Quote:
Originally Posted by paulbenny
I absolutely meant when both halves of the entry were running. So this sample is not too bad. I know that a flat bet, in the sample is quite decent. So Andy Serling may be wrong. In a big sample, if the flat bet is blind to all conditions, trainers etc, which this is, then it is a great bet. So thoughts are appreciated. You have to include the big payouts too. That is why a bigger sample is better, right?
- include 2 horse entries only, maybe include 2 and 2b and 3 and 3c but really that gets it out of hand.
-this is quite helpful.
-how hard is it to pull and clean the data?
|
Hey Paul,
At Belmont there were instances where playing the 1/1A coupled entries actually led to a profit
However, at Aqueduct it is a different story, I only went back to January 2016 up to yesterday and followed the coupled entries for 1/1A
There were 162 individual entries giving 81 betting interest. At $2 per win wager the cost was $162 but winnings only came to $92.80 and so you were down -$69.20!!!
Blindly wagering on the 1/1A didn't result in any profit from what I could see from last year at Aqueduct
The only thing that I could see that gave you close to your money back was playing the coupled entries when they were less than 7/2 in the Morning Line and even then you took a small loss!!!