View Poll Results: Which would you rather play
|
High quality horses in races with short fields
|
|
19 |
14.50% |
Low quality horses in races with full fields
|
|
112 |
85.50% |
|
|
10-29-2009, 06:52 PM
|
#1
|
Once/Always
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kansas City Missouri
Posts: 738
|
VOTE Cheap Full Fields vs Quality Short Fields
A couple of recent threads have prompted me to post this poll. As a player, would you rather watch/bet higher quality races with short fields or lower quality races with full fields?
My records show that I do better in the bottom level races - regardless of the track where I play.
__________________
Warren
________________________________
The most important software is between your ears
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 06:57 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,585
|
I prefer cheap conditioned races with 8-11 horses. I see a 5 horse allowance field in California with a 6-5 shot and an 8-5 shot, and I'd rather listen to how my wife's day was than think about betting it.
__________________
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 07:02 PM
|
#3
|
Unreconstructed
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Appalachia
Posts: 6,646
|
If you like to bet there is no question about it.
__________________
Deo Vindice
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 07:17 PM
|
#4
|
AllAboutTheROE
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,411
|
Although high quality animals are beautiful to watch run, for their physical beauty and mental toughness, it's a no brainer. Full fields trump quality fields.
The key though for me is "competitive" full fields, no matter what the quality. Some races (high and low quality) have full fields, but if 2/3 of the field has zero chance, then you don't get the benefit of having a full field.
__________________
"No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking" -- Voltaire
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 07:22 PM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 16,487
|
Does a 7 or 8 horse field count as a small field? I'll take an 8 horse stakes race over the 12 horse 5000 NW2 lifetime race any day.
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 07:25 PM
|
#6
|
Unreconstructed
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Appalachia
Posts: 6,646
|
Nothing like those $8K mdn claimers with overflow fields at Tampa.
__________________
Deo Vindice
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 09:35 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,128
|
I would choose a shorter field of tougher horses, not necessarily classier, but fitter. I can tell the difference between fit horses, more easily than I can distinguish between those who are racing poorly. If someone is trying to buy the race with a sharp class drop, things of that nature are ok too. I do like stakes caliber races a lot, and of course, the upcoming BC races will have rather full fields, but these are fit, ready horses for the most part.
senortout
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 09:54 PM
|
#8
|
Registered Wacko
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Belmont-ish
Posts: 2,242
|
Wow! 32 to 3 in favor of the cheapies. That speaks volumes.
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 09:55 PM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 16,487
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBedo
Although high quality animals are beautiful to watch run, for their physical beauty and mental toughness, it's a no brainer. Full fields trump quality fields.
The key though for me is "competitive" full fields, no matter what the quality. Some races (high and low quality) have full fields, but if 2/3 of the field has zero chance, then you don't get the benefit of having a full field.
|
Exactly. Most of the real garbage races have about 3 contenders and 9 horses who may not even finish the race. Contrast that with a stakes race, where all the horses are quality. I'd rather bet on a 20-1 shot in a stakes moving up in class off a win than a 20-1 shot in a 4000 claimer who's been constantly beaten double digits at the same level.
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 10:00 PM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 75
|
FIELD SIZES
Much rather have big fields. How many times have you watched a jockey rate and ride for second because he dont think he can beat the big favorite
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 10:01 PM
|
#11
|
BC Canada
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,286
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com
I prefer cheap conditioned races with 8-11 horses. I see a 5 horse allowance field in California with a 6-5 shot and an 8-5 shot, and I'd rather listen to how my wife's day was than think about betting it.
|
Now there's a poll question....
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 10:02 PM
|
#12
|
Registered Wacko
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Belmont-ish
Posts: 2,242
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBedo
The key though for me is "competitive" full fields, no matter what the quality. Some races (high and low quality) have full fields, but if 2/3 of the field has zero chance, then you don't get the benefit of having a full field.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valuist
Exactly. Most of the real garbage races have about 3 contenders and 9 horses who may not even finish the race. Contrast that with a stakes race, where all the horses are quality. I'd rather bet on a 20-1 shot in a stakes moving up in class off a win than a 20-1 shot in a 4000 claimer who's been constantly beaten double digits at the same level.
|
The best thing about cheap tracks is that even the 2/3rds with "zero chance" can get in the number and blow it up really good! On the 28th at Beulah, one race had a $12 ex and an $844 super. The very next race had a $16 exacta, yet a $1646 super! Good luck finding payoffs like that in a six horse field at Santa Anita...well, other than the $12 exacta.
Last edited by Zman179; 10-29-2009 at 10:05 PM.
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 10:07 PM
|
#13
|
Registered Wacko
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Belmont-ish
Posts: 2,242
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valuist
Does a 7 or 8 horse field count as a small field?
|
I would consider a short field to be 7 or less. 8 horses still gives a good chance at catching an overlay exotic.
Give me a meaty 12 horse $3500 maiden claimer at Beulah Park any day. You can keep the graded stakes with five horses in them, like it does the bettors any good watching a 3/5 coast by open lengths. I'd definitely bet on full field graded stakes, but it's so rare to actually find one.
Last edited by Zman179; 10-29-2009 at 10:15 PM.
|
|
|
10-29-2009, 10:35 PM
|
#14
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 7,706
|
From a fair-odds / value perspective, I'd say larger fields make it easier for solid contenders to get lost in the shuffle, and be underbet, while still having a legitimate chance to win. On the other hand, the likely overbetting on favored standouts in races with small fields can also be useful on those occasions when the favorite doesn't get the job done, as long as you can reliably forecast when that will be (which I would assume, however, would not be as often as in a larger field).
Last edited by Overlay; 10-29-2009 at 10:37 PM.
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 12:12 AM
|
#15
|
EXCEL with SUPERFECTAS
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,206
|
Less than $15,000 claimer's, 3yo & up, nw2/nw3, 8 or more horses, dirt.
Cheap mdn claimers, 3yo and up, 8 horses or more, dirt or turf.
Big payoffs in the super pools.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|