Calculating exacta fair values

[Lateralus]

According to Dick Mitchell's books, using your own fair value odds line, the way to calculate fair value for an exacta is as follows:

Amount of the exacta x odds on first horse x odds on 2nd horse +1

Since Youbet displays exacta probables based on $1 exactas, the amount of the exacta can be eliminated for an ultra simple calculation of odds on first horse x odds on second horse +1.

Therefore, for a $1 exacta, a 5-1 horse on top of a 6-1 horse in the exacta would be:

5(6+1) which is 5x7 = a fair value payoff for a $1 exacta of $35.

However, in RECREATIONAL HANDICAPPING, James Quinn's exacta chart, which lists exacta combinations at 15-20% overlays, lists this same $1 exacta as being $77 at a 15-20% overlay.

$35 fair value for that $1 exacta according to Mitchell and $77 value at 15-20% overlay according to Quinn's chart is a massive discrepancy.

Any ideas on what the cause of this seemingly huge discrepancy might be? Is Mitchell's formula correct or am I missing something here?

[fmolf]

According to Dick Mitchell's books, using your own fair value odds line, the way to calculate fair value for an exacta is as follows:

Amount of the exacta x odds on first horse x odds on 2nd horse +1

Since Youbet displays exacta probables based on $1 exactas, the amount of the exacta can be eliminated for an ultra simple calculation of odds on first horse x odds on second horse +1.

Therefore, for a $1 exacta, a 5-1 horse on top of a 6-1 horse in the exacta would be:

5(6+1) which is 5x7 = a fair value payoff for a $1 exacta of $35.

However, in RECREATIONAL HANDICAPPING, James Quinn's exacta chart, which lists exacta combinations at 15-20% overlays, lists this same $1 exacta as being $77 at a 15-20% overlay.

$35 fair value for that $1 exacta according to Mitchell and $77 value at 15-20% overlay according to Quinn's chart is a massive discrepancy.

Any ideas on what the cause of this seemingly huge discrepancy might be? Is Mitchell's formula correct or am I missing something here?
barry meadows chart which i got from the best of thouroughbred handicapping has that same exacta at $104 for $2 bet this is meadows chart i believe and is an acceptable overlaid price.this is the chart i use for all my exacta plays...mitchell does have some good ideas though... i like the mitchell matrix... and the fact he advocates not betting lots of combos and insists on enouhg of an overlay to cover losing exacta combos

[Lateralus]

barry meadows chart which i got from the best of thouroughbred handicapping has that same exacta at $104 for $2 bet this is meadows chart i believe and is an acceptable overlaid price.this is the chart i use for all my exacta plays...mitchell does have some good ideas though... i like the mitchell matrix... and the fact he advocates not betting lots of combos and insists on enouhg of an overlay to cover losing exacta combos

Meadow's chart sounds right based on Mitchell's $35 fair value for a $1 exacta, so it sounds like they are in agreement.

Mitchell's $1 fair value for exacta: $35
Meadow's fair overlay prices for same $1 exacta: $52

That's exactly a 50% overlay, so I'm guessing Meadow's fair value was also $35 and he recommends a minimum 50% overlay, which is what I play as well: only combinations that are 50% or more overlayed. At Quinn's 15-20%, and I believe Mitchell's recommendation is 20% or 25%, both would require one SERIOUSLY accurate oddsline with very little room for error.... I GREATLY prefer the 50% mark.

In one of Mitchell's earlier books, his formulas also involved taking into consideration the track take when computing fair exacta values; perhaps that's why Quinn's values are so much higher. Since the exacta probables are actual payouts there is obviously no need to adjust for track take. Was there in the past? That's one I never understood when reading Mitchell's earlier book, since exacta probables as long as I've been playing have been actual payouts AFTER the track take has been removed from the equation.

[Robert Fischer]

$35 fair value for that $1 exacta according to Mitchell and $77 value at 15-20% overlay according to Quinn's chart is a massive discrepancy.

Any ideas on what the cause of this seemingly huge discrepancy might be? Is Mitchell's formula correct or am I missing something here?

the main thing is that the formulas you mentioned suck at determining exacta fair value. They are just fun shortcuts. Field size and pool distribution run amok with general shortcuts.

If you want an accurate formula, instead of being lazy and using the win odds of the two horses, you have to estimate what hit percentage that exacta has of occurring.

Once you have done the work, there are two things you can do.
You can divide 1 by the estimated hit percentage to find a fair payout for $1 exacta. EXAMPLE = 1/ 3%estimated hit percentage = $33.34

The other thing you can do is multiply the estimated hit percentage by a low estimate of the $1 exacta probable. This will tell you how much of an overlay you have. Example = 3%estimated hit percentage x $32 = 0.96 or a 4% underlay.

[duckhunter3]

In one of Mitchell's earlier books, his formulas also involved taking into consideration the track take when computing fair exacta values; perhaps that's why Quinn's values are so much higher. Since the exacta probables are actual payouts there is obviously no need to adjust for track take. Was there in the past? That's one I never understood when reading Mitchell's earlier book, since exacta probables as long as I've been playing have been actual payouts AFTER the track take has been removed from the equation.

I think what you are referring to here is Mitchell's ALTERNATE method of determining exacta fair pay. Instead of using your own fair odds line, he commented that the public was a good handicapper, and to compute fair value based on tote board odds the formula would be amount bet x odds on top horse x odds + 1 on bottom horse divided by track payout squared. the reason for this is the tote board odds total much more than the 100% to account for track takeout.\duck

[fmolf]

I think what you are referring to here is Mitchell's ALTERNATE method of determining exacta fair pay. Instead of using your own fair odds line, he commented that the public was a good handicapper, and to compute fair value based on tote board odds the formula would be amount bet x odds on top horse x odds + 1 on bottom horse divided by track payout squared. the reason for this is the tote board odds total much more than the 100% to account for track takeout.\duck
meadows chart is so much easier and guarantees that you get an overlay ...even if late monies come in on your combo 50% is a nice cushion....i read both of mitchells books "common senses handicapping"was excellent ..."common sense betting" i found the math portion of it to be very boring and hard toget thru but his advice on structuring the exotic bets and betting to win was excellent.....

[plainolebill]

I believe Youbet's tote displays payouts on $2.00 exactas, at least they do for Socal tracks.

[duckhunter3]

Meadow's charts are great. Mitchell's exacta formula is very simple and conforms to Meadow's method EXACTLY.

Yes, Mitchell's math is tough in spots, but math is an important part of this game in my opinion.
duck

[duckhunter3]

the main thing is that the formulas you mentioned suck at determining exacta fair value. They are just fun shortcuts. Field size and pool distribution run amok with general shortcuts.

If you want an accurate formula, instead of being lazy and using the win odds of the two horses, you have to estimate what hit percentage that exacta has of occurring.

Once you have done the work, there are two things you can do.
You can divide 1 by the estimated hit percentage to find a fair payout for $1 exacta. EXAMPLE = 1/ 3%estimated hit percentage = $33.34

The other thing you can do is multiply the estimated hit percentage by a low estimate of the $1 exacta probable. This will tell you how much of an overlay you have. Example = 3%estimated hit percentage x $32 = 0.96 or a 4% underlay.

I really don't know what you are complaining about here, Robert. The Mitchell formulas and the Meadow approach yield exactly the same results and those results ARE IN FACT the mathematical fair odds of a combo hitting, assuming the odds used are correct. AND THEY YIELD EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS AS YOUR APPROACH.

Yes, exactas can be affected by the pace of the race and all sorts of other things, but those considerations are to be taken into account when making a final betting line with odds for each contender.

So I don't understand why you say the formulas suck. They are correct formulas, BASED ON THE ASSIGNED ODDS OF EACH HORSE WINNING. Those assigned odds should consider the other things that concern you, pace, whether the horse is a hanger or has seconditis, etc., etc.

so it looks to me like it is apples to apples, and there is no reason to say these formulas suck, because they don't. How any particular handicapper assigns odds, however, MAY INDEED SUCK.

But correct math does NOT suck.

Just my opinion.

duck

[markgoldie]

Having no dog whatsoever in this fight, as they say, I can confirm that YouBet posts $2 exacta prices, not $1.

[fmolf]

I really don't know what you are complaining about here, Robert. The Mitchell formulas and the Meadow approach yield exactly the same results and those results ARE IN FACT the mathematical fair odds of a combo hitting, assuming the odds used are correct. AND THEY YIELD EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS AS YOUR APPROACH.

Yes, exactas can be affected by the pace of the race and all sorts of other things, but those considerations are to be taken into account when making a final betting line with odds for each contender.

So I don't understand why you say the formulas suck. They are correct formulas, BASED ON THE ASSIGNED ODDS OF EACH HORSE WINNING. Those assigned odds should consider the other things that concern you, pace, whether the horse is a hanger or has seconditis, etc., etc.

so it looks to me like it is apples to apples, and there is no reason to say these formulas suck, because they don't. How any particular handicapper assigns odds, however, MAY INDEED SUCK.

But correct math does NOT suck.

Just my opinion.

duckhaving the chart or a hand held computer just makes it so much easier at crunch time to make a wagering decision.....to stop and hand calculate or recalculate exacta odds is a pain...i just look at the chart and the track matrix and see if i have a bet....easy

[duckhunter3]

having the chart or a hand held computer just makes it so much easier at crunch time to make a wagering decision.....to stop and hand calculate or recalculate exacta odds is a pain...i just look at the chart and the track matrix and see if i have a bet....easy

I do the same thing, fmolf. But it is nice to know the reasoniong behind what I am doing. And I don't understand Robert's problem with the formula. Indeed, he seems to not want you to use a chart either.
duck

[CBedo]

I really don't know what you are complaining about here, Robert. The Mitchell formulas and the Meadow approach yield exactly the same results and those results ARE IN FACT the mathematical fair odds of a combo hitting, assuming the odds used are correct. AND THEY YIELD EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS AS YOUR APPROACH.

Yes, exactas can be affected by the pace of the race and all sorts of other things, but those considerations are to be taken into account when making a final betting line with odds for each contender.

So I don't understand why you say the formulas suck. They are correct formulas, BASED ON THE ASSIGNED ODDS OF EACH HORSE WINNING. Those assigned odds should consider the other things that concern you, pace, whether the horse is a hanger or has seconditis, etc., etc.

so it looks to me like it is apples to apples, and there is no reason to say these formulas suck, because they don't. How any particular handicapper assigns odds, however, MAY INDEED SUCK.

But correct math does NOT suck.

Just my opinion.

duckI think you both are right. The formulas are right if the odds are right. That's the key. If you believe the public, then the odds of the winning horse are right by definition, but the question is whether the odds to win of the underneath horse can be translated using an easy formula (Harville I believe) to get the probability of placing. Most would say that this isn't correct. The odds of coming in second are not the same as the odds of winning given that a certain horse has won the race. Pace, style, etc make this a questionable proposition.

Also, if you are going to use the formula, don't forget to adjust for track takeout. You are taking it out twice from the two win horses, so you need to adjust that and then takeout the (usually higher) takeout of the exacta.

[duckhunter3]

If you are using your own betting line, that line should add up to 100% and represents what you think is fair pay AFTER the track takeout. That is the formula we have been discussing, with the same result reached with several different mathematical approaches.

BUT, if you are using the tote board odds to represent your opinion of each horse's chances, those odds total far more than 100% to take into account track takeout. And the formula takes into account the effect of track takeout by becoming this: amount bet x odds on Horse A x odds +1 on Horse B DIVIDED BY the track PAYOUT squared after takeout. So, if a track pays out 76% on exacta and takes out 24%, then the track payout squared would be .76 x .76 or .5776 being the divisor.

That formula, witho that divisor accounts for the track takeout. You now have what is fair pay for the quoted TOTE BOARD odds on this exacta combination, and are free to add any premium or cushion you are comfortable with to make it an overlay. If no overlay, no bet.

duck

[oddsmaven]

... The odds of coming in second are not the same as the odds of winning....
Absolutely true, so the win odds are not a terrific barometer...the exacta pools always reflect horses that are chronic losers who finish 2nd a lot...conversely there are, for example, layed out class horses that if ready have a solid win chance but are bet at a lesser ratio in the 2nd position considering they may not be ready.

[fmolf]

If you are using your own betting line, that line should add up to 100% and represents what you think is fair pay AFTER the track takeout. That is the formula we have been discussing, with the same result reached with several different mathematical approaches.

BUT, if you are using the tote board odds to represent your opinion of each horse's chances, those odds total far more than 100% to take into account track takeout. And the formula takes into account the effect of track takeout by becoming this: amount bet x odds on Horse A x odds +1 on Horse B DIVIDED BY the track PAYOUT squared after takeout. So, if a track pays out 76% on exacta and takes out 24%, then the track payout squared would be .76 x .76 or .5776 being the divisor.

That formula, witho that divisor accounts for the track takeout. You now have what is fair pay for the quoted TOTE BOARD odds on this exacta combination, and are free to add any premium or cushion you are comfortable with to make it an overlay. If no overlay, no bet.

duckmy odds line adds up to 80% as i assign 20% to the field....then i use my odds for the horses i like and look at the chart and then the track payout matrix....some people like robert are very good and quick with their math and can handle doing it that way..i cannot

[duckhunter3]

my odds line adds up to 80% as i assign 20% to the field....then i use my odds for the horses i like and look at the chart and then the track payout matrix....some people like robert are very good and quick with their math and can handle doing it that way..i cannot

Well your odds line is really 100% as it should be, 80% to the contenders and 20% to the rest of the field. Nothing wrong with that.

I usually take a look at the exacta combinations I am interested in well in advance of the race and quickly calculate fair pay + 50% (very easy with the formula), then prepare a matrix with horses on top across the top of the table and horses second on the left side of the table. I can easily pencil in the required payoff for a play and compare to the tote board payoffs about 5 minutes before post.
duck

[dav4463]

the main thing is that the formulas you mentioned suck at determining exacta fair value. They are just fun shortcuts. Field size and pool distribution run amok with general shortcuts.

If you want an accurate formula, instead of being lazy and using the win odds of the two horses, you have to estimate what hit percentage that exacta has of occurring.

Once you have done the work, there are two things you can do.
You can divide 1 by the estimated hit percentage to find a fair payout for $1 exacta. EXAMPLE = 1/ 3%estimated hit percentage = $33.34

The other thing you can do is multiply the estimated hit percentage by a low estimate of the $1 exacta probable. This will tell you how much of an overlay you have. Example = 3%estimated hit percentage x $32 = 0.96 or a 4% underlay.


So is this right?

I have an exacta combination that hits at a 3% clip. If I divide 2/3%, I get $66.67. So I should add $33.33 for a 50% overlay and play this combination that hits 3% when it pays $100 or more.

If I have an 11% combo. I divide 2/11%, and get $18.18.....with a 50% overlay I should play this combo when it pays $27 or more?

Is this correct?

[CBedo]

So is this right?

I have an exacta combination that hits at a 3% clip. If I divide 2/3%, I get $66.67. So I should add $33.33 for a 50% overlay and play this combination that hits 3% when it pays $100 or more.

If I have an 11% combo. I divide 2/11%, and get $18.18.....with a 50% overlay I should play this combo when it pays $27 or more?

Is this correct?Your math is right; just don't forget to adjust your return calculations if you are playing more than one combination.

[dav4463]

Your math is right; just don't forget to adjust your return calculations if you are playing more than one combination.

What do you do? Add $2 for each extra combination?

[InFront]

The bottomline line does playing exacta combos at overlay prices show longterm profit?. Regardless what formula you use if there is a combo of two horses and based on their win odds should pay a $40 exacta but the board shows $60 should you play it?

As we learned on win bets using Odds or Probability Lines just cause something has higher odds above the norm doesn't mean it works. As with any probability formula as the odds go up that formulated probability goes out the window.

In an average 8 horse race there are 56 exacta combos. If you quickly used the win odds of every horse and the calculated the fair value of all exacta payoffs and only played those at a 50%+ payoff what would happen in the real world if you did this based on thousands of races. Can anyone state for a fact would you profit or lose your shirt?

[fmolf]

The bottomline line does playing exacta combos at overlay prices show longterm profit?. Regardless what formula you use if there is a combo of two horses and based on their win odds should pay a $40 exacta but the board shows $60 should you play it?

As we learned on win bets using Odds or Probability Lines just cause something has higher odds above the norm doesn't mean it works. As with any probability formula as the odds go up that formulated probability goes out the window.

In an average 8 horse race there are 56 exacta combos. If you quickly used the win odds of every horse and the calculated the fair value of all exacta payoffs and only played those at a 50%+ payoff what would happen in the real world if you did this based on thousands of races. Can anyone state for a fact would you profit or lose your shirt?
first i select my win horse/horses then i select my second place horses, then i check the board to see if i have overlaid fair value combos...some races i only bet one or two combos because the last one is underlaid...i would say yes the answer is yes bet only the overlaid combos that you like....for long term profits...not just random exacta combos that are overlaid.

[InFront]

first i select my win horse/horses then i select my second place horses, then i check the board to see if i have overlaid fair value combos...some races i only bet one or two combos because the last one is underlaid...i would say yes the answer is yes bet only the overlaid combos that you like....for long term profits...not just random exacta combos that are overlaid.

What you are saying is you are FIRST handicapping every horse to find who you think will win and who will place and then ONLY use the win odds and exacta payoffs to see if you have value or not. That would make sense.

But what I was asking is if you want to call it "random" that playing ALL exacta combos based on their win odds and exacta payoffs can possibly show long term profits? For example those that are at a 20% overlay, 30%, 50%, etc. I don't think it would but was curious has anyone done much study on this?

[CBedo]

What you are saying is you are FIRST handicapping every horse to find who you think will win and who will place and then ONLY use the win odds and exacta payoffs to see if you have value or not. That would make sense.

But what I was asking is if you want to call it "random" that playing ALL exacta combos based on their win odds and exacta payoffs can possibly show long term profits? For example those that are at a 20% overlay, 30%, 50%, etc. I don't think it would but was curious has anyone done much study on this?I did a little with something similar to this a while ago (really small sample--maybe a week at 5 or 6 tracks), and what I discovered quickly was that the late odds changes in both the win and the exacta pools made it tough to implement effectively. What looked like value would disappear, and what looked like value after the fact, you might not have seen before hand. People arbitrage pools in some crude way most of the time. If we had real time data of what was going on in the pools and didn't have to wait until after the fact to get the odds, then I think there would be even more "equality" across pools (where there is enough size to guarantee liquidity).

[rrbauer]

I did a little with something similar to this a while ago (really small sample--maybe a week at 5 or 6 tracks), and what I discovered quickly was that the late odds changes in both the win and the exacta pools made it tough to implement effectively. What looked like value would disappear, and what looked like value after the fact, you might not have seen before hand. People arbitrage pools in some crude way most of the time. If we had real time data of what was going on in the pools and didn't have to wait until after the fact to get the odds, then I think there would be even more "equality" across pools (where there is enough size to guarantee liquidity).

Very good! Unless you are dealing with huge pools, such as what we see on the TC cards or BC cards, then your best guess is simply that: a guess. And, for that matter relating to the thread, "fair value" relative to what?

[InFront]

This is why I never liked methods that relied on Post Time odds or payoffs. While using even Win Odds as a rule within querying a database may show this or that to use it in real life day to day betting is tough. Yes much easier these days with Conditional Wagering interfaces but still tough.

The only way post time odds may work if all tracks first closed down all betting at assigned post time, all pools are then recalculated and locked in and then they waited about 2 minutes more to start loading the horses. But of course they would never do that, they want betting to continue right until the gate pops open to make even more money which I can't blame them.

[rrbauer]

They can load and lock ten minutes before the race and it won't make any difference from the perspective of being able to make betting decisions based on what's being displayed on the board.

[formula_2002]

I'll add my CAA :)


CALCULATING A FAIR EXACTA PAYOUT

THE PROBABILITY OF A HORSE WINNING IS (1/(ODDS+1))/ THE RACES TOTAL BOOK PERCENTAGE.
THE TOTAL BOOK PERCENTAGE FOR A TRACK WITH A 15% TAKE OUT SUMS TO ABOUT 1.18
THE PROBABILITY OF ANY HORSE WINNING IS (1/(ODDS+1))/1.18
TAG THE WIN HORSES WIN PROBABILITY WITH "A"
TAG THE PLACE HORSE WIN PROBABILITY WITH "B"
EXACTA PROBABILITY PROBABILITY FOR A/B IS:
A X (B/(1-A))
EXAMPLE: A HORSE ODDS =2-1, B HORSE ODDS = 3-1, TRACK TAKE OUT IS 15%
A HORSE WIN PROBABILITY IS (1/(2+1))/1.18 = .282
B HORSE WIN PROBABILITY IS (1/(3+1)/1.18 = .212

PROBABILITY FOR THE A/B COMBINATION IS,
.282 x(.212/(1-.282)) = .083
THAT EQUATES TO A $1 RETURN OF (1/.083)= 12.04
THE FAIR $1 PAYOUT IS $12.04

[elhelmete]

Topping a zombie thread from 13 years ago...a new narcissistic low.

[formula_2002]

I'll add my CAA :)


CALCULATING A FAIR EXACTA PAYOUT




Sorry, there is an error in the excel charts. I will fix

[Half Smoke]

___________



all of those calculations do not take into account this:


if more than 1 of the entries in the box or play is frontrunning speed then it's very likely that one or more of them will burn out and not be in the top 2


.

[Half Smoke]

______________


the win pool is usually efficient and generally reflects fairly accurately the odds of a horse winning after the takeout is considered

but in the situation mentioned in the above post the win odds do not accurately reflect the horse's chance of coming in 2nd

the calculations referenced always assume that the horse's chance of coming in 2nd are accurately reflected in the exacta payout

and that is not the case


.

[headhawg]

Topping a zombie thread from 13 years ago...a new narcissistic low.https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e4/23/4b/e4234b34687f35540628b9441650c0bd--fantasy-story-dark-fantasy.jpg

[iamt]

After 13 years Formula had managed an excel spreadsheet that doesn't work properly....

[formula_2002]

correction
THE PROBABILITY OF A HORSE WINNING IS (1/(ODDS+1))/ THE RACES TOTAL BOOK PERCENTAGE.
THE TOTAL BOOK PERCENTAGE FOR A TRACK WITH A 15% TAKE OUT SUMS TO 1.1765
THE PROBABILITY OF ANY HORSE WINNING IS (1/(ODDS+1))/1.18
TAG THE WIN HORSES WIN PROBABILITY WITH "A"
TAG THE PLACE HORSE WIN PROBABILITY WITH "B"
EXACTA PROBABILITY PROBABILITY FOR A/B IS:
A X (B/(1-A))
EXAMPLE: A HORSE ODDS =2-1, B HORSE ODDS = 3-1, TRACK TAKE OUT IS 15%
A HORSE WIN PROBABILITY IS (1/(2+1))/1.1765 = .28332
B HORSE WIN PROBABILITY IS (1/(3+1)/1.1765 = .21249

PROBABILITY FOR THE A/B COMBINATION IS,
.28332 x(.21249/(1-.28332)) = .0840
THAT EQUATES TO A $1 RETURN OF (1/.084)= 11.90
THE FAIR $1 PAYOUT IS $11.90

[formula_2002]

TODAY'S EXAMPLE OVERLAY


Belmont at the Big A* Race 2
"A" TRACK WIN ODDS $5.00
"B" TRACK WIN ODDS $1.00
WIN POOL TRACK TAKE OUT % 0.150
A WIN % 0.142
B WIN %' 0.425
WINNING EX COMBINATION 4/7
EXACTA PROBABILITY % 0.0701
MIN $1 EXACTA RETURN $14.26
ACTUAL $1 RETURN $18.90

15% overlay min ret $16.39
20% overlay min ret $17.11

[vikingrob]

TODAY'S EXAMPLE OVERLAY


Belmont at the Big A* Race 2
"A" TRACK WIN ODDS $5.00
"B" TRACK WIN ODDS $1.00
WIN POOL TRACK TAKE OUT % 0.150
A WIN % 0.142
B WIN %' 0.425
WINNING EX COMBINATION 4/7
EXACTA PROBABILITY % 0.0701
MIN $1 EXACTA RETURN $14.26
ACTUAL $1 RETURN $18.90

15% overlay min ret $16.39
20% overlay min ret $17.11

Fair exacta is $14.63 on a $1 wager. NYRA takeout on WPS is 16%.

15% overlay is $16.82, 20% is $17.55.

[formula_2002]

Fair exacta is $14.63 on a $1 wager. NYRA takeout on WPS is 16%.

15% overlay is $16.82, 20% is $17.55.

Actually, when you sum 1.(odd+1) for all horse, the booking % is 1.2055, making the take on this race 0.1705

[formula_2002]

Actually, when you sum 1/(odd+1) for all horse, the booking % is 1.2055, making the take on this race 0.1705


clarification

[formula_2002]

a very large exacta overlay in today's 1st at Bel

[headhawg]

So now you are going to make identical posts in two threads? Upping your post count?? You truly are clueless.

[formula_2002]

So now you are going to make identical posts in two threads? Upping your post count?? You truly are clueless.
Thanks for watching . Any analytical comment or are you just passing through.

[headhawg]

All of the analytical comments about your flawed research have already been posted. They go ignored by you. Your matrix has no basis in reality before the fact. That is why it is f**king useless. Yet you continue posting your crap as if it has meaning to actual horseplayers -- you know, the ones that bet. The only reason to post this nonsense is to up your count. Hint: you'll never catch Tom so just stop with double posts, thread necromancy, and your silliness in Off Topic. Watching? How many people actually view your posts for something other than entertainment value?

And don't your "selections" belong in the Selections section?

[Gekish]

"A" horse true odds x true odds of horse "B" (figuring with horse A removed and refiguring the the odds of horse B in the "new race" ). To lazy to give an example today.

[elhelmete]

"A" horse true odds x true odds of horse "B" (figuring with horse A removed and refiguring the the odds of horse B in the "new race" ). To lazy to give an example today.

useful

[formula_2002]

"A" horse true odds x true odds of horse "B" (figuring with horse A removed and refiguring the the odds of horse B in the "new race" ). To lazy to give an example today.

exactly

A horse true odds = .28332
B horse true odds = .21249

PROBABILITY FOR THE A/B COMBINATION IS,
.28332 x(.21249/(1-.28332)) = .0840