Place and Show Betting does not have to be a Grind

"If any subordinate ever tells you that he ‘loves a good fair fight’ fire that dumb son-of-a-bitch on the spot. The last thing in the world you should ever engage in is a fair fight. Your fights should be fixed. The deck should be stacked. Every rule in the book should favor you and hamper your opponent. That’s my idea of a good fight." Richard Marcinko, The Rogue Warrior Strategy for Success. © 1997.

_Many published experts have strict rules when it comes to place and show betting. A rule, widely touted by these experts is that they will only bet a horse to place and show when it is a relatively short priced favorite that actually computes to being an overly in the place or show pool. These same experts also advise against betting long-shots to place or show. The reason, the place and show pools are not divided proportionally to the win odds. Instead the pool is simply divided by two for place and by three for show. Which means you are actually subsidizing the favorite.
_In their book Betting at the Racetrack Dr Z (William Ziemba) and Donald Hausch devised a system of play that required no handicapping when betting horses to place and show. This system of play engendered much controversy among other experts in the field.
_When Barry Meadow wrote his book Money Secrets At The Racetrack he offered that the authors (Ziemba/Hausch) made serious miscalculations by using the Harville Formula. Meadow and others, such as Stanford Wong, did their own studies to show that the Harville Formulas were not accurate. The Harville Formula is an algorithm that is used to predict a horse's chances of running second or third based on their win odds.
_The discrepancy between Meadow/Wong and Ziemba/Hausch is the accuracy of the formula to predicate percentages. A difference in the place percentages was a swing from +2.0% through –11.2%. The same inaccuracies apply to the show pool as well according to Meadow's research.
_ In the book Common Sense Betting Dick Mitchell addresses the topic of the Harville Formula. He acknowledges that these discrepancies do exist but that does not invalidate Ziemba and Hauche's system. Mitchell then demonstrates how to calculate the mutual necessary for a selection to be a fair price. If you know the probability of an event and want to calculate the mutual necessary for the selection to be a fair bet, you divide the probability into the bet size.
_My own method is actually very simple in theory. Once I have completed my betting line, I then look for my contenders (priced at what I believe to be fair odds), and wait to see if and when the public lets these horses go off as long-shots.
_ I have been using this strategy for awhile and all along thinking I was going against conventional wisdom by betting these overlays to place and show. However when you get to the end of the chapter in Mitchell’s book Common Sense Betting he officially endorsed this as a reliable approach. Mitchell also says that Mark Crammer is a proponent of this betting strategy
_I felt vindicated when I read the chapter in Mitchell’s book on this topic. The book also points out a rather obvious play - the horse doesn’t have to be a long-shot for the same principles to apply.
_For example if you make a horse 3-5 on your bet line and he goes off at 2-1 you have an overlay and can afford to bet this horse in the place slot assuming the pools are in your favor. In order for me to keep this appropriate for this forum I can’t go into much detail to explain how one would calculate the fair price, and monitor the pools. You will need to read the book. At the end of the chapter the book provides a convenient chart to explain the fair odds column and what price you need before you can bet into a particular slot.
_Example, everyone remembers the Breeder Cup Classic 2008. One of my strongest contenders was Henrythenavigator. Henry went off at 19-1 and I felt confident enough after evaluating the pools that it was safe to make a bet on him in the place hole. Which turned out okay and he paid $22.00 to run second ($11.20 for show).
_I can also show a recent example of when this method does not work. Sunday’s (1/11/2009) 8th race at Aqueduct had a contender that I liked. Megadeed went off at odds of 38-1 . I felt confident that this horse was going to run second or third. However, the first and second choices were so short (and after monitoring the place and show pools) that even at the price of 38-1 I knew that Megadeed would be an underlay. Which proved to be true. He ran third and paid 4.40 (show). Obviously, there was no bet here. (It is important to pay attention to the pools.)
_Remember Rules are guidelines. Learn to break the rules before they break you.