Bet Two horses in one race....?

[VigorsTheGrey]

I like to bet horses that are over 10-1 in odds..

...I'm thinking it is better to bet 2 horses over 10-1 in ONE RACE than it is to bet 1 horse over 10-1 in TWO RACES...

Is there any evidence to suggest that the former is preferable to the later...?

[no breathalyzer]

My motto is do whatever makes you money if everyone did what is being told out there no one would make money.. yes i have bet 2 horses in a race at appropriate odds

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I like to bet horses that are over 10-1 in odds..

...I'm thinking it is better to bet 2 horses over 10-1 in ONE RACE than it is to bet 1 horse over 10-1 in TWO RACES...

Is there any evidence to suggest that the former is preferable to the later...?

I wrote an article about betting two horses to win instead of better one horse win and place. Not exactly the same thing you are asking about, but it fits the general category.
______________________________________
The idea of playing multiple horses to win has been mentioned in a lot of books, including my book, The Condition Sign, and was developed as a strategy by Howard Sartin, a psychologist who treated addicted gamblers with the devilishly simple idea that the cure to chronic losing was winning.

Let me start with my maxim: In most cases it is more profitable to bet two horses to win than to bet one horse win and place. Whenever you hear people pumped up about their “ladder” bet, either they don’t understand the arithmetic of win and place betting, they need the psychological salve from a place bet, or they lose all the win photos their horses are involved in. Let’s look at the arithmetic.

We’ll start with the assumption that your top two choices both average 4-1 and that one of your top two selections wins 50% of the time, and your top choice wins 25% of the time and finishes second 15% of the time when it doesn’t win. The place price will be assumed as $5. There are three possibilities.

o one of the two horses wins
o your top choice does not win but finishes second
o both finish out of the top two spots

For the sake of calculation, let’s say you either bet $10 to win on your top two choices or $10 win and place on your top choice.

In the case of betting two horses to win, in 100 races the total bet would be $2,000, the total collected would be $2,500. In the case of betting one horse to win and place, total bet would be $2,000, total collected wouild be $2,250. Of course, if you took the same $20 and put it on your top pick to win, you’d collect….$2,500. In other words, betting to win only is superior (using these assumptions) to ever betting win and place. I’d challenge you to do your own experiment picking two horses in a race and figuring out whether it would be more profitable to bet them both to win or pick one and divide the same amount win and place. Eventually you can get sophisticated enough to make win bets unequal based on your calculated win line, but that’s a different lesson.

Most people who bet place just can’t deal psychologically with the lower collection percentage, and I fully understand that. But you have to keep telling yourself, I’m better off in the long run not to bet place (most of the time).

Now I’ve read pieces that talk about betting against yourself if you bet two horses to win. For the most part, they are wrong, but I’ll concede it depends as much on your successful selection rate as anything.

The one time I think you are justified in making a place bet is when your horse is at big odds, and again it is for psychological reasons. Not long ago I had a horse just get nipped at 37-1 and I believe it would have been devastating to not make some collection. Besides, the place mutuel was better than the vast majority of win mutuels.

I realize this is a bit of a grinding way to win, and for that reason I would concede that it is fine to budget half your bankroll for win bets and half for exotics. That is maxim number two: half of the money you bet should be to win. If you play well, there is plenty of opportunity for profit.

[EasyGoer89]

I like to bet horses that are over 10-1 in odds..

...I'm thinking it is better to bet 2 horses over 10-1 in ONE RACE than it is to bet 1 horse over 10-1 in TWO RACES...

Is there any evidence to suggest that the former is preferable to the later...?

If u box 2 horses in an exa it's the same as making 2 win bets. If you bet 2 bucks to win on two 10-1 shots it's exactly the same as betting the 4 bucks to win on a 9/2 shot, you're essentially creating your own 1 and 1a

[Nitro]

I like to bet horses that are over 10-1 in odds..

...I'm thinking it is better to bet 2 horses over 10-1 in ONE RACE than it is to bet 1 horse over 10-1 in TWO RACES...

Is there any evidence to suggest that the former is preferable to the later...?

Come on Vigors! Dutch Win betting 2 (or even 3) horses in a single race when the odds are productive is as old a bet hedge as mutual betting itself! You've even witnessed my results with the pools in Hong Kong.

The trick is to first establish your ACTUAL hit frequency percentage over a long series of bets, while also considering which type of races your most proficient at. Once that has been determined then all you have to do is to ONLY bet on those future races that provide a profit margin % higher than your hit frequency %.

My personal hit frequency % at HK is a consistent 50%. So here's what I always post on the HK threads:

I use a very simple Win Dutching calculator (for 2 or 3 entries) .
It’s in MS Excel format and it offers a number of things very quickly after inputting the odds of the selected entries:
A) How much to bet on each entry relative to each other
B) Total Bet
C) Total Profit in $ and %
The Objective is to receive the same $ amount no matter which one wins.
Top 3-Entry Dutch Play & Pass examples:

Early or Live Selections: 2-5 w/ 6-3-1-8
Results: R#1 – 6-5-1-11……....Dutch Profit Margin – 116% (PLAY)
U.S. Odds @ 4 mins to post: #2– 3.8/1……#5– 15/1………#6– 4.2/1

LOW MID HI TOT TOT PRF %
3.8 4.2 15.0 BET PRF
$10 $10 $32
$32 $30 $10 $71 $82 116%
$154 $154 $154


Early or Live Selections: 4-7 w/ 2-5-1-3
Results: R#2 – 7-1-10-4…...….Dutch Profit Margin – 46% (PASS)
U.S. Odds @ 4 mins to post: #4– 2.1/1……#7– 2.7/1………#2– 10/1

LOW MID HI TOT TOT PRF %
2.1 2.7 10.0 BET PRF
$6 $7 $22
$43 $36 $12 $91 $42 46%
$133 $133 $132

[joeslovo]

Absolutely bet 2 horses in the same race if the odds call for it..You could bet 4 horses in the same race if they are all 10/1..You would-be betting 7/4 for your money and have 4 horses running for you..I personally will bet 5 horses in the Aintree Grand National..Other times to bet 2 in the same race would be when you spot a false favourite...Plenty of those at GP or AQ.where they can go over broke because of the connections...For instance if the fav is an even money chance and they bet 7/2 or 4/1 the two second bests and maybe 8/1 or 10/1 bar three..then I would bet the two second favs and take 5/4 or 6/4 to my stake as opposed to betting the false fav at evens ..Another time to bet two horses in the same race would be when a trainer like Baffert runs two horses..Only a mug would leave out one of them.you can never tell the trainers intentions you have to include both.maybe not for equal stakes but you have to find a way to bet both otherwise leave the race alone

[thespaah]

My motto is do whatever makes you money if everyone did what is being told out there no one would make money.. yes i have bet 2 horses in a race at appropriate odds

:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:
The idea of "you're betting against yourself" is out dated. Any strategy that results in a positive ROI is a GOOD strategy

[thespaah]

I wrote an article about betting two horses to win instead of better one horse win and place. Not exactly the same thing you are asking about, but it fits the general category.
______________________________________
The idea of playing multiple horses to win has been mentioned in a lot of books, including my book, The Condition Sign, and was developed as a strategy by Howard Sartin, a psychologist who treated addicted gamblers with the devilishly simple idea that the cure to chronic losing was winning.

Let me start with my maxim: In most cases it is more profitable to bet two horses to win than to bet one horse win and place. Whenever you hear people pumped up about their “ladder” bet, either they don’t understand the arithmetic of win and place betting, they need the psychological salve from a place bet, or they lose all the win photos their horses are involved in. Let’s look at the arithmetic.

We’ll start with the assumption that your top two choices both average 4-1 and that one of your top two selections wins 50% of the time, and your top choice wins 25% of the time and finishes second 15% of the time when it doesn’t win. The place price will be assumed as $5. There are three possibilities.

o one of the two horses wins
o your top choice does not win but finishes second
o both finish out of the top two spots

For the sake of calculation, let’s say you either bet $10 to win on your top two choices or $10 win and place on your top choice.

In the case of betting two horses to win, in 100 races the total bet would be $2,000, the total collected would be $2,500. In the case of betting one horse to win and place, total bet would be $2,000, total collected wouild be $2,250. Of course, if you took the same $20 and put it on your top pick to win, you’d collect….$2,500. In other words, betting to win only is superior (using these assumptions) to ever betting win and place. I’d challenge you to do your own experiment picking two horses in a race and figuring out whether it would be more profitable to bet them both to win or pick one and divide the same amount win and place. Eventually you can get sophisticated enough to make win bets unequal based on your calculated win line, but that’s a different lesson.

Most people who bet place just can’t deal psychologically with the lower collection percentage, and I fully understand that. But you have to keep telling yourself, I’m better off in the long run not to bet place (most of the time).

Now I’ve read pieces that talk about betting against yourself if you bet two horses to win. For the most part, they are wrong, but I’ll concede it depends as much on your successful selection rate as anything.

The one time I think you are justified in making a place bet is when your horse is at big odds, and again it is for psychological reasons. Not long ago I had a horse just get nipped at 37-1 and I believe it would have been devastating to not make some collection. Besides, the place mutuel was better than the vast majority of win mutuels.

I realize this is a bit of a grinding way to win, and for that reason I would concede that it is fine to budget half your bankroll for win bets and half for exotics. That is maxim number two: half of the money you bet should be to win. If you play well, there is plenty of opportunity for profit.
I cannot disagree.
I read in a book about wagering on horse racing and gambling in general.
The author stated there are two general types.
Players and gamblers.
Gamblers look for the big score. They make high risk plays. A player stratagizes their plays. Does research. Plays only the bets they stand a very good chance of winning. These types often out perform over the long run, the former.

[gabe]

i do it all the time.

If you like two 10-1 shots and you feel that you have an edge and value then bet.

$10 to win on (2) 10-1 shots

if you win $110

$90 profit for a risk of $20. If the percentages call for it then bet out.

[JohnGalt1]

I do both.

About half the time I bet 2 horses equally to win. If I like one more than the other I'll divide 60%-40%, regardless of odds. If I like the 8-1 more than the 3-1, the long shot gets the 60% portion.

About half the time I bet 20/40 wp.

I used to bet 80% win and 20% on a 2 or 3 horse exacta over my win bet. Example $40 win, $5 exacta 2 over it. It costs $10 less than my wp wagers but if my 7-1 finishes second and pays $5.60 to place I collect nothing if my top 2 or 3 horses aren't the winners. Now my 20/40 pays $112.00.

[Tom]

About half the time I bet 20/40 wp.


I do 1 unit win, 3 units place on 9-2 or up. My records show I make money this way.

I will bet two horses to win, but don't find a lot of races where I get good enough odds to do that.

[PaceAdvantage]

Anyone who has followed my Value Races and Horses threads in the selections section know I bet more than one horse to win all the time.

I see no difference between betting two horses in one race and one horse in two races. What does it really matter? What is the difference? In each case, you have bet two horses to win. The key is in being selective and limiting the races you bet to those races most likely to produce some big payoffs, and that's what I've been trying to do.

If, as an earlier poster stated, you feel you are getting value, then you'd be a fool not to bet more than one horse to win in a race.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I do 1 unit win, 3 units place on 9-2 or up. My records show I make money this way.

I will bet two horses to win, but don't find a lot of races where I get good enough odds to do that.

Did you ever run your numbers assuming you bet 2 units win and place, or 3 units win, 1 unit place, or 4 units win? Just curious if you ever ran which scenario would have produced maximum profit using the races you hit.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Yes, exactly my thoughts as well...was wondering if anyone here could run a query on percentage of races won by overlayed from ML horses...I know that Today's Racing Digest used to have a running log of the winners ML versus Final Odds....I believe a majority of races were won by bet down horses....maybe somewhere near 65%...know anyone that could database this out say for stakes, allowance, and maiden allowance for a few tracks....

[Tom]

Did you ever run your numbers assuming you bet 2 units win and place, or 3 units win, 1 unit place, or 4 units win? Just curious if you ever ran which scenario would have produced maximum profit using the races you hit.

Yes, 1W3P is optimal, so long as I am hitting about twice as often to place as win, which I have been for years, give or take a few points over the year.

That idea came from Mark Cramer. He like to see longshots place twice as often as they won to make sure he was including fluke winners. It rang a bell for me so I used it as my guide to betting LS.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yes, 1W3P is optimal, so long as I am hitting about twice as often to place as win, which I have been for years, give or take a few points over the year.

That idea came from Mark Cramer. He like to see longshots place twice as often as they won to make sure he was including fluke winners. It rang a bell for me so I used it as my guide to betting LS.
That's true. As you bet longer priced horses your hit rate is going to go down. And as longer prices come in, your place mutuels are going to be very attractive. I have no criticism of anyone who finds Mark Cramer's advice worth taking.

[VigorsTheGrey]

That's true. As you bet longer priced horses your hit rate is going to go down. And as longer prices come in, your place mutuels are going to be very attractive. I have no criticism of anyone who finds Mark Cramer's advice worth taking.

Halv, Does the above also mean....that is pans out also if one bets 2 selections (in 1 race) at 1W3P per selection...?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Halv, Does the above also mean....that is pans out also if one bets 2 selections (in 1 race) at 1W3P per selection...?

The first thing you have to calculate is your hit rate. The best public handicappers will hit 25-30%, and will occasionally make a profit. If you are selecting two horses in a race, and say your hit rate is 40% (that would probably be conservative) if you average odds of 3/2 you're at break even. That means you can bet almost any two horses you believe are overlayed and break even. As you bet longer and longer odds horses, your hit rate will go down, so you'd have to do the arithmetic to figure out your own hit rate. As your hit rate goes up, break even is lower odds.

Let's say you are betting one horse win and place, and for the sake of argument let's say the place price is equivalent to the horse's odds. So a horse that is 4-1 would pay $10 to win and $4 to place. Just to be conservative, let's say your win rate is 10% and your place rate is 15% (this is all hypothetical). So if you bet 1 unit to win and 3 units to place, 100 races bet would cost you 400 units ($800). If I did the math right, your average hits would have to come out at 12-1 in the win slot to break even. So in 100 races, you'll hit 10 races to win at an average mutuel of $26 ($260), and 15 races to place at an average mutuel of $12 ($540), for a total of $800. If your hit rate is higher or lower, you'd have to adjust those numbers. I was just giving an example so you could copy the math.

Now if you bet two selections in one race the same way, the simple arithmetic is that you'd have to collect twice as much or twice as often, or something in-between. So if you doubled your win and place rate at the same average odds, it would come out the same. But that's not going to be easy to do at double digit odds.

[ultracapper]

I wrote an article about betting two horses to win instead of better one horse win and place. Not exactly the same thing you are asking about, but it fits the general category.
______________________________________
The idea of playing multiple horses to win has been mentioned in a lot of books, including my book, The Condition Sign, and was developed as a strategy by Howard Sartin, a psychologist who treated addicted gamblers with the devilishly simple idea that the cure to chronic losing was winning.

Let me start with my maxim: In most cases it is more profitable to bet two horses to win than to bet one horse win and place. Whenever you hear people pumped up about their “ladder” bet, either they don’t understand the arithmetic of win and place betting, they need the psychological salve from a place bet, or they lose all the win photos their horses are involved in. Let’s look at the arithmetic.

We’ll start with the assumption that your top two choices both average 4-1 and that one of your top two selections wins 50% of the time, and your top choice wins 25% of the time and finishes second 15% of the time when it doesn’t win. The place price will be assumed as $5. There are three possibilities.

o one of the two horses wins
o your top choice does not win but finishes second
o both finish out of the top two spots

For the sake of calculation, let’s say you either bet $10 to win on your top two choices or $10 win and place on your top choice.

In the case of betting two horses to win, in 100 races the total bet would be $2,000, the total collected would be $2,500. In the case of betting one horse to win and place, total bet would be $2,000, total collected wouild be $2,250. Of course, if you took the same $20 and put it on your top pick to win, you’d collect….$2,500. In other words, betting to win only is superior (using these assumptions) to ever betting win and place. I’d challenge you to do your own experiment picking two horses in a race and figuring out whether it would be more profitable to bet them both to win or pick one and divide the same amount win and place. Eventually you can get sophisticated enough to make win bets unequal based on your calculated win line, but that’s a different lesson.

Most people who bet place just can’t deal psychologically with the lower collection percentage, and I fully understand that. But you have to keep telling yourself, I’m better off in the long run not to bet place (most of the time).

Now I’ve read pieces that talk about betting against yourself if you bet two horses to win. For the most part, they are wrong, but I’ll concede it depends as much on your successful selection rate as anything.

The one time I think you are justified in making a place bet is when your horse is at big odds, and again it is for psychological reasons. Not long ago I had a horse just get nipped at 37-1 and I believe it would have been devastating to not make some collection. Besides, the place mutuel was better than the vast majority of win mutuels.

I realize this is a bit of a grinding way to win, and for that reason I would concede that it is fine to budget half your bankroll for win bets and half for exotics. That is maxim number two: half of the money you bet should be to win. If you play well, there is plenty of opportunity for profit.

Outstanding post.......Coming from a guy that bets W/P all the time. You've nailed the reasons for these kind of bets square on the head. It's all in the players head.

[shooterz]

I do this all the time. Sometimes dutching is the only strategy that saves my sanity. W/P can also be good to at least cover your bet, usually I won't go under 5/2 and most often bet the 3rd fav in the race, it's worth a look.

[castaway01]

Yes, exactly my thoughts as well...was wondering if anyone here could run a query on percentage of races won by overlayed from ML horses...I know that Today's Racing Digest used to have a running log of the winners ML versus Final Odds....I believe a majority of races were won by bet down horses....maybe somewhere near 65%...know anyone that could database this out say for stakes, allowance, and maiden allowance for a few tracks....


I'd think any such study would be complicated to the point of meaninglessness by scratches, since any scratch of a low-ML-odds horse is going to lower the odds on everyone else. The effort to factor in scratches would probably not be worth the trouble.

The easy way to know if betting two horses a race works for you is to keep records. If you're making a profit that way, keep doing it. If you're not, you need to reconsider.

[Run Nicholas Run]

you wager the way you want, and use any negativity spewed
as a positive.

Once I moved to nevada and started working in the sportsbook
and learned how to really win, I recalled to nonsense I used
to hear from the degenerates at Aqueduct and they were all wrong.

Dont get me wrong most of the losers you encounter in the books
here are just outright losers and I love when they are on the opposite side
of what I like.

Just dont bet 8 horses in a field of ten like ahole Paul Morris used to do
and when one of the horses won at 10-1 pretend like your some genius.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I won't bet 2 horses to win unless they are both 5-1 or higher. In most races I have 2 relatively equal contenders and will bet the higher odds horse unless both are 3-1 or less and it's an instant pass. On a single contender race I will take 3/2 or higher to win. Will dutch multiple win bets for an even payoff but have stopped doing this. Watching how Nitro plays I will double key exotics like he does but will still win bet the higher odds horse. My hit rate on the year is 54%. I find these two simultaneous strategies work very well together. Especially on turf(or Hong Kong!).

[deathandgravity]

You need the Dutching Calculator

http://www.dutching.net/calculator

Couple smart phone apps that do the same thing

[Tom]

That's true. As you bet longer priced horses your hit rate is going to go down. And as longer prices come in, your place mutuels are going to be very attractive. I have no criticism of anyone who finds Mark Cramer's advice worth taking.

Good example, in the OP Handicap, I bet the #2, Domain's Rap $5W and $15P. He ran second, but I get back $67.50 for my twenty.

I can take that.

[classhandicapper]

I am willing to bet all the overlays.

[green80]

a lot of adw's have a built in dutching feature. Just enter the amount you want to risk, and it will spread that amount, putting the correct amount on each horse selected.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Good example, in the OP Handicap, I bet the #2, Domain's Rap $5W and $15P. He ran second, but I get back $67.50 for my twenty.

I can take that.

Tom, do you ever bet 2 horses both over 9/2 (and hopefully way higher)....?? Using your 1 unit win, 3 unit place for BOTH horses...doesn't seem like that would work too well...

[BCOURTNEY]

I like to bet horses that are over 10-1 in odds..

...I'm thinking it is better to bet 2 horses over 10-1 in ONE RACE than it is to bet 1 horse over 10-1 in TWO RACES...

Is there any evidence to suggest that the former is preferable to the later...?

If those two races run consecutively then a double is appropriate for the lower takeout rate.