning-line favorite was also the post-time favorite. Yet, although the two groups won at almost the same percentage rate, the ROI for the non-morning line favorite group was drastically lower. (Or am I somehow reading the data wrong?)
August 2006 – November 2007
All tracks, All races
ML Favorites:
NH - 75,372
NW – 23,304 31% Roi .80
Favorites that were not MLO = 1
NH – 27,315
NW - 8,233 30% Roi .81
CORRECTION....nice catch, Tim! :ThmbUp:
thisbarb
01-09-2008, 11:31 AM
Ah, that almost fooled me too.
Is anyone handicapping Aqueduct?
46zilzal
01-09-2008, 12:05 PM
Ah, that almost fooled me too.
Is anyone handicapping Aqueduct?
Everyday
46zilzal
01-09-2008, 12:08 PM
I have one other question:
How often do statistical trends change? i.e. could I use statistics extrapolated from data from a year ago, or two years ago, etc and still be on solid footing with my handicapping?
Long term, unless there is a resurfacing of the track or a really "juiced" surface (Wood Memorial K.Derby), the track only varies with the weather.
ranchwest
01-09-2008, 12:08 PM
Ah, that almost fooled me too.
Is anyone handicapping Aqueduct?
No, I use a dart board for AQU. :cool:
thisbarb
01-09-2008, 02:08 PM
No, I use a dart board for AQU. :cool:
LOL, looking at the randomness of the payouts, a dartboard would be a helluva good way to handicap that track.
I have a question, though. Sometimes the field has horses that are in gates such as "1-A" or "2-B." What does that letter suffix mean?
46zilzal
01-09-2008, 02:09 PM
LOL, looking at the randomness of the payouts, a dartboard would be a helluva good way to handicap that track.
I have a question, though. Sometimes the field has horses that are in gates such as "1-A" or "2-B." What does that letter suffix mean?
An entry? Two horses running as one betting choice.
Track is all about speed. Splitzacta again.
4th race - Aqueduct - January 09, 2008
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
1 Tellitto'em 10.60 6.00 4.80
5 Chita Tycoon 8.00 6.00
3 Hello Newman 2.80
thisbarb
01-09-2008, 02:34 PM
An entry? Two horses running as one betting choice.
Track is all about speed. Splitzacta again.
4th race - Aqueduct - January 09, 2008
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
1 Tellitto'em 10.60 6.00 4.80
5 Chita Tycoon 8.00 6.00
3 Hello Newman 2.80
Ah, okay. Thank you.
46zilzal
01-09-2008, 02:49 PM
A splitzacta is my made up word for the oft found result of the top two predicted winners running 1st and 3rd. A key to trifecta betting.
ranchwest
01-09-2008, 06:25 PM
LOL, looking at the randomness of the payouts, a dartboard would be a helluva good way to handicap that track.
I have a question, though. Sometimes the field has horses that are in gates such as "1-A" or "2-B." What does that letter suffix mean?
Those are the betting numbers, so that if you bet "1" you get "1" and "1A". If you bet "2", you "2" and "2B".
Those are NOT the post positions!! So, be careful in reading some past performances, as it can be slightly confusing as to what is a post position and what is a betting number. Also, be careful in your handicapping if you're trying to consider the post position that the horse will break from.
Coupling is real good as long as neither is scratched. If you're betting "blind" ( such as putting in bets on your lunch hour when the race goes off two hours later), I recommend not betting coupled entries unless you're willing to accept the lesser horse. If the better horse is scratched, you are stuck with the lesser horse -- no refund.
If the coupled horses run 1st and 2nd, then they take down not only the whole win pool (less takeout, of course), but also the whole place pool as well. Same is true for other combinations of 1st, 2nd and 3rd for Place and Show wagers.
For vertical bets, such as exacta, tri, super, etc., the second coupled horse is excluded. If they run 1-1A-2-3-4, then the super is 1-2-3-4.
HTH
TEJAS KIDD
01-09-2008, 07:57 PM
I always thought the 1 A was a Canadian horse.
ranchwest
01-09-2008, 11:30 PM
I always thought the 1 A was a Canadian horse.
I don't know, but the 3 entry is known as the Edward G. Robinson, "3 C"?
bobphilo
01-10-2008, 09:00 AM
A splitzacta is my made up word for the oft found result of the top two predicted winners running 1st and 3rd. A key to trifecta betting.
Ah yes, a good descriptive term, and an all too common phenomenon. Especially for those who concentrate on the Exacta over the Trifecta, though I imagine that sneaky 2nd placer can spoil a lot of Tris as well.
Bob
1st; Evaluate why you’re gambling.
Recreational or attempting to show profit. (Or, both) :)
Nothing at all wrong with understanding up front that you will pay an initial price to learn this game and most likely will turn George Washington into .83 cents in most years.
If you’re a very competitive person and wish to show profit then take advantage of your “clean slate” and learn what your competition does. The Daily Racing Form is still a great place to learn what road “not” to travel.
You do need basic fundamentals such as reading tote boards etc. but your time will be well spent in learning what’s “not” in the DRF that impacts races and what is actually driving the pools.
Example from an actual good player in the mid ‘80’s;
A 3 step winning approach by a long time winning Vegas player was all based upon what he saw as missing from the DRF.
Bias information he gathered.
At the time…pace figures.
His own trainer studies and shoe information.
That’s it…His main focus was simply…what is my competition missing?
Best of luck and I hope you use this forum to chart your growth. It will be as valuable to others as it will be to yourself. :ThmbUp:
thisbarb
01-10-2008, 01:16 PM
Thank you all. I'll ask more questions when I encounter them. :P
thisbarb
01-18-2008, 10:44 AM
New question :P
In your general opinion, how much of the total money on the tote is from people who actually handicap the races? I've heard some rather disparaging things that only about 10% of the money is from actual "players" of the game and the rest are from people who either just (1) bet randomly (2) bet based on superstition or unsubstantiated factors or (3) bet on the horse that everyone else bets on (go with the flow).
46zilzal
01-18-2008, 10:52 AM
Most people "think" they are handicapping the race with a variety of styles from throw a dart to serious analysis, but the majority don't have a clue and buy the information from the paper or tip sheets.
I often go through the crowd asking "rookie" questions, the most fundamental of which most cannot answer. One of my favorites is "Excuse me. I am new to the game and wonder if you could show me, out there on the track, exactly WHERE the horses are at this call?" (pointing to the 2nd call in the Racing Form). They stammer and never seem to know.
It is a long apprenticeship and many give up long before they "get it." Word to the wise: DON'T bet other than on paper while you are learning the basics. Play on paper as it is FAR less expensive a tuition that way.
Overlay
01-18-2008, 10:54 AM
I don't know that I've seen figures or estimates in that regard, but I would put it at higher (and I would guess much higher) than 10%, as long as "handicapping" is defined as taking some performance-related factor into account rather than betting randomly, picking numbers, or blindly playing chalk (especially these days, when it seems to me as though "regulars" comprise an increasingly larger share of the racing audience). (The percentage bet by non-handicappers might be higher if racing were like a lottery, where you could play at any of a large number of outlets that are widely available. But when you have only a limited number of tracks or betting outlets, and you have to make a special effort to get to most of them, I would say it limits participation by the type of casual fan who would not do any handicapping at all.)
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.