Quote:
Originally Posted by RUFFIAN-333
JOLY => “The solution to your problem is exactly the one that you stated then”.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=
WHY IT WOULDNT = $6.50 FOR 2nd IS USELESS IN ROI 
*** ALSO
I prefer dividing my hundred dollars  on 4–5 horses when possible
* Putting money on WIN ONLY * 
RARELY DOES PLACE $$ PAY OFF ENOUGH TO MATTER IN ROI |
Of course you may place your wagers any way you choose. That's one of the pleasures of this game - the way a horseplayer can try to figure it out in a manner that matches his or her analysis. I was just quoting the poem you had written the last time you were unhappy about one of your longshots finishing second.
I'll pass over the fact that the $6.50 payoff was the show payoff not the place. From a handicapping perspective, the player who likes a longshot (let's call him Reconfigure) and plays him $2 WP would of course wish that he won at 24-1, but would take a lot of consolation in getting a return of $10.60 on his $4 wager for Reconfigure's second place finish. You could have a winning day at the races with a couple of picks like that. You could also finish in the top couple of places in the ROI quite often with a payoff like that.
I tend to be heavily driven in my wagering by numbers and probability. After all, the object of wagering is to win more than you have bet. It's been my experience that 24-1 shots probably finish second much more frequently than they win - if a speed horse, might get to the lead and be good (or lucky) enough to hold off all of the closers except one. If a closer, might make a strong run at the finish and be able to run down all of the opponents except one. That's why they are 24-1 in the first place. Naturally, the most likely result is that they won't hit the board at all, but that's a story for another day.