(Allmost) Automatic bet against scenarios

[coachgonzo]

I am always trying to learn more and more. As a result, I am curious as how others go about making their plays. More specifically, not your win selections, but what case do you (allmost) automatically throw out the horse. I do realize that although a horse may be a throw out, it still may factor in the pace.

What do you constitute as a throw away for a win bet? Looking at win bets only because I favor the pick-4.

Is it a first time starter that wins easily and then not seen for 150 days?

Is it grass horses outside the 10 post?

Etc, etc. Some in the past have shared %'s based on your vast amounts of data.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

[Charlie D]

They can bite you on ass, but Awesome Act, Tahitian Warrior types are nearly always an automatic throw for me.


Just don't like betting horses doing something for the first time at short or shortish odds against decent competition.

[46zilzal]

best bet in all of racing ALONE ON THE LEAD

Automatic throw outs: deep closers in sprints

[Charlie D]

Another example is in Race 11 at Aqu. Spicy Steve is on radar.

If he stretches he probably goes close, but at 5-2 he is not getting none of my money.

[Brogan]

If he stretches he probably goes close, but at 5-2 he is not getting none of my money.

Not too much of your grammar either. :D :D :D

[Charlie D]

Brilliant.

Anything worthwhile to offer the thread starter????

[jayfree41]

A horse that is running 2nd off the layoff after hitting his/her Top Beyer. Especially claiming races.

Also another bounce: after a Top Beyer for a 4 year old or older.

(unless you are trained by a superstar).

[46zilzal]

Another example is in Race 11 at Aqu. Spicy Steve is on radar.

If he stretches he probably goes close, but at 5-2 he is not getting none of my money.
a chalky third

[Charlie D]

Yep 46

There is plenty of "dumb" money out there in my humble opinion.

[markgoldie]

Have mentioned this before, but it works well. Excluding young, lightly-raced and developing horses:

An E (or even an E/P) type who infrequently makes the lead (this may be associated with 5 or less Quirin-type speed points), shakes loose on the front (preferably in a minus-pace race) and wins, setting a recent Beyer top of 5 or more points and subsequently steps up slightly in class.

Such horses are generally well-supported on the basis of the elevated Beyer, but rarely repeat the win.

[Saratoga_Mike]

At second-tier tracks, if you see a low-percentage trainer (anyone who is winning at a rate of 5% or less) drop down a claiming horse who had been running well previously (2nd and 3rd, not beaten by a lot) at a higher tag, pitch him, especially if he's bet down - there's something wrong with him. One of the main reason low-percentage trainers wins so few races is they're consistently worried about losing horses to the claim box, so more often than not under the above scenario, they want to lose them and there's a problem with the horse.

[OverlayHunter]

Another example is in Race 11 at Aqu. Spicy Steve is on radar.

If he stretches he probably goes close, but at 5-2 he is not getting none of my money.

Charlie D -

Could you please explain what "on radar" and "If he stretches he probably goes close" means. I don't believe I've heard those expression before.

Thank you.

[Charlie D]

Sorry OH, i forget where i am sometines


Radar = On list of potential contenders.

If he stretches he probably goes close = if distance is not beyond him, he has a decent chance of winning.

[Overlay]

A 2YO first-timer at 6-1 or higher.

[JustRalph]

:1: A new top in last race on any horse over 4 yrs old

:2: Horses who have been laid off more than 60 days............ almost always.

:3: Horses laid off more than 100 days.........always

:4: Sprint to route Maidens who don't have a 10 point early speed advantage
or a huge Pedigree advantage for routes. In Jcapper the QRating takes precedent....must be >75.... but Pedigree works almost as well.

The Layoff horses will get you sometime..........but over the long run the numbers are on your side

[Dave Schwartz]

At second-tier tracks, if you see a low-percentage trainer (anyone who is winning at a rate of 5% or less) drop down a claiming horse who had been running well previously (2nd and 3rd, not beaten by a lot) at a higher tag, pitch him, especially if he's bet down - there's something wrong with him. One of the main reason low-percentage trainers wins so few races is they're consistently worried about losing horses to the claim box, so more often than not under the above scenario, they want to lose them and there's a problem with the horse.

Saratoga Mike,

That is excellent logic. I have no idea if it holds up statistically but it sure sounds right.


Dave

[Stillriledup]

Saratoga Mike,

That is excellent logic. I have no idea if it holds up statistically but it sure sounds right.


Dave

To add to this logic, connections who don't want to lose horses overclassify them and because they get beaten up and discouraged by the better competition, they go off form. So, even if there isn't 'something wrong with them' per se, they might just have either lost their confidence or have become 'trained' to be pack animals, they lose their ability to win from a know how standpoint.

[PhantomOnTour]

Horses who break their maiden in a frontrunning romp but dont meet the pace requirements of winners, esp MdSpWt to An1x.

[illinoisbred]

A horse that is running 2nd off the layoff after hitting his/her Top Beyer. Especially claiming races.

Also another bounce: after a Top Beyer for a 4 year old or older.

(unless you are trained by a superstar).
This is the stongest bet-against angle I've ever found and I've been tracking it for years here.Right now there's generally 2-4 a day at Hawthorne, always the favorite,usually finish 3rd or worse-mostly worse. It seems to apply to layoffs of 45+ days. However,I find this a less effective angle in regard to 3rd-5th lifetime starters, which makes sense.

[gm10]

I am always trying to learn more and more. As a result, I am curious as how others go about making their plays. More specifically, not your win selections, but what case do you (allmost) automatically throw out the horse. I do realize that although a horse may be a throw out, it still may factor in the pace.

What do you constitute as a throw away for a win bet? Looking at win bets only because I favor the pick-4.

Is it a first time starter that wins easily and then not seen for 150 days?

Is it grass horses outside the 10 post?

Etc, etc. Some in the past have shared %'s based on your vast amounts of data.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

A jockey who wins at less than 3% or a trainer who wins at less than 5%.

[jayfree41]

True -- younger horses have less bounces than older ones do....!

But 2nd off of the layoff -- is something I look at very closely...most horses bounce in that 2nd go.

[Robert Goren]

After watching the Jack Van Berg video, I dump any horse coming back in about week after running on lasix. I also look unfavorably on a horse coming back in about 2 weeks after running on lasix unless they have ran very well in the past doing so. JMO

[Hosshead]

A grass speed horse switching from Turf To Dirt, in a race with a LOT of early speed.

[46zilzal]

A jockey who wins at less than 3% or a trainer who wins at less than 5%.
These have great prices and I win with these combinations often, particularly at the beginning of meets.

[headhawg]

These have great prices and I win with these combinations often, particularly at the beginning of meets.How often can you win? The jockey only wins at 3% and the trainer at 5%. Do the math.

[johnhannibalsmith]

A first-time starter with a cache of sharp breezes, but more than a handful from the gate - particularly if the gate works are average to below average relative to the others. You can be from a good barn, by a great stud, out of a champion, and really sizzle from the pole to the wire... but if you can't figure out the gate... no thank you until I see otherwise.

[46zilzal]

How often can you win? The jockey only wins at 3% and the trainer at 5%. Do the math.
those are GENERALITIES and not SPECIFIC to situations where the logical contender, the horse which has NOTHING to do with the human counterparts because they are not running, stands a good chance versus the field it is running against today.

Case in point yesterday at Oaklawn. 6th race, on the basis of improving early speed an angle called 2nd call maidens.

The horse had improved with the irrelevant connections listed at the top.

[46zilzal]

Once you evaluated what the HORSE did last time out relative to the pace of the others here, this one had a chance to wire this field as shown below, and did. THE HORSE not the rider or trainer was the tip here.

[Jackal]

A lot of small stables are run by someone that has a full time job off the track. They enter their horses when they have time to go to the track. In turn, they miss races with the best conditions for their horse, move up in class when the horse isn't ready and other things that aren't conductive to winning races.

[gm10]

These have great prices and I win with these combinations often, particularly at the beginning of meets.

Yes, and if you sum all their of wins up, no way do their odds justify backing them. These are the only two simple 'hard rules' which I employ for throwing out horses.

[Robert Fischer]

At second-tier tracks, if you see a low-percentage trainer (anyone who is winning at a rate of 5% or less) drop down a claiming horse who had been running well previously (2nd and 3rd, not beaten by a lot) at a higher tag, pitch him, especially if he's bet down - there's something wrong with him. One of the main reason low-percentage trainers wins so few races is they're consistently worried about losing horses to the claim box, so more often than not under the above scenario, they want to lose them and there's a problem with the horse.
thinking along with the trainer

it's not something i did much in the past, but I do a little more now

you'll notice some patterns, in different sorts of claiming "markets" if you keep an eye to them.

One thing, and maybe it's an obvious one is that certain individual or groups trainers (excluding 'super' high%) who just claimed a decent horse and then immediately raised him up within that same circuit to higher claiming ranks(perhaps protectively) are often well bet, and show some good signs, but for the majority will be running back where they belong in a start or two.

[ranchwest]

Yes, and if you sum all their of wins up, no way do their odds justify backing them. These are the only two simple 'hard rules' which I employ for throwing out horses.

46 can't sum their wins because:

1) He doen't maintin a database from which to draw this information

2) Jockeys are not a part of his decision process

Any statements he makes in this regard are purely anecdotal.

[46zilzal]

46 can't sum their wins because:

1) He doen't maintin a database from which to draw this information

2) Jockeys are not a part of his decision process

Any statements he makes in this regard are purely anecdotal.

Happens all the time while the crowd drowns in un-related data as regards the "coach" and the passenger and forget that it is a horse doing the actual running.

[ranchwest]

thinking along with the trainer

it's not something i did much in the past, but I do a little more now

you'll notice some patterns, in different sorts of claiming "markets" if you keep an eye to them.

One thing, and maybe it's an obvious one is that certain individual or groups trainers (excluding 'super' high%) who just claimed a decent horse and then immediately raised him up within that same circuit to higher claiming ranks(perhaps protectively) are often well bet, and show some good signs, but for the majority will be running back where they belong in a start or two.

Does anyone have stats on horses 1st and 2nd off the claim? I find them to generally be poor bets. I think you have to study the claiming game to understand when to bet off the claim. When I was playing claims, I'd get very few solid bets, even when studying every track.

[ranchwest]

Happens all the time while the crowd drowns in un-related data as regards the "coach" and the passenger and forget that it is a horse doing the actual running.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I'm saying you do not know to what extent you are right or wrong.

[Robert Goren]

If a horse pays boxcar numbers, there is something in the form that the public didn't like. As far jockey win %, it not too wise just go by those. Some jockeys get a lot of live mounts, so they have a %. Some jockeys hardly ever see a horse whose PP don't have a lot of 6s, 7s, 8s, or 9s in the finish column. When they do get a good looking horse you can decent odds on them. JMO

[46zilzal]

I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I'm saying you do not know to what extent you are right or wrong.
The angle, 2nd call maiden, is on the horse not anything else and, according to those who keep the records, it is one of the best angles anyone at the Sartin website has used for maidens.

[Robert Goren]

I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I'm saying you do not know to what extent you are right or wrong. Do you have access to his tax returns? The proof is in the bottom line and very few people outside of him know what that is.

[46zilzal]

Do you have access to his tax returns? The proof is in the bottom line and very few people outside of him know what that is.
THERE is no tax here on wagers, none, nada, lottery winnings either

[Robert Goren]

Then only you know.

[ranchwest]

Do you have access to his tax returns? The proof is in the bottom line and very few people outside of him know what that is.

You misunderstood.

What 46 is actually telling us is that he is satisfied with his profit/loss numbers without giving consideration to the jockey.

I know, based on his posts, that he cannot report to us from the other direction. He cannot tell us to what extent low percentage jockeys are a good bet within the Sartin methodology unless he is telling us as hearsay. He does not maintain statistics on jockeys.

This is not meant as a criticism. It is a clarification of where he is coming from.

[fmolf]

You misunderstood.

What 46 is actually telling us is that he is satisfied with his profit/loss numbers without giving consideration to the jockey.

I know, based on his posts, that he cannot report to us from the other direction. He cannot tell us to what extent low percentage jockeys are a good bet within the Sartin methodology unless he is telling us as hearsay. He does not maintain statistics on jockeys.

This is not meant as a criticism. It is a clarification of where he is coming from.
The bottom line is the better jockeys ride the better horses for the better trainers!The top 5 jockeys at most tracks win over 50% of all the races....

[46zilzal]

The bottom line is the better jockeys ride the better horses for the better trainers!The top 5 jockeys at most tracks win over 50% of all the races....
That is true but good horses have a way of coming into barns like Cam Gambolotti or Louie Roussell and riders often do well on good horses even though they have very limited ability, i.e. Ronnie Franklin

name another good one that old Buddy Delp trained

[tleusin]

Many years ago watched a jockey-J. Painter at Ruidoso-low percentage that I made money on. She would take any rides offered and over a series of races those nags would get better and get ITM or win. Then she would be replaced by Zamora or another male jockey followed usually by the decline of the horse. This was long before I heard of Sartin but even then I started to pay less attention to the jockey.
My # 1 auto throwout- in any grade 1 any horse trying artificial for the first time or an artificial runner trying dirt for the first time This work out well for the last Breeders Cup for example


n