|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
03-09-2007, 08:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
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???... 
|
|
#2
03-09-2007, 08:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I've walked in and created a firestorm it seems. That's not always a good thing, sometimes, yes, sometimes, no.
|
|
#3
03-09-2007, 08:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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...
|
|
#4
03-09-2007, 08:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#5
03-09-2007, 08:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#6
03-09-2007, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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%.
|
|
#7
03-09-2007, 09:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#8
03-09-2007, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Let's don't throw kumquats in the basket with the apples, it muddles things.
|
|
#9
03-09-2007, 01:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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... Last edited by pmacdaddy : 03-09-2007 at 01:34 PM.
|
|
#10
03-09-2007, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's a great game, it just sucks when we're not cashing.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
