Betting on Horses

I still find that hard to believe if the horse won as you say? I note you blamed the jock again also. I think it may be other things leading to your early retirement.

Gambler -  Ive been playing horses for the last 11 years.   I have no reason to lie about any thing I write in this post.   At a worst case-  I think I have broken even or lost a little money betting horses.  My point is that with the time I put into it -  the returns are not therefor me. 
Once again -  I have been running bad and have decided to give it up...I dont enjoy it anymore,  Watching 4 legged creatures is frustrating for me!

Regarding the Woodbine race -  I will try to look it up,  All of my friends were shocked with the outcome....Again I could care less if you beleive me or not,   I know what I wager on a race and I know how bad I have been running.

I started this forum to see if people actually do well with horses but I find it really hard to believe that there are consistent winners in horses.

Understood NR, gl with the poker.

No need to look it up, take a deep breath and relax. I wasn't calling you a liar just found 11 dq's in 2 weeks hard to believe is all. You have a good one and good luck again.

https://equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/WO070111CAN.pdf

Woodbine Race -  Sorry the Horse went off at 7 to 1 (2nd Race)

If you are going to comment -  Please watch the race at least.


Im done here.    Good luck.

Thanks.   GL to you too

I will watch the race soon. I have a funny story about a woodbine race that happened about 2 or 3 weeks ago.

I was on the 7 horse.. Emma Jayne Wilson was riding.. it was a 7F race.. class or anything isnt of relevance..

The horse had the rougest start out the gate, and Emma flew off.. I dunno what the hell the outrider was doing, but the horse managed to run the race without being caught.

Didnt this mother fucking horse maneuver threw horses like it had a hall of fame jockey? MY god! This horse won by 4 or 5 lengths... on the outside, down to the rail and gone.

I couldnt believe what I seen. Of course, it wasnt placed.. but It was a site to see lol

That is the tickiest-tackiest DQ I've seen in a while.

I feel your pain on that one man.

1115 hits on this subject....pretty darned good interest in the topic!

Yeah Mikey, maybe a subject by subject discussion would perk-up more responses and opinions?

I actually watched "Secretariat" last night.. yes the Walt Disney movie.. and that got me thinking..

I know I wasnt around when this beast was devouring race track like it was his job, and from the video I have seen, he was a fucking machine..

Do you think either Rachel Alexandra or Zenyatta compare at all?

I watched both closely, and I noticed that RA had an altering style. She could be close, or off the pace..

Zen alwayssss came from the back, and the 09 Breeders cup race might be one of the greatest races I've ever witnessed. (Mine That Bird - Kentucky Derby - comes to mind)

what are your guys thoughts on who the best horse was?

I don't care what the horses name was or is. I strictly bet on numbers only. If the 7 wins and I have it, I really don't care.

Race by race for me, the horses name is irrelevant. I don't get attached to any horse. I'll admit, I heard the name Secretariat, RA and Z but all that matters IMO did I cash. With those 3, I probably took a pass.

so your telling me, Zenyatta, Rachael Alexandra, or Secretariat are only numbers to you?

Thats kinda odd, considering you seem to know what your talking about..

Zenyatta went 19 for 20 in her career, winning 19 in a row...
RA was running against boys, and disposing of them with ease..

You mean to tell me, none of that mattered to you

Breeding seems to be somewhat of a contentious issue so I wanted to jump back in and clarify some of what I said.

When I am looking at the vast majority of races where form is established and horses have made numerous starts (we all know the majority of races are claiming races and a couple of allowances on a typical card) I am essentially ignoring breeding.  That ship has sailed.  A horse could have the best Sire of all time but if he is 4/17 and running in a 30K claimer it is what it is. 

I mentioned two scenarios.  1) Horses with zero starts or only 1 or 2 starts or 2) younger horses doing something different such as a surface switch or changing distance significantly (for example going from a mile to ten furlongs or maybe cutting back from nine furlongs to a sprint). 

More specifically, I don't consider breeding much at all in maiden claimers for horses with 0, 1, or 2 starts only.  I totally ignore it in state bred maiden claimers (races I generally pass anyways).  the fact that a horse is entered in a maiden claimer already tells you about the talent and ability that the horse has (generally speaking though here and there horses from maiden sellers emerge to be really good).  The exception would be when you see those maiden claimers for say 50K (you'll see this at Gulfstream and Santa Anita for example) and you have some class droppers with only one or two starts.  I will consider the breeding (NOT as a primary indicator) because you may have a horse that simply overwhelms the field and the owner forced the trainer to drop the horse to cash a check. 

The primary situation where I consider breeding (AFTER analyzing the type of drills I like to see for a firster and the trainer or the 1 or 2 spins the horse already made) is in a MSW race for OPEN (can't emphasize enough OPEN company) at the top circuits.  All of the top talent and ability converges on the top circuits.  If you have a nicely bred 3YO that is working well before breakfast in the beginning of the year are you going to debut him at Oaklawn?  No.  These horses will show up at Gulfstream or Santa Anita.  The owners and trainers want to see what they have and they will run the horse against the best competition.  Same applies for horses that might have made a start or two late in their 2YO season.  Same applies for all open company MSW you guys know which circuits have the top talent.  For the young 2YO top flesh you will see them debut at Saratoga or Del Mar. 

When I look at the breeding I of course analyze the sire and the performance of his offspring but also the Dam.  The Dam's performance on the track is important but more importantly (in my view) is the performance of the dam's other offspring (the siblings of the horse being analyzed).  This does not require lengthy research.  In the print edition of the Daily Racing Form there are notes to the right of the PPs provided by the various DRF writers.  Generally I briefly read these to see if anything is relevant or noteworthy but in MSW races they will give you the stats for the Sire and Dam.  If the Sire is solid and the Dam has produced other siblings that have won and maybe even already won graded stakes then that might mean the horse running today could be a real runner.  Last Saturday Pletch debuted a young colt at Belmont and ALL of the Dam's other offspring won and I believe one or two were already G2 winners.  The horse was bet off the board and won easily (not saying it was a good bet just pointing this out). 

Regarding young horses doing something for the first time I have a very recent example for you.  You could say I am cherry picking just one race to prove my point.  Fair enough.  But, it is not like that.  Yesterday at Colonial was a G2 for 3YO only going ten furlongs on turf.  This is the top turf race of the year so far for 3YO only prior to Arlington and Del Mar and these are young horses stretching out to the full ten furlong distance. 

https://www.drf.com/news/colonial-downs-air-support-makes-mcgaughey-solis-look-good-virginia-derby

The winner was a horse named Air Support.  His Sire - well what do you know it was Smart Strike.  I bet this horse in his previous race he ran 2nd.  Banned ran 2nd as the fav.  His Sire - Kitten's Joy.  I didn't bet the race.   I did not even see the PPs.  Didn't bet anything this weekend actually.  Smart Strike and Kitten's Joy are ranked among the top turf sires this year (Smart Strike is #1 currently).  Smart Strike is actually #1 or close to it in every category.  Did these horses make the exacta because of their Sires?  No.  They made the exacta because of their own ability and talent.  But, you can't convince me there is no connection.  74% of the runners that made it to the racetrack (yes, many of these young thoroughbreds NEVER even make it to the track due to health, soundness, lack of interest, etc.) out of Smart Strike for his entire stud career have won.  That is not a coincidence.  Oh yeah, Smart Strike also sired Curlin a two time winner of HOY. 

Just one example, but in certain specific situations the breeding can be helpful as a secondary indicator. 

The G1 American Oaks at Hollywood Park on Saturday for 3YO gals had the winner out of Rock Hard Ten ( a Sire that is producing more and more good turf runners) and the horse that ran 3rd (lost by less than a length) was out of Dynaformer.  Both only had a couple of lifetime starts and still eligible for improvement and this race was ten furlongs which is further than any had ever gone before and as we all know a tough, grueling distance.

Word on the street is that a few horses out of the mighty Curlin will make their debut at Saratoga this summer.  Smart Strike is the grampa and Curlin is the Daddy.  They will only breed the two time HOY Curlin to top Dams.  You think a couple of these might be able to run?  The tote will probably tell you as the players by and large are pretty sharp and they will sniff it out.     

I don't believe he is saying he is not aware of the top performers in the game.  I believe he is saying "who cares" it doesn't matter you just need to cap each race with the information that is there.

Maybe start a separate thread for "Best Horses of All Time"?  You'll prolly get people to chime in. 

Regarding Recency - I am NOT saying you should go out and chase every horse that won its last start.  Another error I see is the players make the horse with the top last race speed fig the fav.  This is not a sound strategy to identify the top last race Beyer and simply bet the horse because of that.  But, believe it or not you will see these horses as the chalk quite frequently.  The horse with the best last race fig might be the correct choice but it is not solely because the horse has the best last race fig. 

Recency refers to an overall look at recent activity.  A horse that has very positive recency might not have won either of his last couple of races but may have been showing good energy and late speed at a similar class level or a higher class level or even a lower class level. 

Recency also works both ways.  Horses that have been getting their teeth kicked in recently may be worthy of a fade or tossing them due to the fact that they are not firing and not in good form. 

From the DRF article I referenced:

Following King Congie up the fence around the far turn, Air Support skimmed along with no impediments, tipping out once turning for home to make his run at the leaders. Street Game fell away, and King Congie’s run flattened out, but Banned had put in his own powerful rally, coming nearly to even terms with Air Support at the furlong pole, but, just as McGaughey predicted, Air Support saw out the 10-furlong trip and held Banned at bay to win by a neck. Final time on a firm turf course was 2:00.80.

Air Support, by Smart Strike out of Gaze, was bred and is owned by Stuart Janney III. He won for the fourth time in nine starts and now has won three graded stakes wins on grass.

At the risk of being redundant - I didn't see the race but it looks like to me that this horse really dug in and had the guts, heart, and determination to gut out this win.  Coincidence that a lot of the horses out of Smart Strike are tough as nails?

I wanted to chime in on cheating as well. 

I do not trust the harness races or the quarters.  In thoroughbred racing at the vast majority of tracks and especially the top circuits I do NOT believe there is any "fixing" of the races.  You might be on the "correct" horse and the horse runs 2nd or 3rd.  hey it happens.  A pitcher might go 8 innings and give up 5 hits and one run and the team still loses the game eventually.  Such is life.  Yes, some jocks are clueless and they do not do their homework but their stats already reflect that.  Same with trainers. 

At a real low level circuit where the top purse you see on a weekend is 15K or 20K then I can see the temptation to accept bribes since these guys have to earn and put food on the table.  But, if you are Javier Castellano why on earth would you consider accepting a bribe?  Even if he did how could he guarantee a specific outcome?  Javier (just an example you get my drift) is much better off just doing his thing and winning races. 

Medication - absolutely there is cheating taking place.  Dutrow and Rudy Rodriguez no doubt in my mind.  I have suspicions about Asmussen, Pletcher, and Doug O'Neill.  But, looking at a large sample size I don't think the abuse of medications and illegal use of medications is enough to derail your ability to get a winning ticket. 

10% juice on ball games is already too high and extremely difficult to overcome.  The exorbitant 20+% juice on horse wagers make it virtually impossible to beat, and a poor bet as well.  Thus, you will never get close to the full value on your winning wagers to offset the many losses that invariably occur.

You can handicap horses and the DRF till your blue in the face, but I think it does little good in the long run due to the greedy tracks.  Put in slots, accept gambling at the local bar, and take out 10% from the handle and I would bet horses on a regular basis.  As it is now, I think it is a foolish, futile gambling endeavor.

Some good info on here guys

I have wagered on other sports and horses for a number of years.  While I haven't posted in here much until the last year, I have read this horse racing forum for a number of years.  Great to see some useful info and tips in here.  Hard enough to win on the horses with some always criticizing in this forum. 

 

there are different takeouts for different wagers and tracks-- if takeout is your thing then check those out--  i prefer to think of it as you have to be better than the public whatever % of the time to make $$--  if a horse is 7/5 that i feel has no shot than i know i can try to find a horse at higher odds to win-- remember- if you think a horse should be 2-1 and it goes off at 4-1 than the takeout % doesnt matter- you are still getting better than you thought and if you are good than you can win--  in sports you have close to a 50/50 shot to lose 10% of your wager--  in horses you might have a 10% chance to make 2000% of your wager ie.. betting a 20-1 animal you feel has a 10% chance to win

 

ILLINI...I think you're down near Fairmount, correct, so you probably don't get to Arlington much....

 One thing that those of us from Chcago have that helps with capping is a poly Track (Arlington) and a dirt Track (Hawthorne). Literally watching the differences between horses here who move between the two surfaces is a very good handicapping experience for betting races on either poly or dirt...at least here in Illinois.

 I respectfully disagree. Due to the house cut, 4/1 horses have worse than a 1/4 chance of cashing, regardless of your calculations.  And 20/1 horses have worse than a 5% chance of winning.  Any endeavor where the house does not care who wins is a POOR bet.  Slots and ring poker also fall under this category with a huge fixed house edge, and are also poor bets in the long run.

And anyone that tells me that the house cut does NOT matter is almost surely a losing player.