Back in March, I decided to scrap my then current handicapping approach and make a serious effort to learn the Match-Up. It’s been an interesting six months, with mixed success. I did a little less than breakeven in April and May, lost 50 cents out of every dollar bet in June and July (ouch!), broke even in August, and had a profitable September (sigh of relief!). It’s been quite a roller coaster, and I thought I would share some of the things that have been working for me, and whine about some of the problems I am still having. Comments are welcome and encouraged. I am not a Match-Up expert, and I hope that some of the more experienced among us will give us the benefit of their experience, and correct any misconceptions I might have.
I’m in this for the long haul. After six months, I have only scratched the surface. The deeper I get into the Match-Up, the more I see how much I don’t know. The one thing I know for sure is that the Match-Up is the best approach to handicapping I have ever tried. For the first time, I feel as though I can see how a race will unfold before it is run, at least some of the time.
What follows are the things that have made the deepest impressions since I started using the Match-Up.
1. The thing that recurs most frequently in my notes is something Richie brought up in the following post:
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpos...3&postcount=19
Scroll down to the section beginning with the word “POSITIONING:”
“We want to bet the horse that is closest to the lead positionally factoring in pace of race - Jim Bradshaw”
Of all the things in my notes, this item appears the most frequently. Everything else being equal, betting the horse that runs closest to the front against the fastest pace usually wins. When I went through my notes to prepare this post, I was surprised to see this come up in race after race. Read the post linked to above and study the examples. It’s REALLY important.
2. Don’t go back and review losing races. Richie discusses this here:
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1559
I disregarded this advice, which I believe is responsible for my poor showing in June and July. The teachings in the Hat Check forum were clear, and I was confident applying them. Then I made the mistake of reviewing the races where I lost bets. Suddenly, instead of being clear, the teachings of Jim Bradshaw and RichieP were fuzzy, and I was unsure of how to apply them. I agonized over my decisions and second-guessed myself.
I really didn’t know how big a mistake this was until I made it. Learn from me: do not review your losing races. It will cost you big bucks.
3. The tandem race concept is difficult for me. My use of tandems is still rudimentary. For example, let’s say Horse A and Horse B ran in a tandem race. If Horse A finished 2nd, 2 lengths back, and Horse B finished 3rd, 3 lengths back, I won’t eliminate Horse B. When two horses finish that close together, my experience has been that I have bet against too many winners by eliminating the 2nd best horse.
On the other hand, if Horse B finished 6th by 7 lengths, or last by 15 lengths, you can eliminate him in favor of Horse A, even if Horse B looks better.
One situation that baffles me is when Horse A finished way ahead of Horse B in one tandem, while Horse B soundly beat Horse A in another. I have no idea what to do in cases like this. I usually ignore the tandem. My gut feeling is that this isn’t the right thing to do, but I’m flummoxed by this situation.
Frankly, most of the time I ignore tandems. I just don’t know what to do with them.
Am I making this more difficult than it really is? Is the tandem concept really deceptively simple? Any help with Tandem Races would be greatly appreciated.
4. Lone Early is a powerful concept. When I handicap, my first step is to determine each horse’s running style. When I see only one early horse in a race, I stop handicapping and bet him. They don’t always win, but they win often enough. Sometimes, the crowd also likes the lone early horse, and he goes off at 2-5. I follow Richie’s rule and never bet horses at less than 3-2 odds. But sometimes a lone early horse doesn’t look so good, and the crowd favors a closer whose form looks better. This is your opportunity to crush. The crowd’s closer may win, but the high-odds lone early horse wins frequently enough to make this a very profitable play.
Lone early is a spot play. It may sound simplistic. Additional handicapping should be necessary, shouldn’t it? My experience has been that I have lost many a bet by settling on a strong looking closer instead of a weak looking lone early horse, only to see the lone early wire the field at double-digit odds. I finally decided to bet the lone early horse no matter what, and I have been happy with the results. Jim Bradshaw discusses this concept in the beginning of the following thread:
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1636
Pay attention to scratches. Sometimes one or two early horses will be scratched, leaving only one early horse. This changes everything and you have to re-think the race. Or an unplayable race may be made playable. For me, it’s a no-brainer. I bet the lone early horse every time.
5. The thing that has contributed most to my improved play in September is that I have stopped trying to figure out a horse’s current form. Over the last six months, I have occasionally eliminated horses that have a competitive line five or six races back, but have not run so well since. Or, I have eliminated horses making their return to the track after long layoffs. Their races prior to the layoffs would make them competitors in today’s race, but since they have been away for 10 months, I assumed that they will be out of racing shape. Enough of these horses surprised me that I felt a change in strategy was necessary.
The answer was to be found in the following very short thread:
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1634
The Hat says to look at all of a horse's lines, and that's what I have started doing. I forget about trying to figure out a horse’s current form. If he has competitive lines in anywhere in his PPs, he’s a contender, subject to the following guidelines:
First, if the horse is running regularly, and doesn’t have a long layoff (I define “long layoff” as six months to a year or more) in his record, all of his lines are open. Even if his only good lines are the 9th and 10th races listed in the PPs, I’ll use those lines to handicap. As long as he has been racing every month or so, every line in his PPs is usable. And I’m very liberal in my definition of “every month or so.” If he’s raced nine or ten times in the last year and a half, that’s good enough for me.
Second, if a horse has only one stand-out line among the 10 in his PPs, I ignore it unless it was recent, one or two races back. I like to see that he is capable of running to that line on a recurring basis. One good running line might be a fluke. Two or more lines confirm that the horse’s is really that good.
Third, if the horse had a long layoff, how has he done in the races since he came back? If he was away for a year, but has been racing as well after the layoff as he did before, I’ll look at all of the lines in his PPs. Sometimes, however, the horse isn’t the same when he comes back. If he was competitive in his races before the layoff, then takes a year off, and in his races since his return he’s been finishing 20 lengths back, I’ll disregard the pre-layoff races and throw the horse out. I assume he suffered a permanent injury and is no longer the same horse.
I’ve seen similar situations as a result of a change in trainer. The horse was running well. Then he was claimed, or the owner transferred him to another barn. There is no layoff. In his races for the new trainer he’s been finishing in the back of the pack, 15 or 20 lengths behind the leader. I won’t use the races under the old trainer for my handicapping. I assume that the new trainer ruined him.
Last but not least, if this is the horse's first race back after a one year layoff, I assume he’ll run back to his pre-layoff form. I pretend the layoff didn’t happen and all of his races are usable for handicapping. In order for me to assume he has gone bad, he has to show over a few races that he can’t run anymore.
6. When I first started using the Match-Up, I played every race. It was a deliberate decision. Since the Match-Up was an approach totally different from anything I had tried before, I wanted to learn through experience what races I should avoid.
This is what I learned. If I have trouble settling on a horse, I pass. For example, let’s say I have settled on Horse A, B and C as contenders. On closer examination, I like Horse A best, but then change my mind when I look at Horse B. Then, when I look at Horse C, I like him best until I go back to Horse A and change my mind again. If I find myself going back and forth between horses, unable to make up my mind and narrow the competitors to one or two horses, I’ll pass. If I can reduce the field to two contenders, I’ll play them both if the odds are good. If one horse’s odds are too low, but the other horse’s odds are generous, I’ll play the horse with the higher odds. But if I find myself struggling with 3 or more contenders, I pass. I tend to waste too much time when there are several closely matched contenders. There are other races to play, so I move on.
I also pass any race where I can’t figure out which horse will take the lead. When there are no early or early-pressers in a race, I don’t bother playing it. To me, it becomes a crap shoot. I need to see at least one horse that will try for the lead.
7. One of my major problem areas is comparing horses that have run at different tracks. I usually play the NYRA tracks and several others in the northeast. Over time, I am developing a feel for the NYRA tracks, Philadelphia, Delaware, Monmouth, Laurel and Finger Lakes. These tracks all run more or less the same except for Monmouth, which is faster than all the others, and the Aqueduct Inner Dirt track, which is slower. If a Delaware horse is shipping into Belmont, and doesn’t have any Belmont running lines, I’ll match him with the other horses, but with fear and trembling. Delaware’s surface is slightly faster than Belmont’s, I think. But I’m not sure, and my confidence is shaky. In the spring, horses are shipped from Florida to Aqueduct. I’m not sure about the Florida tracks, and I don’t know what mental adjustments I must make to the Florida lines. What do I do when a horse from Presque Isle Downs ships to Finger Lakes? I have no idea. I can go on and on with other examples.
The track-to-track comparison chart that I’ve seen recommended isn’t very helpful and I stopped using it. This is a problem that only time and lots of practice will overcome. I’m feeling more comfortable with some tracks, but others leave me totally baffled. If there are too many horses that have not run at the track I am playing, I’ll pass the race.
8. My biggest problem area is figuring out the running styles of certain horses. The Hat taught that running styles should be based on winning races, and with some horses it’s easy. All of their wins were accomplished using one style. But you will frequently see a horse with two winning lines, one going early, and another four or five lines below run sustained. Is he an early or sustained horse? As a guideline, I follow The Hat’s advice here:
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthr...=8624#post8624
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthr...=8626#post8626
I’ll also look at the context. If the horse usually goes for the lead, I’ll assume that he runs early and the sustained win was just a fluke. Or if a horse has won three races early and one race sustained, I’ll assume the sustained race was an anomaly and the horse’s running style is early. But I don’t have a lot of confidence in these approaches. If I am having trouble determining the running styles of several horses in a race, I’ll just pass.
9. The concept of a horse’s comfort zone was totally new to me when I started with the Match-Up, and it really works. If all of the wins in Horse A’s PPs occurred only when he got a two length lead by the first call, I won’t bet on him if Horse B can press him. This goes even if Horse A is clearly the better horse. Horse B may fold up and stop after the second call, but Horse A will do the same if he can’t get his customary two length lead.
It also works the other way around. If an otherwise mediocre early horse will be able to get into his comfort zone, I’ll bet him. He might look beatable on paper, but if PPs show that he wins with a two length lead, and he will be able to get that today, I’ll make the bet. I have found the “comfort zone” concept to be very reliable (although, like everything else, it doesn’t work every time).
----------------------------------------------------
I have listed the areas and concepts that have worked best for me, and the areas causing me the most difficulty. Whether you agree or disagree with me, please comment. If I’m on the wrong track, please let me know.
I hope you will find this review helpful.
Best regards,
Marc