2/12-14: Derby Future Wager - Pool 1

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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

I do like Rule and using him as an example my point is this:
If I make a win wager on him and he makes it to the gate he must be the best of 20 horses. I get 24-1 for that chance.
If I box him with all others in the exacta he will be running against only the horses on the list that make it to the gate. I get 55-1 if he can outperform those horses anywhere on the track. If he wins the race I must hope that any of the horses on the list do not run 2nd. For that chance I get 88-1.
(actually my payoff in the last two scenarios are $55 or $88 for a total $2 investment compared to $50 for a $2 investment if he wins the race.)
Last year only five horses from pool 1 made it to the gate. Pioneer Of The Nile was 13-1 to win the race in the futures but going into the race he only needed to finish better than four others,which he did and probably paid better for a $1 exacta than he would have if he had won the race.(I don't know what the futures exacta paid.)

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

Just one exacta......Super Saver with the field (boxed) this is the least amount I've ever played in the 1st round. I don't think ANY of my past plays in this round, made it to the gate!

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

I do like Rule and using him as an example my point is this:
If I make a win wager on him and he makes it to the gate he must be the best of 20 horses. I get 24-1 for that chance.
If I box him with all others in the exacta he will be running against only the horses on the list that make it to the gate. I get 55-1 if he can outperform those horses anywhere on the track. If he wins the race I must hope that any of the horses on the list do not run 2nd. For that chance I get 88-1.
(actually my payoff in the last two scenarios are $55 or $88 for a total $2 investment compared to $50 for a $2 investment if he wins the race.)
Last year only five horses from pool 1 made it to the gate. Pioneer Of The Nile was 13-1 to win the race in the futures but going into the race he only needed to finish better than four others,which he did and probably paid better for a $1 exacta than he would have if he had won the race.(I don't know what the futures exacta paid.)

Just a couple of comments...

Last year was unusual with just 5 horses from Pool 1 making it to the starting gate. The year before 12 horses made it. The average number since 2000 (I don't have info on the first year, 1999) is 8.6 horses from Pool 1 made it to the starting gate.

Also, I don't think they started the exactas until Pool 2 last year.

--Dunbar

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Just a couple of comments...

Last year was unusual with just 5 horses from Pool 1 making it to the starting gate. The year before 12 horses made it. The average number since 2000 (I don't have info on the first year, 1999) is 8.6 horses from Pool 1 made it to the starting gate.

Also, I don't think they started the exactas until Pool 2 last year.

--Dunbar

Just from an odds standpoint even if 10 horses make it to the gate this year that's 9 less horses he has to beat.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

Just from an odds standpoint even if 10 horses make it to the gate this year that's 9 less horses he has to beat.

I agree. I just don't see an immediate way to weigh the extra odds you get with the chance your horse might win and you still not get paid. In the example I gave in my first response, you can do a direct comparison of odds. I don't see an immediate way to do that with what you're proposing.

--Dunbar

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I agree. I just don't see an immediate way to weigh the extra odds you get with the chance your horse might win and you still not get paid. In the example I gave in my first response, you can do a direct comparison of odds. I don't see an immediate way to do that with what you're proposing.

--Dunbar

I didn't think of weighing the odds of the case in which he wins but now that you mention it I would view it as follows:
He pays $50 if he wins the race and roughly $170 if all others finish 2nd on a $2 exacta.
The odds of all others winning the race is 3-2. If those odds are true then an equivalent value for a $2 exacta for all others to finish 2nd would be $75.
The bottom line that I see is that if you like a horse the chances to cash a ticket are better when putting him underneath all others in the exacta than betting him to win.