Jack Liebau "Some wagers are more fun than others"

[Stillriledup]

This was Jack's logic as to why the Pick 5 in So Cal might still be something you should play whether the takeout is 14% or 23%.

Its a people wager, he said.

(Jack was on Roger Stein this morning)

"Besides the takeout Roger, and i'm not arguing with you, but i mean, there are some bets that are more fun than others"

So, if i'm adding 2 and 2 correctly, Jack Leibau's stance is that because the Pick 5 is a 'fun' wager, its perfectly acceptable for fans to pay 14, or 23 or whatever number they want to take out and the 'fun factor' is why you shouldnt really care too much about what they're charging takeoutwise.

I dont know about you guys, but i think i'd have more fun at 14%...but, maybe that's just me.

[Twenty Seven]

Obviously, the lower the takeout, the better. But many people have the misconception that a 23% takeout on a pick 3, 4 , or 5 equals a 23% takeout on a win bet, or an exactor or superfecta. Wrong. A pick four is only taxed once on those four races, so a 23% bite of a pick 4, for example, works out to a total (four race) take of about 6%.

Also, and this, I've found, is almost as important as comparative pick 4 or 5 takeouts between one track and another. Some tracks consistently pay out more generously on those horizontals than do other tracks (parlay price vs pick 4 or 5 payout), even with comparable takeouts. My guess is that bettors in some states and with certain tracks don't have as much knowledge, or plan of attack, in how to play them than they do for other tracks.

[Stillriledup]

Obviously, the lower the takeout, the better. But many people have the misconception that a 23% takeout on a pick 3, 4 , or 5 equals a 23% takeout on a win bet, or an exactor or superfecta. Wrong. A pick four is only taxed once on those four races, so a 23% bite of a pick 4, for example, works out to a total (four race) take of about 6%.

Also, and this, I've found, is almost as important as comparative pick 4 or 5 takeouts between one track and another. Some tracks consistently pay out more generously on those horizontals than do other tracks (parlay price vs pick 4 or 5 payout), even with comparable takeouts. My guess is that bettors in some states and with certain tracks don't have as much knowledge, or plan of attack, in how to play them than they do for other tracks.

Here's what i dont understand about your 'taxed once' and how it works out to 6%

Lets say there's a pick 4 with four 9 horse fields. There are 6,561 possible combinations/outcomes. Its 4 seperate races, but all things being equal, you have a 1 in 6,561 chance of picking the winning combination. In the Ky Derby, there are 20 horses which means that in order to select a winning trifecta, a 20 horse box is 6,840 potential outcomes (a similar number of combos to our pick 4 example).

Now, what's the difference if its 1 race or 4 races? You betting on a BET not a race, you are betting the pick 4 with 6,561 outcomes or betting a trifecta in the Derby with 6,840 outcomes.....its a similar amount of outcomes, between 6,000 and 7,000 possibilities, what's the difference if it takes 1 race to complete or 2 hours (4 races)?

[Twenty Seven]

I don't have the patience or time to relay all of the particular math involved, but think of a pick four race as a four horse win parlay, which, in fact, it is. Now with traditional win betting, after every one of your four races, races you have all won (since you're only taxed on winning wagers), the track puts their filthy mitts on (to use a lower-than-many-tracks takeout) about 17% of your profits. After those four races, and directly comparing it to the total 23% or 25% pick four one-time bite, your 17% takeout has increased to 48%. If that seems amazing, now you know why bettors who just plug along with the average crowd (being at the exact mean, but because of takeout, losing 17% of every dollar they win on every single-race bet) tap out at a quick and shocking rate.

[cj]

I don't have the patience or time to relay all of the particular math involved, but think of a pick four race as a four horse win parlay, which, in fact, it is. Now with traditional win betting, after every one of your four races, races you have all won (since you're only taxed on winning wagers), the track puts their filthy mitts on (to use a lower-than-many-tracks takeout) about 17% of your profits. After those four races, and directly comparing it to the total 23% or 25% pick four one-time bite, your 17% takeout has increased to 48%. If that seems amazing, now you know why bettors who just plug along with the average crowd (being at the exact mean, but because of takeout, losing 17% of every dollar they win on every single-race bet) tap out at a quick and shocking rate.

Well, when you do have time, please lay it out. I think many here will think you are going way overboard on the benefits of the P4.

[Twenty Seven]

Well, when you do have time, please lay it out. I think many here will think you are going way overboard on the benefits of the P4.

Let's use a more simplified example, for purposes of illustration. (This is adapted from Steven Crist's Exotic Betting.)

If the takeout on every race (on win betting, in this example) is 20%, then after every "break even" cash-out, with an original bankroll of $200, $40 is extracted. With $160 remaining, and the same result next race, $32 is taken from the bettor, leaving him with $128. And so on, until after 10 races, the lucky bettor has $21.48 left. This is the dramatic effect of the 17% (or 20%, in this case). 17% sounds a bit rich, but bearable, until the bettor sees how it operates under even a mild run of two or three racing days. Of course, if the bettor is close to break even, the reduction is much less severe, and less noticeable. But in the long run, the losses pile up, especially if the bets are large. That's why a big bettor with a smaller minus ROI (without rebates, of course) is much worse off than Joe Blo punter who loses 25% of every wagered dollar, but who only goes to the track with a few hundred once a week.

With a pick four, again, the bite only happens once in a four race sequence. Years ago it took me a long time to wrap my head around this. "25% take! Ridiculous!" But, to change the example from my first post, think of the P4 takeout another way -- the first three races, say, tax free, before the final race 25% hit. Any way you look at it, with a four-race four-times-taxed win parlay, an original bankroll of $100 will, after those four separate bites at 17% , be reduced to (don't have the calculator handy) about $83, then $70 (17% takeout from $83 dollars now, not the original $100), then $58 (17% off $70), then $49. (I originally said $52 in my 1st post, but it seems it's even worse).

So, bottom line, it's $75 remaining with the 25% P4 cut ($100 minus the one-time takoout), vs $49 with the four-times 17% takeout. Still not something to rave about in the grand scheme of things, but a lot better in comparison with single race betting.

But further advantages of the P4 go beyond pure math. Psychologically, the competition does a lot of interesting things in the way they bet the P4. (Obviously, it doesn't have any direct relationship with the win pool.) The post is long enough, so I won't go on. But many P4s will pay 200%, 300%, and even higher on their comparison with the same four race sequence in a win parlay payout.

[AndyC]

Obviously, the lower the takeout, the better. But many people have the misconception that a 23% takeout on a pick 3, 4 , or 5 equals a 23% takeout on a win bet, or an exactor or superfecta. Wrong. A pick four is only taxed once on those four races, so a 23% bite of a pick 4, for example, works out to a total (four race) take of about 6%.

Also, and this, I've found, is almost as important as comparative pick 4 or 5 takeouts between one track and another. Some tracks consistently pay out more generously on those horizontals than do other tracks (parlay price vs pick 4 or 5 payout), even with comparable takeouts. My guess is that bettors in some states and with certain tracks don't have as much knowledge, or plan of attack, in how to play them than they do for other tracks.

Do you bet real money?

[Stillriledup]

Let's use a more simplified example, for purposes of illustration. (This is adapted from Steven Crist's Exotic Betting.)

If the takeout on every race (on win betting, in this example) is 20%, then after every "break even" cash-out, with an original bankroll of $200, $40 is extracted. With $160 remaining, and the same result next race, $32 is taken from the bettor, leaving him with $128. And so on, until after 10 races, the lucky bettor has $21.48 left. This is the dramatic effect of the 17% (or 20%, in this case). 17% sounds a bit rich, but bearable, until the bettor sees how it operates under even a mild run of two or three racing days. Of course, if the bettor is close to break even, the reduction is much less severe, and less noticeable. But in the long run, the losses pile up, especially if the bets are large. That's why a big bettor with a smaller minus ROI (without rebates, of course) is much worse off than Joe Blo punter who loses 25% of every wagered dollar, but who only goes to the track with a few hundred once a week.

With a pick four, again, the bite only happens once in a four race sequence. Years ago it took me a long time to wrap my head around this. "25% take! Ridiculous!" But, to change the example from my first post, think of the P4 takeout another way -- the first three races, say, tax free, before the final race 25% hit. Any way you look at it, with a four-race four-times-taxed win parlay, an original bankroll of $100 will, after those four separate bites at 17% , be reduced to (don't have the calculator handy) about $83, then $70 (17% takeout from $83 dollars now, not the original $100), then $58 (17% off $70), then $49. (I originally said $52 in my 1st post, but it seems it's even worse).

So, bottom line, it's $75 remaining with the 25% P4 cut ($100 minus the one-time takoout), vs $49 with the four-times 17% takeout. Still not something to rave about in the grand scheme of things, but a lot better in comparison with single race betting.

But further advantages of the P4 go beyond pure math. Psychologically, the competition does a lot of interesting things in the way they bet the P4. (Obviously, it doesn't have any direct relationship with the win pool.) The post is long enough, so I won't go on. But many P4s will pay 200%, 300%, and even higher on their comparison with the same four race sequence in a win parlay payout.

But if a bettor at Track A makes 4 win bets, he loses 17% four times. Lets say the bettor at the track across the street makes 4 bets, he bets 4 cold pick 4 tickets (lets say a track has a rolling pick 4).....he also loses 17% four times..it just takes him longer (in hours) to lose it. The pick 4 guy has to 'suffer' thru a 16 race sequence to lose 17% four times, while the other guy just loses his 17% quicker.

They both lose 17% four times.

[Twenty Seven]

Yes. Why?

( In response to AndyC)

[Twenty Seven]

But if a bettor at Track A makes 4 win bets, he loses 17% four times. Lets say the bettor at the track across the street makes 4 bets, he bets 4 cold pick 4 tickets (lets say a track has a rolling pick 4).....he also loses 17% four times..it just takes him longer (in hours) to lose it. The pick 4 guy has to 'suffer' thru a 16 race sequence to lose 17% four times, while the other guy just loses his 17% quicker.

They both lose 17% four times.

My comparisons are based on the average bettor. That is, one who loses exactly what the takeout figures to be. Most bettors fall in line with this crowded area on the bell curve. But even the winning bettor is punished. A bettor 10% above the crowd loses, after takeout. A bettor 17% ahead of the average has all his profits wiped out.

My example shows how, with x amount of dollars bet, more will be lost in the win only example than in the P4 example. I'm not sure why this is hard to get around if you just compare it strictly mathematically. You can rejig all the hypotheticals you want, but in any equal-amount outlay, the conclusion can't be argued.

There's no getting around the math here. In this fixed example, the set amounts are the same, and the four races are the same. In one example, you're losing half your money, in the other, you're losing a quarter of it.

(By the way, there are no rolling p4s.)

[AndyC]

There's no getting around the math here.

A P-4 is one bet. An exacta is one bet. A win bet is one bet. Why are you trying to compare one P-4 bet with 4 win bets? Are there really morons out there betting irrevocable win parlays on 4 races in a row? Extrapolating using your analysis the track should offer a $.10 P-9 with a 90% takeout because that would be much better for the bettor than a 9 race win parlay.

[Twenty Seven]

A P-4 is one bet. An exacta is one bet. A win bet is one bet. Why are you trying to compare one P-4 bet with 4 win bets? Are there really morons out there betting irrevocable win parlays on 4 races in a row? Extrapolating using your analysis the track should offer a $.10 P-9 with a 90% takeout because that would be much better for the bettor than a 9 race win parlay.

That's beside the point I'm making. Of course it's not the optimal wagering strategy to parlay four win bets if for no other reason than you'll have stronger opinions on one or two races than on all four of them. That's one strike against serial P4 bets and for single win betting. But there are many advantages for P4 wagering, and against win betting, beyond what I've outlined above. Apples and oranges, and in no way does it negate the factual math I've detailed.

As for the P9 example you use, there's a point at which comparable value breaks down. The problem with P9s, even P6s to some extent, is that the long droughts and chance elements affect the bottom line so much that a gigantic bankroll (or aligned syndicate) is needed to withstand the inevitable losing streaks. Also, luck increasingly plays a part unless you're willing to use a long life as a semi-representative sample. Luck plays a bigger part than usual even in P4 betting, but the old saying "you need to be good to be lucky" often applies.

You could also look at win betting, without parlaying profits, as a constant grind. Even when you only reinvest your usual amount into the next win bet after a previous win ($20, $200, whatever), an average bettor is still going to be using a shrinking bankroll in which to play their next bet from. So just as it's everyone's dream to increase the size of their bets ala Kelly or when some set point of profits have been reached, it also has to be mentioned that bets or bet sizes will either (a) have to be shelved until the next bankroll can be financed, (b) be maintained with a steadily depleting bankroll, or (c) shrunk in line with the diminishing bankroll.

With a P4, one has a chance of maximizing profits (or minimizing losses) on the same horses they're betting in those same races in the win pool.

[AndyC]

With a P4, one has a chance of maximizing profits (or minimizing losses) on the same horses they're betting in those same races in the win pool.

In a P-4 one can win much more but they take on much more risk. More risk means less winners and far greater losing streaks. I can bet my 4 horses to win and lose on 3 out of the 4 bets and still go home a winner. You lose 1 and you are gone. Your math doesn't work. The takeout is not minimized because a bet is a serial bet. If the takeout is 23% the winners will have 23% less of the pot to split up.

[AndyC]

Apples and oranges, and in no way does it negate the factual math I've detailed.

You could also look at win betting, without parlaying profits, as a constant grind. Even when you only reinvest your usual amount into the next win bet after a previous win ($20, $200, whatever), an average bettor is still going to be using a shrinking bankroll in which to play their next bet from. So just as it's everyone's dream to increase the size of their bets ala Kelly or when some set point of profits have been reached, it also has to be mentioned that bets or bet sizes will either (a) have to be shelved until the next bankroll can be financed, (b) be maintained with a steadily depleting bankroll, or (c) shrunk in line with the diminishing bankroll.

How often would you expect to hit a P-4? Certainly not more often than a win bet. So wouldn't the P-4 player be using a faster shrinking bankroll than a win bettor?

[Twenty Seven]

In a P-4 one can win much more but they take on much more risk. More risk means less winners and far greater losing streaks. I can bet my 4 horses to win and lose on 3 out of the 4 bets and still go home a winner. You lose 1 and you are gone. Your math doesn't work. The takeout is not minimized because a bet is a serial bet. If the takeout is 23% the winners will have 23% less of the pot to split up.

And you can also win 1 or 2 of 4 and go home a loser (much more of a reality playing only the one or two horses most use in win betting). Also, in a P4, if I lose in 2 or 3 races, I'm only dinged with one "loss", so what you're saying works both ways.

Yes, the P4 is riskier, but the payouts when you win outweigh the smaller win payouts and single race focus of win betting. A bigger bankroll and a psychological equanimity are needed in serial bets.

As to your last point, I don't understand. I've already outlayed the math above. Again, in win betting the 17% take in each race equates to a much larger hit than 23% or 25%. The P4 is a parlay bet for those four races, and has to be compared here with four separate takes from those four races when they're played separately in win betting. Look, let's use an especially simple example (for illustration purposes, certainly no result is going to look this uniform):

The same horses are played in all four races, only one bettor plays them in a P4 and the other plays them, and NOT as a parlay, but as regular win bets, in those same four consecutive races. All four races win at 2/1 (either with a single horse or after accounting for several horses in the same race) for each race. In win betting, the bettor uses a standard $100 outlay, and wins $300 in race one ($200 profit). He keeps the profits and plays the same $100 and, again, profits $200. Ditto for the next 2 races. He's profited $800 on those four races.

Now let's go to the P4 bettor. His $100 outlay, on the same 2/1 odds in each race, would see him scoop $8100 after the four-race sequence, (if the pools were the same, but they're not, and that's an added benefit of the P4 which I can get to later). Yes, there are going to be many more times that a win-only bettor will take home 1 of 4 (in this example), for a total loss of $100, 2 of 4 for a total win of $200, or 3 of 4 for a total win of $500, but that has to weighed against the $8100-$800 difference when all four win.

Now, let's get to your last point about the 23%. Again, we have to see this as comparing a serial bet at, say, an industry norm of 25% for the P4, where it's taken once, and after the last leg, to the comparable win parlay, where it's taken 4 times, each at 17%. And let's keep it simple by using the same odds of 2/1 on each hit in each of the 4 races.

After the first win at 2/1, again the bettor gets back $300. But that includes takeout on race 1 where 17% has already been deducted. (With no takeout, the payout would have been $7.20*, not $6.00 -- on a $2 bet.) So that profit of $200 would have been $260. The $300 is rolled into the next race. $900 results. But it has to be remembered that in comparing it with the P4, in that latter bet the money rolled over would come before any takeout. You'd have to use $360 (from the $7.20, not the $6.00 payout) x another 3.6 = $1,080. Then, $1,080 times another 3.6 ($7.20 payout) = $3,888, and for the last leg, $3,888 x 3.6 = $13,996. $13,996, take off the 25% ($3,499), you're left with $10,497, or $2,397 more than in the win-bet-only serial on the same races.

*don't forget breakage on those win-only bets. And the shorter the prices (2/1 here), the more the effect. That $7.20 payout will frequently become $7.00. In a parlay, or even on a grinding long-range win-and lose sequence, that'll add up big time. With the big P4 payouts, breakage is virtually meaningless.

[Stillriledup]

And you can also win 1 or 2 of 4 and go home a loser (much more of a reality playing only the one or two horses most use in win betting). Also, in a P4, if I lose in 2 or 3 races, I'm only dinged with one "loss", so what you're saying works both ways.

Yes, the P4 is riskier, but the payouts when you win outweigh the smaller win payouts and single race focus of win betting. A bigger bankroll and a psychological equanimity are needed in serial bets.

As to your last point, I don't understand. I've already outlayed the math above. Again, in win betting the 17% take in each race equates to a much larger hit than 23% or 25%. The P4 is a parlay bet for those four races, and has to be compared here with four separate takes from those four races when they're played separately in win betting. Look, let's use an especially simple example (for illustration purposes, certainly no result is going to look this uniform):

The same horses are played in all four races, only one bettor plays them in a P4 and the other plays them, and NOT as a parlay, but as regular win bets, in those same four consecutive races. All four races win at 2/1 (either with a single horse or after accounting for several horses in the same race) for each race. In win betting, the bettor uses a standard $100 outlay, and wins $300 in race one ($200 profit). He keeps the profits and plays the same $100 and, again, profits $200. Ditto for the next 2 races. He's profited $800 on those four races.

Now let's go to the P4 bettor. His $100 outlay, on the same 2/1 odds in each race, would see him scoop $8100 after the four-race sequence, (if the pools were the same, but they're not, and that's an added benefit of the P4 which I can get to later). Yes, there are going to be many more times that a win-only bettor will take home 1 of 4 (in this example), for a total loss of $100, 2 of 4 for a total win of $200, or 3 of 4 for a total win of $500, but that has to weighed against the $8100-$800 difference when all four win.

Now, let's get to your last point about the 23%. Again, we have to see this as comparing a serial bet at, say, an industry norm of 25% for the P4, where it's taken once, and after the last leg, to the comparable win parlay, where it's taken 4 times, each at 17%. And let's keep it simple by using the same odds of 2/1 on each hit in each of the 4 races.

After the first win at 2/1, again the bettor gets back $300. But that includes takeout on race 1 where 17% has already been deducted. (With no takeout, the payout would have been $7.20*, not $6.00 -- on a $2 bet.) So that profit of $200 would have been $260. The $300 is rolled into the next race. $900 results. But it has to be remembered that in comparing it with the P4, in that latter bet the money rolled over would come before any takeout. You'd have to use $360 (from the $7.20, not the $6.00 payout) x another 3.6 = $1,080. Then, $1,080 times another 3.6 ($7.20 payout) = $3,888, and for the last leg, $3,888 x 3.6 = $13,996. $13,996, take off the 25% ($3,499), you're left with $10,497, or $2,397 more than in the win-bet-only serial on the same races.

*don't forget breakage on those win-only bets. And the shorter the prices (2/1 here), the more the effect. That $7.20 payout will frequently become $7.00. In a parlay, or even on a grinding long-range win-and lose sequence, that'll add up big time. With the big P4 payouts, breakage is virtually meaningless.

Lets say there are 2 bettors who both are very conservative and they only make 4 wagers in a calendar year. Player A makes four 2 dollar win bets for a total of 8 dollars. Player B makes four pick 4 bets, he invests 2 dollars per bet and singles 1 horse in each of the 4 legs. He too also invests 8 dollars for the year.

Player A is betting into a 17% takeout in the win pool and player B is ALSO betting into a 17% pick 4 takeout .......both guys made exactly 4 wagers for the year. Both guys were subject to having 17 cents taken out of every dollar they wagered (or 1.36 total for their 8 dollars).

Player B only THEORETICALLY saves money by betting cold pick 4s as opposed to making a win parlay, but since both guys are only making 4 bets, they're getting taxed exactly the same.

Remember, people are betting on BETS, not races.

[Twenty Seven]

Lets say there are 2 bettors who both are very conservative and they only make 4 wagers in a calendar year. Player A makes four 2 dollar win bets for a total of 8 dollars. Player B makes four pick 4 bets, he invests 2 dollars per bet and singles 1 horse in each of the 4 legs. He too also invests 8 dollars for the year.

Player A is betting into a 17% takeout in the win pool and player B is ALSO betting into a 17% pick 4 takeout .......both guys made exactly 4 wagers for the year. Both guys were subject to having 17 cents taken out of every dollar they wagered (or 1.36 total for their 8 dollars).

Player B only THEORETICALLY saves money by betting cold pick 4s as opposed to making a win parlay, but since both guys are only making 4 bets, they're getting taxed exactly the same.

Remember, people are betting on BETS, not races.

I'm unclear on your example. Do you mean he makes four separate P4 wagers, which would incorporate 16 races, or are you saying he is making one P4 bet, which would be one sequence of four races total? In any event, I don't see how any of what you're saying alters the mathematical relationship between a P4 and four separate win wagers on the same sequence. You'll have to explain what you mean in more detail.

[Stillriledup]

I'm unclear on your example. Do you mean he makes four separate P4 wagers, which would incorporate 16 races, or are you saying he is making one P4 bet, which would be one sequence of four races total? In any event, I don't see how any of what you're saying alters the mathematical relationship between a P4 and four separate win wagers on the same sequence. You'll have to explain what you mean in more detail.

He's making 4 bets...it doesnt matter how many races its incorporating. He's making 4 wagers. He's stepping up to the window 4 times and each time, he's risking 2 bucks. Each time his 2 bucks is subjected to the 17% takeout (just using 17% as an example).

The win bettor is also stepping up to the window 4 times and risking 2 bucks each time. Each bettor is stepping up 4 times and risking 8 bucks and both players are getting subjected to a 17% takeout on each dollar they wager.

[Twenty Seven]

He's making 4 bets...it doesnt matter how many races its incorporating. He's making 4 wagers. He's stepping up to the window 4 times and each time, he's risking 2 bucks. Each time his 2 bucks is subjected to the 17% takeout (just using 17% as an example).

The win bettor is also stepping up to the window 4 times and risking 2 bucks each time. Each bettor is stepping up 4 times and risking 8 bucks and both players are getting subjected to a 17% takeout on each dollar they wager.

You haven't understood a single thing I've taken the patience to go through in my previous posts. It doesn't matter how many races he's incorporating? The example I've used is an illustrative one because the same four races can be measured mathematically.

If you want to attempt to refute me, then do so using my actual example, not some simplistic non-parallel one in which I fail to see the point.

[Rex Phinney]

You haven't understood a single thing I've taken the patience to go through in my previous posts. It doesn't matter how many races he's incorporating? The example I've used is an illustrative one because the same four races can be measured mathematically.

If you want to attempt to refute me, then do so using my actual example, not some simplistic non-parallel one in which I fail to see the point.

I see exactly what he is saying.

Pretty simple to me, the guy playing the pick four ticket is throwing his money into a pool, just like the the guy making the win bet. The house will take a % of that POOL. It doesn't matter how many races are involved.

$2 is going into the pot every game, and when a winner is declared the house is taxing the pot. Doesn't matter if the pot is taxed after one race or after four, your playing ONE BET, not FOUR RACES.

[Stillriledup]

I see exactly what he is saying.

Pretty simple to me, the guy playing the pick four ticket is throwing his money into a pool, just like the the guy making the win bet. The house will take a % of that POOL. It doesn't matter how many races are involved.

$2 is going into the pot every game, and when a winner is declared the house is taxing the pot. Doesn't matter if the pot is taxed after one race or after four, your playing ONE BET, not FOUR RACES.

Thank you, you said it better than me. :ThmbUp:

[Track Phantom]

You haven't understood a single thing I've taken the patience to go through in my previous posts. It doesn't matter how many races he's incorporating? The example I've used is an illustrative one because the same four races can be measured mathematically.

If you want to attempt to refute me, then do so using my actual example, not some simplistic non-parallel one in which I fail to see the point.

In full disclosure, I didn't read all the detail. Having said that, I think you've got this wrong.

Takeout is POOL related, not RACE related. To get a comparitive example on win parlay for 4 races vs. Pick 4 takeout, you'd have to add all of the pools in the win hole for the four races together and use the averaged takeout for the four races. That equates to the total pool of the pick 4 with 1 takeout.

Assuming the win pools were all 25,000 and the win takeout was 17% for each race, you'd have $100,000 pool with $17,000 going to the house, leaving $83,000 for the players in all the pools combined. That is less than a $100,000 Pick 4 pool taxed at 23%

[AndyC]

You haven't understood a single thing I've taken the patience to go through in my previous posts. It doesn't matter how many races he's incorporating? The example I've used is an illustrative one because the same four races can be measured mathematically.

If you want to attempt to refute me, then do so using my actual example, not some simplistic non-parallel one in which I fail to see the point.


You started out by saying that " many people have the misconception that a 23% takeout on a pick 3, 4 , or 5 equals a 23% takeout on a win bet...",

Your so-called math proof didn't show how a P-4 is better than a win bet it showed that a P-4 would probably pay better than a win parlay. Well DUH!

So the next time I have 4 major win bets in a P-4 sequence that I have decided that I will parlay I will most certainly opt for the P-4. As for your original statement about the misconception, the misconception is all yours.

[Al Gobbi]

The 14% takeout rate on the Pick 5, an extremely popular 50-cent minimum wager, was a promotional one, is due to increase to 23.68%, the normal takeout for a three-legged or more wager, when Hollywood Park begins its 2013 Spring/Summer meet April 25.

Hollywood Park and other tracks receive 0.26% of each bet made in California via advance deposit wagering (ADW) while purses receive 3.25%, a figure Liebau believes unfair. “I think there should be some arrangement for the track getting such a small amount,’’ he said.

http://hollywoodpark.com/news/liebau-talks-players-pick-5-future-with-stein