Betting results "track to track"
 

Why do many bettors perform so well at some tracks but very poorly at others ?

possibly familiarity of jockeys and trainers
some tracks have less "bias" situations

I would argue that in an individuals case it does not matter the reason. As long as one is aware of the fact.

My guess is that each track has its own "ecosystem" with surfaces, jockey/trainer colonies, climate, and more. I know that my THA computer parameters are wildly different between tracks. If I take one track doing well and use its parameters at another track, it will underperform.

.........................


my answer would be that some tracks crush down logical faves more than other tracks

if the bettor likes faves he's going to do worse at these tracks than at tracks where this does not happen

if he likes shots he'll do better at these tracks than at tracks where the faves are not crushed down

unscientific, I admit, but it seems to me that Belmont, Aqueduct, and Gulfstream crush down faves more than Churchill and Keeneland



*

I think it's too broad of a question to really answer without knowing more. SOME people probably consistently do well at one track and not another, but after a while you're going to pay more attention to the places you win at and ignore the ones you lose at. Then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where success begets (begats? begins?) success.

I don't believe what horseplayers say. If "many bettors perform so well at some tracks"...then they would sooner or later realize that the prudent thing to do is to restrict their play to those tracks...and they would increase their wagers at those tracks instead of betting money at the tracks where they lose. When horseplayers say that they favor certain tracks...what I think they mean is that they lose less at those tracks than they do at others...an assertion which may still be an exaggeration given the record keeping habits of the great majority of the horseplayers.

I have a friend who says that he has a sure-fire system for beating baccarat...but I see him continuously throw his money away at blackjack and craps. And then he gets mad at me when I question his baccarat skills. :rolleyes:

it's a tough racket


tracks can have some fundamental differences.

• players (the culture, the teams, whales)
• the horse population within a circuit (familiar vs. shippers)
• the type of class / purse
• turf racing? turf sprints?
• the level of information available
• the wageering menu
• your personal familiarity with the track/circuit/etc...
• voodoo

:coffee:
:ThmbUp:


first, you have to confirm that you really do see better results at one track or another, and that it's not just bias and sample-size of a big hit, bad beat, or doing something dumb like chasing loses or going on tilt.

An example may be a certain angle that you use. You understand the angle, and you find a horse that is mispriced on the morning line and the narrative, so you have your betting ideas, and you get to the race and find that he's 3rd choice in Pick-3 , and co-fav in DD, and the ml chalk opened up cold on the board etc...
You do this several times, and note that a specific circuit generally catches a certain angle, and you say "hey, Woodbine has some sharp horseplayers" or whatever, and make sure to look out for that, and maybe have Belmont and Keeneland on deck, or even dive into them...

ultimately, you want to be playing good prices, and not married to an opinion from your first glance at a race... So, you want the odds to determine your play, and you ideally you'd find 'less plays' at some circuits, rather than slumps and streaks...

Jason,

While I am on board completely with matching tracks to one's style and/or abilities, I recall some years ago when a very successful player changed much of my track-based thinking.

What he said was something like, "There is no such thing as a 'home track' any more. In fact, in the web-based betting world of today, many of us have several home tracks and often change them based upon day of the week."

Absolutely.

I wasn't even planning on playing today,
but here I am, with five wagering menus open.

Web based, and things have changed. 2020...

"Home Tracks"?...
Yea, wow.

Different world from driving to the track, and going into the Clubhouse,
or walking down to the paddock, and up to the rail. :popcorn::popcorn:

We've got our phones or device or computer, our ADW, and there are Stakes, Derby preps, jackpots, and a dozen tracks running at a given moment...

We can 'shop' for plays.

I'm frequently amazed at the intimate grasp far away players have on Mountaineer. These guys start texting me at 9 am with sharp and imaginative takes on the night's races.

My personal feeling why some players find some tracks more difficult than others is because they treat race conditions from one track to another with the same handicapping techniques. They may find that while these methods work very well at one track they fail miserably at another. Varying conditions from one race to another should alert any player that using a conventional approach won’t work effectively.

It would have the same sort of correlation as saying that you could analyze a 6f 20K Claimer on the Dirt at Belmont the same as 1&1/8mi Allowance on the Turf.
Even from the perspective of just following the money there are big differences in the money flow from one track to another. The tell is usually made visible by the basic amount in their average handle per race.

I think focusing on your home track means you'll see a lot of the same faces (horses, trainers, jockeys) each season and get to know their tendencies better. Also, I think you'll have a better grasp of the inherent pecking order among local heroes at the track. Hard to explain, but once you know the characters (horses in this case) better you know which horses may have run a higher Beyer speed figure in the last race but just aren't as classy against a local hero. This is particularly true in State Bred races. You know who the standouts are and not just because of the speed figures, but because they've proven they like the track and they've beaten these foes before. It's a little more refined view of class than just looking at key races, purse, or class ratings.

Also, if you start to know the horses better, you'll know how they typically behave in the paddock, when something's wrong, etc.

Just my two cents.

Dave,
So true. I went from betting almost 90% New York tracks to about 50%.What is interesting, at least to me is that my results seem to be better away from NY. Sometimes not knowing as much about the human element works in my favor.
Any thoughts ?

I don't have enough information to address you in particular.

Could be field size, race type, size of rebates; just about anything.

(Usually tracks with LARGER rebates are harder to beat.)