A couple of random thoughts out of the Big Brown yesterday.
1. Big Brown is gutsy. I wasn\'t so sure of that until yesterday, although I did suspect it after the Haskell, when he looked beaten there. I would have taken 3-5 on Proudinsky at the top of the stretch. A solid G1/G2 turf pro, with that trip, should have ran down Big Brown in the stretch. Until the halfway point of the stretch it looked like he would, but if you look closely at the tape, Kent stopped hitting Big Brown late, as he felt \"home\". Not saying he could have won by more, that would be wrong, but if the race were another 100 yards, Proudinsky wasn\'t getting by.
2. The figure for the race will not look as good as his Haskell, but I don\'t care, it was a better performance. Already talked on this board about top turf figures not being the same as top dirt figures, and plus, transferring top dirt form to grass is rare and Big Brown did that, as yesterday\'s race was very legit. But the figure will likely have to be low, at least on TG, as Shakis (not a good TG horse) seemed to take an overland route and was coming late.
3. Proundinsky didn\'t get a bad ride by Dominguez, quite the opposite. I guess the rest of the board has beaten up that poster enough already, so I won\'t go on with that.
4. It is long past time now for me to get off the Proudinsky bandwagon. I have bet him three times in a row now, and been disappointed/disgusted with him each time. At least I don\'t stand alone, as the host here as given him out in the analysis/ROTW those same three times. Time to forget about his \"0\" and move on. He is a typical \"sheets sucker horse\" to me, at least in hindsight. He gets a bad wide ride, runs a big figure and loses. When he gets a good ride, he runs a worse figure, and loses.
5. This last comment is a bit tough to say. But \"kudos\" to IAEH stable and also to rick dutrow for their handling of Big Brown. No early retirement, they are racing this horse. They had every right to retire him after the Belmont and most would have. All the experts, including our TGJB were talking about how this horse had 1 or 2 races left in him BEFORE the Derby. JB called him 50/50 to run in the Derby, let alone win it. Give this group some credit, they gambled with running this horse again, gambled putting him back on the grass in what was a race with severl fast turf horses, and now they seem likely to put this horse on a synthetic racing surface. And their actions have allowed debates like the one this morning on this board to happen (should he run in the BC Turf or BC Classic). Whereas with others recently, by this point in the season we were debating about what mares they should cover (less interesting to most of us). And finally, the \"talking smack\" to Curlin owners is not classless, it is gamesmanship and good for the game. Keep going with that. (on the other hand criticizing the connections of Smarty Jones, pre-Belmont WAS classless, but let\'s move on)
\"He gets a bad wide ride, runs a big figure and loses. When he gets a good ride, he runs a worse figure, and loses\"
Hi Jim,
Agree with your post especially the above comment which is relevant to many horses. I discovered a long time ago, while using this product, that on occasion racing wide(esp when they crawl around the FIRST turn) is not the same as racing fast.No question the methodology calls for the ground loss to be factored regardless of how slow the horse travels the turn.
Without studying yesterdays race it would seem possible that, say, Shakis could get a \"better\" fig than BB if he was wide on both turns(i\'m not saying he was). If he did, I would like to know who really thinks he ran faster than BB in a racing sense. Can you imagine someone arguing the case that Shakis ran \"faster\" than BB yesterday. BB ran the \"whole\" race, Shakis a quarter.
If you don\'t know how to deal those w\'s in the top left corner, you could get in trouble as you have kinda stated.
Mike
Jimbo:
Great post. Agree with you and Mike on this subject. Jerry\'s numbers need to account for wide trips, however what we do with them as clients/players is up to us. (A 4-wide sweep on Belmont\'s Widener course may not be so bad.)
I\'m quickly learning that I would prefer a turf horse who runs in the 2.5-3 range and shows wins (e.g 13/5-2-1) rather than a turf runner who averages 1-2 and consistently loses (e.g. 13/2-5-4).
Good Luck,
Joe B.
>I\'m quickly learning that I would prefer a turf horse who runs in the 2.5-3 range and shows wins (e.g 13/5-2-1) rather than a turf runner who averages 1-2 and consistently loses (e.g. 13/2-5-4). <
I think that\'s true on dirt also, but to much less of an extent. Those slower paces, resultant tighter margins, and even some trips on turf tend to mask the true differences in ability between horses at times. Those great \"records\" are sometimes just the result of randomness, but sometimes they are telling you things about ability. You have to try to tell the difference.
The only problem is that the public gives full weight to that kind of winning consistency on the odds board. So there is very little value in the insight.
The only upside is that you stop playing horses that you \"think\" are overlays just to watch the super consistent favorite kick your butt on a regular basis. Knowing that winning ability often signals something allows you to find real overlays better.
fkach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only upside is that you stop playing horses
> that you \"think\" are overlays just to watch the
> super consistent favorite kick your butt on a
> regular basis.
Some of the wisest words I\'ve ever read regarding horse racing, and betting.
If there is a \"legit\" favorite in a race, your \"overlay\" probably isn\'t one.
And, having consulted the horse racing sachems, it turns out that we are actually
allowed to pass a race that contains a legit favorite...no matter how much we dislike
the horse or his connections, and desperately want them to lose.
Then you really don\'t need TG figures. Just look at the Racing Form and you\'re all set.
This is also awfully general.
1) a turf horse who runs in the 2.5-3 range and shows wins (e.g 13/5-2-1)
vs.
2) a turf runner who averages 1-2 and consistently loses (e.g. 13/2-5-4).
What are the odds? If the public wants to make horse 1 a 4/5 shot and horse 2 is 8-1 I\'m betting horse 2. That\'s why I want the figures. I want to bet on the faster horse against the favorite as often as I can when the price is right (if horse 2 is 4-1 I may indeed pass). If you are using other critieria I don\'t know why you would pay for TG figures.
I\'m not even sure why this kind of thing is posted here...since the point is that you will let the ITM record override the figures in front of you...
HP
Of course the tote board will finalize my decision.
My point here is that horses like Proudinsky (or Better Talk Now or Stream of Gold) for example, are bad playsin the win slot at 5/2 or 3-1 odds because they rarely win. They put up huge turf #\'s, go into a race as the \"fastest horse\" and consistently lose.
If you think any of these won\'t get bet in any of their next starts because they have a poor win %, think again!
Good Luck,
Joe B.
IMO, you absolutely do need figures.
I also agree that it\'s always a value decision.
What I think Joe was suggesting is that sometimes the top figure is more vulnerable to diappointment than others and he believes that those with very weak \"win records\" tend to underperform (and vice versa). I agree with that observation.
I don\'t know anyone who goes to the track and is disappointed or pleased about his bets based on the \"win records\" of the horses they play. The only way I\'m playing 3-1 or 5/2 shots is to hook them up with bombs anyway. I just don\'t get it...
So if you get 3-1 on something you figure should be 4/5, you don\'t bet to win, and only hook it with some \'bombs\'?
That\'s good news for the rest of us ;-)
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So if you get 3-1 on something you figure should
> be 4/5, you don\'t bet to win, and only hook it
> with some \'bombs\'?
>
> That\'s good news for the rest of us ;-)
Straight betting in this game will inevitably lead you to the same 1.2% interest earned by little old Italian ladies on their passbook savings accounts....and that\'s if you\'re good at this!
Good Luck,
Joe B.
HP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don\'t know anyone who goes to the track and is
> disappointed or pleased about his bets based on
> the \"win records\" of the horses they play. The
> only way I\'m playing 3-1 or 5/2 shots is to hook
> them up with bombs anyway. I just don\'t get it...
I was referring to keying horses in the \"win slot\" of an exacta; (I don\'t straight bet and I rarely box.)
My point is that keying a horse on top in exactas simply because he has the best figures in the race is a quick path to Bankruptcy Land. There are other factors that need to be used in this game besides figures and the horse\'s ability to win close races is another one of those factors. I\'m not even going to get into horizontal plays with this.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Yes Boscar that is right, generally if the best I can do is 3-1 I will pass, but I don\'t know how good that can be for you...
Joe, I hear you on the straight exactas and I agree there are other factors to look at.
I understood what you meant, it\'s just that unless you have records to back it up, I think for most bettors this is illusion.
Think about it. Almost everyone says they rule the exacta\'s but hate the win pool on modestly priced horses.
How is this possible? In most cases the exacta has a higher takeout. The exacta pool is also quite efficient in most cases. You may think you\'re being clever when you leave out that \'bad\' fave, but the payoffs already reflect that weakness. Not to mention that the throwout may actually run well enough to get second, ruining the bet and costing you the profit you would have had on a straight wager.
3-1 Win
You bet $100 in exacta\'s and dont hit, horse wins.
Cost not $100, but $400.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understood what you meant, it\'s just that unless
> you have records to back it up, I think for most
> bettors this is illusion.
>
> Think about it. Almost everyone says they rule
> the exacta\'s but hate the win pool on modestly
> priced horses.
>
> How is this possible? In most cases the exacta
> has a higher takeout. The exacta pool is also
> quite efficient in most cases. You may think
> you\'re being clever when you leave out that \'bad\'
> fave, but the payoffs already reflect that
> weakness. Not to mention that the throwout may
> actually run well enough to get second, ruining
> the bet and costing you the profit you would have
> had on a straight wager.
>
> 3-1 Win
>
> You bet $100 in exacta\'s and dont hit, horse
> wins.
>
> Cost not $100, but $400.
I won\'t toss the favorite out of my exacta play; I\'ll use him in the 2 hole then start looking for real value with my key play on top only. If I think the favorite can\'t be beat, I don\'t play.
For example, I loved Past the Point in the Woodward, but I knew he couldn\'t beat Curlin at equal weight. I passed the race. One might ask why didn\'t you play the exacta; why?....to collect $40 while my 53-1 shot runs his eyeballs out but inevitably gets beat by a superior animal.
Example #2...The Arlington Million. I felt strongly about Spirit One\'s chances after the scratch of Sudan and knew he had a big shot to beat the chalk. How to bet? There\'s a 7 horse field and a strong 7-5 favorite in Archipenko. Do i bet $200 win on Spirit One (you collect $2,960) or make a $200 straight exacta ( I collected $6,800). I more than doubled my profit by using a 7-5 shot to run second.
Yes, I\'ll run the risk of watching a Spirit One win and pay 13-1 while an Archipenko runs out and my prime play loses....that day! Over time, I\'ll make more money using the exacta strategy. I think it\'s more about math and probability and the public overplaying the favorite on top in exactas than anything else.
As good as we may be (or think we are), we are going to lose most of our plays. IMO, exotics are the only means of making up for the high percentage of losing bets.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I have no opinion on Pick3s, 4s, 6s etc...but the exactas do tend to be fairly efficient. However, there are times when the favorite looks so darn weak you can leverage your opinion to greater value by excluding it from the place slot also. There are also times when you have a strong negative opinion, but the complexities of the race make it difficult to form a positive opinion on a single horse. You can then spread around a little and feel confident you have value despite not having a high level of confidence on any given horse.
IMO, the choice of pools should NEVER be about how big a score you might make. It should always be about the expected ROI. Typically, since the take is higher for exotic bets, you are better off in the win/place/show pools. To get greater value in the exotics, you really need to have \"two\" value oriented opinions in the same race or series of races. If you do have two value oriented opinions though, you can do MUCH better in exotics.
>>For example, I loved Past the Point in the Woodward, but I knew he couldn\'t beat Curlin at equal weight. I passed the race. One might ask why didn\'t you play the exacta; why?....to collect $40 while my 53-1 shot runs his eyeballs out but inevitably gets beat by a superior animal. <<
Joe,
If I loved the value on Past the Point in the Woodward I would have made a small bet on him to win and a large cold exacta with Curlin on top.
Finding value in the exotics is not limited to eliminating the favorite. If you find a longshot that should be the 2nd or close 3rd choice, but it\'s 50-1 on the board, the exacta combination with the favorite is almost always a good value unless for some reason the favorite is very wildly overbet. IMHO, Curlin was not a good value bet on the win end, but he was no worse than the typical very big odds-on favorite (which tend to outpeform the take by a little).
jbelfior Wrote:
> I won\'t toss the favorite out of my exacta play;
> I\'ll use him in the 2 hole then start looking for
> real value with my key play on top only. If I
> think the favorite can\'t be beat, I don\'t play.
>
> For example, I loved Past the Point in the
> Woodward, but I knew he couldn\'t beat Curlin at
> equal weight. I passed the race. One might ask why
> didn\'t you play the exacta; why?....to collect $40
> while my 53-1 shot runs his eyeballs out but
> inevitably gets beat by a superior animal.
>
>
> Example #2...The Arlington Million. I felt
> strongly about Spirit One\'s chances after the
> scratch of Sudan and knew he had a big shot to
> beat the chalk. How to bet? There\'s a 7 horse
> field and a strong 7-5 favorite in Archipenko. Do
> i bet $200 win on Spirit One (you collect $2,960)
> or make a $200 straight exacta ( I collected
> $6,800). I more than doubled my profit by using a
> 7-5 shot to run second.
>
> Yes, I\'ll run the risk of watching a Spirit One
> win and pay 13-1 while an Archipenko runs out and
> my prime play loses....that day! Over time, I\'ll
> make more money using the exacta strategy. I think
> it\'s more about math and probability and the
> public overplaying the favorite on top in exactas
> than anything else.
>
>
> As good as we may be (or think we are), we are
> going to lose most of our plays. IMO, exotics are
> the only means of making up for the high
> percentage of losing bets.
>
>
>
> Good Luck,
> Joe B.
I don\'t know about this strategy Joe.
You\'re telling me that the favorite will run second half the time?? I can see maybe splitting the bet. $100 to win on Spirit One and a $100 cold exacta. But to put all of your eggs in one basket, hoping the favorite runs second to your 14-1 shot so that you can double your profit?? You would have to be right 50% of the time to see a slightly bigger profit longterm. You can tell me all you want that this strategy works, but the math really doesn\'t add up. Unless I\'m missing something.
As for the Woodward example. Again, I don\'t see the logic here. You say why watch your 53-1 shot run his eyeballs out only to collect $40. Look at it this way....throw out Curlin. You now have a 6 horse field. You wouldn\'t take 19-1 on this horse in a 6 horse field that doesn\'t include Curlin?? The 53-1 odds don\'t matter because he wasn\'t going to win anyway. If you loved this horse as much as you say, 19-1 against the rest of the field sounds like a pretty square price. You don\'t like 19-1 shots?? Thats basically what his \"win\" price was.
I agree exotics are the way to go. But to get nothing on a 13-1 shot because the favorite doesn\'t run second, or to dismiss playing an exacta because the heavy favorite can\'t be beat and you feel the longshot\'s value is diminished....that price was a mirage in the first place. take the generous exacta price and be happy. Yes, 19-1 is generous when put into perspective.
In case you did not notice, the clueless NY State politicians hit the unrepresented and voiceless players with an additional 1% takeout on all bets made at NY tracks.
At a time when the game is hemorrhaging serious players, they took a pint of blood. BRILLIANT!
Mike
http://cristblog.drf.com/crist/
\"As for the winning Beyer Speed Figure of 105, it is completely made up, as is anyone\'s speed figure, sheet number or any other numeric gauge of the only grass race run at Monmouth last Saturday. There\'s simply nothing to compare it to and no context for the raw time. Having said that, it seems like a highly reasonable guess.\"
Any comment on the ability to make a legit figure for the only turf race of the day? If beyers are a complete guess if there is only one race , what are they half-ass guesses if there are two? :)
If you are using pars-- which nobody who wants to be taken seriously does-- then it\'s a guess, because you are just dragging one race back to par based on the winner\'s time. If instead you are a serious figure maker, you are using the past histories of all the horses in the race, which gives you a lot of data points in a race with older horses. Since grass horses are also extremely consistent, and since some of us also factor in ground loss and weight, we are able to be very accurate and get things down to a very narrow range of possible scenarios very quickly. As you will see below with the race in question. There really aren\'t too many ways to look at it-- it ain\'t a guess.
When you have only one grass race on the day, and it\'s 2yo maidens who have not raced on it, and it rained the night before, and they are dark the next day... nightmare.
Likewise, there was this race Chilukki made her debut in...
It seems that all three main fig makers are \"kinda close\"
Beyer@105 is app a TG 1/2
Rags @ 5 is app a TG 1 & 1/2
TG posted(took down?) 2 & 1/2
Not surprised you are a bit slower in this case mainly because you have Shakis generally slower than Beyer and Rags going in.
Mike
Shakis is definitely slower on TG than on Beyers or Rags.
I can\'t find a replay of the Big Brown race, but for a horse that made the lead on the front end, hard to believe Desormeaux gave this horse a 3w/2w ride.
Joe B.
We all have our ways of betting and i am sure you feel what you are doing is best to do.
Have to tell you though, a couple of things.
1. I won\'t sleep nights, if I like 13-1 shots and they win and I don\'t win because I singled him over 1 horse in the exacta and that horse didn\'t run 2nd. I think it is a mortal sin to like a horse that is 10-1 or better and not have a win bet.
2 I am not opining, but am sure I am right, when I say favorites are not just overplayed on top in exactas, but are also overplayed and underlaid in the runner up spot, so I don\'t think that part of your strategy makes sense to me.
Jim
Fkach,
Would absolutely love to see the study you did where heavy odds on favorites beat the takeout and were a winning bet over any reasonable sized sample.
That is absolutely hogwash.
try youtube
jimbo,
I obviously didn\'t say that big odds on favorites are a winning bet. rotflmao
I said they outperform the take.
For example, if the track take is 17%, you will typically lose less than 17% on big odds on favorites and more than 17% on longshots. That bias used to be stronger years ago than it is now, but it\'s still there. The bias also exists in the place pool.
Somebody was nice enough to send the link to the replay of Big Brown\'s race in the Monmouth and unless I am blind, I don\'t see a 3w/2w trip at all. Not sure what angle TG was looking at. Are you sure that the ground loss guy wasn\'t looking at \"Get Serious\" in the first turn?
One post only.The most sophisticated ground measurement computer software overlay(Trakus like) had BB:
Turn one, 2.20 paths wide
Turn two, 1.70 paths wide
The overlay program splits the turns into halves and does an averaging.
Mike
We had him 3/2 first turn, 2 second. What is printed on the sheet is rounded off.
TGJB -
How do you handle things like the half-turn coming out of the chute in the Monmouth?
We have a formula for some of the chutes (like the Belmont ones, where I think we use 2/3 and 1/3, from memory), but really, the ground loss is very slight once you work it out. The difference between having BB 3/2 and 2 on a FULL turn is 1/4 point.