How many of you have to bet \'blind\' without seeing the toteboard? Please don\'t tell me about the web stuff and phone accounts, I\'m well aware of it. Given the nature of my job, lots of times if I like a race I have to bet it ahead of time. Sometimes this may work to my advantage, but sometimes it doesn\'t. Anybody have any experiences, tips on handling this specific issue? HP
In big races at the major tracks, I think you have to be able to predict the approximate odds before ever looking at the board. If you are not able to do that, I think the understanding of the race is just not there, and you won\'t win anyway. I think a good example is this years Belmont. Any knowledgeable horse player should have known that Sarava was not picked by any of the smarter handicappers, was tossed out by 95% of the sheet players, and was tossed out by 95% of the breeding experts (by Wild Again, full bro was a sprinter), and would go off at least 50 or 60-1. If you thought all of these people were wrong, you clearly should have said it before you saw the board, and not use the excuse that you didn\'t know the horse would be a huge price (I definitely tossed him). I do think, however, that this rule only applies to the big races at major circuits, where so many people have so much info. At some of the smaller tracks, or in maiden or claiming races, I think you sometimes have to let the board tell you what is right or wrong. I would never bet a maiden race at any track without seeing the odds. In fact, when playing a pk6 where first leg is a maiden race, I often just use the four or five horses with the lowest odds, the strategy being I don\'t have all of the info, why not rely on the people who most likely do? So I guess my opinion is that in the big races at major tracks, you should be able to figure out the odds, and should not have a problem betting ahead of time. But at the smaller tracks, or in maiden or claiming races, I think you need the odds to help you figure things out (so don\'t bother if you don\'t have the advantage of seeing the board)......Cheers
I would agree with your points on the stakes level races. I\'ve done better in these races than the cheap claimers over the years for sure, and the fact that the odds are a little easier to project is probably a factor.
I would disagree with you on the maidens though. There are instances where the \'board tells you\', but I find opportunities in these races. I look at the \'first time out\' sire stats and the trainer \'first time out\' stats. If I like what I see and I get my price I\'m in, and I\'ll go against the short priced horse with the flashy workout line who doesn\'t measure up on the sire/trainer angles. I\'ll give a long workout in a decent time some weight, but I\'m always amazed when people bang down those 3f bullet type first timers to 4/5, and I look to beat them. This is actually a scenario I expect to see a lot of soon, with all the debut types coming through in the East. HP
Interesting point about the maiden races. My strategy is to play against bettors like you. If I see a Carson City horse trained by Stanley Hough going off at 5-1, and an Outflanker horse trained by some unknown going off at 6-1, I am definitely taking the 6-1. I pay close attention to the sire/trainer stats, but always apply those stats to the odds board, and make a calculation in my mind determining the amount of money from bettors like you who bet with the stats and the additional inside money. If all of the money seems to be the bettors only looking at the stats, with no additional inside money, I am cautious. If something looks bad, but others want it, I always ask myself \"what am I missing?\" Often the maiden without the stats, but with the money, winds up being the best bet.
I think you both have valid points. An unknown trainer with a firster that is bet fairly strong might be telegraphing intent. However, sometimes the public goes crazy in their zeal to bet on a firster when a tip gets widespread. This Wednesday at Hollywood they bet down a firster to 4/5 when the trainer was 2 for 51 with first time out horses! I bet against the horse and it finished out of the money after fading from the lead. You have to end up long term loser betting horses like this.
I only bet a horse blindly if I am pretty sure that it will be at least 5-1 and I think it should be the favorite. That means it is at least 8-1 on the morning line, no favorites are early scratches and almost no one in the form has picked the horse. I have bet way too many horses that I thought were 3-1 and better and then saw on equibase that they went off at 3/2. I occassionally miss a $28 payoff but think I am ahead in the long run. Of course, I try to only bet when I am a casino or track and can see current odds.
I think the trainer angle is good (Hough and Jerkens ),however the thing I really like is if a horse is working over a track that is really slow and showing seemingly slow works ie .the training track @ Saratoga .If I\'m not mistaken Jim Bond has \'The Spa\' as his home base and he usually sends horses to the track ready to run .I think horses tend to get some real bottom from these types of tracks ,and I have made a few good scores with this angle through the years .
Good discussion, I struggle with these constant dilemmas as well. Seems to me that the so-called \"hot\" money (FTS that are low that DON\'t have good stats) is more effective at some tracks than others. At CD for example I pay special attention to the board in the races riddled w/FTS. A couple of weeks ago I noticed a 6YO gelding FTS in a grass race at CD. It looked to be completely overmatched, but at 15 mins. to post he was 9-1. I used him in tri\'s & pick 3\'s and he drifted up to 34-1 and won the race. I think an important thing to remember is that a good deal of the \"barn\" money on any horse is bet early. My friends & I call it \"beer money\", the grooms & handlers are betting their beer money on the horses they know are live. I pay much more attention to what a horse opens than any last minute floods of money, which more often than not come from uninformed simulcast players.
Marc b
We had a discussion about that 6 yr old gelding a few weeks ago. I think the sire was Double Negative. A few of us noticed the early money. I never noticed the horse drift up to 34-1, and wound up singling the horse he beat by a head. But you are right, that is a classic example of the early money pointing you in the right direction, and the stats telling you nothing. I usually pay very close attention to the breeding and trainer angles, but in most maiden races I just admit I do not have the necessary info, and try to take advantage of the people who do (by watching the board).