Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch44
Hello Bill,
The Monkey is doing OK . Been playing contests and adjusting to those scenarios. Today finished 7th of 115. 3 of the 4 that beat me all had a cap horse, good for $64.00. It came in the 7th at Aqu. # 8 that actually paid $123.50 26.20, don't know how anyone picked that one but they did.Finished 6th in another and 255 of 1,898 against all those on the tour.
So many years of betting two horses its an adjustment along with contest rules. Today had 4 winners and a place of 12 races. These guys generally buy two entries and play all longshots on one and regular on another. If they hit a long shot early they bet favorites to pad their lead. I've only been playing one entry and just picking winners. Maybe next time I'll change and go for all longshots, they seem to be beating me with it.
Bill hope your well and also Dad both health wise and with the horses.
Mitch44
|
There’s a lot of game theory involved in contest play. The players that had that cap horse at Aqueduct today were either luckboxing it because they were playing from way behind, or decided that a cheap claiming sprint was the right place to go high when others figured to eat chalk or obvious runners. Handicapping the flow of a contest and the contest standings is as big of a deal as handicapping the horses themselves. It also helps to have situational knowledge when reading the PPs, as familiarity with certain jocks/trainers in certain scenarios or horse patterns could lend itself to a gut feeling that the RDSS number crunching isn’t going to provide you. A few weeks ago in a cheap maiden claimer route at Tampa, I came upon a Rick Creel trained runner ridden by veteran journeyman Gary Wales. I knew from experience that both Creel and Wales have been known to slip a bomb through the backdoor with little to no warning. But with only one entry, I chose a more obvious runner from my handicapping. You can pretty much guess what the final outcome was.