Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ELA
Pardon my naivete, but you know, the entire concept of not betting place as opposed to playing the exacta makes sense, conceptually, to me. However, often, for me, not having as much conviction and not being as confident in the exacta selection causes me to make the place bet instead of the exacta. Simpy put, I might be more confident in being able to pick a horse for place (one correct selection vis a vis the bet, who can run first or second) vs. betting the exacta (requiring me to select two correct selections vis a vis the bet, where they have to finish 1-2). I am not sure if that's correct or makes sense to most of the serious players here, but that is kind of my gut feeling.
Does that make any sense or am I being a whimp here?
Also, doesn't the relative size of the bet, risk/reward also play a role? Meaning if I am looking at $100 place (maybe as a hedge), am I also looking at a $100 exacta? Not really, right?
Thanks for the advice.
Eric
|
ELA, I'm sorry I didn't come back to your question sooner.
You're right this is not a bet for everyone. Nor is it a matter of being a wimp. This, to the casual player, takes a whole lotta guts. On the other hand, for the pro, (and I'm not) this is common play, as they don't bet to place, ever. In this case, no, you don't make a place bet at all. Instead, you play, YOUR horse, straight, underneath the postime public choice for $100.
There are many occasions that this bet is not feasible, as there is no clear cut public choice at postime.