The result was exactly the opposite, but yesterday's late pk4 at Sar illustrates the kind of betting strategy question one faces on a regular basis. For purposes of discussion, assume that while you have an opinion on races 8-10, your strongest dope is that Dinner Date has a 25% or better chance of winning the 7th. Do you: (a)Invest most or all of your bankroll in race 7? or (b)Try to leverage your opinion on Dinner Date into a big pk4 payoff?

In the CBY contest, I decided to devote 75% to the AP Million, which left me with only $100 for the pk4, & as a result I ended up tossing the winner of the 2nd leg & missing an $8k for a buck score, double the total which ended up winning. Yesterday, I did almost the exact opposite, using 100% on pk4 tix which did not include EA, thereby missing an 8-1 winner & a $48 exacta. In other words, I managed to get it wrong both times, something you might want to keep in mind as you consider my opinions on the subject.

Some "experts" maintain that you should spend 25% of your time handicapping & 75% deciding how to bet, which seems a bit much to me, though a 75-25 ratio the other way doesn't seem too far off the mark, as one of the biggest mistakes I see a lot of very good dopesters make is spending 90% or more of their time handicapping. The result, in my opinion, is a betting strategy which at worst does not even reflect the handicapper's opinions, & at best is usually not designed to realize the maximum gain if you're right about the race.

Think about the number of times you've been asked or discussed "who you like" compared to the number of times someone has questioned how you plan to structure your bets. On those very rare occasions when the latter is raised, my response is often the same one I've made here: Tell me why you bet on racing, & I'll tell you which bet or bets make the most sense for you. This invariably triggers a blank stare, but isn't that essentially what each of us does when advising friends & relatives on the Derby & BC,namely recommend bets which are consistent with your knowledge of the individual's level of interest in the game & tolerance for risk?

That's why, assuming the reference is to "straight" boxes, I'm in HP's camp when it comes to structuring bets based on a single key, though I favor the exacta more than the tri because of the lower take & the availablity of probable pays. It also explains why one of my cohorts does very well with 5, & sometimes even 6, horse boxes, a bet I have never even considered making.

Taking the above factors into consideration, & again assuming a $400 bankroll, the bet I think I would have made, & the one I told my one racing trip to Sar per yr & doesn't bet too much brother to make, if all funds were spent on the 7th race, is as follows: $100 win 1;$150 exacta,which was paying almost $50 as opposed to the $27 it should have been paying, on the 1-8; $100 exacta 1-2, which was a little less than fair value if I remember correctly; & two $25 exactas 2-1 & 8-1, although some might raise legitimate questions about making such bets.

The bets I actually ended up making were a twice as much pk4 on 1/1-5-7-8/4-6-7/all but two, and a half as much pk4 on 2-8/1-5-7-8/4-5-7/all but two. Neither included EA, which is why all I have to show for those two days of hard work & fairly accurate opinions is the Mall of America shirt I picked up on the way to the Minneapolis airport last Mon.