Field Size

[Cangamble]

I know there is a correlation between field size and handle, but as a handicapper, too many 12-14 horse races can be quick bankroll killers. Personally, I prefer races with 8-11 horses in it. 8 horses are OK for exactors, doubles and pick 3's, and supers and tri's are OK in 9 horse races, but I tend to want 10 or 11 horse races for those type of bets.
Just curious what the preferences of others are here.

[GaryG]

I like those full fields of maiden claimers or cheap two lifers like they have at Tampa. There are often very few real contenders. If you ever wonder about what we are breeding just look at the overflow entries in bottom of the barrel sprints.

[sjk]

Bigger fields are better.

You guys go on and on about the takeout but I would prefer higher takeout if it goes along with bigger fields.

[DanG]

Bigger fields are better.

I agree; the more the merrier.

It never ceases to amaze me that more runners aren’t 200-1 etc. There is that bell curve that humans form with over betting the high and low tote ranges. For every aberration we see that pays triple figures there are 40-1 shots day in day out that should be 4X the price.

The bigger the field; the more different cappers see the merits at both ends of the spectrum and leave more meat on the median’s bones imo.

[GaryG]

more meat on the median’s bones Dan, that is a great line....I have to remember to use it at some apropos moment.

[DeanT]

We are so conditioned to 6 horse filed sprints on dirt like PHA race 1 that we do not seem to think there is any other way to play. I have a buddy who plays UK racing. Some of the fields are 18 deep with a chalk only 7-1.

They say that if you increase field size by one horse it increases handles by 5%. That is so true, imo. If you make an odds line in a 5 horse field it usually matches closely to the board odds because there is so little noise. Make that field a twelve horse one and you might have four opinions worth taking a shot. If you add a low takeout medium like an exchange, the longshots (as Dan says) are 4X board odds, making them a juicy looking bet at times.

Big fields open so many doors and I do not know why we do not see them pushed for harder, especially in pick 4 sequences.

[DanG]

Good points Dean and thanks Gary; we are just flat out running out of competitive horses to fill these unrealistic racing schedules.

I can’t imagine being a Racing Sec in the mid-Atlantic when you write a ANW1 and Del, Mth, Bel, Pha, PID, Mnr, CT, Penn, Cnl, Pim etc are all potentially within a van ride.

A city block can only absorb so many Pizza shops before the natural order of attrition begins. We are cannibalizing ourselves from within and badly diluting the final product.

[dav4463]

On the other hand, there are quite a few six horse fields where a very hittable exacta pays $50+.

[Cangamble]

I still say that too many 12-14 horse fields are bankroll busters. It does create more chaos because of traffic jams, so if anything, a lower takeout is required. These races also kill churn.
But on the positive side of things, if you do hit an exotic in a 12-14 horse field, you might get enough to keep your bankroll alive for a week or more.

I look back at my most successful cashes, and I think they mostly occurred in races that had 8-11 horses though.

I always look at the Derby as a crap shoot.

[PrairieMeadows]

Building on this question, what other sorts of things factor into the decision to pass or play? We have done some analysis of some the determinants of handle with mixed results. I have included some to the things we have looked at below, any input is appreciated.

1. Field Size
2. Betting Interests
3. Competitiveness (variance of a particualar fields odds)
4. Day of Week
5. Time of day
6. Simulcast competition
7. Race Category
8. Distance
9. Wagering Menu
10. Open Company/Statebred
11. Stakes Day or No Stakes on that day.
12. Gender
13. Takeout (Modeled, but no empirical data)

[Donnie]

Re: Field size

Story done up in the Des Moines Register the week before PRM opened their live meet this year. Talked of tougher rules for the workers on the backstretch. This year, the documentation for backstretch workers must have been submitted before workers were allowed on the backstrech. Story goes that this "technicality" prevent some trainers from shipping into PRM because they would not have enough hired hands to care for the horses they were planning on shipping here. From memory = I believe they were given a couple weeks to get their documentation in order before it was required in the racing office (can you say INS enforcement?). My understanding is the stalls did not fill this year and we are open to see some 5-6 horse fields on a regular basis. Other trainers are starting to ship in and hopefully that will help the fields sizes. I learned that one of the barns had a cough virus going around the past week or two so an entire barn of horses are regularly being scratched out of the races, obviously something that would compound this issue.

As a side item = I met with Patrick (PrairieMeadows) on Saturday night, and he introduced me to Dan Doocy, Thoroughbred Racing Secretary and Derron Heldt, Director of Racing, both fine gentlemen who invited me to their offices to see how a day in a racing office goes, as they try to fill the races and deal with horsemen and issues that come up on a daily basis. I also found out that PRM is posting their Condition Books out on the web...they can be found here = http://www.prairiemeadows.com/racing/horsemaninfo/ along with a wealth of other information. Patrick told me he would like to make as much as possible transparent for the handicapper. He is VERY sincere in that if there is anything they can do to help the player, they are all ears. Obviously somethings may take some time to get proper approvals and all, but it doesn't hurt to ask!

[Donnie]

Looks like he beat me to the punch by 3 minutes!

[stu]

Y'all,

I remember reading a white paper circulated by Doug Reed of the RTIP team at UofA regarding pool size as a function of field size.

I can't find the paper (hazards of moving every 4 months).

The gist is that there was a linear relationship between field size and handle. There were 3 inflection points in the chart. If my memory serves me well, the slope of the graph increase at a field size of 5, 8, and 11.

So empirically, more money is bet per runner in 11+ field sizes than 8+ field sizes.

As they say on Jim Rome, I will 'effort' to find the white paper which I believe is about 5 years old.

stu

[fmolf]

i prefer nothing more than 8 or 9 horse fields after that too many races are altered by racing luck ...jockey error.....and to me that is just pure gambling ..except like the gentleman said in the lower level mdn claimers ...most of those horses will never win a race and retire to pull ice wagons and hot dog carts!

[DanG]

Building on this question, what other sorts of things factor into the decision to pass or play? We have done some analysis of some the determinants of handle with mixed results. I have included some to the things we have looked at below, any input is appreciated.

1. Field Size
2. Betting Interests
3. Competitiveness (variance of a particualar fields odds)
4. Day of Week
5. Time of day
6. Simulcast competition
7. Race Category
8. Distance
9. Wagering Menu
10. Open Company/Statebred
11. Stakes Day or No Stakes on that day.
12. Gender
13. Takeout (Modeled, but no empirical data)
Most everything you listed Prm plays into it in one degree or another.

In addition a few off the top of my head…

• Racing integrity: I.e.….Drug testing and strict enforcement of suspensions and % of Super trainers per square inch.

• On that train of thought: Since bettors have ZERO recourse when fraud is committed by drugging animals; a large portion of the fines (that should be 10X what they are btw) should be committed back to the betting pools as a token effort of good will and much needed retribution for being cheated in a financial transaction. (Not my idea btw; but I can't remember where I heard this)

• Real time information:Accurate on-line shoe board, all other equipment / med changes / strict on track workout policy for FTS and layoffs.

• A timing system that is at least within one century of today. The Gulfstreams of the world with all their cosmetic mumbo-jumbo would have made HUGE strides if they installed a state of the art; saddle cloth enclosed GPS system and posted accurate fractional times.

• Be the leader in directing your equibase chart caller in a standardized notation system. This process of writing the same thing 169 different ways depending on jurisdiction is completely unnecessary.

• To this day tracks don’t have a clue at what is being bet off-shore; or the players that were off-shore and are now out all together. (Waiting for someone to take the lead) If the state is blocking takeout reduction; you must target the serious player who is seeking a fighting chance through rebates. The “Pinnacle” model wasn’t just an aberration; they filled a void and the churn they created can be yours if you start viewing gambling in terms of decades instead of minutes.

[PrairieMeadows]

Stu-

RTIP has faculty research posted:

http://ag.arizona.edu/rtip/industry/faculty_research.html

If what you want is not available, let me know and I can get a hold of him.

[stu]

Stu-

RTIP has faculty research posted:

http://ag.arizona.edu/rtip/industry/faculty_research.html

If what you want is not available, let me know and I can get a hold of him.


Those are the white papers. The graph of the data that I remember isn't included. The data does support handle goes up with field sizes.

If others haven't read these papers, you can see the effect of a muddy track, 4th of July, early races, and filly-restrictions to name a few.

[Cangamble]

Those are the white papers. The graph of the data that I remember isn't included. The data does support handle goes up with field sizes.

If others haven't read these papers, you can see the effect of a muddy track, 4th of July, early races, and filly-restrictions to name a few.
I'm sure that handle goes up with field size, my issue is what happens after races with big fields.
Example, the Derby, 20 horses, the next day, plenty of people are tapped out.
If we had too many 12,13,14 horse races, masses would tap out faster, and churn would drop considerably.

[boomman]

Prairie/Stu: I remember the University of Louisville also did a study on field sizes correlation to handle several years ago, and simarly found that the larger the field (after 6-8 runners I believe) the more the handle, and even had it broken down to a percentage increase PER HORSE. I'm sure you could access it if you contact them...........

Boomer

[bobphilo]

I still say that too many 12-14 horse fields are bankroll busters. It does create more chaos because of traffic jams, so if anything, a lower takeout is required. These races also kill churn.
But on the positive side of things, if you do hit an exotic in a 12-14 horse field, you might get enough to keep your bankroll alive for a week or more.

I look back at my most successful cashes, and I think they mostly occurred in races that had 8-11 horses though.

I always look at the Derby as a crap shoot.

I see both sides of the argument. On one hand the larger fields bring larger prices but bring lower strike rates. Smaller fields give smaller prices but also a higher win percentage. Now these would even things out except for the fact that the lower win % you get with larger fields is not something that can be compensated with better handicapping. They are more difficult because the larger fields also cause more traffic problems and are therefore less predictable out of proportion just to the increased number of horses you have to beat – they add an increased element of chance. That’s why I personally prefer small to medium-sized fields of 6 –8.
I also prefer smallish fields because I employ comprehensive handicapping and they give me more time to devote to each horse and make it less likely that I’ll miss an important factor.

Of course these are just general rules. I make exceptions in large fields where many of the horses can safely and quickly be eliminated.

Bob

[Cangamble]

Here is another thing. Larger fields do not attract new money. It just gets some of the money that might have been devoted to smaller field races.

They don't make a difference on the bottom line. If horse racing were to have an average field size of 11 tomorrow, the amount of money lost by patrons would be the same as if the average was 7.5 collectively in the industry.

They just might be more appealing to existing bettors, but that is it.

The only way to increase the bottom line is to attract new players, and it is broken record time: Takeout needs to be reduced and/or rebates need to be higher so that winners are created. Word of mouth that the game can be beat will created new players and/or bring back players who are betting offshore.

[PrairieMeadows]

Which would you prefer (play more)?

One 12 horse field or two 6 sixes, assuming that competitively split?


Someone mentioned something about variable takeout, as a concept it seems interesting, any thoughts? For starters lets say something on the order of 1 to 2% per betting interest?

[DeanT]

Here is another thing. Larger fields do not attract new money. It just gets some of the money that might have been devoted to smaller field races.

I disagree with that part. If there were only 5 horse fields I would devote my time to Etrade, or perhaps UK racing. I downloaded a couple cards today, could barely bet a race, and I think I bet two races in total. It was boring.

[Cangamble]

Which would you prefer (play more)?

One 12 horse field or two 6 sixes, assuming that competitively split?


Someone mentioned something about variable takeout, as a concept it seems interesting, any thoughts? For starters lets say something on the order of 1 to 2% per betting interest?
Variable takeouts? That is something I'd have to really think about. Conventional wisdom tells me that the closer you have to a two horse race (eg. a football bet), the lower the takeout should be, but as stated with respect to large fields, the churn is clobbered and more players go broke faster.

Of course, players would rather see one twelve horse field. From a racing standpoint, when you take ADW betting into account, the tracks that have the bigger fields will get the higher percentage of what is bet on a particular day. But neither two 6 horse fields or one 12 horse field will create new money bet at race tracks collectively.

[Cangamble]

I disagree with that part. If there were only 5 horse fields I would devote my time to Etrade, or perhaps UK racing. I downloaded a couple cards today, could barely bet a race, and I think I bet two races in total. It was boring.
You, like me are an existing mental patient, err I mean horseplayer. The point I see you are making is that bigger fields will keep us from leaving. My point is about creating new players though.

[DeanT]

You, like me are an existing mental patient, err I mean horseplayer. The point I see you are making is that bigger fields will keep us from leaving. My point is about creating new players though.

Adding more variety does create new players. Anytime variety is added it does. Which is why companies always add new products, or change packaging for a product. It is no different in wagering. Parlay cards grow football wagering, even tho they can be a bad deal. Bigger fields attract more handle, which attracts larger pools. Larger pools attract more players.

If you ask some of the top bettos on betfair what they like better, a large field with plenty of possibles versus a short field they will always want the latter. In addition, people do not even know they like it until you offer something out. If Etrade polled mom and pops in 1999 asking if they wanted MACD and Stochastics on their screen they would have been asked "what's a stochastic?" Now it is common knowledge and has attracted many new players through offering TA to them.

[sjk]

But neither two 6 horse fields or one 12 horse field will create new money bet at race tracks collectively.


That is certainly not hopw I bet my money. Two 6 horse fields are far more likely to get a pass. A 12 horse race has a good chance of offering value somewhere down the line.

After an hour or two of passing races with short fields I am likely to find a better way to spend my afternoon.

[Robert Fischer]

Your instincts can be off if you aren't used to large fields and you have to allow for more margin for error and demand larger payouts. The same types of prices aren't going to cut it. Other than that, it is basically the same fundamentals as a smaller field but can be more rewarding.

[Cangamble]

That is certainly not hopw I bet my money. Two 6 horse fields are far more likely to get a pass. A 12 horse race has a good chance of offering value somewhere down the line.

After an hour or two of passing races with short fields I am likely to find a better way to spend my afternoon.
My point is that you will bet your money, you will find the larger fields to bet on. But all this is internal with respect to the existing horse players.
You will still bet the same amount for the year or close to it, whether national field size average is 7.5 or 8.5.
When I say new money, I am talking about money that comes from someone who doesn't play horses, who all of a sudden plays because field size jumped up.

[Cangamble]

Adding more variety does create new players. Anytime variety is added it does. Which is why companies always add new products, or change packaging for a product. It is no different in wagering. Parlay cards grow football wagering, even tho they can be a bad deal. Bigger fields attract more handle, which attracts larger pools. Larger pools attract more players.

If you ask some of the top bettos on betfair what they like better, a large field with plenty of possibles versus a short field they will always want the latter. In addition, people do not even know they like it until you offer something out. If Etrade polled mom and pops in 1999 asking if they wanted MACD and Stochastics on their screen they would have been asked "what's a stochastic?" Now it is common knowledge and has attracted many new players through offering TA to them.
Do you think that adding more superfectas or triactors on 6 horse races actually add more players, or the new high five? I don't.
I think that if they were to make a lottery bet like there is in Sweden, it would bring in new players, not necessarily more long term handicappers though.

[classhandicapper]

Typically I like large fields because there are always a few more dead horses taking too much money, but there is a potential downside besides the slightly greater randomness due to trip. For me, it's handicapping laziness. When I see a 6 horse field, I often look up every trip and bias (sometimes for multiple races), watch a couple of replays, look at field qualities, double check multiple sources for figure accuracy, check to see how horses are coming out out the races, look up any trainer stats that might be relevant etc... When I see a 12 horse field I feel like crying because I don't want to do that much work only to find out I agree with the board and can't bet. So I tend to be lazy about eliminating horses that don't look that good on paper and only dig deeply on the remainder. Unfortunately, the value is often on the horses that don't look so good at first glance.

[sjk]

My point is that you will bet your money, you will find the larger fields to bet on. But all this is internal with respect to the existing horse players.
You will still bet the same amount for the year or close to it, whether national field size average is 7.5 or 8.5.
When I say new money, I am talking about money that comes from someone who doesn't play horses, who all of a sudden plays because field size jumped up.

The amount of money I bet in a year depends on the number of hours I spend at it times the proportion of races that provide value to bet. Both of these go up with field size.

[Cangamble]

The amount of money I bet in a year depends on the number of hours I spend at it times the proportion of races that provide value to bet. Both of these go up with field size.

Again, I'm not denying this point. But my point is that you are going to bet X amount a year, regardless what the average field size is in horse racing overall. You will just pick out bigger fields to play along the way most of the time.

[rwwupl]

Small fields are poison for a horse player. They automatically become strategy races or jockey races rather than horse races.

I want the horse in any horse race and handicapping of past performance be the dominent factor to be considered.

When a race becomes a "stategy" race throw handicapping and past performance out the window

I do not want to bet on what is in the mind of a mans strategy.

Horsemen love small fields. That should tell you something. They get paid if their horse performs well or not. Grandmothers of horsemen can bet.

It is against all percentages the trouble the favorite has in a short field.

THe perception is not good.

I want full fields ,thank you.

[sjk]

Again, I'm not denying this point. But my point is that you are going to bet X amount a year, regardless what the average field size is in horse racing overall. You will just pick out bigger fields to play along the way most of the time.

I guess this is repetitive but the amount I bet during the course of the year has nothing to do with losing a certain amount as your earlier posts might imply. It has varied considerably from year to year.

[Dave Schwartz]

I guess this is repetitive but the amount I bet during the course of the year has nothing to do with losing a certain amount as your earlier posts might imply. It has varied considerably from year to year.

SJK,

Could this not be a function of slight (or not so slight) differences in your handicapping/wagering approach over the past years?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Jeff P]

I want full fields, thank you. Bingo!

Personally, I very seldom bother to look at small fields. I know from years of experience (based on record keeping and large data samples) that I'm far better off passing races with small fields and focusing my time and energy on large fields where competition runs deep.

Personally, I'd like to see a track try something as an experiment:

Take two races with small fields (horses of similar class) and combine them into one race. Reverse split every small field race and do it for an entire meet. Run just 3 cards a week if you have to - but card races with 10 or more runners only.

I guarantee you you'll get the attention of a lot of players - and if marketed right - you'll grow handle instead of keeping the status quo and watching it shrink.

I want full fields, thank you.

-jp

.

[Imriledup]

Here's 4 reasons why i prefer 8 horse fields over 12 horse fields.


1) It doesnt' take as long to handicap an 8 horse field. Time is money and a 12 horse field might take me 33% longer to handicap.

2) I bet more than 2 dollars. If you are a 2 dollar player, you need that 12 horse field so you can hit the trifecta that pays 1500 for 1 dollar. But, for me, i'd rather have a tri in an 8 horse field that pays 500 for a dollar and have it multiple times. I don't need the tri to pay 1500 for 1 dollar, i can have a tri that pays 500 for 1 dollar and have it 3 times (or 30 times). Those 4 extra horses cause you to spend much more money chasing down that illusive tri score.

3) Much less of a chance that my horse will get bothered or disqualified. Its a 'truer' race because horsepower matters more than racing luck.

4) In the shorter field, you can really make a concentrated score if the heavy favorite is a dog. In a 12 horse field, you still have 11 bodies to navigate thru.

[fmolf]

Do you think that adding more superfectas or triactors on 6 horse races actually add more players, or the new high five? I don't.
I think that if they were to make a lottery bet like there is in Sweden, it would bring in new players, not necessarily more long term handicappers though.
nothing kills my desire to play the pick 4 like small fields...too many favorites win... larger fields would definetly grow the p3 and p4 bettors...i will play pick fours with at least two large fields in them otherwise no.....small fields win bets and exactas only....the only way ti increase churn is to attract new money..without new money their is just the same qamount of old money being churned!

[DeanT]

Here's 4 reasons why i prefer 8 horse fields over 12 horse fields.


1) It doesnt' take as long to handicap an 8 horse field. Time is money and a 12 horse field might take me 33% longer to handicap.

2) I bet more than 2 dollars. If you are a 2 dollar player, you need that 12 horse field so you can hit the trifecta that pays 1500 for 1 dollar. But, for me, i'd rather have a tri in an 8 horse field that pays 500 for a dollar and have it multiple times. I don't need the tri to pay 1500 for 1 dollar, i can have a tri that pays 500 for 1 dollar and have it 3 times (or 30 times). Those 4 extra horses cause you to spend much more money chasing down that illusive tri score.

3) Much less of a chance that my horse will get bothered or disqualified. Its a 'truer' race because horsepower matters more than racing luck.

4) In the shorter field, you can really make a concentrated score if the heavy favorite is a dog. In a 12 horse field, you still have 11 bodies to navigate thru.

Have you kept track of ROI by field size IRU? In my experience anything less than 8 horses just grinds my bankroll to death. I dont think I could come close to staying afloat in short fields with the take.

Not saying that is you, but that is what happens to me. Shorter fields, takeout wins.

[PrairieMeadows]

Below is the Average $2 Winning Mutuel for each field size. TB's only from a personal database I have of Prairie Meadows Races 2005-2008. I am not entirely sure if it is a complete database, but this may shed some light on the current topic. (not sure how to get the HTML to work)
<HTML>
<TABLE BORDER="1"> <TH>EQB Racetype</TH> <TH>n</TH> <TH>4</TH> <TH>5</TH> <TH>6</TH> <TH>7</TH> <TH>8</TH> <TH>9</TH> <TH>10</TH> <TH>11</TH> <TH>12</TH> <TH>13</TH>
<TR> <TD>ALW</TD> <TD>363</TD> <TD>$4.93</TD> <TD>$6.59</TD> <TD>$9.08</TD> <TD>$10.25</TD> <TD>$11.55 </TD> <TD>$12.94 </TD> <TD>$17.23 </TD> <TD>$17.04 </TD> <TD>$30.80</TD>
<TR><TD>AOC</TD> <TD>269</TD> <TD>$3.60</TD> <TD>$9.78</TD> <TD>$8.35</TD> <TD>$10.25</TD> <TD>$12.50</TD> <TD>$10.18</TD> <TD> $19.76</TD>
<TR><TD>CLM</TD> <TD>1025</TD> <TD>$3.33</TD> <TD>$7.75</TD> <TD>$10.10</TD> <TD>$11.02</TD> <TD> $11.58</TD> <TD>$14.23</TD> <TD>$17.01</TD> <TD> $14.96</TD> <TD>$8.77</TD>
<TR><TD>MCL</TD> <TD>419</TD> <TD>$5.31</TD> <TD> $8.41</TD> <TD>$9.15</TD> <TD>$12.74</TD> <TD>$14.51</TD> <TD> $14.27</TD> <TD>$11.29</TD> <TD> $19.94 </TD>
<TR> <TD>MSW</TD> <TD>433</TD> <TD>$7.63</TD> <TD>$8.66</TD> <TD>$10.42</TD> <TD>$10.75</TD> <TD>$13.25</TD> <TD>$15.50 </TD> <TD> $12.93 </TD> <TD>$10.20 </TD>
<TR> <TD>STK</TD> <TD>153</TD> <TD>$3.80 </TD> <TD>$9.66</TD> <TD> $9.03 </TD> <TD>$10.32</TD> <TD>$14.45</TD> <TD>$10.47 <TD>$15.60 <TD>$16.04 <TD>$5.70 </TD> <TD>$48.30 </TD></TABLE></HTML>

[fmolf]

Here's 4 reasons why i prefer 8 horse fields over 12 horse fields.


1) It doesnt' take as long to handicap an 8 horse field. Time is money and a 12 horse field might take me 33% longer to handicap.

2) I bet more than 2 dollars. If you are a 2 dollar player, you need that 12 horse field so you can hit the trifecta that pays 1500 for 1 dollar. But, for me, i'd rather have a tri in an 8 horse field that pays 500 for a dollar and have it multiple times. I don't need the tri to pay 1500 for 1 dollar, i can have a tri that pays 500 for 1 dollar and have it 3 times (or 30 times). Those 4 extra horses cause you to spend much more money chasing down that illusive tri score.

3) Much less of a chance that my horse will get bothered or disqualified. Its a 'truer' race because horsepower matters more than racing luck.

4) In the shorter field, you can really make a concentrated score if the heavy favorite is a dog. In a 12 horse field, you still have 11 bodies to navigate thru.
i agree with your assessment... our only difference of opinion is i play the exacta pools in the small fields more than i will play in the tri pools...in small fields my favorite play is exacta box of the two speed horses in the race...their must only be two..does not come up too often but when it does and both horses are in form... makes a nice betting situation..then wheel a few horses in the third slot of your tri!

[PaceAdvantage]

The HTML tags are for displaying and formatting HTML CODE...it's not for actually executing html...

[HUSKER55]

run a shorter week if you have to but keep the fields between 8 and 10 entries. I think if that were to happen owners and trainers might start providing better horses and I think THAT would increase handle. Bigger purses, bigger handle and better fields.

JMHO

[BombsAway Bob]

lets dumb it down..
Owners/Trainers want 5 horse fields(before scratches)..
ANY bettor worth his/her salt wants fields of +10..
New bettors have no point of reference, so it's moot to them.. :rolleyes:

[Cangamble]

lets dumb it down..
Owners/Trainers want 5 horse fields(before scratches)..
ANY bettor worth his/her salt wants fields of +10..
New bettors have no point of reference, so it's moot to them.. :rolleyes:
I prefer 8-11 horses, but what do I know?
Any way, I just put a poll up on my blog about this:
http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2009/05/field-size.html

[BombsAway Bob]

I prefer 8-11 horses, but what do I know?
Any way, I just put a poll up on my blog about this:
http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2009/05/field-size.html
Cangamble, the problem is Waaay too many 8 horse fields become 6 horse fields after scratches..at least with 10 or more to start, you END UP with a decent field to bet on!

[Cangamble]

Cangamble, the problem is Waaay too many 8 horse fields become 6 horse fields after scratches..at least with 10 or more to start, you END UP with a decent field to bet on!
I'm talking about 8-11 starters:)

[Imriledup]

Have you kept track of ROI by field size IRU? In my experience anything less than 8 horses just grinds my bankroll to death. I dont think I could come close to staying afloat in short fields with the take.

Not saying that is you, but that is what happens to me. Shorter fields, takeout wins.

I like Tri's in short fields because i mostly play California races and the tri and exa takeout is the same, so i figure its better value to take a poke at the tri.