Closest you have come to the big score...

[Grits]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

You just don't get it. 9th Race on Sunday at GP, the place horse was 15-1 and ran second to a 9-1 shot. Instead of getting nothing back, you would've tripled your initial investment with a win/place bet(12.80). If you had done it your way you get nothing....If the favorite wins at a 30% clip on average you will lose over time. You can cite whatever race you want, and I'll find 4 that show that using a simple exacta with a favorite or a wheel for that matter is dumb.

And I will see far less 15/1 with 9/1 exactas, than I'll see 1/1 (or 2/1) with 18/1 exactas.

No, I do see. And I'm talking over time. And the person that taught me this has been betting on horses for over 45 years, and I figure he knows far more.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Grits

And I will see far less 15/1 with 9/1 exactas, than I'll see 1/1 (or 2/1) with 18/1 exactas.

No, I do see. And I'm talking over time. And the person that taught me this has been betting on horses for over 45 years, and I figure he knows far more.

Yes, if instant gratification isn't your thing, this is definitely the way it is taught.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Yes, if instant gratification isn't your thing, this is definitely the way it is taught.

" Instant gratification ", at the racetrack, is for losers. We are all in this for the long run. The same mentality that worries about when they DON'T win in this current discussion will also lead to trying to " get out " in the last race. There is only one actual " last " race to a horseplayer and in general we don't know when that is coming. A horseplayer does not divide his playing by days....just by cumulative results.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

" Instant gratification ", at the racetrack, is for losers. We are all in this for the long run. The same mentality that worries about when they DON'T win in this current discussion will also lead to trying to " get out " in the last race. There is only one actual " last " race to a horseplayer and in general we don't know when that is coming. A horseplayer does not divide his playing by days....just by cumulative results.

Exactly the point I was making... (or trying to.)

There are those (like my Dad, for example) who love to just bet on the triple crown days, etc. For him, instant gratification is what he wants. He's not a real horseplayer.

[MisterB]

Value betting is one of my gigs, and I have been successfull spreading a value horse. First, why in the hell would anyone bet a horse less than 4-1. This amazes me to no end. Long haul, short haul, you can't take less than 4-1 on a major bet. You will be starting the death march from Subic Bay, Phillipines. Every race isn't betable, you got to pick your spots, or be pick pocketed.
Of course, when you visit the track as a vacationer, the money doen't matter, your a short timer, having some fum, and will toss the loose cash in the pool, I LOVE YOU FOLKS.

Exacta's will kill you, place bets will suck you dry, so what can you do? Try a Key spread on a tri.

1/2345/23456

Win bet hard

Hard earned money well spent, win or lose

[ELA]

I didn't mean to start an arguement here, LOL. I understand the points made, and absent of specifics, a specific race, facts, etc., we are speaking conceptually. I thought there might be a "norm" or "smart play" kind of thing.

I guess the real answer is -- for me -- in this situation, is to very quickly seek out my friend Andy and ask him what to do, LOL.

I think in every situation we tend to weigh risk/reward, our interpretation or perceived "value" so to speak, emotions I would guess, and experience, along with a host of other elements.

Generically speaking, I think in certain situations place -- and show -- betting can be used as a hedge. I've bet plenty of horses -- who were not the favorite -- across the board, where they've run second or third. Running second, I make money somtimes -- of course not a lot. Running third, I mostly lose money, but get something back. Perhaps this is a "whimp" way of looking at it and playing. But I've done this when I don't have strong feelings and opinions about gimmicks.

On the other hand, how could you use the exacta as a hedge? If you bet an exacta (or a couple of exactas) with the favorite on top -- you are betting against yourself -- right? Use the non-favorite on top and he comes in, but you don't hit the exacta, you diluted your win (or WP, WPS) bet, right?

I completely understand this is far to generic in nature in order to arrive at an answer.

Anyway, thank you again for your advice and again, pardon my naivete.

Eric

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by ELA

I didn't mean to start an arguement here, LOL. I understand the points made, and absent of specifics, a specific race, facts, etc., we are speaking conceptually. I thought there might be a "norm" or "smart play" kind of thing.

I guess the real answer is -- for me -- in this situation, is to very quickly seek out my friend Andy and ask him what to do, LOL.

I think in every situation we tend to weigh risk/reward, our interpretation or perceived "value" so to speak, emotions I would guess, and experience, along with a host of other elements.

Generically speaking, I think in certain situations place -- and show -- betting can be used as a hedge. I've bet plenty of horses -- who were not the favorite -- across the board, where they've run second or third. Running second, I make money somtimes -- of course not a lot. Running third, I mostly lose money, but get something back. Perhaps this is a "whimp" way of looking at it and playing. But I've done this when I don't have strong feelings and opinions about gimmicks.

On the other hand, how could you use the exacta as a hedge? If you bet an exacta (or a couple of exactas) with the favorite on top -- you are betting against yourself -- right? Use the non-favorite on top and he comes in, but you don't hit the exacta, you diluted your win (or WP, WPS) bet, right?

I completely understand this is far to generic in nature in order to arrive at an answer.

Anyway, thank you again for your advice and again, pardon my naivete.

Eric

Eric,

Please don't apologize. This has been a very informative thread and I've enjoyed reading it. It's gratifying to read the different points of views that come into play on this message board. Thanks for posting the topic!

Jamie

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by ELA

I didn't mean to start an arguement here, LOL. I understand the points made, and absent of specifics, a specific race, facts, etc., we are speaking conceptually. I thought there might be a "norm" or "smart play" kind of thing.

I guess the real answer is -- for me -- in this situation, is to very quickly seek out my friend Andy and ask him what to do, LOL.

I think in every situation we tend to weigh risk/reward, our interpretation or perceived "value" so to speak, emotions I would guess, and experience, along with a host of other elements.

Generically speaking, I think in certain situations place -- and show -- betting can be used as a hedge. I've bet plenty of horses -- who were not the favorite -- across the board, where they've run second or third. Running second, I make money somtimes -- of course not a lot. Running third, I mostly lose money, but get something back. Perhaps this is a "whimp" way of looking at it and playing. But I've done this when I don't have strong feelings and opinions about gimmicks.

On the other hand, how could you use the exacta as a hedge? If you bet an exacta (or a couple of exactas) with the favorite on top -- you are betting against yourself -- right? Use the non-favorite on top and he comes in, but you don't hit the exacta, you diluted your win (or WP, WPS) bet, right?

I completely understand this is far to generic in nature in order to arrive at an answer.

Anyway, thank you again for your advice and again, pardon my naivete.

Eric

An excellent point on betting against yourself. I didn't even bring that up. These are the same people betting 3 horses to win the same race.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Grits

And I will see far less 15/1 with 9/1 exactas, than I'll see 1/1 (or 2/1) with 18/1 exactas.

No, I do see. And I'm talking over time. And the person that taught me this has been betting on horses for over 45 years, and I figure he knows far more.

Grits, we are going in circles...Who cares if you talk to someone betting on horses for a 100 years, that's no argument in favor of it. Did that same person tally up what he would've gotten to place over all those years? Probably not. Or maybe he just had a habit of picking the second place horse in every race. Who knows? Maybe we can chart the next 500 races in NY and SA and see who's method comes out ahead. That might be good for the board. Scavs is a pro and these charts and I'm sure he wouldn't mind doing it....I'm joking Scavs, you don't have to do it---

[blackthroatedwind]

I like that idea Randall. Find 200 races where the second finisher was between 10-1 and 20-1 and see if you do better betting $2 to place or a $2 exacta beneath the favorite.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I like that idea Randall. Find 200 races where the second finisher was between 10-1 and 20-1 and see if you do better betting $2 to place or a $2 exacta beneath the favorite.

Nope that's not how it would be done. It would simply be charting all races. You are assuming the favorite is winning. You would do every race. Sometimes it would work out with the fave over a longshot and sometimes it won't. That's the only way it would work....You would only be using races where the favorite wins and obviously when they win at only a 30% clip, that would be faulty.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Nope that's not how it would be done. It would simply be charting all races. You are assuming the favorite is winning. You would do every race. Sometimes it would work out with the fave over a longshot and sometimes it won't. That's the only way it would work....You would only be using races where the favorite wins and obviously when they win at only a 30% clip, that would be faulty.

Of course Randall....you look at any race where the second horse was over 10-1 and see what you got for place and whether or not you hit the exacta. If the favorite doesn't run second you get zero for the exacta.

I am not assuming the favorite ran second. I am using EVERY race where the place horse was over 10-1.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I like that idea Randall. Find 200 races where the second finisher was between 10-1 and 20-1 and see if you do better betting $2 to place or a $2 exacta beneath the favorite.

I second that motion.

[blackthroatedwind]

I just looked up 17 days at Aqueduct and found 25 examples where horses finished second at ANYTHING over 10-1.....you got a total of $371.30 if you bet place and $626.50 if you used them all second to the favorite in the exacta.

If I just focus on 10-1 to 20-1 the numbers are $156.70 for place and $225.60 for the exacta.

It's only 25 races....but the blind exacta is looking VERY strong.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I like that idea Randall. Find 200 races where the second finisher was between 10-1 and 20-1 and see if you do better betting $2 to place or a $2 exacta beneath the favorite.

Andy, is that really the fair or comparitive analysis? I mean, I am just thinking this through, but how would you know, in hindsight, that you would play that 10-1 to 20-1 horse (that finished second) as opposed to another 10-1 to 20-1 horse? Do you then expand the play to include a second exacta underneath the favorite?

Thanks.

Eric

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ELA

Andy, is that really the fair or comparitive analysis? I mean, I am just thinking this through, but how would you know, in hindsight, that you would play that 10-1 to 20-1 horse (that finished second) as opposed to another 10-1 to 20-1 horse? Do you then expand the play to include a second exacta underneath the favorite?

Thanks.

Eric

Eric, that's not the point. It is an analysis of how ONE would have done had they bet THAT SPECIFIC LONGSHOT in one or the other manner. The ones that don't finish second can't be used in an analysis because you lost your $2 whether you bet place or and exacta. It's the only way you can do the study.

I would like to see a sample of 500 and will grab the charts weekly at DRF to get a larger sample size. It's too cumbersome running through charts on Formulator.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Eric, that's not the point. It is an analysis of how ONE would have done had they bet THAT SPECIFIC LONGSHOT in one or the other manner. The ones that don't finish second can't be used in an analysis because you lost your $2 whether you bet place or and exacta. It's the only way you can do the study.

I would like to see a sample of 500 and will grab the charts weekly at DRF to get a larger sample size. It's too cumbersome running through charts on Formulator.

OK -- I have to think this through, LOL. Thanks.

Eric

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ELA

OK -- I have to think this through, LOL. Thanks.

Eric

You'll see what I mean.

Believe me, I thought the same thing when I started. Just think about it as completely hypothetical. It's sort of counterintuitive because it is by its very nature " resulting "....but that's how it has to be done.

[Grits]

Also, in doing this, one has to keep in mind. This bet is not made in the first place without one clear and solid, postime favorite.

[worms12]

Not that I am proud of this, but I had gone to the OTB and wanted to play the first at Mountaineer with 20WPS on the 3. They had the card divided as being afternoon and night with the first 2 races being on afternoon. I played the 3rd where the 3 won at $112 to win.