Charles Town - Pace and Cap

shoeless · 09-23-2005, 11:24 AM

I have been doing CT for the last couple of weeks and have noticed something that will affect the readouts.If the horse has not won before at the distance they are entered at today they very rarely win.Even if it's a 6.5 fur race and they are just going to 7 fur.If you enter these horses it will just screw up your readouts for win.I first put in the horses just who run this distance after I get that readout I enter the rest for exactas.Sorry this info is not as good as Richie's and Binder's excellent step by step but Im at least trying to add something constructive rather than just always taking.Shoeless

alydar_ David · 09-23-2005, 11:53 AM

I also have a CT observation. Boxing the top two horses in the exacta produces a hit almost as often as betting them both to win. And the payoff is obviously much better.

I've left all races under 6.5F by the wayside.

Last night I bet races 1,3,4,7,8,9 and 10. I advance bet them boxing the top two horses in each race. Then I went to the movies.

Results:
1st: $18.40
3rd: nope
4th: nope
7th: nope
8th: $42.80
9th: $21.00
10th: nope

Gross:$82.20
Cost: 28.00
Net: $54.20
ROI: 1.94

Note, if I'd been betting two horses to win I'd have had the $5.00 hit in the 7th race. Although technically that would have been a hide.

Does this work for all tracks? No. It doesn't. By keeping records I was able to see these figures jump off the page.

So, for me the way to go at CT is to skip those 4.5F races and only box the top two horses. I'll keep doing this until the records show it's no longer profitable. With luck that may never happen!

:>)

Chip Napolitano · 09-23-2005, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoeless

I have been doing CT for the last couple of weeks and have noticed something that will affect the readouts.If the horse has not won before at the distance they are entered at today they very rarely win.Even if it's a 6.5 fur race and they are just going to 7 fur.If you enter these horses it will just screw up your readouts for win.I first put in the horses just who run this distance after I get that readout I enter the rest for exactas.Sorry this info is not as good as Richie's and Binder's excellent step by step but Im at least trying to add something constructive rather than just always taking.Shoeless

I believe what you noticed is part of your intuitive side giving you some much needed feedback Shoeless. How many others wagering there see what u have noticed? Try not to compare yourself to others and what they do or say. You are knowledgeable. I hope to continue reading your observations.

Many others have posted about being focused and letting your brain take in the data about a race. This is so important. Really
Just my opinion.
CN

shoeless · 09-23-2005, 04:20 PM

David, When you are boxing the top two horses off what screen are you doing it?Also good job in hitting those E's.I used to love playing 4.5 races but Im starting to think your way they are too unpredictable.The only exception I will make is with trainer Amy Albright.She is by far the best trainer up there with these types of horses.If she has a horse coming off a win and hasnt raced for over 30 days they will win at over a 50% clip.This sample is with over 10 starts doing this.I know this isnt a Sartin type play but I thought I would post it anyway.It's time for me to try and start GIVING BACK.Jeff

shoeless · 09-23-2005, 04:21 PM

Chip,Thanks and I enjoy your posts as well. Shoeless

alydar_ David · 09-28-2005, 12:43 PM

Hello Jeff,

The top two come from the models, not any screen(s) in particular.

However, the CT exacta ride appears to be over.

I've noticed these kinds of things can be streaky; you have to milk them while you can. They don't last forever.

There still doesn't seem to be any profit in those super sprints, at least for me at this point in time. Who knows what the future may bring though? It doesn't hurt to keep an open mind.

Like you, I pay attention to trainers, but not in the way you suggested. I mostly use them as negatives, and even then only rarely.

For example, if I see a trainer who is 0 for 50 first off the claim I'm not betting the horse if he's just been claimed by that trainer. To me this indicates the trainer wants at least one "practice" race before he instructs the jockey to win.

The horse's figs will always be misleading if there is no trainer intent. That's the kind of thing I use that information for -- elimination.

On the other hand, trainer information is critical for baby races loaded with first time starters. If you're playing a pick six, you can't ignore these races. The trainer statistics become quite germane then.

All in all though, I go with the horse and what's been winning at the track.

There is no secret to finding what's winning at the track, only the drudgery of logging the information to keep the model accurate. That's not fun. It's work.

Of course with Binder and Richie doing almost all the work for you at some tracks it doesn't even take work. All you need are eyeballs! LOL!

shoeless · 09-28-2005, 07:14 PM

David, I never thought of using the trainer stats that way before but it is an interesting concept.Your right about Richie and Binder they do make things easier for all of us.I just wish some of the other people who never post and just lurk would once in awhile thank these two for all they have done. Jeff

09-23-2005, 11:24 AM	#1
shoeless Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 4,643	Charles Town I have been doing CT for the last couple of weeks and have noticed something that will affect the readouts.If the horse has not won before at the distance they are entered at today they very rarely win.Even if it's a 6.5 fur race and they are just going to 7 fur.If you enter these horses it will just screw up your readouts for win.I first put in the horses just who run this distance after I get that readout I enter the rest for exactas.Sorry this info is not as good as Richie's and Binder's excellent step by step but Im at least trying to add something constructive rather than just always taking.Shoeless

09-23-2005, 11:53 AM	#2
alydar_ David Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,654	I also have a CT observation. Boxing the top two horses in the exacta produces a hit almost as often as betting them both to win. And the payoff is obviously much better. I've left all races under 6.5F by the wayside. Last night I bet races 1,3,4,7,8,9 and 10. I advance bet them boxing the top two horses in each race. Then I went to the movies. Results: 1st: $18.40 3rd: nope 4th: nope 7th: nope 8th: $42.80 9th: $21.00 10th: nope Gross:$82.20 Cost: 28.00 Net: $54.20 ROI: 1.94 Note, if I'd been betting two horses to win I'd have had the $5.00 hit in the 7th race. Although technically that would have been a hide. Does this work for all tracks? No. It doesn't. By keeping records I was able to see these figures jump off the page. So, for me the way to go at CT is to skip those 4.5F races and only box the top two horses. I'll keep doing this until the records show it's no longer profitable. With luck that may never happen! :>)

09-23-2005, 04:20 PM	#4
shoeless Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 4,643	David, When you are boxing the top two horses off what screen are you doing it?Also good job in hitting those E's.I used to love playing 4.5 races but Im starting to think your way they are too unpredictable.The only exception I will make is with trainer Amy Albright.She is by far the best trainer up there with these types of horses.If she has a horse coming off a win and hasnt raced for over 30 days they will win at over a 50% clip.This sample is with over 10 starts doing this.I know this isnt a Sartin type play but I thought I would post it anyway.It's time for me to try and start GIVING BACK.Jeff

09-23-2005, 04:21 PM	#5
shoeless Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 4,643	Chip,Thanks and I enjoy your posts as well. Shoeless

09-28-2005, 12:43 PM	#6
alydar_ David Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,654	Hello Jeff, The top two come from the models, not any screen(s) in particular. However, the CT exacta ride appears to be over. I've noticed these kinds of things can be streaky; you have to milk them while you can. They don't last forever. There still doesn't seem to be any profit in those super sprints, at least for me at this point in time. Who knows what the future may bring though? It doesn't hurt to keep an open mind. Like you, I pay attention to trainers, but not in the way you suggested. I mostly use them as negatives, and even then only rarely. For example, if I see a trainer who is 0 for 50 first off the claim I'm not betting the horse if he's just been claimed by that trainer. To me this indicates the trainer wants at least one "practice" race before he instructs the jockey to win. The horse's figs will always be misleading if there is no trainer intent. That's the kind of thing I use that information for -- elimination. On the other hand, trainer information is critical for baby races loaded with first time starters. If you're playing a pick six, you can't ignore these races. The trainer statistics become quite germane then. All in all though, I go with the horse and what's been winning at the track. There is no secret to finding what's winning at the track, only the drudgery of logging the information to keep the model accurate. That's not fun. It's work. Of course with Binder and Richie doing almost all the work for you at some tracks it doesn't even take work. All you need are eyeballs! LOL!

09-28-2005, 07:14 PM	#7
shoeless Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 4,643	David, I never thought of using the trainer stats that way before but it is an interesting concept.Your right about Richie and Binder they do make things easier for all of us.I just wish some of the other people who never post and just lurk would once in awhile thank these two for all they have done. Jeff