Straight Trifectas?

[Cesario!]

Has anyone has any long-term success playing straight trifectas? Not boxing, not keying, but just playing top 3 -- considering, of course, pace, etc...

I sometimes feel as if boxing and keying are just ways to insure a short-term payoff with negative long-term consquences. That said, I find myself arguing for the limits of human cognition and the ability to see "ranges" as opposed to "exacts." I just wonder if it's more profitable -- and, of course, it depends on the player -- to trust those hunches of likliehood.

This can (and will) be database tested, but I'm looking for reactions from others -- less statistics, and more "feelings."

[kitts]

I have tested and retested and retested Trifectas and finally realized that I need to get way better at Exactas to succeed. Boxing, keying, wheeling or straight-not a good bet for me. The few publications on bet structure pretty much say get the first two horses (exacta) and then fool around.

[traynor]

The stricter the pattern used habitually, the longer the profits long-term. Occasional windfalls notwithstanding, wheels, part-wheels, and boxes are rarely profitable for more than short periods, or seem to be profitable only when the sample contains outliers.

If you mix a couple of $2000 tris in a sample of a few thousand races, you can get almost any kind of numbers out. What those numbers mean, if anythng, is much less clear. Unless the $2000 tris repeat, a model that looks profitable can be used to lose large amounts.

Cold tris seem too difficult for most, primarily because there may be long runs between wins. The most productive pattern we have found is ABC + ACB + BAC. It has a lot of advantages, not the least of which is that it will get enough small ones to keep wins relatively frequent, while some of the BACs are substantial. Especially when the crowd is "positive" one entry will win, and overbets it in win position but not in place position.
Good Luck!

[RaceIsClosed]

Has anyone has any long-term success playing straight trifectas? Not boxing, not keying, but just playing top 3 -- considering, of course, pace, etc...

I sometimes feel as if boxing and keying are just ways to insure a short-term payoff with negative long-term consquences. That said, I find myself arguing for the limits of human cognition and the ability to see "ranges" as opposed to "exacts." I just wonder if it's more profitable -- and, of course, it depends on the player -- to trust those hunches of likliehood.

This can (and will) be database tested, but I'm looking for reactions from others -- less statistics, and more "feelings."

I find my ROI betting cold combinations is higher than when I box or part-wheel, and generally bet that way.

The difficult part is when you get something like happened to me at Delaware in the fourth on Saturday, a "female amateur riders race" I had not been aware of, where the #9 horse lost by a nose, costing me a $55.00 double, a $75.00 pick-3, a $208.00 exacta, a $31.00 DD and $129.00 pick-3 going forward, plus a middle pick-3 I didn't bother to calculate.

If you can handle that, you'll do fine betting cold.

[oddswizard]

I prefer a combination of straight play and boxing. Here is a nice $10.00 ticket:

I list my top 3 selections ABC. I play only when one of my horses is 8-1 or more. I play a $1.00 box ABC (cost $6.00). Then I add a $4.00 one way ABC. If any combination of ABC wins I will hit the trifecta. If it comes in exactly ABC I win the trifecta 5 times. Not bad for $10.00.
To increase the earnings simply increase the total amount bet to $20.00 or more. This ticket will give you a big bang for a small amount. Bet a little to win a lot! Good luck.

[andicap]

I'm a real fan of trifecta as a show bet when I have a good longshot. Generally about 8-1 depending on field size. I'll play when the odds are less if I really love the horse and there are some price horses I like 1st and 2nd or the chalk is false.

Typically I'll invest $6 (unless the race is more wide open and the prices are juicier).

Say my picks are ABC and the longshot is C

A/BDEF/C
B/AD/C

A wide open race or huge odds on the C might also bring me to

D/AB/C

I won't play if A and B are the two favorites unless C is a real bomb.
D won't necessariy be my 4th choice, but often the best "counter" horse in terms of pace/energy. E and F also might be unknowns, horses that are hard to evaluate for whatever reasons.

I'll use that in connection with my usual exacta and win plays tho of course keeping separate records for each play/pool.

[ratpack]

I have tested and retested and retested Trifectas and finally realized that I need to get way better at Exactas to succeed. Boxing, keying, wheeling or straight-not a good bet for me. The few publications on bet structure pretty much say get the first two horses (exacta) and then fool around.

I think I remember reading in one of Dick Mitchell's books saying until you learn how to pick the 2nd horse in a race you have no business betting Tri's or supers. Basically saying master Exacta's first before you move on

[RaceIsClosed]

I think I remember reading in one of Dick Mitchell's books saying until you learn how to pick the 2nd horse in a race you have no business betting Tri's or supers. Basically saying master Exacta's first before you move on

If you can master the win pool, you can repeat the process out to the last finisher. The real skill required is being able to evaluate horses better than the public.