Optimal Bet Structure

[VigorsTheGrey]

What do you consider the optimal bet structure and WHY...Or what bet structure have you had success with?

I like my tickets to reinforce each other somehow and all be at least potentially cashable...If I box 3 horses in a trifecta only 1 combo CAN BE VALID the others cannot be....so I like part wheels better

a to win, a/b, a/bc, a/bc/bc, a/bc/bcd/bcde...get the picture?

They say the HIGH-5 is a sucker bet...but my opinion is: with the proper bet structure, say.....a/b/c/de/defg....or a/b/cd/cd/efg...it doesn't look that bad..

[thaskalos]

The optimal bet structure must reflect our individual handicapping opinion of the particular race...and it must also be adequately supported by our playing bankroll. We must not forget that the riskier wagers, though they promise higher returns, also require a larger bankroll if they are to be negotiated properly.

Some people hate to box horses, because all the combinations don't have a chance to win. They consider this to be a form of "betting against oneself". Others refuse to wager on two horses to win in the same race...for the same reason. I don't believe in tying my hands with predetermined rules when I wager. If three horses appear to be of similar ability, and the value is there...then I box them.

As my bankroll grew and my wagers got larger...I started structuring my bets in a way which allows me to "crush" a race if I am "right on" about it...while still affording me the opportunity to cash moderately even if I prove to be a little off in my prognostication. Some frown upon this form of betting, because they consider it to be a form of "hedging"...which ultimately hurts the bottom line because it adversely affects our ROI. This might be true...but maintaining the highest ROI isn't my main concern in this game. When the player gets to a certain betting level...I believe certain psychological factors come into play which are of higher importance than the ROI considerations.

IMO...the most important aspect of wagering is that our betting style fit our temperament and personality. The risk-averse player isn't likely to enjoy betting superfectas...nor is the "swing-for-the-fence" bettor likely to be at his best when betting multiple horses to win in the same race. The aphorism "Know Thyself" fits nicely here...I think.

[bgbootha]

The optimal bet structure must reflect our individual handicapping opinion of the particular race....

I don't believe in tying my hands with predetermined rules when I wager.



^^^THIS^^^

The right betting structure should change based on the outcome of your handicapping. I can't stress enough in the people we work with to "Listen to your handicapping."

Now the first part of this that I focused on was passing, folding, skipping a race. If your handicapping doesn't show potential value in a race then the race should not be bet on. If your handicapping says to go four deep, then go four deep. that being said your bankroll management has to agree that it is OK to go four deep.

In the end, LISTEN TO YOUR HANDICAPPING. I cannot agree with any 'system' that says you should consistently be looking for 2/3/4 or some kind of consistent betting structure.

[ultracapper]

What do you consider the optimal bet structure and WHY...Or what bet structure have you had success with?

I like my tickets to reinforce each other somehow and all be at least potentially cashable...If I box 3 horses in a trifecta only 1 combo CAN BE VALID the others cannot be....so I like part wheels better

a to win, a/b, a/bc, a/bc/bc, a/bc/bcd/bcde...get the picture?

They say the HIGH-5 is a sucker bet...but my opinion is: with the proper bet structure, say.....a/b/c/de/defg....or a/b/cd/cd/efg...it doesn't look that bad..

Forget the H5. If you can nail cold trifectas, you've got the world in your palm.

[VigorsTheGrey]

As my bankroll grew and my wagers got larger...I started structuring my bets in a way which allows me to "crush" a race if I am "right on" about it...while still affording me the opportunity to cash moderately even if I prove to be a little off in my prognostication.

Yes, THIS is what I am interested in, do you mind sharing this with me (us)? What does "right on" look like?

[VigorsTheGrey]

The optimal bet structure must reflect our individual handicapping opinion of the particular race...and it must also be adequately supported by our playing bankroll.

Yes, I do believe this. To see each race as a PECULIAR EVENT in time, with a distinct outcome.

Yes,and it was the philosopher Neitzche who said that "The will to a system is a lack of integrity." Any systematic approach to finding winners is doomed to failure..

..Horse races are not systems, but swarms of hurtling chaos that only seem to sort themselves out due to the imposition of finish lines and the imaginative minds that look upon these events.

We look back upon these events and "read" structures into them, then base our prognostications upon these "structures" said to be lurking in the form lines...

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What do you consider the optimal bet structure and WHY...Or what bet structure have you had success with?

I like my tickets to reinforce each other somehow and all be at least potentially cashable...If I box 3 horses in a trifecta only 1 combo CAN BE VALID the others cannot be....so I like part wheels better

a to win, a/b, a/bc, a/bc/bc, a/bc/bcd/bcde...get the picture?

They say the HIGH-5 is a sucker bet...but my opinion is: with the proper bet structure, say.....a/b/c/de/defg....or a/b/cd/cd/efg...it doesn't look that bad..

The post from Thask showed a lot of experience and sofistication and I agree wholeheartedly with his points. I especially agree that you want to bet so that when you are right on a prime play you should cash big. If you remember Andy Beyer's $50,000 Year at the Races, most of his profit came from a handful of bets. As the value of a play increases, your action should increase and be focused to take maximum advantage of it.

As Thask said, which pools you get into should be a function of value and bankroll. The smaller the bankroll, the simpler the bet should be. I've always believed small players should be primarily in the win and exacta pools, and I've suggested a bankroll distribution for small players of 50-25-25, win-exacta-any other pool. That gives you a good chance to maintain the bankroll and still gives you the opportunity to let loose. As you have a larger bankroll you can shift to the more lottery bets. Many of the professionals I know used to focus on pick-4/5/6, but they've become discouraged by the introduction of the 50 cent bet, so they'll only get into the pools when there is a large carryover or big pool guarantees.

If you're going to get into the more complex combination pools, I would say you're on the right path by playing part wheels instead of boxing. I also like the idea of keying in the horizontals. So in a pick 5 instead of betting ABC/ABC/ABC/ABC/ABC, or the way you bet it, I might bet three tickets like A/ABC/ABC/ABC/ABC, ABC/A/ABC/ABC/ABC, and ABC/ABC/A/ABC/ABC. This allows you to hit for multiples if your top choices come in, gives you a little better coverage and costs the same as using all horses in all races.

I sometimes think of horseplayers in the same vein as golfers. If you want to be in the top tier you have to have an ability to hit all the clubs well and you have to be able to execute all the shots. You have to also hit the right shot at the right time and play in all different conditions. Of course in horseracing you do have more opportunities to specialize - turf vs. dirt, sprint vs. route, maiden vs. winners, win vs. tri's, etc. - and you can do well by finding your sweet spots.

[EMD4ME]

Forget the H5. If you can nail cold trifectas, you've got the world in your palm.

Plus the pool is much larger at the same takeout.