Place Vs. Fave/Long Exacta Running Tab

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Dave, the lack of response to your post and at least 2 similar requests of mine suggest one of two things:

1. BTWind is wrong about the mathematics, or
2. BTWind is right, but the concept is subtle enough that there is profit to be made from the betting public's misunderstanding of it, and he wishes to keep that edge to himself. (Nothing wrong with that!)

If it were almost anyone else here, I'd lean very heavily toward #1. But I respect BTWind enough to consider #2 a possibility.

I'm still working on an example that I hope will illustrate that at least in "efficient" pools, the place bet has to be better than the exacta bet for the type of comparison in this contest. Until I do that, I'm open to the possibility that BTWind could be right.

--Dunbar

Nah, I just haven't really wrapped myself around it enough, or summoned the energy, to give a good response. I will.

[Antitrust32]

I bet grits wins the bottle of scotch, anyone want to bet against?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I bet grits wins the bottle of scotch, anyone want to bet against?

The contest ended after the 4th at Aqueduct and three above 10-1 horses ran first or second. The exacta won by a minor amount.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The contest ended after the 4th at Aqueduct and three above 10-1 horses ran first or second. The exacta won by a minor amount.

Yes, the first race was a nice exacta hit, if it wasnt for that, it would have been REAL close, especially with that $108 horse in the 4th

[Antitrust32]

I look forward to examining the next 250 place payouts Dunbar tracks.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Yes, the first race was a nice exacta hit, if it wasnt for that, it would have been REAL close, especially with that $108 horse in the 4th

This is an absurd mentality. What does " if " mean? If some of those ridiculous big priced horses at Gulfstream hadn't won, or had run second to the favorite, the exacta would have been substantially higher. " IF " is absurd to use.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is an absurd mentality. What does " if " mean? If some of those ridiculous big priced horses at Gulfstream hadn't won, or had run second to the favorite, the exacta would have been substantially higher. " IF " is absurd to use.

I agree that I thought the exacta pool would win by much more, and Gulfstream was pretty much out of the ordinary for awhile there. It will be interesting to see what the next 250 results are.

Just pointing out how close of a race it was and evaluating the final strides...

[blackthroatedwind]

There is no need to wait for future results. You can just as easily use past results.

The reason the exacta is better is for a variety of reasons. One, the breakage hurts the place payoffs enough to raise the takeout to at least a couple points higher than the 15 or 16%. Another is that favorites are overbet in place pools for the most part and as they finish first or second around 50% of the time they will artificially deflate place payoffs on the other horse. But, the biggest reason is that with exactas you are effectively making a parlay of two different results, one horse to win and another to place, with a takout of roughly 20%. It's not wholly dissimilar to making a football parlay on the point spread AND the over/under while only paying the vig for one bet. So, even though the exacta takout is, say, 20% vs. 15% for place, you are effectively ( though not exactly ) lowering it to 10% on each outcome. Now, when you add on the actual increase that breakage brings to the place takeout you have a substantially better mathematical proposition.

The truth of this contest is that an aberational result which caused place bets to appear the better bet would have sent a TERRIBLE message to people. This idea that place betting is a sound strategy is flat out wrong and yet another reason people have trouble making money betting horses. The idea is to find ways to maximize one's profits or returns. Place and show betting, simply put, minimizes returns. Place and show bettors are suckers and losers at the windows.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is an absurd mentality. What does " if " mean? If some of those ridiculous big priced horses at Gulfstream hadn't won, or had run second to the favorite, the exacta would have been substantially higher. " IF " is absurd to use.

That's correct. However, when the difference after 250 bets is less than many of the individual exacta payoffs, you can be reasonably sure that the result is statistically meaningless. If one side or the other had finished ahead by 3 or 4 exacta bets, we could at least say that the result supported one side or the other.

--Dunbar

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

That's correct. However, when the difference after 250 bets is less than many of the individual exacta payoffs, you can be reasonably sure that the result is statistically meaningless. If one side or the other had finished ahead by 3 or 4 exacta bets, we could at least say that the result supported one side or the other.

--Dunbar

I understand, and I believe the place bets had a strong run of luck in this short sample.

I understand what you said in the previous post but I am not concerned with people who play the game for a hobby ( and only wish there were more of them ) as I think people who are following this honestly want to better their play and results. Place betting is a major mistake if one is trying to do that.