ROTW

[billk5300s]

Since statistics show that favorites win around 30% of the time it makes sense to scrutinize them closely as TG does.  TG is by far the best tool that I\'ve ever seen when it comes to either eliminating phony favorites or identifying a solid favorite.  I give TG a lot of credit for posting a race of the week as well.  We all know that this is not an easy game yet they put their picks out there and open themselves to criticism.  When I\'m going bad I have no problem purchasing their picks for a second opinion and/or a sanity check.  Since they post the sheets along with their analysis anyone is welcome to come their own conclusion regarding the favorites.  Personally when I see 3 or 4 horses with numbers that are similar to the favorites I shop for value.  My 2 cents!

[SoCalMan2]

Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cubfan0316 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > anybody not trying to beat the favorites is a
> > broken down horse player
>
> But...in *every* race?
>
> That\'s just as foolish, don\'t you think?
>
> The craziest idea of all is: the perfectly legit
> fave,
> with no knocks at all...other than he is \"likely
> to be
> an underlay, so let\'s try to beat him\"?
>
> (As if somehow the amount of money bet on a horse
> is an actual factor that could alter his
> performance!)

It is foolish to try to beat the favorite every race.  It is foolish to try to bet every race.  When I am doing my best, I am skipping many more races than I am playing.  A classic example of where trying to beat the favorite was foolish was that maiden race in June where I again agreed with Rick B that the favorite everybody was trying to beat was too legitimate. I would not have wagered heavily on wagers depending on that horse to lose because that horse\'s chances of winning were so high.

[cubfan0316]

when theres numerous horses in the race rick,example 8. that means to get the correct odds u need 8-1. or you can pass the race.

[cubfan0316]

when favorites win 30 percent, go knock your sox off betting 4 dollar horses.

[miff]

Cub,

Favs win 30-35% at average meet but $4.00 horses(even money shots) win at closer to the low 40\'s%(all unfiltered)

Think the idea is to filter favorites and play against those you perceive to be weak/bad for whatever racing/data reasons you use(see ROTW).Playing against every horse that you \"know\" is best, but short priced, is not a model than can possibly be successful over the long term without extreme luck. You are bucking all the odds/historical data.

The \"I don\'t ever bet favorites\" bravado is ill conceived and is impossible to overcome in my view.Major money can be won in this game by sometimes constructing wagers into large pools using a short priced horse/s as a bridge to the next leg.

Good luck

Mike

[Rick B.]

cubfan0316 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> when theres numerous horses in the race
> rick,example 8. that means to get the correct odds
> u need 8-1.

Disagree, at least with your methodology, unless all
8 horses have EXACTLY the same perceived chance of
winning...and I\'ve never seen that.

>...or you can pass the race.

NOW you are making sense!

YES, when we have a legit fave, use him or PASS THE
RACE. But we don\'t try to beat such an animal, unless
we hate our money.

As I have posted before, a closer examination of the
simulcasting statutes reveals that we are NOT obligated
to bet every single race offered...then hang around to
bet the late double at Hong Kong! Who knew?

[Rick B.]

cubfan0316 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> when favorites win 30 percent, go knock your sox
> off betting 4 dollar horses.

Wrong idea, on too many fronts.

Comments like the above convince me that some
smart information seller will make a fortune
helping bettors with the betting aspect
of the game; the handicapping part is pretty
saturated.

Day in and day out, betting is clearly the
weakest part of my game.

[Rich Curtis]

Betting on overlays produces profits. This is the case whether the favorite is \"legitimate\" or the bastard child of Lou Gehrig and Eleanor Roosevelt.

[TGJB]

If you get hold of a photo of that mating, post it.

Kinda makes you rethink the \"luckiest man in the world\" thing.

[miff]

Is overlay-underlay a myth like big foot?

[Topcat]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you get hold of a photo of that mating, post
> it.
>
> Kinda makes you rethink the \"luckiest man in the
> world\" thing.


One of the American sporting world\'s most famous mamma\'s boys, + part and parcel of one of the most renowned cousin marriages in US history . . . the mind boggles.

[Topcat]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is overlay-underlay a myth like big foot?


Isn\'t using live, overlooked contenders the soul of the game?

[miff]

Live? Overlooked? How is that determined? Isn\'t your live overlooked contender my toss maybe and vice versa?

[Topcat]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Live? Overlooked? How is that determined? Isn\'t
> your live overlooked contender my toss maybe and
> vice versa?


Almost certainly . . . seems one\'s production in this game is contingent on each individual\'s level of judgment, honed by your experience(s) . . . and learning what types of races are best-suited to each individual\'s developed perspectives.   The need for self-control -- and the avoidance of low- or neg-percentage plays -- are givens.

[Mathcapper]

> Comments like the above convince me that some
> smart information seller will make a fortune
> helping bettors with the betting aspect
> of the game; the handicapping part is pretty
> saturated.

Never understood why there is virtually nothing out there on betting strategy. Most of my handicapping books are still in pristine condition. My 1988 copy of Barry Meadow\'s \"Money Secrets at the Racetrack\" on the other hand, is dog-eared and mangled.