CLGLD Buyer Followup
First point:
When I originally tested the method – for the Class Factor, I used +8 for class droppers, +5 for staying at same class, and -3 for class risers. I modified those ratings to the +5, +3, -2 that is now in the method. However – in my own use of the method, I still give an added boost to the class droppers. You can try this as well: When the total score of two horses is within 1 point of each other – I give the nod to any class dropper (+5 rating) – and also to a +3 horse over a -2 horse.
Example: Class scores and final scores (only) for 5 horses:
5 11
3 12
3 7
5 13
-2 6
I would select the 4th listed horse as the top choice – then the 1st listed horse as the second choice (over the 2nd listed horse)
Second Point:
When giving the ratings for the Trainer/Jock % and the total of last three odds – if one (or two) of the horses have a huge gap between it and the others – I will give it a minus score.
Example for odds:
12.7
15.3
22.2
77
88.4
I would give the the first two listed horses the +3 score, the 3rd listed a +2 score, and both the last two a -1 score (rather than going by the rote rules and giving the 4th listed a +2 score)
Third point:
As with the application of ANY method – some tracks will perform better than others. I have always advocated (and do so myself) handicapping and following one or two more tracks than you are actually betting – and then moving back and forth between them – and/or replacing them as their performance with the particular method you are applying warrants (i.e. put your actual wagers into the best performing tracks).
The long holiday weekend whose stats are included in the method had Saratoga, Arlington, Woodbine, and Monmouth – which all did well . For the following two weekends, after Saratoga closed and Belmont replaced – Mth wasn’t running on Fridays, so I selected Lad as another track to follow.
All tracks have been profitable – except Lad. The results – by track – are in the table below . . .
| Arlington | Belmont | Monmouth | Saratoga | Woodbine | Louisiana | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now – of course, sometimes you will make a judgement too soon, zig when you should have zagged – etc. But over the long run, this “options” approach will stand you well. As you can see from the above stats – Lad did miserably (the better approach explained below helped quite a bit, but was still the under-performer of the mix). I would suggest after two successive losing weekends (of actually each weekend being a negative profit weekend – not one profit and one loss – with total being a loss), you consider replacing a track.
Fourth point:
As several of you have surmised, requiring a higher minimum acceptable odds will improve your bottom line. But – to prevent turning it into a “spot play” requiring lots of patience – I suggest you use 2/1 as the minimum acceptable (whether betting one or two horses).
Doing only the above has the followint results (original stats on left – ‘odds-tweaked’ stats on the right . . .
|
|
^
So – perhaps a bit surprising – the win ROI goes down a tad – but the exacta ROI goes up 13.5 % thereby improving the profits substantially.
This means that those favorites that the method picks out are legitimate favorites that win more than their fair share . . . but betting them will net you only about 2.5% profit. Those getting good rebates may very well still be interested in those.
One might at first think that the exacta ROI going up so much was primarily the result of cutting out the very cheap payoffs that are received when the low priced favorite wins – and, of course, that is partly true. However, what is also happening is that there are more singleton wagers when all the 9/5 and lower odds horses are eliminated . . . and those singletons go 5 deep rather than 3 deep on the back-end (as happens when two horses qualify). The further research below will indeed show that to be the bigger factor.
Now for the real “treat” . . .
The method suggests if one win qualifier – putting it on top of the lowest 5 in odds for the exacta, and if two win qualifiers – putting each on top of the lowest 3 in odds. I checked putting all qualifiers (whether one or two horses) to the next 3, to the next 5, and also to the next 7 in odds. Results below . . .
| race count | |||
| 110 | to 3 | to 5 | to 7 |
| qualifiers | in $6 per | $10 per | $14 per |
| in | in | in | |
| 171 | $1026 | $1710 | $2394 |
| out | out | out | |
| 1350.8 | 2599.9 | 3601.3 | |
| avg # quals bet per race | ROI | ROI | ROI |
| 1.55 | 1.32 | 1.52 | 1.50 |
| profit | profit | profit | |
| $324.8 | $889.9 | $1207.3 |
^
The qualifiers (at 2/1 to 8/1) are winning at a good enough rate that going deeper (adding more exacta combinations) is justified, and thereby catches higher paying exactas that augment the bottom-line ROI greatly.
The average exacta payoff when going three deep is $50 – for the exactas that hit when the 4th and 5th lowest odds horses are added, the avg payoff is $96.10 – and for the exactas that hit when the 6th and 7th lowest odds horses are added on the back-end, the avg. payoff is $157.50.
*Note – the ROI figs for the “to 7” column are under-stated. I did not separate out and adjust for races where there were only 6, or 7 runners. So the amount listed as “in” ($2394) would have actually been less than that.
Final Point:
Some of you are professional players – patient players. For those who want to make this more of a ‘spot-play’ and can accept longer losing streaks:
If you limit your minimum wager to 5/1 (i.e. qualifiers are 5/1 to 8/1 only – naturally with a few 9/1 and 9/2 shots slipping in there because of odds changes) – I’ll close with the tables below (there were 52 plays in 10 days = 29 “individual track days” – or a bit less than 2 plays per track per day).
I’m not going to comment further on those results (except that – to keep it in line with the amounts in the above stats – bets figured on a flat $20 on each qualifier, and $4 exacta ticket on each combo) .
| tot bet win | tot bet exacta | out 2 col | out 3 col | race count | ||||
| 1140 | 1140 | 1287.9 | 435.8 | 52 | ex to 5 | ex to 7 | ||
| tot out win | tot out ex (to 5) | hit count | hit count | ex horse count | 1140 | 1596 | ||
| 2065 | 2575.8 | 12 | 2 | 57 | 2575.8 | 3447.4 | ||
| ROI | ROI | avg pay | avg pay | ROI | ROI | |||
| 1.811 | 2.259 | 107.3 | 217.9 | avg # bet per | 2.26 | 2.16 | ||
| profit | profit (to 5) |
1.10 | profit | profit | ||||
| 925 | 1435.8 | 14 | $1435.8 | $1851.4 | ||||
| Tot profit | 1723.7 | |||||||
| $2360.8 | tot avg ex pay | |||||||
| 123.1 |
——————————————————————
That’s it.
Should get your creative juices flowing. Adjust as pertains to your personal results (assuming complete and accurate record keeping!)
I am sending this to all purchasers of the method. For those that have requested, or who now request – I will also send the Excel spreadsheet with full data (just send me an email, or request in the blog).
Best of fortune to you. – Gary