[t_cab]

Is there a way to determine which races will have worthwhile payouts? Other than the well known races like the Triple Crown, what does one like myself who is new to horse racing need to look for? I was looking at some race results at different tracks and some races had superfecta payouts of around $15 and others had payouts of around $600 while some had payouts of over $2,500. Is there a website that will give this information and if not, what set of criteria does a race generally need to have to determine that it is worth betting on?

[MrBrown]

If you are looking for good payouts worth the risk/reward on Tri's and Super's, look for races with FULLER fields in which you think you can identify FALSE favorites and build your combos around others in the field ,no matter the odds, (don't shy away from longer odds in these situations) which you feel can at least finish at least 2 positions ahead (1st and 2nd) of this false favorite(s).
With the tons of tracks running each day you are bound to find a few plays a day if you want to put in the effort

[t_cab]

Ok thanks MrBrown. By fuller fields I assume you mean more horses? Would a nine horse race be considered a fuller field? I appreciate the advice.

[mikemca]

If you are a beginner I would suggest kind of piggy backing off the public instead of trying to find bad favorites right away.It might take a little while to be able to notice when the favorite is vulnerable.By piggybacking off the public I mean waiting until the odds are displayed for the next race and playing against a morning line favorite that isn't taking any money relative to its morning line.For the most part the public is pretty sharp with this.Say the ML favorite is listed as 8-5 but at about 5 minutes to post its fluctuating between 2-1/5-2 then toss it out of at least the exacta.On the other hand if the 8-5 fave is legitimate then it will come down to 1-1 or less.You might not want to try this at the lower level tracks because the bettors that make up those pools aren't as sharp as the major tracks but you should be OK at places like Churchill Downs,Belmont,Hollywood or other tracks on those circuits.

[Dark Horse]

You're not going to learn the game by starting out with superfectas. You need to know how to pick winners before adding exactas. And you need to be able to win with exactas before moving up to trifectas. Why? Because each of these have a higher degree of difficulty.

I would start out with the bigger stakes races. You want races where all horses are in it to win. Not some training exercise in preparation for a big race. You can google the upcoming stakes. Or get a subscription to the bloodhorse magazine. Very good magazine, and they have a quarterly added publication with all upcoming stakes races.

[MrBrown]

If you are a beginner I would suggest kind of piggy backing off the public instead of trying to find bad favorites right away.It might take a little while to be able to notice when the favorite is vulnerable.By piggybacking off the public I mean waiting until the odds are displayed for the next race and playing against a morning line favorite that isn't taking any money relative to its morning line.For the most part the public is pretty sharp with this.Say the ML favorite is listed as 8-5 but at about 5 minutes to post its fluctuating between 2-1/5-2 then toss it out of at least the exacta.On the other hand if the 8-5 fave is legitimate then it will come down to 1-1 or less.You might not want to try this at the lower level tracks because the bettors that make up those pools aren't as sharp as the major tracks but you should be OK at places like Churchill Downs,Belmont,Hollywood or other tracks on those circuits.

t_cab, This is also good advice.
Also I'd try to look at trainer stats, as many a false fav are trained by a mediocre trainer going against a few good trainers with horses 4-1 and much higher that you can make somewhat of a case for.
It'll be interesting to watch the tote action at PARX 9th today on the #8.
Listed as the m/l fav at 5/2 in a full field with a few very good trainers, he's trained by Phil Scott who at the moment can not be considered in that group

[t_cab]

If you are a beginner I would suggest kind of piggy backing off the public instead of trying to find bad favorites right away.It might take a little while to be able to notice when the favorite is vulnerable.By piggybacking off the public I mean waiting until the odds are displayed for the next race and playing against a morning line favorite that isn't taking any money relative to its morning line.For the most part the public is pretty sharp with this.Say the ML favorite is listed as 8-5 but at about 5 minutes to post its fluctuating between 2-1/5-2 then toss it out of at least the exacta.On the other hand if the 8-5 fave is legitimate then it will come down to 1-1 or less.You might not want to try this at the lower level tracks because the bettors that make up those pools aren't as sharp as the major tracks but you should be OK at places like Churchill Downs,Belmont,Hollywood or other tracks on those circuits.

Ok, I will keep this in mind. Thanks for the input...any and all advice is appreciated.

[t_cab]

You're not going to learn the game by starting out with superfectas. You need to know how to pick winners before adding exactas. And you need to be able to win with exactas before moving up to trifectas. Why? Because each of these have a higher degree of difficulty.

I would start out with the bigger stakes races. You want races where all horses are in it to win. Not some training exercise in preparation for a big race. You can google the upcoming stakes. Or get a subscription to the bloodhorse magazine. Very good magazine, and they have a quarterly added publication with all upcoming stakes races.

Good point. I just see the huge payouts and didn't really stop to pay attention as to how difficult it can be to hit the superfecta. I am realizing it's better to make a couple of bucks than to lose $40 or $50.

[t_cab]

t_cab, This is also good advice.
Also I'd try to look at trainer stats, as many a false fav are trained by a mediocre trainer going against a few good trainers with horses 4-1 and much higher that you can make somewhat of a case for.
It'll be interesting to watch the tote action at PARX 9th today on the #8.
Listed as the m/l fav at 5/2 in a full field with a few very good trainers, he's trained by Phil Scott who at the moment can not be considered in that group

Well, I missed it but saw the #8 finished fourth. I guess that is what you were referring to. How did you know Phil Scott wasn't at the same level as some of these other trainers? Thanks.