Place Vs. Fave/Long Exacta Running Tab

[Grits]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

The way Grits described it is the way it will run. Boxing it has nothing to do with place betting....And over 20-1 will help prove the case that betting to place is the better option. Getting the 50-1 to finish second will not feel good when the fave is not on top in her situation....That's the way it goes.

Dream on darlin', and let's see how many of those I pine over.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Grits

Dream on darlin', and let's see how many of those I pine over.

You are the best....I pm'd you. Check it. Good luck my dear.

[ArlJim78]

If all this brainpower could somehow be harnessed to benefit mankind, Al Gore could rest at night.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

If all this brainpower could somehow be harnessed to benefit mankind, Al Gore could rest at night.

Al's sleeping with his Oscar and Tipper. So Al's happy.

[brianwspencer]

I'm bored.

I looked at all of the available charts on Equibase, between Santa Anita, Gulfstream and Aqueduct. It only comprised eighteen race days total, but I went through them.

I used Randall's original idea, of 10-1+ shot running in the top two versus a 10-1+ shot running behind the favorite (any favorite, lukewarm or odds-on) in the race. With that, it presumes that regardless of how you played it, that 10-1+ horse was the one you liked.

The totals I got were:

Aqueduct:
Place Wagers: $139.20
Exacta: $222.40

Gulfstream:
Place Wagers: $292.40
Exacta: $440.80

Santa Anita:
Place Wagers: $335.20 (may I add, just ONE of the exactas was worth $302.80 for a deuce, almost entirely negating the other sixteen double-digit place horses all by itself)
Exacta:$593.00

Total for published race days on Equibase:
Place Wagers: $766.80
Exacta: $1,256.20

Not even close so far.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm bored.

I looked at all of the available charts on Equibase, between Santa Anita, Gulfstream and Aqueduct. It only comprised eighteen race days total, but I went through them.

I used Randall's original idea, of 10-1+ shot running in the top two versus a 10-1+ shot running behind the favorite (any favorite, lukewarm or odds-on) in the race. With that, it presumes that regardless of how you played it, that 10-1+ horse was the one you liked.

The totals I got were:

Aqueduct:
Place Wagers: $139.20
Exacta: $222.40

Gulfstream:
Place Wagers: $292.40
Exacta: $440.80

Santa Anita:
Place Wagers: $335.20 (may I add, just ONE of the exactas was worth $302.80 for a deuce, almost entirely negating the other sixteen double-digit place horses all by itself)
Exacta:$593.00

Total for published race days on Equibase:
Place Wagers: $766.80
Exacta: $1,256.20

Not even close so far.

Apparently you missed Andy's post from before. You have short changed my side by quite a bit. You missed all the win bets when those longshots won...If you do it again, you'll find me on top.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Apparently you missed Andy's post from before. You have short changed my side by quite a bit. You missed all the win bets when those longshots won...If you do it again, you'll find me on top.

I'm not sure he did....he said a 10-1+ running in the top two.

I would like to know the total number of examples.

I just asked the smartest statistical person I know, who knows little to nothing about racing, and he is going to think about it. He did suggest using pools that are larger as they will have little to no random skew. I said we were.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm not sure he did....he said a 10-1+ running in the top two.

I would like to know the total number of examples.

I just asked the smartest statistical person I know, who knows little to nothing about racing, and he is going to think about it. He did suggest using pools that are larger as they will have little to no random skew. I said we were.

GOOD ENOUGH. its fixed now. 1st or second on the place side vs. exacta on bottom for the other side. It will be reasonably close on second thought. But I'd say 60/40 in my direction at the end.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm not sure he did....he said a 10-1+ running in the top two.

I would like to know the total number of examples.

I just asked the smartest statistical person I know, who knows little to nothing about racing, and he is going to think about it. He did suggest using pools that are larger as they will have little to no random skew. I said we were.

You know what it is also Andy, I'm at the mercy of some of those longshots WINNING the race as simply finishing second will not do it for me...But the combo will vs. the exacta.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

mrs btw..is a m.i t grad..congrats andy..

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Apparently you missed Andy's post from before. You have short changed my side by quite a bit. You missed all the win bets when those longshots won...If you do it again, you'll find me on top.

Ok if I factor in the win bets, then that doubles the exacta bets, as the original premise was bet $50WP, or $100 on the exacta.

So these totals reflect $2 WP on each race with a 10-1+ shot in the top two, versus a $4 cold exacta with the favorite over said 10-1+ shot.

$4 Exacta: $2,512.40
$2WP: $1,576.70

I'm not trying to say that it's not possible that the numbers wouldn't even out over time, but over these 18 race days -- when factoring in the win money gained from a $2 WP bet, it closed the gap only by a miniscule percentage.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Ok if I factor in the win bets, then that doubles the exacta bets, as the original premise was bet $50WP, or $100 on the exacta.

So these totals reflect $2 WP on each race with a 10-1+ shot in the top two, versus a $4 cold exacta with the favorite over said 10-1+ shot.

$4 Exacta: $2,512.40
$2WP: $1,576.70

I'm not trying to say that it's not possible that the numbers wouldn't even out over time, but over these 18 race days -- when factoring in the win money gained from a $2 WP bet, it closed the gap only by a miniscule percentage.

Buzz, you did it wrong again. You are doubling the exacta.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Ok if I factor in the win bets, then that doubles the exacta bets, as the original premise was bet $50WP, or $100 on the exacta.

So these totals reflect $2 WP on each race with a 10-1+ shot in the top two, versus a $4 cold exacta with the favorite over said 10-1+ shot.

$4 Exacta: $2,512.40
$2WP: $1,576.70

I'm not trying to say that it's not possible that the numbers wouldn't even out over time, but over these 18 race days -- when factoring in the win money gained from a $2 WP bet, it closed the gap only by a miniscule percentage.

We are only looking at one part of the total wager.....$2 to place versus $2 below the favorite in the exacta. We are trying to determine which is a better hedge.

[Grits]

[quote=brianwspencer]Ok if I factor in the win bets, then that doubles the exacta bets, as the original premise was bet $50WP, or $100 on the exacta.

BINGO, and that's why this is troubling me. Thank you Bryan. We're getting away from my original statement. Far away.

So these totals reflect $2 WP on each race with a 10-1+ shot in the top two, versus a $4 cold exacta with the favorite over said 10-1+ shot.

$4 Exacta: $2,512.40
$2WP: $1,576.70

I'm not trying to say that it's not possible that the numbers wouldn't even out over time, but over these 18 race days -- when factoring in the win money gained from a $2 WP bet, it closed the gap only by a miniscule percentage.

This bet was not about win betting, this was about place betting. Go back to my original post, where I told you to look at today's 6th at GP. If you want to look at a $50 place bet, etc, .....something's not jiving with my original point. I've got to refer back.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm bored.

I looked at all of the available charts on Equibase, between Santa Anita, Gulfstream and Aqueduct. It only comprised eighteen race days total, but I went through them.

I used Randall's original idea, of 10-1+ shot running in the top two versus a 10-1+ shot running behind the favorite (any favorite, lukewarm or odds-on) in the race. With that, it presumes that regardless of how you played it, that 10-1+ horse was the one you liked.

The totals I got were:

Aqueduct:
Place Wagers: $139.20
Exacta: $222.40

Gulfstream:
Place Wagers: $292.40
Exacta: $440.80

Santa Anita:
Place Wagers: $335.20 (may I add, just ONE of the exactas was worth $302.80 for a deuce, almost entirely negating the other sixteen double-digit place horses all by itself)
Exacta:$593.00

Total for published race days on Equibase:
Place Wagers: $766.80
Exacta: $1,256.20

Not even close so far.

I can give you chart information for Gulfstream from the beginning of February tomorrow or thursday night if you'd like to check that further (John Stewart is coming on in a few )

[Thunder Gulch]

I think this is setup to fail by design. The favorites are often underlays on top, so the only exactas that will count are going to be low mutuels, while the place payouts can capture all instances where a favorite finishes out of the money. I like the "exacta as a place bet" in theory, but I think you'd come out ahead by wheeling a few contenders over your longshot. Of course, that really makes it tough to follow for your purposes.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

I think this is setup to fail by design. The favorites are often underlays on top, so the only exactas that will count are going to be low mutuels, while the place payouts can capture all instances where a favorite finishes out of the money. I like the "exacta as a place bet" in theory, but I think you'd come out ahead by wheeling a few contenders over your longshot. Of course, that really makes it tough to follow for your purposes.

It won't matter when the numbers are added up.