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.