Are contenders more important than selections?

[Capper Al]

I'm beginning to think so. As I work my way back to profitability, I'm finding that I blew it more on wagering than on selections. Why is this? Because selections will never be profitable on their own. I believe once a handicapper arrives, they see the game as a roll of the dice. If anyone side is paying more than 5/1 then it is a play even if you like another. Is this value play? Somewhat. But what this viewpoint takes into account is that it doesn't matter what I think of the race. What matters are the contenders at a price.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Excellent question, and I'll be interested in the answers here.

Personally, I struggle with wagering on anything at 3/1 odds or lower. I simply don't have the time to go through forms and numbers to put in the time needed to grind out 2/1 and 5/2 winners day in and day out.

Value is an often used term that is probably over-valued in and of itself to be honest.

But I know where you are going.

Is it really worth the finite details to take the 3/1 that should be better than the 6/1 or even 20/1? Can one win more on wagering their highest odds contender in the long haul? This is the very essence of wagering on horses. We can all handicap, but the reality is, can we bet? And bet well?

[pandy]

I think for most handicappers that is probably true, just rank contenders and bet the ones that are better odds. There are very few handicappers that are sharp enough to say, here are my best bets, bet them to win and you will show a profit.

[thaskalos]

It takes a certain temperament to be able to competently play this game as if it were a "roll of the dice". You have to remain reasonably unaffected by longer losing streaks...and not many bettors can cope with that. More important than choosing the most profitable betting option is making sure that the option we choose matches our temperament and personality. Those bettors who gravitate to the higher odds better be able to deal with the indignity of tearing up plenty of losing tickets...otherwise, I don't envy their chance of "success". If you "hate to lose"...then you are better off with your "selections".

[pandy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It takes a certain temperament to be able to competently play this game as if it were a "roll of the dice". You have to remain reasonably unaffected by longer losing streaks...and not many bettors can cope with that. More important than choosing the most profitable betting option is making sure that the option we choose matches our temperament and personality. Those bettors who gravitate to the higher odds better be able to deal with the indignity of tearing up plenty of losing tickets...otherwise, I don't envy their chance of "success". If you "hate to lose"...then you are better off with your "selections".

I agree. The professional bettors I've met are good losers. When they have a bad day they just forget about it and move on. Most of the losing bettors I've met are the exact opposite, they're afraid to lose so they bet too many obvious horses, which of course is the main reason why they lose.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

...... If you "hate to lose"...then you are better off with your "selections".

Why are your selections more likely to win than another contender? Betting from a contender list is far less emotionally taxing than betting selections. Having a long losing streak with your selections can make you start talking to yourself.

[Dr Gonzo]

Excellent topic, Capper Al.

I use both selections and contenders. If I think a horse has a 50% chance to win and can get 8/5 or better, I'll make a prime bet on the animal and other overlays be damned. I do this because high odds horses don't win all that often and I need a cash flow to keep my sanity.

Granted, 8/5 or better on 50% horses doesn't come along all that often and that's where contenders come in. In races where I can get the field down to no more than 4 contenders, I'll make an odds line totaling 80% (the other 20% for the rest of the field) and demand a 50% overlay on any of my contenders.

This is certainly not the only way to play but you asked, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Why are your selections more likely to win than another contender? Betting from a contender list is far less emotionally taxing than betting selections. Having a long losing streak with your selections can make you start talking to yourself.

I think you could make a case that for many, if not most, handicappers, their top choice is not their best selection. It's only natural to put the horse on top that appears to have a statistical edge.... it seems logical. But for many handicappers their second or third choice will produce a higher ROI. Horses that are "less logical" than the favorite win about 65% of the time, so it makes sense to shoot for the 65%, rather than the 35%, especially since the horses in the 65% (non favorite) range are better odds.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Why are your selections more likely to win than another contender? Betting from a contender list is far less emotionally taxing than betting selections. Having a long losing streak with your selections can make you start talking to yourself.

I honestly don't understand the question. Don't your short-priced contenders win more often than your long-priced ones? If you start betting strictly on your longest-priced contenders...won't you suffer longer losing streaks then if you wagered on your "top selections"?

As for which style of betting is more "emotionally taxing"...I think most players would agree that betting against their top choices is more stressing...because this style of betting leads to considerable second-guessing. While losing when betting your "top selection" is indeed unpleasant...watching your top choice win while you are betting on your high-priced 4th choice is even worse. In my opinion, at least.

[raybo]

I agree with you Gus. There are so many things to consider, regarding each player's emotional and psychological makeup, that the answer to the OP's question is not a singular one. If one is good at determining contenders, but not so good at separating them, then betting higher odds contenders is probably a good idea. But, can that player handle the long losing streaks corresponding to higher odds horses? On the other hand, if the player isn't good at separating contenders, and sticks to betting his top pick, there is no guarantee that long losing streaks will be avoided, as a matter of fact it's almost assured to happen from time to time.

But, one thing that is almost guaranteed is that, if a player is not good at determining contenders, that player is almost assured of losing, regardless of method or odds requirements. It's a tough game, and very few have all, or even most, of the skills and emotional/psychological traits to be successful.

Do what makes you happy/satisfied/comfortable, and can afford, until that changes. If you're in the game for the challenge, then by all means play the horse you think is most likely to win. But, if profit is your goal, odds must enter into the picture, and hit rate must take a second chair to perceived value, meaning your contenders become more important than your top pick.

Of course, neither of those is the way I play, but then my methods are not traditional either.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I honestly don't understand the question. Don't your short-priced contenders win more often than your long-priced ones? If you start betting strictly on your longest-priced contenders...won't you suffer longer losing streaks then if you wagered on your "top selections"?

As for which style of betting is more "emotionally taxing"...I think most players would agree that betting against their top choices is more stressing...because this style of betting leads to considerable second-guessing. While losing when betting your "top selection" is indeed unpleasant...watching your top choice win while you are betting on your high-priced 4th choice is even worse. In my opinion, at least.

If your selection process puts you on the chalk then you are correct. The question was whether your selection horse would necessarily win more. I wasn't making a statement suggesting a higher priced horse would win as often as a lower priced horse. Poorly worded on my part for sure.

The biggest breakthrough I ever made was learning not to be selection oriented. I have found many (not you) handicappers get their ego too involved with their handicapping. They take their wins and losses way too seriously.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

I'm beginning to think so. As I work my way back to profitability, I'm finding that I blew it more on wagering than on selections. Why is this? Because selections will never be profitable on their own. I believe once a handicapper arrives, they see the game as a roll of the dice. If anyone side is paying more than 5/1 then it is a play even if you like another. Is this value play? Somewhat. But what this viewpoint takes into account is that it doesn't matter what I think of the race. What matters are the contenders at a price.

I'm having a difficult time understanding the premise of this post. So, how about if "we *" demonstrate what is being discussed here? Let's use an actual race to be run on this Sunday 09/13/15 at Monmouth Park --- race 7

CLAIMING. 6 Furlongs Dirt. Purse $18,000. FOR THREE YEAR OLDS OR FOUR YEAR OLDS AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NEVER WON THREE RACES. Three Year Olds, 121 lbs.; Older, 123 lbs. Non-winners of a race since July 15 Allowed 3 lbs. Claiming Price $10,000, For Each $500 To $9,000 1 lb. (Races where entered for $8,000 or less not considered in allowances). (03:52 PM) (11)

Free BRIS pp's link:

http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_vi...param3=1086085


* by "we" I mean anyone who wishes to use this actual example then we can compare actual results with the individual responses.

Let's show our contender(s) and then our selection(s) or vice versa.

Edit:
Sorry the link doesn't appear to be working.

[Tom]

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/brisw...1/summary.html

[no breathalyzer]

Originally Posted by pandy

I think for most handicappers that is probably true, just rank contenders and bet the ones that are better odds. There are very few handicappers that are sharp enough to say, here are my best bets, bet them to win and you will show a profit.

Best way to play just bet you're best bets and stop betting races for action or to prove something

[no breathalyzer]

Originally Posted by Tom

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/brisw...1/summary.html

i'l cap this race nl3 one of my favorites