Trifecta and Superfecta Ticket Structuring

[chickenhead]

I would like to have a discussion about structuring trifecta and superfecta tickets. I am really at a loss when it comes to these except in the most obvious kind of race.

For me I think it would be useful to use an actual race as an example, so that you have the same information I have, so that I can understand why you do what you do.

I project a speed figure for every horse in the race, this projection is based on various things, but I really want to focus on ticket structure rather than handicapping, so lets assume for now that my numbers are deadly accurate – and really exemplify just a ton of useful information about the race. I run a monte carlo simulation and it spits the percentage chance each has to run 1st through 4th.

For the sample race (an actual race from a few weeks ago) here is my ~100% odds line along with the tote odds:

1) 31 – 53
2) 11 – 12
3) 7 – 3
4) 3.5 – 18
5) 10 – 10
6) 58 – 18
7) 1.5 – 4
8) 28 – 6
9) 144 – 36
10) 24 – 2

(my odds on the left, tote odds on the right)

So we can see that in the win pool I have the 1,2,4 and 7 as overlays.

Below are the rounded percentages for the horses to run 2nd through 4th:

1) 6 – 7 – 9
2) 12 – 13 – 12
3) 14 – 14 – 13
4) 20 – 15 – 12
5) 13 – 13 – 13
6) 5 – 6 – 8
7) 21 – 13 – 9
8) 6 – 7 – 9
9) 3 – 4 – 5
10) 7 – 10 – 10

So there we have it. All sorts of good info on the race, what to expect, 720 possible tri combinations, 5040 superfecta combinations, a couple of solid overlays….how do we go about structuring some tickets? How big should the ticket be?

I hope some people want to take a crack at this, I know I would learn something and I’m sure there are a lot of people lurking here who like me refrain from betting into these pools for lack of knowledge.

Thanks,
RB

[chickenhead]

In case anyone finds my open ended question a little too open, I thought I would add some thoughts about what I think I need to know more about:

When to play: This is the biggest initial question. I chose a race in which I really dislike the post time favorite and think there is a good chance of him running out of the super completely. He is the 10 horse here, I have him at 24-1, the tote has him at 2-1. This is an obvious example I think of when to play, any thoughts on other less obvious times to play would be good, how you make that decision.

Size of the ticket: This is a fairly large field, and outside of a few standout contenders for the win is fairly evenly matched for the lower slots. Not having played many supers I don't know for sure, but I am guessing that a big part of seperation from the crowd is the size of the ticket. There are 3X as many combinations as in an 8 horse field, so I would assume a 3X larger ticket would make good sense. With the added belief that the favorite could run out completely even increasing the ticket size some would seem reasonable. I would think a $300 or larger ticket would not be overkill, I'd like some thoughts on that, and if anyone has any sort of guidelines they use when it comes to ticket size.

Who to include in what slots: This is where I suppose the art of ticket structuring comes in, and where I am most at a loss...weighing the benefit of including more likely underlays with less likely overlays. Can't include everyone...so some thoughts on how you decide who goes where, how you try to balance the hit rate with the value.

Don't know if the above will help to get responses or not, but please feel free to chime in with anything, it's all good.

[twindouble]

Chickenhead;

If your looking for a computer print out on the possibilities I can't help you.

My wagers are structured around the how I predict the race will be run, that has nothing to do with the odds line or the tote per say. Granted the final odds will effect your payoff plus or minus. So I don't have a set formula because each race requires me to be flexable in my wagering.

For example, I've had 10 horse fields were I figured the speed would collapse and ended with 5 with value but competitive, I'll box those five in the tri. Also box them in the super and only use the speed that I think could hold on for 4th.

Another example would be, I know I have a key horse with value and I have the race down to 6 for a super play and yes even if it includes the chalk because I know if I beat the sucker I'm looking at a fairly good payoff so I'll key my horse with the other 5 in a wheel, even then I'll cover that 4th slot with a couple more to insure a win. In most cases they are horses I feel could come on late when others are backing up. Keep in mind, we need 4 horses to hit the super so it doesn't embarrass me as a handicapper to cover more horses for a good payoff. It's no different when deciding to use 5 or 6 in one race playing the pick 6. Some races are that compitive but not to shy away, they norm pay well.

The tri can be a killer when the chalk is in it, not so when it comes to the super unless the other chalks hit the board as well. Sure I've had many times when I thought I could beat the chalk for the win, didn't happen ended up losing money and hitting the tri. Most of the time when I feel the chalk will be there I pass on the tri and go for the super.

In other races, I've got it down to just 3 and can't see anything else to beat them, in that case when theres value I'm in for the whole boat, ex, tri, and super. Here again, I'll use those three as keys in the super and use anthing I think has a shot for 4th or all.

There's other conditions where I'll just pass on the race, in most cases they are young horses, first time starters or I figure the race is to competitive and anything could be there. Then theres times when I'll pass just waiting or looking for a better wagering opertunity. Then once in awhile I'll the heck with it, I'm just going to have some fun and play the whole card regardless. :cool:


Good luck,

T.D.

[Valuist]

Rather than giving out specifics, and there's way too many ways to structure tickets to list, here's a few guidelines:

When you see horses at 10-1 or higher, can you make a reasonably strong case for them to hit the board? This is where the real value of the exactas, tris and supers come into play.

What is the size of the field? I've found that trifecta payoffs seem to take off when there's 9 or more betting interests. With exactas, I like at least 8 betting interests.

Generally, due to the proliferation of boxing combinations, longshots tend to be overbet in the win slot and underbet in the backup slots. And vica versa with favorites.

Its best to have multiple opinions on a race if you are going to play the tri or super. I may say I really like horse A to win or maybe run second, I may think horse D, a longshot could hit the board, and I may think horses B and C, while modest contenders, are overbet. Obviously I'll try to position myself so that if A wins or runs second, D hits the board, and B and C are off the board, I should have a good score. In Beyer's book "The Winning Horseplayer" he talks about constructing tickets. Many times negative opinions may lead you to juicy overlays.

[chickenhead]

Val and Twin -- Ticket size in this kind of race, 10 horses with a questionable favorite, what size ticket do you think is reasonable? Sounds like twin you're saying like a 1X5X5X7 or something like that, $100? Would you feel comfortable adding more, or do you consider that chasing?

[twindouble]

In case anyone finds my open ended question a little too open, I thought I would add some thoughts about what I think I need to know more about:

When to play: This is the biggest initial question. I chose a race in which I really dislike the post time favorite and think there is a good chance of him running out of the super completely. He is the 10 horse here, I have him at 24-1, the tote has him at 2-1. This is an obvious example I think of when to play, any thoughts on other less obvious times to play would be good, how you make that decision.

Size of the ticket: This is a fairly large field, and outside of a few standout contenders for the win is fairly evenly matched for the lower slots. Not having played many supers I don't know for sure, but I am guessing that a big part of seperation from the crowd is the size of the ticket. There are 3X as many combinations as in an 8 horse field, so I would assume a 3X larger ticket would make good sense. With the added belief that the favorite could run out completely even increasing the ticket size some would seem reasonable. I would think a $300 or larger ticket would not be overkill, I'd like some thoughts on that, and if anyone has any sort of guidelines they use when it comes to ticket size.

Who to include in what slots: This is where I suppose the art of ticket structuring comes in, and where I am most at a loss...weighing the benefit of including more likely underlays with less likely overlays. Can't include everyone...so some thoughts on how you decide who goes where, how you try to balance the hit rate with the value.

Don't know if the above will help to get responses or not, but please feel free to chime in with anything, it's all good.

Chicken, take a look at the 5th race at Mnr on the 21st, that's exactly what I put into that super, nothing wrong with a $400 plus profit as it turned out but keep in mind I was thinking I could beat the chalk and was expecting a larger payoff. Hammerhead was in the war room when I posted it, granted nothing to brag about but by the same token I've taken down some huge ones with the same play, they all won't be that way.

T.D.

[chickenhead]

The other reason I chose the example race I did was because of the payoff...it was pretty nice...so consider it a fun test if you want, I would be impressed if any of you could put together a ticket with the info I gave and hit it without going too crazy on the size. My handicapping as expressed in the probabilites above was I think pretty good, certainly different enough from the public to make the big score possible.

[twindouble]

Val and Twin -- Ticket size in this kind of race, 10 horses with a questionable favorite, what size ticket do you think is reasonable? Sounds like twin you're saying like a 1X5X5X7 or something like that, $100? Would you feel comfortable adding more, or do you consider that chasing?

When it comes to wagering I measure the race a potential good payoff and go from there. My average play in the super is about $250, more if I think it warrents it. I've hit some with $120, some with $96. On the tris, I rarely go above $120, average is $60 but I have hit them many times with just $36, and I've surely have lost many as well. :cool:

[qhrick]

I want to bet this race!

Seems pretty obvious here, key 4 & 7 against the 10
You are indicating the 10 is a gross underlay with only about 1 chance in 5 of being in the tri and about a 30% chance of being in the super

I'd be inclined to leave the 10 out of just about any bet

For example, I'd likely play tri's keying 47/many/many, many/47/many
47/47/a 47/a/47 a/47/47

If your numbers play out right and 10 fails and you just happen to get both 4 & 7 in the number, will be a terrific race

Just 4 or 7 in the number, especially the 4, without the 10, will likely still yield a nice payout

[OTM Al]

My methods are much more simplistic than some I'm sure but when I make such bets (I'm more of an exacta, pick N player but will play a few tris and an occasional super). How I structure depends on field size. If the field is less than 6, I will not play a tri and may not even play an exacta. If the field is 6 or 7, I may play a tri if I love one horse and like 2 others. The bet will be a simple key A/B+C and I will hit it for $5 or $10 (I generally bet $20-$30 on a race that I am not playing a Pick N on to give some idea of scale). If the field is 8 or 9 I will play a tri, but almost never a super. I will play only if I have a very strong feeling for one horse, in which case I will play an A/B+C+D key for between $2 and $5 or an A/B+C+D+E key for $2. A can be the favorite, but in that case there will always be at least one long priced horse I like underneath. I may also play an A+B/A+B+C+D/A+B+C+D in these instances for a buck but usually here I am leaving the favorite out or relegating him underneath. When the field is 10 or more I usually play a A+B/A+B+C+D+E/A+B+C+D+E for a buck. The favorite can be used anywhere here or not at all depending on what I think of the field. This setup has gotten me some of my best payoffs, even with a favorite winning by hitting good longshots in second and third. This plus field size can "overcome" the tendency for lowered prices when the favorite finishes on top. In large fields where there is no clear cut favorite I will also occaisonally just box 4 horses for a buck.

For supers I won't play unless there is a field size of 10 or more, I like one or 2 a lot to win and really like one long priced horse to hit the board. Then I will play something like A+B/A+B+C+D+E/X/A+B+C+D+E and A+B/A+B+C+D+E/A+B+C+D+E/X. Usually one of the top 2 will also be a long priced horse. This is affordable, $48 for a buck bet, and gives enough spread for my comfort level. The only burn (and I remember it oh so well once with a 48-1) is when X hits second. I might play 1 super in a day where I have bet on upwards of 25 races, but I would say 2 out of 3 times I don't play this bet at all. I have to find that X horse that will run good but not too good. My bankroll isn't built for this type of bet and until recently since my main track is a NYRA track there was only 1 opportunity a day to go for this, so it is also a bet I don't feel confident about too often.

[chickenhead]

I'd be inclined to leave the 10 out of just about any bet


This is a pretty important point I'd like to hear more about from people....on my line he was the 6th ranked horse, but a huge underlay. Do we throw him out altogether, or include him in the lower rungs where I have him ranked?

We know that this type is going to run better on average than I have him ranked, but we also know that the juicy mutuels exist when he is missing altogether, as my line indicates he might be. There is no doubt we'd be losing hit rate by throwing him out completely, have you all found that it's a no brainer -- that the mutuels and ticket savings more than make up for it? After all, that is the main reason WHY we are getting involved in the first place.

[twindouble]

OTM;

So how is your wagering strategy working out for you?

If the field is less than 6, I will not play a tri and may not even play an exacta. quote; OTM;

I agree on the tri, most tracks cut it off when less than 6 horses anyway but why not play the exacta in a 5 horse field? ESP if you think the chalk can be soundly beat.


T.D.

[OTM Al]

I think the only way you can really answer that is how deep are you willing to go in a bet? If I can't get a tri down to 5 horses, I just won't play it. If you are willing to go six or more deep, then it is reasonable to include him on the lower rungs if you truly feel a longer priced horse is going to land on top. Like I said, I sure don't mind using underlays in tri bets if I feel pretty certain I am going to get value and thus make up for the underlay in the other spots. Displayed exacta prices are a decent proxy to make your rule of thumb decsions on using such underlays. If those prices, with the underlay finishing second are bad, then likely the tri prices with the same situation will be bad and as well as if the exacta prices for your top contenders being bad, the overlay in third won't help either. That would simply constitute a no play in my book. If on the other hand you have an underlay that you also think is the best horse in the field and you can identify 2 or 3 others that stand out as well, then it may well be worth hammering the bet.

[OTM Al]

TD

I have to go on my gut feeling here as even though I have been recording my bets, I haven't sat down and recorded them into my db in way to long, so I do't have up to date stats.

I will say my exacta betting has done pretty well, which is why that is my primary single race bet. I didn't say I wouldn't bet an exacta in a 5 or even 4 horse field, but when its that small I am going to hit it much harder than I normally do if I decide to play it. If I do, my standard would be a simple 2 horse box for $5-20, though depending how I feel about the lower odds horse of the two I may go $20 A-B and $5 or $10 B-A. In large fields I like to play a 3 horse box with at least 1 long priced horse for $2 and then a $5 box with 2 horses or something like A/B+C for $10 or $5, B+C/A for $5 or $2 and a B+C box for $2 where B and or C has a long price.

My exactas generally keep me in the plus neighborhood on my bankroll through the day. (I know I'm in trouble if I'm losing these). I use the tris generally to go for scores, so often, depending on how good or (at least of late) bad my pick Ns are going, it is the tri bets that make or break the day. The results that seem to me to have done the best for me are the A+B/A+B+C+D+E/A+B+C+D+E. I feel the most comfort and confidence setting those up, which may be why they seem to do the best for me. They are also probably around 75% of my tri plays. The 4 horse box is more of a crap shoot for me when there is a big field with no one that looks that great to me. More of an action bet really if I'm feeling daring, though I would say at least for this year so far I'm ahead on them, though we are talking a pretty small sample here. Now if I could get my P4s to do as well as I have been doing with funny money in the Aqueduct Inner contest I'd be sitting in the plus side for the YTD rather than -$6.45 down for the year (I do at least have that calc up to date!)

[fmhealth]

Mr Head, you pose a very interesting question. I've had a modicom of success visualizing races in a "contrary" manner. Meaning, I now look not primarily for ITM type runners, but runners that almost assuredly will run OTM.

By using this strategy I can determine if a "gimmick" wager is a reasoanble course of action. Today in the early races at GP & AQU there were quite a few races that fit this description. The good news is that I had a few Tri's, the bad news is so did almost everyone else & thus the payout was hardly worth the effort.

What I've found through trial & error, is that it's "easier" to spot losers than winners. So whenever I can reasonably toss a few horses, the betting tactic for that particular race becomes very clear.

Hope this helps a bit.

[twindouble]

Mr Head, you pose a very interesting question. I've had a modicom of success visualizing races in a "contrary" manner. Meaning, I now look not primarily for ITM type runners, but runners that almost assuredly will run OTM.

By using this strategy I can determine if a "gimmick" wager is a reasoanble course of action. Today in the early races at GP & AQU there were quite a few races that fit this description. The good news is that I had a few Tri's, the bad news is so did almost everyone else & thus the payout was hardly worth the effort.

What I've found through trial & error, is that it's "easier" to spot losers than winners. So whenever I can reasonably toss a few horses, the betting tactic for that particular race becomes very clear.

Hope this helps a bit.


fmhealth; I agree, the process of elimiation can vary from player to player.

I mentioned another thread where on another forum we had a contest, it pick a loser, if your horse hit the board you were out. What stood out was how quick the majority players got beat. Some of the horses did win and pay Boxcar prices. The one that beat me was over 20-1 and yes the sucker won.


T.D.

[chickenhead]

I'm going to try and summarize a little what I'm hearing here; I'm trying to extract some central principles.

When playing these type bets where you're playing multiple combinations, you are conceding that you don't expect or need to be right about everything -- but to get involved you need to be right about a few key things, and the size of your ticket beyond that controls how wrong you can be about everything else.

There are several circumstances where what you think, if right, can lead to good payoffs. The two that have been identified most prominently are:

(I think both of these require you to be right about TWO things each)

1.) A strong win opinion about a non-favored horse combined with a strong negative opinion of a favored horse.

2.) A strong win opinion about a favored horse combined with strong negative opinions about other low odds horses.

There are certainly other cases where tris and supers make good bets, but these are two very good ones to use as a reason to get involved, yes?

Should the ticket size/structure be any different for these two instances? The payouts vary so much it is hard for me to tell, sometimes I see huge payoffs where I did not expect them.

For case 1, seems like we'd want to play very thin in the first slot, and fairly broadly everywhere else, excluding the favorite that we hate. If we are right about these two things our main focus is on cashing the ticket, we don't want to be right about both and miss the big money for any reason.

For case 2, we are likely playing the top slot as a single, but the other slots we might not play so broadly as in case 1...we are keying the favorite here, and we don't necessarily love any bombs, we just don't like one or two of the middling horses. So I would think we'd want to go a little smaller here, exclude the horses we don't like, but have to be more right about our contenders to cash...but I'm not so sure about that, sometimes with the favorite if a bomb sneaks in you still get huge prices.

The BC Classic seems like the best example of case 2 paying big that comes to mind, I loved St. Liam and absolutely hated Borrego...Super Frolic sneaking in was all it took to send the payoff through the roof.

[qhrick]

This is a pretty important point I'd like to hear more about from people....on my line he was the 6th ranked horse, but a huge underlay. Do we throw him out altogether, or include him in the lower rungs where I have him ranked?

We know that this type is going to run better on average than I have him ranked, but we also know that the juicy mutuels exist when he is missing altogether, as my line indicates he might be. There is no doubt we'd be losing hit rate by throwing him out completely, have you all found that it's a no brainer -- that the mutuels and ticket savings more than make up for it? After all, that is the main reason WHY we are getting involved in the first place.

You raise a valid dilemma..
Do you totally and blindly trust you numbers or save with the probable over achievers against your analysis. Ugly results can occur of course if the 10 fires at all. Stuff in the tri like 4-10-bomb-7 or 4-7-10-bomb, etc, some form of 10 doing you in for a great result.
I'm not totally against saving something but the best result will never include the 10. Horses like the 10, where your opinion is so far off the publics, will probably run over you more often than your numbers suggest. So a small box of 4-7-10, or some inclusion of the 10 in spreads is OK. Probably the most staggering result here might be 4-7-10, with no exacta bet. You may want to play to make a decent profit should a result like that occur

But again, at some point it's about forming an opinion and playing it. Remember, you WILL be right some times.

I know one thing. I would LOVE to see a race like this all day long. I'll take my chances

[twindouble]

(I think both of these require you to be right about TWO things each)

1.) A strong win opinion about a non-favored horse combined with a strong negative opinion of a favored horse.

2.) A strong win opinion about a favored horse combined with strong negative opinions about other low odds horses.

There are certainly other cases where tris and supers make good bets, but these are two very good ones to use as a reason to get involved, yes?

Should the ticket size/structure be any different for these two instances? The payouts vary so much it is hard for me to tell, sometimes I see huge payoffs where I did not expect them.

For case 1, seems like we'd want to play very thin in the first slot, and fairly broadly everywhere else, excluding the favorite that we hate. If we are right about these two things our main focus is on cashing the ticket, we don't want to be right about both and miss the big money for any reason.

For case 2, we are likely playing the top slot as a single, but the other slots we might not play so broadly as in case 1...we are keying the favorite here, and we don't necessarily love any bombs, we just don't like one or two of the middling horses. So I would think we'd want to go a little smaller here, exclude the horses we don't like, but have to be more right about our contenders to cash...but I'm not so sure about that, sometimes with the favorite if a bomb sneaks in you still get huge prices. Quote; Chickenhead.
In your first example, that key horse with value is a great play but I've got beat on the win with my key playing the tri and supers in some cases it a a hd,or a bob or the horse got boxed in and ended up third. After all this is racing so I key wheel that horse with those others I deem contenders. In other cases where I think the horse will be clear and not get in trouble then I'll use him just 1st and second only. In that situation you can be assured I played the ex as well.

In your 2nd example to key in on the chalk in the tri in most cases your looking at a small payoff, unless those others have real good value. A key wheel with the chalk in the super is a better play in my opinion ESP when I think one or two in the race with value have a fair shot to beat him or be on the board.


T.D.

[Vegas711]

A long long time ago when i did tris, i would bet 1 horse on top , 3 or 4 horses for second and all for third.


Watch some races and you will see that there is very little effort to secure 4th place unless it is a graded race, otherwise no one really cares about comming in 4th and not to many riders will go all out for 3rd. Why waste a horse for 3rd place money. This is why you can not handicap 3rd place, any horse can run 3rd.

[toetoe]

If you're spreading at all, why bother with a field of six?

combinations in a field of:

6) 120(!);

9) 504 (better);

12) 1,320 (that's more like it!).

[chickenhead]

big fields are where it's at, don't think anyone disagrees with you there toe

[chickenhead]

Like I said earlier, I get a % for each horse to fill each slot, what I have been playing with is how to sort of automatically generate tickets depending on the situation.

In this case, in the race I show as an example, I am trying to beat the favorite out of the money, and I have a strong opinion about two horses, my two most likely horses are both overlays in the win pool.

I played with different prob. thresholds for each slot, for what the horses prob must be to get included in any particular slot...what I'm looking at are the natural chances of the horse (1/fieldsize) and setting a multiplier to that...for a race like this, with my handicapping style, I needed multipliers of 1.5 for the win slot, 1 for the place spot, 0.7 for the place and show.
This is just sort of setting the idea of going thin on top and wide everywhere else in stone, making it objective.

So:
my win slot horses have >15% chance to win
my place slot horses have >10% chance to place
my show slot horses have >7% chance to show
dittos for fourth.

This gives me 2X5X7 and 2X5X7X8 tickets if you throw the favorite out altogether, 2X5X8 and 2X5X8X9 if you leave him in.

This is kind of the ultimate in backfitting, looking at the big payoffs and seeing what ticket structure I would have needed to hit them, but I think it's a pretty good way to learn...especially if your handicapping is nailed down and done beforehand -- then you really are just isolating the ticket.

So, throwing the favorite out we get 4,7 / 2-5,7 / 1-5,7,8 / 1-8
tri costs $40
super costs $200

you can check the results Beu 2/22 race 8

7-5-1-6

tri: $756
super: $6825

What excites me about tris and supers is you only have to be right about a few key things. In this race I was right about the 7 horse, I was right about the 5 being a contender, and I was right that the 10 was a dog. I was wrong about pretty much everything else, but with a logical ticket could easily have caught a $7K payday. Pretty cool!

[twindouble]

A long long time ago when i did tris, i would bet 1 horse on top , 3 or 4 horses for second and all for third.


Watch some races and you will see that there is very little effort to secure 4th place unless it is a graded race, otherwise no one really cares about comming in 4th and not to many riders will go all out for 3rd. Why waste a horse for 3rd place money. This is why you can not handicap 3rd place, any horse can run 3rd.

Right on, when it comes to going deep in the super. What troubled me some was going into the war room with those plays, with all those numbers I was posting I'm sure it looked like I wasn't handicapping, just getting lucky or taking a shot and losing. Well, on the 5th super the 21st, I told hammerhead the chalk was going to fade to 4th where I used him and he ended up 5th but close so I felt a little better on that one. :cool:

T.D.

[twindouble]

If you're spreading at all, why bother with a field of six?

combinations in a field of:

6) 120(!);

9) 504 (better);

12) 1,320 (that's more like it!).


Here again Toe that's right on, I don't play the supers in short fields, I'm more apt to zero in on the exacta and a win play.


T.D.

[facorsig]

I was playing the superfecta seriously for about six months last year. I set the minimum field size at 8 and was really looking for the 10 - 12 horse fields.

You must play all horses in the 4th position (from rank favorite to total bomb). Too many things can happen.

Ticket structure should be pyramid. Avoid boxing. Put one or two horses you like on top over three or four over four or five. Don't be afraid to have $250 in a single ticket. It's when I have $75 in a ticket that I don't like my chances.

Superfecta payoffs range from a minimum of 1.25x trifecta payoff to over 50x trifecta payoff. The superfecta average was 7.1x the trifecta average for the same races.

The intriguing aspect of the superfecta is the potential to take down the whole pool. 5% of the time, the super pays with ALL or ALL/ALL at the bottom. These are cases where no one had a winning ticket. Many of the tickets involve a 4-1 or 5-1 on top with a 25-1 or so somewhere in the mix.

Hope this helps.

[superfecta]

Rehash alert....I think the superfecta is a very misunderstood bet and is looked at as a Sucker bet by most experts.I also think is also can be one of the most widely abused bets by those who play them.Large tickets are not the way I would bet any race.I prefer small tickets,and concentrate on races that have logical contenders at inflated odds.So it means passing races that you would have won,but it would have been more risk than reward.I've seen bettors place a $120 ticket hit the super and gloat when they hit a 1000 dollar super cause that 20/1 shot they liked won the race.
Ive lost many close finishes for the big bucks,but I think going too deep will ultimately cost you in the big picture.Its really hard to take when you could have bet another $24 and caught that $5000 super,but how can you be sure that was the race you would have won,making a great score,or the next one or the hundreth one that you tossed in that extra $24?
I also realize my strength in handicapping a race.I can spot that three legged mule that will stagger in the money,yet i cant get that solid 3/1 shot that wires the field.So that has to be factored into your style of play.Can you spot those iffy horses that can land in the money?If you can't ,a super bet may not be part of your plans.No shame in that,everyone has strengths and weaknesses .The trick is to use them most efficiently.
The most simple structure i can recommend is to look at a super as a exacta+2 bet.First see if you have a handle on the winner and second place contenders.If there are more than four horses,stop right there and rethink betting the super.Also look at your contenders odds,if they are short,stop right there.No glory in betting the morning line.So get a handle on the top two finishers,with maybe a backup second place horse or a reverse finish.Then look at that third slot as horses that dont really figure but on the most simplest terms i.e.cheap speed that cant win,or slow closers.ditto for fourth.the odds should be a factor,but the value comes from your winner and place horse,dont pick just longshots just because the odds are big,the horse should show something.Also dont be afraid to stick in a short priced horse because you dont think it can win.Remember,the odds are for win not third or fourth.And dont go too deep,thats what affects your bottom line.Some guys will punch all in the bottom slots and the added cost is what can keep them from losing and showing a profit,no matter how small.
And the most important part is tracking your picks and payoffs,finding what tracks you can beat ,what races you cant.Theres always another race coming up.No need to bet every race that has potential,have a reason to play the super,and be willing to stand on your picks.If you lose by a nose,accept it and move on,dont play woulda coulda shoulda.

[twindouble]

superfecta;

I come close to a good one last night in the 9th at Mnr. I ran the race over and over in my mind and I was convinced the speed would fold up, I put 4 stalkers and closers on top with the speed for 3rd and 4th. There was one other that had been running route races so I figured he could pick up the pieces and hit the board so I also used that one 3rd and 4th also, well the speed did fold and that sucker come on to win the race at 65-1, it was the first 3 and all. My mistake in that race was not going by my gut on how I saw the race unfolding, in hind sight I should have just tossed the speed intirely, in essence I'm saying I had the race pegged but put together the wrong wager. :bang:


T.D.

[superfecta]

superfecta;

I come close to a good one last night in the 9th at Mnr. I ran the race over and over in my mind and I was convinced the speed would fold up, I put 4 stalkers and closers on top with the speed for 3rd and 4th. There was one other that had been running route races so I figured he could pick up the pieces and hit the board so I also used that one 3rd and 4th also, well the speed did fold and that sucker come on to win the race at 65-1, it was the first 3 and all. My mistake in that race was not going by my gut on how I saw the race unfolding, in hind sight I should have just tossed the speed intirely, in essence I'm saying I had the race pegged but put together the wrong wager. :bang:


T.D.It may be a mental defect on my part,but when that happens to me I take solace in the fact that I had a handle on the race,just didnt get it all together,and I will eventually.Its what keeps me from going on tilt and chasing races.I have missed more than one life changing score by not sticking to my first impression of the race,so let it go and you will catch one that leaves others scratching their heads. ;)

[twindouble]

It may be a mental defect on my part,but when that happens to me I take solace in the fact that I had a handle on the race,just didnt get it all together,and I will eventually.Its what keeps me from going on tilt and chasing races.I have missed more than one life changing score by not sticking to my first impression of the race,so let it go and you will catch one that leaves others scratching their heads. ;)

No, not mental defect, I do the same thing. After a lose I can get right back into a race with a clear mind.

One other thing, I enjoy listing to the woulda, coulda shoulda stories and telling them doesn't mean your a loser, not by a long shot. Not only that the majority of them are true, you name it and it can happen playing this game. Here's just one example of so many. I had my mind on one race, here we are at the track, my race was the 6th, route race on the turf didn't spend any time looking at the 5th, just chewing the fat. My buddy Steve was an action player and asked me to look at it. Within 5 min I give him a key with two in the exacta and with time running out he ran up and played it. The more I thought about the race I'm thinking I should have had him bet it for me, I looked up and they are in the gate, the tote shocked me, the key was 22-1 and the other two were long as well. The exacta came back $385, for me that would have been a $38 hundred dollar score and I lost the 6th. :bang:

Fun game, isn't it.


T.D.

[oddswizard]

Trifecta play is simple for me. I play my top 3 horses only. I believe in my handicapping ability regardless of the field size. Here is the one rule I use. One of my top 3 selections must be 8-1 or more. So I handicap the race for my top 3 horses and the odds tell me if I have a pass or play race. Here is how I structure my ticket. I usually play a $20.00 trifecta. I play a $1.00 box (ABC). Then I play a $14.00 one way trifecta A/B/C/. When my horses come in I will win the trifecta at least one time. About twice a week they will run in the exact order. Then I hit the trifecta 15 times. Once on the ABC box +14 times on the one way ticket. 15 trifectas for a modest $20.00 wager isn't too bad. So my job is to handicap and let the odds tell me what to do.

[Indulto]

Originally posted by oddswizard (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/member.php?u=1436):
Here is how I structure my ticket. I usually play a $20.00 trifecta. I play a $1.00 box (ABC). Then I play a $14.00 one way trifecta A/B/C/. When my horses come in I will win the trifecta at least one time. About twice a week they will run in the exact order. Then I hit the trifecta 15 times. Once on the ABC box +14 times on the one way ticket. 15 trifectas for a modest $20.00 wager isn't too bad. So my job is to handicap and let the odds tell me what to do.
OW,
How did you arrive at the 14+1 strategy? Also, I assume if you’re hitting so frequently, the favorite is in there somewhere. Can you give us some idea of what % of the time the favorite finishes 1st, 2nd, or 3rd when you hit?

[oddswizard]

I came up with the formula when I discovered my horses were running in the exact order (ABC) more often than is normal. I wanted to maximize my return with small wagers so I decided to make this play based on a $20.00 bet. I started with a $10.00 wager. ($1.00 box for $6.00 and 4 1 way wagers. After this started winning I decided to try and crush the trifecta and thus the current formula. I don't get a lot of plays due the 8-1 minimum odds. But when it hits-WOW! I don't keep records on how many of the horses are the favorites. If I have a favorite it is o.k. due to the longshot in the race. I list my horses in exact order that I think they will run so I bet them the same way. Most of the time the favorite will be one of my selections. I don't pay too much attention to the actual % of favorites. Probably because I hate favorites! Sorry about that.