Explain the A-B-C-X method for horizontal wagers?

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I understand the reasoning...and it's a valid one. But by making the caveman ticket with a $1 minimum, you brought the wager to an unrealistic $75...which is WAY more than what the average player would wager on a pick-4. Had you made the caveman ticket for a more realistic 50-cents...then the investment disparity between the two wagering methods would be more profound...and your reasoning wouldn't look so "reasonable".

As I said before...the ABC method is indeed the better wagering option, but it costs way more to properly implement this method while covering the same number of horses, when both methods start with the same wagering unit as a base. Plus...it requires a certain precision of handicapping which the majority of the horseplayers -- in spite of what they claim -- simply do not possess. I could easily be wrong here...but I happen to think that it's a great fallacy to believe that "advanced" wagering methods could be properly employed when our handicapping methods are still in the "underdeveloped" stage.

In my daily horseplaying excursions...I run into many, many players who tell me that they are "good enough" handicappers...but they just need a little help in the "bet-construction" aspect of the game. "If I only knew how to structure my bets a little better...then I would beat this game without a problem"...they tell me. And then they shout obscenities at me when I walk away from them while shaking my head.

I tend to agree with you on this, and apply this is certain circumstances.

The second and fourth leg is the key here. I am really sold on the in the second leg (third choice in the ML) and believe the in the last is a horrible favorite. With a likely heavily bet favorite in the third leg, that has a chance but needs to make his trip and in doing so, with a wide post, can hurt his own chances. IMO I have eliminated 3 of the 4 favorites. If I was just "taking a shot" at beating the favorite in the second leg then the $.50 option on the caveman ticket would be the way to go. I also have the option to change tickets 9 and 10 and put the in the second leg, and change the last leg on ticket 9 to the :10.

Am I a good enough handicapper to use this method? On good days yes, but not consistently. So it comes down to using this method only when I have a strong opinion.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The people whom I asked for examples implied that a cheaper ABC ticket could be constructed while using the same horses as those on the caveman ticket.

Does this example not use the same horses as those on the caveman ticket at a cheaper price?

https://www.amwager.com/handicapping...29-abcwagering

I'm no expert on the ABC method, so I defer to you...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Does this example not use the same horses as those on the caveman ticket at a cheaper price?

https://www.amwager.com/handicapping...29-abcwagering

I'm no expert on the ABC method, so I defer to you...

IMPOSSIBLE! When you start with the same betting unit, the ABC method will always be costlier...unless you exclude combinations which are included on the caveman ticket.

[jay68802]

Would also add that there is still a lot of handicapping left to be done. Track conditions, scratches... and more. The odds on the in the first leg need to be known also.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMPOSSIBLE! When you start with the same betting unit, the ABC method will always be costlier...unless you exclude combinations which are included on the caveman ticket.

But it includes all of the horses of the caveman ticket at a lower cost.

Maybe you should have clarified "EVERY COMBINATION OF THE CAVEMAN TICKET AT A LOWER COST." Is that what you meant to write?

Because I just gave you an example of an ABC ticket that includes all of the horses on the caveman ticket at a lower cost.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

But it includes all of the horses of the caveman ticket at a lower cost.

Maybe you should have clarified "EVERY COMBINATION OF THE CAVEMAN TICKET AT A LOWER COST." Is that what you meant to write?

Because I just gave you an example of an ABC ticket that includes all of the horses on the caveman ticket at a lower cost.

Come on, PA. When we wager on the horizontals...are we betting on HORSES...or COMBINATIONS?

[098poi]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Come on, PA. When we wager on the horizontals...are we betting on HORSES...or COMBINATIONS?

We are betting combinations. That is why ABC method is used to optimize probable outcomes. An ABC ticket would never have 4 C's as the caveman ticket would. If that combination won it might be big and the caveman would win and ABC would lose. The idea is that since that is less likely to happen you redistribute the money you would have spent on 4 C's and spend it on 4 A's, 3 A's and a B etc. The point is not that it's cheaper overall it is that you are not wasting money on improbable outcomes. That's all for me. Happy New Year!

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Come on, PA. When we wager on the horizontals...are we betting on HORSES...or COMBINATIONS?

Of course you are betting combinations.

In theory, no multi-race combination should be played where the odds of it hitting exceed the possible payoff.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The caveman ticket may not be the optimal way to bet...but the multi-layered ticket which Crist recommends demands the sort of handicapping skill that most players don't possess...IMO. We should wear the clothes that fit us.

This!

[BETA]

Using the example race in Post#17 (by Thaskalos):

All #1’s = A w/ 32% probability (my betting line)
All #2’s = B w/ 25% probability
All #3’s and #4’s = C w/ 10% probability

Caveman ticket (cost = $32):
Leg1 = 57% projected hit rate
Leg2 = 77%
Leg3 = 57%
Leg4 = 77%

.57 x .77 x .57 x .77 = 19% projected hit rate
Note: Projected payout needs to exceed the 4/1 probability.

Using A’s only:
.32 x .32 x .32 x .32 = 1% projected hit rate

Using DRF ticket maker (see attachment) based on a budget of $32.00, each subsequent recommendation has a less than 1% chance of hitting….

Yes, the ABC method does leverage your best opinion…. But you better have a high degree of skill as all subsequent permutations reduce your overall chance to be successful. IMO, I agree with Thaskalos, most players have the best chance with a “caveman” approach.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMPOSSIBLE! When you start with the same betting unit, the ABC method will always be costlier...unless you exclude combinations which are included on the caveman ticket.

Costlier? Covering the same combinations will cost the same. ABC method excludes combinations covered on a caveman ticket. The coverage lost with the ABC method is generally the very low probability tickets.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The caveman ticket may not be the optimal way to bet...but the multi-layered ticket which Crist recommends demands the sort of handicapping skill that most players don't possess...IMO. We should wear the clothes that fit us.

I'm not a very good handicapper, and I find it very useful.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Of course you are betting combinations.

In theory, no multi-race combination should be played where the odds of it hitting exceed the possible payoff.

Absolutely true...in theory. But in practicality...that's a pretty tall order for even the most seasoned player. If the TVG hosts whom I occasionally watch are a microcosm of the handicapping knowledge out there...then we live in an age where many players are carelessly "buying" races in these horizontal wagers...because they lack the handicapping sophistication needed to eliminate even a single horse or two from the more competitive races. Not the ideal set of skills for this more advanced, multi-tiered style of bet-construction...IMO.

Most horseplayers grossly overestimate their handicapping skill...to their great detriment. And the advanced wagering techniques are misplaced when they are in the hands of underdeveloped handicappers...IMO. We should endeavor to wear the clothes that fit us (sorry for repeating it...but I love that line).

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I'm not a very good handicapper, and I find it very useful.

If you find it very useful...then you are a better handicapper than you let on...IMO.

[Robert Fischer]

cave person


And we wonder why we don't have more women players...