PDA

View Full Version : Superfectas


dav4463
03-17-2003, 05:47 PM
If you have $8,000 set aside for superfecta wagering, do you think a reasonably good handicapper can bet $80 per superfecta wager and expect to hit often enough to not lose the whole $8000 ? I wonder if it would be a strategy worth playing because I hit a trifecta in a recent race betting $24 and noticed that IF (always a big word !) I would have spent $80 on the superfecta, it paid $17,000. Another one recently, I picked the trifecta which paid well, but the superfecta was over $8000, containing all the horses I played in my trifecta wheel. I just wonder if anyone plays superfectas exclusively. If you can hit just one or two big ones per meet, you should be in good shape.

Tim
03-17-2003, 09:20 PM
There is one problem. Superfectas that pay over $5,000 (I think that is the number) have 20% income tax withheld. In some states local income taxes are also withheld. You could have a positive ROI and still run out of cash before you file your tax return and get a tax refund.

JustRalph
03-17-2003, 10:46 PM
I went through this little quandary for a while. I eventually realized that when I think I am seeing a race really well, I play the Tri key and and the super key. It comes under the heading of "When you 're right, you're right" I don't do it on all the races but there is nothing like being right and having the winner, the exacta, the tri and super. It doesn't happen very often. But when it does, you know you maximized your capping and the race payouts. I think you just have to know when you are seeing a race well. :cool:

superfecta
03-18-2003, 01:14 AM
When betting supers I use the key horse method,and usually bet both tris and supers,using the tri as a "saver".I try to only bet on races that i feel good about,but i must admit sometimes races that look wide open or a bad fav ,I play a lotto ticket and every once in awhile it does pay off.But with the taxes(not track take) it sucks to pay a 1/3 when you win to uncle sam.But I don't have to win very many races to turn a profit as long as they pay under 600 bucks.Ironic..the bigger the payoff,the harder to make the money.

dav4463
03-18-2003, 01:28 AM
It is a bummer to have to pay those taxes !

JustRalph
03-18-2003, 02:09 AM
I heard a good one about Tony Blair and it relates to taxes.

Tim Russert is telling a story about interviewing Tony Blair and Blair asks for a cup of tea before they start. They bring him one and he complains to Russert about Americans not being able to make a decent cup of tea. Russert tells him that it's hard enough to find any decent tea in the U.S. Blair inquires as to why that is?
Russert responds, "it's all at the bottom of Boston Harbor"




:cool:

betovernetcapper
03-18-2003, 08:59 AM
$80 is 1% of $8000, which given the difficulty of hitting any super-tri let alone a big paying super tri, makes $80 too lage a bet. In order for this to work, you'd need a bankroll of $32000. Even with $32k it's no cinch.

pic6vic
03-18-2003, 09:24 AM
I doubt you can make money playing just $80.00 on supers.

If they were that easy they wouldn't be paying boxcars. Also don't worry about taxes. if you hit one for over $5000.00 you wil have abot 40 more plays with the remaining cash, and when you file you will your taxes you will get your money back. I'm not saying taxes are fair, but would you rather not hit then pay taxes.

Agian, no one can show a profit betting $80.00 Supers no matter how big your bankroll.

superfecta
03-18-2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by betovernetcapper
$80 is 1% of $8000, which given the difficulty of hitting any super-tri let alone a big paying super tri, makes $80 too lage a bet. In order for this to work, you'd need a bankroll of $32000. Even with $32k it's no cinch. Now we are talkin superfectas right?Super-Tris are also know as twin tris and those are a completely different bet.The diificulty in figuring out what the bankroll should be is the fact that each bet will be a different amount,because it makes no sense to bet into a short field for say,$80,because the money spent would not be an efficient use of the money.And betting short priced horses in all four slots is a bad bet because its a bad use of the bet as well.Now,if one could figure out the probable payoffs on the horses you think might make up the super,you could have certain instances where a bet this size would be a good wager.Of course you would need to know what your hit rate is when playing horses with those odds.But I don't know how you could even try to do this.But I think the super is one of the best wagers in relation to the risk vs reward for a good handicapper(someone who can see the possibilities of how the whole race will unfold,not just who can win the race,which is not the same thing)

criboy
03-18-2003, 08:57 PM
dav,
i urge you to put very few horses in the fourth spot; for example, in the buddy gil race, if you were good enough to get the $1400 tri, put only bombers for fourth. why? because the super only paid 12 times the tri, and that is with the longest piglet hitting fourth! imagine chalk getting fourth! If the super paid only five times the tri, and you bet 6 or 8 nags for fourth, you would be worse off than if you had banged the tri 6 or 8 times, see? we must know every race how much we should risk, and screw the "savers" with chalk that cash us tix, but lose us money. poker players know ... it's all about winning bets, not pots. the track equivalent would be--it's about making profit, not cashing tickets.

Early
03-18-2003, 09:28 PM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You seem to agree with some poker philosophy '...it's all about winning bets, not pots...', (since I'm not a serious poker player, I'm not familiar with that creed), then argue to forget about even giving yourself the possibility of the lower payoff and go for the huge pot.

I'd say if you are going to play supers forget about tri's in the same race. To make a simple example, let's say for a tri, you were thinking of keying one horse on top of four in the second and third slots. For a $1 base wager, that is a $12 ticket of course. Now you are thinking of going for a super in that race. I would suggest a ticket with the same combinations in the first three slots, followed by 'all'. In a ten horse field, the ticket would be 1 x 4 x 3 x 7 = $84. That is 7x the tri ticket.

Sure if the favorite comes in you get maybe only 5 x the tri payout. Still that beats the hell out of sticking a voucher in the machine and having it come out 'not a winner'. If a relatively long odds horse comes in fourth, the ticket is worth the extra investment.

Any who have crunched enough numbers, I'd really appreciate your comments on this.

criboy
03-18-2003, 09:39 PM
no, early, we agree on the theory, i just did not define "pot." a pot is any old pot, even with only the antes in it, and you could steal it with a bluff, but ho-hum. now, bets are what you try to encourage others to throw into a pot that you have a good shot of winning, that's all. now, as to supers ... why not play your tri once or twice, and play your super without that price-killing chalk in fourth? you have a chance of cashing both and maybe of getting better value with two tries. just a thought. and i'm glad we are all thinking in here -- handycrapper's best revenge.

Early
03-18-2003, 10:04 PM
I'm following better now criboy (I'm slow, you guys have to have patience). By the way, it is the latest contest that drew me here and I'm really impressed. Hope you don't mind me staying a while.

I was thinking if you are going to invest in the super, then why not drop the tri altogether and just hit the all key to fill the last slot.

Your response is interesting to me. Play the tri and those are still your main tickets, but then punch out a super ticket with a limited number of horses in the 4th slot, hoping for a big payout. Rather than increase the super investment, play the tri for larger amounts, but have that small amount invested in the super that will really pay. I agree with what you say in that it will many times be better to have the tri for $5 than to have the super for $1 (and the super ticket might have cost 7x the tri ticket).

Reminds me of a couple of years ago when I'd play larger ex boxes when some of my friends were playing a huge number of tri combinations. I might cash an ex for $20 and they'd have invested as much money and would cash the tri for $1 or $2, which would pay less than the $20 ex.

Appreciate your help on this and it will help me with money management I'm sure.

dav4463
03-18-2003, 11:52 PM
Interesting responses. I have never really read a study on superfectas before. I just threw out the $80 as an average investment per race, based on that is what I would have bet on the one that paid $17,000 and a couple of others I could have hit if I would have played the super rather than the trifecta. I agree that you have to include bombs though. I would use the similar strategy that I use in my trifecta bets.

In trifectas that I play, I do not play unless I can throw out the favorite and/or the second favorite. I also must have at least two horses at 10-1+ in my top 5 horses, or one at 20-1+. I will go six or seven deep in the show spot if I like someone there at 10-1+. I don't find many plays, but this criteria helps me pass those low-paying trifectas. I also hardly ever put the favorite in third spot. I will usually replace him in the third spot with a bomb. Sometimes it backfires, but the favorite in the third spot usually depresses the price.

In superfectas though, I usually don't mind including the favorite and the second favorite in my top 5 or 6 if I can still get a couple at 10-1+ and/or one at 20-1+.

superfecta
03-19-2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by criboy
dav,
i urge you to put very few horses in the fourth spot; for example, in the buddy gil race, if you were good enough to get the $1400 tri, put only bombers for fourth. why? because the super only paid 12 times the tri, and that is with the longest piglet hitting fourth! imagine chalk getting fourth! If the super paid only five times the tri, and you bet 6 or 8 nags for fourth, you would be worse off than if you had banged the tri 6 or 8 times, see? we must know every race how much we should risk, and screw the "savers" with chalk that cash us tix, but lose us money. poker players know ... it's all about winning bets, not pots. the track equivalent would be--it's about making profit, not cashing tickets. the only problem is if you hit several tickets of the same bet type,you reduce the amount you win,not increase your chances of hitting the bet in the first place.So that 1400 tri you hit three times would not pay 1400,may pay closer to 1000 bucks,if you hit the super once,you probably reduce the payoff to about 14000 bucks per ticket,which is not bad.So the trick is to make the most of the money you bet,only hit the bet once,when the payoff is figuring close to a five fig possibility.

formula_2002
03-19-2003, 07:08 AM
Based upon the average odds for the 1st through 4th ranked horses, the math would indicate that it is impossible to be a long term winner playing superfecta's.
Average odds for 1st through 4th ranked is 1.59, 3.05, 4.64 and 7.07-1


It's just a horrific bet.

Joe M

JustRalph
03-19-2003, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by formula_2002
It's just a horrific bet

I would agree that the odds aren't great. But what about those giant pools in the triple crown races and breeders cup. You catch one of those and there is a decent longshot in there and you cash nice:

10 Orientate
7.40 5.00 3.80
1
Thunderello
Edgar S. Prado
33.00 13.00
11
Crafty C. T.
Patrick Angel Valenzuela
9.00
4th Kona Gold (on my ticket)
$1 Superfecta 10-1-11-9 23,663.70 :cool:

I just missed this one. I had all but Crafty Ct in the 3rd spot, I had kalookan queen and Xtra heat on a keyed ticket with crafty ct left off. Of course Crafty beat my two others. I also had a ticket the same way with Thunderello on top. I did cash on the place and show money on Thunderello.

You have to take in account the pool. If you ask me.

2
Volponi
Jose A. Santos
89.00 26.80 12.40
7
Medaglia d'Oro
Jerry D. Bailey
4.60 3.80
12
Milwaukee Brew
Edgar S. Prado
9.60
Also ran: 8 - Evening Attire

$1 Superfecta 2-7-12-8 28,603.90 :cool:

formula_2002
03-19-2003, 07:43 AM
JustRalph
That assessment I made was very limited.
It looked at the most likely order of finish..
Things change the most, based upon where the favorite finishes.


Do you have the dollar odds win odds for each of the horses that finished 1,2,3,4 in your note?

I'll calculate the "fair" payoff and post it here.

Thanks
Joe M

dav4463
03-19-2003, 05:35 PM
I agree that on the surface, the superfecta is a horrific bet. However, that is looking at all superfecta races. I would only play those where I think there is a good chance of some double-digit odds horses hitting the board. If you restrict your play to only those that have the potential of paying off big money, you only have to be really right 3 or 4 times a year.

superfecta
03-20-2003, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by formula_2002
Based upon the average odds for the 1st through 4th ranked horses, the math would indicate that it is impossible to be a long term winner playing superfecta's.
Average odds for 1st through 4th ranked is 1.59, 3.05, 4.64 and 7.07-1


It's just a horrific bet.

Joe M But thats the problem with averages,it takes all the horses with no relation to their actual odds of landing in the money.A horse that is 20/1 to win may have very little chance of winning,but he may have a 5/1 chance to land in the money.Or a horse that is 4/1 to win can be 20/1 to stay in the money if he doesn't win.Depending on his style of racing and the shape of the race,a horse can be a contender to win,but if he doesn't win he won't stay in the money,a victim of pace.

superfecta
03-20-2003, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by dav4463
I agree that on the surface, the superfecta is a horrific bet. However, that is looking at all superfecta races. I would only play those where I think there is a good chance of some double-digit odds horses hitting the board. If you restrict your play to only those that have the potential of paying off big money, you only have to be really right 3 or 4 times a year. Thats right,looking at all superfecta races.But who in their right mind would try to play every race?Thats the key,knowing when to play,how much to play and knowing when to not play.each player has to know what his limits are,and not play the race just because its there.

formula_2002
03-20-2003, 07:50 AM
superfecta
Its all about averages, probability ranges about the mean, etc.

The range of probabilities of the 20-1 shot coming in 2nd, knowing the odds of the winner, can be calculated.

As I have mentioned in the past, this is not rocket science.
Given enough data, everything in horse racing can be calculated.
And many people have the data and the ability to analyze it.

Today, more people have access to empirical data then ever before.

Joe M

freeneasy
03-20-2003, 10:09 AM
and it was right there biting me, as well as probably the rest of us all, in the ass the whole time. Its been there the whole time whilsting in my ear, kicking me in the butt and more then likely costing me a super or three. Theres where Ive been tossing a desent part of my bet money right out the window, PLAYING the kind or type horses that if they dont win they probably wont even finish up hitting the board. And playing with the kind of mindset that says, well if there good enough to win, then, oh yeah, right, then obviously it would be a mistake not to play em in the place and show spot as well as even the 4th spot. Man, how so not true. Wasting time and money on a horse that probably shouldnt get more then a win spot and maybe a conservative 4th place spot in making up a super ticket or an exacta and trifecta ticket for that matter. And you are so right Sup, there are those horses. Good thing to look for.

superfecta
03-20-2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by freeneasy
and it was right there biting me, as well as probably the rest of us all, in the ass the whole time. Its been there the whole time whilsting in my ear, kicking me in the butt and more then likely costing me a super or three. Theres where Ive been tossing a desent part of my bet money right out the window, PLAYING the kind or type horses that if they dont win they probably wont even finish up hitting the board. And playing with the kind of mindset that says, well if there good enough to win, then, oh yeah, right, then obviously it would be a mistake not to play em in the place and show spot as well as even the 4th spot. Man, how so not true. Wasting time and money on a horse that probably shouldnt get more then a win spot and maybe a conservative 4th place spot in making up a super ticket or an exacta and trifecta ticket for that matter. And you are so right Sup, there are those horses. Good thing to look for. Crap,I may have put a bullet in the pools by sharing that thought, Free:D
But I notice that many times,depending on the track,if you have a good feel for the win and place horses,it is a better bet to spread on the third and fourth spot for a small amount rather than load up on the exacta.Some tracks it doesn't.But thats part of the whole picture.Know the trends at the tracks you play.
Just saw a payoff on TVG,
Aqueduct race nine:
exacta pays $46.20
superfecta pays $2861.00

So if you have a good handle on the exacta,you may want to play a prime bet on your exacta choice,but also spread for 3rd and 4th,just because of payoffs like this.

superfecta
03-20-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by formula_2002
superfecta
Its all about averages, probability ranges about the mean, etc.

The range of probabilities of the 20-1 shot coming in 2nd, knowing the odds of the winner, can be calculated.

As I have mentioned in the past, this is not rocket science.
Given enough data, everything in horse racing can be calculated.
And many people have the data and the ability to analyze it.

Today, more people have access to empirical data then ever before.

Joe M I disagree that you can be that accurate doing it by odds,but I have a question you may be able to answer.If I win three trifectas in one day,spending $6 per race and one super spending $8 on that race,investing a total of 74 dollars that day,what was the probability of that actually happening?

formula_2002
03-20-2003, 08:15 PM
superfecta.

It all depends upon the odds of the horses played.

However, most likely, the probability would be very, very small...
Joe M

GR1@HTR
03-20-2003, 09:26 PM
I love the Superfactor... but it is kinda like double taxation in the US...

25% take out
plus
30% to 40% take out on taxes(dependent upon your income)...
=bummer

superfecta
03-21-2003, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by formula_2002
superfecta.

It all depends upon the odds of the horses played.

However, most likely, the probability would be very, very small...
Joe M Thats what I thought,but it occured to me the odds of picking them straight is one set of odds,and then the odds would change depending on the number of horses in each race,or how good the handicapper is and also the number of combos played.I really didn't expect an exact answer,it was one of those things that occured to me and wondered if anyone had ever tried to figure it out.

hurrikane
03-21-2003, 06:05 AM
yeah GR1..the double dipping is a killer.

to change the subject. I've seen a few ways to play the super..any ideas.

one interesting play

a b c/a b c/d e f/d e f

where abc are the most likely picks(yours or whoever) and cde are long poppers.

any other formulas.

I love the triple, especially in Fla where I'm having a lot of fun lately. Haven't played a lot of supers but I find the contentious races the most profitable. I almost salivate over a mdn or cheap clm race with 12 horse runing.

rmania
03-21-2003, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by hurrikane@HTR
yeah GR1..the double dipping is a killer.

to change the subject. I've seen a few ways to play the super..any ideas.

one interesting play

a b c/a b c/d e f/d e f

where abc are the most likely picks(yours or whoever) and cde are long poppers.

any other formulas.

ab/abc/bcdef/cdef

Would cost $3 more but provides better coverage in the 3rd and 4th spots where, IMO, you are the most vulnerable.

GR1@HTR
03-21-2003, 08:23 AM
My favorite is to single a 20-1 to 40-1 late running pig in the 3rd or 4th slot...

something like
a b
a b c
all
late running pig

and

a b
a b c
late running pig
all

Chico
03-21-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by superfecta
Thats right,looking at all superfecta races.But who in their right mind would try to play every race?Thats the key,knowing when to play,how much to play and knowing when to not play.each player has to know what his limits are,and not play the race just because its there.

Why would you wish to play ANY race where the combination of parimutuel and tax is close to 50% takeout? Most tracks take 25% off the top of superfectas and then the government and state taxes grab approx 33% of what's left. Seems like a sucker bet to me. IMHO

Regards,
Chico

superfecta
03-21-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Chico
Why would you wish to play ANY race where the combination of parimutuel and tax is close to 50% takeout? Most tracks take 25% off the top of superfectas and then the government and state taxes grab approx 33% of what's left. Seems like a sucker bet to me. IMHO

Regards,
Chico Except for the amount you bet,that is not your money in the pool,so as long as you win more than you invest,it doesn't matter how much the track gets.If the pool has 2000 in it with a 50% take,that leaves 1000 to be distributed to the winners.If the track take is 0% but only has a pool of 1000 ,that is still the same amount to be paid to the winners.This is an exaggeration,but if you bet into a race based on your ability to hit ,rather than the track take,you can't help but make money.Would you rather bet a race that you have a feel for that has a 25% bite that can pay 4 digits ,or play a race that has a 12% take ,but you have no real idea how it will come out?Reality is that most players have very little skill in picking winners,much less how much is taken out.Maybe because this board is an exception,we get focused on things that are not a priority in handicapping and our bottom line.
Now like I have said,I hate the fact I do all the work and once I get cash in hand,I have to pay addition taxes on my winnings.It has been taxed once ,if I win too much,I am penalized for it.Thats the Take I don't like.

superfecta
03-24-2003, 12:42 AM
I hit the OTB casino three times this weekend,and it looks like someone has taken these posts to heart.Races were not paying like they normally would,even with longshots on top and favs running out of the money.Hope its just my imagination or a slight abberation.