Professional Betting Habits

[JimG]

After reading the discussion on Steve Wolson's picks and his success, I thought this might make for an interesting poll. Please elaborate on your vote by replying in the thread. Looking forward to the results.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

90%+ on exotics....the balance on win.

Even the biggest fools at the track know how to bet straight.

The more complicated the bet, the better it is for me.

I always loved when the self-proclaimed sharpest guys at the track (actually guys that had a good opinion but had no idea about wagering concepts) would tell me that they had exactly 5 or 10 exchanges in the twin trifecta. Why didn't they just get a neon sign that flashed "dunce".

[superfecta]

99.9% exotics for me.90% is on tris or supers.the idea is not to pick the winner ,it is to make money.But most people don't realize that.I am amazed on how many so called experts don't utilize the better bet structure as opposed to betting on the most likely winner.With a good bet pattern,even the most mediocre handicapping angle can be made more profitable.but people don't look at it that way,and thats what makes this game great.

[schweitz]

50% exactas---30% pick-3or4's---20% tri's

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally posted by superfecta
99.9% exotics for me.90% is on tris or supers.the idea is not to pick the winner ,it is to make money.But most people don't realize that.I am amazed on how many so called experts don't utilize the better bet structure as opposed to betting on the most likely winner.With a good bet pattern,even the most mediocre handicapping angle can be made more profitable.but people don't look at it that way,and thats what makes this game great.

There is hope here!
:D

[keilan]

90%+ on exotics....the balance on win.90%+ on exotics....the balance on win.
Even the biggest fools at the track know how to bet straight.
The more complicated the bet, the better it is for me.
I always loved when the self-proclaimed sharpest guys at the track (actually guys that had a good opinion but had no idea about wagering concepts) would tell me that they had exactly 5 or 10 exchanges in the twin trifecta. Why didn't they just get a neon sign that flashed "dunce".

What the hell are you really trying to say??

[MV McKee]

I didn't know which way to vote!
I know a successful win-only player, and a successful primarily exotics player.
My guess is that the majority of black-ink players bet both win and exotics, with more money into the exotics pools.

What I would be curious to know is how many successful bettors play heavily into the multiple race exotics (DD, P3, P4, P6, etc.)

Myself, I got curious and discovered that since 1Jan02 I have invested virtually all of my money in the trifecta (38%), superfecta (29%), win (22%) and exacta (11%)pools . After that, I have played a measley .42% of all my wagers for the past 2 years into all other pools combined. I only play a win bet in 16% of the races I play, as opposed to playing the trifecta in 71% of the races I play, and the superfecta in only 12% of the races.
Wondering if anyone else notices the same pattern in their own betting. In my case, I obviously play the tri much more often than win and superfecta betting, but when I play the latter 2, the investment is much larger.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by MV McKee
I didn't know which way to vote!
I know a successful win-only player, and a successful primarily exotics player.
My guess is that the majority of black-ink players bet both win and exotics, with more money into the exotics pools.

What I would be curious to know is how many successful bettors play heavily into the multiple race exotics (DD, P3, P4, P6, etc.)

Myself, I got curious and discovered that since 1Jan02 I have invested virtually all of my money in the trifecta (38%), superfecta (29%), win (22%) and exacta (11%)pools . After that, I have played a measley .42% of all my wagers for the past 2 years into all other pools combined. I only play a win bet in 16% of the races I play, as opposed to playing the trifecta in 71% of the races I play, and the superfecta in only 12% of the races.
Wondering if anyone else notices the same pattern in their own betting. In my case, I obviously play the tri much more often than win and superfecta betting, but when I play the latter 2, the investment is much larger. But isn't the return vs risk substantially greater for a tri bet or super?If it isn't you are betting too much .I have seen players hammer the exacta for 20 bucks and they could have invested 10 dollars on a tri and gotten the same return or greater.Good example is A Beyer in his book "Beyer on Speed"(better title might be "Beyer on Crack").He bets a large amount on the exacta and dabbles with the tri.If he had bet all in the third slot(using his exacta combos as a key and the amount spent to get multiple tickets) he still would make more money overall.But he was looking to get lucky with the tri rather than make good money if he was right on the exacta.

[Holy Bull]

I'm about 40% win + exchanges/25% exacta/20% tri/10% super/5% pick-X

Ideally I'd like to get a higher % in the tri and super, but I just get lazy when it comes to the betting and don't really spend the time to come up with an opinion for 3rd and 4rd. Definately need to try to squeeze in more 7 horse super boxes.

[MV McKee]

Originally posted by superfecta
But isn't the return vs risk substantially greater for a tri bet or super?If it isn't you are betting too much .

For me the key is that I am relating my handicapping methods and their results to a betting strategy that optimizes them.
The methods I have chosen to use in my handicapping are geared more towards identifying the horse most likely to finish 3rd or 4th. Therefore, I invest the most money, or with the greatest frequency into pools that include those finish positions.
Of the 4 pools I invest in, my highest ROI is in the win pool, but my handicapping methods only yield 1 play (of sufficient price) in every 9 races. My lowest ROI is in the Exacta pool (under 3%). The only reason I even utilize exacta bets is as accomodation to my personality, as I have found that I can begin a pattern of second-guessing or chasing after a race when the 50-1 shot I had keyed for 3rd in a tri gets up for 2nd in an exacta and I cash nada.
For me, I am more concerned about my bottom line, rather than generating a dazzling ROI. If I can generate more opportunities and invest 3 times as much, i'll gladly accept a 50% cut in my ROI.
I also have to be mindfull of the fact that because I am playing into pools that have large payoffs (superfectas at 1K as opposed to win bets at 10.00) that if I double or triple my investment to try and hit a super 5 or 6 times instead of 2 or 3, that I could potentially push my ROI into the negative by impacting the payoff returns. So even though on the surface it may appear that I am not optimizing my investments by placing them exclusively in the pool that provides the highest rate of return, there are a lot of less obvious, important considerations tied to my wagering schema.
As far as the risk/return ratio, I look at it as roughly the same as win betting. Essentially, I am playing a horse to finish in a particular position, exactly as you would in a win bet. I don't over-handicap the other horses that I am using in various combinations above/with my selection, and use the projected return (odds) as the primary determinant for the "how much" part of the equation.

[Speed Figure]

Originally posted by Holy Bull
I'm about 40% win + exchanges/25% exacta/20% tri/10% super/5% pick-X

Ideally I'd like to get a higher % in the tri and super, but I just get lazy when it comes to the betting and don't really spend the time to come up with an opinion for 3rd and 4rd. Definately need to try to squeeze in more 7 horse super boxes.

Are you saying you spend $840 on a super box. Over 80% of my plays are PICK bets. I'm a place pick all, pick3, pick4, player. I make far more on these than win bets.

[Holy Bull]

Originally posted by Speed Figure

Are you saying you spend $840 on a super box. Over 80% of my plays are PICK bets. I'm a place pick all, pick3, pick4, player. I make far more on these than win bets.

No I'm saying I don't do it nearly enough. My goal when betting is to create as much positive expectation volume as possible. If the top couple choices are suspect enough, a 7 horse super box is a phenomenal way of generating volume.

[alysheba88]

Pretty much just win and trifecta for me.

Have weeded out much of my exacta play. The races I hit the exacta were usually the ones I have a strong opinion on and am likely to get the tri too.

Play too many pick 3's. Got to cut them down.

[ceejay]

Originally posted by superfecta
I am amazed on how many so called experts don't utilize the better bet structure as opposed to betting on the most likely winner.

S-

At the EXPO in Vegas, I asked the "wagering strategies" panel if they had any advice on super's. Niether Crist, Meadow, not Davidowitz had any strategies (that they would discuss).

[BIG RED]

I know one player who bet strictly to win, waited his time, and was very disciplined. And the guy is not me! Never told me exactly what he did(don't blame him) but showed me how big discipline plays in a gambler's enviroment.

[Valuist]

I learned from a full-timer and about 90% of his wagers were exotics. I bet them all but don't play the P6 or twin-trifectas. Not too many supers. Mostly Pic 3s, trifectas and exactas.

[OTM Al]

Mostly exactas for me, 3 horse boxes or 2 picks over 3 or 4 usually though when the occasion presents, part wheels over or under a single have worked well also. I dabble with tris only when the field is big enough and I can eliminate all but about 5 horses from the money. Win or place bets usually only in maidens, claiming or non claiming, as that is the type of field I understand best, though Smarty did me pretty good on win bets in the derby. Last time I'll be able to use him in that way for a while though I think. Am working on my P3s and DDs but haven't really gone for it yet with those.

[bettheoverlay]

I've always been curious as to the % of winning days professional horse players experience, especially those who play exclusively exotics. One of the reasons I bet mostly to win is that I only bet one or two days a week and I like to come out ahead regardless of what the ROI is, and win betting on horses at 6/1 or better gives me the best chance to accomplish that.

It would seem to me that exotics are hit so seldom, at least by me, that the perponderance of losing days would be psychologically, tough to take.

[Valuist]

Bettheoverlay-

The guy I learned from would always spread out in his exotics. If he didn't like a favorite in a 10 horse field, he'd box 4, even 5 horses to capitalize on his disdain for the favorite. He'd often get between 60-100 different Pic 3 combinations. He'd bet them all the same amount. To this day, nothing frustrates me more than if I get "cheap" and leave out of a combo or two that comes in.

[Speed Figure]

Originally posted by Holy Bull
No I'm saying I don't do it nearly enough. My goal when betting is to create as much positive expectation volume as possible. If the top couple choices are suspect enough, a 7 horse super box is a phenomenal way of generating volume.
If that works for you that's great. I could never see myself playing a 7 horse super box. What I do play from time to time is a.

A,B
A,B,C,D
A,B,C,D,E
A,B,C,D,E,F

This bet is only $54.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally posted by Speed Figure

If that works for you that's great. I could never see myself playing a 7 horse super box. What I do play from time to time is a.

A,B
A,B,C,D
A,B,C,D,E
A,B,C,D,E,F

This bet is only $54.

BRILLIANT!

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally posted by ceejay
S-

At the EXPO in Vegas, I asked the "wagering strategies" panel if they had any advice on super's. Niether Crist, Meadow, not Davidowitz had any strategies (that they would discuss).

Because they have none. No one who is successful at playing supers would be on a wagering panel or even have a job.

The best way to attack supers is mentioned in this thread somewhere.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally posted by Valuist
Bettheoverlay-

The guy I learned from would always spread out in his exotics. If he didn't like a favorite in a 10 horse field, he'd box 4, even 5 horses to capitalize on his disdain for the favorite. He'd often get between 60-100 different Pic 3 combinations. He'd bet them all the same amount. To this day, nothing frustrates me more than if I get "cheap" and leave out of a combo or two that comes in.

A few great points in this post that should be followed by all players.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally posted by keilan
What the hell are you really trying to say??

The more complicated the bet, the bigger the gap between smart and dumb players.

In the twin-tri example, anybody playing it properly is well aware of what they are playing in the second leg before they play the first leg so that they play the correct denomination of bet as to get the proper amount of exchanges for the next leg (IE...6 for a 3 horse box or 1 over 3.......12 for a 1 over 4 or 2 over 4........20 for a 1 over 5..........24 for a 4 horse box etc.). The wagering dunces I was refering to would just bet $10 or $20 increments. They didn't realize that 5 exchanges is not a very good number to land on.

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi Speed Figure,

I don't understand what you mean in your superfecta example. I presume since you have A though F there are six horses involved in your bet. Other than that, I haven't a clue from what you posted what you would bet.

For dummies like me, perhaps you could give an example? For instance, say the horses you liked (in order) were 1-2-3-4-5-6 (amazing how that worked out<G>). How you would bet in the super in this race?

And to everyone, a funny research note on supers from earlier this year. I was actually looking at supers for the very first time this year. I did a quick scan of what would happen if I took a longshot rating system I have and simply boxed the top longshot horses in the super. I looked four, five, and six deep. Low and behold, the six deep box came back with a 25% positive ROI and generated __10 million__ bucks worth of action a year. My visions of extreme wealth lasted a few hours. I then programmed in what would happen to the payoffs after taking into account my wager (since I would be introducing new money onto those combinations).

With a bet of only $1 on each super combination, the ROI falls from +25% to -25%. This was so huge, I figured it must be a programming error. It wasn't. It turns out, when you are betting nothing but longshots in a super, it is not unusual to take the whole pool with a single $1 ticket. Unfortunately, that means my additional $1 would cut the payoff in half. Even worse, at smaller tracks, there were occasions of 1-2-3-ALL tacking all the pool. Since I was tracking a box, my software (before tracking the effect of my hypothetical wager) would give this price to me multiple times because of the box. Obviously, you can really only take the entire pool once<G>.

It still was an amazing thing to see even if it didn't turn out.

Mike Nunamaker

[Speed Figure]

Micheal,

I play the bet like this. I put my top 2 contenders in the 1st slot. My top 2 contenders in the 2nd slot with my 2 best longshots. My top 2 contenders in the 3rd slot with my 2 best longshots and best 3rd best contender. My top 2 contenders with my 2 best longshots with my 3rd and 4th contenders.

1,2
1,2,5,6
1,2,3,5,6
1,2,3,4,5,6

I like to put my top 2 longshots 2nd.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally posted by MichaelNunamaker
For dummies like me, perhaps you could give an example?

BRILLIANT!

Originally posted by Speed Figure
Micheal,

I play the bet like this. I put my top 2 contenders in the 1st slot. My top 2 contenders in the 2nd slot with my 2 best longshots. My top 2 contenders in the 3rd slot with my 2 best longshots and best 3rd best contender. My top 2 contenders with my 2 best longshots with my 3rd and 4th contenders.

code:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2
1,2,5,6
1,2,3,5,6
1,2,3,4,5,6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like to put my top 2 longshots 2nd.

BRILLIANT!

[MV McKee]

IMO, each race warrants a different wagering strategy or ticket configuration. It would be difficult for me to play a 2X4X5X6, or any other standard configuration of a superfecta ticket each time I played a superfecta and expect to see a positive return.
I think you need to conform your tickets to your handicapping, rather than conform your handicapping to your ticket. I would play a 2X4X5X6, or something similar if my handicapping limited my potential winners to 2, but I would hate to split hairs between 4 horses for 1st and 2nd place just to fit it into a wagering schema that may not be appropriate for that event.
I played a race once in which I could only eliminate 3 horses from superfecta consideration. I had an additional 3 horses that I thought could finish 4th at best. Of the remaining 12, there were 7 horses at various odds that had odd angles or possibilities of running ITM depending on race circumstances, 4 horses that looked solid at low odds, and 1 that looked like a very solid ITM selection at a moderate price.
In this case I went 11X11X1X3, 11X1X11X3 and 1X11X11X3. Using the 3 horses (all above 40-1) that I felt had a chance at 4th in that slot, and wheeling the solid moderate price horse 1,2,3 with all other contenders.
This is what I felt it would take to give myself a reasonable chance of hitting the race, without eliminating any of the potential boxcar payoffs. I would never play a ticket like this in a normal race, but this race was high profile.
There are a lot of things to consider when trying to make a ticket fit your handicapping of a race. I try to boil it down to it's essence and utilize only the strongest opinions that I have, whether that opinion be "Horse A should ......", or "Horse B shouldn't......".
In a Breeeder's Cup, Triple Crown or other big race, you can justify throwing 2K at a superfecta under the right circumstances, on a typical Saturday or Sunday (even at a major track), you can't.

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi Speed figure,

Thank you! I get it now. The first row is your #1 finish slot on the ticket and so on down the line.

Best Regards,

Mike Nunamaker

[superfecta]

Originally posted by MichaelNunamaker
And to everyone, a funny research note on supers from earlier this year. I was actually looking at supers for the very first time this year. I did a quick scan of what would happen if I took a longshot rating system I have and simply boxed the top longshot horses in the super. I looked four, five, and six deep. Low and behold, the six deep box came back with a 25% positive ROI and generated __10 million__ bucks worth of action a year. My visions of extreme wealth lasted a few hours. I then programmed in what would happen to the payoffs after taking into account my wager (since I would be introducing new money onto those combinations).

With a bet of only $1 on each super combination, the ROI falls from +25% to -25%. This was so huge, I figured it must be a programming error. It wasn't. It turns out, when you are betting nothing but longshots in a super, it is not unusual to take the whole pool with a single $1 ticket. Unfortunately, that means my additional $1 would cut the payoff in half. Even worse, at smaller tracks, there were occasions of 1-2-3-ALL tacking all the pool. Since I was tracking a box, my software (before tracking the effect of my hypothetical wager) would give this price to me multiple times because of the box. Obviously, you can really only take the entire pool once<G>.

It still was an amazing thing to see even if it didn't turn out.

Mike Nunamaker the other factor that bears looking at is the size of the pool.nothing sucks like hitting longshots across the board and the size of the pool is less than 2k.Where and when you play this bet can be very important.So betting a 50 dollar combo at Churchill is better than the same amount at Delta Downs.And for the most part,multiple tickets on a tri or super is not a good bet(either is boxing but to each his own).Since these payoffs are higher (most of the time 200-1 or better)there are fewer tickets,so if you have multiple tickets,you in effect are betting against your self and not increasing the odds of winning.

[Dancer's Image]

For me it depends...if the horse is going to finish 4th, I bet WPS...
3rd....WP
2nd....W
1st....I box the exacta with the 3rd place horse
1st-2nd....I box the 2 with the 4th/5th/6th place horses

I'll let you guess how I bet when I have the first 3 finishers

[superfecta]

Originally posted by ceejay
S-

At the EXPO in Vegas, I asked the "wagering strategies" panel if they had any advice on super's. Niether Crist, Meadow, not Davidowitz had any strategies (that they would discuss). yea, thats what i thought.

[Valuist]

I play a lot more tris than supers, but here's a few superfecta strategies I use:

Strategy 1:
Horse A- win slot
Horse B- must be in either the 2nd, 3rd or 4th positions.
Horses C-G usually use 4-5 horses in the other slots; could go as low as 3 or as high as 6 or 7 in a big field. Horse A must win and Horse B has to be a part of the ticket
(A)with (B) with (CDEFG) with (CDEFG) 20 tickets
(A)with (CDEFG) with (B) with (CDEFG) 20 tickets
(A)with (CDEFG) with (CDEFG) with (B) 20 tickets
60 total tickets

Strategy 2:
Horses A & B must run either 1st and 2nd or 1st and 3rd
Horses C-G must make up the other two slots:
(AB) with (AB) with (CDEFG) with (CDEFG) 40 tickets
(AB) with (CDEFG) with (AB) with (CDEFG) 40 tickets
80 total tickets

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi Superfecta,

I actually thought about putting a pool size filter in. Much to my amazement, it didn't make any difference (well, the ROI wasn't -25% anymore, but it was still very bad). When you get four longshots finishing 1-2-3-4, it is not unusual for a single winning ticket to take the whole pool, even when there is as much as 50 or 60K in the pool. Now once the pool reaches 100K, I stopped seeing single tickets taking the whole thing. But going from cutting the win price in half to cutting it by 33% (because we are going from 2 to 3 winning tickets) doesn't save the idea.

You said "multiple tickets on a tri or super is not a good bet(either is boxing"

Say there are four horses in a race that I would currently box in a tri. I have them ranked 1-4. How would you suggest I bet a tri instead of the box? Also, what do you mean by multiple tickets? Do you mean more than $2 on any given combination?

[hurrikane]

Speed,

your play works especially well with races involving false faves. I look for them evey play.....

take false, play him in the 2 hole with your ls..my studies show a ff will finish 2nd or otm. makes for some nice plays.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by MichaelNunamaker
Hi Superfecta,

I actually thought about putting a pool size filter in. Much to my amazement, it didn't make any difference (well, the ROI wasn't -25% anymore, but it was still very bad). When you get four longshots finishing 1-2-3-4, it is not unusual for a single winning ticket to take the whole pool, even when there is as much as 50 or 60K in the pool. Now once the pool reaches 100K, I stopped seeing single tickets taking the whole thing. But going from cutting the win price in half to cutting it by 33% (because we are going from 2 to 3 winning tickets) doesn't save the idea.

You said "multiple tickets on a tri or super is not a good bet(either is boxing"

Say there are four horses in a race that I would currently box in a tri. I have them ranked 1-4. How would you suggest I bet a tri instead of the box? Also, what do you mean by multiple tickets? Do you mean more than $2 on any given combination? Problem with your research is the backfitting of the races ,all races.That is the assumtion if you played all the races,thats the results.Nobody plays every race every day.Depending on the horses you pick and their odds,you can get any result that you want with the results.What you do is analize every race you play and compare probable payouts.If for example,the race you are playing has a bad favorite and your choice to win is 4/1`,you also like some longshots to complete the exacta.So you decide to hammer the exacta keying your best horse over the 4 longshots you like.But is that the best bet?Depending on the odds,it may be better to play the same horses in a tri ,spending the same amount of money.But increasing your payout if you really are right about a bad favorite.Does it work all the time?Of course not,but you can win just one and make money than throwing large exactas at the betting window all day.Of course when you have low odds horses as contenders,it would make sense to play a large exacta rather than trying for a low paying tri(short fields are not good for playing tris or supers,6-8 horses for example).Myself in that type of race,I would pass betting altogether.But say you have low odds horses for the exacta in a 10 horse field?then the best action may be to play the low odds horses in 1st and 2nd and play those longer priced horses in the third and fourth hole.Also depends on the track.
Could go on and on but I hope you get the picture.

Now when I say boxing is not a good idea in most cases I am talking about having both low and high odds horses as your contenders.Boxing all the horses is saying,I don't have a good idea of how this race is going to end,so these horses all have the same chance of winning.Or running second or third.Which if it is what you think about that race,save that money for a lap dance(it lasts longer and you at least have something nice to look at while you lose that money)
And it doesn't make too much sense to have more than one combo of winning tickets,unless you have low odds horses to start with,a solid opinion of the race,and nothing else to bet or handicap.You cant win more than what is in the pool,its hard enuf to pick one ticket ,betting the same combo more than once will not pay in the long run.
As to betting four horses, pick one to win,then you can box the other three behind him,you save $18 every time.you have to have at least one horse you think will win.you could(depending on
the odds)play with a longshot on top as a "lottery pick"with the others underneath,but usually thats not from your bankroll,thats money from a previous winning bet.And if you lose it your not hurt,if you hit it thats bonus money.
I could go on about longshots that aren't really longshots to finish in the money,but I hope this gives you something to develop on your own.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I won $18.00 on a place pick 8 once.

[andicap]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
I won $18.00 on a place pick 8 once.

Wow! Where did they let you bet 25 cents?

:)

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sometimes low odds horses do not pay much even in combination! 8 of 8 favs won.

[44PACE]

I bet 70% of the time Win, 30% of the time Win/Place. Flat bets ( in my comfort zone)always the same amount.

I like the very boring betting methods becouse I have little fluctuations in my bankroll growth rates. I value reliability over Big scores which have long runouts.
I like the idea of constant monthly returns although they are not enough by any means to make a living with ( becouse I am not confortable betting huge amounts, tried it my success rate went downhill) it is enough to put into a retirement plan.Every couple of months take the money I make from the track put it into a CD earn my 5%. It adds up after a while.

[wes]

Could not vote!

Can't limit bets to some set amount. If you have the goods on some good thing. Hell bet the race in all pools. If the race is a good paying race you can tap into all the pools with a little bet on each. If you are a heavy hitter you can feast upon your good thing. The word Professional scares the hell out of me. I haven't reached the heights of an amateur yet. Its best to leave the talk about the prof. to the professional and we stick to playing our game, not theirs. When I hit a big paying race I perhaps just hit a race that many PROFESSIONALS missed. Then you think there are no room for the un-professional player. When you play just thank the 2 buck player. The professional player is not a normal player. They will stick to the connection or some upper hand they have on all the other players. (A LOT OF HANDICAPPING AND HARD WORK). It hard to fill an elephant with peanuts one at a time. Its just as hard to become a winner on just one race.

wes


wes

[PriceAnProbability]

When I tracked my selections for a while, I found most of my profit was coming from cold exactas, cold tris, and cold supers, so now I do this:

Opinion: 1/2-3-4

Wagers:

$1 win 1
$1 exa 1/2-3-4 (if opinion is 1/2/3-4 I box 1-2)
$1 tri 1-2-3
$1 super 1-2-3-4
$1 dd 1-1
$1 p3 1-1-1
$1 p4 1-1-1-1

For $9 I've covered seven pools (significant if you increase because it takes longer to hurt your payoffs), and as long as my top horse wins, I'm likely to get something.

You can turn $10 into a lot of money this way.

[Pace Cap'n]

How can I get in on some of those $1 win and DD bets?

[Cratos]

With nearly forty years betting thoroughbreds, the best betting scheme for me has been to wait for my best handicapping opportunity to wager and in my case that is about 50-60 bets per year, bet win only, and bet the largest amount ($250-$2500/wager) that I can afford to wager at the time of placing my bet,

I do not bet any exotics at all and I do not make place or show bets.

[Dave Schwartz]

Cratos,

With nearly forty years betting thoroughbreds, the best betting scheme for me has been to wait for my best handicapping opportunity to wager and in my case that is about 50-60 bets per year, bet win only, and bet the largest amount ($250-$2500/wager) that I can afford to wager at the time of placing my bet,

Wow! Nobody would ever need to suggest that you "grow a pair."

You remind me of a guy that I know in Japan. He averages about 40 bets per year... a little over 1 per week. His average wager size is around $10k USD. He says he wins "most years."

Personally, I prefer the "quantity" approach - many, many wagers with a small overall advantage.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[keilan]

Cratos,

You remind me of a guy that I know in Japan. He averages about 40 bets per year... a little over 1 per week.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz


hmmm in Canada we have 52 weeks per year ;)


I think you have had to be around a long time to bet this way but I think I could be quite successful playing like this....... I'll give it a try one day

[Tom]

But you guys are metric, no? :rolleyes:

[PlanB]

LOL, metric? Does a millimeter, one way or the other, matter?

[DaveP]

I voted for straight win or place only .. in the UK we can bet to a 100% book, at betting exchanges, you can also lay other peoples bets which I do as well. (You pay 5% commission on all winning bets and nothing if you lose).

SP bets (on course) the bookies take out between 1.8 - 5% per runner, and tote pool bets are around 20% per race. So theres no competition really.

[Dave Schwartz]

hmmm in Canada we have 52 weeks per year

LOL - Well, the racing year over there is about 37 weeks (as I recall).


Dave

[1st time lasix]

I play what I believe to be "overlays" BASED ON MY HANDICAPPING OPINION That means if I think a horse will win and I can get 5/2 odds or more.....I have learned to use the win pool no matter what else I do {even if it is a minor sum that "saves" me my investment in the other pools} I prefer to play exactas, trifectas and supers mostly when I feel I can beat a chalk favorite or I can eliminate the second choice. Nothing is more paramount to me than this: If I don't believe I can beat the low odds favorite...I will pass the race or play a tri WITHOUT the 2nd and 3rd public choices in the two hole. In my opinion....you MUST absolutely split wagering favorites! Longer shots {4th choice to longest shot}must be second on my ticket or I just pass. **** If you can beat the favorite because of some solid reason of vulnerability.....then you must sieze the opportunity in the higher return pools in my opinion. Play the favorite underneath in the 2 or 3 hole {if you have to} but toss him if you can. Perhaps attack the pick 3 or pick 4 which pays well if you can avoid the chalk in the first leg generally. ****The other big reason to play tris and supers?....... If you really like a longshot {say at 9-1 or higher} to hit the board....key him in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th spot in the exotics. He is giving you the "price" you need to overcome this onerous takeout. As an exotic player I personally am prepared for losing streaks.....but if i catch a couple of races i pay for everything else and a couple of lobster dinners. :jump: This is gambling and there is no better feeling than not needing an ATM machine to pay all your life's expenses for a few weeks/months. I think you must play the upside. The takeout is 18-25% for godness sake. Avoid playing public choices first and second at the risk of watching them waltz in every so often. Give yourself a pat on the back for passing or not having much in the race to catch a terrible underlay. There is always another race coming up.

[PriceAnProbability]

With nearly forty years betting thoroughbreds, the best betting scheme for me has been to wait for my best handicapping opportunity to wager and in my case that is about 50-60 bets per year, bet win only, and bet the largest amount ($250-$2500/wager) that I can afford to wager at the time of placing my bet,

I do not bet any exotics at all and I do not make place or show bets.

If you're betting $2,500 a horse you are likely hurting your payoffs.

If your ROI is 10 percent on that you are making maybe $250 a week while risking $2,500 per bet.

Presumably you've sharpened your methods to the point where you can rely on a profit with this approach.

[Cratos]

If you're betting $2,500 a horse you are likely hurting your payoffs.

If your ROI is 10 percent on that you are making maybe $250 a week while risking $2,500 per bet.

Presumably you've sharpened your methods to the point where you can rely on a profit with this approach.

Except for the Breeders’ Cup races and the Triple Crown prep/TC races I bet exclusively NYRA and I only bet NYRA during Saratoga and the Belmont Summer/Fall meets.

Those pools are typically very large and a $2500 wager will not affect the odds to the extent that the betting public would notice on the toteboard.

As I said earlier I do not play exotics at all, but I did think about what effect a large wager would have had in this year’s KY Derby exacta pool.

This year’s KY Derby exacta with the Barbaro and Bluegrass Cat combination paid about $565 (I don’t remember the exact amount), but a $2000 wager on that combination would have had a minimal affect on the payoff while yielding over a ½-million tax-free dollars to the winner.

I realize that $2000 is a large wager on a single exacta bet, but this a money game and to win money you will have to risk money.

[PriceAnProbability]

Except for the Breeders’ Cup races and the Triple Crown prep/TC races I bet exclusively NYRA and I only bet NYRA during Saratoga and the Belmont Summer/Fall meets.

Those pools are typically very large and a $2500 wager will not affect the odds to the extent that the betting public would notice on the toteboard.

As I said earlier I do not play exotics at all, but I did think about what effect a large wager would have had in this year’s KY Derby exacta pool.

This year’s KY Derby exacta with the Barbaro and Bluegrass Cat combination paid about $565 (I don’t remember the exact amount), but a $2000 wager on that combination would have had a minimal affect on the payoff while yielding over a ½-million tax-free dollars to the winner.

I realize that $2000 is a large wager on a single exacta bet, but this a money game and to win money you will have to risk money.

You said before you didn't make exotic bets.

I do agree that risking money should be viewed as a necessary evil rather than feared.

[cj]

This year’s KY Derby exacta with the Barbaro and Bluegrass Cat combination paid about $565 (I don’t remember the exact amount), but a $2000 wager on that combination would have had a minimal affect on the payoff while yielding over a ½-million tax-free dollars to the winner.


That $500,000 is only tax free if you lose a whole lot the rest of the year, or you cheat the IRS.

[JimG]

I started this thread 2 and 1/2 years ago and my play has dramatically changed during that time. I used to play exotics, handicapping 2-3 tracks in a trip to the otb and hoped for the best. After spending many years on this forum and reading all I could from players more knowledgeable than myself, I changed my game completely. I now play from home 95% of the time and am now a spot-play win bettor. The other 5% of the time when I decide to go to the otb and hang out with my friends, I still play my spot play bets for serious money and use "entertainment money" and play a couple of tracks the old way, but with far less money. I also enjoy playing in tournaments. The biggest difference from 3 years ago, is I now show a nice profit betting the races and am confident in my ability to duplicate the success year after year as long as I put in the work on my spot plays to keep up with this ever-changing game. Discipline was the key to my change into the profit zone and many of the long-time posters here are responsible to some degree for my tactical change and resulting success.

Happy New Year to everyone and thank you PA for having this forum. I have made many online friendships because of it for which I am very thankful.

Jim

[PriceAnProbability]

I started this thread 2 and 1/2 years ago and my play has dramatically changed during that time. I used to play exotics, handicapping 2-3 tracks in a trip to the otb and hoped for the best. After spending many years on this forum and reading all I could from players more knowledgeable than myself, I changed my game completely. I now play from home 95% of the time and am now a spot-play win bettor. The other 5% of the time when I decide to go to the otb and hang out with my friends, I still play my spot play bets for serious money and use "entertainment money" and play a couple of tracks the old way, but with far less money. I also enjoy playing in tournaments. The biggest difference from 3 years ago, is I now show a nice profit betting the races and am confident in my ability to duplicate the success year after year as long as I put in the work on my spot plays to keep up with this ever-changing game. Discipline was the key to my change into the profit zone and many of the long-time posters here are responsible to some degree for my tactical change and resulting success.

Happy New Year to everyone and thank you PA for having this forum. I have made many online friendships because of it for which I am very thankful.

Jim

Sustaining a winning edge for several years is the key, because then you can treat it like any other business or investment vehicle.

Spot play is a bit restrictive, but if you have part of the puzzle solved, it's a good way to build a profitable bubble.

[JimG]

Sustaining a winning edge for several years is the key, because then you can treat it like any other business or investment vehicle.

Spot play is a bit restrictive, but if you have part of the puzzle solved, it's a good way to build a profitable bubble.

It's restrictive if I were only looking at a few tracks. But I look at most of them. For instance, yesterday I had 75 potential plays. Before the advent of computers and downloading, this would not have been possible.

I agree with you concerning a winning edge for several years being key.

[PriceAnProbability]

It's restrictive if I were only looking at a few tracks. But I look at most of them. For instance, yesterday I had 75 potential plays. Before the advent of computers and downloading, this would not have been possible.

I agree with you concerning a winning edge for several years being key.

I estimate that roughly 95 percent of horseplayers who win in a given year will eventually wind up losing again. Lots of "pros" out there lose their one edge and wind up blind, after they're done chasing an advantage long since vanished.

Seventy-five "spot plays" isn't exactly a short menu.