The Gamblin part

[Jmoore]

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.

[FrankD.]

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!

[Furious Pete]

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.

[TempletonPeck]

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.

[johnnym]

Awesome thread had to google what a caveman bet was.

[TempletonPeck]

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.

[Furious Pete]

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.

[FrankD.]

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!!!!

[wherethevalue]

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.

[Furious Pete]

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.

[TempletonPeck]

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.

[Furious Pete]

\"It takes a lot of intellect and confidence to accept that what makes sense doesn't really make sense.\"

N.N. Taleb

[Fairmount1]

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.

[TempletonPeck]

\"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 :-)

[TempletonPeck]

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! :-)