Sam Houston

[Calzone Lord]

The meet starts in Jan. Takeout decreases are mentioned in the article.


http://www.chron.com/sports/article/...ts-2273559.php

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

The meet starts in Jan. Takeout decreases are mentioned in the article.


http://www.chron.com/sports/article/...ts-2273559.php

Not true. The article mentions new wagers with low takeouts, not a decrease in any current ones.

[Calzone Lord]

You're right. I get an F on reading comprehension.

After 1 AM and all.

[cmorioles]

Not a big deal, but it isn't the same. These new bets are ok, but they also dilute the pools available even further. At a place like Sam Houston, where nobody bets anyway, it really is irrelevant.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Not a big deal, but it isn't the same. These new bets are ok, but they also dilute the pools available even further. At a place like Sam Houston, where nobody bets anyway, it really is irrelevant.

I pretty much agree about that point.

I'm running the handicapping equivalent of the spread option... so I will be betting races there ... and other equally obscure tracks.

I've got some crazy perverted approach that has been working well -- but a lot of the prime edge situations come at tracks where pool size is crap and making a big score isn't realistic or sometimes even possible.

Instead of studying trips for like 40 races in NY a week -- and like 20 at other major tracks -- I deal with about 60 or so races a week from all tracks. A quarter of the races (the weakest ones) I will study looking only for the best next out bet againsts. A quarter of them (the strongest ones) I will study looking only for a horse to follow going forward. The other half are races where the pace was run to an extreme -- either way too fast or way too slow -- and I will study them looking either for a bet-against or a horse to follow depending upon whichever makes the most sense when I actually watch and study the race.

It's an odd approach -- but I'd rather spend time watching races and studying trips where special stuff happened -- than worry about races where nothing extreme happened in regard to how it was run.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I pretty much agree about that point.

I'm running the handicapping equivalent of the spread option... so I will be betting races there ... and other equally obscure tracks.

I've got some crazy perverted approach that has been working well -- but a lot of the prime edge situations come at tracks where pool size is crap and making a big score isn't realistic or sometimes even possible.

Instead of studying trips for like 40 races in NY a week -- and like 20 at other major tracks -- I deal with about 60 or so races a week from all tracks. A quarter of the races (the weakest ones) I will study looking only for the best next out bet againsts. A quarter of them (the strongest ones) I will study looking only for a horse to follow going forward. The other half are races where the pace was run to an extreme -- either way too fast or way too slow -- and I will study them looking either for a bet-against or a horse to follow depending upon whichever makes the most sense when I actually watch and study the race.

It's an odd approach -- but I'd rather spend time watching races and studying trips where special stuff happened -- than worry about races where nothing extreme happened in regard to how it was run.

Sounds like you are doing what I've been doing for five years now. It works, but takes a lot of time. Thank goodness I learned how to make a computer do most of the work.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I pretty much agree about that point.

I'm running the handicapping equivalent of the spread option... so I will be betting races there ... and other equally obscure tracks.

I've got some crazy perverted approach that has been working well -- but a lot of the prime edge situations come at tracks where pool size is crap and making a big score isn't realistic or sometimes even possible.

Instead of studying trips for like 40 races in NY a week -- and like 20 at other major tracks -- I deal with about 60 or so races a week from all tracks. A quarter of the races (the weakest ones) I will study looking only for the best next out bet againsts. A quarter of them (the strongest ones) I will study looking only for a horse to follow going forward. The other half are races where the pace was run to an extreme -- either way too fast or way too slow -- and I will study them looking either for a bet-against or a horse to follow depending upon whichever makes the most sense when I actually watch and study the race.

It's an odd approach -- but I'd rather spend time watching races and studying trips where special stuff happened -- than worry about races where nothing extreme happened in regard to how it was run.

How do you determine which races to watch? You just scroll through results charts looking at the fractions and if a fast or slow pace stands out, you watch the replay?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Not a big deal, but it isn't the same. These new bets are ok, but they also dilute the pools available even further. At a place like Sam Houston, where nobody bets anyway, it really is irrelevant.

FWIW, Sam Houston's handle is not that bad. They do 1.3-1.5 million on most Saturday nights which is more than Lone Star does on Saturday afternoons in the summer. The 12% takeout Pick 3s are solid.