Del Mar offers $.50 min Trifectas for Bing Crosby Meet

[Todaysracingdigest]

Will this be followed by $.50 min Pick 3's and $1 min Double's as they will have at the Breeders' Cup at Keeneland?

[AndyC]

Will this be followed by $.50 min Pick 3's and $1 min Double's as they will have at the Breeders' Cup at Keeneland?

One can only hope. I am not one of the crowd that believes that because lower minimums allows more spreading that somehow my bets are the ones directly affected.

[Stillriledup]

One can only hope. I am not one of the crowd that believes that because lower minimums allows more spreading that somehow my bets are the ones directly affected.

If you punch a tri with a 3-5 on top of a 5-2 on top of a 10-1 , you might benefit, however, if you catch a tri in a 10 horse field of 8-1 over 12-1 over 15/1 you won't get as much as you would had the minimum been a buck. It all depends where on the oddsboard you concentrate your plays.

[AndyC]

If you punch a tri with a 3-5 on top of a 5-2 on top of a 10-1 , you might benefit, however, if you catch a tri in a 10 horse field of 8-1 over 12-1 over 15/1 you won't get as much as you would had the minimum been a buck. It all depends where on the oddsboard you concentrate your plays.

Can we agree that when one combination or combinations get bet more and accordingly pay less then some other combinations will pay more as a result? It seems to me that you should be directing your efforts toward handicapping the bettors and making bets that will benefit from overplay of certain combinations.

[Track Phantom]

Lower minimums hurt the game. While it allows the $25 per day bettor to be involved, it does impact the possibility of overlaid scores.

I, for one, would like to see something like a $5 minimum pick 6. The possibility of hitting something massive, even if just a pipedream for some, would garner more interest.

Personally, I think one of the things that really discourages players are when they "win" a bet and get back less than their investment. The old adage that people just want to cash tickets is ridiculous and insults the intelligence of people that understand what "gambling" really is.

[thaskalos]

One can only hope. I am not one of the crowd that believes that because lower minimums allows more spreading that somehow my bets are the ones directly affected.

Then you must love Hawthorne's 20-cent trifecta.

[AndyC]

Lower minimums hurt the game. While it allows the $25 per day bettor to be involved, it does impact the possibility of overlaid scores.....

If you bet a horse at 10-1 that you believe should be 3-1 do you have an overlaid score? To depend on pools that aren't big enough to have sufficient coverage to try and catch an overlaid bet is lunacy.

A pool without sufficient coverage cuts both ways. You will get more underlaid bets as well as the elusive overlay.

Please explain to me how one knows which horses will be underplayed in the $1 or $2 trifectas. SRU? Thaskalos?

[Track Phantom]

If you bet a horse at 10-1 that you believe should be 3-1 do you have an overlaid score? To depend on pools that aren't big enough to have sufficient coverage to try and catch an overlaid bet is lunacy.

A pool without sufficient coverage cuts both ways. You will get more underlaid bets as well as the elusive overlay.

Please explain to me how one knows which horses will be underplayed in the $1 or $2 trifectas. SRU? Thaskalos?

I don't think the logic is all that hard to understand. Most people gravitate to the lower priced runners in ALL spots of a vertical wager. However, the lower the bet minimum, the more opportunity to include higher prices. With a higher minimum, I'm of the belief (although no data to back it up, ie, I can be persuaded in another direction) that longer priced runners will induce much larger overall payoffs. I do agree that lower priced runners in the verticals will induce possibly lower payoffs than we see today with the lower minimums.

Again, I don't have data to support this so maybe I'm wrong.

[Stillriledup]

Can we agree that when one combination or combinations get bet more and accordingly pay less then some other combinations will pay more as a result? It seems to me that you should be directing your efforts toward handicapping the bettors and making bets that will benefit from overplay of certain combinations.

This is true. Sometimes though a wager calls for boxing up some bombs in the tri, the 50 cent base precludes me from being able to do that and get paid something substantial.

[thaskalos]

If you bet a horse at 10-1 that you believe should be 3-1 do you have an overlaid score? To depend on pools that aren't big enough to have sufficient coverage to try and catch an overlaid bet is lunacy.

A pool without sufficient coverage cuts both ways. You will get more underlaid bets as well as the elusive overlay.

Please explain to me how one knows which horses will be underplayed in the $1 or $2 trifectas. SRU? Thaskalos?

I will gladly answer your question...when you answer the question that I asked you first. Do you enjoy Hawthorne's 20-cent trifectas...and if not...WHY NOT?

If the lower minimums are really good for us, as you say...then when the minimums get lower still...it should be even BETTER for us...right?

Have you noticed what the 20-cent minimums have done to the trifecta payoffs at Hawthorne?

[Track Phantom]

Have you noticed what the 20-cent minimums have done to the trifecta payoffs at Hawthorne?

Here are the .20c Trifecta payouts at Hawthorne for Tuesday. Not sure if these payoffs are in line or not for a track that didn't offer a .20c min:

R1: .20c payoff $32.58 (converted to $1 is $162.90) -- Odds were 20-1/7-5/5-2 (8 horse field)
R2: .20c payoff $39.00 (converted to $1 is $195.00) -- Odds were 7-1/13-1/5-1 (8 horse field)
R3: .20c payoff $58.62 (converted to $1 is $293.10) -- Odds were 4-1/13-1/9-1 (7 horse field)
R4: .20c payoff $35.64 (converted to $1 is $178.20) -- Odds were 9-1/2-1/5-2 (9 horse field)
R5: .20c payoff $14.38 (converted to $1 is $71.90) -- Odds were 1-1/9-2/24-1 (8 horse field)
R6: .20c payoff $224.12 (converted to $1 is $1,120.60) -- Odds were 6-1/17-1/16-1 (9 horse field)
R7: .20c payoff $18.92 (converted to $1 is $94.60) -- Odds were 1-5/32-1/14-1 (9 horse field)
R8: .20c payoff $12.44 (converted to $1 is $62.20) -- Odds were 4-5/7-1/6-1 (10 horse field)
R9: .20c payoff $34.46 (converted to $1 is $172.30) -- Odds were 3-5/10-1/107-1 (12 horse field)

By comparison, I took Santa Anita payoffs for Sunday. I laid them out in the same format even though Santa Anita doesn't offer .20c minimum just for comparison purposes.

R1: .20c payoff $9.26 (converted to $1 is $46.30) -- Odds were 7-2/4-1/2-1 (6 horse field)
R2: .20c payoff $6.98 (converted to $1 is $34.90) -- Odds were 2-1/4-1/6-1 (6 horse field)
R3: .20c payoff $17.88 (converted to $1 is $89.40) -- Odds were 9-1/5-1/3-5 (5 horse field)
R4: .20c payoff $64.18 (converted to $1 is $320.90) -- Odds were 5-2/28-1/6-1 (9 horse field)
R5: .20c payoff $7.94 (converted to $1 is $39.70) -- Odds were 9-5/8-5/21-1 (6 horse field)
R6: ELIMINATED RACE 6 due to a dead heat for the win
R7: .20c payoff $9.76 (converted to $1 is $48.80) -- Odds were 4-1/6-1/5-2 (6 horse field)
R8: .20c payoff $41.54 (converted to $1 is $207.70) -- Odds were 7-1/6-1/15-1 (6 horse field)
R9: .20c payoff $22.22 (converted to $1 is $111.10) -- Odds were 4-1/7-1/7-2 (8 horse field)

Not sure what this tells me other than So. Cal. trifecta payoffs are absurdly low due to the small fields, typically low prices and high takeout rate. Yuck!

[proximity]

idk, but it seems to me that lower minimums should actually allow experts like sru and some of these real good handicappers here to bet amounts that are actually closer to their estimated e/o ratios on each individual combination.

so they would bet more money on many bets they're already making. actually make some extra small bets that they wouldn't make now due to minimums being too high. and win more money overall.

jmo.

[Stillriledup]

idk, but it seems to me that lower minimums should actually allow experts like sru and some of these real good handicappers here to bet amounts that are actually closer to their estimated e/o ratios on each individual combination.

so they would bet more money on many bets they're already making. actually make some extra small bets that they wouldn't make now due to minimums being too high. and win more money overall.

jmo.

Im pretty good at guessing what tris will pay after i know the result but before the payoffs are posted, ive found that when im most wrong is the 50 cent tri tracks, those tris more often than not, pay less than i guess.

[Track Phantom]

Im pretty good at guessing what tris will pay after i know the result but before the payoffs are posted, ive found that when im most wrong is the 50 cent tri tracks, those tris more often than not, pay less than i guess.

Case closed, I guess.

[Stillriledup]

Case closed, I guess.

It is for me, all that matters is what I feel I need for certain outcomes and the 50 cent tri tracks fall short, they don't pay enough for the degree of difficulty. too watered down.

[thaskalos]

It is for me, all that matters is what I feel I need for certain outcomes and the 50 cent tri tracks fall short, they don't pay enough for the degree of difficulty. too watered down.
When the tracks start instituting 20-cent trifectas...and it costs $12 to box five horses in today's short field environment...then how can the payoffs not suffer? These mini-minimums have taken the "handicapping" out of the game.

[AndyC]

I will gladly answer your question...when you answer the question that I asked you first. Do you enjoy Hawthorne's 20-cent trifectas...and if not...WHY NOT?

If the lower minimums are really good for us, as you say...then when the minimums get lower still...it should be even BETTER for us...right?

Have you noticed what the 20-cent minimums have done to the trifecta payoffs at Hawthorne?


I don't play Hawthorne. Haven't bet a Hawthorne race since December of 1992.

If minimums get lower it might be better. It all depends on whether or not the lowered minimum increases the total pool.

I haven't noticed what the 20-cent trifectas have done to the payoffs at Hawthorne because I haven't looked. I can only tell you that to the extent some payoffs have gone down others have gone up. If I did play trifectas at Hawthorne you could be damn sure I knew the payoff tendencies of the 20-cent bets and I would bet accordingly.

[Stillriledup]

When the tracks start instituting 20-cent trifectas...and it costs $12 to box five horses in today's short field environment...then how can the payoffs not suffer? These mini-minimums have taken the "handicapping" out of the game.

The 20 cent bet is pure evil for trifecta. It makes a bit more sense on a penta or pick 6, but on a tri? No.

If every bet was a one cent minimum, that would mean for 7 dollars and 20 cents, a person could box up all 10 horses in the tri (in a 10 horse field) and have the winner. With a 1 cent min, everyone can win. Every single person who can afford 7 bucks can have their penny on the winning combo. Moving a tri from a buck to 50 cents is halfway there.

Andy Cs point is that if there's a penny on the 10th choice over the 9th choice over the 8th choice, it means that some other combo will go up In price, which is true, but I don't care about that because if I hit a really hard to have tri, I don't want my high end price watered down, the tri with favorites is low to begin with, its not going to matter to me if a tri that pays 39 for 1 dollar is really 'good value' because the watering down of the higher end prices got this tri to pay 39 when it might otherwise have paid 37.

[AndyC]

When the tracks start instituting 20-cent trifectas...and it costs $12 to box five horses in today's short field environment...then how can the payoffs not suffer? These mini-minimums have taken the "handicapping" out of the game.

I am shocked to read a statement like this from you. How can a shotgun approach to betting yield results that would hurt someone who does informed targeted betting?

Would someone who bet every horse to win in a race hurt your win odds? Would a person who wheeled all exactas hurt your exacta price? There is no doubt that certain horses or combinations would take more money than usual but it only means that other horses and combinations are taking less than usual. I have no sympathy for any serious bettor who doesn't know the nuances of the pools they are betting. It's not a horse picking game it's a gambling game.

[thaskalos]

Andy Cs point is that if there's a penny on the 10th choice over the 9th choice over the 8th choice, it means that some other combo will go up In price, which is true, but I don't care about that because if I hit a really hard to have tri, I don't want my high end price watered down, the tri with favorites is low to begin with, its not going to matter to me if a tri that pays 39 for 1 dollar is really 'good value' because the watering down of the higher end prices got this tri to pay 39 when it might otherwise have paid 37.
I know what AndyC's point is...but I disagree with it. Andy thinks that every player bets like him...and an underlay "there" creates an overlay "here". The truth is that there are a lot of people out there who like to box their bets no matter what...and this betting philosophy, which would be ruinous with the higher minimums, becomes affordable with the mini-minimums.

I do a thorough and competent job of handicapping...and I bet a 1/2-3-4-5/2-3-4-5, $1 trifecta combination...which costs me $12. Five other guys also invest $12, and box 1-2-3-4-5 for 20 cents...a play that they never would have made if the wager cost them the $60 that it used to. I win my bet...and split the winnings with the five other guys...who would have been out of the bet if the minimum was a dollar.

We think that our knowledge is "esoteric", and that our selections are hard for the average guy to come up with...but the truth is that the best horses are out there for everyone to see. We collect the exotics prices that we do...because most of the players out there cannot afford to make the wager that some of these races demand. Lower the minimum bet enough...and these wagers become affordable for everybody. And everybody shares when you win.

The trifecta is a difficult bet when the fields are full. When the fields are short, then there is nothing difficult about the trifecta...and the 20 cent minimum makes it a "piece of cake".

[thaskalos]

It's not a horse picking game it's a gambling game.
It's not a real gambling game...when the "gamble" in it is gone. And when we play trifectas for dimes...then the gamble is gone.

[Stillriledup]

No doubt Gus, your above post is exactly how I feel too, if I catch a tri in a big field with a bunch of hard to have horses, I don't want a lower minimum to make it easier for my competition to have money on the winner also. In order to catch a tri in a biggish field w 1 dollar minimum, you have to either spend hundreds of dollars (boxing 8 of the 10 is 336 bucks) or just handicap really well and bet really well. With lower minimums, you don't have to handicap as well and you can get away with having a smaller bankroll.

[cj]

I think I'm probably just echoing AndyC, but if all the long combinations are now being overbet, shouldn't there be better value on the shorter, more logical prices?

[Stillriledup]

I think I'm probably just echoing AndyC, but if all the long combinations are now being overbet, shouldn't there be better value on the shorter, more logical prices?
There might be, but if you're not a person who bets favorites, the extra value doesn't do you any good on those combos, you want the value on the higher end of the board.

[thaskalos]

I think I'm probably just echoing AndyC, but if all the long combinations are now being overbet, shouldn't there be better value on the shorter, more logical prices?
It's an easy question to answer, CJ...and it involves very little "speculation". All it takes is a little investigation on the trifecta payoffs at Hawthorne...and it will become apparent if the "shorter, more logical horses" offer better value.

Start betting Hawthorne...and you'll see for yourself.

[AndyC]

....We think that our knowledge is "esoteric", and that our selections are hard for the average guy to come up with...but the truth is that the best horses are out there for everyone to see. We collect the exotics prices that we do...because most of the players out there cannot afford to make the wager that some of these races demand. Lower the minimum bet enough...and these wagers become affordable for everybody. And everybody shares when you win.

The trifecta is a difficult bet when the fields are full. When the fields are short, then there is nothing difficult about the trifecta...and the 20 cent minimum makes it a "piece of cake".

Is betting to win affordable for everybody? If so, do you skip the win pools?

If the higher priced minimums for trifectas allowed for such great prices wouldn't you expect that whales and other sharp players to notice and move in for a piece of the action?

A 20 cent trifecta may make it easier to cash a bet but it doesn't make it easier to be a winner. I would guess that the people who were losing 30% of their money at a $1 a pop are still losing 30% at $.20 a pop.

[AndyC]

There might be, but if you're not a person who bets favorites, the extra value doesn't do you any good on those combos, you want the value on the higher end of the board.

I guess I am one of those silly guys who is just interested in winning. If I saw that favorites produced value in trifectas I would be betting favorites. I don't like to keep pissing into the wind all the while hoping that the wind changes direction.

[thaskalos]

[QUOTE=AndyC I would guess that the people who were losing 30% of their money at a $1 a pop are still losing 30% at $.20 a pop.[/QUOTE]



I am not as sure about this as you seem to be. I honestly believe that the exotics are unbeatable for many people simply because they cannot afford to structure them the right way.

I assure you that, if the California Pick-6 suddenly offered a 1-cent minimum...then I would automatically transform myself into one of the best Pick-6 players in the country.

[thaskalos]

I guess I am one of those silly guys who is just interested in winning. If I saw that favorites produced value in trifectas I would be betting favorites. I don't like to keep pissing into the wind all the while hoping that the wind changes direction.
No...you are not silly. You just think that you know what is happening with these mini-minimums...even though you haven't investigated their results. :)

[Stillriledup]

I guess I am one of those silly guys who is just interested in winning. If I saw that favorites produced value in trifectas I would be betting favorites. I don't like to keep pissing into the wind all the while hoping that the wind changes direction.

The game is about pecking order. The easiest bet to hit is a show bet. The hardest bets are pick 6s and pentas with everything in between. Why alter the degree of difficulty pecking order by lowering minimums? the purpose of the tri is to try and win thousands of dollars for a one dollar wager, its not there so you can turn your 1 dollar into 37. Winning 37 dollars is easily do-able in the win pool or exa pool, why do I want to be betting on tris that are 'chalky'? I want my tri to pay 2500 for a buck, that's the whole reason to bet a tri in the first place.

There are X amount of ways you can 'score' in this game, by lowering a tri from a buck to 50 cents, you just take away more big score potential and water it down, there's no reason for that, there are plenty of 'grind it out' opportunities for people w exas, DDs and WPS.

[AndyC]

I am not as sure about this as you seem to be. I honestly believe that the exotics are unbeatable for many people simply because they cannot afford to structure them the right way.

I assure you that, if the California Pick-6 suddenly offered a 1-cent minimum...then I would automatically transform myself into one of the best Pick-6 players in the country.

Now you have changed the discussion from a player who just wants to box 5 horses to a player who just lacks a bankroll (or balls) to bet effectively. I would welcome the former with open arms.

If the P-6 offered 1-cent minimum you would become one of the best P-6 players in the country and I would become a former player. The lure for me is the carryover.

[AndyC]

No...you are not silly. You just think that you know what is happening with these mini-minimums...even though you haven't investigated their results. :)


Any investigation would show that certain combinations are bet more now while others are bet less now. I just don't know the specifics.

[thaskalos]

If the P-6 offered 1-cent minimum you would become one of the best P-6 players in the country and I would become a former player. The lure for me is the carryover.
And the carryover is there...because we can't afford to sufficiently deal with the complexity of the wager. The same logic applies to the superfecta, and the trifecta...only to a lesser extent. There is a threshold beyond which the wager renders the competent player, a "former player"...and, IMO...this threshold has been crossed in the trifecta. It has made a "former player" out of me.

[AndyC]

And the carryover is there...because we can't afford to sufficiently deal with the complexity of the wager. The same logic applies to the superfecta, and the trifecta...only to a lesser extent. There is a threshold beyond which the wager renders the competent player, a "former player"...and, IMO...this threshold has been crossed in the trifecta. It has made a "former player" out of me.

I am perfectly willing to bet an efficient pool in the P-6 when there is an adequate carryover. You, on the other hand, are not willing to bet an efficient trifecta pool.

[Stillriledup]

I am perfectly willing to bet an efficient pool in the P-6 when there is an adequate carryover. You, on the other hand, are not willing to bet an efficient trifecta pool.

why lower the degree of difficulty though? Aren't there enough bets that are 'easy' to hit? Why make a hard bet easier? can't we have SOME bets that are hard so we can score out if we're right? Does every bet on the planet have to be as easy as possible to hit for every customer?

[AndyC]

why lower the degree of difficulty though? Aren't there enough bets that are 'easy' to hit? Why make a hard bet easier? can't we have SOME bets that are hard so we can score out if we're right? Does every bet on the planet have to be as easy as possible to hit for every customer?

If I bet you that you couldn't blindly pick the Ace of Spades out of a deck of cards, would your degree of difficulty be lower if the bet were $10 or $1?

[thaskalos]

I am perfectly willing to bet an efficient pool in the P-6 when there is an adequate carryover. You, on the other hand, are not willing to bet an efficient trifecta pool.
Andy, I respect your opinion...and I agree with you the vast majority of the time. But in this case...I couldn't disagree with you more. No big deal...we can't expect to agree on everything.

I have no interest in investing my money in an "efficient" trifecta pool. I look for spots where the trifecta pools appear INEFFICIENT...and the bettors' inability or reluctance to commit the necessary funds is what creates these inefficiencies...as far as I am concerned. These are high-takeout wagers, and, when you couple that with the chaotic nature of this style of betting...mere "solid handicapping" is not enough to overcome the odds against me. I need my version of the "carryover" too before I get involved...and in the trifecta...this "carryover" is the value that is inherent in the complexity of some of these races. But this "inherent value" is only there SOMETIMES...and only when the complexity and the cost of the wager prevent the trifecta pools from becoming "efficient".

Should I pay a 26% takeout in order to bet into an "efficient pool"?

[AndyC]

......Should I pay a 26% takeout in order to bet into an "efficient pool"?

I don't think anybody should. So we do agree on that. At what takeout rate would you consider betting into an efficient pool in a trifecta?

I believe that racing needs large efficient low takeout pools to prosper.

[Stillriledup]

I don't think anybody should. So we do agree on that. At what takeout rate would you consider betting into an efficient pool in a trifecta?

I believe that racing needs large efficient low takeout pools to prosper.

You play the pick 6, you're not looking for an efficient price, you want the outlier pool shot once in a while. You want to hit a pick 6 that pays 150k that SHOULD pay about 30. You don't want every pick 6 you hit to 'pay what it should'.

[Stillriledup]

If I bet you that you couldn't blindly pick the Ace of Spades out of a deck of cards, would your degree of difficulty be lower if the bet were $10 or $1?

The odds of an outcome like this are only equal if all other things are equal. Since every bettor has a different size bankroll and different skill level, it's not equal. With respect to trifectas, all I care about is making it as difficult as possible for other bettors to have money on the winning combo in the races where I have money on the winning combo.

[dilanesp]

My basic problem with the "lower minimums mean lower payoffs on longshots" routine is a that it seems completely ignorant of basic mathematics.

The basic mathematics is that if you are trying to actually make money in the long term, rather than just getting your gambollllllllllllllllll on, what you want are INEFFICIENCIES in the pools. I.e., in the case of a trifecta, you want not enough money bet on certain combinations as compared to their actual chances of winning. Then, if you bet those combinations, you are getting a positive expected value on your wager.

What you folks are telling me is that the 50 cent tri encourages casual players to spread. The thing is, over-spreading is not a good strategy, because IT EQUALLY VALUES COMBINATIONS WITH VASTLY DIFFERENT CHANCES OF WINNING.

In other words, if the limit on the tri is $2, the casual player will be forced by economics to focus on a few combinations. But with the 50 cent tri, she can throw in some longshots. But in doing so, SHE WILL BE BETTING THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT ON THE LONGSHOT COMBINATIONS AS SHE WILL BE ON THE FAVORITES WITH A HIGHER CHANCE OF WINNING. You all are saying this decreases the odds on longshots. And it probably does. But YOU SHOULDN'T CARE ABOUT THAT, AT ALL, UNLESS YOU ARE JUST A DEGENERATE GAMBLER HOPING FOR A GIGANTIC SCORE. A seriously, mathematically competent bettor should, in fact, WELCOME a betting pool where the HIGHEST PROBABILITY combinations are paying more than they should due to too many bets on longshots.

It's the equivalent of a betting public that bets way too much on longshots to win, such that you are routinely getting 3 to 1 on horses who should pay 2 to 1. Wouldn't you LOVE to bet at such a track? You would, I would hope, unless you are someone who doesn't care about long term profits at all and just wants to cash on some 50 to 1 flyer.

[pandy]

I haven't seen conclusive evidence that the lower minimums hurt the payoffs, although it would seem logical that they would. However, I have interviewed a few general managers over the past few years. They believe that the lower minimums are good for their business (higher handle). The tracks are lowering the minimums for a reason, they have studied the effect on handle and it seems to be good for business.

This has always been a tricky question. A track that keeps its minimums high is catering to its big bettors, and a track that has the lowest minimums is catering to the average bettor.

Which is better business?

Of course another advantage of the low minimums is the tax savings, which can be substantial.

[AndyC]

You play the pick 6, you're not looking for an efficient price, you want the outlier pool shot once in a while. You want to hit a pick 6 that pays 150k that SHOULD pay about 30. You don't want every pick 6 you hit to 'pay what it should'.

I am expecting an efficient price, I am obviously hoping that there is some magical hole that my ticket filled where nobody else bet. With a carryover an efficient pool is all I really need.

[Stillriledup]

My basic problem with the "lower minimums mean lower payoffs on longshots" routine is a that it seems completely ignorant of basic mathematics.

The basic mathematics is that if you are trying to actually make money in the long term, rather than just getting your gambollllllllllllllllll on, what you want are INEFFICIENCIES in the pools. I.e., in the case of a trifecta, you want not enough money bet on certain combinations as compared to their actual chances of winning. Then, if you bet those combinations, you are getting a positive expected value on your wager.

What you folks are telling me is that the 50 cent tri encourages casual players to spread. The thing is, over-spreading is not a good strategy, because IT EQUALLY VALUES COMBINATIONS WITH VASTLY DIFFERENT CHANCES OF WINNING.

In other words, if the limit on the tri is $2, the casual player will be forced by economics to focus on a few combinations. But with the 50 cent tri, she can throw in some longshots. But in doing so, SHE WILL BE BETTING THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT ON THE LONGSHOT COMBINATIONS AS SHE WILL BE ON THE FAVORITES WITH A HIGHER CHANCE OF WINNING. You all are saying this decreases the odds on longshots. And it probably does. But YOU SHOULDN'T CARE ABOUT THAT, AT ALL, UNLESS YOU ARE JUST A DEGENERATE GAMBLER HOPING FOR A GIGANTIC SCORE. A seriously, mathematically competent bettor should, in fact, WELCOME a betting pool where the HIGHEST PROBABILITY combinations are paying more than they should due to too many bets on longshots.

It's the equivalent of a betting public that bets way too much on longshots to win, such that you are routinely getting 3 to 1 on horses who should pay 2 to 1. Wouldn't you LOVE to bet at such a track? You would, I would hope, unless you are someone who doesn't care about long term profits at all and just wants to cash on some 50 to 1 flyer.

So if this is true going from 1 dollar to 50 cents, wouldn't it also be true if it went from 50 cents to 1 cent?

Also, isn't the idea of a trifecta to be one place more difficult than the exacta? If so, why turn it into a bet that's less difficult? Why is it too much trouble to have bets all fall in line with their actual degree of difficulty? In plenty of races, it's easier to hit a 10 cent super than it is to hit a 1 dollar tri, why do we need this? Why not have the super harder than the tri? We already HAVE a tri, why chop up the super to make it close to the tri in difficulty?

In a 10 horse field, you can buy the 10 cent super for 504 bucks. You would have to spend 720 dollars to buy the 1 dollar tri which means the tri is harder to hit.

[Robert Fischer]

field size - field size and #contenders affects all the following factors.


winner - don't expect a jackpot if a 'logical' contender wins


'key' horses to wheel - The favorite, the supertrainer, the ultra-consistent clunker...Players often key these horses with 'all' or 'all the logicals' in the other two slots


horses to include - for maximum value with this factor, you need a large enough field size that the public will exclude some of the worst longshots from 2nd and 3rd, and you need some of those exclusions to be included.
In general the public is mostly doing a pyramid/wheel structure with logicals on top.

(unweighted examples of typical tickets)
123
123456
12345678

1
123456789
123456789

123456789
1
123456789

123456789
123456789
1

[dilanesp]

So if this is true going from 1 dollar to 50 cents, wouldn't it also be true if it went from 50 cents to 1 cent?

Also, isn't the idea of a trifecta to be one place more difficult than the exacta? If so, why turn it into a bet that's less difficult? Why is it too much trouble to have bets all fall in line with their actual degree of difficulty? In plenty of races, it's easier to hit a 10 cent super than it is to hit a 1 dollar tri, why do we need this? Why not have the super harder than the tri? We already HAVE a tri, why chop up the super to make it close to the tri in difficulty?

In a 10 horse field, you can buy the 10 cent super for 504 bucks. You would have to spend 720 dollars to buy the 1 dollar tri which means the tri is harder to hit.

1. Has the dime super killed the superfecta?

2. It is completely fallacious to claim that the trifecta is "easier" with the lower minimum. It still requires you to pick the first three finishers, and it still requires a betting strategy that focuses the action on combinations that will be underbet by the betting public in relation to their probability.

A lower minimum could, in theory, allow more people to play an optimal trifecta strategy. But in practice, it actually won't, because most casual players will just overspread and try to buy more horses.

3. You are confusing "easier to hit" with "easier to make money on". Covering more combinations does make the bet easier to hit, but it doesn't make it easier to make money on for those players. Instead, it introduces additional inefficiencies into the pool as players equally value their bets on combinations with vastly different probabilities of winning.

A smart player should see this as nothing more than something he can exploit. It's exactly the same as a track where all of the 2 to 1 shots play 3 to 1.

[dilanesp]

field size - field size and #contenders affects all the following factors.


winner - don't expect a jackpot if a 'logical' contender wins


'key' horses to wheel - The favorite, the supertrainer, the ultra-consistent clunker...Players often key these horses with 'all' or 'all the logicals' in the other two slots


horses to include - for maximum value with this factor, you need a large enough field size that the public will exclude some of the worst longshots from 2nd and 3rd, and you need some of those exclusions to be included.
In general the public is mostly doing a pyramid/wheel structure with logicals on top.

(unweighted examples of typical tickets)
123
123456
12345678

1
123456789
123456789

123456789
1
123456789

123456789
123456789
1

Correct. Which means that if they overspread, they will end up with equal amounts bet on 1-2-3 and on 1-2-7, when 1-2-3 has five times the likelihood of coming in.

Which can create situations where 1-2-3 will pay more than it should.

[Robert Fischer]

Correct. Which means that if they overspread, they will end up with equal amounts bet on 1-2-3 and on 1-2-7, when 1-2-3 has five times the likelihood of coming in.

Which can create situations where 1-2-3 will pay more than it should.

I agree with you.
Those ticket structures weren't weighted out like the real distributions, but certainly those 1-2-7's etc... are being overplayed in small denomination races.

A lot of the players, such as SRU seem to agree as well, but they aren't happy with the decrease in the jackpot element that seems to happen with some of the medium-range plays.

[Stillriledup]

1. Has the dime super killed the superfecta?

2. It is completely fallacious to claim that the trifecta is "easier" with the lower minimum. It still requires you to pick the first three finishers, and it still requires a betting strategy that focuses the action on combinations that will be underbet by the betting public in relation to their probability.

A lower minimum could, in theory, allow more people to play an optimal trifecta strategy. But in practice, it actually won't, because most casual players will just overspread and try to buy more horses.

3. You are confusing "easier to hit" with "easier to make money on". Covering more combinations does make the bet easier to hit, but it doesn't make it easier to make money on for those players. Instead, it introduces additional inefficiencies into the pool as players equally value their bets on combinations with vastly different probabilities of winning.

A smart player should see this as nothing more than something he can exploit. It's exactly the same as a track where all of the 2 to 1 shots play 3 to 1.

On #3 all I care about is whether or not THEY hit the bet. As an example, if a so cal tri pool is 100k with a 25 pct take (I don't know the current take but using 25 to make math easier) the giveback is 75,000. Lets say it's a big field and massive chaos ensues and the tri pays 7,500 for a buck and there are 10 winning tickets. If I have that tri I don't want a 50 cent base because that could mean the tri has 11.50 on it instead of 10. If the tri has 11.50 on the winning combo, the bet pays about 6500 for a buck instead of 7500. That's a grand out of my pocket and I'm being conservative because I believe that there would be more than 11.50 on the winning numbers if the base was 50 cents.

Do you know how many trifectas I would have to hit on the chalky end of the board to make up that 1k?

[thaskalos]

1. Has the dime super killed the superfecta?

2. It is completely fallacious to claim that the trifecta is "easier" with the lower minimum. It still requires you to pick the first three finishers, and it still requires a betting strategy that focuses the action on combinations that will be underbet by the betting public in relation to their probability.

A lower minimum could, in theory, allow more people to play an optimal trifecta strategy. But in practice, it actually won't, because most casual players will just overspread and try to buy more horses.

3. You are confusing "easier to hit" with "easier to make money on". Covering more combinations does make the bet easier to hit, but it doesn't make it easier to make money on for those players. Instead, it introduces additional inefficiencies into the pool as players equally value their bets on combinations with vastly different probabilities of winning.

A smart player should see this as nothing more than something he can exploit. It's exactly the same as a track where all of the 2 to 1 shots play 3 to 1.

Dilane, do you actually BET the trifecta at Hawthorne and Woodbine, where they offer the 20-cent minimums...or is your argument strictly "theoretical"?

[dilanesp]

Dilane, do you actually BET the trifecta at Hawthorne and Woodbine, where they offer the 20-cent minimums...or is your argument strictly "theoretical"?

I don't bet trifectas, because I don't have the expertise necessary to devise an optimal strategy (which involves playing ONLY combinations that are likely to be +EV, and weighted to their actual EV).

If I did decide to play the trifecta, I would want to play at one of these tracks, as I would be more likely to be able cover all of the combinations that I would want to cover, and in the exact amounts I would want to cover them, while not betting combinations that are likely to be overbet, at a track that offers a lower minimum. Plus, I think the lower minimum will introduce inefficiencies in the pool.

I wouldn't care at all that the longshots pay less, because I'm not looking to hit a jackpot. I'm looking to make +EV bets.

I actually bet to win, and some doubles and pick-3's. And I routinely pass up betting horses I find likely to win but who will not pay enough. I play only combinations that I believe to be +EV. And I would love it if the doubles and pick 3's were 10 cent minimum or something-- I think it would introduce additional inefficiencies into the pools that I could take advantage of, which is all that I care about. Math is a lot more important than the psychological thrill of a luckbox payoff.

[thaskalos]

I don't bet trifectas, because I don't have the expertise necessary to devise an optimal strategy (which involves playing ONLY combinations that are likely to be +EV, and weighted to their actual EV).

If I did decide to play the trifecta, I would want to play at one of these tracks, as I would be more likely to be able cover all of the combinations that I would want to cover, and in the exact amounts I would want to cover them, while not betting combinations that are likely to be overbet, at a track that offers a lower minimum. Plus, I think the lower minimum will introduce inefficiencies in the pool.

I wouldn't care at all that the longshots pay less, because I'm not looking to hit a jackpot. I'm looking to make +EV bets.

I actually bet to win, and some doubles and pick-3's. And I routinely pass up betting horses I find likely to win but who will not pay enough. I play only combinations that I believe to be +EV. And I would love it if the doubles and pick 3's were 10 cent minimum or something-- I think it would introduce additional inefficiencies into the pools that I could take advantage of, which is all that I care about. Math is a lot more important than the psychological thrill of a luckbox payoff .

I could tell by the wording of your posts that you are not a trifecta bettor. What never ceases to amaze me is how opinionated people are about things that they have absolutely no experience in.

[dilanesp]

I could tell by the wording of your posts that you are not a trifecta bettor. What never ceases to amaze me is how opinionated people are about things that they have absolutely no experience in.

I'm not a lottery player either. But I suspect I have a lot greater understanding of probabilities and expected value than your average lottery player does. :)

I consider it a point of pride that I understand a lot of wagers well enough not to make them. Why would you automatically think that anyone who bets trifectas would understand them better than I do? Bear in mind, the vast vast majority of regular trifecta bettors lose money in the long term.

[Track Phantom]

Math is a lot more important than the psychological thrill of a luckbox payoff.

Here is an area I disagree with you. Not the psychological part but the idea of hitting "lucky" large payoffs.

I think the only way to experience profitability over the long term, if you are an every day (or close to an every day) player is by the number of large, exotic tickets you cash. Within that, I think there needs to be an element of luck incorporated. Capitalizing on chaos or putting yourself in a position to capitalize when things in a race goes sideways is paramount.

I don't think you can boil this game down to a math problem and win over the longterm. If you can do this, my hats off to you. I know I can't. I'm not that smart :)

[thaskalos]

I'm not a lottery player either. But I suspect I have a lot greater understanding of probabilities and expected value than your average lottery player does. :)

I consider it a point of pride that I understand a lot of wagers well enough not to make them. Why would you automatically think that anyone who bets trifectas would understand them better than I do? Bear in mind, the vast vast majority of regular trifecta bettors lose money in the long term.

The vast majority of the regular folks lose in EVERY endeavor...whether it's gambling-related or not. But I would still prefer to discuss trifecta-betting with only those who have at least some experience with the wager; no offense intended, I assure you. It's just that, a lot of the things that make sense "in theory" fizzle out when they are put to actual practice...and that is a determination that could only be substantiated through actual experience.

[dilanesp]

Here is an area I disagree with you. Not the psychological part but the idea of hitting "lucky" large payoffs.

I think the only way to experience profitability over the long term, if you are an every day (or close to an every day) player is by the number of large, exotic tickets you cash. Within that, I think there needs to be an element of luck incorporated. Capitalizing on chaos or putting yourself in a position to capitalize when things in a race goes sideways is paramount.

I don't think you can boil this game down to a math problem and win over the longterm. If you can do this, my hats off to you. I know I can't. I'm not that smart :)

I don't think you can boil the game down to a math problem either.

But I do think there's an element of wagering that is a math problem.

The non-math part of the game is a portion of the handicapping. Obviously, speed figures, trainer statistics, etc., are math, but there's also all sorts of issues regarding how the race will be run, etc., that go far beyond math and which creative horseplayers can exploit to their benefit.

But once you have an opinion on a particular race or races, the actual formulation of your bet is, in fact, mathematical. You should be making +EV wagers. If you are playing a trifecta, that means betting the combinations that are likely to be overlays.

There's no way to corral luck, so you can't use it to your advantage. It can't disadvantage you either. All you can do is bet overlays and avoid underlays.

Now, in fact, big payoff trifecta combinations will, sometimes, be overlays. In which case they should be played. But a strategy that just seeks out luckbox payoffs will (1) likely be betting too much money, comparatively speaking, on those combinations and not enough money on combinations that offer greater EV, and (2) may ignore wagers that are not as likely to pay big but may offer greater EV.

I go back to-- wouldn't you love to play at a track where all the legitimate 2 to 1 shots pay 3 to 1? Or would you be disappointed because you couldn't luck out and hit a boxcar trifecta?

I think our brains are wired to want to hit the boxcar trifecta. That's why we love to gamble. But the best betting strategies are rigorously mathematical-- even though the opinions that they are based on may not be.

[Track Phantom]

I go back to-- wouldn't you love to play at a track where all the legitimate 2 to 1 shots pay 3 to 1? Or would you be disappointed because you couldn't luck out and hit a boxcar trifecta?

I think our brains are wired to want to hit the boxcar trifecta. That's why we love to gamble. But the best betting strategies are rigorously mathematical-- even though the opinions that they are based on may not be.

Doesn't all of this type of analysis require a situation where you don't get last second (and during the running) odds fluctuations? If you're a "go" at 3-1 but a "pass" at 2-1, how do you handle the consistent odds dropping after you've placed your bets.

I guess I could follow your methodology, as it relates to trifectas, if I could see all of the payoffs with every combination and they weren't going to change. I could exploit the payoffs that I felt were paying more than my subjective opinion on their likelihood of hitting. This makes sense.

But you're battlefield is always changing. Doesn't that make it tough to be so precise?

[pandy]

Here is an area I disagree with you. Not the psychological part but the idea of hitting "lucky" large payoffs.

I think the only way to experience profitability over the long term, if you are an every day (or close to an every day) player is by the number of large, exotic tickets you cash. Within that, I think there needs to be an element of luck incorporated. Capitalizing on chaos or putting yourself in a position to capitalize when things in a race goes sideways is paramount.

I don't think you can boil this game down to a math problem and win over the longterm. If you can do this, my hats off to you. I know I can't. I'm not that smart :)

That's the M.O. of every successful bettor I've ever met. They hit enough large "exotics" to show a profit. But of course the definition of a "large" exotic ticket can vary. One pro's bread and butter was exactas that paid between $40 and $100.

[AndyC]

I could tell by the wording of your posts that you are not a trifecta bettor. What never ceases to amaze me is how opinionated people are about things that they have absolutely no experience in.

Is there something about the parimutuel system that makes it impossible for a non-bettor of trifectas to understand how the payoffs work?

[dilanesp]

Doesn't all of this type of analysis require a situation where you don't get last second (and during the running) odds fluctuations? If you're a "go" at 3-1 but a "pass" at 2-1, how do you handle the consistent odds dropping after you've placed your bets.

I guess I could follow your methodology, as it relates to trifectas, if I could see all of the payoffs with every combination and they weren't going to change. I could exploit the payoffs that I felt were paying more than my subjective opinion on their likelihood of hitting. This makes sense.

But you're battlefield is always changing. Doesn't that make it tough to be so precise?

One reason I play mostly doubles and to win is I have odds available.

If I were to play trifectas, I would need to try to predict what combinations would be overbet and underbet.

I don't think a lot of players do this enough, but it seems to me to be at the center of the enterprise.

[Stillriledup]

Is there something about the parimutuel system that makes it impossible for a non-bettor of trifectas to understand how the payoffs work?

I think Gus's point was that if Dilan doesn't bet tri's how would he know if 50 cent options kill the payoffs.

[dilanesp]

I think Gus's point was that if Dilan doesn't bet tri's how would he know if 50 cent options kill the payoffs.

Actually I suspect that they DO reduce the payoffs of longer priced combinations. I'm arguing that this is almost certainly increasing the profitability of the bet as a whole to good players by introducing inefficiency into the pools.

[AndyC]

I think Gus's point was that if Dilan doesn't bet tri's how would he know if 50 cent options kill the payoffs.

They might "kill" certain payoffs and but they increase others. That was the point made.

Personally I have 25 years of charts to peruse in order to see what is happening or what happened to payoffs. Betting an actual ticket isn't required.

[thaskalos]

Is there something about the parimutuel system that makes it impossible for a non-bettor of trifectas to understand how the payoffs work?
We were not discussing the "parimutuel" system in general; we were talking about the trifectas in particular. Every bet has its own idiosyncrasies...and you need to have experience in the particular wager before you can presume to tell others what affects this particular bet...and what doesn't. "Theory" and "practice" often conflict...and "logic" doesn't always prevail in this game.

If a player has never bet trifectas...then his knowledge of the topic is purely "theoretical"...and debating the intricacies of the wager with him becomes of dubious value...to me anyway. We learn by "doing".

[AndyC]

We were not discussing the "parimutuel" system in general; we were talking about the trifectas in particular. Every bet has its own idiosyncrasies...and you need to have experience in the particular wager before you can presume to tell others what affects this particular bet...and what doesn't. "Theory" and "practice" often conflict...and "logic" doesn't always prevail in this game.

If a player has never bet trifectas...then his knowledge of the topic is purely "theoretical"...and debating the intricacies of the wager with him becomes of dubious value...to me anyway. We learn by "doing".

I don't recall discussing the intricacies of the trifecta bet. We were purely discussing payoffs. I don't think anybody needs to know the intricacies of a bet to understand as one payoff is lowered another is raised.

[Stillriledup]

I don't recall discussing the intricacies of the trifecta bet. We were purely discussing payoffs. I don't think anybody needs to know the intricacies of a bet to understand as one payoff is lowered another is raised.

And the payoffs that get lowered are the ones we don't want lowered. The entire premise of the tri is that because there are 720 possible outcomes in a 10 horse field, you can get very large payoffs. I want to shoot for those payoffs. I don't care if a 38 dollar tri would have paid 36 had the base been a dollar, if I want 36 bucks ill stick 2 dollars to win on a 17-1 shot to win, I can get 36 dollars on a win bet or exa, I want to use tris and supers as vehicles for large payouts, watering down the top of the board defeats the purpose.

[thaskalos]

I don't recall discussing the intricacies of the trifecta bet. We were purely discussing payoffs.
Well...dilanesp was direct and specific...which belied his inexperience in the wager. If you don't believe me...then read his post #51.

[proximity]

On #3 all I care about is whether or not THEY hit the bet. As an example, if a so cal tri pool is 100k with a 25 pct take (I don't know the current take but using 25 to make math easier) the giveback is 75,000. Lets say it's a big field and massive chaos ensues and the tri pays 7,500 for a buck and there are 10 winning tickets. If I have that tri I don't want a 50 cent base because that could mean the tri has 11.50 on it instead of 10. If the tri has 11.50 on the winning combo, the bet pays about 6500 for a buck instead of 7500. That's a grand out of my pocket and I'm being conservative because I believe that there would be more than 11.50 on the winning numbers if the base was 50 cents.

Do you know how many trifectas I would have to hit on the chalky end of the board to make up that 1k?

Idk? I guess you say you're being conservative here but while your return only fell by 15% you could frequently be betting 20-80% more with 20 cent tris and 50% more with 50 cent tris. so it's YOU that could win more money by having these lower minimum options that allow you to bet CLOSER to your optimum bet size.... NOT some railbirds that are randomly boxing a bunch of tris. also you would get more rebates too.

jmo.

[dilanesp]

And the payoffs that get lowered are the ones we don't want lowered. The entire premise of the tri is that because there are 720 possible outcomes in a 10 horse field, you can get very large payoffs. I want to shoot for those payoffs. I don't care if a 38 dollar tri would have paid 36 had the base been a dollar, if I want 36 bucks ill stick 2 dollars to win on a 17-1 shot to win, I can get 36 dollars on a win bet or exa, I want to use tris and supers as vehicles for large payouts, watering down the top of the board defeats the purpose.

In other words, you don't care about whether you are getting a positive long term return on your wagers at all. You just want to gamble and try to hit the lottery.

This is fine, really. Gambling is a perfectly legitimate reason to bet. But you can't beat any gambling game with this attitude.

It's the equivalent of the players in limit hold 'em games all over the country who play any two cards when the betting is capped. They just want a big pot and don't care that they are making a negative expectation wager to try to hit it.

Personally, I would rather bet on something that pays 38 to 1 and has a 1 in 20 chance of happening that something that pays 750 to 1 and has a 1 in 750 chance of happening. Do you see why?

[Stillriledup]

In other words, you don't care about whether you are getting a positive long term return on your wagers at all. You just want to gamble and try to hit the lottery.

This is fine, really. Gambling is a perfectly legitimate reason to bet. But you can't beat any gambling game with this attitude.

It's the equivalent of the players in limit hold 'em games all over the country who play any two cards when the betting is capped. They just want a big pot and don't care that they are making a negative expectation wager to try to hit it.

Personally, I would rather bet on something that pays 38 to 1 and has a 1 in 20 chance of happening that something that pays 750 to 1 and has a 1 in 750 chance of happening. Do you see why?

I'd rather bet a little to win a lot, show bets are easy, pick 6s are hard and everything in between has a pecking order of difficulty, why am I the bad guy for wanting some bets to remain very difficult to hit?

[dilanesp]

I'd rather bet a little to win a lot, show bets are easy, pick 6s are hard and everything in between has a pecking order of difficulty, why am I the bad guy for wanting some bets to remain very difficult to hit?

You aren't a bad guy. And indeed, a smartly run racing industry should offer you bets that are attractive to you.

I'm just pointing out that there's a big difference between "I like this bet structured like this because I want to hit big boxcar payoffs" and "I like this bet structured like this because I can make money long term".

If you are trying to actually beat the game, the second factor is more important than the first, and anything that can introduce inefficiencies into the pool (such as players incorrectly overspreading their bets) is something you should welcome, even if it leads to fewer boxcar payoffs.

[Stillriledup]

You aren't a bad guy. And indeed, a smartly run racing industry should offer you bets that are attractive to you.

I'm just pointing out that there's a big difference between "I like this bet structured like this because I want to hit big boxcar payoffs" and "I like this bet structured like this because I can make money long term".

If you are trying to actually beat the game, the second factor is more important than the first, and anything that can introduce inefficiencies into the pool (such as players incorrectly overspreading their bets) is something you should welcome, even if it leads to fewer boxcar payoffs.

But I don't welcome it because that's not how I play. Also, it's not just boxcar payouts that are watered. I just haven't seen that 50 cent option creates 'better payoffs' for me and that's why I don't like it.

[dilanesp]

But I don't welcome it because that's not how I play. Also, it's not just boxcar payouts that are watered. I just haven't seen that 50 cent option creates 'better payoffs' for me and that's why I don't like it.

Well, if a trifecta pays $1000 occasionally it may get your attention. Whereas if a trifecta that should pay $65 regularly pays $80 it may not get your attention.

But that doesn't mean that trifectas paying $80 that should pay $65 aren't a huge advantage for the player.

[AndyC]

But I don't welcome it because that's not how I play. Also, it's not just boxcar payouts that are watered. I just haven't seen that 50 cent option creates 'better payoffs' for me and that's why I don't like it.

We get it, you're a homerun hitter. How's that been working out for you? Are you wildly successful?

Getting back to the fractional betting, you don't, in fact, think that lower minimums are bad for racing, just bad for your style of play. When I say racing, I am referring to the business of racing. Increased handle has often been the result of lower minimums.

[Stillriledup]

Well, if a trifecta pays $1000 occasionally it may get your attention. Whereas if a trifecta that should pay $65 regularly pays $80 it may not get your attention.

But that doesn't mean that trifectas paying $80 that should pay $65 aren't a huge advantage for the player.

There's no doubt, I know if I hit a tri at santa anita that pays 80, the last thing on my mind is that I might have gotten a little more had the 50 cent option been available. I know math wise what goes up means something else comes down and vice versa and I know it's possible that a lot of my thinking is emotion driven, I just know though from personal betting that it's a lot more difficult to have 1 dollar on a winning tri in a largish wide open field than it is to have 50 cents on it.

If I want to play low odds wagers I have plenty of options in the WPS pool, exas or DDs, I don't need to play the low end of the tri odds board, I'd rather play the higher end. I do understand your logic that once they institute the 50 cent bet, a smart player would just bet on the value and if he thinks higher end prices are watered down, it's smart to play the ones that aren't, but I'd rather have the tri be harder, I'm not looking for tracks to make bets easier.

I've pretty much phased tris out of my betting at nyra tracks due to the 50 cent option, I've found that when I hit them, I get much less than I want, so I avoid playing them for the most part.

[Stillriledup]

We get it, you're a homerun hitter. How's that been working out for you? Are you wildly successful?

Getting back to the fractional betting, you don't, in fact, think that lower minimums are bad for racing, just bad for your style of play. When I say racing, I am referring to the business of racing. Increased handle has often been the result of lower minimums.

I don't care about increased handle for tracks, I care about me and how I'm doing.

No need for a condescending tone about my personal betting, that's between me and me.

[thaskalos]

We get it, you're a homerun hitter. How's that been working out for you? Are you wildly successful?

Are YOU wildly successful?

[thaskalos]

I don't care about increased handle for tracks, I care about me and how I'm doing.

No need for a condescending tone about my personal betting, that's between me and me.
Don't mind the condescending tone, SRU. The internet is full of know-it-alls. When you venture online...spotting a losing gambler is a rarity.

[AndyC]

I don't care about increased handle for tracks, I care about me and how I'm doing.

No need for a condescending tone about my personal betting, that's between me and me.


I apologize that my post had such a tone be it perceived or real. Certainly wasn't my intent. My response was to your consistent retort about your style of play. If I had a method that was producing an incredibly high ROI I would certainly be negative about changes that might/would affect me. Just curious as to why someone would doggedly hold onto a method when other opportunities arise.

[thaskalos]

I apologize that my post had such a tone be it perceived or real.
Yeah, Andy. It was "perceived"... :rolleyes:

[Stillriledup]

I apologize that my post had such a tone be it perceived or real. Certainly wasn't my intent. My response was to your consistent retort about your style of play. If I had a method that was producing an incredibly high ROI I would certainly be negative about changes that might/would affect me. Just curious as to why someone would doggedly hold onto a method when other opportunities arise.

No problem, it's ok.

I believe that all bets have degrees of difficulty, from easy to hard to very hard. I want hard bets to be hard, I don't want the track making them easier, I want the opportunity to make a big hit and get paid in full if the opportunity arises. I want the ability to bet longshot trifectas if I select three 20-1 shots to finish 123. If my opinion is that chaos will ensue, I don't want to have to skip the race because I know that I won't get paid for my opinion.

Sure, there are opportunities that arise with 3-5 shots over 5-2 shots and when a race looks like the chalk is a lock, I have no problem playing that type of bet when that's all they're giving me, but I want the ability to bet a little to win a lot if that's what my opinion happens to be, I want bets to fall in line with their degree of difficulty, I don't think I'm asking a lot but what do I know, maybe It's too much to ask for tracks to attempt to make things harder, I don't need the game to be easy enough for 'everyone' to win.

[pandy]

No problem, it's ok.

I believe that all bets have degrees of difficulty, from easy to hard to very hard. I want hard bets to be hard, I don't want the track making them easier, I want the opportunity to make a big hit and get paid in full if the opportunity arises. I want the ability to bet longshot trifectas if I select three 20-1 shots to finish 123. If my opinion is that chaos will ensue, I don't want to have to skip the race because I know that I won't get paid for my opinion.

Sure, there are opportunities that arise with 3-5 shots over 5-2 shots and when a race looks like the chalk is a lock, I have no problem playing that type of bet when that's all they're giving me, but I want the ability to bet a little to win a lot if that's what my opinion happens to be, I want bets to fall in line with their degree of difficulty, I don't think I'm asking a lot but what do I know, maybe It's too much to ask for tracks to attempt to make things harder, I don't need the game to be easy enough for 'everyone' to win.

Based on the handle, it does seem that the difficult to handicap tracks, which tend to have bigger payoffs, also have higher handle. And that's why the tracks try to put the four toughest races to handicap in the Pick 4. I think track's should experiment with minimums. They could even try to appease both mindsets, offer a $20 cent Pick 5 and a $3.00 Pick 4.

One of the biggest problems is having too many pools. Years ago when the superfecta was introduced at harness tracks in N.Y., the bet was $3.00 and there was one superfecta a night. The pools were huge. But if you have superfectas every race, that also dilutes the pools.

[cj]

Based on the handle, it does seem that the difficult to handicap tracks, which tend to have bigger payoffs, also have higher handle. And that's why the tracks try to put the four toughest races to handicap in the Pick 4. I think track's should experiment with minimums. They could even try to appease both mindsets, offer a $20 cent Pick 5 and a $3.00 Pick 4.

One of the biggest problems is having too many pools. Years ago when the superfecta was introduced at harness tracks in N.Y., the bet was $3.00 and there was one superfecta a night. The pools were huge. But if you have superfectas every race, that also dilutes the pools.

This is a huge problem in racing in my opinion. The pools aren't big enough to realistically support 25 betting options per race, but that is where we're headed.

[Stillriledup]

12 horse field at Belmont and the tri pays 12 and change? I know the main contenders were all in there but wasn't there any money on anyone else?

Seems like a low price in a race with 1,320 possible outcomes and 660 dollars to 'buy' the bet.

[thespaah]

It is for me, all that matters is what I feel I need for certain outcomes and the 50 cent tri tracks fall short, they don't pay enough for the degree of difficulty. too watered down.
So you and you alone are the sole arbiter of the amount a trifecta should pay?
Then you get to protest "I got ripped off because the base amount is less than that which I feel comfortable?"....
Ok..Why not ignore the base amount and bet a larger base amount?....

[Stillriledup]

So you and you alone are the sole arbiter of the amount a trifecta should pay?
Then you get to protest "I got ripped off because the base amount is less than that which I feel comfortable?"....
Ok..Why not ignore the base amount and bet a larger base amount?....

Yes, I'm the sole arbiter, if it doesn't pay what I need it to pay, I take note and if i have enough notes that say I consistently don't receive what I need, I stop playing that bet.

I could bet a larger Base amount, but if I feel I'm not getting paid what I deserve, I'm just doubling my pain.

[AndyC]

12 horse field at Belmont and the tri pays 12 and change? I know the main contenders were all in there but wasn't there any money on anyone else?

Seems like a low price in a race with 1,320 possible outcomes and 660 dollars to 'buy' the bet.

It does seem low despite having an exacta pay about what it should have paid. With three low odds horses finishing 1-2-3 isn't this the opposite of what you have been complaining about?

[thespaah]

12 horse field at Belmont and the tri pays 12 and change? I know the main contenders were all in there but wasn't there any money on anyone else?

Seems like a low price in a race with 1,320 possible outcomes and 660 dollars to 'buy' the bet.
I will give you some examples..Please offer your opinion as to what the trifectas "should have paid"//
Conditions....
NW2X 3Yo & Up
9 betting interests
Trifecta Pool $137,000
Top three
odds
Win 8.90 Place 5.70 show 3.30 Odds 3.45
Place 10.00 show 4.20....Odds 12.40
Show 2.30......odds *1.05

The next three lowest odds out of the money.....
5.80....
6.60
11.70
You guess is...?
oh...the $2 exacta paid 83.00

[Stillriledup]

It does seem low despite having an exacta pay about what it should have paid. With three low odds horses finishing 1-2-3 isn't this the opposite of what you have been complaining about?

It might seem that way except that when these low odds horses blow up, I rarely look at the 50 cent tri and think 'wow there must have been a ton of money on the chalks so this paid just as well as it would have paid had their been a 1 dollar minimum"

Seems like no matter what comes in, it's lower than it would have Been had the minimum been 1 dollar.

[thespaah]

Yes, I'm the sole arbiter, if it doesn't pay what I need it to pay, I take note and if i have enough notes that say I consistently don't receive what I need, I stop playing that bet.

I could bet a larger Base amount, but if I feel I'm not getting paid what I deserve, I'm just doubling my pain.
So, you base your betting on what you think you deserve?...Ok..
That's your choice obviously.
Here's my take on this...
If the mins are low enough so that there is an increase in handle and those lower mins get more people into the pools, that is a good thing
If the minimums are set so that there is an adverse effect on both payoffs AND handle, then IMO the minimums are too low.
But one cannot assume out of hand that any lower minimum would adversely affect the payouts.
Each payoff result must be weighed on its own merits.
Now, if a pattern is produced, then one may have a case. But those results must be verifiable by mathematic calculations. Not one's own observations based on their own perceptions
Look, we all have seen exotics payoffs that looked a little thin. It happens.

[cj]

Seems like no matter what comes in, it's lower than it would have Been had the minimum been 1 dollar.

Of course that isn't possible.

[Stillriledup]

Of course that isn't possible.

I know, that's why I said it seems like it. I believe that the lower the minimums the more efficient the pool is, so if you believe that to be true, things will pay more in line with market value, I'm not really looking for market value on every bet I make, I'm looking for a few outliers that pay more than they should, and I get that 'bump' with the higher minimum.

[sharkie187]

I'm okay with the new minimums. It makes me want to reconsider betting that over an exacta now. If parlays were still offered, I'd be betting that all day!

In the UK with the bookmakers, you called the minimum amount you wanted to bet. If you had 5cents and want to bet on something, the bookies will take your bet.
I played many nonsense TRIs at nonsense prices (.33, .27, .19, etc). It was fun at times and really funny watching the bookies bust out a calculator and try to calculate my winnings.

[sharkie187]

I'm okay with the new minimums. It makes me want to reconsider betting that over an exacta now. If parlays were still offered, I'd be betting that all day!

In the UK with the bookmakers, you called the minimum amount you wanted to bet. If you had 5cents and want to bet on something, the bookies will take your bet.
I played many nonsense TRIs at nonsense prices (.33, .27, .19, etc). It was fun at times and really funny watching the bookies bust out a calculator and try to calculate my winnings.

[Poindexter]

Been thinking about this subject some. SRU and Thaskalos are right. Lower minimums, more combos played and while some combos go up from $37 to $40 others dip from $1500 to $900......The number of combos that are juicy overlays become very limited or non existent. If your style of play gives your the kind of tris that used to pay $1500 on occasion, these lower minimums really hurt your roi at the end of the year.

That is not what I am thinking about however. What I am thinking about is why are the minimums being dropped. Now my response a week ago would have been, lower probability, unsophisticated players overplaying their bankroll, can't afford to cover enough combos.........But the more I think about it the more I realize it is the economic reality of the horseplayer. The horseplayer is being grinded into shreds with low probability, high takeout wagers. The masses cannot come close to beating these pools and are therefore working on dwindling capital. The would of, could of, should ofs only keep you going so long (if you lose $7000 for the year in trifectas, the 3 or 4 $700 scores you left on the table by poor exectution do not mean that much).....The remaining horseplayers maybe 5 or 10 years ago could afford $1 pick 5's and $1 pick 4's and $2 trifectas but after years of donating they start looking for smaller denominations so they can cover more combos in a desperate quest to right the ship. But truth be told they will just play more combos and continue to be grinded out at swift rates.

Racing has a problem, there just isn't much in the way of value anywhere. The best way to mask this is to come up with exotics that pay big numbers at times and have a bunch of TVG folks yell rah rah, when a somewhat logical pick 4 comes in for $1000 bucks (that so in so put on his $60 ticket).

One can argue that a pick 4 can pay up to 100% more than a parlay, but look at that statement closer. If the typical winner has an roi of .80, but when you get through that .80*.80*.80*.80 you have .4096. So double that and you are back where you are started around .82. That is provided you get that 100% overlay on the pick 4 and of course your bankroll can make it through those extended losing streaks.

I think the reality is that as this game continues it's misguided course, 50 cent trifectas will become the norm and you likely will see reductions in all pools minimum bet size............It is just a desperate attempt to keep their existing customer base in the game, but it will not work, because by playing more combos the player is obviously giving himself a better chance of hitting, but is likely going to worsen his negative roi (throwing in worse value combos) and the heavy grind out will continue...........

[AndyC]

Been thinking about this subject some. SRU and Thaskalos are right. Lower minimums, more combos played and while some combos go up from $37 to $40 others dip from $1500 to $900......The number of combos that are juicy overlays become very limited or non existent. If your style of play gives your the kind of tris that used to pay $1500 on occasion, these lower minimums really hurt your roi at the end of the year.......

The entire premise of the argument is that there is a betting point where some players will simply not bet multiple combinations thus leaving coverage gaps for players willing to make the bets. No doubt that price has an effect on most players. What I don't understand is why every smart player with a bankroll hasn't come to the same conclusion as SRU and Thaskalos and swooped in to take advantage. With such a big edge in a high rebate pool it would seem like a no-brainer.

Low coverage pools can be a big payoff if you hit on the right underplayed combo but you can also get hurt just as badly as you can be helped.

I don't follow your math whereby the high odds payoffs are hurt by 40% but the low odds payoffs are only helped by 10%.

[AndyC]

......I think the reality is that as this game continues it's misguided course, 50 cent trifectas will become the norm and you likely will see reductions in all pools minimum bet size............It is just a desperate attempt to keep their existing customer base in the game, but it will not work, because by playing more combos the player is obviously giving himself a better chance of hitting, but is likely going to worsen his negative roi (throwing in worse value combos) and the heavy grind out will continue.........

With more efficient pools the bettor will be stopped by the smart players from betting combos that are woeful underlays.

[Stillriledup]

With more efficient pools the bettor will be stopped by the smart players from betting combos that are woeful underlays.

I want to only share my large tri score with others who 'handicapped' great instead of sharing it with people who didnt need to handicap great but had the financial ability to buy enough combos to hit the wager. Anyone can box 8 horses in the tri for 168, but if you make that 8 horse box 336, it weeds out a percentage of the people who otherwise would have had 50 cents on the winning combo. Id rather force them to select the winner vs them being able to buy the winner.

[AndyC]

I want to only share my large tri score with others who 'handicapped' great instead of sharing it with people who didnt need to handicap great but had the financial ability to buy enough combos to hit the wager. Anyone can box 8 horses in the tri for 168, but if you make that 8 horse box 336, it weeds out a percentage of the people who otherwise would have had 50 cents on the winning combo. Id rather force them to select the winner vs them being able to buy the winner.

The fact that you are willing to put more money into the bet than some other player does not indicate great handicapping, just a bigger bankroll.

What's your formula for determining whether or not you got a good payoff?

[Stillriledup]

The fact that you are willing to put more money into the bet than some other player does not indicate great handicapping, just a bigger bankroll.

What's your formula for determining whether or not you got a good payoff?


It's not really about more money, it's more about how easy is it for someone to get their 1 base unit onto the winning combo. If a tri pays in the thousands, it means there's probably less than 20 bucks on the winning combo, so every 50 cent piece matters to the price.

As far as what formula I use, it's just experience at knowing what things usually pay in combination with what I feel I need in order to say 'that's a fair price' for the degree of difficulty.

[Poindexter]

The entire premise of the argument is that there is a betting point where some players will simply not bet multiple combinations thus leaving coverage gaps for players willing to make the bets. No doubt that price has an effect on most players. What I don't understand is why every smart player with a bankroll hasn't come to the same conclusion as SRU and Thaskalos and swooped in to take advantage. With such a big edge in a high rebate pool it would seem like a no-brainer.

Low coverage pools can be a big payoff if you hit on the right underplayed combo but you can also get hurt just as badly as you can be helped.

I don't follow your math whereby the high odds payoffs are hurt by 40% but the low odds payoffs are only helped by 10%.

I cant speak for Thaskalos or SRU, but obvious they have styles that attract trifectas that tend to be underplayed when the minimums are higher. So when the minimums go down, enough more combos get played that that extra prize they used to get, they can no longer get.

No argument about the inefficient pools can hurt you as well as help you but I think in general the overbet combos on a higher minimum pool tend to be the more obvious combos. I think they can live with a few bucks less on the more obvious combos as long as they get paid nicely when they hit it out of the park.

The 10% vs 40% is the nature of parimutuel betting and it is just an example.. Correcting all the grossly underbet combos is not going to give you a 40% increase in capital. If a tri pool is paying out $20,000 to the $1500 combo (that is slightly over a $13 ticket) it only takes $9 more to bring it down to $900. That $9 would do nothing for the other combos. 700+ combos yet it goes a long way in destroying the extra value on the $1500 combo.

Regarding other groups doing what Thaskalos and Sru do, it would not surprise me one bit. That may be just as much there problem as the lower minimums. Also low minimums motivates other that would not use such an approach to use such an approach, Also if groups can get into the tri pools and read which combos are underplayed that would be a huge edge, that would have a worse effect.

Regarding the worse value combos, I was basically reiterating what was stated above by others about people making poor betting choices, for instance using the all box instead of 5 key contenders. Obviously a better chance of hitting, but they are also throwing in some very pool value horses and combos that will hurt their long term roi.

[thaskalos]

Been thinking about this subject some. SRU and Thaskalos are right. Lower minimums, more combos played and while some combos go up from $37 to $40 others dip from $1500 to $900......The number of combos that are juicy overlays become very limited or non existent. If your style of play gives your the kind of tris that used to pay $1500 on occasion, these lower minimums really hurt your roi at the end of the year.

That is not what I am thinking about however. What I am thinking about is why are the minimums being dropped. Now my response a week ago would have been, lower probability, unsophisticated players overplaying their bankroll, can't afford to cover enough combos.........But the more I think about it the more I realize it is the economic reality of the horseplayer. The horseplayer is being grinded into shreds with low probability, high takeout wagers. The masses cannot come close to beating these pools and are therefore working on dwindling capital. The would of, could of, should ofs only keep you going so long (if you lose $7000 for the year in trifectas, the 3 or 4 $700 scores you left on the table by poor exectution do not mean that much).....The remaining horseplayers maybe 5 or 10 years ago could afford $1 pick 5's and $1 pick 4's and $2 trifectas but after years of donating they start looking for smaller denominations so they can cover more combos in a desperate quest to right the ship. But truth be told they will just play more combos and continue to be grinded out at swift rates.

Racing has a problem, there just isn't much in the way of value anywhere. The best way to mask this is to come up with exotics that pay big numbers at times and have a bunch of TVG folks yell rah rah, when a somewhat logical pick 4 comes in for $1000 bucks (that so in so put on his $60 ticket).

One can argue that a pick 4 can pay up to 100% more than a parlay, but look at that statement closer. If the typical winner has an roi of .80, but when you get through that .80*.80*.80*.80 you have .4096. So double that and you are back where you are started around .82. That is provided you get that 100% overlay on the pick 4 and of course your bankroll can make it through those extended losing streaks.

I think the reality is that as this game continues it's misguided course, 50 cent trifectas will become the norm and you likely will see reductions in all pools minimum bet size............It is just a desperate attempt to keep their existing customer base in the game, but it will not work, because by playing more combos the player is obviously giving himself a better chance of hitting, but is likely going to worsen his negative roi (throwing in worse value combos) and the heavy grind out will continue...........
With the win prices being held hostage by the late-betting "whales"...the "normal" player is forced to look towards the exotics for this "value" which allows him to survive in the game. And the dwindling field sizes go a long way towards canceling out that value. The shorter the field, the less likely it is that the "crowd" will make an exploitable mistake...and the less "value" there will be in the race. Now...couple this short-field epidemic with these super-low minimum wagers...and what have you got? 50-cent trifectas and 10-cent supers in a bunch of 5-7 horse fields.

I have nothing against the low minimum bets per se. In fact, I started a thread here a couple of years ago, on the merits of the 10-cent superfecta. But when these mini-minimums are offered on the short fields, while the takeout remains the same...the "value" in these wagers goes out the window.

[thespaah]

I want to only share my large tri score with others who 'handicapped' great instead of sharing it with people who didnt need to handicap great but had the financial ability to buy enough combos to hit the wager. Anyone can box 8 horses in the tri for 168, but if you make that 8 horse box 336, it weeds out a percentage of the people who otherwise would have had 50 cents on the winning combo. Id rather force them to select the winner vs them being able to buy the winner.
There is great risk in "buying the bet" because with the avg winning pct of favorites being from 33 to 36% at most tracks, the "buy" player would end up in the negative on a daily basis. That is unless of course that player can carefully select which races to NOT play.
I do not believe there nearly as many "buy" bettors as you may suspect.

[thespaah]

With the win prices being held hostage by the late-betting "whales"...the "normal" player is forced to look towards the exotics for this "value" which allows him to survive in the game. And the dwindling field sizes go a long way towards canceling out that value. The shorter the field, the less likely it is that the "crowd" will make an exploitable mistake...and the less "value" there will be in the race. Now...couple this short-field epidemic with these super-low minimum wagers...and what have you got? 50-cent trifectas and 10-cent supers in a bunch of 5-7 horse fields.

I have nothing against the low minimum bets per se. In fact, I started a thread here a couple of years ago, on the merits of the 10-cent superfecta. But when these mini-minimums are offered on the short fields, while the takeout remains the same...the "value" in these wagers goes out the window.
Question....Is it not true that with the lower minimums those most likely to play the minimum base bet are even further behind in trying to just beat the takeout?....
For example. Let's use Parx which we all know has an onerous 30% takeout on trifectas. So lets say the half dollar bettor bets 30 combinations for $15 bucks. Right away this player is in the hole for 30%......So lets say this guy very likely used the favorite all over the place. The favorite wins and the Tri gross payout is $100 for 50 cents. The net after the takeout is $70. So this guy laid out 21% of his total payout less the original bet his profit is a paltry $55 or a 4 to 1 true odds payout....How the hell can anyone make any money betting these low minimums?

[Stillriledup]

There is great risk in "buying the bet" because with the avg winning pct of favorites being from 33 to 36% at most tracks, the "buy" player would end up in the negative on a daily basis. That is unless of course that player can carefully select which races to NOT play.
I do not believe there nearly as many "buy" bettors as you may suspect.

I agree there's not that many, but with the 50 cent min, that number could increase. Also, I've been using the 'buy' as an example, nothing stopping someone from boxing 8 in a field of 10 and spending the 168. (With a buck, that same bet costs 336, not as affordable)

[Stillriledup]

The first ever 50 cent tri in California at a major thoroughbred meet just paid.


Just paid....


5.80.

:D