PDA

View Full Version : Betting Low Odds vs High Odds Horses


InFront
07-27-2007, 01:23 PM
I like to know if those on this forum found it better to play low odds horses on average vs higher odds horses? What I found when using any type of handicapping method that if such method consistently picks lower odds horses such as $3-$7 payers while your win% would be great it probably won't be high enough to maintain to extract longterm profits due to such small average payoffs. But on the other end of the spectrum while we all like those $30-$50 bomber horses if our method is based on constantly picking those higher odds horses that our win% will be so low probably even less than 10% meaning we are losing over 90 out of 100 plays we make and if our very high average payoffs ain't there this turns out to be another losing situation for us. Not to mention the notorious long losing streaks such methods carry.

Of course regardless if we play low or high odds horses the bottomline is can we turn a longterm profit based on our average payoff and overall win%. I seen so many selection services out there especially on the Net and seems you have the ones that brag about when they picked a $40 winner but they don't talk about the 50 losers they also had. The others may talk about how they had 35% winners the last few days but don't want to mention their biggest winner in the bunch paid $6. I tried a few services years and years ago and everyone was horrible. When I mean horrible their ROIs were worse than the track take meaning don't even handicap and you'll lose less without them.

What I have found based on my own handicapping and research is to develop methods that pick more of those middle priced horses. Not to say you don't have occasional $3 or $30 winners but most are in the $7 to $18 range. Of course some of this you can't control like when you have a 10-1 MLO horse and it wins paying $6 but sometimes you may have a 5-1 MLO and it pays $19 just the same. What do others think on this subject as far as their overall handicapping approach and are they more successful with methods that pick low vs middle vs high odds plays on average?

nobeyerspls
07-27-2007, 01:55 PM
I like to know if those on this forum found it better to play low odds horses on average vs higher odds horses? What I found when using any type of handicapping method that if such method consistently picks lower odds horses such as $3-$7 payers while your win% would be great it probably won't be high enough to maintain to extract longterm profits due to such small average payoffs. But on the other end of the spectrum while we all like those $30-$50 bomber horses if our method is based on constantly picking those higher odds horses that our win% will be so low probably even less than 10% meaning we are losing over 90 out of 100 plays we make and if our very high average payoffs ain't there this turns out to be another losing situation for us. Not to mention the notorious long losing streaks such methods carry.


I make small straight bets but never on a horse under 7/2. My task is to find long live shots for use in both vertical and horizontal wagers. Let's say I handicap tomorrows card at the three tracks I play and come up with six such horses over the thirty races. The next step is to determine if vertical plays can be made in those races. The key is the predictability of the rest of the field. Then look at the races preceeding and following the ones with the longshots. If one or more is easy with a stickout favorite you won't care because the leverage from the longshot will boost the payout. Take a recent pick4 at Belmont. The winner's odds in the sequence were 4/5, 4/5, 10-1, 5/2. There was a heavy favorite in the third leg and when he lost he took a lot of tickets with him. The pick4 paid over $800. Do the math for a parlay using those four winners.
The problem that arises is that you are forced to handicap races that you would normally skip. If those are too difficult you have to pass on the pick3 or pick4 unless using only one or two horses in two legs of the sequence permits you to go deep. In such cases use the all button in the difficult race.
So, it's not either/or. Exotics let you play horses in all the odds categories.

Overlay
07-27-2007, 06:23 PM
What I found when using any type of handicapping method that if such method consistently picks lower odds horses such as $3-$7 payers while your win% would be great it probably won't be high enough to maintain to extract longterm profits due to such small average payoffs. But on the other end of the spectrum while we all like those $30-$50 bomber horses if our method is based on constantly picking those higher odds horses that our win% will be so low probably even less than 10% meaning we are losing over 90 out of 100 plays we make and if our very high average payoffs ain't there this turns out to be another losing situation for us. Not to mention the notorious long losing streaks such methods carry....What I have found based on my own handicapping and research is to develop methods that pick more of those middle priced horses.

I don't believe that you should necessarily restrict your focus to any particular odds range. I think that the real key is how the odds (whatever they may be) of each horse in a race compare to your assessment (however you make it) of the horse's winning chances (that is, whether the horse is offering betting value or not, and, if so, to what degree).

InFront
07-27-2007, 11:14 PM
I think this subject may have confused some through private messages of what I meant by such a question. What I was trying to find out if those that are fortunate enough to develop a winning longterm method what their average payoffs are and win% is. In otherwords are they more of a high win% with low average odds method such as picking 35% winners with a +20%ROI or have most been more successful with a longer shot method that still produces a solid +ROI% but maybe carry only a low 12% win percentage meaning this is more of a longer shot style of play? While we are all searching for "anything" that is profitable over the long run I'm curious what of type method and horses do we have a better chance in developing such a winning method from?

Good4Now
07-28-2007, 01:39 AM
I go for balance. But the nature of the game and those we are pitted against nearly insist on grinding it out with low price straight win bets, typically less than $7.60 but being ready for place and show bets that pay much more as in the seventh opening day at SAR. So Hit rate as opposed to win rate, since you can cash some nice tickets but still not have the winner!

It's up to you to dabble in exotics or multi race bets. For straight bets in one race you've got to go where the opportunity presents itself.

Pell Mell
07-28-2007, 05:31 AM
Personally I try to play longshots only but sometimes, as you said, they get bet down. I average 25-30% winners but am very selective. The problem with a longshot spot play method is that one must have patience. I look at almost every track running and only average about 5 plays a week. It's very hard for a horseplayer to sit and wait for the next good play and you must be very careful about "Action" bets because they add up in a hurry.

InFront
07-28-2007, 03:32 PM
Thanks to all. Yes the problem when being so selective in playing very few races per week that if you are mainly playing longshots your win% won't be that great. Then couple that with finding and playing only say 10-20 plays per week. You can easily go weeks without cashing a ticket if say your win% was only about 15%. But the other end of the spectrum I found that methods that produce a decent win% normally play lower odds stuff and it seems it is difficult to maintain such a high win% just to stay in the +ROI range due to such small average payoffs. I think balance is the key not to mainly play low odds stuff all the time but not also constantly chasing those longshots but somewhere in between where your plays have a good mixture of both high and low odds horses or your overall picks mainly land in those middle priced $8-$16 horses.

Good4Now
07-30-2007, 10:32 AM
Material for a dissertation on the Prismatic Paradigm of Subjective Reality.

Graduate thesis level, I would think...

PA; you could get money for THIS stuff!!!

point given
07-30-2007, 03:11 PM
I play exotics, and more than I should. Whomever said that "action bets add up" is correct. I have taken a look at my action for the past years and find I am better at some exotics than others. For instance, I use exactas, as saver action bets to protect my p3/4 plays, hence I have a losing % for exacta's. Very wasteful. Also found that the P4 is a low % bet for me and also costly . My plus areas are the P3 and the Trifectas. I am trying to reform my habits of exotic play, but its like giving up anything ,like smoking or drinking. You know its bad for ya but gee, its fun. Get me those new lungs and liver. Just joking, don't smoke or drink ( much ! ). :D

racefinder2
08-02-2007, 11:56 PM
I would like to thank InFront and the other contributors to this thread which has helped keep my thinking 'on task' with the decisions to be made in any race betting situation. It has also cleared up a number of concepts in my mind about the best way to play the different bets.

I particularly liked Nobeyers theory of finding live longshots as a starting point to build bets around. I have trouble figuring out where the longer prices will make sense, in advance of seeing the odds, though! Too many times I think Im going to find a long price, but at post its going off at 5-2! Addressing Nobeyers theory, what I have recognized is that in short fields, the verticals do not make sense from a value perspective. Something else Im finding is that if that 5-2 horse I mentioned above is used as a 'blind single' in the 'pick' series, the payoffs will be large anyway!!!!! Thanks for the insight.

My theory is to bet the low priced horses in the 'Pick 3' bets(singling one logical strong favorite as a 'Bingo' square, finding one other single thats not a favorite, then spreading the third race for a price), if thats not possible, Ill go w exactas and tris(as long as you can get value for the 2nd-3rd spots), and use longer prices to win, as well as exacta boxing those to other logical ctrs. Im always surprised how well the 'Pick' Bets pay off even when low priced horses end up winning. What Im finding even more is that the fewer the number of combos, the bigger the returns. Taking a risk by singling a medium priced horse(or even the 2nd choice) is even more valuable than spreading in a wide open spot.

I like to keep in mind that Win betting is a 'total commitment' to a race, a Win bet 'must win' for you to get a return in that particular spot. Once a race gets really competitive, or confusing, I want to avoid Win betting altogether unless Im getting a huge overlay...and outside of special, special situations, I never, ever, ever, bet place or show.

I dont have any realistic way to lump all win bets into a single category and 'average them'; ie 28% at 7-2 odds shows a net profit/edge of 26 pct per bet, etc, etc. I think this is part of the brainwashing that was laid out in a lot of the handicapping books in the past, taking your average odds and win pct and 'figuring out your edge'. To me, there is no 'average', every situation is a little different. I can find good Win bets from odds of 8-5 on up to 30-1 +, it all depends. I have no real preference in odds, other than making sure that Im getting value somewhere. I also do not use ANY 'set' methodology or system to 'extract systematic profits', its more like a varied set of 'tools' that can be adaptable to any given situation, like a bag of golf clubs where you can choose your club, type of swing, vs conditions, your lie, wind speed, etc.

My 'personal reality check' is that there are just more opportunities in the lower price ranges, which keeps me from being disappointed when I 'miss' the 25-1 winner in the 4th race. Another way to look at it is from the other side-since I can find 3-1 or 4-1 winners any given day, why shy away from betting a 40-1 shot that makes sense--it may be a long time before I find another one. My thinking is "the higher the odds, the more important it is to have a Win bet working for me". Not only that, but the value is actually there.

As a rule-Im looking for standouts before I bet low priced horses to Win. I prefer exactas or tris at the lower odds spectrum, since theres a smaller margin for error, w lower win prices, and I can usually leverage returns to get more than the Win price w the verticals. You also have to be careful with win betting on horses with "Odds Instability" - usually clear cut favorites that all the late money piles onto in the last moments of betting, going from 2-1 down to 6-5, or if the odds have continued falling throughout the betting-starting at 8-1, then 5-1, then 4-1, and going off at 5-2. This kind of mass hysteria can wreck your returns.

I am starting to ramble a bit...pardon me, I am sharing some of my thoughts, am still learning, and will quit for now....I find that typing this out has helped clarify my own thoughts on this subject. Thanks:)

statik27
08-03-2007, 01:17 AM
Hmmm this is an interesting thread...

I just try and pick winners. I know that sounds like a "NO SH**" type statement, but I found a long time ago that it doesn't work if you try and handicap races specifically for price horses or favorite's or whatever, just focus on picking the winner whether 8/5 or 30/1, and then decide how those winner's best work in your racing strategy. The rest will work itself out in the end.

Statik