How deep is to deep in the pk4?

[wac]

I was just fooling around today wiht the late pk 4 at delmar and my ticket was 5x2x5x3=150 which to me is a lot of money where one lose and your out. and in this case dixie chatter would have taken me out. Is 150 a normal play for most of you guys on these bets? I see where the payout was over 4k so would gladly trade 150 for 4k any day of the week but i guess i get gun shy and dont see myself ever making a bet like this. Just curious to see what you guys think on this. Do you ever go thru and make your ticket and just say man thats too much or do you just put it in and hope for the best?

[hockey2315]

That's probably too much for $1 on a single ticket unless you're expecting a really chaotic sequence. . . if you're dropping that much then there's no reason not to make out multiple tickets.

[Thoroughbred Fan]

I never play multi-race sequences anymore without one single.

[-BT-]

Originally Posted by wac

Do you ever go thru and make your ticket and just say man thats too much or do you just put it in and hope for the best?

this happens to me a lot, if i can't trim the ticket down to a comfortable investment then i just pass on the whole sequence. I try to put a max or about $81 on a $1 ticket, if i can't get a ticket under that i usually pass. IMO a $150 ticket on a $1 bet is a bit much, but its all about your bankroll and your comfort level. On bigger days i try to get friends to pool some money and get a bigger ticket together only b/c the payoff should be worth it

-bt-

[docicu3]

I look at the game a bit differently guys where a ticket for a P4 that is trying to catch a score of 2K or more especially in So Cal can easily be a solid investment of $150-200 for a caveman ticket.

If your playing 50-75 bucks a ticket you can hit some but it usually is not enough to allow you to spread deep for the big return. The key is race selection and for whatever reason the late sequences seem to provide bigger payoffs in New York and California.

[ateamstupid]

Generally I try to limit my tickets to $75 or less, with the goal being ~$50. The only way I'd usually go higher is if there were four consecutive races with 10+ starters and either no heavy favorite or a vulnerable one.

There are plenty of ways to make money at the track. If I find myself making a $150 Pick 4 ticket, I stay away from the sequence.

[onebadbeast]

Horizontal Bets Suck....that Is Why The Qpk Button Is Made.

[robfla]

Originally Posted by onebadbeast

Horizontal Bets Suck....that Is Why The Qpk Button Is Made.

Disagree:
Horizon bets usually provide the best value, with the payoffs usually paying higher than the parlay.

I'm a weekend warrior, so the last pick 4 I played was the one on SOS day at Calder. ( 3.20 - 4.60 - 18.20 - 3.60 ) The Pick 4 payout was $220.70 for a buck. The Pick four payout was way higher than the parlay.

Now in the above pick four, anyone betting more than $150 into the sequence was crazy as Indyanne and Benny the Bull bookended the sequence and the fields were rather short.

On the other hand, betting a $150.00 ticket at Delmar ( or anywhere else ) where the fields are large and the races are wide open, sometimes if you DON'T bet enough you are only cheating yourself by not giving yourself the right opportunity to hit the ticket. ( example: BBB )

If I feel that to properly structure my P4 ticket will cost too much, than betting a Pick 3 is an option.

If you haven't read Christ's Exotic Betting book - its a must for any pick 4 player.

wac: if you dont have the book, shoot me a PM w/address. I have 2 copies ( got 2nd as a gift ) I'll give you the other one.

[Bigsmc]

I am a "feel" bettor. If I have a strong opinion that the sequence is going to produce some prices, I will gladly put in a $144 ticket. If I find I don't have strong opinions, I'll keep it under $50. If I have very strong opinions on a single or two (or three or four), I may play a small ticket and hit it multiple times.

It also depends on the track I am playing and my track record at that track with P4's. I do not get crazy with tracks that I know I don't do well at. This goes back to the record keeping discussion.

I never follow any strict rules. More often than not, I do not single. The big payouts come when that obvious single (or two) is upset.

[docicu3]

[quote=Bigsmc]I am a "feel" bettor. If I have a strong opinion that the sequence is going to produce some prices, I will gladly put in a $144 ticket. If I find I don't have strong opinions, I'll keep it under $50. If I have very strong opinions on a single or two (or three or four), I may play a small ticket and hit it multiple times.

It also depends on the track I am playing and my track record at that track with P4's. I do not get crazy with tracks that I know I don't do well at. This goes back to the record keeping discussion.

The big payouts come when that obvious single (or two) is upset.

Probably the most important statement in the thread as the more upsets of heavy favorites there are in a sequence whether it is a P3-P4 or P6 ....
1) The higher the payoff and 2) The more likely a strategy that does not play a caveman ticket to some extent will not cash that sequence.

For instance if you are playing the "A"" B" "X" approach and you get 2 or 3 bombs or $20 or more win payoffs they are probably not the most logical or chalk. By spreading out in a sequence that is unlikely to go to favorites, you allow yourself to cash a big one but if truth be told you probably should play more than a single ticket by the "Exotic Betting" philosophy to cover your bases but likely get smaller return so you don't invest heavily and have the sequence pay poorly. A very loose rule of thumb for myself is to invest 2/3 of my money caveman looking for the big score with a third invested in the other strategy.

[jms62]

"invest 2/3 of my money caveman looking for the big score'

Ditto... The pro's of Crists methodolgy is he is going to hit some multiple times BUT I think the way he sets up he is going to miss the bombs the 10-15 k'ers that make your meet and year.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by jms62

"invest 2/3 of my money caveman looking for the big score'

Ditto... The pro's of Crists methodolgy is he is going to hit some multiple times BUT I think the way he sets up he is going to miss the bombs the 10-15 k'ers that make your meet and year.

That's exactly opposite from the truth.

[jms62]

How would he catch 3 bombs in the sequence ?

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by jms62

How would he catch 3 bombs in the sequence ?

How do you? ALL-ALL-ALL-ALL? It comes down to handicapping - I'm sure he and anyone else who uses his methodology uses longshots as As or Bs - it depends on the horses you like and the expected value. . . and then if some fringe contender (C) comes in, he's still got coverage that you don't playing a "cave man" ticket.

[brianwspencer]

Depends on the level of drunkeness that you and your friends have reached and then inversely how much money you actually care about winning instead of just wanting to hit for fun.

[Scav]

My personal opinion is that I think you can use both approaches as part of your arsenal.

Lets say that for each approach you are willing to put in $500, which is probably between average and expensive. Note, I am speaking in terms of P6, not P4. I never use A/B/C/X for P4's

In regards to the caveman, if you have two horses that you really like and willing to single, then you have 4 legs to spend 250 combinations. That opens up the door to a major payday if you are really right on those two singles, and deep in those other legs.

Now within the A/B/C/X theory, I think this approach allows you for what ifs. What if this horse gets a lone lead, what if there is a speed duel. You can add certain horses as C's based on what ifs.

It is really how the sequence plays out and what risks you are willing to take.

Me personally, I have played it both ways before, with success on the caveman and a couple 5 of 6's on the A/B/C/X. I will say I have a personal preference to the caveman, in doing that, I usually have to be REALLY right on two legs, and have coverage in the others.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Scav

Me personally, I have played it both ways before, with success on the caveman and a couple 5 of 6's on the A/B/C/X. I will say I have a personal preference to the caveman, in doing that, I usually have to be REALLY right on two legs, and have coverage in the others.

In all seriousness, this is really the way I like to play it when I'm playing it alone, especially if I can find a leg or two where I am incredibly confident in 1-2 horses ONLY.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

How do you? ALL-ALL-ALL-ALL? It comes down to handicapping - I'm sure he and anyone else who uses his methodology uses longshots as As or Bs - it depends on the horses you like and the expected value. . . and then if some fringe contender (C) comes in, he's still got coverage that you don't playing a "cave man" ticket.

All-All-All-All is quite absurd no and quite disrespectful to me. Why even state it ? Is someone automatically Wrong when they do not share your opinion? It's quite logical if you go deeper you have more coverage to wild occurrences that you aren't going to get with smaller tickets. I 100% agree with you on the handicapping aspect it is by far the most important. On big days I usually have a caveman of about 144 and a few smaller tickets usually with a single or 2 and some longshots sprinkled in. And to your statement about the fringe coming in and not having coverage. I certainly would have coverage if I was anygood at handicapping.

PS... I only play Pick 3 and 4's...

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

More often than not, I do not single. The big payouts come when that obvious single (or two) is upset.

Still floating around on that Big Truck cloud, eh?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by jms62

All-All-All-All is quite absurd no and quite disrespectful to me. Why even state it ? Is someone automatically Wrong when they do not share your opinion? It's quite logical if you go deeper you have more coverage to wild occurrences that you aren't going to get with smaller tickets. I 100% agree with you on the handicapping aspect it is by far the most important. On big days I usually have a caveman of about 144 and a few smaller tickets usually with a single or 2 and some longshots sprinkled in. And to your statement about the fringe coming in and not having coverage. I certainly would have coverage if I was anygood at handicapping.

PS... I only play Pick 3 and 4's...

He didn't "state" anything. He asked you how you would be more likely than Crist to hit a large ticket, and instead of answering, you got defensive.

The A/B/C/X method works toward minimizing investment and emphasizing handicapping. In the long run, I think it's the best method.

If I had $144 to invest, I'd rather find an Exacta or Trifecta or Double or Win bet I could have multiple times than put it all on a $1 Pick 4 and potentially watch four $5-$7 horses come in.