Post by jimhorseman on Jan 7, 2007 19:21:33 GMT -5
I think we have all been in a position of liking two horses in a particular race. Is it more advantageous to play a straight/box exacta or more advantageous to play those two horses over all in the trifecta? I noticed Therealmuljuice; who won the December handicapping contest, leans to the exacta wagers. Over the years as I have had the financial ability to invest a bit more in races I have gone to the trifecta wagers. Is this wise? Being a numbers geek I have analyzed the last 20 race cards I have wagered at Northfield (mostly Friday nights) and broke out the 280 races. I'm not sure if this is enough of a statistical base to be the final word but hopefully the handicappers reading this will find it interesting.
When researching this I looked at the difference between having a $2 trifecta obtained via a wheel with the top two finishers or having an exacta equal to the investment needed to have the trifecta. For example, if a handicapper liked two horses in a typical nine horse field it would cost $14 (1 x 1 x 7 x $2) to guarantee a $2.00 trifecta payoff. Is the handicapper better off with a $14 exacta instead? I adjusted for the number of actual starters in each race.
By the way, 65.7% (184 of 280) of the races were won by horses at odds of 4-1 or less. 21.4% (60 of 280) of the races were won by horses going off at odds between four and ten to one. Finally a surprising 12.9% of the winning horses went off at over 10-1.
Of the 280 races the handicapper would have earned more in 188 of the races with the exacta against 92 times more with the trifecta wheel which is about a two to one exacta advantage.
However; the 280 trifecta's paid a cumulative $131,085.80 or an average of $468.16 each. An equivalent amount invested in the 280 exacta's paid a cumulative $119,227.80 or an average of $425.81 each.
Many people may scoff at the above and claim the trifecta numbers are skewed by a few monster numbers. There are cases where this is correct. For example the second race on Friday, Nov 24th was won by Eden Roc who paid $5.80. Prize Parable in post two ran second at 30-1 and out of post 8 Don't Ask Don't Tell ran third at 70-1. The exacta paid $69.40 and the trifecta paid $2,725. In that race if your choice was to play Eden Roc with Prize Parable with all in the trifecta the reward was significantly more than if you took the same $14 and had the exacta 7 times.
A more realistic approach may be to look at races where the favorite ran first or second. If a handicapper is locked on two horses to play as either a straight exacta or to box two horses chances are good one of them would be the race favorite. These results in theory may smooth out those races where two long priced horses ran first and second.
The post time favorite was on the exacta ticket in 168 of the 280 races I looked at. In these races the exacta bet was more profitable in 110 races versus 58 for the trifecta; close to the two to one advantage using all races. Again in real dollars the trifectas have the advantage. The 168 races where the post time favorite was first or second had trifecta's paying a cumulative $54,742.80 or an average of $325.85 each. An equivalent amount invested in the 168 exacta's paid a cumulative $48,224.80 or an average of $287.05 each.
A couple of points to keep in mind:
None of the above matters unless the handicapper actually chooses the top two finishers correctly.
If the two top horses are correctly forecast the exacta will be a better payoff dollar for dollar about two thirds of the time. However; in the long run trifecta wheels seem to provide a better return.
Many people will try to save a few dollars on a trifecta by leaving a horse or two off the wheel. This would negate the trifecta real dollar advantage as it is these improbable horses that create the large payoffs that overcome the exacta two to one overall race advantage.
Even a $1.00 straight trifecta wheel will cost anywhere from $4.00 to $7.00 depending on field size. If the handicapper wants to box two horses on top with all in a trifecta the minimum $1.00 trifecta wager is increased to $8.00 to $14.00 again depending on field size. A dollar exacta box can be made for just $2.00. Trifecta wheels require a large upfront cash investment that many may not be prepared to make.
Some of the trifecta dollar advantage may be offset by the IRS forms that need to be filled out on payoffs of over $1,200 which would have happened 18 times in the 280 races looked at. There were no exactas in my sample that paid over 600-1 triggering the tax forms.
Bottom line is that I still will personally favor the trifecta wheels. The IRS situation sadly does not really affect me as I file long form Federal tax returns and always have sufficient losses to offset gains. The betting person fights a huge battle as up to 25% of the pool is withheld before payoff. Despite the fact more is withheld from trifecta than exacta pools it seems the trifecta is the better real dollar long term wager as most people who wager either can't afford to spread or refuse to spread in trifecta races concentrating instead on favorites to fill the ticket. In my admittedly limited study there looks to be about a 10% long-term advantage to wheeling trifectas. I'll be trying to use that statistic to my financial benefit.
When researching this I looked at the difference between having a $2 trifecta obtained via a wheel with the top two finishers or having an exacta equal to the investment needed to have the trifecta. For example, if a handicapper liked two horses in a typical nine horse field it would cost $14 (1 x 1 x 7 x $2) to guarantee a $2.00 trifecta payoff. Is the handicapper better off with a $14 exacta instead? I adjusted for the number of actual starters in each race.
By the way, 65.7% (184 of 280) of the races were won by horses at odds of 4-1 or less. 21.4% (60 of 280) of the races were won by horses going off at odds between four and ten to one. Finally a surprising 12.9% of the winning horses went off at over 10-1.
Of the 280 races the handicapper would have earned more in 188 of the races with the exacta against 92 times more with the trifecta wheel which is about a two to one exacta advantage.
However; the 280 trifecta's paid a cumulative $131,085.80 or an average of $468.16 each. An equivalent amount invested in the 280 exacta's paid a cumulative $119,227.80 or an average of $425.81 each.
Many people may scoff at the above and claim the trifecta numbers are skewed by a few monster numbers. There are cases where this is correct. For example the second race on Friday, Nov 24th was won by Eden Roc who paid $5.80. Prize Parable in post two ran second at 30-1 and out of post 8 Don't Ask Don't Tell ran third at 70-1. The exacta paid $69.40 and the trifecta paid $2,725. In that race if your choice was to play Eden Roc with Prize Parable with all in the trifecta the reward was significantly more than if you took the same $14 and had the exacta 7 times.
A more realistic approach may be to look at races where the favorite ran first or second. If a handicapper is locked on two horses to play as either a straight exacta or to box two horses chances are good one of them would be the race favorite. These results in theory may smooth out those races where two long priced horses ran first and second.
The post time favorite was on the exacta ticket in 168 of the 280 races I looked at. In these races the exacta bet was more profitable in 110 races versus 58 for the trifecta; close to the two to one advantage using all races. Again in real dollars the trifectas have the advantage. The 168 races where the post time favorite was first or second had trifecta's paying a cumulative $54,742.80 or an average of $325.85 each. An equivalent amount invested in the 168 exacta's paid a cumulative $48,224.80 or an average of $287.05 each.
A couple of points to keep in mind:
None of the above matters unless the handicapper actually chooses the top two finishers correctly.
If the two top horses are correctly forecast the exacta will be a better payoff dollar for dollar about two thirds of the time. However; in the long run trifecta wheels seem to provide a better return.
Many people will try to save a few dollars on a trifecta by leaving a horse or two off the wheel. This would negate the trifecta real dollar advantage as it is these improbable horses that create the large payoffs that overcome the exacta two to one overall race advantage.
Even a $1.00 straight trifecta wheel will cost anywhere from $4.00 to $7.00 depending on field size. If the handicapper wants to box two horses on top with all in a trifecta the minimum $1.00 trifecta wager is increased to $8.00 to $14.00 again depending on field size. A dollar exacta box can be made for just $2.00. Trifecta wheels require a large upfront cash investment that many may not be prepared to make.
Some of the trifecta dollar advantage may be offset by the IRS forms that need to be filled out on payoffs of over $1,200 which would have happened 18 times in the 280 races looked at. There were no exactas in my sample that paid over 600-1 triggering the tax forms.
Bottom line is that I still will personally favor the trifecta wheels. The IRS situation sadly does not really affect me as I file long form Federal tax returns and always have sufficient losses to offset gains. The betting person fights a huge battle as up to 25% of the pool is withheld before payoff. Despite the fact more is withheld from trifecta than exacta pools it seems the trifecta is the better real dollar long term wager as most people who wager either can't afford to spread or refuse to spread in trifecta races concentrating instead on favorites to fill the ticket. In my admittedly limited study there looks to be about a 10% long-term advantage to wheeling trifectas. I'll be trying to use that statistic to my financial benefit.
