# of runners dictate playable races?

[misscashalot]

A long time ago some old guy said to me that the higher number of runners in a race the lower the win percentage of lower price horses and vica-versa. He added that it might be to my advantage to analyse the average payoffs of my winning bets I get. If it's generally low then tailor my playable races around the number or runners. He said that most probably the dividing line is about 7 runners or less for lower payouts and 9 and above for higher. He added, 8 can go either way. That was in the days of more runners per race than now.

[skate]

i can agree, i can't compare because i'll only play a larger field, usually over ten.

What i would REALLY not be in agreement with is that the fields are smaller, not so, but you have to look at different tracks.

Oh sure if you are stuck o n Calif. Tracks, your fields are too small.

But i'm seeing Many 12, 13 and 14 horse fields, which 20 years ago, NEVER ever.

So much depends on your track, but ever since the Derby went to 14, 16 and 20 horse fields, many other tracks have followed.

[DeanT]

Field size cutoffs are part of my play. I dont even look at six horses or less. The value takes a huge hike for me in races with runners over seven, and you can sometimes find some gaps in the exotics there, where if you go deeper you can make a score.

For example, I have a simple form cycle and speed qualifier filter. It is about 0.96ROI, and I use this to look for horses to include in horizontal wagers, that might provide horiz betting value. If the field size is small, the ROI is poor. Chalk and under a field size of seven is ROI of about 0.88. It rises as field size rises and I tend to find some good value at the high end. It is ROI + over 7.



Field Size Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
2 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
3 2.20 14.00 1.1571 4 7 .5714 2.3232
4 8.70 166.00 1.0524 32 83 .3855 1.5675
5 -113.80 742.00 0.8466 121 371 .3261 1.3260
6 -208.70 1840.00 0.8866 248 920 .2696 1.0959
7 -303.40 2358.00 0.8713 292 1179 .2477 1.0069
8 52.00 2164.00 1.0240 279 1082 .2579 1.0483
9 -196.90 1696.00 0.8839 191 848 .2252 0.9157
10 -20.70 1570.00 0.9868 164 785 .2089 0.8494
11 61.00 702.00 1.0869 72 351 .2051 0.8340
12 93.50 532.00 1.1758 48 266 .1805 0.7336
13 75.60 56.00 2.3500 6 28 .2143 0.8712
14 63.00 64.00 1.9844 7 32 .2188 0.8893
15 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000

[cj]

My database shows field size is a big factor in profitability.

Dean, looks to me like your profits are at 11+, not 8+. Am I wrong?

[Turkoman]

A long time ago some old guy said to me that the higher number of runners in a race the lower the win percentage of lower price horses and vica-versa. He added that it might be to my advantage to analyse the average payoffs of my winning bets I get. If it's generally low then tailor my playable races around the number or runners. He said that most probably the dividing line is about 7 runners or less for lower payouts and 9 and above for higher. He added, 8 can go either way. That was in the days of more runners per race than now.

My very first step is to find races with at least 7 horses. I prefer between 8 & 10 horse fields though. They usually offer good value, even when my horse is not a big longshot.

Turkoman

[JohnGalt1]

I will almost never play tri's or supers unless field is at least 8 horses. The only exception is if I like a long shot on top.

But for horizontal bets I have to handicap all races. But I will bet a horse to win if I get value.

[DeanT]

My database shows field size is a big factor in profitability.

Dean, looks to me like your profits are at 11+, not 8+. Am I wrong?

Yep, that's correct, for win bets I use ten and above (that is this years data, last year I was profitable 9 or over). But for horizontals where hit rate is a bit more important to me, ML rank > 1 and field size over 7 is worthwhile for me to chuck those horses in, or at least look at them, especially if they are coming off a bad line.

I just pulled that one out of the wind to show a slight difference field size has on ROI. it's a broad based thing, with only a couple of filters.

I could not agree with you more anyway. Field size can really juice up your prices, esp with a good set of figs. The more horses the more variability.

It is not going to be hard for me to stop betting Cali :D

[DeanT]

Jeff did a better one on his website here http://www.jcapper.com/HelpDocs/FindingAnEdge.htm

This shows it clear as day:

[highnote]

Mathematically, profits should not be dependent on field size. If you're making probability estimates that are accurate and only betting when you have an edge then you will profit regardless of the field size.

If you have the choice of betting with a 30% edge in a race with 5 runners or a 20% edge in a race with 14 runners and you can not bet both races then the choice is clear -- all else being equal. You should bet the race where you have the biggest edge.

[DeanT]

Mathematically, profits should not be dependent on field size. If you're making probability estimates that are accurate and only betting when you have an edge then you will profit regardless of the field size.

If you have the choice of betting with a 30% edge in a race with 5 runners or a 20% edge in a race with 14 runners and you can not bet both races then the choice is clear -- all else being equal. You should bet the race where you have the biggest edge.

Certainly correct John, but math and reality are two different things. It's pretty tough to find a 30% edge (almost impossible really) in a two horse match race where the horses are 4-5 and 1-2, but make it a 13 horse tilt and you have got a different story, perhaps.

It is fascinating to watch a four horse field on the tote, then on the exchange, to see just how little of the "best of it" people are getting on the toteboard. You will often see three horses at 2-1 on the tote, but one horse at 2-1, one at 3-1 and one at 4-1 on the exchange.

I have been watching much more UK racing as well, and I absolutely love you can bet into a 18 horse field with a chalk of 7-1. There has to be some value in those races for sharpies.

[Robert Fischer]

i see it as more general without hard and fast rules: Certain field sizes lead to the tendency of certain pool characteristics. If these tendencies are a positive fit for your activities, then you strive for them. If they are a negative fit, you avoid them.

[Trotman]

In general I'll look for field sizes of 7 and up. But I have found over the years a play or two in field sizes of 5 or 6 so I can't say I would never bet into a race with less than 7, it would all depend on the edge I had.

[Greyfox]

I play 8 and up. In general:
You can lose as much money on small fields as big fields.
You can win more money on big fields.

[Overlay]

I don't regard any race as unplayable out-of-hand based solely on the number of horses. There are positive aspects to fields of any size. Small fields make it easier for the public to go overboard on an "obvious" choice, creating possible value elsewhere. Larger fields increase the likelihood of value at the lower end of the odds spectrum, where the horse has a greater chance of winning.

[cj]

I don't regard any race as unplayable out-of-hand based solely on the number of horses. There are positive aspects to fields of any size. Small fields make it easier for the public to go overboard on an "obvious" choice, creating possible value elsewhere. Larger fields increase the likelihood of value at the lower end of the odds spectrum, where the horse has a greater chance of winning.

I find it a little different. The bigger the field, the more a marginal contender is likely to be overlooked. Also, traffic in bigger fields makes it less likely the best horse will get a good trip.

[highnote]

I find it a little different. The bigger the field, the more a marginal contender is likely to be overlooked. Also, traffic in bigger fields makes it less likely the best horse will get a good trip.


I agree with this.

However, all else being equal, you're better off betting the race where you have the bigger edge, regardless of field size.

Now, if you want to start looking at situations where field size matters then the list is practically endless. You might like a horse in a big field, but overlook the fact that your horse prefers a small field or vice-versa. Then all of a sudden field size is a big deal.

Dean is probably correct that you get more opportunities to bet 30% edge races in large fields than in match races. However, there are a helluva lot more big field races than there are match races. If you're an expert in match races and are correct in assessing that your horse is 90% likely to win its match race then maybe you're better off betting the 2 horse race than the large field. And so on and so forth ad infinitum...

[DeanT]

Completely agree ceej.

I think it was Mike Maloney once saying that there are 10,000 factors to look for in a horse race. In a five horse field there are a couple likely scenarios on pace, trip and track bias. There are only five race replays to watch, five trainer stats to look at etc. In a 12 horse field there are 2.5X as much, and much more variability.

Harness racing, which I do not play much of, but have is really interesting in this regard. As most know fields are short and it is a huge speed game. Chalk wins more of course, and there is little variability. Field size is around 7 or 8.

But I went to Extreme day, where they go different distances and had several fields with 18 horses. A 2.5 mile race, with 18 horses and you could find some major holes in the tote board. The pools were not large, but a guy can really do some studying there and make some scratch. it was entertaining to cap for sure.

A bunch of 12 horse fields at KEE, with a perceptible bias that you can recognize can really make a guys month, or maybe even year. Sure as hell beats 5 horse So cal fields for me.

[thaskalos]

I agree with this.

However, all else being equal, you're better off betting the race where you have the bigger edge, regardless of field size.

Now, if you want to start looking at situations where field size matters then the list is practically endless. You might like a horse in a big field, but overlook the fact that your horse prefers a small field or vice-versa. Then all of a sudden field size is a big deal.

Dean is probably correct that you get more opportunities to bet 30% edge races in large fields than in match races. However, there are a helluva lot more big field races than there are match races. If you're an expert in match races and are correct in assessing that your horse is 90% likely to win its match race then maybe you're better off betting the 2 horse race than the large field. And so on and so forth ad infinitum...In horse racing, as in poker, the player profits by exploiting the mistakes of his opposition. The smaller the field, the fewer the mistakes made by the opposition...and the smaller the profits for the winning player.

[highnote]

In horse racing, as in poker, the player profits by exploiting the mistakes of his opposition. The smaller the field, the fewer the mistakes made by the opposition...and the smaller the profits for the winning player.


You might be right. And you certainly make a good point about more mistakes in a large field than a small.

I have never looked at the bets I've made and divided them into small field and large field to see which made more money. That is certainly something I will consider doing.

[Robert Fischer]

Completely agree ceej.

I think it was Mike Maloney once saying that there are 10,000 factors to look for in a horse race. In a five horse field there are a couple likely scenarios on pace, trip and track bias. There are only five race replays to watch, five trainer stats to look at etc. In a 12 horse field there are 2.5X as much, and much more variability.

Harness racing, which I do not play much of, but have is really interesting in this regard. As most know fields are short and it is a huge speed game. Chalk wins more of course, and there is little variability. Field size is around 7 or 8.

But I went to Extreme day, where they go different distances and had several fields with 18 horses. A 2.5 mile race, with 18 horses and you could find some major holes in the tote board. The pools were not large, but a guy can really do some studying there and make some scratch. it was entertaining to cap for sure.

A bunch of 12 horse fields at KEE, with a perceptible bias that you can recognize can really make a guys month, or maybe even year. Sure as hell beats 5 horse So cal fields for me.
you're giving out too much good insight Dean :)
seriously read this post paragraph for paragraph nodding my head like this was a tryout for the new PA rap video :jump:.
Funny that I just happened to do some serious capping with harness for a few days myself... I simply applied the the things that I do with thoroughbreds to see what if any "crossover" tb & sb enjoyed. I noted 7 runners. 6 raced. 4 winners(2 of which paid more than $20) 5Placed(1stor2nd including the 4win). I am sure that it was beginner's luck, and wasn't a serious heist as I only made about $50 on the whole experiment due to being cautious, but the luck was in a "hot hand" (and fortune of finding races that applied to my skillset) rather than randomness or guessing - I did in fact have a high level of insight regardless of me being a TB man.
Long story short - Harness had always been a horse I had pre-judged - partially due to fiedsize- NO LONGER!
The Maloney paragraph rings true as well. I tend to favor size, but his stance is sound and I've heard highly respected gentleman debate for "his team". Keeneland capping off the post with more truth. Too much Info Dean! :mad: ;)

[DeanT]

Hey Bobby,

Playing harness when they had 10 horse fields at the Meadowlands each race on a Saturday could make you a better gambler.

Dick Powell of RGS played when it was opened (1976 I think) and said the old time players hated it. They could not "pick winners" which is what they had done for so long. At that track there were four or five lead changes, ding dong action and the horse with the best trip, with the most ability would win. It taught you to buy value, not a horse. And old time handicappers could not do that well - they wanted the best horse, even if he was overbet.

Dick paralled that to poly now (I dont want to get into a debate on that, and only use it as an analogy like he did), where "chaos" was ensuing early on those tracks (31% fave win % for example), and if you bet pure value, spread your tickets, just like the M in harness 25 years ago, you could make some huge scores.

I grew up playing the Meadowlands, and it is no secret that for me, deep fields with piles of chaos are preferred.

I almost took my first "Scoop Six" last weekend in the UK - big carryover and a pick six with 6 15 or so horse fields - wow!

PS: Not this weekend but next is the Breeders Crown in harness. Might be worth taking a look at, they are seeding the pick 4 and 6 pools too. Decent night of racing with full fields.

[JustRalph]

I find it a little different. The bigger the field, the more a marginal contender is likely to be overlooked. Also, traffic in bigger fields makes it less likely the best horse will get a good trip.

I used to have a UDM in JCapper that showed this fact, except if the best horse/Fav was an E type .......I guess when they break on top they make their own luck.

[highnote]

I used to have a UDM in JCapper that showed this fact, except if the best horse/Fav was an E type .......I guess when they break on top they make their own luck.

Good point. That makes sense. Maybe the same is somewhat true for deep closers?

[formula_2002]

Certainly correct John, but math and reality are two different things. It's pretty tough to find a 30% edge (almost impossible really) in a two horse match race where the horses are 4-5 and 1-2, but make it a 13 horse tilt and you have got a different story, perhaps.


Math and reality not different.
What may seem to make them different is a lack of understanding one or both. If they were different, there would be no need for both

As I think about that a bit, I wonder how a race would shape up if it were winner take all, the entire purse going to the winner.

The successful trainer would have to have a clearer understanding of the "math and reality" :)

[Robert Goren]

Field size helps, but it is not a substitute for lower takeout as some have suggested.

[TrifectaMike]

Math and reality not different.
What may seem to make them different is a lack of understanding one or both. If they were different, there would be no need for both

I agree.

Let's review the math.

The sum of the probabilities equal one (independent of field size).

The mathematical expectation of any bet is the sum of all possible gains and losses multiplied by their relative probabilities. Written in equation form:

Expectation = probability of the win times gain on the winning bet minus the
probability of loss times the value of loss (independent of field size).

This is the math. It's crystal clear.

Mike

[cj]

I agree.

Let's review the math.

The sum of the probabilities equal one (independent of field size).

The mathematical expectation of any bet is the sum of all possible gains and losses multiplied by their relative probabilities. Written in equation form:

Expectation = probability of the win times gain on the winning bet minus the
probability of loss times the value of loss (independent of field size).

This is the math. It's crystal clear.

Mike

All some of us are saying is that the game is very hard to beat with the takeout around 20%. You have to exploit mistakes, big mistakes, to overcome that obstacle. The chance of mistakes increase rapidly with each additional horse added to the field.

[TrifectaMike]

All some of us are saying is that the game is very hard to beat with the takeout around 20%. You have to exploit mistakes, big mistakes, to overcome that obstacle. The chance of mistakes increase rapidly with each additional horse added to the field.

Hard or easy the math is the math.

The probablity distribution within a race will change with added horses, but the math is still the same. There is no way around it.

Let's apply it to a simple example; a simple coin-toss game, an unbalanced coin-toss. And I am aware of the bias, and still receive an even payoff, which results in a positive expectation. Should I pass the opportuntity?

Mike

[misscashalot]

Interesting input here but...

The old man who told me this said NUMBER OF RUNNERS

not number of bet entries

Does this change the equation for anyone here?

[formula_2002]

I agree.

Let's review the math.

The sum of the ]probabilities[/U] equal one (independent of field size).

The mathematical expectation of any bet is the sum of all possible gains and losses multiplied by their relative probabilities. Written in equation form:

Expectation = probability of the win times gain on the winning bet minus the
probability of loss times the value of loss (independent of field size).

This is the math. It's crystal clear.

Mike

the operative word is "probabilities".
I dont think any of the post here listed field size wrt odds line.

Looking at favorites (to me the key to the game);

As the field size increases, the fav odds increase and the roi decreases.
It seems to me field size is an addition factor, just like speed, pace, etc. and must be considered when trying to determine probability...

Of course favorites in large field sizes may be of a lessor quality, or, it just may be they have more competition, not to mention more things can go wrong in larger fields.

who knows?..playing into a 18% vig sucks

craps on the other hand takes a 1.4 vig.
On any given day most will do better playing the pass line than betting horses.

[SchagFactorToWin]

Long story short - Harness had always been a horse I had pre-judged - partially due to fiedsize- NO LONGER!
T;)

I play Yonkers and have identical win rates on field sizes of 6-8. For 5 (and over 8) horse fields, the sample size is too small.

[cj]

Hard or easy the math is the math.

The probablity distribution within a race will change with added horses, but the math is still the same. There is no way around it.

Let's apply it to a simple example; a simple coin-toss game, an unbalanced coin-toss. And I am aware of the bias, and still receive an even payoff, which results in a positive expectation. Should I pass the opportuntity?

Mike

Nope, you shouldn't pass, but good luck finding it.

[DeanT]

Nope, you shouldn't pass, but good luck finding it.

Exactly.

[JohnGalt1]

Interesting input here but...

The old man who told me this said NUMBER OF RUNNERS

not number of bet entries

Does this change the equation for anyone here?

For me.

A nine horse field with two 2 horse entries would have 7 betting interests, so I would not look to bet a tri or super unless I find a high odds odds horse for the top spot.

[fmolf]

For me.

A nine horse field with two 2 horse entries would have 7 betting interests, so I would not look to bet a tri or super unless I find a high odds odds horse for the top spot.
It still boils down to whether the horse is overlayed or underlayed!In a 6 horse field a horse may be 8/5 and an overlay....the same horse entered at the same class and distance, in a 12 horse field might be 3/1 and an underlay due to the entry of more speed to duel for the lead.Maybe he's a presser or closer who will have to deal with more traffic,perhaps he's a speed horse breaking from post 11!..For me every race is a new scenario with new factors to consider.My hit rate is greater in smaller fields but my avg payout lower.Their is a tradeoff , my ROI is approximately the same but during hot streaks jumps up for larger fields.

[therussmeister]

In horse racing, as in poker, the player profits by exploiting the mistakes of his opposition. The smaller the field, the fewer the mistakes made by the opposition...and the smaller the profits for the winning player.
In horse racing, as in poker, the player needs to adjust his strategy to maximize his profits in short fields (short-handed poker games). You can't play the same way as you would in a full field. Whilst I prefer fuller fields I do quit well in five and six horse races.

[thaskalos]

In horse racing, as in poker, the player needs to adjust his strategy to maximize his profits in short fields (short-handed poker games). You can't play the same way as you would in a full field. Whilst I prefer fuller fields I do quit well in five and six horse races.I can't tell if you disagree with my initial comment or not. I never said that you can't win playing the short fields...I only stated that the long term profits are more difficult to come by.

Your short-handed poker analogy is invalid IMO. Many winning poker players prefer the short-handed poker games, because they are more profitable in the long run, if you know how to play them...whereas we would be hard pressed to find winning horseplayers who prefer the short fields.

[DeanT]

The thing that short fields can do is certainly help newbies. They are cashing so they think they are winning. They aren't but they think so.

........ Hey, I think I just figured out the secret of Golden Gate's handle. :)

[dansan]

there's nothing golden about that track it will bleed you

[DeanT]

That's been my experience too. I know there are a few jcapper players who set the printouts to not show races with less than 7 horses. I am thinking they dont play too many GG cards :)

[therussmeister]

I can't tell if you disagree with my initial comment or not. I never said that you can't win playing the short fields...I only stated that the long term profits are more difficult to come by.

Your short-handed poker analogy is invalid IMO. Many winning poker players prefer the short-handed poker games, because they are more profitable in the long run, if you know how to play them...whereas we would be hard pressed to find winning horseplayers who prefer the short fields.
The only reason I don't prefer short fields is they are too boring. In their favor, I find there is less variance and I can handicap more races in a given period of time. Less variance means I can bet a larger percentage of my bankroll per race. This combined with more races per hour leads me to believe my profit per hour would be the same, or higher than larger fields. Hard to tell for sure because I never have a day of exclusively short fields, or exclusively large fields, so its hard to figure an accurate profit per hour.

As a poker player the reason I prefer short-handed poker games is because it is profitable to play more hands, and in this there is not an analogy in horse racing, as there are very few races I dismiss at a quick glance without doing some handicapping, as one does frequently in poker. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons people don't like short-fields in horse racing may be because they are dismissing too many races after doing little or no handicapping, assuming there is no value. I used to do just that in my youth.

[thaskalos]

The only reason I don't prefer short fields is they are too boring. In their favor, I find there is less variance and I can handicap more races in a given period of time. Less variance means I can bet a larger percentage of my bankroll per race. This combined with more races per hour leads me to believe my profit per hour would be the same, or higher than larger fields. Hard to tell for sure because I never have a day of exclusively short fields, or exclusively large fields, so its hard to figure an accurate profit per hour.

As a poker player the reason I prefer short-handed poker games is because it is profitable to play more hands, and in this there is not an analogy in horse racing, as there are very few races I dismiss at a quick glance without doing some handicapping, as one does frequently in poker. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons people don't like short-fields in horse racing may be because they are dismissing too many races after doing little or no handicapping, assuming there is no value. I used to do just that in my youth.I still can't tell if you are disagreeing with me or not.

[therussmeister]

I still can't tell if you are disagreeing with me or not.
In each individual race you are right, in short fields there is less room for your opponents to err. However I believe it is compensated by requiring less effort to handicap, and less risk of my selections encountering traffic problems.

[thaskalos]

In each individual race you are right, in short fields there is less room for your opponents to err. However I believe it is compensated by requiring less effort to handicap, and less risk of my selections encountering traffic problems.I agree with you...but being mainly an exotics bettor, I don't find the exotic payoffs of the small fields too appetizing, so I gravitate to the larger fields instead.

I only play the short fields when I can narrow the race down to one or two exacta possibilities...which I then wager on aggressively.

I assume that you play short-handed poker online...have you been playing long?

[Steve 'StatMan']

I have no proof of this, but it seems to me that some horses that normally don't do well, do better in fields of 6 or less. Less traffic to get in the way, of course, but also a smaller, less intimidating small herd of horses vs a large crowd. I have seen some jump up that normally stank, and wondered if they just felt more at ease, maybe even more like a workout with no or maybe 1 other horse near them. I do know of a few handicappers that won't bet 7 or less, some due to few exacta combos, but mostly because they do poorer in them, and that their handicapping methods get foiled and they lose money so they shun them.

I don't know if the morning glory workout horses like smaller fields or not.

Just thoughts to share for whatever their worth.

[classhandicapper]

I prefer large fields also.

Horses I classify as non contenders tend to get very over bet (most longshots do too). The more horses there are, the more non contenders there are. The more over bet non contenders there are, the greater percentage of the take is accounted for among horses I won't consider betting. That means I am essentially playing a lower take game among my contenders.

[misscashalot]

I prefer large fields also.

Horses I classify as non contenders tend to get very over bet (most longshots do too). The more horses there are, the more non contenders there are. The more over bet non contenders there are, the greater percentage of the take is accounted for among horses I won't consider betting. That means I am essentially playing a lower take game among my contenders.
This sounds OK to me. It also sounds like you have nice priced winning bets, but perhaps low strike rate. Of course it's all subjective as to what's nice and what's low...and I could be wrong

[Pell Mell]

I spot play long shots with particular patterns. If I find a play I'm going to play it regardless of what the field consists of so naturally I like bigger fields. Size of field doesn't seem to have an effect on win % but it's sure hard to find 20/1 shots in a small field that can win. ;)

[misscashalot]

I spot play long shots with particular patterns. If I find a play I'm going to play it regardless of what the field consists of so naturally I like bigger fields. Size of field doesn't seem to have an effect on win % but it's sure hard to find 20/1 shots in a small field that can win. ;)

So what you're saying is that due to your race profile you tend to gravitate towards larger fields, so you do care. Use a different profile and you might favor smaller fields. It's the tail wagging the dog, which is my case also.
I actively seek small fields for some of my profiles and larger fields for others.
The first thing I do in order to cap is get the scratches and pare down the fields and see what fits my profiles as far as entries are concerned. Then I continue from there.