Don Scott exotics
 

Recently it was said that Don Scott's ratings were up there. But because they are openly available and therefore overbet the value just is not there. While looking at Bestform I noticed that their top two picks had their share of winners but you had to cull the bets. Their third and fourth picks also their share as well. On a notable basis (recognising patterns) the first two came first and second or visversa. also noticable was that all four got up. Occassionly they were in the correct order. On Betselector you can see that this trend carries true. I was not looking at exotics so the exercise was moot.
As I have progressed I can see that good punters and the herd can pick the most likely winners and collectively destroy the value by overbacking those few horses.
In exotics it is different because most punters are having multiple bets per race which results in one winning bet and hundreds in some cases of bets against the winning combination. Adding to the value.
Simply put If you took a rating service ie Don Scott or the neural ratings or one of the many different free services and bet the top two on an exacta, the top three on a tri and the top four in that order and placed a single bet.
In that case for the same cost as large legged multi you can have a single bet in many races. There may be a long spell between drinks but there may be enough regular drinks.
Am I correct in this or is it the same as saying TAB#1 wins a lot.
Can somebody with a database and the knowhow check this please? and comments are welcome.
Regards Beton

My major successes with Trifectas is to confine them to 10 horse races with everyone of them a minimum $3 and no upper limit very close to the jump.

10 Horse races work very well too with Unitab tipsters selections.

In both cases the later races in most cases are more profitable.

Cheers
darky

trifectas
 

there is no better rating service than the betting public.
In 16265 races all venues all tracks,all weather,all distances and 7-14 runners the fav won 5151 times 2nd fav 3098 3rd fav 2216 4th fav 1670 and the 5th fav won 1247 times. This is 82.28% win rate. The fav win rate is 31.67%. But as more Joe Public has got it correct the win rate changes. at $1.50 it is 62%, at $2 it is 42%, at $3 29%, at $4 20.8% and down to 14% at $5. But you follow Joe Public then you just give your hard earnt away.
In a straight trifecta with the first three favorites you should get a 2% strike rate. It is then pot luck whether you get any value ie 2 x $50 divvie or a $100 divvie. If you box the first three then you increase your strike rate to about 7% at the cost of increasing your outlay 6 times. If you drop the favorite and box the next top three then you halve the strike rate but increase the divvie. but again you have increased your outlay by 6 times.
As you go wider you increase your chances and increase your outlay. Most systems I have seen on exotics show one or two real big divvie that they snared. These biggie's distort the reality and should be treated as the serendipity that they are.

Reframing my query. If a reliable rating system was used instead of market to select the top three as a straight trifecta, then it should follow that the about 2% strike rate would also be consistant. Say the likes of Don Scott's ratings which are fact based and not emotion based as the market is. These ratings do not always follow the market and therefore a consistant reliable stream of selections that are not overbet, is available. Should these selections follow a 2% strike rate as a straight trifecta? Ditto the neurals or any rating service. Short of a trial run is there a quick way to check this out?

Regards Beton

I know one thing,with a fact based rating as you call it you will greatly improve your trifecta strike rate if you rule out races where the facts are not as clear cut.

Leaving out maidens,2 and 3yo races will perhaps reduce your bets by a third but leave you with a higher strike rate and more chance of profit in your other races.

From that point a study of field size should show certain field sizes ie the larger ones to be more profitable.

As my old mother used to say (and she was no slouch on the punt)
"The best rating service is the bookmakers OPENING prices"
After that its just market flow - hunch tips,tips from mugs,following the money etc etc

Hi beton hope this helps.

Whilst a few years old this was a 1,000 odd races recorded in a row t/out aus

D.F.S form service the selection criteria all distances all field sizes.

box top=3

Trifecta races= 1121.
Winning races= 60w
s/rate = 5.4%
profit-loss = +$275.
P.t.o = 4.1%
Highest div = $856.1
Lowest div = $12.2
Average div = $116.6
Longest outs = 88

Standout nos =1 selection for first( box second + third)

Trifecta races= 1121
winning races= 26w
s/rate = 2.3%
profit-loss = $999
P.t.o = 44.5%
Highest div =$526.6
Lowest div =$15.5.
Average div =$124.6.
Longest outs = 140

Box Top =4.

Trifecta races = 1121
Winning races =107w
Srate = 9.5%
Profit-loss = +$737
P.t.o = 4.2%
Highest div = $2011.1
Lowest div = $12.2
Average div = $171
Longest outs = 72

Standout nos =1 selection for first (box second + third + fourth)

Trifecta races = 1121
Winning races =43w
s/rate = 3.8%
Profit- loss =$1872
P.o.t = 40.3
Highest div = $566.7
Lowest div = $15.5
Average div = $151.6
Longest outs = 136

Because of the long runs of outs i stopped recording.
A mate of mine into the exotics continued for a year or so.
He has now stopped as all the above are in a loss situation
unless you want to apply filters to make them profitable.
While not exactly what you want it is a set of ratings to compare

cheers
garyf

Beton.
Just checked my data the figures i quoted were for races in
Sydney melb brisbane adelaide saturday meets only.
It was a fluke win period a year or so later all these lost still are.
Sorry the data that was all australia wide was a place% database.

Garyf Thanks. It is exactly what I needed. Though not the result that I wanted. Straight tri bet 1,2,& 3 would be less than the 1.9% I gestimated. For this to have a chance short priced fav races will have to be passed.

fav = <$2.50 3950 races as above for 2146 wins 54.4%
Fav = between $2.50 and $3 3720 races for 1169 wins = 31%

Just cutting races where fav is <$2.50 will still give 75% of the races. This will increase the divvie but what will it do to the strike rate?

Using <$3 as a filter leaves 53% of the races of which the fav only wins 21.3%.
The only trouble then is that one would have to sit at the computor all day.

Maybe a PP filter <$2.50 PP no bet

Regards Beton

Hi beton unfortunately i don't bet the exotics as i freely admit i don't have the psycological make up to withstand the runs of outs.

A punting mate of mine who bets only the exotics told me that getting the fav beat wasn't the problem getting the fav out of a place was the hard part.

Dales probably right with the field size rule i suspect as well

Another approach may be taking trifectas when the fav is at a large s/price.

Here's some statistical data to back it up.

Fav up to $3.0 38.2% = win 69% = place.( loss= 9.6%) win only
Fav over $3.0 22% =win 52% =place ( loss =17%)
Fav over $4.0 18% =win 45% =place (loss = 18%)
Fav over $5.0 16% =win 41% =place (loss =18%)

betting all fav's all odds
55,162 races
17,172 wins
31% s/rate.
Av tab= $2.8.
Av s/p=$2.8 (That came as a shock)
loss = 12.3%

34,042 places
62% s/rate place
Av tab=$1.49
Loss=8%

If you do the( price breakdown of the fav's) to the all breakdown their may be an advantage for trifecta betting but without monitoring on course
prices i am not sure about the prepost especially with scratchings.

Food for thought i guess.

Cheers
Garyf.

Garyf
I cannot see how you can drop the fav out of the equation. By dropping the shorter favs <$2.50 and the races with <10 runners we should then eliminate the small divvies. we then have 55% of the races left. Then it is a case of getting +$100 payouts and at least 1% strike rate This would be the bread and butter and hopefully a bit of serendipity comes with it.