Limits of the Methodology?/ Cheap races
 

I have been a practioner of the Methodology, off and on, for almost twenty years, and found it very effective in most racing situations. However some recent experiences have reminded me of some perennial problems I've had with cheaper races - say 10k and below.

Many years ago, in the only conversation I've ever had with Tom Brohamer, I mentioned my enthusiasm for the higher mutuels of cheap races to him, and his reponse was, 'Yeah, the prices can be great, but look how erratic they are.' He went on to say that although the Methodology could be used on such races, the results were often much less predictable than those with better stock, and said that he himself was cautious about playing them.

I've generally found this to be true, and have also come to believe that in races of this kind, the physical condition of the horse is really more relevant than any information to be found in the pace figures. And also, for the same reason, I've come to believe that local players and insiders have an edge over those playing off-site.

For these reasons, I've played few of these races over the years, and since I play mostly turf, this isn't usually a problem. But due to the lack of grass racing at this time of year, I tried my hand at a number of cheap dirt races, and the results were so bad, I had to laugh at myself for forgetting Brohamer's words.

Don't get me wrong - I know some handicappers who do very well with cheap races - but the methods they use tend to involve trainers and have nothing to do with pace or even speed figures.

I probably won't be playing these races again anytime soon, but I would appreciate hearing from anyone who does successfully use the Methodology to handicap them.

Cheers,

B Jennet

cheaper races and the methodology (continued)
 

Of course you're absolutely correct about the cheaper races, it gets even more chaotic when you're handicapping, dare I say it, lesser tracks? Here the physical condition of the horses is a primary concern; more often than not, all we can do is guess about the state of their health. You're aware of this, I'm aware of it, and it's likely everyone on this site knows of it; the "new fans" race tracks are courting are kept in the dark! In fairness to those "new fans" management should reserve a stall in the starting gate for the horse ambulance, it might ignite their curiosity.

It's to easy for me to fire cheap shots, at cheap horses, running at secondary venues. The economics of the game are such that horses are generally run where they can try to earn enough to pay for their oats. And, you're also correct, some handicappers experience success using other approaches.

My concern is with those races at the better tracks. Rather than think of them as cheaper, I catagorize them as the types of races I don't consider; and of course I do miss some good opportunities that look so clear in retrospect, it happens. But I do retain my equilibrium. I believe these races are the "farm teams" where our future cheap claimers develop their craft. They are for me in order of preference. Maiden claimers, non winners of two lifetime, talking claimers here, not preliminary allowance conditions, non winners of a race for specific period of time (often 1 year) and my favorite, because I find them, for whatever reason, the most vexing - State Bred races. It's my list and it works for me.

So if I work two tracks, and eliminate those 'types' of races, I'm left with six, possibly, seven races to consider. For me that's a full load. The best thing about this approach is that I come to those six or seven races with an uncontaminated attitude; I've not wasted energy and emotional currency trying to guess which of the combatants can negotiate the oval without falling apart. This a variable that I can usually waltz aroung when I stay with my six or seven races.

Though I've not responded to your querry directly to "hear" from practioneers who are applying the methodology to the situation you describe, I have, for the moment, found a way around it.

Regards,
Chris

As Brohamer states

The limitations are in the horses being evaluated and not in the methodology.

Cheap tracks have cheap horses.

Good tracks have some cheap races with cheap horses.

Personally, I don't see a great deal of distinction between them.

I have two friends who own stock which race at MNR and CT. They almost never know how their respective horses will run and neither do their trainers.
And I've never seen either of them bet more than $20 to win on any of these nags. One of these fellows also owns horses which race at CD and AP. He once bid seven figures for a horse at the Fasig auction. So, he's not afraid of money. That $20 limit should tell you something.

Just for hell of it I once again exercised a lesson in futility when I got T-Graph for MNR last Tuesday. The horses there remind me of Khan from Star Trek, "I spit at the patterns."

My experience with any of the Sartin programs at these tracks has been just as unproductive...a complete waste of time, effort and money.

If you think of them as strictly entertainment and are out to have a good time you'll do fine.

To think you can beat them...well, to me that seems delusional.

The only consistent (which is really wishful thinking) way to win cheap races is to have inside information or use a good Ouija board. As always, your mileage may vary.

No past performance is guaranteed, be it a Grade 1 ability horse or a Cheap Claimer ability horse, however, the probability of Grade 1 ability horse running similar races back to back is a lot higher than the Cheap Claimer.

The lesser ability the horse, the more erractic his/her performances can become, making it more difficult to evaluate horses and find the true contenders in todays race.

This is why you see millions of dollars bet on say BC races and only a few hundred dollars bet on the Cheap races

Ditto Charlie D and that's why I personally have to wagercap. But I love cheap horses in cheap races because you can better uncover the double digit payoffs. RDSS works great, great, great in this venue.

Budman

The programs are great tools, but like any program, input garbage and you will get garbage out

This is why the contender selection part is so important


There is some good stuff about contender selection on the Las Vegas and Lets Get serious tapes imo and well woth listening to if you already have not

Here's an exmple

On Earlier Bel, GP runs the 8 was a contender here, however, those Bel,GP runs may not apply in todays Match Up and by including the 8, it messes up the read outs you as you can see

It's easier to say than do, but finding and using the true contenders for todays Match Up is the key to success

I have two friends who own stock which race at MNR and CT. They almost never know how their respective horses will run and neither do their trainers.



They better find themselves new trainers

Paul Nicholls is top National Hunt trainer, he has 3 horses entered in Gold Cup next week at Cheltenham

He can't tell us which will win

K Fallon, a World Class Jockey stated he would prefer to be riding Soldier of Fortune to his mount Dylan Thomas in 2007 Arc because of the ground conditions

He would have ended up on the losing horse and not a winning Arc horse if he had got his preference


The point - the majority of trainers/jockeys don't have clue about handicapping a race and the result of this is, the majority of horses have more losses to thier names than wins