VOTE Cheap Full Fields vs Quality Short Fields
 

A couple of recent threads have prompted me to post this poll. As a player, would you rather watch/bet higher quality races with short fields or lower quality races with full fields?

My records show that I do better in the bottom level races - regardless of the track where I play.

I prefer cheap conditioned races with 8-11 horses. I see a 5 horse allowance field in California with a 6-5 shot and an 8-5 shot, and I'd rather listen to how my wife's day was than think about betting it.

If you like to bet there is no question about it.

Although high quality animals are beautiful to watch run, for their physical beauty and mental toughness, it's a no brainer. Full fields trump quality fields.

The key though for me is "competitive" full fields, no matter what the quality. Some races (high and low quality) have full fields, but if 2/3 of the field has zero chance, then you don't get the benefit of having a full field.

Does a 7 or 8 horse field count as a small field? I'll take an 8 horse stakes race over the 12 horse 5000 NW2 lifetime race any day.

Nothing like those $8K mdn claimers with overflow fields at Tampa.

I would choose a shorter field of tougher horses, not necessarily classier, but fitter. I can tell the difference between fit horses, more easily than I can distinguish between those who are racing poorly. If someone is trying to buy the race with a sharp class drop, things of that nature are ok too. I do like stakes caliber races a lot, and of course, the upcoming BC races will have rather full fields, but these are fit, ready horses for the most part.

senortout

Wow! 32 to 3 in favor of the cheapies. That speaks volumes.

Exactly. Most of the real garbage races have about 3 contenders and 9 horses who may not even finish the race. Contrast that with a stakes race, where all the horses are quality. I'd rather bet on a 20-1 shot in a stakes moving up in class off a win than a 20-1 shot in a 4000 claimer who's been constantly beaten double digits at the same level.

FIELD SIZES
 

Much rather have big fields. How many times have you watched a jockey rate and ride for second because he dont think he can beat the big favorite

Now there's a poll question....

The best thing about cheap tracks is that even the 2/3rds with "zero chance" can get in the number and blow it up really good! On the 28th at Beulah, one race had a $12 ex and an $844 super. The very next race had a $16 exacta, yet a $1646 super! Good luck finding payoffs like that in a six horse field at Santa Anita...well, other than the $12 exacta.

I would consider a short field to be 7 or less. 8 horses still gives a good chance at catching an overlay exotic.

Give me a meaty 12 horse $3500 maiden claimer at Beulah Park any day. You can keep the graded stakes with five horses in them, like it does the bettors any good watching a 3/5 coast by open lengths. I'd definitely bet on full field graded stakes, but it's so rare to actually find one.

From a fair-odds / value perspective, I'd say larger fields make it easier for solid contenders to get lost in the shuffle, and be underbet, while still having a legitimate chance to win. On the other hand, the likely overbetting on favored standouts in races with small fields can also be useful on those occasions when the favorite doesn't get the job done, as long as you can reliably forecast when that will be (which I would assume, however, would not be as often as in a larger field).

Less than $15,000 claimer's, 3yo & up, nw2/nw3, 8 or more horses, dirt.

Cheap mdn claimers, 3yo and up, 8 horses or more, dirt or turf.

Big payoffs in the super pools.