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'...)
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
