Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane
Does anyone else believe that a $1 ex box using #24 with the horse of your choice makes more sense than a win wager?
Currently Rule is 24-1 to win the race outright without worrying who finishes second. He is 55-1 to outfinish every other horse on the current list even if he runs worse than second. He is 88-1 to win the race if no one on the current list runs second.
Thoughts?
|
It depends. What's you're goal? Do you want to bet Rule to win or do you want to bet Rule to W/P? Or do you think "All Others" is the only reasonable choice for the 2nd spot?
If you wanted to bet Rule to win, then you could have looked at all the exactas where Rule is the first horse. If you bet them proportionally in a way that you collect the same thing no matter which other horse comes in 2nd (including the "All Others" option), then you are emulating a bet in the win pool. You can compare the odds you get from the exactas to the odds you get in the win pool. For example, say you have $112 to bet on Rule to win. You could have bet $1 on the Rule/MakeMusicForMe exacta, $2 on the Rule/DaveInDixie, $24 on Rule/"All Others" and proportional amounts on every other Rule/ exacta. No matter which horse comes in 2nd, you'd collect the same amount ($2132). That's 18-1 on your $112 in bets. You'd be much better off with the 24-1 from a straight win bet in the win pool. So, if you were looking for the best way to bet on Rule to win, it was definitely in the win pool. If you had strong feelings about who would come in 2nd, such as "All Others", then, yeah, maybe Rule/All Others made sense.
But if you really liked Rule to win, then trying to add a particular 2nd place horse, even if it's "All Others", is asking for later aggravation, IMO.
--Dunbar