PDA

View Full Version : What's your favorite field size?


Imriledup
03-13-2008, 07:15 AM
If you were told that you had to pick a number of starters in a race and that was the field size you could only play for the rest of your career, what would the number be? Personally, i'd pick 8. I love 8 horse fields. The 8 horse field is what is needed in California to get superfecta wagering. I also feel that in an 8 horse field, there are enough starters where i can still get pretty big win, exa and tri payoffs and still be able to select the winner and have a shot at crushing an exotic payoff.

john del riccio
03-13-2008, 07:18 AM
If you were told that you had to pick a number of starters in a race and that was the field size you could only play for the rest of your career, what would the number be? Personally, i'd pick 8. I love 8 horse fields. The 8 horse field is what is needed in California to get superfecta wagering. I also feel that in an 8 horse field, there are enough starters where i can still get pretty big win, exa and tri payoffs and still be able to select the winner and have a shot at crushing an exotic payoff.

12 without a doubt. You are almost guarenteed to not have to accept too short of a price on the horse9s) you like.

John

DanG
03-13-2008, 07:26 AM
Has “1” been picked already?

The more the merrier!

Imriledup
03-13-2008, 07:33 AM
Has “1” been picked already?

The more the merrier!

:lol:

rokitman
03-13-2008, 08:29 AM
9 1/2

whyhorseofcourse
03-13-2008, 08:30 AM
I like 8 or less.
I enjoy betting bay meadows when they have only 5 horse races.

boomman
03-13-2008, 09:34 AM
I'll say 14..The only reason I won't say higher is because it would probably be too much handicapping work.:D As John Del Riccio said, in large fields you are virtually assured of getting the price you're looking for, not to mention the strong potential of HUGE overlays in the exotics. Short fields (especially the fiasco at Bay Meadows) IMHO has contributed greatly to the decrease in handle in recent years which directly affects our game. The University of Louisville confirmed that with a study, and I don't think there's much doubt of that anyway. Do us all a favor: DO NOT WAGER ON SHORT FIELDS

Thank you,
Boomer

njcurveball
03-13-2008, 10:03 AM
If you were told that you had to pick a number of starters in a race and that was the field size you could only play for the rest of your career, what would the number be? .

I like the 20 horse fields where you can get 5-1 or more on the favorites and Superfectas pay over $10,000 regularly!

With computer assisted handicapping the more horses, the better! :ThmbUp:

Marshall Bennett
03-13-2008, 10:41 AM
8 or 9 . Less chance of getting bumped around , taken out , ect .

jballscalls
03-13-2008, 11:51 AM
8 or 9 . Less chance of getting bumped around , taken out , ect .

i would say 9 as well. i saw some interesting numbers that showed for one of the tracks i worked at, 10 seemed to be the optimum number as far as handle was concerned. 11, or 12 led to a slight decrease in handle, while 10 was the highest followed by 9, then 11 and then 12.

GaryG
03-13-2008, 12:01 PM
I like those 12 horse fields of nickel claimers at Tampa that look inscrutable to anyone that is not familiar with the track.

Marshall Bennett
03-13-2008, 12:19 PM
I might add that from a spectator standpoint I enjoy the larger fields , strategy comes in to play more often , huge longshots more prevalent , for the most part much more interesting . From a betting perspective , I'll go with the shorter . :cool:

Murph
03-13-2008, 12:47 PM
If you were told that you had to pick a number of starters in a race and that was the field size you could only play for the rest of your career, what would the number be? Personally, i'd pick 8. I love 8 horse fields. The 8 horse field is what is needed in California to get superfecta wagering. I also feel that in an 8 horse field, there are enough starters where i can still get pretty big win, exa and tri payoffs and still be able to select the winner and have a shot at crushing an exotic payoff.For the rest of my career ... hmmm

20 Horse fields so I could practice handicapping for the Derby every race and there would be plenty of good runners to ship out from these races to horseplayers everywhere.

Norm
03-13-2008, 01:08 PM
I like 6 or 7 horse fields with three quick-elimination types. Large fields are a lot of work and the results are not better. Large fields with an AE list are instant pass races for me.

boomman
03-13-2008, 01:28 PM
i would say 9 as well. i saw some interesting numbers that showed for one of the tracks i worked at, 10 seemed to be the optimum number as far as handle was concerned. 11, or 12 led to a slight decrease in handle, while 10 was the highest followed by 9, then 11 and then 12.

balls: The overall nationwide numbers do not follow what happens at your track...The University of Louisville study showed that handle numbers went up significantly with every horse over 9 and continued to increase all the way to 14....but because of the difficulty of tracks getting HUGE fields carded, (especially with the god awful weather many of the parts of the country have been experiencing) my current optimum number and one that I can usually find several times a day for significant value wagering is 10............;)

Boomer

oddsmaven
03-13-2008, 02:18 PM
Around 8 is too small (lousy payoffs)...12 or so is too big (lotta handicapping work) 10 is just right. :)

My porridge has to be just the right temperature too :cool: .

Robert Fischer
03-13-2008, 02:57 PM
max out fields

The Bit
03-13-2008, 03:49 PM
The 6 horse fields don't work for me. Far too often you end up with a 3-5 who actually looks the part.

10 is probably a good number.

dav4463
03-13-2008, 04:26 PM
7 horses if I can toss the favorite, 8-10 horses is ideal. Anymore than that and too many things can happen.

betchatoo
03-13-2008, 10:48 PM
10 or more. That way gimmicks hit great prices with logical horses.

cnollfan
03-13-2008, 11:51 PM
The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned, but even so, I am less snobbish toward smaller fields than I used to be. I have made some good scores on seven-horse races.

Two is too small, though. That Gulfstream race Saturday really hammered home how gigantic the track take is. With no take, the odds on an evenly-matched two horse race, obviously, are even money. In sports betting, they would be 10-11 on each. In this race, one horse was 1-2 and the other 4-5. Sports betting wouldn't last ten minutes with odds like that.

Pace Cap'n
03-13-2008, 11:51 PM
I find it astounding that anyone would prefer less than twelve.

eastie
03-14-2008, 12:13 AM
I like those 12 horse fields of nickel claimers at Tampa that look inscrutable to anyone that is not familiar with the track.

my bread and butter ....

TriSuper
03-14-2008, 11:46 AM
Hi all,

Been a while since I've posted. I love large fields...the bigger the better but at least 10. I love playing Trifectas and Superfectas so even if you have a low odd favorite, often you can fins value for 2nd and 3rd.

I wanted to play GP today but the 1st 5 races have smaller fields.

TS

skate
03-14-2008, 04:38 PM
Big

banacek
03-14-2008, 05:58 PM
It may be laziness - not having to look at so many horses;) , but, many of my biggest collects have been on small fields of 7 or less. I think I compare the horses better and can visualize the race better. For some reason it has happened that way quite regularly. One of my biggest win bets of my life was in a 4 horse race - I got 4-1 and couldn't believe it.

cmoore
03-14-2008, 06:14 PM
A 12 horse field with nothing but 2 year old maidens all day long....

juanepstein
03-14-2008, 06:17 PM
a 20 horses running on the turf down under.

badcompany
03-16-2008, 11:40 AM
I think it comes down to your style of betting. I like to bet cold numbers. So, 6-7 is my ideal field. Guys who wheel and key alot probably like the bigger fields.

Semipro
03-18-2008, 12:38 AM
6 or 9

Zaf
03-18-2008, 12:42 AM
I like 10 or more ! :jump:

Z