Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP
I was wondering if there was any application of a term I have seen in poker, “implied odds”. I am by no means a poker expert and only know a little but the concept is that you call a raise when the pot odds do not justify it based on the mathematical chances hitting the card(s) you need but the chances that you could extract a huge, maybe all in type of pot, justify the call that is less than the math tells you that you should.
So relating this to horse racing. Lets say I know that there is a strong favorite, lets say that I think the horse is at least 50% to win the event but there are a few issues that I find, they are minor, or heck, there is still random luck and animals in play in these events, but I feel like 80%-90% of the pick 3/4/5 or whatever pool will run through this horse winning. The implied odds question is should I go against this horse since the cash windfall if I am right would more than make up for the 50% chance that the horse does win and I am a loss for the bet?
I don’t know if I explained that well enough but its just a thought that occurred to me when I saw a few rather large payoffs this weekend.
|
When a poker player calculates his "implied odds"...he has the advantage of knowing how strong the betting action is in the hand, and how deep are the stacks of his opponents. But the horseplayer who "feels like 80%-90% of the horizontal-wager pool will run through this horse winning"...is merely guessing.
In your above scenario...sure, you can leave out that obvious horse in search of a much bigger payoff. But, why not include him as an anchor on a separate minor ticket...as an insurance policy, so to speak? In a long horizontal wager...even an obvious winner can lead to a memorable payoff, if the rest of the races play out the "right way".
