Lessons from a pro

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

I disagree with this. I think its easier to get some slug to clunk up for 4th to complete the super than it is to pick 4 winners in a row....esp in 10+ horse fields.

I agree with your disagreement. Although I theoretically have been playing supers for years, in reality I rarely did because it seemed trifectas were a better bet. About three months ago I set up a separate bankroll for supers so I would play regularly. I have since been stunned at how easy I find it to pick the fourth place horse.

On another (and contradictory) note, for the superior handicapper, that a certain type of bet is easier to win is the very reason you should not bet it. You need to find spots where your superior handicapping abilities gives you an edge, and avoid spots where you wind up sharing the pool with people who are "accidentally right".

[macdiarmida]

There was discussion a while back where there seemed to be much agreement that there wasn't the overlay advantage to playing P3s there once was. Also, the "requirement" to take a race you're not particularly good at or has stone solid chalk in it then puts you at disadvantage. C'mon, tell me you studiously avoid those walkovers that show up every day. That's gotten hard to do. Now if you always bet against those stone chalks, more power to you or warm greetings to your therapist. But if you hedge and always include those chalks without multiple ticket construction, I just send greetings to your therapist.

If the pro is a horizontal bettor, that means to me he must be looking at all chain bets including doubles and, equally, piling all the money in a win bet in one race. Did he say anything about that? (The vertical guy picks from WPS, exactas, tris, etc.) The idea (I thought, silly me) is to be in the right/most advantageous pool for the bucks you're throwing in.

Letting the bet type dictate how many bucks you play is kind of a weird concept. It assumes a largish bankroll IMO. Usually people end up cutting out eventual winners to cut down the ticket(s) to fit the bankroll. All you guys play $100 P3 multiple combo tickets or multiples of it as a matter of course? If your standard bet is, say, roughly $300, then you always play the $100 group of combos 3 times? And if you had a $64 P3 set of combos built, you'd always play that 5 times?

[Trotman]

I'm going to love following this thread too. As ITP said once in a decade. FR as Zilly tells us is a professional ya right it's Zilly's own work but he forgot to give us the rest.
FRAUD

[JohnGalt1]

I believe you shouldn't force a bet on a race, or races, but let the race or races determine the bet.

[delayjf]

If one is a big better who plays tickets higher than the 1 or 2 dollar variety, then you might have a problem with the fact that the P-3 pools usually only about half of those of the trifecta.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by Trotman

I'm going to love following this thread too. As ITP said once in a decade. FR as Zilly tells us is a professional ya right it's Zilly's own work but he forgot to give us the rest.
FRAUD

You want to write him......I can send you his e-mail privately if you like. He is the best I have ever run into and have known him for years

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Going horizontal assumes that each race can be handicapped equally. Contradicts the old adage of "You can beat a race, but you can't be the races".

[markgoldie]

The Crist method is supported by logic. However, a really top-flight handicapper should have trouble in restricting himself to only A and B selections. The reason is simple: many times a longshot may have a reasonable chance of winning because his current form is unkown. So while you might want to use several such horses in a P4 sequence, even calling them B's blows up the ticket price radically since they must be played with all "A" selections.

The second problem with playing only A's and B's is that you have to use far more A's than B's and so you begin putting marginal animals as A's simply because you know that 1 (and only 1) B can hit in the sequence in order for you to cash.

This is where the "C" horse comes in. The problem with adding C's is that you now MUST change the increment bet amount or else there is no distinction between a B and a C. Naturally, when you change the increment, you up the price of the play significantly. A normal example would be when you play the A/B spread for $2 and the A/C spread for $1.

A very logical argument can be made that the more category distinctions you make, the more efficient the play. The reason being that it allows for better protection of your core play and also puts you in line to capitalize on the underplayed area of this inefficient market. This opens the possibility to adding even a "D" category. But again, this requires even more increments of the wager.

The bottom line here is in deciding if your bankroll can give you a sufficiently plausible shot at cashing the gimmick. If not, you are simply accomplishing a serial donation by playing a series of P4's in which you have only a miniscule chance of hitting.

A war analogy comes to mind. If you have 40 men that must fight an enemy of 100, your best chance of winning is to send the 40 out all at once rather than 2 men at a time.

The lure of horizontals is that they unwitingly convert normal chalk players into longshot artists. So, for example, the guy who never played a 50-1 shot in his life (and laughs at those who do), has no problem putting his $48 into a P6 where his rational odds of hitting may be 500-1 with such an investment.

So if you play complex horizontals, bankroll size and coverage-range are of paramount importance.

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

Going horizontal assumes that each race can be handicapped equally. Contradicts the old adage of "You can beat a race, but you can't be the races".

Excellent point.

You are trapped by the races that are designated as part of the gimmick.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

Excellent point.

You are trapped by the races that are designated as part of the gimmick.

FR states that this approach is subject to the card of the day. NOTHING is rigid

[Trotman]

Zilly I call, sure send me a PM

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

FR states that this approach is subject to the card of the day. NOTHING is rigid

The scheme in your picture is the definition of rigid. In fact it's so rigid that it's impossible to believe that everything it is related to isn't rigid too.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

This is where the "C" horse comes in. The problem with adding C's is that you now MUST change the increment bet amount or else there is no distinction between a B and a C. Naturally, when you change the increment, you up the price of the play significantly. A normal example would be when you play the A/B spread for $2 and the A/C spread for $1.

A very logical argument can be made that the more category distinctions you make, the more efficient the play. The reason being that it allows for better protection of your core play and also puts you in line to capitalize on the underplayed area of this inefficient market. This opens the possibility to adding even a "D" category. But again, this requires even more increments of the wager.

The bottom line here is in deciding if your bankroll can give you a sufficiently plausible shot at cashing the gimmick. If not, you are simply accomplishing a serial donation by playing a series of P4's in which you have only a miniscule chance of hitting.

And this is the reason that a vertical wager like the 10-cent super is such a good bet for the player, IMO.

The low base of the bet allows the player to make these "distinctions"... placing more emphasis on the horses that warrant it...while also including the interesting looking longshots, on a lesser scale.

Great coverage and bet sizing, with a modest bankroll requirement.

[HuggingTheRail]

At what point does pool size become a factor (if at all). In the original post by 46, FR's plan invests $114. The Friday night WIN 4 pool at Hastings was just under $6,000 (granted, that is lower than usual as handle is down during the annual fair). That said, would you still invest an amount equal to 2% of the pool?

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by HuggingTheRail

At what point does pool size become a factor (if at all). In the original post by 46, FR's plan invests $114. The Friday night WIN 4 pool at Hastings was just under $6,000 (granted, that is lower than usual as handle is down during the annual fair). That said, would you still invest an amount equal to 2% of the pool?

AGAIN let me state this is simply a starting point philosophically to conquer this bet. If you have ever seen FR or talked to him (he is down right near me at the paddock on all even numbered races) you will find out in 5 seconds that ROI is at the heart of ALL his wagering.