Pick 4 only players

[RunForTheRoses]

I play pick 3's & pick 4's frequently and the negative aspect for me is that I've become someone who finds it increasingly difficult to narrow a race down to one horse....whereas, in days gone by, when I used to bet to win, I really worked at gleaning the horse who had the best chance to win.

JMHO.[/QUOTE]

I also make Pick 4s, Pick 5s and Pick 3s my emphasis and I would agree it is harder to narrow down, that is I think I've gotten real good at narrowing down contenders (and throwing out bad favorites) but choosing one is difficult. I've played in a few tournaments in the past year and was like a fish out of water in that in a contest you can only pick one horse.

[RunForTheRoses]

Originally Posted by levinmpa

Read Steven Crist's Exotic Betting book to learn how to structure your tickets. You should be playing multiple tickets, giving more emphasis to your A selections, not the single "caveman" type tickets that TVG is always showing.

Best of luck.

In theory that is a correct strategy but I've made my best scores on tickets with a C B C A type of ticket. Crist does do unbelieveably well and I'm not going to argue his points, in fact I will key my strongest selection(s), however unless it gets to absurdly expensive I like to play a big ticket.

[RunForTheRoses]

Originally Posted by Some_One

hedging is a negative EV bet, if the horse was positive EV, it would be in your P4 play, however it would reduce variance, so if you don't have the stomach for the possible swings, then it could be ok. As for ticket structure, something I'm currently researching is determining if the fav will win or not, if yes, bet the fav only, if not, then completely toss. Favs are ok in a P4 for a leg or two, but I think they'll have to be single's only.

I really never hedge, only time would be psychologically if I haven't cashed in a while. Maybe occasionally if in the final leg a first time starter or other horse is being bet and I like as well, then I might hedge. In general though i don't think it is a good idea to bet horses you don't like. Saturday I made a rare hedge at GP, and I wish I hadn't, I had three horses going, one of which one. So it was money down the drain.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by levinmpa

Read Steven Crist's Exotic Betting book to learn how to structure your tickets. You should be playing multiple tickets, giving more emphasis to your A selections, not the single "caveman" type tickets that TVG is always showing.

Best of luck.

IMO...multiple ticket wagering on pick-4s is best left to those who are in the habit of pumping serious amounts into these pools.

The great majority of horseplayers are not ready to attack the pick-4 seriously...and a "caveman" ticket is usually all they can afford.

[DeltaLover]

Long horizontal exotics require a large bankroll, expert handicapping and patience.

When I say patience I am not referring to the ability to skip a lot of bets stoically waiting for the spot situation... I am referring to the character that can sustain lots of losses and bad beats until he gets there...

P4, P5 and P6 are not for people who are trying to grid the game, nor they are for gamblers who do not realize the effect of pure luck as a major factor in the fluctuation of their bankroll.

The essence of these bets is to hunt for the big payday, always looking for the unexpected longshot(s) who will eventually materialize the opportunity for a huge score..

These types of bets would have been greatly improved if we as bettors did not have to preselect all the starters but were given the option to select them for each race individually.

Several times I found myself in the situation where one of my picks were scratched and despite the fact that I was betting against the favorite of the race, my bets were automatically placed on it completely changing my intention. What surprises me is that this weired situation seems not to be noticed by race tracks, who desperately are always trying to find a new gimmick like pentafecta or the 10 cent P6 but they pay no attention to perfect the already existing bets (which I find to be more than enough)....

Another bad think race tracks did, in regards to long picks is the decrease in the minimum bets, which in a way converts the long payouts to a lottery...

I think that a bet similar to Magna Five which used to cover several tracks imposing a $1 minimum bet would have to potential to become the most successful bet if was marketed properly.... Unfortunately todays racing is biased towards the creation of a lot of smaller pools covering the same races which does not allow encourage the creation of a real big pool...

[eurocapper]

There is software for reducing them with ABC systems, I have seen some for US racing too. If the betting service supports it the software can dispatch those tickets (maybe hundreds) automatically too, don't know if that exists in the US.

[DeltaLover]

See here for a P456 app I have written that you can download and use if you have .NET 3.5 installed:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...highlight=.NET

[JohnGalt1]

I do not believe inmultiple tickets as Steve Crist advocates.

I reas the book and understand his reasoning, but it spends a lot of money to to have many 3 of 4's or 4 of 5's or 5 of 6's.

With the low minimums I usually make one or two tickets.

Example-- if four races come up ABC, AB, ABCCC, A, ticket one will be all horses for $.50 for a total cost of $15.

If I make a second ticket it would be AB, AB,AB, A, at $.50 costs $4.

When all the horse I think COULD win, win I collect for the fifty cent pick 4. If all the horses I think SHOULD win, win I collect a $1 pick four payout.

If I need too many horses in one ticket, I pass.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

I do not believe inmultiple tickets as Steve Crist advocates.

I reas the book and understand his reasoning, but it spends a lot of money to to have many 3 of 4's or 4 of 5's or 5 of 6's.

With the low minimums I usually make one or two tickets.

Example-- if four races come up ABC, AB, ABCCC, A, ticket one will be all horses for $.50 for a total cost of $15.

If I make a second ticket it would be AB, AB,AB, A, at $.50 costs $4.

When all the horse I think COULD win, win I collect for the fifty cent pick 4. If all the horses I think SHOULD win, win I collect a $1 pick four payout.

If I need too many horses in one ticket, I pass.

This looks like a viable approach to me, and very similar to what I would do if I played the picks.

[davew]

I do believe in multiple tickets

nothing worse than having your AAAA ticket cash and
only having it once with so many other people that you lose on your bet

[JJMartin]

Imo: use key horse on every leg straight, no boxing: A,B,C,D. If you normally spend $60 on just the P4, why not then just play the DD, P3 as well, the same way, and put $20 on each. You won't win as often but your ROI will be a lot higher. Same with Exacta, if you're going to bet$4 to box it, its better to play it straight with lower odds horse on bottom with $4. In the long run you will make a lot more money from not playing a box. Play more tracks with same method if you feel you need more action. I would do this instead of overly trying to secure a win with numerous combinations.

[eurocapper]

Unless one is good at picking longshots playing singles is bad, since most others will likely pick the same horse. It's not just all favs in a row (which is rare) but the number of combinations on that single horse that decreases value. Instead of ranking the ABC by horses ability, one could use some (statistical) pattern at the meet/track too or odds if they are available.

[Uncle Salty]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...multiple ticket wagering on pick-4s is best left to those who are in the habit of pumping serious amounts into these pools.

The great majority of horseplayers are not ready to attack the pick-4 seriously...and a "caveman" ticket is usually all they can afford.

I feel it is possible to attack the pick 4 seriously without putting a ridiculous amount of money into it. By spreading with multi-tickets, you can get a lot of coverage and keep the investment reasonable.

Pick 5 or pick 6 is another animal though.

[raybo]

Ticket structures in the picks, IMO, are very important, even more important than ex, tri, super. The fact that you're betting races with unknown pool sizes, unknown odds, and unknown late scratches, means that ticket costs must be strictly regulated, otherwise costs can easily be larger than winnings, long term.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by raybo

Ticket structures in the picks, IMO, are very important, even more important than ex, tri, super. The fact that you're betting races with unknown pool sizes, unknown odds, and unknown late scratches, means that ticket costs must be strictly regulated, otherwise costs can easily be larger than winnings, long term.

That makes a lot of sense. It seems much more reasonable to understand how to structure the wager first, and to develop a consistent wagering approach, than to adjust the way one bets according to the vagaries of individual races. The picks are not much different in that regard from other types of exotic wagering, in which one sees a big payoff in a race, and thinks "If only I had included those extra entries, I coulda had that one."

It sounds like raybo has done some serious thinking or research to reach his conclusions. They should be given some serious thought by serious bettors. A number of others--including myself--have done similar thinking and research and reached the same conclusions. It is essential to strictly regulate ticket costs to a size and construction that have shown themselves to be profitable. It is essential, that is, if one intends to wager multiple tickets on multiple races over time, rather than just a flyer in a couple of races.