LV bettor takes down $463K FG Black Gold jackpot

[horses4courses]

Tremendous hit by what sounds like a very nice guy. :ThmbUp:

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/editorial/article.cgi?id=43100

[ManU918]

That was a good read thanks for posting.

[iceknight]

Congrats to him.. and

these words of his
"I would love to see an innovative new wager that is sort of similar to current jackpot wagers, but with a twist -- something like a Jackpot Pick 7 with a smaller increment that also had a provision to include more mandatory payout days. Say, every time the pool hit $300,000, one half of that pool would continue to carry over as the jackpot pool, but the other half would come out to be the seed money for a one-day mandatory payoff day. That way, you would still have a chance to hit the jackpot on a daily basis and take down the whole thing, but everyone would have a chance to get a big payday on the mandatory payout days. The pools would be massive and more people would have more frequent chances to make really nice scores. That would put more money in the hands of more people and I think that the more big winners there are, the better it is for the game."

are awesome!

[Grits]

He repeatedly acknowledged that alongside handicapping acumen, luck plays an important part in taking down the carryover portion of a wager like the Black Gold 5.

"I am so excited to have been able to hit it, but I could have picked those same five winners and still split the pool with someone else who had a great day and managed to find them, too. Any horseplayer who has such an ego to think they're the greatest in the world for getting lucky on a day like that needs to check their ego. I got lucky Saturday and things worked out my way, and I wish there was a wager that would give more people more chances to have a day like this.

One cannot help but smile and be elated for this wise and gentle spoken man. Everyday, all over, there are people like him, quietly, going about their day. Playing this sport in the same way that he is. With the understanding of how difficult it is, and with the humility to realize that he is not alone, that he's not "the greatest". I wish him well!

[ronsmac]

he sounds like a good guy but the fairgrounds has a great product? everyone has their opinion but I was surprised to hear him say that.

[Ray]

[QUOTE=ronsmac]he sounds like a good guy but the fairgrounds has a great product? everyone has their opinion but I was surprised to hear him say that.[/QUOTE

If I hit for that much at beaulah park of probably say the same thing. LOL

[ronsmac]

[QUOTE=ronsmac]he sounds like a good guy but the fairgrounds has a great product? everyone has their opinion but I was surprised to hear him say that.[/QUOTE

If I hit for that much at beaulah park of probably say the same thing. LOL
Good point.

[Mystic]

[QUOTE=ronsmac]he sounds like a good guy but the fairgrounds has a great product? everyone has their opinion but I was surprised to hear him say that.[/QUOTE

If I hit for that much at beaulah park of probably say the same thing. LOL

Lol! Good one! :lol:

[Stillriledup]

Glad to see an "Everyday guy" take down a haul like this, well done, its good for the game if the average horseplayer can make a hit like this, glad they did a writeup on this and thanks to the winner for making himself known and agreeing to an interview.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Glad to see an "Everyday guy" take down a haul like this, well done, its good for the game if the average horseplayer can make a hit like this, glad they did a writeup on this and thanks to the winner for making himself known and agreeing to an interview.

"Everyday guy" betting $1,764 in a Jackpot 5 wager?

Good article, sounds like a real gent, but I suspect he's not your average horseplayer from Las Vegas. But maybe I'm just jealous being a BDH myself.

Kind of like his idea of a mandatory payout of half the pool once a threshold was hit - would keep some of the "traditional" pool players interested.

[jdhanover]

"Everyday guy" betting $1,764 in a Jackpot 5 wager?

Good article, sounds like a real gent, but I suspect he's not your average horseplayer from Las Vegas. But maybe I'm just jealous being a BDH myself.

Kind of like his idea of a mandatory payout of half the pool once a threshold was hit - would keep some of the "traditional" pool players interested.

Agree - $1,800 and generally only chases carryovers. Not quite your average Joe.

Still, impressive hit and sounds like a good guy

[ManU918]

Glad to see an "Everyday guy" take down a haul like this, well done, its good for the game if the average horseplayer can make a hit like this, glad they did a writeup on this and thanks to the winner for making himself known and agreeing to an interview.

This guy is far from an "average" player.

[NY BRED]

This guy is far from an "average" player.

Agreed, especially on a Saturday play at FG.

[AndyC]

It certainly sounds like the winner of the jackpot is a great guy. But is a he a good gambler or just an incredibly lucky one? The FG jackpot bet does not attract much handle at all even with large carryovers. Last Saturday the new money was a whopping 8.67% of the carryover. The winner accounted for 4.68% of the pool all by himself. Nearly all big sophisticated players avoid the bet. Does any knowledgeable gambler want to play a bet where the effective takeout is 62.5% just to get a shot at hitting the jackpot?

So is the bet so bad that it becomes good at some point for a gambler willing to risk large sums like the winner did? (channeling Yogi Berra) Is that what the winner was hoping for or was he like a Power Ball Lotto player looking at the jackpot and playing without regard to a rational analysis.

[1st time lasix]

EVERY "jackpot"-type {one winner only} wager is a very poor bet for a player-unless it is manditory payout date. Simple math. No one on earth can convince me otherwise with any argument. It does generate daily sucker money to the track however--- so i am not surprised there are so many of them nationwide. I "had" the fifty cent pick five at Gulfstream on Sunday....It was a nice hit. A logical play in the preceding race would have given me the pick six consolation. Still not enough to lure my interest until the force out day. Of course ...I am totally amaxed how many players don't actually know the take-out percentages of the exotic pools they utilize. Seems to me-- one really ought to truly know the "rules" of the game they are playing. Kudos to those that hit those jackpot "consols" but i wonder if they would be far..far.. better off using their handicapping accumin in other pools.

[Charli125]

EVERY "jackpot"-type {one winner only} wager is a very poor bet for a player-unless it is manditory payout date. Simple math. No one on earth can convince me otherwise with any argument.

That's what I thought too, but then I saw how well the P6 at Gulfstream was paying. A friend did some work on it, and here are the results in simple math. It's almost always an overlay. https://twitter.com/InsideTheNumbrs/status/438825755544285184/photo/1

Sometimes the number of people trying to hit the impossible ticket to bring down the whole pool, actually creates value.

Not saying every jackpot bet is an overlay, in fact I bet most aren't. Gulfstream is though.

[thaskalos]

It certainly sounds like the winner of the jackpot is a great guy. But is a he a good gambler or just an incredibly lucky one? The FG jackpot bet does not attract much handle at all even with large carryovers. Last Saturday the new money was a whopping 8.67% of the carryover. The winner accounted for 4.68% of the pool all by himself. Nearly all big sophisticated players avoid the bet. Does any knowledgeable gambler want to play a bet where the effective takeout is 62.5% just to get a shot at hitting the jackpot?

So is the bet so bad that it becomes good at some point for a gambler willing to risk large sums like the winner did? (channeling Yogi Berra) Is that what the winner was hoping for or was he like a Power Ball Lotto player looking at the jackpot and playing without regard to a rational analysis.

Anytime a guy wins half a million at the track, people will look at him with admiration...and they are bound to think that he is smart. The truth is that no one knows what kind of player this man is.

There is one thing that I know for sure, though:

$463,219 isn't a heck of a lot of money if you are in the habit of wagering $1,764 on individual bets. If I were this type of bettor, I would hesitate to call such a score "life-changing".

[Hoofless_Wonder]

It certainly sounds like the winner of the jackpot is a great guy. But is a he a good gambler or just an incredibly lucky one? The FG jackpot bet does not attract much handle at all even with large carryovers. Last Saturday the new money was a whopping 8.67% of the carryover. The winner accounted for 4.68% of the pool all by himself. Nearly all big sophisticated players avoid the bet. Does any knowledgeable gambler want to play a bet where the effective takeout is 62.5% just to get a shot at hitting the jackpot?

So is the bet so bad that it becomes good at some point for a gambler willing to risk large sums like the winner did? (channeling Yogi Berra) Is that what the winner was hoping for or was he like a Power Ball Lotto player looking at the jackpot and playing without regard to a rational analysis.

The more I ponder this topic, the more I'd like to hear the answers to these questions. While I won't argue that a jackpot style wager is not necessarily for the serious player, it does make one wonder why the winner of this pool would invest so much money, tossing out the favorite and the second choice in the first two legs, which both run second.

I guess maybe having almost 5% of the combos and beating some chalk can justify going for a pot winning ticket, with the idea if it's shared or you have more chalk run in, you at least get your money back. An educated risk, if you will.

With the idea that "serious" money stayed away from these pools, I kinda liked the idea of a small fish like me throwing a few beans in if I thought I had some logical bombers that could payout on single ticket. I may need to rethink that a bit, if every time a jackpot pools builds up to a tempting amount, I've got to worry about a medium sized fish jumping in there and taking it down with what I consider a significant investment.....

[Stillriledup]

Anytime a guy wins half a million at the track, people will look at him with admiration...and they are bound to think that he is smart. The truth is that no one knows what kind of player this man is.

There is one thing that I know for sure, though:

$463,219 isn't a heck of a lot of money if you are in the habit of wagering $1,764 on individual bets. If I were this type of bettor, I would hesitate to call such a score "life-changing".

No "racetrack lifer" is going to "change his life" no matter how much money he wins. The only people who get "lifechanging scores" would be people who arent really gamblers and just happened to win a quick pick on their yearly visit. If anyone of us, myself included, hit for 500k or more, we wouldnt change too much, the sun would rise in the east, set in the west and we would be cracking open the PPs and doing exactly what we did the day before.....to the letter. :D

[therussmeister]

That's what I thought too, but then I saw how well the P6 at Gulfstream was paying. A friend did some work on it, and here are the results in simple math. It's almost always an overlay. https://twitter.com/InsideTheNumbrs/status/438825755544285184/photo/1

Sometimes the number of people trying to hit the impossible ticket to bring down the whole pool, actually creates value.

Not saying every jackpot bet is an overlay, in fact I bet most aren't. Gulfstream is though.
That the rainbow six frequently pays more than a parlay does not necessarily make it a good bet, it just makes it a better bet than a parlay. The thing is nobody should be compelled to parlay six consecutive races, so comparing the rainbow six to a parlay is a moot point when determining whether the bet is an overlay.

Personally, If I assume that I could never take down the whole pool, and that is a safe assumption, and giving a very optimistic estimate to my probability of winning a shared payout, I can't see it as being a worthy investment, even with the enhanced payout caused by a huge carryover.

I am not merely looking at this from a simple financial standpoint, but also looking at how much time I would have to invest to put together each ticket.

[AndyC]

That the rainbow six frequently pays more than a parlay does not necessarily make it a good bet, it just makes it a better bet than a parlay. The thing is nobody should be compelled to parlay six consecutive races, so comparing the rainbow six to a parlay is a moot point when determining whether the bet is an overlay.

Personally, If I assume that I could never take down the whole pool, and that is a safe assumption, and giving a very optimistic estimate to my probability of winning a shared payout, I can't see it as being a worthy investment, even with the enhanced payout caused by a huge carryover.

I am not merely looking at this from a simple financial standpoint, but also looking at how much time I would have to invest to put together each ticket.

Personally I am stunned anytime someone considers a bet to be an overlay just because the payoff is higher than a parlay. It doesn't say much for horseplayers when such thinking is a common belief.

[thaskalos]

That the rainbow six frequently pays more than a parlay does not necessarily make it a good bet, it just makes it a better bet than a parlay. The thing is nobody should be compelled to parlay six consecutive races, so comparing the rainbow six to a parlay is a moot point when determining whether the bet is an overlay.

Personally, If I assume that I could never take down the whole pool, and that is a safe assumption, and giving a very optimistic estimate to my probability of winning a shared payout, I can't see it as being a worthy investment, even with the enhanced payout caused by a huge carryover.

I am not merely looking at this from a simple financial standpoint, but also looking at how much time I would have to invest to put together each ticket.
It depends...

One day last week (I think it was Wednesday), I broke my promise never to bet Gulfstream again...and I wagered about $370 on the rainbow six (I had seen a peculiar dream). I made it through to the last race...and I thought I had the last race covered -- because I was live to FOUR horses. My horses finished second, third, fourth, and fifth.

I think there were 6 winning tickets...and each one was worth a little over $80,000.

So I think it would have been worth my time to have been included among the winners. :)

[Poindexter]

I think in general the Rainbow six is not as bad a play a many think. I prefer to compare the payout to a pick 3 parlay rather than a straight parlay when trying to decipher whether there is a good value in the pool. Pick 3's will generally pay significantly more than a parlay and you can make a pick 3 parlay if you want to, so why would you look at the smaller paying straight parlay as a guide. I do not think for the most part the payouts have been too bad with the exception of on a couple of days, but the problem is that if you are not chasing the jackpot, what is the point of playing? Why not parlay 2 pick 3's and narrow in specifically on the races you truly like. If you are chasing the jackpot, you are likely be throwing in a lot of horses you typically would not, just to give yourself a chance. FWIW, I think your best chance of having any chance of pulling this down is to single 2 horses you really like in the 4-1 to 6-1 range, and buying or almost buying the other 4 races. Hope you hit your singles, and hope you can miraculously pull down 3 or 4 bombs in the 4 spreads. The problem is that ticket will likely cost you about $2000 +. You would have maybe a 4% chance of getting home your singles and you just have to get lucky after that. The problem of course is having an adequate bankroll(You can easily have to spend over $100,000 trying to hit these with that kind of wager). Its unfortunately takes an incredible amount of luck to be the only ticket with 6 when they are putting half a million dollars into the pool. If you have the bankroll and are willing to risk it this is not a bad play if you have the right 2 singles and you think the other 4 races are open enough. You just have to pick your spots and of course get extremely lucky.

If there are tracks offering this bet that are not getting the large pools actually this is a much better situation to the player. They do not have to hit so many bombs to bring down the pool and can play a lot more sensibly and still have a chance of bringing down the pool.

[thaskalos]

I think pick-3s suck.

In my experience, most of them pay LESS than a parlay...which is downright ridiculous.

[Stillriledup]

I think pick-3s suck.

In my experience, most of them pay LESS than a parlay...which is downright ridiculous.

It should be a rare occurrence when a pick 3, 4, 5 or 6 pays less than the parlay....yet, you see this on an almost daily basis somewhere....its not hard to find if you peruse the results around the country. Why this happens is anyone's guess, multiple "takeouts" should almost always pay less than "one takeout" on a pick anything.

[Poindexter]

I think pick-3s suck.

In my experience, most of them pay LESS than a parlay...which is downright ridiculous.

Not sure why you think this? For the heck of it I took all the pick 3's for the last 3 days at Gulfstream, skipping Thursday(the day races came off turf). The first number is the win mutual, the 2nd is the parlay amount for $1 and the third number is the pick 3 payout the 4th is the percentage premium by playing the pick 3 over a straight parlay. I would expect about a 30% premium overall, but typically it will be less when the 3 races come up chalky and more when the price horses start hitting. In the 3 days only 1 pick 3 came below a parlay and about 1/2 were 30% or more above a parlay(including 1 that came 530% above a parlay).

3.6
14
5.6 35.28 45.9 30.10%
3 29.4 39.1 32.99%
29.6 62.16 60.1 -3.31%
6 66.6 72.1 8.26%
4.2 93.24 140.4 50.58%
39.8 125.37 148.7 18.61%
15.8 330.141 473.4 43.39%
7.2 565.956 983 73.69%

19.6
5
10.8 132.3 190.4 43.92%
7 47.25 53.8 13.86%
7.4 69.93 91.4 30.70%
4.8 31.08 37.5 20.66%
20.6 91.464 94 2.77%
5 61.8 79.5 28.64%
6.8 87.55 159.5 82.18%
15.8 67.15 102.7 52.94%

4.6
13
7.2 53.82 120.3 123.52%
37.6 439.92 511.3 16.23%
5.8 196.272 334.4 70.38%
54.8 1493.848 2150.7 43.97%
8.6 341.678 424 24.09%
41.6 2450.656 15448.1 530.37%
19.6 876.512 1537.5 75.41%
12.8 1304.576 1344.5 3.06%
9.8 307.328 333.3 8.45%

[DeltaLover]

Leaving aside the fact that I consider this particular bet to be more of a
lottery than horse betting, I have to say that what this expert bettor
accomplished here, is exactly what the horse betting is about.

Winning huge with a relatively small amount (which might no seem small by the
standards of a typical retiree or a wanna be pro who struggles to maintain a
positive ROI) requires a combination of both in depth understanding of the
mechanics of the game, the guts to parlay a small win to lifetime triumph and
the ability to give yourself the chance to get lucky in the right spot...

The absolute value of the score is way more significant than its proportional
measurement in terms of the initial investment. This is exactly what most of the
posters here do not seem to get. It takes a completely different skill level to
turn a $1,764 bet to $463,219 than to $10 to $2,620...

[therussmeister]

If there are tracks offering this bet that are not getting the large pools actually this is a much better situation to the player. They do not have to hit so many bombs to bring down the pool and can play a lot more sensibly and still have a chance of bringing down the pool.
I considered this last spring when I realised Calder offers this bet too, but you never hear about it because it never gets too big. At Calder, since they started running head-to-head with Gulfstream, it rarely gets above $5,000 before someone hits it, so actually their pools are too small.

[Cholly]

Leaving aside the fact that I consider this particular bet to be more of a
lottery than horse betting, I have to say that what this expert bettor
accomplished here, is exactly what the horse betting is about.

Winning huge with a relatively small amount (which might no seem small by the
standards of a typical retiree or a wanna be pro who struggles to maintain a
positive ROI) requires a combination of both in depth understanding of the
mechanics of the game, the guts to parlay a small win to lifetime triumph and
the ability to give yourself the chance to get lucky in the right spot...

The absolute value of the score is way more significant than its proportional
measurement in terms of the initial investment. This is exactly what most of the
posters here do not seem to get. It takes a completely different skill level to
turn a $1,764 bet to $463,219 than to $10 to $2,620...
I would say Mr. Ninio is playing chess, in a situation where guys like me would try to play checkers.

[Robert Goren]

It maybe because people are chasing longshots to take down the whole thing that a ticket with favorites or near favorites might be an overlay. But there is no way to know for sure although past histories may give enough of a clue to bet them. Just remember the IRS has its hand out if you get a payout of over $600 when you do your figuring.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

No "racetrack lifer" is going to "change his life" no matter how much money he wins. The only people who get "lifechanging scores" would be people who arent really gamblers and just happened to win a quick pick on their yearly visit. If anyone of us, myself included, hit for 500k or more, we wouldnt change too much, the sun would rise in the east, set in the west and we would be cracking open the PPs and doing exactly what we did the day before.....to the letter. :D

Not entirely true, SRU. If you hit for $500K, then the campaign for your handsome mug to appear on racing's Mt. Rushmore goes into full gear..... ;)

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Leaving aside the fact that I consider this particular bet to be more of a lottery than horse betting, I have to say that what this expert bettor accomplished here, is exactly what the horse betting is about.
...
...
...
The absolute value of the score is way more significant than its proportional
measurement in terms of the initial investment. This is exactly what most of the
posters here do not seem to get. It takes a completely different skill level to
turn a $1,764 bet to $463,219 than to $10 to $2,620...

I'm not sure I follow you, Delta. I can understand that a guy who bets mostly carryovers and is handicapping the win slot only is a different skill, but exactly how is completely different from the bettor who hits the jackpot 5 on a non-payout day when investing $10 and turning into $2,620 - the same ROI as the $463K win?

Granted, somewhere in there is the skill to calculate the risk/reward ratio, and when to step up and invest a larger sum. But with so many unknowns in a multi-race bet like this, with two chalks running second which could have turned that ticket into a much smaller payout, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. He bought one race (all) and needed the even money chalk in the last leg to win, so I've got to believe many of the other 1763 combos he had were not going to be "pot" tickets.

Like Thask mentioned, $463K is hardly a life-changing score for someone wagering $1,764 to win it....

[Awesome_Again]

Personally I am stunned anytime someone considers a bet to be an overlay just because the payoff is higher than a parlay. It doesn't say much for horseplayers when such thinking is a common belief.

Parlay is the best way to determine relative value. It doesn't have any relevance to an overlay. Anybody who says that is using incorrect terminology.

Today at AQU, the early pick 5 paid $1,335, versus a parlay of $858 (1.56x). Yesterday, it paid $3,001 versus a parlay of $983 (3.05x). Now obviously the payoff yesterday was much higher relative to parlay. Was it better value? That's up to the player to determine based on their ticket opinion.

As for the GP pick 6, it's been proven time and again it's worth a bet if you are (a) trying to get logical horses home, which results in a higher-than-normal payoff due to those chasing the single ticket, or (b) playing for the jackpot. What is NOT worth playing is a string of mid-priced horses which will neither have inflated payoffs or have a chance at the jackpot. Take for example Sunday Feb 16th, where the payoffs were $6.20 $8 $17.20 $19.60 $10.40 and $14.40 in a daunting sequence, and the parlay was "only" 1.9x. Compare that to Feb 6th (carryover at only $424k), no horse paid higher than $8.60, and it paid 3.2x the parlay. "Traditional" pick 6's do not follow this pattern. Typically the best payoffs relative to parlays on traditional $2 pick 6's is a string of mid-priced horses with beaten favorites.

[Ray]

I think pick-3s suck.

In my experience, most of them pay LESS than a parlay...which is downright ridiculous.

The smaller the pools the more likely it is u would get a pick 3 pay less than the parlay. In small pools it's only takes one or two people playing a combo multiple times at the major tracks these wagers have less of an impact and it is less likely someone will wager an amount that is going to alter the payoff so this why I think these pay about what people expect at the bigger track and u get pick 3s that pay Half of what they should pay at tracks that handle just a few thousand in each pool

[barn32]

$463,219 isn't a heck of a lot of money if you are in the habit of wagering $1,764 on individual bets. If I were this type of bettor, I would hesitate to call such a score "life-changing".The absolute value of the score is way more significant than its proportional
measurement in terms of the initial investment. This is exactly what most of the
posters here do not seem to get. It takes a completely different skill level to
turn a $1,764 bet to $463,219 than to $10 to $2,620...The score this gentleman made is not what it appears to be. His actual score is what must be factored into the equation.

39.6% on taxable income over $400,000. (http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx)

$279,785.

$279,785/$1764 = 158 to one

This is still good, mind you, but the government just made a very nice riskless score as well.

[AndyC]

Parlay is the best way to determine relative value. It doesn't have any relevance to an overlay. Anybody who says that is using incorrect terminology.

Today at AQU, the early pick 5 paid $1,335, versus a parlay of $858 (1.56x). Yesterday, it paid $3,001 versus a parlay of $983 (3.05x). Now obviously the payoff yesterday was much higher relative to parlay. Was it better value? That's up to the player to determine based on their ticket opinion.

As for the GP pick 6, it's been proven time and again it's worth a bet if you are (a) trying to get logical horses home, which results in a higher-than-normal payoff due to those chasing the single ticket, or (b) playing for the jackpot. What is NOT worth playing is a string of mid-priced horses which will neither have inflated payoffs or have a chance at the jackpot. Take for example Sunday Feb 16th, where the payoffs were $6.20 $8 $17.20 $19.60 $10.40 and $14.40 in a daunting sequence, and the parlay was "only" 1.9x. Compare that to Feb 6th (carryover at only $424k), no horse paid higher than $8.60, and it paid 3.2x the parlay. "Traditional" pick 6's do not follow this pattern. Typically the best payoffs relative to parlays on traditional $2 pick 6's is a string of mid-priced horses with beaten favorites.

If by relative value you mean you would lose less with one bet over another in the long run then yes I would agree. The only value that has any relevance is when your payoff would exceed the payoff expected in a fair bet.

What would your answer be to the following facts:

A track has a 16% takeout rate on win bets

All horses are bet in the win pool in the exact proportion as their probabilities of winning.

A P-3 bet has 3 even money winners.

What would be the return you would need on a $1 ticket to get a fair bet with no positive or negative expectation?

[horses4courses]

If by relative value you mean you would lose less with one bet over another in the long run then yes I would agree. The only value that has any relevance is when your payoff would exceed the payoff expected in a fair bet.

What would your answer be to the following facts:

A track has a 16% takeout rate on win bets

All horses are bet in the win pool in the exact proportion as their probabilities of winning.

A P-3 bet has 3 even money winners.

What would be the return you would need on a $1 ticket to get a fair bet with no positive or negative expectation?

Three even money winners in a $1 PK3?
Anything less than an $8 return has you getting shorted, even with the takeout.
That's what your dollar would have returned had you parlayed it.

I've always found that PK3s, at the bigger circuits at least, will reward you if you can get at least one winner at bigger odds than the top two choices of each race. Or, if you can get an odds-on favorite beaten in one of the legs, it should pay decently. If the winners are short prices, a PK3 is seldom good value, imo.

[AndyC]

Three even money winners in a $1 PK3?
Anything less than an $8 return has you getting shorted, even with the takeout.
That's what your dollar would have returned had you parlayed it.

I've always found that PK3s, at the bigger circuits at least, will reward you if you can get at least one winner at bigger odds than the top two choices of each race. Or, if you can get an odds-on favorite beaten in one of the legs, it should pay decently. If the winners are short prices, a PK3 is seldom good value, imo.

If you could get back $12 on a win on the hypothetical bet proposed would you make the bet?

[horses4courses]

If you could get back $12 on a win on the hypothetical bet proposed would you make the bet?

No, not necessarily.

[AndyC]

No, not necessarily.


What return would you require?

[olddaddy]

I have no stats on if and when pk3 payoffs are better than a parlay so I wont make a off the cuff comment. The thing I do know is that there is enough technology out there to show probables for pk3s. Why they are hidden concerns me.

[Awesome_Again]

If by relative value you mean you would lose less with one bet over another in the long run then yes I would agree. The only value that has any relevance is when your payoff would exceed the payoff expected in a fair bet.

What would your answer be to the following facts:

A track has a 16% takeout rate on win bets

All horses are bet in the win pool in the exact proportion as their probabilities of winning.

A P-3 bet has 3 even money winners.

What would be the return you would need on a $1 ticket to get a fair bet with no positive or negative expectation?

Great question.

There are three correct answers in my opinion.

1) The straight parlay, $8. AKA, the automatic parlay, no different from reinvesting manually.
2) The "takeout sensitive" result, which given the 16% win bet takeout means the minimum someone would want on their "takout free" legs = $10.76.
3) The Nash Equilibrium result, which depends on one's risk tolerance given the pick 3 has no chance to stop and take profit after one or two legs.
* The gambler might take $8.01.
* The ultra risk averse player might want $250.
* The normal risk tolerance player might want $16.

[Awesome_Again]

If you could get back $12 on a win on the hypothetical bet proposed would you make the bet?

I would, yes.

See my post (in a situation like this I would want better than the "takeout free" result. But that has to do with my risk tolerance, creating my Nash Equilibria.)

[AndyC]

I would, yes.

See my post (in a situation like this I would want better than the "takeout free" result. But that has to do with my risk tolerance, creating my Nash Equilibria.)

If you accept $12 in my scenario it would be an underlay. An even money horse bet exactly proportional to it's chances of winning with a 16% takeout would have 42% of the pool. Also meaning that it would have a 42% chance of winning. The chances of 3 even money horses winning the P-3 would be .42 X .42 X .42 = .074088. Converting that to odds would give you 12.49746/1 or roughly $13.50 as a fair value payoff.

So even though the $12 payoff beats the parlay by 50% ($12 v. $8) it is still 11+% below fair value. So I really wouldn't want to base my "value" on whether or not a serial bet exceeds the very low bar of a parlay.

[Awesome_Again]

If you accept $12 in my scenario it would be an underlay. An even money horse bet exactly proportional to it's chances of winning with a 16% takeout would have 42% of the pool. Also meaning that it would have a 42% chance of winning. The chances of 3 even money horses winning the P-3 would be .42 X .42 X .42 = .074088. Converting that to odds would give you 12.49746/1 or roughly $13.50 as a fair value payoff.

So even though the $12 payoff beats the parlay by 50% ($12 v. $8) it is still 11+% below fair value. So I really wouldn't want to base my "value" on whether or not a serial bet exceeds the very low bar of a parlay.

We are on the same page. I chose not to include the takeout adjustment on the first leg because there is no takeout free wagers (.5*.42*.42). Of course if you are betting horses in a scenario where the win odds are perfect relative to their chances of winning... you can't win long term.

[AndyC]

We are on the same page. I chose not to include the takeout adjustment on the first leg because there is no takeout free wagers (.5*.42*.42). Of course if you are betting horses in a scenario where the win odds are perfect relative to their chances of winning... you can't win long term.

Most people aren't disciplined enough to restrict their wagers in the first leg of any horizontal bet to just the fairly priced or overlayed horses. They usually spread.

By using the assumption that horses are fairly bet in the win pool, I have analyzed several years of betting in the horizontal pools and found that there are situations where true overlays are more likely to occur and try to restrict my play to the more likely situations.

[thaskalos]

Most people aren't disciplined enough to restrict their wagers in the first leg of any horizontal bet to just the fairly priced or overlayed horses. They usually spread.

By using the assumption that horses are fairly bet in the win pool, I have analyzed several years of betting in the horizontal pools and found that there are situations where true overlays are more likely to occur and try to restrict my play to the more likely situations.
Is it even desirable to restrict our wagers to only the fairly priced horses in the first leg of our horizontal bets?

In the more "exotic" of these horizontal bets...it seems to me that CASHING would be the most important consideration...and there might still be ample opportunity for "value" in the subsequent legs.

I would hate to miss out on cashing a pick-6 (or even a pick-5) because I neglected to include an apparent -- but otherwise "playable" -- underlay in the first leg.

[Awesome_Again]

Is it even desirable to restrict our wagers to only the fairly priced horses in the first leg of our horizontal bets?

In the more "exotic" of these horizontal bets...it seems to me that CASHING would be the most important consideration...and there might still be ample opportunity for "value" in the subsequent legs.

I would hate to miss out on cashing a pick-6 (or even a pick-5) because I neglected to include an apparent -- but otherwise "playable" -- underlay in the first leg.

I agree with you with Pick 4+.

And while it's almost impossible to verify factually, it seems most players actually undervalue shorter prices in the opening leg because they "don't want to bust out early."

[AndyC]

Is it even desirable to restrict our wagers to only the fairly priced horses in the first leg of our horizontal bets?

In the more "exotic" of these horizontal bets...it seems to me that CASHING would be the most important consideration...and there might still be ample opportunity for "value" in the subsequent legs.

I would hate to miss out on cashing a pick-6 (or even a pick-5) because I neglected to include an apparent -- but otherwise "playable" -- underlay in the first leg.

I completely agree. My research was primarily concerned with P-3s and P-4s. In betting P-6s and P-5s I am strictly looking for winners/contenders and will evaluate whether or not to play based on what the total ticket looks like and my confidence level.