Playing 2-4 horses per race

[Robert Fischer]

some good content in this thread

Originally Posted by Nitro

Some valid points have been raised but as usual only a few have addressed the issue of when and when not to play more than 1 horse in a race. (And BTW being profitable has absolutely nothing to do with whatever the take-out % might be.)

The key to successfully using an approach that involves betting 2 or 3 horses to win in a race simply requires the following:

1) Only play those tracks where the handles are large. This more often than not reduces the late money impact on the Win pool odds fluctuation.

2) Only play races with large fields. Unless the odds are sufficient, use only 2 entries with 8 or 9 entries and up to 3 in fields of 10 or more.

3) Establish your actual Hit frequency %. Once this is known only play a race when profit margin % meets or exceeds your Hit frequency %.

4) Use a quick and accurate method of determining the potential profit margin %. A Dutching calculator comes in very handy.

5) Try to establish a play (or not) by 3 mins to post.

I’m sure many are now quibbling about these basic rules because in general, racing in the U.S. will certainly limit the number of possible plays. That’s why I prefer to play the racing in Hong Kong. There’s never an issue when conforming to rules 1 and 2.

As a side note concerning the betting of more than 1 entry to win in a race, I have a good friend who only plays certain big races during year. Each year for the KY Derby he picks only 5 big long shots from the field and puts $50 to win on each one. Since I’ve known him he’s done pretty well.

here's my general system

VULNERABLE FAV?
No = Pass

if YES? then Identifiable Overlays?
No = Pass

YES? then is there a PREFERRED OVERLAY?
No = Dutch!

YES?
Yes = just Bet the preferred overlay.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

some good content in this thread



here's my general system

VULNERABLE FAV?
No = Pass

if YES? then Identifiable Overlays?
No = Pass

YES? then is there a PREFERRED OVERLAY?
No = Dutch!

YES?
Yes = just Bet the preferred overlay.

I have been trying a slightly different method as an experiment over the last 3 months or so. It's an exacta method, I use it only in fields of 7 or more horses...and it goes like this:

I will key the favorite on top only if I think that this favorite is vulnerable. If I deem the favorite to be vulnerable, then I will key it over my top 3 legitimate contenders of the race. If I think that the favorite is VERY vulnerable...then I will key it over my top 4 contenders.

If I think that the favorite is legitimate...then I will exclude it from the top spot of my exactas. I will use my next 3 contenders on top, with my top 4 contenders in the second-place spot, including the "legitimate" favorite. This makes for 9 exacta combinations.

As I said, I have been testing this method with real money for the last 3 months or so...and I am embarrassed to admit that it is proving to be more profitable than any other method in my betting arsenal.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I have been trying a slightly different method as an experiment over the last 3 months or so. It's an exacta method, I use it only in fields of 7 or more horses...and it goes like this:

I will key the favorite on top only if I think that this favorite is vulnerable. If I deem the favorite to be vulnerable, then I will key it over my top 3 legitimate contenders of the race. If I think that the favorite is VERY vulnerable...then I will key it over my top 4 contenders.

If I think that the favorite is legitimate...then I will exclude it from the top spot of my exactas. I will use my next 3 contenders on top, with my top 4 contenders in the second-place spot, including the "legitimate" favorite. This makes for 9 exacta combinations.

As I said, I have been testing this method with real money for the last 3 months or so...and I am embarrassed to admit that it is proving to be more profitable than any other method in my betting arsenal.

start playing 4 horses per race and report back

[porchy44]

I have had success playing two horses to win per race. But only at certain tracks. For example, it can be done at Turfway but not at Mahoning Valley. But you have to have a 'grinder" mentality

[plainolebill]

The fields are generally large at parx and the riders not so hot, I bet multiple win bets based on what I feel can win and not so much what I think will win. Works pretty well.

[Light]

When you play Pk3's to Pk6's, that is what you are doing, is playing 2 to 4 horses to win per race except you are parlaying them. I believe the ROI is better that way than playing 2-4 horses per race to win.

And how bad would you feel if you played 3 races in a row individually to win, got double digit win payoffs and profited maybe 40 or 50 dollars when the pk3 pays hundreds. You'd better have a sense of humor about that and ditch that archaic system fast.

Unless you are a big time player betting hundreds per race and know you can get a positive return betting 3 horses per race in the long run. That is a different story. But for us little fish, the Pikem's are better.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Light

When you play Pk3's to Pk6's, that is what you are doing, is playing 2 to 4 horses to win per race except you are parlaying them. I believe the ROI is better that way than playing 2-4 horses per race to win.

And how bad would you feel if you played 3 races in a row individually to win, got double digit win payoffs and profited maybe 40 or 50 dollars when the pk3 pays hundreds. You'd better have a sense of humor about that and ditch that archaic system fast.

Unless you are a big time player betting hundreds per race and know you can get a positive return betting 3 horses per race in the long run. That is a different story. But for us little fish, the Pikem's are better.

How bad would the Pick-3 player feel if he got double-digit payoffs in the first two races, missed the third...and collected NOTHING?

Plus, when you bet the races individually you get to pick and choose which races you bet on...whereas the "Pickems" lock you in and have you betting on races that you may want nothing to do with.

Different strokes for different folks...I say.

[MJC922]

IMO looking at it in a common sense way there probably isn't more than one significant overlay per 8 horse field with a 17% takeout in play. There may consistently be one significant overlay (by that I mean like 50% over fair value) and one smaller overlay (maybe 10%) with the latter being close to break even anyway in real world testing because with two long-term accurate lines butting heads they're surely going to meet somewhere in-between which is probably why even Benter used fractional Kelly. Someone correct me if I'm wrong there.

So you have those variables to juggle, number of overlays per race, going to be impacted by field size, takeout and how overbet the favorite might be. In cases of a severely overbet favorite in theory if it exceeds the takeout everyone else in the race could be dutched (even in a small field) but how often is the favorite that much out of line?

An example, 40% of the pool = even money on the tote after the takeout. You could dutch everyone else in the race if you believed that horse should only have 23% of the money bet on it. Sadly even at that way out of line number you would still need to be 100% 'right' about the 23% to make 1 or 2% dutching everyone else against the favorite. Instead of everyone against, you might find 3 or 4 that are the most value. Aside from huge fields I can't see any other scenario where you can dig out 4 horses for a dutch when takeouts are that high. I would be interested in others opinions on this, maybe I'm not looking at it the right way...

It's cool to contemplate dutching as a strategy but I think it's doubtful that it happens very often in the US game where you can get away with dutching more than two. I dutched two horses on a somewhat regular basis when I bet full time but I also never tracked those results separately, all of my tracking was done total invested vs total return on a race and then logged the total for the day in a notebook when I got home. You were a rare bird to even track that much in those days. A buddy of mine would snicker at me when the race was over and I'd write something like 'I 20' 'R 0' 'N -20' / +80 at the top edge of the program for each race.

Anyway it wouldn't surprise me if I lost a lot of money on those occasional dutch bets but they were typically action bets anyway. Whatever it took stay sane from one day to the next was the intent with those.

[Light]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How bad would the Pick-3 player feel if he got double-digit payoffs in the first two races, missed the third...and collected NOTHING?

I think astute players who have a price horse in the pk3, would also play that horse separately if they really liked it. If they are too dumb to do that, they will learn from their pain.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Plus, when you bet the races individually you get to pick and choose which races you bet on...whereas the "Pickems" lock you in and have you betting on races that you may want nothing to do with.

I agree with that and that's why I don't play vertical bets that include races I don't like.

Tracks today seem to like to mix in more uncertain races in a pk3 sequence such as wide open maiden races or 2yo races to make the payout more attractive which greatly reduces my action. In fact most of the races at Ca and NY seem to consist of young inexperienced horses.

This was not the case 10 years or more ago. Weekend racing was filled with tried and true veteran horses. And the fields were larger. The majority of maidens and 2yo's ran on weekdays. This is my greatest evidence for the argument of a dying sport.

[romankoz]

One of the popular approaches in Aus if betting 3 horses is to back your B and C selections to break square on the race and your A selection is the main bet.

$100 to bet in the race
Prices are and the bets follow:
A 2/1x $66
B 5/1x $20
C 7/1x $14

A win by the 2/1 Fav (A pick) returns 198 or almost 1/1

If you bet against a 2/1 Fav
Prices are and bets follow
A 5/1 x $76
B 7/1 x $14
C 10/1 x $10
A win by A would $456 or about 5/2 the race.

Longterm the bettor needs to assess just how much return the want for their $100.

In some races 1/1 is ok, in others way unders.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I have been trying a slightly different method as an experiment over the last 3 months or so. It's an exacta method, I use it only in fields of 7 or more horses...and it goes like this:

I will key the favorite on top only if I think that this favorite is vulnerable. If I deem the favorite to be vulnerable, then I will key it over my top 3 legitimate contenders of the race. If I think that the favorite is VERY vulnerable...then I will key it over my top 4 contenders.

If I think that the favorite is legitimate...then I will exclude it from the top spot of my exactas. I will use my next 3 contenders on top, with my top 4 contenders in the second-place spot, including the "legitimate" favorite. This makes for 9 exacta combinations.

As I said, I have been testing this method with real money for the last 3 months or so...and I am embarrassed to admit that it is proving to be more profitable than any other method in my betting arsenal.

You could be doing a good job of identifying horses that were bet by people that had access to information that was not the PPs, charts, replays etc....

In my own wagering, it's usually not enough for me to disagree with the odds. I like to know why the public is betting the race a certain way and know why I disagree. If I understand the betting, then I know I'm not the fish that doesn't know something important.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How bad would the Pick-3 player feel if he got double-digit payoffs in the first two races, missed the third...and collected NOTHING?

Plus, when you bet the races individually you get to pick and choose which races you bet on...whereas the "Pickems" lock you in and have you betting on races that you may want nothing to do with.

Different strokes for different folks...I say.

That's why I prefer verticals.

There are some disadvantages, but if I understand a single race really well, I'd way rather try to crush that race in the exacta, triple, and super than hooking my key horse(s) up in horizontal races where I bring no real special value oriented insight to the table. Of course if I love a horse in the 1st leg and 3rd leg, I might also play a pick 3.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by MJC922

IMO looking at it in a common sense way there probably isn't more than one significant overlay per 8 horse field with a 17% takeout in play.

This is my shortcut way of thinking about it.

If I dislike the favorite a lot, I look at the % of the pool the favorite has and divide that by 2.

I divide by 2 because I know that even when I dislike the favorite a lot, it still has some chance of winning. I also know I sometimes make mistakes. I'm saying they will win approximately half as often as expected if I'm any good.

If "percent of pool/2" is greater than the track take and I have some skill at identifying weak favorites, I can probably do almost anything else in that race and at least not get hurt.

If it's close, I know I'm going to have to bring some value oriented opinion to the table among the rest of the horses to WIN money.

There are times when I hate the favorite and have multiple value oriented opinions among the remainder. In those cases, I will often bet 2 horses to win and box the exacta.

If I hate the favorite so much I think it's going to be out of everything, I will try to crush the race using triples and supers also.

(for exactas, trifectas etc.. the math gets a little more complex because the horse is also bet for 2nd and 3rd and I may leave it out totally)

[Nitro]

I completely agree with the idea of playing only those races which are more comfortable and most potentially profitable. Being forced to play a sequence of races governed by a Pick-whatever bet is not my cup of tea especially because a player has no idea how the subsequent races after the 1st race will develop in terms of entry odds value. My type of game limits me to only play on a race-by-race basis and permits me to focus on the overall return value.

As some might recall I don’t do any form of handicapping to determine playable selections. The sophisticated real time tote analysis I use routinely points to the entries of interest. This is accomplished by comparing the individual values generated for each entry with the value of PAR. This is done at specific time intervals during a typical betting cycle. Those 3 entries whose value is closest to PAR are considered playable, but only if their combined ODDS produce an acceptable profit margin. As mentioned previously this Dutching profit margin must equal or exceed my established Hit frequency %. There is never a need to concern yourself with the take-out % because the ODDS shown already reflect the take-out. In other words, WYSIWYG in terms of dollar return.

Tote Analysis for Race #1 – Hong Kong / Happy Valley – Wed 1-11-23

#	Odds	       Win		Place			
Total:	0	$29,218,351 	$0 	$25,627,734 	PAR	395	 
1	8.0	$2,598,272 	$0 	$2,848,269 	1	493	
2	32.0	$725,041 	$0 	$897,115 	2	557	
3	9.0	$2,316,479 	$0 	$1,774,949 	3	345	
4	45.0	$517,822 	$0 	$612,909 	4	533	
5	77.0	$308,418 	$0 	$463,596 	5	676	3
6	9.0	$2,264,710 	$0 	$2,306,942 	6	458	
7	48.0	$487,529 	$0 	$696,817 	7	643	
8	5.0	$3,618,306 	$0 	$3,261,540 	8	408	4
9	4.5	$4,365,701 	$0 	$3,943,070 	9	406	1
10	99.0	$241,829 	$0 	$345,120 	10	642	
11	1.5	9575415	0	5972790	11	281	2
12	9.0	2198829	0	2504617	12	513	

As shown in the above example only the following entries are of interest:
#3 @ 9/1, #8 @ 5/1, and #9 @ 4.5/1

The Dutching Calculator indicates a profit margin of 123% which was a definite play.

LOW	MID	HI	BET	PRF	PRF %
4.5	5.0	9.0			
$11	$12	$20			
$20	$18	$11	$49	$61	123%
$110	$110	$110			

Overall Race Results
Winner #9 - $11.00
$2.00 QUINELLA 9-11 $14.00
$2.00 TRIFECTA 9-11-5 $1163.20

[Scamper]

I've bet there before ... decent place.

If there is a viable longshot in a race I
don't have a problem better two or
even three horses.