P3s, big track or small?

[cj]

I have definitely come to the conclusion that the small tracks offer way bigger value. Example today, Races 1, 2, 3 at Calder today. The winners were 3-1, 5-1, and 2-1. The payout was...$2 Pick 3$1,729.60.

You, never, ever, ever, ever see this at a NYRA or SoCal track. EVER! It is even better if you are playing at Pinnacle. However, at the smaller ones, it is actually not that rare. The downside of course is that you can't really play combos for more than a few dollars.

Just curious what others think.

[bigmack]

I was playing that P3 when the weathr conditions told me to save the loot.

Where that early 3 pool normally generates $15k give or take today it topped off @ $6800.
I trust others felt the same about the foul weather.

[banacek]

I have definitely come to the conclusion that the small tracks offer way bigger value. Example today, Races 1, 2, 3 at Calder today. The winners were 3-1, 5-1, and 2-1. The payout was...$2 Pick 3$1,729.60.



And the Pick 4 (Races 1-4) with a 7-2 horse in the 4th apparently had no winners (Only paid 3 of 4) Pick-4 pool $7590.

[karlskorner]

And all of the above happened today at CRC during a very heavy rainstorm, impossible to see across the track during the 2nd and 3rd races. I wouldn't trust the charts for most of the day. Jocks were riding blind. Lots of slipping and sliding, probably the answer to the above payouts.

[rgustafson]

CJ, with these small pools, you never know from day to day. I play at Cby and sometimes if the favorites are out of all three legs, you get a good payoff. The opposite can happen when a long shot that a few sharp players have wins one leg and favorites win the other two, thepayoff is less than you thought. With small pools, funny things happen.

[schweitz]

I have definitely come to the conclusion that the small tracks offer way bigger value. Example today, Races 1, 2, 3 at Calder today. The winners were 3-1, 5-1, and 2-1. The payout was...$2 Pick 3$1,729.60.

You, never, ever, ever, ever see this at a NYRA or SoCal track. EVER! It is even better if you are playing at Pinnacle. However, at the smaller ones, it is actually not that rare. The downside of course is that you can't really play combos for more than a few dollars.

Just curious what others think.

You are absolutely correct. As I have stated before, my only wagers are pick 3 wagers and I have concentrated on small tracks because of the reasons you mention and because that is where I find the cheap claiming races that is my bread and butter. Where else can you sometimes take down the whole pool or cash a 2 of 3 ticket?


I will disagree that you can't play large combos. I hit a high percentage of my wagers and many pay less than what I put into them, but this allows me to catch some of those whoppers that easily make up for the others.

[traynor]

I have definitely come to the conclusion that the small tracks offer way bigger value. Example today, Races 1, 2, 3 at Calder today. The winners were 3-1, 5-1, and 2-1. The payout was...$2 Pick 3$1,729.60.

You, never, ever, ever, ever see this at a NYRA or SoCal track. EVER! It is even better if you are playing at Pinnacle. However, at the smaller ones, it is actually not that rare. The downside of course is that you can't really play combos for more than a few dollars.

Just curious what others think.

That isn't much of a downside. It is often possible to make a major profit at smaller tracks with a relatively modest bet of $20-30, spread over a couple of combinations.

A question. You have emphasized that 90% of your wagers are win. Do you regard your exotic wagers as a separate thread, or do you tend to key your win selection? That is, do you regard the wagers as "separate," and only related by the fact that they are in the same race, or that you would be "betting against yourself" if you bet one entry to win, and another as the key for win in exotics?

It is not a casual question. I think a lot of people would do a lot better in their wagering if they got away from some of the "old ideas" that have been so deeply ingrained that they are beyond questioning (or critical review).
Good Luck

[cj]

When I play P3s, I am usually doing it blindly, playing EvD or Pen before I go to bed. I actually never play them when I'm playing live. I usually don't have time to handicap ahead of time in that situation.

As to Schweitz: I will disagree that you can't play large combos.

I was talking about playing say a $10 P3, not spreading out in the P3. At big tracks you can do that and get the payoff 5 times. At the smaller tracks, I don't think it is worth it. I play $1, $2, or $3 tickets max. Is this what you meant?

[schweitz]

When I play P3s, I am usually doing it blindly, playing EvD or Pen before I go to bed. I actually never play them when I'm playing live. I usually don't have time to handicap ahead of time in that situation.

As to Schweitz:

I was talking about playing say a $10 P3, not spreading out in the P3. At big tracks you can do that and get the payoff 5 times. At the smaller tracks, I don't think it is worth it. I play $1, $2, or $3 tickets max. Is this what you meant?


You are correct---I mostly play $ 1 pick 3s and will go deep when necessary ( multiple contender or no contender races).

[bigmack]

And the Pick 4 (Races 1-4) with a 7-2 horse in the 4th apparently had no winners (Only paid 3 of 4) Pick-4 pool $7590.
Hey Bana, you got some splaining to do on the new avatar

[banacek]

Hey Bana, you got some splaining to do on the new avatar

Hey, just to show you that I've got nothing against female jockeys;)

[Zman179]

I was talking about playing say a $10 P3, not spreading out in the P3. At big tracks you can do that and get the payoff 5 times. At the smaller tracks, I don't think it is worth it. I play $1, $2, or $3 tickets max. Is this what you meant?

If I were you, I wouldn't hesitate to play pick 3's at small tracks for $8 or $10 combos. I've been playing these types of wagers for many years at the small tracks, and even when I hit a pick 3 for a $6 or $8 ticket, the payoff generally comes back what I thought it should've paid. A $8 or $10 ticket wouldn't adversely affect a $5,000 win pool, thus it shouldn't affect a pick 3 pool of the same size.

Personally, I prefer pick 3/4 pools that are $2,500 or more. It gives you a chance at a big, though not humongous, score just by either eliminating one stone cold chalk or by finding a nice longshot. Also, you can get 2 of 3 easily when you're not quite correct with some nice priced horses.

One time, in a miniscule $1,000 pick 3 pool at Vernon Downs, I had the only $1 winning ticket in the pool with three 4/1 shots (invested $7 on a 1xALLx1 ticket.) Got back $777 for a dollar. You think that I could EVER get a payoff like that at NYRA? Hell no! Also, I once had a $8 winning p3 ticket in a $3,000 pool. After I did the calculations by the pool data from Equibase, if I had played a $2 ticket I would have had to report it to the IRS. But with an $8 ticket, it reduced the payoff to just below the 300/1 threshold. That alone was worth the extra six bucks.

[betovernetcapper]

I checked out the charts for Calder yesterday and the high pay off prob' had something to do with the horses that didn't win. In races 1 and 2 the 8-5 favorites lost and in the 3rd the 2.10 to 1 co-favorite lost. I think most people constructing a multiple race bet throw in in the favorite automaticly and when they don't win they take a huge part of the pool with them. :)

[kenwoodallpromos]

I checked out the charts for Calder yesterday and the high pay off prob' had something to do with the horses that didn't win. In races 1 and 2 the 8-5 favorites lost and in the 3rd the 2.10 to 1 co-favorite lost. I think most people constructing a multiple race bet throw in in the favorite automaticly and when they don't win they take a huge part of the pool with them. :)
__________
That goes to show you that I don't know much about exotics! I would have guessed everyone was playing loingshots in the rain in pick 3's!

[rrbauer]

It's a pretty simple matter to determine what bigger bets (more winning combinations) would do to a "small" pool. Determine the net pool ((1 - takepct) X gross pool). Then divide that by the payout figure (for $1) to determine the number of winning combinations/tickets.

Say the take is 20% and the gross pool is $5000. .80 X $5000 = $4000 net pool. Say the winning combo pays $160. 4000/160 = 25 winning combinations.

So, what would happen to the payout price if there were 5 more winning combinations (30 in total)? 4000/30 = $133. 10 more winning combinations (35 in total)? 4000/35 = $114.

As someone pointed out the trick is to get the favs out of there. Even getting one very short fav out of a multi-race bet gets the bet into overlay territory. For example, in yesterday's Saratoga late P4 with a $1.4 million pool, the next lowest P4 payoff after Bernardini ($29) was Bluegrass Cat paying $109. This was with 3-1, 3/5 and 7/10 winners leading into the final leg.

[classhandicapper]

If the pools are small enough to create such crazy prices on logical horses, I can almost guarantee there will be occasional times where you catch a few live longshots and you get back peanuts compared to what you expected.

I think if there are inefficiencies in these pools you have to identify the public betting patterns to exploit them. Otherwise, the take is the take. There's no way around it. In the long run the payoffs will equal out. The great payoffs will be offset by occasional very disappointing ones.

The downside of these bets is that you don't know if you are getting an overlay or underlay on any individual ticket because you can't see the prices beforehand. That's also the strength, but only if you know what the public tends to do wrong and can predict where the value might be.

[cj]

The downside of these bets is that you don't know if you are getting an overlay or underlay on any individual ticket because you can't see the prices beforehand. That's also the strength, but only if you know what the public tends to do wrong and can predict where the value might be.

I don't see this as a downside, especially for a handicapper that studies the track. You can't see the prices, but neither can your competition. It is actually more of an upside.

[classhandicapper]

I don't see this as a downside, especially for a handicapper that studies the track. You can't see the prices, but neither can your competition. It is actually more of an upside.

I agree you can gain an edge if you bring something to the table.

I liken it to a scenario where I made win bets, but no one got to see the win odds. I would feel pretty lost unless I could predict how the public was likely to bet. I don't think I could win as much without bringing that skill to the table. I would wind up on lots of underlays. I CAN win now in a situation where everyone gets to see the odds because I can do more with knowledge of the odds than the average Joe Blow.

So I agree with you that everyone is in the same boat, but unless I bring something to the table with regard to the typical multi-race betting patterns and have some "probable odds" making ability, I think I am probably at a disadvantage relative to knowing the odds. Some people playing these bets certainly have that knowledge and most of the rest of them are doing the same idiotic things they always do despite the odds being too.

Then again I could be underestimating or overestimating the public. :D

[rrbauer]

Back in the early-90's I did a study of P3 payoffs in relation to ML odds and racetime odds in order to determine if the P3 bet had intrinsic value relative to win parlays on the winning horses; and, to see if there was sufficient information to develop good estimates of P3 payout prices. This was at the SoCal tracks and at that time they did not have rolling P3's but did have about three p3's per day. These are not "small" pool tracks when it comes to "Pick" bets. One of the results from the study simply confirmed my hunch that favorites are grossly overplayed in the P3's.

Another result was the realization that longshots are also overplayed in the P3's. It doesn't take many "moonshooters" betting a few dollars on longshot combinations to suck the value out of those plays; however, there is still tremendous monetary utility in holding one of those tickets when they hit.

Today with so much simulcasting and account wagering with most people looking at the same handicapping data, the favs are even more overbet and it has always amazed me that players will continue to play those favs in succession with each other when they have to know that 1) the probability is very low that a fav will win in each leg (try .33 x .33 x .33 to approximate their chances); and 2) if the favs do win all the legs, the payoff price will be very small, much smaller than the approx 27-1 needed to make the price a "fair" payoff in this example.

The one thing that I'm seeing today based upon "will pay" prices that are posted before the 3rd leg of a P3 is run, that was not true a number of years ago, is that a bet-down favorite in the 3rd leg will also have its P3 price bet down whereas the other horses in the race will have P3 prices more in line with their ML odds. It would appear that more "win" money is being bet on these horse via the multi-race pools today as compared to say 10 years ago when a bet down in the win pool wasn't nearly as evident in the multi-race pool.

[bigmack]

Today with so much simulcasting and account wagering with most people looking at the same handicapping data, the favs are even more overbet and it has always amazed me that players will continue to play those favs in succession with each other when they have to know that 1) the probability is very low that a fav will win in each leg (try .33 x .33 x .33 to approximate their chances); and 2) if the favs do win all the legs, the payoff price will be very small, much smaller than the approx 27-1 needed to make the price a "fair" payoff in this example.
Insightful post RB - Thanks

[schweitz]

Most people will tell you to pass a pick-3 if one of the races has an overwhelming favorite. Most of the time good advice, but here is an example from tonight that had one leg won by a 1/5 favorite and still paid well.

Retama Park pick-3 for races 7,8,9

Race 7 played 2 horses winner won at 4 to 1

Race 8 played 1 horse winner won at 1/5 to 1

Race 9 played all (10) winner won at 25 to 1


The key that made this a playable pick-3 for me was race 9---a really ugly no clue who was gonna win kind of race. Ten horses--seven I could see might win somehow---3 no way. I learned a long time ago in this kind of race play all of them (just $6 dollars more for all instead of playing 7). You guessed it, one of the no ways wins.

The payoff---$222.80 for a $20 wager. If all 3 favorites win---I probably wouldn't get back my $20 but I did look at the willpays before the last race and if the favorite wins the last leg it would have paid $37. I play this kind of pick-3 every time I find it.

[rrbauer]

schweitz wrote:
"The key that made this a playable pick-3 for me was race 9---a really ugly no clue who was gonna win kind of race. Ten horses--seven I could see might win somehow---3 no way. I learned a long time ago in this kind of race play all of them (just $6 dollars more for all instead of playing 7). You guessed it, one of the no ways wins.

The payoff---$222.80 for a $20 wager. If all 3 favorites win---I probably wouldn't get back my $20 but I did look at the willpays before the last race and if the favorite wins the last leg it would have paid $37. I play this kind of pick-3 every time I find it."

Comments:
Payoff was an overlay. Having the 1/5 in the middle helped....what was its morning line? I agree with your strategy to press "All" when you've come up with 7 in a 10-horse field. We probably can tell some of the same horror stories over those times when you tried to outsmart yourself and left a couple out in order to save a few bucks!

[classhandicapper]

I guess the smallest bettors always include the favorite and often wheel races for equal amounts. That would account for both favorites and big longshots being overbet. The sweet spot may be in the middle.

I can tell you one thing from my observations of doubles and knowing the typical losses at various odds.

Odds on favorites tend to outperform the take. So "in theory" if you were to hook two of them together in a double and they were bet in equal proportion to the win pools, you should get fairly close to break even. It would be approximately equal to a parlay where you were paying a slightly higher take on the first one, but then parlaying into a take free (and profitable) 2nd horse (if the 2nd horse outperforms the take and you are paying no take, that means you are getting an overlay).

The reality is that people OVERBET those combinations in doubles relative to the win odds. So the net effect is that the losses are more in line with the take. (I know this wasn't very clear).

[Valuist]

CJ, with these small pools, you never know from day to day. I play at Cby and sometimes if the favorites are out of all three legs, you get a good payoff. The opposite can happen when a long shot that a few sharp players have wins one leg and favorites win the other two, thepayoff is less than you thought. With small pools, funny things happen.

I've definitely noticed this is true at Cby. I finally quit playing their P3s because they just seemed to have to many underlaid payoffs. Their overlay payoffs seem to be when you have a bunch of 2-1s and 5-2s winning and it pays $100. I think their P3 pools are just too small. I'm planning on playing Hoosier this fall and their pools aren't too big but a little bigger than Cby. It seems like at these smaller tracks, you just can't spread out too much. Play small tickets and never use more than 1 favorite.

[schweitz]

[QUOTE=rrbauer

Comments:
Payoff was an overlay. Having the 1/5 in the middle helped....what was its morning line? I agree with your strategy to press "All" when you've come up with 7 in a 10-horse field. We probably can tell some of the same horror stories over those times when you tried to outsmart yourself and left a couple out in order to save a few bucks![/QUOTE]

Morning line on the odds on was 2 to 1. It was so far the best horse in the race that the only way it could lose is if the jockey falls off. ;)
You are correct---I learned the hard way about trying to save a few bucks in a chaotic race.

[DrugSalvastore]

My favorite pick three scenerio is when I love a horse at better than 6/1 odds in the first leg.

And

In the remaining two legs, I despise a favorite in one race, and I'm very confident a short priced favorite is a VERY likely winner in the other leg.

For Example.

* Leg 1- Love 10/1 shot. (I will single him.) It's my belief that you get better value when you can get your price in the first leg. Many people who like a 6/5 shot, but don't want to bet $40 to win on it because of the paltry return, will instead single it in the first leg, and spread behind it, trying to make something out of nothing. Meanwhile, if the same guy likes the 10/1 shot, he's most likely going to bet it to win or key it exactas and tri's.

* Leg 2- Hate 4/5 favorite. (I will throw him out alltogether, and take five horses who I feel have the best chance of upsetting him.)

* Leg 3- Very solid 4/5 shot. (I will single him.)

So, this is a 1 X 5 X 1 ticket. You can play a $20 pick 3 and the ticket will come to just $100.

They obviously aren't that easy to hit, but they are very rewarding when you do.

However, like CJ says, you don't want to be playing $10 and $20 pick 3's at small or even medium size tracks.

[schweitz]

My favorite pick three scenerio is when I love a horse at better than 6/1 odds in the first leg.

And

In the remaining two legs, I despise a favorite in one race, and I'm very confident a short priced favorite is a VERY likely winner in the other leg.

For Example.

* Leg 1- Love 10/1 shot. (I will single him.) It's my belief that you get better value when you can get your price in the first leg. Many people who like a 6/5 shot, but don't want to bet $40 to win on it because of the paltry return, will instead single it in the first leg, and spread behind it, trying to make something out of nothing. Meanwhile, if the same guy likes the 10/1 shot, he's most likely going to bet it to win or key it exactas and tri's.

* Leg 2- Hate 4/5 favorite. (I will throw him out alltogether, and take five horses who I feel have the best chance of upsetting him.)

* Leg 3- Very solid 4/5 shot. (I will single him.)

So, this is a 1 X 5 X 1 ticket. You can play a $20 pick 3 and the ticket will come to just $100.

They obviously aren't that easy to hit, but they are very rewarding when you do.

However, like CJ says, you don't want to be playing $10 and $20 pick 3's at small or even medium size tracks.


I would hope you would also have some win money on your 10/1 horse.

[twindouble]

I've been playing the smaller tracks from day one.:cool: Finger Lakes, Rockingham when it was running thoroughbreds, the other tracks no longer exist. I latched on to Mountaineer in the last couple years, not that I don't take a shot at other tracks, what I liked about Mnr was the year round meet. This thread is a little disturbing to me knowing all you astute handicappers are part of my competition. I'll have to take what I'm doing more seriously from here on.:p

At a given point I really liked Belmont and Aqueduct, ESP the turf racing but of late to me they don't compare to what they used to be. Have to admit, with this online wagering the temptation to try other tracks was hard to resist, so I ended up churning money, spinning my wheels going nowhere. Disgusted with that last year I went back to my home tracks and lucked out a Belmont with one good score. I think I have Mnr down pretty good now but I know how important it is to take down a good score to create that cushion so what got my attention was Del Mar with their frequent carryovers in the pick 6 and good payoffs in the other picks. Cal tracks have always been a frustration to me, in the hunt most of the time but no cigar on the big ones. That track challenges me to continue for that reason, maybe not good idea to get stubborn about it but I guess I won't be happy until something good happens. :bang: Calder and Gulfstream was a roller coaster ride fairly good scores here and there but no consistency to brag about.


Good luck,

T.D.

[Light]

Example today, Races 1, 2, 3 at Calder today. The winners were 3-1, 5-1, and 2-1. The payout was...[b]$2 Pick 3$1,729.60.

Just curious what others think.

The reason you get these kinds of payoffs is the ML. The ML of these 3 winners were 6-1(4th rank),10-1(7th rank) and 6-1(4th rank). The P3 payoff was as if these horses paid their ML odds. I find this true at most tracks,big or little.Allthough you are right that the bigger tracks wouldn't pay this much,with those ML odds,they'd pay better than you think. The opposite is also true. Overlaid horses with small ML odds do not pay as expected in P3's.Alot of times,they don't even pay what a straight parlay would pay.

[classhandicapper]

The reason you get these kinds of payoffs is the ML. The ML of these 3 winners were 6-1(4th rank),10-1(7th rank) and 6-1(4th rank). The P3 payoff was as if these horses paid their ML odds. I find this true at most tracks,big or little.Allthough you are right that the bigger tracks wouldn't pay this much,with those ML odds,they'd pay better than you think. The opposite is also true. Overlaid horses with small ML odds do not pay as expected in P3's.Alot of times,they don't even pay what a straight parlay would pay.

That's the kind of insight I believe is very valuable when you are betting blind.

[Valuist]

Betting blind can be a very good thing. Some of my biggest scores were betting blind. But most importantly, when you bet blind, you are making prime plays. I don't think many people make "action bets" when betting blind.

[cj]

I just hit a P3 at RD betting blind, and took down the pool via Pinnacle. Winners were 34-1, 8-1, and 2-1. MLs were 20-1, 4-1, and 8-1.

I'm with DrugS on this one, the sequence of winners is more important than the morning line, though both had to help in this case. I have noticed if the big price is first, the payoff is best. It isn't as good in second, and if in the third leg, it is almost like getting a longshot in the tri under two favorites.

[formula_2002]

I have definitely come to the conclusion that the small tracks offer way bigger value. Example today, Races 1, 2, 3 at Calder today. The winners were 3-1, 5-1, and 2-1. The payout was...$2 Pick 3$1,729.60.

You, never, ever, ever, ever see this at a NYRA or SoCal track. EVER! It is even better if you are playing at Pinnacle. However, at the smaller ones, it is actually not that rare. The downside of course is that you can't really play combos for more than a few dollars.

Just curious what others think.
Hold on here...I just read this note for the 1st time.
If anything like the above payoff was remotely typical of ANY track in say the last five years, I have got to believe it would have caught my interest (let alone a lot of guys smarter than me).

So can we say it's atypical?.
If it's typical, impress me with some data..
Thanks
Joe M

[classhandicapper]

I have noticed if the big price is first, the payoff is best. It isn't as good in second, and if in the third leg, it is almost like getting a longshot in the tri under two favorites.

That's interesting because I would have guessed the first race would be the most efficient because everyone can see the odds in that race before betting.

[cj]

...
If it's typical, impress me with some data..
Thanks
Joe M

No time, I'm too busy betting.

[classhandicapper]

Hold on here...I just read this note for the 1st time.
If anything like the above payoff was remotely typical of ANY track in say the last five years, I have got to believe it would have caught my interest (let alone a lot of guys smarter than me).

So can we say it's atypical?.
If it's typical, impress me with some data..
Thanks
Joe M

It may or may not be typical. IMO, it doesn't matter much because if there are many very generous payoffs like that, there absolutely HAS TO BE many that are very disappointing. The take is the take. There's no escape from that. It's a mathematical certainty.

If you can't see the odds before you wager you have no idea if you are betting one of the generous ones or one of the disappointing ones unless you have some extra insights. If you don't, they will net out over the long haul. In other words, you will feel like a genius when you hit a big one relative to the odds and an idiot when you get 50% of what you were expecting.

That's why I have been stressing that one key to this has to be knowing the betting patterns that lead to a disproportionate number of each type of payoff. That way you can focus your bets on the ones most likey to be generous relative to the odds and chances of the horses. Otherwise you are flipping coins and will unjustifiably be happy or sad when you get a good or poor payoff.

[schweitz]

I just hit a P3 at RD betting blind, and took down the pool via Pinnacle. Winners were 34-1, 8-1, and 2-1. MLs were 20-1, 4-1, and 8-1.

I'm with DrugS on this one, the sequence of winners is more important than the morning line, though both had to help in this case. I have noticed if the big price is first, the payoff is best. It isn't as good in second, and if in the third leg, it is almost like getting a longshot in the tri under two favorites.

CJ, does pinnacle cap your payoffs on pick-3s?

[formula_2002]

It may or may not be typical. IMO, it doesn't matter much because if there are many very generous payoffs like that, there absolutely HAS TO BE many that are very disappointing. The take is the take. There's no escape from that. It's a mathematical certainty.

If you can't see the odds before you wager you have no idea if you are betting one of the generous ones or one of the disappointing ones unless you have some extra insights. If you don't, they will net out over the long haul. In other words, you will feel like a genius when you hit a big one relative to the odds and an idiot when you get 50% of what you were expecting.

That's why I have been stressing that one key to this has to be knowing the betting patterns that lead to a disproportionate number of each type of payoff. That way you can focus your bets on the ones most likey to be generous relative to the odds and chances of the horses. Otherwise you are flipping coins and will unjustifiably be happy or sad when you get a good or poor payoff.

Well, the proof is in the real data. I'm taking a strong look into it.
I certainly have enough result files to check it out.
I will agree with CJ about one thing. It seems that the longer odds in the first leg returns a better value..but I'll look at the hard data and see where it takes me.

25% take is a big bite..I figure anyone one that can overcome that vig, should make a lot of money elsewhere..with much less risk..

[JohnGalt1]

I also like smaller track's exotics.

Example, a few years ago at Canterbury I played a p3-- single/3 horses/all.

The 4/5 single won the first race so everybody was alive. The next race the clak and a 6-1 battled neck and neck at the wire. Chalk wins. Last race, nw2L 10-1 morning line actual 15-1 wins.


waiting to announce the payoffs I'm guessing about $150 as that's what Cal tracks would pay and dissappointed the 6-1 didn't wind the second leg. I end up with the whole pool of $1560. Now I realize on another day I would split with one or more, but that day, and at smaller tracks in general, everyone played the morning line favorites in the last race.

[classhandicapper]

Well, the proof is in the real data. I'm taking a strong look into it.
I certainly have enough result files to check it out.
I will agree with CJ about one thing. It seems that the longer odds in the first leg returns a better value..but I'll look at the hard data and see where it takes me.

25% take is a big bite..I figure anyone one that can overcome that vig, should make a lot of money elsewhere..with much less risk..

Please present anything you find about the betting patterns. I don't play multi-race wagers (other than DDs) but would consider starting if I felt I had some advantages.

The 25% take is a problem (as are taxes), but generally, if you can hook multiple value oriented opinions together, the compounding effect of a mult-race wager can be very rewarding.

[Valuist]

Here's a perfect example of an inefficient P3 pool. I played Hoosier on Saturday night. In races 4-6, the 8-5 favorite won the first leg. A $13 winner won the second leg. I was alive to two horses in the last leg and wasn't expecting much; then I see the $2 payoff to Buckjano was $195. Buckjano was the favorite. But the will pay to an 8-1 shot I had was only paying $145. As fate would have it, the two ended up in a photo. I found myself in the strange position of rooting for the favorite over the 8-1 shot even though I had both.

[cj]

The Hoosier pools, at least so far in the meet, are just too small to bother with playing in my opinion.

[Valuist]

The pools might be on the small side because there's been quite a few layoff horses since Indy Downs closed, and Ellis was still running during the first three days of their meet.

Right now, its probably self destructive to put any more than $60 in any P3 pool there, or have any single ticket bigger than $5. A good rule of thumb: never be more than 3% of the total P3 pool.