Newsletter of November 13th

       Newsletter of November 20th

       Newsletter of November 27th

       Home

To go to Bloodstock Research Information Services Click Here

I don't rely solely on the selections made by this or any other software program because of the simple fact that they cannot think and reason, at least not like we can. It's my strong belief that all such programs are heavily influenced by their version of speed figures. If you look at the top 3 selections in any program, they will likely correspond to that program's top speed figures.

But speed figures cannot and do not measure or reveal the all-important moves-within-a-race that horses make that often signal strong next-out performances. I have found Multicaps speed figures to be quite accurate, however, and the program is good at pointing out overlays, which if qualified as contenders, should definitely be considered as part of the wagering plan.

I say wagering plan. It is my belief that a good portion of the time spent on reviewing a race should be spent on preparing a wager or wagers. In one of my past newsletters I mentioned an occasion when in the space of about 45 seconds a couple of guys who were sitting behind me came up with a value horse that eventually beat an out-of-the-money odds-on favorite. They then immediately made a decision to box it in an exacta with that favorite and proceeded to talk sports until post time. Had they carefully weighed all their options, they may have cashed a win bet and/or a nice pick-3 payoff.

Dennis S. wrote, "my first question is very complex, but I would appreciate it if you would attempt an answer. I have learned the expensive way that I must become very selective about the types and number of races I play. What criteria make a race playable?"

I have also learned a lot of things the expensive way. You don't become a good handicapper overnight and the more wagers you make until you are, the more expensive a lesson it is. I agree with Dennis wholeheartedly that we should be ultra-selective about which races we play. That's why I say to specialize. Find your niche or forte'. With which kinds of races do you have the most success; sprints, routes, turf, claimers, maidens?

As I've said in the past I find that I have the most success and the best ROI with sprint races. Why? Because most sprint fields on the dirt are composed of horses that have last run in sprints, which makes the matching up process simpler. Sure, you will occasionally find a last-out router or a sprinter that last raced in a route on dirt or turf, but for the most part sprinters run in sprints. In addition, sprint fields generally are composed of horses that have run similar last-race distances, say 6F, 6 1/2F or 7F, which also makes for simpler handicapping.

On the other hand, in route races there are quite a few distances at which horses compete, such as a mile (8F), a mile and a 70 yards, which is 40 yards shy of a mile and a sixteenth (8 1/2F), a mile and an eighth (9F), a mile and three sixteenths (9 1/2F), a mile and a quarter (10F), a mile and a half (12F) and marathons of a mile and five eighths (13F) and beyond. It is a little more difficult and tricky to try to match up factors such as internal fractions in fields with entries having run such diverse last race distances, including the occasional stretch-out sprinter.

Am I saying that we should not play route races? Not at all, I'm just saying that I myself have found more bottom-line success with sprint races and I would recommend that anyone who is having difficulty with staying ahead of this game try the sprint game for a while and keep track of the results. A good place to begin as always is with "paper" bets.

The main reason why I prefer turf route races to dirt route races is that many times I can find a field that is composed entirely of horses that have last run on the grass and at similar distances. Then the handicapping process becomes easier with less chance of a total surprise result. I can compare final fractions and go from there.

As for what criteria make a race playable, my answer is the two things I talk about regularly, edge and value. If you don't have these two prerequisites, in my opinion you don't have a strong or major play. If you play only races that provide these two criteria, however, your ROI has to improve!

Dennis S. wrote, "Jim, I feel that I owe you an apology. I utilized your Wide Out angle today and found nothing at Finger Lakes, 1 horse at Suffolk, 1 at Calder and 2 at Philly. Suffolk and Calder were looking good until the stretch, when they each faded badly. The 2 at Philly both ran 2nd with double digit place payoffs and being the greedy one that I am, I had nothing on them in this position and I passed up $100 and $200 exactas respectively. It has given me hope and has me looking forward to the arrival of your book. Do you cover bet construction at all in your book? This seems to be my biggest problem, in conjunction with selectivity."

I explained to Dennis that he was not being greedy. It's tough to make the right wagers all the time; none of us have anywhere near a perfect record. We all screw up occasionally when it comes to betting. That's why it's best to have a definite "standard" type wager when you have a horse you like, which includes playing it alone. I now have decided that when I like a horse well above the other contenders in a race, I will bet that horse alone, whether or not I choose to play exotics wagers using it and other contenders.

In some past newsletters, which can be found on the archived section on my website, I've covered the subject of wagering, including pick 3's, exactas, and trifectas. When I get a standalone horse, one that I really like above the rest, I will usually play it to win at odds of say under 10-1. From 10-1 to 15-1 I may play win and place. Then depending on just how high the odds are I'll play win-place-show or place-show or even just show.

I recall a Wide Out horse from a week or so ago that was in the first race in New York, which I believe was a maiden race. I hadn't even thought of betting the race and as a result did not mention this horse in my selections on the weekend. But I noticed it eventually and saw that it was going to the post at odds of nearly 60 to 1. This is not a horse I would try to hook up with another in an exacta or daily double. This is one I would play alone, but how? I finally settled for a straight show bet and the dang thing ran 3rd, paying $24.00. Would I have been a little perturbed if it had won and I had nothing on it when it paid $120? Probably, but at those odds, the wagering should be slanted with a small amount if any on the win end, more in the place hole, and even more to show.

Bet construction is an individual thing, pretty much dependent on one's bankroll and per race allotment. There are some who believe that a certain percentage of your bankroll, such as 5%, should be allotted for each playable race. Others are not as rigid and have a pretty standard amount for each race regardless of the bankroll size. Still others have different wagering amounts depending on how strongly they feel about a particular horse or race. If one person's per race wager is $50, they can obviously cover more plays than someone who can risk $10 per race.

For anyone who has a small bankroll (for now), I would suggest win or win-place wagers on single horses rather than combination bets until a fairly sizeable bankroll has been accumulated, at which time they might begin to include daily doubles, exactas, pick 3's and possibly even trifectas. Even if you have to begin with $2 wagers, if you are selective and go for value horses, you can build up a bankroll.

I calculated an unofficial tally that reveals that if you had played to win each of my top 2 listed picks, plus any Wide Out plays that were not ranked in the top 2 slots, in the past few newsletters (10/30, 10/31, 11/1, 11/6 -omitting Breeder's Cup races, and 11/7), you would have made wagers totaling $90 and received payoffs of $126.30 for a profit of $36.30 and a positive ROI of 40%. It may not sound like much, but if you think about it, an annual return on investment of 40% would be difficult to beat. I hope the trend continues and gets even better.

As far as selectivity goes, I covered that pretty extensively in a prior newsletter also, but I'll repeat it again. I strongly believe in being selective. I also think we have different reasons for playing the horses. We all want to win, but some of us only get to play on one day of the weekend, while others of us can play seven days a week if we want. Some may very well want to play as many races in that one day as possible because they enjoy the day away from the regular grind and want to play races rather than sit them out. Others have a goal of making a supplementary income of a few hundred or a thousand dollars a month, while still others want to wager on the horses for a living.

No matter where you fit in, I suggest that you be selective and make major bets only on prime situations that present a definite edge and good value for your money. If you want to play higher risk races such as ones with multiple first-time starters, then do so, but why risk the same amount that you would on a prime play? Differentiate between "fun" and "serious" plays and you'll see an improvement in your ROI.

If I find that the 3 horses I have chosen as my selections are too chalky and don't present enough value, I'll skip the race entirely and wait for the next playable race. This is a numbers game and the value plays are sure to come if we wait them out.

I hope some of the material in this newsletter is of help; let me know if you want any other subject addressed in future issues.

Until next week, I wish you clear skies and fast tracks;knock 'em dead!

Jim

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To get an additional unique and valuable slant on handicapping the thoroughbreds, see what my friend the "Guru" has to say at:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wagering on a horse race without knowing which are the true contenders is like running under water...you will get nowhere fast.

Email Jim         fax: (603) 676-1216

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to Top         Home

*****Horseracing Handicappers' Free Picks Newsletter*****
*****Saturday November 20, 1999*****

http://www.a1handicapping.com/danpicks.html

That does it for this Saturday; I'll see you next week. Until then, I wish you clear skies and fast tracks, and ... knock'em dead!

Jim

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To get an additional unique and valuable slant on handicapping the thoroughbreds, see what my friend the "Guru" has to say at:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wagering on a horse race without knowing which are the true contenders is like running under water...you will get nowhere fast.

Email Jim         fax: (603) 676-1216

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to Top         Home

Click Here for Reader

Aqu 11-21 5th file

Aqu 11-21 9th file

First, Race 5 at Aqueduct. This was a 7F Allowance sprint for 3-year-olds and up that had not won three races other than maiden, claiming or starter. The field of 8 had the following running styles in post-position order: EP, E, P, S, P, S, S, and P. Therefore, it had a pace shape of E-EP and a race shape of Honest. Looking at the field from top to bottom, #1 had just run a lifetime best Beyer speed figure of 94 at Delaware Park at 5F and appeared a likely bounce candidate. #2 was what I refer to as a Profile horse and on that basis should have been considered as a contender. #3 was exiting a mile race, in which he was dead last at the first call and didn't make any telling moves from there to the finish. #4 was a stale horse that had not run in 259 days and had not run in a sprint in at least his last 12 races. The addition of blinkers would not seem to be enough and this was an immediate throw out in spite of his decent work tab and good connections.

Number 5 was my first mistake. For some inexplicable reason, I thought he was exiting a "strong" race and inadvertently let the "old tapes" surface and cause me to make him my strong top pick. He certainly had the look of a contender, but not necessarily a strong contender, as we'll see in the internal fractions match up. #6 ran dead last after a middle move in a Stakes race. I'm always a little leery of horses that have run well in consecutive races and then throw in a clunker. In his case he had won 2 good races in a row and then digressed. Would he come back and begin another winning streak or was he going off form somewhat. I figured the latter, in spite of him taking a hike up to Graded Stakes competition in his latest.

Number 7 was exiting route races and was an S horse on the outside. This is always a combination that requires a perfect trip to overcome a bad running style match up. Finally, there was #8, whose last 2 were strong winning races and in anyone's mind would have to be considered a strong contender. Anyone, that is except someone who was being influenced by bad "old tapes." The first thing I do after looking over the field somewhat is to see if there are any "angle" horses present. In this case there was only the Profile horse, #2. Then I match up internal fractions in the following manner in post-position order, omitting the 4-horse whom I had already thrown out of the mix:

Turn Times: 23.3,  23.1,  none,  23.0,  22.1,  none,  22.4.

There were only 2 early speed-type horses in this field, #'s 1 and 2. It should have been obvious that #2 was the better of the two and was the "speed of the speed" between them. Additionally, as I said earlier, #1 had been running at Delaware Park and had a run a lifetime best speed figure in his last. Coupled with the fact that he was the only angle horse in the field, #2 should have been considered a strong threat to go wire-to-wire or emerge with the lead at the top of the stretch and go on strongly in this match up of mostly P and S horses.

In what can only be labeled as complete "brain lock", I threw out #2 and #8 because of the crazy belief that the race they were exiting was a "dead" one. Again, the purpose of this whole exercise is not to berate myself but to show you that if you want to improve your bottom line and make consistent scores, you have to go with what's been proven to succeed and throw out thinking that doesn't work. I, like everyone else, have to work at this.

3rd Quarter Fractions: none,  25,  26.3,  24.3,  24.4,  none,  24.0.

It doesn't take a genius to see who has the big advantage here. #8 with a 24.0 final fraction coupled with his 22.4 turn time on a high track variant and his Beyer speed figures should make anyone lean toward a "fair odds" line of about 3-2 in this match up. The only question may be his 3 big races in a row and a potential "bounce". You could even make the case that he was a 3-and-out Beyer speed pattern horse, having run his 3 biggest showing speed figures in his last three outings, which might make a bounce even more likely. But such was not the case as the 2 and the 8 ran heads apart down the stretch with the 8 getting a head-bob nose win at the wire paying an overlay price of $8.00. #2 completed the exacta of $44.80 while 6 lengths clear of #6 who rounded out the trifecta of $114.50.

It's not because of the tremendous payoffs of this race that I decided to suck it in and show it as an example, but because it was a straightforward case of the two most logical horses coming through in a particular match up. When the running styles are EP, E, P, S, P, S, S and P, you have to think that if there is a good early speed horse between the 2 likely frontrunners, he will have an awfully good chance to be there at the end, and in this case he was. Because my thinking was totally clouded by the "anchor" that still has to be dealt with when it pops up, my first comment was, "this is an E-EP match up in which the 2 inside speeds may negate each other and set it up for a couple of horses who will be coming late." As you can see, like Armand did so clearly, this was a totally wrong analysis that was made because of being influenced by wrong old thinking.

Race 9 on Sunday's card was run at 7F and was a $35,000 down to $30,000 claiming event for 3-year-olds. The field of 12 had a pace shape of E-EP with plenty of early zip in the race (1E horse and 5 EP horses). Suffice it to say that I was again influenced by what I thought were "strong" vs. "weak" races. Although the selection of #11 Golden Returns as my top pick was acceptable due to the strong internal fractions of his last race, selecting #'s 2, Danzig's Sword and #3 Imperial Knight were downright embarrassing as I look back on it now. I chose the 2 horse due to the race he was exiting, but handicapping 101 says the horse must show at least something on it's own in order to be considered a contender. This horse did not.

The past few performances of #3, although sharp, should have been downgraded because of having been run at an inferior stock racetrack, Philadelphia Park. The intent is not to demean Philadelphia Park; it is simply to educate those that want to play NY races. Horses coming into the NY circuit from tracks like Philly, Delaware, New England, Finger Lakes, even Canada and others often need a race over the track for us to see if they can compete on the level of horses based in New York. Entries from tracks such as Churchill, Gulfstream, and CA tracks, on the other hand, can come into NY and often be competitive right away.

If you look at #5, Binawhile, you will see the comment at the far right of his last past performance. It reads, "Chased 3 wide, tired." When you see a comment like this, it is an immediate tip-off that the horse could very well be a Wide Out play. By simply scanning over to the p.p.'s, you can see that Binawhile was a neck behind at the start of the turn in his last race at 8 � F at Belmont Park. As they straightened away in the stretch, he was 4 lengths back and then proceeded to fade out of it.

This is the past performance line of a Wide Out play, one that was in his last race 3 or more wide while going around the turn and then faded back, reserving what was left in the tank for the next outing. Of course, if you look at his p.p.'s you can see that his last try at this level was a winning one at this distance. That is why this horse was the second choice of the betting public, not because he was a Wide Out play, because the betting public does not know about this play.

Didn't I notice that Binawhile was a Wide Out horse? The answer is yes, but again, upon looking at the charts of his last race, I erroneously deduced that it was a bad race he was exiting, and of course I will not fall into such a ridiculous "old tape" trap again. Keep in mind what I said earlier that any of us are capable of reverting back to techniques that are "ingrained" in our subconscious minds. If such a technique is wrong, it should be avoided like the plague when it surfaces. Only you can tell what has worked for you and what has not. Learning from our mistakes makes them worthwhile; repeating them makes them very costly.

As per Armand's email, if you look at the last p.p. of #6, Golden Furiously, who finished second in this race, you will see that he showed speed while 3-Wide. Since he ran strongly to the wire and finished second, he is not considered to be a Wide Out play in this race, but his strong effort was accomplished from being such a play from his race prior. As you can see, in that second race back he was a definite Wide Out play as well as a Profile horse. He just missed at odds of better than 7 to 1, and came back in this race with another good performance.

The show horse, #13, Philabusta was listed in my selections of 11/14 as "a Wide Out play exiting a mile race on the turf and is sure to be a price in this match up." He didn't fire that day, but with the drop in class for this race he closed well to complete a $2,500 trifecta as a 2-back Wide Out play, as was Golden Furiously.

Hopefully this newsletter will serve as a simple lesson to be learned and adhered to like glue: when it comes to handicapping, always use proven techniques over imagined theories. Don't look too hard for something that is not there because in most cases it isn't.

I was real pleased to hear from quite a number of you that you connected on some of the races I picked correctly on Thanksgiving, especially race 8 at Aqueduct. That one topped off a real nice day for many of us. As Bozyn put it, he ended his day on a High Note. I listed only 2 horses and they ran 1-2 in order with High Note paying $39 to win with the cold exacta paying $116.50. Such is the value of the moves-within-a-race that are part of my main focus of handicapping. Following is one of the many emails I received, from Rick G., and my response.

"Hi Jim, hope you had a nice Thanksgiving! I just wanted to thank you for your newsletter today. It was my first one and I was very impressed with your selections even on the sloppy track at Aqueduct. Congrats on the 18-1 winner (and cold exacta) in the 8th. Do you do that often? (lol)

I'll be looking forward to your newsletters in the future.

Thanks again!"

Rick

"Hi Rick,

Thanks for the email. I wish I could say I make cold picks like yesterday's all the time ($39 and $116.50), but I'd be lying if I did. Using my approach, however, I do come up with a number of longshots each week. That's simply because my way of handicapping is completely different than the general public's. For instance, that horse in the 8th yesterday had completely inferior speed figures to over half the field he was facing. This made the public, including the public handicappers, totally ignore him.

For them it was an open and closed case. If High Note had run 7 times lifetime and never even came close to any of the speed figures that Cat Country had run in each of his 3 races lifetime, he couldn't possibly win the race. And comparing him to others in the race would indicate that he had no chance to even hit the board. But the Wide Out play (and in this case also a WIR play, discovered by the Guru) indicates a last-race performance that will often set up a horse to run better than he has in the recent past, at times even better than he has in his lifetime, as was the case with High Note. Not only did High Note win the race, but he did so from dead-last ninth down the backstretch on a strongly speed-favoring track which was caused by a sloppy, floated surface.

Of course, the horses with the best speed figures were made the favorite and second choice. But the 7 horse, who ran second as the post time favorite, was clearly second best and using internal fractions comparison between him and #2, one could see he should be the stronger of the two chalks.

Do the angle horses I play win all the time? Absolutely not. But they win enough of the time at the right prices (almost always overlays) to maintain a positive ROI."

Until next week, I wish you clear skies and fast tracks and..... knock 'em dead!

Jim

Dandy Dan went 1 for 2 in his college picks for Friday. Anyone interested in his picks for Saturday and Sunday can log onto:

http://www.a1handicapping.com/danpicks.html

To get an additional unique and valuable slant on handicapping the thoroughbreds, see what my friend the Guru has to say at:

http://www.a1handicapping.com/

Email: Jim@horseracinghandicapper.com fax: (603) 676-1216

Back to Top         Home