Dick Herter Exacta Betting

[Niko]

I recently changed my exacta strategy to try something new and it didn't quite work the way I planned. It did however remind me of an old article by Dick Herter who made his living betting in Florida (his words) and wrote articles on Greyhound Handicapping (I actually had a good spot play for that).
I was wondering if someone could test his method (using favorites as the key horse) or what other peoples views on his concept of exotice wagering are.
Basically what it was is as follows. *In Greyhounds he bet quinellas but the same concept could be applied to exactas.
He would key one greyound and bet in the proportion of $2 on the lowest 2 odd combinations and $2 on the highest paying combination. The other 4 he would bet in $3 combinations. The reason he did this was because the 2 lowest paying combinations would generally be overbet and less profitable and the longest paying combination would have a very low hit rate and also tended to be overbet in relation to it's chances of winning. He made his real money on the combinations inbetween but bet all to smooth out his bankroll (or he still made a little money, it was too long ago to remember all the details)
Does this hold true for the horses?
Are the low paying combination exactas overbet in relation to to their chances of winning and do they lose more than the track take? I know the highest combinations do. His idea seems to make some sense but I don't have to data to prove or disprove it yet.
This came up because I was using a new method and was trying part-wheels in the exacta. I would bet 5 combinations and the 6th horse would come in, 6 combinations and the 7th etc. I'll go back to keying with 2-3 horses, easier to make a profit.

[alysheba88]

Have tried just about everything and have identified two long term winning exacta plays (for me).

1. Exacta box of two horses I like Or
2. Play one horse over two others.


Simple I know. But I do not win with other plays. 3-4 horse boxes are long term losers for me. Part wheels over more than two horses also. When I get the race right I tend to get it very right so I want to have more money on my top combinations. I am willing to sink or swim with my opinion. If my 6th horse finishes second so be it.

If you pick a 8-1 winner you are a handicapping genius but when come up with a $32 exacta by throwing out one of the contenders you often here "anyone could have had that". Still makes me laugh that kind of thinking.

[Zaf]

Originally posted by alysheba88 (MW)
Have tried just about everything and have identified two long term winning exacta plays (for me).

1. Exacta box of two horses I like Or
2. Play one horse over two others.



I have also done well sticking to the 2 scenarios above.

Ocassionally I will play them in this manner :

AB / ABC 4 combinations.

I do not like 3 horses exacta boxes. I will only play them occasionally and the lowest combination must be paying at least $36.

ZAFONIC

[melman]

Right up my alley Mr Z hey are you any relation to Dr Z the famous author or betting off the toteboard?? I like to use the top pick with three horses under and the second pick with two horses under in unequal amounts. Example $10 ex pick 1 with 2 $8 ex pick 1 with 3 $4 ex pick 1 with 4 and $6 ex pick 2 with pick 1 and $2 ex pick 2 with pick 3. Can make some very nice hits with this when you see the race correct. Also do a little $10 win and $5 place on the top pick. BTW Dr Z method still around I see it on E-Bay with the "hub" late betting has to be harder to use.

[hurrikane]

that's good if the AB are not underlayed.

if so..don't bet the AB.

do
AB/C C/AB. If you cant' see the C in the winner circle...don't bet.

IMHO.

if the AB are underlayed it is a loser even if you cash.

you could also work with 4 horses with 2 chalkers by not playing them together
Let's say A and B exacta is underlayed.

Play:
AB/CD
CD/ABCD
$10.

A lot of times I will weight it having more on the AB/CD and also play a triple.

I've had good success with this in very contentious races with large fields and good prices. Some races you may never touch become great betting opps.

Now, if you can just figure out who A B C and D should be. :D

[melman]

Good post, Hurricane I was thinking that was a given in that your AB and the others would have to be "overlays" or paying some nice prices. As always it is what works for you.

[alysheba88]

I would just add it goes without saying the value needs to be there on the bet. That is a given to me always.

If my top two are underlaid I am obviously not going to exacta box.

[Dave Schwartz]

Melman,

Actually, they don't ALL have to be overlays, but there must be enough overlay involved to make it profitable.

Dave

[Niko]

I was doing exactly what alysheba was doing before I ventured out on my little experiment. I also found that in the majority of races I bet I'm either right on or they're all running up the track. I'll go back to that style.

Question I still have.
Generally speaking, are the lowest and very highest highest exacta combinations bet down more than they should be in relation to their odds of winning/finishing second providing better overlay opportunities on the combinations in between? Seems to make sense but I've got some research to do to find out.

[alysheba88]

In general the favorite over the second choice is overbet and the favorite over the longest shots is overbet.

[andicap]

Unless you can consistently hit with longshots -- either first or second with the favorite out -- I have found playing a lot of combos eats up my bankroll.
In face I've found a simple exacta box of my top 2 horses is my most profitable exacta play. (But I only bet when both of my top two horses are 3-1 and over -- since I hold my own at 5-2, I have a buffer for those late odd drops.)