Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grits
They don't bet to place, and they surely don't bet to show. (The elderly blue hair ladies at the track bet to show.)
The bet, in this instance, as quoted I believe was $50w/p on one's longshot. Let's say, you bet your longshot in a straight exacta to run second behind the chalk. $100.00 straight exacta bet, not changing the amount of money wagered. This is difficult for many, but one has a really nice exacta many times. In the case of your $50 place money coming in, its paltry next to the exacta, and one doesn't have to hit many of these to make up for their longshot running second.
|
Pardon my naivete, but you know, the entire concept of not betting place as opposed to playing the exacta makes sense, conceptually, to me. However, often, for me, not having as much conviction and not being as confident in the exacta selection causes me to make the place bet instead of the exacta. Simpy put, I might be more confident in being able to pick a horse for place (one correct selection vis a vis the bet, who can run first or second) vs. betting the exacta (requiring me to select two correct selections vis a vis the bet, where they have to finish 1-2). I am not sure if that's correct or makes sense to most of the serious players here, but that is kind of my gut feeling.
Does that make any sense or am I being a whimp here?
Also, doesn't the relative size of the bet, risk/reward also play a role? Meaning if I am looking at $100 place (maybe as a hedge), am I also looking at a $100 exacta? Not really, right?
Thanks for the advice.
Eric