Handicapping Question

[Slewbopper]

$20.......5 exacta 1-2/1-2-3

[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

[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?

[sdjcom]

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?

Dean ,as you can read there is as many opinions on betting as there is stars in the sky. Which answer is right? all of them, because each person will bet with what they are comfortable with. If you bet two horses and can make a profit then you are right. Trust your own opinion before others, unless you think one is better than yours.

[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

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by 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

I disagree with this. It's not rare to end up with 2 horses that have value in a race with a vulnerable favorite.

--Dunbar

[Thunder Gulch]

I almost never bet two to win, but I don't necessarily disagree with the practice of doing it. If the price is right, bet them. The Sartain guys were famous for dutching win bets and created a whole movement of play that did just that by winning an extremely high percentage of races. You would really have to hit big percentages to cover the lost ticket.

The example of boxing and wheeling exotics is a good analogy. If the payout is right, you can absorb the cost of losing tickets and still come out ahead.

[eajinabi]

Originally Posted by sdjcom

Dean ,as you can read there is as many opinions on betting as there is stars in the sky. Which answer is right? all of them, because each person will bet with what they are comfortable with. If you bet two horses and can make a profit then you are right. Trust your own opinion before others, unless you think one is better than yours.

I will have to disagree here. The objective is to maximize our profits. To choose a two horse win bet over DD, or pick 3 just because you are comfortable with it
will have you end up in the negative in the long run.

Of course, a DD is a slightly higher risk but its payoffs is typically higher than a $10 win bet. You will need to compare your probale payoffs of your DD to your payoff on your win bet and determine if its worth the slightly higher risk. A determinate for me will be if the DD pays 1.5 times more than the win bet then its a go.

[dellinger63]

Betting two or more horses in a race has been around as a 'betting tool' for a long time. It is called dutching and there are dutching calculators. There was a dutching thread here at one time. I'll try and find it.

[sdjcom]

Originally Posted by eajinabi

I will have to disagree here. The objective is to maximize our profits. To choose a two horse win bet over DD, or pick 3 just because you are comfortable with it
will have you end up in the negative in the long run.

Of course, a DD is a slightly higher risk but its payoffs is typically higher than a $10 win bet. You will need to compare your probale payoffs of your DD to your payoff on your win bet and determine if its worth the slightly higher risk. A determinate for me will be if the DD pays 1.5 times more than the win bet then its a go.

again there are many opinions, however he said two horses in one race, a 25% raw average in a 8 horse field, adding horses in another race he could still lose if he's wrong in the second half. he wants to take advantage of big win odds on 2 horses in one race. and ending up in the negative in the long run is just your opinion nothing more to back it up.let me add he wants to cash if one of the long odds comes in, if no win bet and dd pk3 doesn't work, he loses. a two horse win bet is the right bet in one race. if he wants to add dd then ok

[dellinger63]

Here is the dutching thread

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/sho...light=dutching

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Here is the dutching thread

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/sho...light=dutching

I took a look at that thread. The spreadsheet that was shown uses a "Goal Wager". All the comparisons in that thread (and I think in this thread, too) have been based on the the assumption that you either bet X dollars on one horse or spread the X dollars to two or more horses. That's a weak assumption.

When you bet on more than one horse in the same race, you have increased the chance you will cash a ticket. That lowers your risk. When risk is lowered, you can and should bet more (assuming you are correct that you have an edge). A bettor finding 2 horses with value in the same race should bet more (total) on the 2 horses than he/she would have bet on just one of those horses.

That reduced risk effect is dramatic if you use something like Kelly betting.

The original poster mentioned horses that were 8-1 and 10-1. He didn't mention his estimate of fair odds, so let's just say 7-1 would be fair odds on each of those horses. Let's also assume that the total bankroll for betting horses is $1000.

There's a Kelly calculator at Sportsbookreview.com:

http://www.sbrforum.com/Betting+Tool...alculator.aspx

According to that tool...

If you only bet the 8-1 horse, your optimal bet for bankroll growth is $16, and your expected win is $2.

If you only bet the 10-1 horse, your optimal bet for bankroll growth is $37, and your expected win is $14.

BUT, if you bet both horses, your optimal bets are $21 on the 8-1 horse and $40 on the 10-1 horse; your expected win is $17, which is more than you'd have from betting either of the horses alone.

--Dunbar

caveats:

1. Kelly betting results in dramatic up and downs in bankroll. Most serious bettors DO bet proportionally, but they use a fraction (often 1/4 to 1/3) of full Kelly betting. This would apply both to singled bets and dutch bets.

2. I'm assuming the SBR Kelly calculator is correct without totally checking it out.

3. Obviously, if you are betting without an edge, the optimal bet is $0. So how you spend your money on a race is based on how you perceive the entertainment value, not on math.

[MaTH716]

I think that you must have an opinion and bet the one horse you think is the most likely to win. If you really think the other horse has a chance, then bet him in some doubles or exacta's just to hedge yourself.

[dellinger63]

Never been to that site. Now I have something to do tonight.

Thanks Dunbar

I think? LOL

[ceejay]

To me, dutching in the win pools is the most direct answer to the original poster's question. Given his parameters
$11 on the 8-1
$9 on the 10-1
that would yield about 4-1 on the blend, so you can figure the fair likelihood for that. There are some adw houses that allow conditional dutching.

Of course, outside the win pool, it depends how you handicap the race. Given the vertical or horizontal wagers available, they depend on what else you feel will occur. I have had many cases where a put a horse only in the top of my intra-race exotics as a non-single.

[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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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

some, yes. but i don't think the approach of betting HALF your money on known losers is the way to a productive day.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

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.

i guess i just think that there must be a better way to spend $20 then on two $10 win bets, knowing only one of the two will cash, and you just blew half your available money for that race. now, if nothing else is appealing to you, and you KNOW one of the two will come in, fine. but wouldn't you be better off in general in building tickets around those two, rather than taking a ten and tossing it? you'd have to bet 10 $1 exactas (for example) before you spent that same ten dollars, but you've now got ten chances to win rather than just one.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

But wouldn't at least 9 out of those 10 $1 exactas be losers? What is the difference?

10 chances to win vs one chance to win? aren't the odds more in your favor that way? or maybe not. i was asking if it made sense in my first post because i wanted to know-i wasn't actually being critical of the idea.