Myths in racing

[illinoisbred]

I have the day off and been reading a lot here.I've come to respect almost all the regular posters here-you're quite a knowledgeable group.Any ideas you feel are myths about the game might be interesting.Mine is the horse romps,wins by several lengths or more,and the jockey backs-off before the wire.You always hear that the horse finished with something left for next time,yet if you make your own figures these performances are to a very high % of the time as good or better than the horse has ever run and he really may have no more to give[unless it's a lightly raced,developing horse]I've found this to be a great bet against next out.The more this is brought up by pre-race analysts,the more I want to wager against it. In other words,what looks easy was in fact a big race that most likely won't be duplicated.

[Java Gold@TFT]

Not so much a myth as an observation similar to your own. I like to bet 2yo maiden races that others here despise. A sure bet against for me is a 2nd time starter who lost an extended stretch battle in their debut. A friend of mine calls them Affirmed-Alydar races or Easy Goer-Sunday Silence races. There are always exceptions but I don't find a lot of 2yo's who come back to run really well after being subjected to a race of that nature in its first race. The thing is that if they lost by a head in 1:10 in their debut then they are usuallly bet down to odds on next time and if they don't even show a work between races then I toss them right away no matter what the speed figs say. Also I'm not saying any loser caught at the wire - just one subjected to an extended battle.

[illinoisbred]

Not so much a myth as an observation similar to your own. I like to bet 2yo maiden races that others here despise. A sure bet against for me is a 2nd time starter who lost an extended stretch battle in their debut. A friend of mine calls them Affirmed-Alydar races or Easy Goer-Sunday Silence races. There are always exceptions but I don't find a lot of 2yo's who come back to run really well after being subjected to a race of that nature in its first race. The thing is that if they lost by a head in 1:10 in their debut then they are usuallly bet down to odds on next time and if they don't even show a work between races then I toss them right away no matter what the speed figs say.
I too have noticed that from time to time.

[goforgin]

1st or 2nd time Lasix? I always thought 1st time Lasix was better than 2nd. But, after checking my 'personal' plays (last 1,000 races), I find way more 2nd time Lasix winners than 1st. 15 2nd timers to just 2 1st timers. Perhpas my handicapping, but I do much better with 2nd time Lasix selections than 1st.

[Show Me the Wire]

1st or 2nd time Lasix? I always thought 1st time Lasix was better than 2nd. But, after checking my 'personal' plays (last 1,000 races), I find way more 2nd time Lasix winners than 1st. 15 2nd timers to just 2 1st timers. Perhpas my handicapping, but I do much better with 2nd time Lasix selections than 1st.


Second is better, many reasons. I am sure the archives have some good information on 1st versus 2nd lasix.

[illinoisbred]

1st or 2nd time Lasix? I always thought 1st time Lasix was better than 2nd. But, after checking my 'personal' plays (last 1,000 races), I find way more 2nd time Lasix winners than 1st. 15 2nd timers to just 2 1st timers. Perhpas my handicapping, but I do much better with 2nd time Lasix selections than 1st.
I think Len Ragozin/len friedman mention your point on one of their tapes. 2nd time much more likely leads to a forward move, particularily if the horse ran close to his previous efforts 1st on lasix.But your right ,one always hears about 1st lasix.

[Imriledup]

I have the day off and been reading a lot here.I've come to respect almost all the regular posters here-you're quite a knowledgeable group.Any ideas you feel are myths about the game might be interesting.Mine is the horse romps,wins by several lengths or more,and the jockey backs-off before the wire.You always hear that the horse finished with something left for next time,yet if you make your own figures these performances are to a very high % of the time as good or better than the horse has ever run and he really may have no more to give[unless it's a lightly raced,developing horse]I've found this to be a great bet against next out.The more this is brought up by pre-race analysts,the more I want to wager against it. In other words,what looks easy was in fact a big race that most likely won't be duplicated.

This is really observant. I think the key to being 'wrapped up' is at the head of the lane.

When a horse is really in cruise control, the rider won't ask him for his best turning for home.

What happens often is that a jock will really open the horse up entering the stretch and then gear him down right near the wire.

You are right about this, those horses don't have 'way more' in reserve but it seems like the public bites into the wrapped up concept more than they should.

[46zilzal]

Biggest Myth? The man made class structure that horses are not privy of understanding, nor which alters their abilities to run against one another. THEY run to their ability and form cycle within the boundaries of the pace pressure of EACH distinct race.

PURE baloney.

[Onion Monster]

A closing sprinter stretching out to a route...

[46zilzal]

A closing sprinter stretching out to a route...
where they wiil close again and not get there.

[andymays]

synthetic surfaces are:

safer :liar:

less expensive to maintain :liar:

don't have biases :liar:

[Imriledup]

Another myth is that horseplayers die broke. :jump:

[rastajenk]

When a horse is really in cruise control, the rider won't ask him for his best turning for home.When a horse is really in cruise control, he is already giving his best.

[lamboguy]

the bigest myth to me would be that "the money" knows what"s going on. and there are peopelwho know how to read tote boards.

[illinoisbred]

A closing sprinter stretching out to a route...
I always love that one.The prerace Analysts I'm familiar with fall for it every time.I laugh as they're Spent" horses entering the stretch,even in AP's 1 turn mile races.

[46zilzal]

The track wants THIS horse to win.

PSSSST...... The track makes its money NO MATTER WHO wins pal! That is why it is called parimutuel wagering!

[illinoisbred]

the bigest myth to me would be that "the money" knows what"s going on. and there are peopelwho know how to read tote boards.
Right.At Hawthorne certain"types" seem to take a big hit with approx. 5 minutes to post.Horses will drop from 8-1 to 4-1 in 1 flash.It's uncanny how poor they perform.I hate when I"m interested in the same horse-kiss of death.

[Fingal]

Head & head stretch drives will knock out a horse.

[illinoisbred]

synthetic surfaces are:

safer :liar:

less expensive to maintain :liar:

don't have biases :liar:
Maybe we need an EPA study.They can't be safe for horse/human or environment.I found it amusing as just when the curtain was about to come down on AP's meet many jockeys spoke up about polytrack.By and large they feel less safe,they're really more afraid of falling because of the closer nature of this competition, and some are just plainly afraid to ride aggressively.

[illinoisbred]

Biggest Myth? The man made class structure that horses are not privy of understanding, nor which alters their abilities to run against one another. THEY run to their ability and form cycle within the boundaries of the pace pressure of EACH distinct race.

PURE baloney.
Right. Too bad Mr. Ed wasn't a thorough-bred.His offspring would rock the Keeneland sales ring.

[Imriledup]

Another myth is that public handicappers can actually be long run winning players. Those guys and gals are on tv for a reason.

[Dave Schwartz]

My favorite is the guy that says, "I won't play a layoff horse."

In many different race types, a layoff is actually a good thing. Both ROI and hit rate go up!


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[illinoisbred]

My favorite is the guy that says, "I won't play a layoff horse."

In many different race types, a layoff is actually a good thing. Both ROI and hit rate go up!


Regards,
Dave Schwartz
I agree.But unless I know the trainer can win with layoffs or the horse is an obvious cripple it's still difficult for me to play a layed-off horse.I usually regret it,especially if I played another entrant.

[RichieP]

Early horses don't win on the grass.

[bisket]

A closing sprinter stretching out to a route...
i said this over and over and over again about pyro on the derby trail a few years back

[illinoisbred]

Early horses don't win on the grass.
Yeah,what a lie. I win more turf races on the front-end than dirt races,particularily since polytrack.

[illinoisbred]

What about the idea that jockeys have clocks in their heads.Do you think they really know if they're going 47.0 or 48.2 for the 1st 1/2 mile in a route race?I don't.

[lamboguy]

What about the idea that jockeys have clocks in their heads.Do you think they really know if they're going 47.0 or 48.2 for the 1st 1/2 mile in a route race?I don't.heres a common one, a good jockey can win the race for you on a bad horse.

from my experience jockey's can only lose the race for you, i have never seen one make a horse run better. i will give you this, some jockeys seem tofind ways to get the horse beat.

[Cratos]

I have the day off and been reading a lot here.I've come to respect almost all the regular posters here-you're quite a knowledgeable group.Any ideas you feel are myths about the game might be interesting.Mine is the horse romps,wins by several lengths or more,and the jockey backs-off before the wire.You always hear that the horse finished with something left for next time,yet if you make your own figures these performances are to a very high % of the time as good or better than the horse has ever run and he really may have no more to give[unless it's a lightly raced,developing horse]I've found this to be a great bet against next out.The more this is brought up by pre-race analysts,the more I want to wager against it. In other words,what looks easy was in fact a big race that most likely won't be duplicated.

One pound = One length = One=fifth second is the greatest inequality and myth probably ever created.

[illinoisbred]

heres a common one, a good jockey can win the race for you on a bad horse.

from my experience jockey's can only lose the race for you, i have never seen one make a horse run better. i will give you this, some jockeys seem tofind ways to get the horse beat.
The better riders do seem to know how to navigate around the track better than lesser ones .They do know who to stay away from-other horses-that might bear out or lug in.Other than that, I see no real great difference from 1 rider to the next.A so-called lesser rider always helps the odds and that can't be bad.

[Tape Reader]

That tote board readers are following "insider money".

[46zilzal]

That tote board readers are following "insider money".
Yes once you realize how the pulses come in from racing simulcast hubs around the country, it makes this even crazier a concept.

[lamboguy]

The better riders do seem to know how to navigate around the track better than lesser ones .They do know who to stay away from-other horses-that might bear out or lug in.Other than that, I see no real great difference from 1 rider to the next.A so-called lesser rider always helps the odds and that can't be bad. when it comes down to CHURCHILL DOWNS, CALVIN BOREL knows every single inch of that place. that guy weaves in and out and finds the ssweet spots on the racetrck. i have never seen a guy ride like that in my life in that place. now you take that guy out of that place, he makes one mistake after the other.if i had a horse running in churchill i want to hook up with that boy.

[illinoisbred]

One pound = One length = One=fifth second is the greatest inequality and myth probably ever created.
You're right-it's been proven to be false.The idea of 1 length=1/5 is just easy for most people to use.As far as weight is concerned,I think the same horse will respond differently to the same weight depending on how fit they are.

[illinoisbred]

when it comes down to CHURCHILL DOWNS, CALVIN BOREL knows every single inch of that place. that guy weaves in and out and finds the ssweet spots on the racetrck. i have never seen a guy ride like that in my life in that place. now you take that guy out of that place, he makes one mistake after the other.if i had a horse running in churchill i want to hook up with that boy.
Me too!

[illinoisbred]

synthetic surfaces are:

safer :liar:

less expensive to maintain :liar:

don't have biases :liar:
I suggested earlier having the EPA look/study this issue.It was written somewhat in jest but perhaps its not as crazy as it sounds.Are there any species of coastal shore birds that"visit" DelMar?They surely must ingest some of this material.Wouldn't that be the shits if they had to remove these surfaces because of an environmental risk?

[proximity]

my vote for biggest myth about racing is that the game can be bullied around without experiencing not only long losing streaks, but long periods of bankroll drag..... you end a 17 race losing streak with a win, but then go on another 12 race losing streak.

[Show Me the Wire]

You're right-it's been proven to be false.The idea of 1 length=1/5 is just easy for most people to use.As far as weight is concerned,I think the same horse will respond differently to the same weight depending on how fit they are.

Weight is not a myth. Weight effects the horse's balance and balance is very important to a horse's stride.

Length equal to 1/5th of a second is a reality at the finih line and has to do with the camera's calibration.

[Robert Fischer]

some myths

The Object of the horseplaying is to pick the winner
If you can "read between the lines" of the Form, you have a big edge
will add more myths later:blush:

sorry if these are repeats, - posting on the run.....

[Cratos]

Weight is not a myth. Weight effects the horse's balance and balance is very important to a horse's stride.

Length equal to 1/5th of a second is a reality at the finih line and has to do with the camera's calibration.

No one is disputing that weight affects the horse because the laws of physics substantiates that concept and the one length = one-fifth second come from the fallacious historical belief that a horse movement can be incremented (divided) into its body length which is thought to be between 8-9 feet.

The fallacy of that assertion is that the average horse travels about 10.94 feet per one-fifth second when all distances are considered.

Yes, One pound = One length = One-fifth second is a MYTH.

[Show Me the Wire]

Okay I will agree that one lb of weight is not equal to 1/5 of a second.



Regarding my answer about weight, I was responding to this thought:

As far as weight is concerned,I think the same horse will respond differently to the same weight depending on how fit they are.

[Track Collector]

The track wants THIS horse to win.

PSSSST...... The track makes its money NO MATTER WHO wins pal! That is why it is called parimutuel wagering!

In the overall scheme of things, tracks DO make more money (due to the practice of breakage) when lower-price horses win out over higher-priced horses. The lower the odds of the winning horse, the more winning tickets that exist. The more winning tickets that exist, the more tickets that can be rounded down to the the nearest 10-cent or 20-cent payout. I would guess that tracks make an additional 1-3% over that stated takeout rates due to breakage.

It would also not be unreasonable to believe that handles would be a bit higher when more folks are winners on a given day. (I.E. More individual bankrolls last longer).

Thus, tracks DO make more money when certain "types" of horses win.:)

[Robert Fischer]

jockeys don't matter

[magwell]

THEY like..........:rolleyes:

[Hanover1]

What about the idea that jockeys have clocks in their heads.Do you think they really know if they're going 47.0 or 48.2 for the 1st 1/2 mile in a route race?I don't.
Its not a clock per say, but a feel of the pace, and over time, the good ones can tell to within 1/2 second or less how fast they are going per split. I am able to accomplish this with harness.

[illinoisbred]

Its not a clock per say, but a feel of the pace, and over time, the good ones can tell to within 1/2 second or less how fast they are going per split. I am able to accomplish this with harness.
If true that's an incredible feat.I've tested the idea myself while walking.The closest I come to a 45sec. estimation is +/- 3 secs..

[speculus]

jockeys don't matter

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[illinoisbred]

jockeys don't matter

Agree.We have a rider here that gets very little attention but he's as good/better than most on frontrunners-Nick Mesa.I don't get a lot of opportunities because he rides the mounts nobody else wants, by and large.Every now and then he gets the right horse in the right spot.Almost never lets me down-the guy is tough as nails on a good fr. I'm sure my ROI with him through the years exceeds that with Pat Day,Mark Guidry,Shane Sellers,and Rene Douglas.

[illinoisbred]

That's Meza-not Mesa.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This isn't mine...

...but one that would have been tossed in immediately by one of my favorite old (now deceased) riders, and I couldn't help it:

"This horse loves the mud."

"No, the other seven just absolutely hate running in this mess more than he does."

[46zilzal]

jockeys don't matter

If the horse is effective, the rider can only screw him up. The Ronnie Franklins of the world are living prof of that.

Put MOST riders on a good one and they will have a good chance to win.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

If the horse is effective, the rider can only screw him up. The Ronnie Franklins of the world are living prof of that.

Put MOST riders on a good one and they will have a good chance to win.
A good ride is a ride where the jockey makes the least mistakes.

[ranchwest]

heres a common one, a good jockey can win the race for you on a bad horse.

from my experience jockey's can only lose the race for you, i have never seen one make a horse run better. i will give you this, some jockeys seem tofind ways to get the horse beat.

So, it is purely coincidence that winning jockeys keep winning and losing jockeys keep losing? Give me a break.

A bad horse is going to lose no matter what, but between two approximately equal horses the one with the better jock has the better chance.

[illinoisbred]

A good ride is a ride where the jockey makes the least mistakes.
Right, considering the time they have to react to situations.So many times even good decisions come up a head or neck short.

[Thomas Roulston]

1 length = 1/5th of a second is true only if, at that point, they were running at the rate of :24 per quarter-mile.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

1 length = 1/5th of a second is true only if, at that point, they were running at the rate of :24 per quarter-mile.
I started a thread on this a while ago. A length as recorded in the charts is different from track to track and even distance to distance when it comes to actual time.

[illinoisbred]

So, it is purely coincidence that winning jockeys keep winning and losing jockeys keep losing? Give me a break.

A bad horse is going to lose no matter what, but between two approximately equal horses the one with the better jock has the better chance.
My dad,an active player for 40+ yrs. thought a top rider on a competitive horse was worth about 2 lengths over and above a lesser rider. Not so sure I agree.

[ranchwest]

My dad,an active player for 40+ yrs. thought a top rider on a competitive horse was worth about 2 lengths over and above a lesser rider. Not so sure I agree.

Well, you certainly have the right to disagree with your dad and nearly every trainer in the world. Good luck.

[speculus]

You must bet in proportion to your level of confidence about a particular bet. The more confident you are, the more you should bet.
========

Note: This, in itself, may not be a myth, but the underlying belief--the idea that you can accurately (or reasonably) calibrate your level of confidence for an individual bet IS is one of the greatest myths.

Keep records of how often your best bet has bit the dust, and casual bets have paid off--and you should know the truth.

[lamboguy]

So, it is purely coincidence that winning jockeys keep winning and losing jockeys keep losing? Give me a break.

A bad horse is going to lose no matter what, but between two approximately equal horses the one with the better jock has the better chance.what i think you are saying is that a good jockey finds his way to a good horse. that part i have to agree with!

you have managed to twist what i said though. i said that a good rider can't make a bad horse better. if i am wrong and you happen to know the rider that can make my slow horses win, please let me know so we can both become very rich.

[Overlay]

You must bet in proportion to your level of confidence about a particular bet. The more confident you are, the more you should bet.
========

Note: This, in itself, may not be a myth, but the underlying belief--the idea that you can accurately (or reasonably) calibrate your level of confidence for an individual bet IS is one of the greatest myths.

Keep records of how often your best bet has bit the dust, and casual bets have paid off--and you should know the truth.


I would tend to agree with you if the "level of confidence" is based on intuition or subjective opinion. But what about probability estimates based on multi-faceted statistical performance patterns that repeat themselves over and over, year after year? Is that repetition based on myth?

[Overlay]

I always heard people say that if you want to come out ahead long-term, you have to "pick your spots", or be selective in your play, and not let the "take" and breakage grind you down.

I agree with that in the sense that you shouldn't bet on horses without consideration of the degree of risk involved. However, if you're able to consistently locate situations where the odds/payoff on individual horses or multi-horse combinations are higher than are justified by the probability of winning the bet, then the more you play, the more opportunities there will be for that positive edge to assert itself.

[Hanover1]

If true that's an incredible feat.I've tested the idea myself while walking.The closest I come to a 45sec. estimation is +/- 3 secs..
Its no big deal actually. Consider going tens of thousands of times around the oval first. Now try your experiment a mere 100 times, and I bet you get real close to .45sec

[Valuist]

Several of my favorite myths:

1. 3YOs can't beat older horses
2. Slop ability= turf ability
3. First timers from the rail are at a huge disadvantage.

[illinoisbred]

Several of my favorite myths:

1. 3YOs can't beat older horses
2. Slop ability= turf ability
3. First timers from the rail are at a huge disadvantage.
I agree with yours and would add synthetic ability=turf abilityand turf ability=synthetic ability. One hears this all the time stated as a matter of fact.

[illinoisbred]

I always heard people say that if you want to come out ahead long-term, you have to "pick your spots", or be selective in your play, and not let the "take" and breakage grind you down.

I agree with that in the sense that you shouldn't bet on horses without consideration of the degree of risk involved. However, if you're able to consistently locate situations where the odds/payoff on individual horses or multi-horse combinations are higher than are justified by the probability of winning the bet, then the more you play, the more opportunities there will be for that positive edge to assert itself.

I do tend to pick my spots but the subjective nature of determining "value " is ...ah, well, subjective. My starting point on win bet value is that the betting time odds =1/2+ field size[12 horse field 6-1,etc.]. I will knock it down a little for total noncontenders. As an example, today in Hawthorne's 4th race I liked the off the pace runner Publish. I thought the 8.80 mutual was fair and the exacta for39.40 represented value[6 horse field]. I wouldn't have felt the same in an 8,10, or 12 sized field. It turned out to be difficult enough to win in a 6 horse field.

[Overlay]

I do tend to pick my spots but the subjective nature of determining "value " is ...ah, well, subjective.

Basing value determinations on statistics (rather than opinion or personal judgment) can assist in addressing that issue.

[illinoisbred]

Basing value determinations on statistics (rather than opinion or personal judgment) can assist in addressing that issue.
I've often wondered about that and may look into it more if my mental faculties begin to diminish with age.

[speculus]

I would tend to agree with you if the "level of confidence" is based on intuition or subjective opinion. But what about probability estimates based on multi-faceted statistical performance patterns that repeat themselves over and over, year after year? Is that repetition based on myth?

For a handicapping method or approach, the "Level of confidence" may be realistically determined by statistical evidence. But I am, in this case, talking of a particular bet and your level of confidence born out of that bet's circumstances. IMHO it will always remain remain subjective. As human beings, we are doomed to use a thought equipment (mind) that can force us to believe what it is comfortable with, and not necessarily the objective reality. That's why I said the best experiment would be to keep the record of your best bets and casual bets, and the truth will dawn on you.

[Robert Fischer]

boy that stuff is hard to do consistently over a range of different types of plays

people can be really good at it in their comfort zone, but then they also have to have the ability and honesty to know when they "don't know"

[Robert Fischer]

i'll say that SIRE,GrandSire is the be all/ end all of DistancePedigree is a Myth

[Overlay]

For a handicapping method or approach, the "Level of confidence" may be realistically determined by statistical evidence. But I am, in this case, talking of a particular bet and your level of confidence born out of that bet's circumstances. IMHO it will always remain remain subjective. As human beings, we are doomed to use a thought equipment (mind) that can force us to believe what it is comfortable with, and not necessarily the objective reality. That's why I said the best experiment would be to keep the record of your best bets and casual bets, and the truth will dawn on you.

I would agree that the outcome of any individual race is never guaranteed. But if you're working with data that is purely statistical with respect to assessment of a horse's chances; dealing with it according to mathematical laws; and comparing it to other quantitative information (the probability associated with odds established by the public), I have difficulty seeing how a conflict with objective reality can develop. If the results do not bear out the accuracy of the assessment, you can tweak the model as indicated by which portion of it is not properly weighted or quantified, but that's a matter of analysis, not opinion. In that framework, whether a wager would be judged to be a "best bet" or "casual" would also be based not on "feel", but upon the discrepancy between the two probability assessments for the horse (the model's and the public's).

[Imriledup]

How about when trainers-turned-talking heads tell us that such and such a trainer won't run a horse that 'isn't right'

[Java Gold@TFT]

i'll say that SIRE,GrandSire is the be all/ end all of DistancePedigree is a Myth
Being a fan (not expert) of breeding info for handicapping, I would say that the broodmare sire AWD is very important to me in handicapping for first time distance racing.

[Robert Fischer]

there's a Myth in racing:

-that there is no opponent, or we are simply playing ourselves... - false we play vs. the public.
self-control is a necessary quality but shouldn't be considered your opponent. We play against the public and we should play accordingly. From planning a strategy of plays- anticipating a bias by the public , to the tactics of making a play- the pool information


- that the public is smart -false the public is an asshole

- that the public is the average dummy of all the players - false the public is skewed towards moderately above average, because the pools are too small and are not equally distributed wagers, but weighted towards above average heavier players

- that you should automatically adjust for the public when your opinions vary significantly - false- the rule for adjusting to the public is to measure your insight in the discrepancy of opinion. In other words you must understand and know the reason for the descrepency and estimate the accuracy of your differing opinion. (example- they like the horse because he was in the triple crown races, and you know WHY they like the horse, and you are certain that he is a pig - don't falter!)(counterExample the public is betting the :3: horse like crazy, and you DON'T know Why they like the horse - you have poor insight probably pass the race)

[ranchwest]

If true that's an incredible feat.I've tested the idea myself while walking.The closest I come to a 45sec. estimation is +/- 3 secs..

I once knew an actor who could ad lib a commercial of 30 or 60 seconds within 2 seconds with no prompting. Some people have a built in clock, due in part to repitition.

[strapper]

It's a myth that all races are fixed, especially when you are running for the kind of money they have available nowadays at racinos. You would be surprised how many people think that if you work at a track you know who will win beforehand! :confused:

[illinoisbred]

there's a Myth in racing:

-that there is no opponent, or we are simply playing ourselves... - false we play vs. the public.
self-control is a necessary quality but shouldn't be considered your opponent. We play against the public and we should play accordingly. From planning a strategy of plays- anticipating a bias by the public , to the tactics of making a play- the pool information


- that the public is smart -false the public is an asshole

- that the public is the average dummy of all the players - false the public is skewed towards moderately above average, because the pools are too small and are not equally distributed wagers, but weighted towards above average heavier players

- that you should automatically adjust for the public when your opinions vary significantly - false- the rule for adjusting to the public is to measure your insight in the discrepancy of opinion. In other words you must understand and know the reason for the descrepency and estimate the accuracy of your differing opinion. (example- they like the horse because he was in the triple crown races, and you know WHY they like the horse, and you are certain that he is a pig - don't falter!)(counterExample the public is betting the :3: horse like crazy, and you DON'T know Why they like the horse - you have poor insight probably pass the race)
Excellent post. I'm confronted with this often here when I like some entrant in a race with either a Catalano-trained, or Calabrese-owned entry in the same race. I know why they get hammered, even when they don't "figure". During the race I'm always watching their horse[s] every bit as much as mine. Always a concern, even with those that look like they have little chance.

[46zilzal]

The biggest one out there: the MORE information I have, the Better I will do.

Only problem is that MOST are overwhelmed by it and just more confused than ever not knowing the value of each as in the case of many of these factors being no help at all.

[illinoisbred]

The biggest one out there: the MORE information I have, the Better I will do.

Only problem is that MOST are overwhelmed by it and just more confused than ever not knowing the value of each as in the case of many of these factors being no help at all.
True.Also,the more factors one ties into a selection,the lower the odds.

[twindouble]

Myth; Only a very small percentage of horse players win.

In any given period of time many players rotate to positive ROI, then fall somewhere in between and the cycle continues. The number or who the players are that rise and fall or continue to profit at some level and for what period time is unknown.

There's a few that are pretty much assured to profit, the ones that have the edge with rebates ala lower takeout.

[46zilzal]

True.Also,the more factors one ties into a selection,the lower the odds.
no the more it confuses the selection process

[illinoisbred]

Myth; Only a very small percentage of horse players win.

In any given period of time many players rotate to positive ROI, then fall somewhere in between and the cycle continues. The number or who the players are that rise and fall or continue to profit at some level and for what period time is unknown.

There's a few that are pretty much assured to profit, the ones that have the edge with rebates ala lower takeout.
Boy, you hit the nail on the head. That's what keeps me from quitting my"real" jobs.

[twindouble]

Boy, you hit the nail on the head. That's what keeps me from quitting my"real" jobs.



I have add another myth; Horse racing can't compete with slots or poker.
Racing is a fantastic enjoyable sport, that's worth a lot. It sure as hell beats those mindless slots, and poker. What kind of thrill can anyone get out of watching a table of poker players with sunglasses on trying to out smart other player. Especially when one out of million people will get sit at the tables for the big payoffs. :ThmbDown:

[illinoisbred]

I have add another myth; Horse racing can't compete with slots or poker.
Racing is a fantastic enjoyable sport, that's worth a lot. It sure as hell beats those mindless slots, and poker. What kind of thrill can anyone get out of watching a table of poker players with sunglasses on trying to out smart other player. Especially when one out of million people will get sit at the tables for the big payoffs. :ThmbDown:
It's the very best game/sport. It has history,tradition, and a serious fan base with an intelligence level much above the norm. Just read some of the posters here-the time,effort,research, and knowledge displayed is incredible. I have no way of knowing, but it wouldn't surprise me if the level of education attained by serious fans rivals the national average. As slots proliferate, the senseless, mindless,losing end of the deal reality will start sinking into the minds of those that play them.They will never be racing's salvation.

[Fastracehorse]

I agree.But unless I know the trainer can win with layoffs or the horse is an obvious cripple it's still difficult for me to play a layed-off horse.I usually regret it,especially if I played another entrant.

Dave is right, horses do run better fresh. U are assuming a fresh horse is a cripple, but he is running against cripples.

I really get a kick out of the analysts that are fearful of fresh runners. Watch Bel, Kee, SA, Wdb tomorrow.......... fresh is a powerful factor.

fffastt

[ranchwest]

Dave is right, horses do run better fresh. U are assuming a fresh horse is a cripple, but he is running against cripples.

I really get a kick out of the analysts that are fearful of fresh runners. Watch Bel, Kee, SA, Wdb tomorrow.......... fresh is a powerful factor.

fffastt

Layoff horse win at approximately the same rate as their "natural" probability. So, how do you identify the live layoff horses?

[twindouble]

Layoff horse win at approximately the same rate as their "natural" probability. So, how do you identify the live layoff horses?

Players are left in the dark when it comes injuries and layoffs. The question should be WHY the layoff or layoffs. We can make an educated guess by knowing trainers patterns to determine if the horse was just freshened but it's more difficult when long layoffs occur. We can assume the horse had an injury but we don't know what kind. I find the longer the layoff the trainer gave the horse enough time to heal and be sound to run. The workout regiment helps to give us some confidence that the horse is ready. On the latter, trainers that bring back horses that run well after the long layoff, I just make note of that. I'm more inclined to pass on horses that show multiple layoffs close together, like one race then another layoff for over 60 days then a radical drop in class next start. When I get blind sided with horses like that, the flag goes up on that trainer.

On the other hand, horses that have just one layoff of 120 days or less in the hands of a good trainer and drops in class or comes back in like company, I'll use that horse. Back class becomes a factor with me in some situations like that. Nowadays I'm less apt to think the horse "needs a race" than I did prior. Keep in mind I'm not talking about betting the house on such horses but including them in the gimmicks or picks with others you like is a good idea. It all boils down to your confidence in the trainers involved and the patterns they bring to your table. When there's multiple horses with many layoff lines in one race, that may very well be a race to pass, the risk goes up considerably.

More information being available to players on injuries would be nice.

[illinoisbred]

I've noticed in the last 3 years here many horses are backed-off at Arlington after 3-4 grueling races, or 3-4 mediocre efforts. The ones off poorer races generally don't like polytrack,get rested, and are usually fairly "live" when they return at Hawthorne, particularily if they have shown a fondness for Hawthorne in the past. It would probably be in the horses best interest if each circuit had more of a season-with a clear cut start and end. The off-season here is just 6-7 weeks, too long for some with cheap stock. They van to Turfway and "squeeze the lemon" dry.

[twindouble]

I've noticed in the last 3 years here many horses are backed-off at Arlington after 3-4 grueling races, or 3-4 mediocre efforts. The ones off poorer races generally don't like polytrack,get rested, and are usually fairly "live" when they return at Hawthorne, particularily if they have shown a fondness for Hawthorne in the past. It would probably be in the horses best interest if each circuit had more of a season-with a clear cut start and end. The off-season here is just 6-7 weeks, too long for some with cheap stock. They van to Turfway and "squeeze the lemon" dry.

Whatever deductions you make about synthetic tracks when it comes to performance you still have to rely on the trainers to determine what kind of surface any particular horse runs better on, be it turf, dirt, synthetic or track for that matter.

Longer meets have always been my cup of tea along with following one circuit, don't matter the quality of the horses. The longer you can handicap either the better understanding you get about the track, trainers, horses and jocks.



I like Mountaineer very much for that reason but their wagering menu sucks.

[illinoisbred]

Whatever deductions you make about synthetic tracks when it comes to performance you still have to rely on the trainers to determine what kind of surface any particular horse runs better on, be it turf, dirt, synthetic or track for that matter.

Longer meets have always been my cup of tea along with following one circuit, don't matter the quality of the horses. The longer you can handicap either the better understanding you get about the track, trainers, horses and jocks.



I like Mountaineer very much for that reason but their wagering menu sucks.
I too like long meets. Woodbine is a nice long meet with many horses that run only at Woodbine.

[Fastracehorse]

Layoff horse win at approximately the same rate as their "natural" probability. So, how do you identify the live layoff horses?

Ranch,

Try this: watch fresh routers. Especially lightly raced 2 to 4yos. They usually improve off their previous effort by 10 Beyer points. Many punters shy from these types; these routers are good 2nd off the shelf too. U will get lots of these this fall/winter at A tracks.

fffastt

[MAGICHORSEMAN]

When a horse wins eased up and next time does nothing..... It goes to show that horses run better when by alone just like people do things better when alone and not bothered. When horses are challenged all along the next race.... mentally and physically just tire and quit.

[46zilzal]

When a horse wins eased up and next time does nothing..... It goes to show that horses run better when by alone just like people do things better when alone and not bothered. When horses are challenged all along the next race.... mentally and physically just tire and quit.
Without knowing the pathology that caused their being eased, NO ONE KNOWS how a horse will do next out. May be a lingering problem, may not be.

[cj]

Without knowing the pathology that caused their being eased, NO ONE KNOWS how a horse will do next out. May be a lingering problem, may not be.

He said when a horse WINS "eased up", not when a horse is eased.

[macdiarmida]

Myth: When anything vaguely approaching a longshot wins, then the sheets guys had it.

[Robert Fischer]

you cant see leads from the head-on angle