Selective Place & Show wagers

[WinterTriangle]

I know that place and show wagering has been discussed here, and as a staple, of course I wouldn't suggest it.

But I have been selectively putting a few place and show wagers with good results.

In certain instances, my handicapping will show a 20-1 or 30-1 longshot coming in 3rd, or 2nd, and so I play them that way, esp. when I feel quite sure about it. Sometimes, I really do not know who the winner will be, maybe I'll be stuck between 2 horses and in danger of losing my money.... but I feel *quite sure* who will be ITM otherwise.

Example: Show on Aikenite paid $10.40 in the Hopeful, while the winner only paid $8.20. Place on J's Sundance Halo in the Presque Mile paid $10.00, while winner Cherokee only paid $7.80. (I played these in a contest this weekend and it worked out good for me).

While I am a relative newbie, 2 years in the game, this speaks to finding what works for you, and don't follow the "always bet to win" or any other system or rules that might not work for YOU. Some players are good at win, others are good at longshots, some at exotics. I think you have to find your niche, what you seem to have a knack for, or what kind of wager you feel confident about putting your $$ on.

I watch races on TVG and sometimes I see a horse that I think ran great, show up in a race a few weeks later where they appear over their head, but I remember how they ran and how I liked them. There is a lot of $$ to be made wagering on over-looked horses, and often in the Place or Show position?

Place and Show are not always "scared money".

[lamboguy]

I know that place and show wagering has been discussed here, and as a staple, of course I wouldn't suggest it.

But I have been selectively putting a few place and show wagers with good results.

In certain instances, my handicapping will show a 20-1 or 30-1 longshot coming in 3rd, or 2nd, and so I play them that way, esp. when I feel quite sure about it. Sometimes, I really do not know who the winner will be, maybe I'll be stuck between 2 horses and in danger of losing my money.... but I feel *quite sure* who will be ITM otherwise.

Example: Show on Aikenite paid $10.40 in the Hopeful, while the winner only paid $8.20. Place on J's Sundance Halo in the Presque Mile paid $10.00, while winner Cherokee only paid $7.80. (I played these in a contest this weekend and it worked out good for me).

While I am a relative newbie, 2 years in the game, this speaks to finding what works for you, and don't follow the "always bet to win" or any other system or rules that might not work for YOU. Some players are good at win, others are good at longshots, some at exotics. I think you have to find your niche, what you seem to have a knack for, or what kind of wager you feel confident about putting your $$ on.

I watch races on TVG and sometimes I see a horse that I think ran great, show up in a race a few weeks later where they appear over their head, but I remember how they ran and how I liked them. There is a lot of $$ to be made wagering on over-looked horses, and often in the Place or Show position?

Place and Show are not always "scared money".its a great way to play, but keep in mind just because you get 1 or 2 added positions from win doesn't mean you can bet more money into the pool, a matter of fact i would suggest you bet less so you don't bet against yourself.

[Robert Fischer]

20-1 , 30-1 longshots almost always have better ROI keyed third with your top horses 1st and 2nd in a trifecta, than they do to show. The only drawback to the trifecta is the cost of the wager. If your bankroll does not afford the proper wager size for that trifecta, you must pass or "settle for" the show wager.

In fact place and show are good pools in general for beginning small bankroll players. They offer higher hit percentage, which protects against ruin that a small bankroll is so vulnerable to. They also teach a player to estimate final price and develop a feel for the markets in general, as they are often volatile pools. Inefficiencies (obvious horses who happen to be overlaid in the place or show pools) are a category in their own right and are not really for beginners(at least not with real money) as they require advanced skill with estimating final price because of the nature of the parimutuel system. As the bankroll size grows, or if it starts out large enough to begin with, Win and basic exotic pools trump the place and show pools in general, and as mentioned the longshots are better used in a trifecta.

[parimutual]

WT:

It sounds like you are having much fun with your place and show wagers. With all sincerety I wish you all the luck in the world. I would suggest however that you learn how place and show payouts are calculated so you can proceed with knowledge and caution down the parimutual highway. Much Luck

[Imriledup]

I love betting show on days where there are a lot of newbies in the crowd (Night racing at Hollywood, 4 O Clock Fridays at Del Mar, etc) sometimes you get favorites who pay more to show than they should. I don't look for show bets every race, but sometimes you look up and an even money shot who looks great will be paying 2.60 or 2.80 to show. Stick 200 on that and make a 'free' 60 or 80 bucks.

[WinterTriangle]

I would suggest however that you learn how place and show payouts are calculated so you can proceed with knowledge and caution down the parimutual highway.

Thanks for helping me. Any suggestions for reading material on this?

I do realize that playing these in trifectas *IS* better. In these 2 particular examples, I REALLy did not have a pick for the winner, so I probably would have lost my entire wager. But I was *confident* about the show horse, he was overlooked, but I had *no* idea who would hit for 1st and 2nd.

Yes, I need to learn more about pools!!! My math is atrocious. I read the topics here on this, but it's a little over my head LOL

I need the Parimutuel Pools for Dummies version. :)

[parimutual]

WT

I first learned the method of calculating place and show payoffs by reading Tom Ainslies "The Complete Horseplayer" years ago. Although dated it still remains a staple in the horseplayers/handicappers library. I would think a web search on the matter would render a suitable result. A few minutes of following the math and applying the formula and you will have mastered a skill that many bettors do not have.
As always much luck to you.

[WinterTriangle]

Well, my guy Aikenite placed today in the Dixiana Futurity.

That means my window for making $$ on him has closed.

He won his maiden at Saratoga in August and paid $15.40 (against rein king)...had been in a few watch articles....I always put these in my virtual stable. Then he showed in the Hopeful Stakes and paid $10.40 (which is how I played him), and today, placed and paid $7.00. ML was 5-1, quite a bit lower than he was when I first started with him.

Now, he's beat Backtalk---twice. :)

I can't think of another horse this year I've made so much $$ on, once in a while you find a 2-year old early on that you can believe in, you know they will be ITM, so I still think you can make $$ on place/show wagers in a case like him, beat the chalk.

[Cratos]

Thanks for helping me. Any suggestions for reading material on this?

I do realize that playing these in trifectas *IS* better. In these 2 particular examples, I REALLy did not have a pick for the winner, so I probably would have lost my entire wager. But I was *confident* about the show horse, he was overlooked, but I had *no* idea who would hit for 1st and 2nd.

Yes, I need to learn more about pools!!! My math is atrocious. I read the topics here on this, but it's a little over my head LOL

I need the Parimutuel Pools for Dummies version. :)

A brief tutorial on the WPS pools. From the tote board you will see the odds to the dollar of betting money in the win pool of each horse in the race to win.

Therefore only the bettors with the ticket on the winning horse are paid from that pool.

But in the place and show pools the calculation is different. In the place pool the estimated payoffs are on two horses (the 1st and 2nd finishers). Therefore the pool payoffs are split by relative odds between two groups of bettors, the win and place bettors.

In the show pool a similar dynamic is taking place with the pool payoffs being split between the win, place, and show bettors.

Sometime you can handicap a long shot to show, but given how the horses that finish first and second are wagered on in the show pool, the long shot payoff can be miniscule relative to its closing odds.

[CBedo]

A brief tutorial on the WPS pools. From the tote board you will see the odds to the dollar of betting money in the win pool of each horse in the race to win.

Therefore only the bettors with the ticket on the winning horse are paid from that pool.

But in the place and show pools the calculation is different. In the place pool the estimated payoffs are on two horses (the 1st and 2nd finishers). Therefore the pool payoffs are split by relative odds between two groups of bettors, the win and place bettors.

In the show pool a similar dynamic is taking place with the pool payoffs being split between the win, place, and show bettors.

Sometime you can handicap a long shot to show, but given how the horses that finish first and second are wagered on in the show pool, the long shot payoff can be miniscule relative to its closing odds.Net pool pricing has somewhat changed the dynamics of how the place and show pools are priced.

[cmoore]

WT:

It sounds like you are having much fun with your place and show wagers. With all sincerety I wish you all the luck in the world. I would suggest however that you learn how place and show payouts are calculated so you can proceed with knowledge and caution down the parimutual highway. Much Luck

It only takes seconds to figure out the minimum place payout for a long shot..

place pool size $32,431
horse 1) 10,021 (favorite in the place pool)
horse 2) 2,115

32,431 x .15 = 4864.65 -32431=-27566.35 + 10021 +2115=-15430.35/2=-7715.1/2115=-3.647 x2-2=-$9.29..

I use the negative in front of the pool size so you don't have to start over. It all runs in order..

I round down..So $9.20 is what the minimum place payout will be if the favorite in the place pool places also..

[CBedo]

It only takes seconds to figure out the minimum place payout for a long shot..

place pool size $32,431
horse 1) 10,021 (favorite in the place pool)
horse 2) 2,115

32,431 x .15 = 4864.65 -32431=-27566.35 + 10021 +2115=-15430.35/2=-7715.1/2115=-3.647 x2-2=-$9.29..

I use the negative in front of the pool size so you don't have to start over. It all runs in order..

I round down..So $9.20 is what the minimum place payout will be if the favorite in the place pool places also..which goes to show how poor a proposition longshots usually are in the place pool. Assuming the win pool had the same proportions as in cmoore's example, you're getting 7/2 in the place pool for a 12/1 shot.

[fmolf]

i wish you lots o luck with your place and show wagering ....but by wagering on longshots to place and show you are actually subsidizing the lower priced horses and their place and show prices.If you would like to learn more about this type of betting and how to figure which horses are underbet in the place and show pools relative to their odds i would suggest you read dr ziemba and dr hausch's book on this type of wagering.Basically they look at the top two or three betting choices and compare the % of moneies bet on them in the win pool and look for a lesser proportion of the total place pool.so a 2/1 shot will have about 32% of the total win pool bet on him ...an overlay in the place pool would be if he has 24% of the total place pool bet on him.

[WinterTriangle]

i wish you lots o luck with your place and show wagering ....but by wagering on longshots to place and show you are actually subsidizing the lower priced horses and their place and show prices.

I realize that. I am saying I never do that, but once in a while, I pick ONE horse, in this case, aikenite, and do that.

Because I don't see any other way to play him. In each case, I really did not know who would win, but I did *know* he would be ITM.

Let's put it this way, my pocketbooks shows I've made $15.40, $10.80, and $7.00 on this particular horse. ($33.20 for $6 of wagering)

If I had wagered Dublin today, I'd have .....$0.00. :) If I had wagered the favorite, Backtalk, in the Hopeful, I'd have......$0.00.

----So, how DO you play a horse like this? One you know will be ITM, at high odds, but you don't think will win, and you also don't feel sure about the winner? Why should I combine in an exacta, or trifecta, a horse I'm sure about, only to lose because I put him with the wrong horses?

I guess that's what I'm asking.........:)

[markgoldie]

I realize that. I am saying I never do that, but once in a while, I pick ONE horse, in this case, aikenite, and do that.

Because I don't see any other way to play him. In each case, I really did not know who would win, but I did *know* he would be ITM.

Let's put it this way, my pocketbooks shows I've made $15.40, $10.80, and $7.00 on this particular horse. ($33.20 for $6 of wagering)

If I had wagered Dublin today, I'd have .....$0.00. :) If I had wagered the favorite, Backtalk, in the Hopeful, I'd have......$0.00.

----So, how DO you play a horse like this? One you know will be ITM, at high odds, but you don't think will win, and you also don't feel sure about the winner? Why should I combine in an exacta, or trifecta, a horse I'm sure about, only to lose because I put him with the wrong horses?

I guess that's what I'm asking.........:)
LOVING a horse to finish in the money is almost always a difficult theoretical task. The reason is that most races are won by speed "survivors." Also, place and show positions go to a disproportinate of speed types. Therefore, the most likely horses to finish in the money are generally (and please don't jump on me with anecdotal examples to the contrary) horses who run the risk of failing due to overly fast paces and/or speed duels.

Actually, P and S types are a bit more consistent when it comes to "running to their numbers," but they can be victimized by slow paces which do little to weaken the speed horses in the race.

That being said, if you have a methodology for predicting in-the-money horses that you feel comfortable with, by far the most advantageous way to play is by using them as "key" horses in a gimmick. This is a highly efficient way to construct cost-effective gimmick tickets.

For example, let's say you are handicapping a 10-horse field. After consideration (and hopefully the race is "open" enough to provide value), in playing a trifecta you can put 5 horses in the win spot, add another for second only, and yet another for third only. Since you are only eliminating 3 horses from the ticket altogether, if your KEY horse hits the board, the chances of cashing are reasonably high. The "key" horse will appear in all positions. There would be three tickets, constructed in the following manner:

(1) KEY with 1,2,3,4,5 with 1,2,3,4,5,6 = 25 combinations

(2) 1,2,3,4 with KEY with 1,2,3,4,5,6 = 20 combinations

(3) 1,2,3,4 with 1,2,3,4,5 with KEY = 20 combinations

Here, the 5 horse is the "place or show only" animal, so he only appears in second or third positions and the 6 horse is a "third only" prospect, so he only appears in the third position.

The cost of $65 (for a $1 ticket) has been diminished by $60 because you have used a key horse ($65 vs. $125 for the same spread without a key horse). Because of this, as a long-term betting strategy, some would argue that you need a better than 50% strike rate for the KEY in order to make it work. However, my experience is that such a strike rate is not necessary for long-term success if the KEY animal is a fourth-or-better odds position prospect, that is, fourth favorite or higher. The reason is pool anomalies when the favorite is off the ticket. The anomalies escalate rapidly when the top two selections are worse than third. In such cases, you will often reel in $1500+ payoffs for the $65 investment.

[fmolf]

LOVING a horse to finish in the money is almost always a difficult theoretical task. The reason is that most races are won by speed "survivors." Also, place and show positions go to a disproportinate of speed types. Therefore, the most likely horses to finish in the money are generally (and please don't jump on me with anecdotal examples to the contrary) horses who run the risk of failing due to overly fast paces and/or speed duels.

Actually, P and S types are a bit more consistent when it comes to "running to their numbers," but they can be victimized by slow paces which do little to weaken the speed horses in the race.

That being said, if you have a methodology for predicting in-the-money horses that you feel comfortable with, by far the most advantageous way to play is by using them as "key" horses in a gimmick. This is a highly efficient way to construct cost-effective gimmick tickets.

For example, let's say you are handicapping a 10-horse field. After consideration (and hopefully the race is "open" enough to provide value), in playing a trifecta you can put 5 horses in the win spot, add another for second only, and yet another for third only. Since you are only eliminating 3 horses from the ticket altogether, if your KEY horse hits the board, the chances of cashing are reasonably high. The "key" horse will appear in all positions. There would be three tickets, constructed in the following manner:

(1) KEY with 1,2,3,4,5 with 1,2,3,4,5,6 = 25 combinations

(2) 1,2,3,4 with KEY with 1,2,3,4,5,6 = 20 combinations

(3) 1,2,3,4 with 1,2,3,4,5 with KEY = 20 combinations

Here, the 5 horse is the "place or show only" animal, so he only appears in second or third positions and the 6 horse is a "third only" prospect, so he only appears in the third position.

The cost of $65 (for a $1 ticket) has been diminished by $60 because you have used a key horse ($65 vs. $125 for the same spread without a key horse). Because of this, as a long-term betting strategy, some would argue that you need a better than 50% strike rate for the KEY in order to make it work. However, my experience is that such a strike rate is not necessary for long-term success if the KEY animal is a fourth-or-better odds position prospect, that is, fourth favorite or higher. The reason is pool anomalies when the favorite is off the ticket. The anomalies escalate rapidly when the top two selections are worse than third. In such cases, you will often reel in $1500+ payoffs for the $65 investment.
I have been playing this system on paper for about three weeks now with limited success.I would be slightly behind losing about 5% of my monies.This is the same betting system Mitchell advocates in "Common Sense Betting".I have been using one of the top three favs as my key horse, I am going to try your advice Mark and look for a horse that is in the fourth spot or higher on the tote.This will force me to play less races but i am eager to find out if this will turn a profit or do i have more to learn about trifecta wagering.If i find it to be profitable i will use it in conjunction with my win and exacta plays.

[Market Mover]

I have been playing this system on paper for about three weeks now with limited success.I would be slightly behind losing about 5% of my monies.This is the same betting system Mitchell advocates in "Common Sense Betting".I have been using one of the top three favs as my key horse, I am going to try your advice Mark and look for a horse that is in the fourth spot or higher on the tote.This will force me to play less races but i am eager to find out if this will turn a profit or do i have more to learn about trifecta wagering.If i find it to be profitable i will use it in conjunction with my win and exacta plays.


Could you apply this same line of thought and strategy towards 10 cent superfecta wagers with 12 horse fields?

[Cubbymac26]

I love betting show on days where there are a lot of newbies in the crowd (Night racing at Hollywood, 4 O Clock Fridays at Del Mar, etc) sometimes you get favorites who pay more to show than they should. I don't look for show bets every race, but sometimes you look up and an even money shot who looks great will be paying 2.60 or 2.80 to show. Stick 200 on that and make a 'free' 60 or 80 bucks.

Hahahaha.... I call it a little ice cream money the way I look at it is $80 is $80 haha I'll take the free 80

[fmolf]

Could you apply this same line of thought and strategy towards 10 cent superfecta wagers with 12 horse fields?
it absolutely works for 10 cent supers...just need to see what odds range is profitable for you to use as your key then be patient as in any other wagering endeavor.You should read Mitchells book "common sense betting"...excellent and informative read...easy to follow math as well

[markgoldie]

I have been playing this system on paper for about three weeks now with limited success.I would be slightly behind losing about 5% of my monies.This is the same betting system Mitchell advocates in "Common Sense Betting".I have been using one of the top three favs as my key horse, I am going to try your advice Mark and look for a horse that is in the fourth spot or higher on the tote.This will force me to play less races but i am eager to find out if this will turn a profit or do i have more to learn about trifecta wagering.If i find it to be profitable i will use it in conjunction with my win and exacta plays.
fmolf: I know you read most of the stuff on this site, including my posts because we have had some back-and-forths over the months (all very respectful and constructive I might add).

It's interesting that Mitchell details the same thing I said because I have never read his book. However, let me be clear about one thing: I do NOT advocate using Key horses as a general strategy because there is a very strong "uncertainty" principle at work in the sport which makes dependence on ANY horse very risky.

As you know, I am exclusively a gimmick bettor and in reply to Market Mover: Yes, Key horse strategies can be used in dime supers and in fact, due to their inherent value, I prefer them over trifectas. As I have said before, the key to success in gimmicks is really twofold: (1) Seeking races in which one of two things prevails, either (a) The race is so competitive that a number of horses might logically win (4 or more win contenders is optimum), or (b) You have reason to suspect that the favorite in the race is vulnerable to loss and even better, failure to make the gimmick ticket. And (2) Developing the art of constructing a gimmick ticket so as to perfectly reflect your handicapping opinion of the race. (I could add something else, which is finding your way to an ADW provider that gives back large rebates on gimmick plays, but naturally, eveyone can't do that.)

Also, I know that you have been attempting to expand your horizons into gimmick wagering and I encourage you to do so because I think you will eventually find that it is easier than your usual win and exacta play, even though you're not getting the huge rebates on tri's and supers.

So while I have a bit of time here, let's go over some of the basics again because it never hurts to reiterate:

The best horse to eliminate are weak E types. These are horses that need the lead to win and when they can't get it, they often collapse completely. This can be extended to elimination of favorites. As a general rule, I would prefer that a defected favorite be an E type facing a prospective very hot pace scenario. I should also say that the elimination of favorites from ANY position can be profitable over the long haul and therefore, it is advantageous to eliminate them from even just the win position. When it comes to this type of selective elimination, S type favorites facing a speed-favoring track and distance are great top-position eliminations, even if they are not otherwise form-defected. This, of course, is even more potent if the pace scenario does not appear to be particularly hot.

In general, true E/P types are the best horses to use on tickets. I say "true" because you always have to look at the current form of horses to re-affirm their type. I think I only mentioned this once before on some thread, but it is very important. Brisnet assigns types to horses and leaves the designation more or less untouched forever. But this is wrong. An out-of-form E/P type may often degenerate into simply an E type, meaning that he has lost his closing ability altogether. When he was sharp (at some earlier date), he may have been able to stalk and close, but he can no longer do so. The recent form lines will show this. Also, it is possible that the out-of-form E/P has degenerated into only a P type in that his ability to make early pace has left him. He just never seems to make the lead any longer, no matter the pace scenario. When this happens, his Quirin speed-point number may be incorrect. That is, at one time he may have been an E/P5, but now he is really a P2 (for example).

S and P types are always good prospects for filling out the underneath spots on tickets. Consequently, you must be very, very careful when it comes to leaving these horses off tickets altogether. Always give these animals extra scrutiny. Make sure that their overall numbers are very low comparatively before dropping them from consideration for inclusion in third or fourth ticket spots. These are the horses, usually at big odds, that can make a ticket very juicy. They are also the type of horse which causes so many bettors to either abandon playing superfectas or using "all" in the fourth position. The "all-button" strategy will kill your bottom line over the long run. You will pick up some nice cashes using it but the added costs will destroy you eventually.

This leads to what I mentioned as the art of ticket construction. You need to keep your tickets lean or else you'll never make a profit. EVERY horse must be considered carefully before including him in a ticket position. The prospects of every animal must be assessed as to (1) Their overall form and ability for the race at hand and (2) the likely pace scenario of the race, based on the form and ability of the participants. Only after all this analysis is done, can you begin to construct the optimum ticket construction and this general subject alone could fill an entire book. It's complicated and subtle and you only get really good at it after thousands of trials and errors. The good news is that once you learn the best way to do it, it gets easier and faster.

Anyway, good luck in tackling the wild and wonderful world of complex gimmicks.

[11cashcall]

I know that place and show wagering has been discussed here, and as a staple, of course I wouldn't suggest it.

But I have been selectively putting a few place and show wagers with good results.

In certain instances, my handicapping will show a 20-1 or 30-1 longshot coming in 3rd, or 2nd, and so I play them that way, esp. when I feel quite sure about it. Sometimes, I really do not know who the winner will be, maybe I'll be stuck between 2 horses and in danger of losing my money.... but I feel *quite sure* who will be ITM otherwise.

Example: Show on Aikenite paid $10.40 in the Hopeful, while the winner only paid $8.20. Place on J's Sundance Halo in the Presque Mile paid $10.00, while winner Cherokee only paid $7.80. (I played these in a contest this weekend and it worked out good for me).

While I am a relative newbie, 2 years in the game, this speaks to finding what works for you, and don't follow the "always bet to win" or any other system or rules that might not work for YOU. Some players are good at win, others are good at longshots, some at exotics. I think you have to find your niche, what you seem to have a knack for, or what kind of wager you feel confident about putting your $$ on.

I watch races on TVG and sometimes I see a horse that I think ran great, show up in a race a few weeks later where they appear over their head, but I remember how they ran and how I liked them. There is a lot of $$ to be made wagering on over-looked horses, and often in the Place or Show position?

Place and Show are not always "scared money".

I can totally relate to the knowing who the winner is & ITM horse(s).

2 words:Breakage & Takeout.

[fmolf]

fmolf: I know you read most of the stuff on this site, including my posts because we have had some back-and-forths over the months (all very respectful and constructive I might add).

It's interesting that Mitchell details the same thing I said because I have never read his book. However, let me be clear about one thing: I do NOT advocate using Key horses as a general strategy because there is a very strong "uncertainty" principle at work in the sport which makes dependence on ANY horse very risky.

As you know, I am exclusively a gimmick bettor and in reply to Market Mover: Yes, Key horse strategies can be used in dime supers and in fact, due to their inherent value, I prefer them over trifectas. As I have said before, the key to success in gimmicks is really twofold: (1) Seeking races in which one of two things prevails, either (a) The race is so competitive that a number of horses might logically win (4 or more win contenders is optimum), or (b) You have reason to suspect that the favorite in the race is vulnerable to loss and even better, failure to make the gimmick ticket. And (2) Developing the art of constructing a gimmick ticket so as to perfectly reflect your handicapping opinion of the race. (I could add something else, which is finding your way to an ADW provider that gives back large rebates on gimmick plays, but naturally, eveyone can't do that.)

Also, I know that you have been attempting to expand your horizons into gimmick wagering and I encourage you to do so because I think you will eventually find that it is easier than your usual win and exacta play, even though you're not getting the huge rebates on tri's and supers.

So while I have a bit of time here, let's go over some of the basics again because it never hurts to reiterate:

The best horse to eliminate are weak E types. These are horses that need the lead to win and when they can't get it, they often collapse completely. This can be extended to elimination of favorites. As a general rule, I would prefer that a defected favorite be an E type facing a prospective very hot pace scenario. I should also say that the elimination of favorites from ANY position can be profitable over the long haul and therefore, it is advantageous to eliminate them from even just the win position. When it comes to this type of selective elimination, S type favorites facing a speed-favoring track and distance are great top-position eliminations, even if they are not otherwise form-defected. This, of course, is even more potent if the pace scenario does not appear to be particularly hot.

In general, true E/P types are the best horses to use on tickets. I say "true" because you always have to look at the current form of horses to re-affirm their type. I think I only mentioned this once before on some thread, but it is very important. Brisnet assigns types to horses and leaves the designation more or less untouched forever. But this is wrong. An out-of-form E/P type may often degenerate into simply an E type, meaning that he has lost his closing ability altogether. When he was sharp (at some earlier date), he may have been able to stalk and close, but he can no longer do so. The recent form lines will show this. Also, it is possible that the out-of-form E/P has degenerated into only a P type in that his ability to make early pace has left him. He just never seems to make the lead any longer, no matter the pace scenario. When this happens, his Quirin speed-point number may be incorrect. That is, at one time he may have been an E/P5, but now he is really a P2 (for example).

S and P types are always good prospects for filling out the underneath spots on tickets. Consequently, you must be very, very careful when it comes to leaving these horses off tickets altogether. Always give these animals extra scrutiny. Make sure that their overall numbers are very low comparatively before dropping them from consideration for inclusion in third or fourth ticket spots. These are the horses, usually at big odds, that can make a ticket very juicy. They are also the type of horse which causes so many bettors to either abandon playing superfectas or using "all" in the fourth position. The "all-button" strategy will kill your bottom line over the long run. You will pick up some nice cashes using it but the added costs will destroy you eventually.

This leads to what I mentioned as the art of ticket construction. You need to keep your tickets lean or else you'll never make a profit. EVERY horse must be considered carefully before including him in a ticket position. The prospects of every animal must be assessed as to (1) Their overall form and ability for the race at hand and (2) the likely pace scenario of the race, based on the form and ability of the participants. Only after all this analysis is done, can you begin to construct the optimum ticket construction and this general subject alone could fill an entire book. It's complicated and subtle and you only get really good at it after thousands of trials and errors. The good news is that once you learn the best way to do it, it gets easier and faster.

Anyway, good luck in tackling the wild and wonderful world of complex gimmicks.Mark as always thanks for the input ....my method of determining if a favorite is vulnerable or not is very similar to yours.My question still remains and i am still learning how to determine fair value when including a solid favorite in your plays.In my exacta method i never wager unless getting value as determined by "meadows chart" this guarantees that i am betting on overlaid price horses in the exacta even if the favorite is included.Are their any hard and fast rules for tri wagering value plays or is it all feel and experience?I can play a solid 8/5 over a strong p type or s type to get up for second if the value is their.Determing this value has been a struggle for me in the advanced exotics.My favorite play is still a race where only two e types are running and both are in good form.I box them in the exacta as long as both combos offer fair value.I guess I am really looking for a formula to figure out trifecta fair value but i do not think one exists outside of ones experience.

[11cashcall]

I love betting show on days where there are a lot of newbies in the crowd (Night racing at Hollywood, 4 O Clock Fridays at Del Mar, etc) sometimes you get favorites who pay more to show than they should. I don't look for show bets every race, but sometimes you look up and an even money shot who looks great will be paying 2.60 or 2.80 to show. Stick 200 on that and make a 'free' 60 or 80 bucks.

Just curious,how do you feel abt. fav.s and breakage?

[markgoldie]

Mark as always thanks for the input ....my method of determining if a favorite is vulnerable or not is very similar to yours.My question still remains and i am still learning how to determine fair value when including a solid favorite in your plays.In my exacta method i never wager unless getting value as determined by "meadows chart" this guarantees that i am betting on overlaid price horses in the exacta even if the favorite is included.Are their any hard and fast rules for tri wagering value plays or is it all feel and experience?I can play a solid 8/5 over a strong p type or s type to get up for second if the value is their.Determing this value has been a struggle for me in the advanced exotics.My favorite play is still a race where only two e types are running and both are in good form.I box them in the exacta as long as both combos offer fair value.I guess I am really looking for a formula to figure out trifecta fair value but i do not think one exists outside of ones experience.
I don't look at "fair value" when playing gimmicks and I really don't think you have to. What is far more important is the set up and layout of the race. The reason is that there will always be pool anomalies in large gimmicks, so IMO, you are barking up the wrong tree. The key is NOT to play favored combinations because they are virtually always underlaid, so even if you cash them as part of a larger play, you will never get fair value from the cashing and you will lose money on the winning ticket.

You may play favorites in the top position on a ticket on occasion but ONLY when you have reason to believe that he will not win with the co-favorites underneath him. In such case, you may want to construct a number of different tickets on the same race. For example, Fav on top with a number of priced horses underneath. Then you might continue with the fav. in lower positions with certain contenders above him. These tickets can actually pay reasonably well. Remember, we want to look for races which are contentious OR where the fav is particularly vulnerable. What we DON'T want is races where we think the fav will win and the co-favs willl run right underneath.

Another helpful tip is never use lower-priced favs in 3rd and 4th positions. If you look at the long-term statistics, you'll find that they do not finish in these positions with enough frequency to make up for their destructive value to the ticket price (mainly coming from players who are keying him in all positions). So while it's not impossible to use a 4-5 or 1-1 fav on top and in second position (in rare circumstances when you dislike the co-favs), never use him for 3rd or 4th. On the other hand, a 5-2 fav can be selectively used in lower positions because this horse's destructive value to the ticket price is lower.

In general, though, I would say don't worry about fair value in gimmicks based on the win prices of the horses involved. The gimmicks are separate pools. So if you would like a horse at 5-1 (let's say), but he's going off at 7-2 or 4-1, don't worry about it. Use him, because if he wins, his displacement value to the favorite is worth a lot more than his win price. This concept might be somewhat familiar to you from exacta play, but it escalates when you get into the bigger gimmicks.

[Market Mover]

fmolf: I know you read most of the stuff on this site, including my posts because we have had some back-and-forths over the months (all very respectful and constructive I might add).

It's interesting that Mitchell details the same thing I said because I have never read his book. However, let me be clear about one thing: I do NOT advocate using Key horses as a general strategy because there is a very strong "uncertainty" principle at work in the sport which makes dependence on ANY horse very risky.

As you know, I am exclusively a gimmick bettor and in reply to Market Mover: Yes, Key horse strategies can be used in dime supers and in fact, due to their inherent value, I prefer them over trifectas. As I have said before, the key to success in gimmicks is really twofold: (1) Seeking races in which one of two things prevails, either (a) The race is so competitive that a number of horses might logically win (4 or more win contenders is optimum), or (b) You have reason to suspect that the favorite in the race is vulnerable to loss and even better, failure to make the gimmick ticket. And (2) Developing the art of constructing a gimmick ticket so as to perfectly reflect your handicapping opinion of the race. (I could add something else, which is finding your way to an ADW provider that gives back large rebates on gimmick plays, but naturally, eveyone can't do that.)

Also, I know that you have been attempting to expand your horizons into gimmick wagering and I encourage you to do so because I think you will eventually find that it is easier than your usual win and exacta play, even though you're not getting the huge rebates on tri's and supers.

So while I have a bit of time here, let's go over some of the basics again because it never hurts to reiterate:

The best horse to eliminate are weak E types. These are horses that need the lead to win and when they can't get it, they often collapse completely. This can be extended to elimination of favorites. As a general rule, I would prefer that a defected favorite be an E type facing a prospective very hot pace scenario. I should also say that the elimination of favorites from ANY position can be profitable over the long haul and therefore, it is advantageous to eliminate them from even just the win position. When it comes to this type of selective elimination, S type favorites facing a speed-favoring track and distance are great top-position eliminations, even if they are not otherwise form-defected. This, of course, is even more potent if the pace scenario does not appear to be particularly hot.

In general, true E/P types are the best horses to use on tickets. I say "true" because you always have to look at the current form of horses to re-affirm their type. I think I only mentioned this once before on some thread, but it is very important. Brisnet assigns types to horses and leaves the designation more or less untouched forever. But this is wrong. An out-of-form E/P type may often degenerate into simply an E type, meaning that he has lost his closing ability altogether. When he was sharp (at some earlier date), he may have been able to stalk and close, but he can no longer do so. The recent form lines will show this. Also, it is possible that the out-of-form E/P has degenerated into only a P type in that his ability to make early pace has left him. He just never seems to make the lead any longer, no matter the pace scenario. When this happens, his Quirin speed-point number may be incorrect. That is, at one time he may have been an E/P5, but now he is really a P2 (for example).

S and P types are always good prospects for filling out the underneath spots on tickets. Consequently, you must be very, very careful when it comes to leaving these horses off tickets altogether. Always give these animals extra scrutiny. Make sure that their overall numbers are very low comparatively before dropping them from consideration for inclusion in third or fourth ticket spots. These are the horses, usually at big odds, that can make a ticket very juicy. They are also the type of horse which causes so many bettors to either abandon playing superfectas or using "all" in the fourth position. The "all-button" strategy will kill your bottom line over the long run. You will pick up some nice cashes using it but the added costs will destroy you eventually.

This leads to what I mentioned as the art of ticket construction. You need to keep your tickets lean or else you'll never make a profit. EVERY horse must be considered carefully before including him in a ticket position. The prospects of every animal must be assessed as to (1) Their overall form and ability for the race at hand and (2) the likely pace scenario of the race, based on the form and ability of the participants. Only after all this analysis is done, can you begin to construct the optimum ticket construction and this general subject alone could fill an entire book. It's complicated and subtle and you only get really good at it after thousands of trials and errors. The good news is that once you learn the best way to do it, it gets easier and faster.

Anyway, good luck in tackling the wild and wonderful world of complex gimmicks.


Many thanks markgoldie for the insightful input. For a novice gimmicks player who does not use Brisnet PP's, would you have any way of describing the above subtypes/categories in general terms to someone who, let's say, was using only DRF PP's for handicapping purposes?

[Market Mover]

I don't look at "fair value" when playing gimmicks and I really don't think you have to. What is far more important is the set up and layout of the race. The reason is that there will always be pool anomalies in large gimmicks, so IMO, you are barking up the wrong tree. The key is NOT to play favored combinations because they are virtually always underlaid, so even if you cash them as part of a larger play, you will never get fair value from the cashing and you will lose money on the winning ticket.

You may play favorites in the top position on a ticket on occasion but ONLY when you have reason to believe that he will not win with the co-favorites underneath him. In such case, you may want to construct a number of different tickets on the same race. For example, Fav on top with a number of priced horses underneath. Then you might continue with the fav. in lower positions with certain contenders above him. These tickets can actually pay reasonably well. Remember, we want to look for races which are contentious OR where the fav is particularly vulnerable. What we DON'T want is races where we think the fav will win and the co-favs willl run right underneath.

Another helpful tip is never use lower-priced favs in 3rd and 4th positions. If you look at the long-term statistics, you'll find that they do not finish in these positions with enough frequency to make up for their destructive value to the ticket price (mainly coming from players who are keying him in all positions). So while it's not impossible to use a 4-5 or 1-1 fav on top and in second position (in rare circumstances when you dislike the co-favs), never use him for 3rd or 4th. On the other hand, a 5-2 fav can be selectively used in lower positions because this horse's destructive value to the ticket price is lower.

In general, though, I would say don't worry about fair value in gimmicks based on the win prices of the horses involved. The gimmicks are separate pools. So if you would like a horse at 5-1 (let's say), but he's going off at 7-2 or 4-1, don't worry about it. Use him, because if he wins, his displacement value to the favorite is worth a lot more than his win price. This concept might be somewhat familiar to you from exacta play, but it escalates when you get into the bigger gimmicks.

Your logic here makes perfect sense markgoldie, and I find this pattern to be very true on formful dirt tracks, particularly the NYRA circuit.

Now, with the advent of synthetics, where the "anything goes" mentality can often yield blockbuster payouts, would you ever consider leveraging superfecta plays where odds-on chalk is placed in the 3rd and/or 4th positions?

Case in point, today's KEE R 4, suspect chalk Saluting Stormye making his second start for Asmussen. Hovered around even money and most players expected that trouble trip line to indicate he was much better that his debut on yielding turf at AP. Of course he falters and finishes fourth, with some nice prices above him. Tri pays 1300, super pays 4500 (all for a buck)..

Many would balk at the attempt to single/key any horse in the 3rd or 4th positions, but in maiden races, I've seen some very generous payouts when unknown factors lead off the sequence in the first two positions.

Is this a valid strategy only in particular races/tracks?

[fmolf]

I don't look at "fair value" when playing gimmicks and I really don't think you have to. What is far more important is the set up and layout of the race. The reason is that there will always be pool anomalies in large gimmicks, so IMO, you are barking up the wrong tree. The key is NOT to play favored combinations because they are virtually always underlaid, so even if you cash them as part of a larger play, you will never get fair value from the cashing and you will lose money on the winning ticket.

You may play favorites in the top position on a ticket on occasion but ONLY when you have reason to believe that he will not win with the co-favorites underneath him. In such case, you may want to construct a number of different tickets on the same race. For example, Fav on top with a number of priced horses underneath. Then you might continue with the fav. in lower positions with certain contenders above him. These tickets can actually pay reasonably well. Remember, we want to look for races which are contentious OR where the fav is particularly vulnerable. What we DON'T want is races where we think the fav will win and the co-favs willl run right underneath.

Another helpful tip is never use lower-priced favs in 3rd and 4th positions. If you look at the long-term statistics, you'll find that they do not finish in these positions with enough frequency to make up for their destructive value to the ticket price (mainly coming from players who are keying him in all positions). So while it's not impossible to use a 4-5 or 1-1 fav on top and in second position (in rare circumstances when you dislike the co-favs), never use him for 3rd or 4th. On the other hand, a 5-2 fav can be selectively used in lower positions because this horse's destructive value to the ticket price is lower.

In general, though, I would say don't worry about fair value in gimmicks based on the win prices of the horses involved. The gimmicks are separate pools. So if you would like a horse at 5-1 (let's say), but he's going off at 7-2 or 4-1, don't worry about it. Use him, because if he wins, his displacement value to the favorite is worth a lot more than his win price. This concept might be somewhat familiar to you from exacta play, but it escalates when you get into the bigger gimmicks.this is particularly true in the exacta pools people overbet the first three public choices with regularity.I generally will not bet into the exactas when i feel the top two choices are likely to run one two which happens frequently.here again the chart helps because sometimes the exacta pools are inefficient,although not quite as much as the trifecta pools.What do you think about a system where i only use the solid favorite on top,effectively reducing the trifecta into an exacta.I wonder what hit rate you would need to sustain profits.

[markgoldie]

MM: In my opinion (and the opinion of many others), running-style designations are a crucial element to handicapping. This is one of the reasons that I use Brisnet. They are meant to describe how a horse generally runs in relation to the pace of the race. E types are straight-speed animals who attempt to win by going all out from the gate. E/P types are also called speed-stalkers who can win by either going wire to wire OR by presssing the pace and then closing. P types are straight stalkers. They may attend the pace but rarely if ever make the pace and they try to close to win. S types are straight come-from-behinders. You can make your own designations from DRF by matching the running styles you see on the pp lines to the proper designation.

The main benefit of using running styles is that it gives you a short-hand glimpse of the pace scenario for the race. Lots of E and E/P types and you'd expect a fast pace. Lots of P and S types and you'd expect little pace. It also allows you to match the horse to the Brisnet track bias statistics which show how the types are faring at the particular track, surface, and distance.

You can read more on this subject by searching this forum or through handicapping books. Author Randy Giles has a short, easy-to-read book called "Extreme Pace Handicapping" which covers the subject nicely and shows how you can exclusively handicap on the basis of running styles and pace scenarios.

As to your other question about using heavy chalk for 3rd and 4th, as I mentioned before, in most cases it won't work EXCEPT (and I should have mentioned this in the earlier post) when the heavy chalk horse is a P or S type. Since most North American dirt and synth races are won by speed types, the P and particularly S types have low win percentages. This is all the more true when their pace-speed ability is low relative to the field. Once in a while, such horses may be bet as heavy chalk, the reason being their overall numbers (final-speed figs) are high relative to the competition. In these somewhat rare instances, such horses may make better "underneath" inclusions rather than win propositions. Other than that, you will find that heavy favs. have high win percentages (as a group), somewhat high place percentages, but when you get to third and fouth place, the % numbers drop to about the 10% range. Their negative impact on ticket prices with these types of strike rates make them bad investments in these positions.

This points out a main key to success in gimmick wagering. EVERY horse must be assessed relative to (1) its odds and (2) its probability of making a particular gimmick-ticket position. And this, of course is based on your handicapping. Great handicapping is difficult to achieve and I'll be the first to tell you that I do not rank among the elite. However (and this is key), the overwhelming majority of great handicapping centers on the few main contenders to win the race. That is, the geniuses of the game are more worried about whether or not they can take 6-5 on a horse, or should they pass unless he's 8-5, for example. Meanwhile, there is little energy and interest placed to the question of properly sorting out the horses who are 15-1 and above. In this arena, a so-so handicapper like myself can learn to become world-class.

To fmolf: You asked about a system where you use solid favorites on top in a trifecta. Bad idea as I have stated many times. We know for a fact (and this has been backed up on the forum by statistics from the data-base guys) that larger gimmick pools are generally highly UNDERLAID when a fav wins. The more complex the gimmick, the worse the underlay. This, of course, is caused by many players, playing on short investment capital, who are all covering the same most "logical" outcomes. The good news is that this same effect leads to large OVERLAYS on longer-shot combos.

ALL successful handicapping is based somewhat on a "contrarian" stance. We sometimes shorthand this as getting "value," which means that we are taking advantage of the public's error in UNDERASSESSING the prospects of a given horse. Finding these "mistakes" is brutally difficult in the win hole. It is also very difficult in exactas because some of the whale groups have branched out to exacta pools simply because thier win bets affect payouts too much. So IMO, complex gimmicks, like supers is the last refuge for finding easier value picks. But using these pools to mimic the odds-assessment of the win pool will bankrupt you in no time. Concentrate on betting against vulnerable chalk.

[fmolf]

MM: In my opinion (and the opinion of many others), running-style designations are a crucial element to handicapping. This is one of the reasons that I use Brisnet. They are meant to describe how a horse generally runs in relation to the pace of the race. E types are straight-speed animals who attempt to win by going all out from the gate. E/P types are also called speed-stalkers who can win by either going wire to wire OR by presssing the pace and then closing. P types are straight stalkers. They may attend the pace but rarely if ever make the pace and they try to close to win. S types are straight come-from-behinders. You can make your own designations from DRF by matching the running styles you see on the pp lines to the proper designation.

The main benefit of using running styles is that it gives you a short-hand glimpse of the pace scenario for the race. Lots of E and E/P types and you'd expect a fast pace. Lots of P and S types and you'd expect little pace. It also allows you to match the horse to the Brisnet track bias statistics which show how the types are faring at the particular track, surface, and distance.

You can read more on this subject by searching this forum or through handicapping books. Author Randy Giles has a short, easy-to-read book called "Extreme Pace Handicapping" which covers the subject nicely and shows how you can exclusively handicap on the basis of running styles and pace scenarios.

As to your other question about using heavy chalk for 3rd and 4th, as I mentioned before, in most cases it won't work EXCEPT (and I should have mentioned this in the earlier post) when the heavy chalk horse is a P or S type. Since most North American dirt and synth races are won by speed types, the P and particularly S types have low win percentages. This is all the more true when their pace-speed ability is low relative to the field. Once in a while, such horses may be bet as heavy chalk, the reason being their overall numbers (final-speed figs) are high relative to the competition. In these somewhat rare instances, such horses may make better "underneath" inclusions rather than win propositions. Other than that, you will find that heavy favs. have high win percentages (as a group), somewhat high place percentages, but when you get to third and fouth place, the % numbers drop to about the 10% range. Their negative impact on ticket prices with these types of strike rates make them bad investments in these positions.

This points out a main key to success in gimmick wagering. EVERY horse must be assessed relative to (1) its odds and (2) its probability of making a particular gimmick-ticket position. And this, of course is based on your handicapping. Great handicapping is difficult to achieve and I'll be the first to tell you that I do not rank among the elite. However (and this is key), the overwhelming majority of great handicapping centers on the few main contenders to win the race. That is, the geniuses of the game are more worried about whether or not they can take 6-5 on a horse, or should they pass unless he's 8-5, for example. Meanwhile, there is little energy and interest placed to the question of properly sorting out the horses who are 15-1 and above. In this arena, a so-so handicapper like myself can learn to become world-class.

To fmolf: You asked about a system where you use solid favorites on top in a trifecta. Bad idea as I have stated many times. We know for a fact (and this has been backed up on the forum by statistics from the data-base guys) that larger gimmick pools are generally highly UNDERLAID when a fav wins. The more complex the gimmick, the worse the underlay. This, of course, is caused by many players, playing on short investment capital, who are all covering the same most "logical" outcomes. The good news is that this same effect leads to large OVERLAYS on longer-shot combos.

ALL successful handicapping is based somewhat on a "contrarian" stance. We sometimes shorthand this as getting "value," which means that we are taking advantage of the public's error in UNDERASSESSING the prospects of a given horse. Finding these "mistakes" is brutally difficult in the win hole. It is also very difficult in exactas because some of the whale groups have branched out to exacta pools simply because thier win bets affect payouts too much. So IMO, complex gimmicks, like supers is the last refuge for finding easier value picks. But using these pools to mimic the odds-assessment of the win pool will bankrupt you in no time. Concentrate on betting against vulnerable chalk.
so the hit rate would be prohibitivly high to make a long term profit then.Maybe i am not cut out psychologically and mentally to be a tri or super player....I have an inherent need it seems to wager on bets where i know i am getting an overlay and above fair odds price.I may not have the temperament.I just do not understand how you can call a certain trifecta combo an overlay when you do not know what price you will be paid or what is the likelyhood,percentage wise of hitting the said wager.I have long argued with other members here that most horses over 18/20 to 1 are underlays some severely just because of the longshot bias of smaller players.I understand the betting philosophy i understand the opposing running style concepts i am just having a difficult time pulling the trigger.Thanks again Mark.

p.s. if you get the chance you would enjoy Mitchells book "Common Sense Betting"....worth the read even for someone with your experience.

[sammy the sage]

W.T....you are doing A. OK....there's at LEAST 9 ways to be profitable...what you're doing WORKS...counts as ONE way for SURE!!!!

I know BIG bettor's who'll bet 3k on a SINGLE race to place or show...

Also...what the SO-CALLED know-it-alls have posted so far....FAILS...to address...the BIGGEST advantage of YOUR method....TAKE-OUT%...

hopefully by now...your well AWARE of that................... ;)

[WinterTriangle]

The reason is that most races are won by speed "survivors."

Only under perfectly normal circumstances. Not sloppy tracks. Maidens. Belmont and Keeneland results last 2 day. Avg winner paid $13+ dollars. Most, more.

I"m not a longshot player, so I don't go looking for them, but when they clearly present themselves.....

Singing Low Belmont R2 on thursday. slop/mud. His M/L 50-1. Paid $18.00 to show. I felt *very* confident he would show, because 1) everyone was on the Linda Rice horse (not the winner) 2) the winner, Jet to Classics, was actually stronger on the broodmare sire side for mud, ditto Singing Low, who's trainer had very high slop stats. Maybe whoever made the M/L didn't investigate Singing Low properly and the public followed suit because of 50-1??

Darn right I'm gonna take an $18.00 show over a $3.00 win bet when it appears.

I don't get the thing about a winner being more obvious than a show-er...since only 33% of them do win?

[WinterTriangle]

fmolf: I know you read most of the stuff on this site, including my posts because we have had some back-and-forths over the months (all very respectful and constructive I might add).

It's interesting that Mitchell details the same thing I said because I have never read his book. However, let me be clear about one thing: I do NOT advocate using Key horses as a general strategy because there is a very strong "uncertainty" principle at work in the sport which makes dependence on ANY horse very risky.

As you know, I am exclusively a gimmick bettor and in reply to Market Mover: Yes, Key horse strategies can be used in dime supers and in fact, due to their inherent value, I prefer them over trifectas. As I have said before, the key to success in gimmicks is really twofold: (1) Seeking races in which one of two things prevails, either (a) The race is so competitive that a number of horses might logically win (4 or more win contenders is optimum), or (b) You have reason to suspect that the favorite in the race is vulnerable to loss and even better, failure to make the gimmick ticket. And (2) Developing the art of constructing a gimmick ticket so as to perfectly reflect your handicapping opinion of the race. (I could add something else, which is finding your way to an ADW provider that gives back large rebates on gimmick plays, but naturally, eveyone can't do that.)

Also, I know that you have been attempting to expand your horizons into gimmick wagering and I encourage you to do so because I think you will eventually find that it is easier than your usual win and exacta play, even though you're not getting the huge rebates on tri's and supers.

So while I have a bit of time here, let's go over some of the basics again because it never hurts to reiterate:

The best horse to eliminate are weak E types. These are horses that need the lead to win and when they can't get it, they often collapse completely. This can be extended to elimination of favorites. As a general rule, I would prefer that a defected favorite be an E type facing a prospective very hot pace scenario. I should also say that the elimination of favorites from ANY position can be profitable over the long haul and therefore, it is advantageous to eliminate them from even just the win position. When it comes to this type of selective elimination, S type favorites facing a speed-favoring track and distance are great top-position eliminations, even if they are not otherwise form-defected. This, of course, is even more potent if the pace scenario does not appear to be particularly hot.

In general, true E/P types are the best horses to use on tickets. I say "true" because you always have to look at the current form of horses to re-affirm their type. I think I only mentioned this once before on some thread, but it is very important. Brisnet assigns types to horses and leaves the designation more or less untouched forever. But this is wrong. An out-of-form E/P type may often degenerate into simply an E type, meaning that he has lost his closing ability altogether. When he was sharp (at some earlier date), he may have been able to stalk and close, but he can no longer do so. The recent form lines will show this. Also, it is possible that the out-of-form E/P has degenerated into only a P type in that his ability to make early pace has left him. He just never seems to make the lead any longer, no matter the pace scenario. When this happens, his Quirin speed-point number may be incorrect. That is, at one time he may have been an E/P5, but now he is really a P2 (for example).

S and P types are always good prospects for filling out the underneath spots on tickets. Consequently, you must be very, very careful when it comes to leaving these horses off tickets altogether. Always give these animals extra scrutiny. Make sure that their overall numbers are very low comparatively before dropping them from consideration for inclusion in third or fourth ticket spots. These are the horses, usually at big odds, that can make a ticket very juicy. They are also the type of horse which causes so many bettors to either abandon playing superfectas or using "all" in the fourth position. The "all-button" strategy will kill your bottom line over the long run. You will pick up some nice cashes using it but the added costs will destroy you eventually.

This leads to what I mentioned as the art of ticket construction. You need to keep your tickets lean or else you'll never make a profit. EVERY horse must be considered carefully before including him in a ticket position. The prospects of every animal must be assessed as to (1) Their overall form and ability for the race at hand and (2) the likely pace scenario of the race, based on the form and ability of the participants. Only after all this analysis is done, can you begin to construct the optimum ticket construction and this general subject alone could fill an entire book. It's complicated and subtle and you only get really good at it after thousands of trials and errors. The good news is that once you learn the best way to do it, it gets easier and faster.

Anyway, good luck in tackling the wild and wonderful world of complex gimmicks.

Mark, BTW, you did some series postings for a while, and your handicapping is SUPERB I thought. So not disagreeing with you in anything I said.

I don't know how other people do it, because nobody taught me, I just learned on my own. I study the pace and running styles, and lay out my horses by number on paper in ORDER I think they will run.
Then, I apply track bias, track stats, trainer stats, jockey stats and details I know about the horses, thus either moving them around a bit, or cross them out entirely. IF I am still stuck and can't narrow down enough and can't do so based on distance, racing record, and the rest, and the track is off or it's a maiden race, I apply both sire and broodmare sire info to the lot of 'em.

No software, although I may think about it someday. It's actually a bit painstaking to do it my way, but since I enjoy it so much, I don't mind. I might also say that as a newbie, the first few years I would not use software. I think you learn more doing it "longhand", on paper, the way I am doing it. I know software would better show patterns? but my brain sees patterns, the big picture, so I can usually make do.

I think when startig out, doing it longhand, you are forced to eliminate horses on your own steam, rather than having software show you that, and since elimating horses is one of the most important thing in handicapping, I prefer to do it painstakingly one by one applying my own information.

Good or bad?

[sammy the sage]

Winner, winner..chicken dinner..""Darn right I'm gonna take an $18.00 show over a $3.00 win bet when it appears.""

[markgoldie]

Mark, BTW, you did some series postings for a while, and your handicapping is SUPERB I thought. So not disagreeing with you in anything I said.

I don't know how other people do it, because nobody taught me, I just learned on my own. I study the pace and running styles, and lay out my horses by number on paper in ORDER I think they will run.
Then, I apply track bias, track stats, trainer stats, jockey stats and details I know about the horses, thus either moving them around a bit, or cross them out entirely. IF I am still stuck and can't narrow down enough and can't do so based on distance, racing record, and the rest, and the track is off or it's a maiden race, I apply both sire and broodmare sire info to the lot of 'em.

No software, although I may think about it someday. It's actually a bit painstaking to do it my way, but since I enjoy it so much, I don't mind. I might also say that as a newbie, the first few years I would not use software. I think you learn more doing it "longhand", on paper, the way I am doing it. I know software would better show patterns? but my brain sees patterns, the big picture, so I can usually make do.

I think when startig out, doing it longhand, you are forced to eliminate horses on your own steam, rather than having software show you that, and since elimating horses is one of the most important thing in handicapping, I prefer to do it painstakingly one by one applying my own information.

Good or bad?
Nothing at all wrong with your approach. In fact, I am not automated either, although as I have said on the forum, I think that automation is clearly the way of the future, if for absolutely nothing else, it is relentlessly CONSISTENT IN APPLICATION. The problem is the difficulty in translating all the nuanced things you do to the program.

I am one of these "post-facto" analysts in that I always go back over the form when something happens in a race that surprises me. Lots of times I see something in the horse's form that I should have picked up on but didn't. This is usually caused by too much handicapping in a short period of time, which in turn causes you to get sloppy.

Recently, I have come to believe that data mining over a large base is the way forward. For example, let's just take jockey changes as a simple enough handicapping question. You see that a horse has switched from a low-percentage jockey to a higher one. Maybe the lower percentage jockey has a 5% win rate and the higher percentage jockey a 10% win rate. You expect improvement. But how much? Do you really have a clue? Not really unless you have data-mined similar changes over thousands of races and compared performances to a standard, such as as final-speed fig. There are literally hundreds of such questions that could be more accurately applied if you had the information.

So what you and I both do is build our own data base, so to speak, and that data base is our experience. Nothing wrong with it because it's the best we have. So, yes, I think you're on the right track. Stay with it and just make sure you don't get financially hurt while you are learning.

[markgoldie]

so the hit rate would be prohibitivly high to make a long term profit then.Maybe i am not cut out psychologically and mentally to be a tri or super player....I have an inherent need it seems to wager on bets where i know i am getting an overlay and above fair odds price.I may not have the temperament.I just do not understand how you can call a certain trifecta combo an overlay when you do not know what price you will be paid or what is the likelyhood,percentage wise of hitting the said wager.I have long argued with other members here that most horses over 18/20 to 1 are underlays some severely just because of the longshot bias of smaller players.I understand the betting philosophy i understand the opposing running style concepts i am just having a difficult time pulling the trigger.Thanks again Mark.

p.s. if you get the chance you would enjoy Mitchells book "Common Sense Betting"....worth the read even for someone with your experience.
I agree that most longshots are win-proposition underlays. Why? Because every study I have seen shows lower win ROI on longshots versus lower-priced horses. But here's the interesting thing: My experience tells me that these horses carry the same odds-against prospects into all gimmick positions, even though a horse at 20-1 may have a pretty good shot of finishing underneath on the ticket. So now, you're still getting the same 20-1 effect, whereas the horse may only be 10-1 against to finish third or fourth. Hence, the way you are using him becomes a nice overlay and again, this is caused by the overplay of lower-priced horses in the gimmick pool.

Your point about not knowing the exact overlay value in gimmick pools is correct. You don't and can't know. So you must rely on long-term results. And I believe you'll see that the long-term results show that longshots, who are underlays to win, will be overlays when they appear almost anywhere on the large-gimmick ticket.

[fmolf]

I agree that most longshots are win-proposition underlays. Why? Because every study I have seen shows lower win ROI on longshots versus lower-priced horses. But here's the interesting thing: My experience tells me that these horses carry the same odds-against prospects into all gimmick positions, even though a horse at 20-1 may have a pretty good shot of finishing underneath on the ticket. So now, you're still getting the same 20-1 effect, whereas the horse may only be 10-1 against to finish third or fourth. Hence, the way you are using him becomes a nice overlay and again, this is caused by the overplay of lower-priced horses in the gimmick pool.

Your point about not knowing the exact overlay value in gimmick pools is correct. You don't and can't know. So you must rely on long-term results. And I believe you'll see that the long-term results show that longshots, who are underlays to win, will be overlays when they appear almost anywhere on the large-gimmick ticket.
Now on the average nine race card,how many races would you find a trifecta or superfecta play and do you bet both in the same race and if not what criteria do you use to decide which pool to bet into?In the win and exacta pools for a nine race card at my favorite track belmont i average three prime win bets a day,sometimes sometimes not coupled with an exacta bet.Then maybe two or three exacta only plays in races where i consider the favorite legit.Why can't you use the same leverage in the gimmick pools with a solid favorite and logical mid-priced contenders?Also is their a general rule of thumb you use or that is optimum for tri's and or super's?What field size produces the greatest roi for you?Is too big no good as well as too small?
Thank you for your patience in replying to a 35 yr horse player who was brought up to believe that trifectas were sucker bets!

[markgoldie]

Now on the average nine race card,how many races would you find a trifecta or superfecta play and do you bet both in the same race and if not what criteria do you use to decide which pool to bet into?In the win and exacta pools for a nine race card at my favorite track belmont i average three prime win bets a day,sometimes sometimes not coupled with an exacta bet.Then maybe two or three exacta only plays in races where i consider the favorite legit.Why can't you use the same leverage in the gimmick pools with a solid favorite and logical mid-priced contenders?Also is their a general rule of thumb you use or that is optimum for tri's and or super's?What field size produces the greatest roi for you?Is too big no good as well as too small?
Thank you for your patience in replying to a 35 yr horse player who was brought up to believe that trifectas were sucker bets!
Okay. Answers. One at a time. I look at a lot of tracks on a given day and I will usually get about 10 good situations per day. Many times I will play both the tri and super in the same race but it depends on the layout. My stats show better profits in supers. If the reason for playing the race is I want to bet against what I consider a bad favorite, I will almost always play both gimmicks. However, if the reason for playing the race is high degree of contention (in the win spot), then I will assess the supporting cast to decide what to do. I will favor the super, but sometimes there are a group of horses that I can't separate for, say, the fourth position. If that happens, I don't really want to include a bunch of weak horses for fourth just to have them there and so I will stick to the tri. As far as leveraging a solid favorite with mid-priced contenders in the tri, I am firmly against it but maybe a very sharp player could make it work. The problem as I have stated over and over is that the vast majority of tickets have this chalk in the top spot (even more percentage wise than have him to win) and hence the situation is ripe for an underlay payout. Field size: For me, the bigger the better. The large fields produce the big payouts and that's what I want. Also, the larger the field, the less scrutiny the handicappers give to the supporting cast. Hopefully, my opinion is a little better than average on the under horses and so my advantage is multiplied the more of them there are. I will almost always want a 9 or more horse field before pulling the trigger.
Also, as I have stated before, large gimmick wagering is pretty much of a "windfall" way of playing. This requires a lot of patience, a large enough bankroll and most of all, a faith that the score will happen sooner or later. This means that showing losses several days in a row is routine and I understand that not every player has the temperament for such things. But it is also why the approach CAN be successful- because the psychological barriers to doing it drive out so many otherwise very good handicappers. I am perfectly willing to admit that it's extremely probable that the best minds in the game are win bettors. But IMO they face the toughest task of all to profits. The exacta players may have it a tad easier, but it's still very difficult to show consistent profits in these pools. That's why I play complex gimmicks. Not because I'm a genius, but because this is where the fishing is easiest for whatever abilities I do have.

Mark

[Market Mover]

Only under perfectly normal circumstances. Not sloppy tracks. Maidens. Belmont and Keeneland results last 2 day. Avg winner paid $13+ dollars. Most, more.

I"m not a longshot player, so I don't go looking for them, but when they clearly present themselves.....

Singing Low Belmont R2 on thursday. slop/mud. His M/L 50-1. Paid $18.00 to show. I felt *very* confident he would show, because 1) everyone was on the Linda Rice horse (not the winner) 2) the winner, Jet to Classics, was actually stronger on the broodmare sire side for mud, ditto Singing Low, who's trainer had very high slop stats. Maybe whoever made the M/L didn't investigate Singing Low properly and the public followed suit because of 50-1??

Darn right I'm gonna take an $18.00 show over a $3.00 win bet when it appears.

I don't get the thing about a winner being more obvious than a show-er...since only 33% of them do win?


Why not play the show bet, but also play a leveraged trifecta with your horse in the second and/or third positions so you can win both and cash twice for being right?

[Market Mover]

Okay. Answers. One at a time. I look at a lot of tracks on a given day and I will usually get about 10 good situations per day. Many times I will play both the tri and super in the same race but it depends on the layout. My stats show better profits in supers. If the reason for playing the race is I want to bet against what I consider a bad favorite, I will almost always play both gimmicks. However, if the reason for playing the race is high degree of contention (in the win spot), then I will assess the supporting cast to decide what to do. I will favor the super, but sometimes there are a group of horses that I can't separate for, say, the fourth position. If that happens, I don't really want to include a bunch of weak horses for fourth just to have them there and so I will stick to the tri. As far as leveraging a solid favorite with mid-priced contenders in the tri, I am firmly against it but maybe a very sharp player could make it work. The problem as I have stated over and over is that the vast majority of tickets have this chalk in the top spot (even more percentage wise than have him to win) and hence the situation is ripe for an underlay payout. Field size: For me, the bigger the better. The large fields produce the big payouts and that's what I want. Also, the larger the field, the less scrutiny the handicappers give to the supporting cast. Hopefully, my opinion is a little better than average on the under horses and so my advantage is multiplied the more of them there are. I will almost always want a 9 or more horse field before pulling the trigger.
Also, as I have stated before, large gimmick wagering is pretty much of a "windfall" way of playing. This requires a lot of patience, a large enough bankroll and most of all, a faith that the score will happen sooner or later. This means that showing losses several days in a row is routine and I understand that not every player has the temperament for such things. But it is also why the approach CAN be successful- because the psychological barriers to doing it drive out so many otherwise very good handicappers. I am perfectly willing to admit that it's extremely probable that the best minds in the game are win bettors. But IMO they face the toughest task of all to profits. The exacta players may have it a tad easier, but it's still very difficult to show consistent profits in these pools. That's why I play complex gimmicks. Not because I'm a genius, but because this is where the fishing is easiest for whatever abilities I do have.

Mark

Markgoldie,

Are there any situations where you would consider playing superfectas with horses selected to finish in the first two positions, but NOT the third or fourth positions? I know there are a lot of those who do not believe in handicapping a horse to finish 3rd or 4th, but let's say one is taking advantage of the 10-cent minimum wager, and one is trying to maximize/cover longshot combinations with the intent of leveraging longshot opinions so as to cash multiple times in the superfecta pools.

Let's say the ticket looked like this: A, B, C/A, B, C/D, E/ D, E, F...
where...A, B, and C are not first, 2nd, or 3rd choice in the wagering...


I've noted that some of the smaller tracks that offer superfecta wagering on even 7 or 8 or 9 horse fields can yield substantially underlaid payouts when the top two positions are non-chalk entities...Delta Downs, whose meet recently started, comes to mind...

Which leads to another question: in your professional handicapping experience, are there any tracks that you would specifically stay away from, at least from the superfecta pools, because it's not just not worth the risk?

Thanks in advance. I am formerly an exclusive p3/p4 horizontal wagers-only handicapper who's just sick of spotting underlaid trifectas and superfectas (especially at meets like Keeneland) and I'm venturing into the vertical route with limited success...

[fmolf]

Markgoldie,

Are there any situations where you would consider playing superfectas with horses selected to finish in the first two positions, but NOT the third or fourth positions? I know there are a lot of those who do not believe in handicapping a horse to finish 3rd or 4th, but let's say one is taking advantage of the 10-cent minimum wager, and one is trying to maximize/cover longshot combinations with the intent of leveraging longshot opinions so as to cash multiple times in the superfecta pools.

Let's say the ticket looked like this: A, B, C/A, B, C/D, E/ D, E, F...
where...A, B, and C are not first, 2nd, or 3rd choice in the wagering...


I've noted that some of the smaller tracks that offer superfecta wagering on even 7 or 8 or 9 horse fields can yield substantially underlaid payouts when the top two positions are non-chalk entities...Delta Downs, whose meet recently started, comes to mind...

Which leads to another question: in your professional handicapping experience, are there any tracks that you would specifically stay away from, at least from the superfecta pools, because it's not just not worth the risk?

Thanks in advance. I am formerly an exclusive p3/p4 horizontal wagers-only handicapper who's just sick of spotting underlaid trifectas and superfectas (especially at meets like Keeneland) and I'm venturing into the vertical route with limited success...do you mean overlaid?......Mark I do not look at as many tracks as you.Basically i stick with two, NYRA and now it is the meadowlands,before this it was monmouth...for the winter it will be AQU. and perhaps gulfstream or tampa.I am going to go easy at first,I have set up a separate bankroll just for the tri's and super's i am going to bet, but only on these two tracks.I will use your advice and limit my wagers to 9+ horse fields(mostly turf races at these 2 tracks).I cannot stop win and exacta wagering. Its what i do but i hope this experiment will make me a more well rounded handicapper/bettor and add another moneymaking tool to my arsenal.I will continue to use your guidance and thanks again for sharing.As in the type of wagering I do now, I think that patience will be the key.

[markgoldie]

MM:
Very rarely is it a good idea to leave out top selections for third and fourth. I've said before (I think maybe on this thread) that using heavy favorites for 3rd and 4th is counterproductive because their strike rate in these positions is too low to compensate for the ticket-price destruction, due to their use as KEY horses by many players (either in par-wheel situations or some players may play the old-style multiple boxes with the KEY horse in each). That being said, I personally never would have a low-priced fav in the top 2 spots unless I was using other longish shots also in the top spot and I thought the race had value because the mid-priced horses were weak.
However, it should be pointed out that excluding this low-priced fav from 3rd and 4th is a long-term value consideration and I am prepared to tear up the ticket if he does run 3rd or 4th.

Certain other rare, specific handicapping considerations might lead me to leave at top horse off of under positions. They usually occur in one of two scenarios: (1) the true all-or-nothing speed type who stops badly when he can't make the lead and (2) the suspicious drop-down in claiming price. Many times these horses either run or they don't. When they run, they usually win but when there is something physically wrong, they finish off the ticket. Other than these two general scenarios, you might consider a 3-horse hot pace scenario as a spot where the pace survivor will win and the other two won't hit the ticket. But unless you have a freak speed bias to the track, which is against speed, this tactic will fail more often than prevail because frequently these speed duels on paper don't materialize on the track.

So IN GENERAL, I don't like the tactic you outlined. Horses that are good enough to win are usually good enough and likely to hit the ticket anywhere.

As far as tracks to avoid. Unless you are on a sliding-scale rebate (like I am), you want to avoid the high-takeout tracks. That means concentrate on CA., KY., IN. and OH. Whatever you do, stay away from PA. Other specific-track favorites have more to do with your personal handicapping style than anything else.

GL Mark

[Market Mover]

do you mean overlaid?......Mark I do not look at as many tracks as you.Basically i stick with two, NYRA and now it is the meadowlands,before this it was monmouth...for the winter it will be AQU. and perhaps gulfstream or tampa.I am going to go easy at first,I have set up a separate bankroll just for the tri's and super's i am going to bet, but only on these two tracks.I will use your advice and limit my wagers to 9+ horse fields(mostly turf races at these 2 tracks).I cannot stop win and exacta wagering. Its what i do but i hope this experiment will make me a more well rounded handicapper/bettor and add another moneymaking tool to my arsenal.I will continue to use your guidance and thanks again for sharing.As in the type of wagering I do now, I think that patience will be the key.


typo correction, sub "overlaid" for "underlaid"..thanks Wolf...must be the scotch talkin..

[Market Mover]

MM:
Very rarely is it a good idea to leave out top selections for third and fourth. I've said before (I think maybe on this thread) that using heavy favorites for 3rd and 4th is counterproductive because their strike rate in these positions is too low to compensate for the ticket-price destruction, due to their use as KEY horses by many players (either in par-wheel situations or some players may play the old-style multiple boxes with the KEY horse in each). That being said, I personally never would have a low-priced fav in the top 2 spots unless I was using other longish shots also in the top spot and I thought the race had value because the mid-priced horses were weak.
However, it should be pointed out that excluding this low-priced fav from 3rd and 4th is a long-term value consideration and I am prepared to tear up the ticket if he does run 3rd or 4th.

Certain other rare, specific handicapping considerations might lead me to leave at top horse off of under positions. They usually occur in one of two scenarios: (1) the true all-or-nothing speed type who stops badly when he can't make the lead and (2) the suspicious drop-down in claiming price. Many times these horses either run or they don't. When they run, they usually win but when there is something physically wrong, they finish off the ticket. Other than these two general scenarios, you might consider a 3-horse hot pace scenario as a spot where the pace survivor will win and the other two won't hit the ticket. But unless you have a freak speed bias to the track, which is against speed, this tactic will fail more often than prevail because frequently these speed duels on paper don't materialize on the track.

So IN GENERAL, I don't like the tactic you outlined. Horses that are good enough to win are usually good enough and likely to hit the ticket anywhere.

As far as tracks to avoid. Unless you are on a sliding-scale rebate (like I am), you want to avoid the high-takeout tracks. That means concentrate on CA., KY., IN. and OH. Whatever you do, stay away from PA. Other specific-track favorites have more to do with your personal handicapping style than anything else.

GL Mark


Thanks again for the analysis Mark. I"ve been experimenting with various superfecta combos, and it's nice to hit these plays several times. I agree with you in regards to keying low-priced favorites on top. It's just not worth it. I have noticed, however, that in those dropdown claimer races where that all-or-nothing mentality exists, ticket cost could be minimized by leaving chalk off the bottom 2 slots....

[fmolf]

Thanks again for the analysis Mark. I"ve been experimenting with various superfecta combos, and it's nice to hit these plays several times. I agree with you in regards to keying low-priced favorites on top. It's just not worth it. I have noticed, however, that in those dropdown claimer races where that all-or-nothing mentality exists, ticket cost could be minimized by leaving chalk off the bottom 2 slots....
Maybe you could use 2 or 3 logical win horses and box 4 or 5 horses in the bottom 3 slots if they have the correct running styles?