First Time Turfers - Undercutter Pays $131 @ Belmont

[winningponies]

One of the still lucrative angles in modern handicapping is choosing first time starters, and even more so, first time turfers. A lot of those horses are overlooked, particularly if not trained by a top trainer.

At WinningPonies, we concentrate on those angles and have some very effective algorithms for things such as turf pedigree analysis and workout analysis which are used for our E-Z Win Forms. A lot of our biggest scores involve picking live first time starters or turfers at huge odds.

Today at Belmont was a perfect example. In the 4th, nobody was giving 64-1 Undercutter a look. He was one of our top (dark green) tier selections in the race, with a projected class number of 10.4, which was pretty much at the top of the field. Our system loved his pedigree and the fact that he had a poor dirt effort, which makes him more appealing as a potential turf runner.

If you are curious, here are our results for the race.

Does anyone else also like looking at first time starters or turfers for big odds?

[Exotic1]

Seriously?

[CincyHorseplayer]

I had the 8(place) at 9/2 and skipped the exotics but the winner had a decent enough turf pedigree as an include. Grand Slam has produced some classy horses and had and a decent turf rating. Crypto Star while less classy had an even better turf rating on what I use.

[winningponies]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

I had the 8(place) at 9/2 and skipped the exotics but the winner had a decent enough turf pedigree as an include. Grand Slam has produced some classy horses and had and a decent turf rating. Crypto Star while less classy had an even better turf rating on what I use.

Our algorithms also found similar results. I almost key boxed the 8 myself for the exacta with 3 other horses. Didn't pull the trigger on that unfortunately, but the doubles were quite lucrative. We heard from some members who took down the Super, which was also obviously a great payoff. Also, those Pick 3s and Pick 4s were killer.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by winningponies

Our algorithms also found similar results. I almost key boxed the 8 myself for the exacta with 3 other horses. Didn't pull the trigger on that unfortunately, but the doubles were quite lucrative. We heard from some members who took down the Super, which was also obviously a great payoff. Also, those Pick 3s and Pick 4s were killer.

Nice. The bulk of my dirt play is at mid to lower level tracks and at places like Belmont I normally will expand on turf races or raced linked to turf races in across bets. Got home about mid afternoon and played straight forward today. But like yourself understanding the ratings and crosses leads to horses like this being contenders at big prices. I find this to be especially true at Keeneland where I have a horse in a grass race labeled an able contender that is upwards of 50-1. They don't always win but sky rocket some payoff with in money finishes. Nice find in a competitive race.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by winningponies

One of the still lucrative angles in modern handicapping is choosing first time starters, and even more so, first time turfers. A lot of those horses are overlooked, particularly if not trained by a top trainer.

At WinningPonies, we concentrate on those angles and have some very effective algorithms for things such as turf pedigree analysis and workout analysis which are used for our E-Z Win Forms. A lot of our biggest scores involve picking live first time starters or turfers at huge odds.

Today at Belmont was a perfect example. In the 4th, nobody was giving 64-1 Undercutter a look. He was one of our top (dark green) tier selections in the race, with a projected class number of 10.4, which was pretty much at the top of the field. Our system loved his pedigree and the fact that he had a poor dirt effort, which makes him more appealing as a potential turf runner.

If you are curious, here are our results for the race.

Does anyone else also like looking at first time starters or turfers for big odds?

There was a grand total of $2,257 bet on this horse to win. Apparently your clientele weren't that impressed with your top of the field selection. Surely you must have bet a substantial amount to win?

[rman1049]

The $1 Triple only paid $1100.00 with a $132.00 horse on top..
Somebody pounded this horse on top!

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by rman1049

The $1 Triple only paid $1100.00 with a $132.00 horse on top..
Somebody pounded this horse on top!

In a pool of $142,710, there was $98 on the winning combination with the 3rd choice second and favorite third. At 64:1, there should be almost $2300 worth of tickets with that horse on top. It hardly seems out of the ordinary that 4% of those should have been on this winning combination.

Nobody "pounded" anything involving this horse. Longshots occasionally win. First time turf runners, especially ones with very little pedigree, figure to be a reasonable percentage of these.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by the little guy

In a pool of $142,710, there was $98 on the winning combination with the 3rd choice second and favorite third. At 64:1, there should be almost $2300 worth of tickets with that horse on top. It hardly seems out of the ordinary that 4% of those should have been on this winning combination.

Nobody "pounded" anything involving this horse. Longshots occasionally win. First time turf runners, especially ones with very little pedigree, figure to be a reasonable percentage of these.

Agreed. Well said. After you back out the win payoff. You got over 17/1 on third choice over the favorite.

[winningponies]

Originally Posted by AndyC

There was a grand total of $2,257 bet on this horse to win. Apparently your clientele weren't that impressed with your top of the field selection. Surely you must have bet a substantial amount to win?

A lot of our members focus on exotics. At 64-1, even the owner and trainer weren't backing their horse in the win pool.

I didn't bet him to win either, just used in Doubles.

[olddaddy]

Originally Posted by winningponies

I didn't bet him to win either, just used in Doubles.

Unless you wheeled him, that could have turned real ugly.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

So let me get this right.

You create a thread about a 64/1 shot that hit, and you didn't even have it on a Win ticket for yourself?

Not even an Exacta?

I can post all kinds of maybes/should ofs/didn'ts till the cows come home.

At least tell us you had a Show bet on this horse. Right?

[winningponies]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

So let me get this right.

You create a thread about a 64/1 shot that hit, and you didn't even have it on a Win ticket for yourself?

Not even an Exacta?

I can post all kinds of maybes/should ofs/didn'ts till the cows come home.

At least tell us you had a Show bet on this horse. Right?

Did bet him to Show but that wasn't exactly a windfall. The Double was quite lucrative taking our top tier horses (3) over the favorite in the 5th - especially liked the first time gelding angle. Double paid $400 for $2. Effectively 67-1 - better than betting him to win and I had two other horses who could have made a profitable wager out of it in case the bomb didn't get it done. Obviously the favorite in the next race could have lost, but that's horse racing.

Don't remind me about the Exacta.

[winningponies]

We love the first time turfers! Harlan's Harmony longest shot on the board (25-1) our standalone top pick:

http://www.winningponies.com/results...Belmont/2.html

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by winningponies

We love the first time turfers! Harlan's Harmony longest shot on the board (25-1) our standalone top pick:

http://www.winningponies.com/results...Belmont/2.html

6 of the 7 were First Time Starters. First Time Turf.