Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone Lord
I don't disagree. "Best bet" is really a bad term for it. Everyone has their own way though. Kasept uses two different horses for "most likely winner" and "Best Value" each race ... yet, many times, the most likely winner in a race is also the best value. Further - sometimes there looks to be no identifiable value in the race.... and getting a price when real odds appear is all you can do with races like that.
At the bottom of every card - I have them put 'Most Likely Winner' for only the day - and 'Best Value' for only the day... with the name of horse and race number for each.
It's not the traditional accepted way of doing it - but who cares.
|
It's not that untraditional Doug... I see cappers having a bottom of the selections 'Most Likely' and 'Best Value'. I think Rich Eng does it for one. When I put the Best Value horse on top, I don't use the Most Likely tag at all. I'm saying the top choice is both the best value and most likely. Agree on the no value at times thought, and in those circumstances I'll use Most Likely, Next Best, Exotics Use, Super Add.
I get Jack's point about paying for analysis and getting obvious info too. But it's a capper-by-capper interpretation at DRF it seems because Mike Welsch approaches Best Bet as the horse he thinks has the best chance to win at the best price. (That's my approach in every race.) I first saw Dave Litfin's work in Metro Turf a million years ago, and always seemed to land on the same horses he did back then. As mentioned, the Best Bet thing is an individual approach. What I find of little value in this area is the use of MTO's as his top choices in turf races.