I’m a math guy.

In a world full of misinformation, hyperbole, and feelings passing as facts, I believe numbers give us our best chance of ascertaining the truth. So, I was intrigued when Mark Cramer, author of “Kinky Handicapping” and many other great horse racing books and works of fiction, advocated betting to place on longer-priced horses.

“…if you like a longshot to win and the favorite looks vulnerable, backing up the longshot to place makes sense,” Cramer asserted on the Facebook page “Handicapping Insights.”

Now, this is not a new thought: For ages, horse racing authors and bettors have argued for place bets on longer-priced contenders. In his masterwork “Picking Winners,” Andrew Beyer devoted an entire chapter to the subject. Yet, academic studies — yes, many university studies have been done on horse racing and gambling — argue otherwise.

In academic circles, it has been known for years that longer-priced horses tend to get overbet by the public relative to their chances of winning, whereas lower-priced horses tend to get underbet. This phenomenon, known as the “favorite-longshot bias,” has lessened over time but still exists and is especially true for place betting (for reasons I won’t get into here).

Take a look at how horses less than 3-1 on the morning line performed in the win and place pools, based on a study of random races from 2007-present.

Win Rate: 32.9%
Net Return: $1.62
ROI: -18.79%

Place Rate: 54.5%
Net Return: $1.71
ROI: -14.75%

Notice that the net return on a place bet is 5.2% higher than the net return on a win bet. Now, let’s take a look at “longshots” (defined here as horses that are 5-1 or greater on the morning line).

Win Rate: 6.8%
Net Return: $1.40
ROI: -30.09%

Place Rate: 15.8%
Net Return: $1.40
ROI: -29.78%

Note: I used the morning line odds to eliminate the effect of odds changes after the race has begun.

Here we see virtually no difference between the net win and place prices. This is not that surprising given that place and show prices are dependent on the other finishers in the race, though this is less impactful than it once was thanks to net pool pricing, which started at Woodbine Racetrack in Canada and is now the norm at many tracks.

I’m guessing the impact of other entrants on the return is why Cramer added the caveat that one should look for a vulnerable favorite when betting a longer-priced horse to place.

But is such a caveat really necessary?

As much as I love math, I am aware that it can easily be misinterpreted. While it is true that there is more value in betting lower-priced horses to place than higher-priced steeds, the returns are still greater on the latter. There is also more room for skilled players to improve on the base figures.

To make this point, take a look at my handicapping stats over the past few years, starting with horses less than 3-1 on the morning line.

Win Rate: 52.7%
Net Return: $2.07
ROI: +3.44%

Place Rate: 72.4%
Net Return: $1.98
ROI: -0.96%

In the interest of full disclosure, not all these horses were actual bets, as most of my algorithms insist on closing odds of 1-1 or greater. However, as you can see, the advantage of betting to place is gone. So, let’s take a peek at my selections that were 5-1 or greater on the morning line.

Win Rate: 22.3%
Net Return: $4.29
ROI: +114.28%
Kelly Advantage: 13.3%

Place Rate: 39.1%
Net Return: $2.77
ROI: +38.58%
Kelly Advantage: 15.1%

While I realize many looking at these numbers will immediately notice the substantial difference in ROIs, I would point readers, instead, to the Kelly advantage offered by both bets. 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know — most players don’t use the Kelly Criterion. That’s not the point. I don’t use Kelly either (at least not in a strict sense) but I do think Kelly is great for helping serious players understand the relationship between success rate and ROI.

See, it’s possible, at times, for gambling events like the lottery to show a positive expectation or ROI — but does the lottery ever represent a solid investment opportunity? Not really, at least not to those of us who don’t have millions of dollars to throw away. This is because the probability of winning is so low.

Obviously, every player needs to assess any betting strategy in light of their own style of play, but I suspect Cramer is right.

Call it “kinky math.”