Quote:
Originally Posted by DonGuido
Well I'm learning when to bet a tri box. Like in Race 3, thought about it but nope changed my mind. $12 tri box paid $204. Woulda shoulda coulda.  |
Don, I've thought about your post for a while, because it expresses one of the major horseplayer's dilemmas - to box or not to box.
In the Ballston Spa, I'm assuming that most narrowed the contenders down to the top three, at least for the top two slots of their trifectas. After that came the decision - how do I structure the wager. Boxing the three is by far the easiest approach, but by doing that you are really saying, "I think that Call Me Love has an equal chance of winning as Sistercharlie does". If that is what your handicapping analysis or your gut tells you, great - send it in. But, and to me this is a huge but, if your handicapping analysis tells you that Sistercharlie would probably win the race 75% of the times that it might be run, why would you want to place a bet that in effect says that she should win the race 33% of the time?
Another approach that I try to use, although it takes more time and can drive you crazy when it doesn't work, is to scale the amount of the wager on each combination to sort of reflect what you think the likely result will be. You could play each of the 6 trifecta combos of those three contenders, but with, say, $4 on those with Sistercharlie on top, $2 with Starship Jubilee on top and $1 with Call Me Love on Top. That might also lead to a more uniform payout, since the mutuel on the 5-6-1 undoubtedly was going to be much smaller than the 6-1-5 ended up.
Obviously, there is no single correct answer, and horseplayers have been debating this forever. It's just an approach that has work a little bit better for me over the years in the ongoing attempt to overcome the huge takeouts on exotic wagers.
Glad to discuss this topic more if you would like.