Need Help

[harleyjoe13]

I am in a handicapping contest next week with the following format,
win,place,and show selection on 1 horse in 10 designated races.Standings are determined by the amount of points earned based on the payoff multiplied by the number of winners.There is NO cap on points.
Is it better for me to go after longshots or go after the winners of each race?
Thanks for the help

[46zilzal]

If odds are not part of the equation, winners of course.

[Overlay]

I am in a handicapping contest next week with the following format,
win,place,and show selection on 1 horse in 10 designated races.Standings are determined by the amount of points earned based on the payoff multiplied by the number of winners.There is NO cap on points.
Is it better for me to go after longshots or go after the winners of each race?
Thanks for the help

I'm interpreting what you say to be that you can collect winnings if the horse finishes first, second, or third, but the multiplier factor would kick in only if the horse wins, and that if you pick zero winners, your multiplier (and end point total) would be zero, even if you had a lot of horses run second or third. Under those circumstances, I'd say you're better off going after most likely winners. If you went strictly after price, you'd have to hope that longshots came in, that you picked them, and even then that you weren't beaten out by someone who selected a greater number of shorter-priced winners (that would be more likely to come in), and who ended up with a higher final total because of their bigger multiplier factor (again, if I've understood you correctly on the rules).

[Overlay]

As an addendum, if the horse that's most likely to win according to your handicapping is being overlooked by the public, so much the better for your price, but the primary focus should be finding the winner rather than stabbing for a longshot. But, again, depending on your handicapping, that wouldn't necessarily mean just betting chalk.