In thoroughbred horse racing, what is the one major thing that makes you decide to play a horse?

Answer 1

Can't limit it to one, but it must pass my "screen"; what follows is the general idea.

First of all I split my strategy in two: for those races usually dominated by Favorites or those by Longshots, namely the higher the grade, the more I tend to look at Favorites - and the lower the level ($3,500 claiming, maiden, etc.), the more I tend to bet Longshots. 3 yr old Fillies races tend to be Favorites-biased, but FM 4+ NW2 are definitely LS-biased, so pay attention to the gals - they can make you a lot of $! I bet Favorites to Show and multiple Longshots to Win, but against odds-on Favorites I generally bet two horses to Place as that way I can avoid a Show minus pool.

Here's my general checklist: For both: if the horse raced its last race within 15 days, if it finished that one at least within the top 33% of all the finishes of the other horses it is running against in this one (it came in 2nd and the average finish was 4.7, etc.), if it has shown that it can recover after a bad finish, AND if it outranked another horse that ran against it before that is also running in this race (unless it finished 1st, in which case it may have a "bounce"). A more recent Place outweighs one from a year ago, etc. If the race is a contest among horses that all finished first thru fourth their last time out, I pass, as the level of talent is too close to call.

Then specifically for Favorites: does it have the most money being bet on it to Win, Place and Show (no Silky Sullivan bets for me!) or is it ranked in the same place for all three W/P/S pools (3rd most $ in all three pools, etc., instead of 3rd, 5th and 1st) AND/OR have its odds gone down the most %, or did it start by being the Morning Line Favorite #2 and then underlayed below the Favorite at Post Time? I bet it to Show, with a preference for an underlayed First Favorite whose odds went down 30% rather than a 50 to 1 that went down 200%, with a bias towards betting inside posts or those on the extreme outside or dead-center (except in outside-biased tracks in the rain, such as Suffolk Downs, due to the way the water runs off the track). A bonus if the horse has ever been raised in class and still performed better than at that prior race in that lower level - But I do NOT bet it just because it IS dropping in class today - must have done that previously and outperformed, and hopefully after that the trainer rasied it up (to the previous level where it originally failed) and it failed again at the (original) higher level, so it's being dropped AGAIN. I veto the horse with the highest % underlay/most $ in the W/P/S pools/ is the post time Favorite if its last race is the OLDEST date compared to those of the other horses in today's race. I tend to veto it also if it is next to the "worst" horse - either highest odds or highest % overlay, or both, but odds-on Favorites have a way of winning anyway, so I veto in that case only when the Favorite's odds are not at or below even money.

For Longshots (in my view generally anything that has higher odds than "the total number of horses in the field minus 1", or the "average" odds in the race): does its past performance suggest that its odds are too high in this race? In other words has it finished first in the past after a poor performance, and this race is after one such poor performance NOT due to injury (bad break, traffic, terrible jockey - hint - look at Mountaineer and other smaller tracks and you will see horses that succeed quite nicely after the owner(s) dump a bad jockey/trainer); or is the public just ignoring it hoping for the odds-on favorite to win a Maiden race (dumb idea)?; or in a non-maiden/Non-NW2 race, has it won at least three times and demostrated a consistency that eventually leads to a win after 4-5 races of non-wins. IS IT AN OVERLAY? This is a sign that the public is overlooking the horse. I then bet multiple Longshots to win, with as many as 6 bets in a large field (10 -12, with 3-4 bets and a field of 7-10 being the norm), but ALL the candidates must make the list and the odds of ALL must be high enough for a profit when I'm right. But if it typically just finishes third when it scores? veto. I make an exception for the "overlay-only" rule when betting Longshots whenever I see a trend at a large track after a Longshot win in the previous race for several Longshots in this race to become underlays - a sign that professional gamblers are realizing that the Morning Line and the public have been wrong and missing Longshot wins - so the Pros jump in and bet them down - with those at 8 or 10-1 going down being the sweet spot - rather than those at 50-1 as previously-mentioned - but if the odds of any LS drops to 5-2 I stay away as if that is the Longshot out of the four I bet on in that race, even if I win, I lose money - if I feel like gambling, I will single out such an underlay and bet it like I would in the Favorites section above, making sure that the money in each of its pools is AT LEAST AS LOW AS its post time Favorites ranking (for example: #5 most amount of $ in all pools and it's post time Favorite #6, etc.).

I generally pass on Allowance, Starter Allowance, Maiden Special Weight and "mixed" races (such as a combination of the following: 3 yr olds and up who have EITHER never won, OR never won 2 times, OR are NW except in Maiden, Starter etc.; OR who have never won more than $6,000 in a $25,000 Claiming level; OR which are jumping three levels in class without any serious earnings history.) I veto mixed races because I have no way of determining the bias of the race (Fav vs. LS).

I DO bet Longshots in a Turf race that has been moved off the turf due to rain, as a non-turf horse has smaller feet less subject to slipping in the mud - and Favorites generally lose their advantage in the mud also. I tend to bet more dirt races of 5 1/2 furlongs to 1 mile as they seem to be more predictable. An area that has a lot of upsets is Fillies and Mares 3+ Stakes on 1 1/4 Turf. Lots of Mid- and Long-odds upsets, so it is a crapshoot!

Now if you want to know when I ABSOLUTELY will not bet on a horse, it is with a jockey who has an ITM% at the bottom of the list and who is not hitting with favorites on the day in question. But in that case I make no bet at all because I am not sure who will take that horse's place, although in California races I would probably be tempted to bet Russell Baze or Nakatani, and at Woodbine I would be tempted to bet Justin Stein. I also stay away with three tied Favorites at or below 3 to 1 at post time because there's no way to profit and too much risk to bet against all of them; or if four horses have odds at or below 4 to 1 but no real Favorite at to 2-1 or lower - because then it's like nobody, not even the ML handicapper, has any clue as to who's good or a clear Favorite - and I don't have a basis for betting with OR against the public as no commitment of any kind is going on.

I treat scratch situations very carefully as they can turn a predictible result into a "What the hell?" In long races with a lone speed horse next to the scratch it can be over in the first 5 seconds, but in other "Favorites-biased" races a scratch can backfire on the Favorite and help the Longshots - I saw a race recently where almost all the horses were next to a scratch - and the horse that came in dead last was the ONLY horse NOT next to one!

I generally box my Exactas/Trifectas, never wheeling or keying (as I hope to God the worst horse will win!): First favorite underlay, horse with the most underlay %, horse that ranked #1 in the Favorites criteria above; non-second/third Favorite with highest underlay %; horse with the highest overlay unjustified (must meet LS criteria above), along with a couple of proprietary ideas I am not willing to share because they took me years to develop, such as pool imbalances, Longshot Wins correlated to overlay % and Show odds correlated to purse size (sorry!).

Things that I ignore:
Pedigree in all but the highest levels.
Expert opinions, except for general information.
Changing my bets due to people who disagree with my style, except that I am always learning from others.
The actual look of an animal (I've seen many a sick-looking one trounce the competition).
Earnings history - that's because all the money could have come from Winning, from Showing, or be due to a consistent "Show" horse in high purse levels versus one that Won a lot in low $ claiming races.


Other things I avoid: betting low-odds horses from the best trainers, as there is too much risk without much reward.
A horse that has won too many recent races.
Two favorites whose odds shift and are so close at post time as
to make it impossible for you to determine which is the Favorite.

But in my opinion none of these ideas is the "major" one - they all have to work together; But also important is wager size and bankroll control, in which I tend to prefer the "% of bankroll" rule, but with a bias to conservatism so that a 4-box Trifecta bet will always stay at the minimum to not depress the pool, thereby creating an automatic loss when right. Of course I size the E/T bets differently than straight W/P/S, about 25 to 1 in $. When I feel like doing across-the-board I size it 2/4/8, that is, the Show bet is the largest - that way, if a 20 to 1 Shows, I still make money.

Answer 2

My dad's been a horse better for a long time, in fact some of my earliest memories was playing in the yard with the other kids while parents were betting. (This was a few years ago when it was safe to let your kids run around and come back for us 3 hours later).

Before my dad let me play he always gave me the program and made me pick 2 horsed from every race. I picked the horse based on their name. If the name was a winner like "Iminthelead", then I would pick that one.

Never fails that the horse I picked would be in the top 2. I never play the odds... sometimes a horse can be rated 1:1 and still come in 4th. You don't know how many times my dad wanted to kick himself for not at least buying one ticket for my horse to "win" just because my horse was rated 20:1.

Now, my dad always attaches my horse to his triactor tickets or will make a side bet for my picks in a super 7.

Answer 3

Learn to read the books. I like to base my bet on the history of the horse vs. the current conditions. A solid horse on the inside track is a safe bet.

Answer 4

It should be its lines. How fit he looks and how much muscal you can see on thier legs. You can also tell by thier behavior. Most of the time the more tempermant ones are the ones that tend to win because they always want to be first in line and the best. You also can tell by how thier coat looks: if its nice and glossy and smooth then it means its healthy and might run better but if it looks off color and is not silky like then the horse is not fit to run.

Answer 5

if it is wearing a red shadow roll... (not really, Id have to see them on the track and handicap it in using the racing form, or if I got good information from someone close to the barn)

Answer 6

There is no one major thing...many things need to be taken into account.

Answer 7

Learn to read the books.

Answer 8

One most important variable is jockey/trainer win %

Answer 9

getty up horse!

Answer 10

Pedigree, legs, form, and HEART!