|
"Mitch, Jeff,
thanks for the kind words. I think we all agree that the purpose of handicapping is to be successful in make money by choosing high odds horses."
Whoa!!!! gl45 You have a knack of twisting things and changing things such as going from the # 5 in your example to the # 7 after the fact to fit your narrative. And now you putting words in my mouth with " by choosing high odds horses" I have never said that. I've said that only top contenders should be considered for any further evaluation and that it all comes down to the horse 90% period. Hell everything has an exception to it but one is better off sticking to the 90%.
To take a field of horses and decide your bets by trainer stats and or odds isn't a successful strategy to this game. Its a proven fact that the longer the odds the less the % of winners etc. All one has to do is look at the booking percentages to confirm that.
gl45 you sound like a Piszolla practitioner?
Any horse has to have more going for it than odds as there are more false longshots than there are false favorites and trainers aren't the key, as the best loose about 80%. Now among your contenders its up to the player to make those decisions. Of my 5 contenders who is legit and who isn't? The way I get a horse that pays $5.60 is the same way I get the one that pays $25.60.
Odds and trainers aren't a primary handicapping factor to selecting contenders is what I said however they can be another tool to separate them. Even then I would put the basics of the game ahead of them such as consistency, fits todays conditions to surface and distance, and some others etc. that take priority over trainers. One could absolutely ignore trainers and jockeys and do just as good if not better. I do look at them and they can be helpful at times in certain situations such as an unknown factor in a race but their just another tool but not my primary tool nor should they be for any handicapper.
Mitch44
|