Pick 6 Ticket Structure -- Crist

[chickenhead]

I very rarely play the pick 6, but I think it's a wonderful bet. I got the Crist book and have been reading it recently. He lays out a pretty logical structure, and includes some actual plays he has made.

He gives an example from 2005 BC day. I am not questioning his handicapping, but I do question a little how he put his opinion into play.

He had three strong opinions going into the day:

Leroi was a lock to win the Mile.
St. Liam was a lock to win the Classic.
LITF was extremely vulnerable.

Now obviously I can't know exactly how he saw the races, so lets just assume that he really did feel strongly and that those three opinions really did represent his feelings. If he felt less strongly so be it, but for the purposes of my question let's assume that was it.

Most all are familiar with the A/B/C approach to structure, if not go buy his book.

So his total ticket costs are $3,348. What I don't like about his ticket is that $1440 are committed to beating one of his two locks from above, either Liam or Leroi. This left substantially less money to spread in the races where he did not have such a strong opinion -- particularly the sprint, where in the biggest upset of the day, which he predicted, he had 4 A's and no B's -- also in the F+M turf, which he spread 3A 3B 3C.

If he had been willing to live and die on just his two strongest opinions he would have been able to spread much deeper, 5A and 5B in the sprint, up to 6Bs and several Cs in the F+M turf.

While Leroi did get beat, he undoubtedly would have had the conso as Pleasant Home was an A contender (very nice peice of capping), and he apparantly knew that the F+M turf was not a race he had handled.

Now I am really not writing this like some might think, "oh, it's easy to second guess blah blah" -- I am talking about the fundamental idea:

Is it really smart to bet against your strongest opinions to the tune of 40%? Or should those truly be your keys, i.e. you must insist that you give yourself the best possible shot to get paid when your very strongest opinions are correct. And if they are not correct, so be it.

That is kind of how I look at it, but I've never hit the big pick 6's. I realize that in a p6 sequence, especially one with some interesting things happening, you can't insist on being too right about too many things, but it seems like insisting on being right about one or two things (assuming you have some strong opinions) ups your chances significantly.

[chickenhead]

At least in part, there are two competing value concepts in a pick 6.

Stealing from the value betting thread, strong opinions are what create value (assuming they are right often enough to be useful). Further to that, the difference of opinion between you and the public is the measure of how much value you have created (I prefer created to found).

But in a pick 6, as I think Crist really intelligently puts out there, due to the nature of the pool betting in proper proportions creates its own value, i.e. the public massively overbets the favorites in the pools due to the rapidly growing number of possible combinations.

So it makes sense that it is difficult to create value alone by having a strong opinion on a favorite, no matter how bold you are the pool is probably just as bold. Value really has to come elsewhere -- either by beating a heavy favorite, or by getting some interesting horses home elsewhere.

It's this interplay between boldness and betting in proper proportion (which as it relates to the pool is bold in it's own way) that I think makes this bet the most difficult of all. I thinks thats why Crist structured his play the way he did, trying to balance boldness in his own line with boldness vs. the pool.

[Indulto]

... So his total ticket costs are $3,348. What I don't like about his ticket is that $1440 are committed to beating one of his two locks from above, either Liam or Leroi. This left substantially less money to spread in the races where he did not have such a strong opinion -- particularly the sprint, where in the biggest upset of the day, which he predicted, he had 4 A's and no B's -- also in the F+M turf, which he spread 3A 3B 3C.

... Is it really smart to bet against your strongest opinions to the tune of 40%? Or should those truly be your keys, i.e. you must insist that you give yourself the best possible shot to get paid when your very strongest opinions are correct. And if they are not correct, so be it.

That is kind of how I look at it, but I've never hit the big pick 6's. I realize that in a p6 sequence, especially one with some interesting things happening, you can't insist on being too right about too many things, but it seems like insisting on being right about one or two things (assuming you have some strong opinions) ups your chances significantly.C-HD,
The beauty of the BC is that the quality of the fields is so high that the difference between the ability of most favorites and those of the rest of their fields is not as great as in most other stakes and lesser contests.

The Mile has seldom been kind to favorites. Leroi and Rock of Gibralter come to mind immediately as best horses who lost. Did either of those two look any less formidable than Bernardini looks in this year’s Classic?

Unless one’s name is Grant Stone, one usually needs at least one ALL race. When one can play $3348 or more, one can go deep in ALL races. Having the strong opinion that the favorite will win is not always a good one, but singles are where you find them.

A stopped clock is always right twice a day, but if one buys enough haystacks, one is certain to find a needle. ;)

[chickenhead]

Unless one’s name is Grant Stone, one usually needs at least one ALL race. When one can play $3348 or more, one can go deep in ALL races. Having the strong opinion that the favorite will win is not always a good one, but singles are where you find them.

A stopped clock is always right twice a day, but if one buys enough haystacks, one is certain to find a needle. ;)

But that is not really true, as proved by the BRIS pool last year. Certainly $3300 is not enough to go deep in every race. It really is pretty moderate coverage.

I think there is a pretty good case to be made that rather than toning down your opinion due to the quality of the fields, the correct approach is to actually exaggerate your opinion quite a bit. You will still need a big ticket.

[1st time lasix]

I think anyone that spends more than $65 and less than $1500 on a pick six is truly up against it versus the syndicates. You may be just contributing to the big players that can spread effectively in the "chaos" races without a real probability of hitting it. In my opinion....it is a pool for the large bankroll types for proper effectiveness. Using the "lock" examples....I think the "normal" recreational player with a bankroll under $1200 for B.CUP day is best to use them as singles in pick threes {all of the races with the locks involved} and pick fours. The pick four is an outstanding wager for the guy willing to use a single or two and spread in the other races. Particularly if your single is not the favorite. Of course I am not the guy to dissuade anyone from a life style changing event....I believe in the "bet small to win big" philosophy in the para-mutual game. Wonder if a five or ten dollar pick three or pick four is a much better route to take.

[chickenhead]

I agree, particularly about the pick 4. I would not be willing to put much more than around $1200 into the pick 6, and that is really a figs leaf worth of coverage.

However, with several million as the grand prize it is surely tempting. The pick 4 is much more reasonable, just not quite as exciting.

[pic6vic]

You are not looking at thetickets correctly. Because his main picks are technically a single those tickets come out less that when he uses alternates. If he shows all the tickets in the book then do this. Circle the main picks as if they won then see how many combos are left. Do the same with the alternates. As you go down you will see the coverage gets smaller as the alternates win and the coverage goes deeper as themain choice wins

[chickenhead]

I'm pretty sure I'm looking at them correctly, but lets see.

in the mile, he used Leroi as his lone A. no B's. 6(!) C's.

the AAAAAC ticket, his mains with the mile C's, cost $864

in the classic, he used Liam, one B, and 4 C's

I ignored the B in my post, but the

AAAAAC ticket, his mains with the classic C's, cost $576

If he didn't use any C's in those two races, he punches $1440 less in tickets. I'm saying that $1440 may have been better spent betting with his opinion rather than against it.

Did I miss something? I know what you are saying, but it doesn't relate to what I'm saying (I don't think).

[chickenhead]

or lets look at it another way. And again this is not in any way criticizing Crist, he has 100X more experience betting pick sixes than I do, but this is the kind of stuff I'd like to talk to him about.

His three strongest opinions are:

two big legit favs
one highly overbet really vulnerable fav.

So the two big favs as single are not big value creaters in themselves, your opinion there is not really unique. But they are value enablers, in that they let you spread elsewhere.

But where to spread? Wouldn't the sprint be the best place? Doesn't your opinion tell you that that is the big value race? Isn't the logical conclusion of those three strong opinions to really do everything possible to get the winner of the sprint on your ticket as an A, at the very very worst a B?

It just seems to me like that is how you'd approach something like this. But I'm missing something, because he only goes 4A's and no B's in the sprint. It seems like a halfhearted effort to get at the value that he's identified. Since that is the money race, rather than burning up money with C's against your single, wouldn't you rather move more A's up into the sprint? You want that winner on your main!

[toetoe]

Crist is right to play a miss-one, -two, -three or -whatever. It cuts down the ticket by thousands. If it's too tough to separate them, it's a passable bet. Pick-threes and pick-fours are the logical alternatives, I guess.

[chickenhead]

i'm gonna call you moetoe from now on.

There is a lot of nuance to these tickets, I think it's unfortunate he didn't go into more detail.

A stream of consciousness of his decision process to get to that ticket would have been extremely informative.

[toetoe]

I prefer Shemptoe or Incogni-toe, but ... as you wish.

[Indulto]

I prefer Shemptoe or Incogni-toe, but ... as you wish.I submit Undertoe, Blutoe, Stubtoe, and my personal favorite -- Unguided Missletoe. :D

[pic6vic]

CH

Toetoe knows the author of a book similar to Crist's book. The strategies are explained in more detail in that book and why you structure tickets. The author is Jerry Samovitz and he wrote the book in the early 90's. His experience was from playing the pick 6 in the late 80's in So Cal. I forgot the name but it has to do with exotic betting. Toetoe may have the name. You may want to buy this book and compare to Crist. Then we can discuss in more detail if you like

[Light]

Hey ToeToe

Can you give me your picks for this years BC so I know who to throw out.

But seriously, I believe the amount of $ you put in a Pk6 is overrated as evidence by last years 90k Pk6 syndicate ticket that busted in the 1st leg and the previous years catch of the BC Pk6 on an $8 ticket.

[chickenhead]

http://www.gamblersbook.com/weblink.cby/detail/572405.html

this is the only one I can find that sounds close, though the description doesn't mention Pick 6s.

[chickenhead]

But seriously, I believe the amount of $ you put in a Pk6 is overrated as evidence by last years 90k Pk6 syndicate ticket that busted in the 1st leg and the previous years catch of the BC Pk6 on an $8 ticket.

I would consider both of those extreme anomolies.

[pic6vic]

Light

The subject is not about picking winners or the amount bet or overbetting. It is about the structure of the tickets. The other things you mention are factors, but were not in the original question from CH.

Again Anyone who is interested in how to structure tickets should buy the book by Jerry Samovitz TITLED BRINGING HOME THE JACKPOT. It has more information than Crist's book and was written over 7 years ago. This book was written by a person who playedthe pick 6 for years in the late 80's

[toetoe]

I believe it has 'Jackpots' in the title. Another is 'Out of the Red and into the Black.' I have a third, but I forget the title. Has turned me into a less desperate loser. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[chickenhead]

I'll try them out, thanks.

I saw Mr. Samovitz registered today, hopefully he can add something to this thread.

[takeout]

http://www.gamblersbook.com/weblink.cby/detail/545705.html

[twindouble]

Someone explain to me how anyone can say they have a formula for picking the pick 6?

The best way to play the pick 6 is to play it when you think you have a good shot to hit it. In other words the card is suitable to you and the play is within the limits of your bankroll. The horses you come up with dictate pretty much how your ticket will be structured. Key horses are essential for the small investor, by small I'm saying anywhere from $96 to just under a grand.

What some pick 6 players forget about is within the 6 you have pick 3's and 4's and of course the pick 5 consolation or the rolling DD. Your strategy should be to use those picks to supplement your play off those key horses or even profit substantially.

When you spend the time to handicap 6 races and your decision is to play it and you don't think there's other betting opportunities in any of the races, that's a bad decision. Knowing when to play is a must with a limited bankroll, to just take a run at it is another mistake. Sure you can get lucky but overall it's a killer. How you evaluate the races when it comes to potential profit is important. For example going so deep to cover 3 horses in different races that will pay telephone numbers, risking your bankroll isn't necessary, think in terms of consolation and save your money. Here again, I'm talking the little guys.

Hedge your bets as the races unfold. For example you live in the last leg but you didn't go deep enough for whatever the reason, bet those horses that could deny you that good score. We all don't see everything even though you felt good to begin with.

As far as Crist goes, I wonder what I could do putting that kind of money in every time I like the card. I haven't sense the 6 come out and I'm not about to start now but it would be interesting to find out on paper. Maybe I'll do that.


Good luck,

T.D.

[1st time lasix]

Someone explain to me how anyone can say they have a formula for picking the pick 6?

The best way to play the pick 6 is to play it when you think you have a good shot to hit it. In other words the card is suitable to you and the play is within the limits of your bankroll. The horses you come up with dictate pretty much how your ticket will be structured. Key horses are essential for the small investor, by small I'm saying anywhere from $96 to just under a grand.

What some pick 6 players forget about is within the 6 you have pick 3's and 4's and of course the pick 5 consolation or the rolling DD. Your strategy should be to use those picks to supplement your play off those key horses or even profit substantially.

When you spend the time to handicap 6 races and your decision is to play it and you don't think there's other betting opportunities in any of the races, that's a bad decision. Knowing when to play is a must with a limited bankroll, to just take a run at it is another mistake. Sure you can get lucky but overall it's a killer. How you evaluate the races when it comes to potential profit is important. For example going so deep to cover 3 horses in different races that will pay telephone numbers, risking your bankroll isn't necessary, think in terms of consolation and save your money. Here again, I'm talking the little guys.

Hedge your bets as the races unfold. For example you live in the last leg but you didn't go deep enough for whatever the reason, bet those horses that could deny you that good score. We all don't see everything even though you felt good to begin with.

As far as Crist goes, I wonder what I could do putting that kind of money in every time I like the card. I haven't sense the 6 come out and I'm not about to start now but it would be interesting to find out on paper. Maybe I'll do that.


Good luck,

T.D. I never "hedge" my plays if I am alive into the last legs of a pick 3 or pick 4...{rarely play pick 6} I have always believed that this is speculation and not money in the bank. My old mentor used to say "if you are afraid....get a dog!" If you win the hedge ....it doesn't make you feel that much better. Stick with your game plan.....trust yourself and live with the results. Just play the cards as they are dealt.

[rrbauer]

chickenhead wrote:
"But in a pick 6, as I think Crist really intelligently puts out there, due to the nature of the pool betting in proper proportions creates its own value, i.e. the public massively overbets the favorites in the pools due to the rapidly growing number of possible combinations."

The bet has intrinsic value when the pools become large (as in SoCal P6's) and other venues when carryovers increase the pools to $100K and more. The large pools invite more and more players to "take a shot". Of course, in most cases, their "shot" includes all of the favs; while, at the same time, their play does not include enough combinations outside of those favs to give them a legitimate chance of winning.

From my perspective, the BC P6, is a lousy bet for most players. As TD points out you have to be able to hit the thing to make any money and it's difficult enough to get your handicapping-arms around half of those races because they are so contentious, that trying to build a P6 play with even a "fat" play of $2- or $3K leaves lots of gaps in coverage. Testimony to that is that (at lease in recent years....don't know how far back it goes) a flat bet on all BC horses going off at odds greater than 10-1 yields a profit.

In the BC races you have your hands full trying to take down a P3 or P4.

[chickenhead]

rrb - I couldn't agree more, that's why I made the point I made. Even a $3K ticket on a day like that still needs to be played like a little ticket, with aggressive singles.

Trying to back up on every race eats too many tickets, and it's close to impossible to be pretty much right in every race. But, its not that difficult to be extremely right in one or two races.

Just think about the kind of coverage you can get with a $3-5K ticket with two aggressive singles. If one loses you are still in great shape for a conso. If you can get them both home there are really not going to be any tickets out there that are better than yours.

[chickenhead]

to look at it in it's most basic sense, a $3K ticket with two singles gives you 1500 combinations to hit a pick 4.

With 4 12 horse fields and 1500 combos, you got a 7% chance of hitting those 4 remaining races even if the results are totally random. Assuming the results in all 4 races won't be completely random moves your percentages way way up.

But even assuming random results, hitting that pick 4 only 7% of the time, and your singles at say 80% each, your pick 6 hit rate is just below 5%.

[twindouble]

I never "hedge" my plays if I am alive into the last legs of a pick 3 or pick 4...{rarely play pick 6} I have always believed that this is speculation and not money in the bank. My old mentor used to say "if you are afraid....get a dog!" If you win the hedge ....it doesn't make you feel that much better. Stick with your game plan.....trust yourself and live with the results. Just play the cards as they are dealt.

I agree with that, note I said if you missed something. Don't we all do that? :cool:

[twindouble]

chickenhead wrote:
"But in a pick 6, as I think Crist really intelligently puts out there, due to the nature of the pool betting in proper proportions creates its own value, i.e. the public massively overbets the favorites in the pools due to the rapidly growing number of possible combinations."

The bet has intrinsic value when the pools become large (as in SoCal P6's) and other venues when carryovers increase the pools to $100K and more. The large pools invite more and more players to "take a shot". Of course, in most cases, their "shot" includes all of the favs; while, at the same time, their play does not include enough combinations outside of those favs to give them a legitimate chance of winning.

From my perspective, the BC P6, is a lousy bet for most players. As TD points out you have to be able to hit the thing to make any money and it's difficult enough to get your handicapping-arms around half of those races because they are so contentious, that trying to build a P6 play with even a "fat" play of $2- or $3K leaves lots of gaps in coverage. Testimony to that is that (at lease in recent years....don't know how far back it goes) a flat bet on all BC horses going off at odds greater than 10-1 yields a profit.

In the BC races you have your hands full trying to take down a P3 or P4.

Betting the horses you like doesn't mean your just leaning on chalks, pick 3, 3, or 4 now does it? I can't tell you the number of times the pick 3's and 4's got covered my pick 6 investment plus.

[jerry samovitz]

In response to Chickenheads question, I will get to it in a few minutes.

My friend told me about these Pick 6 comments and I wanted to respond. In 1999 I wrote my book “Bringing Home the Jackpots” where I outlined in detail a method of playing the Pick 6 and the Pick 4 and Superfectas. At this time the Pick 4 was just coming available at thoroughbred tracks and had been tried at standardbred and quarter horse tracks. I played my methods. I played many times. I played the Pick 6’s in the 80’s and Pick 4’s using this method fairly recently. I walk the walk. I have put in over 150 tickets into one pick 6 and have actually hit a condensed variation miss 5 for almost $30,000.

As far as I know I was the first to publish this Pick 4 and Pick 6 approach. As I mentioned I have been using and had published this approach for years before Mr Crist’s book hit the market.

Actually the first mention I saw of a miss method was Prof. Gordon Jones who was constructing miss one tickets to tackle the Pick 6 way back in the early 80’s. I must mention that Barry Meadows was also playing at this time his version of a miss ticket. I expanded on the idea and wrote it up in detail. I originally showed this approach in 1996 in my book “Betting and Beating the Exotics” in relation to Pic 3’s

.

It really hurts me to read when one in an influential position with the racing form writes up an old concept and it becomes his concept. It isn’t .

I wrote to Mr Crist about this and sent him my book. I wrote him a very nice letter and said if he happened to arrive at the same approach it would be gentlemanly if he could at least INCLUDE MY BOOK IN HIS LIBRARY IN THE RACING FORM. He never showed the decency to respond.

If Mr Melville ten years after publishing Moby Dick, read a story written by some newpaper owner who had access to free advertising about a great white whale, I imagine the original author would be quite upset. It would especially hurt if he received credit for the idea. You can imagine how I feel.

Briefly, by playing a miss ticket The Pick 6 can be played with more power for the buck. One doesn’t have to play enormous tickets but should realize that there are chances all the winning horses can be included on a miss ticket and still not connect on the ticket. It is important to construct the ticket so this doesn’t happen too often. No one can deny that your first two picks in a race have a better chance of winning then your third and fourth choice in the same race. Therefore by keying these main picks one can gain as I said more power for the buck or a mathematical edge which I describe in detail in my book.



For the same price if wisely constructed you will have a better success rate for the same investment. You will work harder and still suffer many tough beats but you will improve your efficiency..

For Breeders Cup I have to agree with one of the threads I read that it would be very expensive as contentious as the fields are. I tried a few times when it used to be a Pick 7 with over $3,000 and had no success.

I have learned to play the Pick 6 only if I really like a few races. Chickenhead’s original question has much merit. Why spend more on what you don’t like? Why not spend more on what you are not sure of?

I agree and one should structure the ticket around your strengths. It hurts a lot less if you lose when the horse you like goes down. I wouldn’t be playing originally if I didn’t like those horses. So if I love a horse I may still single the horse or use maybe one alternate and expand in the other races. The one alternate costs so much less than the main pick and that is essentially why I love miss tickets. You don’t have to double the cost of the ticket for a little insurance. The maker of the ticket should spend much time in considering the structure of the ticket for this reason.

Frankly, if I knew St Liam couldn’t lose the classic as he says, I would spend my money keying him on top in the Superfecta for $1,000 or so and let the chips fall where they may rather than try to hit five other races and spend more money.

If I could be of any help please write and thank you for reading this thread.

[the little guy]

I see the book being discussed here was published in 1999 ( according to the poster who is apparently the author ).

While I don't believe Steve Crist ever referred to the Pick-6 stategy in " Exotic Betting " as " his strategy " I will say that I became friends with Steve in 1994 and shortly thereafter ( mid 1995 ) he had taught me his Pick-6 strategy detailed in the book. And, furthermore, Steve has been discussing his Pick-6 strategies in print since the late 1980s.

Just thought a timeline of events in racing history might help clear things up. The analogy the poster made to somebody essentially plagurizing Melville is as inaccurate as it is disgraceful and I would like to suggest that this person ( should he actually be the author ) think about such accusatory remarks before posting them in the future.

[chickenhead]

I was just about to say the same thing, Crist attributed his learning of the idea from Beyer back in the 80's.

I think it's one of those tough things, but I don't think Crist tries to claim in any way that it's his invention. I knew of it, and I can't even say from where, well before Crists book.

tlg -- anything to say on the thread? I know you don't generally jump into these things but I'm sure you could add something.

[the little guy]

I'm on my way out the door to Belmont.

I'll try to check in later.

[twindouble]

I can't see how you all can slide over something as important as having conditions were it warrants hedging your wager.

For example, lets say your live in the last leg of the pick 6 for $50 grand and up in a nine horse field with 3 horses and 4 others will bring consolations. Of the two left, just one has an outside shot to beat you with value. I'll bet that sucker good. That way, I have the consolations plus a nice win bet if I get beat for 6. Now to add that horse in the original play in the 6, it would have put to much pressure on my bankroll. To play an under ticket going deep in other races including the 3 in the last, I invest less money by not doing that. As stated in this thread some pick 6's require an investment most of us can't afford so you have to use whatever tools you have to make a profit.

Good luck,

T.D.

[chickenhead]

The maker of the ticket should spend much time in considering the structure of the ticket for this reason.


This is what I keep coming back to, and what I think everyone agrees. It really is an extreme skill to structure good pick 6 tickets. But it's also just about impossible to talk about in generalities. The framework of miss whatever is a great framework to use, it puts someone on the right track -- but the actual shuffling and balancing of opinion vs. cost vs. value is where most people screw up. I think the framework just makes it slightly easier to NOT screw up.

I know when I structure tickets I can look at them and say "no, that set of tickets sucks" and then do some shuffling, moving B's up, A's down, adding or subtracting C's, and say "oh yes, that's much better"....but I can't really say how I know, or in general whether I'm right or not. It's an elusive thing.

[toetoe]

In fairness, I think Crist was credited by others as the inventor of the "avoid-one" as Crist has called it. He just never denied it, which is fine.

I'm pleasantly surprised that the new poster has not been piled upon by the naysayers. Amen to JS and thanks for sharing one of the all-too-few sensible approaches to pony-playing. He's no literary giant; just a razor-sharp, value-demanding winner at the races, judging from his published approaches, none of which includes touting four horses in EVERY STINKING RACE (Chris Russo voice simulated here). :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[chickenhead]

As stated in this thread some pick 6's require an investment most of us can't afford so you have to use whatever tools you have to make a profit.



Twin, what you're saying is actually more nuanced than what I originally thought..at first I thought you just wanted to say that hedging is a good thing, which didn't have anything to do with ticket structure.

But I can see you are actually saying something much more than that, that you base your ticket structure in part on the ability to hedge against it in various pools later on. That is not something I do, but I can see how that makes some sense. Let me think about it.

[pic6vic]

Just to add some more history.

The author JS published his book in 1999. His experience comes from playing the pick 6 when it first came to Cal back in the 80's. In those days there was no carryover and the pools were larger.

[twindouble]

Twin, what you're saying is actually more nuanced than what I originally thought..at first I thought you just wanted to say that hedging is a good thing, which didn't have anything to do with ticket structure.

But I can see you are actually saying something much more than that, that you base your ticket structure in part on the ability to hedge against it in various pools later on. That is not something I do, but I can see how that makes some sense. Let me think about it.

Well you and others here are much better at putting your thoughts in writing than I am, takes me a while to get there.

T.D.

[chickenhead]

Crist certainly talks about hedging quite a bit. Just as a for instance, he had a high opinion of Leroi in the mile, but the bar shoe announcement that am put him in a troubled mind over what was one of his major Pick 6 keys.

He resolved eventually to play the Pick 6 as planned, but change his late pick 4 to cover the possibility of Leroi getting beat. This moved Artie up and he ended up hitting the Pick 4 for $8K.

I think it makes sense to play a 4 that is somewhat different than a 6...but I'm not sure I would change a 6 just so I could play a different 4, or change it so I could backup another way, unless as you say TD that is the only way to get the coverage without the tickets getting out of control.

[Indulto]

As usual TD came right to the point:
Originally posted by twindouble
Someone explain to me how anyone can say they have a formula for picking the pick 6?I first saw the term, “life-changing score,” in a Beyer book. Whether that phrase was coined by the author isn’t as significant as its association by almost all horseplayers with the Pick Six. Whether Mr. Samovitz or Mr. Crist was the first to publish a common approach to horizontal ticket structuring is not as interesting as the fact that cashing such wagers remains as challenging as it did prior to publication of both authors’ work.

With all due respect for these gentlemen, I wonder whether willingness to share wisdom with us was warranted while wily wager-structuring strategies as written were still winning? Did declining dividends decimate desire for daily deliberation or did diminishing deposits determine that documenting details should displace demonstrating them? :D

Books by Beyer and Crist are successful because both authors are extremely entertaining storytellers who enable their readers to vicariously experience the thrill of cashing tickets they are unlikely to duplicate on their own – even after reading them. ;)

C-HD put it all in perspective:
Originally posted by chickenhead
... It really is an extreme skill to structure good pick 6 tickets. But it's also just about impossible to talk about in generalities.

[jerry samovitz]

If one works out the mathematics one can determine what hit rate they will have even in the Pick 6. Knowing the confidence level of your so called A picks and B picks etc. one can get a fairly accurate figure of confidence. The way I was playing pick 6's in the 80's I knew our group would hit a 6 around once every 5 days. We would hit 5 of 6, 3 of those 5 days and 4 or less 1 day. We were investing around $3,000 a day. Of course the results varied weekly but after a period of plays was fairly accurate. Arranging the tickets differently would of course produce different results but the percentage of confidence could be fairly well estimated before the event.

The problem, of course is the amount of the payoff. That of course can't be determined and determining the average payoff would take so many trials and it is subject to so much fluctuation that it is hard to estimate a risk reward ratio and therefore to determine a projected rate of profit or loss. WE wound up just over 20% return of capital.

What I'm trying to say is ticket structure doesn't have to be generalized and one can determine approximate confidence levels and of course thereby dictate sensible risk amounts.

When the payoff structure of the Pick 6 changed in California to 60% payout for 6 and 40% for 5 of the pool from 50/50 and then 70/30 I stopped playing except for occasionally.

It is still fun now and then but I don't think I can beat it in its current structure day in and day out. Of course that would not be true at the breeders cup where the payout has to be made and I think it can be a good bet sometimes.

[the little guy]

If one works out the mathematics one can determine what hit rate they will have even in the Pick 6. Knowing the confidence level of your so called A picks and B picks etc. one can get a fairly accurate figure of confidence. The way I was playing pick 6's in the 80's I knew our group would hit a 6 around once every 5 days. We would hit 5 of 6, 3 of those 5 days and 4 or less 1 day. We were investing around $3,000 a day. Of course the results varied weekly but after a period of plays was fairly accurate. Arranging the tickets differently would of course produce different results but the percentage of confidence could be fairly well estimated before the event.

The problem, of course is the amount of the payoff. That of course can't be determined and determining the average payoff would take so many trials and it is subject to so much fluctuation that it is hard to estimate a risk reward ratio and therefore to determine a projected rate of profit or loss. WE wound up just over 20% return of capital.

What I'm trying to say is ticket structure doesn't have to be generalized and one can determine approximate confidence levels and of course thereby dictate sensible risk amounts.

When the payoff structure of the Pick 6 changed in California to 60% payout for 6 and 40% for 5 of the pool from 50/50 and then 70/30 I stopped playing except for occasionally.

It is still fun now and then but I don't think I can beat it in its current structure day in and day out. Of course that would not be true at the breeders cup where the payout has to be made and I think it can be a good bet sometimes.


It seems to me there is a major contradiction between your first and second paragraphs. On the one hand you suggest that your " hit rate ", which I guess means theoretical chances of winning, can be determined in the Pick-6. Of course this is theoretically true, as one can theoretically determine the chances of each horse used in each race winning and thus derive the chances of " escaping " each race. No problem....FAR easier said than done but certainly possible. However, if one can do this I would say by the same token they should also at least roughly be able to figure out their expected payoff, both in general and specifically ( regardless of the number of trials which you claim are necessary ). I just don't believe both statements can be true.

Now, I can accept that you have MUCH more real life experience with playing the Pick-6 as the payoff percentages changed, as you suggested, however I fail to see how this should have changed your results given the success rate you claimed. So, you get less the supposed 3 out of 5 days you " merely " hit the conso, I would have to think this is more than made up with the substantially greater profits on the supposed one in 5 days you hit the Pick-6. Maybe I'm wrong but I am having trouble making real life sense out of this.

More than likely, assuming your assertions are true, what really happened is the Pick-6 players got more sophisticated over time and eliminated the edge you claim you had. But, then again, this would assume others apparently figured out " your " methods.

[toetoe]

little guy,

One last bit, and I'll hold my peace thereafter.

The payoff can't be predicted. The only upside is the "latent value," as when a poker player fills a hand, AND someone else fills HIS hand, and the pot swells exponentially. Consider: the 5-of-6 days keep the wealth in the black, but don't forget --- all decent 5's are signups, and the cash reserves become a problem. Now reduce the pool by 40%, and the bread-and-butter payoffs come closer to stale, naked bread. If you bet horses to win without knowing the odds, and favorites had a more usurious takeout than longshots, wouldn't you still want those few extra dimes when the favorites won? We can say we'd come out the same in the long run, but in the medium run, we might die of Gambler's Ruin.

Despite my failure to make much sense, I will now keep my promise. No, no, fellas, please. No vote to convince me to stay. :lol:

[the little guy]

I'm chalking it up to my hangover that I am havong trouble putting everything in your post together.....but......

I understand but what I was at least trying to say is that theoretically if you can figure out one's chances of hitting a certain Pick-6, which the original poster claimed, then by the same token one can figure out their expected returns. You may well be right that a finite pool like the Pick-6 has a much different distribution than other exotics but I still think that reasonable estimates can be made and there is certainly enough of a sample size now to check this out.

I also hear what you're saying about " gambler's ruin ", though withholding and " signers " are often two significantly different things, and I would think that the syndicate the original poster was discussing, which according to him was in a position to put in $15K a week, would be in a financial position to deal with the strain withholding tax can put on one's bankroll. It is, however, a very legitimate point you bring up. However, considering the original poster's claim of 20% returns, which is almost equal to the withholding, and his claims of actually hitting one in five Pick-6s, I cannot say his group would be subjected to the problem of " gambler's ruin ". With those numbers they would have no problem staying afloat.

[classhandicapper]

I have one thing to say about this.

There is no doubt in my mind that many people using what they believe to be original betting strategies and handicapping insights have plenty of company out there even if they don't know it.

A couple of months after I first read Andy Beyer's Picking Winners (it had just come out), I started compiling Fractional Par Time tables to go along with his Final Time tables. Since then, many books have been written on pace handicapping, making pace figures, and services have formed that make Beyer style pace figures. I don't think any of us stole the idea or had it first. I'd bet my life against a dollar that some people out there were making high quality pace figures before we were all born.

We all read the same stuff and then try to expand on it to get an edge. Many of us take the same exact road independently. The guy that publishes or sells the info first may get some extra credit, but he is rarely alone.

We are lucky when we find each other in a place like this and fill in some gaps for each other and shorten the path for those newer to the game.

[twindouble]

I understand but what I was at least trying to say is that theoretically if you can figure out one's chances of hitting a certain Pick-6, which the original poster claimed, then by the same token one can figure out their expected returns. You may well be right that a finite pool like the Pick-6 has a much different distribution than other exotics but I still think that reasonable estimates can be made and there is certainly enough of a sample size now to check this out.

I don't see the point in even bothering with the math involved. Regardless of what formula you devise you have no idea how much others are putting in, how deep they are going or what horses they are using. Another example is, a horse can be 10-1 on the tote or line and end up 3-1 in the pool or the other way around. The very next race the chalk could get beat and those same horses have different value in the pool and so on. The final odds on the tote won't change but your estimated odds will for all the races. There was times when I got much more than what I anticipated for a payoff, other times it was a big disappointment.

What I will agree with, the money being put in today the likely hood of those big suprises has dimished, it doesn't take a lot of winning tickets to chew up a $300,000 pool. That's why I wait for those big carryovers and large fields.


T.D.

[jerry samovitz]

In playing the pick6 you have so many more winners than pick 6's. There are so many anamolies in the payout. If one person hits or if two people hit of course the payoff drops in half.The longshot you have misses a nose to the favorite you also have and the Pic6 payoff is 20% of the payoff if the longshot had won. I know you are familiar with all these things. When you are trying to calculate your own percentage of winners of let's say your A picks you can build up a good sized population. If one day I had an anomoly like 6 of 6 A picks winning it wouldn't affect my overall average that much. I can easily arrive at a small range of percentage using standard deviation. But PIck 6's--- if you hit 50 or 60 and one day take the whole pool your average will change drastically. So I can tell you with confidence that I will pick within 3% lets say of 30% winners but I can't tell you with nearly with the same confidence what they will pay. If I try to judge my potential payoff on a daily basis based on my horses I'm using and I have multiple A picks--it, of course depends how they hook up.

I will say some days your A picks are longer than others and the races seem more contentious so you can project somewhat what it might pay if you do connect but then we are talking within 50,000? or something like that. I'm sure you see my point.

[classhandicapper]

If I am understandind the conversation.......

If you are a good odds line maker you should have a decent idea of the probability of each of your tickets hitting based on the win probabilities of each of the horses you are using. You should also be able to calculate your total probability of hitting based on all the combos you used.

If you are a very experienced horseplayer, you should have a decent feel for which of your horses will go off at odds that approximate their chances of winning and which might go off as overlays or underlays (assuming you used a few).

There should be some reasonable relationship between the horses odds and the ultimate payoffs on Pic 6s. So I guess theoretically, you could use this latter skill in combination with the first to approximate the average payoff for your tickets on any given day.

Why you would bother, I'm not sure.

Personally, I think the idea is to use as many overlays as possible and hook them together as often as possible within the limits of your bankroll. That virtually guarantees that every ticket you play is an overlay. You can also use other high probability underlays and neutral horses on your tickets to improve the probability of cashing the bet, but they should be hooked up with a few overlays to ensure the ticket is at least a marginal overlay.

[the little guy]

I do see your point and agree in principle but, and I think you would at least somewhat agree with this, over time there isn't an enormous randomness in payout. I would be willing to bet that if you and I guessed the winning payout after seeing the results we would have more than a reasonable degree of accuracy. Given your obvious sophisticated understanding of the dynamics of playing I am reasonably sure you know a Pick-6 sequence where the prices of winners are much higher, and sometimes lower, in the actual Pick-6 wagering as opposed to on the board....so to speak. As a simplistic example ( I know you get it but it's more of a general explanation ) if there is a 2YO maiden turf race with only first time turfers and/or first time starters, a 9:5 is probably closer to 5-1 and a 40-1 shot is probably closer to 15-1, especially in a case where you have a carryover and the little tickets have been pretty much knocked out.

[the little guy]

Personally, I think the idea is to use as many overlays as possible and hook them together as often as possible within the limits of your bankroll. That virtually guarantees that every ticket you play is an overlay. You can also use other high probability underlays and neutral horses on your tickets to improve the probability of cashing the bet, but they should be hooked up with a few overlays to ensure the ticket is at least a marginal overlay.


I have a lot of trouble with the whole " overlay " thing as it is usually a nebulous concept at best ( and I am even including myself when I think or say it ) as the trueness of the oddsboard is pretty strong.

However, more towards the point, I think playing the Pick-6 is about staying alive, or escaping, and not as much about strong opinions. You want to survive as many races as possible to give yourself a chance to make the score when your good opinion happens to roll home.

[classhandicapper]

Is it really smart to bet against your strongest opinions to the tune of 40%? Or should those truly be your keys, i.e. you must insist that you give yourself the best possible shot to get paid when your very strongest opinions are correct. And if they are not correct, so be it.

I don't play the pick 6 much, but I've given it a lot of thought because I'd like to try.

IMO, it's OK to play against your strongest opinions if those horses are likely to be underlays or neutral in the betting but you have the opportunity to hook them up with enough overlays in other races to create value on the ticket overall.

The real problem comes when you use lot of horses and combinations hooking underlays together simply because you are trying to hit the ticket. IMO, that's about as silly as betting underlays to win.

I think a big part of classifying which horses should be A's vs. B's or C's etc... should be their likely price relative to their odds and not just how likely they are to win.

[jerry samovitz]

I agree with you. In different situations different price horses have different affects on the remaining tickets. Again, if I averaged all my Pic6 winners lifetime and took the average or even the mode I don't know what that is really worth in predicting the future payouts. Suppose it's your day and you hit the Breeders Cup 6 can you average that in with your other payouts?. Do you take the high and the low and toss them out as anamolies in figuring?. I don't know. I would love to know. Thanks for the input.

Jerry

[classhandicapper]

I have a lot of trouble with the whole " overlay " thing as it is usually a nebulous concept at best ( and I am even including myself when I think or say it ) as the trueness of the oddsboard is pretty strong.

However, more towards the point, I think playing the Pick-6 is about staying alive, or escaping, and not as much about strong opinions. You want to survive as many races as possible to give yourself a chance to make the score when your good opinion happens to roll home.

I agree with you about the odds board, but there are obviously some overlays out there otherwise we wouldn't be able to win.

I actually don't play the Pic 6 much. I goof around on big carryover days every once in awhile when I have a lot of opinions and can keep it small. If I did play it seriously, I would do it with a bankroll that could support a logical operation. If I didn't have that bankroll, I wouldn't bet improperly just to play and then try to protect what I had. I'm not much of a gambler. :lol:

[the little guy]

I agree with you. In different situations different price horses have different affects on the remaining tickets. Again, if I averaged all my Pic6 winners lifetime and took the average or even the mode I don't know what that is really worth in predicting the future payouts. Suppose it's your day and you hit the Breeders Cup 6 can you average that in with your other payouts?. Do you take the high and the low and toss them out as anamolies in figuring?. I don't know. I would love to know. Thanks for the input.

Jerry

I guess in any statistical analysis you tend to disregard the outliers. I also don't think you use just your winning Pick-6s but use them all, at any track with a substantial pool, and overall should be able to get a reasonable equation.

The BC Pick-6 is an interesting question though considering the likely payoff it probably belongs in the outlier category.

[Indulto]

I have a lot of trouble with the whole " overlay " thing as it is usually a nebulous concept at best ( and I am even including myself when I think or say it ) as the trueness of the oddsboard is pretty strong.

However, more towards the point, I think playing the Pick-6 is about staying alive, or escaping, and not as much about strong opinions. You want to survive as many races as possible to give yourself a chance to make the score when your good opinion happens to roll home.This makes a lot of sense to me.

Even if one is able to construct an accurate "fair odds" line, how can one know ahead of time which horses will be overlays and/or underlays in each of the final five legs. Further, even if one's strong opinion is accurate in any single race, that horse may encounter trouble as can any of the horses used in any legs.

So identifying contenders would appear to be less important than isolating losers -- especially logical pool choices -- to determine which cards present greater opportunity for producing payoffs worthy of partnering in order to go sufficiently deep in all legs.

I wonder if data is available anywhere that could and would identify the favored combination for each P6 pool AND the actual P6 pool ranking of the winner of each leg?

Thanks for the insight, tlg. :ThmbUp:

[rrpic6]

Anytime the construction of multiple tickets using A's, B's, C's etc. occurs, a sieve is created. The price of the ticket decreases as does the probability of hitting all 6, which is the object. Hitting 5 of 6 is not my goal. I like to handicap the seqence, try to find which horses have a legitimate shot at winning each leg, then determine the cost of using all those on one ticket. If the cost is reasonable, then I'll play it. Anywhere from $96 to $700 is what I most likey will play on my own.
The Breeder's Cup is certainly going to be more costly. Just a rough draft at looking at possible entries, I see a possibility of using 15K to 30K. My own ticket, right now, would come down to using Invasor and Bernardini in the last leg. Of course, I'd have to flip a coin if it came down to which one i'd need to single, to half the price, if my ticket is too costly.

[classhandicapper]

[QUOTE=Indulto]This makes a lot of sense to me.

Even if one is able to construct an accurate "fair odds" line, how can one know ahead of time which horses will be overlays and/or underlays in each of the final five legs. /QUOTE]

I almost always have some idea of which horses/races I might be playing on any given day before the races start. The situations that the public tends to overbet or underbet repeat themselves. It's obviously not foolproof, but there are patterns to the underlays and overlays.

Assume I was constructing a Pic 6 and had three potential value situations that day.

1. A horse that had a rough trip out of town against the grain of the track. The public catches on to local bad trips, but they miss the out of town ones quite often.

2. A horse that was involved in a brutal pace between 3 quality horses, was the only survivor, and one of the others came back to win.

3. A morning favorite that had a strong negative trainer pattern.

I would construct my Pic 6s around those Value Plus horses and against that poor favorite.

I might single the two Value Plus Horses even if they weren't standouts, use all the major contenders against the bad favorite, and spread a bit in the other races where I had no opinion. At a minimum though, I would insist on having at least 2 of the value situations on each ticket, probably constructed as Crist suggests, but all my "A" selections would be based on "value" and not probability of winning alone.

I honestly don't see the point of getting involved unless you know beforehand that you have several value oriented opinions and then focus your tickets on those horses/races. Less than that and you are bucking a bigger take and taxes on random contenders without adding any value to the ticket.

[twindouble]

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Even if one is able to construct an accurate "fair odds" line, how can one know ahead of time which horses will be overlays and/or underlays in each of the final five legs. Further, even if one's strong opinion is accurate in any single race, that horse may encounter trouble as can any of the horses used in any legs.

So identifying contenders would appear to be less important than isolating losers -- especially logical pool choices -- to determine which cards present greater opportunity for producing payoffs worthy of partnering in order to go sufficiently deep in all legs.

I wonder if data is available anywhere that could and would identify the favored combination for each P6 pool AND the actual P6 pool ranking of the winner of each leg?

Thanks for the insight, tlg. :ThmbUp:

The term "going deep" in given races cover exactly that. We do it in all the picks and gimmicks. Also the term "savor" includes horses you have reason to include for various reasons, for example one that could pick up the pieces if the speed collapses due to unforeseen hot pace. In other words your using horses that could upset, not just throwing in anything to "go deep".

On another note, I wish everyone would stop calling the picks "gimmicks". Your picking winners, that's what handicappers do. When you have to pick 1, 2, and 3 losers to win, that's a gimmick to me. Just thought I'd throw that in again.

T.D.

[cj]

I would think getting value in the P6 isn't much of a concern if you are playing into any kind of decent carryover. You are already playing into a positive expectation pool. Just stay alive and pick the winners.

[twindouble]

I would think getting value in the P6 isn't much of a concern if you are playing into any kind of decent carryover. You are already playing into a positive expectation pool. Just stay alive and pick the winners.

Well not all the time, take last week at Belmont JCGC $450 grand carryover, total pool of $1,700,000.00, would have had the 6 if Secret Agent wins and I still would have got peanuts. I wasn't hot to play it but my partners insisted only because of the carryover. The short fields and stand out horses didn't appeal to me. Couldn't even cover in the picks.

[classhandicapper]

I would think getting value in the P6 isn't much of a concern if you are playing into any kind of decent carryover. You are already playing into a positive expectation pool. Just stay alive and pick the winners.

I agree.

If the carryover is large it changes the bet. The rare times I play there is usually a large carryover. I feel more comfortable including a few high probabilty horses that I know will be overbet when all that extra money is in the pool.

[chickenhead]

Less than that and you are bucking a bigger take and taxes on random contenders without adding any value to the ticket.

That to me is the strange thing about the Pick 6. The pool is so exaggerated, so biased to only the favorites -- that actually just having more of the logical combos creates it's own value.

There are two ways to really get value it seems:

extremely bold handicapping opinion and hitting the race with a very thin number or numbers of horses.

less than bold opinion, but betting it as "deep" as the race requires, rather than as deep as your bankroll can afford.

I don't think win pool value has to have much to do with either.

[classhandicapper]

That to me is the strange thing about the Pick 6. The pool is so exaggerated, so biased to only the favorites -- that actually just having more of the logical combos creates it's own value.

There are two ways to really get value it seems:

extremely bold handicapping opinion and hitting the race with a very thin number or numbers of horses.

less than bold opinion, but betting it as "deep" as the race requires, rather than as deep as your bankroll can afford.

I don't think win pool value has to have much to do with either.


If I understand you, I think I agree.

I think there is a reasonable enough correlation between win odds and how the horses are bet in the pic 6 to use any value oriented insights about the horses to win to create pic 6 value.

On the other hand, some combinations may be overbet or underbet based on the bankroll sizes of many players and their typical strategies etc....

I think a potential problem with trying to exploit the latter is that it probably requires a very huge bankroll. I guess I tend to think of these things from my own perspective. I could never imagine myself dumping huge money into the Pic 6 on a regular basis.

[chickenhead]

the favorites can also be big overlays in the Pick 6 pool. tlg mentioned than when he was talking about FTS races, but I think it can be true in any big field.

In the 6th at Keeneland yesterday I singled the 11. It was a pretty aggressive single, but the horse looked like a standout, had everything I wanted to see, and he was 7/2 on the ML.

I happened to notice the TVG pick 4's, Schrupp went ALL in the race, Lyons used the 4 and 8 I think. I forget what he went off at, 2-1 maybe, not a price I wanted to bet him in the win pool. But he was undoubtedly an overlay in the Pick 6 pool, especially for anyone who liked him enough to give him singleton status.

but, I didn't cash, which goes back to the other point. You can turn up all sorts of value in individual races -- but you actually have to win them all to collect it.

[cj]

Well not all the time, take last week at Belmont JCGC $450 grand carryover, total pool of $1,700,000.00, would have had the 6 if Secret Agent wins and I still would have got peanuts. I wasn't hot to play it but my partners insisted only because of the carryover. The short fields and stand out horses didn't appeal to me. Couldn't even cover in the picks.

I would strongly disageee. That pool was a great oppurtunity for a small time player to make a very nice profit for peanuts. Given that setup of races, play small tickets and get way, way more than your moneys worth.

[chickenhead]

I would strongly disageee. That pool was a great oppurtunity for a small time player to make a very nice profit for peanuts. Given that setup of races, play small tickets and get way, way more than your moneys worth.

You played those races just right. It can be hard to not get greedy...

[twindouble]

I would strongly disageee. That pool was a great oppurtunity for a small time player to make a very nice profit for peanuts. Given that setup of races, play small tickets and get way, way more than your moneys worth.

cj, go back and read what I said in the Belmont pick 6 thread, I clearly said the same thing with a "modest" investment. There was very little chance for a huge score. we don't have a disagreement in my opinion.

[cj]

You played those races just right. It can be hard to not get greedy...

All I was really saying was it was crazy to throw a big ticket at that pool. You still have to handicap the races and use common sense.

I would think the P6 paid tons more than a parlay that day.

[the little guy]

All I was really saying was it was crazy to throw a big ticket at that pool. You still have to handicap the races and use common sense.

I would think the P6 paid tons more than a parlay that day.


If 20% higher, which statistically is good, is " tons " then you would be correct....$650 parlay paid $780.

I gotta say, I disagree with a lot of what I read, and I don't mean this to be insulting, but are the opinions being reflected on the last page or so from people who have actually played a lot of Pick-6s and if so were they ones where their investments were at least a few hundred bucks? And, has anyone here had any real success in the Pick-6? I am not suggesting I have all the answers, or trying in any way to put people down who play small ( we bet what makes us comfortable ) but I think to truly understand what it takes to have success in the Pick-6 one has to have at least been involved in the coordination of tickets and the opinions I have been reading don't seem to reflect that.

[chickenhead]

I can say I don't have a lot of experience, that's why I started the thread. I've played about 10 large pick 6 tickets, haven't hit one yet -- lots of consos but not the big one. I've hit only small wins on smaller tickets.

In threads like this I generally just keep yapping to keep things alive and hopefully get some good info thrown out from others to correct me. Hopefully we'll get some diamonds along with all of the coal.

So don't worry about contradicting anything, it's a good thing.

[cj]

I would have thought the parlay was higher, but obviously I didn't bother to do the math. Still, it is pretty good when you consider so many huge chalks won in the sequence.

I would guess you either passed or only played small tickets that day, right? It seems to me that would be the key to P6 success. Realizing when the best time to play is, and even then, only playing when you have some solid opinions regardless of odds.

I've only played the P6 four times in my life, and hit two. All were small tickets, less than $100. Both times were big carryovers when the races looked very obvious. The other two were in big carryovers going for a score, but didn't come close.

I don't think I have the tempermant to successfully play P6s given the inevitable long wait between scores.

[the little guy]

In playing a Pick-6 your only initial concern is hitting it....not that you hate a couple favorites or like a couple horses in the sequence, as honestly strong opinions like that will be absolutely detrimental in constructing winning Pick-6 tickets. Basically you probably want to make a rough rundown of the races and determine how well you can narrow down the field and segregate your contendors. Contrary to something I read earlier, playing multiple tickets because you have tiered your selections should increase one's chances of winning, for the money being played, because you are spreading your money on your picks based on preference. If you only play one ticket every member of each race is being used for the same amount which hardly seems prudent or cost effective.

Anyone can obviously get lucky on a random day where they happen to be right but if you really want to have a chance to be successful over time in the Pick-6 you have to learn how to spend your money wisely to at least optimize your chances of winning for the amount you have bet.

[the little guy]

I would have thought the parlay was higher, but obviously I didn't bother to do the math. Still, it is pretty good when you consider so many huge chalks won in the sequence.

I would guess you either passed or only played small tickets that day, right? It seems to me that would be the key to P6 success. Realizing when the best time to play is, and even then, only playing when you have some solid opinions regardless of odds.

I've only played the P6 four times in my life, and hit two. All were small tickets, less than $100. Both times were big carryovers when the races looked very obvious. The other two were in big carryovers going for a score, but didn't come close.

I don't think I have the tempermant to successfully play P6s given the inevitable long wait between scores.

Oh, I played, but I screwed around, as I didn't care for a lot of the chalks, and pretty much opinion played.

I had three on one of my tickets. Went in for $524.

[classhandicapper]

the favorites can also be big overlays in the Pick 6 pool. tlg mentioned than when he was talking about FTS races, but I think it can be true in any big field.

I thought that was a very good insight from the TLG. The more situations like that you recognize, the easier it wil be to create value.

[classhandicapper]

If 20% higher, which statistically is good, is " tons " then you would be correct....$650 parlay paid $780.

I gotta say, I disagree with a lot of what I read, and I don't mean this to be insulting, but are the opinions being reflected on the last page or so from people who have actually played a lot of Pick-6s and if so were they ones where their investments were at least a few hundred bucks? And, has anyone here had any real success in the Pick-6? I am not suggesting I have all the answers, or trying in any way to put people down who play small ( we bet what makes us comfortable ) but I think to truly understand what it takes to have success in the Pick-6 one has to have at least been involved in the coordination of tickets and the opinions I have been reading don't seem to reflect that.

I've discussed the mathematics of comparing parlays to multi-race bets. It's a silly and often misleading idea. I can demonstrate why if desired.

If you were referring to me in the other part, I don't play Pic 6s very often because constructing the tickets that make mathematical and value oriented sense to me would typically require me enduring huge losing streaks. I would rarely spread as much as most supposed experts do (and suggest) because I am almost 100% certain they are including huge numbers of underlaid tickets among their total combinations (whether they realize it or not). Perhaps if they are very skilled, the long term net can work out positive. However, I think it's a bad idea to buck a higher take and taxes and then also throw in a lot of underlaid tickets because you are trying to hit the Pic 6 more often.

As CJ said, when there's a carry over, it changes the mathematics. It expands the number of combinations you can use and still expect a positive ROI.

Over the long haul it's all about value whether you are betting horses to show or Pic 6s. If you don't have the bankroll or temperment to play the wager properly, you shouldn't be playing.

[chickenhead]

Until I started playing them more often I didn't really realize how important the consos are. Assuming you are hitting consos fairly regularly, playing isn't really that taxing to a bankroll.

I am still trying to figure out whether I'm in the "always a bridesmaid, never a bride" phase...or whether I'm actually doing really well. I have been in a position to do really well, just haven't hit yet.

TLG -- what is your average size play? In the $4-500 range? I know it will vary, but the preponderance of your plays.

[rrbauer]

The whole problem with having a P6 winning that is loaded with favorites is that when it happens it belies the fact that it's a rare occurrence and it rewards plays that will very seldom be rewarded over the long run. So looking at the results from the example being used and saying "Wow that's nice that all of those people got a nice return for their small investment" is little more than a charitible comment. The situation falls more squarely into the category of bad plays that win.

[the little guy]

Until I started playing them more often I didn't really realize how important the consos are. Assuming you are hitting consos fairly regularly, playing isn't really that taxing to a bankroll.

I am still trying to figure out whether I'm in the "always a bridesmaid, never a bride" phase...or whether I'm actually doing really well. I have been in a position to do really well, just haven't hit yet.

TLG -- what is your average size play? In the $4-500 range? I know it will vary, but the preponderance of your plays.

I actually don't play that often these days but I would say $400-500 is about right. It's not a lot of coverage but it's within my comfort zone. I have only hit a couple this year ( though I haven't played many ) and both were for plays about $200. One paid $2200 and the other just under 10 grand.

[Light]

Real life experience:

For what it's worth,ToeToe came over to see me unexpectedly yesterday to play the Pk6 at GGF. I wasn't in the mood to handicap and gave him ($4) for 10% of his ticket. He went to the track,I stayed home. All the horses he mentioned won except I know he played a"miss 1,miss 2" type of ticket structure. I think he had 4 singles. It payed 5k for 6 and $63 for 5. I thought,I could get back $500 for my $4 investment. He called me and said he got 5 out of 6 4x. He said it would have cost him another $20,to cover all his horses.

This is why I don't like the "miss 1,miss 2" etc. strategy.Maybe it can work at times,but most of the time,this is the result I see from it.

[the little guy]

Real life experience:

For what it's worth,ToeToe came over to see me unexpectedly yesterday to play the Pk6 at GGF. I wasn't in the mood to handicap and gave him ($4) for 10% of his ticket. He went to the track,I stayed home. All the horses he mentioned won except I know he played a"miss 1,miss 2" type of ticket structure. I think he had 4 singles. It payed 5k for 6 and $63 for 5. I thought,I could get back $500 for my $4 investment. He called me and said he got 5 out of 6 4x. He said it would have cost him another $20,to cover all his horses.

This is why I don't like the "miss 1,miss 2" etc. strategy.Maybe it can work at times,but most of the time,this is the result I see from it.

So, let me get this straight, you gave him $4 for 10% of his play, so he was playing for $40. It would have cost him $20 more dollars to go from making multiple tickets to one ticket supposedly covering all horses. So, he would have had to increase his play by 50%. That sounds pretty substantial to me.

What if he was playing for $1200?

[Light]

Yeah, for $1200 better cut down the ticket. But most of us mortals dont bet like that.

[the little guy]

You miss the point....obviously $40 was the comfortable play for him. He knew what he could have done for $60 but chose to bet the $40...which is fine.

Your comfort zone was obviously $4, which is fine, as you could have talked things out with him and given him $24 for 40% of the play but didn't.

[Light]

Actually the reason I only gave him $4 was because he had 4 singles. When I play pk6's I like 2 singles max.How many people can hit with 4 singles in one day. He hit them all. He missed the race where he had multiples and the Baze horse at 3/5.

[classhandicapper]

I've discussed the mathematics of comparing parlays to multi-race bets. It's a silly and often misleading idea. I can demonstrate why if desired.

I think it's worth reviewing a typical Parlay vs. Multi-Race payoff so we understand what's actually going on and why the parlay invariably pays so much less.

Here's a comparison of a $2 parlay and $2 Pick3 on 3 "even money" shots.

I am using "even money" shots and a Pick 3 to keep it simple, but it could just as easily be a Pic 6 and any odds you want.

I am using 15% and 25% "takes" to approximate the fact that most multi-race bets have a higher take, but it could easily be others.

I am assuming the horses are bet in the win pool so that you would lose the "take" if you played the horses to win. I am also asuming are bet in the same proportion in the mult-race bet. (this is for demonstration purposes)

Here's the Parlay:

1. 3 even money horses parlayed

2. Each horse has approximately a 42.5% chance of winning.

(.425 * $4.00 = 1.70 ROI for a 15% loss)

3. The parlay will pay $16, for a profit of $14 on a $2 parlay if you hit it.

4. You will hit the parlay 7.676% of the time (.425 * .425 * .425)

5. 7.676% * $16 payoff = a 1.228 ROI on your original $2 parlay bet. That's a loss of "38.6%" instead of the 15% take.

*The reason the loss is much higher than the 15% take is that you aren't actually betting $2 in a parlay. You are betting $2, then if you win you are betting $4, then if you win you are betting $8 etc..... All those bets are subject to the 15% take. * However, you did lose 15% on everything you bet.

Now for the Pick 3:

1. Same 3 even money horses bet in a pick 3.

2. Each has a 42.5% chance of winning.

3. The Pick-3 pools are bet in proportion to the win pools

4. Calculate the payoff as if the take on the first race is 25%, but the take on the 2nd and 3rd races is zero. This approximates a Pick 3.

Payoff #1 = $3.53 instead of $4.00.

Payoff #2 and #3 = $4.71 instead of $4.00

$2 bet returns $3.53.
$3.53 bet returns $8.31
$8.31 bet returns $19.57

Conclusion:

1. The pick 3 payoff is much higher than the parlay. $19.57 vs. $16.00

2. The Pick 3 ROI is 1.50 per $2 bet or a 25% loss which is equal to the Pick 3 take. (7.676% * $19.57 = a ROI of 1.50 on a $2 which is 25% loss)

When books say there is great value in multi-race bets because the payoffs are much higher than the parlay, they are often at least partially misunderstanding why. The parlay payoff is the result of getting taxed 3 times on amounts "greater than $2" when you hit. The losses are compounded.

The fact that the Pick3/4/6 invariably pays more than the parlay tells you nothing about what your ROI will be on that kind of multi-race bet.

You still have to bet combinations that are good value or you will lose 25% of everything you bet EVEN WHEN THE PAYOFF IS HIGHER THAN THE PARLAY!!!!

[chickenhead]

Now if we're not all totally worn out from class's example, I have just a little bit more math here that I think proves beyond any reasonable doubt that a heirarchical ticket structure is better than a flat structure.

First premise:

Barry Meadow recently posted here the win percentage of the various public choices:
1) 33%
2) 21%
3) 15%
4) 11%
5) 8%

we will assume that your personal rankings performs to these percentages.

Second Premise:

We'll be looking at the ticket structure:
All A's
All A's with one B
All A's with 2 B's
All A's with 1 C

We can see from the above table that if we're using a heirarchical structure and group our top two ranks as A's, our third and fourth ranks as B's, and our
fifth rank as C our probability of hitting in that category for any given race would be:

A: 54%
B: 26%
C: 8%

That sounds like a pretty nice ticket.

A pick 6 ticket with the above structure would cost $3200 (2 A's, 2B's, and 1 C in every race). The expected win percentage (the sum of the prob of each ticket hitting) is 20.47%

In case anyone wants to check a few, here are the probabilities on each ticket:

AAAAAA 0.024794911
BAAAAA 0.011938291
ABAAAA 0.011938291
AABAAA 0.011938291
AAABAA 0.011938291
AAAABA 0.011938291
AAAAAB 0.011938291
BBAAAA 0.005748066
BABAAA 0.005748066
BAABAA 0.005748066
BAAABA 0.005748066
BAAAAB 0.005748066
ABBAAA 0.005748066
ABABAA 0.005748066
ABAABA 0.005748066
ABAAAB 0.005748066
AABBAA 0.005748066
AABABA 0.005748066
AABAAB 0.005748066
AAABBA 0.005748066
AAABAB 0.005748066
AAAABB 0.005748066
CAAAAA 0.00367332
ACAAAA 0.00367332
AACAAA 0.00367332
AAACAA 0.00367332
AAAACA 0.00367332
AAAAAC 0.00367332

OK, so there is our heirarchical ticket. $3200, 20.47% chance of winning.

Now lets compare it to a flat ticket of roughly the same cost. Well, I want to use the same number of horses per leg for this example, which doesn't work out to a whole number -- but that is fine for our purposes.

We'll use 3.5 horses per leg, which gives you a $3,677 ticket. So we're actually spending a little more on the flat ticket. What is it's probability of hitting?

Let's see, we have .33+.21+.15+ (1/2)(.11) = .745 or 74.5% chance of hitting each leg.

If you didn't follow that, since we're using 3.5 horses, we add the probability of our top 3 picks plus one half the probability of our fourth rank.

So if our probability of each leg is .745, our probability of hitting 6 in a row is .745^6, or 17.10%

To put the two tickets side by side:

Heirarchical: $3200, 20.47%
Flat: $3677, 17.10%

That adds up. Even by spending more money on a flat ticket, you will see a lower hit rate. But that doesn't make sense, or does it? Of course it does, because the heirarchical ticket is playing more combinations with a higher probability -- the distribution is skewed towards them.

If anyone cares to challenge the math go ahead, or even the assumptions underlying the example -- but I think it's pretty rock solid. I really don't think it is reasonable to think you can outperform a smartly structered ticket with a flat ticket -- the mathematics say otherwise.

A flat ticket is simply putting too much money into low % combinations as compared to the structured ticket.

[Indulto]

... We'll be looking at the ticket structure:
All A's
All A's with one B
All A's with 2 B's
All A's with 1 C

We can see from the above table that if we're using a heirarchical structure and group our top two ranks as A's, our third and fourth ranks as B's, and our
fifth rank as C ...

... A pick 6 ticket with the above structure would cost $3200 (2 A's, 2B's, and 1 C in every race). The expected win percentage (the sum of the prob of each ticket hitting) is 20.47%

...

AAAAAA 0.024794911
BAAAAA 0.011938291
ABAAAA 0.011938291
AABAAA 0.011938291
AAABAA 0.011938291
AAAABA 0.011938291
AAAAAB 0.011938291
BBAAAA 0.005748066
BABAAA 0.005748066
BAABAA 0.005748066
BAAABA 0.005748066
BAAAAB 0.005748066
ABBAAA 0.005748066
ABABAA 0.005748066
ABAABA 0.005748066
ABAAAB 0.005748066
AABBAA 0.005748066
AABABA 0.005748066
AABAAB 0.005748066
AAABBA 0.005748066
AAABAB 0.005748066
AAAABB 0.005748066
CAAAAA 0.00367332
ACAAAA 0.00367332
AACAAA 0.00367332
AAACAA 0.00367332
AAAACA 0.00367332
AAAAAC 0.00367332
C-HD,
I may be up too late, having a Senior Moment, or just have lost too many brain cells, but I would appreciate your detailing how you calculated the $3200 cost for the ticket(s) implementing your proposed play.

Thanx.

[chickenhead]

C-HD,
I may be up too late, having a Senior Moment, or just have lost too many brain cells, but I would appreciate your detailing how you calculated the $3200 cost for the ticket(s) implementing your proposed play.

Thanx.

Sure. Remember we have 2 A's, 2 B's, and 1 C horse in each race. Below are the tickets -- and the number of combinations on each ticket. Since we have the same number of A's and B's in each race, all of our tickets with A's and or B's have 64 combos each (2x2x2x2x2x2), and our set of tickets with the 1 C are 2x2x2x2x2x1.

AAAAAA 64
BAAAAA 64
ABAAAA 64
AABAAA 64
AAABAA 64
AAAABA 64
AAAAAB 64
BBAAAA 64
BABAAA 64
BAABAA 64
BAAABA 64
BAAAAB 64
ABBAAA 64
ABABAA 64
ABAABA 64
ABAAAB 64
AABBAA 64
AABABA 64
AABAAB 64
AAABBA 64
AAABAB 64
AAAABB 64
CAAAAA 32
ACAAAA 32
AACAAA 32
AAACAA 32
AAAACA 32
AAAAAC 32

[classhandicapper]

Chicken,

Thanks, that was good, but now I have a headache too. :lol:

The structure I am contemplating is similar, but it's based on value and not win percentage.

I'm going to make it a pick 3 just to keep it very simple. Let's say I have several contenders (C) in each race, but in each race I have only one that is likely good off at good value. Call it "V".

I not am attemping to cover the highest probability of cashing. I am attempting to ensure that every ticket I bet is good value. By insisting that there be at least 2 value horses on each ticket, I am sacrificing win probability, but excluding combinations that probably have a negative ROI expectation and perhaps allowing myself to add in a few other positive ROI tickets for the same money.

V V V

V V C

V C V

C V V

IMHO, (and I have little to no experience with pick 6s), my approach is better for multi-race bets if you are trying to ensure long term profits and not just trying to hit the damn thing.

However, on a carryover day, the number of combinations that have a positive expected ROI explodes higher because of all the extra money. So then, I think your approach would be much superior because value is secondary to actually hitting it.

Does that make some sense?

[chickenhead]

I think it's pretty hard to know what your ROI is going to be on these bets as a whole. And you will never have enough data to prove that you haven't just been lucky (or unlucky).

With that said, I think the problem, at least in pick 6's, of trying to put too fine a point on it and only play select value combos is that your projected win %, the number of these bets that you expect to win going in quickly gets to be microscopic..like much less than 1%. Just on the natural order of things you could go many years between hits. It's clearly a case, at least to me, where I'd be willing to trade ROI for a higher hit rate, but where exactly that happy medium is I don't know.

For things like pick 3's, where the pool is way more efficient and we talking orders of magnitudes less combinations, I think demanding more value is the way to go.

[LemonSoupKid]

Does anyone have insight or new thoughts on playing the pick 6 now that withholding has changed and/or the pick 5 is an improved, value play?

Thanks

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I very rarely play the pick 6, but I think it's a wonderful bet. I got the Crist book and have been reading it recently. He lays out a pretty logical structure, and includes some actual plays he has made.

He gives an example from 2005 BC day. I am not questioning his handicapping, but I do question a little how he put his opinion into play.

He had three strong opinions going into the day:

Leroi was a lock to win the Mile.
St. Liam was a lock to win the Classic.
LITF was extremely vulnerable.

Now obviously I can't know exactly how he saw the races, so lets just assume that he really did feel strongly and that those three opinions really did represent his feelings. If he felt less strongly so be it, but for the purposes of my question let's assume that was it.

Most all are familiar with the A/B/C approach to structure, if not go buy his book.

So his total ticket costs are $3,348. What I don't like about his ticket is that $1440 are committed to beating one of his two locks from above, either Liam or Leroi. This left substantially less money to spread in the races where he did not have such a strong opinion -- particularly the sprint, where in the biggest upset of the day, which he predicted, he had 4 A's and no B's -- also in the F+M turf, which he spread 3A 3B 3C.

If he had been willing to live and die on just his two strongest opinions he would have been able to spread much deeper, 5A and 5B in the sprint, up to 6Bs and several Cs in the F+M turf.

While Leroi did get beat, he undoubtedly would have had the conso as Pleasant Home was an A contender (very nice peice of capping), and he apparantly knew that the F+M turf was not a race he had handled.

Now I am really not writing this like some might think, "oh, it's easy to second guess blah blah" -- I am talking about the fundamental idea:

Is it really smart to bet against your strongest opinions to the tune of 40%? Or should those truly be your keys, i.e. you must insist that you give yourself the best possible shot to get paid when your very strongest opinions are correct. And if they are not correct, so be it.

That is kind of how I look at it, but I've never hit the big pick 6's. I realize that in a p6 sequence, especially one with some interesting things happening, you can't insist on being too right about too many things, but it seems like insisting on being right about one or two things (assuming you have some strong opinions) ups your chances significantly.

Not too many people are able to throw $3,000 at a big horizontal. I think I've only played 10 or so P6'slifetime.