Originally Posted by Because I Can Jim
(Post 93190)
FTL,
You wrote in a previuos post, " I either have “1 pick” or I have “0 picks”. And a “1 pick” just doesn’t come along in every race. On average, I may actually bet one race in a nine or ten race card."
Please don't take this question out of context.....
It has nothing to do with posting races before or after the fact.
I am aware of some successful handicappers who wager on only one horse to win, you being one of them.
Imagine with me if you will, you are sitting there having handicapping a card. How do you determine that you will pass a race or more importantly, what goes through your mind/thought process that you will decide to wager on this one horse in this one race?
Before you answer, please think about my (and others) paradigm.
First, pass a race with too many FTS.
Second, confused about a race - pass.
Although I do play maiden races, when appropriate for me, even with FTS, I would add to your short list, "maidens on the turf". If the reasoning is not intially clear, I'll be happy to have a more detailed discussion about it.
Third, the Doc inundated me with two horse wagering (while I know of others such as yourself who wager on only one horse to win). There is a win% and average mutuel and in doing the math would determine whther or not to pass or play a race.
LIke you and others, when I started with the Sartin Methodology I, too, played two horses per race. How can you hope to effectively grasp the full concept of a methodoloogy if you don't follow it's structure?
Having been a handicapper for many years before finding the methodology, I was already a one horse win bettor and found it difficult to play two horses per race. Nevertheless, I followed the betting guidelines.
Instead of going on with the story, I'll just say that if playing two horses per race fits your mindset, then that is the right approach for you.
Fourth, I am almost robotic. I handicap a race. Decide upon two and if the odds warrant based upon my wagering critieria, I either make the wager or I pass. What is different with this from the third point is that I've done the handicapping and almost "take it for granted" that this race will be wagered on given the odds just because I did the work and have horses. (I hope that wasn't confusing because it is a mental aspect I'm trying to convey.)
Nope. That was perfect. As I have mentioned many times, I am an "old timer". I started in the days when there was a "daily double" and after that it was strictly WIN, PLACE or SHOW.
Also in those days, there was no such thing as a computer, interenet, downloading, on line betting and etc. You went to whichever track was closest for you and bet the 9 race card being offered. It didn't matter what the races were like, what were you goinbg to do, travel a couple of hours in either direction and then pass every race?? (lol) NO! You dug in to each and every race, trying as best as you could to find the winner. Or, at least, some horse to bet on. Sounds like what you are doing, yeah?
Now here is one of the things that makes your question difficult to answer.
"WHY" are you betting the horses you end up betting?
"HOW" are you making the determination to bet those horses?
"HOW" confident are you that one of your two horses will win the race, and..
"WHY" are you confident?
I apologize in adavance here, but I have also read your post on "hides", but have yet to post any answer there.
So, are you "hiding" low priced horses just for the sake of hiding them because they are short priced and then "wagercapping" what is left?
I'm sorry. I'm getting off the subject. I'll get back to that later.
With these as my paradigm, I am "looking to" wager on a lot more races than you and not just because I am wagering on two horse instead of one. If that was the case, with my mindset, I would be wagering on every race (with odds criteria) just because I did the work and can point to a horse.
Like I said above. :)
So, this brings me back to my original question if you can answer it "what goes through your mind/thought process that you will decide to wager on this one horse in this one race?" You have done the work. You see the odds. What is it that you think about that causes you to wager on race 4 as opposed to race 5?
As I'm sure you are already aware, the next race we look at will be unique unto itself. There has never been one like it and there will never be another like it. So although every race will end up with top rankings, top total energy and all the rest, and may look the same by the numbers, they are not. So, in short, that is the reason there is a difference between race 4 and race 5.
I hope I am making myself clear in the question. I know it is a grey area, but, if you can. I sit a feeling of confidence due to experience? Is it something that shows up in your handicapping the would cause you to say I don't like this race? Hopefully you see what I am getting at.
Naturally experience plays a large part in what I do. How could it not? I've been at it for over 47 years! Here's an example.
I "print" my own racing form. It is "ordered" in a particular way, not by post position as the racing form would have it. Like Ted's program, lines are also colored for certain factors. I don't think it is any secret that I favor early type horses. I mean, come on, my screen name is For The Lead! That was not accidental. My print program prints a vertical line between the 2nd call and stretch call. By doing this, it is easy to look right down the first two calls for every horse, and like I said, my lines are colored, so it is real easy for me to see which are the early types and which are not. If I don't see any early types, I know that probably isn't a race in which I would have an interest. Some might say,"hey, I picked lines for that race and there is an early horse in F1 on the segments screen!" Yep, they sure are correct. There would be. In fact, you could fill a race with stone cold, come from dead last closers, and after you pick lines for the horses, you would have what appears to be an early horse on the F1 panel of the segments screen. Well, hey, some horse has to go to the lead. Isn't that good enough? Not exactly, but good luck with that anyway. Moving on...
I guess I would say that betting odds is one of the major reasons for betting or passing a race. I really don't mean to pick at a wound here, but, I think one of the reasons there are people who don't like the fact that I post races after they have been run, is the fact that the winners always pay good prices. That is not by accident. If I don't get a minimum of 4//1 on a horse I want to play...I pass. WHY? Like everybody else, I lose races, so I want 4/1 as my minimum in order to keep a productive ROI.
Let's take 20 races, just because that is a Sartin cycle. "ON AVERAGE", can we expect 6 to 7 of those races to be won by the favorite? YES. How about the 2nd choices, which are usually 5/2 or less, especially in this time of short fields? Would you say they account for another 4 or 5 winners? Then there is the gap between 3/1 and 7/2. Thery're going to account for a few more winners. So what do I have left, 6 races? And I still have to pick the right horse. It's not easy.
You mentioned "confidence". That plays a big part in the bet or pass decision. The best I can give you here is, being able to see the race play out ahead of time. There was one member here that sought my advice. I use to tell him all the time,"READ THE PP's", from the bottom up! Learn how the horse got here today. I understand this is not part of the methodology, but I liken it to Tom Brohamer when he joined P.I.R.C.O. Did he for get all that he learned and knew from previous experience? I don't think so. I think it is in the Paceline Manual that they say he picked the greatest number of winners of all the teaching members.
Ok, an example. Let's take a 1 mile race at a track with a 1 mile oval (which is most of the tracks in the country). We have a field of 10. You enter the lines for your contenders or the entire field or however you do it. You find that the two best horses on F1 are the #2 and #10 horses, and they appear to be equal in ability. Are they? No! With the race being 1 mile on a 1 mile oval, the #10 horse better be considerably faster so it can get out of the gate and get over to the rail. Remember, in order to do that it must cross over in front of all the horses inside it, WITHOUT interfering with any of them. Meanwhile, the #2 horse just has to come out of the gate and scoot right along the rail. There are advantages and disadvantages based on distance and post position and on the track where the race is being run. Thoroughbreds are not quarter horses. They do not run in a straight line down the home stretch. They run around turns, so in some cases, their post position can be the difference between winning and losing.
There is just too much to say and too many possible circumstances to possibly articulate here. I posted a thread in the teaching area called "Bill V goes the extra mile". Bill did a very good job on that race. He looked up the previous race on a horse to see how that field fit together, to see the match up of that race and its' effect on the horses in the race. Once knowing that, Bill was then able to look at a particular horse in today's race and see if today's match up was similar or different in a way that would benefit his horse of interest. It did benefit his horse and Bill got a winner as a result of his work. This was great work on Bill's part. Look, what I'm trying to say is, there are many reason to pass or play. Many times, the reasons are more than just the numbers. This may not seem to be an answer to your question, but it is. Work like Bill's was the determining factor in playing or passing the race. Armed with additional information, Bill was "confident" in his choice of horse to play.
Determining whether or not the favorite is valid or not is another reason to play or pass. If I think I can't beat the favorite, why play? I pass instead.
You mentioned "confusion". I'm not sure what your definition of confusion is, but if you are confused aboout a race, how can you play it? There are times when I can't make heads or tails of a field. For me, that is a good enough reason to pass. I want to be able to have a clear vision of how the race will run.
I guess another way to put it is, most people look for a reason "to bet" a race. I look for reasons "NOT TO BET". If I can't find any reason not to bet the race, then I bet it, as long as I am getting the odds I want. What that means is, I have found a horse I believe will win the race and I can't find a reason for any other horse in the race to beat my horse.
I hope you can put together what I have said here, make heads or tails of it, and hopefully somewhere in there find at least some part of an answer to your question.
Thanks in advance :)
Jim
|
