Squeezing Value From Multis - It Changes Over Time

Playing multi-race wagers is a staple in the modern betting game, and like with most things in our vocation, it evolves and changes over time. 

This type of wagering strategy started with caveman tickets where we weighted everything equally. Then after Crist's seminal book, the ABC method took hold. In the late teens of this century, the warm and cuddly one was flamed from just about everywhere and by everyone in racing for sharing his weighted, DFS-type multi-race play, which added quite a bit of game theory to the mix (a lot of which is shared in Chris's excellent book). 

One plank of multi-race betting theory - which primarily fit with harness racing, due to its 20 cent multi-leg bet minimums and short prices - was taking advantage of people who spread, because they are going too deep in each leg, because they're betting not to lose. 

Optimal play meant we'd want to hit a sequence skinny and heavy, especially if you like the chalk. You'd get your value boost from the spreaders. This worked for quite awhile. 

I think that's started to change a little bit.

Last night at Flamboro, with their 20 cent pick 5 carryover, a 2-1, 3-5, 18-1, 1-2 and 4-5 sequence paid $4,405 for $1 (the parlay was about $250). The juicer was the 18-1 horse who was like zero for 30. Zero for 30 horses aren't being keyed by sharps on $10 tickets. 

At WEG, the 20 cent pick 6 with only an $8,800 pool would've resulted on a parlay price of $135 with the big chalk in the last leg, with the bet itself paying $93. The heavy chalk lost the last race, and the payout was still only 20% above parlay because the horse that beat him was logical. 

This is not a new phenomenon (with the shorter prices at the Big A on 50 cent tickets I think we're starting to see a little of the same thing). People (teams, sharps) are getting better and better at *not* spreading 20 cent or 50 cent pools.

Despite this slight pivot, I think ITP's methods still hold. To beat this game we have to "hit them where they ain't".

In a chalky looking sequence that we like (especially with a smaller pool) for a $5 or $10 base play, we have to differentiate when it's apparent, and be willing to lose our bet to gain value. 

Free squares, again especially in a small pool, might have to be sit-outs or be faded, where again we need to be willing to lose. For years I have been fading a 1-5 or 1-9 chalk when they are in leg one, but I'm starting to look at them in later legs as well. 

Time will tell how that goes, but I think there's mounting evidence that with less and less non-sharp money in the pools spreading like peanut butter, it's starting to make a lot of sense. 

Have a great Monday everyone!