TWO HORSE BETS?

[JustMissed]

I'm a newbe and would like to ask a betting question. I have been reading a lot of the old post and it seems that a serveral of you pros play only "two horse bets". I was playing exactas and lossing pretty bad. I was told to play only win or win/ place bets in order to build up my bankroll where I could play more combinations and hit more exactas. Well, every time I play just one horse to win/place I seem to do pretty good. Last night at Mountaineer, I hit 5 of 9 races. I'm not that great a handicapper but my only explaination is that when my only concern is finding just one horse that might win-I seem to focus better.

If you would take the time to answer these two questions, I would greatly appreciate your response.

1. If you are already betting two horses that you think might could win, why don't you place a side bet and box the two horses in the exacta?

2. Also, when you only play the two horses to win, do you ever bet them to place also?

Thanks,

:)

[ranchwest]

Regarding question 1, you seem to assume that an approach for selecting two horses for the win position would be the same as selecting two horses for an exacta and that is not generally accepted strategy. It is a lot easier to find one of two horses to win than to get both of those horses to come in on an exacta.

Dr. William Quirin's book stated that a high percentage of exactas are a favorite and a longshot or a longshot and a favorite. Not all that many are two favorites or two longshots. A lot of people seem to like to key one or two horses on top of an exacta and then shotgun in the second horse by trying 3 to 5 horses in the second position. Some people then flip that selection. There are a few cases where I think a two horse exacta box works, but not a steady diet of it.

Personally, nearly all of my wagers are win/place on one horse. Admittedly, I've never given serious consideration to the two horse approach.

[JustMissed]

Thanks Ranch,

That clears up question one. I now remember reading something about how exactas fill, and that would certainly exlain the shotgun approach of betting exactas. I have been playing Tampa simulcast at night and I am amazed at the volume and amout of the throw away tickets scattered around by the toteboard boys.

I have been real happy with my W/P play( 1unit win-3units place) and glad to get a confirmation from you. There is an older, grey headed man that I see from time to time at the track. He is real quiet and keeps to himself. I see him walk up to the window to cash a ticket, he puts several hundred dollars in his pocket and then quietly leaves. I would almost bet he picks a race he knows he can probably win, bets a couple of hundred w/p or on two horses and then waits till he gets to his Cadillac to start smiling.

Thanks again.

:)

[Lefty]

Also, concerning question 1 the win and place horse most likely will have diff. running styles. If I think race will run early and bet 2 early types to win and iu'm right, more times than not that place horse will be a sp or late type and vice versa.

[Triple Trio]

It's interesting to note that American horseplayers have been debating this one-horse vs. two-horse bets issue for so many years. Perhaps Aussieplayer can shed more light on this but as far as I can tell this is a non-issue in Australia. Dutching is a widely accepted concept there and many people -- at least the more experienced players -- are happy to bet on three, four or whatever number of horses in a race as long as they are perceived as overlays.

One possible explanation is that the two-horse bet is mainly associated with Sartin methodology in the US and the basis of it is psychological, i.e. minimizing the possibility of a long losing streak. OTOH, Australians look at it purely from a mathematical point of view and regard dutching as the bet method to achieve their profit objective.

[Rick]

As to whether win and place horses have different running styles, I used to think that was true but am not so sure any more. When I was playing exclusively early speed types to win, it was true that the second best horse according to my method would not finish second but would usually run out of the money if the top horse won. So I understand why so many people think this way. But once I incorporated class into my handicapping the problem went away. Now, exactas on my top two horses show a bigger profit than win bets. The top two do not usually have totally opposite running styles as some have suggested, such as E and S, but are more likely to be something like E and E/P or E/P and P. DO NOT bet deep closers along with early speed horses in exactas or you'll be very sorry. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Aussieplayer]

TT,

I know where you're coming from - but it really depends on who you talk to, or what you read (or WHO you believe the real "experts" are).

Having said that, Dutching is a widely known and accepted form of betting in Australia. Most probably due to Dedman & Scott's books etc. Same in the UK I believe.

I think you would actually find that most punters would NOT play this way in the real world.

Cheers
AP

PS. Do you play HK or Oz

[cj]

Originally posted by Rick

...DO NOT bet deep closers along with early speed horses in exactas or you'll be very sorry. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Couldn't agree more rick, deep closers often disappoint anyway, but if the pace was such that an E type won, it probably didn't do much for the closer.

CJ

[Triple Trio]

Hello AP,

I play HK but have spent some time studying Aussie handicapping methods.

TT

[Aussieplayer]

JustMissed,

This really is a prime example of why record keeping WILL make you a better player, no iff's or buts!

The reality is - your handicapping method is unique to you - at least to SOME degree!!

The trouble with reading, "this is the way you do it," is that the particular author is speaking from a bias of his own results, from his own handiacpping, & on his own tracks.

Example: The group of horses I studied that I mentioned in an earlier thread (contender selection I think). The group of horses (as a whole) are profitable. The kinky part not that there were from 1-9 contenders in a race, but that the group of 5+ horses were the profitable group!! So, what to do? Bet those races. Lose all your money on some. Lose a bit or breakeven on others. And 2 or 3 times out of 10 get a horse that really makes your day. Hey, works for me (so far, lol) - but for you?? Who knows!

We always have works in progress. Whilst betting the above at the moment for small dollars, as Davey & the Dickster suggested, I've been working on a more "sensible" ratings approach that ranks the contenders (like you're supposed to). Now, I only have an ULTRA small sample right now, and wouldn't have mentioned it - but so far have found the following:
The winner can come anywhere from within the top 5 ranked, or within 30 points of top horse, whichever is LESS.
I actually have no top rated winners yet!!
This sucks, right?
No it doesn't actually!! I have found that the same rule also applies to the horse who will hit for second. This means I am getting the quinella (or exacta) up in the top few VERY frequently - at the moment hitting at greater than 50%.

Notice how this contrasts with Dick mentioning fairly recently that he can bag the winner in his top 2 all the time - but isn't getting the place horse.

This means you'll have to look at your own records.

Pity I haven't started betting it yet. This weekend just gone I had the top 3 finishers in the top 4. Missed a $27,000 trifecta!!

Good luck & sorry for being so long winded!!!

AP

[Aussieplayer]

Rick, what an interesting thing you say, and I quote:

"As to whether win and place horses have different running styles, I used to think that was true but am not so sure any more. When I was playing exclusively early speed types to win, it was true that the second best horse according to my method would not finish second but would usually run out of the money if the top horse won. So I understand why so many people think this way. But once I incorporated class into my handicapping the problem went away. Now, exactas on my top two horses show a bigger profit than win bets. " end quote.

The most interesting bit for emphasis: "But once I incorporated class into my handicapping the problem went away."

The method I mention which is okay, but not spectaculor on the win end, but is getting the second horse just as much, is, "coincidentally"......heavily CLASS based. Interesting indeed :)

Cheers
AP