Insurance?

[Light]

At Keenland today,there were 3 bombs that ran 2nd. Lets say you had them hypothetically. All 12-1 and up.

Using my $6 on those "bombs" that placed would return you $144 in place money in those 3 races.(Not my method)

Using my $6 to cover those "bomb" horses with the top 6 betting choices on top in $1 exactas returned $444 in those 3 races.(My method)

A $300 improvement using the exacta as the place bet.

I don't know about Jeff P's data,but these results though small are typical for Keenland and other tracks with large and competitive fields with their bombs. Maybe he didn't have these types of bomb horses in his model. But it's not those horse's job to fit his model. Its the other way around.

[erikeepper]

I have not read all the answers (sorry) but actually you usually maximize your bankroll growth (NOT ROI, but $$$$) according to Kelly IF you hedge in a situation where your main play is high odds overlay. Of course I assume the hedge if negative ROI but not very much so. If they are both overlays, obviously you play both.

Create an excel-solver kelly calculator and you will see this is true

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Insurance or saver bets on negative ROI horses are a bad idea

If your main bets keep winning then the insurance bets will at least give you extra winners even if they reduce your ROI

The killer with insurance bets is what happens if the main bets that worked in the past stop working in the future. Then the insurance bets will cause a lot of damage even if the main bets have a 0% ROI (ie break even). If the main bets start to lose then the insurance bets will dig an even deeper hole. In other words the insurance bets will fail when you need them the most

[rubicon55]

Originally Posted by Light

At Keenland today,there were 3 bombs that ran 2nd. Lets say you had them hypothetically. All 12-1 and up.
Using my $6 on those "bombs" that placed would return you $144 in place money in those 3 races.(Not my method)

Using my $6 to cover those "bomb" horses with the top 6 betting choices on top in $1 exactas returned $444 in those 3 races.(My method)

A $300 improvement using the exacta as the place bet.

I don't know about Jeff P's data,but these results though small are typical for Keenland and other tracks with large and competitive fields with their bombs. Maybe he didn't have these types of bomb horses in his model. But it's not those horse's job to fit his model. Its the other way around.

I do not know you and it looks like you have been here on this board much longer than I have. Database cappers are well aware that a 12-1 shot wins about 7.7% of the time and that decreases linearly as the odds increase. In the place position I doubt the percentage gets much better. There is a tendency in human nature that anyone who is actually making consistent profits or huge ROI on long shots at this game is most likely keeping it to themselves and do not see the need to tout it. There would appear be no logical reason to do so otherwise. If this is not the case then why propose a black box that does not exist – at least it appears that way in your current and past postings. Please do not post your figures or results as they are too easily back fitted to appear to work. I only decided to comment after a long deliberation only for the sake of new horse players IMO there is no road to El Dorado – having an ROI of 10-15% is outstanding and requires hard work which many posters here do and probably even higher – anything above that is phenomenal. I am not talking about the guy who wagers a major bet once or twice during a specific track season – that is not serious capping IMO. A statistical record over many races IMO is more valid and worthy of respect. The real players IMO are capping every day and finding their spots and plays. I am not a full time player and I respect those that make the effort daily – it takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice. If I am totally wrong on making this call then that is a bad mark on me but if this is not the case then red boarding or alluding to a methodology that is the holy grail is considered bad handicapping etiquette IMO. Why waste all the effort and energy to defend imaginations of a person who aspires to have a positive ROI like everyone else is trying to do – it seems to be a disservice to all concerned. Not meaning to offend or project negativity just expressing myself which thankfully is allowed on this board. Best regards and best of luck to you.

[erikeepper]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

Insurance or saver bets on negative ROI horses are a bad idea

This is not always the case. See above.

[citygoat]

if you're at the track and you have a limited bankroll a saver to stretch to a few more races maybe but if you are online gambling pump your picks and find other races to stretch your bankroll

[Light]

Originally Posted by rubicon55

If this is not the case then why propose a black box that does not exist.

I haven't. In fact the man you agree with (JeffP) agrees with me. That there is money to make with long shots.The only difference is he says to place it all to win.

Originally Posted by rubicon55

Please do not post your figures or results as they are too easily back fitted to appear to work.

ALL results are from the past including Jeff P's. Therefore they are all back fitted.Or do you have a clairvoyant chart?

Originally Posted by rubicon55

I only decided to comment after a long deliberation only for the sake of new horse players IMO there is no road to El Dorado

I wouldn't worry about "Newbies",if I were you. I'd worry about my own ROI.

Originally Posted by rubicon55

red boarding or alluding to a methodology that is the holy grail is considered bad handicapping etiquette IMO.

The Kee results I posted were for illustrative purposes to show the power of betting the exacta over the place bet. This is old stuff written in handicapping books years ago and especially alluded to by Mark Cramer. Check out his books and write a letter of complaint to him.

Originally Posted by rubicon55

Why waste all the effort and energy to defend imaginations of a person who aspires to have a positive ROI like everyone else is trying to do – it seems to be a disservice to all concerned.

I have news for you. You only think you aspire to have a positive ROI. It's clear you do not believe you can do it, or you believe it takes eons of time. Therefore you will never achieve what you think you want because it is at odds with what you really believe .

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I know this topic is 11 years old, however, i believe it is still a divided topic among horseplayers.

I am a serious win bettor looking to find value in my selection and this process leads to a very selective operation. When i am working a race and i have my value selection that i have confidence in after performing my work i wager. On rare occasions when my work produces a second horse that i feel strongly about i wager to win on my key horse and use an exacta box with the two horses.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by BELMONT 6-6-09

I know this topic is 11 years old, however, i believe it is still a divided topic among horseplayers.

I am a serious win bettor looking to find value in my selection and this process leads to a very selective operation. When i am working a race and i have my value selection that i have confidence in after performing my work i wager. On rare occasions when my work produces a second horse that i feel strongly about i wager to win on my key horse and use an exacta box with the two horses.

If both horses are an overlay to win both exacta combinations are very likely to be an overlay. So that's almost always fine. In fact, it usually provides excellent value.

It's when you start putting underlaid favorites on top of your key horse that you tend to produce negative expectation combinations.

If you like some 10-1 or 15-1 shot, think the favorite is a major contender, and don't really hate the price on him, the combo with the favorite on top will typically still be usable.

If you like some 10-1 or 15-1 shot, think the favorite can win, but is a significant underlay, I'd probably avoid that combination.

If you like some 3-1 or 4-1 shot putting some mildly overbet favorite over it will rarely be a good idea.

Making saver wagers trying to hit more tickets cost me a lot of money when I was young. Think in terms of value. These are just exactas.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If both horses are an overlay to win both exacta combinations are very likely to be an overlay. So that's almost always fine. In fact, it usually provides excellent value.

It's when you start putting underlaid favorites on top of your key horse that you tend to produce negative expectation combinations.

If you like some 10-1 or 15-1 shot, think the favorite is a major contender, and don't really hate the price on him, the combo with the favorite on top will typically still be usable.

If you like some 10-1 or 15-1 shot, think the favorite can win, but is a significant underlay, I'd probably avoid that combination.

If you like some 3-1 or 4-1 shot putting some mildly overbet favorite over it will rarely be a good idea.

Making saver wagers trying to hit more tickets cost me a lot of money when I was young. Think in terms of value. These are just exactas.

Class i will never use more than one exacta combination with my key horse as the purpose of the exacta box is to protect the win bet and add a combination that will make money (value). I play to win not to make insurance bets as there is no such thing as insuring a wager imo.