The same old discussion

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Win betting vs win/place betting has been discussed on this site numerous times with good points on either side. However, is it true that in studies conducted through out the years that win only wagering will out perform win/place betting?

My buddy is an excellent handicapper , very selective and disciplined who wagers win only and occasional cold doubles. He had a real good Saratoga meeting connecting on a high percentage of winners (mostly in the 3/1 to 12/1 range). It was fun to hear of his victories and his bankroll increase. I admired his discipline and purpose as he never would wander from his win only format despite a couple of second place finishes with double digit payouts.

Since the ending of the Saratoga meeting he has run into a period of 'seconditus' as his selections are getting nipped at the wire or just falling short at the finish. NOW HERES THE POINT he has not wavered in his conviction of sticking to his game plan despite the losing run thus proving the point that it is a players confidence and belief in his convictions that are a huge asset in the psychological aspect of this game. Others complain, he stays focused Now that impresses me!

[FakeNameChanged]

Win betting vs win/place betting has been discussed on this site numerous times with good points on either side. However, is it true that in studies conducted through out the years that win only wagering will out perform win/place betting?

My buddy is an excellent handicapper , very selective and disciplined who wagers win only and occasional cold doubles. He had a real good Saratoga meeting connecting on a high percentage of winners (mostly in the 3/1 to 12/1 range). It was fun to hear of his victories and his bankroll increase. I admired his discipline and purpose as he never would wander from his win only format despite a couple of second place finishes with double digit payouts.

Since the ending of the Saratoga meeting he has run into a period of 'seconditus' as his selections are getting nipped at the wire or just falling short at the finish. NOW HERES THE POINT he has not wavered in his conviction of sticking to his game plan despite the losing run thus proving the point that it is a players confidence and belief in his convictions that are a huge asset in the psychological aspect of this game. Others complain, he stays focused Now that impresses me!
As primarily a win/place bettor I like this discussion. Just from the anecdotal evidence, it seems that W/P "only" is a small minority on PA. My written rule is Win only at odds below 6-1, and then win/place above. However, written or not, I sometimes bet to place at 9/2 if there's no odds-on favorite. My place betting is more for peace of mind, when seconditis hits me. Show betting is rare for me, but a 35-1 show bet over the weekend turned a losing day into almost breakeven. In that particular case it was one unit win bet/ two units show. My usual on show is 2-3XWin bet. From statistical studies I've read, place odds are usually Win odds/3, and Show are Win odds/6. That holds up pretty well. Betting to show is fairly new for me, and some of the comments on here made me look at it in certain situations.

[green80]

I have checked this many times before. I you keep a record of a hundred or more bets the win only will almost always win out. Keep in mind you have to figure 2 units to win vs 1 unit win and 1 unit place. There will be times when some nice paying place horses will skew the results for a while but the win only usually has a much higher ROI.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Then it is basically a decision of less bankroll downswings with win/place betting as opposed to the longer losing streaks associated with win only wagering.

[AndyC]

A win and a place bet are two different bets that need to be evaluated individually. Sometimes a win bet is warranted but not a place bet and vice versa. Sometimes both are warranted.

While I believe the psychological aspect of this game is a big factor I don't think that making bad bets is the answer to psychological issues.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

A win and a place bet are two different bets that need to be evaluated individually. Sometimes a win bet is warranted but not a place bet and vice versa. Sometimes both are warranted.

While I believe the psychological aspect of this game is a big factor I don't think that making bad bets is the answer to psychological issues.

Point well taken, for example when a price horse is wagered win/place in a race where the favorite and/or second choice are fundamentally weak and figure to be out of the win/place slot. yes, you have to pick your spots but they are available.

[AltonKelsey]

Whats commonly overlooked in these discussions is the utility value of a bet that pays off more often.

[CincyHorseplayer]

If you never wager on exotics I see no issue with betting to place. On races I don't participate in exotics I bet 2 units to win and 1 unit to place on odds 4-1 and up. Odds below that are win only. This is just a basic 3 unit method that is meant to be independent and self sustaining from other bets. If you have a 25-32% win ratio and a 40-50% WP ration this makes absolute sense IMO.

But I only bet like that anymore when I don't participate in exotics. Because I structure exotic bets around higher odds I also expect to get a high payoff for a 2nd place finish. That is all the hedging I need. In these races I bet strictly to win also.

[classhandicapper]

There's nothing wrong with place bets. There's actually evidence the place pool is less efficient than the win pool. I make win/place bets and just place bets all the time if I think there's value in that pool. I actually prefer the lower volatility of cashing more bets.

[AndyC]

There's nothing wrong with place bets. There's actually evidence the place pool is less efficient than the win pool. I make win/place bets and just place bets all the time if I think there's value in that pool. I actually prefer the lower volatility of cashing more bets.

The operative words being when there is value. A less efficient pool cuts both ways. To blindly bet place with every win bet you will get your share of way overbet place horses. In my research the value in place bets diminishes as the win odds increase.

[AndyC]

Whats commonly overlooked in these discussions is the utility value of a bet that pays off more often.

Absolutely. Would you still bet place if your ROI was .96 when your win ROI is 1.15?

[Tom]

I bet 1 unit to win and 3 units to place at odds of 9-2 and over.
Been doing for years now. My records show that my selections at over 9-2 place twice as often as they win ( give or take, but about twice as often in the long term). Being lazy, I figured it would be harder to improve my handicapping than it would be to take advantage of my known capabilities.

The idea came to me from Mark Cramer who used the idea of longshots placing twice as often as winning to evaluate his small smapole results.

Records show I am ahead doing this this way.

[Redboard]

If I just bet to win, I will most assuredly get seconditis but I don't bet to place. I'll bet 2 units to win on a value play, and 2 units exacta with my value play to come in second and usually two favorites on top. The exacta(even at 1 unit since one of the exactas must lose) always pays more than betting that 2 units to place.

[Secondbest]

If I just bet to win, I will most assuredly get seconditis but I don't bet to place. I'll bet 2 units to win on a value play, and 2 units exacta with my value play to come in second and usually two favorites on top. The exacta(even at 1 unit since one of the exactas must lose) always pays more than betting that 2 units to place.

I do pretty much the same thing. It's the old Marc Cramer idea of using the exacta as a place bet.

[classhandicapper]

The operative words being when there is value. A less efficient pool cuts both ways. To blindly bet place with every win bet you will get your share of way overbet place horses. In my research the value in place bets diminishes as the win odds increase.

I agree.

I am more likely to take $3.00 to place on a horse I think is better than even money to win than I am to bet some long shot to place.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'm not sure why betting like this is looked down upon by many players. They, like myself read Beyer's 2nd book and are "BIG" swingers. Yet you hear them talk elsewhere and they say their ROI is dismal and it sounds as if they lose half their bankroll regularly before they hit the big HR. It's like the Mendoza line hitter in baseball who belts 25 HR's but the OBP is dismal and the lack of other extra base hits their slugging and consequently OPS suffers as well. Because many of us don't play fulltime I don't like that we get this betting machismo jammed down our throats by the big $ players.

All of the way I bet is from trial and error and my experience in the game over 20 years. My player batting line is relatively healthy in all areas. Much of it is because I backed my way into betting win and occasionally win/place. My records demanded it because I was robbing my own bottom line. Squandering solid paying winners swinging for gold. I think this focus on who can win a race helps also with horizontal wagers. I play less vertical races these days but double down on the ones I do. This focus has allowed me to crush some very simple but overlaid races and also allowed me to swing for big payoffs. It's a balance. But in hindsight I think being rooted in the basics is still a winning approach. My records say it is. My hit % remains the same since I started keeping detailed records since 2001. Becoming a better handicapper my average mutual has risen 31% in the last 4 years, largely due to statistical analysis. Listening to some great people on here I am becoming a better all round bettor. A reality being a decent handicapper didn't afford me for a long time. So I am grateful for the advice on betting. But I think those bettors could take some time with these concepts also. Their bottom line will improve more than they think.

[thaskalos]

I don't think that the competent player is doing himself any favors when he labels himself as a "win-bettor", a "win/place bettor", an "exacta-bettor"...etc. As our skill increases, I think we should endeavor to increase our wagering options as well. Just as the golfer carries different clubs in his bag for the different shots that he has to make on the golf-course...so should the competent horseplayer employ different wagering strategies from race to race...because one size DOESN'T fit all when it comes to horse-betting. One race may call for a win-bet...whereas another may present a great trifecta opportunity. And further down the line, a great pick-3 wager may reveal itself...if the player isn't blinded by preconceived notions about which wager is "best"...and which is "worst".

IMO...it isn't smart to go into a given race with the intention of making any particular preconceived wager. The player should be open to a MENU of wagering options...and he should let the RACE(S) dictate which wager is best-suited for each particular case.

[ultracapper]

I've been betting to win and place religiously for over 10 years now and have a substantial database of results to show for it. I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that betting to win only in relation to w/p will be more profitable if you are a solid handicapper. Seconditis is just one of those unavoidable things in handicapping, but depending on your mental makeup, can have varying degrees of impact on everything you do as a handicapper.

[ultracapper]

I don't think that the competent player is doing himself any favors when he labels himself as a "win-bettor", a "win/place bettor", an "exacta-bettor"...etc. As our skill increases, I think we should endeavor to increase our wagering options as well. Just as the golfer carries different clubs in his bag for the different shots that he has to make on the golf-course...so should the competent horseplayer employ different wagering strategies from race to race...because one size DOESN'T fit all when it comes to horse-betting. One race may call for a win-bet...whereas another may present a great trifecta opportunity. And further down the line, a great pick-3 wager may reveal itself...if the player isn't blinded by preconceived notions about which wager is "best"...and which is "worst".

IMO...it isn't smart to go into a given race with the intention of making any particular preconceived wager. The player should be open to a MENU of wagering options...and he should let the RACE(S) dictate which wager is best-suited for each particular case.

I'm not going to argue these points because fundamentally you're correct. But in order to approach the game this way, you had better be mentally rock-solid, because you will be dealing with a butt load of "If I'd only done this or that" kind of moments.

[Poindexter]

I used to subscribe to the win place theory for a looong time, but after tearing up my own database of plays, I realized that win is a substantially better option than win place. The reason is that live horses are in the top 2 a very high percentage of the time and thus kill your place price. If you want to incorporate place into your betting you probably have to add a couple exactas to the place bet to equalize things a bit. For instance 20 win place and maybe a $3 exacta from the favorite to your horse and a $2 exacta from the 2nd favorite to your horse. Once you develop a database of plays, play around with that and see if that can equalize things out a bit.

Personally I have reached the point where I can live without the place bet. But keep records. It's easy to do horse, your line(if you make one), public line, maybe morning line, win payout collected, place payout collected, show payout collected, develop a big database and see what kind of nuggets you can come up with. You might even want to add surface and track and distance and running style, projected pace, you can even toss in jockey % and trainer % if you want, whatever you deem important.............handicap yourself a little bit. Not that I track all this myself, but I should.

[thaskalos]

I'm not going to argue these points because fundamentally you're correct. But in order to approach the game this way, you had better be mentally rock-solid, because you will be dealing with a butt load of "If I'd only done this or that" kind of moments.

These "If I'd only done this or that" moments can't be avoided no matter WHAT we do. They are inherent in both, the handicapping AND the betting process of this game. I combat this by taking my time, to ensure that I am doing the best that I can do in my handicapping and betting.

The game fools you into thinking that every loss is a "mistake"...and I don't fall for that.

[ultracapper]

I have found, at least in the high-handle circuits, that the place pool for horses in fields of 9 or more at odds of 9/2 to 8/1, is a very high expectation pool. There are a great deal of serious win players that reside in that 9/2 to 8/1 window, and when they find a play, get quite aggressive in the win pool, and all but ignore the place pool. I had a horse about a month ago that paid $14.20 $10.40. He won like a good thing, and the 'cappers that landed on him flooded into the win pool, making the place pool look like the horse was 10 or 12 to 1. Of the 3 "traditional" pools, my opinion is the place pool is by far the least efficient of the 3.

[ultracapper]

These "If I'd only done this or that" moments can't be avoided no matter WHAT we do. They are inherent in both, the handicapping AND the betting process of this game. I combat this by taking my time, to ensure that I am doing the best that I can do in my handicapping and betting.

The game fools you into thinking that every loss is a "mistake"...and I don't fall for that.

Woa!! Don't you find there are exponentially more handicappers that blame everything from jockeys to the position of the moon before they admit mistake?

[AltonKelsey]

Absolutely. Would you still bet place if your ROI was .96 when your win ROI is 1.15?

Unlikely.

[AndyC]

I'm not going to argue these points because fundamentally you're correct. But in order to approach the game this way, you had better be mentally rock-solid, because you will be dealing with a butt load of "If I'd only done this or that" kind of moments.

I don't think anyone would refer to me as being "mentally rock-solid" but I don't give more than just a fleeting thought as to the what-ifs of my completed bets. Presumably a good player has a well-thought out betting plan and should be confident that they are playing optimally.

[thaskalos]

Woa!! Don't you find there are exponentially more handicappers that blame everything from jockeys to the position of the moon before they admit mistake?

There are many horseplayers who think that a "mistake" of some sort was made every time that they lose a bet. If the "mistake" wasn't by the jockey...then it was by the player himself...for "missing something" about the eventual winner of the race. That's why all the players that I see quickly go back and scan the PPs of the winner after the race is run...which led to Tom Ainslie's immortal quote that, "After every race...another system is born".

Me...I just shrug my shoulders and move on to the next race after a loss. I've realized that this game is tough enough without me creating my own problems...and beating myself.

[ultracapper]

I don't think anyone would refer to me as being "mentally rock-solid" but I don't give more than just a fleeting thought as to the what-ifs of my completed bets. Presumably a good player has a well-thought out betting plan and should be confident that they are playing optimally.

I believe you and I are on the same page, if that well thought out betting plan is basically a betting template you bring into each race, rather than a unique betting plan for each race, evolving as the race in question is being handicapped. I know exactly what Thask is saying when he refers to the 'cappers that go hunting for reason after the race is run. They handicap a race for 1/2 an hour to come to their selection, but are able to find their mistake in about 4 seconds after the race is run. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[ultracapper]

There are many horseplayers who think that a "mistake" of some sort was made every time that they lose a bet. If the "mistake" wasn't by the jockey...then it was by the player himself...for "missing something" about the eventual winner of the race. That's why all the players that I see quickly go back and scan the PPs of the winner after the race is run...which led to Tom Ainslie's immortal quote that, "After every race...another system is born".

Me...I just shrug my shoulders and move on to the next race after a loss. I've realized that this game is tough enough without me creating my own problems...and beating myself.

The Buddha would put you over his knee and smack your ass mercilessly. The man's claim to fame is cause and effect. The race result is the effect. Everything before it is cause. The handicapper's mission is to interpret that cause and determine it's predictability as to the ensuing effect.

[betovernetcapper]

To me betting a horse in any pool without knowing the probably payoff is careless. In a lot of races with short priced favorites, the favorite may pay almost as much or even more to place then win. If the case of a very strong entry. they may run one-two & the place payoff may be more then the win. In a truly wide open race, a 3-1 shot might have a worst case place scenario of $5.60. If a 1 to 9 shot is hammered in the place pool & you bet WP to beat him and are successful, you might collect $20 on your win bet & $2.20 on your place bet if the 1 to 9 runs second. If the 1 to 9 shot had a serious shot, screw the place bet & put your bet to win knowing it's a gamble and you may lose. If you do win your well paid for taking the gamble on the win end-place not so much.
You can use a calculator or smart phone to examine the possible pool payoffs or you can use ATR-PRO, which gives you a ton of tote info. I use the latter but I'm sure there are other programs that can skim the tote board & provide you with useful data. I have heard other people mention that they have written their own programs, but the idea of doing so is confrontable to me. In any event, I'd advise examining the pool before betting into it. :)

[AltonKelsey]

Anything you divined from the tote can easily disappear on the last flash , and frequently does , unless you're talking about the largest pools on big days.

[betovernetcapper]

Anything you divined from the tote can easily disappear on the last flash , and frequently does , unless you're talking about the largest pools on big days.

Your right there can be a 180 turn around in the odds often too late for you to cancel your bet. Occasionally this works out to your benefit. It does happen. Look at it this way. Before placing a win bet, do you look at the probable win odds? If you don't then it's perfectly consistent to ignore the probable place odds. If you do check the probable win odds before betting then from a procedural point of view, shouldn't you look at the probable place odds if your betting into that pool?

There are any number of people that ignore the odds entirely and bet on a horse because they think he's the most likely winner or they like the color of the jockeys silks or it's a grey horse on a rainy day or whatever. God bless them & if it works for them, it works for me.:)

[AndyC]

I believe you and I are on the same page, if that well thought out betting plan is basically a betting template you bring into each race, rather than a unique betting plan for each race, evolving as the race in question is being handicapped. I know exactly what Thask is saying when he refers to the 'cappers that go hunting for reason after the race is run. They handicap a race for 1/2 an hour to come to their selection, but are able to find their mistake in about 4 seconds after the race is run. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I wouldn't say that I have a unique betting plan for each race but I would say that each bettable race fits different kinds of bets. If I have to think too much about the kind of bet the race fits I should probably not be betting the race or I have a bet so juicy that all bet types fit. The betting choice should seem somewhat obvious. I just don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole.

[CincyHorseplayer]

There are many horseplayers who think that a "mistake" of some sort was made every time that they lose a bet. If the "mistake" wasn't by the jockey...then it was by the player himself...for "missing something" about the eventual winner of the race. That's why all the players that I see quickly go back and scan the PPs of the winner after the race is run...which led to Tom Ainslie's immortal quote that, "After every race...another system is born".

Me...I just shrug my shoulders and move on to the next race after a loss. I've realized that this game is tough enough without me creating my own problems...and beating myself.

THat's a great point. These days 90% of my losing bets I would never played it any other way. Next race...

[Tom]

There are many horseplayers who think that a "mistake" of some sort was made every time that they lose a bet. If the "mistake" wasn't by the jockey...then it was by the player himself...for "missing something" about the eventual winner of the race. That's why all the players that I see quickly go back and scan the PPs of the winner after the race is run...which led to Tom Ainslie's immortal quote that, "After every race...another system is born".

Me...I just shrug my shoulders and move on to the next race after a loss. I've realized that this game is tough enough without me creating my own problems...and beating myself.

I'd dance a jig if I could get to be consistent 70% loser in this game!:cool:

[porchy44]

I never bet to place anymore. My win bets are usually horses 6/1 or greater.

When I run second, 50% of the time it is to the chalk. But the exacta payoff is usually 3 to 4 times more than the place price. So I usually put the favorite over my horse in the exacta. There are exceptions, (When I "definitely" can toss the favorite.)

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'd dance a jig if I could get to be consistent 70% loser in this game!:cool:

Word!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqCQe5FwqaU

[GMB@BP]

As always you are always trying to leverage your good opinions versus the value they create.

I never shoehorn how I am going to wager but in general I do end up betting mostly win wagers and few place wagers.

I have found my style of handicapping and wagering usually find horses from the 5/1 to 15/1 odds, again in general.

But the way I handicap I am coming up with some kind of angle and its usually not just as simple as this horse is in form and ran well in his last and figures here. In many cases I am wrong, way more wrong than right and my horses dont run a step to the angle I liked. Betting place when your horses runs off the board is not very useful, I am much better off having more plays using win betting than a win and place strategy and grinding out an ROI. Obviously this is not the same very everyone as we all play differently.

What I dont like though is leveraging my money with multi race bets unless I have good opinions on the surrounding races, feels like I am guessing and hoping to tie my horse into a pick 3/4 bet. I feel like I am guessing on surrounding races way to much so I migrate to straight win wagers.