American Turf Magazine
View Cart
0 item, $0.00

Jun 16, 2006

Betting Odds Angle

By: Ray Taulbot

Circumstances alter cases. A need for the price rule we are going to write about

is the circumstance that alters much of what we have written about price rules in

 past articles.

Every racing fan of any real experience knows that the prices his winners pay is

 of vital importance to his financial success. However, various turf writers

 have caused some confusion on this subject. A few writers have suggested that

one should confine his wagers to horses that go postward at no less than 8–1; others

 have argued that the smart player never backs a horse that is held at odds of

 more than 4–1. Therefore, some fans are confused as to just what they should do

about price.

The perfect selection method, of course, is one that produces a good percentage

 of winners at moderate prices, but which also points out a winner now and then at

really high odds. It is not too easy to find this happy combination.

However, one must admit that every player does need a high-priced winner every

 now and then in order to help offset the losses incurred during a given period.

His need for a high price now and then is obvious because no matter how good his

 selection method is, or how efficient he may be as a selector, he will always back

 more losers than winners.

As a matter of fact, about the best winning average anyone can maintain over a year

 of operation is about 35 percent. There might be periods when the winning

percentages will climb as high as 60 percent, but sooner or later the percentage will

 encounter its low, which may be in the high 20’s.

So every player must face the inevitable fate that at best he is going to lose about

65 wagers out of every 100 bets he makes. And the losing percentage could

 be still higher, depending on the capability of the individual selector.

Thus, it is clear that one can’t earn a steady profit if all of his winners are low-priced

horses. At least he can’t do it on a flat bet, and progression can prove highly dangerous

in the hands of an inexperienced operator.

The advice that one should stickto selections that go postward at 8–1 or more is

 mathematically sound, but such a demand limits the action severely. Further, such

 a requirement will usually result in a long string of consecutive losses, two facts

 that the average racing fan dislikes.

Is there a truly satisfactory answer to the price problem? We believe there is, but it

involves the use of two methods rather than the usual one mode for making the selection.

A brief example will serve tomake this point clear. Suppose that your present

 method has been found to beentirely sound, but the prices paid by the winners are

 a bit on the low side as compared to the winning percentage.

Under such circumstances, the method will show a small profit. However, in

order to earn an adequate return for your effort it is necessary to increase the amount

 of each wager to a level that may demand more capital than you have available.

 For instance, if the method shows a yearly net profit of $3,500 on a flat $10

 wager, one would have to back each selection with a $30 wager in order to bring

 the yearly net up to a worthwhile figure.

The man who does not have sufficient capital to make such an increase in his

wagers must either stop betting or be satisfied with a couple of thousand

 a year, which is hardly sufficient in these days of high costs.

The only alternative this player has is to employ a longshot method in conjunction

 with his regular method of making selections. However, he should be very careful

 in his selection of aprice method. He can’t afford to choose a method that

 gives him too much action because excessive high-priced action could conflict too

 frequently with his regular selections. In short, he might find it necessary to back

 two horsesin the same race too frequently for his own good.

Therefore, he must seek out a longshot method that will afford him only a few

 plays during the course of aweek. There are two ways in which this can be


1. Make the odds demand for the longshot method 14–1 or more, which will rule

 out many of the plays the method would normally point out; or,

2. Find a system, if possible, that will point out only a few plays each week at any

 one track.

The latter will prove difficult to accomplish. Hence the odds demand of 14–1 or

 more is the more logical choice.

It is our belief that a supplementary longshot method, combined with

 adequate odds, is the correct answer to the price-needed factor in turf speculation.

However, in spite of your best efforts, you will occasionally encounter conflict

 between the two methods used.Therefore you must be prepared to back two

 horses in the same race when this occurs. The trick is to see that it doesn’t occur

 too frequently, and that is where the odds demand will prove of great help.

There are several good longshot methods available to racing fans. However, all of

 them present the problem of too much action to warrant using them in conjunction

 with a sound handicapping method.

We suggest that those of you who are interested in solving the price problem

 through the use of an auxiliary longshot method consider a little plan we have used

 over the years when seeking a high-priced selection.

Perhaps this is not the best angle ever developed for picking high-priced winners,

 but it has served us nicely and should prove of help to you.

Several years ago we noted that some horses that won and paid $30 and more

followed a distinct odds pattern. We also noticed that most horses had moved up

 in class or claiming price last time out.

We recall that on the day when we first noticed these points, there were three high-priced

 winners at two different tracks. In every instance, the three horses won and paid

$30 or more.

This triggered our curiosity to the point where we could not resist checking back

to see whether the same situation had prevailed in the past.

We soon discovered that the same thing that been happening with reasonable

 frequency in the recent past. But we noticed that when the odds today were less

than 10–1, most of the qualified horses finished up the track.

This called for an examination ofpapers for the previous year, and again we found

the same pattern repeating itself. This convinced us that some trainers make a

practice of raising a horse in class or claiming price one race before they intend to

crack down.

We are not prepared to say why trainers sometimes do this; however, it appears

 to be done in the interest of the price next start. This assumption is based on

the fact that too frequently when such horses were held at moderate odds, they

failed to turn in a successful or impressive race.

During the check period, we watched the class factor to the extent of noting

whether or not the horse was dropping in class or claiming price today. We

 found that in most instances, the horse dropped in class or claiming price today.

However, in some instances, the horse went back for its trying effort at the same

 price for which it was entered last start, and in a few instances and under peculiar

conditions, a few of the winners went up in class again today.

This latter situation occurred usually in starter allowance and starter handicap

races, where the events were conditioned for horses that had previously been

entered for a stated claiming price. Technically, such animals were moving up

 from a claiming event into either an allowance or handicap race. But in actuality,

 the field was made up of nothing but claiming platers of a given grade.

However, we decided to confine our selections to qualified horses that were not

moving up in class again today, accepting only those horses that were re-entered

 for a price identical to their last entered price as well as those that were dropping

 down today.

This has caused us to miss some good longshots. Therefore, it is a question you

should decide for yourself after making a check of no less than three months.

Following are the selection rules to qualify a longshot selection:

1. The horse must have moved up in claiming price last start if entered in a claiming

race, or one full grade or more if it was entered in a non-claiming race

in its next-to-last race.

2. The horse must have started at a major track within the past 30 days, and its

last race must have been run over a major track it if is running today over a

major course.

3. The horse must have finished in the money in its next-to-last race, or it must

have been running first, second or third at the stretch call in its next-to-last

race, being no more than three lengths off the leader at that point.

4. The horse’s odds in its most recent race must have been 10–1 or more and

they must be at least two times higher than the horse’s odds in its next-to-last race.

5. The horse must not be movingup in class or claiming price today. It must be

 entered for the same class or at a lower class than its entered class last time out.

The odds today must be 14–1or higher.


December 14 3rd Aqueduct

1 mile 70 yards

Maiden claiming price $50,000

Can’t Stop Dancingc.2 $40,000

1Dec00-4Aqu fst 1 m Md clm 50000

7 8 6 6 23.30

9Nov00-9Med fst 1-70 Md clm 250008 5 4 2 9.90


Look at the past performances of the two-year-old maiden Can’t Stop Dancing who

 won and paid $48.80 in the third race at Aqueduct on December 14, 2000.

He was a perfect claiming qualifier.

<< Back To Newsletter

Redeeming a gift certificate or promotional certificate? We'll ask for your claim code when it's time to pay.