Horse betting strategies/handicapping

mikemca · 04-04-15, 07:44 AM

I agree with the "fellow" who just bet to WIN. That is 100% the most efficient way to attack the pools imo. You wager $20 to WIN you have $20 to WIN where in most other pools you probably only have a $1 or $2 actual bet that costs well over $20. I play exactas too but that is it for the most part and even that eats away at your efficiency. I do it because I play a lot of long shots so I want to cash in sometimes when they outrun their odds and don't win but finish 2nd.

As for information I use for handicapping. There are many different opinions but imo TimeformUS is the only past performance provider that has track bias/speed figure/pace figure/breeding ratings/trainer,jock ratings/class ratings/and probably a few others I'm forgetting about all in one place. With the price for all that information being less than 1/3 of what it would cost for a DRF monthly subscription.

You can tell who ran too fast early and burn out with the track heavy and favoring closers or who closed into a slow pace on a highway that was favoring front runners to target them in their next race. And you have all that info on 1 running line where any other option you would have to use 2 or 3 different sources. The speed figures and pace figures are made by Craig Milkowski who is the best at what he does. I bounced around trying everything Bris(not long), Equibase(not long),DRF(several years), Thorograph(a couple years) until I found him . Then a few years later he got hired by Timeform to be their figure maker when they launched a couple years ago. He is very good.

Any way the #1 thing I don't think many can wrap their head around is that race horses aren't static. If they run a 102 last race most expect the horse to run a 102 this race. It doesn't work like that. They are either going to go forward or backward off that number a large percentage of the time. That is where the game has evolved to. You can't just bet the fastest horse any more and expect to win. A couple scenarios to find a good horse are the ones I wrote at the beginning of the last paragraph . Horses running into/against bad circumstances . Another would be landing on a horse because you are projecting what the horse will run while others are playing their last number.You see a horse in it's 3rd start who ran 62 and then 75 in his 2nd start while everyone is betting the horses with 10+ starts but an 80 in their last couple races. Also any change can result in big improvements. Blinkers On/Off, sprint to route or route to sprint, dirt to turf , etc...There are many many others you just have to do the work.

Arky · 04-04-15, 04:08 PM

Good stuff, Mike. I appreciate the comments on the "services", too. There needs to be more reviews on these websites - I've found a few, but not much.

I've heard some good things about TimeformUS but they don't allow Internet Explorer (the most used browser in the solar system). Guess I will have to install Firefox or something to see what it's all about....

I also remember something else about my influential friend. He used to say, any time you can double your money, it's a good bet. I.e. Bet $10, win $20 (net win of $10) is a good bet. And it is.

mikemca · 04-04-15, 04:53 PM

Yeah think that is because they are "new age" and IE is kind of ancient these days.

I've used firefox for 6-7 years now and like it so never tried google chrome but a lot of people seem to like it.

Horse racing is a different beast in sports betting because for a horse to be value at 2-1 he/she has to be much better to win at the profitable %. That is a way to start out too. Take the field and assign each horse what % chance you think they have to win. Think you will find not many horses that look like walkovers are worth it. It is very rare for a horse to have better than 50% chance to win especially in fields of 8+. Which is what you need just to just break even with a 1-1 horse.

Average 10 horse field//// What a legitimate even money horse's field looks like
Horse
A 10%---5%
B 20%---50%
C 20%---15%
D 5%---3%
E 10%---7%
F 5%----2%
G 10%---5%
H 10%---4%
I 15%---8%
J 5%----1%

That's a 10 horse field. It would have to be a pretty dull field to give someone a 50% chance

Arky · 04-04-15, 05:19 PM

Not sure I follow but I think he meant any payout on a $2 bet (win/place/show) that pays $4 (or more) is a good one - and that's very common.... The trick, of course, is to find it...

mikemca · 04-04-15, 06:04 PM

Yeah a 2-1 horse still has to hit at a 40% clip.

I usually use 3-1 as a bare minimum but prefer 7-2. Only need about 25%.

brucedenton · 04-05-15, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by mikemca

I agree with the "fellow" who just bet to WIN. That is 100% the most efficient way to attack the pools imo. You wager $20 to WIN you have $20 to WIN where in most other pools you probably only have a $1 or $2 actual bet that costs well over $20. I play exactas too but that is it for the most part and even that eats away at your efficiency. I do it because I play a lot of long shots so I want to cash in sometimes when they outrun their odds and don't win but finish 2nd.

As for information I use for handicapping. There are many different opinions but imo TimeformUS is the only past performance provider that has track bias/speed figure/pace figure/breeding ratings/trainer,jock ratings/class ratings/and probably a few others I'm forgetting about all in one place. With the price for all that information being less than 1/3 of what it would cost for a DRF monthly subscription.

You can tell who ran too fast early and burn out with the track heavy and favoring closers or who closed into a slow pace on a highway that was favoring front runners to target them in their next race. And you have all that info on 1 running line where any other option you would have to use 2 or 3 different sources. The speed figures and pace figures are made by Craig Milkowski who is the best at what he does. I bounced around trying everything Bris(not long), Equibase(not long),DRF(several years), Thorograph(a couple years) until I found him . Then a few years later he got hired by Timeform to be their figure maker when they launched a couple years ago. He is very good.

Any way the #1 thing I don't think many can wrap their head around is that race horses aren't static. If they run a 102 last race most expect the horse to run a 102 this race. It doesn't work like that. They are either going to go forward or backward off that number a large percentage of the time. That is where the game has evolved to. You can't just bet the fastest horse any more and expect to win. A couple scenarios to find a good horse are the ones I wrote at the beginning of the last paragraph . Horses running into/against bad circumstances . Another would be landing on a horse because you are projecting what the horse will run while others are playing their last number.You see a horse in it's 3rd start who ran 62 and then 75 in his 2nd start while everyone is betting the horses with 10+ starts but an 80 in their last couple races. Also any change can result in big improvements. Blinkers On/Off, sprint to route or route to sprint, dirt to turf , etc...There are many many others you just have to do the work.

Very nice and thorough response Mike.

Arky · 04-05-15, 11:18 AM

This was race of the day yesterday at Oaklawn. The horse, #2 Doctor Peter, blew up my exacta but it was cool to watch. Even the announcer got a little excited...

indio · 04-05-15, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by mikemca

I agree with the "fellow" who just bet to WIN. That is 100% the most efficient way to attack the pools imo. .

You couldn't be more wrong. Horse racing is a sucker bet to begin with, but Win pools especially. With almost always 12 options or less (often less than 10), the Win bet is almost impossible to ever find any true value because you have on average a close to 20% rake on every pool. Even with a large section of pools made up by wagers from idiots, the chances that a market is so inefficient as to offer any real value (where the payout exceeds the true probability) is slim. It does happen on occasion, but I practically guarantee ANY horse bettor who makes any volume of WIN bets during a year without some sort of rake reduction or payout enhancement will lose. If someone were to bet strictly long shots, they just might get enough variance over a years time to swing their way to eek out a small profit, but that would be highly unlikely.

Let's look at the 3 main factors working against any WIN bet.

1. TAKEOUT - This factor alone will make WIN bets a -ev play for the player almost every time. Every racetrack in the country is taking out between 15.5% to 25% of every WIN pool. Can you imagine playing a poker game where the house takes $20 out of every $100 pot? How do you think you'll do after playing for 12 hours, even if you're the best poker player at the table?

2. BREAKAGE - This is the ultimate Fck You to the player. As if taking 15-20% isn't bad enough, the player gets additionally gouged by the archaic method of breakage. This is where the track always rounds DOWN to the nearest .20 cent mutual price (NY will round down to the nearest .10 for smaller payouts). This means that if the true mutual price of a winning WIN bet is 4.19, they will pay 4.00 as opposed to the more logical 4.20. This has a gouging effect that really effects the true price, but especially at shorter priced horses. Not only is this practically criminal, it's also laughable that in today's world of modern technology and predominant account wagering from a computer that pools can't be offered right to the penny.

Let's say there is $104,000 in the win pool (before rake and breakage) and there is $39,950 bet on the #3 horse. This would mean the market is giving him a 38.4% chance of winning, and you're looking at a price of +160. Now let's first take 17% out of the pool. The track (and state government) takes $17,680 leaving $86,320 which means our track odds are now +116 (big difference from+160). But that's not the end of it. Let's say the horse wins, it should have a mutual payout of 4.32 , but you wont actually see 4.32, they are going to round DOWN to 4.20. So we end up getting +110 on the bet. What they did was skim an extra $2425 off the pool, and the real takeout becomes 19.3% in a supposed 17% takeout pool. Good luck ever showing a profit.

3. BETTING AGAINST YOURSELF- With the exception of the very largest handle tracks at Santa Anita, Belmont, Keenland, etc., most WIN bets actually reduce your payout with even a medium sized $300 win bet. Take a track like Emerald Downs for example. There might be $10,000 total in the WIN pool. Lets say you really like a the #1 horse in a five horse field who is currently 2-1 on the odds board. Out of that $10,000, there is $2767 bet on the #1 horse, so after they take 17% off the top, the odds are 2-1. Now, lets say you bet $300 to win on the #1 horse. The pool goes to $10,300 and now there is $3067 bet on the #1. Your $300 bet just changed the odds board from 2-1 to 9-5, but alas we wont even see 9-5. If the pools close right after our bet, the pools would produce a mutual price of 5.57, but they are going to round down (gouge) to 5.40. So what in essence happened was, we like the #1 horse who had 27.6% of the pool money bet on him (odds of +260), they took 17% off the top ( odds of +200), we bet $300 to win on him and our odds dropped again (odds of +179) and the horse ends up winning and they employ the standard breakage and we get paid off at odds of +170.

While there is almost never any real value in racetrack pools, the best places to find them are in exotics where there are numerous combinations. Sometimes, a pick 3 that has fields of 10+12+12 (1440 different possible combinations) can produce the occasional +ev payout, especially since chalk combinations are usually heavily over bet, and at some tracks, you might be the only one holding a winning ticket at the end of it.

Arky · 04-06-15, 11:38 AM

Some good comments in there, Indio. You sound like you've been to the track before.

I think most of us understand that playing the horses is a "house-heavy" prospect. Your numbers, and I think you're probably pretty close if not right on, show just how much. I myself didn't know about the round-down practice that goes on and that is an eye-opener.

Back when I used to go to the track regularly some 30 years ago, the word was that only 12% of people that attended walk away with more money than they started with. Yep, 88% go home losers. Don't have any idea what that number is today in this internet age, but just for the sake of argument, let's just say it's about the same. Everyone that takes their horse handicapping seriously, should want to get into that 12% as often as possible. And I know that there's people that do. Practice, money-management, study, practice, study some more.

What percentage do you think can go to the track multiple times over the course of a year and stay in the green (for the year)? I think that number has to be really small - like less than 1% small....

There are many different types of people that play the horses. Survey the gate on any given race day and I think that you'll find all sorts playing the horses from the novice to the dedicated "pro" handicapper. I think most of us, and I include myself, make up the vast space in between those two. There's newbies, there's the businessman that doesn't mind dropping a few bucks for a few hours of entertainment, plenty of casual bettors, husband and wife looking for a diversion, retirees, good and bad handicappers and a few fools spending the rent money. On any given day, any one of those people can end up in "the 12%".

I do think a good and dedicated horse handicapper can do things with a Win bet that many can't. It can be used situationally. So, IMO, it should not be excluded as a strategy or tactic. Keep it in the tool box until the time is right. Typically, if I get a buzz about a horse, rather than go for the W straight up, I'll just spread the bet out (across the board - W/P/S) so hopefully I can recoup a little if I've overestimated. But that's just the way I do things at this point in time....

DRB · 04-06-15, 09:06 PM

What Indio meant of course is multiplying 10 * 12 * 12 =1440 possible pick 3 combinations.
and I agree that

1. Except for the super rare occasion ( like seeing Bigfoot walking down the Strip ) betting horses to win is -EV.
2. It is a sucker bet and it is dying a slow death because of many reasons led by greed to suck the players,
or shall we call them punters, dry.

But the horizontal bets do help the player significantly when used correctly.
So for example using 3 horses in 3 consecutive races will only cost $27.
With just 1 price horse (say 10:1 ) it is common to expect payouts of $500. They only TAKEOUT ONCE at the beginning
of the first race. I remember the first nontrivial pick 3 I ever hit quite well ( Calder (MIami) circa 1995 )

It went like this:

The first leg there were two heavily bet horses about 2:1 each and a field of about 8. So I just picked one of the 2 favorites
and he won.

The middle leg had only 6 horses so I used all 6 of them and the longest shot in the race won ( he had been laid off about a
year or so the public ignored him He paid around $40 to win.

The third leg was the only reason I played the pick 3 becasue the horse I liked was around 12:1 on the morning line and had an excellent wet track record.I recall the field having around 9 horses. It rains every day in the summer in south florida. He actually went off at 17:1 and rallied down the sloppy stretch to win.

My wager cost 1*6*1 = $6. The ticket paid around $1700.

Now with the addition of Pick 4 bets ( already more than 10 years old and the most promoted and popular bet in racing today) and pick 5( more recently emerging and much more difficult given the extra leg) , the little guy has a chance to make a nice hit with small wagers. Plus the pick 4 and pick 5 bets have a 50 cent base unit, which allows more coverage or more cost savings or a mixture of the two.

My horseracing betting days are for the most part behind me and now I only dabble on special days like triple crown races, Breeders Cup etc. I learned the very hard way how tough the game is on pure numbers crushing people over time (20-25% takeout) and the mental strain can be even worse can be devastating if overdone . A couple of small tracks have pick 4 takeouts as low as 14% AND if for example 2 longshots win say a 15: and a 20:1, a single 50 cent may very well take the entire pool which still could be several thousand dollars.

I wish I had a small fraction of the money I have lost in my lifetime paying the ponies but a very close friend of mind is fond
of saying " how many times do you have to get hit over the head with a bat before you wake up ? "

May the horse be with you !

Arky · 04-07-15, 11:45 AM

Good stuff, DRB. I always like a good horse story..

I'm just sitting here trying to wrap my head around this whole horse betting bidness.... Could it be that most of us suck at playing the ponies? Like, there are a lot of guitar players but only a few Claptons and Hendrixes? Is there not some level of skill in this game? Are some people more +ev than others? Not trying to be cute here, just trying to figure it out.......

---------------------------------------

Anybody catch "The Horseplayers" on the Esquire channel a while back? The show revolved around following a few people as they traveled to different tracks around the country competing in handicapping contests. They were all trying to win a seat at the yearly horse racing handicapping championship in Las Vegas... I liked it and found it interesting - wish there were more like it on the tube....

DRB · 04-07-15, 02:39 PM

Thank you for your note Arky. Yes I saw several episodes of "The Horseplayers" and I suppose they represent the tournament scene fairly well given that every track in the country has qualifiers on weekend and there are numerous ones Online as well.but I did not see the guys as some kind of sharp handicappers at all. They were fortunate to get the gig and the Italian dinners were more entertaining than watching them root for slow horses. The kid that called his mother and told her he wanted to " go pro " was a good kid with his whole life ahead of him. I hope he finds balance before the game eats him alive.
But the HBO miniseries " LUCK "starring Dustin Hoffman, Nick Nolte and others was excellent but the 2nd much anticipated season was canceled becasue several horses broke down at died at Hollywood Park( I think ) during filming. Hollywood Park no longer exists and will soon be a large development if if is not already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck_%28TV_series%29 ( this link may need some tinkering )

I would like to make a couple of comments about my limited experience with tournaments at another time but I did qualify and play in the World Series in Vegas in January, 2008.

One other thing : I like the Clapton and Hendrix analogy and over the course of my life I have met a couple of people that I thought had a little more going for them in terms of a little bit more intangible intuition of the game. Lady Luck however cannot be learned in a book and is quite fickle. When a photo finished is decided by the diameter of a dime and is worth 4 or 5 figures if it goes your way........ may the horse be with you. ( Did you know Jimi played BOTH right handed and left handed equally well ? )

Arky · 04-07-15, 04:42 PM

Would love to hear about your tournament experience, DRB (when you have the time)..

Oh, yeah, I saw Luck and liked it. It was a shame about the 3 horses - I never heard the why, but ending the series was probably the right thing to do. Sadly, one more strike against horse racing. Jeez, horse racing and boxing - two old school sports seemingly going down the drain....

re: the Horseplayers, yeah, I agree - most of the cast just seemed like regular schmoes. The two that stood out to me were John Conte (even though he didn't do too well) and Christian Hellmers (sp?) - kinda kooky but he seemed to have a plan...

So, I'm getting the general impression that the whole sport of horse racing is in a big valley right now, successes are fleeting and that maybe I shouldn't waste my time getting (re)involved? That in the long run, one will always lose more than they make? Doesn't seem to be a whole lot of success stories out there..... That strategy-wise, the exotics are ones best chance at staying in the green (or black) long term?

I saw Hendrix in 1969 at the Sam Houston Coliseum. I was expecting a wild man but he played the whole concert with his eyes slam shut....

BGboothA · 04-07-15, 05:47 PM

This is a great discussion and I would love to throw in my $0.02 as I have gone through quite a turn over the past few years and I think my experience can be helpful.

I will try to make this short, but who knows how long it will be as I type this...

10 years ago I broke my leg at the age of 25, this wasn't your average leg break, I shattered the top of my tibula, having to hvae a metal rod, 12 screws and the top of my tibula used to belong to someone else...I was bed bound for a month, chair bound for 2 months and then wheelchair and walker. During this time, I was bored as SHIT!!! Always being a big sports fan, and having to sit on my but for the months of Jan - April, I needed something to do...I found TVG and fell in love. I spent hours upon hours learning this sport and falling for it. I went on a mission, reading books, reading blogs, watching races 5-6-7 times looking at the PPs and got really good at what I was doing.

But I wasn't turning a profit! It was slow death, I played the win pool exclusively for the first 6 months or so that I was involved, I didn't like the idea of trying to figure out 2nd and third or 4th for those vertical plays and I didn't know enough to get into the horizontal pool. I firmly believe that you CANNOT make long term money playing the win pool exclusively. I don't think you can turn long term profit playing any of the pools exclusively.

Look at the example that DRB gave, his $6 bet turned into $1700, thats not a bad return. He is getting roughly a 280x return on his investment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that he has to hit that bet 1/279 times to stay profitable. But that is the wrong way to look at it IMO. Really what DRB did there was make 2 win bets at $6 each (had he lost either one he was out $6), and then he gambled with an unknown multiplier in the 2nd leg. If the favorite where to come home there this could have easily been a <$50 return instead of the $1700 return. But he played the pick3 based on the handicapping of the third leg, and ran with that race.

The only success I have had long term is looking for individual races to pounce on and being right in those races. Looking for the best way to surround those races in the horizontal pool or looking for value in the win/place/show pool.

You have to find a way to produce a fair odds line of your own. Using the same pick3 example, if I had found the same setup as he described and I loved the 12-1ML in the 3rd leg, I would have looked for value in the races surrounding in. The race before was likely wide open and thus giving the all button a go, the race before produced two heavy favorites, I likley would have played both favorites in the first leg. I would have tried to find 2-3 horses in the 4th leg and produce a 2nd pick 3 ticket. I would have then looked at my bets and tried to figure something out....If I was going to throw $12 in my first pick3 and $18 in my second pick3, I was going to bet $30 on that horse that I liked in the 3rd leg. My expected return? I would have to try to figure it out, and then determine what my return would be on the 12-1 ML in the win pool. Getting 17-1, my expected return in the win pool would be ~$500 on a horse I loved to win. Assuming I hit both the pick3s what is the likley hood of that return being greater than $500, if the answer is unlikely then I bet the win pool. If I am not confident in my handicapping of the other races surrounding the pick, I bet the win pool.

I don't know if that makes sense, its tough to type exactly what I am trying to say. But you cannot look at these bets as a single entity. There are times where your best odds are in the win pool, there are times when your best odds are in the horizontal pool. I think there are times when your best odds are in the vertical pool (but I am still working on this one).

-----------------------
To totally change gears, if I was talking to someone just starting in the game I would tell you one thing....play in tournaments. You can play in cheap ones at DerbyWars and they are a great learning place. I have became such a better handicapper overall after playing in a great deal of tournaments, I believe it is much easier to show consistent winners in the tournament world than in the 'real' world. The takeout is minimal. I love playing in DerbyWars $300 games, $21 entry fee for 16 players. The top 3 finishers get $100. The takeout is about 11% at its worst. The game will run with 13 players at which point there is a live overlay in the tournament, meaning the takeout is not only zero, its a positive number. This is agreat way to get into the game, your bankroll will last longer, a $21 tournament gets you 6 races, even if you miss the first 2.

Again, if that doesn't make sense let me know, it was a lot.

Arky · 04-07-15, 10:37 PM

Yes, I think I got ya, BG. It's like even with a Pick 3 (horizontal) you are still dealing with win pools vs. win pools vertically and......with the size of the bet and ROI all coming into play and....... trying to figure which has a better chance of hitting. Correct? The Pick 3 is something I haven't tried, yet and I think I will start experimenting a little with it in the SBR Racebook. It requires some "advanced scouting" and that is something I've not done much of except for Daily Doubles....

Ya know, as I mentioned in the 1st post, I play the exactas and trifectas in the Racebook. I will watch as my points bankroll slowly grinds away over the course of the day. Then, I'll hit a longshot exacta and the points bankroll will explode video-game style - it's just really quite amazing. You just don't see that sort of thing betting the other sports.... Sure, it's nice to hit a +600 money line in college football, but you already know what you will win if you hit. I suppose that is some of the allure of horse race betting, the big score....

Arky · 04-09-15, 11:19 AM

DRB: Click on either of Wednesday or Thursday race of the day and see if you don't recognize one of the handicappers....

----------------------------------------

So, I'm trying to update my very vertical 1981-style of play and played some Pick 3's yesterday. I got 2-in-a-row twice but couldn't get that third one. Quick question: why are the Pick 3 payouts sometimes listed like "5-1,4,9-1" when in reality the 3 winners were 5-9-1? Why do the 1 and 4 get included in the middle leg?

BGboothA · 04-09-15, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Arky

DRB: Click on either of Wednesday or Thursday race of the day and see if you don't recognize one of the handicappers....

----------------------------------------

So, I'm trying to update my very vertical 1981-style of play and played some Pick 3's yesterday. I got 2-in-a-row twice but couldn't get that third one. Quick question: why are the Pick 3 payouts sometimes listed like "5-1,4,9-1" when in reality the 3 winners were 5-9-1? Why do the 1 and 4 get included in the middle leg?

Because there were scratches and the PT favorite won. So looking at your example, the 1 and 4 scratched in the middle leg and the 9 was the post time favorite. so if you had a 1-1-1 ticket, it still would have been the winner, because the 1 scratched in the middle leg you would have automatically recieved the PT favorite.

Arky · 04-09-15, 12:38 PM

Ah, so. So, 5-1-1 and 5-4-1 would have been winners. Thanks!

DRB · 04-09-15, 01:48 PM

Arky I should give credit to John Conte for winning the World Series. He devoted his life to the sport and he was well
rewarded for his efforts. God bless him and I hope he wins again !! As far as the video goes, Dan Illman was a student at the University where I taught Mathematics and we went to the track a couple of times together. Again probably in the mid to late 1990's. I am not sure about the other guy but perhaps he was in Horseplayers also ? Dan has been with Racing form for about 15 years and knows his stuff for sure. The argument is the same as sports though. Nobody knows anybody else's bottom line unless he knows every bet etc. Dan Illman was clever enough to turn his lifelong passion into an excellent career. Beats the hell out of being a degenerate gambler !! I remember showing Dan's picture to one of his former writing professors.She was elated that he found his niche and she recognized his excellent writing skills when he studied under her. Like little boys in Brazil already kicking a soccer ball

before they can walk, Dan was born with DRF in hand.....kiddie version

HBD : Thank you for the feed back but my note is clear - I singled the first leg of the pick 3 I told about thus the bet only cost $6.

[I wrote : The first leg there were two heavily bet horses about 2:1 each and a field of about 8.
So I just picked one of the 2 favorites and he won. Had he not one, I would have been out only $6 and I would have bet somewhere in the $15 - $20 range on the price horse to win which is a level of win betting that never really changed much for me over the years. Another thing we have in common HBD ( besides for our love of the Sort of Kings ) is a collection of Handicapping books.
Now we need to be in the right place at the right time and turn small money into big profits !!

Looking back now , not using the 2 top picks was a rookie mistake but 20 years ago I was a rookie and didn't apply common sense despite some ability to spot longshots with a chance to win. Pick 3's only became popular in the 1990's anyway but horizontal plays
dominate the handicapping landscape these days.

As I fight to find myself after suffering a nervous breakdown that came to a head late 2010, you guys shake loose the inner me that still wants to play the ponies. It is the mental energy required that is a huge negative factor that I must overcome and by no means am I saying that horseracing did me in but there no denying the mental strain of the game. There were many factors too personal and unimportant to go into in my but you guys are contagious and make we want to keep in touch with th game long term.
I thank you for that and for the therapeutic value of participation in this forum.

Arky · 04-09-15, 02:39 PM

DRB: I was trying to point you to the video of one Matt Bernier - he was that young "go pro" guy from the Horseplayers. Apparently, he's got a gig doing videos for DRF so, you know, good for him. :-) Lots of good info in your last post, nonetheless...

BGboothA · 04-09-15, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by DRB

HBD : Thank you for the feed back but my note is clear - I singled the first leg of the pick 3 I told about thus the bet only cost $6.

[I wrote : The first leg there were two heavily bet horses about 2:1 each and a field of about 8.
So I just picked one of the 2 favorites and he won. Had he not one, I would have been out only $6 and I would have bet somewhere in the $15 - $20 range on the price horse to win which is a level of win betting that never really changed much for me over the years. Another thing we have in common HBD ( besides for our love of the Sort of Kings ) is a collection of Handicapping books.
Now we need to be in the right place at the right time and turn small money into big profits !!

Sorry if it looked like I meant that you played it wrong, I was just wanting to share with Arky, my thoughts on the same scenerio. If there is one thing I have learned in my time in this sport, its that the only right way to bet is the winning bet....And you won!

TonyP · 04-09-15, 10:15 PM

IMO Matt Bernier is not a very good capper, maybe illman can show him a few things

cutchemist42 · 04-10-15, 09:06 AM

One thing I like to do was something I read in a James Quinn book, and that is strive to be able to pick the 3-4 (depending on field size) horses that will win a race, and be able to do that 80% of the time. That group of win-horses should then have a combined win % of 80%, with the rest of the field having a 20% chance.

He then created tables where you assign your odds to the first horse, and then had corresponding odds for when to back your 2nd and 3rd choices. What this has led to me is me passing on races if Im not getting the odds I like.

Its a system I like, and has been working for me ever since I started using it before the Hou meet.

cutchemist42 · 04-10-15, 09:12 AM

Also, like MCA said, Timeformus is great and they have two free races a day to try out. Im still a Brisnet Ultimate user, but I like to use those two free races a day to try out Timeformus; Im close to making the switch.

Other than that, str taught me alot in his thread which is worth a read over several sessions (probably too big for one sitting). Watch the races and understand why horses win and lose. Also, I personally find I get better results when I follow 1 track at a time and keep bias notes. Everytime Ive done so in the past 6 months when I first started trying the technique, Ive made money. (Tam Winter, Hou meet), so I will be following ASD/HST together in the summer since the 5 days a week is watchable for me.

Arky · 04-10-15, 09:26 AM

BG: Yes, all strategies and scenarios welcome here. I went to the Derby Wars website and I like it. Seems as though one gets rewarded for picking winners and that's not a bad thing - one shot at picking one winner. Perhaps I may join and try some n00b games until I learn the system....

One thing I have to constantly guard against in simulation is overbetting - picking too much. Having all the bases covered. Besides diminishing the payout, overbetting can have a "shot gun" effect where you don't quite nail the target and only get a piece of the action (i.e. Show bet) or miss altogether. Something I need to work on....

---------------------------------------------

I seem to be running into a limitation of the SBR Racebook. There's a minimum of 1 bet pt. per wager and it pretty much rules out a stab at a Superfecta box or any bet type where one might want to go .5 pt or smaller. A four horse Superfecta box @ 1pt would be 24 pts total and that is not too bad except that all four selections have to come in. A five horse Superfecta box zooms to 120 pts @ 1 pt/per combination and that's a little pricey for one race. There's also a 4000 pt ceiling on the amount you can win on one race but so far, no reason to bitch.

---------------------------------------------

Anyone have some comments on quarter horse racing? My local track just started quarter horse season. While I prefer the thoroughbreds, I use to go to the quarter horse races when that was all that was available.... I remember it as more unpredictable than thoroughbred racing.....

DRB · 04-10-15, 01:51 PM

Hi BG. No negativity at all from me about your comment. In fact, your comment opens up an important consideration
about betting pick3's and pick4's = the location in the sequence of the player's key horse especially if said horse is a good price
such as 8,10 or 15:1.
For example , if the key horse is in the first leg of the sequence , then a win bet is warranted in conjunction with the say for simplicity a pick 3 play. Instead of looking at a 5 or 6 horse field with a heavy legitimate chalk as as unbettable race, think of it as an almost free bingo square on your ticket !!

A reasonable strategy could be $15- $20 on the key horse to win and then be greedy and try yo hit the pick 3 also.
Things like field sizes and or a heavy favorite in one of the other 2 legs( a potential single ) also factor in.

The Friday and Saturday of Kentucky derby weekend will have 3 or 4 pick4's each day and the pools will be astronomical.
I don't know how but it would be cool if we can have some collaboration !

TonyP I don't really know the Matt Bernier dude and did not recognize him from Horseplayers at first glance.
My gut says you are a serious player !
I am sure Bernie will learn a lot from Dan Illman but it has been years since I really read DRF. The articles just blend together with the same commentary and rhetoric year after year after year. And they want us to pay to read the articles...BULLSHIT.They are so formulaic they could be written by a robot it seems.
Dan gets paid well.... Matt has stars in his eyes !!

I do have access to the PP's from every track in the country through Brisnet and for example if someone was working on putting together a ticket I would love to help if possible. My mother is in hospice ( here at home ) hence I am here almost all of the time
as her primary caretaker. I also am caretaker for my 85 year old father who stumbles around with a walker and couldn't pick the winner of a 2 horse race if one of the horses had to carry a piano

.

mikemca · 04-10-15, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by indio

You couldn't be more wrong. Horse racing is a sucker bet to begin with, but Win pools especially. With almost always 12 options or less (often less than 10), the Win bet is almost impossible to ever find any true value because you have on average a close to 20% rake on every pool. Even with a large section of pools made up by wagers from idiots, the chances that a market is so inefficient as to offer any real value (where the payout exceeds the true probability) is slim. It does happen on occasion, but I practically guarantee ANY horse bettor who makes any volume of WIN bets during a year without some sort of rake reduction or payout enhancement will lose. If someone were to bet strictly long shots, they just might get enough variance over a years time to swing their way to eek out a small profit, but that would be highly unlikely.

Let's look at the 3 main factors working against any WIN bet.

1. TAKEOUT - This factor alone will make WIN bets a -ev play for the player almost every time. Every racetrack in the country is taking out between 15.5% to 25% of every WIN pool. Can you imagine playing a poker game where the house takes $20 out of every $100 pot? How do you think you'll do after playing for 12 hours, even if you're the best poker player at the table?

2. BREAKAGE - This is the ultimate Fck You to the player. As if taking 15-20% isn't bad enough, the player gets additionally gouged by the archaic method of breakage. This is where the track always rounds DOWN to the nearest .20 cent mutual price (NY will round down to the nearest .10 for smaller payouts). This means that if the true mutual price of a winning WIN bet is 4.19, they will pay 4.00 as opposed to the more logical 4.20. This has a gouging effect that really effects the true price, but especially at shorter priced horses. Not only is this practically criminal, it's also laughable that in today's world of modern technology and predominant account wagering from a computer that pools can't be offered right to the penny.

Let's say there is $104,000 in the win pool (before rake and breakage) and there is $39,950 bet on the #3 horse. This would mean the market is giving him a 38.4% chance of winning, and you're looking at a price of +160. Now let's first take 17% out of the pool. The track (and state government) takes $17,680 leaving $86,320 which means our track odds are now +116 (big difference from+160). But that's not the end of it. Let's say the horse wins, it should have a mutual payout of 4.32 , but you wont actually see 4.32, they are going to round DOWN to 4.20. So we end up getting +110 on the bet. What they did was skim an extra $2425 off the pool, and the real takeout becomes 19.3% in a supposed 17% takeout pool. Good luck ever showing a profit.

3. BETTING AGAINST YOURSELF- With the exception of the very largest handle tracks at Santa Anita, Belmont, Keenland, etc., most WIN bets actually reduce your payout with even a medium sized $300 win bet. Take a track like Emerald Downs for example. There might be $10,000 total in the WIN pool. Lets say you really like a the #1 horse in a five horse field who is currently 2-1 on the odds board. Out of that $10,000, there is $2767 bet on the #1 horse, so after they take 17% off the top, the odds are 2-1. Now, lets say you bet $300 to win on the #1 horse. The pool goes to $10,300 and now there is $3067 bet on the #1. Your $300 bet just changed the odds board from 2-1 to 9-5, but alas we wont even see 9-5. If the pools close right after our bet, the pools would produce a mutual price of 5.57, but they are going to round down (gouge) to 5.40. So what in essence happened was, we like the #1 horse who had 27.6% of the pool money bet on him (odds of +260), they took 17% off the top ( odds of +200), we bet $300 to win on him and our odds dropped again (odds of +179) and the horse ends up winning and they employ the standard breakage and we get paid off at odds of +170.

While there is almost never any real value in racetrack pools, the best places to find them are in exotics where there are numerous combinations. Sometimes, a pick 3 that has fields of 10+12+12 (1440 different possible combinations) can produce the occasional +ev payout, especially since chalk combinations are usually heavily over bet, and at some tracks, you might be the only one holding a winning ticket at the end of it.

Somehow I get sucked into these back and forth arguments every year at this time. Not happening this year.

Just because you manipulate the facts to make your opinion all bright and shiny while doom and gloom the things you don't agree with , it doesn't make you right. It's just bs or better known as persuasive writing .

For instance you compare a poker pot to horse racing mutual pools. BS

Or after I say I play mostly long shots and make a couple posts on why even money and 2-1 horses are bad win bets. You then base your whole argument on a 2-1 horse. BS

And finally your last point about chalky combinations being overbet in the Pick 3 pool leading to value elsewhere. Why wouldn't that apply to every pool?

Originally posted by indio

I practically guarantee ANY horse bettor who makes any volume of WIN bets during a year without some sort of rake reduction or payout enhancement will lose.

I practically guarantee ANY horse bettor who makes any volume of ANY bets during a year without some sort of rake reduction or payout enhancement will lose.

It's just the way it is. A very small percentage of people win at this game. If you really want to win you have to put in the time and do the work to get an edge on your competition. Just like most other ventures. Figure out your strengths and weaknesses and apply them. I have consistently done what you are saying is next to impossible . Beat the game with WIN bets and EXACTAS over several years. Plenty is documented on this site. You on the other hand probably have never posted a pick anywhere. A quick glance at your posting history paints a vivid picture of what you are trying to accomplish with the majority of your posts. Trying your hardest to sound smart while portraying yourself as superior with phrases like "you couldn't be more wrong" and calling people "idiots". Surely a smart person like you would use math where it works best like poker/B/etc... and stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole when it comes to horse racing.

BGboothA · 04-10-15, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by DRB

The Friday and Saturday of Kentucky derby weekend will have 3 or 4 pick4's each day and the pools will be astronomical.
I don't know how but it would be cool if we can have some collaboration !

Fo Sho!!!

mikemca · 04-11-15, 08:40 AM

Sry was in a bad mood yesterday . Everyone is just trying to help but it's all a matter of opinion so we can do without the put downs and insults.

TonyP · 04-11-15, 07:54 PM

I use Bris pp's not drf unless Im in las vegas were the stations casino has them for $2 or free if you wager enough i

TonyP · 04-13-15, 07:23 AM

Mike is one of the best gamblers Ive seen. He consistently hits nice payout wins, with nice exacta prices as well.

TonyP · 04-13-15, 07:29 AM

a man that taught me a lot about horse racing gambling is a $1 superfecta player that hits nice payouts regularly. He use to play the high five when it first came out in Cali, he regularly hit these then he quit playing Cali cause the shenanigans they do. he has hit more then 1 pk 6. He says you need a wagering strategy, play to your level of play, he chose the $1 superfecta. He says play 1 track, circuit.

clonecat · 04-13-15, 11:56 AM

One important thing for all to remember - Always bet the minimum amount of an exotic wager. Most tracks allow $.50 trifecta box. Bet this 4 times instead of doing 1 $2 box to avoid getting hit by the tax man. For a $2 box you will get hit by IRS at $600 payout. For a $.50 box you will get hit at a $600 payout. So if a $2 trifecta pays $1,560, you will get hit by the IRS for a $2 box but won't get hit if you made 4 - $.50 box's that paid $390.

BGboothA · 04-13-15, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by clonecat

One important thing for all to remember - Always bet the minimum amount of an exotic wager. Most tracks allow $.50 trifecta box. Bet this 4 times instead of doing 1 $2 box to avoid getting hit by the tax man. For a $2 box you will get hit by IRS at $600 payout. For a $.50 box you will get hit at a $600 payout. So if a $2 trifecta pays $1,560, you will get hit by the IRS for a $2 box but won't get hit if you made 4 - $.50 box's that paid $390.

Cannot tell you all how important this is...Most of the machines even allow you to 'repeat' bet with a single touch of a button. This has saved me and others in my group a number of times.

Always play the lowest bet and repeat x number of times.