Recently,
The Greek Sportsbook examined the four handicapping pillars - speed, pace, track bias and value - on which a foundation of successful horse race wagering is based. Aided by a professional horse player who asked that his identity be protected, over the next few months we'll take a closer look at some common handicapping mistakes, a series of misguided strategies and unproven theories that often doom the unsophisticated bettor:
Handicapping Mistake #5: There are several tried and true rules of the game, such as, "Never bet a horse to do something he hasn't done before," "Never bet a 3-year-old against older horses in the spring," "Never bet fillies against colts," "Never bet maidens versus winners," and "Never bet the highest weighted horse on a muddy track," which always should be followed.
"No professional bettor, no one with any real knowledge of the game, would make such ridiculous and meaningless statements," insisted the player. "Only a total amateur would utter such nonsense. Maybe this stuff sounds logical to the neophyte or the loser but anyone who bets horses for a living realizes this is infantile, nursery school mentality. At the highest levels of the game, among those who win, this stuff is laughable. No professional bettor would ever buy into such garbage."
OK, now tell us what you really think.
"Look, I'm not going to waste my time going over each and every one of these 'rules' one by one but starting at the top you can see how ludicrous these things are. If, as the rule states, you can never bet a horse to do something he hasn't done before, then that means you can never bet a maiden race since none of those horses have ever won a race before.
"And you can never bet a horse stretching out or shortening up unless he's done it before even though you have to understand that the best opportunity for a price probably is the first time that a horse tries a new distance. And I also suppose you can never bet a horse moving up in company, whether the move is from maidens to winners, allowance to stake or whatever because that horse has never beaten those types before.
"Can't you see how dumb and restricting a 'rule' such as that is? It may be a lot more time efficient to automatically eliminate horses based on some false criteria but it's certainly not wise. Why would anyone want to limit their options?"
The professional horse player said he wasn't surprised that these types of unsubstantiated myths existed or even flourished because, when it comes to dispensing accurate information, thoroughbred racing has lagged way behind the advances made by other industries.
"Most other businesses have become more sophisticated," contended the player. "There are watchdog groups and consumer advocates checking the accuracy of their claims. When a dubious statement or suspect claim is made, it's challenged and thoroughly investigated.
"But in this game, people can still manufacture 'rules' and make up whatever they want. There are enough followers out there who will listen to people who know nothing and repeat what they say. After a while, the junk becomes accepted as fact."
Still, the player pointed out that such arbitrary "rules" actually can become an asset for astute bettors.
"It's terrific that this malarkey is in print because, not only are these statements preposterous, but the beauty is that people actually believe these myths. It's total misinformation that the public seems to eat up. Every situation is different, of course, but bettors should be especially alert in these circumstances because they can sometimes capitalize on a widely held myth, go against the so-called 'rule,' and really get the best of it. If one horse is over bet because he meets some arbitrary criteria, then other horses must be under bet. Because of that, these myths can provide the competent player with tremendous value."
The player added that all "rules" have numerous exceptions and that the game can be simplified so even the average player can understand it.
"In the end, the core of the game comes down to four basic questions: Which horses are fast enough to win? What is the likely pace scenario? Which horses have a better chance of winning than their odds suggest? And what is the racetrack bias?
"If you can answer those four questions you've got 95 percent of the game figured out. Never mind the 'rules.' They're nonsense."
