It seems pointless to analyze the results of a horse race, because you can’t place a post-race bet. The outcome of every race if different, even if you ran the same horses in back to back races. But, it may help you figure out where your thinking was wrong and maybe help you place better wagers in the future. I’m a fan of Mike Smith who rode on Palace Malice in this past Saturday’s 2013 Belmont Stakes. But, for some reason, I decided not to bet on him because he didn’t come through for me in the Kentucky Derby. That was a big mistake. I should have known that Palace Malice, who had sat out the Preakness, would be rested and ready to go for the Belmont. I placed a 5,7,9 trifecta box wager with the 3 favorites. But, if I had placed a 5,7,12 trifecta box, it would have paid out $931. I also had a win/place/show on 6, who came in 4th. The 12,7,5,6 superfecta paid $20,602. So close, but no cigar for me.
You need to bet on the long shots in order to win the big money. The problem is that if you spend all of your time handicapping, you are less likely to include the long shots in your wagers. Case in point, the 4th race at Canterbury Park on Saturday. If you would have picked the four horses with the worst odds, you would have won $17,388 on a $1 superfecta. Who has a big enough per race wagering budget to cover an outcome like that? That would have been considered a foolish bet, by any handicapper out there. When you see things like that, you feel like you’d do just as good picking your horses at random.