BEATING THE TRACK WIN POOL TAKEOUT.

[formula_2002]

JUST TO SAY IT SEEMS POSSIBLE.



BEATING THE TRACK WIN POOL TAKEOUT.
137 RACE STUDY
FAVORITE WON 50 RACES, 36%
THE $1 FAVORITE RETURN WAS, AS EXPECTED, $0.84 .
MY EXACTA PLAY, USING MY STRUCTURED BET SIZES WON 40 TIMES RETURNING A HIGHER RETURN THAN A STRAIGHT WIN BET 38 OF THE 40 PLAYS.
THE $1 RETURN WAS $1.01
MY EXACTA PLAY IS FAVORITE/ ALL LESS THE SECOND WIN POOL CHOICE.
THE FAVORITE / SECOND WIN POOL CHOICE WON 10 TIMES

[formula_2002]

here is a schedule of the plays mentioned

[formula_2002]

RESULTS FOR LAST 48 RACES (ALL THAT FITS A SCREEN SHOT)

ALL FAVORITES RETURNED $0.98 ON THE DOLLAR
MY EXACTA PLAY (FAVORITE/ALL - 2ND CHOICE) RETURNED $1.04 ON THE DOLLAR

[formula_2002]

BEATING THE TRACK WIN POOL TAKEOUT.
137 RACE STUDY
FAVORITE WON 50 RACES, 36%
THE $1 FAVORITE RETURN WAS, AS EXPECTED, $0.84 .
MY EXACTA PLAY, USING MY STRUCTURED BET SIZES WON 40 TIMES RETURNING A HIGHER RETURN THAN A STRAIGH BET 38 OF THE 40 PLAYS. THE $1 RETURN WAS $1.01
MY EXACTA PLAY IS FAVORITE/ ALL LESS THE SECOND WIN POOL CHOICE.
THE FAVORITE / SECOND WIN POOL CHOICE WON 10 TIMES

NEXT 137 RACES
FAVORITE WON 46 RACES, 34%
THE $1 FAVORITE RETURN WAS, BELOW EXPECTATION, $0.76 .
MY EXACTA PLAY, USING MY STRUCTURED BET SIZES WON BUT 32 TIMES ,23%,RETURNING THE SAME AS A $1 WIN BET, $0.76 ON THE DOLLAR
MY EXACTA PLAY IS FAVORITE/ ALL LESS THE SECOND WIN POOL CHOICE.
THE FAVORITE / SECOND WIN POOL CHOICE WON 15 TIMES

IN ADDITION, IN THE 1ST 137 RACES MY AVERAGE $1 RETURN WAS $3.60, IN THE SECOND 137 RACES, IT WAS BUT $3.35

[Hues10]

Guess I am doubting your numbers here. Say you have a eleven horse field, you are betting $10 each race while excluding 1 horse. The favorite only is winning 35% of the time, and the top 2 win 10% of the time. So really, you are only winning 25% of the time, so betting $10 per race means out of 100 races, you lose 75 of them or $750, so the 25 you win, have to payout $30 on average for each exacta won. No way betting the favorite to win and other non-favorite horses is going to be returning $30 on a $1 exacta. Unless I am misunderstanding what you are trying to do.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by Hues10

Guess I am doubting your numbers here. Say you have a eleven horse field, you are betting $10 each race while excluding 1 horse. The favorite only is winning 35% of the time, and the top 2 win 10% of the time. So really, you are only winning 25% of the time, so betting $10 per race means out of 100 races, you lose 75 of them or $750, so the 25 you win, have to payout $30 on average for each exacta won. No way betting the favorite to win and other non-favorite horses is going to be returning $30 on a $1 exacta. Unless I am misunderstanding what you are trying to do.

That is all very reasonable.

But suppose the variations in the win % are such that when the win % is higher than 25%, my returns can be significantly higher than my returns when the win % is less that 25%, such that the combination of the two returns exceed expectations.

I'll see how the next 137 races perform.

thanks

[Hues10]

In your two samplings, your favorite win % was 34% and 36%, so yes, if your favorite won 45% of the time, then maybe your betting strategy may turn positive. But using 35% favorite wins, and 10% #1 and #2 coming in, means you have a 1 in 4 chance of cashing an exacta ticket. If your horse field is smaller than 11, say 6 horses, then you are betting $5 per race, then you lose $375, and your exacta win has to average $15 per race. Still a steep ask when the horse field decreases. So basically, I will middle it, and say you need to average a $22.50 exacta win for the races with horse fields between 6 and 11 horses. Still a large return that if it was that easy, everyone would do it. Not arguing, but I think it is fuzzy math to expect a positive return, by eliminating just one horse. Why not eliminate the #2 and the least favorite horse or some other combination?

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by Hues10

In your two samplings, your favorite win % was 34% and 36%, so yes, if your favorite won 45% of the time, then maybe your betting strategy may turn positive. But using 35% favorite wins, and 10% #1 and #2 coming in, means you have a 1 in 4 chance of cashing an exacta ticket. If your horse field is smaller than 11, say 6 horses, then you are betting $5 per race, then you lose $375, and your exacta win has to average $15 per race. Still a steep ask when the horse field decreases. So basically, I will middle it, and say you need to average a $22.50 exacta win for the races with horse fields between 6 and 11 horses. Still a large return that if it was that easy, everyone would do it. Not arguing, but I think it is fuzzy math to expect a positive return, by eliminating just one horse. Why not eliminate the #2 and the least favorite horse or some other combination?

I don't expect to change the 25% and 10% exacta play percentages.
I'm looking to maximize the exacta play returns by developing the optimal bet sizes.

my data can be set to exclude or include exacta overlays. it can set the win horse odds to be greater or less than place horse odds. a plethora of combinations

[lamboguy]

I am trying to figure out what you are doing here. first, you pick the favorite that you think is going to win that has a return of less than 50% of your money in the long run, and then you somehow pick the horse that is going to run second and get over a 1% win for your bets. I just wonder how you find the second horse to produce these great returns?

[f2tornado]

Looks like chalk over second chalk hits about 9% of the time in the combined results. That's still a decent hit hit to leave out of the wager. I wonder what the results would be if you tossed the highest odds horse and included the second chalk.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

I am trying to figure out what you are doing here. first, you pick the favorite that you think is going to win that has a return of less than 50% of your money in the long run, and then you somehow pick the horse that is going to run second and get over a 1% win for your bets. I just wonder how you find the second horse to produce these great returns?

I don't do the picking, i let the public establish the win pool and exacta pool odds. from that is determined the top rank and 2nd rack win pool horses.
then i try to determine the optimal exacta bet sizes.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

Looks like chalk over second chalk hits about 9% of the time in the combined results. That's still a decent hit hit to leave out of the wager. I wonder what the results would be if you tossed the highest odds horse and included the second chalk.

yesterday, 59 races, favorite win play won 31% returning $0.82 on the dollar

yesterday the 1/2 exacta play returned $0.66 on the dollar, winning 14% of the time

my exacta play won only 17% of the time returning $0.64 on the dollar.

two addition bet size systems were also used
one returned $0.77 on the dollar
the other $0.72 on the dollar.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

I don't do the picking, i let the public establish the win pool and exacta pool odds. from that is determined the top rank and 2nd rack win pool horses.
then i try to determine the optimal exacta bet sizes.

i tip my hat to you for winning with that system! keep up the great work.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i tip my hat to you for winning with that system! keep up the great work.

I wish. It has not done well after the 1st 137 races, but we continue
Forever trying new best size formulas. But thanks.

[formula_2002]

my exacta play, not quite fav/all - 2nd choice.
317 races $1 favorite straight win bet returned $0.79 on the dollar, my exacta play returned $0.94 on the dollar, 24% winners. FYI, fav /2nd choice won 10% of the time.

WALA