|
Sometimes you have to think outside the box.
I used to be a big Sartin supporter. In fact I attended a Breeders Cup get together in Vegas for Howard. My mind tends to want the mathematical solution, so pace and speed were appealing to me.
But in more recent years I've done more data mining of my own, and find I welcome the bad angle sometimes as much as the good one because they can function as eliminators. I researched one angle that was (2-100) and noticed that it essentially eliminated many horses from races that I might have considered.
I researched one method from one system writer who had great success with the Derby from 1997-2022, but the same method fell flat on the Peakness, in fact all of his methods fell flat on the Preakness. Oddly, another much criticized system writer actually had one of the best Preakness methods around. Problem was it was dreadful in the Belmont. But then another system writer seemed to find a good Belmont rating.
And so it goes. Trying to find one method or angle to beat the races is tough, but you may find one that beats a race. There may be too much noise in a race and cause what Howard used to call abdulia (or confusion) on which way to go. Bad methods function as eliminators and can help get rid of the noise, and narrow down things, and learning to adapt to what type of races you're good at, and which one's it's time to just go for a walk, or a trip to the men's room is many times the better bet.
I guess my point is you don't have to find the single solution in one method. Adapt, eliminate, play to your strengths, seek value without seeking mathematical perfection with it, and pick your spots. My biggest mistake starting out was wanting to play too many races. Good luck on your handicapping.
|
