explain logic of betting vertical exotics

[acorn54]

can someone please explain the logic of betting vertical exotics such as the pick 3 or pick 4. i can understand the pick six, as hitting that is a life changer and is like winning the lottery.
all the readings of intelligent writers who have studied the gambling side of racing, come across as saying, if you don't have a positive expectancy with the win bets you make, you will not have a positive expectancy with any other type of wager you make.
am i missing something, because with the low payoffs in the win spot after take out AND DIME BREAKAGE there is no way i come out ahead, whereas with my long shot plays, betting into large fields i have much more success.

[doctorwin]

Don't forget in Pick 3 bets etc. you don't even get a chance to see the horses.

[DeltaLover]

Don't forget in Pick 3 bets etc. you don't even get a chance to see the horses.


The same apply for your competition, so this does not make a difference.

[Fox]

Just to clarify, the multi-race bets are horizontal exotics not vertical.

I think the reason you can win in horizontals without having a positive expectation with the individual win bets is because your effective per race takeout percent is lower in the horizontals because the takeout gets spread across races. It is the reason why a win bet parlay will almost always pay significantly less than the exotic payout.

[doctorwin]

Oh it does make a difference because when I do get to see the horses I can eliminate many of them from the win position. I am fairly good at this. Better than the average bettor. This gives me an advantage.

Doctor Win

[Clocker]

The same apply for your competition, so this does not make a difference.

Most of the competition doesn't even really look at the horses in the post parade. It makes no difference to them, but it takes away an edge you have in other bets if you know what you are looking at in the paddock.

[DeltaLover]

can someone please explain the logic of betting vertical exotics such as the pick 3 or pick 4. i can understand the pick six, as hitting that is a life changer and is like winning the lottery.
all the readings of intelligent writers who have studied the gambling side of racing, come across as saying, if you don't have a positive expectancy with the win bets you make, you will not have a positive expectancy with any other type of wager you make.
am i missing something, because with the low payoffs in the win spot after take out AND DIME BREAKAGE there is no way i come out ahead, whereas with my long shot plays, betting into large fields i have much more success.


Yes, I think you are missing something here.

Theoretically speaking, what you are saying here is correct: you cannot come up with a positive return by summing negative numbers, thus your win bet expectancy seems to dictate the dynamics of vertical exotics. This seems simple and rational but also is nothing else than a fallacy!

This view fails to account for the fact that each vertical exotic represent a complete independent pool, who's payoffs are not a product of the individual win prices.

In vertical exotics what counts the most, is to hit at least one long shot which combined even with a sequence of terrible underlays can be sufficient to elevate your payouts to the extreme. Keep in mind that these kind of pools tend to not present effective markets, meaning that there might exist some combinations that will multiply the effectiveness of a mare win parlay.

The more visible a market is the more effective it will become. The win markets of three consecutive races, consisting of 10 horses each, will always be more effective than the derived pick 3. This is happening exactly because the 10 betting options in each race consist the most obvious and visible betting option, something that is driving the betting crown to bet each starter very close to each winning chances. The same does not apply for the P3 which consists of 1,000 betting options, as not only their number is 100 time larger than each individual win bet but on top of it, the corresponding payouts are not visible to the crowd, which now does not have the same capacity to correct the prices.

[DeltaLover]

Most of the competition doesn't even really look at the horses in the post parade. It makes no difference to them, but it takes away an edge you have in other bets if you know what you are looking at in the paddock.

I do not agree.

If paddock handicapping has any effectiveness at all, it has to be reflected in the pool regardless of how many are actually looking at the horses. Just a few trained eyes should be enough to correct the pools..

[acorn54]

delta, i made a mistake i meant to say horizontal exotics. as for exactas and triples in 6 or 7 horse fields, if you can win them at the high rate one needs to, to profit, my hat is off to you. as for looking at the horses in the paddock, they all look the same to me lol.

[DeltaLover]

delta, i made a mistake i meant to say horizontal exotics. as for exactas and triples in 6 or 7 horse fields, if you can win them at the high rate one needs to, to profit, my hat is off to you. as for looking at the horses in the paddock, they all look the same to me lol.


I think we both made a mistake: You are referring to P3/ P4 as vertical and in my posting I am continuing the same definition! It is obvious that my posting was targeting horizontals...

I agree, that verticals are different than horizontals and way more complicated and difficult to beat...

[Clocker]

I do not agree.

If paddock handicapping has any effectiveness at all, it has to be reflected in the pool regardless of how many are actually looking at the horses. Just a few trained eyes should be enough to correct the pools..

This is a minor issue, but I don't see how. I just looked at the last card at Parx. On track handle was $42K, off track was $1.4 million. The TVG feed is essentially worthless for judging physicality, and the announcers rarely discuss it.

No matter. I know it gives me an edge and it is one reason I don't play horizontals. Different strokes for different folks.

[doctorwin]

Physical handicapping is best when used to identify happy and healthy horses or to identify horses with mental or physical problems. This methods have helped me both win money and claim good horses all my life. The physicality factor maybe one reason why almost all handicapping contests are contested one race at a time.

Doctor Win

[green80]

Most of the competition doesn't even really look at the horses in the post parade. It makes no difference to them, but it takes away an edge you have in other bets if you know what you are looking at in the paddock.

What is it that you think you are going to spot that the track vet doesn't see?

[Clocker]

What is it that you think you are going to spot that the track vet doesn't see?

If a horse is edgy or nervous or rank or sweating excessively in the paddock, it is using up energy that will not be available to it at the end of the race. If a horse is sore or tired, that can also be seen in the way it stands or walks. The track vet isn't going to say boo about any of that.

There have been books written and videos made on using physicality as a handicapping tool. I use it largely as a negative factor. If my top pick doesn't look like it is ready to run, I pass the race. It doesn't happen very often, but I have rarely regretted my decision. And if the horse looks especially fit and eager, like well toned muscles and dappled skin, it gives me all the more confidence.

[barn32]

If a horse is edgy or nervous or rank or sweating excessively in the paddock, it is using up energy that will not be available to it at the end of the race. If a horse is sore or tired, that can also be seen in the way it stands or walks. The track vet isn't going to say boo about any of that.

There have been books written and videos made on using physicality as a handicapping tool. I use it largely as a negative factor. If my top pick doesn't look like it is ready to run, I pass the race. It doesn't happen very often, but I have rarely regretted my decision. And if the horse looks especially fit and eager, like well toned muscles and dappled skin, it gives me all the more confidence.I used to always go down to the paddock, and I have seen many horses who looked sweaty and jittery win with ease.

As for the horizontals, Dick Mitchell used to say that there were great overlays in the pick-3. Of course the bet was new back then and probably not played properly, but he was right--there was value there.

Now, I think the value has gone away.

[whodoyoulike]

I used to always go down to the paddock, and I have seen many horses who looked sweaty and jittery win with ease. ...

There's always exceptions when it comes to handicapping, being sweaty and jittery has also been a couple of turn offs for me. But, I'm not or have been an expert on viewing physicality, still much to learn.

Being sweaty when it's not humid or hot is a warning sign for me and if the horse is my contender I'll pass but, if it's very hot or humid it would be an acceptable excuse. I'll also view the other horses.

[Appy]

I almost never play P-whatevers, but admit they interest me. I know a few fellows who play them like they are the only bet.
Picking winners 5 or 6 races out is made more difficult as you do not have the advantage of live tote and therefore have to estimate what final odds will be. That can be problematic. But like other exotics the logic for winning can be enhanced by your ability to afford coverage. "It takes money to make money" is just as true in wagering on horse races as in any other business, and exotics may be the most glaring example of proof.

[Steve 'StatMan']

What is it that you think you are going to spot that the track vet doesn't see?

It may be important to keep in mind, the Track Vet's job isn't to find the horses who won't win. Their job is to make sure that the horses are sound enough to race, or try to race, that day. Whether they win, get a small check, or run out is not important. That they not break down, esp in front or amongst other horses is. Or any that look like the physical exertion of the race could harm or kill them, more so than the risks that all racehorses (and riders) take.

[EMD4ME]

Very simply, Best bet in racing is the Pick 5.

Bankroll and Balls equals a huge edge over others.

Vig spread out over multiple races.

Ability to weigh out how "right" you are can cause a score times 2,3,4,10,100.

If you do your true/overall/well rounded homework, you have a huge edge over people who are paper cappers, data cappers, system cappers as they might be right once but over 5 races, a well rounded capper will have a HUGE edge over 1 trick ponies.

[AndyC]

Vig spread out over multiple races.


The vig isn't lessened just because you have to be right about 5 races instead of just 1.

[Nitro]

I personally would never waste my time or money on a horizontal Pick-whatever bet. Why? Very simple because anyone who plays them realizes first of all that they’re forced into playing one (or more) race in the sequence that they may not be comfortable with. So what do they do for that race? Combine as many entries as they feel necessary to keep their bet alive. (Hopefully that occurs in as few races in the sequence as possible to keep the cost of the bet down).
How do you avoid this dilemma? Very simple select only the races you are most comfortable with and create your own horizontal play by parlaying your winnings from race to race. This can be done with vertical exotics on a race by race basis too.

There have been some comments on physicality observations too. Well, unfortunately unless you’re psychic or privy to some worthwhile inside information the ONLY race in your Pick-whatever bet where you can actually examine the field is the First race in the sequence. Beyond that you’re out of luck. Not too cool if your single in any of the following races comes out looking like crap.

Besides I like idea of selecting and playing races that offer value that I can recognize, and passing races that don’t. Combine some winning Exacta or Triple parlays and your average Pick-whatever bet may not look so enticing by comparison.
.
.

[Clocker]

Besides I like idea of selecting and playing races that offer value that I can recognize, and passing races that don’t. Combine some winning Exacta or Triple parlays and your average Pick-whatever bet may not look so enticing by comparison.
.
.

Ditto. On a typical 9 race card, I rarely find more than 2 or 3 races that I consider playable. And then only if the odds are right. Beyond that is gambling, usually at bad odds. It's even worse if you are gambling at unknown odds.

[davew]

The vig isn't lessened just because you have to be right about 5 races instead of just 1.


It is if you compare betting 5 races vs 1 race. The racetracks have kept making more 'lottery' type bets and fewer 'blackjack' type bets and have lost patrons to their casinos, that can churn 24 hrs many places.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

All I play now are pick 4s and 5s. I used to be a big win bettor, but I enjoy the horizontals much more now and find myself doing much better. Andddd it actually helps with my money management since once I get rolling in one I sit and wait it out.

[castaway01]

The vig isn't lessened just because you have to be right about 5 races instead of just 1.

Paying 20% vig once instead of five races in a row is simple math---paying once is better.

[AndyC]

Paying 20% vig once instead of five races in a row is simple math---paying once is better.

How many people parlay 5 races in a row with multiple selections in each race? If there are actual bettors who do such a thing then your explanation is correct. Otherwise each bet stands on its own. The fact that a bet may have 10,000+ possible winning combinations doesn't lessen the impact of the vig.

[Poindexter]

The math works like this. Assume a 20% take from the win pool and 25% take from the p3/p4 pool. By parlaying the 3 winners on average you would get back .8*.8*.8 .512% of fair value (on average). While on your pick 3 you would get back .75% of fair value. Pick 4 would be .8*.8*.8*.8 or about .41 on the dollar rather than .75 on the dollar.

So obviously the pick 3 and pick 4 in general should pay a lot better then a straight parlay. Now the argument is that betting individual races you can focus strictly on "value" plays whereas you do not have that option in pick 3's and pick 4's. However, pick 3's and pick 4's are not completely blind. At a track with big pools and rolling doubles you not only know how the public is betting the first race, but the double pool gives you a fair idea of how they will attack the 2nd leg.

Also think there is probably a lot less "sharp" money in the rolling pick 3's and pick 4's(especially).

[acorn54]

from what i learned with statistics in college, was that to get the probability of getting two consecutive correct outcomes, you multiply the first probability by the second probability and so on.
lets say you have 30% chance in each leg of the pik three: that is .3 X .3 X .3
which comes out to a .027 chance of winning . i really can't see myself getting involved in such a proposition, not to mention the size of the bankroll i would need to avoid risk of ruin.

i might add that the bettor also does not know the probable payoff if he hits, in the pik 3. or pik 4. unlike the daily double. he is betting blind into the pools, not a wise way to gamble, being unknowing of ones reward to risk taken.

[AndyC]

The math works like this. Assume a 20% take from the win pool and 25% take from the p3/p4 pool. By parlaying the 3 winners on average you would get back .8*.8*.8 .512% of fair value (on average). While on your pick 3 you would get back .75% of fair value. Pick 4 would be .8*.8*.8*.8 or about .41 on the dollar rather than .75 on the dollar.

So obviously the pick 3 and pick 4 in general should pay a lot better then a straight parlay. Now the argument is that betting individual races you can focus strictly on "value" plays whereas you do not have that option in pick 3's and pick 4's. However, pick 3's and pick 4's are not completely blind. At a track with big pools and rolling doubles you not only know how the public is betting the first race, but the double pool gives you a fair idea of how they will attack the 2nd leg.

Also think there is probably a lot less "sharp" money in the rolling pick 3's and pick 4's(especially).

I understand the math but it is a ridiculous comparison. To say that a P-4 is a good bet because it beats a 4 race parlay is nonsensical unless one were actually contemplating making such a bet. Would someone ever bet a 2 X 4 X 6 X 1 parlay?

[AndyC]

from what i learned with statistics in college, was that to get the probability of getting two consecutive correct outcomes, you multiply the first probability by the second probability and so on.
lets say you have 30% chance in each leg of the pik three: that is .3 X .3 X .3
which comes out to a .027 chance of winning . i really can't see myself getting involved in such a proposition, not to mention the size of the bankroll i would need to avoid risk of ruin.

i might add that the bettor also does not know the probable payoff if he hits, in the pik 3. or pik 4. unlike the daily double. he is betting blind into the pools, not a wise way to gamble, being unknowing of ones reward to risk taken.

So you wouldn't take 2.7% chance if your payoff were 200-1? Pools may be blind but that doesn't mean you can't predict where the payoffs will fall if you have studied the patterns of the pools. You certainly won't be correct 100% of the time but it's better than betting blind pools with no idea whatsoever.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

from what i learned with statistics in college, was that to get the probability of getting two consecutive correct outcomes, you multiply the first probability by the second probability and so on.
lets say you have 30% chance in each leg of the pik three: that is .3 X .3 X .3
which comes out to a .027 chance of winning . i really can't see myself getting involved in such a proposition, not to mention the size of the bankroll i would need to avoid risk of ruin.

i might add that the bettor also does not know the probable payoff if he hits, in the pik 3. or pik 4. unlike the daily double. he is betting blind into the pools, not a wise way to gamble, being unknowing of ones reward to risk taken.

From a statistics standpoint, that doesn't make any sense.

Nobody is betting into a P3, P4, or P5 if they feel they only have a 30% chance in any given race, much less every race. You are likely giving out a straight P3 in which a single horse is keyed in each leg. That is a very unlikely wager for anybody that plays horizontal wagers on a regular basis.

Most are going to bet races to what they believe will be at least 50%, upwards to 90% coverage in almost every leg while maximizing their investment with the least amount of horses. If you are wagering horizontals with an expectancy of 30% per leg, you may as well just play Keno or the lotto.

I might take a stab at a P3 with a 30% chance in a single leg (with a single in that race) if I am nearly 100% certain I have coverage in the other 2 legs. That also means the price of the ticket warrants the wager with somewhat expected results that will make that 30% logical.

[whodoyoulike]

So you wouldn't take 2.7% chance if your payoff were 200-1? Pools may be blind but that doesn't mean you can't predict where the payoffs will fall if you have studied the patterns of the pools. You certainly won't be correct 100% of the time but it's better than betting blind pools with no idea whatsoever.

I agree with Acorn54's calculation method of the probabilities of the pk 3/4.

So, you are willing to make a bet with a 2.7% chance when you don't really know what the payoff odds will be. Unless you have a way to know the payoff before the first leg of the pick. I see his point and why he's comfortable not making that bet.

Do you have a way to estimate what these payoffs will be?

[whodoyoulike]

From a statistics standpoint, that doesn't make any sense.

Nobody is betting into a P3, P4, or P5 if they feel they only have a 30% chance in any given race, much less every race. You are likely giving out a straight P3 in which a single horse is keyed in each leg. That is a very unlikely wager for anybody that plays horizontal wagers on a regular basis.

Most are going to bet races to what they believe will be at least 50%, upwards to 90% coverage in almost every leg while maximizing their investment with the least amount of horses. If you are wagering horizontals with an expectancy of 30% per leg, you may as well just play Keno or the lotto.

I might take a stab at a P3 with a 30% chance in a single leg (with a single in that race) if I am nearly 100% certain I have coverage in the other 2 legs. That also means the price of the ticket warrants the wager with somewhat expected results that will make that 30% logical.

I'm going to take a guess that you're not going to get 200 - 1 odds covering 50 - 90% in different legs.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

I'm going to take a guess that you're not going to get 200 - 1 odds covering 50 - 90% in different legs.

Favorites win roughly 30% of the time. Thus if you are using 2, 3, or more horses in a single leg, I hope you have at least 50% coverage, if not much more. If a P3 comes in Fav/Fav/Fav, no, you aren't getting 200/1. Field size is also a huge part of the scenario. If we are talking about 6 - 8 horse fields, then P3 wagers have to be pared down to reasonable wagers, if not completely avoided.

The reason to wager on a P3 is you have a feeling about a price in a single race, or you see some vulnerable favorites. If you get 3 straight winners at 5/2 or less, it isn't going to pay for your time to make the investment.

I've hit P3s in which I've done ALL/ALL/single with a horse at 10/1 or more as the single in whichever leg. While that horses odds show him as a 10% chancer or less, I have him at 30% or greater in my own 'capping, and much greater when considered in a P3 pool payout. I buy the other 2 races, make a ticket for say $80 - $120 (depending up field sizes), with an expectation that I'll get at least $350 in return, and if things fall right, even a mid 4 figure payout. While I am obviously blind to the odds of the other 2 races, experience will tell me when it feels right, or if it just doesn't make sense. So essentially, I'm betting a 30% horse that could pay like a 100/1 longshot.

[AndyC]

I agree with Acorn54's calculation method of the probabilities of the pk 3/4.

So, you are willing to make a bet with a 2.7% chance when you don't really know what the payoff odds will be. Unless you have a way to know the payoff before the first leg of the pick. I see his point and why he's comfortable not making that bet.

Do you have a way to estimate what these payoffs will be?

Computing the probabilities is only one part of the equation. The other part is obviously the payoff. My point was merely to suggest that you shouldn't dismiss a bet by just looking at one part of the equation. If probabilities were the only important factor perhaps show bets on odds-on favorites would be the pool to explore.

And yes, I have a way to estimate what the payoffs will be.

[whodoyoulike]

Computing the probabilities is only one part of the equation. The other part is obviously the payoff. My point was merely to suggest that you shouldn't dismiss a bet by just looking at one part of the equation. If probabilities were the only important factor perhaps show bets on odds-on favorites would be the pool to explore.

And yes, I have a way to estimate what the payoffs will be.

I wasn't being facetious with my question. I'm always eager to learn new things.

Would you like to share since I can't see any harm in doing so?

If you feel it gives you an advantage, I understand.

[barn32]

I've hit P3s in which I've done ALL/ALL/single with a horse at 10/1 or more as the single in whichever leg...I buy the other 2 races, make a ticket for say $80 - $120 (depending up field sizes), with an expectation that I'll get at least $350 in return, and if things fall right, even a mid 4 figure payout.How do your records tell you that you're doing vis a vis just betting the 10-1 shot to win.

[fiznow]

The problem with pick 3,4,5,6 bets is that you rarley find more than 2 good and playable races in a row (with the exception of big race days). Of course they do it on purpose to put a maiden claiming, a bad claiming or a 2yo maiden with first time starters in. So they are harder to hit, people play more combinations and spend more money. Not my case but for those who like it, why not. There are also people who spend a fortune on lottery systems. I prefer win bets, win parlays and horizontal bets.

[AndyC]

The problem with pick 3,4,5,6 bets is that you rarley find more than 2 good and playable races in a row (with the exception of big race days). Of course they do it on purpose to put a maiden claiming, a bad claiming or a 2yo maiden with first time starters in. So they are harder to hit, people play more combinations and spend more money. Not my case but for those who like it, why not. There are also people who spend a fortune on lottery systems. I prefer win bets, win parlays and horizontal bets.

It depends on what you view as playable. To me a good race to find a win bet in isn't necessarily a great race for a horizontal.

[fiznow]

It depends on what you view as playable. To me a good race to find a win bet in isn't necessarily a great race for a horizontal.

Yes thats why i mostly play either a win bet/win parlay or a horizontal bet but rarley both in one race.

[castaway01]

The problem with pick 3,4,5,6 bets is that you rarley find more than 2 good and playable races in a row (with the exception of big race days). Of course they do it on purpose to put a maiden claiming, a bad claiming or a 2yo maiden with first time starters in. So they are harder to hit, people play more combinations and spend more money. Not my case but for those who like it, why not. There are also people who spend a fortune on lottery systems. I prefer win bets, win parlays and horizontal bets.

So if I have one horse that's great and two favorites I don't like in the sequence, there's no way to make that work? Why am I only allowed to bet one horse a race? It's just as effective to beat bad favorites in these bets as it is to key some great longshot---in which case you want to bet that horse to win too anyway. There are so many creative ways to play Pick 3, 4, 5, and 6 bets that you're looking at it in a way too limited way.

[Nitro]

So here’s a good example of why I prefer vertical betting (EX-TRI-SUPER-HI-5) over horizontal.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131245
Figure out the total number of individual Pick-4 bets and multiply that by say $2.00 for each one.
Yes the Pick-4 paid a nice price, but I’m not sure how much deeper you would have had to go to actually hit it? Besides I think it’s a lot more distressing hitting every race in a Pick-whatever bet and then losing the last race. I don’t need that kind of suspense, but I guess to each-his-own.

I didn’t post the first race in the sequence (Bel R#6) because I didn’t like the race.
So I posted the next three (7, 8, & 9). Only a huge long shot (70/1) that ran 2nd in the 9th prevented me from potentially hitting every vertical in every race. Fortunately I know my limitations and it’s rare for me to hit 3 Supers in 3 sequential races on the same card. So I backed off a bit in the 9th, and just played some exacta combinations.
.

[EMD4ME]

Guys.....................

If it wasn't for Pick 4's, 5's, 6's and 7's, I wouldn't be in this game.

I'm only profitable because of these wagers. The small people just can't stay alive in those pools.

If I had to bet to win and win only, I might stay ahead of the vig but it would be harder.

In some races, the chalk sucks but there is no winner. You get explosive payouts for spreading against the sucker chalk AND being right in other races.

It's a no brainer.

[EMD4ME]

The problem with pick 3,4,5,6 bets is that you rarley find more than 2 good and playable races in a row (with the exception of big race days). Of course they do it on purpose to put a maiden claiming, a bad claiming or a 2yo maiden with first time starters in. So they are harder to hit, people play more combinations and spend more money. Not my case but for those who like it, why not. There are also people who spend a fortune on lottery systems. I prefer win bets, win parlays and horizontal bets.

It's funny you say that. I wish all races were Maiden Claimers and 2 YO FTS races.

However, I must agree, I detest claiming races on juice circuits.

[Capper Al]

If you have a contender to win and the horse is getting random odds or better, he should be played both vertically and horizontally. You might get lucky and collect both ways. You might hit only one way, but still should make money. And if you lose, you lose double. This won't be a problem so much if you can pick contenders.

[AndyC]

So here’s a good example of why I prefer vertical betting (EX-TRI-SUPER-HI-5) over horizontal.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131245
Figure out the total number of individual Pick-4 bets and multiply that by say $2.00 for each one.
Yes the Pick-4 paid a nice price, but I’m not sure how much deeper you would have had to go to actually hit it? Besides I think it’s a lot more distressing hitting every race in a Pick-whatever bet and then losing the last race. I don’t need that kind of suspense, but I guess to each-his-own.

I didn’t post the first race in the sequence (Bel R#6) because I didn’t like the race.
So I posted the next three (7, 8, & 9). Only a huge long shot (70/1) that ran 2nd in the 9th prevented me from potentially hitting every vertical in every race. Fortunately I know my limitations and it’s rare for me to hit 3 Supers in 3 sequential races on the same card. So I backed off a bit in the 9th, and just played some exacta combinations.
.

The handicapping mindset required for betting horizontals is different then the one required for betting verticals. I much prefer horizontals simply because I want to handicap a race with an eye for which horses can win and not concern myself about some no-hoper who could possibly get up for 3rd or 4th. I am not suggesting that one bet is better than the other but based on handicapping methods/philosophy one bet may suit a person better than the other.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The handicapping mindset required for betting horizontals is different then the one required for betting verticals. I much prefer horizontals simply because I want to handicap a race with an eye for which horses can win and not concern myself about some no-hoper who could possibly get up for 3rd or 4th. I am not suggesting that one bet is better than the other but based on handicapping methods/philosophy one bet may suit a person better than the other.

Totally agree, different mindsets, hard to combine both, struggling to see the whole card, requires more prerace handicapping, mind bogging to play verticals and horizontals together, recipe for bad play, chasing too many combinations, too many races, unsustainable mentally, no time to enjoy the
Sport....becomes too much about gambling and churn...

[Capper Al]

I understand the mind set for one or the other. But for me, it's about catching the odds and leveraging the adavantage.

[fiznow]

So if I have one horse that's great and two favorites I don't like in the sequence, there's no way to make that work? Why am I only allowed to bet one horse a race? It's just as effective to beat bad favorites in these bets as it is to key some great longshot---in which case you want to bet that horse to win too anyway. There are so many creative ways to play Pick 3, 4, 5, and 6 bets that you're looking at it in a way too limited way.

I didn't say there is no way and I didn't say I never bet more than one horse in a race. I'm just very selective. I rarley invest money in maiden races or in races for horses which never have won 2 races. Or in a horse that has a record like 20 starts and 2 wins. I don't say others are wrong, it's just my way to play the game.

[fiznow]

The handicapping mindset required for betting horizontals is different then the one required for betting verticals. I much prefer horizontals simply because I want to handicap a race with an eye for which horses can win and not concern myself about some no-hoper who could possibly get up for 3rd or 4th. I am not suggesting that one bet is better than the other but based on handicapping methods/philosophy one bet may suit a person better than the other.

Actually I think it depends on peoples personalities and characters which way to bet they prefer. A straight person may prefer straight wagers and so on...An interesting topic.

[Fox]

A straight person may prefer straight wagers and so on...An interesting topic.

What about a gay person? The Rainbow Pick 6? .......j/k

[fiznow]

What about a gay person? The Rainbow Pick 6? .......j/k

Well I didn't mean sexual preferences. Your answer is funny though. :lol:

[Baron Star Gregg]

This discussion is why I love this game. We all have our own strengths and perspectives and we play to them. As far as body language goes, there have been many times when an 18-1 on paper looked like a champ in the parade and it's the 3rd leg of a pick-4. This could be an opportunity mitigate a loss or turn a profit. It's up to you!

[Poindexter]

Anybody that does not see the value in pick 4's only need to look at yesterdays late pick 4 at Santa Anita(a 50 cent parlay was $2475 and the 50 cent pick 4 paid $16,295). Here is another way of looking at it. When dealing with a 15.3% win takeout(I believe that is what southern California uses) your payoff on average in the win pool is .847. You need to get an increase of roughly 18% to get you to break even. A 4 horse parlay with a 18% premium would be 1.18*1.18*1.18*1.18 or about 1.94%. So if you can get 94% above a parlay in a pick 4 pool you have essentially nullified the takeout. When playing pick 4's with full fields(35+ runners), it is not unusual to get double the parlay and thus nullifying the takeout. I ignored breakage, but the bottom line is that a lot of the obstacles of high takeout imo can best be overcome with strategic play of pick 4s & pick 5's. I would imagine you can make similar arguments for superfectas, however, I also find picking winners in 4 consecutive races a more desirable task than picking the first 4 finishers in a single race

That being said pick 4's/5's have their own set of challenges. How to formulate tickets, bankroll management, long losing streaks, variance, extreme frustration.....so they are not for everyone.

[pondman]

can someone please explain the logic of betting vertical exotics such as the pick 3 or pick 4. i can understand the pick six, as hitting that is a life changer and is like winning the lottery.
all the readings of intelligent writers who have studied the gambling side of racing, come across as saying, if you don't have a positive expectancy with the win bets you make, you will not have a positive expectancy with any other type of wager you make.
am i missing something, because with the low payoffs in the win spot after take out AND DIME BREAKAGE there is no way i come out ahead, whereas with my long shot plays, betting into large fields i have much more success.

The most successful handicappers I know play horizontals as a group and have a complex layering method. They make serious money.

[AndyC]

Anybody that does not see the value in pick 4's only need to look at yesterdays late pick 4 at Santa Anita(a 50 cent parlay was $2475 and the 50 cent pick 4 paid $16,295). Here is another way of looking at it. When dealing with a 15.3% win takeout(I believe that is what southern California uses) your payoff on average in the win pool is .847. You need to get an increase of roughly 18% to get you to break even. A 4 horse parlay with a 18% premium would be 1.18*1.18*1.18*1.18 or about 1.94%. So if you can get 94% above a parlay in a pick 4 pool you have essentially nullified the takeout. When playing pick 4's with full fields(35+ runners), it is not unusual to get double the parlay and thus nullifying the takeout. I ignored breakage, but the bottom line is that a lot of the obstacles of high takeout imo can best be overcome with strategic play of pick 4s & pick 5's. I would imagine you can make similar arguments for superfectas, however, I also find picking winners in 4 consecutive races a more desirable task than picking the first 4 finishers in a single race.........


While it is true that a P-4 can exceed double a parlay it is also true that 23.68% is the take for CA tracks. While you might get some great payoffs you are more apt to get poor payoffs, that's simple math. Ignoring that fact by comparing payoffs to the useless metric of a 4 horse parlay doesn't make the bet a great bet.

[EMD4ME]

I'm going to take a guess that you're not going to get 200 - 1 odds covering 50 - 90% in different legs.

Incorrect.

I regularly receive 200/1-400/1 odds and do cover quite a bit of legs. The trick is to know when to POUND a Pick 5 10X, 5X, 3X AND with which legs to lean on.

ABC's are nice but weighing out which races are lockdown's vs. which are chaos events is essential with these wagers.

Knowing which A's are VALUE A's VS. which A's are "get more coverage elsewhere" A's is also essential.

I can go on and on, how you can target a 200/1 return AND get excellent coverage but it's time for a nap before Emerald's Friday night card.

[acorn54]

The most successful handicappers I know play horizontals as a group and have a complex layering method. They make serious money.

i agree if you are in a group of horseplayers that collect alot of money to cover a reasonable amount of combinations. however a person like me that only knows one other serious player and i am limited to small amounts of thrill money, i am at a severe disadantage. i dare say most horseplayers are in the same boat i am and not associated with a large circle of bettors.

[AndyC]

i agree if you are in a group of horseplayers that collect alot of money to cover a reasonable amount of combinations. however a person like me that only knows one other serious player and i am limited to small amounts of thrill money, i am at a severe disadantage. i dare say most horseplayers are in the same boat i am and not associated with a large circle of bettors.

So the only thing in your way from being a successful bettor is a lack of bankroll? Betting big or betting more combinations won't do squat for your success UNLESS you are betting the right horses. If you possess the skills and know-how of a successful bettor, people would be lining up to pool their money with you.

[fiznow]

i agree if you are in a group of horseplayers that collect alot of money to cover a reasonable amount of combinations. however a person like me that only knows one other serious player and i am limited to small amounts of thrill money, i am at a severe disadantage. i dare say most horseplayers are in the same boat i am and not associated with a large circle of bettors.

For horizontal bets you don't need more or less combinations than for vertical bets imo.

[EMD4ME]

So the only thing in your way from being a successful bettor is a lack of bankroll? Betting big or betting more combinations won't do squat for your success UNLESS you are betting the right horses. If you possess the skills and know-how of a successful bettor, people would be lining up to pool their money with you.

10000% agree.

I see big bankroll players overspend and either MISS the bet completely (huge loss) or overspend without cause and destroy their ROI on the sequence.

When you're good, you can spread appropriately without overspending.

People do line up to get in on the action OR copy the tickets.

[ultracapper]

10000% agree.

I see big bankroll players overspend and either MISS the bet completely (huge loss) or overspend without cause and destroy their ROI on the sequence.

When you're good, you can spread appropriately without overspending.

People do line up to get in on the action OR copy the tickets.

Number 1, major, major, challenge for most exotic players. A big reason I don't play many exotics. To this day, I still look at many of my winning exotic tickets, when I do play, and am able to say I could have very easily been able to slim this one down. I very seldom construct an efficient exotic ticket. A big, big challenge for anyone wanting to be successful with exotics, of any kind.

[therussmeister]

For horizontal bets you don't need more or less combinations than for vertical bets imo.
Although I only play vertical bets, I would think you need more bets to cover horizontal exotics due to having more horses to deal with.

[fmolf]

Although I only play vertical bets, I would think you need more bets to cover horizontal exotics due to having more horses to deal with.
not necessarily...i just started making some p3 bets only when in person at the track...My method is as such....a single in the first race using paddock inspection as well as the traditional handicapping methods...and spreading in the other two legs.I prefer to have at least one turf race in sequence preferably a maiden turf race at belmont.If i have a single or just two horses i like in one of remaining 2 legs, i may use the all button to try and hit the longshot in remaining chaos leg.most profitable scores have been with small tickets.....Anyone interested in this type of wagering should read Steve Crists book on exotic wagering.The exact name escapes me but i took it out of the library years ago.

[dilanesp]

Number 1, major, major, challenge for most exotic players. A big reason I don't play many exotics. To this day, I still look at many of my winning exotic tickets, when I do play, and am able to say I could have very easily been able to slim this one down. I very seldom construct an efficient exotic ticket. A big, big challenge for anyone wanting to be successful with exotics, of any kind.

I'm fascinated by leaks. Identifying players' leaks is part of how a poker player makes money.

You can't directly make money off others' leaks in horse racing (though sometimes you can indirectly by identifying an overlay), but I still find it a fascinating topic.

And one big leak people have is that they want to cash a ticket. They hate being "right" about something and not cashing a ticket. And that's why they overspread.

It's actually -EV to cover combinations that pay less than their probability of occurring. You don't want to cover them. And it's totally OK to not cash an exotic ticket when the payoff is too small. But horseplayers don't think that way. They want to cash a ticket.

[therussmeister]

not necessarily...i just started making some p3 bets only when in person at the track...My method is as such....a single in the first race using paddock inspection as well as the traditional handicapping methods...and spreading in the other two legs.I prefer to have at least one turf race in sequence preferably a maiden turf race at belmont.If i have a single or just two horses i like in one of remaining 2 legs, i may use the all button to try and hit the longshot in remaining chaos leg.most profitable scores have been with small tickets.....Anyone interested in this type of wagering should read Steve Crists book on exotic wagering.The exact name escapes me but i took it out of the library years ago.
But you see, I don't consider this to be a small ticket, so you just made my point. When I play superfectas 94% of my tickets are eight combos or less.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

But you see, I don't consider this to be a small ticket, so you just made my point. When I play superfectas 94% of my tickets are eight combos or less.

And all that while your kid is giving him the "look". :)

[1st time lasix]

I will play a ticket to win or an exacta when I feel compelled based on the value. But..... Over the past decade I have gravitated toward pick 4's...pick 5's and carryover pick 6's. My IRS tax reporting certainly has increased....and here are a few things I have learned....1)be prepared to be frustrated. A steward take down, a lost photo or jockey dumb ride can cost you thousands. 2) seek to play against vulnerable chalk. Perhaps they are on wrong surface or wrong distance. maybe today's pace scenario doesn't fit or the post is a negative. Maybe they are declining in form or are bounce candidates. One or two poor favorites that you have the guts to completely toss out (particularly in first two legs) will give you those overlay returns. 3) spread out far enough in those legs where you have no true handicapping opinion. In other words.... Be prudent-but don't be cheap. 4} the losing streaks can be long and painful at times...have the proper bankroll and train the mindset to play without too much daily scoreboard watching. 5) make multiple tickets...using back ups. Some of my largest hits have come when I only had one or two left in final leg because my top rated contenders lost in a single race but my" back up" kept me alive. 6) hedge at the end using pick 3's and doubles. If you have hit first few legs with "prices"...chances are you no longer have any full coverage with some of your fringe plays. Play them in other pool. Over time with experience you will have a feel for 'will-pays" 7) no substitute for good handicapping. You have to have a strong opinion or two in the sequence for keys.

[AndyC]

I will play a ticket to win or an exacta when I feel compelled based on the value. But..... Over the past decade I have gravitated toward pick 4's...pick 5's and carryover pick 6's. My IRS tax reporting certainly has increased....and here are a few things I have learned....1)be prepared to be frustrated. A steward take down, a lost photo or jockey dumb ride can cost you thousands. 2) seek to play against vulnerable chalk. Perhaps they are on wrong surface or wrong distance. maybe today's pace scenario doesn't fit or the post is a negative. Maybe they are declining in form or are bounce candidates. One or two poor favorites that you have the guts to completely toss out (particularly in first two legs) will give you those overlay returns. 3) spread out far enough in those legs where you have no true handicapping opinion. In other words.... Be prudent-but don't be cheap. 4} the losing streaks can be long and painful at times...have the proper bankroll and train the mindset to play without too much daily scoreboard watching. 5) make multiple tickets...using back ups. Some of my largest hits have come when I only had one or two left in final leg because my top rated contenders lost in a single race but my" back up" kept me alive. 6) hedge at the end using pick 3's and doubles. If you have hit first few legs with "prices"...chances are you no longer have any full coverage with some of your fringe plays. Play them in other pool. Over time with experience you will have a feel for 'will-pays" 7) no substitute for good handicapping. You have to have a strong opinion or two in the sequence for keys.


I would agree with most everything you wrote above but I find #2 above more applicable to verticals. I may think that an even money horse should be 3-1 but that also means I think the horse still has a 25% chance of winning. I generally don't leave horses off of a ticket that have a 25% chance to win unless I am singling a horse in the same race with a higher chance of winning. I don't let odds sway me until I look at the ticket as a whole.

[dilanesp]

I would agree with most everything you wrote above but I find #2 above more applicable to verticals. I may think that an even money horse should be 3-1 but that also means I think the horse still has a 25% chance of winning. I generally don't leave horses off of a ticket that have a 25% chance to win unless I am singling a horse in the same race with a higher chance of winning. I don't let odds sway me until I look at the ticket as a whole.

Mathematically, you should evaluate whether the combinations that you play involving the vulnerable favorite are going to be overlays.

In other words, a ticket with that even money horse tied in with a lot of logical horses and logical spreads is likely to have a ton of underlays on it, combinations that aren't going to pay what they are really worth.

On the other hand if you have a couple of other races where you have identified vulnerable favorites, combinations involving that even money shot and the various price plays in the other two races are likely to still pay well and be overlays, despite the fact that the even money shot is an underlay.

So from a pure math perspective, you should use that even money shot only on tickets that are going to offer value. Don't waste money on tickets everyone else is playing which aren't going to pay anything.

[Actor]

I think the reason you can win in horizontals without having a positive expectation with the individual win bets is because your effective per race takeout percent is lower in the horizontals because the takeout gets spread across races.Mathematically it does not work that way.

Every bet is a wager on one of many possible outcomes. If 8 horses start then a win bet is a wager on one of 8 possible outcomes. If 8 horses start in each of two races then an exotic bet is a wager on one of 64 possible outcomes. The concept of “per race takeout” is fallacious because mathematically the two races combined still amount to one event. The payout in exotics is bigger simply because there are more possible outcomes and therefore more losers.

The takeout in WPS betting is in the 15-20% range. With exotics it’s always north of 20%. In the long run betting to win will always give a greater ROI than betting exotics simply because the greater takeout reduces the size of the pool relative to the number of possible outcomes.

In vertical exotics what counts the most, is to hit at least one long shot which combined even with a sequence of terrible underlays can be sufficient to elevate your payouts to the extreme.This does not change the picture.

Trying to hit a longshot out of 64 possible outcomes is no different from trying to hit a longshot out of 8 possible outcomes.

The common practice of making multiple bets in exotics (boxes, wheels, etc.) is no different than betting on more than one horse to win, and again does not change the picture.

[thaskalos]

The takeout in WPS betting is in the 15-20% range. With exotics it’s always north of 20%. In the long run betting to win will always give a greater ROI than betting exotics simply because the greater takeout reduces the size of the pool relative to the number of possible outcomes.



And yet...if the game's professional players were somehow restricted to only making win-wagers...they would all abandon the game.

[Actor]

And yet...if the game's professional players were somehow restricted to only making win-wagers...they would all abandon the game.Would they?

I doubt if anyone has ever done a survey on how professional players bet. I also doubt if there really are any "professional" players, i.e., who make a living at it and don't have any other employment. If there are they are few and far between. Ainslie, Quirin, even Andy Beyer all had day jobs.

The public likes exotics (they also love the lottery). The pros who write want to sell books and newspapers, so they write about what the public wants.

It's easy to test. Try betting exotics in 1000 races (on paper of course). Then bet the same amount on your key horse to win. Compare the two ROIs. I've done it. I always make more betting to win.

[thaskalos]

Would they?

I doubt if anyone has ever done a survey on how professional players bet. I also doubt if there really are any "professional" players, i.e., who make a living at it and don't have any other employment. If there are they are few and far between. Ainslie, Quirin, even Andy Beyer all had day jobs.

The public likes exotics (they also love the lottery). The pros who write want to sell books and newspapers, so they write about what the public wants.

It's easy to test. Try betting exotics in 1000 races (on paper of course). Then bet the same amount on your key horse to win. Compare the two ROIs. I've done it. I always make more betting to win.

There are valid reasons to like the exotics...and these reasons have nothing to do with the "lottery". Win-betting ties the competent player's hands...while the exotics often give him the flexibility that he needs in a very difficult and complicated game. What does the win-bettor do when he finds a vulnerable favorite, in a race where he cannot spot a "key horse"? Truly vulnerable favorites lead to appetizing rewards...and the player has to capitalize on them in any way that he can. There is also the not infrequent case of the live longshot who figures to have an excellent chance to get "in-the-money"...but has only a scant chance of winning the race outright. The win-bettor fails to capitalize on cases such as these...but the exotics player can often construct a very profitable situation out of them.

Notwithstanding the added takeout...it is quite possible to make more money betting the exotics than it is by betting to win...assuming that the player has the necessary skill needed for the endeavor. The player's SKILL level determines which type bet is more profitable...not the takeout levied upon the particular wager.

[Robert Fischer]

the multi-race bets allow you to combine more than 1 opinion.

Win bets are 1 opinion.


different situations will result in different answers of which is the optimum bet.


Some rare players may actually find that both wagers at the same time is optimum, whether it is to increase the hit% or to defer price-changing amounts in the pools.

[Nitro]

The takeout in WPS betting is in the 15-20% range. With exotics it’s always north of 20%. In the long run betting to win will always give a greater ROI than betting exotics simply because the greater takeout reduces the size of the pool relative to the number of possible outcomes.

This does not change the picture.

Trying to hit a longshot out of 64 possible outcomes is no different from trying to hit a longshot out of 8 possible outcomes.

The common practice of making multiple bets in exotics (boxes, wheels, etc.) is no different than betting on more than one horse to win, and again does not change the picture.
Absolutely untrue! When you hedge and structure properly and can consistently hit Verticals the BIG picture changes completely! “Take-outs” are not the issue at all, but the Signers sure are!

Gotta love those Verticals! ;)
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132280&page=2
.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by Actor
" The takeout in WPS betting is in the 15-20% range. With exotics it’s always north of 20%. In the long run betting to win will always give a greater ROI than betting exotics simply because the greater takeout reduces the size of the pool relative to the number of possible outcomes."

Sorry , but this is totally off the mark. I'll give you a simple example.

Let's say all you did was look for bad favorites. And you were good at it.

The opportunity to eliminate that horse in the win AND place slots is much more valuable than only betting against it to win. Obvious, no?

Of course, there will be occasions where that horse loses but runs SECOND, and you don't cash the exacta, where you would have cashed a win bet.

Unless that bad outcome is happening quite often, then you will surely have a better ROI in the exacta, than you would betting only to win.

[Robert Fischer]

The opportunity to eliminate that horse in the win AND place slots is much more valuable than only betting against it to win.

exactly.


multi bets are better when you can combine multiple opinions.

[Actor]

There are valid reasons to like the exotics...and these reasons have nothing to do with the "lottery". Win-betting ties the competent player's hands...while the exotics often give him the flexibility that he needs in a very difficult and complicated game. What does the win-bettor do when he finds a vulnerable favorite, in a race where he cannot spot a "key horse"? Truly vulnerable favorites lead to appetizing rewards...and the player has to capitalize on them in any way that he can. There is also the not infrequent case of the live longshot who figures to have an excellent chance to get "in-the-money"...but has only a scant chance of winning the race outright. The win-bettor fails to capitalize on cases such as these...but the exotics player can often construct a very profitable situation out of them.I think you and I have different handicapping philosophies. That's OK. Whatever works for you, go for it.

Win betting may "tie the player's hands" but it doesn't shackle his feet. If there's a vulnerable favorite and I can't spot a key horse then I walk. I pass more races than I play. It's not unusual for me to go to the track and pass every race. There's always another race.

[EMD4ME]

exactly.


multi bets are better when you can combine multiple opinions.

:ThmbUp:

I'll add to that, if you don't mind. This is why I focus on 1 or 2 circuits at a time. If you're going to play a PICK 5, you NEED to know almost EVERYTHING about every horse in the sequence.

For example: Sunday at Belmont was closing day. The owner of the 6 in the 4th race was in a tie for the owners title. Do you think he was trying to win with this claimer? Of course.


If you're playing 4 tracks and play a small ticket at NYRA on this sunday AND you don't know this nugget, you might leave this horse out.

Playing the picks requires laser like focus on that circuit if you want to win long term IMHO.

[Capper Al]

It's all about leverage and using key horses as value wheels. Example,
If your picks are A, B, C, D in that order, and only B is giving you random odds or higher consider the following:

exacta: (A,C,D) + B
double: B + (W,X,Y,Z)
place: B

And hope for the best.

[dilanesp]

Mathematically it does not work that way.

Every bet is a wager on one of many possible outcomes. If 8 horses start then a win bet is a wager on one of 8 possible outcomes. If 8 horses start in each of two races then an exotic bet is a wager on one of 64 possible outcomes. The concept of “per race takeout” is fallacious because mathematically the two races combined still amount to one event. The payout in exotics is bigger simply because there are more possible outcomes and therefore more losers.

The takeout in WPS betting is in the 15-20% range. With exotics it’s always north of 20%. In the long run betting to win will always give a greater ROI than betting exotics simply because the greater takeout reduces the size of the pool relative to the number of possible outcomes.

This does not change the picture.

Trying to hit a longshot out of 64 possible outcomes is no different from trying to hit a longshot out of 8 possible outcomes.

The common practice of making multiple bets in exotics (boxes, wheels, etc.) is no different than betting on more than one horse to win, and again does not change the picture.

You are making a really obvious mistake. You are not including breakage. Breakage is essentially a tax on cashing a ticket. When you bet the 1 in 64 exotic in your hypothetical, you only hit it 1/8th as often as you hit the 1 in 8 win bet. Thus, you pay only 1/8th the breakage. (This isn't quite true in jurisdictions like New York that have variable breakage, but it's still true that you pay some breakage on each bet.)

There's also a second mistake you are making, which is assuming that the only thing that determines your ROI is the takeout. But that's not true. You are trying to bet for value, and an exotic bet opens up additional potential overlays.

The classic example of this is where you like a basically unplayable favorite in one race but a couple of longshots in the other legs of a pick 3. A bet on to win on the favorite may be worth close to nothing and could be negative expected value, but in combination with the longshots it can result in a boxcar payoff and that combination may be significantly positive expected value.

So there are at least two reasons your ROI can end up higher betting exotics than it would betting to win.

[dilanesp]

(Having said that, there is actually one big reason for players to be a bit more skeptical than they are currently about exotics and to bet to win more. And that is that one of the fundamental leaks of many gamblers is that they enjoy action more than they do an edge.

For instance, I play against poker players in limit hold 'em who will play more or less correctly pre-flop in small pots but will dive in with any two cards whenever the pot is capped and multi-way and figures to be big. They are making -EV plays, but they don't want to miss the opportunity to win a big pot.

Horseplayers have to be careful about the same sort of thinking. The fact that a race has 14 horses and a Super High Five does not automatically make it playable. There are plenty of situations where your exotic plays will end up covering a ton of combinations that are -EV underlays, usually because you either have no coherent opinion at all about the race or no distinctive opinion (i.e., no opinion different from the rest of the crowd).

What betting to win DOES do is force discipline on a player. You basically have to wait for a situation where a horse is a legitimate overlay. Widespread exotic wagering encourages bettors to play lots of races where they have no real edge. That's probably where their (somewhat undeserved) reputation as "sucker bets" comes from.)

[Capper Al]

It's leverage.

[thaskalos]

If a player tells me that he is a win bettor...then I won't hesitate to book his action all day long. But if he is an exotics player...then I want no part of him. IMO...the win-bettor, who looks to survive by way of the win "overlays", is on the verge of becoming extinct...if he hasn't already vanished. The days of the "grinder" are over.

[Nitro]

If a player tells me that he is a win bettor...then I won't hesitate to book his action all day long. But if he is an exotics player...then I want no part of him. IMO...the win-bettor, who looks to survive by way of the win "overlays", is on the verge of becoming extinct...if he hasn't already vanished. The days of the "grinder" are over.
I tend to agree with a lot of what you said, but most successful players that enjoy using the Exotics understand the importance of hedging by properly structuring their bets. They realize as I do that no matter how accurate any selection process might be, that anything can happen in a horse race. With that in mind I submit that the “Win” bettor who hedges through Dutching can achieve similar profit margins if the selections consistently some offer reasonable value. Then by taking it a step further, parlaying those profits by playing only those races in a sequence that offer real play-ability.

The bottom-line for the logic of playing Verticals is simply the potential for accelerated profits.
We love those Verticals: ;)
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132344&page=3
.
.

[Capper Al]

Did I mention that it's leverage? Win bettors are a dying breed. The horse with the odds is the key literally. Horizontal or vertical doesn't matter. Matter of fact, one is better to play them both ways to lock into the leverage. Did I mention it was leverage?

[Nitro]

Did I mention that it's leverage? Win bettors are a dying breed. The horse with the odds is the key literally. Horizontal or vertical doesn't matter. Matter of fact, one is better to play them both ways to lock into the leverage. Did I mention it was leverage?
Al, you’ve emphasized the term “leverage” as it pertains to Value. And you’re right, we should always be influenced by the value of our selections. However, this can become a player’s nemesis; if they mentally tend to put the “Carriage in front of the horse” by first looking for a valued entry in hope that it will some how succeed. A comparable example might be witnessing more involvement in a lottery by more players only because the prize went from ½ Million to 5 Million dollars. Some how at that point many people seem to believe that just because it’s reached a new value plateau that’s now worth playing. In reality they don’t have any better chance of hitting it than they did at the lower value. In fact, since more are playing there’s potential for a smaller per person payout since there’s probably a better chance for more to actually hit it.

In horse racing the selection process (whatever that happens to be) has to dictate which entries are in fact playable. It should then (and only then) become a matter of evaluating those selections in terms of their existing value (current odds). The weight of their odds (or combined odds in Exotics) would determine their bet-ability in order to achieve a profitable return. The margin of that return has to not cover the basic bet, but also a percentage of the bets that were previously lost.

That’s why I refuse to play a “leverage” guessing game with sequential horizontal bets. Because after the first race in the sequence you have no actual idea of the value of your selections and worst of all not a clue of the current physicality of the entries you’ve pre-selected. So, I say it’s impossible for the horizontal player to really leverage any of those types of bets empirically. So where’s the logic in playing horizontals, if you can’t weigh (leverage) the amount of your bet against the combined value or condition of your selections?

BTW as an Outsider don’t kid yourself in thinking that watching lots of re-runs of past races will tell you the current condition of your selections or the intentions of the Insiders who have entered them.
.

[Capper Al]

You're are talking like it is a lottery game when in fact it is not. What I know about my handicapping is that over 50% of the time the winner will come out of my top two. You can go to my thread here in PA, "What's up with the Capper?", and see for yourself.

It does matter how the tickets are put together. Last say the current race my selections are A, B, C, D, and E. The next race my selections are W, X, Y, and Z. Let's say that both races have a field size of eight. It's three minutes before post and the B horse is going off at 10/1(the absolute truth), more than natural or random odds of 7/1. And horses A, C, and D are under 7/1 also. Let's say the favorite, your C horse, is going off at even money. (Things change if the favorite goes off under even money.) A quick check to the exotic payouts and you find the double and exacta combinations with the B horse pays at least $15.00 (a payout under $15 can be tolerated if you have a couple of payouts that are over $50.) This combination is a green light to strike and occurs quite frequently where one of the top four is going off at random or higher odds.

What to do when the green light comes on and why? The B horse becomes your key both vertically and horizontally because of the leverage it will receive from the public by going off at random odds or higher. This is a classic example for applying the absolute truth rule. What must we consider in put together our tickets besides payouts?

The first consideration is that we don't want to be locked into one spot with our B horse. Generally speaking, A and B selections are considered to win horses while C and D are considered place and show horses. So here in our case, B is a win play-- but not exactly. It might come in second assuming our handicapping is close but not exact. Therefore, our combinations will cover the B horse finishing first or second.

The second consideration is what is the safest way to cover a win/place finish? Vertically it would be B to place and an exacta (A,C,D)/B for leverage. Why not B on top? We will handle that with our double. For me, vertical wagers are easier. Our wagering is focused on the B. Going against the public makes our selection less likely to win. But should it win or another horse than A, C, or D win, we have it covered with the place bet. And we can cash the place bet if A, B, or C win with B second along with our exacta.

The third consideration is the horizontal, but really it is if our B horse wins. The double, or pick three if you prefer, should also have leverage because of our B horse's odds. My double would be B/(W, X, Y, Z). Remember that over 50% of the time the winner comes from my top 2. The Y and Z are thrown in for larger payouts and hedging. If one's handicapping can't over the long run find winner's out of their top four, they shouldn't be in the game.
This is what we end up with:

Exacta (A,C,D)/B
Place B (3 units)
Double B/(W, X, Y, Z)

That's how and why to do it. Did I say it was leverage?

[thaskalos]

You're are talking like it is a lottery game when in fact it is not. What I know about my handicapping is that over 50% of the time the winner will come out of my top two. You can go to my thread here in PA, "What's up with the Capper?", and see for yourself.

It does matter how the tickets are put together. Last say the current race my selections are A, B, C, D, and E. The next race my selections are W, X, Y, and Z. Let's say that both races have a field size of eight. It's three minutes before post and the B horse is going off at 10/1(the absolute truth), more than natural or random odds of 7/1. And horses A, C, and D are under 7/1 also. Let's say the favorite, your C horse, is going off at even money. (Things change if the favorite goes off under even money.) A quick check to the exotic payouts and you find the double and exacta combinations with the B horse pays at least $15.00 (a payout under $15 can be tolerated if you have a couple of payouts that are over $50.) This combination is a green light to strike and occurs quite frequently where one of the top four is going off at random or higher odds.

What to do when the green light comes on and why? The B horse becomes your key both vertically and horizontally because of the leverage it will receive from the public by going off at random odds or higher. This is a classic example for applying the absolute truth rule. What must we consider in put together our tickets besides payouts?

The first consideration is that we don't want to be locked into one spot with our B horse. Generally speaking, A and B selections are considered to win horses while C and D are considered place and show horses. So here in our case, B is a win play-- but not exactly. It might come in second assuming our handicapping is close but not exact. Therefore, our combinations will cover the B horse finishing first or second.

The second consideration is what is the safest way to cover a win/place finish? Vertically it would be B to place and an exacta (A,C,D)/B for leverage. Why not B on top? We will handle that with our double. For me, vertical wagers are easier. Our wagering is focused on the B. Going against the public makes our selection less likely to win. But should it win or another horse than A, C, or D win, we have it covered with the place bet. And we can cash the place bet if A, B, or C win with B second along with our exacta.

The third consideration is the horizontal, but really it is if our B horse wins. The double, or pick three if you prefer, should also have leverage because of our B horse's odds. My double would be B/(W, X, Y, Z). Remember that over 50% of the time the winner comes from my top 2. The Y and Z are thrown in for larger payouts and hedging. If one's handicapping can't over the long run find winner's out of their top four, they shouldn't be in the game.
This is what we end up with:

Exacta (A,C,D)/B
Place B (3 units)
Double B/(W, X, Y, Z)

That's how and why to do it. Did I say it was leverage?

You seem to have it all figured out...and it appears to make a lot of sense. The only remaining question now is...why are you unable to win?

[Capper Al]

You seem to have it all figured out...and it appears to make a lot of sense. The only remaining question now is...why are you unable to win?

You're an odd duck. I now understand it was changing my wagering that most messed up my winning. I'm figuring out what I need to do to get back on track. Once in the zone again, I expect to return to profitability. It's a difficult game and we can lose our way.

[whodoyoulike]

... It does matter how the tickets are put together. Last say the current race my selections are A, B, C, D, and E. The next race my selections are W, X, Y, and Z. Let's say that both races have a field size of eight. It's three minutes before post and the B horse is going off at 10/1(the absolute truth), more than natural or random odds of 7/1. And horses A, C, and D are under 7/1 also. Let's say the favorite, your C horse, is going off at even money. (Things change if the favorite goes off under even money.) A quick check to the exotic payouts and you find the double and exacta combinations with the B horse pays at least $15.00 (a payout under $15 can be tolerated if you have a couple of payouts that are over $50.) This combination is a green light to strike and occurs quite frequently where one of the top four is going off at random or higher odds. ...
This is what we end up with:

Exacta (A,C,D)/B
Place B (3 units)
Double B/(W, X, Y, Z)

That's how and why to do it. Did I say it was leverage?

Just trying to understand your thinking in this situation which can frequently occur.

What do you do if the favorite does goes off under even money and by how much (1/2, 3/5 etc.)?

What is the favorites odds when you begin consideration of it's inclusion?

Do you pass the exacta and play the place and/or DD because "B" is 10/1 or greater?

[thaskalos]

You're an odd duck. I now understand it was changing my wagering that most messed up my winning. I'm figuring out what I need to do to get back on track. Once in the zone again, I expect to return to profitability. It's a difficult game and we can lose our way.

It isn't just that we "lose our way", Al...nor is it our "wagering" that usually "messes up our winning". The game keeps changing in subtle ways...and "winning" gets more and more difficult as time progresses. The winning players can't stay still and admire themselves in this game, because, as they proudly proclaim that they are "Kings of the World"...the ground is crumbling beneath their feet.

This game keeps us all humble...and worried about the future.

[AndyC]

.......That’s why I refuse to play a “leverage” guessing game with sequential horizontal bets. Because after the first race in the sequence you have no actual idea of the value of your selections and worst of all not a clue of the current physicality of the entries you’ve pre-selected. So, I say it’s impossible for the horizontal player to really leverage any of those types of bets empirically. So where’s the logic in playing horizontals, if you can’t weigh (leverage) the amount of your bet against the combined value or condition of your selections?.......

You are wise not to play a "leverage" guessing game. Leverage is not a one way street, it is just as easy to negatively leverage a bet as positively leverage a bet.

The key, obviously, is to know which situations are more likely to result with positive leverage. With verticals, an overlay in win odds will, in most situations, result in a positive leverage bet when played on top. It would be wrong, however, to assume that the overlay would produce positive leverage in spots other than the top of the ticket.

While it is true that you can't absolutely measure the combined value or condition of your selections, you can confidently bet certain horizontals knowing that you are using positive leverage. The position in the sequence and the odds of the horse/horses keyed are crucial.

[dilanesp]

I tend to agree with a lot of what you said, but most successful players that enjoy using the Exotics understand the importance of hedging by properly structuring their bets. They realize as I do that no matter how accurate any selection process might be, that anything can happen in a horse race.

That sounds like it should be right, but if you think about it mathematically it makes no sense.

It's like a poker player saying that she will play more starting hands because due to variance anything can happen in a poker hand.

Bets are either positive EV (expected value) or negative EV. If they are negative EV you shouldn't make them, even if the positive EV plays you are making on the race are high variance plays and may result in a loss on the race. The object of the game is to make money in the long term, not to cash a ticket on every race.

[Capper Al]

Just trying to understand your thinking in this situation which can frequently occur.

What do you do if the favorite does goes off under even money and by how much (1/2, 3/5 etc.)?

What is the favorites odds when you begin consideration of it's inclusion?

Do you pass the exacta and play the place and/or DD because "B" is 10/1 or greater?

The first question for me is the favorite in my top 4? If not, I proceed as normal. If he is, which he usually is, then in addition to the odds I look at ranking for my value play. My horse, besides having the odds, has to be fourth or higher in the post time odds. You want to be sure that you are getting leverage.

There are many folds to use leverage. For instance, I haven't gone into using your C, D, or E horse. The combinations at times seem endless. One has to get in the zone and quickly think on their feet for variations that might come up.

[Capper Al]

You are wise not to play a "leverage" guessing game. Leverage is not a one way street, it is just as easy to negatively leverage a bet as positively leverage a bet.

The key, obviously, is to know which situations are more likely to result with positive leverage. With verticals, an overlay in win odds will, in most situations, result in a positive leverage bet when played on top. It would be wrong, however, to assume that the overlay would produce positive leverage in spots other than the top of the ticket.

While it is true that you can't absolutely measure the combined value or condition of your selections, you can confidently bet certain horizontals knowing that you are using positive leverage. The position in the sequence and the odds of the horse/horses keyed are crucial.

Give it up. I don't care whose system you use, if one doesn't obtain leverage over the game they don't make a profit. Just step back and think about it a bit. And that missing absolute that you are hunting for is what I call "The One and Only Absolute Truth in Racing", handicapping over the long run beats random odds. Anything else is just foolish.

[Capper Al]

It isn't just that we "lose our way", Al...nor is it our "wagering" that usually "messes up our winning". The game keeps changing in subtle ways...and "winning" gets more and more difficult as time progresses. The winning players can't stay still and admire themselves in this game, because, as they proudly proclaim that they are "Kings of the World"...the ground is crumbling beneath their feet.

This game keeps us all humble...and worried about the future.

The game does change, but that's more of a justification as to why we lose than a reality. And winning does get more difficult because the public is doing better. And the public is doing better because this is the information age. What the public better understands is the game as it has always been. The public is not showing any confusion about the so-called changing game. the public is showing a better understanding of what is.

[PaceAdvantage]

Give it up. Why so hostile? This isn't off-topic.

And if you knew who you were communicating with in one AndyC, you'd feel awful foolish right about now.

[Capper Al]

Why so hostile? This isn't off-topic.

And if you knew who you were communicating with in one AndyC, you'd feel awful foolish right about now.

AndyC is a good guy. Didn't mean any harm. We're talking ideas. I'd appreciate a little more slack on your part. I've been called a dumb ass and I didn't see you jump in on my behalf. That's a lot more than what's going on here with Andy.

[PaceAdvantage]

AndyC is a good guy. Didn't mean any harm. We're talking ideas. I'd appreciate a little more slack on your part. I've been called a dumb ass and I didn't see you jump in on my behalf. That's a lot more than what's going on here with Andy.I tend to get very upset when someone who doesn't deserve shit gets it...

[thaskalos]

I tend to get very upset when someone who doesn't deserve shit gets it...

So...when someone gets "shit" on this board, and you don't respond...that means that this "someone" DESERVED the criticism that he got?

[PaceAdvantage]

So...when someone gets "shit" on this board, and you don't respond...that means that this "someone" DESERVED the criticism that he got?That's one way to look at it I suppose.

The other way to look at it might be I can't see everything, even though I try my best.

A third way might be not to give my words such weight...I'm only one man...only one opinion. When I post a reply, it's rare that I am in "full admin" mode, so why always weight my words that way?

Telling AndyC to "give it up" is a ridiculous response to a player of his caliber. That's all I was trying to say in this instance. But Capper Al, as he usually does, turned things around and made this about me being an admin, when I wasn't acting in admin mode in this particular case. Just telling him that if he had any idea with whom he was writing, he would never tell him to "give it up."

He might as well tell cj or Andy Beyer or Andy Serling or EMD or YOU to "give it up" while he's at it. That's how silly it sounded to me.

[AndyC]

AndyC is a good guy. Didn't mean any harm. We're talking ideas. I'd appreciate a little more slack on your part. I've been called a dumb ass and I didn't see you jump in on my behalf. That's a lot more than what's going on here with Andy.

No harm on my end. I think you might have misunderstood my comment. I agree that leverage is a big deal in betting.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I toss around the idea of betting in a way that leverages your rightness...or how chill is your coldness? Bet to win cold...exacta cold...trifecta semi cold, like a/b/CD...same with the superfecta a/b/CD/CD or a/b/CD/cdef

Play your wagers tight and play them multiple times...make all your tickets potentially cashable...do not box more than 2 horses in any slot if at all...try not to have wagers that contradict one another...work hard to get the correct order, then hammer the order....comments?