Was listening to Andy S commenting on the exacta payout after the 3rd race at the Spa today. The 3-1 shot second choice finished over the Even money favorite, with the $2 Ex returning $19.20. Andy felt it should have paid around $12 and proclaimed that exactas with the 2nd or 3rd choice finishing over the favorite continues to offer the best value in racing.
My curiosity piqued, I did a quick check using discounted Harville to see if I could confirm his assertion. Turns out the expected payout was $18.90, pretty much right in line with the $19.20 actual payout. Even if you use straight conditional probability, which is inaccurate because it neglects to account for the more uniform probability distribution in the lower slots (ie. faves are less likely to finish 2nd or 3rd than their win odds indicate, while longshots are more likely to do so), the expected payout is still $15.65.
Can’t really draw any conclusions from one race, but this result doesn’t seem to support the assertion. Would be interesting to hear if anyone’s ever done any rigorous study on this, I haven\'t and I\'m not aware of any, perhaps Barry Meadow in his latest book(?).
I never listen to Serling (put the TV on mute)he always has a excuse for his horse
losing ,Gold rail bad ride by the jocks,etc.)I dont think Laduca or Stevens likes working with him
Philywheel
My rigorous study is limited to takeout rates, and the NYRA exacta takeout of 18.5% is lower than any major NA racetrack with the exception of Kentucky Downs (18.25%).
For comparison: Keeneland (19.5%), Gulfstream (20%), Churchill (22%), and Santa Anita and Del Mar (both 22.68%).
Funny thing, a couple of years ago a Southern California race scratched down to two horses, yet the track still offered an exacta (!!!). Unsurprisingly, the win price (15.43% takeout - lowest in major NA tracks save for Woodbine) was higher than the \"exacta\" payout. I think there was about $7K in really smart money in the \"exacta\" pool.
Regrettably, references to discounted Harville go over my head, but I have read the Meadow book (whoever posted that he needs an editor is correct). The focus of the book is not on choosing between pools, but on comparing the ROI (sometimes just win; other times win, place and show) and impact value of a great many \"angles.\" He does include win, place, and show percentages in many cases. In the case of favorites going off at 1-1, those percentages are 41%, 64%, and 78%, so the overall probability of finishing exactly second is 23%.
In my mind, whether betting the favorite underneath make sense depends on why you think he might lose. If you think someone else might jump up, it makes more sense than if you think the favorite may not run his race. In the race you are talking about, I was listening but not betting. It seemed like the risk was the latter, that the favorite might not handle the 9f (given that he had never run more than 6.5f and seemed on edge in the paddock and warm-up).
Not sure the 23% thing can be used as is
If you actually like something to beat the favorite , and the favorite doesn\'t have some giant hole, its better than 23% to run second IF!! you are right about your horse . And if you\'re not, you are going to lose anyway. Seems whimpy to go heavy with the chalk under. Doesn\'t mean its wrong.
As you suggest, it\'s about a race by race analysis.
In general , I\'d say the chalk is underused, or put another way, stabbers/wheelers overbet the longshots underneath.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
> In general , I\'d say the chalk is underused, or
> put another way, stabbers/wheelers overbet the
> longshots underneath.
That used to be true in the win pool as well (the widely known \"favorite-longshot\" bias), still true to some extent, but much less so now, particularly on the favorite side, where the computer guys have largely arbed away the underbetting.
My guess is the large rebates have caused much of the favorite \'pounding\'. Much easier to devise some break even strategy when dealing with the logicals.
Still think chalk underneath is underplayed, most of the time. Just aint sexy.
Based on almost 40,000 races over the past year the blind ROI of betting post time second/third choice over post time favorite in exactas is 0.82
Does that equate to $.82 ROI for every $2 wagered? Better than 40% on your money year in and year out seems pretty strong compared to pretty much everything else imaginable? (Over 40,000 race sample) If so, how does that compare to the other “standard†wagers, win/place/show/Tri/Super... Or am I misunderstanding this all together?
I think it means that for every dollar you bet, you get an average of 82 cents back.
Not trying to be dense here, but are you losing $.18/$1.00, or gaining $.82/$1.00 wagered? The latter doesn’t seem plausible at all but just want to be sure, thanks
You think Serling does that job because he enjoys meeting all those wonderful people?
Losing 18 cents per dollar bet. Given that the takeout for exactas is usually around the 20% range, you would be losing a little less than the takeout.
The overarching messages of the Meadow book are that most angles applied broadly are unprofitable and that angles involving shorter-priced horses are usually less unprofitable than those involving longshots.
I think the overarching message of the Meadow book is that if you want to be a winner, you had better come up with something that is not in the Meadow book.