- DRF Bets
- Handicapping & PPsThoroughbred Past Performances
ReportsPremium NewsDigital PapersHorsemen's Products
- DRF Classic PDF PPs
- DRF Formulator PPs
- TimeformUS PPs
- DRF EasyForm PPs
- Daily Racing Program PPs
- Equibase PPs
- TrackMaster PPs
- Using Timeform Ratings
- NewsCategoriesTrack Notes
- Learn to Play
- History of Horseracing
- How to read PPs
- How to use EasyForm
- How to use Formulator
- How to use TicketMaker
- Beyer Speed Figures
- Moss Pace Figures
- Using Race Shape Symbols
- Using Timeform Ratings
- BreezeFigs Handicapping
- Wagering and Winning
- Harness Night School
- Point of Call Index
- 3-Year Best Time Chart
- DRF TV
- StorePast Performances
- Compare all DRF PPs
- DRF Formulator PPs
- DRF Classic PPs
- TimeformUS PPs
- DRF EasyForm PPs
- Daily Racing Program PPs
- Equibase & Trackmaster PPs - Thoroughbred
jlwood says: I'm amazed that the Distaff saw such declines. Players whine that all they want is full, evenly matched fields and the Distaff was all that with pretty much every high quality mare (except Rags, obviously) in the lineup. At two seminars I was involved with I saw full agreement this this running was suberb, a bettors delight for anyone who had an opinion. Was it that hard to form an opinion?
The size of year-over-year betting declines on the Distaff were indeed one of the biggest surprises on the handle comparison. The straight pools were off 25 percent, while the other seven races were down from 12 to 20 percent in the WPS pools; the declines of 23 percent in exacta betting and 33 percent in trifecta betting were also the largest dropoffs on the card. What makes it so odd is that this is one race where field size and perceived difficulty were so similar to lat year. While the size of the Turf was down from 11 to 8 and the Classic down from 13 to 9, the Distaff had 14 horses in '06 and 12 in '07.
One shot at an explanation: The pick-3 ending with the Distaff showed the smallest year-over-year decline of the six involving BC races. I suspect a lot of people played that pick-3 narrowing in the Sprint and then spreading in the Mile and Distaff and were alive to a bunch in the last leg and just watched it play out instead of getting further involved in what seemed like an impossible race. Similarly, last year more people were already dead in the late pick-4 after Miesque's Approval won the Mile at 25-1 than this year when Kip DeVille won it at 8-1.
There's also a fine line between a "great betting race" and an "impossible" race. Anecdotally, I don't recall hearing a single horseplayer tell me he "loved" one of the seven horses who went off between 9-2 and 9-1 in the Distaff. I'm not arguing with anyone who liked Ginger Punch at 9-2, Hystericalady at 9-1 or Octave at 7-1, but were these really such incredible bargains in a field where you could make some kind of a case for most of them?
scott_thomson says: I know you are a fan of 10-cent supers. What about a 10-cent pick six?
The pick six is the only bet I don't think should be offered at a dime minimum, simply because there would rarely be carryovers and carryovers are what make the pick six so attractive and popular. I do think there's an argument to dropping it at least to $1, though, on Breeders' Cup Friday and/or Saturday, since there are no carryover issues. (Yes, technically BC Friday carries into BC Saturday, but this year's $82k carry into a guaranteed $3 million pool didn't attract an extra nickel.) I would love to see them try a $1 pick-six on BC Day at OSA next year, and maybe this year's massive drop -- from $4.7 million to $3.2 million -- provides the cover for an experiment.
kchris says: I put together a $180 ticket[for Wednesday's Aqueduct carryover]. I live 50 miles from the Tampa track and cannot bet New York tracks on-line, so did not put the ticket in. I had a 3 x 5 x 3 x 1 x 1 x 2. 1a,8,10 with 3,4,5,8,9 with 1,5,6 with 3 with 1 with 4,5. In the 2nd leg, 9 was my 5th choice, but if I was that deep, how could I leave it out? Now I am kicking myself - 5 favs and it paid $14k - crazy.
On the face of it, $14k for five favorites and an 11-1 shot sounds like an early Christmas, but yesterday's Aqueduct pick-six is a textbook example of how much easier these things can look in retrospect than in practice. Those five winning favorites were as shaky as you'll find, a collection of completely untrustworthy runners who, for the most part, were favored by default. I think it was a day that worked better for small-to-medium bankrolls than for larger ones: Forced to use just one or two horses per race, you probably would have included them all, but more aggressive players probably went deep to come up with them, leaving them little money to go deep enough to come up with Love Cove.
tom_mcdonough says: I am curious as to how you analyzed the 2d and 6th legs of the Pick 6-I put in a $216 ticket and went three-deep in the 2d race and had the winner, but didn't have either of the two favorites in the final-I had the 2 and 3 neither of which you touched going 6 deep.
In the second leg, I thought (mistakenly) that Going Day and Impressionism had kept better company and run faster than the rest and included Thiella because I thought she had room to improve. I never thought about using Love Cove, who was moving from statebred to open company, had been laid off 10 weeks followed by three slow works, and had run consistently slower than the top pair.
In the last leg, I quickly tossed Ofcr. Sheila T. Rex and Aintwegotfun because both had quit badly in six-furlong turf sprints and now were stretching out to a mile and a sixteenth in a full field where there was going to be plenty of early speed. In general, I've found it profitable to play against turf sprinters the first time they go longer. Grass routes are occasionally stolen on the front end but not as often as people think. A second-time starter stretching out after being unreasonably sent in his debut can sometimes be worth a shot, but a stone-cold quitter with no grass pedigree is a horrible proposition going long on the turf. I was astounded that Ofcr. Sheila T. Rex was 4-1.
mike_p says: I'm interested in the total handle on the Night of Stars, as well as the handle for the Pick 6. I noticed where it paid $15k, and the largest priced winner was post-time third choice (didn't compare morning-line odds)?
I'm interested too for curiosity's sake, but because the 17 NOS races were run at 17 different tracks, none of which routinely publish their race-by-race handle, it's impossible to put together. Here's a link to the results. The pick six paid $15,937.50 with a $75k guarantee and apparently no consos. That's either 3 or 4 winners, depending on the (unpublished) takeout rate.
flip_dawson says: Was checking the superfectas at Oak Tree, and for some reason, even with large pools, the supers pay very low. For instance, 7-1, 5-1, 8-1, 7-2 might pay an insulting $1698.40. This is too low, as at Woodbine, the same odds would pay at least 3 grand. I get the feeling that someone is hammering these nags down in the supers at Santa Anita.
I'm hearing more and more that people think superfecta payoffs are being depressed and offering less value because of dime minimums but this doesn't make any sense to me -- other than the very occasional payoff where one player might have scooped the pool at a $1 minimum. Otherwise, the takeout rates and the number of possible permutations haven't changed, and if some are paying less than they used to, others must be paying more.
By the way, the fair payout for a superfecta of 7-1/5-1/8-1/7-2 is around $2800 for $2, give or take for field size and local takeout and pool size, so I'm not sure whether you were properly insulted by a $1698.40 return for $2 or got a pretty square return of $1698.40 for $1.
---Going to wrap this up quickly so I can get on record before 1:30 p.m. with our Day 2 NMLF (No Morning Line Favorites) Aqueduct Showdown selection. Today's third race scratched down to a field of four and you're crazy not to make your selection in a race where you only have to beat one horse to advance. (There's no actual show betting on the third at Aqueduct but you could still use the race for contest purposes.) Let's take Be Bullish, originally 10-1 on the line, which makes him the after-scratch second choice behind originally-5-1 Beijing House. The latter comes off a blowout against suspect company at Suffolk Downs while Be Bullish has faced better, turns back in class and distance, and can't possibly finish last from the outside post in a field of four, can he?
Update 1:31 p.m.: Oh yes he can. Outbroken early by Beijing House, Be Bullish tired from chasing and came out on the short end of a three-way stretch duel for the distant runner-up spot. Also, Be Bullish went off the post-time favorite at 1-1 vs. Beijing House at 6-5, so I think all the people who used the scratched Rollers and Captain Backfire got transferred to a loser. Once again, we're out of the Showdown on Day Two. Tough game.
Excellent point Brucie
The argument against the 10 cent Pick 6 is that the occurance of carryovers would be significantly reduced, thus 'killing' the bet for the tracks (reduced handle) and the 'real' players. This would only be a problem if the rules allowed a dime bet to scoop the whole pot. It seems eminently reasonable to me that a dime player should expect to receive 5% of what a $2 bettor would receive under similar circumstances. In the case of a scoop, that means the winning (dime)player would get 5% of the available pot and the rest of the pool (95%) would go into a carryover. The bet already has a similar situation when nobody picks 6. The players who correctly picked 5 don't split up the whole pot, they settle for a reduced payout. I think the lone (dime) winner would be more than happy to collect his 5% 'bonanza' and move on to tomorrow's 95% carryover like everyone else.
wondering if anyone saw the mutuals from fl 8th race on 11/9.steve, do you know what was the size of the show pool and did the stewards need protection to leave .
Dear Steve, I recently sent you an email requesting contact information for Jim Quinn, my college friend at St. Bonaventure. You were kind enough to reach out to him for me and I'm happy to report that I received an email from him this Thursday. Thank you so much for helping me get in touch. Best wishes for continued success in all you do. Best regards, Roger Gautrau
Eddie, Congrats,and relax: I didn't say the winners weren't best or won by default, I said they were difficult horses to stand alone with confidently. Saint Barr had been tiring going shorter, Bailero's recent form was awful and he was taking a huge drop, and Sherine hadn't won on the dirt. You were wise to use them and to focus in on them to whatever extent you did.
As someone who hit the pick six Wednesday at Aqueduct, I have to object to your statement, "Those five winning favorites were as shaky as you'll find, a collection of completely untrustworthy runners who, for the most part, were favored by default." Saint Barr won by 4 3/4 lengths, Bailero (Arg) by 4 1/4 lengths, and Sherine by 11 1/4 lengths. Clearly, these were the best horses in those races. The five favorites won by a combined 23 lengths.
Hi Steve, I'd like to comment on your response to flip_dawson about the dime supers and lower P6s. Like you, I am also not in favor of lowering the P6 minimum. However, I disagree with you about dime supers... Something about your response seems contradictory to me: "...other than the very occasional payoff where one player might have scooped the pool at a $1 minimum. Otherwise, the takeout rates and the number of possible permutations haven't changed" You correctly acknowledge the increased possibility of pool scooping at the lower minimum. I agree. But what does that really mean? It means that the wacky 50-1/40-1/80-1/20-1 super 'scoop' combo was more likely to be hit because of the lower minimum. My question is this: doesn't the same hold true for every other combination as well? I believe there's a reason why a higher proportion of winners are produced by the lower minimums. Hint: it's the same reason pool scooping exists. I believe dime minimums change the WAY people approach the super. The lazy types (99% of the betting public) want to box whenever possible because it's low-risk and they don't have to make too many concrete decisions. Slashing the cost of the super by a factor of 10 enables them to make ridiculous boxes for minimal layout. The mid-size bankroll player might spend $84 for a 7-horse dime box, but will probably not want to spend $840 for the same box at $1 minimum. At a $1 minimum, the player will be forced to take some stands (1 horse keyed on top, 2 horses on the board together, 1 horse wheeled, etc) to make the bet affordable. More often than not, those stands will be enough to prevent him from hitting the bet. However, at a dime minimum, the player can spend the same gross amount and have a much better shot at hitting the bet. The question is: are the average player's chances of hitting the bet with a wild dime box increased by more than 10x compared to playing tighter at $1? If the answer to that question is 'yes', then the payouts are reduced. If the answer is 'no', they're not. I think the answer is 'yes', but I could be wrong.
I offered the mulligan before on Showdown, maybe now?
As a follow-up to the Auqueduct pick-6 I should've hit but did not play on 11/7, I may use a different approach than you. I go through the sequence and mark any horse that has a chance to win and total what that would be. If the amount is reasonable, I play it. On big carryover days I am willing to play up to $500 or so as long as I feel strongly for my 2 or 3 singles... As to Love Deep, she consistently finishes strongly. In her last race on 8/22 @ Saratoga she came home in 29.2 secs. It may have been against statebreds, but it was faster than Impressionism on 8/26 @ Saratoga & Belmont on 9/21. Going Day appeared that she may want longer. In my mind they were the 2 class plays and she matched up against them so had to be left in the hopper. Plus, I am an Albertrani fan... I will admit though that I seldom play NY tracks during the week (no on-line betting access) but do play California daily. So I am not as familiar with the lesser-known trainers and not as familiar with many of the claiming horses in NY. There were only 2 claiming races in the sequence & both winners were Juan Rodriguez (Dutrow) horses.
Steve ... isn't "suspect company at Suffolk Downs" a bit redundant? Keep bloggin'