DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
March 19th, 2015 at 9:45:52 AM permalink
Cliff's notes: If field is 'X' probability, and horse #19 is 'Y' probability, then what is that number 'Z' which is the chance of #24-Field in first followed specifically by #19-Horsey in second? That can be calculated, though not as simply as you might be tempted to guess, and one must know that to know whether they are in fact getting a better or worse price than just betting to win, for that and for each and every one. One must, in part, because just averaging among them does NOT provide an average result.

I've ducked getting into this myself since the first page, but here we are... Not so Cliff-ey Note-y:

Boxing "field all" really would mean "all, all" and it would mean betting on all possible outcomes, each evenly for the same amount without regard to differing odds or probabilities for each. It would have the same effect as flat betting every horse entered in an individual race if the takeout was the same. And this is NOT what I understood Fins to be doing. EDIT: That may not be so, depending on how one reads it. And I probably read it wrong, in a silly way. Could be field over all, and all over field, which eliminates wagers on two named interests finishing in the exacta, rather than field and all over same.

On the other hand, flat betting "field" over "all" really means field over each of the 23 others at each of those 23 odds, and the effect of that always differs from simply betting "field" straight up to win in at least two ways (along with more important likely differences below): 1) At Churchill's pari-mutual rates the bettor is paying a higher takeout rate for the "field" to win than simply betting "field" in the straight win pool; and, 2) Because the 23 bets (which is what they are - each is a separate wager in reality) are not proportionally weighted but are instead the same size, making each a different proportion of each of the pools for each exacta combination, being a lower proportion of wagering in high probability low odds place outcomes and a higher proportion of the wagering action in low probability high odds place interests, one would then be disproportionately betting on the high odds/low probability named wagering interests to finish ahead of other named wagering interests that are lower odds with higher implied probability.

Essentially, it amounts to a backdoor way of betting on some one of all relative longshots collectively among named betting interests to finish ahead of any other named interests that aren't quite such longshots. And doing so in Pool #1 or any pool in which "field" is at an implied probability > 50% will result in cashing the wager while losing money being the most probable outcome, followed by simply losing the wager being the next most common outcome, followed by cashing and also profiting being the least likely result, if the wagering market reflects something close to an evaluation of probabilities (as it does most of the time under most circumstances) rather than being a random scattering of money. But making wagers that will lose money more often than they win it is not necessarily a bad thing, of course; it depends on the specifics of how often and how much.

Whether doing this "field/all" exacta is on balance a good or bad bet and to what extent depends on the degree and direction of variance in the implied probabilities of each separate wager in the exacta pool from the related implied probabilities in the win pool on combinations of individual betting interests. And this statement applies to any multiple horse or multi-race wagers, where there are independent wagering pools on outcomes which are not independent of one another in actual occurance. That relative value or lack of it will vary for each of the 23 wagers involved. It is not actually one wager.

Some may offer more value than the corresponding win wager. Some will definitely suck and be a horrible value compared to a simple straight bet. Generally I find that in these future pools many 'field/x' wagers in exactas are proportionately overbet and offer shorter odds than a rational calculation comparing win pool odds, but it varies by individual wagering interest and there are usually some that are relatively underbet among the 23 when tied up with the field as the winner. They tend to be few, because overall the field tends to be bet even harder in exactas than in the win pool. To determine which is which, you'd need to know how to go about calculating what the odds in one pool for one outcome imply for relative fair value in the other pool, and it is necessary to do that calculation for each separate possible outcome. And if someone asks me to help them with how to get further into that with any degree of precision (especially in this public forum) know in advance that I am going to respectfully ignore them. Nice weather we been havin' and how 'bout dem Wildcats.

I think for some people doing it a misunderstanding of the meaning of "average" when applied to odds may be involved, but I'll just leave that be for the most part, because any folks who may be doing it for that particular reason will not understand and in my experience will just become upset and frustrated by the attempt to illuminate. Briefly stated, and in oversimplified fashion, taking either the simple un-weighted arithmetic average or else the median of the 23 named betting interests does NOT come close to representing the average expected payout that will result, because they are not at all close to being equally likely random outcomes. Over time, the true average payout of "field/all" will be much less than a flawed simple "average" among the 23 numbers because the lower paying wagering interests will occur in the results much more often than will the payout for that the mythical "averaged" amount or more.

Good luck.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
Tomspur
Tomspur
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
March 19th, 2015 at 5:30:27 PM permalink
As I said before, I had planned on making only two bets and taking my chances. I enjoy finding horses who I think have a chance to make the final field, having a bet at fixed odds and sitting back while enjoying the ride.

I wanted the 200/1 about Unrivaled but was a little disappointed when i got to Westgate and was only offered 150/1. Then, to add insult to injury, they would only lay me 10,000 of the horse at each level. I took 10000/66.67 (150/1) and 10000/80 (125/1).
I also took 3400/40 about Mubtaahij. I guess I will know if this one will get a run as soon as next weekend when he runs in the UAE Derby. Unrivalled will more than likely head to Keeneland for the Blue Grass in which he will either have to win or run 2nd to have any type of chance of getting in.

So those are my bets, I'm having my wife keep the tickets for luck and she has already started to spend the money in her head :)

Indiananughty, which I also mentioned is going in the Florida Derby as far as I know.......lets see if he can improve on the dirt!
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
March 19th, 2015 at 7:09:58 PM permalink
Interesting to hear at what point they began to throttle the wagers for this. And fun to me to virtually 'listen' to it described in the non-US wagering terminology that I don't hear so often. I suspect someone out there who hasn't heard European/South African/etc. wagering descriptions before may be thinking you just pushed twenty-thousand dollars across the counter.

I trust the wifey has been around the block with this enough to know that only ONE of those will be getting cashed.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
Tomspur
Tomspur
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
March 19th, 2015 at 7:49:19 PM permalink
Quote: DrawingDead

Interesting to hear at what point they began to throttle the wagers for this. And fun to me to virtually 'listen' to it described in the non-US wagering terminology that I don't hear so often. I suspect someone out there who hasn't heard European/South African/etc. wagering descriptions before may be thinking you just pushed twenty-thousand dollars across the counter.

I trust the wifey has been around the block with this enough to know that only ONE of those will be getting cashed.



Yeah she does know. No price for which ticket she is already spending :)
It is quite different how talk about wagering even though it is basically the same thing. We are a lot more into ante post market bething than the US. One thing that does puzzle me is that the sports book does not offer place betting in the futures market. I would love to take just under a quarter of the odds for a first 4 finish. I would also imagine it would be an awesome bet type as it gives you the opportunity to cover your win bet.

Anyway, the American market will bear what it will. .....
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
Keeneone
Keeneone
Joined: Aug 16, 2014
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 1422
March 19th, 2015 at 9:12:17 PM permalink
Saturday March 21, 2015:
Turfway Park race#11 Spiral Stakes G3 (550k - 11/8mile)

1 - Royal Son
2 - Big Family
3 - Watchyourownbobber
4 - Wireless Future
5 - Another Lemon Drop
6 - Imperia - Trainer scratched this one.
7 - Magic of Believing
8 - Task Force Glory
9 - Conquest Typhoon
10 - Firespike
11 - Metaboss
12 - Dubai Sky

-I do not have a strong opinion about the possible winner or (more importantly) the Derby value of this race. The hunch play has to be Royal Son. British Royalty, Prince Charles and Camilla will be in Kentucky this Friday (Louisville). Royal Son is the tepid morning line favorite (7/2) and this is a competitive race. The 4 outside horses (9-12) have ability and are contenders.
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
March 20th, 2015 at 12:10:53 PM permalink
Quote: Keeneone

Saturday March 21, 2015:
Turfway Park race#11 Spiral Stakes G3 (550k - 11/8mile)

1 - Royal Son
2 - Big Family
3 - Watchyourownbobber
4 - Wireless Future
5 - Another Lemon Drop
6 - Imperia - Trainer scratched this one.
7 - Magic of Believing
8 - Task Force Glory
9 - Conquest Typhoon
10 - Firespike
11 - Metaboss
12 - Dubai Sky

-I do not have a strong opinion about the possible winner or (more importantly) the Derby value of this race. The hunch play has to be Royal Son. British Royalty, Prince Charles and Camilla will be in Kentucky this Friday (Louisville). Royal Son is the tepid morning line favorite (7/2) and this is a competitive race. The 4 outside horses (9-12) have ability and are contenders.

Neither do I. Slow weekend for me trying to find anything I can be serious about anywhere. Gahmbooool?! If Wireless Future (hate the name for a friggen horse) goes off at something close to his morning line of 12/1 I could be tempted to gamble a bit, and Dubai Sky might also interest me a little. And if I bet one or either or both or any in this thing, I think gambling is exactly what I'll be doing. So pawn your grandma's silver and go to the window.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 3750
March 20th, 2015 at 12:19:12 PM permalink
DD - If you looked at the field / X exacta payouts for last year pool 1, there was great value. Would anyone have predicted that Ride on Curlin would be the only pool 1 horse to make the field. My hypothesis is that who is good in November is usually not who is good in May.

This year my hypothesis has taken quite a beating. I would need Pharoah, Carpe Diem, Dortmund to not only lose, but have a different Pool 1 horse come in front of them and not win for this bet to have been a better bet than just betting $230 to win on the field. It's not looking to promising so far, but I guess there is still time.
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
March 20th, 2015 at 1:18:11 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

My hypothesis is that who is good in November is usually not who is good in May.

But you flat bet them all in the exacta. I think it is fine if you want to do that, or anything else. But that's what it was. If I was seeking to implement that hypothesis, which I agree with as a general statement, I would not choose to flat bet all the lowest prices evenly to be part of the exacta. But hey, that's my money, and yours is yours.

Last year resulted in one of the three highest odds payouts that was possible. And yet, even with that ideal result, if one was flat betting everything with the field that exacta still resulted in a return per dollar that was not all that much higher than betting field to win. Over two-thirds of the betting interests last year potentially returned less per dollar on the total cost of flat betting them all than simply betting the field alone to win, and none of the remainder with highest odds potentially paid significantly more per dollar wagered. Put another way, a lot more of the money was bet on the field to win in the exacta than in the win pool, and at a higher takeout.

I don't want to change what you want to do, for whatever reason you or anyone else may want to do so. If you like it, by all means do it. But it is what it is.

As for me, in about 26 hours I will probably choose to make a wager on a race that I have no clear opinion on, and therefore have a negative expectation in doing so, just because. Knowing that I'm doing so. I'm told it is legal to do that around here. I may even do it again some day.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 3750
March 20th, 2015 at 1:31:55 PM permalink
Quote: DrawingDead

But you flat bet them all in the exacta.



Revision: My hypothesis is that who is good in November may or may not be who is good in May. Yes, the value on the big 4 was horrible: (Pharoah, Carpe, Dortmund, Texas Red) So if I would have done field / other 19, it would have been a better "value" bet. But why cheap out on the $40?
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
March 20th, 2015 at 1:55:08 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

But why cheap out on the $40?

I believe I do understand. See my remarks on my own "weenie wagers" day before yesterday.
Quote: DrawingDead

Texas Red is most likely my fault. My punishment every year for including a few smallish gutless "to be safe(r) just in case" wagers on some combinations that I don't actually like for this strongly enough to think of wanting to bet them straight-up on the nose. It is my annual weenie-tax, that I deserve to pay to the extent I repeat that Oscar Mayer wagering behavior. They rarely make the race, and never light the board to pay on my weenie insurance policy. Ocho and Int'l Star are other little exacta weenies of mine that remain live... for the moment. In my own defense, my wager weenies do get proportionately smaller every year, and I could not be described as contributing any major part to that "serious" money in the case of TRed. Especially not with the "field."

Not that yours are weenies at all. We'll call that portion of them gourmet frankfurter wagers. With white wine Diijon, and a side dish of pate fois gras.

Here's a way one could decide to add some toppings to a wagering frankfurter to implement the same opinion of the wagering interests in an early pool. One could separate the named wagering interests into those that are seen as too heavily bet, and those that are not, then use those that are not in those exactas under the field, while taking the money that would have been used on the others to bet the field simply to win. Doing so could potentially increase the total payout whenever field is first, for the same total money, with no impact on the probability of cashing. In other words, placing the money in the pool which offers the greater value for the same outcomes. That's a thought one could consider as one alternative way of getting higher odds for betting on that same opinion, anyways. Or not.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf

  • Jump to: