The mindset of making Win Bets versus Horizontal Wagers

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by MJC922

IMO win bets and/or verticals are a superior way to take advantage of overlays.

IMO, there are so few actual overlays it's going to be difficult for almost anyone to find several on the same card and be right, let alone in a sequence. When you are confident you've actually found one, you might as well try to crush that single race, especially if the opinion is that the favorite is bad and will likely be out of the exacta, trifecta, and possibly even superfecta.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO, we can't win while betting every race...PERIOD! The fact that we even intend to bet every race shows a distinct lack of discipline which practically guarantees our financial demise at the track.

I would say it's an individual thing. If passing underlaid winners doesn't annoy you and you can also still stay engaged in those passed races so you're not missing any details then passing some makes the best financial sense. Certainly if a horseplayer has a minimum acceptable odds cutoff of 2-1 on prime bets and the horse they like to win the race is say 9/5 then for example keying the horse on top for $1 trifecta key over five horses does no damage IMO, especially when that player bets $200 or more when they do get their minimum acceptable odds. Keep in mind that horse may still be an overlay in their estimation at 8/5 if they make the horse 4/5, for some players (myself included) the difference between betting hundreds at 2-1 and completely sitting out the race at 9/5 makes zero sense from a psychological point of view. Without a doubt at worst it would be a break-even thing, so sitting it out and watching the horse win by a pole while eating a hotdog, not good.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by MJC922

I would say it's an individual thing. If passing underlaid winners doesn't annoy you and you can also still stay engaged in those passed races so you're not missing any details then passing some makes the best financial sense. Certainly if a horseplayer has a minimum acceptable odds cutoff of 2-1 on prime bets and the horse they like to win the race is say 9/5 then for example keying the horse on top for $1 trifecta key over five horses does no damage IMO, especially when that player bets $200 or more when they do get their minimum acceptable odds. Keep in mind that horse may still be an overlay in their estimation at 8/5 if they make the horse 4/5, for some players (myself included) the difference between betting hundreds at 2-1 and completely sitting out the race at 9/5 makes zero sense from a psychological point of view. Without a doubt at worst it would be a break-even thing, so sitting it out and watching the horse win by a pole while eating a hotdog, not good.

When the idea of "action bets" first surfaced, there was no full-card simulcasting and we had to make due with only 9 races a day, total. The studious horseplayer sometimes had to sit on his hands for hours before making a "solid wager"...so it made sense to make a few minor bets in-between his serious plays, in order to stay awake. But in the current betting atmosphere, action bets are no longer necessary...because there are more available races out there than the horseplayer has money.

The horseplayer who bets every race reminds me of the Texas Holdem player who insists on seeing every flop. No mere mortal has a big enough edge on the game to afford such an extravagance...IMO.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When the idea of "action bets" first surfaced, there was no full-card simulcasting and we had to make due with only 9 races a day, total. The studious horseplayer sometimes had to sit on his hands for hours before making a "solid wager"...so it made sense to make a few minor bets in-between his serious plays, in order to stay awake. But in the current betting atmosphere, action bets are no longer necessary...because there are more available races out there than the horseplayer has money.

The horseplayer who bets every race reminds me of the Texas Holdem player who insists on seeing every flop. No mere mortal has a big enough edge on the game to afford such an extravagance...IMO.

Point well taken. I've personally never had a winning year betting on more than one track per day, but don't get me wrong I do love the idea of it. In fact the potential of it is one of the few things keeping my interest.

[delayjf]

To me, I'm mainly a win better. The thought of not cashing on a longshot I like because I failed to pair him up with the other race winners in a horizontal wager makes me sick.

[classhandicapper]

I can't relate to the problem people have with passing races at all. I must have no natural gambling instinct. I know I don't derive any pleasure from the gambling itself. I only derive pleasure from being right and winning money.

From my earliest days as a kid it always seemed natural and easy for me to not sit at a poker table unless I thought I was one of the best players, not shoot a game of pool unless I thought I had at least slightly the best of it, not make a wager on a horse unless it was screaming to me etc.. If I gave it a lot of thought I'd be hard pressed to come up with any wagers I made because I was "hot" over a bad beat or because I was bored. The worst I've done is test a new handicapping idea with $2-$5 bets for awhile or test myself at pool trying to see where my game was actually at with real money. But the goal was information that could be used to make more, bigger and better bets later. Of course that doesn't mean all the bets were actually good ones , but none were impulsive or because I needed action.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When the idea of "action bets" first surfaced, there was no full-card simulcasting and we had to make due with only 9 races a day, total. The studious horseplayer sometimes had to sit on his hands for hours before making a "solid wager"...so it made sense to make a few minor bets in-between his serious plays, in order to stay awake. But in the current betting atmosphere, action bets are no longer necessary...because there are more available races out there than the horseplayer has money.

The horseplayer who bets every race reminds me of the Texas Holdem player who insists on seeing every flop. No mere mortal has a big enough edge on the game to afford such an extravagance...IMO.

That would be great if a player had adequate knowledge of each track where all the available races are run.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

That would be great if a player had adequate knowledge of each track where all the available races are run.

It's the player's fault if he doesn't.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO, we can't win while betting every race...PERIOD! The fact that we even intend to bet every race shows a distinct lack of discipline which practically guarantees our financial demise at the track.

i have much respect for your posts normally, but.....



i think(or to be more correct, know), that you are a long way wrong.


a good selective player will beat an all race person(where they can beat expectation), on any particular occasion, but overall, they don't stand a chance.
the selective guy may have a better roi, but the only thing that matters is how much you win.


from my experience, ALL the big winners churn, and i have been doing it a very very long time.
i don't know, nor have heard of, one single selective player that could compete with the churners.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by steveb

i have much respect for your posts normally, but.....



i think(or to be more correct, know), that you are a long way wrong.


a good selective player will beat an all race person(where they can beat expectation), on any particular occasion, but overall, they don't stand a chance.
the selective guy may have a better roi, but the only thing that matters is how much you win.


from my experience, ALL the big winners churn, and i have been doing it a very very long time.
i don't know, nor have heard of, one single selective player that could compete with the churners.

I have no reason to doubt what you say...but I too must depend upon my own experience. And, until I verify by my own experience that a profitable "all race churner" exists...then I must continue to call him a MYTH. Yes...I acknowledge that there are mega-betting multi-member teams out there who are able, with the help of super-sophisticated handicapping/betting software and ultra-generous rebates...to generate huge yearly profits by spreading bets all over every race of the card...but that's not what we are talking about here. IMO...we are talking here about horseplaying "mortals".

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It's the player's fault if he doesn't.

It's only a fault if he doesn't prepare but still bets.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I have no reason to doubt what you say...but I too must depend upon my own experience. And, until I verify by my own experience that a profitable "all race churner" exists...then I must continue to call him a MYTH. Yes...I acknowledge that there are mega-betting multi-member teams out there who are able, with the help of super-sophisticated handicapping/betting software and ultra-generous rebates...to generate huge yearly profits by spreading bets all over every race of the card...but that's not what we are talking about here. IMO...we are talking here about horseplaying "mortals".

point taken.


i was for most of my time, selective.
maybe 4 or 5 races each saturday.

thought too, that i was pretty good at it.


it was not until the early 2000's that i learned that i was but a minnow, and i had lived off it from mid 70's.

when i started doing stuff for others, i then realised compared to them, i was hopelessly out of my depth.


your mere mortals will form an important part of mega teams.
it's not much good being fabulous at math or stats, if you can't get the factors to model.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by steveb

from my experience, ALL the big winners churn, and i have been doing it a very very long time.
i don't know, nor have heard of, one single selective player that could compete with the churners.

How much of that is because it's a team of people accumulating information putting a ton of money through the windows with the assistance of computers and getting huge rebates?

I don't doubt that if you hire a team of competent handicappers to accumulate information, are using computers to make last second reviews of all the pools, finding the best values, and making last second bets, there will be more opportunities to bet. That in turn will lead to higher volume and higher rebates which in turn leads to more profitable opportunities. But most people don't have the computer and mathematical expertise to get to that point and are operating alone. They aren't going to find a LOT of legitimate before rebate overlays on any card, let alone multiple tracks. If they bet too many races they are going to dilute the value of their best opinions and probably lose.

IMO, most people are better off focusing their energy on a few areas, gaining expertise in those thigs, and sticking to what they know they are good at. The fact that whale teams exist that can do more is not something that should be relevant to them if they are operating alone.

[airford1]

Originally Posted by delayjf

To me, I'm mainly a win better. The thought of not cashing on a longshot I like because I failed to pair him up with the other race winners in a horizontal wager makes me sick.

You cannot count on the riders to finish when they cannot win for that reason Horizontal wagers become so difficult to play for me.

[Ahorsewithnoname]

R3 Del Mar today... #'s 1, 3, and 10 went off as 5/2 favorites. Looks like a whale bet 20k on each horse to win just to profit 18k. Seems like a better option than collecting small change betting one horse to a strong favorite.