This exacta a wee bit SHORT?

[Itamaraca]

BEL R7:

4:1 THIRD choice

with the 19:1 EIGHTH choice

in an ELEVEN horse field

pays

$115.50

[cj]

If you do the math, fair payout after takeout based on the odds would be slightly less than $100.

[cj]

Also, field size and "ranks" don't really matter.

[Itamaraca]

Also, field size and "ranks" don't really matter.

I don't know about that. Guaranteed that exacta pays over $200 @ WO, DEL, CRC, CD, etc.

No value at NYRA. I knew it before hand but I wasn't prepared to play CRC and DEL this year and got sucked in.

[cj]

I don't know about that. Guaranteed that exacta pays over $200 @ WO, DEL, CRC, CD, etc.

No value at NYRA. I knew it before hand but I wasn't prepared to play CRC and DEL this year and got sucked in.

Mathematically it shouldn't matter. Field size might matter a little, but I don't think rank does. I don't keep exacta payouts in my database, but I'm sure somebody could query 4 to 1 over 19 to 1 by track. I doubt that would average over $200 anywhere, not even close.

[Itamaraca]

maybe not $200, although I'm not so certain this wouldn't be consistent @ WO, but certainly more than $115

[OTM Al]

I can find 3 instances of this since 2006 at NYRA tracks. 1 paid less, 2 paid more, average right around $150. The 19-1 second place doesn't mean that much though as those were the odds for finishing first, not second, which can vary greatly for certain horses who don't like to win.

[Robert Fischer]

I can find 3 instances of this since 2006 at NYRA tracks. 1 paid less, 2 paid more, average right around $150. The 19-1 second place doesn't mean that much though as those were the odds for finishing first, not second, which can vary greatly for certain horses who don't like to win.

fin :6: :9:

Agree with the whole statement, especially the blue. In a race like this there were several horses that were close in apparent ability 2,6 and depending on your opinion (Itamaraca had the 9) others.

In this kind of field size, and the lack of the public having an accurate view you got the human element of the :2: horse who was at best about the same as the :6: getting too much win-pool money. You also had the goofy :5: who looked like a toss, taking more win-pool money than the :6:. So the win pool made a stand on some of these horses - especially the :2:, that were evenly matched.

Apparently the exacta pool may have more accurately rated the 6 as a viable win contender. (and without seeing the matrix possibly downgraded the 5 or even the 2). The :9: was a harder horse to land on. Was also harder to eliminate from exactas than to eliminate in the win pool. The 9 probably should have WON in reality.

I would have been disappointed with $115, but this win pool got out of wack.