Thanks for tracking the data, I'm curious to see how it pans out.

DAY ONE MARCH 8, 2007 PERFECT FINAL STANDINGS (LOL-at last)

Gulfstream: Race 6-- Grits: 24.40 RS: 31.80
Race 8-- Grits: 39.80 RS: 50.00
Race 9-- Grits: 38.20 RS: 55.00

Aqueduct: Race 1-- Grits: 14.00 RS: 6.50
Race 7-- Grits: 36.60 RS: 48.80+9.10=57.90

Santa Anita: Race 5--Grits: 26.60 RS: 37.80

++ show where multiple 10-1's were figured in as to Snipes point.

An increase of 9.10 due to the new scoring.

DAY ONE FINAL: Grits- 179.60 RS: 239.00
Total Number of 10-1's or higher in spots 1 or 2: (7)

I'm just glad you pointed that out. Definitely improved the chances of place coming out on top even if marginally.

Not only that, it will make it go faster. I think it will be done within 20 racing days.

RS, in posting the results, at the bottom where noting the number of longshots ITM, can you make note of the exacta wagers that hit, as well?

Just thinking out loud here....
If you bet WP and your horse runs first or second you will always cash the place wager.
If you bet W & Chalk/your selection, and your horse runs first or second then you will probably cash your exacta ticket about 33% of the time...(assuming that favorites win a third of the time)...
Doesn't it come down to... the average exacta payouts that you cash need to be more than 3 times the average place payouts that you cash???...

I would figure that to be right. In all of this though, I add that I do not handicap for a living, day in, day out. But, I've been a student of the game for a good, long while. Others that do, may be able to agree or disagree with you Dave.

I've walked in and created a firestorm it seems. That's not always a good thing, sometimes, yes, sometimes, no.

Grits,
I sure don't see this thread as a firestorm...in fact imho this is a great thread that I'm looking forward to seeing more results on...I would be surprised if there are many people on here that see this as a firestorm...

...once again imho... wagering stategy is just as important as handicapping ability...

Just, please, stop including the redundant win bets. It pads the totals while skewing the difference. What you want to know is how much more you will win playing the exacta in percentage terms. Adding the same bet to each total will alter the results.

Not sure that I completely agree....I think that what is important is the delta between the two stategies....I don't think that including the win bet will change that delta...both stategies include the win bet....including it or not including it should not matter one way or the other....if i'm missing something please explain.

First of all....why bother with the calculation?

But secondly, while I agree that the total play is the correct way to make the bet, the question is which method produces more and by how much. Let's say, for arguments sake, we get 300 examples. The totals will be around $4000 for the place vs. exactas. The win bets will add roughly $10K to EACH total. Suppose it is then $14k vs. $14.4K ( either way ) or roughly 2.9%. However, what the results would accurately show, but couldn't be easily determined, is that the exacta or place bet increased THAT return by 10%.

You are right...the ROI for these place wagers versus the ROI for these exacta wagers is really what is most important...
Both the place wagers and the chalk/selection exacta wagers are basically insurance bets...It will be interesting to me to see which one is the better of the two.

Right, it seems like the heart of the question is " which is the better hedge ".

I agree with this, in that we're looking at two apples, though different varieties.

Let's don't throw kumquats in the basket with the apples, it muddles things.

After reading this thread and thinking I understood the consensus, I took a look at the results and got promptly confused.
I believe it is because win $ are factored in.

If the Win wager is removed (as it is equal between scenarios and therefore a wash) the results will more clearly show when the place wager paid and the exacts wager "failed".

When our horse runs 1st or 2nd and the exacta with fav is not hit, the Place player will have earnings and exacta player will have a zero for that race.

Under the current method, you need to back out Win payouts to see that the exacta failed in the cases where our horse ran 1st. Without the win $ in, these will stick right out.

In any case this is very interesting.

Next I vote for the Triple Partial Wheel versus Exacta Box study...

I was beginning to wonder if anyone around here made FLAT WIN bets! This is good to know.

It's a great game, it just sucks when we're not cashing.

From now on just the place bets vs. the exactas will be tracked...not that including the win made a difference as the differential btw the two totals is what matters....But whatever I'll go with the crowd. That's the way it will be posted starting today.

Grits would also like to me to keep track of how many exactas occur so I will do that as well.

DAY TWO MARCH 9, 2007 Carryover PLACE BETTING +$59.40

Gulfstream: Race 4-- PL: 15.40
Gulfstream: Race 7-- PL: 19.80

Aqueduct: Race 6--PL: 8.60

Santa Anita:Race 7--PL: 12.00
Santa Anita:Race 8--PL: 11.80 + 17.00

TOTALS SO FAR: EX- $14.00 PL $158.00
DIFFERENTIAL: PL +$144.00

Total Number of 10-1's or higher in spots 1 or 2: (13)
Total Exactas so far: 1

A 12 Furlong Race for sure but I broke out of the gate like Caller One and Grits---well let's just say she broke like Evening Attire...Of course Caller One won't run 12 panels and EA just won his last race---bad analogy.

RS, could you go back and edit the first days results? As everything reads right now, from two days, its a mess. ( I still maintain we would have gotten what we needed without Snipers figures, they are very confusing to the entire study.)

The columns would serve better, titled Exactas--Longshots, rather than our names. This would help anyone in following the study. No one cares who we are. LOL

We need a daily total for each column, with cumulative figures brought forward at the top of each new day's figures, rather than simply "RS's carryover" in green ink, with no figure posted regarding the exacta amount. The cumulative figures have got to be added as they are most important to the study. (Or if you like, place the cumulative figures under the daily totals at the end of the daily report.) Somewhere.

I changed the name aspect which I agree with since it doesn't matter who we are. The differential from day 1 is correct and I added the exacta column you asked for yesterday. The exacta amount will be posted every day as Exacta next to a race where it comes into play. There was no exacta you hit today, therefore you didn't see it. I will also add a cummulative with both sets going forward..Therefore, the exacta total was 14.00 going into today and the place was 73.40...These are good additions. RS Give me 10 minutes and it will be updated.

PS- The columns are a bit better now. This isn't excel you know. Haha

Um, no. It would have proven absolutely nothing without "my figures". All you would have proven is that the exactas pay out better than the place bets when you neglect to include half of the best place payouts. I think we all already knew that.

Good-to-go.

Great, I want to make you happy. Nothing like a woman scorned.

Couple of thoughts about what it might look like going forward.

The interesting thing to me is that looking at exacta probables today, that side can make up ground much faster. A 3-1 fave over a 25-1 shot will be a big payout...Plus the disadvantage for the place side is that the favorite's place pool will pretty much always be the largest thus diluting the place payout on the longshot...The problem for the exacta side is, even if the fave wins 30% of the time, that 30% must be followed by a longshot so the number of times that happens could be as few as 8% or lower. Will that be enough to make up the grinding profit of the place bets. We'll see but this will be fun....Tomorrow should bring at least 15 new entries as there are more races and fuller fields.

This man's a teacher DaHoss, and he teaches me well. He leaves nothing unturned.

Haha. For the record Grits, I'm a teacher as well.

--good one by the way Dahoss

Pretty prescient comment considering what happened in today's 5th at Santa Anita. Is there something we need to know about you?

You think that's good, look at the 4th at Aqueduct. Two dead-heated under the chalk. One of 'em's priceless. LOLOLOL

Gp worked too.

On a rough look it seemed like the " contest " drew very close to even today.

It's a fun contest and, IMO, as good a learning experience as I have ever seen on a message board. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the kind of stuff that helps everybody be a better player. It's just what racing needs.

ANYTIME, and I do mean ANYTIME that I am included in the same sentence with EVENING ATTIRE, I will be just fine. Being off a little slow has sure worked well for that fine fella, and it will for me.

I've got today's figures but RS does the posting.

DAY THREE MARCH 10, 2007 Carryover PLACE BETTING +$144.00

Gulfstream: Race 4-- PL: 6.20 EX: 35.60
Gulfstream: Race 8-- PL: 16.20

Aqueduct: Race 4--PL: 9.80 EX: 43.80
Aqueduct: Race 8--PL: 11.40

Santa Anita:Race 5--PL: 17.20 EX: 109.20 (The Fave By A Mere 3k in the pool)
Santa Anita:Race 6--PL: 9.20

TOTALS SO FAR: EX- $202.60 PL $214.00
DIFFERENTIAL: PL +$11.40

Total Number of 10-1's or higher in spots 1 or 2: (19)
Total Exactas so far: 4

Total Races So Far: 82

An excellent day for the exactas(a.k.a. Grits).

That's a fine report RS, so neat and orderly, includes everything. Sweetheart you outdid yourself. Today, we're hangin' tight.

Glad it met your approval. Quite a day for you. Helped a lot that very few longshots ended up on top today.

:D ...Yeah, I wasn't very good in Algebra but I got A's in Prob/Stat b/c I was a gambler since I was 12 years old...In fact, when I took the class, all of the examples I had to create involved football betting and horse racing. My teacher who was mean, also a thalidomide baby I think, did get a kick out of it.

RS, with tomorrow's totals, let's begin to add the total number of races with the cumulative totals. It's easy at this point to go back three days; or else, when we get to the end of this thing, you'll be going back through an endless number of pages for counting to get the number of races involved.

The total number of races overall....The number of instances are there in ( )...How does the number of races overall matter. I mean I'll do it if you want but I can't see how its worthwhile.

RS, in all gathering of data, whether it is for horses, humans, rats, or grapefruit. You have base figures at end that form/draw the conclusions of that data.

How do you think studies are concluded in medicine?

By clinical trial on X number of patients. The number of ( )instances( ) are drawn among the patients participating in the trial. That number is listed in summary at the conclusion of said trial, regardless, whether it goes on for 6 weeks, 6 months, or 6 years.

An example of this would be . . . let's say, the clinical trial of VIAGRA. Now, all of the men in the study of this remarkable, life altering medication are listed in the trial.

X overall patients with ED participating in clinical trial

X patients given the drug--X given a placebo (dudes robbed, still)

X patients with no side effects (living large)

X patients with heart attacks

X patients suffering vision problems, ie, blindness

X poor dudes showing up at the ER with their 4 hour or more dilemma, lost regarding how to fix THAT.


***That's why a summary has details, it's all worthwhile. And I do hope those reading have a sense of humor--life would be dull without one.