Do you wager by track or by principle (angle)??

[markgoldie]

It might be interesting to hear from some of the accomplished players as to their approach to wagering opportunity.

Do you stick to a certain track or tracks for most if not all of your wagering. Or do you play a variety of tracks, playing your preferred angles wherever and whenever they crop up? Why??

I realize that the latter is more difficult to accomplish logistically because it involves looking at many, many more races.

[Overlay]

I concentrate on factors that have the widest range of applicability and consistency across the racing spectrum, and view them in terms of probabilities and wagering value. It's certainly a valid approach to specialize in the distinctive characteristics and patterns of specific tracks, but I find that a volume approach gives me more opportunities to exploit instances where horses' winning probabilities have been misjudged, and to locate bets with a positive expectation.

[fmolf]

It might be interesting to hear from some of the accomplished players as to their approach to wagering opportunity.

Do you stick to a certain track or tracks for most if not all of your wagering. Or do you play a variety of tracks, playing your preferred angles wherever and whenever they crop up? Why??

I realize that the latter is more difficult to accomplish logistically because it involves looking at many, many more races.
i prefer to learn all i can about the horses and trainers at two tracks and concentrate on them using my favorite angles....the ones that work for me...now it is belmont and monmouth....saratoga to follow.... somedays i do not have much action but this is how i stay afloat.... i do not play full time and am a recreational/serious handicapper...i am 51 now when i retire in ten years i hope to play full time

[raybo]

I concentrate all my efforts at 2nd / 3rd tier tracks, predominantly in the mid-south. I feel there is a certain degree of unsophistication, regarding the wagering public, at these tracks that is not found, to the same degree, at better tracks or tracks in other parts of the country.

As a strict superfecta player, I want the whole pool, if I can get it, not just a piece so I concentrate on those races where I perceive a fair amount of wagering "mistakes" by the public. When the public makes mistakes, especially in the superfecta pool, large payoffs are often the result. I am not so much concerned with pool sizes as I am in how much of the pool I can get.

As I've stated in several other threads, I only need to hit 8% of my supers to make a very nice profit, long term. The large payoffs are what I wait for, the smaller ones just keep me in the game.

[Dave Schwartz]

I play non-maiden dirt races, werever they may be.

I do fine in maidens but need the breaks between races, so I have opted to skip maidens and turf.

My approach is to make a line and bet into it, playing multiple horses in a dutch to a minimum odds rreturn.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[dvlander]

I play my spot plays at whatever track they may pop up at.

I know some folks key on particular tracks and I have done some research with trying that. However, for me when I do, it seems like I'm always chasing a bias, a particular track angle, or a hot trainer or jockey and as soon as I think I'm honed in, everything turns 180 degrees.

I just stick with my spot plays that historically show a positive ROI. Clearly, there is no guarantee that past results ensure future performance but if I have 10,000 plays in the hopper with a significant positive margin, I'm willing to do or die with that angle at whatever track it pops up on.

By the way, Mr. Goldie, I think you've been a great addition to the board. You've already made me re-think a couple of things.

Good question - Dale

[ryesteve]

do you play a variety of tracks, playing your preferred angles wherever and whenever they crop up? Why??
Yes, because I want my eggs in as many baskets as possible.

[kenwoodallpromos]

My angles, dirt and fake dirt: Short odds in short races with short distance (hopefully with short harrowing). Multiple long odds in long races with long list of entries (at tracks hopefully long on rain). Favor 1st, 2nd, or 3rd favorite on turf.

[Imriledup]

It might be interesting to hear from some of the accomplished players as to their approach to wagering opportunity.

Do you stick to a certain track or tracks for most if not all of your wagering. Or do you play a variety of tracks, playing your preferred angles wherever and whenever they crop up? Why??

I realize that the latter is more difficult to accomplish logistically because it involves looking at many, many more races.

I stick to one or two tracks. I do many hours of intense work on one circuit to gain the biggest edge i can gain at that one place. I'll glance over these other places for 'spot plays' but, for the most part, i'm grinding into one track.

[LottaKash]

I use only a handful of Angles/Spots, in my search for winners, and I have found 2 or 3 tracks, where the crowd will hand out some really nice "Bargains" on my Spots... On a daily-basis I will generally go to those venues first...

But, my Spots are good anywhere.....

At some tracks the "bargains" will be, "the sky is the limit", yet at others 3/1 to 5/1 will be the normal bargain. (I suppose, at the latter tracks, there are more and better informed barns/bettors that use and understand my little secrets)

best,

[LottaKash]

I realize that the latter is more difficult to accomplish logistically because it involves looking at many, many more races.

That's it Mark...Since there is no way that I know of, to automate this (my)process, this task becomes a labor of love, and at my age more of a "chore" at that....

Some days I have such a hard time getting up for the game, even tho I know that, a well focused intent, is it's own reward....I just get so burned out on some days....

I wish, when I was a younger player, I knew what I know now....With all that energy and passion, there is no telling what would or could have been...haha...(no regrets tho, lots of tears, cheers and beers)

Still, when rested, I eagerly look forward to discovering what little hidden goodie that just may be lying on the next page, :jump: ...That is the lure that keeps me hooked....

P.S. Mark, I always enjoy reading your take on things....

best,

[redeye007]

I test my ideas at different tracks and focus my plays on the track producing the best results. I seem to do best at major tracks although I have had moderate success at the smaller tracks. the major tracks attract better quality animals since they offer large purses and that's what the horsemen are after. the cheaper animals don't appear to hold good form for very long and form reversal seems to be quite common at the bullring tracks. :)

[sjk]

I don't play turf or races where 1/3 or more of the starters are first timers and/or coming off layoffs of more than 120 days.

Never have played tracks from the west coast due to different schedules. I have not found it possible to bet the really small tracks due to the amount of money coming into the pools and changing the odds after bets need to be down.

On a weekend afternoon that might leave around ten tracks to play which is about the limit of what I care to deal with these days.

[markgoldie]

Some very interesting replies. Clearly, both approaches are legitimate, but the large number of you who play by principle or angle shows that there has been a major change in the game. For example, it's been about 6 or 7 years now since I stopped going to simulcast parlors and play exclusively from home, watching the races on the computer (Youbet and Bet America).

At the parlors, the overwhelming majority of players played certain tracks and I have a suspicion that those who still go to the parlors are doing the same. In fact, I can't remember running across anyone at the parlors who would play by angle at any venue where the angle showed up. One of the big problems was that you bought a Racing Form that carried four or five tracks. Sometimes a different edition was available, but that only gave you another track or two. But with the explosion of information, play-by-angle is now a very viable way to approach the game.

Personally, I'll play anywhere I can find reasonably-sized superfecta pools. I have long believed that the quality of your betting opposition is crucial to success. Of the responses here, I operate very close to what raybo has detailed. I download tons of Bris race summaries, avoiding maidens, turf, and short fields. If the layout of a race looks promising, I'll download the pp lines. One thing I've learned about playing "B" tracks is to respect the odds' board, probably not because there is a greater amount of inside info at these tracks, but because in the smaller pools they have more trouble hiding it.

Good luck. Mark

[thruncy]

NO tracks owned by CDI---EVER

[46zilzal]

Just about any angle that produces winners requires selectivity.Once I started cherry picking tracks, the ROI went way up.You have to wait for the right conditions.

[fmolf]

Just about any angle that produces winners requires selectivity.Once I started cherry picking tracks, the ROI went way up.You have to wait for the right conditions.
i play two tracks at the most.generally i can find 5 or 6 bettable races from these 2 tracks,otherwise tomorrow is another day....i find if i look at too many races then i am prone to overlooking things...so i prefer to look at less races more thoroughly..plus their are plays that come from familiarity that sometimes offer a betting edge....good luck to all no matter which method you use!

[cmoore]

I concentrate on maiden races 80% of the time..All tracks..

[fmolf]

I concentrate on maiden races 80% of the time..All tracks..
i do well in maiden races and am thinking of changing my tack.....i do not play every day and am only a serious recreational player.i still look at the races everyday and look at who and what is winning at my two tracks....would a style like yours be conducive to someone who only plays once or twice a week?

[cmoore]

i do well in maiden races and am thinking of changing my tack.....i do not play every day and am only a serious recreational player.i still look at the races everyday and look at who and what is winning at my two tracks....would a style like yours be conducive to someone who only plays once or twice a week?

I don't see why not..Keep looking over the results and become knowledgeable of the sires..You will have to cover more tracks. I don't pay too much attention to biases..The ultimate pp summaries give me enough info on which post or run styles are winning..As we both know..Early speed dominates young maiden races..

[raybo]

Some very interesting replies. Clearly, both approaches are legitimate, but the large number of you who play by principle or angle shows that there has been a major change in the game. For example, it's been about 6 or 7 years now since I stopped going to simulcast parlors and play exclusively from home, watching the races on the computer (Youbet and Bet America).

At the parlors, the overwhelming majority of players played certain tracks and I have a suspicion that those who still go to the parlors are doing the same. In fact, I can't remember running across anyone at the parlors who would play by angle at any venue where the angle showed up. One of the big problems was that you bought a Racing Form that carried four or five tracks. Sometimes a different edition was available, but that only gave you another track or two. But with the explosion of information, play-by-angle is now a very viable way to approach the game.

Personally, I'll play anywhere I can find reasonably-sized superfecta pools. I have long believed that the quality of your betting opposition is crucial to success. Of the responses here, I operate very close to what raybo has detailed. I download tons of Bris race summaries, avoiding maidens, turf, and short fields. If the layout of a race looks promising, I'll download the pp lines. One thing I've learned about playing "B" tracks is to respect the odds' board, probably not because there is a greater amount of inside info at these tracks, but because in the smaller pools they have more trouble hiding it.

Good luck. Mark

I went to my local track for a while, before jumping off into online wagering. Having designed my own handicapping spreadsheet I would look at several tracks' entries, looking for promising superfecta races, as you do apparently. Then I would download the PPs from Brisnet that I needed for the races I intended to handicap. I'd print out my own PPs from my spreadsheet, sometimes the stack of PPs was more the size of an encyclopedia than PPs, but anyway, I'd handicap all the races I planned on playing before going to the track. Then I'd simply wait for the races to come up. When I started wagering online I'd do the same thing but wouldn't have to print them out, I'd just save my handicapped races in another workbook, then as the wagering for a particular race would start, I'd reimport that racecard into my handicapping spreadsheet, make any changes there, if there were any from the saved workbook, and click the "rehandicap" macro button and either play or pass.

Now I seldom play more than 2 tracks per day, 3-4 days per week so I've simplified the whole process tremendously, and relieved alot of stress in so doing. I'm very disciplined in the races I play, looking for value opportunties that will offer large payouts should I hit. Some days I have no plays, some days I have 2 or 3 or more.

I play no maidens or turf or routes over 1 1/16m.

[fmolf]

I don't see why not..Keep looking over the results and become knowledgeable of the sires..You will have to cover more tracks. I don't pay too much attention to biases..The ultimate pp summaries give me enough info on which post or run styles are winning..As we both know..Early speed dominates young maiden races..
i also use bris ultimate and have been keeping afloat....would you recommend better sire info? such as the sire stats book from bris/bloodhorse?I have never paid any attention to sires!

[Dave Schwartz]

i play two tracks at the most.generally i can find 5 or 6 bettable races from these 2 tracks,otherwise tomorrow is another day....i find if i look at too many races then i am prone to overlooking things...so i prefer to look at less races more thoroughly..plus their are plays that come from familiarity that sometimes offer a betting edge....good luck to all no matter which method you use!

Different strokes for different folks, as they say.

Today I handicapped 34 races at 5 different tracks. That constituted every race at every track that was available until I quit after the last race at Belmont. I played every one of those races, making a total of 87 bets between the 34 races.

It was a profitable day.


Rare is the race I pass.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[fmolf]

Different strokes for different folks, as they say.

Today I handicapped 34 races at 5 different tracks. That constituted every race at every track that was available until I quit after the last race at Belmont. I played every one of those races, making a total of 87 bets between the 34 races.

It was a profitable day.


Rare is the race I pass.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz
that is quite impressive...how long do you spend on each race...it usually takes me about 20 to 30 minutes to handicap a race to my satisfaction.

[Dave Schwartz]

Handicapping? Between 8 and 30 seconds.

[Dave Schwartz]

I should point out that this is new for me... Until today I had been skipping turf and maidens.

Seemed to work out well, so I may keep it up.

[LottaKash]

Handicapping? Between 8 and 30 seconds.

Wow Dave, you must have some awfully powerful little "Goodies" to be able to zero in on, in that quick amount of time.......

Personally, I can usually find a horse that may be playable by my specs, in about 1-3 minutes on the first pass, and then after identifying a "pretty possiible", then maybe 2-3 min's more, to be sure that I haven't missed a thing or two on mine or the others... I can't stand it when I overlook something powerful on another, or a very negative on my spot....I don't mind losing at all, but not like that...No excuse there..

But 8-30 seconds, man, I like that........:jump: :jump: :jump: ...jealous..

best,

[dav4463]

I keep my records by track. I avoid tracks when my picks are losing and play the tracks when I'm hot at a particular track. "I love Indiana Downs right now!"

[fmolf]

I keep my records by track. I avoid tracks when my picks are losing and play the tracks when I'm hot at a particular track. "I love Indiana Downs right now!"
1)first glance, i eliminate all the slowpokes using bris pars

2)next i do a pace analysis to see who is aided who is hindered by probable pace.

3)then i look for angles to give horses xtra credit..horse for course...first for new trainer...class drop/jockey change...etc..etc...

4)field is narrowed down to two or three contenders to which i give my odds for a win bet , then i watch the tote.....of course i will not bet into a favorite i deem to be solid, the race is passed if said favorite is an underlay
all told about 20 or 30 mins

[sjk]

I use a computer to do all the work so really no time involved in handicapping after running the computer program in the early am.

There are times when I sit down at the computer and see a race for the first time at 0 mtp and still manage to get down a dozen exacta plays before they are off.

If you automate enough of the work the time element gets very short.

[Grits]

I concentrate all my efforts at 2nd / 3rd tier tracks, predominantly in the mid-south. I feel there is a certain degree of unsophistication, regarding the wagering public, at these tracks that is not found, to the same degree, at better tracks or tracks in other parts of the country.

As a strict superfecta player, I want the whole pool, if I can get it, not just a piece so I concentrate on those races where I perceive a fair amount of wagering "mistakes" by the public. When the public makes mistakes, especially in the superfecta pool, large payoffs are often the result. I am not so much concerned with pool sizes as I am in how much of the pool I can get.

As I've stated in several other threads, I only need to hit 8% of my supers to make a very nice profit, long term. The large payoffs are what I wait for, the smaller ones just keep me in the game.

Raybo, early this evenin'--if I can get these 6 younguns in the house for dark, and the dog ain't chewed my flip flops agin, we'll get 'n the truck (F10 extended cab) and I'll drive to the OTB and see if I cain't put some more unsophisticated public mistakes in them superfecta pools you workin' at DumbF*** Downs.

I'm not in that way south group, down around the Rio Grande, where folks are smart--I'm in the mid south group where, us folks, fortunately, aren't just dumber--but dumbest--than anywhere else . . . . hell, I'd be lucky to find that Whole Other Country called Texas.

Anyway Raybo, good luck honey. You and MarkG, both. I'll be there for both of ya. I bet birthdays, and my route number--its State Road 617. I don't have no anniversary.

Y'all keep cashin'.

LOLOLOL :lol:

[LottaKash]

I use a computer to do all the work so really no time involved in handicapping after running the computer program in the early am.

There are times when I sit down at the computer and see a race for the first time at 0 mtp and still manage to get down a dozen exacta plays before they are off.

If you automate enough of the work the time element gets very short.

I am a bit jealous of computer programs that spit out numbers that become "automatics"...

I am still a "paper and pencil" (elctroncally) handicapper, as I haven't found a way to automate my way of doing and looking at things....The numbers that I use are right there in print, but the way I adapt and use them with a horses's current Form, along with the suspected Trainer's Intentions on Race Day, are so hard to quantify with a program.... You might say that I have learned(ing) to read between the (running) lines...So, even if there were a program that could perceive my way of doing things, it would still have to be manually inputted, so what would be the point of a program, other than for record keeping ?...I use a post race program to do that on my eventual plays...

Oh I wish....:jump:

[fmolf]

I am a bit jealous of computer programs that spit out numbers that become "automatics"...

I am still a "paper and pencil" (elctroncally) handicapper, as I haven't found a way to automate my way of doing and looking at things....The numbers that I use are right there in print, but the way I adapt and use them with a horses's current Form, along with the suspected Trainer's Intentions on Race Day, are so hard to quantify with a program.... You might say that I have learned(ing) to read between the (running) lines...So, even if there were a program that could perceive my way of doing things, it would still have to be manually inputted, so what would be the point of a program, other than for record keeping ?...I use a post race program to do that on my eventual plays...

Oh I wish....:jump:i still only play recreationally and if a computer did the work it would take a lot of the joy out of it... i like the mental exercise part of it trying to figure out the puzzle so to speak....color me a pencil and paper guy too!

[ryesteve]

i still only play recreationally and if a computer did the work it would take a lot of the joy out of it... i like the mental exercise part of it trying to figure out the puzzle so to speak...
The mental exercise involved in mining through data can be a pretty intense, and is a puzzle in its own right. Software doesn't hand you picks out of thin air; it only does what you've told it to do. It doesn't eliminate work... it shifts it.

[andymays]

i still only play recreationally and if a computer did the work it would take a lot of the joy out of it... i like the mental exercise part of it trying to figure out the puzzle so to speak....color me a pencil and paper guy too!

When computers first came out I spent several months with a friend of mine creating a program for picking winners. We assigned different values for different attributes both positive and negative. To make a long story short we went to Del Mar to debut the program. I ignored all of the picks because the program came up with Horses I could never bet or would be my third or fourth choices in the race. It picked 6 winners on top that day. When we went back to look at what we did we noticed that we had the values reversed. We were giving credit to what would be considered negative attributes and assinging negative values to positive attributes. After we changed it it never worked again and that was the last time I used computers to do the bulk of the Handicapping for me.

[fmolf]

When computers first came out I spent several months with a friend of mine creating a program for picking winners. We assigned different values for different attributes both positive and negative. To make a long story short we went to Del Mar to debut the program. I ignored all of the picks because the program came up with Horses I could never bet or would be my third or fourth choices in the race. It picked 6 winners on top that day. When we went back to look at what we did we noticed that we had the values reversed. We were giving credit to what would be considered negative attributes and assinging negative values to positive attributes. After we changed it it never worked again and that was the last time I used computers to do the bulk of the Handicapping for me.a funny story...whats the computer term"garbage in garbage out"....i truly believe there is more to horse racing than sheer numbers....i like to get a feel for what the trainer is trying to do ...reading pp's from bottom up...i feel the way a trainer handles a horse.. spaces the workouts..the races he enters the horse in their sequence is all important ...do people use computers to pick out trainer patterns?

[Dave Schwartz]

When computers first came out I spent several months with a friend of mine creating a program for picking winners. We assigned different values for different attributes both positive and negative. To make a long story short we went to Del Mar to debut the program. I ignored all of the picks because the program came up with Horses I could never bet or would be my third or fourth choices in the race. It picked 6 winners on top that day. When we went back to look at what we did we noticed that we had the values reversed. We were giving credit to what would be considered negative attributes and assinging negative values to positive attributes. After we changed it it never worked again and that was the last time I used computers to do the bulk of the Handicapping for me.

That is a great story; one I have experienced myself.

In the early days of ThoroBrain (1990) I had sold the program to a local guy. He called one day to say that he was thrilled with the results because he had hit 7 of 9, earning a small fortune in one day.

The next day he called screaming that he was broke because the program was picking in post position order (of his contenders). Turns out that it did that one day one as well.

Of course, the wins were good handicapping and the losses were the program's bug.


Dave

[DanG]

The mental exercise involved in mining through data can be a pretty intense, and is a puzzle in its own right. Software doesn't hand you picks out of thin air; it only does what you've told it to do. It doesn't eliminate work... it shifts it.
Well put. :ThmbUp:

[ddog]

a funny story...whats the computer term"garbage in garbage out"....i truly believe there is more to horse racing than sheer numbers....i like to get a feel for what the trainer is trying to do ...reading pp's from bottom up...i feel the way a trainer handles a horse.. spaces the workouts..the races he enters the horse in their sequence is all important ...do people use computers to pick out trainer patterns?


Yes, that's a main reason to have all the data crunching going on , yo :ThmbUp: u live to find something like this on obscure trainers/owners/etc.


Do you know if you play jocks on the wrong type of horse?
DO you know some jocks may not be able to win with certain types of horses?
DO you know some jocks people may look at and say , no way, may have a spot they do win with?

on and on and on.

owners/trainers spotting etc.

[ddog]

The mental exercise involved in mining through data can be a pretty intense, and is a puzzle in its own right. Software doesn't hand you picks out of thin air; it only does what you've told it to do. It doesn't eliminate work... it shifts it.



You can say that again and again and again!

very true.

Sometimes the puzzles may only be revealed via some number crunching!

[ddog]

"It picked 6 winners on top that day. When we went back to look at what we did we noticed that we had the values reversed. We were giving credit to what would be considered negative attributes and assinging negative values to positive attributes."


You actually had a good thing going there, mixing a little bad with the good gets you the prices.

:)

[raybo]

i still only play recreationally and if a computer did the work it would take a lot of the joy out of it... i like the mental exercise part of it trying to figure out the puzzle so to speak....color me a pencil and paper guy too!

I use my handicapping program mainly for automating repetitive tasks (like importing Bris data, sorting, summarizing, etc.), organizing the data the way I want it presented, crunching numbers (without the inevitable errors that all humans will make from time to time), etc..

Basically my program gives me a solid starting point from which to complete the analysis. Many things done by many handicappers can be done either completely or partially with the computer, mine is not a black box, although I have used it that way and it did almost as well as with human intervention and verification of the program's outputs. Time saving, freedom from math errors, making sure I don't miss something obvious to my program, and being able to "rehandicap" with the click of a macro button after I make changes or override certain computer selections and "normal" handicapping routines are the most important aspects of my computerization.

The program has evolved over time and has taken something like 15 years, or so, to get it to it's current state of automation. It's not something that one can accomplish overnight.