Winning Has Become More Difficult

[rayfox]

[b]Why Has Winning At The Races Become More Difficult?

Although a considerable number of thoroughbred racing fans haven't picked up on the primary reason, the answer is quite obvious to a seasoned handicapper; welcome parity in horse racing.

Back a few years, before computers became a common household amenity, handicapping was almost done exclusively through the Daily Racing Form. Races were wide open for the trainers and owners for entering their horses. In a $10K claiming race, for example, you could usually find three or four horses that were non-contenders thus eligible for elimination. Such horses were either out classed or very poor performers in similar races. So what happened? Oddly enough, the same change made that created parity in the NFL a few years ago has been made in horse racing. The NFL attempted to even the playing field as much as possible. In comparison, the same $10K claimer that existed years ago does not any longer.

Racing redefined the conditions for races. That once $10K open claimer was transformed into specific entry requirements. As an example races were restricted to non-winners of two races lifetime, non-winners of two races since a certain date, or non-winners of two races this year and so on. So when wagering on restricted races keep in mind that an even money favorite doesn't really have much better credentials than any of the others. Look for a nice priced horse as your win selection. Ray Fox's philosophy is; it's not how many tickets you cash, but for how much. Take your shot with a price horse in these evenly matched races.

[Gapfire]

I disagree. I have no problem weeding out non-contenders in most 10k claimers.
Also, it's always been about the price.

[thaskalos]

Why Has Winning At The Races Become More Difficult?

Although a considerable number of thoroughbred racing fans haven't picked up on the primary reason, the answer is quite obvious to a seasoned handicapper; welcome parity in horse racing.

Back a few years, before computers became a common household amenity, handicapping was almost done exclusively through the Daily Racing Form. Races were wide open for the trainers and owners for entering their horses. In a $10K claiming race, for example, you could usually find three or four horses that were non-contenders thus eligible for elimination. Such horses were either out classed or very poor performers in similar races. So what happened? Oddly enough, the same change made that created parity in the NFL a few years ago has been made in horse racing. The NFL attempted to even the playing field as much as possible. In comparison, the same $10K claimer that existed years ago does not any longer.

Racing redefined the conditions for races. That once $10K open claimer was transformed into specific entry requirements. As an example races were restricted to non-winners of two races lifetime, non-winners of two races since a certain date, or non-winners of two races this year and so on. So when wagering on restricted races keep in mind that an even money favorite doesn't really have much better credentials than any of the others. Look for a nice priced horse as your win selection. Ray Fox's philosophy is; it's not how many tickets you cash, but for how much. Take your shot with a price horse in these evenly matched races.

Winning HAS become more difficult...but this "parity" you speak of has more to do with the BETTORS than the horses.

The unsophisticated bettor is becoming extinct...and this game is fast becoming a battle between "sharks"...and "whales".

[calltopost]

Rayfox - I see your post was edited for unauthorized advertising. Are you here promoting some website or some service? You're a new user with some interesting thoughts, just wondering what the story is.

EDIT: Nevermind, I found your website. Keep contributing!

[JohnGalt1]

Winning HAS become more difficult...but this "parity" you speak of has more to do with the BETTORS than the horses.

The unsophisticated bettor is becoming extinct...and this game is fast becoming a battle between "sharks"...and "whales".

That's why I like Mid-size to smaller tracks like Canterbury, Prairie Meadows, Hawthorne, etc. because the sharpies mostly ignore them.

A 7-2 pays $9 every where -- at Podunk Dowms or Saratoga.

I still play big tracks, but I have more of an edge at smaller venues.

[mishka]

How would you reconcile this with the fact that the handicapper known as ThePublic still is winning at a 1/3 clip? I would think that over time ThePublic would lose more often with great parity. In fact, I think somebody with access to a huge database wrote in a thread (which of course I can't find) that ThePublic's winning percentage has gone from roughly 32% to about 38%.

[The Hawk]

Racing redefined the conditions for races. That once $10K open claimer was transformed into specific entry requirements. As an example races were restricted to non-winners of two races lifetime, non-winners of two races since a certain date, or non-winners of two races this year and so on.

This is a good point. Those two races consisting of 24 horses, the 12-horse fields of $10K and $15,000 open claimers of yesteryear, are now four six-horse fields: a non-winners of three lifetime, a non-winners of two races in six months, and two open $10K claimers. Not only do the short fields ruin value but the horses are more evenly matched because of the groupings, leading to a plethora of 2-1 winners.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

How would you reconcile this with the fact that the handicapper known as ThePublic still is winning at a 1/3 clip? I would think that over time ThePublic would lose more often with great parity. In fact, I think somebody with access to a huge database wrote in a thread (which of course I can't find) that ThePublic's winning percentage has gone from roughly 32% to about 38%.
Winning favorites percentages will go up the shorter the fields. The percentages have no meaning unless you show the average payout price as well.
Bottom line, there is a lot less dummy money in the pool compared to 20 or 30 or 40 years ago because competition (slots and lotteries mainly) took the dummy away. It is pretty evident that happened and what that means is that there are a lot less overlays these days than ever before.
A 7-2 shot 30 years ago, is most likely 3-1 or even 5-2 these days all things being equal.

[mishka]

Winning favorites percentages will go up the shorter the fields. The percentages have no meaning unless you show the average payout price as well.
Bottom line, there is a lot less dummy money in the pool compared to 20 or 30 or 40 years ago because competition (slots and lotteries mainly) took the dummy away. It is pretty evident that happened and what that means is that there are a lot less overlays these days than ever before.
A 7-2 shot 30 years ago, is most likely 3-1 or even 5-2 these days all things being equal.

Thanks, makes sense. So the actual winning percentages remain the same as before, but the profits are much harder to come by. And I told my wife horse racing was better than using a a nice day to clean out the garage.

[Si2see]

This is a good point. Those two races consisting of 24 horses, the 12-horse fields of $10K and $15,000 open claimers of yesteryear, are now four six-horse fields: a non-winners of three lifetime, a non-winners of two races in six months, and two open $10K claimers. Not only do the short fields ruin value but the horses are more evenly matched because of the groupings, leading to a plethora of 2-1 winners.

Gulfstream has full fields in almost every 10k open claimer so far, and yet this is the track I see tons of posts where people are having the most trouble winning races. There have been several posts like this one in the last month

[The Hawk]

Gulfstream has full fields in almost every 10k open claimer so far, and yet this is the track I see tons of posts where people are having the most trouble winning races. There have been several posts like this one in the last month

1) There are exceptions, notably Gulfstream, Saratoga and Keeneland.

2) People SHOULD have trouble winning races. Card after card of short-priced winners and/or outlandish form reversals are what players find unappealing. Gulfstream is challenging, but you can smoke out a 12-1 shot by doing some legwork. That's not true every track day in and day out, but it's what makes the game great.

[Dark Horse]

The unsophisticated bettor is becoming extinct...and this game is fast becoming a battle between "sharks"...and "whales".

I believe that's accurate. The same thing happened in sports betting after the internet legislation. Much of the general public left, leaving the sharper players to battle against each other.

[cosmicway]

The unsophisticated bettor is becoming extinct...and this game is fast becoming a battle between "sharks"...and "whales".

Years ago I went shopping to the "Minion".
Thaskalos knows this. It's gone now.
After payment they were allowing you to enter a small contest. It was June, soccer world cup. So I marked Scotland v. Costa Rika as a draw. Came true, I won a bike as a result.
But why ? There were so many shoppers.
The answer is this. All the housewives respected Scotland and thought of Costa Rika as a non-entity in football.
The same hour as I entered the competition, two blocks away, in the football betting shops area I made an enquiry and everyone there agreed it was not easy for Scotland ...

[thaskalos]

Years ago I went shopping to the "Minion".
Thaskalos knows this. It's gone now.
After payment they were allowing you to enter a small contest. It was June, soccer world cup. So I marked Scotland v. Costa Rika as a draw. Came true, I won a bike as a result.
But why ? There were so many shoppers.
The answer is this. All the housewives respected Scotland and thought of Costa Rika as a non-entity in football.
The same hour as I entered the competition, two blocks away, in the football betting shops area I made an enquiry and everyone there agreed it was not easy for Scotland ...
Are you suggesting that we get more housewives to the track? :)

[cosmicway]

Are you suggesting that we get more housewives to the track? :)

The other time in the "Lambropoulos" shops I managed a small miracle:

Italy through against Brazil, final between Italy and Germany, score of final 3-1 for Italy.

Just the way it happened in 1982 (no betting those days).

To my surprise the winner was a mrs Lossada, same name as the Argentinian right winger of Olympiakos Piraeus of old.
The prize was a Fiat car.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Rebates would have a big role to play in making it harder to win

[Robert Goren]

I do agree that there is less as the poker pros say "dead money" in the pools these days.

[The Hawk]

I do agree that there is less as the poker pros say "dead money" in the pools these days.

There's no doubt about it. There are X thousands of us betting against each other everyday (especially on weekdays) and for the most part we have the same information. That leads to short priced-winners, generally speaking.

[cosmicway]

I 've been watching Lingfield-UK just before.
But the prices are from Greek local pool rather than English.
The quinella 3-6, 5.98/1 euro.
Field of 6, the 3-6 had against it the possibility of one of the two jockeys jumping off the horse, but the locals have no heart to produce money ...
So the big spenders is another enemy, if you have them aorund.

[pondman]

[b]
Back a few years, before computers became a common household amenity, handicapping was almost done exclusively through the Daily Racing Form. .

I don't see many people caring laptops. And of those I see and have spoken with I don't see much knowledge or succes. They still bet too many races and are inconsistent.

Racing is suffering from Super Trainers. A half dozen trainers have the resources and the skills to consistently win, and can attract the millionaire/billionaire investor. The rest are dreamers or drunks. There isn't enough money in the game to be spread around the barns.

[proximity]

Racing is suffering from Super Trainers. A half dozen trainers have the resources and the skills to consistently win, and can attract the millionaire/billionaire investor. The rest are dreamers or drunks. There isn't enough money in the game to be spread around the barns.

good post, although back east at super-trainer mecca penn national, i'd say that supers drink at least as much as other trainers. yet should proximity step up to the bar to imbibe, the pen racing illuminati nails me for drunk handicapping. go figure!!

[gm10]

:liar: There's no doubt about it. There are X thousands of us betting against each other everyday (especially on weekdays) and for the most part we have the same information. That leads to short priced-winners, generally speaking.

Not sure if there is more or less dead money on betfair (probably less) but I read that 28% of the accounts turned a profit last year.

[JohnGalt1]

How would you reconcile this with the fact that the handicapper known as ThePublic still is winning at a 1/3 clip? I would think that over time ThePublic would lose more often with great parity. In fact, I think somebody with access to a huge database wrote in a thread (which of course I can't find) that ThePublic's winning percentage has gone from roughly 32% to about 38%.

I believe that is a higher percentage of "dummy' money at smaller tracks.

One example, and by no means do I think very common, a few years ago I played a $1 pick 3 at Canterbury A/ABC/all, cost $27.

Winners were 4-5, 2-1, 10-1. I took down the whole pool of $1600. Dummy money plays fav/fav/fav (or some adventurous betters throw in a 2nd fav to get a price.) at smaller tracks. If the same combo hit in Calif., I would've been lucky to get $100 even with the larger pools.

While you and I play large pool, better quality race tracks, most "expert" big betters don't play Podunk Downs. Who wants to bet into a $1600 pool, unless of course you can take down all or even a large percentage of it.

If we have an edge at any track we should play.

And by the way, I never would've played the pick three at Calif. Ky, or other large tracks, because I don't play when I like an odds on horse, because it will depress the odds too much.

[aaron]

I play the NYRA circuit and so far this year,I seem to have found less solid bets than previous years. I do not like to get in the habit of spreading so I have been making less bets than normal. I do feel in many races there are 3 or 4 horses with a good chance to win,but if you always bet the highest price in these type of races you will go broke. To make a bet in this type of race you have to find an edge,whether it be a trip or a favorable pace scenario or a strong trainer pattern.
Most of these scenario's are figured in the price,so if you understand the race and why the public is overlooking a certain horse,you may be on to something.

[cosmicway]

The biggest number one enemy is the big spender - when you are out to bet on a favourite or thereabouts selection. The other enemy is of course the takeout.

Horror story 1:
I went to a neighobhood agent once. Problem with tv that day because of storm in the Atlantic affecting satellites or some such happening. There was a big exacta favourite, so I ask the man "please tell me if the exacta pool was the people in your shop and not the entire pool what was the price going to be ?".
He made some calculations -had to keep track of all plays the way the system was working those days- and he said to me 7.90. After a while the race started, the nap exacta came true and the price was 2.90.

Horror story 2:
In the early days of the trifecta I visit the racecourse and in the first race they had a very hot favourite over 5 furlongs in a field of 10. Win price 1.20 or less.
I bet a tricast with that infront. My second place selection was a very probable second, ridden by champion jockey as well and my third place selection was one of the two-three also runs.
Came true, price was 100.00 !
If it was today the price for that sort of thing could hardly go beyond 15.00.
How ?
Because back then, the tricast was not available through the main tote system. There was a separate computer and you had to stand in a long queue. The regulars did not bother, so in the queues stood some old folks, some young stable lads and generally people carrying little betting money and possibly playing random things.

The big spender makes the market look shallow.