Logic disappears UNDER in exotics

[Tim Y]

The last several years I have been in the study of exotics, trying to overlay some logic to the most difficult aspect of their creation, the horses "riding the coat tails" of the winner.

For the MOST part, the "unders" represent contenders that could not keep up early (challenged, or made the pace but then are not quite good enough to stay to the wire) versus those contenders that project being close to the pace late, but never quite got there.

When it comes to the 4th horses in supers, logic usually abandons's one's tools of discrimination and escapes us.

At some tracks (and this has been consistent across many meetings) two of the top contenders SPLIT the board giving one the SPLITZACTA (and unfortunately for me, that does not get paid out). The 4th horse remains the most difficult to access (I have thrown down the gantlet many times that NO ONE can, over the long term, pick 4th horse logically and have had no takers to the challenge.)

At Hastings I met a mathematician who runs a syndicate of Pick 6 players (about 10 to 12 put in a sizable contribution). He says frankly, "It is a lot like the stock market. WE have the monetary stamina (cash depth) to cover these deep into the races with the hope that a long priced horse knocks the majority of the under-covered players out. The same is true with ANY of the exotics: DEPTH of coverage is the key."

With the advent of cheaper tickets (20 cents tickets for the super offered in Toronto for example) more casual bankrolled individuals have access to these in depth exotic payouts. SOME, like the HI-5 payout that only is given to the single winner remain the "pie in the sky" lottery like chance and should be abandoned before bankruptcy knocks on one's door, but TRI's and Super's can be had over time if your records show that you can get the top 6 contenders in the races you choose.

I have never cared for the horizontal bets where the horse cannot be viewed pre-race and the odds are unknown at the time of the wager. That baloney about a late scratch going back on the race time favorite is another thing that makes them distasteful.

I have found the best approach is to find TWO logical keys and build the ticket around them. If only one is used, a simple bit of trouble can send you entire wager down the drain. Even short priced horses, when finishing 3rd or 4th, often pay surprising total payouts.

Also, one must pick contests where there is enough spread of wagering monies so that the casual crowd is not able to cover. Stay away from baby races, particular maiden turfers, since little to nothing in the available information is available for comparison. I suggest a field of AT LEAST 7 separate entries as the threshold. It is VERY important to have an idea what exotics have usually paid out historically before investing dollar one in them. You don't want to WIN and find out that in your covering the wager, you have lost money overall. Stay away from tracks that have short fields and a high percentage of winning favorites (like Finger Lakes).

Like poker, you will get many a "push" (break even) but in the long run, the home run ball is always around and many of these LOGIC/LOGIC/LOGIC/ALL pay extremely well.....One just has to have the coverage to wait for them.

Make sure YOUR records show a consistency of contenders found race to race before you even consider this theoretically.

[cigar]

Good read Tim and good to see you back.

[mowens33]

I second that!
Tim, good to have you back!!
I really enjoy your insight!!!
Mike

[Tim Y]

Pays to be vigilant: the recent COLD spell here coordinated exactly, with the projected top ranked, "under" contenders DOWNFALL.

It happens in the East where weather is a very prominent factor.

LESSON: keep active records and respond to them.....watch for a reversal again, IF it does happen.

Also this time of year, many a young expensive animal is "dumped" (huge drop in price like a Casse youngster last night's 7th, Conquest Skedaddle, who went off at 3/5 and finished LAST.....A quick review of what that one cost, and the wide gaps in its training led to a singular conclusion: DAMAGED GOODS).