Handicapping and wagering are an odd couple.

Like human couples who are married, they have to work together most of the time and yet sometimes, one operates almost completely independently of the other.

When I moved to Omaha in the early 80’s, Ak-Sar-Ben was in its glory days, regularly showing up in each weekend’s count as one of the top ten tracks in the country in terms of attendance and handle. So I’m guessing that it was fairly representative of the changes in racing and wagering that were starting to take place nationally. Exactas and trifectas were available only on selected races, not on every race on the card, as they are at so many tracks today.

The primary focus for handicappers at that time was to handicap the winner of each race, not to pick the horses most likely to finish in the money to try to nail an exotic bet.

The literature of handicapping, especially over the last five years, is filled with discussion about value-“don’t bet a horse that handicaps on top for you unless you’re also sure he’s an overlay.” The theory says if he wins, you still made “the right bet” even though you don’t have a ticket to cash in your hand.

I know many casual players, recreational players, as they’re sometimes called, who would strongly disagree. And without players like these, there wouldn’t be enough people live or at the simulcasts to keep the doors open!

Is this you?

Does your frame of reference not include a studied concept of “value” wagering?

Welcome to the majority of players at the racetrack! You’re in good company and certainly not to be castigated if you do not delve deep into “value.”

At Ak-Sar-Ben, I had many friends who would ALWAYS (no exaggeration here) “baseball” the exacta-take a three-horse box for $12. (There was no dollar exacta wagering at that time.) I’m sure that there are plenty of people who still do this today.

I would ask them “Who do you like to win?” Most of the time, their reply was “It doesn’t make any difference.” I would then ask, “Well, if there wasn’t any exacta wagering in this race, which of the three would you bet to win?”

The answers and looks I got were pretty nasty. 

Apparently, I insulted their intelligence or was construed as just plan uppity!

No one can argue that the object of betting thoroughbreds is to make money. But the original starting point is, and must always be, to find the winning horse, and it’s most logical to use your top-handicapped horse as the key in your exotic wagers, in this case, the exacta.

Let’s assume a not-uncommon scenario: your handicapping has narrowed down the field to three horses. You can’t stop there and settle for a 3-horse exacta box. You have to handicap the most likely winner of the race. (Remember: suppose there was no exacta wagering in the race?)

Once you have made your selection and are satisfied with the probable payoffs, use the horse as the key in a wheel with him on top of the other two and on the bottom. Let’s say horse number 4 is your top selection of three contenders, numbers 4, 6, and 7.

Visualize a sandwich:

66

4

77

The first thing you’ve done is reduce the cost of your bet from $12 to $8 (using $2 as the minimum bet). That’s 33% less, and that’s a lot in horseracing. And, you have been forced to concentrate on handicapping.

If you have allocated $12 to wager, and have a solid third horse to use in the sandwich, in essence it’s like getting a fourth horse to use in a bet for the same amount you would use for an exacta box.

While he doesn’t care for exacta wheels, James Quinn, in The Best of Thoroughbred Handicapping, offers several points that can help make your sandwiches even tastier:

Far more often than not, favorites in exactas are overlays on bottom but underlays on top.

Extreme favorites (odds on) that figure to win can sometimes be supported on top of medium-priced horses and longshots, especially when the second and third public choices are overbet and can be eliminated.

Two longshots are invariably overbet as exacta combinations.

Two medium-priced horses represent the most generous choice of exacta overlays.