i believe, originally, grits said she does bet the longshot to win, and then hedges the longshot underneath the favorite for the exacta.

still hit the win bet if the longshot wins, but over time the ROI will be greater if you have the exacta than just the place price if your longshot finishes 2nd.

unless of course, the horse goes off at 150-1 and the place pays $90 :eek:

Stop using logic, Lori! :p

There is logic and then there is female logic...let's not confuse the two...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.just kiddin now

Hate to admit it, but you're right. :o Oh well... such is life.

Listening to others' opinions cost me money yesterday. They can gft with their percentages and longterm ROI. :D

i know, i know....

randal also has a point.. its nice to cash the place ticket because the exacta will hit less often.. but still the ROI should (will) be higher over time with the exacta hits.

but as GRITS stated before, you would ONLY hedge this exacta bet if there is a clear cut favorite (1.50-1). many races have a few horses lingering at favoritism and then its up in the air, so you wouldnt be confident with that bet.

i dont know if in that case you would add a place bet or just not bet the race at all, or bet your horse just to win? I'd need someone more experienced to answer that (Kasept, BTW)

my brain does not work like the typical female.

I dunno, but we should have been like little ole grannies yesterday and bet Swaparoo to show.

if its the HEAVY favorite (1.50-1 or less) then most likely its the top class in the race, and that seems like a logical play. again, if there is no clear favorite i am not sure what you'd do.. play the one you think is best? just a win on the longshot? again, grits, kasept or btw help?

I see your point and agree, but I don't think that's the point they're trying to make here.

i would like to see the percentages on how often the heavy favorite win (3/2 or less) i understand the favorite wins about 1/3 of the time, but IMO there is a big different between a heavy favorite and just a "favorite"

i think there are two things wrong with this logic-

sample size doesn't give anyone a distinct advantage- the more races you include, the more accurate the results will be- but the sample size doesn't favor one side or the other. there will still only be one favorite in the other 750 races if you do a thousand and still be more than one 10-1 shot. . .

also, neither side has the advantage because there is more than one 10-1 shot in each race and only one favorite. . . both sides get all the long shots and the fave is the most likely winner. . .

not sure if that makes total sense but it does to me

ya that makes sense. but do you still get what i was trying to say with the other 10 paragraphs in this thread?

also regarding sample size, these 250 examples may be up in a few days of racing ya know? i think i would be more accurate using one month's worth or at least 3 weeks. but, the size is fine that was the original "bet" - (maybe something grits should have thought about before the rules were set :eek: )

I agree that the sample size may not yield completely accurate results. . but it doesn't favor one side or the other is all I'm saying. . .

Personally I don't think either strategy is totally correct. . . I'll explain mine later if I feel like it. . .

Anti, the one big exacta that happened was a 3-1 over a 25-1. Those are the ones she needs....not the other way around. The big faves won't get it done for her...

And regarding the sample size...this will easily take a month. 32 in 4 days of busy racing works out to a month easy...Like I said, I'd be willing to go to 350 or 400 but not if its clear cut at 250....

[quote=randallscott35]Anti, the one big exacta that happened was a 3-1 over a 25-1. Those are the ones she needs....not the other way around. The big faves won't get it done for her...

And regarding the sample size...this will easily take a month. 32 in 4 days of busy racing works out to a month easy...Like I said, I'd be willing to go to 350 or 400 but not if its clear cut at 250....[/QUOTE]

you are correct randall, i confused the Total Races So Far--111 for being the sample size. 250 should be a good size

as far as the 3-1 over the 25-1 goes, you are right, those are the ones she needs. which is funny because those are the ones she wouldnt play. also i believe she said for the bet to be made it would have to be a 20-1 shot or higher.. anyways this is a very good study and good luck to both. I am thinking about going though a few months of races to find out the percentage that heavy favorites win at compared to "favorites"