Place Vs. Fave/Long Exacta Running Tab

[randallscott35]

[quote=Grits]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Andy and RS, before we finalize everything would both of you go back to page 4 of the "Closest You've Come" thread, read that page, read what each of us stated as instances, and make sure for me, that we're all on the same page with our conditions.

I don't wanna have to call my CPA in the morning.

Understood, but its bedtime for me tomorrow it will be done....We'll work it out. It will start tomorrow regardless.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Double checking this is correct. 2$WP on a 10-1 or greater shot vs. 2$win and 2$ exac with fave over longshot. That should come out perfectly.

This is redundant, as both bets have $2 to win, thus what we are checking is the difference between TWO bets...either $2 to place, which you cash if the horse runs first or second, or a $2 exacta underneath the favorite which you only cash if you run second AND the favorite wins.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is redundant, as both bets have $2 to win, thus what we are checking is the difference between TWO bets...either $2 to place, which you cash if the horse runs first or second, or a $2 exacta underneath the favorite which you only cash if you run second AND the favorite wins.

It was my understanding when I stated my $100. exacta that we were working with RS's place bet only vs the exacta of my chalk & longshot (with the longshot to place) bet straight-underneath. We were both talking about the longshot running in second place, I thought.

I could be wrong, I had no thought of a win bet at all.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Grits

It was my understanding when I stated my $100. exacta that we were working with RS's place bet only vs the exacta of my chalk & longshot (with the longshot to place) bet straight-underneath. We were both talking about the longshot running in second place, I thought.

I could be wrong, I had no thought of a win bet at all.

Right....there is no win bet involved....and in the case Randall gave it's redundant as it is in both plays.

Just $2 to place vs. a $2 exacta below the favorite. That's it...nothing more.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by VOL JACK

My standard play is $50 to win and $25 ex. box with my key horse and my second choice in the race. Or $25 ex. keying my horse over 2 horses. I have never understood the bet to win then turn around and key my horse in second only! A place bet is a hedge, i prefer to hedge with an exacta. I am kinda like Andy Beyer in that if am right I want to be really right and if my opion was wrong I didn't deserve to cash, anyhow. Perfect example is today in the last race @G.P my key horse #4 @ 7-1 paid only $7.40 to place, even with a 56-1 winning the race. One more example is my friend @ the OTB I attend is a $200 WP guy. He refuses to play an exacta. There are alot times that my $100 cashes for alot more than his $200 place bets. P.S. I'm really looking forward to the Youbet shows Andy!!

Basically I completely agree with you. You need to get paid when you're right...it's as simple as that.

Thanks.

I bet the third horse in that race at Gulfstream....but would have been happy if he had run second to your horse. Frustrating winner.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Right....there is no win bet involved....and in the case Randall gave it's redundant as it is in both plays.

Just $2 to place vs. a $2 exacta below the favorite. That's it...nothing more.

Finally, this is the essense of the matter. The idea is meant to question the validity of place betting vs the exacta scheme. The win part is redundant.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Let's do the data going forward. I want to have a fresh outlook on this and not expect the data to go in a certain direction.

If the sample sizes are equal, it's better to go forward. Less chance to introduce a bias about starting point.

btw, randall, I really like the way you've spelled out exactly what you are doing, including the sample size!

I'm going to bet on the place bet being more profitable. I've missed where this whole discussion took place (so to speak), but I don't see a betting bias that would overcome the generally bigger takeout for exactas.

--Dunbar

[golfer]

I appreciate the passion involved in this study, but here is my question which pertains to betting style: how much does betting a key horse to win and place, as opposed to straight win, effect your ROI? Lately, I've been playing win and place on horses over 10-1. While it "feels" better to collect a place bet when the horse finishes second, over the longer term, how much money am I losing by not putting the whole wager in the win pool (or am I better off with win and place?). In attempting to follow these threads, I believe Andy is on the side of win only. I know the only real way to answer this is to keep track of my key horses and their win/place payouts, but just looking for observations...

[randallscott35]

AS TO ANDY's latest post....This clears it up.

So a horse that finishes first: I get the place for and she gets nothing for it as she just has a win bet that is cancelled against mine.

And when a horse finishes second, I get the place....Then the fave is checked and any further calculation is made....So yes the win side isn't counted---but the PLACE side will be counted for a longshot of 10-1 or more winning or finishing second. Cool? This is correct.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

AS TO ANDY's latest post....This clears it up.

So a horse that finishes first: I get the place for and she gets nothing for it as she just has a win bet that is cancelled against mine.

And when a horse finishes second, I get the place....Then the fave is checked and any further calculation is made....So yes the win side isn't counted---but the PLACE side will be counted for a longshot of 10-1 or more winning or finishing second. Cool? This is correct.

Which is what I did the first time.

The exacta is going to blow the place money out of the water long-term.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

...

Just $2 to place vs. a $2 exacta below the favorite. That's it...nothing more.

Like others, I also appreciate this thread and I'm interested to see if the results confirn what I believe.

My spin for "round 2" would be to drop the favorite from the exacta and study two $1 exactas using the 10-1 under the 2nd and 3rd favorites. In theory (and application, I believe) the 10-1 would be attractive at that price and playable due to the favorite being a percieved bad chalk.

But I'm still very interested in seeing the outcome. Thanks to all working on this.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Which is what I did the first time.

The exacta is going to blow the place money out of the water long-term.

NO, what you did the first time was only consider when the longshot finished 2nd, not when they finished first. That's the key difference.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

AS TO ANDY's latest post....This clears it up.

So a horse that finishes first: I get the place for and she gets nothing for it as she just has a win bet that is cancelled against mine.

And when a horse finishes second, I get the place....Then the fave is checked and any further calculation is made....So yes the win side isn't counted---but the PLACE side will be counted for a longshot of 10-1 or more winning or finishing second. Cool? This is correct.

Good morning RS, I hope you're gonna have a good Thursday. I began burning brain cells late last night. I was getting a little confused. (As someone indicated in the esoteric thread, "she's from the south" so apparently, they don't think my brain is fully developed. And that's fine. That kind of thinking doesn't bother me.)

You are correct, you get the place only, for your horse. Regardless, whether he wins or not, you have only place money involved for $2.

Now, all I have is the exacta of 1-2. If my horses DO NOT run 1-2, with the chalk winning, and the longshot running second. I get nothing.

Your belief being that place betting and running second with a longshot is more profitable than my belief of no place betting, instead put the horse in an exacta with the postime chalk.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Finally, this is the essense of the matter. The idea is meant to question the validity of place betting vs the exacta scheme.

Yes, ArlJ. that is exactly, the purpose of the study and the "heart of the matter." (As Don Henley sings.)

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

NO, what you did the first time was only consider when the longshot finished 2nd, not when they finished first. That's the key difference.

I don't really care, and don't want to argue in an otherwise awesome thread.

But yes, that is actually exactly what I did. Any 10-1+ shot running in the place money (also known as top two) was credited to the place team, and any 10-1+ horse running second to the favorite was credited to the exacta team.

It's fine, I don't care -- you'll see what I mean when you start counting it up yourself. I've had the concept right all along.

From my original post:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Like others, I also appreciate this thread and I'm interested to see if the results confirn what I believe.

My spin for "round 2" would be to drop the favorite from the exacta and study two $1 exactas using the 10-1 under the 2nd and 3rd favorites. In theory (and application, I believe) the 10-1 would be attractive at that price and playable due to the favorite being a percieved bad chalk.

But I'm still very interested in seeing the outcome. Thanks to all working on this.

this is the approach I take, especially with larger fields.

[Payson Dave]

Great great thread...I am a WP bettor for the most part...however if the study (with a big enough sample) shows a higher ROI by doing an exacta wager underneath the favorite then that would be great information to have...I'd love to see the study expanded to include horses at 5/1...what percent of races are won by horse over 5/1 vs horses under 5/1....
Seems that the lower odds would increase the both the number of place tickets and exacta tickets cashed...but the question is not how many tickets get cashed but rather it is which strategy produces the higher ROI.

[Thunder Gulch]

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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

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.

It won't matter when the numbers are added up.

[estreetposse]

You are both betting $2 on a 10-1 horse to WIN. For s**ts and giggles, let's call him the 10 horse.

Now one of you is also betting $2 to place on the 10,

and the other is betting a $2 exacta: Favorite/10

Is this correct or am I still confused from reading this 3x?

If you both like the 10, why not take another $2 to put on top o' the fav.
I know its Monopoly $$$ on here but what would you do in the real world?