I used to make very occasional place bets, limiting myself to situations were my key was 25-1 or higher and I was playing the key with two or three favs, the theory being that if a horse other than the favs won & my key finished 2nd, the place payoff would be high enough to show a profit on the race. After a debate on this board, and researching both my records & the literature, however, I eliminated even the occasional place bet, although I still believe there is a psycological benefit to avoid not cashing when you've correctly identified a 25-1 or higher overlay. If you have a serious interest in place & show betting, you might want to read Barry Meadow's chapter on the subject in his book " Money Secrets At The Racetrack", which among other things explains why the algorithms for the Dr Z system are wrong, although the best part of the book deals with pk3 & pk4 wagering strategies.

If you do, you will find the accepted wisdom, namely that as a general proposition it is the low odds horses which are underbet to place & show. However, Meadows' book was written in the pre-rebate era, and I am still trying to get a handle on how some of the perverse incentives rebates cause are affecting win,place,show and other bets. Let's say, for example, that you're one of the 120 customers of RGS(a subject I hope to address in another post), which means that your per capita betting is $4.7 million & you are entitled to a 10% rebate. In other words, if you break even for the yr you actually end up with a $470k profit courtesy of the rebate. Moreover, the rebate apparently applies to place & show bets, so it's easy to see why in a variety of situations such bets might have a a much greater attraction to a "whale" than they ever have had in the past.