Place Vs. Fave/Long Exacta Running Tab - Page 2

Scav · #21 03-07-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

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.

You just want to cheer for favorites to run up the track....

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)

blackthroatedwind · #22 03-07-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

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.

Data is data.....and the past will be the same as the future.

hoovesupsideyourhead · #23 03-07-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

someone has alot of time on there hands.......this about place betting vs doing an exacta with said horse on top of a lodigical fav 5/2 ..the exacta will come out on to 90 perc of the time..why the big study

ext with the 5/2 over the 10-20-1..sorry

randallscott35 · #24 03-07-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Data is data.....and the past will be the same as the future.

We shall see....Trainers winning at 30% clips today could be 5% going forward....Time will tell.

Grits · #25 03-07-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

If all this brainpower could somehow be harnessed to benefit mankind, Al Gore could rest at night.

Al's sleeping with his Oscar and Tipper. So Al's happy.

blackthroatedwind · #26 03-07-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randallscott35

We shall see....Trainers winning at 30% clips today could be 5% going forward....Time will tell.

A statistic sample in the 100s takes care of that.

Scav · #27 03-07-2007, 09:11 PM

I love constructive arguments....(not a single name called yet)

Grits · #28 03-07-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

I love constructive arguments....(not a single name called yet)

And isn't that a very good thing! (I did call his avatar "a little undulating tart" and he cast her off like a spent match.) LOLOL

blackthroatedwind · #29 03-07-2007, 09:15 PM

I just realized what is fundementally wrong with this study....

You have to use any horse over 10-1 that WINS or PLACES ( there will be two in some races ). As, if your horse wins you get the place money and lose the exacta. In other words, the horses that run out are irrelevent, as you lose $2 either way, but the ones that win and run second are relevent.

Even though we are saying " how would I do if it just places " you have to remember you cash both bets if it wins.

That is why my first sample was so skewed.

randallscott35 · #30 03-07-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I just realized what is fundementally wrong with this study....

You have to use any horse over 10-1 that WINS or PLACES ( there will be two in some races ). As, if your horse wins you get the place money and lose the exacta. In other words, the horses that run out are irrelevent, as you lose $2 either way, but the ones that win and run second are relevent.

Even though we are saying " how would I do if it just places " you have to remember you cash both bets if it wins.

That is why my first sample was so skewed.

That's right!! So those count as well....She's going to get killed.

2MinsToPost · #31 03-07-2007, 09:17 PM

No offense, but does this thread not target those whom play the tote board and odds with a couple minutes to post, the "numbers players" who love to dash to the teller and yell out their crazy exacta boxes, keys etc?

I like to find my horses and play them win and place no matter the odds anymore

Pick 3's the same, as SCAVS WOULD SAY - FULL TILT

Tilt is great, and I love it on Friday nights

Dang, I gotta work till 9pm this Friday but am OFF ALL DAY ON SATURDAY!

God bless MEADOWLANDS HARNESS RACING on Friday and Saturday nights!

blackthroatedwind · #32 03-07-2007, 09:18 PM

To further what I just said.....each particular horse is an example...i.e. the horse wins you get X for the place bet and lose the exacta and any horse that places you get X for place and Y for the exacta where Y can be zero.

randallscott35 · #33 03-07-2007, 09:18 PM

Actually let me think about this. We both would get the win end so maybe that is right...Now I'm confused.

brianwspencer · #34 03-07-2007, 09:19 PM

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.

blackthroatedwind · #35 03-07-2007, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randallscott35

That's right!! So those count as well....She's going to get killed.

She's NOT going to get killed. She will probably prove to have the right side as the mathematics are in her favor ( due to the dispersal of takeout ). It should be pretty close.

Seriously, don't take this the wrong way, but this is not a contest of who's right or wrong. It's a very good study.

randallscott35 · #36 03-07-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

Apparently you missed Andy's post from before. You have short changed my side by quite a bit. You missed all the win bets when those longshots won...If you do it again, you'll find me on top.

randallscott35 · #37 03-07-2007, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

She's NOT going to get killed. She will probably prove to have the right side as the mathematics are in her favor ( due to the dispersal of takeout ). It should be pretty close.

Seriously, don't take this the wrong way, but this is not a contest of who's right or wrong. It's a very good study.

Yes, I know Andy. I'm just getting fired up.

blackthroatedwind · #38 03-07-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Apparently you missed Andy's post from before. You have short changed my side by quite a bit. You missed all the win bets when those longshots won...If you do it again, you'll find me on top.

I'm not sure he did....he said a 10-1+ running in the top two.

I would like to know the total number of examples.

I just asked the smartest statistical person I know, who knows little to nothing about racing, and he is going to think about it. He did suggest using pools that are larger as they will have little to no random skew. I said we were.

randallscott35 · #39 03-07-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm not sure he did....he said a 10-1+ running in the top two.

I would like to know the total number of examples.

I just asked the smartest statistical person I know, who knows little to nothing about racing, and he is going to think about it. He did suggest using pools that are larger as they will have little to no random skew. I said we were.

GOOD ENOUGH. its fixed now. 1st or second on the place side vs. exacta on bottom for the other side. It will be reasonably close on second thought. But I'd say 60/40 in my direction at the end.

randallscott35 · #40 03-07-2007, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm not sure he did....he said a 10-1+ running in the top two.

I would like to know the total number of examples.

I just asked the smartest statistical person I know, who knows little to nothing about racing, and he is going to think about it. He did suggest using pools that are larger as they will have little to no random skew. I said we were.

You know what it is also Andy, I'm at the mercy of some of those longshots WINNING the race as simply finishing second will not do it for me...But the combo will vs. the exacta.