Dutching Win Bets

[ubercapper]

I'll try to not be too long winded here. On one of my blogs Saturday, for the Ginger Brew Stakes (Race 9) I recommended a win bet on either/both She's My Type and Sunset Promise at 3/1 or more, adding a place bet at 6/1 or more.

She's My Type went off at 9 to 1 and Sunset Promise at 7 to 1 so both were acceptable bets.

My intent, as it usually is, was to help mostly casual (read "weekend") bettors make a profit. I know dutching to win guarantees one loser even if right.

Ignoring the place bet recommendation for now and just discussing the win bet recommendation, I've been lectured win bet dutching is sub-optimal and as someone who either is an "expert" or "paid" I should know better. There were other, nastier, words used as well.

In any event, ignoring the intent of my blogs being geared to a litany of types of racing fans who I believe are happy to trade some ROI for volatility, I reached out to an old friend who has written on the topic.

Here's what he wrote: "One advantage of dutching is you increase the number of cashes, which cuts volatility. As the odds of each horse increases, your chances of losing streaks increase as well. While in the ideal world we would make perfect odds lines and would make bets after all the money is in the pools, it will never happen. So if you have two horses at 3-1 on your line (assuming it's a perfect line) and one is 7-1 and the other is 9-1, of course you would have a greater ROI if you just bet the 9-1 shot, except that your line won't be perfect and the 9-1 shot with one minute to go might be bet down to 6-1 while the 7-1 horse might drift up to 11-1, which messes up your strategy. Since you can never bet with the final odds, yes, I would dutch both horses to win, with SLIGHTLY more on the horse who's 9-1 as late as possible."

"An overlay is still an overlay, regardless of whether there's another overlay in the race."

The last sentence is the biggest takeaway for me, and I don't understand why some people don't get it and insist that their method of betting just one horse to win is the best method for everyone.


Knowing (hoping?), this board is more kind than Twitter these days, I wanted to hear what some of you have to say on this topic.

[cj]

I'm not averse to betting two horses to win. I mean, doesn't every do this in exotics already, bet guaranteed losers? It isn't something I do often but there are times I find it a smart strategy, particularly in races where I don't like the favorite at all.

[TonyK@HSH]

I too see nothing wrong with multi horse win betting. My plays focus almost exclusively on horizontal wagers, using multiple runners in many races, so I am guaranteed many losing bets as well.
Our objective is to be profitable

TonyK

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by TonyK@HSH

I too see nothing wrong with multi horse win betting. My plays focus almost exclusively on horizontal wagers, using multiple runners in many races, so I am guaranteed many losing bets as well.
Our objective is to be profitable

TonyK

Agreed, that's why I don't get the "my way or the highway" approach of the argument I get from some people that even though single horse win betting is mathematically more profitable in the long term, the fans/bettors who are happy with the trade off of some portion of potential ROI for a smaller profit are wrong, and perhaps worse anyone who recommends dutching win bets is doing a disservice to them.

When I'm engaging with groups and individuals at the races, if they cash a bet that has a poor long term ROI, I don't tell them they are wrong.

Instead, I say "That's great" or "I'm happy for you" and if the opportunity arises I show them a better way to cut losses long term, for example by not betting the 6/5 shot to win and instead playing a part-wheel exacta, or by only betting win & place instead of win, place and show on the 4 to 1 shot if there's a 3/5 shot in the race which will cut into their short and long term profit if it hits the board.

[thaskalos]

When we cover 12 combinations in a trifecta...aren't we doing so while fully knowing that 11 of these bets are "losers" right from the start? Does this make it a losing wagering strategy? There is nothing wrong with betting two horses to win in a race...provided that the payoff justifies the maneuver. Our job isn't to "maximize our ROI". As serious players...our prime consideration is to secure a worthwhile profit, while keeping the variance swings inherent in the game as manageable as possible.

Tell the Twitter "experts" to go **** themselves.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm not averse to betting two horses to win. I mean, doesn't every do this in exotics already, bet guaranteed losers? It isn't something I do often but there are times I find it a smart strategy, particularly in races where I don't like the favorite at all.

That's another area where I get into some heated arguments (which I'm sure you see as you follow me), for example when recommending a 3 x 6 exacta when the low end might be break even but the high end might be a 6x return. Sure, the long term EV might be poor, but for the intended audience its fine to cash the bet because betting is entertainment and not their livelihood. That's not to say they want to lose.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When we cover 12 combinations in a trifecta...aren't we doing so while fully knowing that 11 of these bets are "losers" right from the start? Does this make it a losing wagering strategy? There is nothing wrong with betting two horses to win in a race...provided that the payoff justifies the maneuver. Our job isn't to "maximize our ROI". As serious players...our prime consideration is to secure a worthwhile profit, while keeping the variance swings inherent in the game as manageable as possible.

Tell the Twitter "experts" to go **** themselves.

My response was a bit less severe. I pinned this to my Twitter profile. You don't need to be on Twitter to see it and I hope you'll get a laugh out of it.



https://twitter.com/Ubercapper/statu...760675328?s=20

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

My response was a bit less severe.

It was your only mistake.

[Tom]

Sartin used call it making your own entry - bet two horses and dutch them.

I don't look at it as two bets, but as one race bet. Dittos for exacta boxes.

I bet $X on this race and got back $X+ in return.

btw, Uber, where can we read your columns - I lost the link.

Thanks

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by TonyK@HSH

I too see nothing wrong with multi horse win betting. My plays focus almost exclusively on horizontal wagers, using multiple runners in many races, so I am guaranteed many losing bets as well.
Our objective is to be profitable

TonyK

EXACTLY!

Dutching is just another method of hedging your bets. If done properly I believe it’s far superior to making Place and Show bets. Primarily because you have a pretty good idea of what your return is going to be. I find it so lucrative that I typically Dutch (3) entries when playing Hong Kong races. My basis for doing this is because I know that my O.A. hit frequency is consistently between 50 and 60%. So as long as the odds of the (3) entries selected provide a profit margin of 50% or greater it’s a play. If not it’s a pass. (For race day examples see the Hong Kong thread in the Selection forum)

The reason this works so well at HK is because the Win pool is so large that the odds are much more stable. So, by 4 mins. to post you’ve got a reasonably good idea that the odds won’t change very much. In a matter of seconds by using a good Dutch calculator (after inputting the odds), you not only can automatically determine what the profit margin is, but how much to bet on each entry. The whole idea behind the Dutch Win bet is the recognition that no matter which entry wins the profit margin remains the same.
GL

[ubercapper]

Tom,

So you're the one reading them?!?

Not sure which one you're asking about (if just one) but here's the list

https://www.amwager.com/handicapping/ellis-starr-blog

https://www.keenelandselect.com/blogs/ksblogger

https://www.santaanita.com/author/ellisstarr/

Then (hopefully) the Woodbine and Keeneland web sites in the spring.

And the Equibase Race of the Week can be found here at the "Read the Story" link
http://www.equibase.com/free/index.cfm

[Michael]

When I bet two horses in a race it's normally because I have conviction that the favorite isn't going to win. Having a under or overstated ratio like roi at the end of the year is irrelevant if you're leaving equity on the table.

You can also view the bet as two races. Constructively running the race "as-if" twice to isolate the favorable situation. Roi is just a ratio.... the volume is more important than the ratio itself.

imo, you have to view twitter with the respect it deserves.

Also, post your blog! I'd like to read it

[ubercapper]

Michael,



Owing to Forum rules, I post links to the blog(s) every Friday in the Selections Forum.



I did post generic links to home pages which contain the blogs earlier in this thread.

[BarchCapper]

I enjoy both Ubercapper's AND his Twitter "opponent"s content. There's a really good 2-part interview with the latter in the archives of Jason Beem's podcast - these remain his most-downloaded episodes. If you're interested, they can be found by googling "Inside the Pylons BetAmerica."

Ubercapper, I do appreciate your taking the highest road possible in the full exchange, which I was glad to read . The two of you were pretty much talking past each other. He seemed totally focused on overall ROI, and ignored the volatility aspect, which you were trying to emphasize.

There's a reason good investment professionals hand out those risk tolerance assessments. Some can handle the wild swings of lower W%, higher ROI wagering, without it affecting the way they approach the next race in the middle of a long streak of losers. Many, including myself, would not be able to handicap as well when faced with that.

[Michael]

Now that I see how you structured your bet... your boat has a few holes in it if you ask me.

Hypothetically: you're saying it's ok to bet both at 3/1. If we run it.... You're saying your 58.5% at 17% take and that's to break even. Highly unlikely this is anywhere near reality.

I don't mean to be rude.. but seems bad.