explain logic of betting vertical exotics

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by acorn54

from what i learned with statistics in college, was that to get the probability of getting two consecutive correct outcomes, you multiply the first probability by the second probability and so on.
lets say you have 30% chance in each leg of the pik three: that is .3 X .3 X .3
which comes out to a .027 chance of winning . i really can't see myself getting involved in such a proposition, not to mention the size of the bankroll i would need to avoid risk of ruin.

i might add that the bettor also does not know the probable payoff if he hits, in the pik 3. or pik 4. unlike the daily double. he is betting blind into the pools, not a wise way to gamble, being unknowing of ones reward to risk taken.

From a statistics standpoint, that doesn't make any sense.

Nobody is betting into a P3, P4, or P5 if they feel they only have a 30% chance in any given race, much less every race. You are likely giving out a straight P3 in which a single horse is keyed in each leg. That is a very unlikely wager for anybody that plays horizontal wagers on a regular basis.

Most are going to bet races to what they believe will be at least 50%, upwards to 90% coverage in almost every leg while maximizing their investment with the least amount of horses. If you are wagering horizontals with an expectancy of 30% per leg, you may as well just play Keno or the lotto.

I might take a stab at a P3 with a 30% chance in a single leg (with a single in that race) if I am nearly 100% certain I have coverage in the other 2 legs. That also means the price of the ticket warrants the wager with somewhat expected results that will make that 30% logical.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by AndyC

So you wouldn't take 2.7% chance if your payoff were 200-1? Pools may be blind but that doesn't mean you can't predict where the payoffs will fall if you have studied the patterns of the pools. You certainly won't be correct 100% of the time but it's better than betting blind pools with no idea whatsoever.

I agree with Acorn54's calculation method of the probabilities of the pk 3/4.

So, you are willing to make a bet with a 2.7% chance when you don't really know what the payoff odds will be. Unless you have a way to know the payoff before the first leg of the pick. I see his point and why he's comfortable not making that bet.

Do you have a way to estimate what these payoffs will be?

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

From a statistics standpoint, that doesn't make any sense.

Nobody is betting into a P3, P4, or P5 if they feel they only have a 30% chance in any given race, much less every race. You are likely giving out a straight P3 in which a single horse is keyed in each leg. That is a very unlikely wager for anybody that plays horizontal wagers on a regular basis.

Most are going to bet races to what they believe will be at least 50%, upwards to 90% coverage in almost every leg while maximizing their investment with the least amount of horses. If you are wagering horizontals with an expectancy of 30% per leg, you may as well just play Keno or the lotto.

I might take a stab at a P3 with a 30% chance in a single leg (with a single in that race) if I am nearly 100% certain I have coverage in the other 2 legs. That also means the price of the ticket warrants the wager with somewhat expected results that will make that 30% logical.

I'm going to take a guess that you're not going to get 200 - 1 odds covering 50 - 90% in different legs.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I'm going to take a guess that you're not going to get 200 - 1 odds covering 50 - 90% in different legs.

Favorites win roughly 30% of the time. Thus if you are using 2, 3, or more horses in a single leg, I hope you have at least 50% coverage, if not much more. If a P3 comes in Fav/Fav/Fav, no, you aren't getting 200/1. Field size is also a huge part of the scenario. If we are talking about 6 - 8 horse fields, then P3 wagers have to be pared down to reasonable wagers, if not completely avoided.

The reason to wager on a P3 is you have a feeling about a price in a single race, or you see some vulnerable favorites. If you get 3 straight winners at 5/2 or less, it isn't going to pay for your time to make the investment.

I've hit P3s in which I've done ALL/ALL/single with a horse at 10/1 or more as the single in whichever leg. While that horses odds show him as a 10% chancer or less, I have him at 30% or greater in my own 'capping, and much greater when considered in a P3 pool payout. I buy the other 2 races, make a ticket for say $80 - $120 (depending up field sizes), with an expectation that I'll get at least $350 in return, and if things fall right, even a mid 4 figure payout. While I am obviously blind to the odds of the other 2 races, experience will tell me when it feels right, or if it just doesn't make sense. So essentially, I'm betting a 30% horse that could pay like a 100/1 longshot.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I agree with Acorn54's calculation method of the probabilities of the pk 3/4.

So, you are willing to make a bet with a 2.7% chance when you don't really know what the payoff odds will be. Unless you have a way to know the payoff before the first leg of the pick. I see his point and why he's comfortable not making that bet.

Do you have a way to estimate what these payoffs will be?

Computing the probabilities is only one part of the equation. The other part is obviously the payoff. My point was merely to suggest that you shouldn't dismiss a bet by just looking at one part of the equation. If probabilities were the only important factor perhaps show bets on odds-on favorites would be the pool to explore.

And yes, I have a way to estimate what the payoffs will be.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Computing the probabilities is only one part of the equation. The other part is obviously the payoff. My point was merely to suggest that you shouldn't dismiss a bet by just looking at one part of the equation. If probabilities were the only important factor perhaps show bets on odds-on favorites would be the pool to explore.

And yes, I have a way to estimate what the payoffs will be.

I wasn't being facetious with my question. I'm always eager to learn new things.

Would you like to share since I can't see any harm in doing so?

If you feel it gives you an advantage, I understand.

[barn32]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

I've hit P3s in which I've done ALL/ALL/single with a horse at 10/1 or more as the single in whichever leg...I buy the other 2 races, make a ticket for say $80 - $120 (depending up field sizes), with an expectation that I'll get at least $350 in return, and if things fall right, even a mid 4 figure payout.

How do your records tell you that you're doing vis a vis just betting the 10-1 shot to win.

[fiznow]

The problem with pick 3,4,5,6 bets is that you rarley find more than 2 good and playable races in a row (with the exception of big race days). Of course they do it on purpose to put a maiden claiming, a bad claiming or a 2yo maiden with first time starters in. So they are harder to hit, people play more combinations and spend more money. Not my case but for those who like it, why not. There are also people who spend a fortune on lottery systems. I prefer win bets, win parlays and horizontal bets.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by fiznow

The problem with pick 3,4,5,6 bets is that you rarley find more than 2 good and playable races in a row (with the exception of big race days). Of course they do it on purpose to put a maiden claiming, a bad claiming or a 2yo maiden with first time starters in. So they are harder to hit, people play more combinations and spend more money. Not my case but for those who like it, why not. There are also people who spend a fortune on lottery systems. I prefer win bets, win parlays and horizontal bets.

It depends on what you view as playable. To me a good race to find a win bet in isn't necessarily a great race for a horizontal.

[fiznow]

Originally Posted by AndyC

It depends on what you view as playable. To me a good race to find a win bet in isn't necessarily a great race for a horizontal.

Yes thats why i mostly play either a win bet/win parlay or a horizontal bet but rarley both in one race.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by fiznow

The problem with pick 3,4,5,6 bets is that you rarley find more than 2 good and playable races in a row (with the exception of big race days). Of course they do it on purpose to put a maiden claiming, a bad claiming or a 2yo maiden with first time starters in. So they are harder to hit, people play more combinations and spend more money. Not my case but for those who like it, why not. There are also people who spend a fortune on lottery systems. I prefer win bets, win parlays and horizontal bets.

So if I have one horse that's great and two favorites I don't like in the sequence, there's no way to make that work? Why am I only allowed to bet one horse a race? It's just as effective to beat bad favorites in these bets as it is to key some great longshot---in which case you want to bet that horse to win too anyway. There are so many creative ways to play Pick 3, 4, 5, and 6 bets that you're looking at it in a way too limited way.

[Nitro]

So here’s a good example of why I prefer vertical betting (EX-TRI-SUPER-HI-5) over horizontal.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=131245
Figure out the total number of individual Pick-4 bets and multiply that by say $2.00 for each one.
Yes the Pick-4 paid a nice price, but I’m not sure how much deeper you would have had to go to actually hit it? Besides I think it’s a lot more distressing hitting every race in a Pick-whatever bet and then losing the last race. I don’t need that kind of suspense, but I guess to each-his-own.

I didn’t post the first race in the sequence (Bel R#6) because I didn’t like the race.
So I posted the next three (7, 8, & 9). Only a huge long shot (70/1) that ran 2nd in the 9th prevented me from potentially hitting every vertical in every race. Fortunately I know my limitations and it’s rare for me to hit 3 Supers in 3 sequential races on the same card. So I backed off a bit in the 9th, and just played some exacta combinations.
.

[EMD4ME]

Guys.....................

If it wasn't for Pick 4's, 5's, 6's and 7's, I wouldn't be in this game.

I'm only profitable because of these wagers. The small people just can't stay alive in those pools.

If I had to bet to win and win only, I might stay ahead of the vig but it would be harder.

In some races, the chalk sucks but there is no winner. You get explosive payouts for spreading against the sucker chalk AND being right in other races.

It's a no brainer.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by fiznow

The problem with pick 3,4,5,6 bets is that you rarley find more than 2 good and playable races in a row (with the exception of big race days). Of course they do it on purpose to put a maiden claiming, a bad claiming or a 2yo maiden with first time starters in. So they are harder to hit, people play more combinations and spend more money. Not my case but for those who like it, why not. There are also people who spend a fortune on lottery systems. I prefer win bets, win parlays and horizontal bets.

It's funny you say that. I wish all races were Maiden Claimers and 2 YO FTS races.

However, I must agree, I detest claiming races on juice circuits.

[Capper Al]

If you have a contender to win and the horse is getting random odds or better, he should be played both vertically and horizontally. You might get lucky and collect both ways. You might hit only one way, but still should make money. And if you lose, you lose double. This won't be a problem so much if you can pick contenders.