Changing stubborn habits

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Thinking about the upcoming Saratoga meeting and looking over my records I have come to the conclusion that my worst habit associated with race track participation (costing profits), is failing to include selections that are trained by low percentage conditioners. I avoid trainers below 10% for the year as a win percentage. Time and time again the large mutuels occur within this group. I simply, as a force of habit find it almost impossible to wager on this group, I guess it's the significantly lower win percentage associated with this group (I know win percentage is not important)...I need to change this pattern! The problem is that it has been a part of my handicapping routine for many years.

Interested in any other habits that are costing money for players on this fine site.

Thank you and good luck!

[xfile]

Reviewing results is an invaluable tool to improving one's game. You see what happened in the past then make adjustments in your handicapping based on what you discovered. There are many trainers with a low win % yet if you bet every one of their starters you have a flat bet profit for the year. Profit is the bottom line.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Reviewing results is an invaluable tool to improving one's game. You see what happened in the past then make adjustments in your handicapping based on what you discovered. There are many trainers with a low win % yet if you bet every one of their starters you have a flat bet profit for the year. Profit is the bottom line.

Agree 100%. For me, it's accepting that playing these lower percentage opportunities can equal profit cashing one or two of 20 bets. It's a work in progress..after all these years! LOL

[Overlay]

Thinking about the upcoming Saratoga meeting and looking over my records I have come to the conclusion that my worst habit associated with race track participation (costing profits), is failing to include selections that are trained by low percentage conditioners.

I think that using any element (not just trainers) as a flat-out elimination criterion detracts from performance. It's better to go with the percentages/probabilities associated with a variety of basic factors, and use them to decide what odds make a given horse or combination worth the risk of a wager.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I think that using any element (not just trainers) as a flat-out elimination criterion detracts from performance. It's better to go with the percentages/probabilities associated with a variety of basic factors, and use them to decide what odds make a given horse or combination worth the risk of a wager.

This is basically my only ironclad rule (the 10% factor) and it holds from the time early in my playing career when win percentage was paramount to my success (or so I thought). I had the records to prove that this elimination factor was a key to pumping up the win percentage without any work...the old days lol

[xfile]

Agree 100%. For me, it's accepting that playing these lower percentage opportunities can equal profit cashing one or two of 20 bets. It's a work in progress..after all these years! LOL
You are definitely not alone in that thinking. I would say most players could not, or would not want to, mentally handle a 10% win rate even if it was a proven profit % maker.

[Robert Goren]

You are not going to get many winning long shots by betting only high % trainers or high % jockeys. Certain skilled low % trainers and jockeys are way under bet because a lot of betters just like you automatically toss them. It is a lot of work to weed through these guys, but I believe that is one of the best ways to make money at the track. I am not sure you can find a computer program to do the work for you, but I could be wrong.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Since I wager to win only with an occasional double/pick3 the runouts on these very low win percentage conditioners seem to magnify since I do not use place betting or exacta savers as a hedge to the win bet.

[TEJAS KIDD]

I take trainer win percentages with a grain of salt.

Top trainers have good owners. When they tell their owners this horse cant run. The owner listens and gets rid of the horse. Thusly automatically increasing their win percentage by not running the animal.
Trainers that have only a handful of horses are more likely to say nothing and run the animal anyway because that horse is helping pay their bills regardless of how it runs. So a guy training 10 horses has a couple of horses that can win in his barn, but maybe the rest are bottom level maidens. Also, trainers with only a few horses are more likely to run their horses over their head in order to keep the horse in their barn. Basically if they drop the horse and lose him, that's like getting laid off or fired.
If a horse has ability and is in good form, then who trains it shouldn't matter. As a matter of fact, you're more likely to find value because the trainer is a low percentage trainer.
Now Jockey % is a different story.