Complete day one standings now posted.


Side Note: A thought. When two 10-1 horses or higher finish 1-2 we are assuming that we both have the winner. Technically we should rotate each time that happens, b/c the place bet will be higher or lower depending on which horse over 10-1 we actually had...Maybe it all comes out in the wash. I guess it will b/c we will just keep on assuming that we both have the winner.

RS, I'm going to say this ONE MORE TIME ONLY.

This study is not about/or to include ANY win wager, NONE. Don't show a thing about wins or win payouts. Forget that completely. The study is about the following: Money wagered to place on a longshot verses money wagered on, instead, a straight exacta play.

Randall: Betting $2. on a longshot at 10/1 or better. And posting the place figure paid out only.

Grits: Betting a $2 straight exacta with the chalk on top and the longshot at 10/1 or better underneath. If my horses don't run 1-2. I get nothing.
************************************************** ****

The races that need viewing are races where:

(1) chalk has won and a longshot at 10/1 or better has run underneath.

(2) where a longshot at 10/1 or better has won the race and we are using the place payout.

(3) where a longshot at 10/1 or better has run second, and again we are using the place payout.

Is anyone misunderstanding the study, or the wagers? If any of today's results shows win amounts remove them, please. They are not inclusive to the study, and therefore confusing.

Now, what am I missing, anything? Randall, Andy, help me out ok.

No, that's not a race you need to even look at. That's not the scenario.

Jeez Grits, we all know it has nothing to do with the win end of it. AS I posted in the thread when asked I am posting the total b/c the technical nature of the bet is WP vs. Win+Back Ex....Thus I'm trying to show what the totals would be in reality....It is obviously still just the place wager coming into play. Look at the difference in the totals, they are all correct. There are smart people on this board, they understand that even though I am adding in the win(for BOTH of us) the key to the study is the place side.

For it to be an accurate trial any race where a 10-1 shot runs first or second needs to count. Randall gets place money every time whether the horse runs first or second. If the favorite finishes on top of the 10-1 shot then you get the exacta. Otherwise you get nothing.

Good question which I will pose to Andy. My feeling is that technically, we would only be betting one horse in the race each, so even if the 10-1's ran 1-2, we'd only have one of them.

The way this is set up it looks that way because you can only count yours when Grits can as well (unless I'm confused).

It seems to me, and why I bet WP, is that your chances of being able to cash a ticket will occur more often than if you're only betting the chalk over the longshot you like best in the exacta. Of course you could always solve this problem by approaching your bet like DaHoss aforementioned.

You all need to remove my quote from your post as I did not include both race result scenarios. I have edited my post.

It still isn't right. You also need to count races where the 10-1 shot finishes second and a horse other than the chalk finishes on top. Those will actually be where the best place payouts will occur.

Sniper, indeed, you're correct. Anthing else?

Those are figured in of course....Just when its 10-1 over 10-1 we are both assuming the winner rather than the place horse(just b/c its easier-- and over time the place payout will go either way so it balances)....Mind you as I said before we only have 1 horse in each race, so you can't keep both 10-1's. And I'm saying that from my point of view where your method would help me....AS I said before I wan't it to be right, not to win.

Yeah, everything above the asterisks looks good. I agree that there is no point in including the win amounts since they would count on both sides anyways under the scenario.

Grits,

Everything is right with it. If you don't want to be involved at all, you don't have to....The differential is going to be exactly the same whether the win is figured in or not. Check my numbers today and you will see that. A chimp can figure that the differential will prove which side is the better bet....but the total payout is going to be shown.

Here's the post revised.

I don't know if that is the correct way to do it. I think the fundamental assumption is since we are counting every case where a 10-1 or higher shot runs top two that every 10-1 shot is being bet by you to place and by grits under the favorite in the exacta. In the case where two longshots hit you would have hit twice while grits would have hit zero times. Check post #88 on here. I think that is what Andy was saying.

Well Snipes, Andy agrees with you.

Yes...here is how it works....ANY race where a 10-1 or more finishes first or second counts. There are two column you are computing....column 1 is variable X which equals the place price which will ALWAYS be of some value.....column 2 is Y which equals zero if the horse won or finished second to anyone other than the favorite and Y equals the exacta price only when the horse finished second AND the favorite won.

Now, if two 10-1 plus horses run first and second they both count as the race is effectively TWO examples. Do not think of these as races....just examples for the study. In this case, obviously, there will be two different X numbers and Y will equal zero for both.

Thus it looks like I have to add to my total for today and the study will go much quicker b/c rather than races, it will be total outcomes for longshots 10-1 or over in the win or place spot...

Yes, Andy convinced me that is the case. Look at my last post. I am going back now to fix today's data.

This study will fly. Thanks Snipes