explain logic of betting vertical exotics

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You seem to have it all figured out...and it appears to make a lot of sense. The only remaining question now is...why are you unable to win?

You're an odd duck. I now understand it was changing my wagering that most messed up my winning. I'm figuring out what I need to do to get back on track. Once in the zone again, I expect to return to profitability. It's a difficult game and we can lose our way.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

... It does matter how the tickets are put together. Last say the current race my selections are A, B, C, D, and E. The next race my selections are W, X, Y, and Z. Let's say that both races have a field size of eight. It's three minutes before post and the B horse is going off at 10/1(the absolute truth), more than natural or random odds of 7/1. And horses A, C, and D are under 7/1 also. Let's say the favorite, your C horse, is going off at even money. (Things change if the favorite goes off under even money.) A quick check to the exotic payouts and you find the double and exacta combinations with the B horse pays at least $15.00 (a payout under $15 can be tolerated if you have a couple of payouts that are over $50.) This combination is a green light to strike and occurs quite frequently where one of the top four is going off at random or higher odds. ...
This is what we end up with:

Exacta (A,C,D)/B
Place B (3 units)
Double B/(W, X, Y, Z)

That's how and why to do it. Did I say it was leverage?

Just trying to understand your thinking in this situation which can frequently occur.

What do you do if the favorite does goes off under even money and by how much (1/2, 3/5 etc.)?

What is the favorites odds when you begin consideration of it's inclusion?

Do you pass the exacta and play the place and/or DD because "B" is 10/1 or greater?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

You're an odd duck. I now understand it was changing my wagering that most messed up my winning. I'm figuring out what I need to do to get back on track. Once in the zone again, I expect to return to profitability. It's a difficult game and we can lose our way.

It isn't just that we "lose our way", Al...nor is it our "wagering" that usually "messes up our winning". The game keeps changing in subtle ways...and "winning" gets more and more difficult as time progresses. The winning players can't stay still and admire themselves in this game, because, as they proudly proclaim that they are "Kings of the World"...the ground is crumbling beneath their feet.

This game keeps us all humble...and worried about the future.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Nitro

.......That’s why I refuse to play a “leverage” guessing game with sequential horizontal bets. Because after the first race in the sequence you have no actual idea of the value of your selections and worst of all not a clue of the current physicality of the entries you’ve pre-selected. So, I say it’s impossible for the horizontal player to really leverage any of those types of bets empirically. So where’s the logic in playing horizontals, if you can’t weigh (leverage) the amount of your bet against the combined value or condition of your selections?.......

You are wise not to play a "leverage" guessing game. Leverage is not a one way street, it is just as easy to negatively leverage a bet as positively leverage a bet.

The key, obviously, is to know which situations are more likely to result with positive leverage. With verticals, an overlay in win odds will, in most situations, result in a positive leverage bet when played on top. It would be wrong, however, to assume that the overlay would produce positive leverage in spots other than the top of the ticket.

While it is true that you can't absolutely measure the combined value or condition of your selections, you can confidently bet certain horizontals knowing that you are using positive leverage. The position in the sequence and the odds of the horse/horses keyed are crucial.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Nitro

I tend to agree with a lot of what you said, but most successful players that enjoy using the Exotics understand the importance of hedging by properly structuring their bets. They realize as I do that no matter how accurate any selection process might be, that anything can happen in a horse race.

That sounds like it should be right, but if you think about it mathematically it makes no sense.

It's like a poker player saying that she will play more starting hands because due to variance anything can happen in a poker hand.

Bets are either positive EV (expected value) or negative EV. If they are negative EV you shouldn't make them, even if the positive EV plays you are making on the race are high variance plays and may result in a loss on the race. The object of the game is to make money in the long term, not to cash a ticket on every race.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Just trying to understand your thinking in this situation which can frequently occur.

What do you do if the favorite does goes off under even money and by how much (1/2, 3/5 etc.)?

What is the favorites odds when you begin consideration of it's inclusion?

Do you pass the exacta and play the place and/or DD because "B" is 10/1 or greater?

The first question for me is the favorite in my top 4? If not, I proceed as normal. If he is, which he usually is, then in addition to the odds I look at ranking for my value play. My horse, besides having the odds, has to be fourth or higher in the post time odds. You want to be sure that you are getting leverage.

There are many folds to use leverage. For instance, I haven't gone into using your C, D, or E horse. The combinations at times seem endless. One has to get in the zone and quickly think on their feet for variations that might come up.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by AndyC

You are wise not to play a "leverage" guessing game. Leverage is not a one way street, it is just as easy to negatively leverage a bet as positively leverage a bet.

The key, obviously, is to know which situations are more likely to result with positive leverage. With verticals, an overlay in win odds will, in most situations, result in a positive leverage bet when played on top. It would be wrong, however, to assume that the overlay would produce positive leverage in spots other than the top of the ticket.

While it is true that you can't absolutely measure the combined value or condition of your selections, you can confidently bet certain horizontals knowing that you are using positive leverage. The position in the sequence and the odds of the horse/horses keyed are crucial.

Give it up. I don't care whose system you use, if one doesn't obtain leverage over the game they don't make a profit. Just step back and think about it a bit. And that missing absolute that you are hunting for is what I call "The One and Only Absolute Truth in Racing", handicapping over the long run beats random odds. Anything else is just foolish.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It isn't just that we "lose our way", Al...nor is it our "wagering" that usually "messes up our winning". The game keeps changing in subtle ways...and "winning" gets more and more difficult as time progresses. The winning players can't stay still and admire themselves in this game, because, as they proudly proclaim that they are "Kings of the World"...the ground is crumbling beneath their feet.

This game keeps us all humble...and worried about the future.

The game does change, but that's more of a justification as to why we lose than a reality. And winning does get more difficult because the public is doing better. And the public is doing better because this is the information age. What the public better understands is the game as it has always been. The public is not showing any confusion about the so-called changing game. the public is showing a better understanding of what is.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Give it up.

Why so hostile? This isn't off-topic.

And if you knew who you were communicating with in one AndyC, you'd feel awful foolish right about now.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Why so hostile? This isn't off-topic.

And if you knew who you were communicating with in one AndyC, you'd feel awful foolish right about now.

AndyC is a good guy. Didn't mean any harm. We're talking ideas. I'd appreciate a little more slack on your part. I've been called a dumb ass and I didn't see you jump in on my behalf. That's a lot more than what's going on here with Andy.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

AndyC is a good guy. Didn't mean any harm. We're talking ideas. I'd appreciate a little more slack on your part. I've been called a dumb ass and I didn't see you jump in on my behalf. That's a lot more than what's going on here with Andy.

I tend to get very upset when someone who doesn't deserve shit gets it...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I tend to get very upset when someone who doesn't deserve shit gets it...

So...when someone gets "shit" on this board, and you don't respond...that means that this "someone" DESERVED the criticism that he got?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

So...when someone gets "shit" on this board, and you don't respond...that means that this "someone" DESERVED the criticism that he got?

That's one way to look at it I suppose.

The other way to look at it might be I can't see everything, even though I try my best.

A third way might be not to give my words such weight...I'm only one man...only one opinion. When I post a reply, it's rare that I am in "full admin" mode, so why always weight my words that way?

Telling AndyC to "give it up" is a ridiculous response to a player of his caliber. That's all I was trying to say in this instance. But Capper Al, as he usually does, turned things around and made this about me being an admin, when I wasn't acting in admin mode in this particular case. Just telling him that if he had any idea with whom he was writing, he would never tell him to "give it up."

He might as well tell cj or Andy Beyer or Andy Serling or EMD or YOU to "give it up" while he's at it. That's how silly it sounded to me.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

AndyC is a good guy. Didn't mean any harm. We're talking ideas. I'd appreciate a little more slack on your part. I've been called a dumb ass and I didn't see you jump in on my behalf. That's a lot more than what's going on here with Andy.

No harm on my end. I think you might have misunderstood my comment. I agree that leverage is a big deal in betting.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I toss around the idea of betting in a way that leverages your rightness...or how chill is your coldness? Bet to win cold...exacta cold...trifecta semi cold, like a/b/CD...same with the superfecta a/b/CD/CD or a/b/CD/cdef

Play your wagers tight and play them multiple times...make all your tickets potentially cashable...do not box more than 2 horses in any slot if at all...try not to have wagers that contradict one another...work hard to get the correct order, then hammer the order....comments?