Commonsense Handicapping by Mitchell - still valid today? - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

AceInTheHole · 06-20-2013, 04:19 PM

I just picked this up and started reading his section on Maidens and I want to know if his theories he puts forth in the book still have a place in today's game?

cj · 06-20-2013, 04:57 PM

I read it a long time ago. What theories are you wanting to discuss? I remember the part about ability times, much different than Scott's ability times.

thaskalos · 06-20-2013, 06:37 PM

It was a good book for its time...and the same could be said about the other books that were written by the popular authors of that time period.

But these books provide only the foundation of the knowledge that the horseplayer needs in order to survive in the game. The rest of the work is left up to the player himself, and can only be accomplished through original research...IMO.

ldiatone · 06-20-2013, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AceInTheHole

I just picked this up and started reading his section on Maidens and I want to know if his theories he puts forth in the book still have a place in today's game?

yes

Dave Schwartz · 06-20-2013, 10:19 PM

Mitchell's greatest strength IMHO was the expression of his math skills in terms the handicapper could understand. He was perhaps the best author ever at that.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

thaskalos · 06-21-2013, 01:14 PM

And his greatest weakness IMHO was his insistence that a 40%+ ROI was sustainable over the long term in exotics wagering. His voice of him claiming that he had bank accounts at race tracks throughout the country is still ringing in my ears...

Overlay · 06-21-2013, 02:20 PM

I think that his Commonsense Betting has more staying power than Commonsense Handicapping. The math involved in wagering is not as subject to change as the ways of evaluating thoroughbred performance. In particular, I find any text that does not deal in assigning quantitative weights to handicapping factors to be of limited interest (but that's just me).

thaskalos · 06-21-2013, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overlay

I think that his Commonsense Betting has more staying power than Commonsense Handicapping. The math involved in wagering is not as subject to change as the ways of evaluating thoroughbred performance. In particular, I find any text that does not deal in assigning quantitative weights to handicapping factors to be of limited interest (but that's just me).

Yes...but "betting" is not the "sexy" subject that everyone wants to read about.

Handicapping is...

AceInTheHole · 06-21-2013, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj

I read it a long time ago. What theories are you wanting to discuss? I remember the part about ability times, much different than Scott's ability times.

He mentions Ron Ambrose in Vegas in his section on maidens who he says bets exclusively on maidens and pulls six figures a year betting them to place. He talks about bet down favorites but does not mention this place betting/maiden system that the Mr Ambrose uses.

I retread the section and it says" he bets $500-$2000 to place and show. His win bets vary from $200-$1000. His top pick wins close to 40%. Runs second 72% and in the money 89%! Never bets to win unless he gets 5-2."

Why aren't more people doing this? Is this a feasible approach to the types of races mr Ambrose bets for others to emulate ?

Overlay · 06-21-2013, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...but "betting" is not the "sexy" subject that everyone wants to read about.

Handicapping is...

Handicapping is "sexy" to me, too, as long as it can be quantified. If it can't, it comes down to fallible subjective opinion, and also too often lapses exclusively into finding and betting the horse or combination that is judged most likely to win, regardless of whether the bet's odds/payoff justify the risk of a wager or not, and without a dependable, replicable basis for making that judgment from one race to the next.

Dave Schwartz · 06-21-2013, 07:25 PM

Quote:

He mentions Ron Ambrose in Vegas in his section on maidens who he says bets exclusively on maidens and pulls six figures a year betting them to place. He talks about bet down favorites but does not mention this place betting/maiden system that the Mr Ambrose uses.

Ron Ambrose died a few years back.

I knew him only well enough to say that he always talked about giant show bets (to me). Lived the end of his life playing golf in Arizona.

cj · 06-22-2013, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AceInTheHole

He mentions Ron Ambrose in Vegas in his section on maidens who he says bets exclusively on maidens and pulls six figures a year betting them to place. He talks about bet down favorites but does not mention this place betting/maiden system that the Mr Ambrose uses.

I retread the section and it says" he bets $500-$2000 to place and show. His win bets vary from $200-$1000. His top pick wins close to 40%. Runs second 72% and in the money 89%! Never bets to win unless he gets 5-2."

Why aren't more people doing this? Is this a feasible approach to the types of races mr Ambrose bets for others to emulate ?

I don't know how feasible it is, but I do believe maiden races are the easiest by far to handicap.

thaskalos · 06-22-2013, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj

I don't know how feasible it is, but I do believe maiden races are the easiest by far to handicap.

They are the easiest races to handicap...but you can't say that they are the most profitable races to play -- which is what some of these authors are saying.

No group of races could be called "most profitable"...because it all depends on the individual player, and his set of skills.

cj · 06-23-2013, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaskalos

They are the easiest races to handicap...but you can't say that they are the most profitable races to play -- which is what some of these authors are saying.

No group of races could be called "most profitable"...because it all depends on the individual player, and his set of skills.

I agree to a point, but in my case I think they are also the easiest races on which to win money. People overbet speed figures, particularly for horses that have lost at short odds, and those horses create value.

I'm not talking about races dominated by first time starters in the wagering, but your run of the mill maiden claiming races which are prolific on many cards today.

so.cal.fan · 06-23-2013, 03:20 PM

I know more than one daily racegoer who specializes in maiden races.
They know all the winning angles, but more interesting is that they are all experts at looking at horses in the paddock. The credit this with their ability to swing a profit.
When we used to go to Del Mar on a daily basis for many decades, we always did well with maiden two year olds. Selected them on appearance.
I'm sure it still is valid.
Every maiden race has horses who will NEVER break their maiden.
My favorite maiden angle is catch 3 year olds who are very well bred.
You can find top sire lists on Bloodhorse, check them on a daily basis, if needed.
My theory is that a very well bred horse for the distance and surface is not likely to be a maiden for long. Second and third time starters are usually the ones I look for, and they are almost always trained by top stables and ridden by top jockeys. Interestingly enough, they do not always go off at short prices! I have caught many 5/1- 12/1 shots who win with top trainers and jockeys! It's getting less and less with short fields, but you can still find them. Follow Saratoga and Del Mar this summer......you'll catch a few!