Betting Stategy?

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

Thxs...I'm back to square one...LOL

Can you provide more info?

What's your BR?

Are you capable of identifying strong contenders?

You're wagering on every race. Do you see a problem with this?

I see you've wagered about $100 for the two days. I suggest you identify two or three races you feel your selection is fairly strong. I'm not suggesting the chalkiest horse but which horse you feel will come in 1st or 2nd.

Wheel your selection in a $1 exacta with the rest of the field as 1st and 2nd. You're probably looking at $60 +/- total. You're already ahead. Buy yourself a drink and hotdog with the saved $$.

Good luck and try to enjoy watching a few w/o wagering.

[pandy]

A lot of this boils down to how confident you are in your contenders. During the Aqueduct meets, for instance, any horse that I have listed in my top 3 contenders that's going off as a longshot, say 6-1 or higher, is a good bet because the races aren't crazy competitive and my contenders are live. At Saratoga, some of these turf races in particular, I could narrow it down to 5 or 6 contenders and there's still a good chance that none of them will win, so creating some sort of value line is extremely difficult. You have to be realistic about your chances depending on the type of race and degree of difficulty. In some of these contentious races, a true odds line isn't going to be much help.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by pandy

A lot of this boils down to how confident you are in your contenders. During the Aqueduct meets, for instance, any horse that I have listed in my top 3 contenders that's going off as a longshot, say 6-1 or higher, is a good bet because the races aren't crazy competitive and my contenders are live. At Saratoga, some of these turf races in particular, I could narrow it down to 5 or 6 contenders and there's still a good chance that none of them will win, so creating some sort of value line is extremely difficult. You have to be realistic about your chances depending on the type of race and degree of difficulty. In some of these contentious races, a true odds line isn't going to be much help.

Wow! This is a constant dilemma for me. My apps are designed to be universal with the same formula used for every track and are not track specific. I hear that you are interpreting what appears to be universal output for specific tracks. Maybe this comes from experience on how ones numbers work at a specific track. This is a whole other level of handicapping.

There are some concerns here. Do we blame our different results by track on the track, or is there something amiss in our universal applications of our formula? For instances-- if my speed figures aren't as good at Del Mar as they are at Arlington, is it the tracks or am I missing something in how I compute speed that shows up at Del Mar? This is a tough one.

[pandy]

I love watching Mike Beer and Andy Serling's Pick 4 breakdown every day, it's shown on TVG and in house. In contentious races Andy will sometimes say something like, "this is a tough race, anyone can win" and Mike Beer agrees. These guys are sharp and they are at the track everyday, they really know the horses racing at the NYRA tracks. And even they sometimes admit that there are races that are puzzling. How can you make a good line for some of these races? I tend not to bet races like that, but others see them as great betting races. But if you have no idea what each horse's chances are, is it really a good race to bet?

[pandy]

Originally Posted by pandy

I love watching Mike Beer and Andy Serling's Pick 4 breakdown every day, it's shown on TVG and in house. In contentious races Andy will sometimes say something like, "this is a tough race, anyone can win" and Mike Beer agrees. These guys are sharp and they are at the track everyday, they really know the horses racing at the NYRA tracks. And even they sometimes admit that there are races that are puzzling. How can you make a good line for some of these races? I tend not to bet races like that, but others see them as great betting races. But if you have no idea what each horse's chances are, is it really a good race to bet?

More on this, in my Speed And Class Handicapping book the methodology tells you to focus on races where you can eliminate at least half of the horses. I prefer overlays in races that aren't that wide open, because these are true, identifiable overlays and with patience you can find them, you just have to skip the confusing races and watch the odds board. Some of the best bets I've ever made were the longest odds horse in a 5 horse field.


This is the reason why I play many tracks, not just one circuit. It's much easier to find a good race to bet when you have more choices.

[aaron]

Originally Posted by pandy

More on this, in my Speed And Class Handicapping book the methodology tells you to focus on races where you can eliminate at least half of the horses. I prefer overlays in races that aren't that wide open, because these are true, identifiable overlays and with patience you can find them, you just have to skip the confusing races and watch the odds board. Some of the best bets I've ever made were the longest odds horse in a 5 horse field.


This is the reason why I play many tracks, not just one circuit. It's much easier to find a good race to bet when you have more choices.

I spend most of my time handicapping NY races. Saratoga,at least for me has been very hard and I am not finding many good bets.Fortunately,I have held my own,by betting some out of town races. What,continually amazes me,is that many times,I find good bets,with less work out of town. I guess that is what makes this a great game.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by aaron

I spend most of my time handicapping NY races. Saratoga,at least for me has been very hard and I am not finding many good bets.Fortunately,I have held my own,by betting some out of town races. What,continually amazes me,is that many times,I find good bets,with less work out of town. I guess that is what makes this a great game.

Agree. I can handicap a Delaware Park or Parx race in two minutes. It was at Saratoga some years ago, probably close to 15 years ago now, that I had an epiphany. I had bet a 3-1 shot in a big sprint field that was a NW3. The race was loaded with multiple winners that had way more than 3 wins, earned in claiming races, a "salty" field of solid raceway horses. Half way through the race the little bell went off. "Why would I, or anyone, bet any horse that's 3-1 in a race like this where so many horses have a chance to win?" It was a defining moment in my handicapping and betting of horses.

[Robert Fischer]

So this thread was actually asking for compliments?

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If you wagered on only your top choice in every race, then you would have chalked up a 25.6% ROI over the 2-day span. Your average winning mutuel was only $5.02...but you had the winner in 8 of the 16 races that you played. If this brief sample exemplifies what your NORMAL results look like...then you don't need any advice from us; WE need advice from YOU!

When you earn a 25% ROI while betting on every race...then you are odds-on to become one of the wealthiest bettors in the game...and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If these results are typical for you, then bet on your top choice in every race...and your biggest problem will be figuring out what to do with all that money.

Originally Posted by mikesal57

Thank you ...for not spinning my head with a response

even though these guys were awesome with their suggestions
I was getting ready to go Back to School with Rodney ..

Watch, now the 2nd and 3rd choices will start winning

mike

[raybo]

Originally Posted by pandy

Agree. I can handicap a Delaware Park or Parx race in two minutes. It was at Saratoga some years ago, probably close to 15 years ago now, that I had an epiphany. I had bet a 3-1 shot in a big sprint field that was a NW3. The race was loaded with multiple winners that had way more than 3 wins, earned in claiming races, a "salty" field of solid raceway horses. Half way through the race the little bell went off. "Why would I, or anyone, bet any horse that's 3-1 in a race like this where so many horses have a chance to win?" It was a defining moment in my handicapping and betting of horses.

Maybe you guys ought to watch some of Michael Pizzola's "rants" videos. His software assigns odds to each horse and also tries to predict how the public is going to bet each horse. I don't know how good his lines are, but invariably, when he encounters one of these "chaos" races, he often overrides his betting line, sometimes doubling those odds to 20/1 or more. And, he bets relatively small amounts on those races.

Perceived value is fine, I guess, but honest acceptance that you have very little, if any, confidence in betting those races at all, is necessary. Michael looks at many, many races every day, from all over the country, and passes a whole lot of those races every day also.

My philosophy is that there are some tracks I can play profitably, and there are many more that I cannot play profitably. "Universal" algorithms/formulas for rating/ranking horses just do not work at all tracks, IMO. If you are determined to use these "universals" then you must determine which tracks produce with them and which ones don't. Everything I do is track specific, with rigorous testing of past meets at each track, and continual testing of past races at current meets at each track. Things change during meets, things are different at different time periods in meets, weather conditions change during meets, etc.. Surfaces, the way races are carded, the horse, trainer, and jockey colonies, etc., all those things can change during meets, and from meet to meet. It only makes sense to me that one must look at the past, both previous meets and previous recent races in the current meet, in order to be able to play knowledgeably and with the confidence that what you perceive, is actually what is currently happening at each track you play.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

So this thread was actually asking for compliments?

I don't think Mikesal was looking for compliments at all. I think he was just getting frustrated that with his high contender hit rate he was still losing money. The problem that I see is that, first of all it was only 2 cards, much too small to determine anything at all. Secondly, he "played" every race on both cards, not the way to go about making a profit for 99+% of players. Thirdly, he was "playing" two totally different kinds of tracks. And, he was "playing" 3 contenders in every race. All using the same contender selection method, I assume. IMO, his chance of being successful, under all of those conditions, is extremely low and needs to be addressed immediately.

Yes, his top contenders did very well, and that may indeed be the way to go in the future. But, it is just as likely that at some point in the future, probably the very near future, those top picks will cease to produce profit. My opinion is that he must pay close attention to what is really going on, recently, by keeping good records, every day, not just the days he plays, and continually adjust to changes that are really happening at each track he plays. This is a slippery slope though, because short term results may just be normal variance, so one must be relatively sure that things have changed before adjusting one's methods. Sometimes, it's just time to stop playing a track and concentrate on others that are performing well. If the track you quit playing reverts back to being profitable then start playing it again, if not then stay away until it does, if it does.

[green80]

ok, show us the same results for 200 races and maybe we can give you a better idea of what to do. Group by track.

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by raybo

I don't think Mikesal was looking for compliments at all. I think he was just getting frustrated that with his high contender hit rate he was still losing money. The problem that I see is that, first of all it was only 2 cards, much too small to determine anything at all. Secondly, he "played" every race on both cards, not the way to go about making a profit for 99+% of players. Thirdly, he was "playing" two totally different kinds of tracks. And, he was "playing" 3 contenders in every race. All using the same contender selection method, I assume. IMO, his chance of being successful, under all of those conditions, is extremely low and needs to be addressed immediately.

Yes, his top contenders did very well, and that may indeed be the way to go in the future. But, it is just as likely that at some point in the future, probably the very near future, those top picks will cease to produce profit. My opinion is that he must pay close attention to what is really going on, recently, by keeping good records, every day, not just the days he plays, and continually adjust to changes that are really happening at each track he plays. This is a slippery slope though, because short term results may just be normal variance, so one must be relatively sure that things have changed before adjusting one's methods. Sometimes, it's just time to stop playing a track and concentrate on others that are performing well. If the track you quit playing reverts back to being profitable then start playing it again, if not then stay away until it does, if it does.

Ray...you hit it on the head...
I'm in the process of "evaluating" the Handifast software..
Out of the 2 freebies being offered here , I found this one to be more unique and have possibilities and of course the ease of use. So far I entered weights of a universal sort before I venture into track specifics.
I've started posting selections to get others out of the dark and to see if it can pick a wide range of winners , pricewise and possibly discuss strategies.
While posting , I saw the high percentage of winners coming up and starting asking myself ..."thats great, but how can I make money with low price horses" ..which prompted this post. I thank you all on your responses and have seen the complexity of some answers. I will sort out which ones that can best be used by me.

Here's the dilemma I foresee..

Using proven factors and weights , you can get many winners at a low price..
Changing factors and weights , you start to make other horses look better but at the same time you make the real winners look bad...
What to do?

Mike

[pandy]

To me, a software handicapping program that picks logical horses isn't the way to go. In many races, any decent handicapper can look over the race and in a minute pick the horse that has the best chance of winning. In my opinion, a good computer handicapping program should be able to show you legitimate contenders that are not likely to be the favorite.

The problem with favorites, a computer program often can't see the vulnerability of a favorite. For instance, it may pick a horse on top because it has a high win percentage and recent strong speed figures, but the horse will be a bad bet today because it was claimed away from a known juice trainer to a regular trainer. Or the computer can't see that even though the horse won last start it was bearing out badly and is probably sore and ready to bounce. Or the computer can't see that even though the horse won big last start the track was extremely speed biased and the favorite was left at the gate which gave the winner an easy lead, and so on, and so on. There are so many favorites that look good on paper but are terrible bets.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

Ray...you hit it on the head...
I'm in the process of "evaluating" the Handifast software..
Out of the 2 freebies being offered here , I found this one to be more unique and have possibilities and of course the ease of use. So far I entered weights of a universal sort before I venture into track specifics.
I've started posting selections to get others out of the dark and to see if it can pick a wide range of winners , pricewise and possibly discuss strategies.
While posting , I saw the high percentage of winners coming up and starting asking myself ..."thats great, but how can I make money with low price horses" ..which prompted this post. I thank you all on your responses and have seen the complexity of some answers. I will sort out which ones that can best be used by me.

Here's the dilemma I foresee..

Using proven factors and weights , you can get many winners at a low price..
Changing factors and weights , you start to make other horses look better but at the same time you make the real winners look bad...
What to do?

Mike

Mike,

My advice to you is to abandon the idea of betting every race, if your main objective is showing a profit. There isn't a horseplayer in the WORLD who can beat this game by betting every race.

[Capper Al]

The best long shots are horses that the public should have handicapped as a favorite, but for some unknown reason didn't.