I am confused. How is a proper strategy not the essence of making money?

It sounds vague without specificity. In all the examples there is no mention of expectation return per bet. It's a neat and tidy intellectual exercise without addressing the real goal. I learned it by being pissed off by actual returns. I got greedy and realized the theory flow is bullshit.

Yeah that is some serious crap attitude. I'm all for putting on a pedestal icons and influences in our beloved game. Not toppling them.

Your narrative could not be more wrong, but even if it was, that dude did as much or more for this sport than just about anyone in this industry.

In one of his books Steven Crist wrote that fav over the second betting favorite is frequently an overlay, because bettors more often use value plays under the favorite. I'd imagine an examination of the will-pays would confirm this although I never seriously went down this road.

So betting positive EV horses on top in exactas is vague? Boxing multiple positive EV horses is vague? Not reversing a top horse because of unknown EV in the second spot of an exacta is vague? The only theory involved is whether or not a bettor can identify positive EV horses. But that would apply to any bet that is made.

That makes sense.

Or at least if not a +overlay, a better value relative to other combinations involving the favorite first and involving the 2nd choice on top of the favorite.

There's the public boxing 2 or 3 horses rather than betting straight...

There's the public using the favorite on top and trying to make a value play...

Also the tendency to include more horses 2nd than first (123/1234 etc..). While this is less pronounced than say a superfecta, a minor effect is possible.

I don't notice it at a glance, and I'm not sure it is significant. Sometimes the hierarchy, including 1-2 is so obvious that it seems the worst value is the 1-2 punch (justifying those value hunters). Then you've sometimes got the whales smoothing (batch-betting) 'inefficient' combos. Then you've got takeout.

I'd be interested in seeing ROI stats on exacta combos.

Yes. You are still talking handicapping principles deciding bets. Not payoffs deciding bets. Handicapping is involved in both but they are two very distinctly different realities. That's why when I hear the handicapping book generic quote/talk I just tune out. Yes we are talking about two different things.

No problem.

60 total races

46 played

21 cashes(46%)

13 Prime(28%)

Prime Returns-3,289.50

Total Returns-3,497.50

+2,021.50=137% ROI

AVG Bet=32.08

AVG Return=253.03

7.89-1 AVG Return

That's my last 60 I made my own version of lines and grids from. I'm not a big bettor obviously so I hope that inspires some bettors that don't think their bankroll is an entitlement to get away from trying to straight up earn.

Robert known you a long time. I know we are good.

What you call handicapping principles I call mathematics. Payoffs are merely a factor in the equation.

Andy I respect all you are saying. Just that an exact or philosophical yardstick implied about return on bet is never mentioned. After 20 years of playing the term strategy just sounds vague to me. Not trying to irritate anybody just being honest.

I like horses at least 15-1 in the underneath spot. Preferably an off the pace type, maybe looks decent in the warmup, then use under the most likely winner(s).

I never find it irritating when someone engages in a discussion. I expect differences in process, strategy, and philosophy. If there was universal agreement on everything there would be no reason to have a forum.

That is my formula almost 100%.

I add one wrinkle. When I think the favorite is OK but I like 2 other horses more at better prices I sometimes bet both to win and do an exacta box. I know the favorite could bust up my exacta, but value to value in the exacta pool leverages to a ton of value. So I put a portion of the bet there.

The heavy favorite finishing second tends to be an underbet exacta.