Vertical or Horizontal?

[jasperson]

Are you a vertical or horizontal handicapper or both? I rarely bet (#) pick 3 or pick 4 and don't bet many exactas or trifectas my self. Since the tvg guys only handicap horizontally I was wondering what most of the players on this forum do.

[lamboguy]

the reason why i am only a w-p-w bettor is because i am not a great handicapper. the real good players use multiple wagering exposure to beat this game. the more number's needed, the better they will do against the pari mutuel competition.

[Ocala Mike]

I voted vertical only, although I do often bet doubles, a horizontal wager. I rarely bet pick-n's because I often use technical factors such as posted will-pays in my selection process, such will-pays not being available before the first leg of anything but a double.

[Overlay]

Both, but with emphasis on those that have probable payoffs available, so that I can make judgments about possible overlays (particularly involving horses that are underlaid in the win pool, but that may be offering value as part of an exotic).

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Used to love the Pick 3 in California until players got more sophisticated and the overlays went away (mid-late 90s).

Now when I play exotics, it's usually within a race where the most info is known. There's nothing worse than having a nice P3 or P4 ticket going and getting to the last leg and watch the opening flash of the tote go tilt on a fringe horse I didn't play....

[BlueChip@DRF]

I am strictly a Win bettor. My handicapping wins at times. But my betting gets pulverized more often than not. I don't pull the trigger when I should and I fire a salvo straight into the air when I am in the middle of a minefield. I keep forgetting about Pick-4s. Half the time I am either alive after 3 legs and have a decent shot with the favorite and a decent odds horse or a pair of longshots - and the opposite horse comes out, or I am just knocked out of the first leg, even if I am spread 4 across in a 6-horse field.

I need some help.

[DeltaLover]

The problem with any horizontal bet (setting adide double) relies to the fact that we are missing one of the most fundamental ascpects of decission making which is the behavior of the crowd. This requires a completely different approach of handicapping since the crowd's opinion becomes another unknown which adds complexity and uncertainty to the whole process.

Although in theory, it is quite possible to create a winning approach even in this case (since the same conditions apply to everyone) I still find it difficult to handicap both for horizontal and vertical unless I concentrate to one of the two. The possibilities of a late scratch, a weather change, a jockey change etc only add to the inflexibility of the horizontals and this why I try to avoid them as much I can.

In special cases, where we have incresed confidence about how a race is going to be perceived by the public, I might try a pick 3 but this is the longest I will go.

For example last Saturday when the Belmont Stakes was approaching and it was clear to me that both the 7 and the 13 I liked were going off at ~ 10-1 ... I tried a P3, singling the 1 in the middle starting with two horses who were coming from the KEE race (I think 3 and 7 or 6).

Getting to Belmont, I had two tickets working each for a pay over $400 per $2 and then betting my two choices only for second I was lucky to hit the exacta. Of course this is a move I rarelly use, mostly in this type of races. Again the double is a completely differnt story and I bet it frequently.

[DJofSD]

I tried horizontal but I fell asleep.

[Longshot6977]

Even though the takeout at most tracks is less for horizontals, I play only verticals. I don't like to deal with scratches and unknown odds in horizontals.

I tracked my bets (still do) some years back when I tried horizontals and my win rate/ROI was much higher for verticals, so I stuck with them.
However, I do check the DD willpays in the 2nd leg to see which horse has the lowest ratio of payoff to odds. Sometimes a hidden gem can be found.

Some tracks display the number of 'trifecta runners' which helps in my tris to see how many tickets are using certain horses. This can either help your confidence on a horse or show more value if it is being used.

[Stillriledup]

Horizontals are very tough for me, you have your money tied up for hours and psychologically, you can feel like you're 'getting crushed' for the day when you're just waiting patiently for the sequence to end.

Also, you can be the most brilliant handicapper on the planet for 3 out of 4 legs of the pick 4, but if your calculations are off 1 millimeter in one of the legs, you lose everything. If those same 4 races, you bet tri's and supers, and you were 'right' you can make nice money.

With that said, its amazing to me how popular the pick 4 is and now 'unpopular' the superfecta is. At most tracks, the pick 4 is their biggest pool, and the supers are the smallest....yet, both bets require you to select 4 horses to finish in a certain spot and yet, many more people gravitate towards selecting 4 winners, rather than a horse who will finish 4th.

To me, i like to think that it's 'easier' to select a 4th place finisher in one event, than 4 seperate winners in 4 different events.

[cordep17]

If you aren't playing either, are you playing?

Usually I stick with vertical bets. I agree with someone above about the psychological effect it has on you. At least, I feel it. I would rather always be able to stop than have to wait it out. I'de rather try to be right on for s specific play than to have to be right one 4 or so times in a row.

[duncan04]

If you aren't playing either, are you playing?
.


Yeah it means you are a win, WP, WPS bettor

[Binder]

I think that the TVG program selectors are encouraged to play
horizontal type bets. Could this have something to do with holding viewers attention for a few commercial breaks ?

I can not handle the stress of horizontal bets
so I just bet win place or show

Bill

[jerry-g]

I only bet to win. The track's take and break are the least on win bets.
Plus if you win an exotic you have to pay income tax on top of all the
other rakes. For me they represent a sucker bet.

[Stillriledup]

If you aren't playing either, are you playing?

Usually I stick with vertical bets. I agree with someone above about the psychological effect it has on you. At least, I feel it. I would rather always be able to stop than have to wait it out. I'de rather try to be right on for s specific play than to have to be right one 4 or so times in a row.

CP17, not sure if you were addressing this to me or not, but i play every pool. If i skip a pick 4, i wont take that money and bet more on something else, but it just depends on the race and the situation as to what pool i play in....but if i love a horse, i have no problem making a win bet, betting that horse in exa's, tri's and supers, keying him in the pik3, pik4, etc.

[thaskalos]

I seldom make horizontal wagers...because I don't normally find two, three or four races in a row that I have confidence in.

[plainolebill]

I play verticals because I can see the odds on the board.

[depalma113]

In golf if you focus on one hole at a time, your round will be much better than if you start thinking about what is coming up.

Horse racing is the same for me. Although I will play pick threes and pick fours on days when there are large pools, it is far better for me to play exactas, trifectas, and the best bet in all of gambling: the $.10 superfecta.

[1st time lasix]

I personally disagree that the .10 Super is the best bet in racing. Generally a superfecta is among the highest takeouts at any venue. The "low-takeout" pick four or pick five is superior in my humble opinion because with all the additional horses...there is more likely a mistake made by the public --creating overlays. I also think it is also easier to pick potential winners than a entry that might clunk up for fourth when a pace breakdown occurs or jockeys stop riding {See Revolutionary in the Belmont get nipped for 4th} In my experience.....if you catch two non-favorites in a .15 % take pick five [particularly in the first and second leg} and you can score a large ticket $ for a small outlay. I would say that the same super that generates a large payoff....means a chalk favorite did not run first or second. Exactly when a lower takeout exacta.... or double would do the trick.

[Valuist]

Bettors should play depending upon what the situation dictates. A negative opinion on the favorite or favorites, is usually one of the best scenarios. I think many bettors, myself included, may "force" Pic 3s and Pic 4s. You should have at least two very strong opinions to play those.

Lets say you have 3 races that you've handicapped fully. One race you completely nail, one race you completely miss, and another where you knew one of two main contenders you identified would win but you erred on who could fill out the other tri slots. If you played tris and/or exactas on all 3, you hit one. If you played the Pic 3, you got two out of three and come away with nothing. How many times have we hit 3 out of 4 in the Pic 4?

[wisconsin]

How many times have we hit 3 out of 4 in the Pic 4?


More times than I care to talk about. It's not the bad beats that kill me, it's the "what just happened" ticket busters that make no sense that really hurt. How many times does one leg get blown up by some horse who does not figure at all? Too often for me in today's racing environment where form just does not matter anymore.

[therussmeister]

I personally disagree that the .10 Super is the best bet in racing. Generally a superfecta is among the highest takeouts at any venue. The "low-takeout" pick four or pick five is superior in my humble opinion because with all the additional horses...there is more likely a mistake made by the public --creating overlays. I also think it is also easier to pick potential winners than a entry that might clunk up for fourth when a pace breakdown occurs or jockeys stop riding {See Revolutionary in the Belmont get nipped for 4th} In my experience.....if you catch two non-favorites in a .15 % take pick five [particularly in the first and second leg} and you can score a large ticket $ for a small outlay. I would say that the same super that generates a large payoff....means a chalk favorite did not run first or second. Exactly when a lower takeout exacta.... or double would do the trick.
Whilst I would love it if some track would reduce the takeout in the pools I actually bet, I find that claiming certain bets as good or bad based on takeout rates is too theoretical. My real world experience shows superfectas and trifectas are more profitable than exactas, which in turn are more profitable than win bets, despite takeout rates that might theoretically suggest the opposite. Furthermore, when I compare all the tracks I play I can find no correlation between takeout rates and profitability. Many years my most profitable track was the one with the highest takeout rate.

Also, that it is easier to pick a winner than a horse that might "clunk up" for fourth is why I like superfectas. The superior handicapper's greatest edge is when tackling that which is difficult, not easy.

[1st time lasix]

Can't tell you how many times {in NY in particular} there is fairly handsome exacta and a rather "short" tri. People at the track exclaiming that they wonder why it paid less than they thought. Often one is far better off with an extra two or three tickets on the exacta--- than a low denomination tri or super. If one understands that they take 26% out of their tris & supers and only 18% out of their exactas...one begins to understand. I would say far too many losing "players" don't take it into consideration enough. I mentioned NY {Belmont, Aqueduct and Spa}....but same is true at Calder, Monmouth, Tampa, Woodbine and numerous other venues. I stick to my opinion based on my history. The .10 cent super is simply not the best play in racing......... Playing into higher take out pools will simply grind even a good handicapper's profit margin into the dirt over time if active enough. Not theoritical at all----pure math. I will say that if the % takeouts are the same for ALL vertical wagers {as is in KY and Cal} ...then I will lean toward the 3 and 4 hourse bets seeking an overlay.

[thaskalos]

There are no "best" wagers in horse racing: it all boils down to what bets the player is most comfortable in making. It's all a matter of "taste"...and it's of no use to debate and argue the merits of one bet over another.

The race track offers a varied menu...and we each choose what we want.

[riskman]

The best wager is the one you won.

[iceknight]

There are no "best" wagers in horse racing: it all boils down to what bets the player is most comfortable in making. It's all a matter of "taste"...and it's of no use to debate and argue the merits of one bet over another.

The race track offers a varied menu...and we each choose what we want. True that. In my own record, I notice that supers have paid me most and place bets. However, I should probably go back and do an analysis on all the supers I have played and look at the exacta payouts to see if I can structure them better and get a higher ROI by just playing Exactas.. but also investing more..

[gm10]

My day-to-day betting is mainly vertical but my biggest scores (by far) have come from handicapping the card both vertically and horizontally. If I were a bit more disciplined, I'd never place a bet without at least some horizontal analysis.

[classhandicapper]

I seldom make horizontal wagers...because I don't normally find two, three or four races in a row that I have confidence in.

I agree.

It's hard enough to find a single horse with clear cut value, let alone in consecutive or more races.

[Capper Al]

There isn't any getting around it, one has to watch the tote for expected payouts. This is just more last minute work to do after spending time and effort on handicapping.

[pondman]

I'll rarely play exotics. I'll play vertically if the pool can't handle a large win bet. But it's going to need to be a long odds. I do this at Finger Lakes and Turf Paradise.

[Valuist]

Part of the allure of the multi race wagers was that when they were first implemented, the public really hadn't figured out how to play them and there was tremendous value in them. Beat all 3 favorites and it was a jackpot, even if it was 2nd or 3rd betting choices. Back in the early 90s, I remember hitting a signer Pic 3 with the three winners all in the 7-2 to 4-1 area. That would never happen now.

When the Pic 4 came in (around 2000 or so), we saw similar type overlays.

Nowadays you go thru the charts and you just don't see those jaw dropping type of shocking results that made the multi exotics so exciting.

[thaskalos]

Part of the allure of the multi race wagers was that when they were first implemented, the public really hadn't figured out how to play them and there was tremendous value in them. Beat all 3 favorites and it was a jackpot, even if it was 2nd or 3rd betting choices. Back in the early 90s, I remember hitting a signer Pic 3 with the three winners all in the 7-2 to 4-1 area. That would never happen now.

When the Pic 4 came in (around 2000 or so), we saw similar type overlays.

Nowadays you go thru the charts and you just don't see those jaw dropping type of shocking results that made the multi exotics so exciting.
The same thing has happened to vertical wagers though.

Look at what has happened to the trifecta payoffs in recent years.