NYRA Jackpot P6

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

To me, betting is very easy. The tough part is assessing each horses chances properly so you either know or can make an informed decision on which combinations to actually play. You find me a 30-1 that legitimately deserves to be 15-1, the rest is a piece of cake.

I think bettors fail miserably at putting the combinations together. The cake isn't so easy to serve when you are betting P-6s. Some might argue a horse that provides only 6.25% coverage shouldn't even be played on a P-6 ticket.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I understand you 100%. You are trying to control the cost of the Pick 6 ticket.

I'm never trying to control the cost of the ticket. I'm just switching pools to where I can make him an "A" and bet correctly in "value" terms because horses like that are tough to come by.

To me, this game is so hard to beat because it's so hard to assess the chances of each horse correctly. It's about getting the values right and not about trying to make a score. I don't start out saying I want to play a Pick 3 or Pick 5 or Super etc... I start out saying I'm looking for overlays and then figure out which pool offers the best value given my opinions. The problem is often my opinions, not my strategies. :-)

In a P-6, a value horse can be quickly diluted by the results of the other legs.

I never play a P-6 by trying to determine value horses. I handicap all the horses and assess their probabilities of winning. I then look to get a certain amount of coverage for each race. After putting together a ticket based on coverage I will then assess whether or not the ticket looks to provide value as a whole. I never try to force a bet.

Even on very large tickets decisions have to be made regarding costs. Sometimes it is necessary to eliminate 1 or 2 or even 3 horses. Not a process for the faint of heart. For a person who feels a need to cover every contender or for chronic second-guessers it will drive them crazy.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I think bettors fail miserably at putting the combinations together.

That's only because they are thinking in terms of "hitting" the race/sequence instead of which horses and combinations have value.

It's not intuitive to think correctly. We all want to win the bet.

In the late 80s and early 90s when I used to go through my records, I noticed that if I had played each of my key horses to win, I'd often have had a profitable year, but somehow I was losing a little in many of those years. That was because of all the stupid combinations I added.

A horse and/or combination is either EV+ or it is not. That's the only thing that really matters. If the pool you are considering playing in causes issues with bankroll, losing streaks, etc... then don't go into that pool.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

In a P-6, a value horse can be quickly diluted by the results of the other legs.

I never play a P-6 by trying to determine value horses. I handicap all the horses and assess their probabilities of winning. I then look to get a certain amount of coverage for each race. After putting together a ticket based on coverage I will then assess whether or not the ticket looks to provide value as a whole. I never try to force a bet.

Even on very large tickets decisions have to be made regarding costs. Sometimes it is necessary to eliminate 1 or 2 or even 3 horses. Not a process for the faint of heart. For a person who feels a need to cover every contender or for chronic second-guessers it will drive them crazy.

I understand.

If I made the decision to play Picks 6s more often I wouldn't play that way.

I'd have horses that were the reason I was considering getting into the Pick 6 to begin with and try to structure bets around them that satisfied my thinking in terms of both value and bankroll risk. If I couldn't do that, I'd bet those horses another way.

Let's say I liked a horse in the 1st leg and 2nd leg, I would never bother thinking about the Pick 6. I'd just bet them both to win and a smaller cold double.

If I liked a horse in the 1st and 3rd leg, I'd bet them both to win and a Pick 3 covering the middle race with logical contenders.

If I liked a horse in 1st 3 legs, I'd use singe/single/cover, single/cover/single, cover/single/single...

I never ever start with the "pool" and then try to create a ticket I think may have overall value. I start with the horses and then figure out the right pool.

I guess that's why I so rarely play Pick 6s. There's rarely a good reason for me to be in that pool and it adds all sorts of unnecessary bankroll issues and concerns about how horses are going to be bet that you are bringing up.

It's not for me (and probably most other people).

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's only because they are thinking in terms of "hitting" the race/sequence instead of which horses and combinations have value.

It's not intuitive to think correctly. We all want to win the bet.

In the late 80s and early 90s when I used to go through my records, I noticed that if I had played each of my key horses to win, I'd often have had a profitable year, but somehow I was losing a little in many of those years. That was because of all the stupid combinations I added.

A horse and/or combination is either EV+ or it is not. That's the only thing that really matters. If the pool you are considering playing in causes issues with bankroll, losing streaks, etc... then don't go into that pool.

The problem is that the harder it is to have all of the winning numbers the less important the value becomes. Value gets diluted by the overall probability. Yes a horse and/or combination either has EV+ or not. I am saying that it is foolish to look at the horse for EV+ in a P-6 but instead the focus should be on the combination. A P-6 is already a low probability bet and to start eliminating higher probability horses because they don't pass the individual EV+ really reduces the overall probability. The only EV a bettor should be concerned with on a P-6 is the one presented by the combination. One or even two EV- horses do not doom a combination in a P-6 to EV-. That would certainly not be the case in a DD or P-3 where the focus should definitely be on individual horses.

[BIGTKLO]

I was wondering why there is a mandatory payout today in the empire 6, especially considering the wager isn't even two weeks old. Why not wait for Travers day and really get the pool HUGE.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

A P-6 is already a low probability bet and to start eliminating higher probability horses because they don't pass the individual EV+ really reduces the overall probability. The only EV a bettor should be concerned with on a P-6 is the one presented by the combination. One or even two EV- horses do not doom a combination in a P-6 to EV-. That would certainly not be the case in a DD or P-3 where the focus should definitely be on individual horses.

I agree. I wouldn't throw out a horse because he was mildly EV-. But I would only include EV- horses hooked up with 2 EV+ horses.

That's what I was demonstrating in my Pick 3 sample above.

If I had a "likely" value horse in 3 consecutive legs, I'd use singe/single/cover, single/cover/single, cover/single/single

In the "cover" races I'm using multiple contenders to try to get past that single race. Some of those cover horses are going to be mild underlays because of the track take.

However, I have structured the bet so that for me to cash, any 2 out of 3 of my value horses has to win and a contender has to come in in the 3rd race. Having 2 value horses on every single combination is what makes it more likely every combination I have used is EV+.

For a Pick 6, if I think horses in legs 1, 2 and 6 are likely to be good value, I might do something like this and create 3 tickets. At least 2 out of 3 of my value horses have to win. If all 3 win, that's even better.

S/S/C/C/C/C
S/C/C/C/C/S
C/S/C/C/C/S

What I would't do is

S/C/C/C/C/C
C/S/C/C/C/C
C/C/C/C/C/S

or even less likely

C/C/C/C/C/C

[GMB@BP]

I cant even hit the double at Los Al, dont think I should be thinking about the Pick 6 at Saratoga.

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by BIGTKLO

I was wondering why there is a mandatory payout today in the empire 6, especially considering the wager isn't even two weeks old. Why not wait for Travers day and really get the pool HUGE.

Don't see how this will pay much today w/all the races coming off the turf

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I cant even hit the double at Los Al, dont think I should be thinking about the Pick 6 at Saratoga.

I almost never play them either. There's almost never a good reason for me to play them. I can usually come up with a superior bet in an easier pool given my opinions. I suspect even carry over days are not as attractive for smaller players as people think.

Some people are just hell bent on trying to make a huge score no matter the bankroll risk, psychological impact of long losing streaks, and possibility of making superior ROI bets in simpler pools.

To each his own.

[capitalman]

Originally Posted by Afleet

Don't see how this will pay much today w/all the races coming off the turf

It paid $12,547.40 even with all those scratches. The mandatory payoff helped produce a good payoff when 2 of the 6 races were won by odds on favorites. If I did my math correctly there were about 161 winners. It's probably not that great a bet on a non mandatory payoff day, but on a mandatory pay day it's almost too hard to resist. NYRA is very smart making a 2 week mandatory pay period & not going a whole meet. On mandatory pay days, I'll be diving in. For example I put $42 into the pool today by going 2x3x1xAll (7)x1x All (5). That's 210 combos for $42, enormous value for a shot at over $12.5k.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

The problem is that the harder it is to have all of the winning numbers the less important the value becomes. Value gets diluted by the overall probability. Yes a horse and/or combination either has EV+ or not. I am saying that it is foolish to look at the horse for EV+ in a P-6 but instead the focus should be on the combination. A P-6 is already a low probability bet and to start eliminating higher probability horses because they don't pass the individual EV+ really reduces the overall probability. The only EV a bettor should be concerned with on a P-6 is the one presented by the combination. One or even two EV- horses do not doom a combination in a P-6 to EV-. That would certainly not be the case in a DD or P-3 where the focus should definitely be on individual horses.

Psychologically, this may be right for any human being making the bet.

But if one is slavishly committed to long term profitability, yeah, you should only bet the +EV combinations. Otherwise, it's no different than being a win bettor and betting some races where you know you aren't getting any betting value because you don't want to sit around bored until your "spot" materializes.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Psychologically, this may be right for any human being making the bet.

But if one is slavishly committed to long term profitability, yeah, you should only bet the +EV combinations. Otherwise, it's no different than being a win bettor and betting some races where you know you aren't getting any betting value because you don't want to sit around bored until your "spot" materializes.

I agree that you should try to only bet EV+ combinations but the problem remains in identifying such beforehand. The EV of any individual horse does not control the EV of a combination. Theories are nice but practical application is what rules the day.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I agree that you should try to only bet EV+ combinations but the problem remains in identifying such beforehand. The EV of any individual horse does not control the EV of a combination. Theories are nice but practical application is what rules the day.

That's why I insist on every horizontal combination having at least 2 horses I've identified as likely to present good value singled. That way, I am very likely to put myself in a position where every combination has value.

Unless you are terrible at figuring out who is likely to get bet, you'll be on safe ground even with some minor mistakes and surprises in the betting. You can still get a lot of coverage if only 2 out of 3 or 2 out of 4 of you key horses have to win. The Pick 6 is just trickier because of bankroll risk and carryovers.

It's when you start covering too many combinations trying to hit the bet (like almost everyone does) you are 100% to have a lot of EV- combos in the overall bet. That makes it a hell of a lot harder to reach the goal of profitability for the typical player. Playing exactas and doubles using horses as savers or defensively KILLED me when I was young. The same applies to all bets.

You better be a great handicapper if you expect to be profitable with loads of EV- combos in your overall play.

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by capitalman

It paid $12,547.40 even with all those scratches. The mandatory payoff helped produce a good payoff when 2 of the 6 races were won by odds on favorites. If I did my math correctly there were about 161 winners. It's probably not that great a bet on a non mandatory payoff day, but on a mandatory pay day it's almost too hard to resist. NYRA is very smart making a 2 week mandatory pay period & not going a whole meet. On mandatory pay days, I'll be diving in. For example I put $42 into the pool today by going 2x3x1xAll (7)x1x All (5). That's 210 combos for $42, enormous value for a shot at over $12.5k.

I almost went to the OTB to put down a play-played contests instead. I was going to go all/all in the first two legs and single Blue Prize. The in leg 3? would have beat me. I thought the payoff would be more like $2-3K. Did have the longshot in the last leg