PDA

View Full Version : Calculating the Dime super, what's good value?


Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 12:41 PM
In today's first race at Aqu, i was wondering if someone could tell me what the winning superfecta *might have* paid had the 2-1 shot Speedy's Gal (#5) had been 4th instead of 27-1 shot Beautiful Risk. Would it have paid the same?

I'm a little confused at the super payout comparing it to the tri payout.

ManU918
11-08-2013, 01:18 PM
In today's first race at Aqu, i was wondering if someone could tell me what the winning superfecta *might have* paid had the 2-1 shot Speedy's Gal (#5) had been 4th instead of 27-1 shot Beautiful Risk. Would it have paid the same?


Come on.... You can't be serious with that question.

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 01:40 PM
Come on.... You can't be serious with that question.

The tri paid about 2k for 1 dollar. The super paid 3k for one dollar. I'm confused as to why the super only paid a little more by getting a huge longshot up for 4th in a big field. Do you think the tri and super would have paid the same if the fave was 4th?

thaskalos
11-08-2013, 01:50 PM
The tri paid about 2k for 1 dollar. The super paid 3k for one dollar. I'm confused as to why the super only paid a little more by getting a huge longshot up for 4th in a big field. Do you think the tri and super would have paid the same if the fave was 4th?

Given the odds, the trifecta paid a lot more than it should have...IMO.

The trifecta was 14X the exacta payoff...with the third horse at only 6/1 odds.

Very rare...

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 02:01 PM
Given the odds, the trifecta paid a lot more than it should have...IMO.

The trifecta was 14X the exacta payoff...with the third horse at only 6/1 odds.

Very rare...

Hmm, interesting take. I normally look at the tri, with the much bigger pool, and think that the tri price is more "Accurate" of how the public viewed the race. But, if you think the tri should have been 500 instead of 975, that makes the super at 3k not as terrible of a price.

Robert Fischer
11-08-2013, 03:03 PM
The tri paid about 2k for 1 dollar. The super paid 3k for one dollar. I'm confused as to why the super only paid a little more by getting a huge longshot up for 4th in a big field. Do you think the tri and super would have paid the same if the fave was 4th?

somehow, I knew that this is what you meant in the first post.

That's not really a knock, but you could have just asked this question, rather than being indirect. It can be frustrating at times.


Short answer = the 4th spot in the super is a spread leg. :ThmbUp:

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 03:07 PM
somehow, I knew that this is what you meant in the first post.

That's not really a knock, but you could have just asked this question, rather than being indirect. It can be frustrating at times.


Short answer = the 4th spot in the super is a spread leg. :ThmbUp:

There's too many posts complaining about stuff that doesnt pay what it should, so i didnt want to have a post like that ;)

Manu was irritated that i thought the super might have paid the same with the favorite, but if the 4th spot is a "spread leg" isnt it possible the super would have paid the same with the favorite? I mean, how much less could it have paid, the entire world had it even though only a few people had the tri.

Maybe the "evil" dime denomination reared its ugly head here?

Robert Fischer
11-08-2013, 03:24 PM
I'm just giving you some sh_t SRU.

It is a reasonable assumption, that if you traded the :5: for any position,... the 4th slot would have the least impact.

you had to go about 8 deep in the 4th leg to catch the :3:, and that isn't that crazy for a 12 horse field superfecta 4th slot.

Robert Fischer
11-08-2013, 03:36 PM
in other words = especially since change over to dime superfectas, the 4th slot has very little value.

Saratoga_Mike
11-08-2013, 03:39 PM
in other words = especially since change over to dime superfectas, the 4th slot has very little value.

I understand and agree with the logic here, but do you have data to support this? It would be interesting to see.

Robert Fischer
11-08-2013, 03:52 PM
I understand and agree with the logic here, but do you have data to support this? It would be interesting to see.

Hey... If somebody has data like that, I would love to see it as well. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

The way it is now, a player can put together a ticket in one of these cheaper full-field turf races for less than $40 and try to hit a big super.

Add in any rebated players (some of whom are known to maximize rebates with a coverage approach),

...and the 4th slot tends to be well covered, relative to say the win or place positions.

ArlJim78
11-08-2013, 03:56 PM
Don't have my DB at work, but when I get home I can run some queries and post the results.

We're talking about how the oddsrank of the fourth place finisher effects the super ROI right?

Saratoga_Mike
11-08-2013, 04:06 PM
Don't have my DB at work, but when I get home I can run some queries and post the results.

We're talking about how the oddsrank of the fourth place finisher effects the super ROI right?

Payouts before and after the intro of the dime super - which I believe was Sept 2007 at BEL.

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 04:08 PM
Don't have my DB at work, but when I get home I can run some queries and post the results.

We're talking about how the oddsrank of the fourth place finisher effects the super ROI right?

It might be a wrong on my part to assume that the win odds are a good barometer on the 4th place finisher. This particular bomb who was 4th was a one move closer who probably had a much better shot to finish exactly 4th than she did to win, so maybe people stuck her in the 4th slot figuring she's a clunk up type, she didnt provide much value in the 4th position. I'd love to see what the super would have paid if the fave was 4th.

ArlJim78
11-08-2013, 04:16 PM
Payouts before and after the intro of the dime super - which I believe was Sept 2007 at BEL.
I only go back thru 2009

ArlJim78
11-08-2013, 04:19 PM
It might be a wrong on my part to assume that the win odds are a good barometer on the 4th place finisher. This particular bomb who was 4th was a one move closer who probably had a much better shot to finish exactly 4th than she did to win, so maybe people stuck her in the 4th slot figuring she's a clunk up type, she didnt provide much value in the 4th position. I'd love to see what the super would have paid if the fave was 4th.
you'd have to know how much was wagered on that particular combination. I don't believe this information is available to the public.

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 04:35 PM
you'd have to know how much was wagered on that particular combination. I don't believe this information is available to the public.

You think? Could i call the track and ask them how much was wagered on the 1-4-12-5 combo?

ArlJim78
11-08-2013, 04:58 PM
You think? Could i call the track and ask them how much was wagered on the 1-4-12-5 combo?
give it a shot. let me know how it goes.

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 05:03 PM
give it a shot. let me know how it goes.

lol, ok. :D

Robert Fischer
11-08-2013, 06:14 PM
Given the odds, the trifecta paid a lot more than it should have...IMO.

The trifecta was 14X the exacta payoff...with the third horse at only 6/1 odds.

Very rare...

That is odd Thaskalos.

Maybe it indicates that some of the money in the tri pools has not yet adjusted to the .50 cent minimum...

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 06:36 PM
That is odd Thaskalos.

Maybe it indicates that some of the money in the tri pools has not yet adjusted to the .50 cent minimum...

What you're suggesting is that the lower minimum makes it easier to 'water down' the prices. If the super was a 1 dollar minimum, there's 0 pct chance that super only pays 3k for a buck. This was the entire argument in the evil dime super thread.

thaskalos
11-08-2013, 07:48 PM
What you're suggesting is that the lower minimum makes it easier to 'water down' the prices. If the super was a 1 dollar minimum, there's 0 pct chance that super only pays 3k for a buck. This was the entire argument in the evil dime super thread.
I have a question for you, SRU:

I have seen plenty of animosity here for the 10-cent superfecta...but nothing of the sort for the 50-cent trifecta.

Any idea why that is?

Is it easier or cheaper to catch a decent superfecta for 10 cents than it is to do the same in the 50-cent trifecta?

Don't they both make the bet easier and cheaper to cash in...and don't they both adversely affect the payoffs?

Why do we see no negativity expressed against the "evil 50-cent tri"?

dnlgfnk
11-08-2013, 08:41 PM
Steven Christ suggests that good players benefit, in the long run, from the greater participation by unsophisticated players in a lowered minimum pool.

thaskalos
11-08-2013, 09:30 PM
Steven Christ suggests that good players benefit, in the long run, from the greater participation by unsophisticated players in a lowered minimum pool.
Crist is only partially right, IMO. There is a point beyond which the exotic betting units cannot be allowed to be lowered to...if value is to still remain in the pools.

To flatly state that the good player benefits from the lowered minimum betting units simply because of the greater participation by the "unsophisticated bettors" implies that those "good players" would benefit even more if some of these exotic betting units were lowered to the bear minimum...since this would obviously guarantee the greatest participation by the unsophisticated bettors. By this reasoning, if a 50-cent trifecta benefits the good player...then a 10-cent trifecta should benefit him further still.

But I trust we can all see that this would not be the case...

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 09:48 PM
I have a question for you, SRU:

I have seen plenty of animosity here for the 10-cent superfecta...but nothing of the sort for the 50-cent trifecta.

Any idea why that is?

Is it easier or cheaper to catch a decent superfecta for 10 cents than it is to do the same in the 50-cent trifecta?

Don't they both make the bet easier and cheaper to cash in...and don't they both adversely affect the payoffs?

Why do we see no negativity expressed against the "evil 50-cent tri"?

Do you know what would happen to ME if i started an "evil 50 cent tri" thread? :D

I'm on thin ice as it is with some posters here because of my posting style, but if you want to start one, feel free, you have my blessing!

Its probably because 50 cents is 5 times higher than 10 cents, but you're right, lower minimums water down the pools.

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 09:53 PM
Steven Christ suggests that good players benefit, in the long run, from the greater participation by unsophisticated players in a lowered minimum pool.

Here's why i like higher minimums and i'm anti the 10 cents bets and the 50 cent "evil tri".

Lets say that there was one race per day at SRU downs that had a minimum 10 dollar trifecta. It would basically come down to this. Any schmuck can afford to box a few horses up in the 50 cent tri.....they can box 8 or 9 if they want....so, they have 50 cents on the winning combination and their ability to 'pick the winner' had nothing to do with handicapping and everything to do with their ability to afford the bet.

Now, with a 10 dollar minimum tri (only at SRU Downs!!) you would actually have to HANDICAP brilliantly to win. This would mean that the winners were people who handicapped awesome and deserved to win and they didnt have to share their winning combo with bingo players who boxed up 8 horses and prayed for chaos.

Irish Boy
11-08-2013, 10:01 PM
Crist is only partially right, IMO. There is a point beyond which the exotic betting units cannot be allowed to be lowered to...if value is to still remain in the pools.

To flatly state that the good player benefits from the lowered minimum betting units simply because of the greater participation by the "unsophisticated bettors" implies that those "good players" would benefit even more if some of these exotic betting units were lowered to the bear minimum...since this would obviously guarantee the greatest participation by the unsophisticated bettors. By this reasoning, if a 50-cent trifecta benefits the good player...then a 10-cent trifecta should benefit him further still.

But I trust we can all see that this would not be the case...
This is going to sound smart-assish, but I honestly don't mean for it to be: Could you finish out the thought here? I'm interested in your input.

Let's take things to the extreme where every minimum bet is for a penny. I could see things breaking two ways: (1) logical combos pay more because people spread more than they did before, and huge payouts become harder, or (2) logical combos pay less because minnows erode these with small denominations, but that extra money contributes to bigger scores with the unlikelier hits. No doubt there will be some mix of the two, but I wonder which will predominate.

It seems like we should have some data on this if we could compare tracks with similar pools but differing minimums.

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 10:12 PM
This is going to sound smart-assish, but I honestly don't mean for it to be: Could you finish out the thought here? I'm interested in your input.

Let's take things to the extreme where every minimum bet is for a penny. I could see things breaking two ways: (1) logical combos pay more because people spread more than they did before, and huge payouts become harder, or (2) logical combos pay less because minnows erode these with small denominations, but that extra money contributes to bigger scores with the unlikelier hits. No doubt there will be some mix of the two, but I wonder which will predominate.

It seems like we should have some data on this if we could compare tracks with similar pools but differing minimums.

If every bet was 1 penny, it would turn racing into tiddlywinks. There would be no such thing as a carryover, the "jackpot bets" would never have a solo winner either.

The lowering of minimums essentially tries to make it easier for more players to cash a winning ticket. The higher priced combos at the top of the odds board get watered down. Now, on the reverse, the shorter combos pay a little bit more, but who is betting tri's and supers keying the favorite, over the 2nd favorite, over the 3rd favorite? Not too many players who are long term winners are chalking out, most good handicappers are using their good handicapping skill to beat favorites and sniff out excellent longshots and those "excellent longshots" are watered down by Bingo Grandma and her dime box.

ArlJim78
11-08-2013, 10:19 PM
for what it's worth here is some data which I think pretty much backs up the point Fischer was making.

fieldsize=10
all tracks

position 1 (ROI / ave. payoff)
oddsrank1 .625 / $96
oddsrank2 .530 / $139
oddsrank9 .284 / $709
oddsrank10 .178 / $953

position 4 (ROI / ave. payoff)
oddsrank1 .427 / $227
oddsrank2 .467 / $192
oddsrank9 .324 / $260
oddsrank10 .322 / $363

Next I'm going to run the same queries looking only at tracks which don't have a dime super, in order to see how evil it really is.

Irish Boy
11-08-2013, 10:24 PM
If every bet was 1 penny, it would turn racing into tiddlywinks. There would be no such thing as a carryover, the "jackpot bets" would never have a solo winner either.

The lowering of minimums essentially tries to make it easier for more players to cash a winning ticket. The higher priced combos at the top of the odds board get watered down. Now, on the reverse, the shorter combos pay a little bit more, but who is betting tri's and supers keying the favorite, over the 2nd favorite, over the 3rd favorite? Not too many players who are long term winners are chalking out, most good handicappers are using their good handicapping skill to beat favorites and sniff out excellent longshots and those "excellent longshots" are watered down by Bingo Grandma and her dime box.
But what grandmas are playing those kinds of combos? Seems like it would have to be big swingers playing more combos ... but what big swingers are in it for penny payouts (or dime payouts, for that matter)?

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 10:26 PM
But what grandmas are playing those kinds of combos? Seems like it would have to be big swingers playing more combos ... but what big swingers are in it for penny payouts (or dime payouts, for that matter)?

My favorite day of the year? Is the Derby weekend where they don't accept dime supers...the payouts reflect that. If you hit bombs, you dont get watered down.

thaskalos
11-08-2013, 10:59 PM
This is going to sound smart-assish, but I honestly don't mean for it to be: Could you finish out the thought here? I'm interested in your input.

Let's take things to the extreme where every minimum bet is for a penny. I could see things breaking two ways: (1) logical combos pay more because people spread more than they did before, and huge payouts become harder, or (2) logical combos pay less because minnows erode these with small denominations, but that extra money contributes to bigger scores with the unlikelier hits. No doubt there will be some mix of the two, but I wonder which will predominate.

It seems like we should have some data on this if we could compare tracks with similar pools but differing minimums.
I am always willing to finish out my thoughts.

I don't particularly like the term "unsophisticated player" as it's normally used...because it implies that all the losers are unsophisticated players. IMO, the truly unsophisticated players have either already fled this game...or they have reduced their play to a level which hardly impacts the odds that we see. This game punishes the unsophisticated player severely...to the point where he either gains some "sophistication", or soon becomes extinct.

IMO...the biggest edge that the winning player has over his "less sophisticated" opponents is that he can afford to spread sufficiently in the exotics when the situation demands it...while his opposition can't. It is the minimum betting unit's job to thin out the competition in the deeper exotic wagers...and prevent the small player from getting adequate coverage at moderate cost.

When the superfecta had a minimum betting unit of $1...I would routinely wager $144-$256 on the superfecta -- without having to worry that I would have to split my profits with other smart players who only could afford to wager up to $25 a race. The superfecta was truly a handicapping contest back then...because few could afford to spread out sufficiently in all cases...and the payoffs reflected the difficulty of the wager.

The 10-cent minimum bet has changed all that...and it has taken a lot of the "handicapping" out of the wager. A 1-2-3-4/1-2-3-4-5/1-2-3-4-5-6/1-2-3-4-5-6-7 wager now costs as little as $25.60 -- an amount that is affordable to most. And it matters not to me if this sort of wide-spread wagering is profitable for the smaller player long-term...because he shares in my profits whether he is long-term profitable or not.

In a closed mutuel pool...the less players we share the pool with, the better.

The 10-cent super is a big advantage for the small player--but he gains that advantage at the expense of the bigger player. There are no win/win situations in horse betting.

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 11:33 PM
I am always willing to finish out my thoughts.

I don't particularly like the term "unsophisticated player" as it's normally used...because it implies that all the losers are unsophisticated players. IMO, the truly unsophisticated players have either already fled this game...or they have reduced their play to a level which hardly impacts the odds that we see. This game punishes the unsophisticated player severely...to the point where he either gains some "sophistication", or soon becomes extinct.

IMO...the biggest edge that the winning player has over his "less sophisticated" opponents is that he can afford to spread sufficiently in the exotics when the situation demands it...while his opposition can't. It is the minimum betting unit's job to thin out the competition in the deeper exotic wagers...and prevent the small player from getting adequate coverage at moderate cost.

When the superfecta had a minimum betting unit of $1...I would routinely wager $144-$256 on the superfecta -- without having to worry that I would have to split my profits with other smart players who only could afford to wager up to $25 a race. The superfecta was truly a handicapping contest back then...because few could afford to spread out sufficiently in all cases...and the payoffs reflected the difficulty of the wager.

The 10-cent minimum bet has changed all that...and it has taken a lot of the "handicapping" out of the wager. A 1-2-3-4/1-2-3-4-5/1-2-3-4-5-6/1-2-3-4-5-6-7 wager now costs as little as $25.60 -- an amount that is affordable to most. And it matters not to me if this sort of wide-spread wagering is profitable for the smaller player long-term...because he shares in my profits whether he is long-term profitable or not.

In a closed mutuel pool...the less players we share the pool with, the better.

The 10-cent super is a big advantage for the small player--but he gains that advantage at the expense of the bigger player. There are no win/win situations in horse betting.

First ballot post from a first ballot HOFer.

Well done. :ThmbUp:

Stillriledup
11-08-2013, 11:44 PM
This is going to sound smart-assish, but I honestly don't mean for it to be: Could you finish out the thought here? I'm interested in your input.

Let's take things to the extreme where every minimum bet is for a penny. I could see things breaking two ways: (1) logical combos pay more because people spread more than they did before, and huge payouts become harder, or (2) logical combos pay less because minnows erode these with small denominations, but that extra money contributes to bigger scores with the unlikelier hits. No doubt there will be some mix of the two, but I wonder which will predominate.

It seems like we should have some data on this if we could compare tracks with similar pools but differing minimums.

Gus, with a Hall of Fame post on Superfectas. Lots of reading material here. Enjoy.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83249

thaskalos
11-09-2013, 12:16 AM
Do you know what would happen to ME if i started an "evil 50 cent tri" thread? :D

I'm on thin ice as it is with some posters here because of my posting style, but if you want to start one, feel free, you have my blessing!

Its probably because 50 cents is 5 times higher than 10 cents, but you're right, lower minimums water down the pools.

50 cents is 5 times higher than 10 cents...but the argument can be made that the superfecta is 5 times more difficult to hit than the trifecta.

No?

Stillriledup
11-09-2013, 12:58 AM
50 cents is 5 times higher than 10 cents...but the argument can be made that the superfecta is 5 times more difficult to hit than the trifecta.

No?

I think it depends.

It depends on how you play. For example, if a handicapper picks the #1 horse in the first race (10 horse field) at his favorite track, and spends 36 bucks and goes 1 with All with ALL and then does the same exact thing in the super, 1 with ALL/ALL/ALL for 10 cents, that bet costs 50 bucks. So, one cost 36 and one cost 50 and the degree of difficulty is exactly the same, if the cappers pick wins, he wins. So, difficulty-wise, its equal.

I think under this strategy (pick a horse and wheel ALL behind him) its less than twice as hard because you don't have to spend twice the money. I have no idea if i'm making any sense at all, but i'm sure someone will point it out if i'm sounding like an idiot. :D

BombsAway Bob
11-09-2013, 01:15 AM
It seems like we should have some data on this if we could compare tracks with similar pools but differing minimums.

The Best comparison you can make on the supposed "watering down"
of Payoff with Dime Supers vs. Higher Minimum Supers can be obtained
by Using CharlesTown Super Payouts when they were $.50 Min.
to current $.10 Min..
If you want to compare payouts from here on out,
BOTH ChuckyTown & Mountaineer have Supers with 25% Takeout
and similar pool sizes. Mountain is $.50 Base, CTown Dime Base.

Stillriledup
11-09-2013, 01:23 AM
The Best comparison you can make on the supposed "watering down"
of Payoff with Dime Supers vs. Higher Minimum Supers can be obtained
by Using CharlesTown Super Payouts when they were $.50 Min.
to current $.10 Min..
If you want to compare payouts from here on out,
BOTH ChuckyTown & Mountaineer have Supers with 25% Takeout
and similar pool sizes. Mountain is $.50 Base, CTown Dime Base.

Nobody hit the Mtn super in the final race tonight...which means that if someone was good enough to hit it, they would have gotten a pooly.

Robert Fischer
11-09-2013, 07:12 AM
example dime super Public pyramid
123/12345/1234567/123456789
cost = $36



for the 4th slot:
123/12345/1234567/123456789

Less value to be had in the 4th spot. It becomes more a function of coverage vs. ticket cost.



for the 1st slot:
123/12345/1234567/123456789

Public is favorite centric.
If you are able to (accurately) exclude a favorite, you get added value.

JohnGalt1
11-09-2013, 08:07 AM
Anyone remember California's $5 minimum exacta?

Does anyone have data from back then comparing relative payouts comparing the $5 minimum to the period of $2 minimums to today's $1 minimum?

I doubt a $5 exacta that paid $100 would pay $40 for a $2 minimum or $20 for a $1 minimum. I would guess that the $2 exacta might pay in the 30's and the $1 minimum would pay around $15 from the same race because of the cheaper cost of the bets.

Bruiser1
11-09-2013, 11:23 AM
Anyone remember California's $5 minimum exacta?

Does anyone have data from back then comparing relative payouts comparing the $5 minimum to the period of $2 minimums to today's $1 minimum?

I doubt a $5 exacta that paid $100 would pay $40 for a $2 minimum or $20 for a $1 minimum. I would guess that the $2 exacta might pay in the 30's and the $1 minimum would pay around $15 from the same race because of the cheaper cost of the bets.

Remember the $5 exactas well.

I don't know statistics comparing payouts of exactas then versus now, but I'm certain that old minimum excluded a number of bettors.

Back in the mid 80's, I was waiting in line at Santa Anita to make a bet when a stranger approached me about an exacta. Seems he was broke and didn't have the $5 to play the exacta he wanted and asked me to split the bet with him. It wasn't two horses I wanted, but I figured it was only a couple of bucks, so we played a $5 straight exacta....and it came in for something like $400. We cashed and I bought the guy a beer to celebrate and parted ways. Never did see the guy again.

Saratoga_Mike
11-09-2013, 12:54 PM
for what it's worth here is some data which I think pretty much backs up the point Fischer was making.

fieldsize=10
all tracks

position 1 (ROI / ave. payoff)
oddsrank1 .625 / $96
oddsrank2 .530 / $139
oddsrank9 .284 / $709
oddsrank10 .178 / $953

position 4 (ROI / ave. payoff)
oddsrank1 .427 / $227
oddsrank2 .467 / $192
oddsrank9 .324 / $260
oddsrank10 .322 / $363

Next I'm going to run the same queries looking only at tracks which don't have a dime super, in order to see how evil it really is.

Great data! Thanks. I'd still like to see a "before" and "after" at the same track, though. The before being a $1 min and the after being a dime. I guess you can't do BEL b/c the changeover was in 2007.

ArlJim78
11-09-2013, 01:06 PM
Great data! Thanks. I'd still like to see a "before" and "after" at the same track, though. The before being a $1 min and the after being a dime. I guess you can't do BEL b/c the changeover was in 2007.
If you or anybody else knows of a track which made the switch from dollar to dime in the past five years, I could look at that.

Saratoga_Mike
11-09-2013, 01:15 PM
I think all of the major tracks went to the 10-cent increment between 2005 and 2007. Maybe Cali was late? Thask might know???

thaskalos
11-09-2013, 01:16 PM
If you or anybody else knows of a track which made the switch from dollar to dime in the past five years, I could look at that.
The ideal comparison would be what BombsAway Bob suggested.

Compare Charles Town to Mountaineer. Charles Town has a 10-cent minimum...and Mountaineer is still at 50 cents, with similar pools and takeouts.

You can also compare Charles Town to its former self, when it still had the 50-cent minimum bet.

Saratoga_Mike
11-09-2013, 01:20 PM
The ideal comparison would be what BombsAway Bob suggested.

Compare Charles Town to Mountaineer. Charles Town has a 10-cent minimum...and Mountaineer is still at 50 cents, with similar pools and takeouts.

You can also compare Charles Town to its former self, when it still had the 50-cent minimum bet.

Wouldn't it be better to test a track with large pools?

thaskalos
11-09-2013, 01:25 PM
Wouldn't it be better to test a track with large pools?

True...

I would be more interested in seeing how Mountaineer compares to Charles Town...since the two tracks are so much alike.

Robert Fischer
11-09-2013, 02:13 PM
for what it's worth here is some data which I think pretty much backs up the point Fischer was making.

fieldsize=10
all tracks

position 1 (ROI / ave. payoff)
oddsrank1 .625 / $96
oddsrank2 .530 / $139
oddsrank9 .284 / $709
oddsrank10 .178 / $953

position 4 (ROI / ave. payoff)
oddsrank1 .427 / $227
oddsrank2 .467 / $192
oddsrank9 .324 / $260
oddsrank10 .322 / $363

Next I'm going to run the same queries looking only at tracks which don't have a dime super, in order to see how evil it really is.

good stuff

OTM Al
11-09-2013, 07:25 PM
NYRA went to dime supers on 9/30/2007. I have data starting May 2003 with the open of Belmont that year through present. We must remember though that at the beginning of that period the super would only be offered on the final race. By 2007 they could be offered on 3 races and now they can be offered on any eligible race.

Avg super payoff 5/7/2003-9/29/2007 - $7062, 1955 obs.
Avg super payoff 9/30/2007- present - $4781, 8461 obs.

To be clear these are $2 payoffs

Robert Fischer
11-09-2013, 09:00 PM
NYRA went to dime supers on 9/30/2007. I have data starting May 2003 with the open of Belmont that year through present. We must remember though that at the beginning of that period the super would only be offered on the final race. By 2007 they could be offered on 3 races and now they can be offered on any eligible race.

Avg super payoff 5/7/2003-9/29/2007 - $7062, 1955 obs.
Avg super payoff 9/30/2007- present - $4781, 8461 obs.

To be clear these are $2 payoffs

looks like there is a difference :ThmbUp:

ArlJim78
11-09-2013, 09:26 PM
NYRA went to dime supers on 9/30/2007. I have data starting May 2003 with the open of Belmont that year through present. We must remember though that at the beginning of that period the super would only be offered on the final race. By 2007 they could be offered on 3 races and now they can be offered on any eligible race.

Avg super payoff 5/7/2003-9/29/2007 - $7062, 1955 obs.
Avg super payoff 9/30/2007- present - $4781, 8461 obs.

To be clear these are $2 payoffs
I'm not sure why Al, but I show much lower ave supers at Belmont, at least in the more recent years.

2009 to present $3,642 ave per $2 wager

OTM Al
11-09-2013, 10:23 PM
I'm not sure why Al, but I show much lower ave supers at Belmont, at least in the more recent years.

2009 to present $3,642 ave per $2 wager

This is all NYRA tracks together. Saratoga probably bumps the average up. I was just saying my data coincides with the opening of Belmont in 2003.

tanner12oz
11-10-2013, 06:31 AM
Here's why i like higher minimums and i'm anti the 10 cents bets and the 50 cent "evil tri".

Lets say that there was one race per day at SRU downs that had a minimum 10 dollar trifecta. It would basically come down to this. Any schmuck can afford to box a few horses up in the 50 cent tri.....they can box 8 or 9 if they want....so, they have 50 cents on the winning combination and their ability to 'pick the winner' had nothing to do with handicapping and everything to do with their ability to afford the bet.

Now, with a 10 dollar minimum tri (only at SRU Downs!!) you would actually have to HANDICAP brilliantly to win. This would mean that the winners were people who handicapped awesome and deserved to win and they didnt have to share their winning combo with bingo players who boxed up 8 horses and prayed for chaos.

couldn't the realization of a race being a chaos race be considered handicapping?

affirmedny
11-10-2013, 08:04 AM
looks like there is a difference :ThmbUp:

Don't forget, now they have supers on 6 horse races, that wasn't the case when they had only one in the last race of which my recollection is that it was usually almost always a field of 10 or more.

OTM Al
11-10-2013, 08:47 AM
Don't forget, now they have supers on 6 horse races, that wasn't the case when they had only one in the last race of which my recollection is that it was usually almost always a field of 10 or more.

Yes, a lot of things have changed along with the minimum. What you mention would cause the price to fall as 8 used to be the minimum. Takeout went from 25% to 26% and then down to 24% as well. I'm sure there are other influences involved as well. So getting the exact effect of the minimum change isn't as easy as just comparing the two averages.

ArlJim78
11-10-2013, 10:39 AM
This is all NYRA tracks together. Saratoga probably bumps the average up. I was just saying my data coincides with the opening of Belmont in 2003.
okay gotcha, that explains why you had so many more races than I was showing for just Belmont.

Still something is amiss, when I run Belmont-Aqu-Sar together I show the average drops a little to $3,348.

Robert Fischer
11-10-2013, 11:24 AM
couldn't the realization of a race being a chaos race be considered handicapping?
Sure.
Chaos races and/or heavy bias happens once in a while.

Don't forget, now they have supers on 6 horse races, that wasn't the case when they had only one in the last race of which my recollection is that it was usually almost always a field of 10 or more.

Great point.
Didn't even consider that rule.
I know this thread was focusing on a full-field turf race. Obviously everything changes in a smaller field.

davew
11-10-2013, 12:05 PM
NYRA went to dime supers on 9/30/2007. I have data starting May 2003 with the open of Belmont that year through present. We must remember though that at the beginning of that period the super would only be offered on the final race. By 2007 they could be offered on 3 races and now they can be offered on any eligible race.

Avg super payoff 5/7/2003-9/29/2007 - $7062, 1955 obs.
Avg super payoff 9/30/2007- present - $4781, 8461 obs.

To be clear these are $2 payoffs

need average field sizes as well - hitting a super in a 7 horse race is easier than in a 12 horse race, and it seems to me field sizes are dropping

and last race used to be usually bottom level claimers

Saratoga_Mike
11-10-2013, 12:19 PM
NYRA went to dime supers on 9/30/2007. I have data starting May 2003 with the open of Belmont that year through present. We must remember though that at the beginning of that period the super would only be offered on the final race. By 2007 they could be offered on 3 races and now they can be offered on any eligible race.

Avg super payoff 5/7/2003-9/29/2007 - $7062, 1955 obs.
Avg super payoff 9/30/2007- present - $4781, 8461 obs.

To be clear these are $2 payoffs

Thanks - can you dissect the data the way Jim did, looking at the impact of the 4th place finisher before and after the change?

OTM Al
11-12-2013, 09:57 AM
okay gotcha, that explains why you had so many more races than I was showing for just Belmont.

Still something is amiss, when I run Belmont-Aqu-Sar together I show the average drops a little to $3,348.

Been thinking about why this may be so (without going to the data as I have been lazy) and have a couple possible explanations, but still not convinced it would make up for that much of a difference (and honestly I thought my numbers seemed a little high at first blush)

First, in the data I collect, I removed entries of clear pool inefficiencies, so any race that has an ALL in the result is not counted. Now since I can't remember when the last time that happened at a NYRA track other than races off the turf late in a horizontal, I don't think this makes any impact, but does make the big tracks a much cleaner inital study.

Second, I remove any observations when there is a dead heat. This would certainly make some difference as a DH will give you 2 payoffs that are half of what one or the other would have been without the DH (and one day I recall the double DH that gave 4 at a quarter). This certainly does have an effect in the data, but it doesn't seem to explain the whole difference because the number of observations is so large combined with the rarity of the DH.

OTM Al
11-12-2013, 10:01 AM
Thanks - can you dissect the data the way Jim did, looking at the impact of the 4th place finisher before and after the change?

I could and if we're still talking about this when I'm on Christmas break I might, but right now I simply don't have the time to run this given the way I have the data laid out and the fact I archived 2003-2005 results so I'd have to get those results back in my main results table (I use Access).