Handicapping Question

[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.

[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.

[hi_im_god]

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?

inexpensive prostitutes.

i didn't read the entire thread but from a quick skim i'm pretty sure my answer beats this field of $4000 claimers.

[letswastemoney]

it seems that if you feel that strongly about them winning, you should just key them on top of an exacta...

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

it seems that if you feel that strongly about them winning, you should just key them on top of an exacta...

Disagree yet again. I don't have to feel strongly about a horse's chance to win when I bet it at 10-1. I just have to feel that the horse has more than a 9% chance to win the race. Similarly, I don't have to feel strongly about an 8-1's chance to win. If I think the horse has something like a 1 in 6 chance to win the race, I'll gladly bet it.

Taking that info and somehow hoping that they come in 1-2 is a major stretch.

--Dunbar

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Disagree yet again. I don't have to feel strongly about a horse's chance to win when I bet it at 10-1. I just have to feel that the horse has more than a 9% chance to win the race. Similarly, I don't have to feel strongly about an 8-1's chance to win. If I think the horse has something like a 1 in 6 chance to win the race, I'll gladly bet it.

Taking that info and somehow hoping that they come in 1-2 is a major stretch.

--Dunbar

Its not a major stretch if you look at the original post.
If you really think the race is between two horses, it does
not really matter how the public tinkers with your assessment
as long as they disrespect it.

Thanks for your future updates.
Very interesting.

[ceejay]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I don't have to feel strongly about a horse's chance to win when I bet it at 10-1. I just have to feel that the horse has more than a 9% chance to win the race. Similarly, I don't have to feel strongly about an 8-1's chance to win.

In practice it's hard to distinguish between likelihoods of 9% and 11% (10-1 and 8-1 respectively). That is more precision than I can handicap with. But that said I agree with you.

And I've seen many exactas were the "will pay" with horses in this range is just too low to justify the wager.

Let's say that both horses are 50% under priced in the win pool, and both have an equal chance of finishing second, the combined percentage is about 2.3% fair odds and you need to box it if you do not have an opinion which one is more likely to win. So you need something like a $100 exacta probable (one dollar basis) in order to justify.

[Bobby Fischer]

I think the best time to win-dutch is when there are high-odds-favorites (7-2,4-1 etc...). AND you like 2 horses who seem standouts, AND you can't separate either one as being the best deal.

That is a lot of conditions to meet, and it doesn't happen every card.

If you don't like the favorites and you have two 8-1 and 10-1 shots as your winners, you should probably cash on some of the exotics.

If you can separate either of the two as your best deal, and you are playing for longterm rather than cash in hand at the track, then you should just bet the best deal only on your win ticket.