EXACTA WAGERS "FINDING THE PLACE HORSE"

[shanta]

i have just started betting exactas 2 weeks ago after being a win only wagerer for over 18 months. "the horse that finishes second is not the 2nd horse most likely to win", "the place horse is counter energy to the winner', "the place horse is the favorite". these are just a few of the things i have heard about the place horse. i would love to hear some thoughts on this from other members. VERY SHARP people here!

richie

here is what i am doing: in every race regardless of field size i narrow to 5 contenders.in order for me to bet the exacta i MUST have a "key value horse". this is a horse going off at big odds (10/1, 12/1 minimun). ok now i have the odds i need. now the horse must meet 2 requirements i have set: 1) i go back and look at the pacelines for this horse. i have an idea what patterns longshots show and i want to see if this "bomb" has that "look".if he does not have that "look" i pass and go to the next race. if he does have it then i go to a screen on my software that also provides me with a "look" also. longshots on this screen show similarities by distance sometimes and i am looking for that now in this "bomb". when i find it i now have a bettable exacta and race (win or lose).
i bet the horse to win. i then take exacta boxes with the remaing 4 contenders.(1 is the bomb-- box 1-2,1-3,1-4,1-5) i then go back and put the bomb on top over the remaing 4 contenders(1/2345).
.

[IRISHLADSTABLE]

Richie,

I have 4 contenders each race I cap. I use the top three
horses, I only use the 4th one in case of a scr.
I take the top 3 call them A B C .Which ever has the
highest odds is the key horse. The key is also the
larger bet .

Say I'm going to invest $20.00 in a race

Horse A is 5-1
Horse B is 9/2
Horse C is 7-1

My bet is $8.00 Ex P/w C/A,B
$2.00 Ex Box A-B


Jimmy

[formula_2002]

shanta


Here is what I have learned about exacta vs win pool results.

1st, as I'm sure you realize, the exacta pool take-out is more then the win pool take out.

take a look here for the take-outs;

http://www.bris.com/cgi-bin/static.cgi?page=trktkout&header=off
( At AQU, the exacta take-out is 125% greater the win pool)

Ofcoure if this premium is worth it to you, go for it.

2nd, if you can make a profit in the win pool, you willl make the same profiit in the exacta pool less the difference in the pool take-outs.

If you can't make a profit in the win pool, you will not make a profit in the exacta pool.

3rd , the place horse places inaccordance with its odds.

While these principals are based upon what I have come to call NEWTONIAN PHYSICS (see it, touch it and measure it), they are also the results of a lot of work.

Joe M

[ranchwest]

Formula_2002,

I respectfully disagree with nearly everything you just posted.

The public does not efficiently select exacta wagers, which more than makes up for the increase in take out for those who are good at exacta wagering.

There is no direct relationship between an ability to hit win bets and an ability to hit exacta wagers. Because some people include more horses in their exacta wagers than win wagers, it is possible to actually do much better with exactas than win wagers.

Some people are better with win wagers, others with exacta wagers.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by ranchwest
[B]Formula_2002,

I respectfully disagree with nearly everything you just posted.

The public does not efficiently select exacta wagers, which more than makes up for the increase in take out for those who are good at exacta wagering.

[B]

Ranch, I have a few hundred or so exacta matrix screen in xls format and a data base analysis of same, which indicates to me that the, PUBLIC is the best thing since mothers milk in correlating the win pool odds to the exacta pool odds.

Joe M

ps, from another recent post of mine

here are the results for about 1100 recent races for horese whos final odds<=6-1.

average winpool odds at 1 to 2 min to post was 3.49 to 1

the average win pool odds at 1 to 2 min to post as calculated from the exacta pools
was 3.48-1.

the final actual win pool odds was 3.24-1..



Joe M

[schweitz]

I agree with Ranchwest---I for one do much better with exacta wagers than with win only wagers.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I used to stink at exactas, but found out I wasn't as good as I thought in the Win Betting. Now that I've refined my Win Betting, I'm at least better in the top part of the exactas. Having done that, I've improved somewhat in my exacta wagering, but want to study myself some more before increasing my bet size significantly.

Not being picky, but AQU's exacta takeout is 25% greater than the win takeout. (17.5 vs 14). (125% of 14 vs 100% of 14)

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Why do most players have some standard number (usually 3 or 4) of contenders per race? What kind of narrow minded thinking is this? Each race is different. Some races I have 2 contenders, and others I have 10 contenders.

Another thing to consider is that many times my 7th best horse in a particular race, has a much better chance than my 3rd best horse in another race.

[shanta]

Jimmy,

i can see my style of wagering on the exacta is kind of similar to yours. i set my odds requirement high for 2 reasons: 1) limits my wagers to 1 maybe 2 races per card if that. 2) really forces me to run my series of requirements on the 'bomb" which in turn helps me to totally focus on "is this horse really worth a bet in this particular race".


Richie :)

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by formula_2002
Ranch, I have a few hundred or so exacta matrix screen in xls format and a data base analysis of same, which indicates to me that the, PUBLIC is the best thing since mothers milk in correlating the win pool odds to the exacta pool odds.

Joe M

ps, from another recent post of mine

here are the results for about 1100 recent races for horese whos final odds<=6-1.

average winpool odds at 1 to 2 min to post was 3.49 to 1

the average win pool odds at 1 to 2 min to post as calculated from the exacta pools
was 3.48-1.

the final actual win pool odds was 3.24-1..



Joe M

Correlating the exacta pool odds back to the win pool odds has nothing to do with the winning exacta combination. The public is inefficient at selecting the combination.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by ranchwest
. The public is inefficient at selecting the combination.

If only it was so...

[IRISHLADSTABLE]

Originally posted by InsideThePylons-MW
Why do most players have some standard number (usually 3 or 4) of contenders per race? What kind of narrow minded thinking is this? Each race is different. Some races I have 2 contenders, and others I have 10 contenders.

Another thing to consider is that many times my 7th best horse in a particular race, has a much better chance than my 3rd best horse in another race.

Inside,
I dont think i'm being narrow minded. If i have a 12 horse
field and i cant narrow the field down to 3 or 4 I shouldn't be
playing the race . Yes every race is different but your approch
should be the same . Separate the contenders from the pretenders.Say u do that and u are down to 7 horses from a 12 horse field, dig deeper. Take a second look at the remaining 7
Try to get that down to 3 or 4 Horse's . Look at my Example below . Say I cap the race and I assign a figure to each horse .

PP1 89 PP2 70 PP3 78 PP4 97 PP5 94 PP6 88 PP7 102

PP8 87 PP9 86 PP10 60 PP11 69 PP12 68

#7 IS MY TOP PLAY FOLLOWED BY 4/5/1
The 1 is my 4Th horse with a fig of (89) Now shu I include the
the #6(88) #8(87) #9(86) You say yes I say No .

Jimmy

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by formula_2002
If only it was so...

This is a well-known fact dating back to Quirin. Why do you choose to ignore it? The favorite-longshot, longshot-favorite matrix values are common.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally posted by IRISHLADSTABLE
Inside,
I dont think i'm being narrow minded. If i have a 12 horse
field and i cant narrow the field down to 3 or 4 I shouldn't be
playing the race . Yes every race is different but your approch
should be the same . Separate the contenders from the pretenders.Say u do that and u are down to 7 horses from a 12 horse field, dig deeper. Take a second look at the remaining 7
Try to get that down to 3 or 4 Horse's . Look at my Example below . Say I cap the race and I assign a figure to each horse .

PP1 89 PP2 70 PP3 78 PP4 97 PP5 94 PP6 88 PP7 102

PP8 87 PP9 86 PP10 60 PP11 69 PP12 68

#7 IS MY TOP PLAY FOLLOWED BY 4/5/1
The 1 is my 4Th horse with a fig of (89) Now shu I include the
the #6(88) #8(87) #9(86) You say yes I say No .

Jimmy

Jimmy,

If you are using the #1 who is 4-1 and the #9 is 30-1 while throwing him out of your plays, you should just give up now.

I would layer the race 7 over 45 over 1689. I would then look to see if there is any value seperation in any of the layers and play accordingly using your premise.

ITP

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally posted by IRISHLADSTABLE
Inside,
I dont think i'm being narrow minded. If i have a 12 horse
field and i cant narrow the field down to 3 or 4 I shouldn't be
playing the race . Yes every race is different but your approch
should be the same . Jimmy

Jimmy,

One other premise that you and most people don't understand...... A 12 horse field narrowed down to 7 horses is mostly a great betting opportunity. It provides automatic value (somewhere in the 7 will be great value), It means the favorites are vulnerable, and it increases wager quantity (which is good).

Life would be so much easier if I could bet 12 horse fields with 5 throw outs 50 times a day.

[trying2win]

--Has anyone read Dick Mitchell's book COMMONSENSE BETTING?
It's been awhile since I read it. It had a chapter on selecting the 'place' horse on exacta tickets.

--I haven't read Mark Cramer's book entitled ELEVEN WINNING EXACTA SITUATIONS. Perhaps there are some good ideas about the 'place' horse on your exacta tickets in this book, as well.

--This is a good topic. It's an area where I need to improve. I'm a little shy about betting exactas lately, because I have difficulty in getting the correct 'place' horse on this type of bet. Too many of the horses I've bet on in the exacta have wound up finishing 1st and 3rd. Does that story look familiar? So, consequently I've mainly been concentrating on win betting recently.


Thanks,

Trying2win

[Fastracehorse]

Because it meant I probably had the exacta.

fffastt

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by ranchwest
This is a well-known fact dating back to Quirin. Why do you choose to ignore it? The favorite-longshot, longshot-favorite matrix values are common.

I understand the favorite/long shot bias quite well. I even have my own data that substantiates it. The bias is common in the win pool AND the exacta pool



I chose this exacta board matrix at random. It's PHA, 8th race 12/24/2003, about 1 to 2 minuets to post.
Give me your thoughts on it.

1 X 73 --- 58 82 76 --- 82
2 63 X --- 46 47 30 --- 47
3 --- --- X --- --- --- --- ---
4 47 40 --- X 47 37 --- 44
5 87 60 --- 62 X 70 --- 86
6 45 24 --- 33 49 X --- 27
7 --- --- --- --- --- --- X ---
8 56 42 --- 47 67 31 --- X

[alysheba88]

Some random thoughts from a formerly life long exacta player. I stick to win mostly, but occasionally play an exacta and tri. One each a card.

First of all think there is nothing wrong with settling on 3 or 4 contenders when focusing on the Win end. I assign betting lines on the top 3-4 (Using strategies discussed in Fierro's book). It works great for me.

However, if I was betting exactas I would NOT then in turn use those 4 automatically in exactas. There is a big difference between liking a horse to win and liking him in the exacta. There are many win or out of the money horse types. At the same time there are many horses who refuse to win, but complete exactas quite frequently. So the exacta player should look at more than just his top contenders.

For me the most optimum situation is the simple two horse exacta box. The second optimum scenario is one horse over two others. I do not, and have not made money with ANY other scenario. over the long run. Yes I have wheeled and caught big numbers, yes I have played 3,4,5 horse boxes and except for the Derby do not make money. Tried basically all of it. Not saying that is the case for everyone.

You must be able to recognize value whether playing win or exotics. And by value I dont mean looking at the odds board and saying if one horse is 3-1 and another is 8-1 that the higher odds horse is "better value". Its much more complex than that.

[shanta]

you say that for the most part you are a win bettor. when you decide to play that 1 exacta on a card is there something about that race that hits you to "jump in" ? do you have a "routine " you go through on each race or does it just "hit you " that the exacta is called for in this particular race?
richie :)

[alysheba88]

Shanta,

Good question. It is more of a feel thing that anything. I really have to like my top two choices, and they both have to be at least 50% over my odds line. And they have to be in a stakes race or maiden special weight race. Thats just to consider it.

Tris I usually focus on the last race of the card since I think there alot of inefficiencies in that one.

[Milleruszk]

Picking exactas can be the most frustrating experience at the race track. Nothing, can make you feel like kicking yourself more, than having the winner and not cashing a ticket! I know first hand and I have the boot marks on my posterior to prove it!

Tom:)

[shanta]

Formula 2002: i understand what you are saying about the added takeout with the exacta. By waiting for certain advantageous situations to come up based on both tremendous payoff possibilities and familiar patterns of longshots i can wager when i have the edge. In these races when i hit the public so far has been nowhere near right in the actual payoffs compared to say multiplying the win price times the place price. I have also only been exacta wagering for 2 weeks now so my sample is WAY TOO SMALL. I have had 2 long runouts so far.Thanx for your detailed posts.

Insidethepylons: I always narrow to 5 contenders in every race. The method i use has this as a guideline . I follow it religiously. Have been for over 9 years now. I do get your point about a highly contentious race where a 6th or 7th choice might have more of a shot then in an other race where on "paper" there are 2 standouts and the 3rd horse has much less of a chance to win. In these races where there are like 6 or 7 horses that can win i rely on my method of "hiding to the top 5" to get me in the "ballgame"!

Ranchwest: I totally agree with you saying that some people are very good at exacta wagering while others do better in the win area. Matter of fact one of the best win bettors i knew had no clue about hitting exactas! Also what you posted in another thread about "recognizing what you have in front of you" has me focusing on the horse i am looking at right now as my "bomb".

[alysheba88]

Ill also add that takeout has nothing to do with whether something is a good wager or not. One of the biggest misconceptions around. Everything being equal I want lower takeout of course.

But if your 3-1 shot is 7-1 at a "high takeout track" and 5-2 at a low one, the choice is easy what to do.

Same with bets themselves. Sure tri's have high takeouts. Does that itself by definition always make them a bad bet? Inferior to lower takeout bets? Of course not.

[Valuist]

I find that contenders who figure to go all out for the win are not good bets in the 2nd slot in exactas. Usually one will win and the other(s) will be off the board. For the second slot, I look first at the tote board; I like to look for double digit odds horses and then see who's getting overlooked. Maybe a horse who should be 7-1 is 11-1, or a legit 12-1 shot is 20-1. These horses are technically overlays in the win pool, but still aren't real likely to win. I like keying these types in the 2nd slot, with the logical 2-3 win contenders. I never use low odds horses in the 2nd slot.

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by alysheba88 (MW)
Ill also add that takeout has nothing to do with whether something is a good wager or not. One of the biggest misconceptions around. Everything being equal I want lower takeout of course.

But if your 3-1 shot is 7-1 at a "high takeout track" and 5-2 at a low one, the choice is easy what to do.

Same with bets themselves. Sure tri's have high takeouts. Does that itself by definition always make them a bad bet? Inferior to lower takeout bets? Of course not.

It's true that a 3-1 shot who should be 5-2 is as good a bet at a track with a low takeout (eg, NYRA - 14% WPS) as it is at a track with a high takeout (Hialeah - 23% before it closed). The problem is that, all else being equal, you're not going to find as many 3-1's who should be 5-2 at the higher takeout track.

I'd doubt you'd find any at El Commandante (Puerto Rico) where I read somewhere the take is around 50% (but I can't remember if that was WPS, ex, or tri--in any case, they were all beyond belief).

[Binder]

Late in the Day

Originally posted by Alysheba88(MW)
" I usually focus on the last race of the card since I think there alot of inefficiencies in that one."

I have always thought that too
I just did a quick workup on the last 8 cards from Philly Park

Ave. Win price Race 1 = 10.86
Ave. Win price Last race of the day = 13.84

Ave. Exacta Race 1 = 66.63
Ave.Exacta Last Race of the day = 79.28

Note I used the Tom Brohammer method of averaging
Leaving out the highest and lowest prices

There was a $40 winner
and a $920 exacta in race 1 on 1/17

[ranchwest]

Forumula_2002,

On the matrix you have shown, there is a six horse race with values from $24 to $87, if my old eyes don't deceive me. The public finds this race contentious for exacta wagering. Just from a tote board analysis alone, it appears this race is likely a no play, though I want to strongly emphasize that I am not a tote board player.

It is my contention that advantage does not lie in the tote board at all. The tote board is fairly efficient in that the odds do relate back to win odds in many cases. The inefficiency is in the public's inability to match two horses who will complete the exacta. In most races, the public will be wrong on at least one of the horses in the win, place and exacta pools.

[alysheba88]

I know what you are saying Dave K. Clearly the lower the takeout the better your chances of finding the overlay if all else is equal. But its hard for everything to be truly equal. Parimutual competition can be much different from track to track. It just happens that my best tracks (NYRA) are the lowest takeout. But I would not hesitate to play a higher takeout track if I felt I had an edge over the competition.

Interesting Binder-thanks

[Maxspa]

Shanta,
The Fulcrum horse from the Michael Pizzola handicapping programs either Handicapping Magic or The Master Handicapper is a technique that often zeroes in on the place horse. There is a program advertised on e-bay for $45.00 that will calculate a fulcrum horse but I have no idea whether it is compatable with Pizzola's product.
Also Andicap was considering a variation of the above fulcrum horse but perhaps it is too early in its development to get a definitive report on the project.
Hope this helps,
Maxspa

[Maxspa]

All,
An update to the fulcrum producing software on e-bay, unforturnately the product has already passed the time frame for purchasing. Sorry!
Maxspa

[Pace Cap'n]

Originally posted by Maxspa
All,
An update to the fulcrum producing software on e-bay, unforturnately the product has already passed the time frame for purchasing. Sorry!
Maxspa

If it didn't sell, you can message the seller and offer to buy it.

[Bubbles]

For exacta wagers, I narrow it down to three or four horses. I then find the key horse, and normally, I don't care about odds. For example, if there's a 4-1 shot and a 14-1 shot, and the 4-1 shot appears to have this field over a barrel, I won't try to beat him. I wheel the key horse with the other horses I like, and possibly backwheel it if the four are close and if I have the finances. When played right, exactas are just complicated place bets with higher payoffs. It may sound simple and like a bunch of other people's systems, but it works

[kenwoodallpromos]

I seldom bet exactas, but when I do I use 2 early speesters on faster tracks, and my value bets on normal speed tracks (quinellas). I like exactas when a favorite is likely to be overworked and ready to decline, or outside post in a 6f race.

[andicap]

Everyone is different of course, but I've found amazingly that
a simple one-way or boxed exacta, 2 units, is by far the most profitable way for me to go. I don't get huge payoffs, but the small costs help the ROI big time. A $40 exactly doesn't sound like much, but when you hit it for $2, the ROI is just as big as when you play 10 combos and hit for $400. (or for a $4 boxed exacta, the same as a $200 hit.)

Of course I'll never use two favorites in an exacta. And I'm more likely to box if the price is longer.

[cj]

I do the same Andi. I play exactas straight, two horse boxes, or one over two wheels, and very rarely one over three horses.

I'm not saying it will work for everyone, but it works for me. Savers will destroy your bankroll. If you like a race, hit it hard the way you feel it will come in. If you are spreading to 4 or more horses in a race, what insight do you really have?

On our Aqueduct New Year's getaway, the guys asked me who I liked in the 1st. I stated I was boxing the 7-8, nothing else. It comes in and pays $73.00 for every 4 bet. Those kind of hits will keep you up for a long time. Now if I box those two, then play another saver with each horse top and botton, ala 2/ 7,8 and 7,8 / 2, my $4 bet has just cost me $12. Doesn't add up for me, not worth betting something I don't think is going to happen.

[shanta]

question ok? what if you have worked 2,3 or 4 cards and have come up with 2 races total that according to your figs( or whatever method you use) a tremendous overlay is staring you right in the puss.when you look at your list of contenders you see that 3 maybe even 4 others are closely bunched in your "mix". do you just bet the horse to win then and ignore exactas? the term "saver" you used means (to me) that a "flyer is taken " on maybe a 3rd 4th or even 5th choice. but what if the contenders in a race are so closely bunched that to seperate them is folly.

richie :)

[Tom]

I've seen far to many races at FL with only two horse that look like they have any shot to win to let them go by anymore. I will take a $12-$16 exacta for $4 any day- and sometimes they will even pay around $20. Low hanging fruit is just as sweet.

[trying2win]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
I do the same Andi. I play exactas straight, two horse boxes, or one over two wheels, and very rarely one over three horses.

I'm not saying it will work for everyone, but it works for me. Savers will destroy your bankroll. If you like a race, hit it hard the way you feel it will come in. If you are spreading to 4 or more horses in a race, what insight do you really have?

On our Aqueduct New Year's getaway, the guys asked me who I liked in the 1st. I stated I was boxing the 7-8, nothing else. It comes in and pays $73.00 for every 4 bet. Those kind of hits will keep you up for a long time. Now if I box those two, then play another saver with each horse top and botton, ala 2/ 7,8 and 7,8 / 2, my $4 bet has just cost me $12. Doesn't add up for me, not worth betting something I don't think is going to happen.

CJ,

--Very wise advice in your post here.


Thanks,

T2W

[andicap]

Originally posted by trying2win
CJ,

--Very wise advice in your post here.

Thanks,

T2W

I'm just curious.
I gave the exact same advice initially that CJ did -- play one-way or box, but don't spread exactas too thinly -- and HE gets credit for being wise. Man, I need a PR person.


:D :D :D :D

P.S. You can see in the odds you get why I like to play only 1 or 2 combos most of the time. 2 combos on a $60 payout is about 14-1. (bet $4, win $56). Six combos on a $60 payout becomes only 4-1. (bet $12, win 48).
Quite a difference.
That means I'll go a bit deeper (4 combos) if I have longer priced horses I really like because I'll still get decent odds.

[trying2win]

Andicap,

--Oops! A tip of the hat to you too. The old "Overlooked Andicap's exacta betting advice on a Monday trick, eh?" (Similar to what Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 would say).

--One small difference of opinion on one of your exacta strategies though. I prefer not hooking more than 3 horses for 2nd on a one-way exacta ticket. To me, that's "scattering your bets too much" in that situation. But, if it works for you on occasion and your long-term results in that scenario are positive, there's nothing wrong with that. Just my two cents worth.


Thanks,

T2W

[Maxspa]

All,
The software that generates the fulcrum horse plus a great many other ratings is back on E-bay. "Thoroughbred Computer Handicapping Reports" priced at $45.00 will be for sale the next six days. This is a no bid item. I'm not endorsing this program in any way. I don't even know if this rating is similar to the Master Handicapper or Handicapping Magic fulcrum horse. It seems to me that Michael Pizzola had a copyright for his version.
Maxspa

[andicap]

Originally posted by trying2win
Andicap,

--Oops! A tip of the hat to you too. The old "Overlooked Andicap's exacta betting advice on a Monday trick, eh?" (Similar to what Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 would say).

--One small difference of opinion on one of your exacta strategies though. I prefer not hooking more than 3 horses for 2nd on a one-way exacta ticket. To me, that's "scattering your bets too much" in that situation. But, if it works for you on occasion and your long-term results in that scenario are positive, there's nothing wrong with that. Just my two cents worth.


Thanks,

T2W

Funny, I was going to mention "Get Smart" too in another reference:

99: Max, this must be the work of KAOS!
Max: If you don't mind, 99 I'm trying to think!
99: Sorry, Max.
Max: 99, This must be the work of KAOS!
99: Good thinking, Max.


I agree with you on the betting. If I have a longshot (I mean more than 8-1) to key, I wont spread them all with the longshot on top. I'll place some of my 4 combos with the 8-1 horse in second. Again it depends on YOUR records. Many of my longshots finish 2nd.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Must be the avitars! You know Foghorn exudes more confidence than Huckleberry! I suggest you try a Top Cat avitar!!LOL!! / I also like Coupled horses for exactas!

[cj]

Originally posted by shanta
question ok? what if you have worked 2,3 or 4 cards and have come up with 2 races total that according to your figs( or whatever method you use) a tremendous overlay is staring you right in the puss.when you look at your list of contenders you see that 3 maybe even 4 others are closely bunched in your "mix". do you just bet the horse to win then and ignore exactas? the term "saver" you used means (to me) that a "flyer is taken " on maybe a 3rd 4th or even 5th choice. but what if the contenders in a race are so closely bunched that to seperate them is folly.

richie :)

In the situation you mention above, I would look for a contender at big odds...at least 10-1, or pass. If I really think a bunch of horses are evenly matched, I want no parts of betting any horse at single digit odds. It is rare for me to look at 3 cards (my max for a day) and only find a couple bettable races. I'd say about half is my average.

[shane]

I can never function when I try to make rules or set parameters. I only wager on the tracks in Ohio and my experience at Beulah is eliminate no one.
I switched from Express-bet in January to Winticket and Bris-bet. I like their bet tracking method. Was amazed that my ROI for win bets and exactas is the same.Search Criteria
Wager Types: Exacta


# of Bets Win % $1 ROI Wagered Payoff Profit/Loss
122 12.30% +1.53 $1019.00 $2575.30 $+1556.30

# of Bets Win % $1 ROI Wagered Payoff Profit/Loss
40 20.00% +1.53 $602.00 $1521.50 $+919.50

I use Winticket as a hedge for signers but haven't run into that situation this year as of Jan.

Shane

[shanta]

thanx for your imput.I hope all is going ok for you overseas.
Richie

[shanta]

that looks like 150% r.o.i. on both your win betting and exacta wagering! :eek: "nuff said" !
Richie

[Niko]

CJ, Andicap
When you play straight exotic wagers how much importance do you put on running style versus your projected finishes. Do you only play if they have opposite running styles or pass if you have two E or S horses? Do you play your top two picks or find some other way to do it.
I'm trying to narrow down my exacta keys.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

This entire thread is frightening.

Everybody using words and phrases like narrow, 1 combo, 2 combos, 2 horses, 3 horses, one-way, and don't spread.

It is very tough to hit the exactas that matter using these rules.

[andicap]

niko,

The only thing I won't play are two "E" types -- unless the track is heavily biased and then I won't unless horses are going 1,2 around the track.

I play my top two (when I key a longshot, I might use a "place" type horse underneath without doing too many combos)


Pylon,

Depends on how you play. I'm not going for the $800 exactas. I'm going for ROI. What works for you may not work for me. It's a comfort level type of thing. Spreading never worked for me.

[shanta]

I think the many different opinions posted here show there is obviously more than 1 way to profit from exacta wagers.I started this thread cause i wanted to get an idea about exacta wagering strategies from people who actually play them and i certainly got that! :eek:
Richie:)

[cj]

Originally posted by InsideThePylons-MW
This entire thread is frightening.

Everybody using words and phrases like narrow, 1 combo, 2 combos, 2 horses, 3 horses, one-way, and don't spread.

It is very tough to hit the exactas that matter using these rules.

Frightening? I don't get it. Either you have confidence in your abilities and the stones to back those abilities, or you don't. I know I won't hit a high percentage of my bets, but I also know at the end of the year my ROI will be on the plus side. If I bet too many combos, that won't happen.

[Exactaman]

a bet is a bet is a bet....

a win bet will have some chance of winning and some potential return, and the same is true of any exacta combination.

generally, the chances will be longer for the exacta, and the return higher. there will be a longer time between hits, and a greater chance of things happening like "i keyed the 25-1 shot but missed the exacta." you have to have patience with exotics, but the only thing that matters in the end is your long-term return.

i like exactas because the probable return is known, and there's a greater chance of the crowd overlooking certain combinations than with win. my favorite bet is the cold two-horse box, i like the big return, and if i miss it, well you can't hit them all and there's always another race.

but i don't restrict myself to that. i look at each combination individually. each combination is a seperate bet that should be weighed on its own merits. i'll never do something like throw the favorite in the exacta just to have it in there. what i do is make my line and use excel to compute an exacta line. i bet as many exactas as meet the bet criteria--50% over the line for me, of course taking the cost of each additional bet into account.

i throw in some win too, but about 90% of my bets last year were exactas and i showed a much better return than with win. i had some heartbreak here and there, and an occasional losing streak, but the good hits more than made up for it.

[andicap]

Making an odds line on exacta bets seems pretty tricky. I presume you can do it because of so much experience. I also presume that all that record-keeping gives you a leg up on making a decent odds line.

[cj]

exactaman,

Do you use your win line as part of the formula to determine fair exacta payoffs, or do you make a second line for horses ability to place? I just ask, because we've all seen those horses we think will win or be last. Or where the two most obvious contenders are both died in the wool frontrunners, but the chances of them running 1-2 are a lot less do to the style of the horses. How do you handle situations like this?

I generally use my win odds line as a starting point for exactas, then look more at the horses' running styles to find those I think canl be second. It works pretty good for me, but I'm always open to suggestions!

[Pace Cap'n]

Somewhere on the net awhile back I came across a chart purporting to show the "fair" exacta payoffs based on the tote odds. If that would be of any use to anyone, drop me an e-mail.

[Exactaman]

Originally posted by andicap
Making an odds line on exacta bets seems pretty tricky. I presume you can do it because of so much experience. I also presume that all that record-keeping gives you a leg up on making a decent odds line.
Originally posted by cjmilkowski
exactaman,

Do you use your win line as part of the formula to determine fair exacta payoffs, or do you make a second line for horses ability to place? I just ask, because we've all seen those horses we think will win or be last. Or where the two most obvious contenders are both died in the wool frontrunners, but the chances of them running 1-2 are a lot less do to the style of the horses. How do you handle situations like this?

I generally use my win odds line as a starting point for exactas, then look more at the horses' running styles to find those I think canl be second. It works pretty good for me, but I'm always open to suggestions!

well, i've been making an odds line for three years now, and using this exacta approach for 2 and a half. i've had steady positive returns since then, it has changed my whole outlook on betting the races. i play big track harness exclusively, 2 tracks on Sat. night only. i examine the charts/replays of that group of horses week in week out, and base my line on the knowledge of their current form. top-class big track harness is competitive racing, my lines rarely show a favorite below 3-1, a ten horse field will often have 5-6 or even more potential winners, making for a quite even line. i play a lot of longshots as a result.

for the exacta line, I've experimented with a number of things, but i've found that simplicity works best for me. the win line is the place line. one adjustment i make is favorites have their place odds reduced, the bigger the fave the bigger the reduction--in big-track harness, faves are considerably less likely to place than win, which i guess is probably true for the flats as well.

also some horses with less than a fair shot to win may be used for place only, for example in a ten horse field i'll use 8 or 9 percent shots in the place spot only. 7 or below is a tossout.

basically though i think that if a horse can win he can come second. the chances may differ depending on situations like you describe above, but i think that they will balance out in the long run. by betting off the average of win and place chances, i gain the advantage of being able to analyze overlays in excel off the tote and make my bets accordingly. it's almost mechanical and takes a lot off stress out of the betting equation for me.

[Tom]

I have seen charts that give you the fair payouts on exactas based on the odds and even a formula for it, but nothing I have seen takes field size into account. Isn't thts a key factor in a fair price?

[GR1@HTR]

Good discussion...

[Exactaman]

Originally posted by Tom
I have seen charts that give you the fair payouts on exactas based on the odds and even a formula for it, but nothing I have seen takes field size into account. Isn't thts a key factor in a fair price?

not directly. for example, 2 9-1 shots will make a fair exacta price of $180 regardless of field size.

[Dave_K]

Exactaman, do you use a method based on the Harville formula to determine fair exacta prices based on win probabilities? E.g., for a $2 exacta, fair price for the AB exacta = (2 X fair win odds of horseA) X (fair win odds of horseB + 1).

I've read that Harville is biased in that it underpredicts frequencies of places and shows by favorites, and overpredicts places and shows of longshots. There are supposedly better ways to calculate exacta fair prices based on win probabilities. Do you know if these other formulas significantly improve on the Harville ideas? I like the simple formula given above because I can do it with pen and paper. Thanks.

[David McKenzie]

There's been some debate over the correctness of the Harville formulas. I'd be interested to hear some comments about that.

[Dave_K]

I'm interested to know if they're off to the degree that it makes a difference in the real world, versus just enough to get some stats/econ. major a master's thesis.


Originally posted by David McKenzie@HSH
There's been some debate over the correctness of the Harville formulas. I'd be interested to hear some comments about that.

[Exactaman]

i use this formula -- w% is the percent chance of the horse to win, p% is the % chance of place horse.

ex%=w%*p%/(100-w%)

this is your percent chance of the exacta. the % chance of the win horse times the % of the place horse, adjusted for the fact that the win horse already won and is eliminated as a factor for place.

((100-ex%)/ex%)*2+2 will give you a $2 exacta price


this is a fair formula as far as i can see. i use a single line which in effect is an average of win and place chance for each horse. that is not fair in the sense that win and place chances may not be exactly the same, but that's another story.

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by Exactaman


p%/(100-w%)

=

adjusted for the fact that the win horse already won and is eliminated as a factor for place.



That's Harville....and what I use also. Some observations I've made while using this formula:

--if a horse is a big overlay in the win pool, exactas with that horse on top are almost all overlays also (except when the horse on bottom is a severe underlay) -- in which case, you might as well play that horse in the win pool and not worry who comes in second.

--if a horse is a fair price in the win pool (or even very slightly underlaid), exacta combo's with that horse and other fair win prices (or very slight underlays) are often overlays. In my opinion, this is one of the best situations to bet exactas, and it goes directly against the axiom that says if you can't find value in the win pool, you won't find it in the exotics.

--occasionally, exacta combos invloving a very heavy favorite and the second favorite are overlays -- again, contrary to what all the handicapping textbooks say.

[Exactaman]

Hey Dave,

Your first two point square completely with my experience. As for the first, I never wheel, so my play will generally be exacta boxes with my contenders and some win.

the second situation is the most likely scenario for me betting a straight 2-horse box, or even 3 or 4 combinations.

the last goes completely against what i've found, exclusively at meadowlands and balmoral harness. this will def. be a big underlay in my exp.

[Exactaman]

the last goes completely against what i've found, exclusively at meadowlands and balmoral harness. this will def. be a big underlay in my exp.

This could be because my line is usually quite even, there'll rarely be any kind of huge fave in my line. i pass these kind of races. how do you go about making your line and dealing with win/place chances Dave?

[Dave_K]

Another observation for the list (should've been #2):

Exactas with big win pool overlays in the two-hole are almost always overlays themselves -- unless the horse on top is a very big win pool underlay. This let's you make an "exacta as place bet", as advocated by Mark Cramer. However, like you said before I never through the chalk on top just because he's the chalk.


Originally posted by Exactaman
Hey Dave,

Your first two point square completely with my experience. As for the first, I never wheel, so my play will generally be exacta boxes with my contenders and some win.

the second situation is the most likely scenario for me betting a straight 2-horse box, or even 3 or 4 combinations.

the last goes completely against what i've found, exclusively at meadowlands and balmoral harness. this will def. be a big underlay in my exp.

[Exactaman]

Originally posted by Dave_K
Another observation for the list (should've been #2):

Exactas with big win pool overlays in the two-hole are almost always overlays themselves

true, medium overlays will more often be overlays on top though. on average i bet more exactas with my key horse on top than underneath.

[Dave_K]

I only see it occasionally (i.e., fav-second fav overlaid exacta), and usually with very heavy fav's on my line, where the fair exacta payoff is $6 and it's actually paying $8-9.

I guess you can say I take a comprehensive or eclectic approach to making a line, looking at all relevant (at least what I think is relevant) info.

BTW, I grew up on Meadowlands harness.

[Dave_K]

OK, I read up on the Harville formula in the "Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Markets" book which is pretty dense, so it is quite possible that I got something wrong, lol.

There are 4-5 chapters that touch on the problems with Harville, and I think this pretty much sums up what is said:

Basically, the consensus is that Harville is biased, but I had the direction of the bias wrong yesterday. It overpredicts the frequency of places and shows for favorites, and underpredicts the frequency of places and shows for longshots.

One author speculates that the reason for this is the existence of horses who either win or finish off the board. Thus, the probability that this type of horse wins in not related to its probability of placing or showing in the same way as it is for other types of horses. I would imagine that this is a bigger problem for harness racing where you have the issue of a horse breaking stride.

This bias in the formula cannot be corrected a priori, but only empirically. I.e., you have to look at a big sample of races and deterimine how often a horse with a certain Harville probability of finishing second actually finishes second and then apply a correction to take care of the difference.

On the positive side, of the few studies that have been done, it appears that this bias is only a serious enough problem to worry about when you're dealing with horses with fair odds* less than 3-2 or greater than 10-1. For horses with win fair odds within this range, the probability that they would finish second was pretty well predicted by Harville.

In summary, Harville should work alright for predicting fair exacta payoffs when the horses involved in a particular exacta have fair win odds of between about 3-2 and 10-1. If you're looking at exactas involving heavy favorites or longshots, you may want to use a modified Harville that corrects for its bias.

* One study computed fair odds with a computer handicapping program, another just added the track take back to the win pool.

[Exactaman]

Originally posted by Dave_K
OK, I read up on the Harville formula in the "Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Markets" book which is pretty dense, so it is quite possible that I got something wrong, lol.

There are 4-5 chapters that touch on the problems with Harville, and I think this pretty much sums up what is said:

Basically, the consensus is that Harville is biased, but I had the direction of the bias wrong yesterday. It overpredicts the frequency of places and shows for favorites, and underpredicts the frequency of places and shows for longshots.



ahhh, i was wondering what you had meant at first.

another way of thinking about it is that favorites win 33% on average. it would be pretty impossible for them to place that much, leaving only another 33% for all other positions. stats published by one track (woodbine/mohawk harness) show faves place about 18%, and show about 13% if my memory serves.

i think the driving force in this equation is the favorites. it's a zero sum game, if some horse has less of a place chance than a win chance, the others must have more place chances than win chances. the longshots are most affected by this. if there's not a significant fave in the race i don't think the longshots would need any adjustment. i haven't analyzed it, that's just my gut feeling about it.

the really complicated part to any potential adjustment is that all this involves the betting favorite, and not the favorite on your line per se. trying to adjust your line based on the action a certain horse is getting is too problematic for me to even think about, if someone is doing it i'd like to hear about it.

i take a few points from the faves in my line and give them to the other contenders. the bigger the fave the more points. it's a very minor adjustment and a roll of the dice really but when i set a fave number for a horse it usually seems to me his place chances probably won't be quite that high.

i'd say that of all the types of trouble a harness horse can get into, breaking stride ranks low on the list, esp. for high class pacers.

[sjk]

Exactaman,

I use an adjusted line for place odds as compared with win odds. It does not involve the betting favorite, but rather each horse's expected pace and final figure as compared with the others in the race.

As a general rule, horses with early speed and horses who's expected final figure is competitive (these figure to often be favorites) have a lower chance of running second than first while closers and horses who's expected final figure is not so competitive have a greater chance of second.

Once all this is quantified, you can build a conversion matrix to convert the win odds to place odds which leads to fair value exacta prices.