In big races at the major tracks, I think you have to be able to predict the approximate odds before ever looking at the board. If you are not able to do that, I think the understanding of the race is just not there, and you won't win anyway. I think a good example is this years Belmont. Any knowledgeable horse player should have known that Sarava was not picked by any of the smarter handicappers, was tossed out by 95% of the sheet players, and was tossed out by 95% of the breeding experts (by Wild Again, full bro was a sprinter), and would go off at least 50 or 60-1. If you thought all of these people were wrong, you clearly should have said it before you saw the board, and not use the excuse that you didn't know the horse would be a huge price (I definitely tossed him). I do think, however, that this rule only applies to the big races at major circuits, where so many people have so much info. At some of the smaller tracks, or in maiden or claiming races, I think you sometimes have to let the board tell you what is right or wrong. I would never bet a maiden race at any track without seeing the odds. In fact, when playing a pk6 where first leg is a maiden race, I often just use the four or five horses with the lowest odds, the strategy being I don't have all of the info, why not rely on the people who most likely do? So I guess my opinion is that in the big races at major tracks, you should be able to figure out the odds, and should not have a problem betting ahead of time. But at the smaller tracks, or in maiden or claiming races, I think you need the odds to help you figure things out (so don't bother if you don't have the advantage of seeing the board)......Cheers