300 dollar horse at GP3

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Payson Dave

There is logic and then there is female logic...let's not confuse the two...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.just kiddin now

Hate to admit it, but you're right. Oh well... such is life.

Listening to others' opinions cost me money yesterday. They can gft with their percentages and longterm ROI.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Stop using logic, Lori!

i know, i know....

randal also has a point.. its nice to cash the place ticket because the exacta will hit less often.. but still the ROI should (will) be higher over time with the exacta hits.

but as GRITS stated before, you would ONLY hedge this exacta bet if there is a clear cut favorite (1.50-1). many races have a few horses lingering at favoritism and then its up in the air, so you wouldnt be confident with that bet.

i dont know if in that case you would add a place bet or just not bet the race at all, or bet your horse just to win? I'd need someone more experienced to answer that (Kasept, BTW)

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Payson Dave

There is logic and then there is female logic...let's not confuse the two...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.just kiddin now

my brain does not work like the typical female.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

i know, i know....

randal also has a point.. its nice to cash the place ticket because the exacta will hit less often.. but still the ROI should (will) be higher over time with the exacta hits.

but as GRITS stated before, you would ONLY hedge this exacta bet if there is a clear cut favorite (1.50-1). many races have a few horses lingering at favoritism and then its up in the air, so you wouldnt be confident with that bet.

i dont know if in that case you would add a place bet or just not bet the race at all, or bet your horse just to win? I'd need someone more experienced to answer that (Kasept, BTW)

I dunno, but we should have been like little ole grannies yesterday and bet Swaparoo to show.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I think you are mistaking what I am saying here. I just don't know if I think putting a favorite on top for no other reason than he is the favorite is logical.

if its the HEAVY favorite (1.50-1 or less) then most likely its the top class in the race, and that seems like a logical play. again, if there is no clear favorite i am not sure what you'd do.. play the one you think is best? just a win on the longshot? again, grits, kasept or btw help?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I think you are mistaking what I am saying here. I just don't know if I think putting a favorite on top for no other reason than he is the favorite is logical.

I see your point and agree, but I don't think that's the point they're trying to make here.

[Antitrust32]

i would like to see the percentages on how often the heavy favorite win (3/2 or less) i understand the favorite wins about 1/3 of the time, but IMO there is a big different between a heavy favorite and just a "favorite"

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you have the advantage with the 250 sample size because as you know, there is only one favorite per race (sometimes not a clear favorite) and there are more than 1 10-1 shot in each race. so you have to figure, is the one longshot that gets the place really the one you would have played? do you take into consideration all those $2WP bets you lost cause the majority of the 10-1 shots ran third or off the board?

i think there are two things wrong with this logic-

sample size doesn't give anyone a distinct advantage- the more races you include, the more accurate the results will be- but the sample size doesn't favor one side or the other. there will still only be one favorite in the other 750 races if you do a thousand and still be more than one 10-1 shot. . .

also, neither side has the advantage because there is more than one 10-1 shot in each race and only one favorite. . . both sides get all the long shots and the fave is the most likely winner. . .

not sure if that makes total sense but it does to me

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

i think there are two things wrong with this logic-

sample size doesn't give anyone a distinct advantage- the more races you include, the more accurate the results will be- but the sample size doesn't favor one side or the other. there will still only be one favorite in the other 750 races if you do a thousand and still be more than one 10-1 shot. . .

also, neither side has the advantage because there is more than one 10-1 shot in each race and only one favorite. . . both sides get all the long shots and the fave is the most likely winner. . .

not sure if that makes total sense but it does to me

ya that makes sense. but do you still get what i was trying to say with the other 10 paragraphs in this thread?

also regarding sample size, these 250 examples may be up in a few days of racing ya know? i think i would be more accurate using one month's worth or at least 3 weeks. but, the size is fine that was the original "bet" - (maybe something grits should have thought about before the rules were set )

[hockey2315]

I agree that the sample size may not yield completely accurate results. . but it doesn't favor one side or the other is all I'm saying. . .

Personally I don't think either strategy is totally correct. . . I'll explain mine later if I feel like it. . .

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

i would like to see the percentages on how often the heavy favorite win (3/2 or less) i understand the favorite wins about 1/3 of the time, but IMO there is a big different between a heavy favorite and just a "favorite"

Anti, the one big exacta that happened was a 3-1 over a 25-1. Those are the ones she needs....not the other way around. The big faves won't get it done for her...

And regarding the sample size...this will easily take a month. 32 in 4 days of busy racing works out to a month easy...Like I said, I'd be willing to go to 350 or 400 but not if its clear cut at 250....

[Antitrust32]

[quote=randallscott35]Anti, the one big exacta that happened was a 3-1 over a 25-1. Those are the ones she needs....not the other way around. The big faves won't get it done for her...

And regarding the sample size...this will easily take a month. 32 in 4 days of busy racing works out to a month easy...Like I said, I'd be willing to go to 350 or 400 but not if its clear cut at 250....[/QUOTE]

you are correct randall, i confused the Total Races So Far--111 for being the sample size. 250 should be a good size

as far as the 3-1 over the 25-1 goes, you are right, those are the ones she needs. which is funny because those are the ones she wouldnt play. also i believe she said for the bet to be made it would have to be a 20-1 shot or higher.. anyways this is a very good study and good luck to both. I am thinking about going though a few months of races to find out the percentage that heavy favorites win at compared to "favorites"

[randallscott35]

[quote=Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Anti, the one big exacta that happened was a 3-1 over a 25-1. Those are the ones she needs....not the other way around. The big faves won't get it done for her...

And regarding the sample size...this will easily take a month. 32 in 4 days of busy racing works out to a month easy...Like I said, I'd be willing to go to 350 or 400 but not if its clear cut at 250....[/QUOTE]

you are correct randall, i confused the Total Races So Far--111 for being the sample size. 250 should be a good size

as far as the 3-1 over the 25-1 goes, you are right, those are the ones she needs. which is funny because those are the ones she wouldnt play. also i believe she said for the bet to be made it would have to be a 20-1 shot or higher.. anyways this is a very good study and good luck to both. I am thinking about going though a few months of races to find out the percentage that heavy favorites win at compared to "favorites"

The ones she needs are the ones she doesn't play---in a nut shell, that is why in real life her method makes even less sense....But I didn't mean to start this in this thread---just a joke with Grits, should've put it in the main thread--carry on.

[Antitrust32]

[quote=randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

The ones she needs are the ones she doesn't play---in a nut shell, that is why in real life her method makes even less sense....But I didn't mean to start this in this thread---just a joke with Grits, should've put it in the main thread--carry on.

its all good.. "300 dollar horse at GP3" made for a good discussion today