All Button

[mjellish]

Hey Fairmount,

To answer your questions, it depends.

90% of the time I\'m really more of a Win plus Exacta player in the vertical pools.  Depending upon the situation I\'ll probably use the Exacta to try to make some more money if I am dead right about the race, or as a saver in case my win bet takes 2nd.  Other than big days or big races I probably don\'t play a Tri very often.  For me there\'s no need to, I can\'t see the will pays and there\'s always IRS paperwork to consider on anything over 600-1 or $5k on one ticket.

With respect to the Tri example, in this context I was talking about a situation where you really like a longshot.  I would typically not go the ALL button route with a favorite.  And no matter what, if I hit all I probably also have put a few other tickets in with more money on the combos that I actually like.  And even then, If I am playing the Tri I am probably playing a Win Bet and an Exacta Bet as well.  Not always (such as big racing days), but probably.

The big thing to remember is that once a horse is beat they often spit the bit or the jock will try to save something.  The object of the EX or TRI is not to pick the 2 or 3 best horses.  It\'s to pick the horses that are going to finish 1-2 or 1-2-3.  So in general, I think there can be more chaos for the underneath spots.

I would consider a backup B/A/B depending upon how much I liked the A horse, the B horses and what their odds were.  It just depends.  But I am usually willing to just lose and move on rather than try to cover myself.  You can\'t spread your money out all over the place or you will win and lose at the same time.  And if you stay focused, you may hit less often but when you do hit it will pay more.  A lot of how you play really depends upon your psyche.  Can you handle going 0-20 on a given week and still not go on tilt, or do you need cash a few tickets along the way.  For me, I\'m usually pretty good about letting go and moving on. But some beats are worse than others and for whatever reason I seem to be sort of streaky at times.

With regards to your 2nd point, it\'s tough to say which pool will offer the most value.  It really depends upon the situation and what you are trying to do.  But in general if I really like a 10-1 or a 15-1 that I don\'t think is going to get a lot of play from the crowd, why not play it win, in the EX, TRI, Pick 4, Pick 3, DD and try to crush the race.  By spreading your money in the pools you aren\'t playing against yourself as much.  There\'s nothing worse than dropping a 10-1 down to 5/2 with a big win bet.  Why not drop it down 7-1 and put some of your money in the other pools and try play against the crowd as much as you can.  And if you want to it\'s ok to back yourself up a bit as well in case they you run second so long as you still feel the payoffs will be decent.

As an aside, I rarely box anything because a box is a balanced bet, and it\'s not often that I have a balanced opinion on two or more horses.  And even when I do rate them equal they usually aren\'t paying equally.  So to me a box is usually a bad way to do it, or at least a lazy way.  If you\'ve got a balanced opinion on and EX that is paying $50 one way $80 the other, instead of boxing why not bet 8 units on $50 and $5 units on the $80.  Or if you are leaning a bit more one way than the other why not play it a little more that way.  Especially if that is the way that is paying higher $.

Hope this makes sense.

[Paolo]

mjellish,
That makes a lot of sense. If you are playing enough $$ to affect the win odds, then that is even more rationale for looking at the verticals with a wheel. I hadn\'t even considered that possibility based on the size of my wagers.  Very gracious of you to share this information. I would have liked to have heard from other big players (JB, Beychok?), but perhaps this is not the right forum to discuss it? Or is it just a personal preference or maybe just information based on a proprietary optimization algorithm?

[Bet Twice]

Great perspective - thank you for sharing.

[jbee]

Excellent thoughts and perspectives.  Great thread.

[moosepalm]

Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ALL button also dials you out of what you
> would have collected had you eschewed the ALL
> button and instead loaded up on combinations you
> actually preferred. In this sense, the ALL button
> is an opinion diluter. Whether that is a good
> thing or a bad thing depends on the quality of the
> opinion that is being diluted.


Isn\'t the All button just another form of opinion, if you feel that randomness is the most viable option?  Is it not possible for someone to empirically sort out a pattern of chaotic results in specific kinds of races?

[Fairmount1]

Paolo,

I think if you read some of Barry Meadow\'s materials or saw his presentations from the DRF expo videos it would help you with some of your questions.  

My problem with Barry is that he apparently has the mindset/discipline of a Buddist Monk.  Hearing Mjellish\'s explanations involving going on tilt, streaks, and bad beats are always helpful to me because that psyche issue is a tough one to control through the up\'s and down\'s.  

Mjellish, great answers.  Thanks for your insight.

[Rich Curtis]

Moosepalm wrote:

\"Isn\'t the All button just another form of opinion, if you feel that randomness is the most viable option? Is it not possible for someone to empirically sort out a pattern of chaotic results in specific kinds of races?\"

The ALL button is not a bet on chaos. It\'s a bet on order and chaos. It is a bet on every horse. It is a bet on the favorite, the 2nd choice, the 3rd choice, the 4th choice, etc. If that\'s a bet on chaos, it\'s a terribly clumsy one.

  If you want to guarantee that you get past a hole or a race alive, hit the ALL button. If you want to bet on chaos, screw the ALL button and bet on chaos. As Paul Scofield said in Quiz Show: \"If you want to be a knight, act like a knight.\"

[moosepalm]

Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The ALL button is not a bet on chaos. It\'s a bet
> on order and chaos. It is a bet on every horse. It
> is a bet on the favorite, the 2nd choice, the 3rd
> choice, the 4th choice, etc. If that\'s a bet on
> chaos, it\'s a terribly clumsy one.
>
>   If you want to guarantee that you get past a
> hole or a race alive, hit the ALL button. If you
> want to bet on chaos, screw the ALL button and bet
> on chaos. As Paul Scofield said in Quiz Show: \"If
> you want to be a knight, act like a knight.\"


Well, there is certainly logic to support that, though I was thinking more in terms of a vertical bet in which you\'ve already highlighted one or two (or more choices for particular positions), and then ranked the rest as reasonably comparable.  Clearly, the possibility of filling those other slots with low- to moderately-priced horses runs the risk of diluting or negating the profit.  On the other hand, absent an opinion on the rest of the horses, the possibility of even one of the generously priced horses giving a jump start to the pay-off seems feasible and possibly cost-effective.  Clearly, selectivity of the kind(s) of races in which might employ this is critical, and some kind of empiricism would be most beneficial.  However, that\'s well beyond the scope of my expertise, so perhaps mjellish might have a more focused response to your criticism since this is his baby.

[Paolo]

So I did a google search on trifecta + payoffs and here is what I found:

The Trifecta of Mental Illness, Substance Abuse & Trauma:
The Key to Payoffs for Drug Courts

I\'m thinking it might be the most relevant paper on the subject.

I do have an extensive library of racing books collected over many years. Surely the cost of these books exceeded the price of all textbooks from my beancounter degree. Also sure that the \'cost of tuition\' at the mutuel windows was far in excess of that collected by the registrar at UC. Unfortunately, there is a negative correlation of education cost with ROI.

[toppled]

Here\'s a good example that bailed me out today at Churchill.  I liked 2 favorites in a row in races 6 & 7.  I thought the 8th was wide open. The double was paying $12.  Thanks to this thread I started thinking about wheeling the P3. By wheeling a 7 horse field, I only had to spend 7 units per dollar bet.  The 3rd longest shot wins, & instead of 5/1 odds on the double, I end up getting a payoff of $152 for the pick, odds of 9.85 to 1 when dividing the 152 by 14 and subtracting the original bet.  My only regret is that at the 1st leg of the pick 3 before the 2 races, I tried to get too cute & didn\'t wheel the front end as well.
Thanks for starting this thread, you really got some good responses that made a lot of us think.

[P-Dub]

moosepalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rich Curtis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > The ALL button is not a bet on chaos. It\'s a
> bet
> > on order and chaos. It is a bet on every horse.
> It
> > is a bet on the favorite, the 2nd choice, the
> 3rd
> > choice, the 4th choice, etc. If that\'s a bet on
> > chaos, it\'s a terribly clumsy one.
> >
> >   If you want to guarantee that you get past a
> > hole or a race alive, hit the ALL button. If
> you
> > want to bet on chaos, screw the ALL button and
> bet
> > on chaos. As Paul Scofield said in Quiz Show:
> \"If
> > you want to be a knight, act like a knight.\"
>
>
> Well, there is certainly logic to support that,
> though I was thinking more in terms of a vertical
> bet in which you\'ve already highlighted one or two
> (or more choices for particular positions), and
> then ranked the rest as reasonably comparable.
> Clearly, the possibility of filling those other
> slots with low- to moderately-priced horses runs
> the risk of diluting or negating the profit.  On
> the other hand, absent an opinion on the rest of
> the horses, the possibility of even one of the
> generously priced horses giving a jump start to
> the pay-off seems feasible and possibly
> cost-effective.  Clearly, selectivity of the
> kind(s) of races in which might employ this is
> critical, and some kind of empiricism would be
> most beneficial.  However, that\'s well beyond the
> scope of my expertise, so perhaps mjellish might
> have a more focused response to your criticism
> since this is his baby.

Absolutely.  There is nothing wrong with the all button.  Trying to be a genius, leaving out a horse or two, can be the difference between a big payout and nothing.

[Rich Curtis]

Regarding the question of whether one should hit the ALL button when doing so would include horses one hates:

  The right answer will depend on the individual. If one\'s records show that horses one hates tend to run well, then yes, by all means, include them on the ticket through the ALL button. On the other hand, if one\'s records show that horses one hates tend to perform poorly, then I see no justification for including them through the ALL button.

  Indeed, one could take this whole thing further. If tossing one horse from a spread play (tossing a horse one despises) costs the handicapper money over time, then a case can be made for building an entire handicapping approach around playing only horses one hates. Kind of like the George Costanza Opposite Theory from that great Seinfeld episode.

[richiebee]

Speaking HORIZONTALLY here:

I think the folks who are doing this for a living, and who use the \"ALL\"
button over a course of the year, should determine how much was wagered on
runners who are (a) hopeless (20+ try) maidens; (b) 5 years or older which
have never won, or who have not won in the last two years; (c) are saddled by
a trainer with a win percentage less than 5%; (d) [this is the TG board] have
never run a TG # within five points of the # you project will win the race;
(e) off at odds in excess of 75/1;(f) you get the idea, make your own
category...

Of course, use of the \"ALL\" button will allow one to cash a healthy multiple
race wager when one of the runners from the above categories prevails, but
over the course of the year there seems to be a baked in erosion of profit if
the ALL button is punched too liberally.

I think Steve Pick Six Crist has said that he begins the process by first
identifying runners in the sequence which he believes have no chance of
winning...

Maybe what I am saying is that as a recreational weekend warrior, I probably
should pass on a pick 5/pick 4 which has a leg with 12 in the gate and I do
not feel that I can safely eliminate 3 or 4 of them.

[P-Dub]

Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regarding the question of whether one should hit
> the ALL button when doing so would include horses
> one hates:
>
>   The right answer will depend on the individual.
> If one\'s records show that horses one hates tend
> to run well, then yes, by all means, include them
> on the ticket through the ALL button. On the other
> hand, if one\'s records show that horses one hates
> tend to perform poorly, then I see no
> justification for including them through the ALL
> button.
>
>   Indeed, one could take this whole thing further.
> If tossing one horse from a spread play (tossing a
> horse one despises) costs the handicapper money
> over time, then a case can be made for building an
> entire handicapping approach around playing only
> horses one hates. Kind of like the George Costanza
> Opposite Theory from that great Seinfeld episode.

How detailed are your betting records??

The detailed record keeping you\'re suggesting would also suggest that one would keep betting records for every wagering situation conceivable.

[Rich Curtis]

My post was tongue-in-cheek, PDub. I don\'t actually think that bettors should keep detailed records in order to learn whether they should be betting on horses they hate. I think that\'s something they should know without keeping records. And I would not suggest building a handicapping approach around the horse one most despises. And I would not actually recommend using the George Costanza Opposite Theory.