PDA

View Full Version : Exacta strategies


gabe
02-20-2018, 10:11 PM
Most profitable way to bet an exacta? How do you bet exactas?

Weighted Exactas?
Exacta Boxes?
2x3
2x4
only when you have a single?

CincyHorseplayer
02-20-2018, 10:51 PM
Even payouts 6-1 or better. Make a payoff grid and go from there. Sometimes you will have to make decisions on if the favorite beats you play to break even. Or etcetera. Thinking about x return is key.

Afleet
02-22-2018, 11:58 PM
I use exactas to dutch against my main plays

formula_2002
02-23-2018, 08:57 AM
I was just checking if a certain exacta strategy had any value.
the first thing I did was to calculate the exacta's fair value and compare it to the actual pay out.

fair value
two horses A and B

(1/(odds +1) of A)/booking % = say ,aodds
(1/(odds+1) of B)/say booking % = say, bodds

then aodds x (bodds/(1-aodds)) = exacta probability
1/exacta probability = fair $1 exacta payout.

note, booking % = the sum of 1/(odds +1) for all horse in the race.

HalvOnHorseracing
02-25-2018, 06:24 PM
Most profitable way to bet an exacta? How do you bet exactas?

Weighted Exactas?
Exacta Boxes?
2x3
2x4
only when you have a single?

For me, there are two points to betting exactas. One, you are trying to turn a solid low odds horse (a horse too low in odds to bet outright to win) into the 5-1 or higher horse you'd usually look for, by making an exacta bet. Second you have 2 or 3 inseparable horses, all around the same odds, and instead of making straight bets you look at potential exacta combinations.

BELMONT 6-6-09
02-25-2018, 09:37 PM
The late movie producer Martin Rhitt was described as a very successful horse player and he made 1X3 exacta keys for $40 and never turned them around.

AltonKelsey
02-26-2018, 02:52 PM
The late movie producer Martin Rhitt was described as a very successful horse player and he made 1X3 exacta keys for $40 and never turned them around.


I guess his horses never ran second

BELMONT 6-6-09
02-26-2018, 09:21 PM
I guess his horses never ran second

He obviously did not care if his horses ran second he played lean and mean LOL

thaskalos
02-26-2018, 09:57 PM
The late movie producer Martin Rhitt was described as a very successful horse player and he made 1X3 exacta keys for $40 and never turned them around.

Steve Davidowitz recommends the same exacta strategy in his book BETTING THOROUGHBREDS: 21st Century edition.

BELMONT 6-6-09
02-26-2018, 10:03 PM
In the book Six Secrets of Successful Betting Gerry Okenuff, who went to the races with Rhitt for years talked about his tremendous discipline and ability to never turn around his 1X3 exactas not even for a dime. He played back in the days when the California tracks had the $5 exactas only.

AndyC
02-27-2018, 12:01 PM
In my view there are 2 times to make an exacta bet. One is to leverage an overlay I see in the win pool and two is to bet when I believe a low priced horse will be out of the top 2. In the first instance, I have found that overlays in the win pool carryover to overlays in the exacta pool. I did not find that the overlay carried over to playing the win overlay in the 2nd spot of the exacta. Hence, I see no reason to reverse the exacta bet made with my win pool overlay. When I feel a low-priced horse will run out of the top 2 boxing contenders is the preferred play.

I have rarely found a situation where an underlay in the win pool could be turned into an overlay in the exacta pools. It usually creates negative leverage.

Robert Fischer
02-27-2018, 02:12 PM
Can get into full-on geek-mode, but the basics are pretty good advice here:

bet the overlay
don't 'box'
look for opportunities to exclude a favorite

CincyHorseplayer
02-27-2018, 02:33 PM
Aren't we beyond strategy but all about making the money? Thaskalos taught me that. Crist and others laid the groundwork in the most basic but effective terms. Here is a race from 2/23. I am not a big bettor so I think every player can relate. I bet $30-40 on in race exotics but it can snowball with across and win bets. I am usually in the $40-100 range but here is my basic exotic play. Very basic.

Combination-$1 payoff-denomination-payoff

Race 11 Gulfstream Park 2/23/18

8-10--$244--$2--$488

10-8--$168--$2--$336

8-7--$235--$2--$470

7-8--$182--$2--$364

7-10--$43--$7--$301

10-7--$38--$8--$304

I bet $10 to win on the :8: horse at 33-1. An easy end around to the payoff scenario . A few more peripherals and the total bet was $37.

Finish was 7-8-9. The actual return with plummeting exactas was 297.20. This was a good day as I hit 2 more that paidd $248 and $270.

I needed a kick in my ass to think in this basic manner. The handicapping obsession is a good one but ultimately you have to be making money or you aren't a victim of takeout and conspiracy but the willful participation of not capitalizing on your intelligence.

Denny
02-27-2018, 03:22 PM
What happened to Crist?

Took his Eclipse award and went home - deserting the sport he lived off?

PaceAdvantage
02-27-2018, 03:28 PM
Well, let's see...he's 61...had a heart attack a few years ago that landed him in the hospital for two weeks according to press reports...

That could be a reason for him scaling back...but you're probably right...he probably just upped and "deserted the sport he lived off of"

Does everyone owe you a living, or just people in racing?

AndyC
02-27-2018, 04:02 PM
Aren't we beyond strategy but all about making the money?.......

I am confused. How is a proper strategy not the essence of making money?

CincyHorseplayer
02-27-2018, 04:19 PM
I am confused. How is a proper strategy not the essence of making money?

It sounds vague without specificity. In all the examples there is no mention of expectation return per bet. It's a neat and tidy intellectual exercise without addressing the real goal. I learned it by being pissed off by actual returns. I got greedy and realized the theory flow is bullshit.

CincyHorseplayer
02-27-2018, 04:28 PM
Well, let's see...he's 61...had a heart attack a few years ago that landed him in the hospital for two weeks according to press reports...

That could be a reason for him scaling back...but you're probably right...he probably just upped and "deserted the sport he lived off of"

Does everyone owe you a living, or just people in racing?

Yeah that is some serious crap attitude. I'm all for putting on a pedestal icons and influences in our beloved game. Not toppling them.

GMB@BP
02-27-2018, 05:05 PM
What happened to Crist?

Took his Eclipse award and went home - deserting the sport he lived off?

Your narrative could not be more wrong, but even if it was, that dude did as much or more for this sport than just about anyone in this industry.

Redboard
02-27-2018, 05:13 PM
In one of his books Steven Crist wrote that fav over the second betting favorite is frequently an overlay, because bettors more often use value plays under the favorite. I'd imagine an examination of the will-pays would confirm this although I never seriously went down this road.

AndyC
02-27-2018, 05:32 PM
It sounds vague without specificity. In all the examples there is no mention of expectation return per bet. It's a neat and tidy intellectual exercise without addressing the real goal. I learned it by being pissed off by actual returns. I got greedy and realized the theory flow is bullshit.

So betting positive EV horses on top in exactas is vague? Boxing multiple positive EV horses is vague? Not reversing a top horse because of unknown EV in the second spot of an exacta is vague? The only theory involved is whether or not a bettor can identify positive EV horses. But that would apply to any bet that is made.

Robert Fischer
02-27-2018, 05:46 PM
In one of his books Steven Crist wrote that fav over the second betting favorite is frequently an overlay, because bettors more often use value plays under the favorite. I'd imagine an examination of the will-pays would confirm this although I never seriously went down this road.

That makes sense.

Or at least if not a +overlay, a better value relative to other combinations involving the favorite first and involving the 2nd choice on top of the favorite.

There's the public boxing 2 or 3 horses rather than betting straight...

There's the public using the favorite on top and trying to make a value play...

Also the tendency to include more horses 2nd than first (123/1234 etc..). While this is less pronounced than say a superfecta, a minor effect is possible.

I don't notice it at a glance, and I'm not sure it is significant. Sometimes the hierarchy, including 1-2 is so obvious that it seems the worst value is the 1-2 punch (justifying those value hunters). Then you've sometimes got the whales smoothing (batch-betting) 'inefficient' combos. Then you've got takeout.

I'd be interested in seeing ROI stats on exacta combos.

CincyHorseplayer
02-27-2018, 11:50 PM
So betting positive EV horses on top in exactas is vague? Boxing multiple positive EV horses is vague? Not reversing a top horse because of unknown EV in the second spot of an exacta is vague? The only theory involved is whether or not a bettor can identify positive EV horses. But that would apply to any bet that is made.

Yes. You are still talking handicapping principles deciding bets. Not payoffs deciding bets. Handicapping is involved in both but they are two very distinctly different realities. That's why when I hear the handicapping book generic quote/talk I just tune out. Yes we are talking about two different things.

CincyHorseplayer
02-28-2018, 12:07 AM
That makes sense.

Or at least if not a +overlay, a better value relative to other combinations involving the favorite first and involving the 2nd choice on top of the favorite.

There's the public boxing 2 or 3 horses rather than betting straight...

There's the public using the favorite on top and trying to make a value play...

Also the tendency to include more horses 2nd than first (123/1234 etc..). While this is less pronounced than say a superfecta, a minor effect is possible.

I don't notice it at a glance, and I'm not sure it is significant. Sometimes the hierarchy, including 1-2 is so obvious that it seems the worst value is the 1-2 punch (justifying those value hunters). Then you've sometimes got the whales smoothing (batch-betting) 'inefficient' combos. Then you've got takeout.

I'd be interested in seeing ROI stats on exacta combos.

No problem.

60 total races

46 played

21 cashes(46%)

13 Prime(28%)

Prime Returns-3,289.50

Total Returns-3,497.50

+2,021.50=137% ROI

AVG Bet=32.08

AVG Return=253.03

7.89-1 AVG Return

That's my last 60 I made my own version of lines and grids from. I'm not a big bettor obviously so I hope that inspires some bettors that don't think their bankroll is an entitlement to get away from trying to straight up earn.

Robert known you a long time. I know we are good.

AndyC
02-28-2018, 12:22 PM
Yes. You are still talking handicapping principles deciding bets. Not payoffs deciding bets. Handicapping is involved in both but they are two very distinctly different realities. That's why when I hear the handicapping book generic quote/talk I just tune out. Yes we are talking about two different things.

What you call handicapping principles I call mathematics. Payoffs are merely a factor in the equation.

CincyHorseplayer
02-28-2018, 01:41 PM
What you call handicapping principles I call mathematics. Payoffs are merely a factor in the equation.

Andy I respect all you are saying. Just that an exact or philosophical yardstick implied about return on bet is never mentioned. After 20 years of playing the term strategy just sounds vague to me. Not trying to irritate anybody just being honest.

Valuist
02-28-2018, 02:57 PM
I like horses at least 15-1 in the underneath spot. Preferably an off the pace type, maybe looks decent in the warmup, then use under the most likely winner(s).

AndyC
02-28-2018, 04:16 PM
Andy I respect all you are saying. Just that an exact or philosophical yardstick implied about return on bet is never mentioned. After 20 years of playing the term strategy just sounds vague to me. Not trying to irritate anybody just being honest.

I never find it irritating when someone engages in a discussion. I expect differences in process, strategy, and philosophy. If there was universal agreement on everything there would be no reason to have a forum.

classhandicapper
02-28-2018, 05:55 PM
In my view there are 2 times to make an exacta bet. One is to leverage an overlay I see in the win pool and two is to bet when I believe a low priced horse will be out of the top 2. In the first instance, I have found that overlays in the win pool carryover to overlays in the exacta pool. I did not find that the overlay carried over to playing the win overlay in the 2nd spot of the exacta. Hence, I see no reason to reverse the exacta bet made with my win pool overlay. When I feel a low-priced horse will run out of the top 2 boxing contenders is the preferred play.

I have rarely found a situation where an underlay in the win pool could be turned into an overlay in the exacta pools. It usually creates negative leverage.

That is my formula almost 100%.

I add one wrinkle. When I think the favorite is OK but I like 2 other horses more at better prices I sometimes bet both to win and do an exacta box. I know the favorite could bust up my exacta, but value to value in the exacta pool leverages to a ton of value. So I put a portion of the bet there.

cnollfan
03-09-2018, 07:49 PM
The heavy favorite finishing second tends to be an underbet exacta.

gabe
03-10-2018, 05:34 PM
do you recommend the wheel to fave exacta?

Rico8812
03-11-2018, 12:32 AM
do you recommend the wheel to fave exacta?

lol gyno stick to eog/tgf if you're going to bring these amateur questions here. This site is for real horseplayers.

GMB@BP
03-11-2018, 11:13 AM
lol gyno stick to eog/tgf if you're going to bring these amateur questions here. This site is for real horseplayers.

I am assume this is inside joke, if not, not really called for is it?

I dont see how any question should be censored due to complexity.

GMB@BP
03-11-2018, 11:14 AM
do you recommend the wheel to fave exacta?

I almost never do that, it would have to be a very very short price horse, like Diversify today at SA.

Dave Schwartz
03-11-2018, 01:42 PM
We once had a professional player as a client whose specialty was to play low-odds horses that he had tossed as being bad win bets in the lower positions in exotics.

(Tough sentence. Let me say it again.)

Specifically, he would KEY those losing propositions.

1. He would pick his contenders.
2. Then he would look at his low-odds non-contenders.
3. He would bet the low-odds N/Cs underneath in exotics.
4. Example: He'd bet them in Ex2, Tri2 and Tri3, and Sup3 and Sup4.

His logic was that the Low N/Cs that were less-likely to win were likely to get into an inordinate number low Exactas, Trifectas, and Superfectas.

In our research, we have (anecdotally) for the most part, found this to be true.

Another (again, anecdotal) odd thing we've seen is that when choosing among multiple low-odds contenders, the ones most likely to be spoilers are the ones that were projected to be the worst bets in the win pool.


Dave

AndyC
03-13-2018, 02:02 PM
We once had a professional player as a client whose specialty was to play low-odds horses that he had tossed as being bad win bets in the lower positions in exotics.

(Tough sentence. Let me say it again.)

Specifically, he would KEY those losing propositions.

1. He would pick his contenders.
2. Then he would look at his low-odds non-contenders.
3. He would bet the low-odds N/Cs underneath in exotics.
4. Example: He'd bet them in Ex2, Tri2 and Tri3, and Sup3 and Sup4.

His logic was that the Low N/Cs that were less-likely to win were likely to get into an inordinate number low Exactas, Trifectas, and Superfectas.

In our research, we have (anecdotally) for the most part, found this to be true.

Another (again, anecdotal) odd thing we've seen is that when choosing among multiple low-odds contenders, the ones most likely to be spoilers are the ones that were projected to be the worst bets in the win pool.


Dave

I have recommended doing the above for years. It is amazing the amount of additional leverage achieved by just playing the short priced horse in the 3rd slot of a trifecta. If a race is compelling enough to make exacta bets without the short priced favorite in the 1st or 2nd slot then the favorite should be played in the 3rd hole of a trifecta.

thaskalos
03-13-2018, 03:17 PM
I have recommended doing the above for years. It is amazing the amount of additional leverage achieved by just playing the short priced horse in the 3rd slot of a trifecta. If a race is compelling enough to make exacta bets without the short priced favorite in the 1st or 2nd slot then the favorite should be played in the 3rd hole of a trifecta.

IMO, if the short-priced favorite figures to be out of the exacta...then a lot more "leverage" is achieved by keeping it out of the trifecta, as well. My experience tells me that these short-priced favorites are seldom the stretch-runners in the race; they are usually early-speed types who seek to take control of the race by the time the horses round the final turn. If such a horse figures to be passed late by two horses, then it could easily be passed by three...and the reward easily trumps the risk, as far as I am concerned.

thaskalos
03-13-2018, 03:39 PM
IMO, if the short-priced favorite figures to be out of the exacta...then a lot more "leverage" is achieved by keeping it out of the trifecta, as well. My experience tells me that these short-priced favorites are seldom the stretch-runners in the race; they are usually early-speed types who seek to take control of the race by the time the horses round the final turn. If such a horse figures to be passed late by two horses, then it could easily be passed by three...and the reward easily trumps the risk, as far as I am concerned.

Having said the above, I hasten to add that I am against any form of "formula betting"...where the race is approached with pre-conceived notions about how it should be wagered upon. IMO...the race should be bet in accordance with our handicapping opinions of the particular field...not in compliance with some pre-determined betting "formula".

AndyC
03-13-2018, 06:39 PM
IMO, if the short-priced favorite figures to be out of the exacta...then a lot more "leverage" is achieved by keeping it out of the trifecta, as well. My experience tells me that these short-priced favorites are seldom the stretch-runners in the race; they are usually early-speed types who seek to take control of the race by the time the horses round the final turn. If such a horse figures to be passed late by two horses, then it could easily be passed by three...and the reward easily trumps the risk, as far as I am concerned.

I am not presenting what my experience or gut tells me. I looked at over 15 years of results where odd-on horses ran out of the top 2 spots. I found that the trifecta payoff relative to the exacta payoff was rewarded with a significantly higher payoff than the probability of the odds-on horse running 3rd. So if an exacta pays $100 and the probability of running 3rd is 50% after not running 1st or 2nd, then a fair price on the trifecta would be $200 with the odds-on horse running 3rd.

thaskalos
03-13-2018, 07:01 PM
I am not presenting what my experience or gut tells me. I looked at over 15 years of results where odd-on horses ran out of the top 2 spots. I found that the trifecta payoff relative to the exacta payoff was rewarded with a significantly higher payoff than the probability of the odds-on horse running 3rd. So if an exacta pays $100 and the probability of running 3rd is 50% after not running 1st or 2nd, then a fair price on the trifecta would be $200 with the odds-on horse running 3rd.

Yes...but how would this strategy work if you handicapped the race AHEAD of time, without knowing if the short-priced favorite would run out of the 2 top spots? Dave Schwartz's client was betting the races AHEAD of time...while your 15 year research was isolating those races where the short-priced favorite's "failure" was a foregone conclusion.

Do you think that isolating the short-priced favorite for 3rd in the trifecta is a profitable play for you going forward?

CincyHorseplayer
03-13-2018, 07:10 PM
Yes...but how would this strategy work if you handicapped the race AHEAD of time, without knowing if the short-priced favorite would run out of the 2 top spots? Dave Schwartz's client was betting the races AHEAD of time...while your 15 year research was isolating those races where the short-priced favorite's "failure" was a foregone conclusion.

Do you think that isolating the short-priced favorite for 3rd in the trifecta is a profitable play for you going forward?

I think if you get a fav 3rd the exacta is the obvious way to go. Covering more combinations in a tri the denomination will be less but you'll stack it up in an exacta. This is how I do it anyway.

AndyC
03-13-2018, 07:32 PM
Yes...but how would this strategy work if you handicapped the race AHEAD of time, without knowing if the short-priced favorite would run out of the 2 top spots? Dave Schwartz's client was betting the races AHEAD of time...while your 15 year research was isolating those races where the short-priced favorite's "failure" was a foregone conclusion.

Do you think that isolating the short-priced favorite for 3rd in the trifecta is a profitable play for you going forward?

The play is an automatic play. If my handicapping lead me to betting exactas without the short-priced favorite I would allocate some of my bets to the trifecta.

Why wouldn't isolate races where the short-priced favorite is a failure? My exacta bet depends on such an occurrence so my only question is whether or not the exacta is the best way to play the race. If I can get significant leverage by using the short-priced favorite in the 3rd hole it is really a no-brainer.

AndyC
03-13-2018, 07:43 PM
....Do you think that isolating the short-priced favorite for 3rd in the trifecta is a profitable play for you going forward?

If a bettor is profitable or breakeven when betting exactas with the short priced favorite out of the top 2 spots they will increase their profitability by adding a trifecta bet with the SPF in the 3rd hole. It's not a play you run across everyday, it's more a betting strategy than a handicapping strategy.

AndyC
03-13-2018, 07:47 PM
Having said the above, I hasten to add that I am against any form of "formula betting"...where the race is approached with pre-conceived notions about how it should be wagered upon. IMO...the race should be bet in accordance with our handicapping opinions of the particular field...not in compliance with some pre-determined betting "formula".

No argument on the above point. If my handicapping opinion warrants an exacta bet then the betting strategy should not be ignored.

Aerocraft67
03-16-2018, 10:16 AM
A reason to play the exacta not emphasized in this thread is having a discrete opinion about the place position. Like an ABC/K type play. This is more obvious yet less intuitive to me than many other exacta strategies.

There's scant wisdom about handicapping for second, just a few allusions to seconditis and running styles that complement the likely winner or work against track bias or race shape. I suspect people generally regard the place position as missing the win rather than getting up for second, and that more focus on the latter might point to fewer underlays.

I'm thinking something like a hard knocking type that runs his race and collects a check but not otherwise determined to win, coupled with a set win-or-fade contenders. If you can find a dark key for second with a few win contenders that aren't the favorite you might find a juicy overlay without spreading much.

The headwind here is indiscriminate overbetting of bombs for second with something logical on top, which is why I'm about the discrete place pick. I also suspect there's a bit less betting pressure on otherwise logical choices for place than for win.

Despite some wisdom to the contrary, many folks probably bet all the win contenders in exacta combos, wasting place slots on non-winners that fade out of the money, and overlooking more likely place contenders. I, too, am seduced by the exacta to get action on multiple horses, to the detriment of my bankroll. I've reduced my spreading but hit rate is low. Sometimes I'll play chalk I like pretty cold but an underlay is still an underlay. I focus on complementary running styles but I suspect faders are killing me.

I also think we tend to bet symmetrically, and I wonder if four exactas AB/CD type play might avoid more underlays than AB/ABC.

I'm a firm believer in dutching, which lends discipline to the play. I'm a small bettor, and sometimes the dutch is too little a fraction of the bet, but I figure if it's too much trouble to dutch, then I'm probably spreading too much with too weak an opinion.

Happy to be proven wrong by evidence, but just wanted to air out some of my exacta thinking. I've always been pretty enamored with the pool but not terribly successful.