By guest contributor Todd Burmester
On the Hong Kong racing scene, the quinella as a massive betting form – In Australia it does not have the same popularity but may be worth a further look. It is however, the Exacta that I think represents the best possible value out of all the bet types we have on offer. I would go as far as to say if you are currently taking quinella’s you need to stop and convert to exacta’s immediately.
Many a punter love to take the trifecta’s and first fours that our TAB’s offer with the promise of huge dividends etc, but let me tell you, I am convinced that these bet forms are often too difficult to predict at a good level of accuracy. Often, “anything” can run third or fourth in a race – that’s not often the case with first and second place that exacta’s deal with.
Most of us have our rating method or opinion on which horse or horses can win a race – so given the quinella is the first two in any order, realistically it is lazy not to take the exacta with those you feel can actually win the race in the top line of your bet.
The thing about exactas however, as it is with every form of betting, is to look for value. I had a data sample provided to me of over 5000 races and in those there were 3% of races where the exacta actually paid less than the quinella. This was largely due to the starting price of the winner. In fact, in those 3% of races, the average starting price of the winner was a whole point shorter than in the races where the exacta paid more than the quinella.
For the record, in the same sample of races, the average quinella dividend was around $38 where as the average exact dividend was over double at about $77. In the case where the winner of the race was odds on however the average gap between the exacta and the quinella was only $3, in favour of the exacta. There is great value in this bet form, when the less popular runner as seen by the market, wins the race.
Whichever you prefer to take, quinella’s or exacta’s, my other word of advice is that boxing your selections is another lazy way to bet. Consider the above example where we have just looked at the fact that when odds on shots win, the exacta and quinella pays similarly, if you have an odds on shot in your selections, you will clearly want to have more on the combinations with it winning, than those with your 20/1 shot winning, that’s just basic punting 101. Consider however whether you are going to get “value” at all, with the “shortie” on top. It just may be worth the risk of including it only in your selections for second, in order to maximise your long term profits – this may give you a lower strike rate overall but a better return on investment and that’s what pays the bills!
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ve always preferred taking quinellas because to me they represent more value than an exacta.
In a quinella, I usually take the favourite as a standout with the next 2 in the market (usually an odds on favourite) for the same stake…e.g. the fav. is 1 the next 2 are 2 and 3…I take 1 with 2 for 100 units and 1 with 3 for 100 units…..let’s say one of those combos gets up and the quinella pays 4.00 meaning that my 200 units outlay becomes 400 units, a profit of 2 units.
Now in order to win on the exacta the exacta would have to pay at least 8.00 to give me the same profit as my quinellas…e.g. exacta 1 with 2 for 100 units…..exacta 1 with 3 for 100 units…outlay is 200 units….let’s say the exacta pays 7.60 meaning a return of $760 exacta as opposed to $800 quinella….this has been my experience for the last 10 years or so and I never bet exactas…unless the exacta is paying double the quinella on the tote screens it’s not worth it…long live quinellas….
Hi Steven
In your example and comments regarding exactas, you seem to be referring to boxing the exacta, rather than taking a banker/standout to win the race. As mentioned in my original comments, boxing as a lazy mans game and a certain way to lose. You’ll find more value in exactas rather than quinellas long term by taking bankers/standouts, not boxing.
As a further note to my comments above let’s look at warwick farm race 4 last saturday….following my method
you would take 2 Streama 1.50 fav. with the next two in the market that being 3 hallowell belle and 5 sea siren.
let’s say we put $100 on 2 and 3 and $100 on 2 and 5…..2 won with 5 2nd and 3 3rd (easy trifecta by the way)..
the quinella paid 3.30 in nsw and the exacta paid 4.00…I got a return of $330 for my $200 outlay but to cover all combinations in an exacta would cost me $50 each combo…..2-5, 2-3, 5-2,5-3….my $50 would have returned only $200 getting my money back and no profit….
Yeah Steve I agree with you the only time the exacta is real value is when you put your single selection on top with your second selections 2 or 3 runners @1unit each and in most cases if you collect you will get better value than having 3 unit to win on that top pick. If you rove your top pick for 1 unit it doubles your outlay so you may as well take the quinella for 2 units as it normally pays more than 50% of the exacta div. Roving exactas are a bit like taking insurance if your top pick wins you loose half that wager so then you hope your top pick gets beat just so you get a better div. At the end of the day just take the Quinella
@ Todd
yea…for me in order to get the same bet as a quinella I would have to box the exacta which is why i love the quinella…….i get 2 combinations for the price of 1…for $1 dollar I get combo. 1-2 and 2-1…in order to get the same combos in an exacta i would have to pay$1 for each combo which would double my outlay…I understand that by betting just the one combo exacta I may get more value but if I have them the wrong way round I lose and then I wish I would have taken the quinella……I only use this method in races where there are
around 11 starters and the fav. is at odds on and there are a clear next 2 in the market….I’m usually better off doing this than say backing the fav straight out as Shane points out….
Steven – The question to ask might be whether following the first 3 in the market, particularly at prohibitive odds, provides any value at all in the long term? I don’t debate it produces a great strike rate, but value is another thing all together. In regards to the combinations you point out, part of the key to the exacta is having a strong enough selection process to separate out, what can win the race vs. what are the chances to run second.
Something else to consider, is the dividends quinellas pay vs their true probability of the combination being successful. Over time, one can definitely prove that exactas pay better “overs” in comparison to the true odds than quinellas.
I will often stand out the favourite in the trifecta/first4, then have the fav 2nd in my exactas, so ill get the value in the exacta or less combinations in the other exotics. favourite running second can change the div from $10 to $40, yet quinella div would be the same
yep, I understand about true odds and betting the overs but because I do all my ratings calculations etc.
manually I don’t always have time to go through the mathematical formulas to find the true odds but, just for the sake of this exercise and going back to the warwick farm race I mentioned above.
Rick rated Streama at 1.75 Sea Siren at 5.00 and Hallowell belle at 7.00…
The tote had Streama at 1.50 Sea Siren at 6.50 and Hallowell belle also at 6.50 so
in hindsight, the streama hallowell belle combo was always unders and I should never have bet that combo.
The streama Sea Siren was the obvious way to go sreama slightly unders but sea siren definite overs which
would have made the combo overs as well….but…since I haven’t worked out the true quinella odds I have no way of knowing if the combo was really overs and whether the exacta (another formula) was overs at the 4.00…..
I get your point, I do, and I can see the value in rating the true quinella /exacta odds and backing the overs
but I just haven’t got access to a computer which has a program where I can instantly get the true odds about any combination and then bet the overs…
Todd,
mate you have proved your own point. If you want to tip winners much more profitable to just back for the win. The quinella is great value especially if you think the fav is unders/or won’t win. I am always looking first and foremost how the fav can be beat.
More Aussie punters should change percentage of bet from win to q. Just try it – say bet still 100 units per race but have 25 on the q. You will save more often and have a more profitable strategy.
Also sometimes some great standout quinellas.
Melbourne r4 tonight will be a good exercise for me…Kulgrinda will be the odds on favourite and there are 2 clear 2nd and 3rd picks….instead of having my usual 100 on the 2 combos I will wait for Rick’s ratings on this race, pull out my worn copy of Don Scott’s Winning More, find the mathematical formulas for true quin. and exacta odds and hopefully have time to manually work them out before the race. I will then back the overs which leads me to my next point…..which bookies offer fixed quinella/exacta odds…I’m pretty sure IAS of which I am a member, doesn’t.
Rick’s ratings for tonights melbourne meeting are up…I’ve manually worked out the true quinella and exacta odds for melbourne race 4.
Rick has 1 Kulgrinda at 1.90…..2 Happy Angel at 7.00 and 3 Queen Delight at 6.00…
The true QUINELLA odds for 1 and 2 are $4.06
The true QUINELLA odds for 1 and 3 are $3.44
The true EXACTA odds for 1 and 2 are $6.35
The true EXACTA odds for 1 and 3 are $5.22
The true EXACTA odds for 2 and 1 are $11.57
The true EXACTA odds for 3 and 1 are $9.53
We’ll see how this pans out….
Hi all
It’s been an interesting conversation. For the record, I calcuated the “true odds” for the Stream/Sea Siren quinella exacta based on UniTab(Tattsbet) odds, where they were $1.50 and $5 respectively.
In a 117% market which is what the TAB offers – I made the true quinella odds $2.94 and $4.37 for the exacta.
The final divs were $2.90 and $4.50, which in this case did show the exacta to be better “value”. In my experience this is definitely often the case in many more examples.
Cheers
Todd
One detrimental fact for Exacta investing that should never be overlooked are the size of the Exacta pools.
They are generally around 25% (20% to 35% are the usual outside perimeters) of the corresponding Quinella pools on Totalisators within Australia.
Because of this fact, Exacta pools probably contain a smaller percentage of clever money than found in the Quinella pools, but on the flipside, you’re own winning investment is probably greatly affecting the final dividends!
With midweek metro events generally in Sydney containing pools of between only $2000 to $5000, a winning Exacta investment as low as $50 on an outside combination in one of the smaller pools might cut the final dividend in half!