PRM 07-08-2023 R9 The Iowa Derby
Screenshot of SQL Html Report generated by JCapper Silver using V4 HDW Data
The horses on the report are sorted by UPR or Silver Rating (the default power rating generated by an algorithm hard coded into the program.)
I've drawn a Contender Line bisecting the field (controlled by user defined settings.)
Horses above the line are considered 'contenders' or possible 'keys.' (Horses below the line aren't.)
There's a ticket structure strategy for vertical exotics used by some sharp players.
It's not the optimal strategy for vertical exotics. It's more of a shortcut.
Because it's a shortcut, and because the biggest handle volume whale teams use a more optimal/targeted approach to vertical exotics ticket structure, the shortcut itself has seen incrementally lower returns the past several years vs. returns that were available when I first started using it.
That said, it still works reasonably well in races with big fields, and Imo may explain why the trifecta returned less than most players would think.
Take a look at the contenders (the six horses on the report above the contender line.)
Two of the six contenders in this race went off at odds greater than the oddsline on the report:
Code:
Horse OL ODDS
---------------------- ----- -----
#1 ONE IN VERMILLION 4.70 7.20
#3 HEROIC MOVE 15.70 21.20
These would be theoretical overlays or 'keys.'
The strategy involves part wheeling a 'key' with 'logical contenders.'
The thinking behind this is: If a horse is a win overlay then it's probably an overlay in the vertical exotics too.
If you define 'logical 'contenders' as horses above the contender line, ticket structure for the two keys would look something like this:
$0.50 Tri Part Wheel 1/6,8,3,5,12 cost $30.00
$0.50 Tri Part Wheel 3/6,1,8,5,12 cost $30.00
And the player who did this would have spent $60.00 to come up empty.
But if you define 'logical contenders' as horses above the contender line plus one, ticket structure for the two keys would look something like this:
$0.50 Tri Part Wheel 1/6,8,3,5,12,4 cost $45.00
$0.50 Tri Part Wheel 3/6,1,8,5,12,4 cost $45.00
The player who went one horse deeper would have spent $90.00 to have the tri twice.
If you define 'logical contenders' as horses above the contender line plus one, and if you decide (based on preference, sort order, track bias, or odds) that #1 ONE IN VERMILLION is a stronger key (and therefore more likely to be in the tri) than #3 HEROIC MOVE, ticket structure for the two keys might look something like this:
$0.50 Tri Part Wheel 1/6,8,3,5,12,4 cost $45.00
$0.50 Tri Part Wheel 1/6,8,3,5,12,4 cost $45.00
$0.50 Tri Part Wheel 3/6,1,8,5,12,4 cost $45.00
The player who went one horse deeper and who saw the #1 as the stronger key would have spent $135.00 to have the tri three times.
Of course, each race is different.
Over time, success or failure betting vertical exotics is shaped by bankroll size relative to expected/acceptable drawdowns, decisions made about "How deep do you go?", "How many keys to use?", and "Which horses if any are the stronger keys?"
Of course answers to questions like that only become known through continual r&d, compiling data, modeling the data, testing, and record keeping, etc.
I want to emphasize this absolutely IS a continual ongoing process. And the size of bankroll drawdowns that can happen if you play vertical exotics this way can be much larger than you think.
Imo, whale teams with deeper pockets, bigger bankrolls, algorithms that do a much better job of generating accurate preference order, oddslines, and optimal/targeted ticket structure could easily land a LOT more money on the winning trifecta combination than what I'm illustrating here.
-jp
.
