Quote:
|
Originally Posted by easy goer
It appears empirially that you get more bang for your buck on these than just straight win bets. Apparently the parimutual pool is not as efficient for exotics as it is for win/place, show bets.
Anyone can study it for themselves, multiply the odds on the two exacta horses and it comes out pretty close to the win odds they went off at. But if you had bet them to win/place only the win bet would pay off at the win odds, the place bet would be worth much less.
|
Huh? I can't figure out what you're talking about! You want to multiply the exacta odds in an exacta box and compare that to win/place? What's that going to tell you? The win bet is going to come in a lot more often than the exacta bet. Maybe you can give an example of what you're trying to say.
It's not impossible that the exacta pool is less efficient than the win pool. In fact, I think that's likely. That doesn't make it an automatic better choice for a novice, or even a champ, for that matter. First, in general you have to overcome a much bigger takeout when you bet exotics. There's a humongous difference in beating the 15.4% WPS takeout vs the 20.2% exacta takeout in Calif. Second, your capping has to be very near perfect on 2 of the horses instead of just one. Of course, your capping has to be pretty damn good on ALL the horses in a race to even come close to being a winner, but in an exacta you are saying that 2 of them have a distinct overlay advantage on the rest of the field.
If the inefficiency is big enough, it can make the exacta pool attractive, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a beginner.
--Dunbar