What's your Strike Rate?

[moneyline702]

For Exactas (if you play them)

[ryesteve]

You ought to specify if you want the percent per race or per bet.

[moneyline702]

I did say strike rate. I thought that meant how many exactas won in porportion to how many exacta bets made....

[ryesteve]

I did say strike rate. I thought that meant how many exactas won in porportion to how many exacta bets made....Yes, I know what you said, and regardless of the definition, it's still going to mean different things to different people. I can guarantee you that there are people out there who bet 3 horse boxes and win 3 races on every card, who'll tell you their strike rate is 30+%

Edit: and if you look at the distribution of responses you've gotten, I'd say the overwhelming majority have answered the question per race, rather than per bet.

[moneyline702]

ok what i mean is regardless if you make a straight exacta or a "x"-horse box, it counts as one wager. so if you were to make an exacta box in every race and there are ten races on the card you made ten wagers (yes, i know that depending on the amount of horses boxed there are various wager, but for this a box of any amount of horses is one wager). now say you won two of the ten races you boxed. your strike rate for my query is 20%. although if you count every individual combination possible (use a three horse box per race) then your strike rate is 3.33% (2 wins / 60 combinations).

You are right, it does mean different things to different people so I hope that clarifies what I'm asking for a bit more.

[moneyline702]

You ought to specify if you want the percent per race or per bet.

Strike rate is likened to win rate, right? So wouldn't the percent per race equate to the probability of winning (percent per race = horses wagered on / field size) as opposed to how many exactas are won in proportion to how many exactas bet?

[kenwoodallpromos]

I am just examining low-odds exactas in select races, not enough yet to call an actual %. Just dreaming!!

[ryesteve]

So wouldn't the percent per race equate to the probability of winning (percent per race = horses wagered on / field size)I don't see how field size would enter into it. It'd just be races cashed divided by races bet... in other words, "what percentage of races did you win?" rather that "what percentage of bets did you win?"

[CincyHorseplayer]

Bets are a totality.You are making bets on a race.How many races you play are the number of plays you count.Isolating the number of combinations of bets is ridiculous IMO.

But I divide payoffs into 3 categories-primary,secondary,saver.Cash rates are one thing the hit rates are another.

With a bet like the exacta if you are solid at identifying the main contenders and the skeleton of your bet is boxing a key horse to the live contenders you are going to cash a lot of tickets,a great benefit of the bet itself.And when even the peripheral $1 saver tickets are often 40-1,60-1,and 100-1 sometimes,that's another great virtue of the bet and value at it's finest.

Primary and secondary hits is a very personal thing IMO.I came up with averages just with experience.For me anything that pays within a range of 21% and up of your weekly bets is a primary hit and I target 33%.Anything that pays within a 10-20% range is a secondary hit.Below that merely contributes to the cash rate %.

Myself since 2001(since I kept records) have nearly a dead even 50% cash rate but the hit rate can vary between 18%-37% on the meet or year.

So if your median payout is 24% of your weekly bets and you are cashing another 26% of your tickets,even at the cost of the bet you can see the potential of the bet itself.

That's what win bettors don't understand.If you make 25 bets a week at $20 a piece($500) and hit 40% winners at an average of 2-1 you're at a 4% loss.But hit 20% of your exacta plays and cash 50% of your tickets and you have a 50% ROI.If you have zero hits on a week you cut losses to 50%.Lose 25 win bets and losses are 100%.

To me when a play rests on the foundation of cutting losses by cash rate without losing the ROI % by betting in another manner,even outshining it,it's a win-win approach.

[moneyline702]

I don't see how field size would enter into it. It'd just be races cashed divided by races bet... in other words, "what percentage of races did you win?" rather that "what percentage of bets did you win?"

oh. I see. Ok thanks.

[moneyline702]

Bets are a totality.You are making bets on a race.How many races you play are the number of plays you count.Isolating the number of combinations of bets is ridiculous IMO.

But I divide payoffs into 3 categories-primary,secondary,saver.Cash rates are one thing the hit rates are another.

With a bet like the exacta if you are solid at identifying the main contenders and the skeleton of your bet is boxing a key horse to the live contenders you are going to cash a lot of tickets,a great benefit of the bet itself.And when even the peripheral $1 saver tickets are often 40-1,60-1,and 100-1 sometimes,that's another great virtue of the bet and value at it's finest.

Primary and secondary hits is a very personal thing IMO.I came up with averages just with experience.For me anything that pays within a range of 21% and up of your weekly bets is a primary hit and I target 33%.Anything that pays within a 10-20% range is a secondary hit.Below that merely contributes to the cash rate %.

Myself since 2001(since I kept records) have nearly a dead even 50% cash rate but the hit rate can vary between 18%-37% on the meet or year.

So if your median payout is 24% of your weekly bets and you are cashing another 26% of your tickets,even at the cost of the bet you can see the potential of the bet itself.

That's what win bettors don't understand.If you make 25 bets a week at $20 a piece($500) and hit 40% winners at an average of 2-1 you're at a 4% loss.But hit 20% of your exacta plays and cash 50% of your tickets and you have a 50% ROI.If you have zero hits on a week you cut losses to 50%.Lose 25 win bets and losses are 100%.

To me when a play rests on the foundation of cutting losses by cash rate without losing the ROI % by betting in another manner,even outshining it,it's a win-win approach.



Thanks you guys for clearing that up for me. I still got a TON of research to do before I dive in..

[Warren Henry]

If all that matters is how many races won versus how many races played, I can hit the exacta in EVERY race I play.

However, don't ask me about corresponding profitability :lol:

[raybo]

If all that matters is how many races won versus how many races played, I can hit the exacta in EVERY race I play.

However, don't ask me about corresponding profitability :lol:

Good point.

IMO, your hit rate must be qualified by something like a normal bet range. In superfectas, I have a maximum ticket cost that determines which tickets are included in my hit rate. Hit rate should be, IMO, tied to your ROI in some way and ticket costs are an integral part of figuring your ROI.

[CincyHorseplayer]

If all that matters is how many races won versus how many races played, I can hit the exacta in EVERY race I play.

However, don't ask me about corresponding profitability :lol:

You act as if they are mutually exclusive goals:lol: