race selection

[Robert Fischer]

How many of you guys hunt/handicap 'races' in addition to 'horses'.

What do you look for?


Some of the things that I look for are location in a multi-race wager, field size, something of significance in a pace scenario...

I'm mostly a watch-list oriented guy who does the horses first, I may have ten watch-list runners entered on a day and go to wherever they are entered and duly note it...

After that, I start by giving less precedence to things happening in nearly-unbettable races, look at what's left, and hopefully finding a watch-list thing happening in a juicy race. If that exists, I do a little extra handicapping there.

Working backwards a little as well ( what brought this post to mind ), and whether or not I have any leads (the leads are weak. "The leads are weak? You're weak" ) trying to at least give any very attractive races a once-over.

[Tom]

I was thinking similar recently.

Some thoughts I had were:

1. Trainers. Using Chad, Todd, Cox, Ness Rice you could have a nice subset coverinf weekdays ans weekends, high and lower class.

2. Race type. I know a guy who only plays MC and MSW races, at multiple reacks, never at a loss for action. I know of a guy who follows 2 yos from July
through the triple crown series, at the major tracks and really focuses on how they mature, define their abilities. I think a good niche might be NYRA claimers, nw2, n23 ans Str Alw50. They have a lot of good prices and really gget mixrd together.

3. Surface. A guy I know plays only turf routes MSW and Alw 1x and 2x

Myself, I like Alw 1x,2x, classified, and time restricted claimers, nw1,6 mos., etc. mostly dirt, turf interests me less and less as years go by and the distances get longer and longer and more and more crap gets carded on turf. Turf sprints, I'd rather play solitare.

[thaskalos]

Maiden races of all types never get a second look from me. There are enough question marks in the game without having to contend with nonexistent or abbreviated racing records. 6-horse fields with strong odds-on favorites also get the quick heave-ho. I used to handicap these races in search of a one-way exacta bet, but they are not worth it, IMO. The odds-on winner makes the exacta payoff unappetizing even if the longest shot in the race finishes second.

To me, an overly contentious race is just as undesirable, from a betting perspective, as the race with a strong odds-on favorite. I used to spend enormous amounts of time handicapping these races, considering them the ultimate challenge for my handicapping skills...and then I came to my senses. There is no room for "ego" in this game. I now give these races a quick glance, and if half the horses in the field appear as legitimate win contenders...then I move on. Hey...I am 61 years-old, and time is precious.

Another rule that I never deviate from concerns off tracks. Painful experience has convinced me not to wager even one thin dime on anything other than a fast track. When I logon and see an off track, then that track doesn't even exist for me...no matter how much preliminary handicapping work I have done on it.

When full-card simulcasting first came along, I LOVED the volume of bets that this new format provided. I thought I could run my horse-betting the same way I ran my grocery store. I was wrong. It took an embarrassingly long period of time for me to realize that I wasn't a "computer-wagering group"... and that SPECIALIZATION was the right way for me.

[Longshot6977]

This is only a very brief summary of what goes thru my head before I pick a race to bet on.
1. The race has no fewer than 6 entrants after morning scratches. I like 7,8 or 9 entrants.
2. Each horse has at least a few starts. I don't want to guess a horse's performance if it has just 1 start against horses with 3 or 4 or more starts.
3. Today's race class makes no difference. At least in maiden races, no one has won yet.
4. The race should have no huge solid M/L favorite; no odds on ML fav. I like 3-1 min ML odds and up.
5. I don't care who the trainers, jockeys speed figs etc are in simply selecting a race to bet on. It has to be a quick process since there are so mant races to choose from. I'll get to that when handicapping the race.
6. I don't pay attention to distance, surface or condition. I'll get to that during the handicapping.
7. I don't care where a race stands in a multi-race wager since I bet almost all verticals and rarely horizontal bets.

After I select a race, if there's something I don't like or can't figure out after I study it, I simply pass the race and move to another one.

[MJC922]

What I prefer ideally are two consecutive races where I think the favorite in both is vulnerable. Then I'll go in for doubles tossing both completely. Any type of races will do. The trouble is most favorites are pretty solid these days which is why they're winning around 40% of the time. So as a 'situation' that one requires quite a lot of patience. If you work during the week and you're mostly confined to recreational weekend play like me then it might be one of the last things I want/should do with my weekend time is spend hours thoroughly handicapping races and then mostly sitting them out. I still say the game needs more (how about any?) horse against horse betting options. It doesn't readily fit into the avg joe working man's lifestyle. It's always been kind of a lifestyle of it's own (that's a problem) and those who love it tend to seek out employment in it.

[PressThePace]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

.

Another rule that I never deviate from concerns off tracks. Painful experience has convinced me not to wager even one thin dime on anything other than a fast track. When I logon and see an off track, then that track doesn't even exist for me...no matter how much preliminary handicapping work I have done on it.

I would be interested to know how you view races on off tracks in a horse's PP's, generally speaking of course. Do horses get credit for improvement on an off-track, for instance? Or, do you downgrade performances after bad outings on an of-track? Obviously, there's no clear-cut approach, but still interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks in advance.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PressThePace

I would be interested to know how you view races on off tracks in a horse's PP's, generally speaking of course. Do horses get credit for improvement on an off-track, for instance? Or, do you downgrade performances after bad outings on an of-track? Obviously, there's no clear-cut approach, but still interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks in advance.

Whether a horse ran a good or a bad race on an off track is all the same to me; I don't consider the result to be legitimate. I ignore the off track races in the PPs as if they didn't exist...and rate the horses off of their races on fast tracks. Even if a horse has performed well on an off track in the past, I will still excuse the horse for a bad recent performance on an off track. IMO...all off tracks are not alike.

[romankoz]

[QUOTE=thaskalos;2868848 I ignore the off track races in the PPs as if they didn't exist...and rate the horses off of their races on fast tracks.

RK replies:
On good tracks I do the same and study the dynamics of the good track efforts and on wet tracks I do the opposite and try to assess the value of wet track runs. Usually I ask myself "Is this horse more likely a dry tracker or a wet tracker?"
The answer has me dodging some horses in the market quite quickly but others not so as even though they may better in one area the difference may not be massive.

Specialization is THE best way no matter what the path. My idea is to look for strong favs against a weaker second favourite or 2nd favs against a weaker favourite. I don't like losing but if some 3rd fav or deeper beats me (like it did today!) I am still weirdly happy if the one I gambled against finished behind mine. Although the wallet has taken a beating it's too late to cry but at least I know I got one major part of the mystery correct.

Strange game thinking a loss is a victory of sorts and I wonder if I shouldn't be having a chat with my ex wife who is now a qualified psychologist!!

[BarchCapper]

Very much enjoying reading the thoughts here. Great thread.

[SBD400]

Great topic. Back in the good ole days when all my betting was done at track I would bet almost every race, but definitely preferred certain types of races over others.

Now, I bet almost all of my races at home and am very selective about the races and horses I bet. For the last 4 months since I am retired I have graded every horse in every race at Aqueduct before the race and after the race and also write trip notes/evaluations of each horse. This entails watching most races 5 to 10 times. I have this all in a database.


So when entries come out, first thing I do is look for horses I have graded as "bet with under right circumstances" and "bet against under right circumstances". These are the grades I have that mean the most opportunity to me. I don't always bet these horses as it all depends on what the race looks like. But I definitely focus on those races.


I tend not to like low level claiming races as those horses are too unpredictable. Grass races with foreign horses I have no idea about I try to stay away from. And maiden races with too many firsters I stay away from. I have gotten very picky about horses I bet as I usually won't bet a horse if I haven't seem them race at least once and have them in my database. I almost exclusively bet NYRA tracks as I think the only way to win is concentrating on one circuit and knowing the horses, trainers and jockeys and the characteristics of the circuit.


I don't bet every race and I don't bet a lot of money, but take it as a challenge to beating the take over time and how close I can get to a positive ROI.

[mountainman]

Please excuse fat-fingered typos from posting on phone.

Maybe I just need more foreplay these days, but rather than scan intently for specific scenarios, I tend to gaze at races until finding my curiosity stimulated.

So in a sense, races sometimes CHOOSE me. And since I am an ever-restless multi-tasker, my first look at any race almost invariably happens while I watch tv, perhaps converse with my son, and probably answer texts. So races of interest tend to sneak up on me. (Although a partial disclaimer does seem called for: No Mountaineer race can really be new to me that I checked for wgt and eligibility, reviewed the preference dates, set up to draw, probably hustled entries for, did the morning for, and well may have written the conditions for. In fact, after piling on pre-race commentary, I usually feel lime i've watched a given race 10x before it's even run.)

More responsive to your question, however, Jason, I watch for specific horses I believe to be better than their recent forms, weak or potentially compromised favorites, and races I think will flow differently than the public is likely to perceive. I just love to go contrarian on the pace-scenario.

Also, while I do prefer deep fields and a reasonable degree of difficulty, a 12 horse turf race with 9 contenders gets jettisoned fast. I want to handicap-not torture myself.

[mountainman]

Please excuse fat-fingered typos from posting on phone.

Maybe I just need more foreplay these days, but rather than scan intently for specific scenarios, I tend to gaze at races until finding my curiosity stimulated.

So in a sense, races sometimes CHOOSE me. And since I am an ever-restless multi-tasker, my first look at any race almost invariably happens while I watch tv, perhaps converse with my son, and probably answer texts. So races of interest tend to sneak up on me. (Although a partial disclaimer does seem called for: No Mountaineer race can really be new to me that I checked for wgt and eligibility, reviewed the preference dates, set up to draw, probably hustled entries for, did the morning for, and well may have written the conditions for. In fact, after piling in pre-race commentary, I usually feel like i've watched a given race 10x before it's even run.)

More responsive to your question, however, Jason, I watch for specific horses I believe to be better than their recent forms, weak or potentially compromised favorites, and races I think will flow differently than the public is likely to perceive. I just love to go contrarian on the pace-scenario.

Also, while I do prefer deep fields and a reasonable degree of difficulty, a 12 horse turf race with 9 contenders gets jettisoned fast. I want to handicap-not torture myself.

[Aerocraft67]

Damn good thread. I'll try not to water it down.

I recognize themes of solid advice regarding specialization and race worthiness.

I like the idea of following a trainer. Sort of like following a team in spectator sports, you get exposed to the whole game learning about rivals, management, and seasonality. You could even choose the scope of stable to suit your interest.

Similarly, the watch horse approach takes you on the career journey. Kind of a slow burn though to literally follow a horse through it's career, but a decent watch stable could keep you busy for sure.

Following a track or circuit is classic advice.

Most of my play winds up being a triage or Venn diagram of personal time and race menu available. That can be as simple as glancing at the race of the day during an afternoon break, or making time for the big races.

It's not easy getting the dedicated time you need for this endeavor with a family and day job. Tough to justify a gorgeous Saturday afternoon at your computer.

Lately it's been Derby prep races that are worth budgeting a little time and effort for. Then it'll be the triple crown series. Then the prestigious summer meets (mainly Saratoga, some Del Mar). Throwing in a few sleepy Sundays live at Laurel Park or idle evenings on low-level tracks.

When I commit to a day of racing, I'll buy the unlimited day pass for PPs and sort races by number of runners and purse size, filling my list from top to bottom, and plotting them in time series to allot each race enough handicapping time.

Number of runners trumps purse size. I try to keep the minimum field at eight, six is way exceptional. On a good day purse size is $40k+, if I dip below $20k or so I might allow shorter fields of higher quality. From that I get a playable card of races for the day.

I generally screen out MSW to avoid lots of unraced entrants, but I'll take another look if the screen turns up too few races. I start with eight runners, then add or subtract to arrive at a playable number of races with time in between. Same with purse size.

I'm pretty indifferent to surface and race type, but I shy away from multiple entrants with no domestic form (fresh foreign shippers and unraced maidens), and races less than 5.5f (ever since I heard Craig Milkowski say those figs are too unreliable).

I do like a good MCL, which seems to have a nice balance of form and uncertainty to produce some viably good prices. I shy away from really cheap races unless I'm focusing on that for a session. I reckon they require more dedicated attention to master, whereas a generalist can play well on the bigger circuits.

From there I pretty much play any race I handicap, sunk cost fallacy be damned. I don't have the time to spend an hour on a race and not bet it. There's always a way to play a race. Obviously, I'm not a dedicated angle player.

Part of my enjoyment is analyzing the race and comparing notes with public handicappers including you guys, so I gravitate to feature races getting that attention. And the ones with free PPs for the day!