Narrowed down to two horses...now what?

[dav4463]

If you have a race narrowed down to only two contenders, what are the main factors in order besides odds to decide which one to bet?

I usually play longshots, but sometimes there will be a race where I am almost certain one of two horses will win. Let's say I give them both an equal 2/1 chance to win. If both of them are around 5/2 or 3/1 at a couple of minutes to post, how do you decide which one to go with?

Obviously the odds are too low to bet both.

I would like to see what factors in order of preference that others use to separate two equal horses.

[cj]

I'd pass both of them in that situation.

[njcurveball]

If you have a race narrowed down to only two contenders, what are the main factors in order besides odds to decide which one to bet?



1.) Connections ( hot jock, hot trainer)

2.) Improvement expected ( trainer switch, rider switch, 2nd time starter, 2nd off layoff, distance/surface switch)

3.) Track profile

[Charlie D]

Your estimate of probability should have already taken into account hot jock,trainer, track profile etc, etc

Bet the horse that gives you the biggest edge, dutch or pass race

[JustRalph]

too low a price.................move on.

[dav4463]

I'm no good at the low-priced overlay. If I narrow down to a couple of horses between 9/5 and 3/1....I pick the wrong one most of the time! If low-priced overlays are important to winning; then I'm in trouble! Most of my plays are on horses that are at least 6/1, but it's frustrating to see a decent $6.20 payoff knowing that you had that horse and just one other as your only contenders. If I could separate that $6.20 winner and the $5.60 winner a reasonable amount of the time, I could also play some of these races.

[Pell Mell]

If I had to play I would choose the one that had the easiest race last out.

[RichieP]

If you have a race narrowed down to only two contenders, what are the main factors in order besides odds to decide which one to bet?


Morning Dave

Before I answer may I ask:
1) Do you select ONE paceline to evaluate a horse
2) Do you look at more than one paceline to evaluate a horse
3) Is paceline evaluation (pace of race, running style etc etc) NOT part of your equation.

[zerosky]

If i'm faced with that situation the decider is the Paddock Check
Which one looks the best

[Dave Schwartz]

The important thing is that the tie breaker must be something that is not highly correllated with the handicapping. For example, if you are using a Beyer number as one of the handicapping factors, you must not use Beyer numbers to separate the final contenders.

Many of our users have moved to what I have dubbed The Monty Hall Approach, a form of Bayesian analysis, to separate their top 3 contenders. It can be very powerful.

For example, suppose that you are using a pace-based approach for your handicapping.

In sprint races you might use the top 3 ranks for best-of-last-two speed ratings to pick "Monty Contenders." Statistically, 62% of all winners will come from this group. (In route races, best-two-of-last-three is a better way to go, also producing 62% winners.)

So, effectively, you cross-reference your top picks with Monty's, preferring a situation where there is only a single horse in both lists to one where two or more horses are in the intersect group.

If your handicapping produces an ordinal output, (i.e. my #1 pick, my #2 pick, etc.) it is even easier: Just play the Monty Contender that ranks highest.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[CincyHorseplayer]

Track profile will separate the two horses more often than not.That and the way the race figures to unfold,which in turn would also change your oddsline too.This factor is so underscored and glossed over for peripheral stats it's sick.It makes splitting contender choices very easy in most cases.

[Charlie D]

I'm no good at the low-priced overlay. If I narrow down to a couple of horses between 9/5 and 3/1....I pick the wrong one most of the time!


Then avoid the situation, pass these races and wait for the opportunities that you are good at

[Charlie D]

If low-priced overlays are important to winning


Dav

Important thing is, knowing when to invest and knowing when not to, from what i've read in this situation you are unsure what to do, so DON'T invest a cent, PASS the race


It's that simple

[LottaKash]

Generally in a situation such as this, it will be a pass for me.....But, if inclined to make a bet (say in a hot win cycle), I almost always break a tie with the perceived classier of the two horses, especially if the class horse is on the rise in his form cylce and doubly good, would be if he possessed the fastest last 1/4 of his last race....Class and finishing ability will definitely break a tie for me..

best,

[dav4463]

Morning Dave

Before I answer may I ask:
1) Do you select ONE paceline to evaluate a horse
2) Do you look at more than one paceline to evaluate a horse
3) Is paceline evaluation (pace of race, running style etc etc) NOT part of your equation.


I don't use pace numbers. I do use running style.

[dav4463]

The important thing is that the tie breaker must be something that is not highly correllated with the handicapping. For example, if you are using a Beyer number as one of the handicapping factors, you must not use Beyer numbers to separate the final contenders.

Many of our users have moved to what I have dubbed The Monty Hall Approach, a form of Bayesian analysis, to separate their top 3 contenders. It can be very powerful.

For example, suppose that you are using a pace-based approach for your handicapping.

In sprint races you might use the top 3 ranks for best-of-last-two speed ratings to pick "Monty Contenders." Statistically, 62% of all winners will come from this group. (In route races, best-two-of-last-three is a better way to go, also producing 62% winners.)

So, effectively, you cross-reference your top picks with Monty's, preferring a situation where there is only a single horse in both lists to one where two or more horses are in the intersect group.

If your handicapping produces an ordinal output, (i.e. my #1 pick, my #2 pick, etc.) it is even easier: Just play the Monty Contender that ranks highest.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz


I like this! thanks!


I'll try this first...if it works....it's good, if not I'll take the other advice....PASS!

[Norm]

I generally agree that passing is the best policy. A couple of tie-breakers I have success with -

1) Has one horse raced more than 7 times in the past 6 months ? He's probably tired.

2) Has one horse, in his most recent race, just run his fastest race in the past 6 months ? He will probably run 5 lengths slower today.

While tie-breaking factors are sometimes helpful, this is really a bad betting situation. You have less than a 50/50 chance of winning. Splitting pairs seldom leads to profit.

[dav4463]

I'm leaning towards a pass if one isn't a standout to me. It doesn't happen that often since I play mostly longshots, but I still hate it when I have only two horses I'm considering and one pays a decent $6.00 or so, but I couldn't separate him from the other at roughly the same odds.

[jonnielu]

I'm no good at the low-priced overlay. If I narrow down to a couple of horses between 9/5 and 3/1....I pick the wrong one most of the time! If low-priced overlays are important to winning; then I'm in trouble! Most of my plays are on horses that are at least 6/1, but it's frustrating to see a decent $6.20 payoff knowing that you had that horse and just one other as your only contenders. If I could separate that $6.20 winner and the $5.60 winner a reasonable amount of the time, I could also play some of these races.

Cj has a good idea... and you can never go wrong passing a race. There are two sides to this skill, the other side of knowing when to pass is knowing when to hammer.

Development of one side is development of the other.

Splitting hairs for some time, can help to bring you to this mindset, try this...

Apply Costanza logic here, if you usually take the wrong one, taking the other would be right. You might be taking the one that you see as "best", and that is because of a maxed-out last. Usually the favorite.

jdl

[DanG]

1) Has one horse raced more than 7 times in the past 6 months ? He's probably tired.
I haven’t checked these specific criteria, but Norm’s line of thinking is among the most underrated current capping angles.

Sheet players have long since understood rest and while (IMO) some take the pattern recognition skill to such extremes they lose the value of simple race spacing; it remains a great separator that many don’t practice.

How did the animal arrive at this spot? It’s a mixture of positive and negative information and it takes time to recognize profitable patterns.

3rd off a layoff, over raced, under trained, too many gut wrenchers in a short span, workout spacing, projecting the connections next goal.

Hate to single out individuals, but take the PP’s of most animals trained in California by Knapp, Abrams or on the East Coast G. Weaver. These men might be the salt of the earth but they don’t have a clue about race spacing and performance cycles imo.

[ezrabrooks]

Throwing darts with the trainer of a Classic winner, to telling Barry Abrams how to place his horses.. There are a few dots to be connected.

Ez

[DanG]

Throwing darts with the trainer of a Classic winner, to telling Barry Abrams how to place his horses.. There are a few dots to be connected.

Ez
If that’s directed at me; I have no idea what you’re taking about. :confused:

Do you care to clarify what you’re saying?

[John]

I'd pass both of them in that situation.


If you have CJ's performance numbers it is easy , just take the better number .I have been using this as a tie breaker for awhile now. It usually works for me.

:) :) :)

[maxwell]

The odds in this example are far too low for most of us here. I would bet both horses if I were getting the value of my betting line. And I would certainly hedge my win plays with an exacta box. My bettting line : 8 -> 12/1

If both of my plays are sitting at 8/1 at post, I would bet an exacta box. If both horses were 10/1, it would be a no-brainer. Things start getting a little fuzzy when my plays are sitting on the fringe of my betting line, which seems to be the case far too many times. I try to protect myself by tracking the odds every five minutes or so. If my horse starts out at 7 or 8/1 and slowly drifts to 12/1 at post, I pass on the win play only. Same thing for horses heading south on the tote. I shoot for the moon on my exacta boxes. If one horse is 8/1 and the other is 30/1, fine and dandy. :)