Since we have a day off from the Spa, thought I would see if I can get some insight from a few. I think most everyone would agree that the difference in being a great handicapper or just another degenerate is the gambling side of the game, how to turn your opinions of how the race will play out into the correct wager. I know there are 1000\'s of different situations probably that would require a different wager based on the circumstances.
I know this is probably just basic for some of you guys but I sometimes find myself wondering about different horizontal situations. Let\'s just say you hit the first leg of a pic 4, is there any situation that you would then play a DD or Pic 3 the next race.
Do you generally just ride out the pic 4 until it bust, or say after you have hit the 1st and 2nd leg then would you consider making a pic 3 wager. Are there times where you hit the first two legs of a pic 4 and then play some type of DD as a saver?
Are there any true winners in the game that strictly play caveman style tickets only.
Sorry if this is not an appropriate discussion here but it is the part of the game that puzzles me the most and has me second guessing myself more often than not.
Jmoore,
Great question and I\'m sure you will get a bunch of varied opinions.
Caveman tickets can get expensive and the only time I\'ll use one anymore is if I\'m bombs away in the sequence. The A,B,C\'s without ticket maker can be a little daunting at first but after a few they just flow. The pick 5 that both Jimbo and I hit a couple of Saturdays ago is a good example. In .50 increments by the A,B,C\'s it was $88, caveman would have been $120, the difference adds up over time.I won\'t tell you which of us is the mathematician who bet the cave man sequence. :)
Rocky(mathcapper) has 2 formula\'s for DD odds, one is quick and easy, the other bit more complicated. I had a couple discussions with him about protecting sequences in motion. I don\'t do it often but yes especially at the Spa you almost always get 2 maiden races in the pick 5 sequence so the wise guy horse can easily be missed. TGJB will attest I\'m sure to Rocky\'s incredible accuracy in nailing the odds that a horse will go off at, conservatively I\'ll give him 95%. Especially if you missed a live horse in the final leg or even one that\'s a bit disportionate to a legitimate ML!!!! Per Rocky \" you are clinically insane if you don\'t protect anything with a pulse with win bets if you are alive for big money\".
In pick 4\'s I\'ve done a weighted sequence for years before I ever learned my A,B,C\'s per my opinion of the horses % to win and when I like a price horse that I feel has better than a 20% per chance to win and will be over 10/1, I\'ll press that ticket looking for a home run or if I am negative about a 3/5 shot that may be on 80% plus of the tickets.
Mjellish is one of the best I\'ve ever seen on structuring horizontal tickets making sure he gets paid if he has a pricey opinion.
In my earlier rant about the nonsense discussions as opposed to handicapping one\'s it was out of pure frustration. I\'ve been a contributor here since 2009, like many I lingered in the shadows and read a lot of posts before I ever staring posting my opinions. I\'ve got 44 years in this game and I\'ve said it many times that I\'ve learned more here with the relationships I\'ve made from this board and live at the Spa than I did in the previous 30 something combined.
The talent level of the players that sometimes not so much express thier opinions here anymore is absolutely off the charts!
This is an interesting thread.
I can understand the point of protecting if your live for a big payout in the last leg, given that these are pretty rare occasions where you simply don\'t have enough of these situations to let the \"variance\" even out itself over the long haul.
But speaking only for myself I would never let the results in the first few legs of something affect how I bet the next races/sequences. These situations are so common so I would think the \"right\" thing to do is to keep placing your best bets (the bets with the most expected value), and not \"watering down\" your value by buying yourself some false insurance in attempts to hedge. By doing this you are in effect playing against your own opinions (it was probably a reason why you left out those horses to begin with, in favour of including someone else), and at least if you know what you\'re doing that\'s not something one should do. In my opinion it\'s better to let the variance even this out in the long term, instead of \"selling out at a bad price\" for some insurance in the short term. I guess there is a reason why selling insurance is such a lucrative business!
But I would love to hear other opinions about this.
FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Caveman tickets can get expensive and the only
> time I\'ll use one anymore is if I\'m bombs away in
> the sequence. The A,B,C\'s without ticket maker can
> be a little daunting at first but after a few they
> just flow. The pick 5 that both Jimbo and I hit a
> couple of Saturdays ago is a good example. In .50
> increments by the A,B,C\'s it was $88, caveman
> would have been $120, the difference adds up over
> time.I won\'t tell you which of us is the
> mathematician who bet the cave man sequence. :)
This is an *incredibly* important point: Frank saved ~35% by playing structured ABC tickets rather than Cavemans. In this game if you can find 2% you\'re a genius, so who can afford to give away 35%?
> Rocky(mathcapper) has 2 formula\'s for DD odds, one
> is quick and easy, the other bit more complicated.
> I had a couple discussions with him about
> protecting sequences in motion. I don\'t do it
> often but yes especially at the Spa you almost
> always get 2 maiden races in the pick 5 sequence
> so the wise guy horse can easily be missed. TGJB
> will attest I\'m sure to Rocky\'s incredible
> accuracy in nailing the odds that a horse will go
> off at, conservatively I\'ll give him 95%.
> Especially if you missed a live horse in the final
> leg or even one that\'s a bit disportionate to a
> legitimate ML!!!! Per Rocky \" you are clinically
> insane if you don\'t protect anything with a pulse
> with win bets if you are alive for big money\".
Caveat: if by \'big money\' Rocky means a genuinely life-altering sum of money, then I could be convinced. The utility in making that score, or even half of that score when you hedge out, is so big, that you may decide the utility outweighs the EV.
Another scenario where hedging could be correct would be a situation as you described: take a P5 sequence with a 5th leg that has many first-timers, and you realize while studying the probables that you have failed to cover a horse taking a ton of steam. You have gotten new, valuable information, which may make you realize that you want to play a DD with your 4th leg horse into that 5th leg horse.
Otherwise, hedging = buying insurance = decreasing your edge. I have a hard enough time finding any edge in this game, and am loathe to give away even a fraction of it by hedging. Gambling within your bankroll means you can stand the swings. If you can\'t stand them psychologically, then you may be in the wrong line of work/hobby.
> In pick 4\'s I\'ve done a weighted sequence for
> years before I ever learned my A,B,C\'s per my
> opinion of the horses % to win and when I like a
> price horse that I feel has better than a 20% per
> chance to win and will be over 10/1, I\'ll press
> that ticket looking for a home run or if I am
> negative about a 3/5 shot that may be on 80% plus
> of the tickets.
I like this concept a lot - in fact, I try to be even more polarized. I tend to bet P5 sequences with one ticket that I punch 10-20 times, and that ticket will have max 7-8 horses used in the entire sequence. Then I will play 5 tickets \"4 A\'s with 1 B,\" and that\'s typically it.
Awesome thread had to google what a caveman bet was.
I added most of my thoughts in my reply to FrankD\'s (excellent) post, I\'ll add a few more here that are tangentially related:
Saratoga/NYRA takes 15% on P5\'s and non-carry P6\'s, vs. 18.5% on DD\'s, 24%/24%/24% on P3/4/6 carryovers.
SoCal takes 14% on P5, vs. 20% on DD, and 23.68% on P3/P4/P6.
Cliff\'s notes: play pick 5\'s.
As far as the notion of adding a DD or P3 after I have made the first leg, that would depend solely on whether I think the DD or P3 is standalone a profitable bet.
TempletonPeck wrote: This is an *incredibly* important point: Frank saved ~35% by playing structured ABC tickets rather than Cavemans. In this game if you can find 2% you\'re a genius, so who can afford to give away 35%?
However it\'s still a question of strategy because nothing comes for free. If you\'re going for the big jackpot or the sequence is particular tough there would be situations where \"caveman style\" could be the winning approach, because what you lose by playing ABC is the possibility to hit two of your least regarded contenders (and probably, many others \"least regarded contenders\"). It might be expensive and you might feel that you\'re paying a lot for a little by playing caveman, but I don\'t think one can be sure that those 2 % extra edge never lies in buying those expensive combinations of horses that very few \"shrewdies\" have. Maybe even there would be situations where \"teaming up\" with other players to play one huge system would be the right move. \"50 systems\" can be expensive too. So I guess you\'re right that there are 1000 situations which will demand different strategies, and I think a good bettor is one who have a lot of these in his or hers arsenal. Also, remember that this is a competition and the value is always in playing in a way that makes room for hitting (a lot of) combinations that (relatively) few others have. This is where one applies creativity.
Pete,
Case in point, I\'ll almost always cave man my pick 4 play for .50 sometimes for a $1 or $2 say from $48- $216 in a general range. If you like 3-4 in some fashion in that 5th leg it can get expensive for some. I caught a very nice pick 4 the last week of the Belmont meet with the \"caveman .50 saver\" while I had $4-$8 tickets in my weighted sequence.
It gave me a nice pre Saratoga bankroll to urinate away!!!!
Do you guys play chalk heavy tickets using ABC\'s or tend to leave those combos out? I.E. 3 or more favorites in P5, 2 or more favorites in P4.
Old handicapping books suggest trying to beat more than half the favorites out of a given sequence but I have heard of bettors smashing $50 P4\'s with heavy chalk and having good success.
Would be interesting to see what P5 sequences produce the highest \"overlays\" over time and which method would be more viable.
TempletonPeck wrote: I like this concept a lot - in fact, I try to be even more polarized. I tend to bet P5 sequences with one ticket that I punch 10-20 times, and that ticket will have max 7-8 horses used in the entire sequence. Then I will play 5 tickets \"4 A\'s with 1 B,\" and that\'s typically it.
This is pretty far from my typical approach, except maybe in extremely straight forward sequences. Playing \"only A\'s and maybe one B\" is not exactly to be making room for serendipity, which I think is a huge aspect of these horizontal wagers (and even trifectas). I think N.N. Taleb\'s theories are brilliant in explaining why one should try to \"make friends\" with randomness, instead of trying to conquer it (check out The Black Swan and Antifragile). If you\'re playing with this level of confidence you will never hit \"the crazy combinations\" that leads to the big payoffs, but when you do hit you will hit many with what in hindsight will look like an obvious sequence. I guess that the way you play these pick 5\'s is by being really selective in finding the ones where this approach is sound. I\'m not taking anything away from that, but I certainly wouldn\'t recommend that approach to any pick 5.
I haven\'t read any of his stuff, so I can\'t fully address in that regard, but off the top of my head: why would I embrace randomness in an event whose outcome I am trying to predict?
I am betting horse races specifically because they are NOT random events. I bet on these events because I think I can predict the outcomes more accurately than the market can.
The randomness I embrace is that I won\'t cash very many P5 tickets. Said another way: variance is your friend, it\'s what gets the suckers to play.
Keep in mind, I didn\'t say that I\'m playing 5 favorites in my \'all A\'s\' ticket - typically it is quite the opposite. I am looking for P5 sequences where I see a possibility of zero favorites winning.
\"It takes a lot of intellect and confidence to accept that what makes sense doesn't really make sense.\"
N.N. Taleb
TempletonPeck wrote: Otherwise, hedging = buying insurance = decreasing your edge. I have a hard enough time finding any edge in this game, and am loathe to give away even a fraction of it by hedging. Gambling within your bankroll means you can stand the swings. If you can\'t stand them psychologically, then you may be in the wrong line of work/hobby
____________________________
When I am truly in the proper mindset, the zone if you will, it is often at Fairmount Park on a Saturday afternoon with many friends and excellent gamblers around me. One thing that really works for me is once I have arrived to a potentially large horizontal score, as soon as the penultimate race has ended I start talking it out to all of my friends expressing what I have, the possible worst case scenarios, the potential upsetters, the potential decision of hedge to break even versus hedge to make a small profit albeit small versus let it ride b/c of confidence in that decision. I do not have an absolute rule here. I\'ve found that the best option is make the best decision at that particular time based on all the information and opinions I respect available to me at that particular moment. I\'m a curious person by nature so at that point I like to gather as much info as possible until about 6 to 7 minutes to post, then pull my thoughts together on my own, make a decision, speak it outloud to my friends one last time to see if there is any strong last minute thoughts that might sway me and then make the very best decision for me and live with it. I\'ve found that has worked out best more times than not for me since I adopted that approach.
Early on when I started playing the p4, I would wait until after the final race to try to \"surprise\" my friends with my big score. Too many times I found out I didn\'t make the right decision on the last leg and adopted the approach above.
It has been a few months since this has happened as I\'ve been traveling all over the country chasing the fantastic excitement of live racing. But this works best for me when I am dead serious about my play.
\"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.\"
Aristotle
Seriously though, as I said, I haven\'t read his work.
As it relates to horse racing, and specifically horizontal plays, I think we will profit most by cashing infrequently, but cashing large when we do.
I\'m not suggesting that you should pass on playing those longshot-laden caveman tickets in favor of playing ABC\'s that only allow for 1-2 longshots, quite the contrary: I\'m for playing only longshot-laden tickets that allow for 1-2 short prices.
IOW: Embrace randomness all the way! Cash once a year for a big number and lose the other 200 days. Learn to love the long run :-)
Fairmount1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing that really works
> for me is once I have arrived to a potentially
> large horizontal score, as soon as the penultimate
> race has ended I start talking it out to all of my
> friends expressing what I have, the possible worst
> case scenarios, the potential upsetters, the
> potential decision of hedge to break even versus
> hedge to make a small profit albeit small versus
> let it ride b/c of confidence in that decision. I
> do not have an absolute rule here. I\'ve found
> that the best option is make the best decision at
> that particular time based on all the information
> and opinions I respect available to me at that
> particular moment. I\'m a curious person by nature
> so at that point I like to gather as much info as
> possible until about 6 to 7 minutes to post, then
> pull my thoughts together on my own, make a
> decision, speak it outloud to my friends one last
> time to see if there is any strong last minute
> thoughts that might sway me and then make the very
> best decision for me and live with it. I\'ve found
> that has worked out best more times than not for
> me since I adopted that approach.
Get all the information you can, consider the variables carefully, ask smart people for good advice, double-check for anything you missed, and accept whatever results come.
This seems like a good approach to life in general, nevermind gambling! :-)
Thought provoking discussion. In regard to hedging, I think it comes down to whether or not the hedge would guarantee a life changing score(subjective). I certainly wouldn\'t begrudge anyone from taking the sure thing in that case.
Much like carrying insurance though... Hedging is typically not going to help your bottom line.
There\'s a lot of psychological hurdles to overcome, ask yourself if you have no problem calling out a 50 cent pick 4 part wheel that cost 200 bucks but have trepidation calling out a 200 win bet. I can single one horse in a pick something and have the ticket cost 100 or 2, but when it comes time to call out 200 to win, i *feel* like i\'m spending too much money on the win bet even though the win bet has more chance to win than the pick something singling the same horse.
Why is that?
Maybe saying the words \"two hundred\" is a lot tougher than saying \"50 cent...\" even though that 50 cent bet adds up to 200 itself.
Greatest game in the world, so many ways to get beat, only one way to win.
I could have had an unlimited bankroll, a caveman ticket and a Godzilla ticket and still not come up with the #1 horse in the Test! It\'s been a frustrating few weeks. Soldiering on!
plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There\'s a lot of psychological hurdles to
> overcome, ask yourself if you have no problem
> calling out a 50 cent pick 4 part wheel that cost
> 200 bucks but have trepidation calling out a 200
> win bet. I can single one horse in a pick
> something and have the ticket cost 100 or 2, but
> when it comes time to call out 200 to win, i
> *feel* like i\'m spending too much money on the win
> bet even though the win bet has more chance to win
> than the pick something singling the same horse.
>
> Why is that?
> Maybe saying the words \"two hundred\" is a lot
> tougher than saying \"50 cent...\" even though that
> 50 cent bet adds up to 200 itself.
>
> Greatest game in the world, so many ways to get
> beat, only one way to win.
There\'s another element involved in that -- the $200 horizontal bet involves uncertainty of payout, and the possibility of that elusive big score, while the $200 win bet is a known commodity, and unless it\'s on Laoban or the Delgado horse in the Test, it\'s not going to provide that adrenaline rush of the high four- or five-figure pick-4. There\'s a certain psychology involved that, for me, gets in the way of sound money management, and makes me, along with Chad Brown, one of my own worst enemies.
Mc990 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thought provoking discussion. In regard to
> hedging, I think it comes down to whether or not
> the hedge would guarantee a life changing
> score(subjective). I certainly wouldn\'t begrudge
> anyone from taking the sure thing in that case.
>
> Much like carrying insurance though... Hedging is
> typically not going to help your bottom line.
Unless you\'re alive to a bunch of horses for mid 6 figures, no hedge will provide a score, and you\'d have to bet huge on the ones you\'ve left off the ticket. Let\'s say you\'re alive for 100k to 3 horses, and there\'s a 4-1 you need to protect against. Yep, 25,000 , which you don\'t have, and you wouldn\'t get 4-1 on it after you bet even if you did.
Ive seen longshots (20-1 types) in the last leg of a pick 6 take 1000 win bets from hedgers.
moosepalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> plasticman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There\'s a lot of psychological hurdles to
> > overcome, ask yourself if you have no problem
> > calling out a 50 cent pick 4 part wheel that
> cost
> > 200 bucks but have trepidation calling out a
> 200
> > win bet. I can single one horse in a pick
> > something and have the ticket cost 100 or 2,
> but
> > when it comes time to call out 200 to win, i
> > *feel* like i\'m spending too much money on the
> win
> > bet even though the win bet has more chance to
> win
> > than the pick something singling the same
> horse.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> > Maybe saying the words \"two hundred\" is a lot
> > tougher than saying \"50 cent...\" even though
> that
> > 50 cent bet adds up to 200 itself.
> >
> > Greatest game in the world, so many ways to get
> > beat, only one way to win.
>
>
> There\'s another element involved in that -- the
> $200 horizontal bet involves uncertainty of
> payout, and the possibility of that elusive big
> score, while the $200 win bet is a known
> commodity, and unless it\'s on Laoban or the
> Delgado horse in the Test, it\'s not going to
> provide that adrenaline rush of the high four- or
> five-figure pick-4. There\'s a certain psychology
> involved that, for me, gets in the way of sound
> money management, and makes me, along with Chad
> Brown, one of my own worst enemies.
Yes, yes . . . a thousand times, yes.
FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rocky(mathcapper) has 2 formula\'s for DD odds, one
> is quick and easy, the other bit more complicated.
> I had a couple discussions with him about
> protecting sequences in motion. I don\'t do it
> often but yes especially at the Spa you almost
> always get 2 maiden races in the pick 5 sequence
> so the wise guy horse can easily be missed. TGJB
> will attest I\'m sure to Rocky\'s incredible
> accuracy in nailing the odds that a horse will go
> off at, conservatively I\'ll give him 95%.
> Especially if you missed a live horse in the final
> leg or even one that\'s a bit disportionate to a
> legitimate ML!!!! Per Rocky \" you are clinically
> insane if you don\'t protect anything with a pulse
> with win bets if you are alive for big money\".
I wish I could take credit for that last statement, but I was actually paraphrasing a comment Steve Crist made over 20 years ago(!) during his brilliant "Pick Six Betting Strategies" presentation at the '93 DRF Expo. He prefaced that statement by saying that in general, players hurt themselves though saving – what you end up doing is reducing your profit edge so heavily through those savers that you negate the power of your original bet.
But in a bet like the Pick 6 (or Pick 5), if you get into a situation where you're alive to 3 of the 6 horses in the last leg and you know the thing is going to pay between $20K and $40K, and you've put in $1K, he said you're crazy not to spend as much as $2K making win bets on the other 3 horses.
This brings up the other topic of his presentation – how to estimate Pick 6 payouts. If you're in a situation like that, he said you better know whether those Pick 6's are going to pay $4K or $40K. If they're only going to pay $4K, and you've put $1K into it, you certainly don't want to spend $2K on saver bets on the horses you didn't like in the first place. But if it's going to pay $40K, and you can dutch your bet so that for $2K you've got to get back $6K, whether in the long, long run that turns out to be profitable, in the short run, in terms of mental stability and cash flow, you really should make those bets.
With Pick 6 Will Pays now available after the penultimate leg, the ability to accurately estimate Pick 6 payouts is no longer as critical, but it still applies to situations when players have gotten home enough long priced horses before the penultimate leg that it may warrant hedging in both of the final two legs, either via win bets or through DD bets.
Steve said he played around with all kinds of ideas on how to estimate Pick 6 payouts (mostly centering around how deep one had to go in a race), none of which were remotely accurate, before going back to where he said he should have started - an estimate based on the equivalent win parlay.
It seems obvious in hindsight that payouts for multirace bets should simply be a reflection of the horses\' win probabilities, but until he laid it out and showed how accurate the estimates were across an entire meet, no one really knew how to do it.
That presentation by the way, was also where Steve derisively coined the term "caveman" tickets and introduced the concept of the multiple ticket approach, which he likened to old Chinese restaurant menus. It wasn't until many, many years later that he made this (ABC) approach available to the masses in the form of DRF's TicketMaker.
To this day, that presentation is one of THE most influential talks on horse racing I've ever been privy to. It provided me with the foundation to create takeout-adjusted payout estimates for all exotic wagers, both horizontal and vertical, as well as the ability to estimate horses' final odds based on the DD Will Pays. Without Steve\'s presentation to guide me in the right direction, I don't know if I ever would have become "mathcapper" ;-)
Furious Pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TempletonPeck wrote: This is an *incredibly*
> important point: Frank saved ~35% by playing
> structured ABC tickets rather than Cavemans. In
> this game if you can find 2% you\'re a genius, so
> who can afford to give away 35%?
>
>
>
> However it\'s still a question of strategy because
> nothing comes for free. If you\'re going for the
> big jackpot or the sequence is particular tough
> there would be situations where \"caveman style\"
> could be the winning approach, because what you
> lose by playing ABC is the possibility to hit two
> of your least regarded contenders (and probably,
> many others \"least regarded contenders\"). It might
> be expensive and you might feel that you\'re paying
> a lot for a little by playing caveman, but I don\'t
> think one can be sure that those 2 % extra edge
> never lies in buying those expensive combinations
> of horses that very few \"shrewdies\" have. Maybe
> even there would be situations where \"teaming up\"
> with other players to play one huge system would
> be the right move. \"50 systems\" can be expensive
> too. So I guess you\'re right that there are 1000
> situations which will demand different strategies,
> and I think a good bettor is one who have a lot of
> these in his or hers arsenal. Also, remember that
> this is a competition and the value is always in
> playing in a way that makes room for hitting (a
> lot of) combinations that (relatively) few others
> have. This is where one applies creativity.
I think it\'s true that there\'s no one correct answer. Creativity and flexibility (and a little luck) are key. Let\'s be honest though---it\'s not the days when you\'d have hit if you played a $4000 caveman ticket that hurt because that\'s not realistic for the vast majority of us. It\'s the days where, even though you know that the caveman ticket is dumb, the $120 caveman Pick 4 pays $4000 and your more intelligent $50 pared-down ticket misses that hurt the most.
Ignoring the psychological side, doesn\'t there have to be a mathematical approach to deciding whether and how much to hedge? By not hedging, you are basically taking your implied winnings from the first X legs and splitting them equally among win bets on your covered horses in the last leg. Perhaps the Kelly criterion would tell you whether you have bet too much on those horses, in which case you should take some money off the table by hedging? That\'s where the strength of your opinion on the last race and the size of your potential score come into play.
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ignoring the psychological side, doesn\'t there
> have to be a mathematical approach to deciding
> whether and how much to hedge?
I would say that if you ignore the psychological side, the mathematically correct amount to hedge would always be $0. A hedge, by definition, is a position you take opposite your initial/current position to increase minimum return in exchange for decreasing overall return.
A hedge always costs you EV, so in that sense is always mathematically \'wrong.\' I suppose a scenario could exist where an uncovered horse was so overlaid that a bet on him could act as a hedge which increased your EV, but it\'s a bit of a unicorn.
> By not hedging,
> you are basically taking your implied winnings
> from the first X legs and splitting them equally
> among win bets on your covered horses in the last
> leg. Perhaps the Kelly criterion would tell you
> whether you have bet too much on those horses, in
> which case you should take some money off the
> table by hedging? That\'s where the strength of
> your opinion on the last race and the size of your
> potential score come into play.
You can definitely calculate the correct-for-you amount to hedge, using Kelly/Risk of Ruin. You can even just do a back-of-the-envelope \"I\'m going to be sick if I don\'t walk out of this with at least X,\" and dutch accordingly.
IMO a person\'s approach to this should vary dramatically depending on whether they\'re a pro, a once-a-year player, a serious amateur gambler, hate or love the swings, etc.
Personally, I enjoy the sweat, and I don\'t mind the swings, so as a general rule I don\'t hedge.
Agree with TempletonPeck - if you're a good handicapper, then from a purely mathematical perspective you shouldn't be hedging your bets at all, because the long run ROI on your uncovered horses should be negative (ie. tote odds are less then the fair odds you've assigned, so Kelly Criterion says not to make those bets).
However, given the fact that most horseplayers have limited bankrolls, and given the low probability of hitting superexotic bets, long run ROI is not the only consideration. Risk of ruin, cash flow and the size of the potential score, as you say, are also important factors.
Let's take the example I posted (6 horse field in the last leg, 3 covered, 3 uncovered) and look at it purely from a mathematical point of view.
Let's say the 3 horses you have covered are all 9/5 and the 3 uncovered horses are all 20-1, you've put $1K into the Pick 6 and you know the thing is going to pay $40K to each of your covered horses.
Adjusting for takeout, the win probabilities are 29.4% for each 9/5 horse and 3.9% for each 20-1 horse.
Your EV = (.294+.294+.294)x($40K-$1K) + (.039+.039+.039)x(-$1K) = +$34.3K
Now let's say you make $1K win bets on each of the 3 uncovered horses.
Now your EV = (.294+.294+.294)x($40K-$4K) + (.039+.039+.039)x($21K-$4K) = +$29.8K
By making these saver bets, you've reduced your expected value somewhat, but your outcomes are now much smoother and less binary:
Without hedging, you have an 88.2% chance of winning $39K and an 11.8% chance of losing $1K.
With hedging, you have an 88.2% chance of winning $36K and an 11.8% chance of winning $17K.
Given the low probability of hitting a Pick 6, you could easily find yourself going long stretches where you go through tens of thousands of dollars hitting nothing more than a token Pick 6. If your bankroll can withstand the roller coaster ride you are certain to experience when playing these low probability superexotics, then in an absolute monklike sense you will likely generate a higher long-term ROI in the long, long run by not hedging.
But in terms of risk of ruin, mental stability and cash flow, when you do happen to find yourself in situations like the one above where you can put yourself in a position to guarantee yourself a big score ( $17K profit) rather than risk ending up actually losing money, it makes sense to put on those hedges.
Thought of another way, would you make a $17K bet that the 3 horses you didn't like in the last leg aren't going to win? Because that's essentially what you're doing when you find yourself in that position and you don't hedge.
The Ivan Boesky of the Backyard. :):)
Gotta love it!!
As I alluded to in a post, a decent hedge outcome assumes BIG odds on the horses left uncovered AND the cash in the account to make $1000+ bets on all of them.
Back in the good old days, you could run around telling all your pals your quandary and the rolls of $100 bills would appear (for a piece of the action of course) . If you\'re sitting at home , not so easy.
If I am playing serious money I usually write my opinions on paper for each horse in each race, and then when I am done laying out my ticket(s) I go back and read these opinions and make sure they reflect those original opinions.
As to whether or not to hedge, for me it depends. It really comes down to how much I like where I am sitting and where the value in the sequence was. If, for example, the 3rd race of a Pick 4 sequence has what I believe to be a bad favorite that is likely to be a single on a lot of tickets I will certainly play a couple of Pick 3\'s or DD as well as the Pick 4 to try to leverage that opinion. I will probably put in the same ticket(s) as my original Pick 4 bet and I may even include some horses not on my original bet. The point being to make sure I am cashing in as much as possible on where I think the value is in the sequence.
As a rule, I usually don\'t hedge just to make sure I win SOMETHING heading into the last race unless it\'s really easy to do and I\'m about to get paid a lot of money vs the cost of my original bet. It\'s pretty tough to hedge a 10 horse field when you\'re only alive to 3 horses no matter what your potential pay off is.
I don\'t play a lot of caveman tickets, but IMO there is a place for them. For me it\'s usually when I\'m not playing a sequence very seriously but still want a little action. The problem with caveman tickets is they rarely reflect your actual opinions of the races (see my first point above) because they play all horses equally with each other. If that\'s the best I can come up with to me that\'s usually a sign that I should not be playing the sequence at all. I may throw a caveman ticket in if I\'m just trying to kill some time till a later race and don\'t otherwise plan to play those earlier races at all, or if there is a big carryover and I feel like tossing a contrarian dart, etc.
IMO one of the edges I have left in this game is the fact that I am willing to do the work to punch out many tickets to try to leverage my opinions as strongly as possible. So for example, I could hit the Pick 4 for $20 if I am dead nuts right with my handicapping, or $15 if I am mostly right but one B horse wins, or $10 if one C horse wins but the rest are A\'s, or $8 if two B horses win, or $5 if a B and C come in, or $2 if two C\'s come in, etc. The point being that the way my $ is bet more accurately reflects my actual opinions of whether or not certain horses will win their race, and I get paid more when I am really right and have a better ROI because I waste less $ on combinations that I feel are less likely to hit. I play serious vertical wagers the same way. It took me 35 minutes at the window to put my KY Derby Trifecta and Superfecta tickets in this year. But I am willing to do that work to maintain that edge.
Glad I wasn\'t behind you in line for the Derby! Lol:)
A lot of hedging is for mental health purposes even though it\'s probably better off to ride it out and win or lose on your opinion.
I think I\'m much more likely to NOT hedge if I hit a big pick 6 the day before, if you\'re feeling broke and \'need to cash something\' you might spread around a little more.