Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
There is no need to wait for future results. You can just as easily use past results.
|
Are you volunteering? ;>) I'd be interested in past results, as long as the begin and end points are clearly stated before whoever does the looking starts checking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
The reason the exacta is better is for a variety of reasons. One, the breakage hurts the place payoffs enough to raise the takeout to at least a couple points higher than the 15 or 16%.
|
No, it doesn't. The average place payoff was about $15. The average breakage on a $2 bet is 10 cents except in NY where it is 5c. 10 cents out of $15 is 0.67%. 5 cents out of $15 is 0.33% So the takeout climbs to 16.67% in Kentucky and 15.33% at AQ. Those increases hardly made a dent in the gap with the exacta takeout. (Besides, with an average exacta payoff of $51, the exacta takeout climbed 0.20% in Kentucky and 0.10% in NY due to breakage). In short, breakage has negligible effect on the contest.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
Another is that favorites are overbet in place pools for the most part and as they finish first or second around 50% of the time they will artificially deflate place payoffs on the other horse.
|
That's an interesting idea, but I'd like to see some data. It should be very easy to substantiate that. If it's true, then place bets placed on favorites should lose at more than the track take. (I can't think of any other definition of "overbet" that would apply here.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
But, the biggest reason is that with exactas you are effectively making a parlay of two different results, one horse to win and another to place, with a takout of roughly 20%. It's not wholly dissimilar to making a football parlay on the point spread AND the over/under while only paying the vig for one bet. So, even though the exacta takout is, say, 20% vs. 15% for place, you are effectively ( though not exactly ) lowering it to 10% on each outcome. Now, when you add on the actual increase that breakage brings to the place takeout you have a substantially better mathematical proposition.
|
This may be correct, and it's what I thought you were getting at when you said there was a "mathematical" reason earlier. Maybe it should be obvious to me, but it isn't yet. I plan to keep gathering data for another 250 bets, but at the same time I'm working on the math of a simple example that I hope will demonstrate which is better.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
The truth of this contest is that an aberational result which caused place bets to appear the better bet would have sent a TERRIBLE message to people. This idea that place betting is a sound strategy is flat out wrong and yet another reason people have trouble making money betting horses. The idea is to find ways to maximize one's profits or returns. Place and show betting, simply put, minimizes returns. Place and show bettors are suckers and losers at the windows.
|
I think that's excellent general advice. However, I don't think it excludes the conclusion that place bets on > 10-1 horses are a better bet than betting the same horses in exactas using the race fav in the 1st position of the exacta.
--Dunbar