Place Wager or Exacta?

[GR1@HTR]

My experience is that if you have a positve ROI in the Win wagering of say 1.20, you will have a slightly negative ROI in place wagering. And vise versa. My numbers tell me that is is very difficult to accomplish both positve ROI in win and place over the long term. Perhaps Exacta wager is the better answer...Any thoughts?

Following is an article by Mitchell:

Some Thoughts on Win-Place Betting
by Dick Mitchell
View other articles by Dick Mitchell

Whenever I see a horseplayer bet the same amount of money to both win and place on the same horse, I think to myself ?sucker.? P.T. Barnum, or who ever it was that said, ?A sucker is born every minute,? didn?t exaggerate. Unless both bets are offering the same player edge, which happens rarely, one of these bets is misdirected. It gets even worse when I hear a player bet $20 to win and $40 to place, or twice as much to place as to win.

Whenever I ask players why they would do such silly things, the answer usually comes back that they are insuring their win bet. I bite my tongue not to blurt out, there?s no such thing as insuring a bet. No reputable insurance company offers such a product. In fact, no disreputable insurance offers the product either. What the player is doing is making two different bets.

The proper way to wager is to bet either win or place, but not both, depending which bet offers the largest player expectation. Nowadays, with multi track simulcasting, it?s very difficult to calculate the edge on a place bet.

If your risk tolerance is so low, you insist on a putative insurance bet to cover the eventuality of being nipped at the wire, let me suggest an alternate way to accomplish your mission. It?s very simple. Instead of making a win and place bet, make a win and exacta bet. (If your unit win bet is less than $20 forget this advice.) Yep, that?s right, you heard correctly. You make your regular win bet, and then you purchase approximately the same amount on an exacta-backwheel. For example, you bet $20 to win on a horse in a 10-horse field. You then bet $18 on the exacta backwheel. If you?re a $50 win bettor, you would make you usual $50 win bet, plus a $5 exacta-backwheel.

Why do I suggest this technique? Money, that?s why. Most often, if your horse does come in second, the exacta payout will be larger than the corresponding place bet.

Please don?t misunderstand. I?m not advocating this technique for general usage. It?s only meant for those misguided souls who insist upon betting both win and place on the same horse. This is a much saner way than a straight win-place bet.

See you on the short line.

[ranchwest]

Just as a hunch, I'd have to think that a full back wheel would be at least as bad as a place bet.

Maybe if you picked out about half the field as possible upset candidates, I might be able to see it.

I've found many, many races have some bad horses entered. I wouldn't waste my money including them in a wheel.

[Lefty]

I liked Dick's other Exacta advice better: Bet your longshot to win and put it under top 2 favs in an exacta.

[Schlagman]

Like most handicapping "truth", there are always exceptions. I use 14 successful spot plays. Seven have shown themselves to be better for win play only. Three are much better playing only to place. And four are very good win and place. I've used the Kelly criterion to try to figure how much to wager win verus place, but found that 50/50 is about right in most cases! I'd like to use exacta backwheels as a substitute for place wagering since exacta pools are much larger than place pools and can support larger wagers. But that would involve trying to do mutiple exacta dutching close to post time. Also, if the horse wins, you're screwed, so a small win bet is also required - it quickly gets very complicated.

[smf]

GR1,

I have to disagree (you knew I would, lol). You can have a positive roi for place wagers as well as win wagers.

Just speaking for myself here, but....If someone bets on a particular type of race (claims/ layoffs/ firsters, whatever) your handicapping ability will zero in on a particular horse...One horse, not the field as a whole. Exacta wagers aren't "as profitable" as place wagers in that instance b/c you have far more insight into your bet (horse) than the field as a whole.

The positive of place betting is that you can cash along with the win wager. EX savers are ripped and tossed. I don't like ripping and tossing money away, but perhaps Dick likes the idea? (new book material, perhaps)

Good example (for me) was today at FG. A Tom Amoss claim ran back and I wasn't certain if he was 100% ready so I split the wager 50/50 on win/ place--no exotics b/c I didn't have as good a read on the rest of the field. I knew he'd be competitive, not sure he'd win tho.

Result= 11.60 to win, 6.20 to place. Would Mitchell prefer me to give that extra cash back to the pool? To make things more clear (to me), I wouldn't have put a nickel on the 2nd place runner in the race in an exacta, up or down. If I'd come in 2nd, I still have a $220 profit w/ my win/ place wager.

OTOH, I have noticed that the mid-atlantic tracks have severely low place pools as opposed to LS, FG, therefore I rarely bet to place there. I've thought about ex's (on top only) as a supplemental wager in the future when I get a better feel for their tracks, biases, trainers, etc..The ex payouts are lower there (mid-atl) but seem much more hit-able than FG or LS. We have more "where'd that come from" runners coming itm here it seems.

Put me in as "Dick Mitchell says what, hehehe- hahaha", and a believer in the place bet (in polls larger than 40k with false favorites).

Speaking of PT Barnum, does anyone know exctly how many books, CD's, etc it took for Mitchell to get his points across? Geesh!

JMHO......

[takeout]

Originally posted by smf

Speaking of PT Barnum, does anyone know exctly how many books, CD's, etc it took for Mitchell to get his points across? Geesh!

JMHO......

Now THAT'S a good point! :D

[Lefty]

It doesn't matter how many tickets you rip if the bet overall shows a better roi than win place betting, that's the point. With your ex $11.60 $6.20 you;re isolating one bet from hundreds or thousands to make your point.
Heck, if you want to do that, then you would have been better off havig entire bet on win bet!
The point is overall profits. I have seen many longshot plave bets pay 10 bucks or so when they come 2nd to fav or 2nd choice and the exacta pay 60 to 80 bucks or more. I ;ike the strategy exacta as a place bet.
Let your research be your guide.

[sq764]

Right or wrong, I always bet my horses to win and place. I learned my frustration lesson when I would bet a 15-1 shot to win only and he ends up running second and paying $11.00 to place.

Last night I had 3 longshots run 2nd, I tripling my money on those 3 wagers, even though none of them won. That's fine for me right now.

Scott

[smf]

Well Lefty, that was my point. The total profit IS the key. The place wager has proved out (for me) to be better than savers by far.

As I stated, if I'd have bet the ex on that race, I'd have lost much of my investment. I don't like giving money back to a pool. Makes no sense.

Therefore, I wanted to make A PROFIT ON THE RACE and betting win and place in EQUAL AMOUNTS allowed me to do just that, regardless if I finished first or 2nd. I wasn't 100% certain if Rosequest was best and there was a horse in that race that hadn't tried turf yet but had talent.

I'm not about to tie up capital on a "saver" on a horse that's unproven on turf with a jock that's subpar and a trainer that I don't see as an ace. That's plain foolishness.

Another example was todays 2nd at LRL. The winner pd 8.00, 5.20. Why give back the 5.20? I liked the winner but there were 2 others in there that had a shot. Heck all I have to do is come in 2nd and I'm up a good chunk. If I win (no guarantee), it's all the better.

[sq764]

Personally, I feel the bottom line is if you think your horse will pay >$4.00 to place, then even if he runs second, you profit. Isn't that the whole point of playing the horses, or any investment for that matter?