Why pay 5% more in takeout to bet an exacta?

[Imriledup]

People say that exactas are better than win because for an extra 5% (depending on racetrack) you get one extra horse. You pay 15% for the first horse and get the 2nd horse discounted.

But, the way i look at it, and please tell me if i'm wrong, an exacta wager is just a figment of our imaginations.

For example:

Lets say in the first race of the day, we have a 20 horse field. Win betting is 15%. You make a win bet. In race 2, there is only a field of 5 and you make an exacta wager at the higher rate of 20%. In a 5 horse field, there are 20 possible combinations. In a 20 horse field, there are 20 possible WIN combinations. Picking an exacta in a 5 horse field is similar (in difficulty) to picking a winner in a 20 horse field. You don't really get an 'extra horse' because there are 20 possible 'winners' in the 2nd race exacta, if you view it as the amount of outcomes and not the amount of horses it takes to get those outcomes, its pretty much the same thing, no?

Same thing with a pick 3. Lets say the first 3 races of a particular racing card has three 5 horse fields. That's 125 possible combinations. People will say that you are taking the takeout divided by 3. So, if the take is 25%, you are betting each 'race' at 8 point something percent.

But, if you had the ability to wager on a 125 horse race (theoretically) its the same thing....and you pay much less in takeout.

[ryesteve]

I don't think there's anything wrong with your logic, but it dovetails with something I said yesterday in another thread, that most people avoid short fields because there's not enough money spread around to provide enough of an edge.

If you just compare one race to itself, say an 8 horse field, with a win bet there are going to be 7 possible ways to lose, and with an exacta, there are 55. For a lot of people, it's easier to find enough low expectation combinations among those 55 to compensate for the increase in takeout.

[DanG]

It’s strictly a personal belief, but I always allow for two ‘theoretical points within the take.

1. As Steve said; Every additional runner in the sequence adds inefficiency to the pool. The additional tax on x exotic wager is off set to various degrees by the efficiency of the win pool…in general.
2. The level of sophistication on your circuit. If you’re playing into a 2% lower rake at a major circuit for example…at what point is this benefit offset by the quality of your opposition?

I thought Beyer put it well with his poker analogy of (I’m paraphrasing) “if you enter a room and one table is filled with convention badges and the other has Johnny Chan, which table affords you the best chance of survival?”

I feel the same logic applies to a degree for exotic wagering vs. the lower tax in straight pools / as well as how much fat your competition actually leaves on the table.

BTW: That’s not advocating the insane tax structure were forced to pay. Just trying to point out that through boxing, some wheels and not slotting horses logically there is clearly more fat in many exotic pools then their lower taxed straight counterparts.

[Overlay]

To me, from the state's point of view, the logic of imposing a higher takeout rate on exotic wagers would be that it wouldn't be as apparent to the winning bettor because of the generally higher payouts associated with exotics. Those payouts would tend to dilute or disguise the amount taken off the top, and also make successful bettors less likely to complain about the greater reduction in their winnings. Also, because the take is paid completely by winning bettors (since losing bettors forfeit 100% of their wager anyway), there would be fewer winning players to complain about the take on an exotic wager than there would be on a win bet. The states did it because they could get away with it.

[rrbauer]

People say that exactas are better than win because for an extra 5% (depending on racetrack) you get one extra horse. You pay 15% for the first horse and get the 2nd horse discounted.


I have been around this game for the better part of fifty years and I have NEVER heard anyone say that exactas are better than win for the reason that you state. With that logic look at the bonus over win if I play a Tri or a Super. My god if I play the Cinco there must be an immediate "kaaching" that puts me ahead before the race is ever run.

[rwwupl]

Originally,there was only one level of take out.

The only reason there are tiered take out levels is that the governing body can do it, and get away with it.

It costs no more to process an exotic bet than a win bet.

The Associations (any of them) will tell you that their take out level is very competitive with the industry averages if you would confine your bets to Win ,or,or,or whatever their lowest level of take out is.

It is a marketing ploy and tells you what they think of the public I.Q.(not much)

If we had a Central National Office I would hope they do away with all tiered take out levels, or at least require that the Associations report their Blended Take out number.

Thats my opinion.

rwwupl

[andymays]

Originally,there was only one level of take out.

The only reason there are tiered take out levels is that the governing body can do it, and get away with it.

It costs no more to process an exotic bet than a win bet.

The Associations (any of them) will tell you that their take out level is very competitive with the industry averages if you would confine your bets to Win ,or,or,or whatever their lowest level of take out is.

It is a marketing ploy and tells you what they think of the public I.Q.(not much)

If we had a Central National Office I would hope they do away with all tiered take out levels, or at least require that the Associations report their Blended Take out number.

Thats my opinion.

rwwupl


I can't be said any better!

[startngate]

It costs no more to process an exotic bet than a win bet.
While the rest of your post is spot on, technically you are incorrect here.

Keep in mind the higher takeouts for exotics were developed in an age before simulcasting and better technology (SAM's for example). When tellers have to punch tickets, it does cost more to process an exotic bet as opposed to a win bet. It takes a teller (or a customer for that matter) longer to punch it into the machine. More combinations, more new customers that don't know what they are doing, more questions, more ticket verification time. That means more tellers to take the same number of bets, and more cost.

Having said that, in the current age there is no excuse. Takeout should be a flat rate for all wagers. You and Overlay are correct about the 'why' we are in the current state we are in. They charge it because they can.

[markgoldie]

Okay. Here's the long, boring answer to the tiny fraction of humanity that actually cares. This again is taken from the original notes of my never-to-be-published book on race handicapping. Quoting from myself (when I was young and the gray matter was working better):

"There are six essential reasons why betting gimmicks is more advantageous than betting straight wagers. They are:

(1) Assuming we are able to develop a marginal advantage in handicapping an individual horse, handicapping groups of horses will multiply this advantgae. In many cases, a series of minor advantages will add up to a major edge.

(2) Handicapping errors on the part of the public appear far more often among lesser selections in a race. This is true because supporting horses draw much less scrutiny from the masses of bettors who are more interested in finding the best horse or horses in the race.

(3) By playing groups of horses in gimmicks, we can take advantage of negative handicapping factors. Negative handicapping (which will be discussed in detail later), comes from studying angles designed to eliminate horses, rather than to bet on them. [Note: I will not go into negative handicapping in detail for this post.]

(4) Other theories will actually allow us to use horses, but at the same time eliminate them in certain positions on the gimmick-wagering ticket. This applies to intra-race gimmicks. Two well-known examples are (A) Eliminating late-running horses from the top spot on the wagering ticket (as a general proposition based on low aggregate win percentages) and (B) Eliminating low-priced favorites from the third place on a trifecta ticket and the third and/or fourth spot on a superfecta ticket. [Here we have a footnote which explains that as a general proposition, low priced favorites (even or less) do not finish exactly third or fourth with enough regularity to mitigate their destructive-price presence on a ticket due to "boxing" by the public.]

(5) The larger the wagering gimmick in terms of races involved or levels of play, the more such gimmicks are skewed toward the favorite combinations. That's because the average player is restricted as to the number of possible combinations played because of cost. So larger gimmicks wind up with many different players covering essentially the same favorite combinations. This "skewing" toward favorites crates what's known as a market inefficiency which can be successfully exploited by intelligent, well-bankrolled play.

(6) Inter-race gimmicks, such as daily doubles, pick threes, pick fours, and pick sixes offer the best value available in horse-race wagering relative to track takeout. [Note: Bold emphasis was not present in original notes but is added here due to its applicability to the current discussion] That's because despite their higher individual takeout, they are really multiple-race wagers with a single takeout taken by the track. As such, they will almost always pay better than a standard parlay would. For example, if a win takeout is 15% versus a pick three takeout of 25%, the advantage is as follows. Win parlay return: Leg A .85, Leg B .7225 (.85 x .85), Leg C .614 (.85 x .85 x .85). Returned to wagerer .614 of initial bet. Pick three return: .75. Advantage .136 or 13.6%. And so on. This discussion does not address the question of "forced" play by the strictures of betting consecutive races versus picking and choosing individual races in which you hold yor best opinions. It also does not address the fact that in the "out" legs of an inter-race gimmick, you have no available access to the win odds.
Less understood, but also potent is the advantage relative to takeout garnered by playing intra-race gimmicks such as exactas, trifectas, and superfectas [we might now add the pents]. These wagers are de facto parlays themselves, for example, win-to-place-to-show-to-fourth, etc. Here, the bettor is also getting multiple wagers with the advantage of a single takeout. They are slighlty less advantageous than inter-race gimmicks because the use of a horse in a particular ticket position reduces the effective field size for the other ticket positions. However, the are still hugely cost-effective relative to WPS takeouts." [End of quotes].

We have to realize that none of this addresses the problems or strategies necessary in gimmick wagering. That, of course is an entirely different question. Gimmick wagering isn't for everybody. It requires a totally different approach. But if you know what you're doing, it can be very lucrative.

Mark

[Greyfox]

Originally,there was only one level of take out.

The only reason there are tiered take out levels is that the governing body can do it, and get away with it.

It costs no more to process an exotic bet than a win bet.





rwwupl

Bingo!:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[CincyHorseplayer]

You can bet half as much and make more money on exactas than win bets.It's that simple.

[Cangamble]

You can bet half as much and make more money on exactas than win bets.It's that simple.
If you only bet exactors and the takeout on exactors is 20% versus if you only played win and the takeout was 15% on win, over the long haul, if you are an average player, you will lose more on exactors than on win all things being equal.
So the fact you can bet less to make more makes no sense today.

Now turning back the clock when triactors were first introduced, there was a good reason to have a higher takeout. Remember, only one triactor was usually carded per track and you had to be there to try to cash it. A triactor payed money that a bettor was likely to takeout of the churn bankroll if it was a G note or two back 20-25 years ago.

But nowadays, since you can bet on any track at any time, and a 8 triactors an hour if you want, a $2000 cash can easily be bet back in a day or two, or a week if you are a small player.

The mentality might have been right at the time, but it makes no sense today, only that the tracks do it because they can.

The result is that 25% is taken out of triactors even in 6 horse races these days, and that means only 75% is returned to the bettor. It causes the bettor to lose much quicker than ever before. It has caused bettors to get disillusioned because even if they don't give a care about takeout, they know they just don't last when they put money into their betting account or when they go to the track.

[sjk]

I find the title to be misguided. I certainly don't feel like I am paying a payout percent. The only ones who are doing that are the ones playing their lucky numbers and those whose handicapping is equivalent.

The discerning handicapper chooses when to bet and presumably does so when he thinks he has the chance to make a positive expectation play. These may come less frequently than if the takeout percentage were less (this being strictly a dream; it will never happen) but for me there are more playable exactas than playable win bets notwithstanding the higher takeout.

People gripe about the takeout at Philly Park but a look at my records tells me I have made more money there through the years than at any other track. This has something to do with the year round schedule but perhaps the higher takeout is actually helping me by chasing off some of the players operating with a thin margin.

[rrbauer]

Betting a horse to win pays off when that horse wins. Nothing else has to happen. No other condition has to be satisified: No other horse has to run x, y or z to cash the bet. No other race has to be won to cash the bet. Players who bet to win enjoy the lowest cost propositions.

There are a myriad of ways to complicate betting beyond the simple win bet. Yet, every one of these complicated bets adds more ways to lose than it does to win. You can chase the returns that are offered by the more complicated bets but you need to have the bankroll that can stand the losses between scores; and, you need to have the psychological makeup to see you through those losing streaks.

A hint to "markgoldie": Spend some time in the archives of this board. What you will find is that a great number of us graduated from the subjects of your posts a long time ago.

[Cangamble]

People gripe about the takeout at Philly Park but a look at my records tells me I have made more money there through the years than at any other track. This has something to do with the year round schedule but perhaps the higher takeout is actually helping me by chasing off some of the players operating with a thin margin.
You are right that the takeout may work in your favour in this one instance. I won't even touch Philly, and I'm sure there are very good players who won't either.
Just imagine how much more money you would be making if Philly upped their takeout on tris from 30-40%:)

The reality though is that you would be making more money overall (I assume you must one of Pace Advantage's 95% winners betting horses lifetime), if takeouts on exactors were lower....which I don't think is a dream btw.

[markgoldie]

Betting a horse to win pays off when that horse wins. Nothing else has to happen. No other condition has to be satisified: No other horse has to run x, y or z to cash the bet. No other race has to be won to cash the bet. Players who bet to win enjoy the lowest cost propositions.

There are a myriad of ways to complicate betting beyond the simple win bet. Yet, every one of these complicated bets adds more ways to lose than it does to win. You can chase the returns that are offered by the more complicated bets but you need to have the bankroll that can stand the losses between scores; and, you need to have the psychological makeup to see you through those losing streaks.

A hint to "markgoldie": Spend some time in the archives of this board. What you will find is that a great number of us graduated from the subjects of your posts a long time ago.
__________________
Richard Bauer

Thanks for the badly needed advice. I see that we we have now passed the rudimentary simplicities of my post to the brilliant, ground-breaking observations made in yours. Eg. "Betting a horse to win pays off when that horse wins." Also, "Yet,every one of these complicated bets adds more ways to lose than it does to win." Need a larger bankroll...etc., etc.

I'll try to keep my mouth shut unless or until I have more cutting-edge stuff like this. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Mark

[Cadillakin]

Betting a horse to win pays off when that horse wins. Nothing else has to happen. No other condition has to be satisified: No other horse has to run x, y or z to cash the bet. No other race has to be won to cash the bet. Players who bet to win enjoy the lowest cost propositions.

There are a myriad of ways to complicate betting beyond the simple win bet. Yet, every one of these complicated bets adds more ways to lose than it does to win. You can chase the returns that are offered by the more complicated bets but you need to have the bankroll that can stand the losses between scores; and, you need to have the psychological makeup to see you through those losing streaks.
I agree ..

For myself, handicapping to win is a no-compromise proposition... All the conditions for victory must be met. I think there is advantage in training the mind to seek out the victor, without compromise..

For instance, I NEVER bet a horse who hangs to win.. but in exactas, I do. I never bet a horse with an obvious condition question to win, but in superfectas, I do.

So, for me, betting to win and keeping bets simple keeps the overhead down, both in terms of cost and even more importantly, psychologically.

[Cadillakin]

Thanks for the badly needed advice. I see that we we have now passed the rudimentary simplicities of my post to the brilliant, ground-breaking observations made in yours. Eg. "Betting a horse to win pays off when that horse wins." Also, "Yet,every one of these complicated bets adds more ways to lose than it does to win." Need a larger bankroll...etc., etc.

I'll try to keep my mouth shut unless or until I have more cutting-edge stuff like this. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Mark
Mark...

I think most of the guys are well-meaning and are trying to give good advice.. I saw Mr Bauer's post in that light too.. I don't think he should have singled you out so pointedly, but I do think his advice, though seemingly obvious, is valuable to the players..

You gotta have a pretty thick skin to hang out with the handicappers and gamblers.. Most of us are not lacking in ego.. and generally, we are competitive men.. So, there is sometimes banter that reflects those aspects in us..

So, brush it off, and go on with your learning...

[fmolf]

Mark...

I think most of the guys are well-meaning and are trying to give good advice.. I saw Mr Bauer's post in that light too.. I don't think he should have singled you out so pointedly, but I do think his advice, though seemingly obvious, is valuable to the players..

You gotta have a pretty thick skin to hang out with the handicappers and gamblers.. Most of us are not lacking in ego.. and generally, we are competitive men.. So, there is sometimes banter that reflects those aspects in us..

So, brush it off, and go on with your learning...
their is no crying in horserace handicapping.... :D ...i always play to win first and if my seconditis horses are overlayed i play an exacta to compliment my win bet....best value in racing monmouth p4..15% .....and sam houston p3 @ 12%

[LottaKash]

Mark...

I think most of the guys are well-meaning and are trying to give good advice.. I saw Mr Bauer's post in that light too.. I don't think he should have singled you out so pointedly, but I do think his advice, though seemingly obvious, is valuable to the players..

You gotta have a pretty thick skin to hang out with the handicappers and gamblers.. Most of us are not lacking in ego.. and generally, we are competitive men.. So, there is sometimes banter that reflects those aspects in us..

So, brush it off, and go on with your learning...

Good stuff, Cadillakin, I agree as well...

As with all things, it is good to hit the F-5 key and refresh things a bit, from time to time....As advanced as we may get, sometimes letting the newer and less informed or learned ones in (without having to go to the archives) on some of our hard earned knowledge and viewpoints, is a good thing...I believe that, many of the handicapping truths and facts are always worth mentioning again and again....They are our common bond in this forum..

I have found, that the best teachers that I have studied with and I was mentored by in my life, are the ones that teach on 3-levels, so that no matter what state of knowledge, one may be in, on the subject being discussed, there is always something for everyone, at any level...

Personally, I don't mind hearing the same things again, a time or two, provided there is wisdom and truth in the message....

best,

[Imriledup]

Okay. Here's the long, boring answer to the tiny fraction of humanity that actually cares. This again is taken from the original notes of my never-to-be-published book on race handicapping. Quoting from myself (when I was young and the gray matter was working better):

"There are six essential reasons why betting gimmicks is more advantageous than betting straight wagers. They are:

(1) Assuming we are able to develop a marginal advantage in handicapping an individual horse, handicapping groups of horses will multiply this advantgae. In many cases, a series of minor advantages will add up to a major edge.

(2) Handicapping errors on the part of the public appear far more often among lesser selections in a race. This is true because supporting horses draw much less scrutiny from the masses of bettors who are more interested in finding the best horse or horses in the race.

(3) By playing groups of horses in gimmicks, we can take advantage of negative handicapping factors. Negative handicapping (which will be discussed in detail later), comes from studying angles designed to eliminate horses, rather than to bet on them. [Note: I will not go into negative handicapping in detail for this post.]

(4) Other theories will actually allow us to use horses, but at the same time eliminate them in certain positions on the gimmick-wagering ticket. This applies to intra-race gimmicks. Two well-known examples are (A) Eliminating late-running horses from the top spot on the wagering ticket (as a general proposition based on low aggregate win percentages) and (B) Eliminating low-priced favorites from the third place on a trifecta ticket and the third and/or fourth spot on a superfecta ticket. [Here we have a footnote which explains that as a general proposition, low priced favorites (even or less) do not finish exactly third or fourth with enough regularity to mitigate their destructive-price presence on a ticket due to "boxing" by the public.]

(5) The larger the wagering gimmick in terms of races involved or levels of play, the more such gimmicks are skewed toward the favorite combinations. That's because the average player is restricted as to the number of possible combinations played because of cost. So larger gimmicks wind up with many different players covering essentially the same favorite combinations. This "skewing" toward favorites crates what's known as a market inefficiency which can be successfully exploited by intelligent, well-bankrolled play.

(6) Inter-race gimmicks, such as daily doubles, pick threes, pick fours, and pick sixes offer the best value available in horse-race wagering relative to track takeout. [Note: Bold emphasis was not present in original notes but is added here due to its applicability to the current discussion] That's because despite their higher individual takeout, they are really multiple-race wagers with a single takeout taken by the track. As such, they will almost always pay better than a standard parlay would. For example, if a win takeout is 15% versus a pick three takeout of 25%, the advantage is as follows. Win parlay return: Leg A .85, Leg B .7225 (.85 x .85), Leg C .614 (.85 x .85 x .85). Returned to wagerer .614 of initial bet. Pick three return: .75. Advantage .136 or 13.6%. And so on. This discussion does not address the question of "forced" play by the strictures of betting consecutive races versus picking and choosing individual races in which you hold yor best opinions. It also does not address the fact that in the "out" legs of an inter-race gimmick, you have no available access to the win odds.
Less understood, but also potent is the advantage relative to takeout garnered by playing intra-race gimmicks such as exactas, trifectas, and superfectas [we might now add the pents]. These wagers are de facto parlays themselves, for example, win-to-place-to-show-to-fourth, etc. Here, the bettor is also getting multiple wagers with the advantage of a single takeout. They are slighlty less advantageous than inter-race gimmicks because the use of a horse in a particular ticket position reduces the effective field size for the other ticket positions. However, the are still hugely cost-effective relative to WPS takeouts." [End of quotes].

We have to realize that none of this addresses the problems or strategies necessary in gimmick wagering. That, of course is an entirely different question. Gimmick wagering isn't for everybody. It requires a totally different approach. But if you know what you're doing, it can be very lucrative.

Mark

I enjoyed this and found it helpful. :ThmbUp:

[markgoldie]

Thanks, Riled. I appreciate it. Mark

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Some hilarious stuff in some of these posts.

If you knew the 2 favorites in a race were broke down and will be pulled up, would you just bet win only?

Just amazing!

[rrbauer]

__________________

Thanks for the badly needed advice. I see that we we have now passed the rudimentary simplicities of my post to the brilliant, ground-breaking observations made in yours. Eg. "Betting a horse to win pays off when that horse wins." Also, "Yet,every one of these complicated bets adds more ways to lose than it does to win." Need a larger bankroll...etc., etc.

I'll try to keep my mouth shut unless or until I have more cutting-edge stuff like this. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Mark

Suits me.

[Cadillakin]

Some hilarious stuff in some of these posts.

If you knew the 2 favorites in a race were broke down and will be pulled up, would you just bet win only?

Why limit your unrealistic dream to just two horses breaking down? Let's pretend that all the horses but one were going to break down....

Then, yes, I would bet to win only...

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Why limit your unrealistic dream to just two horses breaking down? Let's pretend that all the horses but one were going to break down....

Then, yes, I would bet to win only...

Some people have the ability to hate the favorites in a race and bet accordingly as so to extract huge amounts of money from a race even though they don't like anybody. Kinda like it's a fixed race except it's fixed because of the opinion.

Some people only have the abilty to look at a race trying to pick a winner.

If I don't like the favorites, I will act and bet as if I know they are going to break down. If I'm right, it's over....If I'm wrong, move on to the next race.

[Imriledup]

Some hilarious stuff in some of these posts.

If you knew the 2 favorites in a race were broke down and will be pulled up, would you just bet win only?

Just amazing!

Yes, you would bet tri's and supers. But, what does that have to do with the other 99.9999 pct of all the races you handicap where you DON"T have that specific edge?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Yes, you would bet tri's and supers. But, what does that have to do with the other 99.9999 pct of all the races you handicap where you DON"T have that specific edge?

Betting on races (which very few people do or know how to do) instead of betting on horses (which 99%+ of people do) makes it to where the opinion you are betting on DOES have that specific perceived edge.

[markgoldie]

Since I have been a gimmick bettor since the 1960's (yes, you read that right), I might have something I can offer to the discussion.

In my opinion, betting straight win is the hardest thing in racing. Why? Because year in and year out, the public does an excellent job in boiling races down to the major contenders. As a poster said, it is an easy way to bet. And so it is. Clean, neat, and uncomplicated. That's why so many people want to do it. And it is also why it's so hard to be successful.

To the average player, one of the key problems in gimmick wagering occurs under the following scenario: You put in the work, develop a very strong angle (which may be specific-track based), and wait out a long period until a prime example comes along with odds, let's say, of 6-1. Maybe a $200 win wager is something you can handle in this spot. So you look to make $1200. Then it crosses your mind that $1200 as a reward for your diligent work isn't very much after all. What about these lesser handicappers walking away with multi-thousand dollar scores betting these exotics? Do they have a better insight on a value horse than you have right here? Probably not. So why then is it always the other guy raking in the jackpots while you slug away in the trenches working for almost nothing?

And so you start looking at the exacta pools. With the logical favorite, the exacta is $52 if your horse beats him. If you played half your bet on this exacta, you'd get back $2600! That's a bit more like it. And, you'd still have another $100 to spread around on lesser contenders. And so you bet the exactas, determined that for once in your life, you would be paid comensurate with your handicapping excellence. You know the end of the story. Your selection, racing brilliantly as you expected, duels the favorite into the dust, but lo and behold, some obscure S-type slob garbages up second in the last jump over the other pace chasers (whom you had used as $30 and $20 exacta "covers" with the other $100).

So now what? You have just lost $200 in a race where a patiently-awaited handicapping special of yours won the race. You allowed a group of horses in which you had no special interest to rob you of a substantial win. Heck, you never would have dreamt of playing the race unless your special horse had been in it. And yet, you allowed the un-handicappable slobs to rob you of you just due. You vow never to play a gimmick again.

What are the lessons here?

First, the player is correct. Most seasoned gimmick players will never allow the lesser players in an event to beat him out of cashing a special win-prspect. Does that mean wheeling? It may. One of the main considerations is track handle. If you play (as I often do) at tracks where a substantial win wager will affect the payout, you are almost forced to wager in the gimmick pools. Even if you are not forced into the gimmicks, they may hold substantially better value than the straight pool, particularly with viable longer shots. Here, a prediction as to how the race may be run is crucial. If your special horse and the favorite are both E7 horses, the prospect of these two running together is rather low (though by no means impossible). But the longer-priced exactas may be very attractive. As we know (I'm sure this appears extensively in the archives which I haven't read), E types run together with P and S types most frequently in exactas. This, of course, assumes that such horses have the major figures in the race.

Also, if you are considering backing up the horse with a place wager, exactas offer a highly effective hedge that will often pay you far, far more than any place wager could.

Put another way, we can say this: Generally, win players love their overlays. But realize this: your overlay will be overlaid much more in the gimmick pools. In the exacta pool, yes. But when we get to tri's and super's, the value will go way, way up. This, if nothing else, is probably something a staunch win bettor can understand.

Lastly, (and I know I've lost most of you by now anyway) Gimmick wagering vastly expands the amount of action a bettor can reasonably get. For example, did you ever look at a S-type horse in a race and think, Hmmm, this horse has lots of good things going for him in here and he's a big price. But with this front-end track bias today, there's no way he can win. There hasn't been a closer win a single race on the card. Still, I love that 25-1 price. But... No use dreaming. He'll never make it. Better pass the race.. Well, if you were a trifecta or superfecta player, this could be the spot of the week for you. By keying this horse 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in a superfecta, for example, using all logical contenders, you have a cost-effective investment which may well produce a bonanza payout.

The bottom line is, gimmick players can make substantial scores when their special horse doesn't even win! I understand the bias against gimmick players. We're numbers' players, not handicappers. We throw as much crap against the wall as we can and hope that something sticks. But I'm reminded of the famous scene in Indiana Jones when the sword master does his whirling-dervish routine prior to attack. Jones is rightly amazed (as I am regarding consistently-successful win players). But in Jones' hand is an effective little tool, which may not take a lot of expertise to use, but certainly gets the job done. For me, that's gimmicks. They get me to the bottom line a lot faster and easier.

Mark

[fmolf]

in my opinion exactas offer the best bets in racing used in conjunction with win betting allows a bettor to take more money out of the race than with strictly win bets.the takeout is still relatively low,the pools still very inefficient if you are patient and only bet overlaid combos you like....in tris and supers i find it very hard to have an opinion and if you do the math on the amount of outcomes ..add in the 25% takeout ... i feel that tris and supers are a bad bet......better to increase the amount of your exacta bet...in my opinion.

[Niko]

Excerpted info from Bet Smart-Win Big on Amazon. May be helpful. You may disagree or not

Stat over 26,000 races from JCapper.com (not written by Jeff Platt)

Bet Type ROI (return on investment)
Favorite To Win; .83
Favorite To Place .86
Exactas;
Favorite/2nd Favorite .78
Favorite/3rd Favorite .79
Favorite/4th Favorite .80
Favorite/5th Favorite .81
2nd Favorite/Favorite .78
3rd Favorite/Favorite .75
4th Favorite/Favorite .78
5th Favorite/Favorite .71


All of the exacta combinations using the first 5
betting choices that didn’t include the favorite had even worse
returns than using the favorite. And if you didn’t include one of the
top 3 favorites to win or place the results were abysmal, with returns
as low as .57 on the dollar.

Later in book;

Recommendations;

1) The only way to improve on win betting using the exacta for
low odds horses (top 2-3 favorites) is to be very selective in
your betting combinations. The first place to start looking is
keying your top choice to your 2nd and/or 3rd choices in the
race.
2) If you like a low odds horse and can’t narrow down second
place to 1-2 horses, you’re usually better off betting the horse
to win or even win/place as opposed to the exacta if long term
profits are your goal.
3) If you like the favorite, can’t narrow down the exacta and want
a bigger pay-off, look at using the daily double, pick 3 and
pick 4 strategies given earlier.
4) The longer the odds of the horse to place under the favorite,
the better your return on investment will be (all things
considered). This reverse is true with the favorite running
second.
5) If you like a horse that’s not in the top 2 betting choices to
win, you can play more than 1-2 combinations in the second
spot and still be profitable. It’s easier to find overlays in the
exacta when the top 2 choices don’t win the race.
6) The more horses in the race, the more overlays there
typically are and the more combinations you can play.

[markgoldie]

Excerpted info from Bet Smart-Win Big on Amazon. May be helpful. You may disagree or not

Stat over 26,000 races from JCapper.com (not written by Jeff Platt)

Bet Type ROI (return on investment)
Favorite To Win; .83
Favorite To Place .86
Exactas;
Favorite/2nd Favorite .78
Favorite/3rd Favorite .79
Favorite/4th Favorite .80
Favorite/5th Favorite .81
2nd Favorite/Favorite .78
3rd Favorite/Favorite .75
4th Favorite/Favorite .78
5th Favorite/Favorite .71


All of the exacta combinations using the first 5
betting choices that didn’t include the favorite had even worse
returns than using the favorite. And if you didn’t include one of the
top 3 favorites to win or place the results were abysmal, with returns
as low as .57 on the dollar.

Later in book;

Recommendations;

1) The only way to improve on win betting using the exacta for
low odds horses (top 2-3 favorites) is to be very selective in
your betting combinations. The first place to start looking is
keying your top choice to your 2nd and/or 3rd choices in the
race.
2) If you like a low odds horse and can’t narrow down second
place to 1-2 horses, you’re usually better off betting the horse
to win or even win/place as opposed to the exacta if long term
profits are your goal.
3) If you like the favorite, can’t narrow down the exacta and want
a bigger pay-off, look at using the daily double, pick 3 and
pick 4 strategies given earlier.
4) The longer the odds of the horse to place under the favorite,
the better your return on investment will be (all things
considered). This reverse is true with the favorite running
second.
5) If you like a horse that’s not in the top 2 betting choices to
win, you can play more than 1-2 combinations in the second
spot and still be profitable. It’s easier to find overlays in the
exacta when the top 2 choices don’t win the race.
6) The more horses in the race, the more overlays there
typically are and the more combinations you can play.

I agree with this and it's what I have been saying all along. Market inefficiencies are created by the greater number of possibilities, skewing the wagering to the favorite combinations. The great thing about all these low payoffs with the favorites involved is that somewhere in the pool there exists large payoffs for combinations when the favorites miss, which is frequent enough to offer opportunity.

[CincyHorseplayer]

If you only bet exactors and the takeout on exactors is 20% versus if you only played win and the takeout was 15% on win, over the long haul, if you are an average player, you will lose more on exactors than on win all things being equal.
So the fact you can bet less to make more makes no sense today.

Now turning back the clock when triactors were first introduced, there was a good reason to have a higher takeout. Remember, only one triactor was usually carded per track and you had to be there to try to cash it. A triactor payed money that a bettor was likely to takeout of the churn bankroll if it was a G note or two back 20-25 years ago.

But nowadays, since you can bet on any track at any time, and a 8 triactors an hour if you want, a $2000 cash can easily be bet back in a day or two, or a week if you are a small player.

The mentality might have been right at the time, but it makes no sense today, only that the tracks do it because they can.

The result is that 25% is taken out of triactors even in 6 horse races these days, and that means only 75% is returned to the bettor. It causes the bettor to lose much quicker than ever before. It has caused bettors to get disillusioned because even if they don't give a care about takeout, they know they just don't last when they put money into their betting account or when they go to the track.

I think some of the assumptions you have is what makes for lack of faith in this bet.

You assume that I'm making risky plays on low percentage bets and I'm doing it constantly.

I'm not.Since 2001 the horses I like come in around 30% to win and 60% to place.But only because I choose not to play the chalkier variety of horses routinely so I feel confidant and boisterous about my hit %.I get busted out of less than 5% of the exactas I play on horses I don't have on my tickets so the illusion of money burnt is wrong.I'm cashing 50% or better of my plays and that exactas routinely pay substantial sums even for a $1 combination that the secondary tickets cashed pays for the bets over a whole year.

If my average mutuel is 3-1 and my average bet is $24 the payoff is $96.I routinely hit exactas for $150.00-300.00 betting the same amounts of money.Wether it be a $30 exacta I have $10 or a $100 exacta I have for $6.My ROI's geared toward the way I play look like this on a typical 28 bet week;

18% Hit Rate=17% ROI
21% Hit Rate=40% ROI
25% Hit Rate=63% ROI
29% Hit Rate=87% ROI
32% Hit Rate=110% ROI
36% Hit Rate=133% ROI
40% Hit Rate=157% ROI

That I can cash 5 tickets a week and not hurt myself ensures my survival as a bettor.If I bet to win it would make me a losing player.And when I'm locked in and on a run I can make 2-3 thousand dollars in 2 -5 day racing weeks.For somone that bets a little less than $500 a week that's pretty respectable I think.

Think about it.High cash rate,inflated payoffs,big ROI per cash %.I'm not a fulltime player,at least not yet.My life doesn't allow me to bet as much as I would like.But it will.And this simple approach has allowed me to beat this game when the win approach left me unfulfilled and frustrated.It's not a philosophical stance for me at all.Experience yielded it.But I know it's not right for everybody.

[fmolf]

I think some of the assumptions you have is what makes for lack of faith in this bet.

You assume that I'm making risky plays on low percentage bets and I'm doing it constantly.

I'm not.Since 2001 the horses I like come in around 30% to win and 60% to place.But only because I choose not to play the chalkier variety of horses routinely so I feel confidant and boisterous about my hit %.I get busted out of less than 5% of the exactas I play on horses I don't have on my tickets so the illusion of money burnt is wrong.I'm cashing 50% or better of my plays and that exactas routinely pay substantial sums even for a $1 combination that the secondary tickets cashed pays for the bets over a whole year.

If my average mutuel is 3-1 and my average bet is $24 the payoff is $96.I routinely hit exactas for $150.00-300.00 betting the same amounts of money.Wether it be a $30 exacta I have $10 or a $100 exacta I have for $6.My ROI's geared toward the way I play look like this on a typical 28 bet week;

18% Hit Rate=17% ROI
21% Hit Rate=40% ROI
25% Hit Rate=63% ROI
29% Hit Rate=87% ROI
32% Hit Rate=110% ROI
36% Hit Rate=133% ROI
40% Hit Rate=157% ROI

That I can cash 5 tickets a week and not hurt myself ensures my survival as a bettor.If I bet to win it would make me a losing player.And when I'm locked in and on a run I can make 2-3 thousand dollars in 2 -5 day racing weeks.For somone that bets a little less than $500 a week that's pretty respectable I think.

Think about it.High cash rate,inflated payoffs,big ROI per cash %.I'm not a fulltime player,at least not yet.My life doesn't allow me to bet as much as I would like.But it will.And this simple approach has allowed me to beat this game when the win approach left me unfulfilled and frustrated.It's not a philosophical stance for me at all.Experience yielded it.But I know it's not right for everybody.
exactas are my favorite exotic bet also....i never play tris and only very occasionally play a double or a p3.....i love to box the two speed horses in a 6-8 horse field....or play the solid even money shot over two long shots in 8-10 horse fields...usually use no more than 2,3 horses tops underneath if payouts are overlaid.....i use these exactas in conjunction with my win betting

[CincyHorseplayer]

Since I have been a gimmick bettor since the 1960's (yes, you read that right), I might have something I can offer to the discussion.

In my opinion, betting straight win is the hardest thing in racing. Why? Because year in and year out, the public does an excellent job in boiling races down to the major contenders. As a poster said, it is an easy way to bet. And so it is. Clean, neat, and uncomplicated. That's why so many people want to do it. And it is also why it's so hard to be successful.

To the average player, one of the key problems in gimmick wagering occurs under the following scenario: You put in the work, develop a very strong angle (which may be specific-track based), and wait out a long period until a prime example comes along with odds, let's say, of 6-1. Maybe a $200 win wager is something you can handle in this spot. So you look to make $1200. Then it crosses your mind that $1200 as a reward for your diligent work isn't very much after all. What about these lesser handicappers walking away with multi-thousand dollar scores betting these exotics? Do they have a better insight on a value horse than you have right here? Probably not. So why then is it always the other guy raking in the jackpots while you slug away in the trenches working for almost nothing?

And so you start looking at the exacta pools. With the logical favorite, the exacta is $52 if your horse beats him. If you played half your bet on this exacta, you'd get back $2600! That's a bit more like it. And, you'd still have another $100 to spread around on lesser contenders. And so you bet the exactas, determined that for once in your life, you would be paid comensurate with your handicapping excellence. You know the end of the story. Your selection, racing brilliantly as you expected, duels the favorite into the dust, but lo and behold, some obscure S-type slob garbages up second in the last jump over the other pace chasers (whom you had used as $30 and $20 exacta "covers" with the other $100).

So now what? You have just lost $200 in a race where a patiently-awaited handicapping special of yours won the race. You allowed a group of horses in which you had no special interest to rob you of a substantial win. Heck, you never would have dreamt of playing the race unless your special horse had been in it. And yet, you allowed the un-handicappable slobs to rob you of you just due. You vow never to play a gimmick again.

What are the lessons here?

First, the player is correct. Most seasoned gimmick players will never allow the lesser players in an event to beat him out of cashing a special win-prspect. Does that mean wheeling? It may. One of the main considerations is track handle. If you play (as I often do) at tracks where a substantial win wager will affect the payout, you are almost forced to wager in the gimmick pools. Even if you are not forced into the gimmicks, they may hold substantially better value than the straight pool, particularly with viable longer shots. Here, a prediction as to how the race may be run is crucial. If your special horse and the favorite are both E7 horses, the prospect of these two running together is rather low (though by no means impossible). But the longer-priced exactas may be very attractive. As we know (I'm sure this appears extensively in the archives which I haven't read), E types run together with P and S types most frequently in exactas. This, of course, assumes that such horses have the major figures in the race.

Also, if you are considering backing up the horse with a place wager, exactas offer a highly effective hedge that will often pay you far, far more than any place wager could.

Put another way, we can say this: Generally, win players love their overlays. But realize this: your overlay will be overlaid much more in the gimmick pools. In the exacta pool, yes. But when we get to tri's and super's, the value will go way, way up. This, if nothing else, is probably something a staunch win bettor can understand.

Lastly, (and I know I've lost most of you by now anyway) Gimmick wagering vastly expands the amount of action a bettor can reasonably get. For example, did you ever look at a S-type horse in a race and think, Hmmm, this horse has lots of good things going for him in here and he's a big price. But with this front-end track bias today, there's no way he can win. There hasn't been a closer win a single race on the card. Still, I love that 25-1 price. But... No use dreaming. He'll never make it. Better pass the race.. Well, if you were a trifecta or superfecta player, this could be the spot of the week for you. By keying this horse 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in a superfecta, for example, using all logical contenders, you have a cost-effective investment which may well produce a bonanza payout.

The bottom line is, gimmick players can make substantial scores when their special horse doesn't even win! I understand the bias against gimmick players. We're numbers' players, not handicappers. We throw as much crap against the wall as we can and hope that something sticks. But I'm reminded of the famous scene in Indiana Jones when the sword master does his whirling-dervish routine prior to attack. Jones is rightly amazed (as I am regarding consistently-successful win players). But in Jones' hand is an effective little tool, which may not take a lot of expertise to use, but certainly gets the job done. For me, that's gimmicks. They get me to the bottom line a lot faster and easier.

Mark

While I'm a little overwhelmed at your long winded tendencies,you are dead on!!You get it.I have no idea why there is so much philosophical infighting.The goal is to beat the game and at the end of the day does it really matter how it's done??I think to some it does and they are astonished that they can't win and are dying to wipe the smile off your face if YOU do.

Oh well hugh??!!:ThmbUp:

[Sid]

Put another way, we can say this: Generally, win players love their overlays. But realize this: your overlay will be overlaid much more in the gimmick pools. In the exacta pool, yes. But when we get to tri's and super's, the value will go way, way up. This, if nothing else, is probably something a staunch win bettor can understand.
I don't believe that for a minute. At least, I'm not aware of anyone hitting the "all" button very often in the win pool.

[CincyHorseplayer]

exactas are my favorite exotic bet also....i never play tris and only very occasionally play a double or a p3.....i love to box the two speed horses in a 6-8 horse field....or play the solid even money shot over two long shots in 8-10 horse fields...usually use no more than 2,3 horses tops underneath if payouts are overlaid.....i use these exactas in conjunction with my win betting

I know it.We always end up talking to each other on the exacta threads!!

The thing for me is that this bet affords me the opprortunity to not have to be the greatest handicapper on earth and have enormous hit % and be flawless,religious,and otherworldly to win.Picking a horse to at worst get the place spot is a fairly easy proposition.If you've been a handicapper for at least a decade there is no reason you can't spot the live contenders and structure a bet around the probable outcome.And that in itself is what makes the wager a value.You ARE cashing tickets regularly.And when your mind lines up with a race you cash big.

I know it's just a matter of personal preference and experience.Raybo on here loves Superfecta's because they make the most sense to him and he's comfortable with the % and he wins.Exactas are that way for me.They just make the most sense and allow me to cross thresholds I could never dream of as a win bettor only.I still bet to win.I had a 39-1 shot at Tampa with the rest of the field wide open.There was no way I was turning down 81.00 to win!!

[Niko]

I agree with this and it's what I have been saying all along. Market inefficiencies are created by the greater number of possibilities, skewing the wagering to the favorite combinations. The great thing about all these low payoffs with the favorites involved is that somewhere in the pool there exists large payoffs for combinations when the favorites miss, which is frequent enough to offer opportunity.

True, the following stats from the book also highlight that;

If a longshot wins, the race tends to fall apart and finish
unpredictably due to the way the race unfolds and how the jockeys
react to the pace. Again Jeff Platt came through with some statistics
which support the theory. What he did is compare the place percentage of the favorite when the 2nd betting choice won and when the 5th betting choice won. When the 2nd choice won the favorite finished 2nd 36% of the time. When the 5th betting choice won, the favorite placed 27% of the time.
While on the surface this doesn’t appear to be a big difference, it has
huge implications.
The longer the odds of the horse you like to win, the lower the
chances that the favorite or a low odds horse will finish second. Your
chances of catching a longer priced horse in second is greater when
a longshot wins compared to a favorite. You’re also able to include
more horses in the second spot and still remain profitable.

So if I'm playing a longshot I open the race up and there's some nice overlays. If I'm looking at a favorite I can only bet one or two underneath.


Looks like Cincy has been successful going the other way, betting different combo's under low odds horses

[Sid]

If a longshot wins, the race tends to fall apart and finish
unpredictably . . .
How does that gibe with reasonably well-established statistical strategy that says if you are a straight bettor wagering a longshot against a heavy favorite, you should not buy a place wager as well, but instead buy a straight exacta with the chalk on top and your longshot in second?

[CincyHorseplayer]

True, the following stats from the book also highlight that;

If a longshot wins, the race tends to fall apart and finish
unpredictably due to the way the race unfolds and how the jockeys
react to the pace. Again Jeff Platt came through with some statistics
which support the theory. What he did is compare the place percentage of the favorite when the 2nd betting choice won and when the 5th betting choice won. When the 2nd choice won the favorite finished 2nd 36% of the time. When the 5th betting choice won, the favorite placed 27% of the time.
While on the surface this doesn’t appear to be a big difference, it has
huge implications.
The longer the odds of the horse you like to win, the lower the
chances that the favorite or a low odds horse will finish second. Your
chances of catching a longer priced horse in second is greater when
a longshot wins compared to a favorite. You’re also able to include
more horses in the second spot and still remain profitable.

So if I'm playing a longshot I open the race up and there's some nice overlays. If I'm looking at a favorite I can only bet one or two underneath.


Looks like Cincy has been successful going the other way, betting different combo's under low odds horses

You make some really good points in here,especially about longshots winning and stretching out in races.I get my fair share of big odds horses.Often the biggest overlay in the race is the horse who can't win but has the form that laughs at his odds.Just isn't good enough to win it.After reading Cramer's "Value Handicapping" I found this to be a frequent phenomenon.Which just reinforced my opinion of exactas as excellent value when your horse finishes 2nd.I start splitting the top and bottom money when the horse is 8-1 or so or better.I'll go top heavy when the horse I like is low odds and there are 1-2 place contenders.And second or 3rd choices over favorites are routine cash cows.It's something you do just out of general principle and are rewarded regularly,it's an archetype in the unconscious of the horseplayer's brain.

That's the value in essence.When you turn a 6/5 shot you love into a 6-1 you have achieved the alchemist's dream,you have turned base metal into gold.

[Niko]

How does that gibe with reasonably well-established statistical strategy that says if you are a straight bettor wagering a longshot against a heavy favorite, you should not buy a place wager as well, but instead buy a straight exacta with the chalk on top and your longshot in second?

I've found that it depends on the race. If it's a predictable race with a strong favorite (or top 2 favorites), they will have the best chance of winning Thus using the exacta instead of a place bet is a good strategy in that type of race.

But if it's a chaotic race with vulnerable favorites, compromising pace shapes or your longshot has a similar run style to the favorites, then you're wasting money putting the favorites on top. The statistics show that you're betting off putting more money on your longshot over the non-favorites.

Not the perfect answer but it depends on the race.

Every study you'll find will show that the biggest ROI by far on longshots is to win only, therefore it doesn't make much sense to bet much to place as a hedge. That said there is some viable strategy in betting some place money if it ups your overall win rate enough to compensate for the reduced ROI-but that's another story.

[Niko]

You make some really good points in here,especially about longshots winning and stretching out in races.I get my fair share of big odds horses.Often the biggest overlay in the race is the horse who can't win but has the form that laughs at his odds.Just isn't good enough to win it.After reading Cramer's "Value Handicapping" I found this to be a frequent phenomenon.Which just reinforced my opinion of exactas as excellent value when your horse finishes 2nd.I start splitting the top and bottom money when the horse is 8-1 or so or better.I'll go top heavy when the horse I like is low odds and there are 1-2 place contenders.And second or 3rd choices over favorites are routine cash cows.It's something you do just out of general principle and are rewarded regularly,it's an archetype in the unconscious of the horseplayer's brain.

That's the value in essence.When you turn a 6/5 shot you love into a 6-1 you have achieved the alchemist's dream,you have turned base metal into gold.

The data I've seen from computer programs all
show that the highest ROI comes from exacta combinations with
their top pick keyed over the 2nd and/or 3rd choice or the 2nd-3rd
or 2nd-4th choices keyed over the programs top choice. Either the race runs the way the handicapper or program sees it or it falls apart.

So your comment about the 2nd-3rd choice is very telling to me. You obviously know what you're doing and everyone should read your post above a couple times in my opinion.

To me, I first have to judge if it's a formful race or if it's chaotic (extreme race shape, way the track is playing, false fav's etc.)

If it's formful I'll look for a low odds horse over a longshot as you mention when I can. I still need work putting the low odds horses together.

If it's chaotic I'll put more money on the non-fav's under my longshot. Experience and stats back up the strategy.

[Sid]

Every study you'll find will show that the biggest ROI by far on longshots is to win only, therefore it doesn't make much sense to bet much to place as a hedge. That said there is some viable strategy in betting some place money if it ups your overall win rate enough to compensate for the reduced ROI-but that's another story.
My own experience has been that the biggest ROI by far in wagering a horse at any price is betting to win only, while amusing onseself and cashing the occasional outsized score by betting win-based gimmicks. I raised the classic exacta scheme only for purposes of discussing the thread's assertion.

Of course, I also believe that whatever works for whomever it works for is the way to wager.

[Track Collector]

Betting a horse to win pays off when that horse wins. Nothing else has to happen. No other condition has to be satisified: No other horse has to run x, y or z to cash the bet. No other race has to be won to cash the bet. Players who bet to win enjoy the lowest cost propositions.

There are a myriad of ways to complicate betting beyond the simple win bet. Yet, every one of these complicated bets adds more ways to lose than it does to win. You can chase the returns that are offered by the more complicated bets but you need to have the bankroll that can stand the losses between scores; and, you need to have the psychological makeup to see you through those losing streaks.

A hint to "markgoldie": Spend some time in the archives of this board. What you will find is that a great number of us graduated from the subjects of your posts a long time ago.
__________________
Richard Bauer

Thanks for the badly needed advice. I see that we we have now passed the rudimentary simplicities of my post to the brilliant, ground-breaking observations made in yours. Eg. "Betting a horse to win pays off when that horse wins." Also, "Yet,every one of these complicated bets adds more ways to lose than it does to win." Need a larger bankroll...etc., etc.

I'll try to keep my mouth shut unless or until I have more cutting-edge stuff like this. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Mark

Mark,

Thanks for posting, and do continue to share any advice and/or experiences you think will help, as not all of us have "graduated". While the suggestion to search the archives is a good one, one could spend hours upon hours to dig up the info we are interested in, as so many threads can go in and out of topic. Multiple (new) threads on the same topic are certainly not unheard of either.

[CincyHorseplayer]

My own experience has been that the biggest ROI by far in wagering a horse at any price is betting to win only, while amusing onseself and cashing the occasional outsized score by betting win-based gimmicks. I raised the classic exacta scheme only for purposes of discussing the thread's assertion.

Of course, I also believe that whatever works for whomever it works for is the way to wager.

I don't get this at all.The best bettor is emotionless and bound by no rules except for what wins him or her money."While amusing oneself and cashing the occasional outsized score by betting win-based gimmicks".That is a totally false perception and your classic "Scheme" is false too.I guess since I am constantly defending it I'm an exacta specialist.It's what I zero in on and do.It's a complete illusion that this is a risky,high loss proposition.I cash tickets on half my bets or better,40% when I'm going bad.That eliminates risk factor because it keeps the bankroll intact.And cashing 25% of the big bets ensures an ROI that longshot players dream about.

Doesn't that sound good??Cashing a lot of tickets and maximizing your ROI??

I guess not!!

If I bet to win I'd cut my ROI in half and endure these noble 30 race loss streaks that are preached on occasionally as the testament of a "Real" horseplayer.For those with endless bankroll and whose wins and losses don't affect the status quo it's a cranky point IMO.But I think it reflects more lack of imagination and lack of concern for the dollar that the rest of us take seriously because we have to.

[fmolf]

I don't get this at all.The best bettor is emotionless and bound by no rules except for what wins him or her money."While amusing oneself and cashing the occasional outsized score by betting win-based gimmicks".That is a totally false perception and your classic "Scheme" is false too.I guess since I am constantly defending it I'm an exacta specialist.It's what I zero in on and do.It's a complete illusion that this is a risky,high loss proposition.I cash tickets on half my bets or better,40% when I'm going bad.That eliminates risk factor because it keeps the bankroll intact.And cashing 25% of the big bets ensures an ROI that longshot players dream about.

Doesn't that sound good??Cashing a lot of tickets and maximizing your ROI??

I guess not!!

If I bet to win I'd cut my ROI in half and endure these noble 30 race loss streaks that are preached on occasionally as the testament of a "Real" horseplayer.For those with endless bankroll and whose wins and losses don't affect the status quo it's a cranky point IMO.But I think it reflects more lack of imagination and lack of concern for the dollar that the rest of us take seriously because we have to.
what everyone is forgetting is that handicap the race for seciond the same as you do the race for first just extracting your win horse from the pace scenario...if your win horse is a closer maybe he nips the early speed at the wire...if win horse is an e type maybe a closer gets up for second.....or no closers good enough two speeds complete the exacta(my favorite play)usinfg pace has been an excellent way for me to handicap the separate race for second