Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Payson Dave
Not sure where you are coming up with these percentages???
Anytime that you get one of these exactas there will also be a place payout...in other words for the conditions of the study you should be cashing about 3 times as many place wagers as exacta wagers...but if your average place payout is not at least 33% of your average exacta payout then the place wagers will have a lower ROI than the exacta wagers...
obviously takeout effects payout and exacta takeout is higher than place takeout...also obviously the place pool gets split between the top two horses....however I'm not sure how mathmatics and takeout explain the advantage of the exacta wager...
that is why I am looking for btw to elaborate...
|
The percentages I quoted were the takeout at Keenland. I'm not quoting them to support BTWind's position. I'm quoting them to question BTWind's position.
I'm looking at these racing bets the same way I would look at any bet: And we are ignoring handicaping skill, because that hasn't been part of the assumptions from the get go. Therefore...
If you make 50 $2 bets into the place pool, you are on average going to lose $16 at Keenland. (plus a little breakage). The $16 is the track take for WPS.
If your twin makes 50 $2 bets into the exacta pool, your twin will lose on average $19 at Keenland. (plus a little breakage). The $19 is the track take for exacta pools.
It's not as if we think the kind of bets being made in the "Contest" were better or worse than the average place bet or exacta bet. Therefore, I don't see why the track take isn't the key figure.
If you or BTWind can find fault with those numbers, I'm all ears. But please be careful to not introduce any additional assumptions.
BTWind usually knows what he's talking about. So I won't be completely shocked if I'm missing something fundamental. But it seems pretty straightforward to me.
--Dunbar