ROTW

[ringato3]

Rick

I have forgotten more about this game than u will ever know.

Based on your ability to comprehend simple concepts, I am guessing this isn\'t the only topic u are likely to be \"challenged\" about.

Maybe u have good looks?   Can\'t have everything.

Rob

[TGJB]

Enough.

[DaveDuggan]

Okay, I see this thread went really wrong about here but I still think there might be some interesting points to discuss here if one stick to the topic,

P-Dub writes:

\"If a favorite is a poor wagering choice for the top spot, why on earth would you play him to complete an exacta??\"

Why couldn\'t this be a legit approach in a race like this where the favorite is almost sure to run his race that will put him right up there, while it\'s still more likely that at least one of the contestants would run the even bigger figure it would take to win the race? I see that one reccommended here to box the three horses that had bigger numbers in them and hoped that two of them would fire enough to beat the favorite who sure was overbet for the win, and that could well have been a good strategy. Still, if one do the math, is it really a superior bet to do just that than to for example play those three horses in the win spot with the \"overbet\" favorite alone in the 2nd-spot? And you could and probably also should weigh this bet so that it best represent your true opinion of who you like best on the odds to get up for the win.

I guess what I\'m saying is that it does seem a bit dogmatic to automatically assume that chosing the option with the favorite in 2nd is such a horrible bet compared to those where you toss it completely, specially in this case where that favorite is extremely likely to run his race while getting two of the more \"unstable\" ones to fire  seems to be asking a lot, given the way those sheets look. My guess is that probably, in the long term, those two bets wouldn\'t fare so differently and I guess it comes down to a lot of other factors as well, like how comfortable you are with going on long losing streaks etc.

I can\'t really see that either of those approaches, as a rule, would be \"a sure way to bankruptcy\", because I don\'t really think that this game really can be reduced to such rules anyway.

I kinda like to look at the sheets and the way to use them for coming up with selections as a dance (cheeky I know) as much as anything, where a lot of feeling, intuition etc comes into play and where the whole point is to try to get the pieces to fall into place perfectly, for every single race you\'re playing. If what you like about a race is that the favorite will be overbet for the win given that there are a few horses in the race that on their very best could be able to beat him fair and square, however you don\'t really see that two or three of them would be able to because they don\'t run that good often enough, then I can\'t really agree that it would be a sure way to go bankrupt to construct your tickets accordingly.

[TGJB]

The simplest way to answer this is that if you have to use an odds on favorite in the exactas you shouldn\'t be playing exactas, you should be betting to win or multi-race bets. The lone exception would be if you are playing a COLD exacta. Sure, you can cash some that way-- but the diluting effect it has when you hit one of the other exacta combos makes it a losing proposition. It either will have a negligible effect helping you, or you will have to bet enough to seriously dilute the other ones-- take your good results from 5-1 on the race to 5/2, something like that.

A play-- win, exacta, whatever-- is either an overlay or it is not. The idea that because a horse has some chance to come in is not a reason to use it-- if you think it has the same chance as a horse 5 times the price you should NOT be using it. Not underneath in exactas.

There are other situations where a horse CAN be an underlay in the win pool but usable. If I like a 20-1 shot, think he should be 6-1, I can use the favorite over him IF THE EXACTA ITSELF IS AN OVERLAY, independent from the win price. That\'s what betting software does.

Anybody who posts again on this string had better be on point and not calling anyone names or they\'re going on sabbatical. And for the larger picture, there\'s something in the Archives about What Do I Like About This Race. If you understand that you\'ll understand this issue.

[ringato3]

DaveDuggan

If I believe a \"favorite is almost sure to run his race and be right there\", then I probably don\'t have him as a bet against.  

One of the reasons this thread went off the reservation is that somebody posted a comment about \"another ROTW where the favorite is tossed for no reason\" or something along those lines.

The favorite in this race was 3-5 and The 3rd fastest horse in the race, at his top.   He was coming off a layoff and spotting weight to faster horses, which was mentioned more than once.  He was a \"name\" horse, having won one of the slowest BC sprints in recent memory (making him a further underlay) A TG negative 1 usually doesn\'t win that race.  So, relative to his chances to win the race, he was overweight in all the pools.  The question becomes how to bet against him.   ROTW author tried to get two horses to beat him, as they liked the 1-2-5.   So a vertical bet was recommended.   Personally, as I posted pre race, I didn\'t like the 2.   That left me with one in form horse, the 1, and one horse who was fast but had spotty form (the 5), he could win but if he didn\'t win, he could also be off the board.  I chose to play horizontal using only the 1 and 5.

As the race played out, the 1 was much the best, and the 3/5 shot ran relatively poorly, but the 5 didnt Fire and nobody else was good enough to fill out the exacta.  

As the multi race payouts showed in the pick 4 and pick 5, beating the 3/5 shot was ok.

As for other posts about making a \"score\" on the race with the exacta, let\'s look at the math.   If u liked the favorite, and played him on top of ONLY one horse, and then reversed it for half as much, u got 3/2 on your money.   If u used more than one horse and did that u got paid less than even money.   No \"score\".

The game is too hard and the margin for error is too great, to make bets like that, no matter what u read here, or anywhere else.

Good luck

Rob

[Rick B.]

ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for other posts about making a \"score\" on the
> race with the exacta, let\'s look at the math.   If
> u liked the favorite, and played him on top of
> ONLY one horse, and then reversed it for half as
> much, u got 3/2 on your money.   If u used more
> than one horse and did that u got paid less than
> even money.   No \"score\".

Only, that is not at all what I did, so this is
a strawman.

I had Work All Week singled in all of my P4\'s. The
only exactas I made were savers with WAW in the 2nd
spot, essentially a place bet so there was no need
for me to have WAW on top.

[beazley]

I have similar view. If you have an edge to win on a solid overlay why reduce your expected value by using an underlaid favorite in second. Just stick to the win.  Maybe play a smaller size saver straight exacta with favorite on top of your strong overlay pick if you think the fave is the primary threat to your top choice.  That\'s a better play then a place bet.

[ringato3]

Rick,

I mean this in as civil and respectful A way that I can muster.   Your post inadvertently proved the point that I (and TGJB) were making.

U singled a 3/5 shot in your horizontal wagers, then backed up your 3/5 shot by playing him underneath in underlaid exactas, so u could effectively have a place bet on a 3/5 shot.  (Your words, I wouldn\'t call it that, but not a big deal)

Who that pays 25 bucks for sheets, to look for angles the public MAY not see, plays 3/5 shots to place?  

Who knows what to even root for in that situation.  That race was the second leg of the pick 4 and 3rd leg of the pick 5, so do u want to be alive in a multi race bet or cash an underlaid exacta?

U made a bet where u can\'t really get paid off, at least in a way that most would call a score.  (I venture to say that most that read this broad don\'t consider going dead on all horizontals to cash a saver exacta that was an underlay as a score)

When I bet a football game I am laying 105/100 or 108/100 depending where I bet it.  So I can try to \"grind\" a profit.   Horse racing has so many more variables and dimensions the gambler can\'t take even odds or 8/5 and anything like this.   We have to get paid off when we are right at dramatically higher odds than things like betting 3/5 shots on top and then protecting under a 2-1 shot.

To put it another way, I wonder how many people would be interested in reading the ROTW if the suggestion was \"stand with the 3/5 shot in all horizontal wagers, but protect in exactas under the other two logical winners....

Rob

[DaveDuggan]

Cheers for the input and it\'s sinking in slowly, anyways, in this scenario where there were three horses that could run big enough to beat the favorite but it was unlikely that two or three of them would you would rather play those three horses to win or box them in exactas? Because I would never bet three horses to win, then I would rather take a stab at one of them. And I also like to play cold exactas, specially when favorites are involved. I guess the best way to use this race would be what Ringato did, to just play it horizontally and use it to get a 3/5 favorite beat. But I also wouldn\'t shrug at Rick\'s approach which was to use the favorite in the 2nd spot as a saver in some exactas.

I do understand where you\'re coming from TGJB when you\'re saying that a bet either is an overlay or it is an underlay, all though I have to admit it is a difficult concept to come entirely to piece with given that we never know when it actually is an underlay or overlay. I think what I struggle with, and I guess I still have to improve upon this part of my thinking, is that in a type of bet where many people play many combinations you could still get value by playing really focused (i.e an cold exacta, or maybe even a weighted wheel where you take a stab with one combination and settle for less with one or two other combinations).

Another tough concept for me is to only use a horse I like horizontally, I guess I always want to capitalize on my opinions as much as possible but maybe in that way of thinking end up doing the opposite, in the long run, I guess that\'s just a flaw in my money management which I also would have to improve upon to get closer to conquering this great challenge of beating the races..

[ringato3]

Dave,

There was no \"right way\" to bet the race.  

I truly believe the \"right way\" is to structure a bet that reflects YOUR OPINiON on a race, factoring in value.

For the ROTW author, they felt 3 horses could beat an underlaid 3/5 shot, so for THAT person a vertical wager makes great sense. For me, there were 2 horses that could beat the 3/5 shot and 1 was an \"all or nothing\" type (win or off board), so vertical was out and horizontal the way to go.

The reason I was critical of ricks wager is that if I single a 3/5 shot in horizontal wagers, which I do fairly often, then my OPiNION is that he is a horse i am comfortable standing with.   For me to then turn around and play him underneath other horses is a contradiction to my initial opinion.   I can \"protect\" price horses with saver exactas, but boy, protecting 3/5 shots with saver exactas is a rough way to bet.

Rob

[Rick B.]

ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who that pays 25 bucks for sheets, to look for
> angles the public MAY not see, plays to 3/5 shots to
> place?

Not me.
 
There was some value in the exactas, if you could
be certain that you got the likely upsetters down
to a few. I felt that the ROTW did just that.

Where we parted company was on what to do with Work
All Week. I\'ve been on his bandwagon since almost
his first race...gave him out to everyone I know
for the BC Sprint last fall (when TG didn\'t even
have him as a contender).

I\'m ahead on this horse for life. I can make plays
like I did yesterday on a very select group of horses,
if they are as solid as Work All Week. Most 3/5
shots are not.  

> To put it another way, I wonder how many people
> would be interested in reading the ROTW if the
> suggestion was \"stand with the 3/5 shot in all
> horizontal wagers, but protect in exactas under
> the other two logical winners....

The private comments I am receiving indicate that
I am not alone in altering the ROTW suggested bets.