![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
a) You would probably box with the favorite thus it should count if the 10/1 horse wins and the favorite runs 2nd or vice versa
b) anything over 20/1 is a stretch IMO, should be between 10/1 and 20/1 the way Andy did it first. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
chalk players...lol at least 1/2 of it
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
If all this brainpower could somehow be harnessed to benefit mankind, Al Gore could rest at night.
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Last edited by Grits : 03-07-2007 at 10:36 PM. |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm bored.
I looked at all of the available charts on Equibase, between Santa Anita, Gulfstream and Aqueduct. It only comprised eighteen race days total, but I went through them. I used Randall's original idea, of 10-1+ shot running in the top two versus a 10-1+ shot running behind the favorite (any favorite, lukewarm or odds-on) in the race. With that, it presumes that regardless of how you played it, that 10-1+ horse was the one you liked. The totals I got were: Aqueduct: Place Wagers: $139.20 Exacta: $222.40 Gulfstream: Place Wagers: $292.40 Exacta: $440.80 Santa Anita: Place Wagers: $335.20 (may I add, just ONE of the exactas was worth $302.80 for a deuce, almost entirely negating the other sixteen double-digit place horses all by itself) Exacta:$593.00 Total for published race days on Equibase: Place Wagers: $766.80 Exacta: $1,256.20 Not even close so far. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think this is setup to fail by design. The favorites are often underlays on top, so the only exactas that will count are going to be low mutuels, while the place payouts can capture all instances where a favorite finishes out of the money. I like the "exacta as a place bet" in theory, but I think you'd come out ahead by wheeling a few contenders over your longshot. Of course, that really makes it tough to follow for your purposes.
__________________
Do I think Charity can win? Well, I am walking around in yesterday's suit. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
The box is irrelevent to this particular discussion. We are ONLY looking at place vs. second to the favorite.
We could also compare a $10 wager in another study....$6 win $4 place vs. $4 win, $2 Box with favorite and $2 second to the favorite. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
I came in on the ass end of the conversation and I look like a donkey...CARRY ON!!!
|
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The second one is much harder ( and will sometimes result in using both the first and second finisher ). The first is best because it's cut and dried. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
I will look at past data and make two groups....10-1 and up and only 10-1 to 20-1.
This should be fun and informative. |
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
![]() Either way, as long as the sample size is long enough (a whole meet), you should get a decent perspective on who is right.... Personally, if I understand this, Randall is saying that betting place is more worthwhile then playing an exacta, Grits is saying play the bomb with the chalk. SPEAKING IN Natural odds, just plain Natural odds (10 horse race, each horse has a 10% change of winning) Randall wins this argument in a landside BUT I would have to break out some crazy algerbra to figure out the odds (using 30% as favorite winning as a national average) |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Data is data.....and the past will be the same as the future. |