The PLAN

[jasperson]

I went to the track yesterday determined to only bet the horses that the PLAN dictated that I could bet. In the 1st at Belmont I really liked the 7 horse. He was my program's second pick and he had lots of things that I like in a longshot.
He was an early speed horse coming off a layoff and dropping in class from claiming 50k to claiming 20k. His early pace numbers looked good enough to get the lead if he wanted too. He won and paid $26.60 to win,but I stuck to the PLAN and didn't bet him. I did come out of the day with a profit by sticking to the PLAN so I guess the PLAN was right. Should I have ignored the PLAN and bet the horse anyway? I know betting longshots can eat up the profits that you make on solid horses so that why I stuck to the PLAN.

[Overlay]

You say that you "really liked" the 7 horse, and you outline all the angles that it had going for it, and indicate that it was your program's second pick. What made it unacceptable for a wager according to the PLAN? Do you bet only top picks? Does a consideration of wagering value (odds versus winning chances) enter into your handicapping?

In my handicapping model, a horse that the public lets go off at 12-1 might be unlikely to figure as my top selection based solely on pure winning probability, but could well offer value according to my full-field fair-odds line, and be a better wagering proposition than my top choice (especially if my odds line had ranked the 12-1 horse as the second-most-likely winner).

If you had modified the PLAN to include all horses that meet the criteria of the winning second-choice 12-1 shot, do you have a means of gauging (through records you might have kept, or the data on which your program or the PLAN are based) what effect it would have in terms of additional wagers versus resulting winnings, and how your bottom line would be affected?

[NY BRED]

going to the track, paying admission and parking(unless you are an owner),
and gas, and/or tolls(if applicable) and not betting or choosing to bet fav's
and secong guessing yourself will drive you nuts in this game.

In fact, if you are hesitant betting the longshot that you liked, stay home,
you'll automatically save $ on the factors cited above, and then, bet the longshot for 1/2 of your original bet.Even if you lose, you probably
will have saved money.:)

You have to be prepared for losing streaks based on any factor you choose.

While you are right odds regarding the odds vs reality of winning, it hurts when you pass such an opportunity.

The again, think about $1 straight exactas to hedge your bet.:jump:.

[jasperson]

You say that you "really liked" the 7 horse, and you outline all the angles that it had going for it, and indicate that it was your program's second pick. What made it unacceptable for a wager according to the PLAN? Do you bet only top picks? Does a consideration of wagering value (odds versus winning chances) enter into your handicapping?

In my handicapping model, a horse that the public lets go off at 12-1 might be unlikely to figure as my top selection based solely on pure winning probability, but could well offer value according to my full-field fair-odds line, and be a better wagering proposition than my top choice (especially if my odds line had ranked the 12-1 horse as the second-most-likely winner).

If you had modified the PLAN to include all horses that meet the criteria of the winning second-choice 12-1 shot, do you have a means of gauging (through records you might have kept, or the data on which your program or the PLAN are based) what effect it would have in terms of additional wagers versus resulting winnings, and how your bottom line would be affected?
I would have normally bet this horse because I don't shy away from good longshots. The plan for the day was to bet only my solid horses to see how I would come out. I didn't want to cloud the issue by making off the wall bets I don't usally restrict my self this way, but on this day I just wanted to see how I would make out just betting solid horses.

[HUSKER55]

THE PICK OFFERED VALUE. WHY DIDN'T YOU BET HIM SINCE HE WAS YOUR SECOND PICK?

WHAT AM I MISSING?

[thaskalos]

IMO...just betting on the "solid horses" is not much of a PLAN.

[Overlay]

I would have normally bet this horse because I don't shy away from good longshots. The plan for the day was to bet only my solid horses to see how I would come out. I didn't want to cloud the issue by making off the wall bets I don't usally restrict my self this way, but on this day I just wanted to see how I would make out just betting solid horses.
When I first started handicapping, I was heavily influenced by one of Tom Ainslie's early works, The Compleat Horseplayer. In it, he presented a step-by-step approach to handicapping that was based on considering each of the major handicapping factors in succession, and, at each step, eliminating horses that had not previously done well under the conditions of today's race, or that compared poorly to their competition. A horse that survived all the winnowing was the bet.

This approach put me on "solid" horses a large percentage of the time. The only problem was that their merits were obvious to everyone else, too. As a result, they were overbet down to an odds level where, despite the relatively high regularity with which they won, their resulting payoffs were not enough to compensate for the all-too-frequent occasions when (for any of a variety of reasons) the unexpected occurred, and they didn't win.

These experiences caused me to fundamentally shift my handicapping perspective from trying to pick the one most likely "winner" (to the exclusion of every other horse in the field), to evaluating the winning chances of every horse in a field in comparison to its odds, and selecting and betting based on wagering value, with considerations of a horse's "rank" in relation to its competition being secondary to that.

Even if a player still adheres to a "solid-horse", "pick-the-winner" approach, handicapping should always include (in my opinion) an answer to the question, "If this horse wins, will its odds compensate me for the risk that I am taking in betting it, based on the chances that it will not win?"

[jasperson]

IMO...just betting on the "solid horses" is not much of a PLAN.
In my solid plays I had an 11/1 shot and a couple of 7/2 shots which won for a nice profit for the day. I don't consider high odds a no bet consideration in my solid plays.

[traynor]

When I first started handicapping, I was heavily influenced by one of Tom Ainslie's early works, The Compleat Horseplayer. In it, he presented a step-by-step approach to handicapping that was based on considering each of the major handicapping factors in succession, and, at each step, eliminating horses that had not previously done well under the conditions of today's race, or that compared poorly to their competition. A horse that survived all the winnowing was the bet.

This approach put me on "solid" horses a large percentage of the time. The only problem was that their merits were obvious to everyone else, too. As a result, they were overbet down to an odds level where, despite the relatively high regularity with which they won, their resulting payoffs were not enough to compensate for the all-too-frequent occasions when (for any of a variety of reasons) the unexpected occurred, and they didn't win.

These experiences caused me to fundamentally shift my handicapping perspective from trying to pick the one most likely "winner" (to the exclusion of every other horse in the field), to evaluating the winning chances of every horse in a field in comparison to its odds, and selecting and betting based on wagering value, with considerations of a horse's "rank" in relation to its competition being secondary to that.

Even if a player still adheres to a "solid-horse", "pick-the-winner" approach, handicapping should always include (in my opinion) an answer to the question, "If this horse wins, will its odds compensate me for the risk that I am taking in betting it, based on the chances that it will not win?"

That is--without question or reservation--one of the most sensible statements I have ever read in regard to handicapping thoroughbred horse races. Thank you for sharing your opinion. It is a way of looking at races that many could improve their results by seriously considering.

[Overlay]

That is--without question or reservation--one of the most sensible statements I have ever read in regard to handicapping thoroughbred horse races. Thank you for sharing your opinion. It is a way of looking at races that many could improve their results by seriously considering.
Thank you. I appreciate the kind words.

[Solid_Gold]

When I first started handicapping, I was heavily influenced by one of Tom Ainslie's early works, The Compleat Horseplayer. In it, he presented a step-by-step approach to handicapping that was based on considering each of the major handicapping factors in succession, and, at each step, eliminating horses that had not previously done well under the conditions of today's race, or that compared poorly to their competition. A horse that survived all the winnowing was the bet.

This approach put me on "solid" horses a large percentage of the time. The only problem was that their merits were obvious to everyone else, too. As a result, they were overbet down to an odds level where, despite the relatively high regularity with which they won, their resulting payoffs were not enough to compensate for the all-too-frequent occasions when (for any of a variety of reasons) the unexpected occurred, and they didn't win.

These experiences caused me to fundamentally shift my handicapping perspective from trying to pick the one most likely "winner" (to the exclusion of every other horse in the field), to evaluating the winning chances of every horse in a field in comparison to its odds, and selecting and betting based on wagering value, with considerations of a horse's "rank" in relation to its competition being secondary to that.

Even if a player still adheres to a "solid-horse", "pick-the-winner" approach, handicapping should always include (in my opinion) an answer to the question, "If this horse wins, will its odds compensate me for the risk that I am taking in betting it, based on the chances that it will not win?"

Overlay, I am an Ainslie disciple myself. I agree 100% with all you say here. Sometimes you may have to bet your 3rd or even 4th selection based on value and sometimes even more than one win bet depending on your ratings per horse. Most however, do understand this wagering strategy. When posting selections it is not always that the 1st selection is the best choice.
This is why I post 4 selections per race and work off the premise that I have narrowed the race down to the 4 best horses!

Best post I've seen in a long while.

[lamboguy]

i had a plan today to bet MOUNTAINEER. i handicapped the full card, and just found out they ran this afternoon :bang: :bang:

[Robert Fischer]

I went to the track yesterday determined to only bet the horses that the PLAN dictated that I could bet. In the 1st at Belmont I really liked the 7 horse. He was my program's second pick and he had lots of things that I like in a longshot.
He was an early speed horse coming off a layoff and dropping in class from claiming 50k to claiming 20k. His early pace numbers looked good enough to get the lead if he wanted too. He won and paid $26.60 to win,but I stuck to the PLAN and didn't bet him. I did come out of the day with a profit by sticking to the PLAN so I guess the PLAN was right. Should I have ignored the PLAN and bet the horse anyway? I know betting longshots can eat up the profits that you make on solid horses so that why I stuck to the PLAN.

great job making a profit for the day. :ThmbUp:

it depends IMO on different things ... If that play went against specific goals of your "Plan", then you did really well to resist the temptation. If that play was simply a great play that fits the reasoning of your "Plan" then you have to consider it.

I had $50 win on the other 10-1 shot - the Ness horse in that race.:bang: :) The :7: had great pace numbers for Englehart. I kind of used this horse as an example in Robert Goren's "backwards?" thread.
The best plan in that race may simply have been saying "hey, the Favorite, the Kimmel Layoff horse may not fire" and "there's 3 or 4 others who could fire here".

[Robert Fischer]

i had a plan today to bet MOUNTAINEER. i handicapped the full card, and just found out they ran this afternoon :bang: :bang:

bet they ran good too! :lol:

[judd]

i had a plan today to bet MOUNTAINEER. i handicapped the full card, and just found out they ran this afternoon :bang: :bang:


why did they run early ??

[lamboguy]

bet they ran good too! :lol:i had 5 races picked out, there was a $3.40 winner and a $4.00, another one had a price that ran second that i would have never played for place. they saved me a few today by the time change. every horse player needs a break sometimes!

[JohnGalt1]

I went to the track yesterday determined to only bet the horses that the PLAN dictated that I could bet. In the 1st at Belmont I really liked the 7 horse. He was my program's second pick and he had lots of things that I like in a longshot.
He was an early speed horse coming off a layoff and dropping in class from claiming 50k to claiming 20k. His early pace numbers looked good enough to get the lead if he wanted too. He won and paid $26.60 to win,but I stuck to the PLAN and didn't bet him. I did come out of the day with a profit by sticking to the PLAN so I guess the PLAN was right. Should I have ignored the PLAN and bet the horse anyway? I know betting longshots can eat up the profits that you make on solid horses so that why I stuck to the PLAN.


When I am confronted with issues like this I bet 2 horses to win. Either 50%-50%- or 60%-40% on each. You would be making your own entry. Your entry could be your two "best" horses or what I prefer, my most likely winner and the "could win " horse, like an angle play.

My largest paying win bet was many years ago at Bay Meadows in a $8k mdn claiming race. The trainer of one horse gave it a 1 mile workout. Cheap horses like that are lucky to get 4f workouts. So I bet the best(?) horse and that one. It paid $80.80.

If I "had" to play only one horse, I never would have had it.

[DigitalDownsJoe]

Mountaineer..The Deshawn Parker Show...I would pass anyways..So hard to pick against him, and so hard to make money with him. How do you make money at that slophole?