In Horseracing, why do claiming races at smaller tracks produce best wagering results? Best if claim > $6000.

Question

I studied many cards and if you ignore the top tracks (aqu,hol,cd etc)
and only bet claiming races for over $6000 the results are pretty good. Any reason for this?

Answer 1

The smaller tracks have a smaller population of horses and there are fewer claiming divisions to run in. As a result they run against many of the same horses race to race and hold their form better than if it is an entirely new field each race. Around the 6000 level the horses are a little better than bottoms(lowest claiming price) at most tracks so that also helps them to hold their form better.

Answer 2

I have had a lot of luck in those races taking horses that are dropping in class. In a fairly cheap race at a smaller track, a horse that has run against better competition at a major track will sometimes run a great race against lesser opponents. Oftentimes other bettors will overlook those horses because their recent form appears poor, but it may simply be a factor of them being in at too high a level. If a horse from Aqueduct or Churchill finds its way to Beulah or Philadelphia, it's usually a good bet even if it has been routinely finishing off the board.

Answer 3

All that would depend on whether you are a favorites or longshot-biased bettor. I personally like "bad" races, such as low $ claiming and maidens because more longshots come in as the handicapping is more spotty; this allows me to bet multiple horses to place, etc., and still profit. So it all depends on your viewpoint whether you think the results are "pretty good". But it sounds like it would be safe to bet favorites to show when following your guidelines, because the handicapping would seem to be more consistently in line with expectations, so that in and of itself has value. So thanks for pointing out to me another angle.