hdcper
09-26-2001, 12:24 AM
Hi Everyone,
I was reading an article posted over at TrackMaster called Exacta Do’s or Don’ts by James Quinn. Below is a portion of that article which indicates a so-called error on the part of a bettor. The more I thought about the article, the more I felt a need to verify what was said. After reading Mr. Quinn’s comments please see my analysis below and please feel to correct my thought process if I am wrong (realize actual payoffs on a similar event certainly has merit in what play is the best on said occasion as is the opinion of the bettor in how often the longshot will win the race).
“Years ago a woman in a seminar at Santa Anita liked a 40-1 shot and an even-money shot. She went to the window and bought a $20 quinella. The 40-1 shot won by a nose. The quinella returned $65 for $2. The woman pocketed $650 and was delighted.
If the woman had invested the same $20 in the recommended manner, this is what would have transpired. The exacta with the 40-1 on top of the 1-1 shot paid $185 for $2. A $10 exacta with the 40-1 shot on top only would have enriched the lady by $925.00. A $10 quinella would have added another $325, for a total haul of $1,250.00, which is richer by far than $650.00. The same $20, but invested in a slightly different way, illustrates the importance of using the more effective betting strategies in exacta and quinella wagering. The woman in the Santa Anita seminar will never make that mistake again. She was crestfallen in victory, and nodded her agreement that if the same mistake were repeated 10 times a year, the cost would be $6,000.00.
How many handicappers can afford to make the same kind of mistake 10 times a season?”
Now to my analysis:
First lets assume that the even money shot has a 50% chance of winning and the 40 to 1 shot has a 2.5% of winning (I do realize that both actually have less of a chance to win because of the track take, but for simplicity decided to complete analysis using these figures).
Thus, the probability of the favorite finishing first with the longshot running second is as follows: .50 times .025 divided by .5 or roughly 2.5% of the time
The probability of the longshot finishing first with the favorite second is as follows:
.025 times .50 divided by .975 or roughly 1.28% or the time
Again for simplicity, lets say 1 unit is played on the quinella combination rather than $20 and a ½ unit is played on the quinella and longshot exacta combination rather than $10 on each.
Therefore, the quinella wager returns as follows:
1 times 3.78 times $65, which equals $245.70
NOTE: the 3.78 is 2.5 plus 1.28 likelihood of hitting either way out of a 100 races
The exacta/quinella strategy looks like this:
½ times 3.78 times $65 (quinella play) plus ½ times 1.28 times $185 (longshot exacta play) which equals $241.25
In conclusion, it appears to me the overall return slightly favors playing just as the player did. Again, monitoring actual payoffs truly determines the best strategy not what is indicated in this viewpoint.
Hdcper
I was reading an article posted over at TrackMaster called Exacta Do’s or Don’ts by James Quinn. Below is a portion of that article which indicates a so-called error on the part of a bettor. The more I thought about the article, the more I felt a need to verify what was said. After reading Mr. Quinn’s comments please see my analysis below and please feel to correct my thought process if I am wrong (realize actual payoffs on a similar event certainly has merit in what play is the best on said occasion as is the opinion of the bettor in how often the longshot will win the race).
“Years ago a woman in a seminar at Santa Anita liked a 40-1 shot and an even-money shot. She went to the window and bought a $20 quinella. The 40-1 shot won by a nose. The quinella returned $65 for $2. The woman pocketed $650 and was delighted.
If the woman had invested the same $20 in the recommended manner, this is what would have transpired. The exacta with the 40-1 on top of the 1-1 shot paid $185 for $2. A $10 exacta with the 40-1 shot on top only would have enriched the lady by $925.00. A $10 quinella would have added another $325, for a total haul of $1,250.00, which is richer by far than $650.00. The same $20, but invested in a slightly different way, illustrates the importance of using the more effective betting strategies in exacta and quinella wagering. The woman in the Santa Anita seminar will never make that mistake again. She was crestfallen in victory, and nodded her agreement that if the same mistake were repeated 10 times a year, the cost would be $6,000.00.
How many handicappers can afford to make the same kind of mistake 10 times a season?”
Now to my analysis:
First lets assume that the even money shot has a 50% chance of winning and the 40 to 1 shot has a 2.5% of winning (I do realize that both actually have less of a chance to win because of the track take, but for simplicity decided to complete analysis using these figures).
Thus, the probability of the favorite finishing first with the longshot running second is as follows: .50 times .025 divided by .5 or roughly 2.5% of the time
The probability of the longshot finishing first with the favorite second is as follows:
.025 times .50 divided by .975 or roughly 1.28% or the time
Again for simplicity, lets say 1 unit is played on the quinella combination rather than $20 and a ½ unit is played on the quinella and longshot exacta combination rather than $10 on each.
Therefore, the quinella wager returns as follows:
1 times 3.78 times $65, which equals $245.70
NOTE: the 3.78 is 2.5 plus 1.28 likelihood of hitting either way out of a 100 races
The exacta/quinella strategy looks like this:
½ times 3.78 times $65 (quinella play) plus ½ times 1.28 times $185 (longshot exacta play) which equals $241.25
In conclusion, it appears to me the overall return slightly favors playing just as the player did. Again, monitoring actual payoffs truly determines the best strategy not what is indicated in this viewpoint.
Hdcper