Race 5 at Belmont Park on July 13th gave me the idea for this month's topic,
namely, a continuation of the very important subject of wagering that was begun
in the 2nd issue of this newsletter on November 2, 2002.
Wagering of course is actually only one part of the overall process of making money
on the thoroughbreds. There is contender selection, as well as the other
things that we can do that will also improve our chances of success, like assigning our
own odds to the contenders we've come up with, and keeping records of our
But the main focus of today's discussion is, "when do we bet to win, and when do we
make exotic wagers?"
First of all, it's a personal choice. Some players swear by win bets only, while
others play primarily exactas and trifectas. Some do both, and include D/D's,
superfectas, Pick 3's, Pick 4's and even Pick 6's in the mix.
I would guess that if we took a survey of a few thousand players that included
occasional, recreational, and professional, we would find that there is a fairly even
mix between those who make only win wagers, and those who combine win with exotic plays.
Again, record keeping can point you to the wagering strategies that are right for
you. If you keep accurate records of all bets you make, you may find that all
indications are that the great bulk of your winnings come from win wagers.
On the other hand, you may see that you do okay with win bets, but your exacta and
trifecta wagering is what keeps you near or in the black.
My choice? A combination of both win wagering and exotic wagering. As you will see,
my standard wager options are win, exacta and trifecta.
I've heard it said that the art of wagering is actually more important than
the ability to come up with viable contenders. Some have put it at as much as 60-40,
and I cannot disagree with that assessment.
For many the handicapping process can boil down to spending most of their time on
contender selection before suddenly asking themselves something along the lines of,
It's my belief that we should know precisely what to do with our contenders
when crunch time arrives and it's time to make wagers.
It should be understood that this discussion is simply my opinion and demonstrates the
way I go about things myself. It's not etched in stone as the one and only path to
success, but the ideas presented here are the ones that work for me.
So how do I suggest determining the right wagers for any particular situation?
To begin with, of course, one needs a good enough contender selection process to come
up with the right horses (at the right odds) enough of the time to make a profit.
And if you're interested in my particular strategies in this area as well as the topics I
refer to as valuation and strategic action, you can check out my book,
"Calibration Handicapping - The Next Level" by clicking here.
My approach to wagering is simple. What I do is let the odds board and probable
payoffs tell me if I should be making bets on any particular race, and if so which ones.
As I've said in the past, before I gather the critical information from the near post
time odds, I first need answers to some important questions.
1.) Which are the contenders in this race?
2.) Which of those do I think can win this race?
3.) What are all of my wagering options?
The reason I ask these questions of myself is to make sure that before I begin to
construct appropriate wagers as given to me by the odds board, I have decisively concluded
exactly which of my contenders are win candidates.
You see, I believe that when it comes to exacta and trifecta wagering it's important
to assign each contender its appropriate slot, win, place or show.
I don't think it's a great idea to simply box all of the contenders every time we find
a race that we believe presents enough value for us to construct wagers.
Surely we will prefer one or two over the others for the win most of the time. On the
rare occasions when we think that the top 3 contenders have an equal chance to
win, then the 3-horse exacta and or/trifecta box becomes an option.
Providing of course that all 6 probable exacta combinations pay our minimum set amount,
which in my case is $30 to $35. If all 6 probable payoffs are not at least
in that range, then a 3-horse box (either exacta or trifecta) should not be considered
an option that is worth the risk.
Other than on those occasions in which we can begin by "boxing", wagers should be made
using key horses in the win slot. Most of the time, when I play the exacta or
trifecta, I'll have 2 contenders that I think have a real shot at the win, and on
most occasions use them and them alone in the win slot with the others only in the
place and/or show slot.
And being keenly aware of what all of the wagering options are will allow me to be
guided most appropriately by those near post odds.
By near post odds I mean the odds on the tote board at approximately 15 minutes before
post time. Followed by a careful monitoring of the odds up until 3 or 4 minutes before the
gates are due to open, at which point I will know exactly which bets, if any, I will make
on a given race.
In the November '02 issue of this newsletter I presented a fairly comprehensive
wagering plan that I devised and use. In that there is a statement that says I believe
there should be no more than 3 contenders in fields of 8 horses or less.
In larger fields one can add what I refer to as a "periphery play", or a
horse that looks like it can hit the board, but is not as likely as the top 3 contenders to
win the race. In full fields of 12 I can see having up to 3 main contenders and 2
Race 5 at Belmont on July 13th, however has now made me amend that thinking slightly.
After not connecting on the exacta and trifecta in that race, I now firmly believe that
we can use a periphery play in smaller fields also.
As long as the proper value is present, as discussed just above.
My reasoning for the old thinking was that if we are convinced that there are 4
contenders in a short field, say composed of 6 to 8 horses, the race is too contentious,
meaning too many that can win the race and it would take too much of an investment
to cover all of them.
But the key to the wagering process is as No. 2 of the questions I
mentioned asks, "which of these contenders can actually win this race?"
If you have 4 contenders in a 7 horse field and you answer "all 4" to that
question, then you very likely do have a race that is too contentious to risk your
money on. Passing on such a race is the most prudent option. Simply don't play it.
Wait until the next good value situation presents itself.
And make no mistake about it. Many if not most of the races we encounter will be for one
reason or another (too contentious, too many first time starters present, too many distance
or surface switches, standout odds-on favorite, etc.) will be non playing events.
In this game, those that make money are also those with patience.
Remember,patience attains all that it strives for.
If, however, the answer to question #2 is 1 or 2 horses, then you can
proceed with the rest of the wager construction process using only that or those horses in the
win slot (again, as I say most of the time, because as you will
see there will be occasions in which I will key the value win contender in the win and
place slots in exotic wagers).
There are a couple of other key questions I want answered also.
Do I have an edge in this match up?
And do I have value in this situation?
And I get into those questions in a little more detail in the November '02 issue. A link
to all the archived issues of this newsletter can be found at the very end of today's
and every month's edition (as well as on the Newsletter Subscriber Free Selections page).
Let's get to that 5th race at Belmont I've been referring to, and I'll go through
my actual thought process and my new amended philosophy about constructing the right
wagers for any situation.
You can view and/or print the p.p.'s for this race by clicking
And the results chart is here.
I recommend waiting until after we review the races before you
check on the results.
Below are the selections with analysis I made for this race as posted on the private
web page for subscribers to this newsletter, the link to that page being
Race 5 - Post 3:04 EDT
5. Karakorum Crusader (4-1) (3-1)
6. Muggles (7-2) (2-1)
4. Cologny (5-2) (5-2)
This is a field of 6 going 6F at the N.Y.S.B.
NW2X allowance level, with 4 being early speed
D/P (71/25.0) #5 Karakorum Crusader ran well
in her last to grab 2nd when going 7F at odds of
65-1. If she is unaware of her many defeats at this
level and her overall career record of 38/2-11-9,
she could very well finally get through her N.Y.S.B.
conditions cutting back to her preferred distance
in a field void of any greatness.
#6 Muggles finished in front of the top pick
in her last couple, including her last speed and
fade effort in the Belmont slop back on May 22nd.
She also finished behind that one when they ran
2nd and 3rd in her 3rd race back. Going with
blinkers for the first time today, coupled with
her short break in the action, makes her a top 2
contender in this match up.
#4 Cologny earned her initial allowance
score when winning her 7th attempt at the N.Y.S.B.
NW1X level. It was a near wire to wire effort in
the slop, and she should go well in this spot
trying this condition for the first time.
As you can see in the p.p.'s for this race, it was a short field of 6 going 6
Until this race made me amend my thinking, in a race with this few runners, I
would want no more than 3 contenders, or as I said above it would be considered
too contentious. After all, how can you effectively use 4 horses in a field of 6?
Well, we'll now see how. And this is a demonstration of why no matter how long you
have been playing the horses, and whether or not you make money at it, you are
still eligible to learn new things that will help your bottom line.
In this race I saw a pace shape that would favor a horse that would come from
off the pace. Simply because there were 4 early speed horses entered, my order
of those being 3-6-4-2.
In such a pace shape the first thing I will want to take a close look at is the
closing punch of each entry or as I call it the final fraction (FF). This race
being run at 6F, that final fraction would be the 3rd quarter.
The horse with the clear cut last out FF advantage was #5 Karakorum Crusader, and
despite her career record of 38/2-11-2 I made her my top choice.
Since #6 Muggles ran her last in the slop, I went back to her prior and off that outing
made her my 2nd pick.
Now here is where I realize I went wrong. I remember thinking that I have my top
2 selections, which would definitely be the horses I would consider using for the win
wager and in the win slot for any exotic wagers I may make.
But I had to make a decision between two other horses (that I considered
having a chance at getting the place or show slots) to include only three picks
for this race.
I could not list both (or use both) because it was only a 6 horse field and
according to my wagering plan that would be one too many.
There was bad and there was good that came out of this dilemma. First of all, I
chose the wrong one of two as my 3rd and only other contender. But from that
incorrect stipulation in my wagering plan, not only was this newsletter spawned,
but a clearly needed amendment to my wagering process was generated also.
The 2 horses I was considering as my 3rd choice in this race each had their own
positives and negatives. They were #1 Hussy and #3 Cologny. Obviously, I went
Hussy had not run since February 15th, a layoff of 148 days, and I call any
horse stale that has not run inside of 90 days or so. Stale meaning
very likely in need of a race before being tabbed a contender.
But there are 2 things I will look for when trying to assess whether or not a
stale horse is worth considering. How she was running prior to the layoff, and
her recent workout activity.
Those factors caught my attention regarding Hussy. First of all, her last outing
was against tougher competition when she ran dead last in an $81K stakes race.
In her prior, however, she won a N.Y.S.B. NW1X allowance race with a comparable
FF of 25.4.
And I had underlined in red her last couple of workouts, 59.3 on June 26th and
100.2 on July 3rd.
#4 Cologny on the other hand had just gotten through her preliminary
state bred allowance condition in her last outing on June 1st. That was in the
slop, and her prior outing was good also, a 3rd place finish with a 25.4 FF.
Since I had to choose between Hussy and Cologny, I had to go with
But that was a critical mistake that cost me and others that played this race
based on my selections (unless they played only to win, in which case they won).
Those of us that played to win plus exactas and/or trifectas made money also, but should
have connected on the exotic plays as well.
The answers to my 3 pre-wagering questions were, "#'s 5, 6, and 4", "#'s 5 and 6",
and "win, exacta and trifecta."
If this race was going to be run today, in spite of it being a field of only 6,
the answer to questions 2 and 3 would remain the same, but the answer to question
1 would be "#'s 5, 6, 4, and 1."
Why? Because despite Hussy having not run in 5 months, there was enough of a
question in my mind of the possibility of her running well enough to catch a part
of this race that should have had her included as a periphery play.
Here is how I let the odds board tell me what wagers I should make in any given
situation, and we'll begin with race 5 at Belmont Park on July 13th.
Since I had clearly defined my win candidates as #5 Karakorum Crusader and #6 Muggles,
those were my only two options for the win bet. The respective morning line and my
value line for each were 4-1/3-1 and 7-2/2-1.
As I began to track the near post odds for both of those as well as the exacta
probable payoffs of the combinations of 5-6, 6-5, 5-4, 4-5, 6-4, and 4-6, I could
see pretty clearly that my win bet was going to be on my top choice #5 Karakorum
Since I had only 2 possibilities for a win bet, the way I let the near final odds
determine that wager was to compare actual near final odds to my
With Karakorum Crusader hovering at around 6 or 7 to 1 and Muggles at 5-2 or 2-1,
it was a no-brainer as to which was the overlay or value play.
Now you might say, "what if it was the other way around?" "Does this mean that if
your 2nd choice was 5-1 and your 1st choice was 2-1 you would automatically go
with your 2nd choice?"
The answer is yes. If this was a circumstance in which I felt that each of my top
3 contenders had a shot at the win slot I would go with the one (if any) that was
the biggest overlay, or the one that had the greatest odds over my value line.
The reasoning is simple. If I think that 2 (or even 3) horses have at least some
chance of winning the race, then why even consider going with the lesser odds?
The only time I will have only one win contender is when I find a race in which I can
only answer with that horse the question of which can win this race.
By choosing my win wagers this way, I make more money in the long run. Yes, there
are times when the 2-1 shot (or even 6-5) shot horse like Muggles will win and my
wager on a horse like Karakorum Crusader will go down.
But making value lines that are simply odds below which I cannot place a win bet
make determining that win wager horse an easy decision. And I have found that playing
the win candidate with the greatest overlay odds produces the best long term R.O.I.
In my book I go into some detail concerning how to go about making accurate value
There is of course a win wager option called "dutching" or playing 2 horses to win,
but I don't consider that unless each is at least 7-1. A $16 payoff for a $4 outlay is
still a good profit (3-1), but it's a rare situation in which I'll "dutch."
Some people swear by "dutching", and I know it works for them. For me, however,
being a player who not only bets to win, but also plays exactas and/or trifectas,
"dutching" does not fit into my plans very often.
So the odds board made my decision for the win bet Karakorum Crusader. What about
the exacta or trifecta bet?
The standard answer to question 3 above is "win, exacta, and trifecta." Those are
my standard options.
Most of the time I prefer to stay within a race, which
means to try and take what each race can give me rather than parlay any
potential winnings onto another race in the form of a D/D, Pick 3 or Pick 4.
There are exceptions of course. Especially if I like the 2nd half of a D/D or
the last leg or 2 of a Pick 3. On those occasions I'll sometimes try to figure
the right contenders in the first leg.
But the large majority of times I'll stay within the race.
The next option is the exacta. In order to play an exacta, I will want to see that
each of the 6 combinations of my 3 main contenders has a near post probable payoff
of at least $30 to $35.
Otherwise, what's the sense? Do I really need a $14 payoff? Normally, the reward
does not justify the risk for that return. As with everything there are exceptions,
and on some occasions, like in a 5 horse field where I really like only 2 horses
and the combinations of those 2 are 6 or 7 to 1 or better, I'll go for it.
In this example race, however, the 6-4 exacta probable was well below $30. So as
far as exactas went, I had 2 options. Either skip that play or key only my overlay
top pick that I was going to use in the win wager.
When the odds are good enough on that win bet contender, as they were in this case,
I'll play exactas using that overlay horse in the win and place slots with my other
contenders. I did that for this race and my exacta plays in order of preference and
amount wagered were: 5-6, 6-5, 5-4, and 4-5.
If this race were being run today, my wagers would have been 5-6, 6-5, 5/1-4 and
1-4/5, always in lesser amounts for the reverse wagers, which in this case would have
been 6-5, 4-5, and 1-5.
The 3rd and final wagering option was the trifecta play. Again I let the near post
odds determine whether or not I will make this wager. My rule of thumb is that
I want the near post time odds of my top 3 contenders to add up to 15 or more.
This is a general rule of thumb, and like the situation above with the exacta
rule, if one of my win contenders has good enough odds, I can still make
trifecta wagers if the sum of the odds falls slightly below 15 as it did in this
I went ahead and made this trifecta wager: 5-6/4-5-6/4-5-6. Obviously, had I been
playing the way I do now, which would allow me to include a 4th horse in a 6 horse
field, the trifecta wager would have been: 5-6/1-4-5-6/1-4-5-6. To play it safe, I
could even cover at a lesser amount with my 3rd and 4th choices (whom I did not answer
as being among my candidates for the win) with: 1-4/5-6/1-4-5-6.
If you haven't yet downloaded the free exotic wager calculator from my web site,
I advise you to do so now, so you can quickly calculate the cost of any and all of
the above wagers.
To download to your desktop this free exotic wager calculator, click here.
As per the results chart, the payoffs were:
1. 2nd - 5-1 ex. $86.50
4. 3rd - 5-1-4 tri. $390.00
As you can see, putting a limit on the number of horses I allowed myself to use,
despite the fact that I knew #1 Hussy had an in the money shot, cost me a
The top choice win candidate came through with a nice payoff, but the exacta and
trifecta bets failed, simply because of erroneously omitting an on the board
contender. What turned out to be a decent profit in essence should have been a
But I believe it will be a lesson well learned.
Don't think for a moment that good value cannot be found in small fields. The
first example race shown above illustrates that, and so does this next one, which
was Race 5 again at Belmont, this time on July 10th.
You can view and/or print the p.p.'s for this race by clicking
And the results chart is here.
This was a group of 5 going 7F at the NW3X allowance level.
I'll list this short field by saddle cloth number from the rail
out, followed by running style, last out Beyer speed figure, last out raw/actual FF,
and any "moves-within-a-race."
1. Sovereign Sweep EP 98 24.2/24.2 ---
2. Turn Back The Time S 98 (slop) 23.2/24.0 ---
3. Brightest Ice EP 52 Stale ---
4. Midnight Charlie P 91 (slop) 24.1/24.1 ---
5. First Blush EP 93 25.2/25.2 ---
The reason I posted picks for this race and thought there may be some value shown
by near post odds was because of its pace shape.
My picks on the private web page were in order 4-1-2.
Here were my thoughts on the field:
1.) Sovereign Sweep - I had connected on this one in his last out win when he
paid $11.40. He was a Double Play horse in this match up, meaning a horse in the
field with the best last out final fraction, 24.2 as well as the best last out
Beyer speed figure (on a dry track), 98.
Since the high Beyer speed figure horse in dirt races wins about 27% of the
time, I figure the D/P horse wins at a considerably higher rate than that. His
last out track/distance score made me consider him a top 2 contender, but I was
concerned about a couple of things.
First of all he was breaking from the rail, and having won his last wire to wire,
I figured he might be sent hard again from that post position. And since there
was other strong speed in the race, his chances could be compromised if he indeed
was pushed hard to the front early.
The other question was the big last out speed figure. Would he regress from that
effort? I ultimately decided that his last outing was so good that I would have
to consider him a top 2 candidate in this small field.
2.) Turn Back The Time - his last race was good, a 3rd place finish at this NW3X
allowance condition despite it being in the slop. In that outing he
recorded a FF of 24.0, which was in essence the field's best. But again, it was
earned in the off going.
I liked his chances off that last race, but because it was a sloppy surface, I went
back further to see if there were additional clues. His prior was on the turf at
a mile, so despite him finishing 8th, I tossed that effort and went to his 3rd race
back, which also was at this condition and this time at this 7F distance.
That was the race that sealed the deal for me as far as making him a top 3 contender
in this field as it was a strong closing effort when missing in 2nd by a neck
and earning a big 22.4 FF.
3.) Brightest Ice - he had not been out since February 12th, nearly the same
kind of stale horse as Hussy was in the first example race. He showed a couple
of good recent works, 59.4 and 100.2. But unlike Hussy, he did not have the
pace shape flow in his favor.
He was a speed horse that off his recent works looked like he would for sure
be sent out hard for the lead. But with the presence of likely favorite #5
First Blush, who also showed good early lick in his last, as well as rail horse
Sovereign Sweep, his chances seemed diminished.
As a speed horse with 2 others of the same style who had won their last recently,
he was projected to show early presence and then fade out of it.
4.) Midnight Charlie - the key to this one being my top choice was his last couple
of races. Although he earned a good 24.1 FF in his last, it was a 5th place finish
in a field of 8. That running line didn't look real good against this group.
But that last one was in the Grade 2 Riva Ridge stakes. So since it was in the mud
against much better, I had to go back to his prior race. That one showed a win at
today's 7F distance (beating Sovereign Sweep by 3 3/4 lengths) with a FF of 24.3,
in a career best performance.
Because of that prior race performance as well as the pace shape of this race, I
made #4 Midnight Charlie my top selection.
5.) First Blush - was the likely post time favorite off his last out win and
year long success of his trainer. He was, however, stepping up from NW2X company,
and in my estimation figured to be involved with what I projected to be a quick
and contested early pace.
Final fraction comparison alone would have him omitted from my top 3. His last out
25.2 did not match up with those of #'s 1, 2, and 4. As a result, I viewed this
one as a bet against favorite.
My win candidates were #4 Midnight Charlie and #1 Sovereign Sweep. Letting the
near post time odds dictate my wagering, the obvious win bet was with my top
selection Midnight Charlie.
Since this was a 5-horse field, there was no trifecta wagering, leaving only
the exacta as an additional wagering option. With the 1-2 probable exacta payoff
too low, I again chose to play exactas using only my win bet candidate
in the first 2 slots as such in order of preference and amount: 4-1, 1-4, 4-2 and
As per the results chart, the payoffs were:
2. 2nd - 4-2 ex. $45.60
Obviously I use as examples in this forum races with which I've had success. Two
things go without saying. I lose many races I play, and also it wouldn't make a
whole lot of sense to go over races that I was wrong about.
But I can tell you this. These two races and the one to follow are good examples of
successful contender selection by doing some "reading between the lines." In this age
of computer generated data, which in my humble opinion can at times be viewed as
information overload, the old pen in hand approach that I use can out perform
new age technology in a whole lot of race match ups.
And as long as those of us who handicap this way know what to do with our contenders,
meaning how to bet them, we can cash on more than our share of wagers.
But I would like to make mention here about a handicapping software program
for those who prefer that approach, or like to use it in conjunction with the pen
on paper style I use to make money on the thoroughbreds.
In essence, there is nothing wrong with combining the best of both worlds.
I myself have tested various programs, including Multicaps and Allways, among others.
But the one I would recommend you checking out above all others is HSH, the Horse
It pretty much dwarfs, in terms of sophistication and results, most of the other handicapping
software programs on the market today, and allows a player to utilize any one or all of its many
I suggest those who have an interest in a very flexible and powerful handicapping
software program check out this product by clicking here.
The URL is: www.horsestreet.com
Anyone who does decide to order HSH before August 15, 2003 and mentions that
"Jim Lehane sent me" will receive a discount on this program of $150.
In my opinion, this is a very good limited time offer given by Dave Schwartz only to
the readers of this newsletter.
The third and final race example this month is one more case in point of "reading between the
lines" or taking the one additional step that many will not. It is Race 4 that was run at
Hollywood Park on July 13th.
You can view and/or print the p.p.'s for this race by clicking
And the results chart is here.
With the scratch of #3 Brisquette the field was narrowed to only 5. I would guess that many
players took a quick look at this match up and seriously questioned if there could be any
value payoffs likely.
After all, two of the five entries had run first and second 3 times each in Grade 1 races,
and this affair was a Grade 2 event. None of the remaining three had ever even run
in a Grade 2 race, let alone a Grade 1 race.
What was the sense in bothering with this race? The 1-5 or 5-1 exacta combination figured
to pay less than $10.
Well, as it turned out, final fraction comparison clearly indicated that a 3rd horse,
despite never having faced anywhere near the same caliber of competition as the two Grade 1
winners, may just have a shot at a top 2 finish in this short field.
And using the wagering strategies outlined in this newsletter, one could have indeed
made a very nice profit in what originally may have looked like a race that had pass
written all over it.
Below is the field, listed from the rail out with running style, last out Beyer speed
figure, last out raw/actual final fractions, and any "moves-within-a-race."
1. You EP 103 24.4/23.3 D/P
2. Bear Fan EP 92 26.0/26.0 ---
4. Cee's Elegance EP 76 26.0/27.1 Profile play
5. Affluent P 90 24.4/25.2 ---
6. Wild Tickle P 84 26.0/26.0 ---
The 2 obvious multiple Grade 1 winner contenders were #1 You and #5 Affluent. I'll
briefly go over each entry.
1.) You - was a proven quality filly. She had won at today's 7F distance, and was a
Double Play horse, having the best last out Beyer speed figure of 103 as well as
the best last out final fraction of 23.3 (her 24.3 reduced a full 5/5ths for having
last run and won at 9F). She had to be a top 2 player in anyone's book.
2.) Bear Fan - was exiting the same Grade 3 race as #4 and #6, and because of the first
couple of splits being so quick the raw FF of this event was a slow 26.0. I thought
it would be fair to check out the previous races of these three, especially those
of Bear Fan and Cee's Elegance because they were going today in their 3rd race off
Bear Fan earned a 25.1 FF in her prior outing, a high priced claiming race, and that
did not stack up well enough against these.
4.) Cee's Elegance - her last was a speed and fade effort (and a move within a race
I refer to as Profile play) that probably didn't sit too well with most who looked
at this race. She was soundly beaten by both of the other 2 in here that she faced
in that outing, and earned a shabby 76 Beyer as well as a lackluster FF of 27.1.
Case closed? Far from it. Check out her prior race, the first off a layoff effort.
In that one she earned her first triple digit Beyer speed figure while winning a
$150K un graded stakes race with a FF of 24 flat! That race proved that she
had at least a fighting chance against the 2 favorites.
5.) Affluent - the other multiple Grade 1 winner was coming off a 50 day layoff,
having run 4th and 5th in her last 2 tries against the great Azeri. Her actual FF
of 26.2 was lowered 5/5ths to 25.2 for having run her last at 8 1/2F.
If one were to go to her 3rd race back, in which she ran 7F while winning one of
her Grade 1 races, her FF in that one was 23.4. A definite in the money filly in
this match up.
6.) Wild Tickle - going back to her prior race turned up the same FF of 25.1 that
Bear Fan showed, and this coupled with her never having run a Beyer speed figure
of 100 or more eliminated her from consideration.
So the final 3 contenders were #1 You, #4 Cee's Elegance, and #5 Affluent. That
answered my question #1.
Now for the big question, #2, which of these can win this race? The answer
was that each of them had a shot at the win. But in order of preference I made it
#1 You, #4 Cee's Elegance, and #5 Affluent.
You's trainer Bobby Frankel's Graded stakes win percentage over the past 3 or 4
years is legendary, and I was impressed with the prior out win of Cee's Elegance.
The wagering options for this race were win, exacta and in spite of it being
only a field of 5, trifecta.
I think you can guess how I played it.
A win bet on the only overlay horse #4 Cee's Elegance. Since a
3-horse box exacta and/or trifecta was out of the question, this was again a
case of going all the way with the value win contender.
These were my exotic plays:
Exactas in order of preference and amount: 1-4, 4-1, 4-5, and 5-4.
Trifectas: 1-4/1-4-5/1-4-5, 1-4-5, 4-1-5.
As per the results chart, the $2 payoffs were:
1. 2nd - 4-1 ex. $54.00
5. 3rd - 4-1-5 tri. $119.40
Cee's Elegance ran her career best effort, earning a 103 Beyer while beating the
2 Grade 1 winners (a length and a half over You, who was a nose in front of
Do I claim to win most of these types of match ups? No way.
But I do recognize a value situation when I see one, and if I believe
strongly enough that my top value win contender has at least some kind
of a chance to win, I'll make plays like this every time.
I'll lose quite a few, but when I'm right on occasions like this one, I can
make up for the losers and then some.
Before I sign off I want to mention a fairly new service that some of you may
not yet be familiar with.
It's bascially a horseplayer's dream come true, and it's called
Race Replays. To check out the details on this great technological,
breakthrough please click here.
For the free selections I post each racing
day on my private web page for subscribers to this
newsletter, you can bookmark this web page:
Or you can click here.
Until Saturday September 6, 2003, I wish you Fair
Skies and Fast Tracks.
Web Sites That Work!