The exacta box vs the win/place wager

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Had a nice discussion today with a few players of the merits and disadvantages of a win and one or two exacta boxes versus a win/place wager. One of the points made was that the place prices are generally smaller when in comparison with a select exacta box with a horse that is deemed a trouble horse for your win wager. Naturally we are talking about value win selections that are a worthwhile odds (double digit preferred).

Interesting to note that some players rely on the win/place as they collect when there horse runs second and do not have to rely on the exacta saver horse. I personally like to use the exacta box when the 'other' horse is begging to be included with the win wager, and I rarely, if ever use more then one exacta box in conjunction with my win wager. There is so much more value , in my opinion, using the exacta box, and I find i am using less money then a place wager that can be one or two times the size of the win wager amount. Even though I realize there is no nsuch thing as insuring a wager.

As they say in this game recordkeeping proves out what type of wager or wagers are more profitable in the long-term.

Any comments on this topic as I respect the educated opinions of this forum.

thanks

[cnollfan]

I do not believe in betting longshots to place unless it is a huge wide-open field, e.g. The Kentucky Derby. Better to hook LS up with one or two of the chalks in an exacta.

I don't have proof of this, but it is my impression that there is a sweet spot of exacta payoffs combining a favorite and a longshot. Two longshots together tend to be underlays, and two favorites together are unappetizing.

[Maximillion]

Had a nice discussion today with a few players of the merits and disadvantages of a win and one or two exacta boxes versus a win/place wager. One of the points made was that the place prices are generally smaller when in comparison with a select exacta box with a horse that is deemed a trouble horse for your win wager. Naturally we are talking about value win selections that are a worthwhile odds (double digit preferred).

Interesting to note that some players rely on the win/place as they collect when there horse runs second and do not have to rely on the exacta saver horse. I personally like to use the exacta box when the 'other' horse is begging to be included with the win wager, and I rarely, if ever use more then one exacta box in conjunction with my win wager. There is so much more value , in my opinion, using the exacta box, and I find i am using less money then a place wager that can be one or two times the size of the win wager amount. Even though I realize there is no nsuch thing as insuring a wager.

As they say in this game recordkeeping proves out what type of wager or wagers are more profitable in the long-term.

Any comments on this topic as I respect the educated opinions of this forum.

thanks



Im struggling with this as well....I know a longshot/all exacta is a bankroll killer to be avoided..recently been thinking about supers as a form of "backup" in replace of exactas..(long odds horses)

Any thoughts respected

[pondman]

My own records continually support win bets. Place bets won't do it over time. I have the belief that if you don't have the money to risk on the nose, then you probably shouldn't be at the track.

[Capper Al]

My own records continually support win bets. Place bets won't do it over time. I have the belief that if you don't have the money to risk on the nose, then you probably shouldn't be at the track.

Do you separate legitimate long shots to place in your records? It also will depend on your ability to pick long shots.

[Capper Al]

This topic is being dealt with in the Handicapper's Cafe'.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

My own records continually support win bets. Place bets won't do it over time. I have the belief that if you don't have the money to risk on the nose, then you probably shouldn't be at the track.


Powerful quote...you might get arguments from the few that show profit with win/place but I agree with you 100%.

[burnsy]

I do not believe in betting longshots to place unless it is a huge wide-open field, e.g. The Kentucky Derby. Better to hook LS up with one or two of the chalks in an exacta.

I don't have proof of this, but it is my impression that there is a sweet spot of exacta payoffs combining a favorite and a longshot. Two longshots together tend to be underlays, and two favorites together are unappetizing.
i don't know if its a "sweet spot" of payoffs. but i do know that most exactas come in this way. its rare when the choices run....one, two and when they do....who wants that? thats why i play exacta key boxes...i usually key box my choice with a couple of logical horses. occasionally i will use one of the favorites and another "price" horse if i like more than one non favorite. those are the big ones when you hit them. i really don't care for the place bet unless the horse is over double digit odds. but if i really like a horse to win. i won't hesitate unless they are under 5-2. i'm not going to sit there and miss a good price on a horse i love to win. i'll bet the horse to win and then exacta key box. the horse can come second and i may still hit a good number if my other choices are good. if it wins and no exacta hits...i still collect something and i did not totally waste a good pick. if he wins and i hit the exacta.......thats the home run bet and its all gravy then.

[lamboguy]

not that i play them, but i would say exotic bets are better because the rebates put you in the same takeout range, but exotic wagering is less effected by breakage than straight bets. in straight bets you can be paying up to an additional 9% in hidden takeout.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

It has been stated in the past on this forum by some real sharp players that win/place beting offers the bettor a false sense of securing the win bet with the place bet..as we know there is no such thing an insuring a wager. The value is the win bet with any additional well thought out limited exotic combinations that boost the profit potential of the win wager. I am speaking about win, doubles and exactas...not the other exotic wagers of which I have no opinions on and quite frankly do not participate in.

I admire the bettors that have good success with the ultra exotics as I can see the tremendous profit potential for these wagers. myself the win or win-double or win-exacta box offer the best chance to maximize my opinion and make money. the fact that i generally limit the investments to one exacta box, or two double combinations with my key horse win bet is a personal choice to target only strong opinions and not search for something that is not there in order to make value.

In my opinion the vast amount of players bet too many combinations in the doubles and exactas thereby deluting their ROI..this is only my opinion as I can not refute the evidence that some players have much success with the format of many combinations.

I have seen too many players skilfully select 10/1 winners and lose there investment in the exotics...not for me I want a return on every winner, and the limited exotic combination or two can only be a bonus to the win wager...just my style of thinking.

[aaron]

While betting to place may not be an optimum bet,it keeps your sanity. When betting long shots,it has been proven over time that they place twice as much as they win.
Another reason to bet place is that the odds swings at the last minute occur in the win pool and not in the place pool. This is true at the tracks I bet. Thus sometimes a 2-1 shot pays $4.00 to place.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I have seen the good place prices that occur within a seasons play...and yes, they do keep your sanity and bankroll from the roller coaster ride. However, if you show a place or win/place profit, the profit is always larger with sticking to the win only wager. this has been proven in every study through out the years.

For the casual and recreational player win/place can be part of an overall winning strategy...it's just the fact that win only provides more long-term profit if the player shows a flat bet overall profit.

[fmolf]

I have seen the good place prices that occur within a seasons play...and yes, they do keep your sanity and bankroll from the roller coaster ride. However, if you show a place or win/place profit, the profit is always larger with sticking to the win only wager. this has been proven in every study through out the years.

For the casual and recreational player win/place can be part of an overall winning strategy...it's just the fact that win only provides more long-term profit if the player shows a flat bet overall profit.
I use a general rule of thumb if the horse i like is 5/1 or lower i will bet him win only and on top with no more than two other horses.(3 in a large field)....If my win horse is 6/1 or higher i will use the exacta as a place bet usually with 2 more logical win horses.If i was going to bet $10 place onthe horse i feel i get better payouts betting two $5 exactas.I am only a serious recreational player.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I use a general rule of thumb if the horse i like is 5/1 or lower i will bet him win only and on top with no more than two other horses.(3 in a large field)....If my win horse is 6/1 or higher i will use the exacta as a place bet usually with 2 more logical win horses.If i was going to bet $10 place onthe horse i feel i get better payouts betting two $5 exactas.I am only a serious recreational player.

I feel it is best to grab everything when my key horse win bet scores so I am not a big fan of the place saver bet...it would bother me to see a $300 exacta register and I did not box the two horses.

[Maximillion]

I agree with almost all on this thread...

Problem comes-you like a longshot....longterm, place betting not usually the best way to go....

I think the supers are something you have to take a look at in a situation like this...you can get a great deal of "coverage" pretty cheaply(dimes)

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I agree with almost all on this thread...

Problem comes-you like a longshot....longterm, place betting not usually the best way to go....

I think the supers are something you have to take a look at in a situation like this...you can get a great deal of "coverage" pretty cheaply(dimes)

Any method that maximizes the win bet is the key to success in my opinion. As i stated earlier I don't have the skill or temperement for the ultra exotic wagers, though I do believe in the hands of a skilled operator can be a huge source of profit.

[formula_2002]

my exacta data for Belmont 07-12-2012, races 1-6 and 9
( I missed the data for races 7 and 8) suggest some thing more that somewhat interesting.
If you liked the horse that placed and did not win, your return on the dollar would be $3.38
Using my exacta matrix which is determined 1 minuet to post, a structured bet on "all over" the place horse had a dollar return almost twice that.
It was $6.39.



so if you bet $100 to win and $100 on the structured matrix plays, and say all your horses lost but placed, the $1400 bet returned $4470 .

I'll probably wake up tomorrow and find an error.
If not I'll try to post the exacta matrix for some races tomorrow.
All you have to do is figure out which horse will win or place!! :)

By the way, the dollar return for the exacta, beat the dollar return for the place in EVERY race!

[formula_2002]

woke up and found no error
I posted this live:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1306783#post1306783

exacta returned 204% more than the place return..

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

woke up and found no error
I posted this live:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1306783#post1306783

exacta returned 204% more than the place return..

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. the place bet has some loyal followers and I would not go against what is comfortable to a player BUT, the facts prove the win/place is not as profitable as the win or win/exacta wagers.

[formula_2002]

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. the place bet has some loyal followers and I would not go against what is comfortable to a player BUT, the facts prove the win/place is not as profitable as the win or win/exacta wagers.

I'm looking at different facts :)
Using the poper betting matrix a win/ exacta place bet is more profitable than a win/place bet.

What is even much much more profitable is finding the place horse and betting it in the matrix format
all/place horse. You dont want it to win, you want it to place.

[formula_2002]

here is a thought for betting the place exacta matrix.
from a 2006 results data base, horses that place and did not win:
odds <=1, 101 horses returned a place roi of .45 (19% placed w/o winning)
>1<=2, 292 horses, returned a place roi of .57 (25% placed w/o winning)
>2<=3, 406 horses, returned a place roi of .53 (21% placed w/o winning)

if the matrix play returns a 200% or more return than the straight place return, then a random place matrix bet on any one horse with odds <=3, will probably result in long term profits.

Some adjustment needs to be made where there are more than one such horse in the race
>1.and.<=2 should more often not have only one runner in a race.

[cnollfan]

here is a thought for betting the place exacta matrix.
from a 2006 results data base, horses that place and did not win:
odds <=1, 101 horses returned a place roi of .45 (19% placed w/o winning)
>1<=2, 292 horses, returned a place roi of .57 (25% placed w/o winning)
>2<=3, 406 horses, returned a place roi of .53 (21% placed w/o winning)

if the matrix play returns a 200% or more return than the straight place return, then a random place matrix bet on any one horse with odds <=3, will probably result in long term profits.

Some adjustment needs to be made where there are more than one such horse in the race
>1.and.<=2 should more often not have only one runner in a race.

You can't make a straight comparison of the return betting a horse to place versus betting it to finish second in the exacta by looking only at horses that finished second. If the horse wins, the place bet still has value but the exacta backwheel does not. This is where the 200% return clause comes in, I assume.

[formula_2002]

In the same data base, 190 horses with odds<=1, returned a place roi of .85
19% of those horses placed without winning. Then .19 x 190 = 36 horses placed w/o winning (not 101 as stated in my previous note. the 19% was correct)

If there was a $1 exacta payoff of $248* then (36 x 248)/19000**= .46 roi, about the same as a straight place bet.
* In the following matrix of today's 9th at Prx:
the 10 went off at 4/5 and came in 2nd.
** total matrix bet is always $100

"Parx Racing
Race
9

Post
4:05

MTP
1

$2 Exacta Pool
$19,290 "
10
1 0.21 0.21
2 0.28 0.28
3 0.17 0.17
4 0.04 0.04
5 0.06 0.06
6 0.00
7 0.04 0.04
8 0.03 0.03
9 0.00
10 0.00
11 0.18 0.18
12 0.00
13 0.00
14 0.00
15 0.00
16 0.00
1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
My matrix, based on odd pools 1 minuet to post would require a $17, 3,10 exacta bet. It returned $248.00. (the total exacta bet is always $100)




Parx Racing - Race 9
# Win Place Show
3 $11.60 $4.20 $3.00
10 . $2.60 $2.40
1 . . $4.20
Results: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | ALL

Wager Type Winning Numbers Paid
$2.00 Exacta 3-10 $29.20
$2.00 Trifecta 3-10-1 $163.80
$1.00 Trifecta Box $81.90

[formula_2002]

07-16-2012

Parx Racing - Race 3 Chart
# Win Place Show
9 $5.40 $3.00 $2.40
4 . $4.80 $3.20
8 . . $3.60
Results: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | ALL
Wager Type Winning Numbers Paid
$2.00 Exacta 9-4 $30.80
$2.00 Trifecta 9-4-8 $81.00
$1.00 Trifecta Box $40.50

the matrix bet on the 9,4 exacta was $21. it returned $323 or $3.23 on the dollar

the 9 returned a win bet of $2.7 on the dollar.

say the fair return was 1.18 x 2.7 = 3.18
In this case the matrix exacta beat the fair value by 5 cents..Not too shabby for just capping the odds boards.