hi all

horses at times may look like not so good value for the win and place betting.

however a couple of medium roughs for second and third or one or the other one can have a nice trifecta.

makbe diva...spirit of westbury...time off
$1728.20

Hello ubetido,
Makybe Diva ended up at over $6.00 on the tote for the win which meant trifectas had a chance. If it was $3.50, the price I used from the Sportsman, then the trifecta would
have paid substantially less. Congratulations on the trifecta. A good one could have also been obtained in the next race by using your top two to win.
May I also suggest you have a look through the forum at my past lays of the day. I think you will find, often at shortish odds, a very high strike rate of losers, which is as it should be with lays of the day.
Lucky Lil.

hi Lucky Lil

Yes i have noticed that you are pretty spot on with your assessments. You are right more times than not,which is excellent.

To me a bad value horse means its price as quoted is unders as you correctly said however it doesnt necessarily mean it cannot win. The horse doesn't know its price.

A lay of the day horse to my understanding means that the horse for one reason or another is likely to get beat.

I personally think that even if the price was as per the sportsman the trifecta still would've have been respectable given the placegetters.

good punting
and keep up the good work

kind regards
ubetido

Quite right ubetido a lay of the day is usually going against the favourite but you can still profit from exotic betting.
I think what Lucky Lil is getting at, is value for win bettors.
She classes a lay of the day as a poor value horse which is a lay at the quoted odds. In other words she is not saying it can't win, but saying backing it win only, results in longterm poor value and a loss, as it is far shorter than it's true odds / chances of winning.
For example in harness racing Shakamaker is a lay at $1.40 but one would expect it to still win at those odds. Incidentally it turned out to be a lay as it was unplaced AND poor value!

Can't agree more. I think as punters we say too loosely that "this horse should win" when in really it should lose! Any horse that is not a true 50% winning chance has more chances of winning than losing, so "It should lose."
Re Shakamaker if it was a true $1.90 chance but going around at $1.40 we have the paradox of where saying "It should win" is correct - it has better than a 50% chance of winning, but using Lucky Lil's terminology also saying correctly "It is a lay at those odds of $1.40".