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://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3461

I'll see if I can find some others.

[MikeB]

Originally Posted by chuckg

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.