explain logic of betting vertical exotics

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Actor

The takeout in WPS betting is in the 15-20% range. With exotics it’s always north of 20%. In the long run betting to win will always give a greater ROI than betting exotics simply because the greater takeout reduces the size of the pool relative to the number of possible outcomes.

This does not change the picture.

Trying to hit a longshot out of 64 possible outcomes is no different from trying to hit a longshot out of 8 possible outcomes.

The common practice of making multiple bets in exotics (boxes, wheels, etc.) is no different than betting on more than one horse to win, and again does not change the picture.

Absolutely untrue! When you hedge and structure properly and can consistently hit Verticals the BIG picture changes completely! “Take-outs” are not the issue at all, but the Signers sure are!

Gotta love those Verticals!
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...=132280&page=2
.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by Actor
" The takeout in WPS betting is in the 15-20% range. With exotics it’s always north of 20%. In the long run betting to win will always give a greater ROI than betting exotics simply because the greater takeout reduces the size of the pool relative to the number of possible outcomes."

Sorry , but this is totally off the mark. I'll give you a simple example.

Let's say all you did was look for bad favorites. And you were good at it.

The opportunity to eliminate that horse in the win AND place slots is much more valuable than only betting against it to win. Obvious, no?

Of course, there will be occasions where that horse loses but runs SECOND, and you don't cash the exacta, where you would have cashed a win bet.

Unless that bad outcome is happening quite often, then you will surely have a better ROI in the exacta, than you would betting only to win.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

The opportunity to eliminate that horse in the win AND place slots is much more valuable than only betting against it to win.

exactly.


multi bets are better when you can combine multiple opinions.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

There are valid reasons to like the exotics...and these reasons have nothing to do with the "lottery". Win-betting ties the competent player's hands...while the exotics often give him the flexibility that he needs in a very difficult and complicated game. What does the win-bettor do when he finds a vulnerable favorite, in a race where he cannot spot a "key horse"? Truly vulnerable favorites lead to appetizing rewards...and the player has to capitalize on them in any way that he can. There is also the not infrequent case of the live longshot who figures to have an excellent chance to get "in-the-money"...but has only a scant chance of winning the race outright. The win-bettor fails to capitalize on cases such as these...but the exotics player can often construct a very profitable situation out of them.

I think you and I have different handicapping philosophies. That's OK. Whatever works for you, go for it.

Win betting may "tie the player's hands" but it doesn't shackle his feet. If there's a vulnerable favorite and I can't spot a key horse then I walk. I pass more races than I play. It's not unusual for me to go to the track and pass every race. There's always another race.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

exactly.


multi bets are better when you can combine multiple opinions.

I'll add to that, if you don't mind. This is why I focus on 1 or 2 circuits at a time. If you're going to play a PICK 5, you NEED to know almost EVERYTHING about every horse in the sequence.

For example: Sunday at Belmont was closing day. The owner of the 6 in the 4th race was in a tie for the owners title. Do you think he was trying to win with this claimer? Of course.


If you're playing 4 tracks and play a small ticket at NYRA on this sunday AND you don't know this nugget, you might leave this horse out.

Playing the picks requires laser like focus on that circuit if you want to win long term IMHO.

[Capper Al]

It's all about leverage and using key horses as value wheels. Example,
If your picks are A, B, C, D in that order, and only B is giving you random odds or higher consider the following:

exacta: (A,C,D) + B
double: B + (W,X,Y,Z)
place: B

And hope for the best.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Actor

Mathematically it does not work that way.

Every bet is a wager on one of many possible outcomes. If 8 horses start then a win bet is a wager on one of 8 possible outcomes. If 8 horses start in each of two races then an exotic bet is a wager on one of 64 possible outcomes. The concept of “per race takeout” is fallacious because mathematically the two races combined still amount to one event. The payout in exotics is bigger simply because there are more possible outcomes and therefore more losers.

The takeout in WPS betting is in the 15-20% range. With exotics it’s always north of 20%. In the long run betting to win will always give a greater ROI than betting exotics simply because the greater takeout reduces the size of the pool relative to the number of possible outcomes.

This does not change the picture.

Trying to hit a longshot out of 64 possible outcomes is no different from trying to hit a longshot out of 8 possible outcomes.

The common practice of making multiple bets in exotics (boxes, wheels, etc.) is no different than betting on more than one horse to win, and again does not change the picture.

You are making a really obvious mistake. You are not including breakage. Breakage is essentially a tax on cashing a ticket. When you bet the 1 in 64 exotic in your hypothetical, you only hit it 1/8th as often as you hit the 1 in 8 win bet. Thus, you pay only 1/8th the breakage. (This isn't quite true in jurisdictions like New York that have variable breakage, but it's still true that you pay some breakage on each bet.)

There's also a second mistake you are making, which is assuming that the only thing that determines your ROI is the takeout. But that's not true. You are trying to bet for value, and an exotic bet opens up additional potential overlays.

The classic example of this is where you like a basically unplayable favorite in one race but a couple of longshots in the other legs of a pick 3. A bet on to win on the favorite may be worth close to nothing and could be negative expected value, but in combination with the longshots it can result in a boxcar payoff and that combination may be significantly positive expected value.

So there are at least two reasons your ROI can end up higher betting exotics than it would betting to win.

[dilanesp]

(Having said that, there is actually one big reason for players to be a bit more skeptical than they are currently about exotics and to bet to win more. And that is that one of the fundamental leaks of many gamblers is that they enjoy action more than they do an edge.

For instance, I play against poker players in limit hold 'em who will play more or less correctly pre-flop in small pots but will dive in with any two cards whenever the pot is capped and multi-way and figures to be big. They are making -EV plays, but they don't want to miss the opportunity to win a big pot.

Horseplayers have to be careful about the same sort of thinking. The fact that a race has 14 horses and a Super High Five does not automatically make it playable. There are plenty of situations where your exotic plays will end up covering a ton of combinations that are -EV underlays, usually because you either have no coherent opinion at all about the race or no distinctive opinion (i.e., no opinion different from the rest of the crowd).

What betting to win DOES do is force discipline on a player. You basically have to wait for a situation where a horse is a legitimate overlay. Widespread exotic wagering encourages bettors to play lots of races where they have no real edge. That's probably where their (somewhat undeserved) reputation as "sucker bets" comes from.)

[Capper Al]

It's leverage.

[thaskalos]

If a player tells me that he is a win bettor...then I won't hesitate to book his action all day long. But if he is an exotics player...then I want no part of him. IMO...the win-bettor, who looks to survive by way of the win "overlays", is on the verge of becoming extinct...if he hasn't already vanished. The days of the "grinder" are over.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If a player tells me that he is a win bettor...then I won't hesitate to book his action all day long. But if he is an exotics player...then I want no part of him. IMO...the win-bettor, who looks to survive by way of the win "overlays", is on the verge of becoming extinct...if he hasn't already vanished. The days of the "grinder" are over.

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. With that in mind I submit that the “Win” bettor who hedges through Dutching can achieve similar profit margins if the selections consistently some offer reasonable value. Then by taking it a step further, parlaying those profits by playing only those races in a sequence that offer real play-ability.

The bottom-line for the logic of playing Verticals is simply the potential for accelerated profits.
We love those Verticals:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...=132344&page=3
.
.

[Capper Al]

Did I mention that it's leverage? Win bettors are a dying breed. The horse with the odds is the key literally. Horizontal or vertical doesn't matter. Matter of fact, one is better to play them both ways to lock into the leverage. Did I mention it was leverage?

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Did I mention that it's leverage? Win bettors are a dying breed. The horse with the odds is the key literally. Horizontal or vertical doesn't matter. Matter of fact, one is better to play them both ways to lock into the leverage. Did I mention it was leverage?

Al, you’ve emphasized the term “leverage” as it pertains to Value. And you’re right, we should always be influenced by the value of our selections. However, this can become a player’s nemesis; if they mentally tend to put the “Carriage in front of the horse” by first looking for a valued entry in hope that it will some how succeed. A comparable example might be witnessing more involvement in a lottery by more players only because the prize went from ½ Million to 5 Million dollars. Some how at that point many people seem to believe that just because it’s reached a new value plateau that’s now worth playing. In reality they don’t have any better chance of hitting it than they did at the lower value. In fact, since more are playing there’s potential for a smaller per person payout since there’s probably a better chance for more to actually hit it.

In horse racing the selection process (whatever that happens to be) has to dictate which entries are in fact playable. It should then (and only then) become a matter of evaluating those selections in terms of their existing value (current odds). The weight of their odds (or combined odds in Exotics) would determine their bet-ability in order to achieve a profitable return. The margin of that return has to not cover the basic bet, but also a percentage of the bets that were previously lost.

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?

BTW as an Outsider don’t kid yourself in thinking that watching lots of re-runs of past races will tell you the current condition of your selections or the intentions of the Insiders who have entered them.
.

[Capper Al]

You're are talking like it is a lottery game when in fact it is not. What I know about my handicapping is that over 50% of the time the winner will come out of my top two. You can go to my thread here in PA, "What's up with the Capper?", and see for yourself.

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.

What to do when the green light comes on and why? The B horse becomes your key both vertically and horizontally because of the leverage it will receive from the public by going off at random odds or higher. This is a classic example for applying the absolute truth rule. What must we consider in put together our tickets besides payouts?

The first consideration is that we don't want to be locked into one spot with our B horse. Generally speaking, A and B selections are considered to win horses while C and D are considered place and show horses. So here in our case, B is a win play-- but not exactly. It might come in second assuming our handicapping is close but not exact. Therefore, our combinations will cover the B horse finishing first or second.

The second consideration is what is the safest way to cover a win/place finish? Vertically it would be B to place and an exacta (A,C,D)/B for leverage. Why not B on top? We will handle that with our double. For me, vertical wagers are easier. Our wagering is focused on the B. Going against the public makes our selection less likely to win. But should it win or another horse than A, C, or D win, we have it covered with the place bet. And we can cash the place bet if A, B, or C win with B second along with our exacta.

The third consideration is the horizontal, but really it is if our B horse wins. The double, or pick three if you prefer, should also have leverage because of our B horse's odds. My double would be B/(W, X, Y, Z). Remember that over 50% of the time the winner comes from my top 2. The Y and Z are thrown in for larger payouts and hedging. If one's handicapping can't over the long run find winner's out of their top four, they shouldn't be in the game.
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?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

You're are talking like it is a lottery game when in fact it is not. What I know about my handicapping is that over 50% of the time the winner will come out of my top two. You can go to my thread here in PA, "What's up with the Capper?", and see for yourself.

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.

What to do when the green light comes on and why? The B horse becomes your key both vertically and horizontally because of the leverage it will receive from the public by going off at random odds or higher. This is a classic example for applying the absolute truth rule. What must we consider in put together our tickets besides payouts?

The first consideration is that we don't want to be locked into one spot with our B horse. Generally speaking, A and B selections are considered to win horses while C and D are considered place and show horses. So here in our case, B is a win play-- but not exactly. It might come in second assuming our handicapping is close but not exact. Therefore, our combinations will cover the B horse finishing first or second.

The second consideration is what is the safest way to cover a win/place finish? Vertically it would be B to place and an exacta (A,C,D)/B for leverage. Why not B on top? We will handle that with our double. For me, vertical wagers are easier. Our wagering is focused on the B. Going against the public makes our selection less likely to win. But should it win or another horse than A, C, or D win, we have it covered with the place bet. And we can cash the place bet if A, B, or C win with B second along with our exacta.

The third consideration is the horizontal, but really it is if our B horse wins. The double, or pick three if you prefer, should also have leverage because of our B horse's odds. My double would be B/(W, X, Y, Z). Remember that over 50% of the time the winner comes from my top 2. The Y and Z are thrown in for larger payouts and hedging. If one's handicapping can't over the long run find winner's out of their top four, they shouldn't be in the game.
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?

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?