Exotic Wagering

[moneyline702]

Simply put, which is best risk:return



I heard someone here say that with the 10-cent Super there's no reason to bet exacta's or tri's anymore. Any relevance to that statement?

I am open to the use of wheel betting.

One thing's for sure, I don't want to play straight wagers.

I am only interested in exotics and am really looking for the best avenue to go.

My bankroll is a decent size (not monstrous) to begin, at $20k. I am expecting losing streaks and in the business of horse wagering how could you not?

To me the greatest obstacle in the whole scheme of things is effective money management. I was going to go with either a 100, 150 or 200 unit bankroll (at 1%, .75% or .05% respectively).

[my_nameaintearl]

Damn you could drop your bankroll to 19k and invest 1k in me

[fmolf]

Simply put, which is best risk:return



I heard someone here say that with the 10-cent Super there's no reason to bet exacta's or tri's anymore. Any relevance to that statement?

I am open to the use of wheel betting.

One thing's for sure, I don't want to play straight wagers.

I am only interested in exotics and am really looking for the best avenue to go.

My bankroll is a decent size (not monstrous) to begin, at $20k. I am expecting losing streaks and in the business of horse wagering how could you not?

To me the greatest obstacle in the whole scheme of things is effective money management. I was going to go with either a 100, 150 or 200 unit bankroll (at 1%, .75% or .05% respectively).i like to attack a race with my overlaid win horse on top and two max three logical horses underneath...these combos must be overlaid ...to determine this i use barry meadows exacta chart then look at the track pays...to often in the tri's and the supers i do not have an opinion past the second slot

[QuarterCrack]

I think the risk/reward is dictated by the circumstances of each individual race and the legitimacy of the favorite. In some cases, an exacta would be the way to go, in others, a trifecta would be the best spot, etc. If you have a legitimate favorite, it can reduce your risk in the exacta. If you hate the favorite, it may muddle the exacta picture and make spreading out a bit in the trifecta the better option, to try to make a score.

Just curious, how come you eschew straight wagering? The lower takeout may be attractive to you in the long run.

Have you read "Exotic Betting" by Steve Crist? You probably have, but if not, you'll want to check it out - it may help provide you with some direction.

[1st time lasix]

the takeouts are generally not the same....if they were....than tris and supers offer more chances/opportunities that the public has made a mistake. With onerous takeouts in those two pools....the exacta is a better play

[fmolf]

the takeouts are generally not the same....if they were....than tris and supers offer more chances/opportunities that the public has made a mistake. With onerous takeouts in those two pools....the exacta is a better playi agree and easier to hit hence more cashes for a serious/recreational player who plays twice a week at most this is important!....i know the pros will say the more exotic the wager the more inefficient the pools and the bigger the scores...not for me right now though possibly in the future when i retire and have more time to devote to my hobby!

[Space Monkey]

fmolf, u sound like me,,lol. I can only play once or twice a week because of that "work" thing. Hoping to retire and devote the time necessary in about 5 years. I've found exactas as the way to go. My roi on them is always +. I've had up and down success with tri's, but not so good with supers and pik 4's and 6's. With exactas you know what the payoff will be so it helps you in money management. Currently I'm not smart enough to just bet exactas :confused:

In betting tri's, if i don't like the favorite and like some price horses, I'll box 4. If i like the fave, i'll key him with 3. The last thing I want is to box a tri and end up with a tri payout of under $100.

moneyline, you have to remember 1 thing. Its a hell of a lot harder to hit those supers than it is an exacta. I never bet a ten cent one. I'll play .50 now and then.

To generate a consistent profit my current strategy is when I have a "key" horse, I'll play it 20w, 10p, and box $5 exactas with 2 or 3 others. Thats a $50-60 a race investment. It offers good profit potential and with the place bet and box exacta I'm covered if my key horse doesn't win.

A key horse for me is never an odds on favorite. Never under 3-1.

[fmolf]

fmolf, u sound like me,,lol. I can only play once or twice a week because of that "work" thing. Hoping to retire and devote the time necessary in about 5 years. I've found exactas as the way to go. My roi on them is always +. I've had up and down success with tri's, but not so good with supers and pik 4's and 6's. With exactas you know what the payoff will be so it helps you in money management. Currently I'm not smart enough to just bet exactas :confused:

In betting tri's, if i don't like the favorite and like some price horses, I'll box 4. If i like the fave, i'll key him with 3. The last thing I want is to box a tri and end up with a tri payout of under $100.

moneyline, you have to remember 1 thing. Its a hell of a lot harder to hit those supers than it is an exacta. I never bet a ten cent one. I'll play .50 now and then.

To generate a consistent profit my current strategy is when I have a "key" horse, I'll play it 20w, 10p, and box $5 exactas with 2 or 3 others. Thats a $50-60 a race investment. It offers good profit potential and with the place bet and box exacta I'm covered if my key horse doesn't win.

A key horse for me is never an odds on favorite. Never under 3-1.
we do play very similarly i will retire in eight years ...i would ask you to keep records about that place betting......just on paper see what your long term bottom line would look like betting 30 on the nose ...mine went up a bit when i started playing win only.....i keep my exacta combos to a few and bet more in lieu of spreading too thin.....different things do work for different people....i just started playing p3's...lone star park has a 12% takeout on the bet.....never play tris or super or p4's or 6's....maybe later when i have more time.....good luck to you

[raybo]

IMO, superfectas are the way to go. I don't wager unless I estimate the payout, if I hit, will be at least 300/1. Kinda hard to get those odds in exactas and tris.

I wager a box/wheel ticket, wheeling 1 (or 2) horses on the win line with a progressive, pyramiding box on the other 3 lines.

I think the 10 cent super is great for the game. It allows players to wager very little and take a shot at very good payouts. My base ticket costs $12 @ $1 so the 10 cent would cost $1.20. Pretty cheap, wouldn't you say?

[fmolf]

IMO, superfectas are the way to go. I don't wager unless I estimate the payout, if I hit, will be at least 300/1. Kinda hard to get those odds in exactas and tris.

I wager a box/wheel ticket, wheeling 1 (or 2) horses on the win line with a progressive, pyramiding box on the other 3 lines.

I think the 10 cent super is great for the game. It allows players to wager very little and take a shot at very good payouts. My base ticket costs $12 @ $1 so the 10 cent would cost $1.20. Pretty cheap, wouldn't you say?
yes payouts are big but you need to have a good strike rate to win ...at least i do....if you do the math according to the board odds most tri's and super's have underlaid payoffs for the actual chances of the horses finishing in their respesctive places

[ranchwest]

yes payouts are big but you need to have a good strike rate to win ...at least i do....if you do the math according to the board odds most tri's and super's have underlaid payoffs for the actual chances of the horses finishing in their respesctive places

That's why "most" supers aren't good bets. You need to have at least one and hopefully two or more horses the public will find a surprise. Then the payout "explodes". IMHO, you have to be able to find contenders for the super that the public won't like.

[fmolf]

That's why "most" supers aren't good bets. You need to have at least one and hopefully two or more horses the public will find a surprise. Then the payout "explodes". IMHO, you have to be able to find contenders for the super that the public won't like.i would say that, that is a true statement for any wager from win all the way into the p6 if that is your fancy.....

[raybo]

yes payouts are big but you need to have a good strike rate to win ...at least i do....if you do the math according to the board odds most tri's and super's have underlaid payoffs for the actual chances of the horses finishing in their respesctive places

My hit rate is 8% long term and I make a very nice profit, like 46% net.

[fmolf]

My hit rate is 8% long term and I make a very nice profit, like 46% net.
well done....you must be hitting quite a few big payoffs...if you play $100 a race you need to hit 8 out of every 100 bets @ an average payout of $1,625 to make a 45% profit......nice

[ranchwest]

i would say that, that is a true statement for any wager from win all the way into the p6 if that is your fancy.....

Yeah, but there's more "space" with supers. With win tickets, each horse you add on your ticket tends to significantly impact your profit. With supers, each horse you add to your ticket tends to significantly impact your chance of winning.

[raybo]

Yeah, but there's more "space" with supers. With win tickets, each horse you add on your ticket tends to significantly impact your profit. With supers, each horse you add to your ticket tends to significantly impact your chance of winning.Exactly! There is a fine point, concerning the number of horses you add to a super ticket. Too few and you don't have proper coverage, too many and your ROI suffers. If you consistently add too many horses in the supers you will go from being successful to being unsuccessful, as a general rule. Your base ticket must allow room for additions without putting your costs out of the ballpark, for long term profit.

[fmolf]

Exactly! There is a fine point, concerning the number of horses you add to a super ticket. Too few and you don't have proper coverage, too many and your ROI suffers. If you consistently add too many horses in the supers you will go from being successful to being unsuccessful, as a general rule. Your base ticket must allow room for additions without putting your costs out of the ballpark, for long term profit.
the same as playing the exacta or any exotic wager their comes a point where it is not cost effective against your strike rate and roi....adding horses always hurts my exacta roi,that is why i play no more than two underneath my overlaid win selection.....on the rare occasions i play a p3 i usuall go small ...at least 1 sometimes 2 singles...otherwise my long term profits suffer

[raybo]

the same as playing the exacta or any exotic wager their comes a point where it is not cost effective against your strike rate and roi....adding horses always hurts my exacta roi,that is why i play no more than two underneath my overlaid win selection.....on the rare occasions i play a p3 i usuall go small ...at least 1 sometimes 2 singles...otherwise my long term profits suffer

Agreed. My base super ticket is:

1
23
2345
23456

This ticket is modified if field size is over 10 or if there are ties in my grading system. It can also be modified for special races where there is tremendous value or huge pools, etc..

[fmolf]

Agreed. My base super ticket is:

1
23
2345
23456

This ticket is modified if field size is over 10 or if there are ties in my grading system. It can also be modified for special races where there is tremendous value or huge pools, etc..
this is an $18 ticket correct....Dick Mitchell advocates in chaotic races to move your win horse into the second and even the third slot.Do you ever use this strategy?

[1st time lasix]

With all "same race" exotics there are two scenarios that must always be be considered after you have done your handicapping in my opinion :1} can you beat or eliminate the top two choices. Either one or both. The vulnerability is crucial. 2} can you 'split' low odds contenders on your ticket structure and "move up"' any fringe longer shots higher on the ticket? One can never play the top two or three chalks in a row since these combination are generally underlays. Overall however------ playing at venues with high takeouts 24%-31% will grind you into the dirt over time. In a perfect world all takeouts would be lower and the same for all pools. You just don't get paid what you should for the risks you are taking when the takeouts are onerous. . The new lower denominations on the supers, tris and and pick fours help in one regard....less chance of irs tax withholding on a bomb ticket. Nothing more. You still need to have sufficient bankroll to play these exotics. A dilligent player has to pound out multiple tickets giving emphasis where the handicapping opinion is the strongest. :ThmbUp: I reread Crist's book on exotics again last evening. A little refresher. Now i need tomorrows results--- today! ha!

[ranchwest]

this is an $18 ticket correct....Dick Mitchell advocates in chaotic races to move your win horse into the second and even the third slot.Do you ever use this strategy?
This wasn't directed to me, but....

I like

AB
ABC
ABCD
ABCDE

16 combinations, this is my minimum and generally my standard.

I have a longshot "method" that provides the "A". The B, C, D and E are usually fairly traditional arrived at plays unless I have multiple longshots -- those can go into any position.

When I play physicality live, I sometimes have rather large tickets, but I've done pretty well with them.

[markgoldie]

With all "same race" exotics there are two scenarios that must always be be considered after you have done your handicapping in my opinion :1} can you beat or eliminate the top two choices. Either one or both. The vulnerability is crucial. 2} can you 'split' low odds contenders on your ticket structure and "move up"' any fringe longer shots higher on the ticket? One can never play the top two or three chalks in a row since these combination are generally underlays. Overall however------ playing at venues with high takeouts 24%-31% will grind you into the dirt over time. In a perfect world all takeouts would be lower and the same for all pools. You just don't get paid what you should for the risks you are taking when the takeouts are onerous. . The new lower denominations on the supers, tris and and pick fours help in one regard....less chance of irs tax withholding on a bomb ticket. Nothing more. You still need to have sufficient bankroll to play these exotics. A dilligent player has to pound out multiple tickets giving emphasis where the handicapping opinion is the strongest. :ThmbUp: I reread Crist's book on exotics again last evening. A little refresher. Now i need tomorrows results--- today! ha!


In General, Crist's book is very helpful to those who don't know much about gimmick wagering. It sets out some strategies that make a lot of sense.

The problem with the book is that Crist is almost exclusively a horizintal gimmick player (doubles, pick 3's, pick 4's, pick 6's). It's obvious he knows very little about vertical gimmicks. First off, while he carefully explains the wagering edge relative to track takeout in regards to horizontal gimmicks, he is less able to explain the same wagering advantage in verticals. So let me try. The verticals are also de facto parlays, except in their case, not from winner to winner in consecutive races, but from win to place to show, to fourth (and now to fifth in pents). The small disadvantage value-wise in verticals is that as each ticket position is filled, it reduces the number of possible horses in subsequent positions, and thereby reduces the possibilities somewhat. (In horizontals, all horses are in play in every race.) But verticals have a strong edge of their own versus track takeout and the larger the vertical, the bigger the advantage.

Crist also does not mention another important advantage regarding verticals-that being the ability to cherry-pick your event for maximum value. This should be obvious but still bears mentioning. In horizontals, you are at the mercy of the events that they feed you. For example, maybe you would love to play lots of pick 4's, but you normally pass grass races, or maiden races, etc. Well chances are you going to have to play these events whether you want to or not. But even more potent is the inability to choose the races for their potential wagering value in your scheme of wagering. The chances of four consecutive races (or even three) that offer what you may consider good handicapping value are negligible. For this reason, I tend to play verticals much more often than horizontals unless there is a substantial carry-over in the horizontal.

Crist also misses his own point in constructing multiple tickets when it comes to verticals. In fact, it might be said that the single most important, most quoted, most used, etc. insight that Crist has is his multiple-ticket strategy in playing horizontals. For this, he has become famous.

But since he doesn't play verticals himself, he knows nothing about the similar construction of these tickets to mazimize value. So here, for the first time anywhere, I will divulge the Markgoldie method for vertical ticket construction. However, before I do, a very important word about which races to play. This is probably just as important as the ticket construction anyway. This next concept is so important that you might even write it down. Play verticals only when one of the following conditions are present and 1st time lasix mentions this:

(1) The field is so contentious that the result is likely to contain horses in the top spots that are longer-priced simply because they are every bit as good as the shorter-priced horses in the race. Or

(2) The favorite in the race is highly vulnerable such that he is very likely to be beaten and moreover is likely to miss the board altogether.

If you stick to these situations, you will drastically enhance you vertical-playing success. And now for the method of play:

After handicapping the race to the best of your ability, break the horses down into the following groups:

(1) Horses who could easily win the race. (And here, you should be willing to throw out the favorite in many cases. This rule is not hard and fast because once in a while, the supporting cast may offer such value that you are willing to proceed with the favorite in the top spot on some of your tickets.)

(2) Horses who have a real, but outside chance to win the race.

(3) Horses who are likely to finish on the ticket but not win the race (these are usually solid P or S types, who rarely win due to their running style, but who often finish 2nd thru 4th.)

(4) Horses that you believe can win the race but who are much less likely to finish high on the ticket if they fail. This could be a subset of either (1) or (2) and is usually described by the one-dimensional E type who either wins or collapses. E-types off layoffs are prime candidates for this category. Also note, we assume that the track surface we are playing is "fair" to the degree that closing types can gobble up the failed speed faders in the stretch.

(5) Longshots with late-running styles who occasionally make tickets with their late run, but only in minor positions.

(6) Longshots who under the right conditions might win and/or finish anywhere on the ticket.

Now. Let's use a superfecta ticket as an example since tri's can be played the same way, just without the last leg, and pents can be also played the same way, except with an additional leg.

Start by constructing your base ticket, much the same way Crist creates his base ticket for horizontals. This will consist of the the horses who you feel have the absolute best chance of finishing in a given ticket position. Start with position 1 (aka. the win position). Write down the horses with the very best chance (in your mind, of course) to win. At first and until you gain lots of experience, keep this to two horses. Next, go to the second spot. Write down the three most likely horses to fill this position. Here, both of the horses you have in the win position will usually appear and you will be adding one additional solid contender. [Note: Your win-position horses should usually appear here because even if one or both of your top win horses are one-dimensional E types, as a projected speed survivor, they are subject to running second if they are caught late.]

On to the third spot. Add one contender and here, a good E/P, P, or S type is recommended. A weaker E is a terrible candidate for this position. Then to the fourth position. Same thing. A good middle or late runner should be added. [Note: Trying to keep this simple, but if you've read this far, you probably don't mind nuance. If I have a field where there are some very good, solid pressers and closers, I would consider leaving even an E-type that I have in the first position out of third and fourth. Granted, this is tricky since an E speed survivor may get passed late by two or three horses and hence finish 3rd or 4th on the ticket. It depends strongly on the track's speed support and the record of the E type in question.]

Okay. So my base ticket is:

2// 3// 4// 5 16 punches. I will play this ticket on its own for ten units. If I am playing 10-cent supers, that's $16.00.

Next, I will look at my secondary possible winners. I will put such horse or horses in the top spot with my base horses (2-4) underneath. Let's say there are two of these. The play then is:

6,7// 3// 4// 5. Since the top two horses do not appear in the latter positions, the ticket costs 2 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 54 punches. I play this for 2 units or $10.80 in dime supers.

Next, I go to the second position. Here, I will put in horses who I feel have a potential to run second, but who are not already one of the three horses that I have in the second spot. It is highly permissible to use one or both of the secondary horses that I had in the top spot in this position. I use these horses with my top two win horses from my base play and the base-play horses that I have in the third and fourth spots. If there were two new horses here, the play would again be for 2 units and the cost would be $10.80.

I do the same in the third and fourth positions, adding additional horses. Remember, if I added a weaker-type E toward the top of my cover tickets, I may wish to leave them out of these under positions. These tickets could cost another $21.60 ($10.80 x 2) and so my overall cost is now up to $59.20.

Now it's time to add my longshots. These horses come from categories (5) and (6) in my original race breakdown. I play them only with the base horses and in whatever position I think they might finish. Here, longshot E types should be at the top of the ticket but off the bottom. And longshot P and S types off the top and toward the bottom. I play these for one unit with the base horses. These additions cost $5.40 a throw and are worth every penny. Let's say on average there are 5 of them, remembering that we're not talking about 5 additional horses, just 5 additional positions we want to fill with bombers. Additional cost: $27. Total play cost: $86.2.

Now. You might say, "If you're playing all these combinations, why don't you just construct a single ticket? For example: 5 horses// 6 horses// 7horses// 8 horses costs just $62.50 and here it would seem you are getting better coverage.

The answer is twofold. First, you have no multiples on a ticket like this, so what happens in reality is that you may hit a somewhat greater percentage, but when the shorter numbers run together, you will often lose money even though you hit the race. Second, you have to look at the long haul. There are simply too many "wasted" tickets on this type of play where, for example you may have weaker E types in all positions and these horses will very very rarely be on a ticket if they don't make a clear lead in the race. You may also wind up with S types in win positions where they very rarely finish, etc.
The point is, over the long run, these "wasted" tickets add up and they ruin your ROI.

So this is a basic strategy for vertical gimmicks. Remember: the major advantage in multi-horse gimmicks is that the longer-priced combinations are overlaid. That's why it makes no sense to play the gimmick if you see no odds' value. (Because the favorite combinations are underlaid.) If you must play such a no-value event, your best course is to play the favorite to win. You'll actually get your best value that way.

Hope some of this has been helpful to sombody. Thanks.

Mark

Edit: I see some of you guys are already using this type of strategy. That's great.

[fmolf]

In General, Crist's book is very helpful to those who don't know much about gimmick wagering. It sets out some strategies that make a lot of sense.

The problem with the book is that Crist is almost exclusively a horizintal gimmick player (doubles, pick 3's, pick 4's, pick 6's). It's obvious he knows very little about vertical gimmicks. First off, while he carefully explains the wagering edge relative to track takeout in regards to horizontal gimmicks, he is less able to explain the same wagering advantage in verticals. So let me try. The verticals are also de facto parlays, except in their case, not from winner to winner in consecutive races, but from win to place to show, to fourth (and now to fifth in pents). The small disadvantage value-wise in verticals is that as each ticket position is filled, it reduces the number of possible horses in subsequent positions, and thereby reduces the possibilities somewhat. (In horizontals, all horses are in play in every race.) But verticals have a strong edge of their own versus track takeout and the larger the vertical, the bigger the advantage.

Crist also does not mention another important advantage regarding verticals-that being the ability to cherry-pick your event for maximum value. This should be obvious but still bears mentioning. In horizontals, you are at the mercy of the events that they feed you. For example, maybe you would love to play lots of pick 4's, but you normally pass grass races, or maiden races, etc. Well chances are you going to have to play these events whether you want to or not. But even more potent is the inability to choose the races for their potential wagering value in your scheme of wagering. The chances of four consecutive races (or even three) that offer what you may consider good handicapping value are negligible. For this reason, I tend to play verticals much more often than horizontals unless there is a substantial carry-over in the horizontal.

Crist also misses his own point in constructing multiple tickets when it comes to verticals. In fact, it might be said that the single most important, most quoted, most used, etc. insight that Crist has is his multiple-ticket strategy in playing horizontals. For this, he has become famous.

But since he doesn't play verticals himself, he knows nothing about the similar construction of these tickets to mazimize value. So here, for the first time anywhere, I will divulge the Markgoldie method for vertical ticket construction. However, before I do, a very important word about which races to play. This is probably just as important as the ticket construction anyway. This next concept is so important that you might even write it down. Play verticals only when one of the following conditions are present and 1st time lasix mentions this:

(1) The field is so contentious that the result is likely to contain horses in the top spots that are longer-priced simply because they are every bit as good as the shorter-priced horses in the race. Or

(2) The favorite in the race is highly vulnerable such that he is very likely to be beaten and moreover is likely to miss the board altogether.

If you stick to these situations, you will drastically enhance you vertical-playing success. And now for the method of play:

After handicapping the race to the best of your ability, break the horses down into the following groups:

(1) Horses who could easily win the race. (And here, you should be willing to throw out the favorite in many cases. This rule is not hard and fast because once in a while, the supporting cast may offer such value that you are willing to proceed with the favorite in the top spot on some of your tickets.)

(2) Horses who have a real, but outside chance to win the race.

(3) Horses who are likely to finish on the ticket but not win the race (these are usually solid P or S types, who rarely win due to their running style, but who often finish 2nd thru 4th.)

(4) Horses that you believe can win the race but who are much less likely to finish high on the ticket if they fail. This could be a subset of either (1) or (2) and is usually described by the one-dimensional E type who either wins or collapses. E-types off layoffs are prime candidates for this category. Also note, we assume that the track surface we are playing is "fair" to the degree that closing types can gobble up the failed speed faders in the stretch.

(5) Longshots with late-running styles who occasionally make tickets with their late run, but only in minor positions.

(6) Longshots who under the right conditions might win and/or finish anywhere on the ticket.

Now. Let's use a superfecta ticket as an example since tri's can be played the same way, just without the last leg, and pents can be also played the same way, except with an additional leg.

Start by constructing your base ticket, much the same way Crist creates his base ticket for horizontals. This will consist of the the horses who you feel have the absolute best chance of finishing in a given ticket position. Start with position 1 (aka. the win position). Write down the horses with the very best chance (in your mind, of course) to win. At first and until you gain lots of experience, keep this to two horses. Next, go to the second spot. Write down the three most likely horses to fill this position. Here, both of the horses you have in the win position will usually appear and you will be adding one additional solid contender. [Note: Your win-position horses should usually appear here because even if one or both of your top win horses are one-dimensional E types, as a projected speed survivor, they are subject to running second if they are caught late.]

On to the third spot. Add one contender and here, a good E/P, P, or S type is recommended. A weaker E is a terrible candidate for this position. Then to the fourth position. Same thing. A good middle or late runner should be added. [Note: Trying to keep this simple, but if you've read this far, you probably don't mind nuance. If I have a field where there are some very good, solid pressers and closers, I would consider leaving even an E-type that I have in the first position out of third and fourth. Granted, this is tricky since an E speed survivor may get passed late by two or three horses and hence finish 3rd or 4th on the ticket. It depends strongly on the track's speed support and the record of the E type in question.]

Okay. So my base ticket is:

2// 3// 4// 5 16 punches. I will play this ticket on its own for ten units. If I am playing 10-cent supers, that's $16.00.

Next, I will look at my secondary possible winners. I will put such horse or horses in the top spot with my base horses (2-4) underneath. Let's say there are two of these. The play then is:

6,7// 3// 4// 5. Since the top two horses do not appear in the latter positions, the ticket costs 2 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 54 punches. I play this for 2 units or $10.80 in dime supers.

Next, I go to the second position. Here, I will put in horses who I feel have a potential to run second, but who are not already one of the three horses that I have in the second spot. It is highly permissible to use one or both of the secondary horses that I had in the top spot in this position. I use these horses with my top two win horses from my base play and the base-play horses that I have in the third and fourth spots. If there were two new horses here, the play would again be for 2 units and the cost would be $10.80.

I do the same in the third and fourth positions, adding additional horses. Remember, if I added a weaker-type E toward the top of my cover tickets, I may wish to leave them out of these under positions. These tickets could cost another $21.60 ($10.80 x 2) and so my overall cost is now up to $59.20.

Now it's time to add my longshots. These horses come from categories (5) and (6) in my original race breakdown. I play them only with the base horses and in whatever position I think they might finish. Here, longshot E types should be at the top of the ticket but off the bottom. And longshot P and S types off the top and toward the bottom. I play these for one unit with the base horses. These additions cost $5.40 a throw and are worth every penny. Let's say on average there are 5 of them, remembering that we're not talking about 5 additional horses, just 5 additional positions we want to fill with bombers. Additional cost: $27. Total play cost: $86.2.

Now. You might say, "If you're playing all these combinations, why don't you just construct a single ticket? For example: 5 horses// 6 horses// 7horses// 8 horses costs just $62.50 and here it would seem you are getting better coverage.

The answer is twofold. First, you have no multiples on a ticket like this, so what happens in reality is that you may hit a somewhat greater percentage, but when the shorter numbers run together, you will often lose money even though you hit the race. Second, you have to look at the long haul. There are simply too many "wasted" tickets on this type of play where, for example you may have weaker E types in all positions and these horses will very very rarely be on a ticket if they don't make a clear lead in the race. You may also wind up with S types in win positions where they very rarely finish, etc.
The point is, over the long run, these "wasted" tickets add up and they ruin your ROI.

So this is a basic strategy for vertical gimmicks. Remember: the major advantage in multi-horse gimmicks is that the longer-priced combinations are overlaid. That's why it makes no sense to play the gimmick if you see no odds' value. (Because the favorite combinations are underlaid.) If you must play such a no-value event, your best course is to play the favorite to win. You'll actually get your best value that way.

Hope some of this has been helpful to sombody. Thanks.

Mark

Edit: I see some of you guys are already using this type of strategy. That's great.
mark , I do not play supers or tri's but am experimenting with ticket construction and paper play at home...How do you feel about Mitchells favored method of play?Constructing tickets like this:

a/abc/abcd/abcde=$18
abc/a/abcd/abcde=$18

[raybo]

this is an $18 ticket correct....Dick Mitchell advocates in chaotic races to move your win horse into the second and even the third slot.Do you ever use this strategy?

Correct. That is my base ticket for races of over 8 horses. For races of 8 or fewer horses my base ticket is:

1
23
2345
2345

$12 @ $1.

If there is enough odds spread so that my minimum estimated payout, with either of 2 horses on top, is 300/1 I will put 2 on top if they are too close to separate for the win. In that case both the win horses will be included on all 4 betting lines, thus:

12
123
12345
123456

$36 @ $1

[markgoldie]

mark , I do not play supers or tri's but am experimenting with ticket construction and paper play at home...How do you feel about Mitchells favored method of play?Constructing tickets like this:

a/abc/abcd/abcde=$18
abc/a/abcd/abcde=$18

Hey fmolf:

Think you have a few too many "a" horses in your construction. Think you mean:
a// bc// bcd// bcde = $8
bc// a// bcd// bcde = $8 also.

At any rate, this would depend on my opinion of the race. If my opinion of the race was that the "a" runner was a solid choice for 1st or 2nd, then this would make some sense. If the "a" horse was a make-or-break E type, then maybe not. However, in general, I do not recommend delving into larger gimmicks in which you do not give yourself representative coverage. In the example given, I only have four horses out of the remainder of the field to fill three ticket spots. In my opinion, this isn't nearly enough to give me a reasonable chance to hit. Also, as I have pointed out, hopefully the favorite would not be the "a" horse here and if I have a single value horse that I feel has a good shot to win, I'll want better gimmick coverage for him. If I can't afford to do that, I'd be better off playing him to win.

Mark

[fmolf]

Hey fmolf:

Think you have a few too many "a" horses in your construction. Think you mean:
a// bc// bcd// bcde = $8
bc// a// bcd// bcde = $8 also.

At any rate, this would depend on my opinion of the race. If my opinion of the race was that the "a" runner was a solid choice for 1st or 2nd, then this would make some sense. If the "a" horse was a make-or-break E type, then maybe not. However, in general, I do not recommend delving into larger gimmicks in which you do not give yourself representative coverage. In the example given, I only have four horses out of the remainder of the field to fill three ticket spots. In my opinion, this isn't nearly enough to give me a reasonable chance to hit. Also, as I have pointed out, hopefully the favorite would not be the "a" horse here and if I have a single value horse that I feel has a good shot to win, I'll want better gimmick coverage for him. If I can't afford to do that, I'd be better off playing him to win.

Mark
yes... :D ..just used the wrong letter...would still have 3 horses in the 2nd slot, 4 in the 3rd slot, and 5 in the 4th....too expensive?..still not enough coverage?you recommend a tiered ticket as offering more coverage?

ab/abcd/abcde/abcdef=$54 or is this too much coverage?

[raybo]

yes... :D ..just used the wrong letter...would still have 3 horses in the 2nd slot, 4 in the 3rd slot, and 5 in the 4th....too expensive?..still not enough coverage?you recommend a tiered ticket as offering more coverage?

ab/abcd/abcde/abcdef=$54 or is this too much coverage?

Not to step on Mark's toes but, keep in mind that there is never "too much coverage" if enough value is there, both odds spread and pool size, and you're doing a good job of handicapping the horses over the long term.

If your handicapping is a little suspect I suggest looking for value, constructing a shorter "value" ticket, and taking your shots.

If you are finding good value plays and you have a pretty healthy bankroll you should do fairly well long term.

Yes, you'll have some losing streaks and you might be tempted to change your strategy or give up, but don't, play it out, with a comfortable amount of discretionary bankroll.

[fmolf]

Not to step on Mark's toes but, keep in mind that there is never "too much coverage" if enough value is there, both odds spread and pool size, and you're doing a good job of handicapping the horses over the long term.

If your handicapping is a little suspect I suggest looking for value, constructing a shorter "value" ticket, and taking your shots.

If you are finding good value plays and you have a pretty healthy bankroll you should do fairly well long term.

Yes, you'll have some losing streaks and you might be tempted to change your strategy or give up, but don't, play it out, with a comfortable amount of discretionary bankroll.
i have started myself with a mythical bankroll of $3,000 and i am going to play supers and tri's on paper.just to see if my handicapping methods are suited to this type of wagering.now i am a serious/recreational player who bets exclusively exactas and win bets.may i ask you how you calculate value in tri's and supers?Is it done thru the horses odds? and a combo of eliminating first and second favorites?With exactas and win bets what you see is what you get ... :D ...thanks for your help and input on this aspect of wagering.....oh and how many wagers do you think i need to make in my testing of my methods?

[markgoldie]

yes... :D ..just used the wrong letter...would still have 3 horses in the 2nd slot, 4 in the 3rd slot, and 5 in the 4th....too expensive?..still not enough coverage?you recommend a tiered ticket as offering more coverage?

ab/abcd/abcde/abcdef=$54 or is this too much coverage?

I don't think playing 54 combinations per race is anywhere near enough combinations.

Personally, I let the layout of the race dictate how deep I will go. I think you and I both use a figure-based methodology in which to order our preferences of horses. Your current method may not be accustomed to delving into the exact numbers for all the horses involved because to this point you have been more of a win or sometimes exacta player.

But when I have all my numbers in, I look at the layout of the race. I can't stress enough the importance of looking at running styles and the speed-support bias of the track as it is currently playing. Without this knowledge, the accuracy of the numbers are extremely suspect and you will look at many races, scratch your head and say, "How in the world could a horse with a final adjusted fig number of 82 beat four horses in the low 90's??"

If you ignore pace profiles, you will often find it was because this low-fig animal was loose on the lead at some point in the race. And yes, form turnarounds occur. But at least if you are aware of the pace profile, you will take this particular surprise element out of the equation.

Next, I ask myself who I can eliminate and who I must use. When this task is complete, I look at what I have left. I begin to formulate what will be necessary for proper coverage of the race.

As I have said before, I like large fields and races in which I can plausibly use horses with a price. So we're not talking about including longshots just for the sake of their potential price. We want live horses at a price.

I would guess that my average number of different combinations used per race is between 300 and 350. What kind of per-race strike rate does that give me? Well, I don't have those exact figures either and I guess if I were worried at all about it, I would. Maybe 20%. That's just a guess.

Even at a 20% strike rate, my results tend to fall into the 'windfall' category. That is, I can go weeks with a slow dribbling away of profits. But the large hits can be very lucrative. For example, last Sunday at Churchill in the 6th race an event hit my philosophy perfectly where the favorite was the third best S-type according to my figures and was probably only the favorite because he was ridden by Julian Leparoux. The track was reasonably supportive of speed but being as Churchill has been, pretty unforgiving for the speed non-survivors. The superfecta results featured 2 reasonable speed types finishing first and second and the two best S-type closers finished third and fourth in the 11-horse field. The weak S type with Leparoux was unable to rally enough to make the ticket. So when you put it like I just have, this would seem like a reasonably easy conversion. I thought it was, but the payoff came back over $177,000 for $2. Of course, there weren't $2 worth of tickets held on the super. My estimate is that about ten dime tickets were outstanding (each paying a bit over $8800, though yielding a bit over $6600 after Uncle Sam got involved) and without any claims of post-facto bragging, let's just say I'm sure that the payoff would have been substantially higher had I not played the race.

So you have to expect losing streaks when you play the big gimmicks. But I can tell you one thing for sure: If you play 54 combinations per race, you will have a very low strike rate unless you are playing the shortest possible odds horses in the shortest possible fields.. I don't recommend it. If you're seriously thinking of moving into more complex gimmicks, be prepared to play for lesser increments and cover more possibilities.

Good Luck. Mark

[fmolf]

I don't think playing 54 combinations per race is anywhere near enough combinations.

Personally, I let the layout of the race dictate how deep I will go. I think you and I both use a figure-based methodology in which to order our preferences of horses. Your current method may not be accustomed to delving into the exact numbers for all the horses involved because to this point you have been more of a win or sometimes exacta player.

But when I have all my numbers in, I look at the layout of the race. I can't stress enough the importance of looking at running styles and the speed-support bias of the track as it is currently playing. Without this knowledge, the accuracy of the numbers are extremely suspect and you will look at many races, scratch your head and say, "How in the world could a horse with a final adjusted fig number of 82 beat four horses in the low 90's??"

If you ignore pace profiles, you will often find it was because this low-fig animal was loose on the lead at some point in the race. And yes, form turnarounds occur. But at least if you are aware of the pace profile, you will take this particular surprise element out of the equation.

Next, I ask myself who I can eliminate and who I must use. When this task is complete, I look at what I have left. I begin to formulate what will be necessary for proper coverage of the race.

As I have said before, I like large fields and races in which I can plausibly use horses with a price. So we're not talking about including longshots just for the sake of their potential price. We want live horses at a price.

I would guess that my average number of different combinations used per race is between 300 and 350. What kind of per-race strike rate does that give me? Well, I don't have those exact figures either and I guess if I were worried at all about it, I would. Maybe 20%. That's just a guess.

Even at a 20% strike rate, my results tend to fall into the 'windfall' category. That is, I can go weeks with a slow dribbling away of profits. But the large hits can be very lucrative. For example, last Sunday at Churchill in the 6th race an event hit my philosophy perfectly where the favorite was the third best S-type according to my figures and was probably only the favorite because he was ridden by Julian Leparoux. The track was reasonably supportive of speed but being as Churchill has been, pretty unforgiving for the speed non-survivors. The superfecta results featured 2 reasonable speed types finishing first and second and the two best S-type closers finished third and fourth in the 11-horse field. The weak S type with Leparoux was unable to rally enough to make the ticket. So when you put it like I just have, this would seem like a reasonably easy conversion. I thought it was, but the payoff came back over $177,000 for $2. Of course, there weren't $2 worth of tickets held on the super. My estimate is that about ten dime tickets were outstanding (each paying a bit over $8800, though yielding a bit over $6600 after Uncle Sam got involved) and without any claims of post-facto bragging, let's just say I'm sure that the payoff would have been substantially higher had I not played the race.

So you have to expect losing streaks when you play the big gimmicks. But I can tell you one thing for sure: If you play 54 combinations per race, you will have a very low strike rate unless you are playing the shortest possible odds horses in the shortest possible fields.. I don't recommend it. If you're seriously thinking of moving into more complex gimmicks, be prepared to play for lesser increments and cover more possibilities.

Good Luck. Marki have been using runnig styles in my exacta play for many many years now favorite plays are lone two speeds provided both are in form and the usual suspects,closer catches the lone speed,closer doesn't and finishes second...two pressers overtake the three speed horses ..permutations are almost endless and each race offers a different scenario but with exactas value is much easier to identify. at what point does adding extra horses(more coverage)start to hurt your roi and is experience the only teacher for this part of the superfecta trifecta equation?
thanks for your patience and input with a longtime exacta, win bet player but a novice exotic wager player.at 350 combinations at a dollar a play i would need a very large bankroll to seriously begin playing.should i play 10 cent supers to begin with?are they worth the effort?

[markgoldie]

fmolf: Yes I think dime supers are the way to go. Start with wide spreads and trim them as you gain experience. And remember, if you like the favorites, play win or place or a few exactas. Play the supers when you don't like the chalk.

mark

[fmolf]

fmolf: Yes I think dime supers are the way to go. Start with wide spreads and trim them as you gain experience. And remember, if you like the favorites, play win or place or a few exactas. Play the supers when you don't like the chalk.

mark
you just described how i play now except when i like a favorite usually the price is prohibitive!....when i find a horse i like and it offers value i pull the trigger in the win and exacta pools.Now i just need to recognize which races are good tri and super races,and is their any difference between the two?

[markgoldie]

fmolf:

Supers are better in my opinion because I am playing often to eliminate the favorite from the ticket. The value in a super without the favorite is far greater than in tri's. Once in a while I may like a race in which I feel I have some value but the supporting players simply look inscrutable. Rather than including 4 or 5 horses for fourth simply because I can't handicap them isn't very attractive to me and I'll play these races as tri's or even exactas. Then once in a long while I'll like a single horse at value but can't begin to separate the supporting cast. In that case, I'll just play the horse to win. I would rather do that than wheel. This is rare for me, though.

Mark

[fmolf]

fmolf:

Supers are better in my opinion because I am playing often to eliminate the favorite from the ticket. The value in a super without the favorite is far greater than in tri's. Once in a while I may like a race in which I feel I have some value but the supporting players simply look inscrutable. Rather than including 4 or 5 horses for fourth simply because I can't handicap them isn't very attractive to me and I'll play these races as tri's or even exactas. Then once in a long while I'll like a single horse at value but can't begin to separate the supporting cast. In that case, I'll just play the horse to win. I would rather do that than wheel. This is rare for me, though.

Mark
i am going to start my test run structuring my bets like this in races i view as contentious.i am assuming the most value is found in larger fields as a general rule.

abc/abcde/abcdef/abcdefg=$192 or $19.20....thanks for having the patience with this long time win and exacta player...i started playing exactas when they were a $5 minimum bet...tough to teach an old dog new tricks! :D

[Robert Goren]

What ever you do avoid signers. That tax will kill your margin.:bang:

[raybo]

i have started myself with a mythical bankroll of $3,000 and i am going to play supers and tri's on paper.just to see if my handicapping methods are suited to this type of wagering.now i am a serious/recreational player who bets exclusively exactas and win bets.may i ask you how you calculate value in tri's and supers?Is it done thru the horses odds? and a combo of eliminating first and second favorites?With exactas and win bets what you see is what you get ... :D ...thanks for your help and input on this aspect of wagering.....oh and how many wagers do you think i need to make in my testing of my methods?

Yes, it's a combination of odds spread and how many of the top 5 odds horses can be left off the ticket. In one of the Triple Crown races this year we saw an example, don't remember if it was the Preakness or the Belmont, the super should have payed big, to the inexperienced player anyway. But if you were on your toes you would have seen that a 5 horse box of the 5 lowest odds horses would have hit the super, thus, the low payout. Experience is the only teacher, there is no formula for determining the minimum payout for your tickets.

I would expect that somewhere around 300 super bets, or so, should give you a pretty good idea if you're on the right track with both your handicapping/ticket structure hit rate vs ROI. But it will take many more than that, I suspect, to gain the experience to be able to estimate the minimum expected payout. I've been at it, in the super pools, for many years, maybe 5 years, or so, before I started "seeing" the odds spreads that would produce 300/1 minimums.

[fmolf]

Yes, it's a combination of odds spread and how many of the top 5 odds horses can be left off the ticket. In one of the Triple Crown races this year we saw an example, don't remember if it was the Preakness or the Belmont, the super should have payed big, to the inexperienced player anyway. But if you were on your toes you would have seen that a 5 horse box of the 5 lowest odds horses would have hit the super, thus, the low payout. Experience is the only teacher, there is no formula for determining the minimum payout for your tickets.

I would expect that somewhere around 300 super bets, or so, should give you a pretty good idea if you're on the right track with both your handicapping/ticket structure hit rate vs ROI. But it will take many more than that, I suspect, to gain the experience to be able to estimate the minimum expected payout. I've been at it, in the super pools, for many years, maybe 5 years, or so, before I started "seeing" the odds spreads that would produce 300/1 minimums.thanks ray...i am also gonna start to fiddle for real with the p3 and may play the 14% take out at is it lone star or sam houston?
i have occasionally played these before when laurel had a 12% takeout on p3's..thanks again for the info...ditto to mark both of you have been very helpful....i may be months away from betting any serious monies in the super pools....any scenarios where a 5 horse 10 cent super box is advisable...other than a watch bet?

[raybo]

thanks ray...i am also gonna start to fiddle for real with the p3 and may play the 14% take out at is it lone star or sam houston?
i have occasionally played these before when laurel had a 12% takeout on p3's..thanks again for the info...ditto to mark both of you have been very helpful....i may be months away from betting any serious monies in the super pools....any scenarios where a 5 horse 10 cent super box is advisable...other than a watch bet?

NO!!

[ranchwest]

thanks ray...i am also gonna start to fiddle for real with the p3 and may play the 14% take out at is it lone star or sam houston?
i have occasionally played these before when laurel had a 12% takeout on p3's..thanks again for the info...ditto to mark both of you have been very helpful....i may be months away from betting any serious monies in the super pools....any scenarios where a 5 horse 10 cent super box is advisable...other than a watch bet?

That gives you 4 extra horses on top and 1 extra horse on bottom. All of the good super players I've ever known pyramid their bets.

[fmolf]

ok ray and ranch i figured as much myself!i never ever box exactas either.i have heard stories on other threads of people boxing the 5 longest shots on the board and taking down the whole pool.still better using a tiered ticket with all the longshots on it.

[raybo]

ok ray and ranch i figured as much myself!i never ever box exactas either.i have heard stories on other threads of people boxing the 5 longest shots on the board and taking down the whole pool.still better using a tiered ticket with all the longshots on it.

The hit rate on such a ticket would be extremely low and the cost you would incur would be prohibitive, IMO. Yes, you might get lucky in a few months, depending on how many tracks you are playing, and hit a big one, but I wouldn't count on it.

[raybo]

That gives you 4 extra horses on top and 1 extra horse on bottom. All of the good super players I've ever known pyramid their bets.

I agree.

I've been studying/playing Tri's and Super's for many years and have no doubt in my mind that a box-wheel type ticket structure, similar to the examples I have posted, is the best method, by far.

Further, if the handicapper must include more than 2 horses on the top, to get the winner a fair amount of the time, then his/her handicapping skill is suspect and that deficiency must be remedied first, before tackling something as complex as superfecta play.

The winner is the easiest horse to pick, IMO.

[fmolf]

I agree.

I've been studying/playing Tri's and Super's for many years and have no doubt in my mind that a box-wheel type ticket structure, similar to the examples I have posted, is the best method, by far.

Further, if the handicapper must include more than 2 horses on the top, to get the winner a fair amount of the time, then his/her handicapping skill is suspect and that deficiency must be remedied first, before tackling something as complex as superfecta play.

The winner is the easiest horse to pick, IMO.
i agree i have been a win and exacta player for as long as i have been playing,going back to the $5 min. exacta bet.I will have no problem with the top two spots its the bottom two and getting value that i need practice and guidance with!I have no problem playing a solid favorite on top in exactas or on bottom of exactas if i have a longer priced horse offering good value and fav is shaky.I know now this is not a good super strategy

[raybo]

i agree i have been a win and exacta player for as long as i have been playing,going back to the $5 min. exacta bet.I will have no problem with the top two spots its the bottom two and getting value that i need practice and guidance with!I have no problem playing a solid favorite on top in exactas or on bottom of exactas if i have a longer priced horse offering good value and fav is shaky.I know now this is not a good super strategy

I play solid favorites on my tickets often. The key is to have an odds spread, on your ticket, that offers value, even if the lowest odds on the ticket hit.