The Match Up: some courses better than others?

[MikeB]

I am working at learning the Match Up Method, and I am posting this here rather than in that discussion forum in hopes of getting as many opinions as possible.

In reading through all of the old posts in the original forum, especially those by RichieP and comments from The Hat, I noticed that they generally seem to prefer tracks other than the majors like NYRA or So. Cal.

That was long ago, and I'm wondering if folks here have found the Match Up method today to work better at some tracks, or some types or classes of tracks, than at others. Thanks for any help.

Mike

[mowens33]

Mike, that’s a very interesting question and I for one can’t answer it since I am fairly new to the match up myself. Maybe I should be paying more attention to that!

My thought is that if you have a field of horses and each horse has at least 5 or 6 (some may say as low as 3) past performances you should be able to use the match up no matter what the track, class, or distance. But I’m sure that everyone has their own personal preference as to which class/distance of race they like to play.

Mike

[MikeB]

The question occurred to me as I was reading an old thread by RichieP in which he was looking at a race from Belmont. Asked about the race, The Hat said something like, I don't play Belmont, but I will take a look at that race.

And I remember a comment from RichieP somewhere around that time (2007?) about The Hat reminding Richie again that he should be playing Delaware. It seems like most of the practice races back then were from smaller tracks like Charles Town and Mountaineer, and very few from places like Belmont or Santa Anita. I just wondered if it was personal taste, or if the method might be more compatible with certain types of tracks or races.

[DaveEdwards]

I was sure that I had read in one of the postings that Jim had said the So. Cal & NY tracks were good for matching, but then again this could be a figment of my imagination!

I've certainly no idea which post I read it on either!

[GeorgeC5614]

I personally have a better hit rate finding the winners at the lower level tracks like Parx and Mountaineer. I can't really explain it, but at the higher level tracks I seem to come up with the Place horse many more times than the winner.

I do remember in the old Hat Check threads they did do a Belmont card, and a Saratoga card. I did notice that most of the practice races were from the lower level tracks though. It may just be that the spot plays Richie was working on occurred more often at these tracks.

[MikeB]

Another issue here I don't remember seeing discussed is odds. Perhaps Jim and Richie found that the horses that they picked using the Match Up were more likely to be playable at smaller tracks. I have been picking a lot of winners at places like Belmont and Santa Anita lately that I won't bet because of very low odds.

[chuckg]

MikeB,

The "Patience" thread mentioned 2 to 1 for spot plays.
http:// (http://http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3461)paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3461 (http://http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3461)

I'll see if I can find some others.

[MikeB]

MikeB,

The "Patience" thread mentioned 2 to 1 for spot plays.

I have always felt comfortable using Doc's target of 5/2 as my starting point. A horse has to look exceptionally strong for me to go under that. Especially since whenever I play a 2/1 shot, it goes to 8/5 after the gate pops. :(

What I am curious about is whether horses picked using the match up (or more precisely, horses picked by me using the match up) would tend to have better odds on average at smaller tracks than at the big ones. I have to figure that out for me, but was just wondering if anyone else noticed a pattern for their own picks.

[Mark]

The reference to odds I am familiar with was in an exchange between Richie P and Jim. He would accept 3/2 as the lowest odds.

Since the adjustments to first fraction times and such were mental and based on the experience playing various tracks, tracks played frequently were those that "The Hat" knew. Richie found tracks in the evening as I guess he worked during the day and he tended to play tracks that were a part of a circuit. If you have played MNR you know that the shippers are minimal with the occasional PID shipper. DeD and EVD tend to move back and forth.
It is easier to handicap races that don't have a great many shippers.
I personally play any and all tracks although I don't care much for 4 1/2f races and there is always a learning curve initially. I have looked at some Thistledown races lately and they have shippers coming from Florida as well as other winter tracks such as TP, it takes a few days to form an initial opinion as to the validity of the 3 year best track records and what to expect in the 2nd calls. The larger the difference between 3 year best track records, the more the 2nd call has to be adjusted. I usually start at about 75%.
As a general rule you will always get better prices with the Match Up because you are ignoring the Speed Figures. When you land on a horse that also has the best recent Speed Figures, they usually are not bettable.

[wilbur porter]

The Hat used some of the major tracks in his examples of the Match Up - such as Saratoga in his book "The Match Up" and Oaklawn in the Red Manual. I might suspect that he didn't like to handicap at Belmont too much perhaps as they overbook and then scratch so many runners. Parx, Monmouth and Delaware seem seem horrible for the Match UP because of too many last minute scratches. The short fields = < 2-1 odds a lot. I look for good weather but California is chalkland for me.
I don't know that it works better at some tracks than others. If anything I prefer the minor tracks as it seems to me that sometimes the track secretaries fudge the odds a bit from time to time and the crowd misses it.

[RichieP]

Good morning everyone!

When I was deep into betting and working races constantly my favorite tracks (circuits) were:
Charlestown (any 6.5f 2 turn CT runner who could run a 23.0 first fraction was FAST
Mountaineer - FE shippers ran similar times to MNR which made for easy matching
Sunland
Philly
Evd,Lad,Ded,FG
Hawthorne

I'd look at the "majors" but had issues with stuff like the inner dirt at Aqu. The winds there in the winter would throw times off so much it got in my head in a real negative way so I left it alone.

I stopped looking at ML odds after working a lot of races with Jim(he told me "just match em up Rich they don't know what odds they are supposed to be!") after I lost a few because of odds etc.

Jim matched all tracks and one morning LeRoi (Mrs. "Hat")told me he was on a mission that afternoon at Belmont. I spoke with Jim after he looked at the card and except for one race he swept the card with double digit winners and everything!

Well off to work now! Take care and I hope this helps in some way.
Richie

[Hoof 11]

Good morning everyone!

I stopped looking at ML odds after working a lot of races with Jim(he told me "just match em up Rich they don't know what odds they are supposed to be!") after I lost a few because of odds etc.

Richie

That is some sound advice, never let the ML odds effect your decision making. It doesn't matter if the horse is 50/1 or 8/5, the only time you should be paying attention to the odds is 2 minutes to post time. Do you really think the racing secretary at any given track is perfect? Not likely...

The last racing secretary at Woodbine wasn't the sharpest at setting the ML, and left gifts on the table on a regular basis. Stu Slagle (i hope i spelled that correctly) is the new racing secretary at Woodbine, and so far i'm not impressed. His ML odds are bang on for the most part, and it might be tough sleddin this year when looking for value.

As well, i have always asked myself this question, do you think a horse knows that it's running in a Grade 1 Stakes race, or a $10K Claiming race?

[noddub62]

Good to hear from Mr. Richie!

While not a matcher I will add that using conventional RDSS and playing the cheaper tracks as you mentioned I have much better success with more double digits payouts.

Nice to see you didn't loose how to post on this site dude! We all miss your posts.

The best to you and Karen,

Budman

[wilbur porter]

Richie's past posts about Evangeline and Delta Downs are revelatory in regards to OTE profits and some longshots via the Match Up...particularly Delta Downs in November and December before things tighten a bit. Lately Mountaineer and Hawthorne have suffered from very small fields. Overnight I revisited some old Charlestown data files. I had never thought to use the Match Up there. It seems to be quite accurate. Thanks again to Richie!

[RichieP]

Richie's past posts about Evangeline and Delta Downs are revelatory in regards to OTE profits and some longshots via the Match Up...particularly Delta Downs in November and December before things tighten a bit. Lately Mountaineer and Hawthorne have suffered from very small fields. Overnight I revisited some old Charlestown data files. I had never thought to use the Match Up there. It seems to be quite accurate. Thanks again to Richie!

Hi Wilbur,
Regarding Ct races:
Because their 6.5 and 7f races are around 2 turns consider other tracks 2 turn routes as comparable through the 6f portions of those races! Match em up and see what shakes out man.

Good matching!
Richie

[DaveEdwards]

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts Richie.

[wilbur porter]

Thank you very much for your suggestion Richie. I didn't want to interrupt your post displayed on the main forum page. It seemed really valuable. I have followed your suggestion and have matched up and watched a few dozen races for the distances indicated as well as the short two turn tracks Canadian tracks. So far the results seem more impressive than at the regular tracks. The Match Up easily focuses on the most likely winners and readily eliminates those horses that can't handle the first turn, often the favorites. It also shows the position of the horse most likely to catch the early. I am particularly impressed by it's ability to find OTE longshots at Delta and how they easily tuck in. I will spend my next week recording a large sample of picks and results for as many races as possible at each track. Again, a most heartfelt thanks! Yes, by changing the way I look at things, the things themselves seem to have changed. It's eye-opening!

[Old Arkie Gal]

I am working at learning the Match Up Method, and I am posting this here rather than in that discussion forum in hopes of getting as many opinions as possible.

In reading through all of the old posts in the original forum, especially those by RichieP and comments from The Hat, I noticed that they generally seem to prefer tracks other than the majors like NYRA or So. Cal.

That was long ago, and I'm wondering if folks here have found the Match Up method today to work better at some tracks, or some types or classes of tracks, than at others. Thanks for any help.

Mike

I don't use the Match Up except when I use a modified Match Up if I have have a few E7 Or E8s in a race. Even then I rely totally on RDSS for my final contenders. What I do remember Jim saying was that he liked cheap speed and you find cheap speed at cheap tracks. I think at higher class tracks you find horses whose energy is more evenly distributed and maybe when you have cheap speed it is easier to identify and match up horses who are on the lead at the first and second fractions???I admire the ability of those of you who can use the art of the Match Up, well the skill too.

[Old Arkie Gal]

Addendum. Maybe Jim didn't like cheap speed, Just need to be wary of it.