Pick 3 , 4 ,5 bet sizing

[chiguy]

Has anybody ever studied pk 3,4's with a non-favorite winning the first leg versus a favorite winning the first leg. That seems to me to make a difference in pay-out. I suspect folks react to the board in the first leg and lower priced horses are used more than they should be.

[classhandicapper]

I don't play many horizontals because I don't have many opportunities given how I want to play them, but I suspect the biggest problem players have is that they think in terms of hitting the bet instead putting together "value" tickets.

If you asked the typical horse player whether he would bet a horse to Win at 8/5 if he thought it had a 25% chance of winning he'd say "No".

If you asked the same player if he includes plenty of horses like that in his horizontals he'd probably say "Yes".

I'm not saying you should never include an underlay horse like that if it's part of sequence with multiple really good value horses. The net of that ticket could still be good value with an underlay in it. But as a general rule you should NOT be thinking in terms of probability and cashing. You should still be thinking in terms of value - whether it's a strong handicapping value oriented opinion or whether it's a public betting pattern value oriented opinion.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by chiguy

Has anybody ever studied pk 3,4's with a non-favorite winning the first leg versus a favorite winning the first leg. That seems to me to make a difference in pay-out. I suspect folks react to the board in the first leg and lower priced horses are used more than they should be.

Yes, I have done extensive studies on P-3s but it wasn't specifically favorite vs non-favorite as the target. What I did was first assume that all horses were bet exactly to their probability of winning. So to get to the "true" probability I took the winner's odds and adjusted for the take-out. I then converted the odds to probabilities. From there I multiplied each probability of the winners together to get the "true"probability of the P-3. With the "true" probability of the P-3 I could see if the P-3 was an overlay or an underlay based solely on public betting.

To make a long story short, it makes a huge difference as to what the odds are of the winner in the first leg. I determined, for my betting purposes, that the first leg winner should be no less than 6-1 to give me the best chance of betting an overlay. I found nothing similar in leg 2 or 3.

[Robert Fischer]

I start with structure and leverage.

The value has to be there. (EV)
I cover the value with the minimum (or my own minimum base wager if I were a bigger player), and then I bet the low-priced horses at a higher multiple. These low priced horses may be value or they may be slight underlays (I don't make a ticket if I have to use huge underlays), but I hit enough 'caveman' tickets to see that if it chalks out, you are getting less than acceptable odds, or even a loss, and that for a relatively small additional investment you can be sure to recoup a chalky sequence multiple times.


Yes, you can play a sequence with only overlays or long-shot idea/hopes. For one, it's rare to really find a sequence with more than maybe two races with true overlays. And then, if you were to play 'only' these high-EV types, you are essentially buying a lottery ticket where you will be happily surprised if you hit today. It's a cool lottery ticket, because it is skill based, and you may even have a positive long-term EV... But, it will come with a low hit percentage, and long losing streaks. Maybe this is a fun complement to a win bet you plan on making... You love a horse at 2/1 that you think should be 3/2, and you string 2 or 3 singles with him that are all overlays and/or long-shot potentially high-EV horses, and if it's your lucky day you win a couple thousand for a 50cent bet... If you lose, you lose 50cents... That's fine.

If your central focus is the multi-race wager, then I think you start with sequences where you have multiple strong opinions, where you can leverage the opinions enough so that the blended-EV is high enough to justify some coverage. You plan on hitting it today. Obviously if you have that same 2/1 horse as a 'single', you want to get well over 2/1 in a multi race to that horse, or you would just bet win.

[chiguy]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Yes, I have done extensive studies on P-3s but it wasn't specifically favorite vs non-favorite as the target. What I did was first assume that all horses were bet exactly to their probability of winning. So to get to the "true" probability I took the winner's odds and adjusted for the take-out. I then converted the odds to probabilities. From there I multiplied each probability of the winners together to get the "true"probability of the P-3. With the "true" probability of the P-3 I could see if the P-3 was an overlay or an underlay based solely on public betting.

To make a long story short, it makes a huge difference as to what the odds are of the winner in the first leg. I determined, for my betting purposes, that the first leg winner should be no less than 6-1 to give me the best chance of betting an overlay. I found nothing similar in leg 2 or 3.

Great, thanks for the reply.

[LemonSoupKid]

Has anyone tried these mandatory payout pick 6s? Or are you guys sticking to pick 5 and lower?

[cutchemist42]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Anything more than a P3 becomes complicated. Say you have three horses in each event of a P4. That's a $40.50 investment. If you have 3/5 horses, you may not even get 3-1 on your money. Not really a great bet. An alternative is

1/1,2,3/1,2,3/1,2,3

1,2,3/1/1,2,3/1,2,3

1,2,3/1,2,3/1/1,2,3

Same amount of money, but chances to hit multiples.

When the Aqueduct inner comp was running, as a mostly win better that was the technique I used. Collected twice on the pick3 many times with that tactic.