Structuring horizontal plays

[nobeyerspls]

Toetoe started a thread on Steven Crist's pick4's and it went a little off topic. Since my strategy is to bet a little to win a lot, I thought that I'd put my two cents in on this new thread.
I read Steven Crist's book on exotic wagering and it was good. With so many books on handicapping it was refreshing to read one that focused on wagering. Having said that, I will not adopt his method which is basically making bigger bets (in the example cited Crist got back over $500 on a $177 bet).
Here is some of what I do:
1. I want a return 20 times greater than my wager from a pick3 and 40 times greater from a pick4. So, a 2x2x2 pick3 must have a likely return of $160 or more.
2. I am not put off by an odds-on entrant anywhere in the sequence. A recent Saratoga pick4 with winners at 4/5,7/2,3-1, and 16-1 still paid over $4,300.
3. I do not have to beat the favorite in every sequence in order to cash a nice ticket.
4. If I need more than 36 combinations to hit a pick4, I pass. The limit on pick3's is 24 combinations.
5. I build tickets around likely singles regardless of their odds. When two singles are on the same ticket, I hit the repeat button.
6. All of these plays are centered on my strengths which are turf, maidens, and fillies. If two or more races involve my handicapping weaknesses, I pass. That usually happens because the combination limits are exceeded.

This strategy is working well for me but I'm still interested in how others approach the horizontals. The leverage is so good that I've cut back on the verticals.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

4. If I need more than 36 combinations to hit a pick4, I pass

So let's say.....you look at the sequence.....in the 1st leg you think only 3 horses can win, a 3-1 4-1 6-1....in the 2nd leg you really like a 8-1 and a 12-1.....in the 3rd leg, you hate the 3-5 favorite and like a 4-1 5-1 8-1 15-1 20-1.....in the 4th leg you like a 5-1 and a 6-1

Are you saying you wouldn't play this 60 combo ticket? If you are, just quit now.

[wisconsin]

So let's say.....you look at the sequence.....in the 1st leg you think only 3 horses can win, a 3-1 4-1 6-1....in the 2nd leg you really like a 8-1 and a 12-1.....in the 3rd leg, you hate the 3-5 favorite and like a 4-1 5-1 8-1 15-1 20-1.....in the 4th leg you like a 5-1 and a 6-1

Are you saying you wouldn't play this 60 combo ticket? If you are, just quit now.

Why should he quit? I play the P4 at Los Al regularly and also limit my tickets, generally to $48. I have never hit one with a larger spread ticket. Tried $120 even. In 2008 alone, I had 7 signers, again, never spending more than $48. This year, only 2 signers, but have hit plenty that were not. I never say never, but there is no right or wrong way to play, as long as it suits your own personal style.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Why should he quit? I play the P4 at Los Al regularly and also limit my tickets, generally to $48. I have never hit one with a larger spread ticket. Tried $120 even. In 2008 alone, I had 7 signers, again, never spending more than $48. This year, only 2 signers, but have hit plenty that were not. I never say never, but there is no right or wrong way to play, as long as it suits your own personal style.

That's fine, if you want to underachieve by setting ridiculous parameters/safety measures on your wagering.

So you are saying it's better to play 2 marginal $30 tickets that are monumentally worse than a $60 ticket on a sequence you love, has enormous value and if you are right, the payoff will automatically be giant?

[Tom Barrister]

So let's say.....you look at the sequence.....in the 1st leg you think only 3 horses can win, a 3-1 4-1 6-1....in the 2nd leg you really like a 8-1 and a 12-1.....in the 3rd leg, you hate the 3-5 favorite and like a 4-1 5-1 8-1 15-1 20-1.....in the 4th leg you like a 5-1 and a 6-1

Are you saying you wouldn't play this 60 combo ticket? If you are, just quit now.

That's a bit extreme, don't you think?

I knew two men who attended the races everyday (this before online betting) on the Chicago circuit. One bet perhaps three races per month. The other bet six or seven races out of every nine on a race card. Each man made good money over a year's time. The men knew each other and respected each others' handicapping abilities, but they didn't respect each others betting. The conservative bettor thought the aggressive bettor played too many races. The aggressive bettor thought the conservative bettor passed up too many opportunites. They were both probably right, and the "correct" strategy probably lay somewhere in the middle.

The point of the anecdote is that there are many ways to win. What works for one person might not work for another. While using fixed parameters such as nobeyerspls has may not be the "ideal" way to go about it, doing so may be what generates a positive ROI, and doing otherwise may produce a loss. While a totally flexible approach might yield the most ROI over the long run, not everybody is capable of such flexibility. Some people need parameters, limitations, guidelines, etc. It might cost them some profit as opposed to the bettor who has no such restrictions, but it may also be what "works for them".

[GaryG]

My favorite P4 play is with a key horse at 4-1 or more. Then you sure don't want to wimp out and try to save a few bucks. I will spread as much as I can justify. Those are the ones that are most memorable.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

That's a bit extreme, don't you think?

No

It's the truth.

With high takeout and a bunch of sharks in the water, you can't make any mistakes, let alone recurring mistakes.

[toetoe]

1) If your key single is above 4/1, bang him to win.

2) Establish a maximal investment based on the total combinations. For example, a pick-four with four ten-horse fields has 10,000 combinations. The potential return is very juicy. Four eight-horse fields will only have 4,096 combinations. If you play even half as many combinations as on the previous example, you will be investing too much.

[schweitz]

[QUOTE=nobeyerspls]
4. If I need more than 36 combinations to hit a pick4, I pass. The limit on pick3's is 24 combinations.
[/QUOTE


I pass most of the time when I think it can be hit for 36 or 24 (pick-3) combinations. I prefer the more chaotic races. Different strokes for different folks. :)

[BombsAway Bob]

That's a bit extreme, don't you think?

I knew two men who attended the races everyday (this before online betting) on the Chicago circuit. One bet perhaps three races per month. The other bet six or seven races out of every nine on a race card. Each man made good money over a year's time. The men knew each other and respected each others' handicapping abilities, but they didn't respect each others betting. The conservative bettor thought the aggressive bettor played too many races. The aggressive bettor thought the conservative bettor passed up too many opportunites. They were both probably right, and the "correct" strategy probably lay somewhere in the middle.

The point of the anecdote is that there are many ways to win. What works for one person might not work for another. While using fixed parameters such as nobeyerspls has may not be the "ideal" way to go about it, doing so may be what generates a positive ROI, and doing otherwise may produce a loss. While a totally flexible approach might yield the most ROI over the long run, not everybody is capable of such flexibility. Some people need parameters, limitations, guidelines, etc. It might cost them some profit as opposed to the bettor who has no such restrictions, but it may also be what "works for them".
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: Knowing your "Comfort Zone" is essential to success, & sanity!
A few friends I knew bet $50 Across the Board when at the track. Cool.
Give Me $150, & I'll play a bunch of small Pick-4's, Pick-3's, Tris, & some LMSP's...I'd prefer 25 shots @ $6 a bet, trying to hit a return of 100/1,
than chuck the whole $150 with "Fifty ATB" on a 5/2 shot, which will likely return $3 to place & $2.60 to show

[InsideThePylons-MW]

It might be the truth for a Deity such as yourself (since only Deities never make mistakes), but for the mortals among us, it might not be workable. I realize that you don't seem to be able to understand the fact that not everybody is capable of playing optimally. The fact is that your way, while it MIGHT be optimal, isn't workable for everybody.

Another thing: just because somebody might not be able to play perfectly doesn't mean that they won't make a profit and need to "just quit now".


OK...Is this better for you?

He's doing a great job.

Stick with it!

Keep up the good work!

Great set of rules....I can't wait to try them.


He asked this question...."This strategy is working well for me but I'm still interested in how others approach the horizontals."

I answered..........I apologize for answering Mr. Barrister

[Tom Barrister]

No

It's the truth.

With high takeout and a bunch of sharks in the water, you can't make any mistakes, let alone recurring mistakes.

It might be the truth for a Deity such as yourself (since only Deities never make mistakes), but for the mortals among us, it might not be workable. I realize that you don't seem to be able to understand the fact that not everybody is capable of playing optimally. The fact is that your way, while it MIGHT be optimal, isn't workable for everybody.

Another thing: just because somebody might not be able to play perfectly doesn't mean that they won't make a profit and need to "just quit now".

And to be perfectly clear, I don't disagree with your point that it probably is in the best interest to play the $60 ticket and that (assuming the handicapping is adequate), that such tickets would be profitable over the long term.

What I disagree with is your trying to force your way of thinking down somebody else's throat with judgemental proclamations such as this


Are you saying you wouldn't play this 60 combo ticket? If you are, just quit now.

and the first-referenced quote.

But I can see by your reply to my deleted-and-revised post, that you're sitting like a hawk, waiting to defend your position until the bitter end. You are the Supreme Being. I'm done with it and you. Welcome to my extensive ignore list.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I'm done with it and you. Welcome to my extensive ignore list.

Now that I'm on Tom's ignore list, what's the use of posting again?

Time to burn and churn instead of wasting time on the dolts.

[ddog]

[QUOTE=nobeyerspls]
4. If I need more than 36 combinations to hit a pick4, I pass. The limit on pick3's is 24 combinations.
[/QUOTE


I pass most of the time when I think it can be hit for 36 or 24 (pick-3) combinations. I prefer the more chaotic races. Different strokes for different folks. :)

With you on this one.

Then when I find or think I have found this , I will try to kill it.

You have to be(imo) willing to take an out-sized chance when you think that if you hit this one you are going to get an out-sized return.

I feel you should have a subset of your bank set aside for the monster return-high risk type play.

If you think this could be it you must be aggressive.

[ddog]

Now that I'm on Tom's ignore list, what's the use of posting again?

Time to burn and churn instead of wasting time on the dolts.


I wonder how long until they place themselves on ignore! :lol:

I have never understood the ignore list deal. You never know when something may come up and if you really get pissed over an intertubes message board then I question if you have the composure to play this game.

[SansuiSC]

nobeyerspls started the thread because a similar thread went way off topic. Lets play nice here guys and gals and help each other out instead of pissing matches.

Thanks

SSC

[Tom Barrister]

I wonder how long until they place themselves on ignore! :lol:

I have never understood the ignore list deal. You never know when something may come up and if you really get pissed over an intertubes message board then I question if you have the composure to play this game.

Another example of a judgemental post. Putting somebody on ignore doesn't necessarily equate to emotional instability.

I'll give you the short version. When a Captain Obvious ("obvious" not always equating to "correct" or "practical") comes in trying to force his/her views down everybody's throat and determined to have the last word with an echo, it's simpler to use ignore and move on. I save time by not having to read caustic material that's not going to be of any value to me.

Some people enjoy the confrontations and fights. I don't often have the time to get involved anymore.

[Tom Barrister]

Here is some of what I do:
1. I want a return 20 times greater than my wager from a pick3 and 40 times greater from a pick4. So, a 2x2x2 pick3 must have a likely return of $160 or more.
2. I am not put off by an odds-on entrant anywhere in the sequence. A recent Saratoga pick4 with winners at 4/5,7/2,3-1, and 16-1 still paid over $4,300.
3. I do not have to beat the favorite in every sequence in order to cash a nice ticket.
4. If I need more than 36 combinations to hit a pick4, I pass. The limit on pick3's is 24 combinations.
5. I build tickets around likely singles regardless of their odds. When two singles are on the same ticket, I hit the repeat button.
6. All of these plays are centered on my strengths which are turf, maidens, and fillies. If two or more races involve my handicapping weaknesses, I pass. That usually happens because the combination limits are exceeded.

This strategy is working well for me but I'm still interested in how others approach the horizontals. The leverage is so good that I've cut back on the verticals.

(Bold text added by me)

Getting back on-topic, your methodology looks fine, except that you might want to be a bit more flexible in your parameters (i.e. limit of 24 combinations), provided doing so is within your comfort level and bankroll-management.

The important part is that you're playing to your strengths and that it works for you. If you count all available tracks, there are many horizontal wagers available throughout the day, and there will be more tomorrow and the next day. Sticking to (sequences of) races you historically do well with (and avoiding those that you don't do well with) makes sense.

As far as what I do, tbe few times I play Pick 3/4 tickets will generally be sequences in which I've tossed out at least one heavy (odds-on or figuring to be odds-on) favorite. Those tend to pay well when they hit.

[ryesteve]

I have never understood the ignore list deal.Let me ask you something... when you go through your mail at home, do you open and read each and every piece? Or is a good portion of it obvious worthless garbage that you tear in half and toss without even needing to look at?

Now, wouldn't it be nice if those pieces of mail never made it to your mailbox in the first place?

The ignore list is the virtual equivalent...

[Jeff P]

Interesting discussion going on.

ITP makes a valid point. When staring at a combination with obvious value the player has a decision to make: Cover it or not cover it. For a large bankroll player the decision is almost always obvious: Cover it.

But to the small bankroll player a decision to cover often means risking too high a percentage of the bankroll.

IMHO, consistently overbetting a bankroll is one sure way to cause the player to tap out. IMHO, this applies to every player - no matter what the size of the bankroll.

I'll make the argument that the correct decision to cover or not to cover can be different from one player to the next. IMHO the decision needs to factor in risk tolerance and bankroll size.


-jp

.

[ryesteve]

I'll make the argument that the correct decision to cover or not to cover can be different from one player to the next. IMHO the decision needs to factor in risk tolerance and bankroll size.I would argue that if bankroll size is forcing someone into these decisions, then they probably shouldn't be betting p4's in the first place. I think this can be said for any horizontal bet... keep stepping it down until you're no longer forced into not covering combinations you think have a positive expectation. If that means betting P3's instead of P4's, or DD's instead of P3's, I think it's wise.

[schweitz]

I would argue that if bankroll size is forcing someone into these decisions, then they probably shouldn't be betting p4's in the first place. I think this can be said for any horizontal bet... keep stepping it down until you're no longer forced into not covering combinations you think have a positive expectation. If that means betting P3's instead of P4's, or DD's instead of P3's, I think it's wise.

I think this is spot on. :ThmbUp:

[DeanT]

I don't think bankroll size matters too much if you play them fundamentally correct and have the ability to be someone who will lose a lot of tickets but still stay sane.

If I was playing a $24 ticket I would want just what I want when playing a $240 one - two horses that are not wise guy horses, or not ML chalk, or are 5-1 and above, to take a swing on.

If you are the type of person who yells at themselves for throwing a horse out here and there because you lost the ticket, small tickets are not for you (imo). In that case playing the twenty centers at a place like Woodbine would be better (despite the rake).

[Jeff P]

I agree about playing in a way that's fundamentally correct. And certainly agree with the need to be able to mentally endure run outs. But what I'm specifically talking about is the guy (or gal) whose entire bankroll might only be $1000.

At that level (my opinion FWIW) it's really tough to justify jumping into a pick4 sequence where proper coverage might require an investment of say $250 or more. The player might be staring at a great pick4 sequence - and the tickets purchased might carry a legit positive expectancy - but do this 3 or 4 times and fail to cash and the player is out of the game.

In a situation like that the player is probably better off using win bets on overlaid contenders along with a few shots in doubles or maybe a pick3 along the way.


-jp

.

[keilan]

Now that I'm on Tom's ignore list, what's the use of posting again?

Time to burn and churn instead of wasting time on the dolts.


ITP this is your lucky day, I've been hoping the "shop steward" would put me on iggy :lol:

[Tom Barrister]

ITP this is your lucky day, I've been hoping the "shop steward" would put me on iggy :lol:

Granted. It isn't as though you ever post anything worth reading. The majority of your posts are flames and other nonsense with the apparent aim of becoming the asshole of the year.

Back on topic, I agree that bankroll management is necessary, but I don't necessarily agree that the length of the horizontal wager should be automatically eliminated. The size of the bet, relative to the bankroll, and the probability of winning should be the deciding factors. For example, in a Pick-4, I may like three singles, none of them the favorite, and three horses in the other race. A $6 bet isn't going to hurt me if I have a bankroll of $1,000.

[keilan]

(Bold text added by me)

Getting back on-topic, your methodology looks fine, except that you might want to be a bit more flexible in your parameters (i.e. limit of 24 combinations), provided doing so is within your comfort level and bankroll-management.

The important part is that you're playing to your strengths and that it works for you. If you count all available tracks, there are many horizontal wagers available throughout the day, and there will be more tomorrow and the next day. Sticking to (sequences of) races you historically do well with (and avoiding those that you don't do well with) makes sense.

As far as what I do, tbe few times I play Pick 3/4 tickets will generally be sequences in which I've tossed out at least one heavy(odds-on or figuring to be odds-on) favorite. Those tend to pay well when they hit.

Tom you concede that you don't p3 p4's yet you are the authority, what else would you like discuss in depth that you know nothing about :lol:

[fmolf]

i think nobeyer is to be commended for having a profitable system.One that he is comfortable with,fits his bankrolland he has the willpower and discipline to follow it to the letter of the law.Once he starts to bet more than the parameters he has set for himself it makes it that much easier for him to do it again ...then again and the extra monies bet will lead to bankroll erosion at best, tap out at worst....Keep up your fine style of disciplined play.

[Greyfox]

Here is some of what I do:
1. I want a return 20 times greater than my wager from a pick3 and 40 times greater from a pick4. So, a 2x2x2 pick3 must have a likely return of $160 or more.
4. If I need more than 36 combinations to hit a pick4, I pass. The limit on pick3's is 24 combinations.
.

If your are winning this way that's great.
But what you are saying is on 2 x 4 x 3 = 24 combinations for a Pick 3 wager you want a return of
$1 x 24 x 20 = $ 480. Good luck.

[fmolf]

If your are winning this way that's great.
But what you are saying is on 2 x 4 x 3 = 24 combinations for a Pick 3 wager you want a return of
$1 x 24 x 20 = $ 480. Good luck.
I guess he is very selective to get that price.In short he has to hit one bet every 20 to break even

[Greyfox]

I guess he is very selective to get that price.In short he has to hit one bet every 20 to break even

Agreed. But I, perhaps I missed it, or have not seen where he/she states that he/she makes that expected 20-1 play.
With such expectations, perhaps, this wizard would like to post 20 plays and give us an example of the path to success?

(Oh did I mention R.O.I was not mentioned.)

[DanG]

2. I am not put off by an odds-on entrant anywhere in the sequence. A recent Saratoga pick4 with winners at 4/5,7/2,3-1, and 16-1 still paid over $4,300.
3. I do not have to beat the favorite in every sequence in order to cash a nice ticket.

I feel some very good players could benefit from these statements.

IMO; too many very sharp people try and string together 3, 4…6 “clever” opinions and fail to take what the defense gives you. I’m not saying an all chalk cold punch is the ticket, but in trying to out fox every conceivably short price it just stacks the deck%’s against you; not to mention your hit rate (and mental stability) can resemble a lottery player. :eek:

[nobeyerspls]

So let's say.....you look at the sequence.....in the 1st leg you think only 3 horses can win, a 3-1 4-1 6-1....in the 2nd leg you really like a 8-1 and a 12-1.....in the 3rd leg, you hate the 3-5 favorite and like a 4-1 5-1 8-1 15-1 20-1.....in the 4th leg you like a 5-1 and a 6-1

Are you saying you wouldn't play this 60 combo ticket? If you are, just quit now.

Thanks for your reply ITP-MW. Some took offense to it but I didn't. I'm too old to quit and, while I don't need the extra money, it's nice that my hobby pays for my beer, entertainment and gas. This month money from the track is putting a new roof on my summer home.
I also never bet a horse straight under 7/2 and many of my cronies think that I am nuts for setting that limitation.
In your example there are no singles and five horses in one race. That would be very unusual for me because nearly all my tickets have at least one single.
Best wishes for continued good luck with your strategy.

[nobeyerspls]

If your are winning this way that's great.
But what you are saying is on 2 x 4 x 3 = 24 combinations for a Pick 3 wager you want a return of
$1 x 24 x 20 = $ 480. Good luck.

I simply want a chance to get 20 times my bet and I often don't. A recent pick3 was 2x1x4 for $8. I posted the single entrant in the Selections section and it won at 6-1. In the 1st leg a longshot won and the last leg was a 2nd choice at 9/5. The pick paid $750 for a buck but would have paid less than the $160 target if the chalk won the 1st leg.
There is no limit to my bankroll size. I am simply trying to maximize returns.

[nobeyerspls]

Agreed. But I, perhaps I missed it, or have not seen where he/she states that he/she makes that expected 20-1 play.
With such expectations, perhaps, this wizard would like to post 20 plays and give us an example of the path to success?

(Oh did I mention R.O.I was not mentioned.)

I have started to post plays again in the Selections section under "Cappin Chatter". I usually post five or six plays and often two are in a pick3 sequence. Posting on the morning of race day sucks because you don't know what the track condition will be and even one scratched horse can dramatically change the shape of the race.
Two weeks ago I posted a 1st time turf runner at Monmouth who got beat by a head at 13-1. My losing pick3 with him was 1x4x4, a typical ticket for me. Would have paid nice too if he was a head faster. Also posted two parts of a $5,987 pick4.
I'll post today despite the rainy weather which will likely limit my actual play.

[fmolf]

Thanks for your reply ITP-MW. Some took offense to it but I didn't. I'm too old to quit and, while I don't need the extra money, it's nice that my hobby pays for my beer, entertainment and gas. This month money from the track is putting a new roof on my summer home.
I also never bet a horse straight under 7/2 and many of my cronies think that I am nuts for setting that limitation.
In your example there are no singles and five horses in one race. That would be very unusual for me because nearly all my tickets have at least one single.
Best wishes for continued good luck with your strategy.
i play exactas in the same manner as you play pick threes...i never bet more than three combos usually two ...they must be offering overlaid payoffs ..i never hedge by reversing or boxing.....I will play a 5/2 or 2/1 i believe should be 7/5 or even money in the win pool and as a top selection in the exacta...continued good luck to you .In my eyes hedging and covering lots of horses in the horizontals does not make for a good long term strategy.

[keilan]

I feel some very good players could benefit from these statements.

IMO; too many very sharp people try and string together 3, 4…6 “clever” opinions and fail to take what the defense gives you. I’m not saying an all chalk cold punch is the ticket, but in trying to out fox every conceivably short price it just stacks the deck%’s against you; not to mention your hit rate (and mental stability) can resemble a lottery player. :eek:

Hey Dan, all very good players understand this. Otherwise they wouldn't be considered even "good players".

[DanG]

Hey Dan, all very good players understand this. Otherwise they wouldn't be considered even "good players".
Point taken K; let me rephrase that…

I’ve known some really good cappers whose ego would rather receive a “brilliancy” prize then cash a reasonably logical sequence. There are some very sharp tools in the shed who (imo) are a little too clever for there own good at times.

[keilan]

Point taken K; let me rephrase that…

I’ve known some really good cappers whose ego would rather receive a “brilliancy” prize then cash a reasonably logical sequence. There are some very sharp tools in the shed who (imo) are a little too clever for there own good at times.


Guilty as charged on occasion ;)

[nobeyerspls]

I guess he is very selective to get that price.In short he has to hit one bet every 20 to break even

First, there is no limit to my bankroll size and risk aversion is not part of my play. A $24 pick3 is rare for me as I am usually able to structure tickets with at least one single. Yesterday I played 8 pick3's with seven tickets at $9 or less and one at $18. Three tickets were winners. The total wagered was $66 and the return was $378 for a 5.7 times the wager return. The winning tickets were 6.5x, 10.2x, and 13.7x the wager so I failed to hit my 20x target.
In the thread discussing Crist's pick4 he wagered $116 on one ticket and got back approximately five times his wager. I will sometimes cash a pick3 that is 80x or 90x the wager and that brings the longer term average of winning tickets at or above the 20x target.

[Tom Barrister]

That makes sense to me.

I don't play Pick-3/4 anymore, because I play mostly greyhounds now. Horizontal wagering never caught on with greyhound players, and often the Pick3/4 pools (except at Phoenix) have less than $200 in them. I play the Pick-6 (usually in SoCal) wherever a large carryover exists.

When I did play the Pick-3/4, I only did so if I had a solid single and could remove at least two of the morning-line or probable favorites. I came to the conclusion (correct or not) that it's difficult to get any value from a horizontal bet unless the favorite can be removed from at least half (and preferably all). One or two singles, of course, helps keep the cost of the ticket down. I rarely (not never) played more than about $24 on a Pick-3 or about $48 on a Pick-4. If it can't be narrowed down more than that, it's probably not playable, although there are obviously exceptions.

[big frank]

I love pick 3s ,, i usually bet a ticket between 24 @ 40 dollars.. todays late pick 4 at saratoga is a great example of value in pick 3 betting .. i believe it payed double the parlay . i had it with a 4x2x4 ticket for 32 $