Gentlemen
Yesterday I attended the races at Monmouth Park. I bet the Monmouth card as well as the Churchill downs card.
At Monmouth I hit 2 trifectas, at Churchill 5. My good fortune was observed by 2 gentlemen who could not believe my success, and after watching me collect $297 for $48 had to know the secret. I directed them to your website and told them \"most of what they think they know is false, without accurate speed figures it is impossible to win\". They responded that they had been losers for close to 20 years and had just ripped up a $200 win bet on the race I just cashed.
They say the best advertising is word of mouth advertising. Hopefully these gentlemen will visit your website and become customers.
Now my question, I win at Churchill and Keeneland (fall meet) at a disproportionate rate. I have very good success at Hawthorne, Arlington, Turfway, and Aqueduct. Monmouth, and Belmont are battles. Santa Anita, Del Mar, and Saratoga are a waste of time.
To me their are only 3 variables my handicapping ability, the crowd, and your numbers. I am assuming my ability as a constant. I believe the ability of the crowd is also close to constant. That leaves your numbers as the only variable in the excersise.
Am I imagining something or are the numbers more accurate at some tracks versus others. I can\'t seem to explain this any other way.
Thank You
Cozzene
>are the numbers more accurate at some tracks versus others.
They are on the days when you WIN.
So you were at The Shore yesterday, I\'m very envious.
Silver Charm
My point is I win consistently at CD, KEE, and HAW.
Their has to be a reason.
I have also read other posts that lead me to believe others are also more successful at CD and KEE.
It can\'t be a coincidence.
I believe this is a very important point for discussion.
I also believe that Mr Brown will have a difficult time in resoponding as any response may seem as an indication of inaccuaracy in his methodology.
I welcome the input of all who handicap with the aid of TG. I personally use only TG and would not know how to read the DRF.
Thank You
Cozzene
Yes, there probably is a reason you win at some tracks and not others. No, it probably has nothing to do with the figures.
Your analysis of the variables is only correct if we assume that your handicapping skills are perfect, under all circumstances-- that you understand cheap claimers as well as layoff European grass horses, know who the \"move-up\" trainers are on all circuits, understand trainer intent in all cases, and the differences in patterns between better quality horses and cheap ones-- and have all the relevant information with which to make decisions. And I\'m not even getting into the issues that non-purists would raise, like knowledge of \"biases\", etc., or which horses handle shipping well, or which tracks are notorious for horses either liking or hating them (Turfway comes to mind).
Personally, I do very well at SA, DMR and SAR, the tracks you don\'t handle well. I have no chance at Kee, as those who took my picks for a couple of years found out-- I eventually turned the circuit over to someone who would have a better chance. If I knew what I was doing wrong there I would do it differently. I do great on stakes, again as those who follow this site know. I avoid cheap claimers like the plague, since I know both from handicapping and from managing stables that there are variables I can\'t account for, like when cripples have been tapped (draining a joint, injecting cortisone), which can cause an impossible to predict form reversal. So I stay away from those tracks which have lots of cheap races.
Also, when you talk about the crowd-- they are sharper in some places than others, have tendencies. And in some places OTHERS figures are better or worse, affecting your ability to get overlays-- I do figures for all the tracks you mentioned myself, which is not true of Ragozin or Beyer.
I\'d like to chime in that I follow Jerry\'s guidelines. I concentrate on stakes and avoid the cheap races entirely. My success rate in the cheap claimers sucks. Its that clear from my studies of return. I generally avoid turf racing because I dont trust turf figures as much and the tight turns make results similar to the dogs. I will bet expensive claimers and allowance, provided I\'m against a solid favorite or high on a particular horse.
Two of the meets Cozzene does poorly at are \"Point\" meets. Del Mar and Saratoga. Horses are pointed for them generally and you have to keep that in mind in your handicapping. I love it when quality horses merge for a \"point\" meet (Gulfstream, Saratogan), because I think I can evaluate them from their circuits better than some handicappers. You have to know your respective tracks in order to do that. The primarly took is the speed figure, but its one tool.
I do well at Keeneland, not as well on the inner or Santa Anita. When you\'re on a weak surface you back off the bets.