Handicapping Question

[dean smith]

I understand the practice is often frowned upon in handicapping circles, but when -- if ever -- is betting two horses to win in the same race a good idea? If one of you "math guys" could break it down for me, I'd really appreciate it.

Every great once in awhile, I'll come across a race where I think the top choice(s) are very beatable and I find my top choices to win are going to post with (for instance) 8-1 and 10-1 odds.

I understand by putting ten bucks on each that I'm really now betting 4-1 and 5-1, but if I feel strongly about each having a legitimate shot to win, wouldn't everyone take 4 or 5-1 on their top choice?

Or, is their a better way to approach this situation? In other words, does anyone know the "textbook" way to play this? How would that hypothetical $20 be better used?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by dean smith

I understand the practice is often frowned upon in handicapping circles, but when -- if ever -- is betting two horses to win in the same race a good idea? If one of you "math guys" could break it down for me, I'd really appreciate it.

Every great once in awhile, I'll come across a race where I think the top choice(s) are very beatable and I find my top choices to win are going to post with (for instance) 8-1 and 10-1 odds.

I understand by putting ten bucks on each that I'm really now betting 4-1 and 5-1, but if I feel strongly about each having a legitimate shot to win, wouldn't everyone take 4 or 5-1 on their top choice?

Or, is their a better way to approach this situation? In other words, does anyone know the "textbook" way to play this? How would that hypothetical $20 be better used?

For my 2 cents...play an exacta box! But that's just a way to cover your butt if you didn't pick the winner. GRL

Exacta box?

Its a diff. bet of course.

I think the one thing people forget
is that you have the distinct possibility of
losing twice. You kinda took that into account
with your math.

But it might be better to go with one horse at 8-1
or 10-1, and bet less. That way you do not have the
chance of "losing twice". As much as odds change now
its also dicey to bet dutch. So much late money. I believe
there was another thread on this subject.

[skippy3481]

Its that type of quandry that seperates gamblers. Me personally, I wouldnt bet two horses to win. I think if you have favorites that are beatable, you have to capitalize as much as you can. Personally, with a 20 dollar budget, I would bet exactas placing my 2 horses over the weak favorite or even better, a price horse. I think long term, you will make much more money this way then as opposed to betting them straight up. Also, You want want to include those horses in a pick 3 or 4. Even in a pick three if you can drop a nice price horse in, it will still pay nicely.

So much determines how you should play this. There is no textbook play. Each gambler has to find his/her own acceptable level of risk and stick with it.

[skippy3481]

Pgardn, while your theory has some pratical applications, one can't "lose twice" whether you split your 20 dollars into 8 diffrent horses or into one horse, its still the same bet, just in diffrent increments. Exacta box is not a bad idea but like you said timmy, if you have 2 horses you really like to win, why would you bet a 3rd horse to win as well. Much better value for your money to put your top two horses over a set of horses.

[docicu3]

Absolutely nothing wrong with betting two horses to win. The threshold for odds you are willing to accept is up to the individual player of course but there is nothing wrong with getting 5 and 10 to 1 if your certain the horse really has a chance to win.....when you think about it multi race wagers P3,P4 etc. are predicated on this.

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Pgardn, while your theory has some pratical applications, one can't "lose twice" whether you split your 20 dollars into 8 diffrent horses or into one horse, its still the same bet, just in diffrent increments. Exacta box is not a bad idea but like you said timmy, if you have 2 horses you really like to win, why would you bet a 3rd horse to win as well. Much better value for your money to put your top two horses over a set of horses.

Lose twice was taken to mean bet 10 dollars on one horse, instead of 10 dollars on horse A and 10 dollars on horse B. This is why I said bet less... not lose twice as much money. The "covering" costs more the way I was looking at it. Covering taken to mean you are very sure one of the two is going to win, you just dont know Which one. Covering can also lose you a lot more in exotic bets as I am sure everyone is aware of. I see that I have boxed to cover more horses and looking back it should have been a straight bet. The cover was not needed. This of course comes after the race. It has just happened too many times to me. Then I realized I should straight bet (talking mostly exactas) sometimes for the total amount instead of wasting half on part of a box that was painfully uneccessary.

I also realize this is not a handicapping question.
It is a wagering question. I have learned that
I can fail at both just fine thank you very much.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by dean smith

I understand the practice is often frowned upon in handicapping circles, but when -- if ever -- is betting two horses to win in the same race a good idea? If one of you "math guys" could break it down for me, I'd really appreciate it.

Every great once in awhile, I'll come across a race where I think the top choice(s) are very beatable and I find my top choices to win are going to post with (for instance) 8-1 and 10-1 odds.

I understand by putting ten bucks on each that I'm really now betting 4-1 and 5-1, but if I feel strongly about each having a legitimate shot to win, wouldn't everyone take 4 or 5-1 on their top choice?

Or, is their a better way to approach this situation? In other words, does anyone know the "textbook" way to play this? How would that hypothetical $20 be better used?

The short answer is pretty simple. It's a good idea if you're getting value. I just worked out the math on a few examples and it seems to me (as expected) that you'd be much better off betting whatever horse you think is the bigger overlay. You're just diluting value by betting two horses even though you're increasing your likelihood of cashing.

[Danzig]

why would you bet two horses to win, knowing one of them is automatically a losing bet?

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Danzig

why would you bet two horses to win, knowing one of them is automatically a losing bet?

Why would you ever play more than one exacta, knowing that only one can come in?

[eajinabi]

That question is easy to answer.

If you like two horses that are 8-1, 10-1 and if you going to play 20 bucks anyways then I suggest you play a daily double with those two horses in the first leg and 5 horses in the next. Typically it will pay more than playing 10 bucks each to win.

95% of my bets are pick3, pick4 and sometimes DD. I would say it requires some patience but your patience will be rewarded.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by eajinabi

That question is easy to answer.

If you like two horses that are 8-1, 10-1 and if you going to play 20 bucks anyways then I suggest you play a daily double with those two horses in the first leg and 5 horses in the next. Typically it will pay more than playing 10 bucks each to win.

95% of my bets are pick3, pick4 and sometimes DD. I would say it requires some patience but your patience will be rewarded.

Apparently not that easy to answer. . .

[hockey2315]

I'd need PPs and prices to tell you that. Every situation is different. For you to suggest that OP should play daily doubles 2 X 5 w/o considering any relevant factors shows you don't really understand the fundamentals of betting.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by eajinabi

That question is easy to answer.

If you like two horses that are 8-1, 10-1 and if you going to play 20 bucks anyways then I suggest you play a daily double with those two horses in the first leg and 5 horses in the next. Typically it will pay more than playing 10 bucks each to win.

95% of my bets are pick3, pick4 and sometimes DD. I would say it requires some patience but your patience will be rewarded.

Doubles are a good approach (especially if there's a vulnerable favorite you're trying to beat), but playing a straight up $2 wheel in this fashion makes no sense. If I decide to play a 2x5 double, I'll split it up to maximize value in response to the probables, i.e. if there's a $40 probable and a $200 probable, I'll play the first one for $5 and the second one for $1.

After adding up all of the double costs, if the desired ROI of the double is less than that of a win bet on the two horses, I'll make the win bets or roll the dice and stretch it into a Pick 3.

Basically what I'm saying is I don't like to do 'flat' bets. Even in your $10 win on each scenario, it makes little sense if you think the horses have equal chances and are 8-1 and 10-1. $11 win on the 8-1 and $9 win on the 10-1 would guarantee you $99 regardless of the winner.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by eajinabi

That question is easy to answer.

If you like two horses that are 8-1, 10-1 and if you going to play 20 bucks anyways then I suggest you play a daily double with those two horses in the first leg and 5 horses in the next. Typically it will pay more than playing 10 bucks each to win.

95% of my bets are pick3, pick4 and sometimes DD. I would say it requires some patience but your patience will be rewarded.

i agree with you, even though someone else gave you crap for your answer. play the double or pic's. with 8-1 or 10-1 in the first leg its a nice score. of course you have to handicap some more but you are getting value for your 20 bucks. personally, my biggest tickets come in pic 3's. but i love doubles too. why settle for 70 or 80 bucks when that 8 or 10 to 1 shot could bring way more?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Why would you ever play more than one exacta, knowing that only one can come in?

i don't know, but i was asking a legitimate question. why would you place two bets, knowing one is a loser? when playing exotics, i've seen some put a 1/2,3,4 for example. now, that makes sense. you have your winner, but you recognize one of several can come in second.
or i've seen some do 1,2/over one or more picks.
but, if you have $20 to play, why would you go 1-$10, 2-$10? i guess like some said, it would depend on the odds and how it would pay off. i just didn't think it was the best way to play $20.

[TheSpyder]

If you like two horses in most cases you have not finished capping. I'd keep at it and narrow to one and bet W/P. Not keen on the double thing unless you have a strong opinion.

To me the worse thing is not cashing when you're right about a $20 horse. Albeit, I'm a small time better so I can't afford to take too many chances. Sometimes I'll bet an exacta box and W/P.

Spyder

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't know, but i was asking a legitimate question. why would you place two bets, knowing one is a loser? when playing exotics, i've seen some put a 1/2,3,4 for example. now, that makes sense. you have your winner, but you recognize one of several can come in second.
or i've seen some do 1,2/over one or more picks.

but, if you have $20 to play, why would you go 1-$10, 2-$10? i guess like some said, it would depend on the odds and how it would pay off. i just didn't think it was the best way to play $20.

I don't see the difference between betting 1/2,3,4, which you say makes sense, and betting 2 horses to win. In either case you are guaranteed to have some losing tickets.

--Dunbar

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't know, but i was asking a legitimate question. why would you place two bets, knowing one is a loser? when playing exotics, i've seen some put a 1/2,3,4 for example. now, that makes sense. you have your winner, but you recognize one of several can come in second.
or i've seen some do 1,2/over one or more picks.
but, if you have $20 to play, why would you go 1-$10, 2-$10? i guess like some said, it would depend on the odds and how it would pay off. i just didn't think it was the best way to play $20.

Like Dunbar said, it's the same thing. Wheeling means that you're guaranteed to have losing tickets and are looking for one winner. In your 1/2,3,4 scenario, the three different exactas obviously can't all come in, so you're hoping for one of your three bets to be a winner. How is that any different from betting two or three horses to win?

Anything other than a straight wager is guaranteed to have losers in it. The idea is to maximize ROI when you don't have a super narrowed down opinion.

[2 Dollar Bill]

Originally Posted by Danzig

why would you bet two horses to win, knowing one of them is automatically a losing bet?

Dead heat ?