Quote:
|
Originally Posted by duckhunter3
I really don't know what you are complaining about here, Robert. The Mitchell formulas and the Meadow approach yield exactly the same results and those results ARE IN FACT the mathematical fair odds of a combo hitting, assuming the odds used are correct. AND THEY YIELD EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS AS YOUR APPROACH.
Yes, exactas can be affected by the pace of the race and all sorts of other things, but those considerations are to be taken into account when making a final betting line with odds for each contender.
So I don't understand why you say the formulas suck. They are correct formulas, BASED ON THE ASSIGNED ODDS OF EACH HORSE WINNING. Those assigned odds should consider the other things that concern you, pace, whether the horse is a hanger or has seconditis, etc., etc.
so it looks to me like it is apples to apples, and there is no reason to say these formulas suck, because they don't. How any particular handicapper assigns odds, however, MAY INDEED SUCK.
But correct math does NOT suck.
Just my opinion.
duck
|
I think you both are right. The formulas are right if the odds are right. That's the key. If you believe the public, then the odds of the winning horse are right by definition, but the question is whether the odds to win of the underneath horse can be translated using an easy formula (Harville I believe) to get the probability of placing. Most would say that this isn't correct. The odds of coming in second are not the same as the odds of winning given that a certain horse has won the race. Pace, style, etc make this a questionable proposition.
Also, if you are going to use the formula, don't forget to adjust for track takeout. You are taking it out twice from the two win horses, so you need to adjust that and then takeout the (usually higher) takeout of the exacta.
