Friday, July 5, 2013
A method for attacking races with lightly raced horses
Not everyone likes betting on lightly raced horses in maidens or allowance races. These types of races have few horses with starts under them (in fact many races are filled with First Time Starters – a.k.a. FTS), and evaluating pedigrees of race horses can confound experienced players, much less the novice fan. Despite these challenges, I can attest I do very well playing lightly raced horses every year. I have a basic method that combines QUANTITATIVE and QUALITATIVE analysis of experienced runners and FTS.
Lightly raced runners - QUANTITATIVE FACTORS
(1) Trainer stats - some trainers are very successful winning with a FTS. Winning trainers will have developed a “winning pattern” to get their horses ready to win. Most data services in the States will provide this information to punters. A guideline I use is a trainer that can win with 14% of his FTS is a solid threat to win with a FTS in today's race.
(2) Pedigree information - I uses Brisnet.com's Ultimate Past Performances, and they are really effective at identifying which horses have a pedigree to "win early" in their first or second start. Using Brisnet.com's data I can identify if a sire (father of the runner) and damsire (father of the MOTHER of the runner) both produce 14% winners or more from FTS. The higher a sire’s percentage of winners from FTS, the more likely the combination produces a quick firster. Another stat I look at is the dam (mother of the runner). If a dam has produced 50% or greater 2yo winners from 2yo starters that also implies today's runner could be quick. Lastly, a good rule of thumb for "win early" breeding is look for a sire and damsire that both had sprinter/miler speed when they raced.
2YO RACES - QUALITATIVE FACTORS
(1) Workout Pattern – To me, workout pattern of any lightly-raced runner is the key to determining the type of runner a horse is (early speed, mid-pack, or back marker), and how fit the horse in question really is. I look at the initial work first, to see if the horse "breezed" well. Usually a North American-trained horse makes his first breeze at three furlongs (600m). I want to see a decent time. A good initial breeze would be 36 3/5 or faster, but 37 1/5 would be OK. This demonstrates that the FTS has some talent. Then, the FTS should work every 6 to 7 days, leading up to race day with NO BREAKS in its work tab. If there is a break in the work tab either the horse may be lacking in fitness or may have had a training mishap. Lastly, I want to see some 4 furlong (800m) works in 48 seconds or faster works mixed in with some 5 furlong works (1000m) for stamina. I consider it a strong negative if a horse shows ONLY fast workouts. Very often, these horses are hard to control and they “pull” against the exercise rider in the mornings, and it is likely they will do the same thing in the afternoons. Ironically, these types of runners take a lot of public money, because they are “fast!” But alas, most likely too fast to last, it seems.
Here was the workout pattern for a nice 5/1 FTS winner named Anusara who won a $50,000 Maiden Claimer (all horses were up for sale from $45,000 to $50,000) going 1300m in Race 8 on May 19, 2013 at Churchill Downs. The purse was $25,701 (maiden races where there is no claiming price run for a much higher purse - $50,000). Anusara won by 5 and ¼ lengths.
Feb 27 3f 38.0 seconds (first career work)
Mar 7 3f 36.8 sec (Note the quick second breeze)
Mar 17 3f 36.0 sec (even faster)
Mar 26 4f 48.4 sec (very nice)
Apr 8 4f 49.6 sec (stamina work)
Apr 22 5f 62.6 sec (stamina work)
May 1 4f 48.6 sec (work out of the gate)
May 10 4f 48.0 sec (best speed work yet – also out of the gate)
In North America the Form has to include every work for lightly raced horses. In the “olden days,” the Form only included a horse’s last four works, which would be incomplete, at best. It is easy to see that reviewing the Anusara’s work pattern, from the START of the workout cycle, indicated she was ready to win and was a must use in the exotics. 5/1 on this kind of horse is OK, but I was able to bet some exotics that hit after Anusara won her race. I should add that Anusara’s works were not every 6 or 7 days, so this would not be ideal. Note Anusara was entered against claiming maidens, so it might be inferred that she needed those extra days to recover between works and/or may have some soundness issues.
The same day, I used a three year old filly, a once-raced runner named Intelyhente, who last ran November 24, 2012 at CD on the grass, showing some early dash before being beaten by 12 lengths. Not a very auspicious debut. The level was straight maidens – a $50,000 purse. The pedigree was good for grass (Smart Strike out of a Boundary mare) and the price was right (8/1 on the morning line and 6/1 when she won by going “over the top”). The race distance was 1800m. Here was here workout pattern:
Apr 7 4f 50.0 sec (first work back)
Apr 13 4f 49.2 sec (stamina work)
Apr 20 5f 63.4 sec (stamina work)
Apr 27 4f 48.6 sec (speed work)
May 4 4f 48.0 sec (speed work)
May 14 5f 60.2 sec (speed work)
Most of the works were EXACTLY seven days apart, meaning everything was going to plan and she was fit and well. The speed works put some speed into her.
(2) Sales Prices - generally yearling sales prices are meaningless in trying to predict success in sprint baby races, so I would submit not using yearling prices as a benchmark. I can recall a 2yo MSW at Saratoga a few years ago where a $50,000 yearling THRASHED a $250,000 yearling. 2 year old buys, on the other hand, are extremely dangerous. Why? Because 2yo buys have another 6 to 8 months to develop, they are thoroughly vetted, and they have to work out under a STOPWATCH. Expensive 2 year old buys ($250,000 and up) almost always can run. Cheaper 2 year old buys ($50,000 to $245,000) often times can be overlooked at the windows and should be considered live animals.
(3) Number of starts - Horses that don't break their maidens by their third start are huge under performers at the windows. They often tend to lose by narrow margins, so their odds will be low, but it is my experience you are better off with a horse making its first or second start than betting on a potential "career maiden."
Thursday, June 27, 2013
IOWA FESTIVAL OF RACING - Saturday, June 29
It's time for the Iowa Festival of Racing! And that means a few good horses running in shorts fields for great money.
SATURDAY, JUNE 29
R6 Iowa Oaks (Restricted to 3yo Fillies). 8.5 furlongs. Grade 3. Purse $200,000.
Picks: 3-10-2-5
This is is an interesting race as only one contestant, #10 FIFTYSHADESOFHAY, fits the race conditions on distance and class, but she drew the dreaded 10 post with a fairly short run into the first turn. She should go well but I think it would be a mistake to key her in the pick four because of the post. I'll put the #10 second.
I am going to put #3 HITECHNOWEENIE on top. This horse appears to be "on the up" for the underrated Ken McPeek and her last two races have been fantastic.
#2 SO MANY WAYS is owned by Des Moines resident/prominent ownwer Maggi Moss and this race has been the filly's target since her Fair Grounds experiment didn't go as planned. Maggi tells me that So Many Ways is feeling great and "looks happy," which makes her dangerous in this field.
#5 GOLD MEDAL DANCER gets "blinkers on" after a solid Churchill route race that got a big figure. Could surprise.
R7 Iowa Derby (Restricted to 3yo). 8.5 furlongs. Grade 3. Purse $250,000.
Picks: 3-1
#3 BASHAAR is my bet of the night for me. The pace of the race should be quick and his jockey made a very premature move in his last race (June 1 Race 7 Prm if you want to watch it). Either of his last two dirt races wins Saturday night.
#1 OUR DOUBLE PLAY will be asked for speed out of the gate, but I think he will settle second or third in the run, taking on #5 Manando at the 5/16th pole or so. This horse loves a fight and his form is best on an OFF TRACK - there is a 30% chance of rain for Saturday in the Des Moines area, so if the rains come his chances improve.
#5 MANANDO has never won on regular dirt in three tries, losing ground badly in all three attempts. Also, in his only two career wins he had huge leads at the eighth pole (4 lengths in his maiden and 5 lengths in his 'one other than' allowance), so I am going to try an beat him and leave him off my pick 4.
R8 Cornhusker Handicap (3yo and Up). 9.0 furlongs. Grade 3. Purse $300,000.
Picks: 5-6-2-1
#5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF looked great winning the Iowa Derby two years ago...and hasn't won since. His speed figures are good and I see no reason to leave him off the ticket.
#6 TAPTOWNE keeps running on the engine and putting up good speed figures. I have communicated with this trainer and he has been pointing for this race since mid-April. Would definitely not be a surprise with a win. Connections going with 'stable jock' Borel.
#2 SILVER MAX ran away from outclassed turf horses on JUNE 1, but if you look at his career the horse seems to run better in the Midwest and his pedigree actually leans more to dirt than turf. Certainly can't eliminate in this spot.
#1 NICKLAUS WAY is rounding into form and his dirt record is really pretty good (8-3-2-0). I am going to throw him into my pick 4 if the race falls apart with all the speed in the race.
R9 Iowa-bred (3yo and up)$12,500n2L. 6.0 furlongs. Purse $18,720
Picks: 12-4
In these kind of sprint races, I want LIGHTYLY RACED horses with a relatively high win percentage (1 for 7 or better), that I think could go wire to wire. The best candidates I found were #12 DIXIE SURGE and #4 BLUE BOY BLUE. Usually there are no 'quality closers') at this level.
PICK-4 ticket: 2,3,5,10/1,3/1,2,5,6/4,12 = $32 cost
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Late Pick 4 (R6-R9) - Prairie Meadows - Iowa Festival - June 28, 2013
It's time for the Iowa Festival of Racing! And that means a few good horses running in shorts fields for great money.
R6 - Saylorville Stakes (Race restricted to Fillies and Mares) - Purse $100k
This is a contentious field, with every horse having a chance. Most of the mares know only one way to go - to the lead! As such, I will go with classy midpack-running animal #5 BEAT THE BLUES as my top pick, as she can close off fast fractions. She likes to win too - 10 wins in 24 starts while racing in top company.
#4 LIVI MAKENZIE and #3 LULU WONG would both appreciate it if the other horse wasn't in the race - they are both one-dimensional speed balls. But both are capable of winning.
#1 SECOND STREET CITY intrigues me because she'll be a relatively high price and she's in great form. I will throw her in my pick 4.
R7 - Iowa Distaff Stakes (Race restricted to Fillies and Mares) - Purse $100k
I am lukewarm on #2 FLASHY AMERICAN. Her last race was dynamite, but it took her 18 starts to get through her "two other than" allowance condition. I am going to use her but I would not be surprised to see her defeated.
#4 CRUZETTE is the speed of the race and will have to be caught. Her speed figures are good enough to contend and the trainer and jock hit at a 30% rate together. #7 QUEEN LILY KAY's speed and pace figures also put her in the mix if Flashy American falters.
R8 - Iowa Sprint Handicap - Purse $125k
In possibly one the the most significant owner/trainer switches since Seabiscuit (okay, may not that many years), #3 DELAUNAY has turned into a win machine, winning seven stakes in his last eight starts, running huge figures. #2 GENTLEMAN'S BET is nearly as good, showing four wins and a third in five starts. Should be a great race for all the fans who come watch Friday night.
R9
1(1a is OK but I much prefer the #1)-8-5
PICK 4 Ticket ($36 for a 50 cent base wager)
1,3,4,5/2,4,7/2,3/1,5,8
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Friday, February 17, 2012
Black Caviar "Backs Up" in the Lightning Stakes
Black Caviar "Backs Up"
Tonight, around 12:10 AM EST on Saturday morning FEB 18th in the U.S. (or 4:10 in the afternoon on the 18th in Melbourne, Australia), the unbeaten and largely untested BLACK CAVIAR will try to win her 19th "major circuit" race in 19 tries in a 1000 meter (nearly 5 furlong) Group One race called the Lightning Stakes. This would tie the Australian record, and would as also tie her with Zenyatta's 19 for 19 start before 'Zen' lost the Breeders' Cup Classic in 2010 to Blame. While that alone may be noteworthy, there are many particulars special to the the Australian racing scene that make tonight's race perhaps the only time she may lose in her career.
To understand Australian horse racing, one has to understand the effect of climate. In the summer the weather can get very, very hot - as hot as 120 Degrees Fahrenheit. And in the winter it can get super wet and rainy, leading to boggy tracks. Because of these extremes, the top-level horses are usually given two months off during the winter and two more months during the summer. Lesser horses are pointed to summer campaigns if they prefer harder tracks, or the winter if they prefer wet, heavy or slow tracks.
The main effect of these several 8 to 10 week breaks is twofold:
(1) Nearly all Australian horses start their campaigns coming off of long layoffs, usually in which they are not meant to be at peak fitness until the third or fourth race of their form cycle. As such, even the best horses are generally trained NOT to win their first race start off the form cycle, as trainers do not want to have their horses to peak too early. Too Black Caviar's credit, she has never lost off an extended layoff.
(2) When a trainer plots a horse's campaign, the distance to resume is usually SHORTER than a horse's best distance. As the horse proceeds with it's program, it is slowly stretched out in distance with the intent to peak in the third or fourth start.
The problem that Peter Moody, Black Caviar's trainer, has to deal with is how does he get Black Caviar FIT enough and TOUGH enough on a limited campaign of races in Australia to get her ready to compete with horses as talented as Frankel, who is the rated the top thoroughbred race horse in the world (Black Caviar is considered a close second). There are rumors coming out that Black Caviar, if fit enough, will run at Royal Ascot in in June 2012, either running in the Queen Anne stakes at a mile on opening day, or in Golden Jubilee at six furlongs six days later.
So how does this all affect Black Caviar tonight? Moody's original race preparation plan for Black Caviar was this sequence of races:
10 week break
1200m Group 2 - January 27th, 2012
1400m Group 1 - February 11th, 2012
1400m Group 1 - February 25th, 2012
Black Caviar won the Group 2 race and the Group 1 race on the 11th, BUT something strange happened. The 800m(nearly half-mile) split of the February 11th race was 51 and 3/5 fifths of a second!!! Really slow. Black Caviar did her thing and went the last 600 meters (nearly three eights of a mile) in 32 and 2 fifths without being hand ridden and won by three plus lengths. In Australia, all winning trainers and jockeys are interviewed by the media immediately after the race. Moody knew the race on February 11th was not strenuous enough to get Black Caviar ready for her European campaign, so he essentially announced a new conditioning plan, detailed below.
10 week break
1200m Group 2 - January 27th, 2012
1400m Group 1 - February 11th, 2012
1000m Group 1 - February 18th, 2012
1400m Group 1 - February 25th, 2012
The race in bold is the "new" race in the program, the Group 1 Lightning Stakes. The Lightning Stakes is generally considered the second-hardest sprint to win in Australia, and is usually won by Australia's best grass sprinters, which as a group are considered the best in the world in that category. Moody has hinted that he is largely doing this to get Black Caviar ready for Europe. Turning back in distance, especially on short rest, is something Black Caviar has never done. For people reading this article that are familiar with only North American form, this is a move similar to when Jackson Bend ran in the Kelso in October of 2011 at Belmont, and then was rerouted to the 2011 Breeders' Cup Sprint at Churchill Downs, where we showed little speed and finished a very well-beaten third as the favorite. While Black Caviar is a much better horse than Jackson Bend, the fact she rated so well in the February 11th race might mean she will not be "speedy" enough to win tonight, and at her expected odds of 1 to 9, I think the two logical horses to compete with her are Hay List and Foxwedge.
Hay List has run second to Black Caviar 4 times, having the lead in the stretch over her three of the four times they have met, but I have two speed figure sources that I use, and they both say Hay list is the second-fastest horse to run in Australia in the last 10 years. PLUS, his connections were pointing for this race. Fair Odds = 5/1.
Foxwedge is a horse that is still maturing and he ran a fantastic race down the straight at Flemington to just miss to Sepoy, who is considered another top sprinter in Australia. Foxwedge came from off the pace in his last race and I expect him do try these same tactics tonight. I think the race on March 10th, the Newmarket Handicap (which is worth more money and prestige), is ultimately Foxwedge's target, BUT if Black Caviar flounders he might be up to the task.
Fair Odds = 10/1
Tonight, around 12:10 AM EST on Saturday morning FEB 18th in the U.S. (or 4:10 in the afternoon on the 18th in Melbourne, Australia), the unbeaten and largely untested BLACK CAVIAR will try to win her 19th "major circuit" race in 19 tries in a 1000 meter (nearly 5 furlong) Group One race called the Lightning Stakes. This would tie the Australian record, and would as also tie her with Zenyatta's 19 for 19 start before 'Zen' lost the Breeders' Cup Classic in 2010 to Blame. While that alone may be noteworthy, there are many particulars special to the the Australian racing scene that make tonight's race perhaps the only time she may lose in her career.
To understand Australian horse racing, one has to understand the effect of climate. In the summer the weather can get very, very hot - as hot as 120 Degrees Fahrenheit. And in the winter it can get super wet and rainy, leading to boggy tracks. Because of these extremes, the top-level horses are usually given two months off during the winter and two more months during the summer. Lesser horses are pointed to summer campaigns if they prefer harder tracks, or the winter if they prefer wet, heavy or slow tracks.
The main effect of these several 8 to 10 week breaks is twofold:
(1) Nearly all Australian horses start their campaigns coming off of long layoffs, usually in which they are not meant to be at peak fitness until the third or fourth race of their form cycle. As such, even the best horses are generally trained NOT to win their first race start off the form cycle, as trainers do not want to have their horses to peak too early. Too Black Caviar's credit, she has never lost off an extended layoff.
(2) When a trainer plots a horse's campaign, the distance to resume is usually SHORTER than a horse's best distance. As the horse proceeds with it's program, it is slowly stretched out in distance with the intent to peak in the third or fourth start.
The problem that Peter Moody, Black Caviar's trainer, has to deal with is how does he get Black Caviar FIT enough and TOUGH enough on a limited campaign of races in Australia to get her ready to compete with horses as talented as Frankel, who is the rated the top thoroughbred race horse in the world (Black Caviar is considered a close second). There are rumors coming out that Black Caviar, if fit enough, will run at Royal Ascot in in June 2012, either running in the Queen Anne stakes at a mile on opening day, or in Golden Jubilee at six furlongs six days later.
So how does this all affect Black Caviar tonight? Moody's original race preparation plan for Black Caviar was this sequence of races:
10 week break
1200m Group 2 - January 27th, 2012
1400m Group 1 - February 11th, 2012
1400m Group 1 - February 25th, 2012
Black Caviar won the Group 2 race and the Group 1 race on the 11th, BUT something strange happened. The 800m(nearly half-mile) split of the February 11th race was 51 and 3/5 fifths of a second!!! Really slow. Black Caviar did her thing and went the last 600 meters (nearly three eights of a mile) in 32 and 2 fifths without being hand ridden and won by three plus lengths. In Australia, all winning trainers and jockeys are interviewed by the media immediately after the race. Moody knew the race on February 11th was not strenuous enough to get Black Caviar ready for her European campaign, so he essentially announced a new conditioning plan, detailed below.
10 week break
1200m Group 2 - January 27th, 2012
1400m Group 1 - February 11th, 2012
1000m Group 1 - February 18th, 2012
1400m Group 1 - February 25th, 2012
The race in bold is the "new" race in the program, the Group 1 Lightning Stakes. The Lightning Stakes is generally considered the second-hardest sprint to win in Australia, and is usually won by Australia's best grass sprinters, which as a group are considered the best in the world in that category. Moody has hinted that he is largely doing this to get Black Caviar ready for Europe. Turning back in distance, especially on short rest, is something Black Caviar has never done. For people reading this article that are familiar with only North American form, this is a move similar to when Jackson Bend ran in the Kelso in October of 2011 at Belmont, and then was rerouted to the 2011 Breeders' Cup Sprint at Churchill Downs, where we showed little speed and finished a very well-beaten third as the favorite. While Black Caviar is a much better horse than Jackson Bend, the fact she rated so well in the February 11th race might mean she will not be "speedy" enough to win tonight, and at her expected odds of 1 to 9, I think the two logical horses to compete with her are Hay List and Foxwedge.
Hay List has run second to Black Caviar 4 times, having the lead in the stretch over her three of the four times they have met, but I have two speed figure sources that I use, and they both say Hay list is the second-fastest horse to run in Australia in the last 10 years. PLUS, his connections were pointing for this race. Fair Odds = 5/1.
Foxwedge is a horse that is still maturing and he ran a fantastic race down the straight at Flemington to just miss to Sepoy, who is considered another top sprinter in Australia. Foxwedge came from off the pace in his last race and I expect him do try these same tactics tonight. I think the race on March 10th, the Newmarket Handicap (which is worth more money and prestige), is ultimately Foxwedge's target, BUT if Black Caviar flounders he might be up to the task.
Fair Odds = 10/1
Monday, January 9, 2012
Identifying Class in Claiming races
CLAIMING RACE HANDICAPPING
Claiming Races - Multiple Winners
I think that claiming races are pretty easy to beat - especially claiming races for horses that have won TWO or more races in their careers. In this type of race, basically the horse(s) that have finished the best in their most recent races at the highest claiming levels are the logical contenders. The other horses to look for are ones that ran close to the pace early, faded somewhat late, and are now DROPPING in class. Often these horses can be competitive. For example, a horse that showed good early speed at the $20,000 level before fading into 4th or 5th could be a great bet when it runs back for $10,000.
Claiming Races - Non-winners of Two Races (N2L)
These races are very popular now, because they usually get big fields and allow horses to compete for a restricted claiming price. This is especially useful if they can't compete in allowance (non-claiming) company. Unlike claiming races for multiple winners, where the quality is usually well established, the results of these N2L races can be quite erratic. Keep in mind there may be four, five, or six horses capable of winning one of these events, so don't take a short price. Horses that are unable of hitting the board in an Non-Winners of 1 other than allowance race (NW1ot or NW1x) can "drop into" a N2L claiming race and actually be the horse to beat. Watch those droppers closely!
Maiden Claiming Races
I REALLY like maiden claiming races because a lot of horses are generally not placed at the correct level of competition and can be eliminated. The class horse(s) in the race are the ones DROPPING down in class. Remember dropping from a Maiden Special Weight, or MSW (where a horse can not be claimed) into a Maiden Claiming (MDC) race is a very significant drop! Some players consider the MSW to MDC drop the "biggest drop in racing." Otherwise, focus on horses that while not winning, are dropping in class from say $40,000 to $30,000. That is a significant drop. After evaluating the class droppers, look at first time starters, especially from barns that do well with horses entered in maiden claiming races. Lastly, as the claiming tag gets cheaper and cheaper, keep in mind the equine quality and reliability will also deteriorate. Any maiden claiming race at the $15,000 level and lower is eligible for a win by a big longshot.
Claiming Races - Multiple Winners
I think that claiming races are pretty easy to beat - especially claiming races for horses that have won TWO or more races in their careers. In this type of race, basically the horse(s) that have finished the best in their most recent races at the highest claiming levels are the logical contenders. The other horses to look for are ones that ran close to the pace early, faded somewhat late, and are now DROPPING in class. Often these horses can be competitive. For example, a horse that showed good early speed at the $20,000 level before fading into 4th or 5th could be a great bet when it runs back for $10,000.
Claiming Races - Non-winners of Two Races (N2L)
These races are very popular now, because they usually get big fields and allow horses to compete for a restricted claiming price. This is especially useful if they can't compete in allowance (non-claiming) company. Unlike claiming races for multiple winners, where the quality is usually well established, the results of these N2L races can be quite erratic. Keep in mind there may be four, five, or six horses capable of winning one of these events, so don't take a short price. Horses that are unable of hitting the board in an Non-Winners of 1 other than allowance race (NW1ot or NW1x) can "drop into" a N2L claiming race and actually be the horse to beat. Watch those droppers closely!
Maiden Claiming Races
I REALLY like maiden claiming races because a lot of horses are generally not placed at the correct level of competition and can be eliminated. The class horse(s) in the race are the ones DROPPING down in class. Remember dropping from a Maiden Special Weight, or MSW (where a horse can not be claimed) into a Maiden Claiming (MDC) race is a very significant drop! Some players consider the MSW to MDC drop the "biggest drop in racing." Otherwise, focus on horses that while not winning, are dropping in class from say $40,000 to $30,000. That is a significant drop. After evaluating the class droppers, look at first time starters, especially from barns that do well with horses entered in maiden claiming races. Lastly, as the claiming tag gets cheaper and cheaper, keep in mind the equine quality and reliability will also deteriorate. Any maiden claiming race at the $15,000 level and lower is eligible for a win by a big longshot.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Whose horse is it anyway?
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."
-- Milton Friedman
A lot of racing topics are discussed on Facebook, but a certain thread took me aback today. The thread had to do with the announcement that Line of David, the longshot winner of the Gr. 1 2010 Arkansas Derby (defeating 2010 Kentucky Derby winner Super Saver, among others), was retired and will stand at Spendthrift Farm in Kentucky. What struck me as odd was how several contributors to the thread DESPISED this transaction, as if they had any input on the matter. I'll just show the content of the posts without the names.
#1: Yes he's (Line of David) one of the most non exciting prospects to enter stud in a long time.
#2: He'll be in Oklahoma or South America soon enough. Personally I would cut him (geld him. i.e. remove his testicles) and try to have a nice 4 year old...
#3: Either they thought he couldn't stay racing sound or thought he only had one Grade 1 win in him. Nothing else makes much sense. So . . .Line of David and Battle Plan with, what?, 13 wins between them. Three cheers for fragility.
#1: Until the industry rejects these "one hit wonders" they will continue to leave them intact and allow them to pass along their genes. "He won't stand for a lot" in other words if your mare has ovaries that have produced a runner you get the season for free..
Wow! I wonder how many Graded stakes winners #1, #2 and/or #3 have been involved with? Obviously they "know" what the racing industry needs. My thinking is they know little, except in their own "purple-skied" world. Certainly they know how to disparage other horses, owners, farms, etc.
This deal with Line of David and Spendthrift Farm was a deal made between consenting adults, and we have to assume that the deal was beneficial to all parties. The owners of Line of David probably got a multi-million dollar deal and get to stand their horse in Kentucky, where the best mares are. Spendthrift Farm got a very good looking speed sire with a solid Grade 1 win on his resume'. Line of David gets to meet a lot of female mares. This whole agreement has win-win-win all over it.
Now, #1, #2 and #3 are certainly UNHAPPY, but the beauty of the free market is they can breed to horses like Empire Maker for $60,000 a shot and hope the horse will break it's maiden before it turns five. The beauty of the free market (and in general the world's equine markets have very few restrictions besides capital requirements) is that people get to CHOOSE what they want to do. Please don't hate on people for choosing.
-- Milton Friedman
A lot of racing topics are discussed on Facebook, but a certain thread took me aback today. The thread had to do with the announcement that Line of David, the longshot winner of the Gr. 1 2010 Arkansas Derby (defeating 2010 Kentucky Derby winner Super Saver, among others), was retired and will stand at Spendthrift Farm in Kentucky. What struck me as odd was how several contributors to the thread DESPISED this transaction, as if they had any input on the matter. I'll just show the content of the posts without the names.
#1: Yes he's (Line of David) one of the most non exciting prospects to enter stud in a long time.
#2: He'll be in Oklahoma or South America soon enough. Personally I would cut him (geld him. i.e. remove his testicles) and try to have a nice 4 year old...
#3: Either they thought he couldn't stay racing sound or thought he only had one Grade 1 win in him. Nothing else makes much sense. So . . .Line of David and Battle Plan with, what?, 13 wins between them. Three cheers for fragility.
#1: Until the industry rejects these "one hit wonders" they will continue to leave them intact and allow them to pass along their genes. "He won't stand for a lot" in other words if your mare has ovaries that have produced a runner you get the season for free..
Wow! I wonder how many Graded stakes winners #1, #2 and/or #3 have been involved with? Obviously they "know" what the racing industry needs. My thinking is they know little, except in their own "purple-skied" world. Certainly they know how to disparage other horses, owners, farms, etc.
This deal with Line of David and Spendthrift Farm was a deal made between consenting adults, and we have to assume that the deal was beneficial to all parties. The owners of Line of David probably got a multi-million dollar deal and get to stand their horse in Kentucky, where the best mares are. Spendthrift Farm got a very good looking speed sire with a solid Grade 1 win on his resume'. Line of David gets to meet a lot of female mares. This whole agreement has win-win-win all over it.
Now, #1, #2 and #3 are certainly UNHAPPY, but the beauty of the free market is they can breed to horses like Empire Maker for $60,000 a shot and hope the horse will break it's maiden before it turns five. The beauty of the free market (and in general the world's equine markets have very few restrictions besides capital requirements) is that people get to CHOOSE what they want to do. Please don't hate on people for choosing.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
What are average results at the track?
IT FIGURES
I've recently become enamored with Thoro-Graph, the specialty speed-figure people. For $25 a card (or $15 for British racing), they can provide very, very good speed figures. If you are interested, they are on the "web" at thorograph.com.
AVERAGE TRAINER PERFORMANCE
In addition to its speed figures, Thoro-Graph crunches a LOT of data. Here are some FREE stats Thoro-Graph provides with their speed figure data that I found useful:
Average Trainer win % (all odds ranges, all horses) = 12.2%
Average Trainer win % for horses 10/1 or higher in odds = 3.4%
Average Trainer win % for horses coming back on 90 days or less = 12.5%
Average Trainer win % for horses coming back on over 90 days = 9.6%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo starters = 11.9%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo 1st starters in MSW (maiden special) races = 9.6%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo 1st starters in MCL (maiden claiming) races = 9.1%
Average Trainer win % for all 3yo 1st starters in MSW (maiden special) races = 7.7%
Average Trainer win % for all 3yo 1st starters in MCL (maiden claiming) races = 6.9%
Average Trainer win % for 1st time TURF = 7.8%
Average Trainer win % for 1st time ROUTE = 10.4%
Average Trainer win % for Route to Sprint = 10.2%
Average Trainer win % for Sprint to Route = 10.9%
Claimers, Down in Class, win % = 13.8%
Claimers, Up in Class, win % = 9.8%
SIRE AVERAGES
All dirt runners = 12.2%
All 'synthetic' runners = 11.5%
All 'wet tracks/off tracks' = 12.4%
All turf = 11.1%
1st time turf = 7.8%
1st time starters = 8.5%
Fillies/Mares = 12.1%
Colts/Geldings = 12.1%
(So much for the female runners being more 'inconsistent'...)
I've recently become enamored with Thoro-Graph, the specialty speed-figure people. For $25 a card (or $15 for British racing), they can provide very, very good speed figures. If you are interested, they are on the "web" at thorograph.com.
AVERAGE TRAINER PERFORMANCE
In addition to its speed figures, Thoro-Graph crunches a LOT of data. Here are some FREE stats Thoro-Graph provides with their speed figure data that I found useful:
Average Trainer win % (all odds ranges, all horses) = 12.2%
Average Trainer win % for horses 10/1 or higher in odds = 3.4%
Average Trainer win % for horses coming back on 90 days or less = 12.5%
Average Trainer win % for horses coming back on over 90 days = 9.6%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo starters = 11.9%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo 1st starters in MSW (maiden special) races = 9.6%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo 1st starters in MCL (maiden claiming) races = 9.1%
Average Trainer win % for all 3yo 1st starters in MSW (maiden special) races = 7.7%
Average Trainer win % for all 3yo 1st starters in MCL (maiden claiming) races = 6.9%
Average Trainer win % for 1st time TURF = 7.8%
Average Trainer win % for 1st time ROUTE = 10.4%
Average Trainer win % for Route to Sprint = 10.2%
Average Trainer win % for Sprint to Route = 10.9%
Claimers, Down in Class, win % = 13.8%
Claimers, Up in Class, win % = 9.8%
SIRE AVERAGES
All dirt runners = 12.2%
All 'synthetic' runners = 11.5%
All 'wet tracks/off tracks' = 12.4%
All turf = 11.1%
1st time turf = 7.8%
1st time starters = 8.5%
Fillies/Mares = 12.1%
Colts/Geldings = 12.1%
(So much for the female runners being more 'inconsistent'...)
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Historical Breakdown of the Belmont Stakes - Last 30 Runnings
Over the last few weeks I have been analyzing the last 30 runnings of the Belmont Stakes. Why, you may ask?
(1) Greed and envy.
While I stumble on a Belmont Stakes winner every few years, I have been much more successful selecting winners for, in order, the Preakness and the Kentucky Derby. I would liken my struggles to the student taking an ACT exam who does well on the first two-thirds of the test, but runs "out of gas" on the last section. My game is identifying brilliant speed horses up to a mile, ideally one turn mile races. That kind of horse is not what the Belmont, with its 12 furlong distance over usually dry, sandy terrain, calls for. I am hopeful that doing this years' research will put me on more winners, or at least the RIGHT winners.
(2) NYRA.com made the charts for EVERY Belmont Stakes (going back to 1867) available on its website. This made the research relatively painless. Here is the link:
http://www.belmontstakes.com/racing/belmontstakes.aspx
(3) The 30 year period I researched correlates with the last time there was a Triple Crown winner (Affirmed in 1978), and supplied enough runners to give me confidence in the data.
"B" STANDS FOR "BELMONT," BUT ALSO FOR PARIMUTUEL "BOMBS"
The Belmont Stakes has thrown a LOT of price horses in the last 30 years, starting with Temperence Hill winning in the slop in 1980 and paying $108.80 to win. Other significant longshots in the Belmont Stakes over the last 3 decades were Sarava ($142.50), Da' Tara ($79), Birdstone ($74), and Lemon Drop Kid ($61.50). As you can see, the modern era of the Belmont Stakes has produced some shock prices. The Belmont Stakes has been called the "Test of the Champion," but a better name for it might be the "Test of the Handicapper."
A TALE OF TWO TYPES OF BELMONT WINNERS
From a parimutuel perspective, there are two kinds of winner payouts - horses who won at least one race in the Triple Crown, versus a horse who did not win a Triple Crown race.
In the last 30 years, 7 horses have won the Belmont Stakes after winning at least the Kentucky Derby or Preakness. There are 23 winners over that same span that DID NOT win a Triple Crown race. Please go to my Google Docs link for the complete breakdown:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIEKmqxdf7p18N-cvAfWdCg&output=html
What I find interesting is the huge disparity in WIN PAYOFFS between horses with Triple Crown form, and those without such form. Of the 7 horses coming off a Kentucky Derby or Preakness win, the average winning mutuel was $6.32. Not terrible, if you were able to pick the right horses on other criteria. The other 23 winners, in contrast, had an average win mutuel of $31.68, a much, much higher return! So my first recommendation on betting the Belmont stakes is picking a horse that did not win or run notably well in the Kentucky Derby or Preakness Stakes.
Now, who are the glamor horses in the 2010 running of the Belmont Stakes? There would be Ice Box from the Kentucky Derby (2nd) and First Dude from the Preakness (2nd). The crowd will make these two horses the favorites off their Triple Crown efforts, which may be a good reason to avoid them. Here is the list of the 7 horses who won a Kentucky Derby or Preakness and then the Belmont:
Swale - very nice horse
Risen Star - very, very nice horse
Hansel - very nice horse
Tabasco Cat - very nice horse
Thunder Gulch - very nice horse
Point Given - just voted into the Hall of Fame
Afleet Alex - potential Hall of Fame horse
That's a pretty imposing list. So my recommendation on using Ice Box or First Dude would be to DEMAND VALUE, because history is going against you.
THE BELMONT STAKES AND RUNNING STYLES
Lastly, I looked at this Belmont Stakes data and tried to see any patters in running style and wagering profits. I broke the running styles of horses in the Belmont into five categories:
(a) Horse on the LEAD at the 1/2 mile (second call)
(b) PRESSING the lead horses (0 to 2 lengths off the lead - second call)
(c) MIDPACK horses(2 to 4 lengths off the lead - second call)
(d) "BACK MARKERS" (the last 2 horses - second call)
(e) TOWARDS the BACK - horses between "midpack" and "last." - second call
Note: If a running of a Belmont Stakes was run with 10 or less horses "BACK MARKERS" were combined into the TOWARDS THE BACK category.
The result of this analysis is shown at the BOTTOM of my Belmont Stakes spreadsheet:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIEKmqxdf7p18N-cvAfWdCg&output=html
I thought the results were stunning. THREE of the running styles (LEAD, MIDPACK,and TOWARDS BACK)threw profits if the player bet EVERY horse that fit that style over 30 years!!! The crowd probably overbets (see the expectation value" calculations in the spreadsheet) PRESSING and "BACK MARKERS" compared to the other styles.
SUMMARY
(1) Focus your win keys on horses that do not have Triple Crown form
(2) Don't be afraid to bet a big price. LONGSHOTS WIN THE BELMONT STAKES OFTEN!!
(3) Look at horses that you expect will be on the lead, or sitting 3 to 6 lengths off the lead (but NOT last!!!). These horses have running styles that over time pay fair value.
(1) Greed and envy.
While I stumble on a Belmont Stakes winner every few years, I have been much more successful selecting winners for, in order, the Preakness and the Kentucky Derby. I would liken my struggles to the student taking an ACT exam who does well on the first two-thirds of the test, but runs "out of gas" on the last section. My game is identifying brilliant speed horses up to a mile, ideally one turn mile races. That kind of horse is not what the Belmont, with its 12 furlong distance over usually dry, sandy terrain, calls for. I am hopeful that doing this years' research will put me on more winners, or at least the RIGHT winners.
(2) NYRA.com made the charts for EVERY Belmont Stakes (going back to 1867) available on its website. This made the research relatively painless. Here is the link:
http://www.belmontstakes.com/racing/belmontstakes.aspx
(3) The 30 year period I researched correlates with the last time there was a Triple Crown winner (Affirmed in 1978), and supplied enough runners to give me confidence in the data.
"B" STANDS FOR "BELMONT," BUT ALSO FOR PARIMUTUEL "BOMBS"
The Belmont Stakes has thrown a LOT of price horses in the last 30 years, starting with Temperence Hill winning in the slop in 1980 and paying $108.80 to win. Other significant longshots in the Belmont Stakes over the last 3 decades were Sarava ($142.50), Da' Tara ($79), Birdstone ($74), and Lemon Drop Kid ($61.50). As you can see, the modern era of the Belmont Stakes has produced some shock prices. The Belmont Stakes has been called the "Test of the Champion," but a better name for it might be the "Test of the Handicapper."
A TALE OF TWO TYPES OF BELMONT WINNERS
From a parimutuel perspective, there are two kinds of winner payouts - horses who won at least one race in the Triple Crown, versus a horse who did not win a Triple Crown race.
In the last 30 years, 7 horses have won the Belmont Stakes after winning at least the Kentucky Derby or Preakness. There are 23 winners over that same span that DID NOT win a Triple Crown race. Please go to my Google Docs link for the complete breakdown:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIEKmqxdf7p18N-cvAfWdCg&output=html
What I find interesting is the huge disparity in WIN PAYOFFS between horses with Triple Crown form, and those without such form. Of the 7 horses coming off a Kentucky Derby or Preakness win, the average winning mutuel was $6.32. Not terrible, if you were able to pick the right horses on other criteria. The other 23 winners, in contrast, had an average win mutuel of $31.68, a much, much higher return! So my first recommendation on betting the Belmont stakes is picking a horse that did not win or run notably well in the Kentucky Derby or Preakness Stakes.
Now, who are the glamor horses in the 2010 running of the Belmont Stakes? There would be Ice Box from the Kentucky Derby (2nd) and First Dude from the Preakness (2nd). The crowd will make these two horses the favorites off their Triple Crown efforts, which may be a good reason to avoid them. Here is the list of the 7 horses who won a Kentucky Derby or Preakness and then the Belmont:
Swale - very nice horse
Risen Star - very, very nice horse
Hansel - very nice horse
Tabasco Cat - very nice horse
Thunder Gulch - very nice horse
Point Given - just voted into the Hall of Fame
Afleet Alex - potential Hall of Fame horse
That's a pretty imposing list. So my recommendation on using Ice Box or First Dude would be to DEMAND VALUE, because history is going against you.
THE BELMONT STAKES AND RUNNING STYLES
Lastly, I looked at this Belmont Stakes data and tried to see any patters in running style and wagering profits. I broke the running styles of horses in the Belmont into five categories:
(a) Horse on the LEAD at the 1/2 mile (second call)
(b) PRESSING the lead horses (0 to 2 lengths off the lead - second call)
(c) MIDPACK horses(2 to 4 lengths off the lead - second call)
(d) "BACK MARKERS" (the last 2 horses - second call)
(e) TOWARDS the BACK - horses between "midpack" and "last." - second call
Note: If a running of a Belmont Stakes was run with 10 or less horses "BACK MARKERS" were combined into the TOWARDS THE BACK category.
The result of this analysis is shown at the BOTTOM of my Belmont Stakes spreadsheet:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIEKmqxdf7p18N-cvAfWdCg&output=html
I thought the results were stunning. THREE of the running styles (LEAD, MIDPACK,and TOWARDS BACK)threw profits if the player bet EVERY horse that fit that style over 30 years!!! The crowd probably overbets (see the expectation value" calculations in the spreadsheet) PRESSING and "BACK MARKERS" compared to the other styles.
SUMMARY
(1) Focus your win keys on horses that do not have Triple Crown form
(2) Don't be afraid to bet a big price. LONGSHOTS WIN THE BELMONT STAKES OFTEN!!
(3) Look at horses that you expect will be on the lead, or sitting 3 to 6 lengths off the lead (but NOT last!!!). These horses have running styles that over time pay fair value.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Betting North American 2 year olds
Not everyone likes betting on 2 year olds. These types of races have few horses with starters in them (in fact many races are filled with first time starters - FTS), and evaluating pedigrees of race horses can confound experienced players, much less the novice fan. Despite these challenges, I can attest I do very well playing 2 year olds every year. I have a basic method that combines QUANTITATIVE and QUALITATIVE analysis of experienced runners and FTS.
2YO RACES - QUANTITATIVE FACTORS
(1) Trainer stats - some trainers are very successful winning with a FTS. Most data services will provide this information. A guideline I use is a trainer that can win with 14% of his FTS is a threat to win with a FTS in today's race.
(2) Pedigree information - I uses Brisnet.com's products a lot, and they are really effective at identifying which horses have a pedigree to "win early" in its first or second start. Using Brisnet.com's data I can identify if a sire (father of the runner) and damsire (father of the MOTHER of the runner) both produce 14% winners or more from FTS. A higher percentage of winners from FTS, the more likely the combination produces a quick juvenile. Another stat I look at is the dam (mother of the runner). If a dam has produced 50% or greater 2yo winners from 2yo starters that also implies today's runner could be quick. Lastly, a good rule of thumb for "win early" breeding is look for a sire and damsire that both had sprinter/miler speed when they raced.
2YO RACES - QUALITATIVE FACTORS
(1) Workout Pattern - I look at the initial work first, to see if the horse "breezed" well. A good initial breeze would be 36 3/5 or faster, but 37 1/5 would be OK. This demonstrates that the FTS has some talent. Then, the FTS should work every 6 to 7 days, leading up to race day with NO BREAKS in its worktab. Lastly, I want to see some 4 furlong bullet or near bullet works mixed in with some 5 furlong works for stamina.
(2) Trainer touches - some trainers have a special move getting young horses ready to race. Steve Asmussen has two notable moves - any FTS he trains that breezes 5 furlongs in 1:01 3/5 or less in its worktab is most likely a serious runner, and he works a LOT of horses at Sam Houston, even ones he unleashes at Saratoga in July and August.
(3) Sales Prices - generally yearling sales prices are meaningless in trying to predict success in sprint baby races, so I would submit not using yearling prices as a benchmark. I can recall a 2yo MSW at Saratoga a year or two back where a $50,000 yearling THRASHED a $250,000 yearling. 2 year old buys, on the other hand, are extremely dangerous. Why? Because 2yo buys have another 6 to 8 months to develop, they are thoroughly vetted, and they have to work out under a STOPWATCH. Expensive 2 year old buys ($250,000 and up) almost always can run. Cheaper 2 year old buys ($50,000 to $245,000) often times can be overlooked at the windows and should be considered live animals.
(4) Kentucky-trained 2 year olds at Saratoga - usually the older, arguably classier Belmont-based horses win more than their fair share at Saratoga, compared to the Kentucky horses (Steve Crist of DRF.com tracks this on his blog every year). However, the Kentucky-trained 2 year olds win quite often and should be considered a threat in every 2 year old race at the Spa.
(5) Number of starts - 2 year old horses that don't break their maidens by their third start are huge under performers at the windows. They tend to lose by narrow margins, so their odds will be low, but it is my experience you are better off with a horse making its first or second start than betting on a potential "career maiden."
(6) First year sires - look for "hot new sires" that are getting winners, especially sires that are getting GOOD PRICES. Paying attention to successful sires would have put a player on Wildcat Heir in 2009 and Medaglia d'Oro (Rachel Alexandra's sire) in 2008. A sire that I think has a lot of potential for 2010 is Bluegrass Cat.
2YO RACES - QUANTITATIVE FACTORS
(1) Trainer stats - some trainers are very successful winning with a FTS. Most data services will provide this information. A guideline I use is a trainer that can win with 14% of his FTS is a threat to win with a FTS in today's race.
(2) Pedigree information - I uses Brisnet.com's products a lot, and they are really effective at identifying which horses have a pedigree to "win early" in its first or second start. Using Brisnet.com's data I can identify if a sire (father of the runner) and damsire (father of the MOTHER of the runner) both produce 14% winners or more from FTS. A higher percentage of winners from FTS, the more likely the combination produces a quick juvenile. Another stat I look at is the dam (mother of the runner). If a dam has produced 50% or greater 2yo winners from 2yo starters that also implies today's runner could be quick. Lastly, a good rule of thumb for "win early" breeding is look for a sire and damsire that both had sprinter/miler speed when they raced.
2YO RACES - QUALITATIVE FACTORS
(1) Workout Pattern - I look at the initial work first, to see if the horse "breezed" well. A good initial breeze would be 36 3/5 or faster, but 37 1/5 would be OK. This demonstrates that the FTS has some talent. Then, the FTS should work every 6 to 7 days, leading up to race day with NO BREAKS in its worktab. Lastly, I want to see some 4 furlong bullet or near bullet works mixed in with some 5 furlong works for stamina.
(2) Trainer touches - some trainers have a special move getting young horses ready to race. Steve Asmussen has two notable moves - any FTS he trains that breezes 5 furlongs in 1:01 3/5 or less in its worktab is most likely a serious runner, and he works a LOT of horses at Sam Houston, even ones he unleashes at Saratoga in July and August.
(3) Sales Prices - generally yearling sales prices are meaningless in trying to predict success in sprint baby races, so I would submit not using yearling prices as a benchmark. I can recall a 2yo MSW at Saratoga a year or two back where a $50,000 yearling THRASHED a $250,000 yearling. 2 year old buys, on the other hand, are extremely dangerous. Why? Because 2yo buys have another 6 to 8 months to develop, they are thoroughly vetted, and they have to work out under a STOPWATCH. Expensive 2 year old buys ($250,000 and up) almost always can run. Cheaper 2 year old buys ($50,000 to $245,000) often times can be overlooked at the windows and should be considered live animals.
(4) Kentucky-trained 2 year olds at Saratoga - usually the older, arguably classier Belmont-based horses win more than their fair share at Saratoga, compared to the Kentucky horses (Steve Crist of DRF.com tracks this on his blog every year). However, the Kentucky-trained 2 year olds win quite often and should be considered a threat in every 2 year old race at the Spa.
(5) Number of starts - 2 year old horses that don't break their maidens by their third start are huge under performers at the windows. They tend to lose by narrow margins, so their odds will be low, but it is my experience you are better off with a horse making its first or second start than betting on a potential "career maiden."
(6) First year sires - look for "hot new sires" that are getting winners, especially sires that are getting GOOD PRICES. Paying attention to successful sires would have put a player on Wildcat Heir in 2009 and Medaglia d'Oro (Rachel Alexandra's sire) in 2008. A sire that I think has a lot of potential for 2010 is Bluegrass Cat.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Which bets are the right bets?
TO BET, OR NOT TOO BET THE DIME SUPERFECTA
As I asked myself which bets are the right bets, I came to realize I didn't know the answer. But I decided to try to figure it out.
Generally horse racing bets (plays) are either "Horizontal" (picking winners in consecutive races) or "Vertical" (picking horses in exact order of one race as they cross the finish line). This blog post will focus on Vertical plays.
Here are the main types of vertical plays:
(1) Win - The first horse to cross the line first is declared the winner. This is a relatively simple Vertical play.
(2) Exacta - Pick the winner AND the second place horse, in exact order.
(3) Trifecta - Pick the top THREE finishers, in exact order.
(4) Superfecta - Pick the top FOUR finishers, in exact order.
(A DIME Superfecta is a Superfecta wager made on a dime per combination basis)
I reviewed the results of 52 races run over Kentucky Derby weekend - April 29 through May 1 from Churchill Downs that had superfecta wagering (30 races), and April 30 through May 2 at Belmont Park that had superfecta wagering (22 races), for a sample of 52 races. To compare the results on the same basis, I made a few assumptions:
(A) The base wager on every race would be $12 ($12 to win on every race, compared to a $4 exacta key over 3 horses, compared to a $1 trifecta play with 12 combinations, compared to a "Dime super" with 120 combinations).
(B) The returns for each scenario in (A) would be added up, then adjusted for degree of difficulty - Example: exactas are harder to hit than win bets, trifectas are harder to hit than exactas. It will be assumed that trifectas and dime supers have the same degree of difficulty.
Results (total adjusted return):
$12 to win on each of the 52 winners = $4,119.0
$4 exacta (wheeled over 3 horses), every race successful = $6,306.48
$1 trifecta (wheeled over 3 horses, then 4 horses), every race successful = $7,948.82
Dime super, every race successful = $5,392.742
Note the trifecta had the highest return by a fair margin, then the exacta wheel play. Win wagering had the lowest return. This indicates that exacta and trifecta wagers are the best Vertical plays to focus on.
When should a player decide to play the trifecta or the exacta? Using the trifecta, the payoffs are greatly reduced if the favorite wins, so the best time to play the trifecta is then the favorite is not your top selection. The exacta should be used if the favorite is not expected to be in the top two positions, OR the player has a very strong opinion on which horses will complete the 1-2 finish.
WHAT ABOUT THE SUPERFECTA?
There was a strong correlation on when to play the superfecta - when the player thinks the favorite will finish out of the TOP FOUR POSITIONS. Even a favorite running 3rd or 4th can absolutely kill the superfecta payoff. If the favorite figures to finish in the top 4, try the trifecta instead, as the trifecta will usually pay better than the Dime super.
As I asked myself which bets are the right bets, I came to realize I didn't know the answer. But I decided to try to figure it out.
Generally horse racing bets (plays) are either "Horizontal" (picking winners in consecutive races) or "Vertical" (picking horses in exact order of one race as they cross the finish line). This blog post will focus on Vertical plays.
Here are the main types of vertical plays:
(1) Win - The first horse to cross the line first is declared the winner. This is a relatively simple Vertical play.
(2) Exacta - Pick the winner AND the second place horse, in exact order.
(3) Trifecta - Pick the top THREE finishers, in exact order.
(4) Superfecta - Pick the top FOUR finishers, in exact order.
(A DIME Superfecta is a Superfecta wager made on a dime per combination basis)
I reviewed the results of 52 races run over Kentucky Derby weekend - April 29 through May 1 from Churchill Downs that had superfecta wagering (30 races), and April 30 through May 2 at Belmont Park that had superfecta wagering (22 races), for a sample of 52 races. To compare the results on the same basis, I made a few assumptions:
(A) The base wager on every race would be $12 ($12 to win on every race, compared to a $4 exacta key over 3 horses, compared to a $1 trifecta play with 12 combinations, compared to a "Dime super" with 120 combinations).
(B) The returns for each scenario in (A) would be added up, then adjusted for degree of difficulty - Example: exactas are harder to hit than win bets, trifectas are harder to hit than exactas. It will be assumed that trifectas and dime supers have the same degree of difficulty.
Results (total adjusted return):
$12 to win on each of the 52 winners = $4,119.0
$4 exacta (wheeled over 3 horses), every race successful = $6,306.48
$1 trifecta (wheeled over 3 horses, then 4 horses), every race successful = $7,948.82
Dime super, every race successful = $5,392.742
Note the trifecta had the highest return by a fair margin, then the exacta wheel play. Win wagering had the lowest return. This indicates that exacta and trifecta wagers are the best Vertical plays to focus on.
When should a player decide to play the trifecta or the exacta? Using the trifecta, the payoffs are greatly reduced if the favorite wins, so the best time to play the trifecta is then the favorite is not your top selection. The exacta should be used if the favorite is not expected to be in the top two positions, OR the player has a very strong opinion on which horses will complete the 1-2 finish.
WHAT ABOUT THE SUPERFECTA?
There was a strong correlation on when to play the superfecta - when the player thinks the favorite will finish out of the TOP FOUR POSITIONS. Even a favorite running 3rd or 4th can absolutely kill the superfecta payoff. If the favorite figures to finish in the top 4, try the trifecta instead, as the trifecta will usually pay better than the Dime super.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
What's is YOUR takeout at the track?
THE TRACK TAKE
How familiar are people with the term "track takeout?" TRACK TAKEOUT is the amount of wagering money, following the state regulations where the track is located, removed by the track before the winning bettors are paid. A higher track takeout means that the winners get a smaller remaining percentage of the pool. Each pool has its own level of takeout. Generally 15% is the takeout for win, place and show bets; daily doubles and exactas have a 20% takeout; and more complicated exotic wagers have 25% takeout.
While I agree with all players that race tracks should experiment with their business models to find out if their revenue could be enhanced with a lower takeout structure (some economists point out that lowering track takeout could actually INCREASE revenue for the tracks, because people would get more money back and they could "re-bet" their extra winnings back into the pools), but today I am going to propose some ideas in keeping more of YOUR dollars.
LOWERING YOUR PERSONAL TAKEOUT
I think following these suggestions will help you wager better at the races.
(1) Try to do your own research and develop new concepts for your betting.
What new or innovative research do you do that separates you from the betting crowd? Do you do pedigree research? How about looking at trainer stats or trips? If you are starting out as a handicapper, have you looked at reading some of the better authors? I would recommend Derek Simon (of YouBet.com), Jeremey Plonk and Joe Kristufek (of Horseplayernow.com), Cary Fotias, Tom Brohammer (the book "Modern Pace Handicapping"), and Steven Crist (the book "Exotic Betting," and Steve's blog at DRF.com).
(2) Watch video replays
Can you determine what a good trip was, versus a bad trip? How does PACE and POST POSITION affect trip? Do you know where to find good video replays? Some tracks like Tampa Bay Downs post all their video replays on the internet for free. Most tracks put their races on sites like RaceReplays.com - 100 free replays for $12.95 a month. Bloodhorse.com has FREE replays for all maiden, allowance and stakes races in the US and Woodbine.
(3) Don't jump on the bandwagon
The broad consensus before the Kentucky Derby was Lookin at Lucky was the best horse in the Kentucky Derby field. Why that was so was unclear, as he had never run fast enough to be considered a clear choice. Try to look for angles on horses that run COUNTER to public opinion - that's the only way to make money in our game.
(4) Have the right amount of capital to make the bet
If you want to play a serious pick 6, consider this advice from Bob Neumier: "If you have $1,000 and you want to play the pick 6, find a friend with another $1,000 and combine resources for the bet." Advanced exotic bets are fun, but require a fair amount of capital to play. If you are low on capital focus on win and exacta betting.
(5) Don't bet money you don't really want to lose
This isn't an anti-gambling rant, but in my experience when people get emotional they make poor wagering decisions, usually by "holding back," rather than playing the right horse at the right time.
Happy punting!
How familiar are people with the term "track takeout?" TRACK TAKEOUT is the amount of wagering money, following the state regulations where the track is located, removed by the track before the winning bettors are paid. A higher track takeout means that the winners get a smaller remaining percentage of the pool. Each pool has its own level of takeout. Generally 15% is the takeout for win, place and show bets; daily doubles and exactas have a 20% takeout; and more complicated exotic wagers have 25% takeout.
While I agree with all players that race tracks should experiment with their business models to find out if their revenue could be enhanced with a lower takeout structure (some economists point out that lowering track takeout could actually INCREASE revenue for the tracks, because people would get more money back and they could "re-bet" their extra winnings back into the pools), but today I am going to propose some ideas in keeping more of YOUR dollars.
LOWERING YOUR PERSONAL TAKEOUT
I think following these suggestions will help you wager better at the races.
(1) Try to do your own research and develop new concepts for your betting.
What new or innovative research do you do that separates you from the betting crowd? Do you do pedigree research? How about looking at trainer stats or trips? If you are starting out as a handicapper, have you looked at reading some of the better authors? I would recommend Derek Simon (of YouBet.com), Jeremey Plonk and Joe Kristufek (of Horseplayernow.com), Cary Fotias, Tom Brohammer (the book "Modern Pace Handicapping"), and Steven Crist (the book "Exotic Betting," and Steve's blog at DRF.com).
(2) Watch video replays
Can you determine what a good trip was, versus a bad trip? How does PACE and POST POSITION affect trip? Do you know where to find good video replays? Some tracks like Tampa Bay Downs post all their video replays on the internet for free. Most tracks put their races on sites like RaceReplays.com - 100 free replays for $12.95 a month. Bloodhorse.com has FREE replays for all maiden, allowance and stakes races in the US and Woodbine.
(3) Don't jump on the bandwagon
The broad consensus before the Kentucky Derby was Lookin at Lucky was the best horse in the Kentucky Derby field. Why that was so was unclear, as he had never run fast enough to be considered a clear choice. Try to look for angles on horses that run COUNTER to public opinion - that's the only way to make money in our game.
(4) Have the right amount of capital to make the bet
If you want to play a serious pick 6, consider this advice from Bob Neumier: "If you have $1,000 and you want to play the pick 6, find a friend with another $1,000 and combine resources for the bet." Advanced exotic bets are fun, but require a fair amount of capital to play. If you are low on capital focus on win and exacta betting.
(5) Don't bet money you don't really want to lose
This isn't an anti-gambling rant, but in my experience when people get emotional they make poor wagering decisions, usually by "holding back," rather than playing the right horse at the right time.
Happy punting!
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
How fast does a horse have to be to win a Derby?
Starting in 2007, I came up with a different approach to look for the winner of the Kentucky Derby, using pace figures supplied by Brisnet.com. I tried to see if I could get a more accurate read on the horses running in the big race by taking BRIS' pace figures and ADDING their E2 number (pace figure to the 6 furlong mark in routes) to their Late Pace (LP) number. I then, for lack of a better term, coined the phrase "Total Energy" (abbreviated TE) to represent this E2 + LP sum.
This year's Kentucky Derby 3/1 favorite, Lookin at Lucky, would have this kind of result, taken from his Rebel Stakes at OP:
E2 = 92
LP = 108
TE = 200
By ranking every horse in the field, it is usually pretty easy to determine who's tough, and who's fluff. This method hit the 2007 Street Sense/Hard Spun exacta cold ($100 for $2, thank you very much) and the 2008 Big Brown/Eight Belles exacta, also cold, (for $141, thank you very much). Those races were on fast tracks, which may have contributed to the method's success. In 2009 the Churchill Strip was a quagmire and Mine The Bird ran the race of his life. Right now I am still hoping for a fast track (or at least "good") on Derby Day.
2010 "Total Energy" Results
Keep in mind 4 points in Total Energy is roughly one length. I will add Devil May Care's numbers when Brisnet.com releases them on Wednesday.
Horse Total Energy Race
Awesome Act 201 Gotham Stakes
Lookin At Lucky 200 Rebel Stakes
Noble's Promise 200 Rebel Stakes
Conveyance 200 Southwest Stakes
Ice Box 198 Florida Derby
American Lion 197 Illinois Derby
Super Saver 196 2009 Ky Jockey Club (2yo)
Dublin 194 Rebel Stakes
Jackson Bend 194 2009 FL-bred "In Reality" Stakes (2yo)
Line of David 194 Arkansas Derby
Dean's Kitten 193 Lane's End (Polytrack)
Stately Victor 193 Blue Grass Stakes (Polytrack)
Sidney's Candy 192 Santa Anita Derby (Pro-Ride)
Discretely Mine 192 Risen Star
Mission Impazible 192 Southwest Stakes
Endorsement 188 Sunland Derby
Paddy O'Prado 185 Blue Grass Stakes (Polytrack)
The total energy numbers of Awesome Act, Lookin at Lucky, Noble's Promise, Dublin and Conveyance were all recorded at a a mile or a mile and a sixteenth, so they all have to prove they can get a mile and a quarter on Saturday. Ice Box has a good run at nine furlongs in the Florida Derby, so it could be argued he's in good position to have a top 3 finish on the board.
I would not downgrade Sidney's Candy, or maybe even the other "synthetic surface" horses, because horses going from synthetic to dirt can improve 10 to 12 points in Total Energy (roughly 3 lengths). If Sidney improves that much he's the horse to beat on Saturday.
This year's Kentucky Derby 3/1 favorite, Lookin at Lucky, would have this kind of result, taken from his Rebel Stakes at OP:
E2 = 92
LP = 108
TE = 200
By ranking every horse in the field, it is usually pretty easy to determine who's tough, and who's fluff. This method hit the 2007 Street Sense/Hard Spun exacta cold ($100 for $2, thank you very much) and the 2008 Big Brown/Eight Belles exacta, also cold, (for $141, thank you very much). Those races were on fast tracks, which may have contributed to the method's success. In 2009 the Churchill Strip was a quagmire and Mine The Bird ran the race of his life. Right now I am still hoping for a fast track (or at least "good") on Derby Day.
2010 "Total Energy" Results
Keep in mind 4 points in Total Energy is roughly one length. I will add Devil May Care's numbers when Brisnet.com releases them on Wednesday.
Horse Total Energy Race
Awesome Act 201 Gotham Stakes
Lookin At Lucky 200 Rebel Stakes
Noble's Promise 200 Rebel Stakes
Conveyance 200 Southwest Stakes
Ice Box 198 Florida Derby
American Lion 197 Illinois Derby
Super Saver 196 2009 Ky Jockey Club (2yo)
Dublin 194 Rebel Stakes
Jackson Bend 194 2009 FL-bred "In Reality" Stakes (2yo)
Line of David 194 Arkansas Derby
Dean's Kitten 193 Lane's End (Polytrack)
Stately Victor 193 Blue Grass Stakes (Polytrack)
Sidney's Candy 192 Santa Anita Derby (Pro-Ride)
Discretely Mine 192 Risen Star
Mission Impazible 192 Southwest Stakes
Endorsement 188 Sunland Derby
Paddy O'Prado 185 Blue Grass Stakes (Polytrack)
The total energy numbers of Awesome Act, Lookin at Lucky, Noble's Promise, Dublin and Conveyance were all recorded at a a mile or a mile and a sixteenth, so they all have to prove they can get a mile and a quarter on Saturday. Ice Box has a good run at nine furlongs in the Florida Derby, so it could be argued he's in good position to have a top 3 finish on the board.
I would not downgrade Sidney's Candy, or maybe even the other "synthetic surface" horses, because horses going from synthetic to dirt can improve 10 to 12 points in Total Energy (roughly 3 lengths). If Sidney improves that much he's the horse to beat on Saturday.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Reacting to Change
A lot of Derby news so far this week!
How does a horseplayer handle these developments? Here is what I would recommend:
Good luck, and if there is anything to post I will do so on Tuesday. Otherwise I will look at the field after the Wednesday afternoon draw.
Happy betting!
Anthony
- Derby Favorite Eskendereya was withdrawn from the Derby.
- Rule was also withdrawn.
- Lookin at Lucky is now the new 3/1 Derby Favorite (whether he deserves it or not).
- Endorsement is possibly facing some physical issues.
How does a horseplayer handle these developments? Here is what I would recommend:
- Don't lock into any horse right now.
- Realize the remaining horses, on speed figures, are very, very close together. This is the most "wide open" Derby I can remember in my 22 years watching and betting the race.
- Get as much information from "alternative media" as you can - twitter, facebook, DRF,
- Horseplayernow.com and Brisnet.com live chats.
- Try to ELIMINATE as many horses as possible without eliminating the winner!
Good luck, and if there is anything to post I will do so on Tuesday. Otherwise I will look at the field after the Wednesday afternoon draw.
Happy betting!
Anthony
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Parimutuel payoffs for the Kentucky Derby (1990 through 2009)
For some, this list will bring back memories of IRS signers and pride, others probably pain and suffering. But as they say, whoever controls the past controls the future! Let's take a look back at the last 20 years of Kentucky Derby wagering.
Kentucky Derby Payoffs 1990-2009
Interestingly, my "second picks" could have paid for a vacation home in Aruba. Check this out:
1990 - Unbridled $23.60
1995 - Thunder Gulch $51.00
1998 - Real Quiet $18.80
2001 - Monarchos $23.00
2006 - Barbaro $14.20
How I would explain my performance? My second picks are my hunch plays, where I use a little more "feel." My first picks do a lot better at Pimlico and the Preakness, where speed and brilliance is more important. Right now my top pick for "Kentucky Derby 2010" is Eskendereya and my second pick is Endorsement (the EEasy EEXacta Box?). But don't hold me to that just yet. I want to see the PPs and post draw, workouts etc. before I get too excited.
Happy Punting!
Kentucky Derby Payoffs 1990-2009
2009 $2 PAYOFFS - Mine That Bird WIN $103.20For me, my Kentucky Derby wagering has been mixed. I started betting the Derby in 1988 (when my Proper Reality got fourth to Winning Colors), picked up Sunday Silence as a 3/1 winner in 1989 (yay!!), and over the last 21 Derbies my "top pick" has won 6 times, not an incredible number, but I am improving. Over the last seven years I have had 4 winners (Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Street Sense and Big Brown).
EXACTA $2,074.80
TRIFECTA $41,500.60
SUPERFECTA $557,006.40
2008 $2 PAYOFFS - Big Brown WIN $6.80
EXACTA $141.60
TRIFECTA $3,445.60
SUPERFECTA $58,747.80
2007 $2 PAYOFFS - Street Sense WIN $11.80
EXACTA $101.80
TRIFECTA $440.00
SUPERFECTA $29,046.40
2006 $2 PAYOFFS - Barbaro WIN $14.20
EXACTA $587.00
TRIFECTA $11,418.40
SUPERFECTA $59,839.00
2005 $2 PAYOFFS - Giacomo WIN $102.60
EXACTA $9,814.80
TRIFECTA $133,134.80
SUPERFECTA $864,253.50
2004 $2 PAYOFFS - Smarty Jones WIN $10.20
EXACTA $65.20
TRIFECTA $987.60
SUPERFECTA $41,380.20
2003 $2 PAYOFFS - Funny Cide WIN $27.60
EXACTA $97.00
TRIFECTA $664.80
SUPERFECTA $5,591.60
2002 $2 PAYOFFS - War Emblem WIN $43.00
EXACTA $1,300.80
TRIFECTA $18,373.20
SUPERFECTA $183,529.00
2001 $2 PAYOFFS - Monarchos WIN $23.00
EXACTA $1,229.80
TRIFECTA $12,238.40
SUPERFECTA $125,973.80
2000 $2 PAYOFFS - Fusaichi Pegasus WIN $6.60
EXACTA $66.00
TRIFECTA $435.00
SUPERFECTA $3,270.80
1999 $2 PAYOFFS - Charismatic WIN $64.60
EXACTA $727.80
TRIFECTA $5,866.20
SUPERFECTA $48,031.00
1998 $2 PAYOFFS - Real Quiet WIN $18.80
EXACTA $291.80
TRIFECTA $1,221.00
SUPERFECTA $6,014.80
1997 $2 PAYOFFS - Silver Charm WIN $10.00
EXACTA $31.00
TRIFECTA $205.40
SUPERFECTA $700.00
1996 $2 PAYOFFS - Grindstone WIN $13.80
EXACTA $61.80
TRIFECTA $600.60
SUPERFECTA $11,688.40
1995 $2 PAYOFFS - Thunder Gulch WIN $51.00
EXACTA $480.00
TRIFECTA $2,099.20
1994 $2 PAYOFFS - Go for Gin WIN $20.20
EXACTA $184.80
TRIFECTA $2,351.40
1993 $2 PAYOFFS - Sea Hero WIN $27.80
EXACTA $190.60
1992 $2 PAYOFFS - Lil E. Tee WIN $35.60
EXACTA $854.40
1991 $2 PAYOFFS - Strike the Gold WIN $11.60
EXACTA $73.40
1990 $2 PAYOFFS - Unbridled WIN $23.60
EXACTA $65.80
Interestingly, my "second picks" could have paid for a vacation home in Aruba. Check this out:
1990 - Unbridled $23.60
1995 - Thunder Gulch $51.00
1998 - Real Quiet $18.80
2001 - Monarchos $23.00
2006 - Barbaro $14.20
How I would explain my performance? My second picks are my hunch plays, where I use a little more "feel." My first picks do a lot better at Pimlico and the Preakness, where speed and brilliance is more important. Right now my top pick for "Kentucky Derby 2010" is Eskendereya and my second pick is Endorsement (the EEasy EEXacta Box?). But don't hold me to that just yet. I want to see the PPs and post draw, workouts etc. before I get too excited.
Happy Punting!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
How does a horseplayer determine the odds?
DON'T WANNA PLAY CHALK?
Ask most horseplayers about odds and wagering startegy, and they will respond "I don't play chalk," or "I like the number 8 today in race 5 because he's 10/1 on the morning line (or ML, for short)."
While it's true that MOST favorites are overbet (their offered odds are lower than their true odds) and SOME longshots are underbet (their offered odds are higher than their true odds), many players do not know how to quantify their advantage. This blog post will hopefully explain how to quantify a player's advantage when betting to win.
CONVERTING ODDS TO A WIN PERCENTAGE
Suppose a player thinks a horse is fair odds at 4/1. That implies that he or she believes this horse will win the race 1 out of every 5 times, or a win probability of 0.20 (1/5 = 0.20).
In general, the win probability for a horse at THEIR TRUE ODDS, not the ML, is:
1/(true odds + 1).
Example: A player thinks a horse's true odds to win a race is 9/1. This implies the probability to win a race is 1/(9 + 1) = 1/10 = 0.10.
Why is this important? Because the player can now quantify his or her edge (if one exists) if the crowd offers HIGHER odds on their preferred horse.
Example: Say that a horse at Saratoga is 9/1 on the player's personal odds line but is 13/1 on the board with 3 minutes to post (not really that rare of a scenario). We saw above that the 9/1 horse has a probability of winning of 0.10. That means the horse has a probability of losing of 0.90 (either the horse wins or loses, right? All the total probabilities, win and lose, in a race for each individual horse have to add to 1.0). So what would be the player's edge in this case?
If the player bets $1 to win, the "expected win return" is ($1)*(13)*(0.10) = $1.30
If the player bets $1 to win, the "expected loss return" is (-$1)*(0.90) = -$0.90
If we add the win to the loss, then we have a POSITIVE EXPECTATION of $0.40.
In other words, IF the player is a good handicapper, and only bets when the odds on the board are HIGHER than the true odds, the player has the ability to grind out a profit. If the player bets on UNDERLAYS (short priced favorites that don't have advantages in speed and/or pace figures, for example), they can't "handicap their way to profits."
HOW MUCH SHOULD A PLAYER BET?
The bet size is CRITICAL. If the player bets too much of their bankroll on any one race, short-term financial ruin (or worse) can be the result.
A mathematician named Kelly came up with the KELLY CRITERION, which is a guide to determining how much to bet on a single wager. It works best with win betting but can be adjusted to suit any parimutuel situation IF the risk is known.
The Kelly Criterion is an estimate of how much of a fraction of bankroll to wager on any one race. Of course, the player should NEVER wager on any event that has a negative expectation (i.e. underlays).
The formula for the Kelly Criterion is as follows:
Fraction of bankroll wagered = (Positive expectation)/(True odds of horse)
Going back to our Saratoga horse, the positive expectation was $0.40 and the true odds were 9/1. So the Kelly Criterion would be 0.40/9 = 0.0444
What does this number tell us? If the player is an EFFECTIVE AND CONSISTENT handicapper, over the long-term he or she can bet roughly 4% of betting capital on the Saratoga horse with little fear of "tapping out" because of over-betting their advantage.
Suppose the player had $120 in his wallet for wagering and that represents his total bankroll. Then the ideal bet size on the Saratoga horse would be ($120)*(0.0444) = $5.328. Rounding down to the nearest dollar, the player should wager $5 on the Saratoga horse to win.
Now let's suppose the player won the race at 13/1. The player would get back $70, but $5 was wagered originally, so the "profit" on the bet was $65. This means the player now has a bankroll of $185 ($120 + $65 in profit). In the next good betting race this $185 is the new bankroll total which sets the wagering amount. Also, the next betting race will probably have a different Kelly Criterion (it varies every race, depending on the positive expectation of the next horse and the horse's true odds).
Ask most horseplayers about odds and wagering startegy, and they will respond "I don't play chalk," or "I like the number 8 today in race 5 because he's 10/1 on the morning line (or ML, for short)."
While it's true that MOST favorites are overbet (their offered odds are lower than their true odds) and SOME longshots are underbet (their offered odds are higher than their true odds), many players do not know how to quantify their advantage. This blog post will hopefully explain how to quantify a player's advantage when betting to win.
CONVERTING ODDS TO A WIN PERCENTAGE
Suppose a player thinks a horse is fair odds at 4/1. That implies that he or she believes this horse will win the race 1 out of every 5 times, or a win probability of 0.20 (1/5 = 0.20).
In general, the win probability for a horse at THEIR TRUE ODDS, not the ML, is:
1/(true odds + 1).
Example: A player thinks a horse's true odds to win a race is 9/1. This implies the probability to win a race is 1/(9 + 1) = 1/10 = 0.10.
Why is this important? Because the player can now quantify his or her edge (if one exists) if the crowd offers HIGHER odds on their preferred horse.
Example: Say that a horse at Saratoga is 9/1 on the player's personal odds line but is 13/1 on the board with 3 minutes to post (not really that rare of a scenario). We saw above that the 9/1 horse has a probability of winning of 0.10. That means the horse has a probability of losing of 0.90 (either the horse wins or loses, right? All the total probabilities, win and lose, in a race for each individual horse have to add to 1.0). So what would be the player's edge in this case?
If the player bets $1 to win, the "expected win return" is ($1)*(13)*(0.10) = $1.30
If the player bets $1 to win, the "expected loss return" is (-$1)*(0.90) = -$0.90
If we add the win to the loss, then we have a POSITIVE EXPECTATION of $0.40.
In other words, IF the player is a good handicapper, and only bets when the odds on the board are HIGHER than the true odds, the player has the ability to grind out a profit. If the player bets on UNDERLAYS (short priced favorites that don't have advantages in speed and/or pace figures, for example), they can't "handicap their way to profits."
HOW MUCH SHOULD A PLAYER BET?
The bet size is CRITICAL. If the player bets too much of their bankroll on any one race, short-term financial ruin (or worse) can be the result.
A mathematician named Kelly came up with the KELLY CRITERION, which is a guide to determining how much to bet on a single wager. It works best with win betting but can be adjusted to suit any parimutuel situation IF the risk is known.
The Kelly Criterion is an estimate of how much of a fraction of bankroll to wager on any one race. Of course, the player should NEVER wager on any event that has a negative expectation (i.e. underlays).
The formula for the Kelly Criterion is as follows:
Fraction of bankroll wagered = (Positive expectation)/(True odds of horse)
Going back to our Saratoga horse, the positive expectation was $0.40 and the true odds were 9/1. So the Kelly Criterion would be 0.40/9 = 0.0444
What does this number tell us? If the player is an EFFECTIVE AND CONSISTENT handicapper, over the long-term he or she can bet roughly 4% of betting capital on the Saratoga horse with little fear of "tapping out" because of over-betting their advantage.
Suppose the player had $120 in his wallet for wagering and that represents his total bankroll. Then the ideal bet size on the Saratoga horse would be ($120)*(0.0444) = $5.328. Rounding down to the nearest dollar, the player should wager $5 on the Saratoga horse to win.
Now let's suppose the player won the race at 13/1. The player would get back $70, but $5 was wagered originally, so the "profit" on the bet was $65. This means the player now has a bankroll of $185 ($120 + $65 in profit). In the next good betting race this $185 is the new bankroll total which sets the wagering amount. Also, the next betting race will probably have a different Kelly Criterion (it varies every race, depending on the positive expectation of the next horse and the horse's true odds).
Sunday, April 11, 2010
How to play the Pick 3
There once was a time when tracks only offered one or two pick 3 wagers in one day. The pool size for these pick 3s was pretty good, and there was no competition for the bettors' money from the early and late pick 4s, or rolling doubles, like we have now. For the most part, just HITTING the pick 3 during this era meant a nice, profitible day at the track, and possibly a SCORE.
Today, however, the "rolling" pick 3 pools are among the smaller pools at any track (especially compared to the trifecta pools), and the returns on the pick 3 typically are not quite as lucrative. Unfortunately, I have a healthy love of the Pick 3, and I like to make money using the wager.
Here are some ideas my buddies at the track and I have shared over the years for successful pick 3 playing.
(1) Try to limit your play to one or two pick threes per day per track.
(2) Don't UNDERBET a pick 3 play. A good pick 3 strategy that includes some long shots will have 32 to 40 combinations.
(3) Look for races featuring short priced favorites that may be highly vulnerable (horses coming off layoffs of 90 days or more, incompetent human connections, suspicious class droppers, horses making their debut on a new surface and/or distance), especially in they START the first race of the sequence. The crowd loves to single short-priced horses in the pick 3, an if the favorite goes down it's an opportunity to get some of the crowd's money.
(4) In the same race as the weak and/or overbet favorite, look for horses with odds of 5/1 or higher that can "kick start" nice pick 3 payoff.
(5) In maiden and maiden claiming races, don't be afraid to use horses that are lightly raced or making their debuts, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT BET OR FAVORED ON THE MORNING LINE. If the experienced runners in a maiden race are poor, they probably won't get any better without a class drop. When possible, use "speed figure pars" in maiden and maiden claiming races to determine which experienced horses can possibly be kept off your ticket(s). Be very, very wary of betting maiden and maiden horses that run close seconds and thirds often. These horses are always underlays unless they drop in class.
In short, to succeed with the pick 3, handicap well, have enough capital to make the correct wager, and focus on beating short-priced favorites that have negative angles going against them.
Happy wagering!
The Prophet
Today, however, the "rolling" pick 3 pools are among the smaller pools at any track (especially compared to the trifecta pools), and the returns on the pick 3 typically are not quite as lucrative. Unfortunately, I have a healthy love of the Pick 3, and I like to make money using the wager.
Here are some ideas my buddies at the track and I have shared over the years for successful pick 3 playing.
(1) Try to limit your play to one or two pick threes per day per track.
(2) Don't UNDERBET a pick 3 play. A good pick 3 strategy that includes some long shots will have 32 to 40 combinations.
(3) Look for races featuring short priced favorites that may be highly vulnerable (horses coming off layoffs of 90 days or more, incompetent human connections, suspicious class droppers, horses making their debut on a new surface and/or distance), especially in they START the first race of the sequence. The crowd loves to single short-priced horses in the pick 3, an if the favorite goes down it's an opportunity to get some of the crowd's money.
(4) In the same race as the weak and/or overbet favorite, look for horses with odds of 5/1 or higher that can "kick start" nice pick 3 payoff.
(5) In maiden and maiden claiming races, don't be afraid to use horses that are lightly raced or making their debuts, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT BET OR FAVORED ON THE MORNING LINE. If the experienced runners in a maiden race are poor, they probably won't get any better without a class drop. When possible, use "speed figure pars" in maiden and maiden claiming races to determine which experienced horses can possibly be kept off your ticket(s). Be very, very wary of betting maiden and maiden horses that run close seconds and thirds often. These horses are always underlays unless they drop in class.
In short, to succeed with the pick 3, handicap well, have enough capital to make the correct wager, and focus on beating short-priced favorites that have negative angles going against them.
Happy wagering!
The Prophet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
