Bet Type - Self Evaluation

[stringmail]

With the conclusion of the year (and building on the momentum from Thask's nice "Rules to Live By" thread), I thought I would dive in to my past year results to understand the successes and failures. I viewed myself as a win better for the most part so I consequently play horizontal wagers.

I showed a profit in Win, DD, P3 and Tri. The 1st three made sense to me and the Tri I have to imagine as simply an anomaly that I haven't looked in to greatly but I was shocked to see I was HORRIBLE in P4's while not surprised that I had poor results in Ex and Supers.

The results validated my belief that I should focus on horizonal wagers but the dramatic disparity for P4 gave me pause. I primarily play NY and California tracks and the results were similar for both. While I haven't drilled down in to the bet structure details, I was wondering where it has gone wrong on P4. I have typically played caveman style tickets in my horizontal wagers but I do leverage key horses on extra tickets as opposed to a more direct weighted ABC approach. For example, I might play 2x3x2x3 and then play it again 1x3x2x3. I have a strong feeling I get "seduced" by the allure of the P4 and end of playing too many without complete information such that I should pass more P4 that have that invariable maiden claiming race for 3 or 4 FTS or maybe I get too lazy with longer sequences and think I should spread more. I think it is apparent that my bet structure needs to be revised. It is a good time of year to self assess.

I am interested in feedback on this as well as interested in any results others may have found in their own anaysis that might be worth sharing.

[tbwinner]

I have a strong feeling I get "seduced" by the allure of the P4 and end of playing too many without complete information such that I should pass more P4 that have that invariable maiden claiming race for 3 or 4 FTS or maybe I get too lazy with longer sequences and think I should spread more.


Same here. I used to play rolling Pick 3s even when the sequence wasn't great. I only play Pick 3/4/5s when I have a very solid mid-priced horse as a single. Otherwise I was putting on $30~ pick x tickets nearly every race and those didn't end too well.

I also like having the ability to look at horses in the paddock prior to a race. Obviously you can't do this for the 2nd leg and on of a horizontal bet. I was on-track at Hawthorne for a race and went down to the paddock. A horse with pretty mediocre form caught my eye. I keep some notes on horses at my local circuit (hawthorne and Arlington) and didn't have anything noted on this one, positive or negative. The horse looked like an absolute monster in the paddock, coat completely dappled out, on its toes, looked like something I would have noted before. Was being beaten 10 lengths in similar races. I decide to bet him. He wins at 10-1, so good payout. Of course this doesn't always work, but we only remember the good ones, right? :)

[badcompany]

The more legs, the greater the variance. Catching one big P4 could change the whole equation and put you in the black.

Personally, I'm not a fan of multiple race wagers as you give up what can be a valuable piece of information, the board.

[arno]

I was playing every pick 3. Now I look for races where the favorite is vulnerable or a firm opinion on a non favorite and that's the race I START my pic 3.

I have always said what makes the price of a horizontal wager is the price of the first leg.

A sequence of 10/1, 5/1, and 2/1 will the majority of the times pay lots more than the sequence of 2/1, 5/1, and 10/1.

[badcompany]

A sequence of 10/1, 5/1, and 2/1 will the majority of the times pay lots more than the sequence of 2/1, 5/1, and 10/1.

Agree.

I believe the reason for this is psychological. People don't like getting knocked out of a horizontal on the first leg, so, they're more likely to include the fav.

[mishka]

Same here. I used to play rolling Pick 3s even when the sequence wasn't great. I only play Pick 3/4/5s when I have a very solid mid-priced horse as a single. :)

I found an interesting paper on using binomial distribution to help develop a P3 betting strategy which might be helpful. Of course, I had to run to my son's old high school book on statistics to understand binomial distributions.

www.econ.washington.edu/user/ellis/econ482/horse1105.pdf

An Economic Analysis of Horseracing’s Pick Three Wager:
The Public’s Misperception of the Binomial Distribution
Gregory M. Ellis
Department of Economics
University of Washington


If I am understanding correctly, you have a better statistical chance if you bet only one favorite in a sequence. To quote:


The number of winning tickets with zero betting favorites was 63, or 36%. The number of winning tickets with exactly one betting favorite was 74, or 42%. The number of winning tickets with exactly two favorites was 33, or 19%. Finally, the number of winning tickets with favorites winning all three races was 6, or 3%. Despite the low probability of favorites winning at least two of the three races in question (22%), we can demonstrate (in section IV of the paper) that the public places a large number of bets, pinning their hopes of success, on exactly that kind of unlikely profile with regard to betting favorites. In short, it is very rare for all three favorites to win their races in a particular pick three sequence, and when they do, the pick three payout is quite small (indicative of the larger number of folks making such wagers).

[thaskalos]

IMO...it's a mistake to play the pick-4 as if it were a pick-3...+1.

The high profit potential of this wager demands a different betting strategy...along with a separate bankroll, dedicated to this bet alone.

The difference between the pick-3 and the pick-4 is equivalent to the difference between the trifecta and the superfecta.

In the pick-3 and the trifecta, the payoffs do not permit you to spread out indiscriminately...because the payoffs are not always there to make the investment worthwhile. The right approach is to pick your spots...and wait either for races that can be covered by few combinations, or for races where there is enough "confusion" on the board to make spreading-out a viable option.

The pick-4 and the superfecta wagers -- on the other hand -- are "home run-type" bets...and the player must be willing, and able, to put forth the necessary investment to have a reasonable chance at the high-profit potential that these wagers offer.

While race selection is still important, the HUGE payoffs offered by the pick-4s and the superfectas make it worthwhile for the player to sometimes plunge into high-risk, wide-open races...where even a big investment is justfied by the huge potential payoff that the situation presents.

Of course, the high-risk nature ot these "super-exotics" demands that a much bigger bankroll -- and an altogether different player temperament -- be employed.

The best pick-4 and superfecta bettors are seldom the best pick-3 and trifecta players.