I found this, care to elaborate?

[Cons]

So I was looking at various types of bet and came across this in a seperate section: _________________________________ [h=2]Races to Avoid[/h] [TABLE=class: contentpaneopen]

[TR] [TD] Horse Racing - Horse Racing General [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] When arriving at my selections, races I consider best avoided include the following:

• Over 14 runners
• Amateurs only races
• Hunter Chases
• Apprentice only races
• Conditional Jockeys only races
• Ladies only races
• Any 14 runner or less race where a proportion of runners are unexposed

_________________________________ Could anyone elaborate to the problems above, I really dont understand why they are problem races and Im still very new to myself betting, thank you

[Trotter]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate? Well.........the general idea is to avoid races where either there are unknown factors or too many runners Field Size - I rarely bet in races with more than about 8 or 9 runners ........obviously if there are only 7 runners you have a better chance of finding a winner than you would have if there are 28 runners and it only takes a quarter of the time to study the form. Unexposed horses - If you have a 10 runner race and 6 of them have never run or only run once or twice then you're dealing with unknowns - you don't know how good they are, you don't know what their best distance, going etc is Hunter Chases are likely to have runners who'#s form is in Point-to-Point racing and it's difficult to assess how good they are unless you really specialise in that field All the other relate to races for amateur or inexperienced jockeys - again the argument is that you don't know if the jockey is any good Basically it's about race selection - you're faced with 30-odd races on a typical day. Your big advantage is that you can pick which ones to bet in and which ones to leave alone. Whoever wrote the list is suggesting some 'rules' which you might use to decide which races to avoid

[fintron]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate?

So I was looking at various types of bet and came across this in a seperate section: _________________________________ Races to Avoid [TABLE=class: contentpaneopen] [TR] [TD] Horse Racing - Horse Racing General [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] When arriving at my selections, races I consider best avoided include the following:

• Over 14 runners
• Amateurs only races
• Hunter Chases
• Apprentice only races
• Conditional Jockeys only races
• Ladies only races
• Any 14 runner or less race where a proportion of runners are unexposed

_________________________________ Could anyone elaborate to the problems above, I really dont understand why they are problem races and Im still very new to myself betting, thank you

The first point is rubbish, since you can get some good prices in 14+ runner handicaps. it is just some people dont like handicaps and are scared of them because all horses are weighted, in theory, to have the same chance of winning. Some people say only bet in small fields where there is less chance of horse hitting trouble, but there are regularly pace problems in small fields so betting in small fields (less than 10) is frought with danger. It also means there are small fields and thus smaller prices, so you need a bigger strike rate to make profit. As for the other points, I agree with the middle five. In amateur and apprentice races (which effectively covers the middle 5 points) lots of the jockeys are useless. Apprentice only races are staged for the jockeys to learn and improve, so you often see some shocking rides because they haven't yet mastered the trade properly. They flap around in the finish because they arent fully comfortable with batting the horses yet. Conditional is just another word for apprentice over the jumps. Amateurs are inexperienced and often make poor decisions, as do women in the ladies only races. The last point is fairly valid too. If there are lots of horses open to improvement (unexposed) because they havent had much racing, it is hard to back with confidence one selection if there are so many in with a chance. Three year old handicaps, for example, fall into this category. I wouldn't totally ignore them but caution is advised all the same.

[Cons]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate? Thanks for clarifying, added this as a bookmark to look at as a reminder of why.

[erhaab1965]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate?

So I was looking at various types of bet and came across this in a seperate section: _________________________________ Races to Avoid [TABLE=class: contentpaneopen] [TR] [TD] Horse Racing - Horse Racing General [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] When arriving at my selections, races I consider best avoided include the following:

• Over 14 runners
• Amateurs only races
• Hunter Chases
• Apprentice only races
• Conditional Jockeys only races
• Ladies only races
• Any 14 runner or less race where a proportion of runners are unexposed

_________________________________ Could anyone elaborate to the problems above, I really dont understand why they are problem races and Im still very new to myself betting, thank you

I pretty much agree with this list in general , I avoid them or keep stakes to a minumum. Although with large handicaps I may increase my bets if I feel there are value bets.

[Gavlar17]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate? I tend to adopt a similar set of rules before making selections... One rule I'd add that's a must for me is do not bet in maiden races. I find it so difficult to find winners in maiden races due to the fact a lot of it is unknown. You're up against horses that have never won and often horses that have never even raced before so could be capable of anything!!

[Darran]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate? Hunter Chases are the best area of racing to make money. They very rarely throw up a shock result and because most of the betting public are clueless when it comes to them it means you get better prices. Its actually a lot easier than people think to gain a knowledge on what happens in point to points. Ive only started focusing on it for 4 years now and I have turned a profit each season and actually have got better each time. My advice is find what you are good at and ignore the list.

[jayalexander]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate? Maidens are pretty good areas of racing to make money in too, as with any category, it's all about how you approach them. Ok, so there may not be much actual horse form to go on but one can gain a few clues by looking at how the trainer handles horses of that age, for instance. This is not only quicker than endlessly going through form in a 8 runner handicap, but I feel that it can reap larger long term rewards as actual horse form in maidens can be a red herring.

[Kithanga]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate? Two pieces of seemingly opposing advice regarding the list. Firstly, ignore it. Secondly, build your own and stick with it. Why ignore it? Because as you can see from the replies, there is no list of rules that suits everyone. I rarely disagree with Fintron for example but strongly disagree with his view of field size (10 runners or less) being hard to make a margin. I'm at my best in those races, he's clearly not. Hence the second piece of advice, bet in as many races as you like and record the results over a long period with plenty of supporting information (runners, race type, age, time of year, track, etc). Over time you'll not only start to see a trend in your results that identifies which races you do best in. For me it didn't come as a surprise either as they tended to be the ones I most looked forward to studying when opening up the paper.

[Trotter]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate? I said earlier that I tend to bet in small field races........... My argument for this revolves around the way I do things - I tend to need 15 minutes or 20 minutes per horse to study a race. An 8 runner race is going to take me 2 hours or more - a 16 runner race is going to take me 4 or 5 hours, ie all night............. That's basically it..........I certainly do make selections in big field races for various competitions for which I don't spend the same time studying as I do for bets I also think there's something in Jay's approach as it pretty much ignores the market and is 'chaotic' in that it works outside of the normal rules by focussing on things that most punters don't take into account

[Cowan]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate?

I said earlier that I tend to bet in small field races........... My argument for this revolves around the way I do things - I tend to need 15 minutes or 20 minutes per horse to study a race. An 8 runner race is going to take me 2 hours or more - a 16 runner race is going to take me 4 or 5 hours, ie all night.............

Thats quite a lot of time Trotter! Interesting though to know how much time the guys on here put into a race. I thought I was taking a long time. I tend to spend 1hr to study a race of typically 10-16 runners. I use a lot of stats to scratch runners so I don't have to look into them which cuts down the time.

[Cons]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate?

I tend to spend 1hr to study a race of typically 10-16 runners. I use a lot of stats to scratch runners so I don't have to look into them which cuts down the time.

Im about 20 mins on the same race.

[harrisman]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate?

So I was looking at various types of bet and came across this in a seperate section: _________________________________ Races to Avoid [TABLE=class: contentpaneopen] [TR] [TD] Horse Racing - Horse Racing General [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] When arriving at my selections, races I consider best avoided include the following:

• Over 14 runners
• Amateurs only races
• Hunter Chases
• Apprentice only races
• Conditional Jockeys only races
• Ladies only races
• Any 14 runner or less race where a proportion of runners are unexposed

_________________________________ Could anyone elaborate to the problems above, I really dont understand why they are problem races and Im still very new to myself betting, thank you

Can't say I agree with it in the slightest-In fact it's normally the reverse for me. In amateur /apprentice/conditional only races the most experienced Jockey often makes a much bigger difference especially in the longer distances over jumps and careful study in this area often throws up winners at very nice odds.Again Hunter chases can be very lucrative betting mediums often with massive wide margin winners at much bigger prices than should really be the case. I also personally love some of the large fields over the hurdles in Ireland-again often very nice prices. I guess one of the great thing about some of those events is that if you study some of them closely and keep up to date on small stables in form/sire stats/conditional jockey form,track stats etc some very nice prices often pop up which are rarely tipped up in the media. Conversely I rarely bet on the well known big races,I'm happy just to watch-I think it's very difficult to get a good value price and although other people would prob disagree I've never been keen on having money tied up doing nothing on an ante poste bet for 2-3 months.

[jayalexander]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate? Trotter, I hope you have a high win rate or are playing with high-ish stake because if I was spending 4-5 hours on a 16 runner card, I'd be pissed if I lost! ;)

[Trotter]

Re: I found this, care to elaborate?

Trotter' date=' I hope you have a high win rate or are playing with high-ish stake because if I was spending 4-5 hours on a 16 runner card, I'd be pissed if I lost! ;)[/quote'] That's my point.........I don't study those races because they would take too long I study 5/6 runner races in the main, maybe up to 8/9 if there's a couple no hopers I can discount.........:rollin If i ever have an EW bet or put one up in the comps from a 16 runner race it's a safe bet that I haven't studied the form but have picked a selection besed on whim, fancy, something that's stuck in my mind.....that kind of thing.