I Cannot Possible See How Win Bettors Can Come Out Ahead

[Nickle]

If you base it on $2 wagers and of course you are going to have times when you go 0-20 or so for a -$40 ad then catch a few on average $15 horses which is very difficult to get into blue but again you are going to go into droughts and before you know it you will be like -$80 or so and then virtually impossible to get to even in the long run.

I think though if you make 50 win bets a year you might have a shot but betting win like 20 times per week and you have no shot.

That is why it seems exotics/tris/ect are the only way to go as long droughts can be absorded quick with a few nice hits to put you in blue and for a long time.

Any Thoughts here?

[thoroughbred]

If you base it on $2 wagers and of course you are going to have times when you go 0-20 or so for a -$40 ad then catch a few on average $15 horses which is very difficult to get into blue but again you are going to go into droughts and before you know it you will be like -$80 or so and then virtually impossible to get to even in the long run.

I think though if you make 50 win bets a year you might have a shot but betting win like 20 times per week and you have no shot.

That is why it seems exotics/tris/ect are the only way to go as long droughts can be absorded quick with a few nice hits to put you in blue and for a long time.

Any Thoughts here?

Nickle,

Let's start by assuming that every handicapper has an individual success rate at picking winners when making a straight win bet. The higher his success rate, of course, the better. But regardless of his individual success rate, the track takeout has to be overcome. For low success rates, this takeout is a formidable obstacle to long term profits, and even for high success rates, the takeout eats into the possible profits.

I believe it follows, that trying to overcome this takeout problem is more difficult with exotic betting because the takeout is a higher percentage for exotics than for win bets.

So my conclusion is that if a handicapper is not, on average, making long term profits with straight win bets, he will do worse, on average, over the long term, wagering on the exotics.

[cj]

It is inherently easier to win betting to win than betting exotics due to lower takeout.

[twindouble]

If you base it on $2 wagers and of course you are going to have times when you go 0-20 or so for a -$40 ad then catch a few on average $15 horses which is very difficult to get into blue but again you are going to go into droughts and before you know it you will be like -$80 or so and then virtually impossible to get to even in the long run.

I think though if you make 50 win bets a year you might have a shot but betting win like 20 times per week and you have no shot.

That is why it seems exotics/tris/ect are the only way to go as long droughts can be absorded quick with a few nice hits to put you in blue and for a long time.

Any Thoughts here?

Nickle; Players can make money win betting, take if from me. When I first started out that was the only game in town. "picking winners." To me these guys or gals that make it win betting are the cream of the crop when it comes to playing the horses, a special breed. Why? Because they have the patience and control to make their spot plays and a reasonable bankroll to capitalize on those horses. Like anything else, some will do better than others but as time went on I went in another direction. That was incorperating my spot plays in the gimmcks as they evolved, looking for the bigger payoffs. For me it was a better thing to do. How well I've done over the years isn't the point, besides it would sound like a bunch of bull to most here, understandably.

How spot players go about what they do again would vary from player to player and would warrent another thread, nobeyerspls is just one example if you've read his posts.

Good luck,

T.D.

[Valuist]

I believe exotics are better. I realize the takeout is higher, although not always significantly. And multi-race wagers have 1 takeout spread out over several races so a 20% takeout spread out over 3 races is basically a 6.7% takeout. The more complex the wager, the greater the divergence between the skilled player and the losing player.

[Speed Figure]

I do far better betting pick 3's and pick 4's than I do with win bets.

[GameTheory]

It is inherently easier to win betting to win than betting exotics due to lower takeout.For multi-race wagers, the exotics have less takeout than the equivalent win wagers. And the greater inefficiencies in the exacta and trifecta pools more than make up for the greater takeout compared to win betting. Not that I agree that it is impossible to come out ahead win betting.

But an advantage in the win pool can often be leveraged into a bigger advantage in the exotics. Of course you must have more betting capital to succeed in the exotics...

[kingfin66]

I think this all depends on the individual handicapper's style and methodology.

[formula_2002]

Here is one of the plays I have been following. It’s a mix on back fitted plays and “live” plays.

1036 races
2989 exacta plays
$ 6752 exacta dollar returned
Top pick returned a win pool loss of $62.00
205 exacta wins
149 expected exacta wins

Exacta pool profit of 13%
Win pool loss of 6%

To achieve a 13% exacta pool profit, the number of expected wins must exceed the exacta pool takeout by an additional 13%.
I’ll say that the average ex pool take in the above sample was 25% (the average win pool take was about 18%)
Therefore 149 x (.25 + .13) = 205 wins.
The sample achieved 205 wins.
Against all I deem holy, I would never expect to achieve an exacta pool profit while sustaining a win pool loss. Not in a sample of this size.

I have a home grown program that calculates the exacta win pool “live” odds, and it’s clear to see that the post time exacta win pool odds are less than the straight win pool odds. There is some variance in the degree of difference between the two pools, but nothing that would make a grown man buy into believing one can have a 6% loss in the lesser takeout pool and a 13% profit in the larger takeout pool.
I’ll keep following this.

Rules of play.
1. The “pick” must be the post time favorite.
2. Minimum number of betting interest in the race must be >=7
3. Put the pick horse over anything that is >=5 to 1 and <=15 to 1

[GameTheory]

There is some variance in the degree of difference between the two pools, but nothing that would make a grown man buy into believing one can have a 6% loss in the lesser takeout pool and a 13% profit in the larger takeout pool.Results like that are quite typical. Keep looking. The win pool is the most efficient pool at the track. The exacta pool is less efficient than the win pool. The trifecta even more so, followed by the superfecta. The more variables to the wager, the more the inefficiencies are magnified. The best value at the track is in the pick-6, because it is the toughest (arguably). These inefficiencies outweigh the greater takeout of the win pool. Of course if you had a track where the win takeout was 12% and the exacta takeout was 25%, that probably wouldn't be true, but at most places the ratio isn't that great...

[Vegas711]

If win betting is a losing proposition then why is that the betting method of 90 % of the professionals?

With win betting only i have complete control. I can do a version of a progressive betting strategy. For instance after reviewing my betting records for the last 2000 races i see that my longest losing streak betting 1 horse per race is 13 races i can devise what I call a step progression betting method.

Example: race 1 bet $5 lose the race
bet for race 2 still bet $ 5 if i lose next
bet would be $7 if i lose next race i bet
$7 if i lose again i bet $10 this increase continuesup to a set betting point say $ 20 which i would continue to bet till i hit.
What this does is put me in a position where my largest bet will be the one i cash.
You can't do this with exotics.The other downside is that with exotics you are betting against yourself. You have to take more than 1 combo and thus you are insuring that atleast 1 bet is going to lose.

[xfile]

If you base it on $2 wagers and of course you are going to have times when you go 0-20 or so for a -$40 ad then catch a few on average $15 horses which is very difficult to get into blue but again you are going to go into droughts and before you know it you will be like -$80 or so and then virtually impossible to get to even in the long run.

I think though if you make 50 win bets a year you might have a shot but betting win like 20 times per week and you have no shot.

That is why it seems exotics/tris/ect are the only way to go as long droughts can be absorded quick with a few nice hits to put you in blue and for a long time.

Any Thoughts here?


Win bettors make money in one word = OVERLAYS

[Fred]

I believe exotics are better. I realize the takeout is higher, although not always significantly. And multi-race wagers have 1 takeout spread out over several races so a 20% takeout spread out over 3 races is basically a 6.7% takeout. The more complex the wager, the greater the divergence between the skilled player and the losing player.

What am I missing? If you wager on a P3 and the juice is 20% that is 20% of the pick 3 pool, no? Now if you win bet and the juice is 17% per race then leg 1 = 17% leg 2 = 17% leg 3=17% so it is 17% of the pool for 3 races and the p3 is 20% of the pool.

Actually I am a series (p3,p4) player but I do not understand your takeout analysis.

Freddy

[nobeyerspls]

Hiya Nickle

The answer is simple. Restrict your win bets to horses 7/2 or higher. This will produce fewer bets and a higher average return. The money you save by not betting those lower priced horses to win can be used in exotic bets.
Have you ever gone 0 for 20? That seems hard to do if you're picking your spots.

[JimG]

If win betting is a losing proposition then why is that the betting method of 90 % of the professionals?




Where in the world did you get that statistic from? And what year was it based on?

[cnollfan]

What am I missing? If you wager on a P3 and the juice is 20% that is 20% of the pick 3 pool, no? Now if you win bet and the juice is 17% per race then leg 1 = 17% leg 2 = 17% leg 3=17% so it is 17% of the pool for 3 races and the p3 is 20% of the pool.

Here's an example:

Assumptions:

The win pool and pick 3 pool are each $10,000.
The size of your bet does not affect the pool.
The takeout is 17% to win and 25% in the pick 3.
You pick three horses in a row, each with a true 1/4 chance of winning, and the money bet reflects the true odds.

So, there is $2,500 bet to win on your horse.

The chances of picking three in a row are 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 or 1/64. 1/64 of $10,000 is $156.25, so there is $156 bet on your pick 3 combo. The pick 3 will pay $7,500 divided by $156, or 47-1.

Now imagine a 3-horse $20 win parlay. Your horse's odds are knocked down to 2.32-1 after the 17% take ($8,300/$2,500), or $2.30-1 after breakage, so your $20 win bet returns $66. You then parlay $66 to win at 2.30-1, returning $217.80, and then bet $218 at 2.30-1 to collect $719 total. $719/$20 (original bet size) = almost 35-1.

[Valuist]

Fred-

Cnollfan is correct. A pic 3 is basically a 3 horse parlay but with only 1 takeout while 3 separate win bets would have 3 separate takeouts. Are there times to bet to win instead of a P3? Absolutely. I need to have fairly strong opinions on two of the legs to play it. A pic 3 also offers the possibility of a low risk/high reward payoff, especially when your main opinions on a race (or races) are negative views of the heavily bet horses.

As for the comment that 90% of the pros just bet to win, I do not believe that. I know of one pro who almost NEVER bets to win. He is big on spread-outs. I did meet one pro in the late 80s at Oaklawn who was primarily a win bettor but he didn't have much choice; back then Oaklawn only offered 1 daily double and a Classix (Pic 6), which I did see him hit once. Personally, I know I do best when I utilize a fairly wide range of betting options. The circumstances should dictate the wager.

[sealord]

[QUOTE=Nickle]If you base it on $2 wagers and of course you are going to have times when you go 0-20 or so for a -$40 ad then catch a few on average $15 horses which is very difficult to get into blue but again you are going to go into droughts and before you know it you will be like -$80 or so and then virtually impossible to get to even in the long run.

[QUOTE]

That's why you don't flat bet! I'm no expert on the subject but am somewhat versed on Dick Mitchell's ideas. I recommend his money mgmt. books. Basically, your bet is based on a percentage of your bankroll vs. your perceived edge and overlay on a horse's odds. You need to know you're long-term win percentage and the track take to figure your required edge. His particular style of money mgmt. will take you through the droughts and valleys, while capitalizing on winning streaks and runs by betting more with each win. The only drawback of this style is that one must be extremely disciplined, and the number of plays may be smaller than other styles. It seems like you can even be less than great at handicapping, but by knowing your win percentage, you can still find good plays. Oh, like most systems, you must be able to form an odds line, but that seems pretty common anyways. Good luck.

[thoroughbred]

[QUOTE=Valuist]Fred-

Cnollfan is correct. A pic 3 is basically a 3 horse parlay but with only 1 takeout while 3 separate win bets would have 3 separate takeouts.

Fred,

The key point is which of the choices, individual race betting, or mult-race betting gives you the best odds for your bets. With the higher takeout for the multi-race bets, you are not getting a return that is as good as the single race bets.

And, while this off the point in my arguement here, here is a hypothetical analysis based on your statement which may help to point out the fallacy.

Suppose we compare a pick 4, where the takeout is 20% with four individual
win bets with 17% takeout. Let the pick 4 pool be $100,000. The 20% takeout of it is $20,000. Now let each individual race pool be $25,000. At 17%, that is $4,250, takeout per race for a total of only $17,000.

Again, this illustration is only to point out a fallacy. The general principle does not depend on the size of the pools. What we are looking for is value, based on winning probabilities, and the higher the takeout, regardless of the type of bet, the worse off we are.

[Vegas711]

Where in the world did you get that statistic from? And what year was it based on?

I know of about 10 pro players they all bet to win with a pick 3 or pick 4 thrown in once in a while. I only know 1 player that wins betting supers.
I know that 10 people is not a large sample but it is difficult to find people who are long time winners.

I am NOT speaking of everyone, but the vast majority of exotic players are strictly gamblers where as win players lean towards an investment approach.

[GameTheory]

[QUOTE=Valuist]Fred-

Cnollfan is correct. A pic 3 is basically a 3 horse parlay but with only 1 takeout while 3 separate win bets would have 3 separate takeouts.

Fred,

The key point is which of the choices, individual race betting, or mult-race betting gives you the best odds for your bets. With the higher takeout for the multi-race bets, you are not getting a return that is as good as the single race bets.

And, while this off the point in my arguement here, here is a hypothetical analysis based on your statement which may help to point out the fallacy.

Suppose we compare a pick 4, where the takeout is 20% with four individual
win bets with 17% takeout. Let the pick 4 pool be $100,000. The 20% takeout of it is $20,000. Now let each individual race pool be $25,000. At 17%, that is $4,250, takeout per race for a total of only $17,000.

Again, this illustration is only to point out a fallacy. The general principle does not depend on the size of the pools. What we are looking for is value, based on winning probabilities, and the higher the takeout, regardless of the type of bet, the worse off we are.
First you say cnollfan is correct, whom if I read correctly was saying that the pick-3 would be the better bet rather than the win parlay.

Then you say that is a fallacy? I'm confused.


Here's the breakdown as I see it:

A multi-race wager where we pick the winners of each race (the double, pick-3, pick-4, pick-6) has an *effective* lower takeout than the equivalent win parlay because it is only taken once and that takeout is spread over the number of races involved. That, combined with the lower efficiencies of these pools, make these wagers the most-attractive value-wise at the track. However, as the number of races involved goes up, so does the amount of capital required to safely exploit this value.

Single-race "pick them in order" exotics like the exacta & trifecta don't have an exactly equivalent win wager because obviously they involve place & show horses. However, in general, a win pick keyed in the exacta or trifecta will show higher returns compared to straight win betting despite the higher takeout, and again this is due to the inefficiency of these pools compared to the win pool.

And given the fact that some people can and do exploit the win pool for a long-term positive return tells us that the opportunities to find value at the track are severly under-rated! There are lots of juicy bets in pretty much every single race if you know how to find them!

[how cliche]

A win bettor will succeed if he/she admits some faults and manages money in a sensible fashion. Most players aren't good enough to pick the winner in even 1/4 the races carded at their tracks. Therefore passing races and waiting for runners who appeal to their strengths is of utmost importance. They need to be truthful about their win percentage. A two year sample will be sufficient to gain this knowledge. You can't be egotistical about it. From there a player needs to draw a low odds limit to ensure they are profitable. For example, I'm not that good and am wrong over 75% of the time. Therefore my low odds limit is 4-1. For others who are better prognosticators than I am they might be able to lower the limit to say 3-1. Flexibility is okay, I'm finding. I used to do nothing but win bets, but there are situations where a pick 3 or pick 4 is a good way to leverage a win bet, or bypass the win pool altogether. The most useable scenario for multi leg gimmicks are when the most likely winner(s) on a card are below your low odds limit.

Two examples...Belmont Stakes pick 4 had two good singles in it who were both less than even money. Pick 4 wound up paying 9-1 for how I invested in it. Coupla weeks ago I posted a DMR runner named Proposed who I did bet to win @ 5.5-1. Looking at her sequence of races, however, I thought she was a single in a hittable pick 3 and hittable late pick 4, both starting the race before hers. The reason I opted for this additional strategy was Sweet Return was a "can't lose" opinion in the very next race and another single, but below my low odds limit as a win bet(5/2). So I wound up with a few different tickets. $20 win on Proposed. $1 p3 4x1x1. $1 p4 4x1x1x7. Everything hit. $130 on the win. $230+ p3. $610+ p4.

Money management saved the day over the course of my trip at the Pacific Classic. I couldn't see any multi race gimmicks clearly enough so I passed those. I didn't play all that well. Heck, the three horses I spot played to win on Saturday all ran last. Sunday was different. I thought Imperialism was the most likely winner on the card and played him that way by tripling the wager. I played two more runners after him one winning at 4-1 and another losing a 3 horse photo at 25-1. I only picked 2 winners out of 6 win bets, yet came out well in the end. It wasn't due to exceptional prognosticating. Money management & accepting that I'm not very good is the secret of my success. If I were truly as disciplined as I ought to be, my only play of the entire weekend goes to Imperialism. I can still improve. As with all of us, I'm a work in progress.

[twindouble]

First you say cnollfan is correct, whom if I read correctly was saying that the pick-3 would be the better bet rather than the win parlay.

Then you say that is a fallacy? I'm confused.


Here's the breakdown as I see it:

A multi-race wager where we pick the winners of each race (the double, pick-3, pick-4, pick-6) has an *effective* lower takeout than the equivalent win parlay because it is only taken once and that takeout is spread over the number of races involved. That, combined with the lower efficiencies of these pools, make these wagers the most-attractive value-wise at the track. However, as the number of races involved goes up, so does the amount of capital required to safely exploit this value.

Single-race "pick them in order" exotics like the exacta & trifecta don't have an exactly equivalent win wager because obviously they involve place & show horses. However, in general, a win pick keyed in the exacta or trifecta will show higher returns compared to straight win betting despite the higher takeout, and again this is due to the inefficiency of these pools compared to the win pool.

And given the fact that some people can and do exploit the win pool for a long-term positive return tells us that the opportunities to find value at the track are severly under-rated! There are lots of juicy bets in pretty much every single race if you know how to find them!

Game Theory; That sums up what my wagering strategy is today with the exception that in my opinion not every race is playable to the extent you mentioned. I try to evaluate the races within the contex of a reasonable opertunity to make money taking advantage of menu of pools. If I nailed it down every time I could get rich but that don't happen. I would say the better percentage of time I'm right to pass or wager, not that I'm immune to loosing streaks mind you. Sometimes the reason is in the pick 6, it would put to much stress on the bankroll so a pass is in order. I'm always looking for that key horse you mentioned But when I can get the race down to 4 or 5 horses and they all have value without the key, I still find that to be an excellent wagering opertunity in the gimmicks.


What's been happening to me of late is, I just dont have that burning desire to play as I once used to. You really have to live the horses to be truly successful at it, that takes a lot time and commitment. So, I just jump in when I can and hope that my experience will carry me through to a profitable year and get what ever enjoyment out it I can along with throwing some bull here. That's where I'm at now, including the fact back in June I became a great grandfather. :)

Good luck,

T.D.

[thoroughbred]

[QUOTE=GameTheory]First you say cnollfan is correct, whom if I read correctly was saying that the pick-3 would be the better bet rather than the win parlay.

Then you say that is a fallacy? I'm confused.

Game Theory,

The confusion comes from fact that you didn't notice that the first sentence in my message is a quote, i.e, not part of my message. My message is responding trying to show the fallacy in that sentence.

[skate]

yeh jimg;

where did that stat come from?

[skate]

nickle;


if you are stating a problem with your betting, im not sure, but if you are having a problem? i think your answer is in the amount of money that you wager per bet. you mention $2.00, which to me that would indicate your problem right there.
but you later indicate just that problem when you say something to the effect "you think it would increase yourchance to do beter, if you limit the times you bet" i agree with this.
as ive stated (big deal) before, instead of making your $2.00 wager, which will lead to Nothing.

wait till you have enough to wager a hefty wager, say for example, enough to cover your mortgage. some on here (i think) got this simple angle confused.
enough to cover your mortgage does not mean that you wager your rent, mortgage or flying money, although you may do this, what it says is "you are not a serious better, if you dont wager a serious amount..

also from my book

[GameTheory]

[QUOTE=GameTheory]First you say cnollfan is correct, whom if I read correctly was saying that the pick-3 would be the better bet rather than the win parlay.

Then you say that is a fallacy? I'm confused.

Game Theory,

The confusion comes from fact that you didn't notice that the first sentence in my message is a quote, i.e, not part of my message. My message is responding trying to show the fallacy in that sentence.Ah, I see, sorry.

Well then I should have just said that I disagree -- it is not a fallacy. The effective takeout for a pick-3 is less than an equivalent win parlay, despite the raw percentage being higher...

[kev]

Reading threw the book six secrets, looks like ( as far as the ones I liked in the book ) do a little bit of both win and ex's.
Let's take a look.
Randy Gallo " I could bet $600 to win and $3k in exactas, or I could bet $3k to win and nothing in exactas."

Len Friedman "Depending on what your opioion is, you should use different parts of the wagering pool. If your basic opinion is that the favorite is no good, you want to play bets that enable you to throw out the fav. in as many positions as possible. ( like tri's and supers ) Whereas on the other hand, if your opinion is that you really like a 6-1 shot in the race, you ought to have at least two-thirds of your play to win on him."

[joeyspicks]

Cnollfan is correct. A pic 3 is basically a 3 horse parlay but with only 1 takeout while 3 separate win bets would have 3 separate takeouts. Are there times to bet to win instead of a P3?


I think the question of pk-3 vs parlay is not one of takeout etc etc etc....
I chuckle over this argument:lol: ............ & have for years.

Forget the takeout.......the parlays give you CONTROL. Pick 3, 4, and 6's are determined by the track. IF you want to play you MUST PLAY THE RACES THEY DICTATE. I can play a parlay over multiple tracks and can choose to have a "no lose" propostion by the 2nd or 3rd race. TRY that with a pick 3 ! Lets face it most players are not losing because of the take out......its either discpline or no "plan" of action. Sure IF you are losing just 5-10% than blame the take out.

Having said that I DO play pk 3's and even a pk 6 once in awhile.....but MUCH more often its a PARLAY of 3 or 4 or even more races. Believe me I'm NOT concerned about the "larger take out "!:ThmbUp:

[AngelEyes]

As already mentioned in a previous post , for 30 years I was a steady loser betting horses. I bet on all types of wagers losing at an average rate of 5 % on the $100K a year I put through the machines. I can recall coming out ahead over the year only once. That was the last year (early 90's) that horses ran at Greenwood racetrack located in Toronto. Extreme track biases were prevalent throughout that final meet - one day inside one day outside. Made over $20k in that last month to give me a profit for the year. But that was it.

Then in Nov. 2004 I joined Pinnacle. Things started to change. I was yielding a small profit on betting over a period of several months . I bet approx $50k over that period and was up about $1k. The 7% rebate paid out daily made the difference. Without it I would have been down $2.5k instead.

In Jan. 2005 I joined Betfair (a betting exchange) and things got even better. My initial investment of $200 is now worth well over $8000. Receiving payouts at an average rate of 20% greater than track odds is really making the difference. Just today at Delaware Park I had $30 on Deputy Connor (Pino-Vega). I was able to get $36 to win on it at Betfair. It paid $28 at the track.
That means I received $102 ($120 - $18 commission) more than if I was betting at the track. This is just one example of many overpriced winners that I have been getting.
Also note that I don't have that much control - I'll bet on 5 tracks at a time and make over 40 bets a day. And yet I am still ahead. The fact that I am focused on Win betting only and having the option to book bets must be impacting my good results as well.

In conclusion, I will never bet at track odds again. You just can't beat the high takeout.
I feel sorry for the US members here that can't join Betfair . Believe me, if you can't win there you can't win anywhere else.

AngelEyes

[nobeyerspls]

Joeyspicks

I don't see a pick 3 as a three race parlay but I do see your control angle.
As to the takeout, it will always be higher with the exotic bet. Three $10 win bets over 3 races will have a 15% takeout. The $30 pick 3 might have a 25% takeout but, as with all exotics, the payout will be greater.
I see parlays as a loss-limiting bet. The theory is that your $400 bet on the last race involves $10 of your money and $390 on their money. There is no "their money" unless you count the cash behind the wickets. Money in your wallet is "your money" whether you earned it, won it, found it, or it was given to you. If you would not normally make a large bet then there is no reason to do it with parlay money.
Lastly, with horizontal plays you have something that cannot happen in a win pool. You have a shot at the whole pool, the equivalent of parimutual wagering nirvana.

[toetoe]

You HAVE to see the p3 as a $1 parlay. You're betting it will pay much higher (50%?) better than a $1 parlay, you're betting three mandated races, and you're probably spreading in at least one race. It's a painless way for people to throw their money around, when we know damn well they would not risk all of a win of, say, $40 on the very next race. But that's what you're doing, and that's why it has to be big juice. Sometimes it is, and often it's not.

Exactas at many tracks are raked at the same %age as WPS, and THAT makes it the best bet, WHEN the race is decipherable.

[ernie simons]

For the Spa meet so far, I've made 1 to 2 bets most days. Some days I had no bets. For 33 $20 wagers I made $260 profit. 17 losses, 16 wins. Average win $5.87. That's $20 to $40 per day invested, gave me an average of $7.87 per day take home. Now, I didn't take that home every day, since I didn't bet every day. I'm speaking averages. 33 wagers, 16 wins, 17 losses, $260 profit. Perfect example why you have to get some higher odds wins to ramp up your roi. But, that would give me fewer wins with a larger per bet profit. Comes out to be the same, no? I'm thinking about going to exotics.

[nobeyerspls]

Toetoe

Hears an example from real time experience. A person close to me put $4 into a dollar pick 3 last week. The bet was 2x1x2. The horses came in paying $9, $35, $22 and the pick 3 paid $1,270. Now let's say that he does a parlay instead beginning with $2 win on the first two horses. When the 7/2 wins he bets the whole $9 on the horse that pays $35 collecting $157. He then splits that on the last two, betting $78 to win on each. When the $22 horse comes in he has $858. Now, I have not taken into account the affect of $78 on a 10-1 shot but at my track it would drop the odds a little.

[joeyspicks]

nobeyer : I see parlays as a loss-limiting bet. The theory is that your $400 bet on the last race involves $10 of your money and $390 on their money. There is no "their money" unless you count the cash behind the wickets. Money in your wallet is "your money" whether you earned it, won it, found it, or it was given .......................................

Nobeyer..........good point but I look at it like commodity trading. In commodity trading once you open a position the amount of "equity" for that trade credits to your account. So a position that you "opened" might for example go straight up and you show a $1500 "paper profit"......and it COUNTS when they figure your margin etc.....so in effect you have $1500 more in equity in your account. HOWEVER as anyone who has traded knows that so called equity can evaporate before the statement arrives....and your SO CALLED PROFITS have evaporated too. Thats how I look at a PARLAY......My first play OPENS my "position" and as long as I win I am adding to my "paper profits"........but I do not count anything as profits until I close that parlay for the day. I will "hedge" though.....for example a parlay I played last week was 3 plays

$8.60 12.40 9.20 (avg w-p prices)

I started with a $20 flat bet to win= $86

#2 12.40 win $86 = 533.20

#3 9.20 win 1/2 $266 = $1223 ( if I lost I guaranteed profit +$246)


Now I know I would have made a lot more staying with a full parlay but remember you dont know that BEFORE the play and I conserved my profit and capital by being conservative. Rather that try to hit a grand slam I am quite content with this type of profit. However the parlay GIVES me that chance and these three plays were at two different tracks and hours apart.....plus IF I WANT TO try for the grand slam I can......most time I do not unless I really love that third play. Now this particular day it took me three trys to get started so I really had $60 bet by the time I hit that 8.60 horse. The key was the 2nd play which opened up all my options and then the third play I knew I had a built in profit (last play for the day) and I also was even more conservative by playing to win and place on that last play. Sure the mathematics show that I would have really had a HUGE day IF I just played it through........however too many times you lose that last play and its can mess up your mind/emotions. This way I have control of the plays AND the risk levels..(plus I wouldnt play a $20 pick 3 !)

[twindouble]

Joey; Good point! For many years playing the twindouble I would hedge my bet in the last race, There's good reason reasons to do that, ESP when I half the field covered and the rest were hefty consoulations with the exception of one that could beat me out of the money. To me it was common sense to bet that horse, your gauranteed to win.

[toetoe]

Nobeyers,
That's a nice hit for something like 40% juice. Sweet. I don't argue that. You can also pick your own races to parlay (sans juice), and you can make your own entries by betting two horses to win. Now, at SHP, home of the 12%-takeout pick-threes, it makes it worth it to spread in every leg.

[Nickle]

Lots of great answers here.

What I am going to do is bet more picks 3's

Only bet win if horse is 4-1 or better

Cut down my volume of win bets

Thanks

[Overlay]

If you can come up with reasonably accurate fair-odds figures, you don't have to restrict your win betting to higher-odds horses as long as you're getting value on your wagers. That will both result in a higher percentage of winners, and steer you away from the extremely low odds that some favorites get sent off at (and that very few horses are worth).

[PurplePower]

It is inherently easier to win betting to win than betting exotics due to lower takeout.
CJ,
If this statement is true, then it should be "inherently easier" to (make a profit) by betting the Pick-3 at Sam Houston Race Park since that wager has only a 12% take out. But, very few people play the pick 3 at Sam Houston.

I have heard the lower takeout argument for over 30 years, but I have also observed that even those that say "lower takeout means more profit" will not play wagers that offer significantly lower takeouts. That seems to be because they prefer to stay with the wager with which they are most comfortable.

The take-out doesn't matter if the player is making too many losing bets. A player that bets $20 to WIN on a horse loses $20 if that horse doesn't win just like a player that bets $20 in a superfecta loses $20 if he has the wrong combinations.

At a racetrack marketing symposium 5 or so years ago (held in Las Vegas) a panel of high profile "professional" gamblers were asked what the tracks could do to help them and encourage more wagering. To the man they said, (and I paraphrase), "more full fields. We'd rather have 12-horse fields of maidens or cheap claimers than 5 and 6 horse fields of top quality allowance horses." (That was exactaly the OPPOSITE statement of that same class of gambler back in the 70's and early 80's when their only choices were Daily Doubles and straight bets.) Their reasoning was that it was the larger fields of wide-open races that gave them a chance at the big scores (in exotics) that made them their profits.

Those that only bet to WIN leave money on the table in exotics, just like those that bet exotics leave money on the table when their top pick wins and they don't have a win bet on it.

[joeyspicks]

purple:
Those that only bet to WIN leave money on the table in exotics, just like those that bet exotics leave money on the table when their top pick wins and they don't have a win bet on it.
....

True..............HOWEVER most players have a tough enough time MANAGING their money playing to win or win/place etc etc...........let alone managing money to play exotics...........AND CONSIDER that most players are underfunded and overplay (over bet) the exotics....IMHO a lot of players burn money trying to capture the "big pool" that Andy Beyers and others have convinced them thay must go after if they are to succeed in making a profit. Its just not true and if you cannot make a profit playing to win how can you succeed i nthe world of exotics ? ?