some helpful hints for wagering on the breeders cup

[Songofthesword]

ah, the great time of year we all look forward to. The breeders cup. There will be great races and because i'm in such a giving mood this time of year, i thought i would pass on 3 very helpful hints, that will make your experience that much more enjoyable by helping you at the very least, not burn money at the track, and hopefully puts a few dollars in your pocket.

I have 3 rules that i started to notice a trend in 07 and it has worked ever since. outside of 08 when i just didnt' "get" the synethic home track bias and got murdered by 2nd tier socal horses, i've cleaned house at breeders cup, by following these very simple rules


1. Toss all horses trained by todd pletcher

2. Toss all horses trained by Adien O'Brien

3. Toss all horses trained By saeed bin suroor


I've stated these rules before and got heckled for them, but year in and year out, they prove me right. last year was their best year, ever, and they still only won a combined 2 races, both were long shots.

in the last 8 years, they've combined to win 5 races on breeders cup day

man of iron
ashado
Speightstown
Vale of York
English Channel


that's less than 1 race a year folks. And not only that, you are tossing, year in year out, race in race out.

put in persecptive: in 07, if you would have followed my forumla, you would have tossed 7 horses under 5 to 1 throughtout the 2 day event, including fav's disceet cat, dylan thomas, and achill island, and the classic would have been reduced to a 3 horse race between hard spun, curlin and street sense (admitingly i still picked the wrong horse). you would have gotten beat by English channel but i can live with that, to toss all the other horses. not saying they never win, but they don't win enough to warrant me wagering on them race in and race out. you will make alot more money betting on them to not run their race.

not saying they aren't good trainers, and i don't know why, but.. they just don't win alot of breeders cup races. I don't have to know why, stats don't lie. could be all three outfits for 3 different reasons, but for whatever it is, they do n't always fire their best in the cup races.


for me to reconsider, one of them would have to win more than 1 race on the card, or races in back to back years.

as far as t pletch is concerned for every english channel there are 2 octaves, or 2 affirmatifs or two lawyer rons or two honey ryders

[Slewbopper]

In the BC, play horses that I think will win, not trainers that have a less than stellar record.

[Whos the Cowboy]

Play the 50 cent pick 3s and pick 4s and use prices who are solid horses. Just because good horses are 8/1 or higher, USE THEM!

[Horse's Rear]

I have 3 rules that i started to notice a trend in 07 and it has worked ever since. outside of 08 when i just didnt' "get" the synethic home track bias and got murdered by 2nd tier socal horses, i've cleaned house at breeders cup, by following these very simple rules

I thought you had to stay up late and watch infomercials for claims like this.

[Kennedy]

I have 3 rules that i started to notice a trend in 07 and it has worked ever since. outside of 08 when i just didnt' "get" the synethic home track bias and got murdered by 2nd tier socal horses, i've cleaned house at breeders cup, by following these very simple rules


1. Toss all horses trained by todd pletcher

2. Toss all horses trained by Adien O'Brien

3. Toss all horses trained By saeed bin suroor


I've stated these rules before and got heckled for them, but year in and year out, they prove me right.


stats don't lie

If only that were true.

We looked at this "angle" last year prior to the BC and your summation was that you would toss all the horses from these trainers and mine was that I'd pick any horse that I thought could win regardless of their barn. I'm glad to hear you're happy with your results. I was very pleased with mine. The neat thing about the BC is that people look for edges, anything that makes them feel comfortable and even if there are good arguments against it they can often still work.

The little snippit from your post that I put in a separate quote is something I'd like to address. The notion that stats don't lie is ridiculous. Stats lie all the time because what matters most is the context in which they are presented and what's left out of the data given.

For instance you note in your post that the big 3 trainers have been very poor in the last 8 years. I'm not sure if you meant 8 years because 8 years brings us back to 2002 and they combined for 7 winners in that time not 5. Accuracy is important when you're talking about numbers. But since 8 years was the time line mentioned more than any other we'll go with that.

It's true that betting on every horse trained by Pletcher, O'Brien and bin Suroor in all that time was a losing proposition. I'm not sure if anyone out there really plunked down $2 for every horse those guys sent out but if they did they'd have lost a hefty $150.40 (-57%). That's the one part of the stat that you chose to highlight and you made your recommendation off of that. But if you remember our discussion last year a deeper look at the numbers suggested that the trio may have actually been due some success and they popped out two winners.

In the last 8 runnings of the BC their combined record reads like this.

131-7-18-19 $111.60

Just 5% winners, a poor ROI and 33% ITM. I did note last year that trainers with so few winners and so many 2nd's and 3rd's are likely having a bit of poor luck. If things remain constant it would not be odd to see them turn a few of those placings into winners.
During that time they had 131 entrants in 63 races. One of their entrants hit the board in 39 of those 63 races. That means they have a big impact on the race and payouts 61% of the time.

A look at the numbers from further back reveals a bit more how the numbers lie. I'm not sure why you picked 8 years back. Likely because in 2001 they had another 2 winners and it sounds much worse to say 7 winners in 8 years than 9 winners in 9 years. Also if you had looked into the numbers more you would have likely been more than willing to include those years because if anything the numbers for that trio are worse in 2001 and prior. Flat bet profitability was down another -6% percent to -63%. Winners were only up 3% (to 8%) and their ITM to races contested ratio was a paltry 30%. They had horses in 23 different races and only hit the board in 7 of them.

Race record 2001 and prior
36-3-3-2 $26.40

The stats do suggest the O'Brien, Pletcher and bin Suroor win at a low percentage but they also make it clear that they now have a much greater impact on the races than they ever have. Winners will surely continue to come, perhaps even at an accelerated rate.

People can choose to do as they will but my recommendation would remain to simply pick horses than you think should win. The trainer stats will take care of themselves. Who knows in 5 years maybe we're talking about these trainers as automatic plays.

[pupatariat]

12fl on grass--box the Euros in Exactas and Trifectas.

[Horse's Rear]

12fl on grass--box the Euros in Exactas and Trifectas.

Actually, that's a pretty certain money loser. While the Europeans frequently have a finisher in the top two, they seldom get both top spots, and even less frequently take down the top three. And they are generally overbet in this race.

I believe 2008 is one of the few years in this century when this wager would cash. And you would have lost money. There were six Euro starters, which means that a Euro exacta box cost $30 and returned $53.60. It was the American Dancing Forever in third at 25/1 that triggered the $1400 trifecta payoff by getting up over Euro favorite Soldier of Fortune in the third spot. So a 6-horse tri-box cost $120 and returned nothing.

Over the long run, boxing Euros in this race is likely to be an expensive proposition.

The one year that should have been a big payoff for this method would be 2005. That was like they were giving money away. There were 4 Euro runners (one of whom had prepped in America) and they completed the superfecta ahead of the US contingent. $1 Payoffs were moderate: Exacta - $150 Tri $780 Super $2350. The key there was a) the Euro favorite (Azamour) was beaten back to third and b) the Euro wiseguy horse (Shirocco) bet down to 9/1 from 20/1 ML got the money.

Maybe the angle is to key late money Euros in the top two spots AND key Euro chalk in the bottom two spots, spreading for price elsewhere.

[pupatariat]

Actually, that's a pretty certain money loser. While the Europeans frequently have a finisher in the top two, they seldom get both top spots, and even less frequently take down the top three. And they are generally overbet in this race.

I believe 2008 is one of the few years in this century when this wager would cash. And you would have lost money. There were six Euro starters, which means that a Euro exacta box cost $30 and returned $53.60. It was the American Dancing Forever in third at 25/1 that triggered the $1400 trifecta payoff by getting up over Euro favorite Soldier of Fortune in the third spot. So a 6-horse tri-box cost $120 and returned nothing.

Over the long run, boxing Euros in this race is likely to be an expensive proposition.

The one year that should have been a big payoff for this method would be 2005. That was like they were giving money away. There were 4 Euro runners (one of whom had prepped in America) and they completed the superfecta ahead of the US contingent. $1 Payoffs were moderate: Exacta - $150 Tri $780 Super $2350. The key there was a) the Euro favorite (Azamour) was beaten back to third and b) the Euro wiseguy horse (Shirocco) bet down to 9/1 from 20/1 ML got the money.

Maybe the angle is to key late money Euros in the top two spots AND key Euro chalk in the bottom two spots, spreading for price elsewhere.

I should have been clearer. Generally speaking, I box no more than 4 horses in a tri (24 bucks for half) and no more than 3 horses (6 bucks for half) in an exacta. I actually hit the race (half trifecta) when the 4 Euros finished in the top 4 spots. (I had a hunch to bet the super but did not do it.) I'm ahead on this angle for this century. It is a bit unfair to go back in time to the 90s and even more so the 80s to evaluate won/loss statistics when Euros were probably less inclined to send their horses to the BC turf race way back when (I believe this to be true. I have no data to substantiate this belief).


Maybe the angle is to key late money Euros in the top two spots AND key Euro chalk in the bottom two spots, spreading for price elsewhere.

This angle is interesting and worth a look.

[Whos the Cowboy]

On Breeders Cup Saturday at Monmouth in 2007, I played an $8 Pick 4 ticket with Kip Deville, English Channel, Ginger Punch and Curlin and the Pick 4 returned $1506.

Biggest payout for 4 solid horses that I ever hit.

[Kennedy]

On Breeders Cup Saturday at Monmouth in 2007, I played an $8 Pick 4 ticket with Kip Deville, English Channel, Ginger Punch and Curlin and the Pick 4 returned $1506.

Biggest payout for 4 solid horses that I ever hit.


And this is a helpful hint because.......

[Slewbopper]

And this is a helpful hint because.......

Redboarding three years later is always meaningful.

Regarding the topic of the thread, I bet horses to win in the Breeders Cup and every other time I wager. Dismissing horses in the BC that are trained by three of the best in the world based on their BC records is just plain stupid.

[Kennedy]

It is a bit unfair to go back in time to the 90s and even more so the 80s to evaluate won/loss statistics when Euros were probably less inclined to send their horses to the BC turf race way back when (I believe this to be true. I have no data to substantiate this belief).


It's not true. The Euros have supported the BC Turf ever since it's inception. If anything the support for the BC Turf is waning.

Avg Europeans in the BC turf by decade.

80's - 4.6
90's - 5.7
00's- 3.2

The Europeans used to support the race much more strongly. But then a good number of female horses used to contest the Turf and now they have their own race. That has probably accounted for a starter or two.

[Slewbopper]

It's not true. The Euros have supported the BC Turf ever since it's inception. If anything the support for the BC Turf is waning.

Avg Europeans in the BC turf by decade.

80's - 4.6
90's - 5.7
00's- 3.2

The Europeans used to support the race much more strongly. But then a good number of female horses used to contest the Turf and now they have their own race. That has probably accounted for a starter or two.

Also, I am sure that coupled with the relatively new F & M Turf, this decade's numbers also are down because of the Cali plastic the last two years as well as the 6000 mile ship on three occasions to run on a hard surface.

[Kennedy]

Also, I am sure that coupled with the relatively new F & M Turf, this decade's numbers also are down because of the Cali plastic the last two years as well as the 6000 mile ship on three occasions to run on a hard surface.

Those are good explanations for the phenomena but I think it's clear that the statement made was untrue. The Europeans aren't sending more horses on average these days.

[Slewbopper]

Those are good explanations for the phenomena but I think it's clear that the statement made was untrue. The Europeans aren't sending more horses on average these days.

Run the BC at Belmont for three years in a decade, and once at Woodbine and the numbers will probably rise again, even with the F & M T

[Spahny]

I'm not sure I understand how the synthetic main track at Santa Anita would effect a lack of interest in Euro's coming out to run in the Turf races? I also thought the complaint about the synthetics was that it favored the Euro's over American horses? I would think that it would increase the European presence?

And in this decade the Euro's won almost everything run on the grass at Santa Anita.

I must be missing something here?

The only angle I have that is unique to BC day is that I highlight all local horses first, for obvious reasons. I look with increased interest at the locals with only a few starts on the year. I also handicap without the morning line but I don't know if it's something I think everyone should do. Then I invite my neighbors 12 year old daughter over to pick the horses she thinks look happiest in the post parade. She's pretty good.

And, just for fun, I think the synthetic shippers might do well this year. It doesn't work so well dirt to synth but synth to dirt is something else entirely.

[Rick1323]

There were some Euros running on the syth that may have been on the turf at other venues.....

[Slewbopper]

There were some Euros running on the syth that may have been on the turf at other venues.....

And the Euros that ran in the Classic probably would not have shipped to run on the green highway.

I wonder if Sea The Stars might have shipped to NY if the BC was at Belmont last year.

[Rick1323]

And the Euros that ran in the Classic probably would not have shipped to run on the green highway.

I wonder if Sea The Stars might have shipped to NY if the BC was at Belmont last year.

Sea the Stars had nothing left to prove. The Euros had already declared him the best horse ever.

[Hermes]

Yeah, right. The horses than ran on Pro Ride, like Twice Over, Rip van Winkle, Raven's Pass and Henythenavigator wouldn't have run on "green dirt" against Goldikova, Conduit, et. al. Rick, I love ya but in your haste to take shots at the Euros you missed the boat here;) Oh wait. I see Blowhardbopper was at the helm. So you were already sunk:)

[Whos the Cowboy]

And this is a helpful hint because.......
You can get value with solid horses

[Slewbopper]

Yeah, right. The horses than ran on Pro Ride, like Twice Over, Rip van Winkle, Raven's Pass and Henythenavigator wouldn't have run on "green dirt" against Goldikova, Conduit, et. al. Rick, I love ya but in your haste to take shots at the Euros you missed the boat here;) Oh wait. I see Blowhardbopper was at the helm. So you were already sunk:)

Weak...very weak. Herpesisforever hasn't broken her maiden yet.

[Spahny]

At least I get the point now. Such as it is.

[Tonno100]

And the Euros that ran in the Classic probably would not have shipped to run on the green highway.

I wonder if Sea The Stars might have shipped to NY if the BC was at Belmont last year.

Sea The Stars was uninsurable for the flight.

[Hermes]

Sea The Stars was uninsurable for the flight.

I had forgotten about that, but I don't think the trainer wanted to come with him anyway on that schedule after the Arc.

And while insurance is a fair point for such a valuable horse, other horses that travel to the BC have been worth a fair amount, too. In the case of Maktoums and Coolmore, they both self insure anyway as I understand it.

[Tonno100]

I had forgotten about that, but I don't think the trainer wanted to come with him anyway on that schedule after the Arc.

And while insurance is a fair point for such a valuable horse, other horses that travel to the BC have been worth a fair amount, too. In the case of Maktoums and Coolmore, they both self insure anyway as I understand it.

He was kind of in a different level, value-wise, and a flight to California would have been different from a flight to New York. That said, I was surprised at the time that Galileo went, he'd have been worth a great deal at the time he went.

[Songofthesword]

It's true that betting on every horse trained by Pletcher, O'Brien and bin Suroor in all that time was a losing proposition. I'm not sure if anyone out there really plunked down $2 for every horse those guys sent out but if they did they'd have lost a hefty $150.40 (-57%). That's the one part of the stat that you chose to highlight and you made your recommendation off of that. But if you remember our discussion last year a deeper look at the numbers suggested that the trio may have actually been due some success and they popped out two winners.
\

there you have it.

i don't understand the phenomenon of making handicapping harder than it has to be. don't wager on proven losers. there is not one thing i said that is not 100% true.

they aren't bad trainers, but.. for whatever it is, they just don't fire on bc day. until they do i'm taking a stand.


it's not even so much picking winners, as much as you can usually eliminate 1/3rd of the field as well, and not just 50 to 1 shots either. these trainers get bet heavy, see mastercraftsman last year in the bc dirt mile.

[Kennedy]

\

there you have it.

i don't understand the phenomenon of making handicapping harder than it has to be. don't wager on proven losers. there is not one thing i said that is not 100% true.


This wasn't exactly a gem ;)


in the last 8 years, they've combined to win 5 races on breeders cup day

The correct number is 7 wins in 8 years.

[KD]

The "value with solid horses" idea is something to keep in mind here. You'll get longer odds on many runners in a great many of these races than they'll ever go off at again, so don't disregard them just because what looks like a solid favorite happens to be in the same race as one or more of them. Spread out more than you would normally for more coverage, using the ALL button in exactas or dutching on the win end or whatever you feel comfortable with. Two solid scores (or maybe even one) could cover your total investment for both days, and after that the rest is gravy.

[bare it all]

Herpesisforever

LOL. Hermes, I'm sorry, but I did just LOL a bit at your expense. :nerd:

[Songofthesword]

This wasn't exactly a gem ;)



The correct number is 7 wins in 8 years.

i did not count high chapperal for whatever the reason, oversight

however, 7 in 8 years is statistically no better than 5 in 8 years. the fact still remains, that

1. it's still less than 1 race per year on avg

2. you can still toss all of the horses and not get burned.


i am willing to give them 1, even 2 races, to toss them in all 14 races. that's just me. and i've come out well ahead

[Kennedy]

My advice would be to stick to what you already do. Don't start playing superfecta's simply because the payouts will be big. If you're not a superfecta player chances are you'll not have a good grasp on the proper strategies and methods for playing the super. There is no shame in simply making win bets if that's what you're used to.

As for me I'll be basing my selections off of the profiles I've spent time creating. A project I call the 20-20. It's more of just a fun hobby that has turned into a useful measuring stick for me. Of course the profiles only cover the 8 established BC races so I'll be mixing in a little traditional handicapping as well.

[Kennedy]

i did not count high chapperal for whatever the reason, oversight

however, 7 in 8 years is statistically no better than 5 in 8 years.

Really?? 7 is no better than 5? I would perhaps agree that it is not significantly better but obviously it is better. Every winner counts.


1. it's still less than 1 race per year on avg

2. you can still toss all of the horses and not get burned.


If this were the Saratoga meet and you saw a trainer with 7 wins but 18 seconds and 19 thirds would you really toss all their runners? Perhaps it's just the way I play but I look at that and say obviously some live horses are being entered. If the winners are that few in relation to the 2nd's and 3rd's it doesn't mean the trainer can't win it only means that he's getting a bit unlucky. I would actually start looking at that trainers horses as due because I know that with a large enough sample size the winners to ITM placings ratio with smooth out quite a bit.

It doesn't mean I'm going to play every Pletcher horse but it does mean I'll play the ones I think are live. I really don't struggle with finding ways to toss short priced horses that I don't like. If I don't like them and/or they fail to fit my statistical profiles I won't use them.

[Hermes]

LOL. Hermes, I'm sorry, but I did just LOL a bit at your expense. :nerd:

And you thought you should admit that because I would hunt you down otherwise? Please do tell the logic to that?

If you find bathroom name calling humorous, then by all means, tell us about it. That would be about right, Bare It All.

[bare it all]

And you thought you should admit that because I would hunt you down otherwise? Please do tell the logic to that?

If you find bathroom name calling humorous, then by all means, tell us about it. That would be about right, Bare It All.

I thought it was origina and thought I'd share my amusement. I'm sure you had a giggle... Unless your name really is Hermes, then it was probably in poor taste and my apologies for your parents love of Greek mythology! fwiw, Bare it All is a mare (04 Came Home x Bare it Properly) - making her a half sister to the nice Proper Gamble. Not my mare, but I've been a fan of the family.

In context of the thread itself, does anyone plan the play (or not play) Zito in the Classic based on his 'almost wins' this year? Fly Down looks interesting and I'm unsure the quality of Morning Line vs this group.

[Kennedy]

In context of the thread itself, does anyone plan the play (or not play) Zito in the Classic based on his 'almost wins' this year? Fly Down looks interesting and I'm unsure the quality of Morning Line vs this group.

No, I don't play trainers and if I was going to I certainly wouldn't play Zito. I think he's one of the worst campaign managers out there (among the elite). I never really expect his horses to get better as they go. I'd never drop a horse simply because he was trained by Zito but it certainly doesn't move them up in my thinking.

[Slewbopper]

And you thought you should admit that because I would hunt you down otherwise? Please do tell the logic to that?

If you find bathroom name calling humorous, then by all means, tell us about it. That would be about right, Bare It All.

You started the BS with this statement "Oh wait. I see Blowhardbopper was at the helm. So you were already sunkhttp://www.thoroughbredchampions.com/showthread.php/images/smilies/smile.png "

It seems that you have a problem since I did nothing but give an honest opinion or two in this thread. Carry on Herpezoid.

[Hermes]

You started the BS with this statement "Oh wait. I see Blowhardbopper was at the helm. So you were already sunkhttp://www.thoroughbredchampions.com/showthread.php/images/smilies/smile.png "

It seems that you have a problem since I did nothing but give an honest opinion or two in this thread. Carry on Herpezoid.

...and how did you get that name in the first place, Blowhardbopper?

[the Bid]

Really?? 7 is no better than 5? I would perhaps agree that it is not significantly better but obviously it is better. Every winner counts.



If this were the Saratoga meet and you saw a trainer with 7 wins but 18 seconds and 19 thirds would you really toss all their runners? Perhaps it's just the way I play but I look at that and say obviously some live horses are being entered. If the winners are that few in relation to the 2nd's and 3rd's it doesn't mean the trainer can't win it only means that he's getting a bit unlucky. I would actually start looking at that trainers horses as due because I know that with a large enough sample size the winners to ITM placings ratio with smooth out quite a bit.



For much of this past Saratoga meet, Gary Contessa couldn't buy a win. His horses were ITM, but not winning. I play P3's and P4's and in those bets you need WINS. I look for horses and barns with winning profiles, not horses that can or might fill out the bottom of a tri or super. When he won late in the meet with Wascally Rabbit, he beat me. If you are a regular player you have to be willing to let horses like that beat you once in a while and take comfort in the fact that when they do, they pay dismally most of the time.
Fortunes do change but usually with the change in meet or venue or they change over a long time. The BC is two days and I have done well avoiding alot of the Pletcher/O'Brien/Godolphin runners for the reasons 'Sword mentioned. Yes, I had English Channel (but not as a single in the P3) but I think that selective use of their horses is called for. Over the years they have generally underperformed relative to their value and every $1 bet on them is one not bet on a rival who may have as much chance or better.

[Kennedy]

For much of this past Saratoga meet, Gary Contessa couldn't buy a win. His horses were ITM, but not winning. I play P3's and P4's and in those bets you need WINS. I look for horses and barns with winning profiles, not horses that can or might fill out the bottom of a tri or super. When he won late in the meet with Wascally Rabbit, he beat me. If you are a regular player you have to be willing to let horses like that beat you once in a while and take comfort in the fact that when they do, they pay dismally most of the time.
Fortunes do change but usually with the change in meet or venue or they change over a long time. The BC is two days and I have done well avoiding alot of the Pletcher/O'Brien/Godolphin runners for the reasons 'Sword mentioned. Yes, I had English Channel (but not as a single in the P3) but I think that selective use of their horses is called for. Over the years they have generally underperformed relative to their value and every $1 bet on them is one not bet on a rival who may have as much chance or better.

Contessa is low percentage trainer at the best of times, plus although his horses were running second and third more often than they were winning they were hitting the frame at a less than 30% clip. This is not an example of a high percentage trainer sending out a string of live horses that have simply failed to win as often as expected.

Fortunes do change over time and I have no idea if Pletcher, O'Brien an bin Suroor will start winning immediately or not for another 10 years but I do know that I'm not auto tossing any horse based on their trainer especially when those trainers charges hit the frame in more than 60% of the races where they're entered.

I'm not speaking as someone who necessarily plays these guys every time they have a horse. I play them when I think they can win. I just took a look through my own records with these trainers in the BC and personally since I have made one of their charges my official selection 17 times and yielded a record of 17-4-1-5 (+$43.80) Certainly not terrible enough to make me avoid them across the board.

A selective use of anyone's horses is called for but that's not what's in view here. What was suggested was dropping all of these horses without consideration. That's certainly not an angle for me.

[Slewbopper]

A selective use of anyone's horses is called for but that's not what's in view here. What was suggested was dropping all of these horses without consideration. That's certainly not an angle for me.

Frankel was 0 for the BC when he finally won with Squirtle Squirt. If I liked a Frankel horse, I didn't toss him because of Bobby's record.

[DDT]

Well, if we would have followed this advice about T. Pletcher we would have missed three winners that produced a flat $2.00 win wager profit of $26.80. He had 11 starters over the two days of BC races. Toss all of Pletcher's starters, yeah, that is a helpful hint for wagering on the Breeders Cup.

DDT

[Kennedy]

Well, if we would have followed this advice about T. Pletcher we would have missed three winners that produced a flat $2.00 win wager profit of $26.80. He had 11 starters over the two days of BC races. Toss all of Pletcher's starters, yeah, that is a helpful hint for wagering on the Breeders Cup.

DDT

It seemed that Pletcher was indeed due for some success at the Breeders' Cup.