First, I agree with dd that this is a really good discussion
point. You could probably write a thesis just on the topic of
post 4's significance.
Second, I agree with Perry that dd's observation about now vs
then is also excellent. To add to dd's point - back then, even
if you got Bolivar or other star in post 4, it was probably because
of having a partner that he didn't click with, so 'buyer beware'.
Now, regarding 4 and low...
Here are the winners from some 'practice picks' I made
but did not bet over a six week period involving post 4:
Chulian Date Dow Game Pts Type Res W P1 P2 Q Ex Tri Sup S_res Pk_1 Pk_2
============================================================================================================================
98238046 24-Jan-12 tue m 6 7 2 413 8.20 6.40 5.20 17.40 56.60 245.40 0.00 0 4 6
98236808 24-Dec-11 sat m 8 7 2 415 20.20 9.40 9.40 20.40 50.00 305.40 0.00 0 4 8
98237767 17-Jan-12 tue m 7 9 1 415 6.20 5.60 3.80 16.00 26.60 164.80 627.20 4152 4 3
98237372 07-Jan-12 sat m 12 9 2 417 6.40 3.20 5.40 23.00 30.20 256.60 294.70 4175 4 7
98237344 06-Jan-12 fri e 4 9 1 418 12.40 5.20 6.00 28.20 50.80 405.40 562.90 4183 4 5
98237102 31-Dec-11 sat e 2 7 2 425 13.80 8.20 4.60 30.20 36.40 226.80 0.00 0 4 8
98238072 24-Jan-12 tue e 12 9 2 426 17.00 9.60 6.60 35.40 48.60 209.60 820.10 4261 4
98238143 26-Jan-12 thu e 3 7 2 427 19.40 5.60 3.60 29.00 50.60 385.60 0.00 0 4 2
98237351 06-Jan-12 fri e 11 7 2 432 5.40 4.40 3.60 57.20 52.40 235.40 0.00 0 4 5
98236984 28-Dec-11 wed e 4 9 1 452 8.40 4.80 5.00 59.60 139.00 524.00 676.30 4521 4 7
98236990 28-Dec-11 wed e 10 7 1 452 8.20 3.40 3.80 36.60 95.40 493.20 0.00 0 4 8
98238070 24-Jan-12 tue e 10 7 1 452 9.60 3.40 12.00 91.20 123.20 590.00 0.00 0 4 3
98237902 20-Jan-12 fri e 2 7 2 453 10.60 4.00 8.20 66.20 150.40 566.20 0.00 0 4 5
98238484 04-Feb-12 sat m 4 9 1 453 8.20 4.20 6.00 54.00 104.60 703.80 722.50 4532 4 7
98237641 14-Jan-12 sat m 1 7 1 472 14.00 9.80 8.80 40.80 118.20 1,101.00 0.00 0 4 7
98237030 29-Dec-11 thu e 10 7 1 473 14.00 11.20 15.80 38.60 116.60 276.20 0.00 0 4 8
98237792 17-Jan-12 tue e 12 9 2 482 9.80 7.00 0.00 55.60 105.20 350.00 1,666.60 4826 4 7
98237632 13-Jan-12 fri e 12 9 2 483 9.40 7.40 5.60 36.40 81.00 266.20 566.50 4835 4 8
============================================================================================================================
201.20 1,435.80 7,305.60
Based on 75 selections of post 4
Win rate = 1 / 4.17
Win = 201.20 return - 150 cost = +51.20 = ROI of +34%
Exacta wheel = 1435.80 return - 1050 cost = +385.80 = ROI of +37%
Tri wheel (4-all-all) = 7,306 return - 6,300 cost = +1,006 = ROI of +16%
4/123 tri = 900 cost - 480 return = - 420 = ROI of - 47% !!!
Since post 4 has a 'native' win rate of about 1 in 8, getting 1 out of 4.2 - even sticking with the creme de la creme - is probably about 'as good as it gets', and it's not realistic to expect that to continue.
However, it's amazing that when we force those winning picks thru the strictures of '4 and low', we lose our ass.
Even the exacta results are stunning. 4 over 1-2-3 costs 75 x $6 = $450, but only returned $402.
Of course, it goes without saying that when you add your actual $1 or $2 bet to the pool, the returns shrink even more.
Also, 'of course', nobody is going to be betting 4-all exactas, and definitely not 4-all-all trifectas. They are just listed there as a point of reference. A crude barometer.
To put this into perspective, all of my jai-alai ideas are my own original thoughts, but I always like to see what other 'theorists' have to say. Accordingly, I notice that both Sensei and the people at InsaneGambler.com suggest a 'mapping out' strategy with exactas (and by implication, their associated trifectas) where they consider certain combo's to be basically unplayable.
According to Sensei: "Note that 25 of the 56 combinations have below average (1.8%) winning frequencies. I do not normally bet on these 25 combinations, pinpointing my bets instead among the 31 combinations with above-average percentages."
So, yes, both Sensei and InsaneGambler are writing off 45, 46, 47, and 48 as no good. Hehehe.
Finally, let's drag Jim into it. Jim has spoken of making a selection and 'wagering off of it' which I believe means a list of 'good' tri numbers associated with each key post. I have a feeling that Jim might have hit EVERY ONE of those tri's if he also liked the 4, in which case he would be LHAO, while the disciples of Sensei, InsaneGambler, and Mark K. would be cursing their luck.
Weird, huh?
