Best Exacta Startegy ?

[teddy]

If you just play the chalk to win, I suggest putting him second. No data but they always pay way more than you expect in that exacta combo.

[fmolf]

I disagree with you Mark on the statement that all exacta overlay charts are useless.They offer a reasonable estimate using the win odds of the horses or the size of the different pools to gauge whether your combos are paying a fair price.Like a personal odds line made by the player for each race these charts are subject to interpretation by their user.What might constitute a play for Pandy may not for me.I will not make any win play where a horse is below my betting line nor will i play any exacta when it is below a certain price based on Barry Meadows chart. Which i have found to be the most accurate.Lots of races have the first 2 favs as severe underlays in the exacta pools but the fav with a 9/1 shot is not being bet.Without the chart i have no guidelines,save for my experience to tell me if i am getting a fair price.

[Aerocraft67]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

any rational assessment that leads to playing a favorite must be based on a determination of value. That is, even though the horse will be favored, you have reason to believe that his closing price will be higher than it should be. Since wagering-pool inefficiencies are difficult to find in the first place (keeping in mind that we are fighting an onerous takeout), by playing the horse in gimmicks, you are combining the favorite with (most probably) underlaid animals. This combination of a skewed pool and the combination of your (hopefully) overlaid horse with underlaid animals is deadly over the long haul. Furthermore, dutching these probables does absolutely nothing to mitigate their essential lack of value.

This makes sense, but the hopeful logic is the other way around. You determine the favorite an underlay, yet overwhelmingly likely to win the race, so you dare not play against him. But you see overlays for place. So you couple the fave with clever selections underneath in a vertical gimmick in what you reckon is an aggregate overlaid wager, even though the favorite is an underlay in the win pool. Perhaps the depressing effect of the fave in the exacta is insurmountable, but this is the idea.

[riskman]

Originally Posted by fmolf

I will not make any win play where a horse is below my betting line nor will i play any exacta when it is below a certain price based on Barry Meadows chart.Without the chart i have no guidelines,save for my experience to tell me if i am getting a fair price.

I believe Barry Meadows exacta charts contain a 50% premium over the the 'FAIR" payoffs. Am I correct in this assumption?
There is nothing wrong with this as each one can determine what premium they need.

[Valuist]

IMO, exactas are one of the best bets at the track. A few simple rules.

1. The only time you should ever consider boxing 3 or more horses is in a race where your only real opinion is you hate the favorite or favorites.

2. The best value in exacta pools is with longshot types in the underneath slot with logical horses in the win slot. Because so many box, the longshots in the "win" slot are often underlaid in the exacta pool.

Don't forget that odds of winning should in no way reflect the odds of horses finishing 2nd in a given race. We see plenty of speedballs who will be all or nothing; get loose and a great shot at winning. But once they start to tire, chances are good they won't hang on for 2nd. And we also see the closing and stalking types who start their move too late and are no threat to win but go all out to edge out a superior horse who's gassed from early pressure.

[jfdinneen]

Mike,

Thanks for the confirmation.

John

[teddy]

It seems that everyone has an idea how to play but has anyone found an indepth study on valuation of how best to play an exacta based on off odds. Surely there is someone at sometime that has looked at how they pay with the chalk winning and with mid priced contenders winning..... What is usually underlaid and overlaid..

[Actor]

Originally Posted by teddy

Surely there is someone at sometime that has looked at how they pay with the chalk winning and with mid priced contenders winning..... What is usually underlaid and overlaid..

Barry Meadow

[fmolf]

Originally Posted by Actor

Barry Meadow

well said!...I believe his chart just about assures that you make money if you are any type of handicapper and adhere to it strictly.Also remember that you need to be compensated for all your losing combos as well in each race....Meadows chart allows for this as well.

[teddy]

Its hardly a study to say get paid back 1.5 times the usual payoff and thats representative of the way to play exactas. Their has to be a sweet spot or some pool advantages to take advantage of the publics mindset. I do know that the WHALES are very much into the exacta pools. So that might be deminished. Im sure they have that strategy covered and the underbet exactas will get pounded by their computers. This may be a waste of time to look for an advantage. Looking thru results I only saw a few exactas that fit into that chart that hit. Quick glance at those saw exactas with 10-1 shots on top came close to meeting the chart requirments but only in a few cases.

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by Aerocraft67

This makes sense, but the hopeful logic is the other way around. You determine the favorite an underlay, yet overwhelmingly likely to win the race, so you dare not play against him. But you see overlays for place. So you couple the fave with clever selections underneath in a vertical gimmick in what you reckon is an aggregate overlaid wager, even though the favorite is an underlay in the win pool. Perhaps the depressing effect of the fave in the exacta is insurmountable, but this is the idea.

I think if you undertake an exhaustive study that you'll find this strategy does not work. Why? Because there are few scenarios that pull win bettors into the exacta pool as much as the one you are describing. The "lock" winner who can't pay me enough on my win bet, but on whom I can make some decent money by playing some selected exactas. This is part of the mindset which creates scenarios in which favorites are overbet in larger vertical pools, since it extends very quickly to trifectas and/or superfectas as well.

And so you virtually never get an overlaid aggregate wager in these situations. Also, top-half overlays are generally more potent for creating value than bottom-half overlays. This is true in exactas but really explodes in trifectas and superfectas. That's because the vast majority of dedicated complex vertical players have long since come to realize that boxing groups of horses is not cost efficient. And so they gravitate toward part-wheels in which only certain contenders are put in the top spot, certain others in the second spot, etc. That's why the payouts tend to explode as the price horse works his way up the ladder on the ticket. For ex., a 15-1 in a fourth spot on a super ticket may not do much to enhance the price. But get him up to first or second and the number balloons.

At any rate, in general, if you believe a short-priced horse will win, you are better served playing to win than looking for exactas and that includes dutching exacta probables.

[teddy]

Mark, sounds like you would be a bc/ abcd exacta dutch player... or any really longshot on top. If you deem the chalk vulnerable. In tri you would play bc with efg with all? From our past talks, I know you like the all button to explode the tri payoff in third. Maybe All is my version of all the horses i think can run 3rd. Not necessarily all.

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by teddy

Mark, sounds like you would be a bc/ abcd exacta dutch player... or any really longshot on top. If you deem the chalk vulnerable. In tri you would play bc with efg with all? From our past talks, I know you like the all button to explode the tri payoff in third. Maybe All is my version of all the horses i think can run 3rd. Not necessarily all.

Think you may have me mixed up with someone else when it comes to the ALL button. I don't believe in it because ticket-structure effieiency is little-understood, but absolutely crucial for long-term success. That being said, there may be very select races in which the all button is required, but such races do not meet my optimum race layout. In general, I like supers and those which feature one of the following: (A) A degree of contentiousness such that it is nearly impossible to predict a winner among 4 or more horses; and (B) Races in which a favorite is vulnerable; and while a book might be written on this particular subject, my main criteria for this is either: (1) A basic mis-interpretation of the quality of recent efforts, or more likely (2) Certain form defects or unknowns.

[teddy]

OH I remember you like supers, I was trying to make what you said about exactas relevant to what these guys are playing... The supers thing sounds like you need huge wagers and could have long run outs, unless you bet the dime. Your thinking on the exactas sounds like you just dont like the wager. Not enough inefficiency is my guess.

[fmolf]

when i think i have a good viable value horse in the exacta i only play him straight with one or two overlayed second place horses.I will generally bet more on less combos so if i am correct i will get a nice boost to my bankroll in addition to my prime win bet on the race.Provided one was warranted.I have tried tri's and 10 cent superswith little success.I just cannot seem to pick that third horse in tri's an the 3rd and 4th in supers with any consistency.