Place Vs. Fave/Long Exacta Running Tab

[randallscott35]

DAY ONE MARCH 8, 2007

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

Santa Anita: Race 5--Grits: 26.60 RS: 37.80

DAY ONE FINAL: Grits- 179.60 RS: 229.90
Total Races: 6

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

DAY ONE MARCH 8, 2007 Mods you can now move this to the Contest Forum--Thank you

thanks for the permission there chief...you might want to ask me nicer in future.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

thanks for the permission there chief...you might want to ask me nicer in future.

Huh, I thanked the mods on the front end and the back end of the thread. VT cold getting to you.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Huh, I thanked the mods on the front end and the back end of the thread. VT cold getting to you.

saying thank you does not mean that the order wasn't a tad on the rude side.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

saying thank you does not mean that the order wasn't a tad on the rude side.

You have to be kidding me, but I didn't mean it that way at all.. Leave it in the Paddock then, I was simply moving it so it didn't clutter up the main board. Jesus people are touchy on this board. WTF

[Antitrust32]

counting the win bets takes away from this report in my opinion.

should just be

$2 Place vs $2 Straight exacta (fav over the 10-1 and over shot)

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

counting the win bets takes away from this report in my opinion.

should just be

$2 Place vs $2 Straight exacta (fav over the 10-1 and over shot)

Anti, that's what it is. They cancel each other out. I'm just using both to give an accurate representation of the total you would get back had you done 2WP vs. the other way.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Anti, that's what it is. They cancel each other out. I'm just using both to give an accurate representation of the total you would get back had you done 2WP vs. the other way.

thats fine.... you are off to a good start

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

thats fine.... you are off to a good start

Maybe, I actually think I'm going to lose. Watching some of the probables in exacta payouts, it will be close. Not nearly as confident as yesterday. Grits and I have a small wager on this to be paid up in Toga. As Beth and Kev can attest, whenever I bet one person I lose.

[Antitrust32]

yeah, i personally feel that you will lose.. no offense

but you got off to a good start!

[Antitrust32]

but hey... win or lose this is still very informative and maybe will change the way you wager to get a better ROI

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

yeah, i personally feel that you will lose.. no offense

but you got off to a good start!

None taken. LOL, its for fun after all.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Maybe, I actually think I'm going to lose. Watching some of the probables in exacta payouts, it will be close. Not nearly as confident as yesterday. Grits and I have a small wager on this to be paid up in Toga. As Beth and Kev can attest, whenever I bet one person I lose.

The way this is set up it looks that way because you can only count yours when Grits can as well (unless I'm confused).

It seems to me, and why I bet WP, is that your chances of being able to cash a ticket will occur more often than if you're only betting the chalk over the longshot you like best in the exacta. Of course you could always solve this problem by approaching your bet like DaHoss aforementioned.

[Grits]

RS, I'm going to say this ONE MORE TIME ONLY.

This study is not about/or to include ANY win wager, NONE. Don't show a thing about wins or win payouts. Forget that completely. The study is about the following: Money wagered to place on a longshot verses money wagered on, instead, a straight exacta play.

Randall: Betting $2. on a longshot at 10/1 or better. And posting the place figure paid out only.

Grits: Betting a $2 straight exacta with the chalk on top and the longshot at 10/1 or better underneath. If my horses don't run 1-2. I get nothing.
************************************************** ****

The races that need viewing are races where:

(1) chalk has won and a longshot at 10/1 or better has run underneath.

(2) where a longshot at 10/1 or better has won the race and we are using the place payout.

(3) where a longshot at 10/1 or better has run second, and again we are using the place payout.

Is anyone misunderstanding the study, or the wagers? If any of today's results shows win amounts remove them, please. They are not inclusive to the study, and therefore confusing.

Now, what am I missing, anything? Randall, Andy, help me out ok.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Grits

RS, I'm going to say this ONE MORE TIME ONLY.

This study is not about/or to include ANY win wager, NONE. Don't show a thing about wins or win payouts. Forget that completely. The study is about the following: Money wagered to place on a longshot verses money wagered on, instead, a straight exacta play.

Randall: Betting $2. on a longshot at 10/1 or better. And posting the place figure paid out only.

Grits: Betting a $2 straight exacta with the chalk on top and the longshot at 10/1 or better underneath. If my horses don't run 1-2. I get nothing.
************************************************** ****

The only races that need viewing are races where chalk has won and a longshot at 10/1 or better has run underneath. THAT one result will give us the data we need for the study.

Is anyone misunderstanding the study, or the wagers? If any of today's results shows win amounts remove them, please. They are not inclusive to the study, and therefore confusing.

Now, what am I missing, anything? Randall, Andy, help me out ok.

Jeez Grits, we all know it has nothing to do with the win end of it. AS I posted in the thread when asked I am posting the total b/c the technical nature of the bet is WP vs. Win+Back Ex....Thus I'm trying to show what the totals would be in reality....It is obviously still just the place wager coming into play. Look at the difference in the totals, they are all correct. There are smart people on this board, they understand that even though I am adding in the win(for BOTH of us) the key to the study is the place side.

[SniperSB23]

For it to be an accurate trial any race where a 10-1 shot runs first or second needs to count. Randall gets place money every time whether the horse runs first or second. If the favorite finishes on top of the 10-1 shot then you get the exacta. Otherwise you get nothing.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

For it to be an accurate trial any race where a 10-1 shot runs first or second needs to count. Randall gets place money every time whether the horse runs first or second. If the favorite finishes on top of the 10-1 shot then you get the exacta. Otherwise you get nothing.

Good question which I will pose to Andy. My feeling is that technically, we would only be betting one horse in the race each, so even if the 10-1's ran 1-2, we'd only have one of them.

[Grits]

You all need to remove my quote from your post as I did not include both race result scenarios. I have edited my post.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Grits

You all need to remove my quote from your post as I did not include both race result scenarios. I have edited my post.

It still isn't right. You also need to count races where the 10-1 shot finishes second and a horse other than the chalk finishes on top. Those will actually be where the best place payouts will occur.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

It still isn't right. You also need to count races where the 10-1 shot finishes second and a horse other than the chalk finishes on top. Those will actually be where the best place payouts will occur.

Sniper, indeed, you're correct. Anthing else?