Exotics

[michaelg]

I don't know if anyone bets boxed exotics. Even if no one does, this might still be of interest.

I've been testing on paper for quite some time to see if there is any field size that might be superior when boxing exotics. It seems that 10 and 11 runners is the way to go. Since last Wednesday I've been boxing 7 runners with real money on Sportingbet (I won't explain how I make the selections) in fields of 10 and 11. I've excluded Maidens and every starter must have had at least 2 career starts.

The results more or less mirror my somewhat extensive testing, which is encouraging.


Since Wednesday there have been 36 races.

Win betting:
252 bets for a return of $259.40.

Quinellas
27 successes from 36 races. Outlay of $756 for a return of $1,010

Trifectas
25 successes from 36 races. Outlay of $7560 for a return of $18,000.

First Fours
21 successes from 36 races. Outlay of $30,240 for a return of $49,900.

I've also been testing since Thursday fields of 9 runners betting 6 selections. There have only been 10 races and the results are promising.

Quinellas
Outlay of $150 for a return of $259

Trifectas
Outlay of $1,260 for a return of $1,985

First Fours
Outlay of $3,600 for a return of $5,250.

I've also looked at 12 starters betting 8 selections. It is currently showing a profit but it is too inconsistent so I'm scrapping it.

I don't look at stand-out exotics.

My selection process is nothing special, so if anyone has a system/procedure that picked multiple selections they might be interested testing them in exotics with fields of 10 and 11 runners, and maybe even 9.

[darkydog2002]

Thanks Michaelg.
Will do.
Cheers
darky

[darkydog2002]

The 5 races that qualified for me in quinellas resulted in 5 bets /3 wins /
$52.10 / $8.10 / $13.90

Box 5 = $10 X 5 times = $50 on each.
Outlay $150 /Nett $220.50

Just a pity I didn,t bet them.

darky

[michaelg]

Hi, Darky.

There's always tomorrow. Did you check Trifectas and First Fours if you had included a few more selections, particularly with the $52 quinella?

I've found that the exotic divvies in fields of 10 and 11 (and maybe 9?) can often be surprisingly high especially when an outsider runs first or second, which frequently happens. So my selection method often caters to include a few outsiders, or conversely tends not to focus too highly on the form.

And my records show it would be unusual for the top half in the market to consistently snare the trifecta or F.Four, and at times the quinella. Often, even the divvies from just the one race can almost ensure you'll have a profitable day, and its its not unusual to snare them because of the large number of selections. For example, today I won the three exotic bets at Wodonga R8 - the quinella of $130, the trifecta of $1,400 and the First Four of $7,000.

[Bhagwan]

I was reading a book that claims that their stats reveal that races with exactly 9 runners produced the most profitable results when it comes to Quinellas being boxed .

For trifectas , they claim 11-12 runners were the most profitable.

[michaelg]

Hi, Bhagwan.

That's interesting. Did they also say how many selections are boxed or were they generalising? And it would therefore also be expected that 10 runners should also have some success because they are at the mid-point of the quinella and trifecta best number of starters.

[moeee]

You have a selection system that performs best for races that contain 9 or 10 starters.
My selection system may perform best when there are 5 or 6 starters.

How you go about things is different from how I go about things.

Different strokes for different blokes.

What you need to do is try to conceive of any possible reason that the number of runners would influence your profit.
You may find that there is in fact no link at all ,regardless of your current winnings.
Your sample is so small , that it is in fact insignificant , regardless of the fact that you are doing very well.

Good Luck with it though.

[michaelg]

Moeee, I agree - different strokes... I like multiple selection betting. Laying is the same for me because laying one horse mean that every other horse is running for you.

I've tested many races before real betting for this exotic system, and the last few days I must admit were exceptional even though there's been similar days, unfortunately on paper only. But the testing period shows good profits, even with Win betting.

Bhagwan's comments are also validating the field size which someone saw important enough to publish, but even this does not necessarily guarantee the success will continue.

Out of interest, using the neural default settings on yesterday's qualifying races would have resulted in a healthy profit, so I'll list today's races with their neural selections and see how it goes.

Muswellbrook
R5/ 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11
R6/ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10

Wellington
R5/ 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11
R8/ 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11



10 starters which is still in the experimental stage.

Muswellbrook
R8/ 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9,

[TheSchmile]

If you can get the fav rolled it always adds some tang to the equation.

An angle that may work:

Focus on those races where the fav at start time is above $10 in the Neurals.

or

Fav has failed repeatedly at the distance.

If it's managed a third, go the exacta. If it hasn't placed, smash the tri.

Food for thought?

On another matter,
moeee, all that 'Different Strokes' talk has got this song stuck in my head, "Well the world don't move to the beat of just one drum......"

The Schmile

[michaelg]

TheSchmile, your suggestion has merit but I put the bets on almost as soon as I identify them because I might not be at a computer at race time, so I do not know what will start as the fave nor its price.

I had thought of omitting the pre-post fave or reducing its exposure to the bets, but even the pre-post fave often does not end up as the fave.

I had an extensive look at trifectas, and to omit the fave from running first or second improved the results considerably. Running third had little effect on the results.


Using the default neurals to determine today's selections did not do too badly.

Quinellas
Outlay $84
Return $66

Trifectas
Outlay $840
Return $1110

First Fours
Outlay $3360
Return $3490


The race of 9 starters had a profit of $3 on the quinella, $5 onb the trifecta but a loss of $360 on the F. Four.

[Debug]

My favourite in the exotics are trifectas.

I basically select 6 runners (usually the first 6 market favourites) with 2 or 3 of them set for finishing 1st and 2nd and the remainder to finish 2nd or 3rd I may include some others to finish 3rd depending on their prices. Field sizes about 8 to 14. I use flexi betting and target a return of 10 to 20 % on the trifecta dividend. The percentage return depends on the number of combinations covered. My bet is usually around $10.
I strike a few trifectas, approximately 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 depending on how things work out on the day. Like most punting there is good and bad days. I certainly will not get rich but I am manage to move my bank forward and it is entertaining. Keeps a SOB occupied.

[Try Try Again]

Hi Debug,

Do you bet on all races or are you selective on which races you hit? Also do you find a difference between Saturday and midweek races on how many you get?

[Debug]

Hi Try,
I look for races with particular gaps in runner prices. For example a race with small gaps between say the top 3 or 4 runners and larger price gaps for the rest of the field. I know then that if I strike the winner or the first 2 there is a good chance the 3rd place (or 2nd and 3rd place ) will be taken by runners with higher odds, consequently a better trifecta payout. This is not a hard and fast rule but I use it as a guide. Also keep an eye on the number of combinations I am covering. Too many will result in a smaller profit. Same as dutching.

I usually concentrate on Saturday races because of higher pools. I sometimes use Wednesday when able but don’t seem to have the same success.
Most of the bets are done on RaceTab but will switch to Unitab when they have races with jackpots, or visa versa.

[michaelg]

Out of interest I'll list my selections for today.

When keeping records, the divvies for First Fours are very deceptive. For example, yesterday I snared the exotics for Geelong R7. The F. Four pool held around $7,000 yet the divvy was $11,000. I recorded it as $3,500.

Randwick
5/ 2, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16
6/ 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10

Grafton
7/ 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13

Belmont
5/ 3, 4, 5, 6, 10
6/ 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13
7/ 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9

Dombeen
5/ 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

Sandown
1/ 2, 3, 4, 5, 8
4/ 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10
6/ 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12

Balaklava
6/ 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11
7/ 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10

I'm also recording the results for Win betting. At the moment they are showing a loss of 5% on NSW TAB from 319 bets.

Today's outlay:

Win $75
Quinellas $200
Trifectas $1770
F. Fours $6240.

Fingers crossed.

[michaelg]

Not the best of days.

With the abandonment of Balaklava the quinella outlay was $158 and the return was $157. The trifecta outlay was $1,350 and the return was $1,300. The F. Four outlay was $4,560 and the return was $480 - there was only one F.F. success from the 10 races which is well below the average of 1 in 4.

In Sandown R1 there were 2 horses for the last place in the selection process, and instead of including them I decided to omit them. Which was a pity because not only would it have snared the quinella and trifecta, but also the F.Four of $6,000, and would have meant a winning day for all three types of bets.

The faves won most of the 10 races, and in spite of snaring the winner in 9 of them the Win result showed a 22% loss.