My 20-race cycle (9/6-9/11)
 

Decided to hunker down and complete a 20-race cycle, and the results were not pretty:

Attachment 47158

I used a best of last three comparable strategy, trying to avoid off track lines and projection/extraction whenever possible. Since some tracks are very tote sensitive at or near post time, the "off" odds were sometimes below my 5/2 minimum, which is beyond my control when trying to beat the bell (which in simulcast land on a computer, can sometimes be 30-60 seconds behind).

I tried avoiding very short fields whenever possible, but I found it tough to abide by that guideline. Also, the last two days have been water-logged, and while I probably should have avoided cycle play, I wanted to complete the cycle, thus, I took what Mother Nature gave me.

My initial observations: The "wagercapping" principle of hiding the top tier low odds horse (less than $7) did net 3 of "wins" from Tier 2, but nothing monumental, as my mutuels from high to low were 6-1, 7/2, and 2-1. When I did hide short odds top tier runners in races that I bet, they did not come back to win at high percentage. However, I had trouble connecting with the right horses, as I netted no "wins" in Tiers 1, 3, 4, and 5.

In retrospect, I probably should have passed more races this cycle, as the low odds runners that I hid and that got beat, did not open the race up to many price horses.

I am encouraged by the fact that the winner was within the top 5 tiers in 13 of 16 races bet, but frustrated that I had trouble connecting. The "losses" (horses outside my top 5 tiers) were minimal, so my contenders in general were good.

I'll digest this for a short while, review some FU's and really get better acquainted with Doc's 1998 tapes. In future, I will limit my cycles to "normal" tracks, and perhaps only to 1-2 tracks. Playing 9 different tracks within the cycle was overkill, and didn't really afford me a chance to find any particular bias or supporting corollary. Then again, playing off tracks the past two days didn't help either.

Tim looks like you are on the right track. As for myself if I believe the low price fav is legit,
rather then hide it, I look to see if there is any money to be made using the horse in the exacta or daily double or maybe a p3 if the other 2 legs contain weak Favs. If not I pass.
Tim

Jeebs:

A few observations:

1. Be careful when playing such low level tracks as FL and TDN. They have a horse population that is made up of a lot of "cripples" -- that is, horses that have never run a "par" for the race they are running today. Many do not have any sort of "form" cycle since most of the time they are very "ouchy". Most can only run a good race if they feel "good" today, legally or illegally. Also, the low purses at such tracks encourage cheating at times so the trainers and jockeys can pay the bills.

2. The most important decision you can make when handicapping a race is whether the favorite is legit, vulnerable, or a false favorite. Currently, favorites win around 40% of races, and their prices are depressed by the large bettors looking for rebates. In my discussions with Ted, the "hide" concept is out of date. You need to either follow LT1's advice when dealing with a legit favorite, or pass the race.

3. Spend more time constructing your wagers as a function of the viability of the favorite (and also maybe the second favorite). If your time is limited, let the machine pick your pacelines, and use the Rx screen to include decision variables that are not paceline sensitive to help you sort our contenders and structure your bets.

4. Off-tracks and races taken off the turf add additional variables to an already complex decision process. Try a 20 race cycle eliminating these races and the advice in #1-3 above before being too hard on youself.

Hope this helps.

Richard

In watching what you guys do can I ask if the do you use the Segment section? The math is a little tougher but I not that a few hidden gems are there.

Jeebs, are these races from RDSS 11 Or?

I used RDSS, yes.

Mindset
 

Jeebs/Navyvet:

Please don't forget the mindset needed to truly make $ betting horses. We are not looking to pick winners. If you want to pick winners, there is nothing better than the tote board, since favorites currently win close to 40% of the time. In fact, if you limit the subset to favorites going off less than even money, you will hit close to 50%. But here is the catch: you will lose $.

Instead, look at this as a game of probability versus payout. Every horse has some finite chance to win. By selecting "win contenders" we are trying to reduce the workload and narrow the field. If the favorite is legit, win bets are probably a pass since most cannot compete with the implied lower takeout the large bettors receive via substantial rebates.

You can only earn $ in the 60% or so races where the favorite is vulnerable, or even better, is false and likely to run out of the money. This is where one's efforts should be focused: which 1 or 2 (or sometimes even 3) horses can beat the favorite. At a minimum, if you cannot classify the favorite as vulnerable, you need to find at least 1 horse going off at 3-1 or less that will not win in order to overcome the track take.

This is the math of the game we play.

Regarding software and screens (Navyvet): by all means use what you like, but remember your goal is the find the 60% or so races where the favorite is vulnerable or false. But: we are in the midst of a technological revolution. Just like the I-phone has evolved since its introduction in 2007, so too has the Sartin methodology via RDSS. The last real contribution by Sartin et al was VDC. It is still quite useful and powerful, but it still relies on pace line selection. Why not also use more recent and powerful items such as CSR, CR+, PL, Rx3 (and soon to come in Rx+ BPP)? Sure, they are not "pure" Sartin, but remember, he is not around anymore to advance things. And most of the pure Sartin stuff was developed and programmed when current programming languages had not even been invented!

Bottom line: let the software do the grunt work (picking pacelines, doing the matchup, comparing velocity versus deceleration, calculating speed and class, even picking contenders), and focus on finding first races where the favorite is vulnerable, and second which horses are contenders to beat the favorite, and third, whether you are getting sufficiently rewarded for making your bet. Maybe not as much fun as picking winners but surely a better way to be profitable.

Richard

Very good wisdom, Richard. You hit on a point that I underestimate: that Doc is no longer around to advance his methodology. Ted has done a phenomenal job in taking the torch and running with it.

Hey
 

Those days are gone but they ring true every day

How are you