Mountaineer Selections 5-3

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by SilentRun

Thank you for your elaborate explanation. Yes, I understand that the show
pool would have been significantly diluted had the favorite ran in the money.
You are correct, I lucked out on this one.

I frequently monitor the show pools and wager when the ratio of
the total show pool to the show amount is around 10:1 for the horses
of my interest. Up to now this has been profitable for me...I am getting
3:2 +( $3.00 or better). I have to admit I have not been tracking the amount
of show money that was bet on the favorite. Only the total pool vs my horses.

Therefore in order for me to have gotton some overlay when the favorite runs
in the money....means that the show amount bet on the favorite was not
overweighted such as you cited in your example.
Thereby leaving enough of the remaining show money to return some profit.

Thanks Again For Your Post,

Ernie

No problem and good luck!

[chardale]

I use val4 barb

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by SilentRun

For this race there was an overlay in the place and show pools.
This is based on a small amount bet to place and show for specific horses
vs the total amount bet in those pools (For all horses) This concept is clearly explained in
"Money Secrets at the Racetrack" by Barry Meadow.

There was a huge ratio in the show pools for the 4 and 7 horses. Specifically
about 30:1 to 40:1. I.E Total Show Pool / Show pool for (4 & 7) = 30:1 to 40:1.
I did not have enough time to take a screen shot of the show pool but I
had the 4 and 7 to show. (Result Chart below)
Didn't bet to win though. (The 4 won at a nice price).
Both these horses were in my top 5 RDSS contenders.

For me the horse has to be in my top 5 to consider this
type of wager. This is definitly an uncommon event as
I usually track the show pools for these overlays and I think a 10:1 ratio is very good.

I find that this is a good strategy to mitigate your losses on
your win bets. I recall that the good doctor mentioned this strategy in one
of the "Follow Ups" but I cannot cite the issue #.

Thought this would be interesting to post.

Ernie

Just thought you might be interested in seeing this. At MNR on 5.31.10, in race #9, there was another odds on favorite with A TON of money wagered on it to show that ran OUT OF THE MONEY, creating "HUGE" show prices.

http://equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/MNR053110USA9.pdf

As I did last time, I looked at the races both before and after this race. In this race there was a total of more than $170,000 wagered in the win,place and show pools. In the race just before this and in the race just after it, there was a total of $46,000 and $43,000 respectively wagered in the win, place and show pools. As you can see once again, a VERY LARGE AMOUNT of money was wagered on a favorite that ran out of the money, which in turn, created these huge show payoffs. It's the only way this happens.

[SilentRun]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

Just thought you might be interested in seeing this. At MNR on 5.31.10, in race #9, there was another odds on favorite with A TON of money wagered on it to show that ran OUT OF THE MONEY, creating "HUGE" show prices.

http://equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/MNR053110USA9.pdf

As I did last time, I looked at the races both before and after this race. In this race there was a total of more than $170,000 wagered in the win,place and show pools. In the race just before this and in the race just after it, there was a total of $46,000 and $43,000 respectively wagered in the win, place and show pools. As you can see once again, a VERY LARGE AMOUNT of money was wagered on a favorite that ran out of the money, which in turn, created these huge show payoffs. It's the only way this happens.

Thanks for posting the race very interesting. Your point is solid. Actually I was playing MNR
on 5/31 but switched off after the 5th race. Not that I would have had the winner
much less the show horses but I am going to run the race through RDSS
anyway.

Ernie

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by SilentRun

Thanks for posting the race very interesting. Your point is solid. Actually I was playing MNR
on 5/31 but switched off after the 5th race. Not that I would have had the winner
much less the show horses but I am going to run the race through RDSS
anyway.

Ernie

Well, actually, my point has nothing to do with whether or not the winner is "gettable", but rather, the circumstances that produced the HUGE show payoffs.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by SilentRun

For this race there was an overlay in the place and show pools.
This is based on a small amount bet to place and show for specific horses
vs the total amount bet in those pools (For all horses) This concept is clearly explained in
"Money Secrets at the Racetrack" by Barry Meadow.

There was a huge ratio in the show pools for the 4 and 7 horses. Specifically
about 30:1 to 40:1. I.E Total Show Pool / Show pool for (4 & 7) = 30:1 to 40:1.
I did not have enough time to take a screen shot of the show pool but I
had the 4 and 7 to show. (Result Chart below)
Didn't bet to win though. (The 4 won at a nice price).
Both these horses were in my top 5 RDSS contenders.

For me the horse has to be in my top 5 to consider this
type of wager. This is definitly an uncommon event as
I usually track the show pools for these overlays and I think a 10:1 ratio is very good.

I find that this is a good strategy to mitigate your losses on
your win bets. I recall that the good doctor mentioned this strategy in one
of the "Follow Ups" but I cannot cite the issue #.

Thought this would be interesting to post.

Ernie

You might like to take a look at the 2nd race at PHA on 6.20.10.

The #2 horse went off at 1/2 after being "off" for more than 9 months and dropping way down in class.

I did catch a glance at the win, place and show money and it showed that there was almost $8,000 bet to win on the #2, a little more than $2,000 bet to place on the #2 and almost $8,000 bet to show on the #2 (almost as much as to win). The #2 ran OUT OF THE MONEY. The result was HUGE show payoffs on the horses that ran 1,2,3.

The winner that paid $9.00 to win, paid $17.00 to show.
The place horse paid $20.60 for show
The show horse paid $45.60 for show

These kinds of payoffs for show can ONLY happen when there is an inordinate amount of money bet on one horse for show. If the #2 had run in the money the show payoffs would have been the minimum $2.10 all around.

[SilentRun]

[QUOTE=For The Lead;You might like to take a look at the 2nd race at PHA on 6.20.10.

The #2 horse went off at 1/2 after being "off" for more than 9 months and dropping way down in class.

I did catch a glance at the win, place and show money and it showed that there was almost $8,000 bet to win on the #2, a little more than $2,000 bet to place on the #2 and almost $8,000 bet to show on the #2 (almost as much as to win). The #2 ran OUT OF THE MONEY. The result was HUGE show payoffs on the horses that ran 1,2,3.

The winner that paid $9.00 to win, paid $17.00 to show.
The place horse paid $20.60 for show
The show horse paid $45.60 for show

These kinds of payoffs for show can ONLY happen when there is an inordinate amount of money bet on one horse for show. If the #2 had run in the money the show payoffs would have been the minimum $2.10 all around.[/QUOTE]

Good example RACE...Thanks,

Ernie