Which Is Easier....?

[ernie simons]

In everyone's opinion, which bet holds a better chance to gain a profit over the long haul...betting on 1 horse to win at between
5-1 to 12-1 odds, or an exacta box with 3 horses with combined post odds of 15 or better?
Easier to pick one horse to win, or 2 outta 3 horses to finish in any order.


Any opinions?

[thoroughbred]

What do you mean by combined odds? Do you just mean adding up the odds of the three horses, (which of course isn't valid as far as odds go), or do you perform the complicated calculation to find out what the odds of any two of the three horses coming in first and/or second?

[ernie simons]

thoroughbred,
I mean just adding the total of the three horses. If the combined post odds are 15 or more with no horse less than 3-1, box em.

[thoroughbred]

Ernie,

Thanks for answering my question. So now, unfortunately, I have to tell you that there isn't enough information to answer your original question.

For example, you say combined odds of 15-1 or better. Clearly the higher the number, (your "or better"), the less chance the horses have.

So you must be doing something in addition to what appears in your post. With the information supplied, there is no way, that I know of, to calculate the answer to your question in a general way. But, it is possible to answer for particular cases if we knew the odds of each of the three horses. Then we could calculate the odds for two out of three coming in to win and place, estimate the exacta payoff, and compare it to the payoffs for win bets for each horse by itself. Note that even in this case, as I mentioned we would have to estimate the exacta payoff because the size of the exacta pool is unknown.

Regards

[charleslanger]

at the risk of muddling up things, i think the original question translates to this:
you've handicapped a race and your top 3 choices are each between 5-1 and @ 12-1, and not necessarily in that order. What would bring you more long-term profit:
your top choice to win, or a 3-horse xacta box?
is this correct, ernie?

[ernie simons]

"at the risk of muddling up things, i think the original question translates to this:
you've handicapped a race and your top 3 choices are each between 5-1 and @ 12-1, and not necessarily in that order. What would bring you more long-term profit:
your top choice to win, or a 3-horse xacta box?
is this correct, ernie?"

Basicly that's it Charles. My top pick to win has to be at least 5-1, the other two picks can range from 3-1 or better at post.
So I have a 7-1 pick to win, or box my top three picks which have post odds of 3-1, 6-1 and a 7-1 making a combined total of "16"

[thoroughbred]

Ernie,

Now that Charles Langer has clarified the problem, may I suggest that the answer to your question can be found in "Tom Ainsley's Encyclopedia of Thoroughbred Handicapping."

It is in the section under "Exacta", and in my edition of the book is on pages 83-85.

He gives the method for calculating the various exacta payoffs using the Win odds. With that you can get the answer to your question.

While the calculation is is straightforward, (in fact he states: "The arithmetic is not as complicated as it looks"), it would be difficult for me to write it all out here.

Maybe there are other books as well that work the same problem.

In any event, I have found Ainsley's book of great use over the years. The publisher is William Morrow & Company.

I'd guess it's available on the Internet from Amazon.com

Best Regards

[ernie simons]

I guess what I'm really trying to get at is.....is it easier to pick 1 horse to win? Or is it easier to hit a 3 horse exact box?
Thanks to everybody for their input.

[thoroughbred]

Ernie,

O.K. Let's get at what you were really driving at.

The answer depends on the number of horses in the race, and the individual odds.

Note: I'm not talking about how much money it makes, just which bet is easier to succeed.

Let's make some simple assumptions, (even if they don't occur in practice to give you an idea of the answer to your question.)

Think of a race with 12 starters. Now let's just say that the probability of winning is the same for each horse. All horses are equal in capability. So any horse you choose to win will have a probability of 1/12 to win.

Now the same race, but picking a three horse exacta box. The chance of one of your chosen horses to win is still 1/12. But now there are only 11 horses left to think about, and the probability of your other horse coming in second is 1/11. So the chance of getting this single exacta is 1/12 x 1/11 which is 1/132. But in a three horse box, you are making six exacta bets, so the total probability for hitting the box is 6 X 1/12 x 1/11 which is 0.045.

If we compare this to the one horse, of 1/12, which is 0.083, we see that it was easier to get a win with the single horse.

One way to see that the answer also depends on the number of horses is to think of the ridiculous case where there are only 3 horses in the race. Then of course, with all horses being equal the win probability for a single horse is 1/3, or 0.333, while the 3 horse exacta box is certain to pick a winner. (Again, we are not considering money made.) These ridiculous examples are just to prove the point in answering your question.

Clearly, as the number of horses in a race gets smaller, the exacta box win probabiliy goes up.

So, even leaving out the individual odds, and the individual capability of the horses, we see that there is not one answer to your question. We have to consider the situation for each race, one at a time.

I hope this helps you.

[charleslanger]

so this might mean that you'll win almost twice as often with win betting than xacta, assuming you're equally adept at both. The avg. exacta payoff needs to be twelve times as much as the avg. win price for xacta profits to surpass win profits.
And you would of course, have longer losing streaks.

[ernie simons]

Ya, I guess I knew that. I was just looking for confirmation from greater minds.
I guess there ARE no one-dimensional answers to handicapping.
Every answer asks a question. Every question has 3 answers.
Thanks again for the help guy's.;)

[ranchwest]

It's OK, Ernie. Answers are easy. It is the questions that are difficult.

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by ranchwest
It's OK, Ernie. Answers are easy. It is the questions that are difficult.


Ranchwest,
I think you have summed up the essence of handicapping. It IS making sure that all possibilities have been looked at by asking the right questions.

Someone should write a book about handicapping with the title, "Asking the right questions." If done well, it weuld be a great one. Maybe you should copyright the title. :)

[Lefty]

Sorry, but titles are non-copyrightable. Only exceptions are what are now called famous titles such as Gone With The Wind.

[ranchwest]

Maybe when I get enough right questions I can write the book. :)

[Lefty]

I'll be looking forward to it.