Superfectas

[dav4463]

If you have $8,000 set aside for superfecta wagering, do you think a reasonably good handicapper can bet $80 per superfecta wager and expect to hit often enough to not lose the whole $8000 ? I wonder if it would be a strategy worth playing because I hit a trifecta in a recent race betting $24 and noticed that IF (always a big word !) I would have spent $80 on the superfecta, it paid $17,000. Another one recently, I picked the trifecta which paid well, but the superfecta was over $8000, containing all the horses I played in my trifecta wheel. I just wonder if anyone plays superfectas exclusively. If you can hit just one or two big ones per meet, you should be in good shape.

[Tim]

There is one problem. Superfectas that pay over $5,000 (I think that is the number) have 20% income tax withheld. In some states local income taxes are also withheld. You could have a positive ROI and still run out of cash before you file your tax return and get a tax refund.

[JustRalph]

I went through this little quandary for a while. I eventually realized that when I think I am seeing a race really well, I play the Tri key and and the super key. It comes under the heading of "When you 're right, you're right" I don't do it on all the races but there is nothing like being right and having the winner, the exacta, the tri and super. It doesn't happen very often. But when it does, you know you maximized your capping and the race payouts. I think you just have to know when you are seeing a race well.

[superfecta]

When betting supers I use the key horse method,and usually bet both tris and supers,using the tri as a "saver".I try to only bet on races that i feel good about,but i must admit sometimes races that look wide open or a bad fav ,I play a lotto ticket and every once in awhile it does pay off.But with the taxes(not track take) it sucks to pay a 1/3 when you win to uncle sam.But I don't have to win very many races to turn a profit as long as they pay under 600 bucks.Ironic..the bigger the payoff,the harder to make the money.

[dav4463]

It is a bummer to have to pay those taxes !

[JustRalph]

I heard a good one about Tony Blair and it relates to taxes.

Tim Russert is telling a story about interviewing Tony Blair and Blair asks for a cup of tea before they start. They bring him one and he complains to Russert about Americans not being able to make a decent cup of tea. Russert tells him that it's hard enough to find any decent tea in the U.S. Blair inquires as to why that is?
Russert responds, "it's all at the bottom of Boston Harbor"

[betovernetcapper]

$80 is 1% of $8000, which given the difficulty of hitting any super-tri let alone a big paying super tri, makes $80 too lage a bet. In order for this to work, you'd need a bankroll of $32000. Even with $32k it's no cinch.

[pic6vic]

I doubt you can make money playing just $80.00 on supers.

If they were that easy they wouldn't be paying boxcars. Also don't worry about taxes. if you hit one for over $5000.00 you wil have abot 40 more plays with the remaining cash, and when you file you will your taxes you will get your money back. I'm not saying taxes are fair, but would you rather not hit then pay taxes.

Agian, no one can show a profit betting $80.00 Supers no matter how big your bankroll.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by betovernetcapper
$80 is 1% of $8000, which given the difficulty of hitting any super-tri let alone a big paying super tri, makes $80 too lage a bet. In order for this to work, you'd need a bankroll of $32000. Even with $32k it's no cinch.

Now we are talkin superfectas right?Super-Tris are also know as twin tris and those are a completely different bet.The diificulty in figuring out what the bankroll should be is the fact that each bet will be a different amount,because it makes no sense to bet into a short field for say,$80,because the money spent would not be an efficient use of the money.And betting short priced horses in all four slots is a bad bet because its a bad use of the bet as well.Now,if one could figure out the probable payoffs on the horses you think might make up the super,you could have certain instances where a bet this size would be a good wager.Of course you would need to know what your hit rate is when playing horses with those odds.But I don't know how you could even try to do this.But I think the super is one of the best wagers in relation to the risk vs reward for a good handicapper(someone who can see the possibilities of how the whole race will unfold,not just who can win the race,which is not the same thing)

[criboy]

dav,
i urge you to put very few horses in the fourth spot; for example, in the buddy gil race, if you were good enough to get the $1400 tri, put only bombers for fourth. why? because the super only paid 12 times the tri, and that is with the longest piglet hitting fourth! imagine chalk getting fourth! If the super paid only five times the tri, and you bet 6 or 8 nags for fourth, you would be worse off than if you had banged the tri 6 or 8 times, see? we must know every race how much we should risk, and screw the "savers" with chalk that cash us tix, but lose us money. poker players know ... it's all about winning bets, not pots. the track equivalent would be--it's about making profit, not cashing tickets.

[Early]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You seem to agree with some poker philosophy '...it's all about winning bets, not pots...', (since I'm not a serious poker player, I'm not familiar with that creed), then argue to forget about even giving yourself the possibility of the lower payoff and go for the huge pot.

I'd say if you are going to play supers forget about tri's in the same race. To make a simple example, let's say for a tri, you were thinking of keying one horse on top of four in the second and third slots. For a $1 base wager, that is a $12 ticket of course. Now you are thinking of going for a super in that race. I would suggest a ticket with the same combinations in the first three slots, followed by 'all'. In a ten horse field, the ticket would be 1 x 4 x 3 x 7 = $84. That is 7x the tri ticket.

Sure if the favorite comes in you get maybe only 5 x the tri payout. Still that beats the hell out of sticking a voucher in the machine and having it come out 'not a winner'. If a relatively long odds horse comes in fourth, the ticket is worth the extra investment.

Any who have crunched enough numbers, I'd really appreciate your comments on this.

[criboy]

no, early, we agree on the theory, i just did not define "pot." a pot is any old pot, even with only the antes in it, and you could steal it with a bluff, but ho-hum. now, bets are what you try to encourage others to throw into a pot that you have a good shot of winning, that's all. now, as to supers ... why not play your tri once or twice, and play your super without that price-killing chalk in fourth? you have a chance of cashing both and maybe of getting better value with two tries. just a thought. and i'm glad we are all thinking in here -- handycrapper's best revenge.

[Early]

I'm following better now criboy (I'm slow, you guys have to have patience). By the way, it is the latest contest that drew me here and I'm really impressed. Hope you don't mind me staying a while.

I was thinking if you are going to invest in the super, then why not drop the tri altogether and just hit the all key to fill the last slot.

Your response is interesting to me. Play the tri and those are still your main tickets, but then punch out a super ticket with a limited number of horses in the 4th slot, hoping for a big payout. Rather than increase the super investment, play the tri for larger amounts, but have that small amount invested in the super that will really pay. I agree with what you say in that it will many times be better to have the tri for $5 than to have the super for $1 (and the super ticket might have cost 7x the tri ticket).

Reminds me of a couple of years ago when I'd play larger ex boxes when some of my friends were playing a huge number of tri combinations. I might cash an ex for $20 and they'd have invested as much money and would cash the tri for $1 or $2, which would pay less than the $20 ex.

Appreciate your help on this and it will help me with money management I'm sure.

[dav4463]

Interesting responses. I have never really read a study on superfectas before. I just threw out the $80 as an average investment per race, based on that is what I would have bet on the one that paid $17,000 and a couple of others I could have hit if I would have played the super rather than the trifecta. I agree that you have to include bombs though. I would use the similar strategy that I use in my trifecta bets.

In trifectas that I play, I do not play unless I can throw out the favorite and/or the second favorite. I also must have at least two horses at 10-1+ in my top 5 horses, or one at 20-1+. I will go six or seven deep in the show spot if I like someone there at 10-1+. I don't find many plays, but this criteria helps me pass those low-paying trifectas. I also hardly ever put the favorite in third spot. I will usually replace him in the third spot with a bomb. Sometimes it backfires, but the favorite in the third spot usually depresses the price.

In superfectas though, I usually don't mind including the favorite and the second favorite in my top 5 or 6 if I can still get a couple at 10-1+ and/or one at 20-1+.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by criboy
dav,
i urge you to put very few horses in the fourth spot; for example, in the buddy gil race, if you were good enough to get the $1400 tri, put only bombers for fourth. why? because the super only paid 12 times the tri, and that is with the longest piglet hitting fourth! imagine chalk getting fourth! If the super paid only five times the tri, and you bet 6 or 8 nags for fourth, you would be worse off than if you had banged the tri 6 or 8 times, see? we must know every race how much we should risk, and screw the "savers" with chalk that cash us tix, but lose us money. poker players know ... it's all about winning bets, not pots. the track equivalent would be--it's about making profit, not cashing tickets.

the only problem is if you hit several tickets of the same bet type,you reduce the amount you win,not increase your chances of hitting the bet in the first place.So that 1400 tri you hit three times would not pay 1400,may pay closer to 1000 bucks,if you hit the super once,you probably reduce the payoff to about 14000 bucks per ticket,which is not bad.So the trick is to make the most of the money you bet,only hit the bet once,when the payoff is figuring close to a five fig possibility.