Handicapping Question

[skippy3481]

Its that type of quandry that seperates gamblers. Me personally, I wouldnt bet two horses to win. I think if you have favorites that are beatable, you have to capitalize as much as you can. Personally, with a 20 dollar budget, I would bet exactas placing my 2 horses over the weak favorite or even better, a price horse. I think long term, you will make much more money this way then as opposed to betting them straight up. Also, You want want to include those horses in a pick 3 or 4. Even in a pick three if you can drop a nice price horse in, it will still pay nicely.

So much determines how you should play this. There is no textbook play. Each gambler has to find his/her own acceptable level of risk and stick with it.

[skippy3481]

Pgardn, while your theory has some pratical applications, one can't "lose twice" whether you split your 20 dollars into 8 diffrent horses or into one horse, its still the same bet, just in diffrent increments. Exacta box is not a bad idea but like you said timmy, if you have 2 horses you really like to win, why would you bet a 3rd horse to win as well. Much better value for your money to put your top two horses over a set of horses.

[docicu3]

Absolutely nothing wrong with betting two horses to win. The threshold for odds you are willing to accept is up to the individual player of course but there is nothing wrong with getting 5 and 10 to 1 if your certain the horse really has a chance to win.....when you think about it multi race wagers P3,P4 etc. are predicated on this.

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Pgardn, while your theory has some pratical applications, one can't "lose twice" whether you split your 20 dollars into 8 diffrent horses or into one horse, its still the same bet, just in diffrent increments. Exacta box is not a bad idea but like you said timmy, if you have 2 horses you really like to win, why would you bet a 3rd horse to win as well. Much better value for your money to put your top two horses over a set of horses.

Lose twice was taken to mean bet 10 dollars on one horse, instead of 10 dollars on horse A and 10 dollars on horse B. This is why I said bet less... not lose twice as much money. The "covering" costs more the way I was looking at it. Covering taken to mean you are very sure one of the two is going to win, you just dont know Which one. Covering can also lose you a lot more in exotic bets as I am sure everyone is aware of. I see that I have boxed to cover more horses and looking back it should have been a straight bet. The cover was not needed. This of course comes after the race. It has just happened too many times to me. Then I realized I should straight bet (talking mostly exactas) sometimes for the total amount instead of wasting half on part of a box that was painfully uneccessary.

I also realize this is not a handicapping question.
It is a wagering question. I have learned that
I can fail at both just fine thank you very much.