Flipping Exactas

[JustMissed]

I was checking out some pro selections the other day, I think it might have been at trackmaster.com. This particuliar capper not only gave his picks but said how to bet them. For the exacta part wheels he would say something like: bet 4 units a/bcd & a lesser amount on bcd/a. I took this to be something like betting $8 on a/bcd which is a $24 ticket, and betting $2 on bcd/a which is an $6 ticket.

I always see the pros recommend a flipped exacta like this which of course is just boxing a key horse but I have never seen a different amount suggested for the other side of the box.

Can any of you guys tell me the validity of this and why it would be a better play than just a flip with the same bet size?

Thanks,

JustMissed

[so.cal.fan]

If you have a very strong opinion on a horse, you take a stand with it......you think it has by far the best chance to win the race, you would bet most of the exactas with this horse on the front end, small savers only with other/others on top.

[JustMissed]

I thought they might be saver bets but was curious if there was any connection with the odds and playing lesser amounts.

I usually follow Jim Lehane's method where you have three contenders, if one is very strong you play the a/bc; if two are close you play the ab/abc; if you can't make up your mind you box all three. Also, Jim as well as Jerry Stokes recommend flipping the a/bc just in case you get beat by a nose but they usually play the same amount.

These guys also give minium payoff amounts for each combination before they will play an exacta-which has the effect of being odds oriented anyway.

Thanks for your response,

JustMissed
:)

[so.cal.fan]

I suppose you could bet your KEY horse on top of contenders in the EXACTA and then save with QUINELLAS.
Does anyone have an opinion on this? Is it sound investing?

Example:
$20 exactas-a/bc
$20 quinella a/b a/c

[Rick]

I don't know if this would apply to others but the best way of betting exacta combinations with my selections is 1 2, 1 3, 2 3 (1 2 / 2 3). Of course, just betting 1st with 2nd choice has a higher ROI but betting the combinations gets you a good win %. Reverse exactas, for me, are never better than that approach.

Another interesting thing is that a quinella wheel is equivalent to a place bet but MAY pay better and you could eliminate some combinations.

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by Rick
I don't know if this would apply to others but the best way of betting exacta combinations with my selections is 1 2, 1 3, 2 3 (1 2 / 2 3). Of course, just betting 1st with 2nd choice has a higher ROI but betting the combinations gets you a good win %. Reverse exactas, for me, are never better than that approach.

Another interesting thing is that a quinella wheel is equivalent to a place bet but MAY pay better and you could eliminate some combinations.



Rick, I have not seen that combo recommended anywhere else. It would seem to be a big money saver but I am wondering why you would not use your 1st pick in the second slot at all.

Have you done a study or read a study which shows that if the 1st pick doesn't win then it shows or worse.

I have been wondering why two horse bettors don't just play exactas. My theory being that if you pick the two horses most likely to win then would they not be most likely to run 1st & 2nd.

There is a good newsletter at the ALL-Ways site that explains how the place horse is an opposite running style of the win horse 75% of the time and that the place horse is only the second best horse 25% of the time. They recommend the AB/ABC also.

Anyway, if you would post your reason for not putting your 1st pick in the second slot I would appreciate hearing from you.

Thanks,

JustMissed
:)

[rrbauer]

I "double dip" with the horses that I like the best regardless of price (if I like a longshot I bet it to win also).

Once in awhile I will "dutch" exactas when I can get the contenders down to two, or three, max; and there isn't much difference in odds, and in my opinion about those contenders.

One lesson that I've learned more times than I care to think about is that when you start having to spray (many different combinations) to hit an exacta that you're on your way to a losing bet. That lesson carries over to serial "pick" bets also.

Richie Schwartz (the Big Man in Ragozin circles) told me that when there is a lot of uncertainty (read: Randomness) in a race that he is only going to get beat once in that race; meaning that he will take a stand with one horse, because short of punching "all", there is not enough cumulative advantage in using multiple horses to offset the uncertainty; and, to separate you from what everyone else is doing.

From my own perspective, (again in "pick" bets) I've found that when a race is wide open and you're invited to spray, that the favorite seems to win those races frequently, so just use the fav and look for an advantage somewhere else.

[Rick]

JustMissed,

The reason I play that way is that it's more profitable based on thousands of races using my method. It's entirely possible that other methods will produce different results. In fact, many years ago I played a method where the 2nd choice was a better overlay than the first choice to win. Although I never checked, I woudn't be surprised if that method worked better on reverse exactas as well. I've also played methods that were great on win bets and horrible on exactas no matter which way you constructed them.

I've heard the opposite running style theory of 2nd place horses before. I could never prove that using any of my methods though. If you do subscribe to that theory, by all means don't take it to extremes. For example, if an E type horse wins, the second horse probably won't be an S type, which would be the opposite extreme. It's more likely that it would be an E/P or maybe P type. But, in my opinion, it's more likely that E/P types will finish in both first and second positions.

The AB/ABC combination would work alright with my selections but I think the BA combination would lose a little or break even at best. One could argue that the increased win % would justify the lower overall ROI I suppose.

Actually, I haven't played exactas for a while, so I probably need to look at the whole thing again. Right now, I'm playing with a money management simulation program that wrote to test some bankroll building and profit taking ideas.

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by rrbauer
I "

One lesson that I've learned more times than I care to think about is that when you start having to spray (many different combinations) to hit an exacta that you're on your way to a losing bet. That lesson carries over to serial "pick" bets also.

Richie Schwartz (the Big Man in Ragozin circles) told me that when there is a lot of uncertainty (read: Randomness) in a race that he is only going to get beat once in that race; meaning that he will take a stand with one horse, because short of punching "all", there is not enough cumulative advantage in using multiple horses to offset the uncertainty; and, to separate you from what everyone else is doing.



I agree with everything you said and quoted. The situation with me is that I learned to handicap in the beginning by studying Jerry Stokes' book and weekly lessons. As you probably know, Jerry plays long-shot horses as KEY horses or he generally passes the race if there is not enough value. For somebody who plays like Jerry, they would be a fool to not flip, or box, or whatever to cover their KEY horse. When you are winning $60-$200 plus exacta's, what's an extra $6 or $12. One of Jerry's favorite stories is about a broke player who spent his last $5 on an exacta. The guy didn't have enough money or sense to box the horses and walked away with nothing. Anyway, I see this happen day in and day out where guys would have cashed a nice ticket if they had only flipped or boxed.

The other side of the coin is if you are expecting the exacta payoff to be $20 or less. Then I believe a method like Rick's would be just the thing to reduce your ticket cost and still have a chance to cash a ticket.

If you only play exactas which guarantee a $24 or better payoff, then of course you can play an $8 combo easily.

I personally have been trying to get a 3 to 1 payoff lately. If I bet $2, I expect to cash for $8 or better. This would be consistent with an ab/abc ticket for $8 which pays $24 or better or if not, just pass the bet. I think Rick's tickets (1-2/2-3) would cost you $6,which would put you right in line to play some chalk exactas paying $18 or less.

Several Saturdays ago I played Finger Lake and cashed tickets on the first 8 of 10 races. They of course were mostly chalk but if I had known about Rick's combo, I think I would have had an even better day.

Let me know what you think and also what you think about Rick's leaving his 1st pick out of the place slot.

JustMissed


:)

[JustMissed]

Great reply. I had posted a response to RRBauer before I read your post but you both seem to be on the same page. Your so right about the E/P horses.

I think what I might do is continue with my a/bc, bc/a, and ab/abc and box method for expected payoffs of $20 or more and try your method on $20 or less payoffs. I suspect I will see some good results from what you have shared with me on this board.

Thank you very much for taking the time to help.

JustMissed
:)

[Rick]

JustMissed,

I probably should explain that I don't play exactas on a regular basis and only studied them in order to get a profitable play in every race when I'm at the track just having a good time. Normally, I'd only make about 4 win bets on a typical card. Another thing I've done is play rolling pick 3's on my top two selections if I'm looking for larger payoffs.

So your comments about low paying exactas are probably right on target. If I were to look for higher payoffs, a different set of combinations might be more profitable. Higher odds top selections should be good in the second slot since they do tend to finish second a lot.

[hurrikane]

sounds good if the odds are right.
if your a and b horse start to tank would be better not to use them together. Play
a/cd cd/a $4 (1 ex)
bcd box $6 (1 ex)
this way you don't waste money on the cheap ab exacta.

[karlskorner]

Richie Schwartz

You have brought back memories. Had a box next to him at Hialeah late 70's/early 80's. We use to call him "Dirty Richie" never changed his shirt when he was on a winning streak. He lived on pills, 5/6 at a time. Used Lawton sheet and a couple of others at that time, didn't use the "Sheets". No money passed while he was wagering, would settle up at the end of the day. Last I had heard he went to So.Cal to play Bridge. My best memory was the last race on the last day at GP, he scored with a 67K perfecta, sometime in the early 80's. Glad to hear he is still around.

Karl

[rrbauer]

kk

A friend of mine (math guru) built a pc-based system for Richie to bet pro hoops. Bob (my friend) stayed in Richie's penthouse in Ft Lauderdale and ran the computer stuff on the hoops. They went to the track in the daytime. This was like in '86 or '87. I was in Miami on biz and stayed the weekend and went to Hialeah with them both days. It was Fountain of Youth weekend at HIA. I wasn't familiar with that circuit and so suggested that I take a "piece" of Richie's action for the day (I suggested 10%). Bob told me that would be pretty steep and suggested 2%. OK I said.

Richie is using JB's sheets at that time (seems he and Friedman were on the outs so he refused to buy the Raggies). Anyway, after about the 5th race Bob got Richie's ear (Richie isn't very personable and is easily annoyed) to see how Richie was doing. Down about $20k (oops! that's stuck-$400 for my share)! So we started paying attention and rooting like hell for Richie's picks (Bob had 3%!). Lukas had a shipper in the 'Youth and Richie unloaded on it. He stomped the race for about $75k and ended the day up about $30k (Nice job Richie....I bought dinner from my $600!) He had another nickname: Big Foot (because he stomped on everybody's prices)!

And, you're right. The man had his own window (window was closed until he showed up) and did everything on the cuff and settled at the end of the day. He was here in SoCal for a couple winters and hit a couple 6-figure P6's but overall did not do well betting (he bets too many races). He was playing some bridge, too. He went on a health kick and lost a lot of weight (made him look gaunt).

Saw him at Saratoga two years ago (2000) and he looked the same. He wasn't betting and he wasn't talking!

[karlskorner]

I once asked him how much he "churned" during the year. I think the answer was somewhere between 3-4 million, of which he netted about $160K, I made the foolish remark that he could have left it in the bank at 6% (1980's) and earned the same amount. He looked at me as if I was some kind of idiot and didn't talk to me for a week.

Karl

[anotherdave]

Don't think that is a fair comparison, Karl. 3-4 million wasn't how much money he had in his pocket. Last year I made about $4000 on $80000 of bets. I sure didn't have $80000 lying around. My ROI was 5%. I had a $2000 bankroll that never went below $1200. So I really had about $800 invested to make a profit of $4000. That is pretty good leverage. Although the profit was probably about $4 per hour of work. What's 7-11 paying these days? What a game. Hey, but ya gotta luv it.

AD

[karlskorner]

I am aware that he didn't have 3-4 million to start with, actually it was around 500k (his and others) and it was an offhand remark only because 160k (a lot of money at that time) seemed a rather poor return for the effort and time he put in. As Richard said he left the track to go home and finish off the evening and well into the wee hours of the next day, playing the hoops.

You have to appreciate here was a 6' 4" man, weighing in at 250lbs or more, living with a pocket full of medicinal pills, for what ever ailed him, completely consumed by the life of a gambler.

I have known a few like this, the other day I ran into an old friend, former CPA, who hangs out in the Turf Club, turned his entire attention to gambling. A more sorley person you would never want to meet. The life of a true gambler is not a happy one.

Karl