Key Factors in Selecting a Prime Bet

by Mike "Lucky" English

Two gamblers in the grandstand at Keeneland were arguing over what constituted a "best bet."

Gambler Number One, in natty straw hat and red suspenders, loudly proclaimed, "It's a consensus choice. If all the public handicappers pick a horse, I bet it heavily."

His sparring partner, in a purple turtleneck, smiled. "Then you're dumber than I thought you were. Those guys have to pick a best bet every day, and sometimes their consensus choice is a real dog."

These two traded insults and betting strategies for at least 10 minutes. Not a soul paid them any attention, except me. (Ever notice how even the weirdest behavior is ignored by race trackers, probably because they're so preoccupied with trying to pick a winner? This makes a race track one of the most private places in the world.)

This debate, high in the Keeneland grandstands, got me to thinking: How do I define and determine a best bet?

In my books, a best bet is a prime bet-one I load up on. Put another way, most of my betting money, on a given day, goes down on this best bet.

I determine a best bet through a long process, in which elimination is the key factor. For starters, I eliminate entire racing days from my schedule if the cards appear unbettable or the horses I like figure to go off below even money. Why take the trouble and bear the expense of going to the track, where temptation always lurks, on a bad day?

Once my cursory examination of a racing card reveals at least one promising race, I look closer at each race on the card, eliminating all races in my "don't bet" categories. If I'm lucky, I end up with two or three bets, and I put at least 90 percent of my cash on the prime choices and only 10 percent on a longshot I might have uncovered.

Since I don't go to the track for its romance and "thrills," I bet only my pre-chosen horses once I reach the track. Usually, I watch other races, with interest, and take notes for future reference, to occupy my time. If my day's particularly busy, however, I advance bet my choices and leave.

These are some of my other specific "don'ts" when it comes to narrowing down a field to select a best bet:

Don't play races with fewer than six horses because usually the odds are dismal in such races.
Don't play two year olds, because they're not formful or mature enough to bet with confidence.
Don't play fillies or mares in races against colts unless the distaffers are exceptional talents.
Don't bet heavily during the first week of a racing meet, because comparing speed and class among horses coming from different tracks is too difficult.
Don't bet any races run on the mud, the most unpredictable running surface.
Don't bet races for non-winners of two because they lack form.
Don't bet heavily during the last week of a meet, because cards are generally poor by then and shippers, often brought in to take advantage of weak fields, are extremely hard to handicap.

My "do" list is simpler and shorter. It points the way to my prime best bets.

Do diligently search out horses that are consistent, with wins averaging at least 25 percent.
Do closely consider all male claiming events, for three-year-olds and up, in the $10,000 to $20,000 range, perhaps the most handicappable races of all.
Do pay close attention to the records of trainers and jockeys.
Do carefully study results for track biases.

My typical best bet might have this kind of profile: He's a $10,000 to $25,000 claimer who won his last race at the same distance and similar claiming level as today's race; he's carrying weight he can handle out of a decent post; he's ridden by a competent jockey; he's saddled by a trainer who knows how to pick the best spot for his charge, and he's going to post at odds of 7-5 or better.

This sounds awfully antiseptic, doesn't it? And not much fun. But what's fun for me is winning at the track. I got cured of the track's worst virus-"actionitis"-many moons ago.

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