HANDICAPPING HINTS #11
by
Robert V. Rowe

 

August 15, 1999

 

 

Attend any thoroughbred racetrack, any day of the week and, if you glance around, you can easily spot "The Board Watchers." There are scores of them, and probably 80% are armed with nothing more than pencil and paper, and maybe a tout sheet. Heaven forbid they would invest in a Daily Racing Form.

Some are checking the pari-mutuel infield board (or monitors) watching for unusual (?) exacta play. Others are looking for "play downs" on individual horses. Regardless they�re all watching to see who or what THEY are betting. No one has ever defined who or what comprises this ambiguous "They." Presumably this nonentity is made up of slick trainers, super-handicappers, and guys with hypodermic needles.

I do not believe that this approach is the best route to take if one is looking for thoroughbred wagering profits.

There�s nothing wrong with board watching as an adjunct to handicapping. The problem is that most fans have no concept of how to effectively use board watching, or how to recognize true bet-downs. Board watching can be a powerful weapon for one to have in their handicapping arsenal when doing battle with "the iron men." But, it is useless and even costly if used as the sole means of selection. Determining if insider betting is really taking place requires a knowledge that puts such determinations in the league of being a near-science.

Let�s first define our term "insider betting" and then we�ll provide examples of what to really watch for, and how to avoid being deceived. We regard insider betting as being unusual or unanticipated mutuel play. This, of course, implies that one should be able to recognize the unusual or the unanticipated.

The dilettante or tyro seems unaware that many false alarms exist relative to bet-down horses. The following offers a few examples of the type mutuel action that�s questionable and probably doesn�t represent true bet-downs.

1. Stable entries invariably receive more betting action than cold handicapping analysis would dictate.

2. A "name horse," or the entry of a well-known trainer will invariably be played down in the betting.

3. Successful or highly publicized jockeys too get more play than they rightfully deserve. We once analyzed several hundred of Angel Cordero�s mounts at the height of his career, and concluded that he, on average, received 15% greater mutuel play than reasonable handicapping facts would warrant.

4. Field horses too can be expected to receive more than their fair share of betting action.

5. At major tracks, followers of "The Sheets" too can create underlays inasmuch as buyer�s of these costly handicapping aids ($35 daily was the last quote obtained) are invariably heavy hitters and their betting action on stand-outs frequently serve to attract residual play from the grand stand. This volume in turn reflects itself in obvious play downs on the mutuel infield board. The result often is that a solid selection ceases to be a consideration due to the over play that takes place.

No one of the foregoing types represents a true bet down. The sophisticated board watcher looks for a more subtle type play. Issue No. 12 will continue this matter further and provide examples of true bet downs.

(Issue No. 12 will be due on or about Sept. 1st)

 

Visit the How To Win At Thoroughbred Racing Web site

 

 

 

 

The Running Horse (https://www.isd1.com/)