Research Question

[traynor]

I dunno the answer. I know there should be a question, but I don't want to spend a lot of time writing the code to uncover it, if someone else has already explored that area.

Is there a correlation (possibly profitable) in exacta patterns of the finishers related to the gap at the finish? Specifically, it seems that races in which the winner wins by a "comfortable margin" tend to have longer odds entries in the place and show positions. Something along the line of drivers being intelligent enough to realize they won't win, and there is little point in abusing their horse to pick up lesser pieces of the purse (and possibly decrease the possibility of their horse winning a subsequent race). So they slack off a bit near the wire, and the "lesser" horses have a better chance to pick up place and show.

As an avid exacta and trifecta bettor, such things interest me. Especially when a clear standout for win is uncovered, but the second and third "best" tend to hang back at the wire. This seems most notable (to me) with standout winners--that should be predictable. Highly contested races are another matter entirely--I am referring strictly to races in which a "clearly best" entry figures to win easily.

Has anyone done any research or given any thought to this topic?

[mrroyboy]

Sounds logical Tray. Hope some people have stats on this. Ray, John???

[Ray2000]

traynor

I don't have odds on 2nd and 3rd finishers at hand but did take a quick look at Exacta pays versus Winner's margin.

~32,000 winning by less than 5====$79.56
~2,600 winning by 5 or more=======$60.30

You need a large number of races when analyzing Exotic prices even in pilot studies.
I didn't take the winner's odds into account, that would change things.

The data is in a cvs file at

http://ge.tt/8aDk7Wh1/v/0?c

Field size would need to be derived from starters/scratches if that's important.

[cmp92]

I have actually cashed on this a few times. I just put a heavy favorite on top and keyed him on top with a bunch of longshots underneath and hope one of the bombs comes in. I'd say that I have won more using this than I have lost, although I have no concrete statistics to share.

[traynor]

traynor

I don't have odds on 2nd and 3rd finishers at hand but did take a quick look at Exacta pays versus Winner's margin.

~32,000 winning by less than 5====$79.56
~2,600 winning by 5 or more=======$60.30

You need a large number of races when analyzing Exotic prices even in pilot studies.
I didn't take the winner's odds into account, that would change things.

The data is in a cvs file at

http://ge.tt/8aDk7Wh1/v/0?c

Field size would need to be derived from starters/scratches if that's important.


Usually, I like large datasets. In this situation, I am thinking that averaging is going to conceal more than it reveals. Example would be yesterday's (Saturday) races at Flamboro. In the fourth, the second favorite won by 7 lengths, off at 2.50 (fave was 2.25). Place horse went off at 25.70. If the favorite (or other obvious "contender") had chased for a piece of the purse, the exacta would have been trivial. It paid 135.40.

I have been doing a lot of looking at how and why long odds entries finish in the money. It seems a really promising area to explore. The gap as a factor is just off the top of my head. I think that such patterns are predictable, especially based on the research I have been doing on trainer strategies.

The obvious problem is the one that all research carries out of the gate--generalities decribe generalities, and come up short when applied to specifics. Most importantly, mixing the exacta payoffs at many tracks doesn't give much insight into what happens at specific tracks. I spent some time in the spring in BC, and betting "longshots" at Fraser is a thankless task that will reduce one to humiity in short order. That scenario is reversed at Northfield--trying to put together chalk wagers there is disastrous. Different tracks require different strategies, based on the current (and relatively recent past) wagering habits of the bettors.

[traynor]

I have actually cashed on this a few times. I just put a heavy favorite on top and keyed him on top with a bunch of longshots underneath and hope one of the bombs comes in. I'd say that I have won more using this than I have lost, although I have no concrete statistics to share.

I think "heavy favorite" is important, too. Example (also yesterday at Flamboro): In the eighth, the 0.85 favorite won by a neck (possibly coasting) with the placer off at 33 to 1 for a very nice 80.00 exacta. The show horse was 3 lengths back. I think there is a better approach than fanning long odds behind the favorite (otherwise known as "doing a Brenner"--after Fred Brenner who used a set of similar strategies in greyhound races long ago). I just need to figure out what that better approach might be.

[mrroyboy]

I met Fred Brenner when I was a poker dealer/floorman. A really smart guy.

[traynor]

I met Fred Brenner when I was a poker dealer/floorman. A really smart guy.

Yes. Was that before of after his extended sojourn in Ireland?

[traynor]

That may seem an odd question, especially to those who were not fortunate enough to have encountered/worked with/known Fred Brenner in the late 1970s to roughly mid-1980s. More than a few bettors--harness, thoroughbred, and greyhound--did well right out of the gate (and continued to do so) using Brenner's wagering strategies. He was one of the first to recognize that picking the winner of a race is not all that tough. The tough part is leveraging that knowledge into a meaningful profit.

He apparently ran into some personal problems in the 1980s and took a LONG vacation in Ireland and the UK. I have not heard much of him since then.

[mrroyboy]

Must have been early 80's