Comparing tote odds to potential exacta payoff

[kenwoodallpromos]

Does comparing tote odds to exacta pool point to an overlay?

[bobbyt62]

i think (NOT i know) that the reverse of this is what michael kipness does in many respects. basically assumes that win odds are relatively (NOT literally) efficient, and hunts overlays in exactas. even then, i remember him saying his edge is small but he makes up for it in volume and rebates.

[Norm]

Just my own humble opinion, but I think the second race of a daily double sequence is a much better opportunity for spotting an overlay. The exacta pools "should" show where overlays exist, but the wild and rapid changes during the last minute of betting make the overlay hard to spot and even harder to respond to.

[Tom Barrister]

With, for example, 12 choices (the win odds) that everybody can easily see and react to, the win odds are relatively efficient. With 132 choices (the number of different exacta possibilities in a 12-entry field) which can't be as easily seen and categorized by human eyes, you're far more likely to find temporary inefficiencies. The problems that exist in trying to exploit these inefficiencies include:

1) The vast majority of the money isn't seen until after the race is off. Since a market tends to balance itself as it gets larger, the inefficiencies (value) will also tend to balance, thus erasing whatever value may have existed.

2) With 132 separate sub-pools, each is relatively small, compared to that of win betting. Thus, the money put in by the bettor attempting to take advantage of the supposed inefficiency will sometimes drop the odds in and of itself (i.e. at a small track or on a high-paying exacta).

3) While the inefficiencies aren't all easy to see by humans, the blatant ones are going to be spotted and bet into, creating the same effect as a horse which the public believes should be 2-1 and which is currently 3-1. Everybody pounces on it, and it goes off at 7-5.

4) There are people (some of whom bet a lot of money) who have bots which read the exacta/quinella pools and automatically make bets on what is deemed inefficient/overlaid. The bots miss nothing (if they're programmed correctly). This alone will often kill whatever value may exist.

There are other things involved, but that's the general idea, as I see it.

[markgoldie]

With, for example, 12 choices (the win odds) that everybody can easily see and react to, the win odds are relatively efficient. With 132 choices (the number of different exacta possibilities in a 12-entry field) which can't be as easily seen and categorized by human eyes, you're far more likely to find temporary inefficiencies. The problems that exist in trying to exploit these inefficiencies include:

1) The vast majority of the money isn't seen until after the race is off. Since a market tends to balance itself as it gets larger, the inefficiencies (value) will also tend to balance, thus erasing whatever value may have existed.

2) With 132 separate sub-pools, each is relatively small, compared to that of win betting. Thus, the money put in by the bettor attempting to take advantage of the supposed inefficiency will sometimes drop the odds in and of itself (i.e. at a small track or on a high-paying exacta).

3) While the inefficiencies aren't all easy to see by humans, the blatant ones are going to be spotted and bet into, creating the same effect as a horse which the public believes should be 2-1 and which is currently 3-1. Everybody pounces on it, and it goes off at 7-5.

4) There are people (some of whom bet a lot of money) who have bots which read the exacta/quinella pools and automatically make bets on what is deemed inefficient/overlaid. The bots miss nothing (if they're programmed correctly). This alone will often kill whatever value may exist.

There are other things involved, but that's the general idea, as I see it.
Excellent points. That's why I love tri's and supers. The inefficiencies are there (involving over-play of favorite combinations) but the pools aren't exposed so the bots are helpless.

[Robert Fischer]

you shouldn't compare them other than shopping around to make a value investment

bad to play an exacta based soley on the win odds (unless an EXTREME innef9icency)

worse to "calculate" ex probables after the race from win odds and then whine