Are contenders more important than selections?

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Thanks Tom.

Again, I'm uncertain what is meant by this post. But, my contenders are get creative (4/1) and dave the usher (6/1).

My selection is that the will finish ahead of the .

My bet will depend on how one or the other looks in the paddock and/or post parade.

I am like you, I am also uncertain about what is meant by this post, but my "contender" and "selection" is one of the same.

I do something that was pounded into my head by one of the great trainers ever on the NYRA circuit and that is to "track" your horse's performance and bet large at acceptable odds when the time is right.

This method requires patience because the time between wagers sometimes can be long.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I'm not following.



Your contenders 4-1-etc., are in your selection ranking order but, you are preferring the 4 over the 9 because of the lower odds or because the 4 is your first selection? I'm just not understanding.

Why did you dismiss the 1 & 11?

Without seeing the PP's, I would be ranking my contenders in who I think can beat whom in some order and eliminating them based on something else i.e., how they look in paddock, odds, weather etc.

Your contenders 4-1-etc., are in your selection ranking order but, you are preferring the 4 over the 9 because of the lower odds or because the 4 is your first selection? I'm just not understanding.

Because #4 is my top selection.


Why did you dismiss the 1 & 11?

Because I feel that even some contenders aren't worth a bet at any price. It's a check and balance within my system.

Without seeing the PP's, I would be ranking my contenders in who I think can beat whom in some order and eliminating them based on something else i.e., how they look in paddock, odds, weather et

The point is what does it matter how I rank them? I played the 9 and won beating my top selection.

I eliminate contenders by preferred attributes. I wish I could use physical observation.

[hardboot]

contenders (post position and M/L)

Walk Away Slow @ 8/1
Get Creative @ 4/1
Perry M @ 8/1
High Limit @ 7/2

selections (win only)

High Limit most likely winner but NO bet below 7/2
would bet above 12/1
would bet above 12/1

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Your contenders 4-1-etc., are in your selection ranking order but, you are preferring the 4 over the 9 because of the lower odds or because the 4 is your first selection? I'm just not understanding.

Because #4 is my top selection.


Why did you dismiss the 1 & 11?

Because I feel that even some contenders aren't worth a bet at any price. It's a check and balance within my system.

Without seeing the PP's, I would be ranking my contenders in who I think can beat whom in some order and eliminating them based on something else i.e., how they look in paddock, odds, weather et

The point is what does it matter how I rank them? I played the 9 and won beating my top selection.

I eliminate contenders by preferred attributes. I wish I could use physical observation.

I think I'm now understanding what you're saying .... that you bet both the 4 & 9. But, the 11 (9.60) which I'm interpreting (that you think) had a higher probability to beat the 9 was dismissed for the 9 (8.90).

What was your acceptable betting odds for the 1 & 11?

I guess I would have ranked them 4-9-1-11.

[Tom]

...5-2
...9-2
...8-1
...8-1

[Tom]

Revised odds after the 4 scratched.....made my top pick a bet that ran out!

...2-1
...4-1
...6-1
...8-1

So it didn't matter, my selection was the 6 and my top contender was a play.
The 11 might have become a play, I missed the odds.

[ultracapper]

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".

There have been many times when I just can't seem to get on the same page with some of your input. Other times, like the statement here about temperament and personality, makes me think that the mold we each came from is one and the same. I don't know if I can even articulate this well, but when I make a wager, I have to feel "right". Not as in right or wrong, but as in content, or something to that effect.

As I grow older, I feel my game has taken on some zen type aspects.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

There have been many times when I just can't seem to get on the same page with some of your input. Other times, like the statement here about temperament and personality, makes me think that the mold we each came from is one and the same. I don't know if I can even articulate this well, but when I make a wager, I have to feel "right". Not as in right or wrong, but as in content, or something to that effect.

As I grow older, I feel my game has taken on some zen type aspects.

Well, if the gaining of "zen type" aspects has made you a better player, then "may the force be with you"! Personally, one race is like any other race (except the big stakes races with huge pools), in that anything and any horse can win a particular race. An important trait for the successful player is the ability to "bet it and forget it", not letting the results of individual races enter into future performances and decision processes. While confidence is certainly important, that confidence, for some, comes from the results of significant numbers of results, knowing that in the long term one's method is viable and profitable. Individual races or series of races, while having some impact on short term results, do not necessarily carry much weight for the successful player who is focused on the long term. Of course, the more focused one is on individual races, and the more subjective input one includes in analysis of races, the more subject they are to allowing short term results negatively affect their bottom line.

Of course, you know all that already!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

There have been many times when I just can't seem to get on the same page with some of your input.

Well...I never pretended to be perfect.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by raybo

Well, if the gaining of "zen type" aspects has made you a better player, then "may the force be with you"! Personally, one race is like any other race (except the big stakes races with huge pools), in that anything and any horse can win a particular race. An important trait for the successful player is the ability to "bet it and forget it", not letting the results of individual races enter into future performances and decision processes. While confidence is certainly important, that confidence, for some, comes from the results of significant numbers of results, knowing that in the long term one's method is viable and profitable. Individual races or series of races, while having some impact on short term results, do not necessarily carry much weight for the successful player who is focused on the long term. Of course, the more focused one is on individual races, and the more subjective input one includes in analysis of races, the more subject they are to allowing short term results negatively affect their bottom line.

Of course, you know all that already!

Of course

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Well...I never pretended to be perfect.

You can always say you got that going for you.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I think I'm now understanding what you're saying .... that you bet both the 4 & 9. But, the 11 (9.60) which I'm interpreting (that you think) had a higher probability to beat the 9 was dismissed for the 9 (8.90).

What was your acceptable betting odds for the 1 & 11?

I guess I would have ranked them 4-9-1-11.

Bet only the #9 because it met minimum odds and was a contender worthy of betting. The #4 was a contender and worthy of a wager, but didn't get the minimum odds. The #1 and #11 were contenders but considered too risky to wager on even with greater than minimum odds.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Tom

Revised odds after the 4 scratched.....made my top pick a bet that ran out!

...2-1
...4-1
...6-1
...8-1

So it didn't matter, my selection was the 6 and my top contender was a play.
The 11 might have become a play, I missed the odds.

What do you do if three horses qualify?

[DRIVEWAY]

Every effort is made to make a single selection.

When I break a race down to 2 horses my wager is based upon the ML.

If both are non-chalk, bet both to win in equal amounts.

If one is chalk, bet the non-chalk to win and play a one way exacta chalk/non-chalk.

With three horses I'll follow a similar pattern as far as win and exacta. If the chalk is overwhelming, I'll consider the trifecta over the exacta.

With four horses I'll normally pass. Exceptions are KD and Breeders Cup etc.

1 Selections 30%
2 Selections 65%
3 Selections 5%

The key to this approach is cashing 12-30 exactas to create value.

Trying to make wagers based upon post time odds is frustrating when a track sits at zero minutes to post for 3-10 minutes watching the odds continuously change and then continue during the race. My attitude is I'll bet early based upon ML and take the good with the bad.

Good Decision Making (Handicapping, Selections, When to Bet, How to Bet).

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

What do you do if three horses qualify?

By qualify, I mean it to be they are overlays.
I bet all three, or I may just bet the two longest odds. Situational.