Handicapping Question

[rontheman1964]

Without a doubt, I see nothing wrong with "dutching." The name of the game is ROI and a one race / one horse bet is as simple as it gets (the odds will dictate if covering 2 horses is worth the 2nd bet). Adding more races and more horses are just more factors which increase the chances your 8-1 or 10-1 pick will be a wasted effort in your search to make a big score. As stated before, the risk / reward ratio is for each individual to decide for themselves.

I have split bets quite successfully; especially in races with large fields (Evangeline Downs). More chances for the favorite to get beat and the money is spread around so you can get better odds on your choices. Just my thought.

[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...

[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 ?

[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.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

You only get those 10 chances if you play $1 exactas. But what if none of those $1 exactas are paying over $50? Wouldn't making two win bets make more sense then, regardless of whether or not 'one is a loser'?

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You only get those 10 chances if you play $1 exactas. But what if none of those $1 exactas are paying over $50? Wouldn't making two win bets make more sense then, regardless of whether or not 'one is a loser'?

Don't forget that it's also harder to pick a 1-2 finish than just a 1st place finish.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You only get those 10 chances if you play $1 exactas. But what if none of those $1 exactas are paying over $50? Wouldn't making two win bets make more sense then, regardless of whether or not 'one is a loser'?

i was asking, not telling. i'm trying to learn more as i go too. sorry if my posts came off as statements.

i'd imagine every scenario has to be taken on its own. you have to look at pools and will pays. one would assume an ex would pay well-but it depends on who hits. and i have played more than one horse to win before, but was also wondering above somewhere whether it was a bet that makes sense...apparently, in some cases it does. it's why i said does it make sense to do that, knowing only one will win? i guess in some cases, it does make sense.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i was asking, not telling. i'm trying to learn more as i go too. sorry if my posts came off as statements.

i'd imagine every scenario has to be taken on its own. you have to look at pools and will pays. one would assume an ex would pay well-but it depends on who hits. and i have played more than one horse to win before, but was also wondering above somewhere whether it was a bet that makes sense...apparently, in some cases it does. it's why i said does it make sense to do that, knowing only one will win? i guess in some cases, it does make sense.

I read it as a rhetorical question, so my bad.

Like I said before, it depends on the probables and how I feel about the race. If the ROI on the exactas/doubles aren't on par with the win mutuel, or if I don't have a strong conviction for who's gonna run second or who's gonna win the next race, I'll sometimes play two horses to win.