As I have noted on many times in the past, one of the most powerful bets available if the situation is right, is the pick-3 wager, where you select the winner of 3 consecutive races. To summarize why I like them:

The track take only comes out once, versus 3 times if you were to make win bets on the three races.

The payoffs can be extraordinarily large, even with favorites in 2 of the 3 legs, should the other be a long shot.

The payoffs can be very generous even if there is no long shot, with very moderately priced horses as long as they are not heavy favorites.

They offer an excellent opportunity to 'leverage' correct prior observations and assumptions into a high-payoff exotic wager without having to use ALL or consider the chances of out-of-shape horses.

And there is another reason that is very subtle, which I have not mentioned heretofore. They allow you to wager aggressively when more than one horse you have been watching races in the same event. This is often the most frustrating aspect of following horses. How many times have you spotted several razor sharp horses, couldn't wait to see how the draw in their next races, only to see 2 (or more) of them come up against one another in the same race? You cannot decide who to bet on! And boxing them is not the answer, although it sometimes works. The pick-3 allows you to effectively make a win wager on both of them without being a hedge or defensive move - it is still an aggressive and committed wager because you can use both of them in the pick-3!

In this issue, I will outline for you how and when I use the pick-3, and to outline some do's and don'ts of pick-3 wagering.

First, I must refer many of you who joined in the last several months to an article in the archives, A Matter Of Focus, which outlines the various methods for being selective and reducing the number of races you bet. The vast majority of races that I bet contain a key horse or horses which I have spotted via some combination of chart analysis and personal observation.

So, the first rule of thumb on when to bet the pick-3 is: It must have a race that contains a key horse or horses - I will call this a 'key race'. That's simple. While I will sometimes will bet races other than those that I intended to when I arrived at the track, when I do add races, I bet those races, and do not bet them in the pick-3.

Naturally, since the wager contains 3 races, the most obvious favorable situation that we can have is 3 consecutive key races. This allows me to have 3 wagers each of which contain 2 key races and one other race. (The exception to this is if the key races are the first 3 or last 3, in which case, you only have 2 such wagers).

Naturally, I would prefer to have all 3 to be key races, versus only having 1, but that is not always practical. But what is practical is to insist that any pick-3 wager contain 2 key races. This leaves you with only 1 other "throw-in" race.

That is my criteria - 2 key races in the 3-race pattern or no pick-3. An exception to this can be made if the key race is the first part of a pick-3, and the key horse is a long shot. In that case, you can play the pick-3 starting with that race. This is important, since the presence of a long-priced horse seems to have much greater leverage on the price when it happens in the opening leg of the pick, versus the latter 2 races. Also, when it is in the first leg, you have the advantage of seeing the odds and insuring that the crowd doesn't surprise you and bet the horse down.

Believe it or not, this is the easy part. It is certainly MUCH easier than exactas and trifectas! Why? Simple - because the relationship between shape and winning is so strong, you need not consider any horses other than those that are in shape. This is because the pick-3 is a bet on winners, not those finishing 2nd or 3rd. In the exactas, you have to be - that is because the relationship between finishing 2nd and shape is measurably less strong than it is for win. As for trifecta wagering, not only do you have to consider average, sustained-shape horses, but out-of-shape horses as well, since there is no statistical correlation between shape (as I define it) and finishing 3rd.

So then, once you have made shape determinations, the actual making of the wager is, at least mentally, much easier. Now - how do I bet it? The bet is quintessence of simplicity. Here are exactly the rules I follow. They are different depending on whether the wager contains 1, 2 or 3 key races. Let's take the most common case first, namely, the pick-3 with 2 key races.

Key Races: In the key races, I include the key horse or horses. I will also add the horse that deserves to be the favorite, if he is not the favorite. This may, in fact, be one of the key horses, so, in that case, we go only with the key horse or horses.

Non-Key Race: Include ALL in shape horses, regardless of their estimated odds. If no horses are in-shape in this race, PASS THE BET unless you can afford to play ALL. I usually pass. I have not bet ALL in a pick-3 this year. Let's see how this might work. Say we have races 1 and 3 as key races. Race 2 is the throw in. Here's the situation:

In this case, the pick-3 wager would be: 1,3 with 2,4,6,8 with 5,6

 

Also, I will often emphasize the wagers which contain the key horses with the horse I feel is most likely to win in the non-key leg of the wager. So, let's say these were $1 pick-3 wagers. I would go with additional $1 tickets on the following combinations:

Since the key to pick-3 value often lies in the opening leg if the betting favorite is beat, this is the leg where it may be to be more aggressive, in my view. Also, you have information about that race - the current odds, even they might not reflect the pick-3 payoffs, at least it's something. Thus, if one of my key horses goes off the favorite or is getting substantial support below where he should, I will add all in-shape horses to the mix. So, in the above case, let's say that the crowd gets it right and bets #3 to favorite status. Then, I will expand my bet as follows:

If we made a slight change, and said that in Race 3, our key horse also deserved to be a solid favorite, then the bet becomes either:

This goes directly against what most people feel more comfortable with. Most people would rather win the first 2 legs and be alive with 4 horses in the final leg. Personally, the way I view it, unless there is a payoff on 2 of 3, then I really don't care - I just want to be alive in the final leg period. I don't care how many horses. There is no shame in being alive in the final part with only 2 horses, especially if those 2 are both in-shape and contains the horse who I feel is most likely to win the race. Even with 1 horse - he is in shape, the only key horse in the race, deserving favorite -- you've got your money where your mouth is.

Expanding on the front end also has a disciplinary effect that is positive to many people. Most racegoers I meet have trouble controlling themselves. They bet far too many races, because they need action. By having the extras on the front end, it gives you a greater chance of being alive after race one. Now, you've got 4 horses going in race 2, so you have your action, so you can sit tight. If you are still alive after that, now you've got 2 horses going in the next race - again, no need to bet more. Just by a Coke, loosen up the vocal chords and get ready to scream for the 5 & 6!

Actually, as I step back and think about it, if 2 of the 3 races are key races, I would rather lead off with the fill-in race where I will throw in all in-shape horses anyway! I feel much more comfortable needing deserving favorites and key horses to complete the pick than non-specific horses, regardless of their shape.

I feel especially fortunate when I spot horses, and they come up racing in 3 consecutive races on the same night. The second to last Saturday night at Garden State was an even better situation as key horses came up in 4 consecutive races, thus allowing us to play 4 rolling pick-3 wagers - 2 of them with no fill-in races, and 2 others with just 1! A terrific way to leverage your observations and spots!

Let's look at how I bet the 3-key-race pick-3. Notice how in the above examples, we used all in-shapers in the fill-in race. Well, if the racing is competitive, with many in shape horses in each race, you really cannot play everybody with everybody for all 3 races. There are several ways to approach this depending on how much you are willing to invest.

The most obvious choice is to simply play your key horse(s) in each race. That's it. Nice and simple. Honestly, there's nothing really wrong with it, but I think it limits your chances of scoring big.

The next horse(s) you can add are the deserving favorite in each race. This expands your chances a bit, but sometimes, your key horse is the deserving favorite, so?

The next thing you can do is throw in the betting favorite, regardless of how you feel about his or her shape. Folks, those of you who have followed me for so long are probably sick of hearing me talk down chalk betting. How many times have I recommended that you stick to your convictions and be ready to throw out the chalk if you feel he is not in good enough shape? This is one case where I will throw in chalk for no other reason than it's the chalk.

Yes, you heard it right. Throw in the chalk when we have 3 races with key horses, but NOT IN THE OPENING LEG OF THE WAGER. Also, I will only do this once in a pick-3 wager. Therefore, you really never know who the chalk is until the betting, but if there looks like a horse who will suck up the money, but who you feel is not in shape, put him in the betting for that race anyway. To compensate, in that same race, expand to include all other in-shape horses.

The other race I expand on is the race that I have real information about, namely, the first leg. If there are 3 or fewer in-shape horses, I will use them all, regardless of odds.

Notice that I will throw the expected heavy chalk in race 3, but not in race 1. That is why I compensate by including all the in-shapers here. If, by example, the 4 (a key horse) is also the expected chalk in race 3, then the bet would streamline to:

This is in line with my basic theory on betting which is that as value wanes, so does the amount of bets I make! Here, they have bet down one of my key horses, so I'm not going to fight it, and I'm not going to chase the ticket with 12 more combinations with the 3 and 8 if I think they've got the right horses.

Also note that I would play additional tickets with my key horses and deserving favorites, so I might throw on top of this an extra:

Now, some of you wise guys might say, "Hey Steve, that's great, but what about the other in shape horses in race 2? What happens if the 4 or 9 win - you're screwed?"

NO- YOU ARE NOT SCREWED - YOU JUST WON'T HAVE THEM IN THIS PICK-3, BUT IN THE PICK-3 WAGER FOR RACES 2-4, YOU WILL, SINCE I RECOMMEND THAT YOU EXPAND IN THE FIRST RACE TO INCLUDE ALL IN SHAPERS, FOR VALUE - the first leg seems to be the race most likely to impact the price of the ticket without the longest of long shots coming in!