Why The PLACE Pool Is The MOst Difficult To Beat

[ClassTrumpsSpeed]

Do people really think it's the breakage? That accounts for maybe $0.03 of one's ROI at most.

The real reason is the reduced risk, and the desire for horseplayers to just live an easy life by cranking out profitable place bets. EVERY horseplayer dreams of doing this, but the skill required to pull it off is next to impossible, specifically because EVERY horseplayer dreams of doing this.

Throw in the smaller pools, and only a few of the very best can actually live this dream. Don't believe me? Try to show a flat-bet profit on 100 place bets. It's a lot more difficult than one might think.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by ClassTrumpsSpeed

Try to show a flat-bet profit on 100 place bets. It's a lot more difficult than one might think.

And those who are able to do it could apply their skill more lucratively in other pools.

[ClassTrumpsSpeed]

Originally Posted by Overlay

And those who are able to do it could apply their skill more lucratively in other pools.

So I've heard, but someone is obviously parking their talented butt in the place pool!

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by ClassTrumpsSpeed

So I've heard, but someone is obviously parking their talented butt in the place pool!

I have been profiting in the place pool for a few years now. Obviously, I make other bets, but I'm not one to shun money wherever I can find it.

[Steve 'StatMan']

IMHO the place pool can be difficult because the 2nd spot, like in Exactas, isn't necessarily for the 2nd best horse on paper. There are horses that are good at winning or burning themselves out trying. Those aren't as likely for the 2nd spot, so the Place bet may offer a dilusion of saftey when they're more likely to win or run out. There are others that may be good enough to do well, but need the better horses to fail in order to pass them and be up for the 2nd spot (or the win spot). Would be an easier bet if it were always betting on the best horse, if only the best horse would run 2nd when it doesn't win. Alas, not necessarily so.

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I have been profiting in the place pool for a few years now. Obviously, I make other bets, but I'm not one to shun money wherever I can find it.

Me too....Being retired and on a fixed income, Place Betting helps me to stay solvent....My horses are usually right there, but they all don't win, still, they place "a lot", and my bottom line stays intact as a result...And, I do love kashing more frequently, it makes me smile more....

best,

[DeltaLover]

Betting to place is clearly one of the worst bets available to a horseplayer (with the rare exception of a negative pool) and compares only with the even worst show betting.

do people really think it's the breakage? That accounts for maybe $0.03 of one's ROI at most.

Let me disagree with the original poster about breakage's impact to the final ROI where he states that its maximum could be $0.03.

The truth is that this 'maximum' depends on the payouts that consist the ROI.

Let's consider a very conservative betting model that selects obvious horses that will return place values in the range of 2.10 – 3.10. Considering a 'dime breakage ' is in effect we would expect the average break to be 9.5 cents. If the average place payout to be 2.6 then the average profit is going to be 60 cents / $2 or 30% (per winning ticket).

Without breakage we would expect the payout to be 2.695 witch translates to 34.875 %.

In other words breakage limited the 34.875 % to 30% which translates to a 13.9% difference!

For recreational players who operate in fixed income as one of the posters stated and they focus more in their participation to the game rather than actually profiting out of it, place and show might be suitable (this is truth only in conjunction of an assumed low handicapping ability though)...

In contrast a confident winning horseplayer who is focusing in maximizing his profit rather than struggling not to get broke clearly stays away from pathetic and conservative betting strategies applying aggressive multi optioned (per race) models that can be proved profitable over a large sample of data.

[Cholly]

The place pool…is just another pool. Like all the pools, it is a distinct bet with its own characteristics. And like every other pool, for every winner there’s a loser. Well, let me correct that—for every winner there’s 1.15 losers; at least in NYRAland.

And just as one shouldn’t use the same strategy for picking horses for the win as they do for the exacta, neither should use either of those strategies for picking a horse for the place pool.

Yes, the breakage adds to the house take; proportionately more so the lower the pay-out. But if you’re picking horses who will average $3.00 for place, it’s still a lower house-take than betting exactas.

It does have the disadvantage of being a smaller pool. This time of year most of the NYRA place pools seem to be around $40K. So if you’re needing a pool you can jam in $5,000 without affecting your own odds, betting place won’t work for you.

I guess it’s possible that it’s a very slightly tougher pool than some of the others. But I believe this: With billions of dollars being bet annually into a pari-mutual system that is mostly transparent for any data analyst to do his thing, there just ain’t any low-hanging fruit likely to be encountered. Those computer guys level every bet-type to where no pool has any intrinsic advantage over any other… some types of bets work better for some people, but not so much for others.

You say to-MA-toe, I say to-MAH-toe

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Gentlemen,

A few years ago I met an old timer and we had a nice conversation about horses and basically he was a place bettor that used round robin parlays with his infrequent wagers.

For example his round robin was set up as wagers (A) and (B) and (C). he would make a wager lets say $100 on place parlay (A) to (B). If this lost he would start a new parlay A to B. However, if parlay A to B won he would divide his return over the next two B and C plus an additional wager of half the oringinal base bet of A to B on the parlay B to C. Well it seems complicated but it is very simple.

Any way, this man was very sharp in that he looked for races with vulnerable favorites , and occasionally second choices also. He received some real valued place prices, and when he connected in a winning sequence he really had a nice score. The good part is that he was able to win money if only two of his three parlays connected because he had a strict eye on the value factor. An auto matic hedge for a losing wager.

My question to all is is this profitable in the long-term?. like I stated proof is in the pudding, so to speak. It seems this man;s advantages were:

(1) his patience to wait for the right spots
(2) eye for value
(3) discipline to stick to his plan.

Any thoughts?

[Rutgers]

I would say the real reason why place betting is tough is there are two winning numbers instead of one (in most cases). The horse “running in” with your horse usually has a greater impact on the payoff then breakage does.

If you find an overlay in the place pool, an underlay running in with it can turn your overlay into an underlay. And with average field sizes of 7-9 horses and a takeout rates of about 15-17%, it isn’t very often that there will be two fair odds horses in the place pool, let alone one. I also do not think there are many horses that offer so much value in the place pool you are guarantee value regardless who runs in with it.

I am not saying place wagering can not be profitable long-term, but I do think it is a lot tougher then a lot of players realize.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

The amazing thing about place betting (even though we know ) that in every study ever done that win betting is more profitable and with less operating bankroll. However, the concept of using a parlay plan is quite intruiging...maybe in an unrealistic way that is not profitable in the long-term.

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

For recreational players who operate in fixed income as one of the posters stated and they focus more in their participation to the game rather than actually profiting out of it, place and show might be suitable (this is truth only in conjunction of an assumed low handicapping ability though)...

.

Delta I understand what you are saying, but, as "that" poster I will say this...
Phooey, I average well over 40% winners, and I am more than a recreational player....I just hate to lose, and I am greedy, and my ROI is very healthy on place bets too....So why shouldn't I get some profit there as well ?

Mark Cramer once stated that, longshots place twice as often as they win....So, assuming that Mark's statements are correct, and it should be, if one is a good enough handicapper, then why not take advantage of that advantage...

If you are willing to take $18 for a win-bet and your horses lose the win spot twice as much as they place, then why wouldn't one want to take $8 or $9 to place for his "loss" ?....A-Profit, is nice even tho the win-bet lost....Math guys just don't get this part...imo

There is money to be made in "every" pool....Takes more than math to prove that tho..

best,

[Cholly]

Originally Posted by BELMONT 6-6-09

The amazing thing about place betting (even though we know ) that in every study ever done that win betting is more profitable and with less operating bankroll. However, the concept of using a parlay plan is quite intruiging...maybe in an unrealistic way that is not profitable in the long-term.

Pardon my contradicting you, but actually I know of one study wherein place betting is more profitable than win betting. I know that study pretty well since it is a study of my personal betting records for horses within a prescribed odds range. And though this is the only “study” I can testify to with this result, I’ll bet there are others.

As regards the parlay scheme proposed, it has the advantage of inducing one to increase ones bet-size; and this increased wager amount would occur on a day in which one was not slumping. But…it has the same weakness of all parlay schemes of placing a premium on the last wager, which may or may not be the best wager of the series. I’d be more inclined to decide in which of the three races I had the strongest opinion; and then make a wager in the amount of 3X on that race only.

[classhandicapper]

For the record, the horses I am betting to place are either equal to or more profitable than they are to win because I am exploiting inefficiencies in the place pool. If they were less profitable, I would simply bet the horses to win. But as long as they are equal, I feel comfortable betting larger sums in the place pool because of the higher probability of success which in turn results is greater profits.

[DeltaLover]

Phooey, I average well over 40% winners, and I am more than a recreational player....I just hate to lose, and I am greedy, and my ROI is very healthy on place bets too....So why shouldn't I get some profit there as well ?

Great, this means that you have a profitable model and you should continue with it!

But as an intellectual exercise, try to keep track of your bets and replay the same horses again on a simulation and try to see how you would have ended up if some condition was changed in your betting strategy. Maybe the results will prove to you that although you have a winning strategy you can actually improve your bottom line if you expand to some other pools.

As far as percentage of winners, I have to admit that my main betting model picks far less than your 40%.... Not even close to it.... It lays somewhere between 12% - 18%!

Of course the absolute winning percentage is meaningless if it is not considered in conjunction with the average winning odds... For a long run strategy it is irrelevant both the frequency and the winning percent, what really counts is the Expected Value that if is always kept positive eventually will finally show the desired profit.

Everybody hates to loose but each betting event by itself means close to nothing when it comes to your ultimate performance. Assuming an adequate bankroll, sound handicapping and planned betting plan it is absolutely normal for a (winning) horse player to encounter long stretches of loosing sessions without this proving that he is necessary doing something wrong.

The point is that striving for more precise opinion in a race both increases the possible payout but the possibility of loosing. What really counts is the risk taken to be associated with a positive expectation (overlay) regardless how often the bet will succeed!

Example:

Horse A has 8% percent to win a race at current odds 14-1

Horse B has 48% percent to win the race at current odds 1-1

Which one you end up betting?

Clearly the first one. Although it has such a low percent to win it represents a much better betting proposition than the second one that will win as much as 6 times more than him!