a great example of how favorites are overbet in exotics pools

[dilanesp]

One thing I have assumed for a long time is that favorites tend to be underlays in exotics pools. Basically, people see the short price to win, and go looking for the exotics. Unlike the win pool though, they don't see the probable payoffs for the exotics-- only the exacta and double probables are generally available, and people don't bother to even look at those.

So a short price horse tends to be an even shorter price in the exotics.

Here's some evidence of this. In the second race on Thursday at Santa Anita, the favorite :4: Angel Lane ran third.

This produced an exacta payoff of $42.70 for a 4-1 shot on top of a 15 to 1 shot.

The trifecta, with the favorite in third hole, paid just $55.50 for $1. Now when does a trifecta with a 4-1 shot over a 15-1 shot on top ever pay only $55.50, and when does a trifecta ever pay just 20 percent more than the exacta in the same race?

What obviously happened is that lots of people played trifecta boxes using the favorite, making any trifecta combinations using the favorite, even in the 3rd hole behind 2 price horses, a big underlay.

There's a big lesson here for betting.

[olddaddy]

Playing blind pools is always a crap shoot.

[AndyC]

One thing I have assumed for a long time is that favorites tend to be underlays in exotics pools. Basically, people see the short price to win, and go looking for the exotics. Unlike the win pool though, they don't see the probable payoffs for the exotics-- only the exacta and double probables are generally available, and people don't bother to even look at those.

So a short price horse tends to be an even shorter price in the exotics.

Here's some evidence of this. In the second race on Thursday at Santa Anita, the favorite :4: Angel Lane ran third.

This produced an exacta payoff of $42.70 for a 4-1 shot on top of a 15 to 1 shot.

The trifecta, with the favorite in third hole, paid just $55.50 for $1. Now when does a trifecta with a 4-1 shot over a 15-1 shot on top ever pay only $55.50, and when does a trifecta ever pay just 20 percent more than the exacta in the same race?

What obviously happened is that lots of people played trifecta boxes using the favorite, making any trifecta combinations using the favorite, even in the 3rd hole behind 2 price horses, a big underlay.

There's a big lesson here for betting.

Bad example! The favorite was 3/10 and the trifecta paid 1.3 x the exacta. If you eliminated the money bet on the first 2 finishers in the win pool the favorite would have been 1-10 to finish 3rd.

[dilanesp]

Bad example! The favorite was 3/10 and the trifecta paid 1.3 x the exacta. If you eliminated the money bet on the first 2 finishers in the win pool the favorite would have been 1-10 to finish 3rd.

I don't think that's really a correct way to think of it. A big favorite to win is not necessarily an equally big favorite to finish 3rd if she doesn't win or finish 2nd, because if she's running out at all, a big reason might be some sort of injury or catastrophic trip. If we already have the information that she's not first or second, her chances of not finishing third either jump way up.

Put another way, I'd much rather be holding that exacta ticket and not have to worry about the favorite running third than that trifecta ticket which pays barely more and requires her to finish there.

[Stillriledup]

I don't think that's really a correct way to think of it. A big favorite to win is not necessarily an equally big favorite to finish 3rd if she doesn't win or finish 2nd, because if she's running out at all, a big reason might be some sort of injury or catastrophic trip. If we already have the information that she's not first or second, her chances of not finishing third either jump way up.

Put another way, I'd much rather be holding that exacta ticket and not have to worry about the favorite running third than that trifecta ticket which pays barely more and requires her to finish there.

can you say the tri payed the proper price and this particular exa just paid abnormally high?

you're right about a 1-5 shot not winning or running 2nd, that means she underachieved and possibly underachieved badly and if she's underachieving, she might just underachieve all the way. visually she was dreadful and only got 3rd because nobody behind her could run a step, if any of the others could have functioned, they would have beaten her for 3rd.

[burnsy]

I play exactas, triples only on an occasion. Many times the favorite is a necessary evil. If the horse does not win, that's usually a 33% deal or 1 out of 3. Estimates are 32-35% favorite win rate, however, the favorite hits the board at about a 70%, 68-70% to at least show. The favorite will at least get place at almost half the time. 48-50%.

For my exactas I try to use key boxes and many times the favorite is one of them with my key, unless I really feel its a really bad choice.

I don't key a lot of favorites "on top" but I'm not stubborn either. That's the mistake I believe many make. People betting these numbers, that bet a lot or bet all the time.......know these odds that I just quoted so naturally the favorite will be used hard in the exotics. Really heavy favorites hit the board at even a higher rate. That's why when one goes "south" or "off course" and does not make it to at least show, you get the crazy show pool pay outs. People know there's a high rate of them at least making "show". The favorite hits the board at a pretty high clip which makes not using them tough. That's when you need real good reasons reading the PP's not to use it.

[no breathalyzer]

monmouth race#2 today

[fiznow]

One thing I have assumed for a long time is that favorites tend to be underlays in exotics pools. Basically, people see the short price to win, and go looking for the exotics. Unlike the win pool though, they don't see the probable payoffs for the exotics-- only the exacta and double probables are generally available, and people don't bother to even look at those.

So a short price horse tends to be an even shorter price in the exotics.

Here's some evidence of this. In the second race on Thursday at Santa Anita, the favorite :4: Angel Lane ran third.

This produced an exacta payoff of $42.70 for a 4-1 shot on top of a 15 to 1 shot.

The trifecta, with the favorite in third hole, paid just $55.50 for $1. Now when does a trifecta with a 4-1 shot over a 15-1 shot on top ever pay only $55.50, and when does a trifecta ever pay just 20 percent more than the exacta in the same race?

What obviously happened is that lots of people played trifecta boxes using the favorite, making any trifecta combinations using the favorite, even in the 3rd hole behind 2 price horses, a big underlay.

There's a big lesson here for betting.

The best way is to just play wagers that let you see or calculate the will pays. Win, Win Parlays, DDs and Exactas.
If the short price favorite is really the only horse I like in a race I don't look desperately for horses to play a horizontal exotic but try to find value in Win Parlays or DDs. But this favorite must be at least 1-1 for me.

[AndyC]

I don't think that's really a correct way to think of it. A big favorite to win is not necessarily an equally big favorite to finish 3rd if she doesn't win or finish 2nd, because if she's running out at all, a big reason might be some sort of injury or catastrophic trip. If we already have the information that she's not first or second, her chances of not finishing third either jump way up.

Put another way, I'd much rather be holding that exacta ticket and not have to worry about the favorite running third than that trifecta ticket which pays barely more and requires her to finish there.

I have found that short priced horses not finishing 1st or 2nd will finish 3rd at a rate better than their win probability, trip or injury not withstanding. The good part is that these horses usually provide a healthy overlay in the 3rd slot of a trifecta when compared to an exacta. See races 3,6, and 7 and Belmont yesterday.

[Redboard]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the takeout% on the tri is more than on the exacta. Occasionally I've seen the tri pay less than the exacta when the fav finished third.

[AndyC]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the takeout% on the tri is more than on the exacta. Occasionally I've seen the tri pay less than the exacta when the fav finished third.

OK, I will just ignore my 20 years of data telling me it is one of the best bets I can make.

[Zaf]

Love when my horse is third choice or better to start off a pick 3 sequence. :)

Z

[Track Collector]

One thing I have assumed for a long time is that favorites tend to be underlays in exotics pools. Basically, people see the short price to win, and go looking for the exotics. Unlike the win pool though, they don't see the probable payoffs for the exotics-- only the exacta and double probables are generally available, and people don't bother to even look at those.

So a short price horse tends to be an even shorter price in the exotics.

Here's some evidence of this. In the second race on Thursday at Santa Anita, the favorite :4: Angel Lane ran third.

This produced an exacta payoff of $42.70 for a 4-1 shot on top of a 15 to 1 shot.

The trifecta, with the favorite in third hole, paid just $55.50 for $1. Now when does a trifecta with a 4-1 shot over a 15-1 shot on top ever pay only $55.50, and when does a trifecta ever pay just 20 percent more than the exacta in the same race?

What obviously happened is that lots of people played trifecta boxes using the favorite, making any trifecta combinations using the favorite, even in the 3rd hole behind 2 price horses, a big underlay.

There's a big lesson here for betting.

IMO the big lesson here is to ignore WINNING odds and instead consider the ODDS RANK in relation to FIELD SIZE when looking at playing exotics (like the trifecta) and considering possible payouts.

From the results charts, we see the following:
-- The field size was 6, so the trifecta was going to completed by half of the horses running in the race.
-- The winner was the 2nd lowest odds horse.
-- The place horse was the 4th lowest odds horse.
-- The trifecta was comprised of the favorite, 2nd lowest odds horse, and the 4th lowest odds horse.

Think Ordinal!

[salty]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The big lesson here is, don't bet the tri in a 6 horse feild unless you think the favorite won't hit the board.


Extra lesson:

Don't bet a super with less than 8 horses in the field.

[classhandicapper]

You are probably both right.

If a big favorite misses 1st and 2nd it's probably more likely to finish off the board completely than the pure math suggests, but the tickets can still be very good overlays.

[AndyC]

You are probably both right.

If a big favorite misses 1st and 2nd it's probably more likely to finish off the board completely than the pure math suggests, but the tickets can still be very good overlays.

This is not something that needs to be guessed. There are years and years of data that can provide guidance as to what to expect. Betting based on unsubstantiated beliefs is a fools game.

[green80]

it depends on the track and how the players of that track bet and the relative pool size. The tracks in south Louisiana pay nothing if the fav is in the exacta wheras Oaklawn was quite generous with the fav in the exacta.

I just keep up with my local tracks but this would likely apply across the country.

[classhandicapper]

This is not something that needs to be guessed. There are years and years of data that can provide guidance as to what to expect. Betting based on unsubstantiated beliefs is a fools game.

I can check whether big favorites that didn't finish 1st or 2nd come in 3rd as often as mathematically expected via my database, but I don't store exacta and triple prices. I never bothered checking because that's not the way I think about constructing tickets. I know from experience that big favorites that finish 2nd or 3rd often lead to inflated exacta and triple prices as you suggested. I checked about a month of exactas in NY manually about 20 years ago and it was worth a few %. I have no idea about now.

[AndyC]

I can check whether big favorites that didn't finish 1st or 2nd come in 3rd as often as mathematically expected via my database, but I don't store exacta and triple prices. I never bothered checking because that's not the way I think about constructing tickets. I know from experience that big favorites that finish 2nd or 3rd often lead to inflated exacta and triple prices as you suggested. I checked about a month of exactas in NY manually about 20 years ago and it was worth a few %. I have no idea about now.

I don't construct tickets specifically to key a short-priced favorite in the 3rd hole. I do play many exactas where I don't include a short priced favorite. A player would be money ahead by including a few trifecta tickets with the scorned low priced favorite in the third hole of a trifecta. It almost always provides positive leverage.

[dilanesp]

Race 4 last Saturday at Santa Anita: $121 winner.
$2 Double to 8 to 5 shot in the 5th: $21

[Fox]

Race 4 last Saturday at Santa Anita: $121 winner.
$2 Double to 8 to 5 shot in the 5th: $21

Is that a will-pay that didn't hit? I assume so because the race 5 winner was 5/2. There was a 9/5 who ran 4th in the 5th. Are you saying the $2 double with the $121 winner of the 4th with the 9/5 shot would have payed $21? That's nuts if it's true.

[dilanesp]

Is that a will-pay that didn't hit? I assume so because the race 5 winner was 5/2. There was a 9/5 who ran 4th in the 5th. Are you saying the $2 double with the $121 winner of the 4th with the 9/5 shot would have payed $21? That's nuts if it's true.

You are right, I misread it.