10 C Supers have killed the payoffs

[AltonKelsey]

I've heard that sillyness mentioned a few times and don't believe it.

At Del Mar today, 10th Race super, 10 cents got you back $54,000 and change.

Fireworks in the first race too with but only a pikers $2585 return for a dime with the favorite 4th.

No, I don't think the dime kills the payoffs at all.

[arw629]

I've heard that sillyness mentioned a few times and don't believe it.

At Del Mar today, 10th Race super, 10 cents got you back $54,000 and change.

There are hundreds of races daily that offer 10 cent supers, but I'm glad the debate was finally won tonight with this post.

[AltonKelsey]

How many examples would you require? I've been paying attention to the payoffs all along.

There's no validity that I can detect , in the notion that somehow, large payoffs are wildly diminished by the 10 c minimum.

[thaskalos]

How many examples would you require? I've been paying attention to the payoffs all along.

There's no validity that I can detect , in the notion that somehow, large payoffs are wildly diminished by the 10 c minimum.

Sherlock Holmes you AIN'T.

[AltonKelsey]

I'm sure you're right. But Sherlock would provide proof. I've provided examples of my thesis. You only posted snideness. :eek:

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/8e/8e4ad76a3318e0eee982c85badb10034753c16ba4d45dd415b 69e56be7b14642.jpg

[thaskalos]

I'm sure you're right. But Sherlock would provide proof. I've provided examples of my thesis. You only posted snideness. :eek:

If what you provided for us here was really "proof"...then, you wouldn't have to wait since May to gather it and show it to us. Out of all the superfecta payoffs out there that you could have used as "proof" to make your point...you chose the two that were anchored by trifectas which paid $10,000 and $15,000 for $1 ?

When the trifecta pays $15,000 for a dollar, friend...it is a surprise that the superfecta is hit AT ALL! The only thing that you've proven here is that you don't bet the 10-cent superfectas.

[AltonKelsey]

If what you provided for us here was really "proof"...then, you wouldn't have to wait since May to gather it and show it to us. Out of all the superfecta payoffs out there that you could have used as "proof" to make your point...you chose the two that were anchored by trifectas which paid $10,000 and $15,000 for $1 ?

When the trifecta pays $15,000 for a dollar, friend...it is a surprise that the superfecta is hit AT ALL! The only thing that you've proven here is that you don't bet the 10-cent superfectas.

Thanks for proving my point. First you claim supers are now easy to hit because of the dime, then you express surprise they are hit at all.

Can't have it both ways, now can we.

My only claim is that the payoffs are not hampered by the 10c denomination. I have seen numerous payoffs that were more than generous, even compared to the TRI, and very few that could be called 'gyps'.

And I pay attention.

Most players have no idea what anything should pay, and may think they are getting robbed, when in fact they are getting more than par.

[thaskalos]

Thanks for proving my point. First you claim supers are now easy to hit because of the dime, then you express surprise they are hit at all.

Can't have it both ways, now can we.
Yeah...that's exactly what I said. No matter how illogical the outcome..."the supers are now easy to hit because of the dime". :ThmbUp:

Don't worry. Wait another four months...and you'll find another example to prove your point.

[AltonKelsey]

I get it. So you're saying the 500,000 to one return was in fact some kind of ripoff. Ok, got ya!

It's ok to have high standards.

PS the natural odds are about 12,000-1 so maybe 500,000 isn't so bad. Just sayin.

[thaskalos]

I get it. So you're saying the 500,000 to one return was in fact some kind of ripoff. Ok, got ya!

It's ok to have high standards.

PS the natural odds are aabout 12,000-1 so maybe 500,000 isn't so bad. Just sayin.
You pay so much "attention"...that you are sure there were $500,000 to be won in that superfecta pool. Right?

[thaskalos]

And I pay attention.


I think you gotta pay a little more attention.

[AltonKelsey]

I think you gotta pay a little more attention.

I said 500,000 TO ONE. I am fully aware of the pool size.

And now I will leave you to ponder the rest of your busy day, my work is done.

[thaskalos]

I said 500,000 TO ONE. I am fully aware of the pool size.

And now I will leave you to ponder the rest of your busy day, my work is done.
Bye. :)

[BMustang]

While I don't believe that the 10cent supers have hurt the payoffs, I DO believe that 10cent supers have hurt payoffs to high stakes players who used to benefit by payoffs made on "All" tickets.

Formerly if there were four long prices, or at least three long prices in a combination, they would often pay on the top three and all on the bottom. Those days are gone forever with 10 cent combos. I'm sure there are a few exceptions, but the higher tier wagerer has definitely been compromised by the 10 cent bet, and I know several who no longer play supers as a result.

[Fleur-de-lis]

Only looking at data from events where the buy in was a dime can not prove or disprove the thesis. What needs to be done is an analysis of the frequency of winning tickets, how many winning tickets and the pay outs from before and after there was a dime buy in.

[mistergee]

While I don't believe that the 10cent supers have hurt the payoffs, I DO believe that 10cent supers have hurt payoffs to high stakes players who used to benefit by payoffs made on "All" tickets.

Formerly if there were four long prices, or at least three long prices in a combination, they would often pay on the top three and all on the bottom. Those days are gone forever with 10 cent combos. I'm sure there are a few exceptions, but the higher tier wagerer has definitely been compromised by the 10 cent bet, and I know several who no longer play supers as a result.
Excellent Point

[AltonKelsey]

No question, the dime has got to reduce the number of 'no winner' payoffs.

Not really the point I'm making. I'm claiming the fairness of the payoffs has not been seriously impacted on average.

The claim that's frequently made, is that somehow, no matter what the result, grandma has a 10c ticket on it and hobbles quickly to the window to collect her booty.

[thaskalos]

No question, the dime has got to reduce the number of 'no winner' payoffs.

Not really the point I'm making. I'm claiming the fairness of the payoffs has not been seriously impacted on average.

The claim that's frequently made, is that somehow, no matter what the result, grandma has a 10c ticket on it and hobbles quickly to the window to collect her booty.

And, if we ask you to...I suppose you can readily supply us with the post where such a claim was made.

[thaskalos]

No question, the dime has got to reduce the number of 'no winner' payoffs.

Not really the point I'm making. I'm claiming the fairness of the payoffs has not been seriously impacted on average.

The claim that's frequently made, is that somehow, no matter what the result, grandma has a 10c ticket on it and hobbles quickly to the window to collect her booty.

When one is endeavoring to make a point about how a payoff is impacted "on average"...he doesn't use the highest trifecta payoff in recent memory as an example. But that's EXACTLY what you did. You took a couple of payoffs of the sort that we very seldom see...and tried to make a "general" point by using them.

[AltonKelsey]

When one is endeavoring to make a point about how a payoff is impacted "on average"...he doesn't use the highest trifecta payoff in recent memory as an example. But that's EXACTLY what you did. You took a couple of payoffs of the sort that we very seldom see...and tried to make a "general" point by using them.

For a small handling charge, I can do the homework for you and find a few hundred more, less dramatic examples.

[rastajenk]

And, if we ask you to...I suppose you can readily supply us with the post where such a claim was made.That was the basis of StillRiled's ongoing complaint: that the winnings of "serious handicappers" were vulnerable to the claims put upon them by dart tossers, favorite color selectors, and other less-serious handicapping. I'm not going to look up his posts; you know they're out there.

[thespaah]

In m y opinion, the premise here and of SRU's complaint is based on one issue.
"Should have paid".....There are those who are serious player who may be able to take a pretty good stab at guessing an exotic payoff. They base that on the win odds. Ok fine.
Another issue I have seen is while very few have this viewpoint, there are those who would like nothing better than to have the pari mutuel pools all to themselves.
Whatever.
So we have these complaints about dime supers. I wonder. Why no whining about low payoffs for 50 cent pick fours?.
For that matter, let's do this.
What would be the desirable minimum wager amount for all wagers?

[thaskalos]

That was the basis of StillRiled's ongoing complaint: that the winnings of "serious handicappers" were vulnerable to the claims put upon them by dart tossers, favorite color selectors, and other less-serious handicapping. I'm not going to look up his posts; you know they're out there.

SRU never said that ALL the superfecta payoffs were "unfairly" suppressed as a result of the 10-cent supers...which is what the original poster here is asserting was "frequently claimed". We all know that there are a handful of totally unpredictable race outcomes every year, whose superfecta payoffs cannot POSSIBLY be noticeably suppressed...even with a dime-bet minimum.

When the 50-cent TRIFECTA pays over $50,000...or even over $5,000...does it take a GENIUS to figure out that the 10-cent superfecta payoff will be impressive as well? Don't we know that the 50-cent trifecta and the 10-cent super pay close to one-another, much of the time?

You don't take an aberrant race and payoff as an example when you are trying to make a "general" statement. You don't, that is...if you care at all about "intellectual honesty".

[lansdale]

SRU never said that ALL the superfecta payoffs were unfairly suppressed as a result of the 10-cent supers...which is what the original poster here is asserting was "frequently claimed". We all know that there are a handful of totally unpredictable race outcomes every year, whose superfecta payoffs cannot possibly be noticeably suppressed...even with a dime-bet minimum.

When the 50-cent TRIFECTA pays over $50,000...or even over $5,000...does it take a GENIUS to figure out that the 10-cent superfecta payoff will be impressive as well? Don't we know that the 50-cent trifecta and the 10-cent super pay close to one-another, much of the time?

You don't take an aberrant race and payoff as an example when you are trying to make a "general" statement. You don't, that is...if you care at all about "intellectual honesty".

Hi Thask,

This is one of the very few threads where I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Your point in this post -- that anecdotal evidence is useless -- of course, I agree with. But the broader and more interesting claim that the OP raised is that the .10 super hasn't diluted the value of the bet. No one has offered any real evidence either way in this thread, but I would be interested to know the answer.

Although I've never been a superfecta bettor, I like this bet because it gives the average bettor a shot against the whales and those with deeper pockets in general. It potentially puts players of equal talent on an even playing field. I seem to remember when it was first introduced, about a decade ago, super pools supposedly grew ca. 30% -- I don't know if that growth has been sustained. But presumably that would offset some of the dilution of the payoffs. Someone must have before/after stats for mean .10 super payoffs - maybe Dave Schwartz?

As for small-seeming payoffs - AFAIK, mean super odds are ca. 800-1 - so the average .10 super should pay $80.

Cheers,

lansdale

[AltonKelsey]

Actually , it's quite simple to prove I'm right or as close to it as you can get.

Take any random day at a major , and go through the payoffs to compare the super vs the trifecta.

Of course, we have to make some assumption that the trifecta payoff is 'fair', and then compare it to the super and see if it looks like a gyp or not.

If the payoffs are 'right', then the conclusion would have to be that the supers are not diluted, OR that all the payoffs stink tri and super both. Which may be true, due to the high takeout, but that's another discussion.

[thaskalos]

Hi Thask,

This is one of the very few threads where I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Your point in this post -- that anecdotal evidence is useless -- of course, I agree with. But the broader and more interesting claim that the OP raised is that the .10 super hasn't diluted the value of the bet. No one has offered any real evidence either way in this thread, but I would be interested to know the answer.

Although I've never been a superfecta bettor, I like this bet because it gives the average bettor a shot against the whales and those with deeper pockets in general. It potentially puts players of equal talent on an even playing field. I seem to remember when it was first introduced, about a decade ago, super pools supposedly grew ca. 30% -- I don't know if that growth has been sustained. But presumably that would offset some of the dilution of the payoffs. Someone must have before/after stats for mean .10 super payoffs - maybe Dave Schwartz?

As for small-seeming payoffs - AFAIK, mean super odds are ca. 800-1 - so the average .10 super should pay $80.

Cheers,

lansdale

Hi landsdale,

I agree with you that no conclusive proof has ever been presented here to support the notion that the 10-cent superfectas have negatively impacted the corresponding payoffs...but the original poster here seeks to provide proof to the CONTRARY...and all he is doing, in that regard, is focusing on two aberrant superfecta payoffs to make his case. HE is the one who started this thread...so, the burden of proof for the validity of his assumption must fall on HIM...NO?

I have always been an advocate of the 10-cent superfecta...and I always considered it a potent weapon in the horseplayer's arsenal. I even started a long 10-cent superfecta thread a few years ago...which I would reproduce here if I knew how. But my (unsubstantiated) opinion is that the superfecta payoffs, in general, have declined substantially recently...to the point where I no longer consider the 10-cent superfecta to be a viable option for the value-seeking player -- with a few infrequent exceptions. Is the recent decline in the superfecta payoffs attributable to the 10-cent minimum bet...is it because of the accompanying decline in field size...or is it because, as is the normal order of things...the players have gotten more "competent" in the structuring of this wager, with the passage of time? My feeling is that all three of these factors have played a role in the decline of the superfecta payoffs. No matter what the cause of the payoff decline is...more "profitable" betting options are out there for the majority of the races that we see, as far as I am concerned.

Mondays through Fridays today are dominated by the short field...and there is no more ridiculous wager than the 10-cent superfecta in a 6-7 horse field...IMO.

[lansdale]

Hi landsdale,

I agree with you that no conclusive proof has ever been presented here to support the notion that the 10-cent superfectas have negatively impacted the corresponding payoffs...but the original poster here seeks to provide proof to the CONTRARY...and all he is doing, in that regard, is focusing on two aberrant superfecta payoffs to make his case. HE is the one who started this thread...so, the burden of proof for the validity of his assumption must fall on HIM...NO?

I have always been an advocate of the 10-cent superfecta...and I always considered it a potent weapon in the horseplayer's arsenal. I even started a long 10-cent superfecta thread a few years ago...which I would reproduce here if I knew how. But my (unsubstantiated) opinion is that the superfecta payoffs, in general, have declined substantially recently...to the point where I no longer consider the 10-cent superfecta to be a viable option for the value-seeking player -- with a few infrequent exceptions. Is the recent decline in the superfecta payoffs attributable to the 10-cent minimum bet...is it because of the accompanying decline in field size...or is it because, as is the normal order of things...the players have gotten more "competent" in the structuring of this wager, with the passage of time? My feeling is that all three of these factors have played a role in the decline of the superfecta payoffs. No matter what the cause of the payoff decline is...more "profitable" betting options are out there for the majority of the races that we see, as far as I am concerned.

Mondays through Fridays today are dominated by the short field...and there is no more ridiculous wager than the 10-cent superfecta in a 6-7 horse field...IMO.

Thanks for clearing this up. I had a feeling that this might be what you were saying, but wasn't sure. Since you're someone who has played this bet seriously for many years, I'm sure your take would be accurate. But also agree that it's probably difficult to completely separate out the decline of one aspect of a game that is declining in so many other ways. Makes it clearer also why you've begun to gravitate to poker.

BTW, the super in the race cited by the OP was $548k for a dollar, but at those odds -- ca. 555,555/1 -- a slight underlay. I'd say a super with three 2-digit horses and one 3-digit horse is pretty much the definition of an outlier.

Cheers,

lansdale

[lansdale]

Actually , it's quite simple to prove I'm right or as close to it as you can get.

Take any random day at a major , and go through the payoffs to compare the super vs the trifecta.

Of course, we have to make some assumption that the trifecta payoff is 'fair', and then compare it to the super and see if it looks like a gyp or not.

If the payoffs are 'right', then the conclusion would have to be that the supers are not diluted, OR that all the payoffs stink tri and super both. Which may be true, due to the high takeout, but that's another discussion.

Hi AK,

I took a look at this race since I posted. You really think a $548k super is a good example of a typical payoff for this bet? If so, not much else I can say. As I mentioned in the previous post, it's also a slight underlay -- at least at the odds. I don't know why you think the tri is relevant to the dime super -- no one knows how much overlap there might be in those betting each pool. Regardless, the tri was a much better bet -- fair .50 payoff was ca. $2222 at those odds, and it paid over $7k. Possibly in itself. this is evidence that the .10 super does dilute payoffs to some extent -- but we won't know without an apples-to-apples test.

Cheers,

lansdale

[thaskalos]

Thanks for clearing this up. I had a feeling that this might be what you were saying, but wasn't sure. Since you're someone who has played this bet seriously for many years, I'm sure your take would be accurate. But also agree that it's probably difficult to completely separate out the decline of one aspect of a game that is declining in so many other ways. Makes it clearer also why you've begun to gravitate to poker.

BTW, the super in the race cited by the OP was $548k for a dollar, but at those odds -- ca. 555,555/1 -- a slight underlay. I'd say a super with three 2-digit horses and one 3-digit horse is pretty much the definition of an outlier.

Cheers,

lansdale

And, as I said before...this "$548K" declaration is yet another sad example of the false-advertisement that our game has resorted to in recent years. The superfecta mutuel pool in that race was no-where NEAR $500K, so a payoff of that size was obviously an impossibility. If it weren't for the 10-cent denomination...this superfecta would never have been hit.

[cj]

This one seems pretty obvious to me even without data. If the minimum price of a Powerball ticket was 50 cents, even though the odds of hitting it would be exactly the same, it would get hit much more often.

[thaskalos]

This one seems pretty obvious to me even without data. If the minimum price of a Powerball ticket was 50 cents, even though the odds of hitting it would be exactly the same, it would get hit much more often.

Exactly. And those gigantic Powerball jackpots that we currently see would be greatly reduced.

[AltonKelsey]

Ok, you guys are right. The super is a terrible bet, underlaid 90% of the time, and way way too easy to hit.

I see a lot of talk, but no one took me up on taking a days card and actually looking at the payoffs. Better to just rant.

[AltonKelsey]

This one seems pretty obvious to me even without data. If the minimum price of a Powerball ticket was 50 cents, even though the odds of hitting it would be exactly the same, it would get hit much more often.

This was already dealt with . Never said there weren't fewer NO or single winners of the pool. Obvious.

Said that overall, there still appeared to be plenty of value in the payoffs, and that the example given was just that, an example.

I didn't realize I needed to post 10,000 payoffs as proof of concept. :liar:

Was the superfecta designed to be a powerball style jackpot bet? I don't think so . It's not reasonable to make the minimum so high , so that only deep pocket sharpshooters can afford to cover some of the less likely combinations, winning the whole pot when they hit.

That's why they wisely lowered the bet to 10 c. To make it fair.

But fair didn't mean that when something strange happened you wouldn't get paid. I've seen poor payouts, but overall, I'm generally surprised at how high the supers are vs. the tri's , especially with logical horses in the 4th slot.

[dilanesp]

This one seems pretty obvious to me even without data. If the minimum price of a Powerball ticket was 50 cents, even though the odds of hitting it would be exactly the same, it would get hit much more often.

Very possible, but that's a different question than the issue of value.

My default assumption (although I admit, I really can't prove this) would be that a winning horseplayer would actually want a lower limit, because the lower bet size encourages more "dumb money" into the pool.

But an undisciplined gambler who just wants to luck out to a big score might prefer a higher limit even if a greater percentage of the money in the pool is "smart money", because of the bigger potential payoff.

[cj]

Very possible, but that's a different question than the issue of value.

My default assumption (although I admit, I really can't prove this) would be that a winning horseplayer would actually want a lower limit, because the lower bet size encourages more "dumb money" into the pool.

But an undisciplined gambler who just wants to luck out to a big score might prefer a higher limit even if a greater percentage of the money in the pool is "smart money", because of the bigger potential payoff.

The value in bets with a 25% takeout is in the big scores, not trying to grind out "value" betting...at least in my opinion.

[thaskalos]

The value in bets with a 25% takeout is in the big scores, not trying to grind out "value" betting...at least in my opinion.

In my opinion too! :ThmbUp:

[dilanesp]

The value in bets with a 25% takeout is in the big scores, not trying to grind out "value" betting...at least in my opinion.

As a matter of math, all bets, even those that carry big payouts, have to have a positive expected value. You can argue a theoretical exception for throwing a few bucks at a big jackpot based on the marginal utility of money, but that doesn't apply to someone who is regularly playing the races.

So a condition that increases some payouts while decreasing your overall expected value is unfavorable if you are trying to actually make money long term, instead of just getting lucky.

[VigorsTheGrey]

While I keep no records, I've been routinely scanning .10 superfecta payouts for many years as part of chart review.

What I have noticed is that the wager gets hammered down at B Tracks intensely to the point where it is not a decent wager at all....

I only like the wager at A Tracks with big fields...

I like to structure the wager so as to incorporate the natural variability of racing with longer odds horses hoping for, as CJ says, "the Big Scores" ....

Grinding-out low price supers is definitely not the way to go
unless you can nail the a/b/cd/cd cold for 50 dimes
which I think is what is happening at the B Tracks
where the inside knowledge is a little more inside
than us outsiders would otherwise believe...

[cj]

As a matter of math, all bets, even those that carry big payouts, have to have a positive expected value. You can argue a theoretical exception for throwing a few bucks at a big jackpot based on the marginal utility of money, but that doesn't apply to someone who is regularly playing the races.

So a condition that increases some payouts while decreasing your overall expected value is unfavorable if you are trying to actually make money long term, instead of just getting lucky.

That is my point...I think any expected positive value went out the window when the big payouts were greatly curtailed with the introduction of the 10 cent minimum.

[dilanesp]

That is my point...I think any expected positive value went out the window when the big payouts were greatly curtailed with the introduction of the 10 cent minimum.

If it introduced more "dumb money" into the pool, it would have to increase the expected value of the bet.

There's only a few possibilities here:

1. The bet is negative expected value, in which case nobody should play it who is trying to make money playing the races. You can throw occasional small amounts at it trying for a jackpot, like Powerball, but that's it.

2. The bet is positive expected value. In that case, a losing player should still play it like I said in (1), but a winning player should favor anything that puts dumb money into the pool and increases the long term profitability of the bet, even if it results in smaller "jackpot" payoffs (presumably because the more logical smaller tickets you cash will be for bigger amounts).

Bear in mind this is not inconsistent with cj's statement that the exotic player makes a lot of money from a few big scores. That's true! But the small cashes are more common and add up, and when smart money cuts those payoffs it has the same effect as a takeout increase, slowly taking more and more from the player.

The short version of this is that if you want to win long term, you are looking to maximize the total of all your cashes, not just the occasional jackpot payoff.

[thaskalos]

If it introduced more "dumb money" into the pool, it would have to increase the expected value of the bet.

There's only a few possibilities here:

1. The bet is negative expected value, in which case nobody should play it who is trying to make money playing the races. You can throw occasional small amounts at it trying for a jackpot, like Powerball, but that's it.

2. The bet is positive expected value. In that case, a losing player should still play it like I said in (1), but a winning player should favor anything that puts dumb money into the pool and increases the long term profitability of the bet, even if it results in smaller "jackpot" payoffs (presumably because the more logical smaller tickets you cash will be for bigger amounts).

Bear in mind this is not inconsistent with cj's statement that the exotic player makes a lot of money from a few big scores. That's true! But the small cashes are more common and add up, and when smart money cuts those payoffs it has the same effect as a takeout increase, slowly taking more and more from the player.

The short version of this is that if you want to win long term, you are looking to maximize the total of all your cashes, not just the occasional jackpot payoff.

Dilanesp...may I ask you a question?

Are you a superfecta player?

[BCOURTNEY]

If it introduced more "dumb money" into the pool, it would have to increase the expected value of the bet.

There's only a few possibilities here:

1. The bet is negative expected value, in which case nobody should play it who is trying to make money playing the races. You can throw occasional small amounts at it trying for a jackpot, like Powerball, but that's it.

2. The bet is positive expected value. In that case, a losing player should still play it like I said in (1), but a winning player should favor anything that puts dumb money into the pool and increases the long term profitability of the bet, even if it results in smaller "jackpot" payoffs (presumably because the more logical smaller tickets you cash will be for bigger amounts).

Bear in mind this is not inconsistent with cj's statement that the exotic player makes a lot of money from a few big scores. That's true! But the small cashes are more common and add up, and when smart money cuts those payoffs it has the same effect as a takeout increase, slowly taking more and more from the player.

The short version of this is that if you want to win long term, you are looking to maximize the total of all your cashes, not just the occasional jackpot payoff.


Dilanesp - Individual players are frustrated that the exotic pools are now Robot Wars v2016 and they cannot even causally participate even upon discovery of an overlay opportunity. I dislike the 10 cent minimum as well but for the reason that it doesn't even make any wager unattractive to a syndicate team with a large bankroll. The larger units amplify errors, so if the premium costs per unit are higher, even the larger syndicates have to pass (or skip) on zero or low EV wagers due to cost constraints - but right now they never do - this IS the HOME the average Joe six pack used to live in. If Mexico invaded Texas - Texas would feel the same way. If the racing industry wants robot teams and players to co-exist they must adopt policies that place minimums on the wagering units such that syndicated teams cannot simply pass their takeout taxes along to Joe six pack and retain their rebate amount. The calculated minimum wagering units should be assessed based on the efficiency of the rebates, this is not a case where market efficiency is for the betterment of the industry or the game it simply fattens the pockets of the larger bankrolls rather than penalize them for errors fairly.

I say this even as my robots prepare for tomorrow. Think about that.
I would have less of an arsenal of tickets to go to war with because passing on some low or zero EV makes sense then ... due to cost .. AND Joe Six Pack is a happy guy. Everyone wins.

An alternative is to only rebate winning plays versus non winning plays at different rates.. heh

[Pensacola Pete]

Remember the "good old days" when the Pick 3 at Santa Anita was a minimum of $5?

These aren't the good old days anymore. Players have left the game in droves. Most of what's left are sharp players. The tracks have introduced the lower rates in an effort to draw new money. A lot of people who wouldn't consider playing a $1 minimum see the 10 cent supers or the 50 cent pick-3/4/5s, go "Whee!", and toss $5 to $20 in, usually shotgunning and including horses that shouldn't be included, in order to increase their chances of cashing. They happily endure a horrible ROI in return for for a higher win rate that they couldn't get if the minimum was $1 --- because they couldn't afford to play the same number of combinations for twice to ten times as much.

Where does all of that fun money go? Into the pockets of the sharp players.

10 cent supers and 50 cent pick-X's haven't killed the prices. They've helped the prices by providing more value to the logical combinations that the better players have.

[classhandicapper]

This would be my guess.

At one point there may have been some value in some of the very low probability high payoff tickets because smaller bankroll players weren't capitalized enough to spread that far. That created some inefficiencies in the pools. Large bankroll players willing to put significant money into the pool by covering many more combinations may have had an edge in that small area where the inefficiencies were located.

With 10 cent supers, undercapitalized players can now spread a lot more when appropriate and structure the same kinds of tickets as the well capitalized players. That took away the inefficiency.

On a positive note, if some 10 cent super players are now spreading further and have taken that inefficiency away, then some of the higher probability low payoff tickets are probably not as bad value as before.

Of course, the assumption here is that these 10 cent super players are as smart as the big dogs. If they aren't, then their throwing darts at the board is creating value somewhere. It may just be in a different location.

[classhandicapper]

One other point. I think the "big score" concept is somewhat flawed. It may be true that many super exotic players can point to a few scores each year that made their year. But that definitely does not mean the goal should be to make big scores. The goal should be to make as many positive expectation wagers as possible. If a few of them just happened to be low probability high payoff wins, so be it. You should be profitable across the spectrum of your bets or you should change what you are doing.

[affirmedny]

This one seems pretty obvious to me even without data. If the minimum price of a Powerball ticket was 50 cents, even though the odds of hitting it would be exactly the same, it would get hit much more often.

Not a good analogy at all. Lottery selections are usually random while superfecta selections are usually made using some kind of handicapping process. If people played horses using the same methods they picked their lottery numbers you as a figuremaker would be out of business. There are no "odds on favorite" lottery numbers. Horse racing payouts are most influenced by the perceived likeliness of each entrant to be in the winning combination which is not nearly the case in lottery betting.

[cj]

The takeout is too high to grind out value plays IMO. There might be more dumb money, but it isn't that dumb. I'm not so sure there is much smart money picking third and fourth place finishers anyway.

[classhandicapper]

There might be more dumb money, but it isn't that dumb. I'm not so sure there is much smart money picking third and fourth place finishers anyway.

I don't have any special insights into picking horses that finish 3 or 4th, but it's clearly more random than winners because many of them are suck ups. I'd have to think the bigger the field, the more skill there is to figuring out the lower ranked horses because there's probably a discernible difference between the 8th best and 12th best horse in the race that will both be sucking up.

[AndyC]

Dilanesp...may I ask you a question?

Are you a superfecta player?


Dilanesp is absolutely right.

While there may be more skewed payoffs with higher minimums the skew cuts both ways. You get as many too low payoffs as you do over payoffs. But you would try and convince people that not only are you good at handicapping you can also predict which payoffs will over pay. And if such payoffs were predictable there would be people much smarter than you or I squeezing the profit out of those plays.

[thaskalos]

Dilanesp is absolutely right.

While there may be more skewed payoffs with higher minimums the skew cuts both ways. You get as many too low payoffs as you do over payoffs. But you would try and convince people that not only are you good at handicapping you can also predict which payoffs will over pay. And if such payoffs were predictable there would be people much smarter than you or I squeezing the profit out of those plays.

IMO...Dilanesp is dead wrong...and so are you. Anyone who thinks that the "skew" cuts equally "both ways", is not paying close attention to this game. Put a 10-cent superfecta minimum in a game dominated by short fields...and the superfecta is only playable on a very infrequent basis..

[thaskalos]

Andy...were YOU a superfecta player, when you still played this game?

[BCOURTNEY]

Not a good analogy at all. Lottery selections are usually random while superfecta selections are usually made using some kind of handicapping process. If people played horses using the same methods they picked their lottery numbers you as a figuremaker would be out of business. There are no "odds on favorite" lottery numbers. Horse racing payouts are most influenced by the perceived likeliness of each entrant to be in the winning combination which is not nearly the case in lottery betting.

Getting a little off topic, but the lottery can be handicapped as well. There are numbers that are frequently selected because they are part of birthdays. Knowing this an intelligent lottery player would select numbers which are not typically used in birthdays to increase the chances of hitting numbers not frequently selected.

[cj]

Getting a little off topic, but the lottery can be handicapped as well. There are numbers that are frequently selected because they are part of birthdays. Knowing this an intelligent lottery player would select numbers which are not typically used in birthdays to increase the chances of hitting numbers not frequently selected.

Aren't birthday numbers pretty evenly distributed? What is an example of.a birthday number?

[BCOURTNEY]

This would be my guess.

At one point there may have been some value in some of the very low probability high payoff tickets because smaller bankroll players weren't capitalized enough to spread that far. That created some inefficiencies in the pools. Large bankroll players willing to put significant money into the pool by covering many more combinations may have had an edge in that small area where the inefficiencies were located.

With 10 cent supers, undercapitalized players can now spread a lot more when appropriate and structure the same kinds of tickets as the well capitalized players. That took away the inefficiency.

On a positive note, if some 10 cent super players are now spreading further and have taken that inefficiency away, then some of the higher probability low payoff tickets are probably not as bad value as before.

Of course, the assumption here is that these 10 cent super players are as smart as the big dogs. If they aren't, then their throwing darts at the board is creating value somewhere. It may just be in a different location.

Undercapitalized leads to one point I was getting at. The strong and weak laws of large numbers come into play when - even if you offered a 50/50 game (fair) to opponents (joe six pack versus the gorilla) the player with the largest bankroll wins over time, this has a compounding effect when considered with takeout - such that the takeout effect is more pronounced on the players with small capital because it greatly accelerates the effect of the law of large numbers.

[cj]

Dilanesp is absolutely right.

While there may be more skewed payoffs with higher minimums the skew cuts both ways. You get as many too low payoffs as you do over payoffs. But you would try and convince people that not only are you good at handicapping you can also predict which payoffs will over pay. And if such payoffs were predictable there would be people much smarter than you or I squeezing the profit out of those plays.

Theory vs reality. Good luck trying to make a profit on overlaid chalky sequences with a 25% takeout. It isn't happening. There may be a few people getting big enough rebates to do it on paper, but at the tracks where that is possible pools are too small.

[thaskalos]

The Southern California "sharpies" have fought tooth-and-nail to preserve the Pick-6's $2 minimum bet. When you ask them why they are not in favor of making the Pick-6 more "affordable"...they say that lowering the minimum bet of the Pick-6 would hurt the wager's "carryover value". No-one talks about the avalanche of additional "dead money" that the lower minimum bet would bring to the Pick-6 mutuel pools...but that's always the argument that we hear whenever we discuss the perils of the superfecta's 10-cent minimum. Isn't the superfecta, vertical wagering's equivalent to the Pick-6?

[BCOURTNEY]

Aren't birthday numbers pretty evenly distributed? What is an example of.a birthday number?

The best numbers are high numbers and those ending with 0's, 9's and 8's
The 12 most unpopular are 30,40,39,48,12,42,41,38 and 18 which are 15 to 30% less popular than average.
The most popular number is 7 which is selected 50% more often than average

[Racetrack Playa]

777 slot influenced perhaps ?

[BCOURTNEY]

The Southern California "sharpies" have fought tooth-and-nail to preserve the Pick-6's $2 minimum bet. When you ask them why they are not in favor of making the Pick-6 more "affordable"...they say that lowering the minimum bet of the Pick-6 would hurt the wager's "carryover value". No-one talks about the avalanche of additional "dead money" that the lower minimum bet would bring to the Pick-6 mutuel pools...but that's always the argument that we hear whenever we discuss the perils of the superfecta's 10-cent minimum. Isn't the superfecta, vertical wagering's equivalent to the Pick-6?

Absolutely. Lowering all bets to a minimum of 1 cent makes about as much sense to me as raising everyone's minimum wage to 50 dollars an hour. The reason the first doesn't work is the converse of why the other doesn't.

[cj]

The best numbers are high numbers and those ending with 0's, 9's and 8's
The 12 most unpopular are 30,40,39,48,12,42,41,38 and 18 which are 15 to 30% less popular than average.
The most popular number is 7 which is selected 50% more often than average

Gotcha, but that is different than birthdays, no? I have no doubt some numbers are more popular than others.

[dilanesp]

The Southern California "sharpies" have fought tooth-and-nail to preserve the Pick-6's $2 minimum bet. When you ask them why they are not in favor of making the Pick-6 more "affordable"...they say that lowering the minimum bet of the Pick-6 would hurt the wager's "carryover value". No-one talks about the avalanche of additional "dead money" that the lower minimum bet would bring to the Pick-6 mutuel pools...but that's always the argument that we hear whenever we discuss the perils of the superfecta's 10-cent minimum. Isn't the superfecta, vertical wagering's equivalent to the Pick-6?

Carryovers essentially lower takeout. (Indeed a big enough carryover can turn the average pick 6 ticket into a positive expectation wager.)

So from a math standpoint, you would have to decide whether you make more money from additional dumb money in the pool, or from the potential of carryovers that slash the takeout.

Since there are no carryovers in superfectas, that reasoning would not apply.

[dilanesp]

IMO...Dilanesp is dead wrong...and so are you. Anyone who thinks that the "skew" cuts equally "both ways", is not paying close attention to this game. Put a 10-cent superfecta minimum in a game dominated by short fields...and the superfecta is only playable on a very infrequent basis..

For the record, I am not a fan of the superfecta in short fields at all, whatever the minimum. I don't think superfectas in a 6 horse field would suddenly become playable by making them a $5 bet.

[thespaah]

Actually , it's quite simple to prove I'm right or as close to it as you can get.

Take any random day at a major , and go through the payoffs to compare the super vs the trifecta.

Of course, we have to make some assumption that the trifecta payoff is 'fair', and then compare it to the super and see if it looks like a gyp or not.

If the payoffs are 'right', then the conclusion would have to be that the supers are not diluted, OR that all the payoffs stink tri and super both. Which may be true, due to the high takeout, but that's another discussion.
You are forgetting one ingredient.
Let's say the order of finish has the favorite in the win pool finishing 4th.
The trifecta payoff would be much higher in proportion to the Super payoff because the favorite is not involved in the trifecta, but the favorite money is still in the trifecta pools to be paid off..
Based on this, the two pools are mutually exclusive

[thespaah]

This was already dealt with . Never said there weren't fewer NO or single winners of the pool. Obvious.

Said that overall, there still appeared to be plenty of value in the payoffs, and that the example given was just that, an example.

I didn't realize I needed to post 10,000 payoffs as proof of concept. :liar:

Was the superfecta designed to be a powerball style jackpot bet? I don't think so . It's not reasonable to make the minimum so high , so that only deep pocket sharpshooters can afford to cover some of the less likely combinations, winning the whole pot when they hit.

That's why they wisely lowered the bet to 10 c. To make it fair.

But fair didn't mean that when something strange happened you wouldn't get paid. I've seen poor payouts, but overall, I'm generally surprised at how high the supers are vs. the tri's , especially with logical horses in the 4th slot.
Look, you keep arguing the same points. we get it. here's the rub. The dime super isn't going anywhere. So the effort to analyze it and argue against it, is pointless.

[AndyC]

The Southern California "sharpies" have fought tooth-and-nail to preserve the Pick-6's $2 minimum bet. When you ask them why they are not in favor of making the Pick-6 more "affordable"...they say that lowering the minimum bet of the Pick-6 would hurt the wager's "carryover value". No-one talks about the avalanche of additional "dead money" that the lower minimum bet would bring to the Pick-6 mutuel pools...but that's always the argument that we hear whenever we discuss the perils of the superfecta's 10-cent minimum. Isn't the superfecta, vertical wagering's equivalent to the Pick-6?

The Pick-6 is a great bet because of the carryover. Playing a non-carryover P-6 with today's smaller pools is for bettors with more money than brains.

How a can a superfecta be anything like a Pick-6? Do superfectas have carryovers that sometimes are larger than the take for the bet?

If there is such a thing as dead money how does one know where it is being bet? And if it is so easy to figure out wouldn't everybody rush in to take advantage of the dead money?

[thaskalos]

The Pick-6 is a great bet because of the carryover. Playing a non-carryover P-6 with today's smaller pools is for bettors with more money than brains.

How a can a superfecta be anything like a Pick-6? Do superfectas have carryovers that sometimes are larger than the take for the bet?

If there is such a thing as dead money how does one know where it is being bet? And if it is so easy to figure out wouldn't everybody rush in to take advantage of the dead money?

The term "dead money" isn't my own. I borrow it from my more "sophisticated" brethren, who think that the bargain-basement minimum betting units don't adversely affect the mutuel payoffs of the superfecta. If you look...you will find that the term "dead money" has been used several times in this very thread. I, personally, have been looking for this "dead money" for over 30 years...and haven't found it YET.

OF COURSE the superfecta is similar to the Pick-6. It's the vertical exotics player's "swing-for-the-fence" wager, and its payoffs deserve PROTECTION...just like the Pick-6 payoffs are protected in Southern California. As a vertical exotics bettor...I shouldn't have to suffer the indignity of having to bet at Charles Town in order to avoid the 10-cent superfecta.

[BCOURTNEY]

Gotcha, but that is different than birthdays, no? I have no doubt some numbers are more popular than others.

Study was conducted by Dr. Z of horse racing fame. White paper and all. The paper was trying to answer the question at what point of weath would a rational person want to invest in a lottery, and if they do how would one go about it.

Roughly along this line of thinking there are particular cultural biases that show up in some wagers in certain locales with particular numbers are on the saddlecloth. The bias is pronounced enough to use in a model.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Remember the "good old days" when the Pick 3 at Santa Anita was a minimum of $5?

These aren't the good old days anymore. Players have left the game in droves. Most of what's left are sharp players. The tracks have introduced the lower rates in an effort to draw new money. A lot of people who wouldn't consider playing a $1 minimum see the 10 cent supers or the 50 cent pick-3/4/5s, go "Whee!", and toss $5 to $20 in, usually shotgunning and including horses that shouldn't be included, in order to increase their chances of cashing. They happily endure a horrible ROI in return for for a higher win rate that they couldn't get if the minimum was $1 --- because they couldn't afford to play the same number of combinations for twice to ten times as much.

Where does all of that fun money go? Into the pockets of the sharp players.

10 cent supers and 50 cent pick-X's haven't killed the prices. They've helped the prices by providing more value to the logical combinations that the better players have.

Nailed it.:ThmbUp:

Not sure why there are anymore posts in this thread.

[AltonKelsey]

Nailed it.:ThmbUp:

Not sure why there are anymore posts in this thread.

So can I declare victory? I don't think that would sit well with thaskalos.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55720194.jpg

[VigorsTheGrey]

If a fellow had a method for betting the dime super that resulted in a moderate value of ROI, that cashed at fairly regular intervals, would it be wise to share it on a thread such as this one?

Do we do a dis-service to us relatively sharper players (I didn't say profitable players) by sharing sucessful methods...?

I keep hearing Delta and EMD hinting at keeping quiet about winning methods...

Thaskalos also has said that no real successful players would share their methods....for obvious reasons....

[AltonKelsey]

I agree, no one should share anything proprietary in a public forum.

Even broaching this subject could be considered a form of letting the cat out of a bag.

[pandy]

No question that 10 cent supers and lower minimums have been a positive in a sport with a lot of negatives. Regardless of whether you think the payoffs are decreased, low minimums are attractive to the average racing fan and bettor.

But another side of this is how many exotics are offered now. I started betting horses when I was 17 and I was betting mostly superfectas at the trotters at first. There was one superfecta a night and the minimum wager was $3.00. The pools were enormous, the payouts were fantastic. But, there was no pick 3, no pick 4, only doubles, exactas, $2 trifectas in a few races, and one $3 superfecta. Bettors saw that one superfecta as the best chance to hit a big payoff and the money poured in.

[cj]

No question that 10 cent supers and lower minimums have been a positive in a sport with a lot of negatives. Regardless of whether you think the payoffs are decreased, low minimums are attractive to the average racing fan and bettor.

But another side of this is how many exotics are offered now. I started betting horses when I was 17 and I was betting mostly superfectas at the trotters at first. There was one superfecta a night and the minimum wager was $3.00. The pools were enormous, the payouts were fantastic. But, there was no pick 3, no pick 4, only doubles, exactas, $2 trifectas in a few races, and one $3 superfecta. Bettors saw that one superfecta as the best chance to hit a big payoff and the money poured in.

There are way too many options now and it dilutes pools, many to unplayable levels at a lot of tracks. Small handle tracks would do well to limit options.

[aaron]

There are way too many options now and it dilutes pools, many to unplayable levels at a lot of tracks. Small handle tracks would do well to limit options.
When I first started betting,it was mostly in the win pool. Handicappers had to have an opinion. With all the jackpot bets and options,it has become more of a game of spreading and not having solid opinions. In my opinion,this hurts in bringing new players to the game. You have players trying to hit superfecta's and pick 6's who don't know the game. They go a few times and lose their money,never to return.Also with all the bets available,if you hit a solid 8-1 shot,there is a good chance you will end up 4-1 on your money,if you don't hit your exotic bet. I think the churn was better when there were less options.

[thespaah]

So can I declare victory? I don't think that would sit well with thaskalos.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55720194.jpg

Victory? Is that why you decided to post here? To pick up a perceived( in your mind) "win"?....Jeez....

[thespaah]

No question that 10 cent supers and lower minimums have been a positive in a sport with a lot of negatives. Regardless of whether you think the payoffs are decreased, low minimums are attractive to the average racing fan and bettor.

But another side of this is how many exotics are offered now. I started betting horses when I was 17 and I was betting mostly superfectas at the trotters at first. There was one superfecta a night and the minimum wager was $3.00. The pools were enormous, the payouts were fantastic. But, there was no pick 3, no pick 4, only doubles, exactas, $2 trifectas in a few races, and one $3 superfecta. Bettors saw that one superfecta as the best chance to hit a big payoff and the money poured in.
Heck, I remember , as you probably remember was well, when NJ and NY set min wager amount at $3 for trifecta's( NY called them triples) and also at YR and RR, the OTB Pick 4 min was $3.
That was back when pari-mutuels were the only legal form of betting in town.

[thespaah]

When I first started betting,it was mostly in the win pool. Handicappers had to have an opinion. With all the jackpot bets and options,it has become more of a game of spreading and not having solid opinions. In my opinion,this hurts in bringing new players to the game. You have players trying to hit superfecta's and pick 6's who don't know the game. They go a few times and lose their money,never to return.Also with all the bets available,if you hit a solid 8-1 shot,there is a good chance you will end up 4-1 on your money,if you don't hit your exotic bet. I think the churn was better when there were less options.
Hence the reason for the lower minimums. Using your scenario, lower budget bettors can enter the pools. If they don't win, the investment does not leave too large of a hole in their budget. They keep coming back for more.

[dilanesp]

There are way too many options now and it dilutes pools, many to unplayable levels at a lot of tracks. Small handle tracks would do well to limit options.

Yep. I came to this same conclusion when i saw Ferndale offering a Super High Five.

[pandy]

There are way too many options now and it dilutes pools, many to unplayable levels at a lot of tracks. Small handle tracks would do well to limit options.


Something that most small tracks don't seem to understand.

[JohnGalt1]

I've been following this thread., and have not read anyone suggest that the way, as I see it, to compare the dollar minimum super with the ten center, is to compare payoff from the dollar minimum days to the dime minimum days.

Lets say a 6-1 over 3-1 over 10-1 over 5-2 pays $800 for a dollar and thus $80 for a dime.

Years ago before the dime minimum, what would the above horses have paid if the minimum was a dollar?

I started a thread awhile ago with the question--what would this dollar super pay?

When the bet first was introduced at Hollywood park I hit a dollar super with two 6-1's and two 8-1's in a twelve horse field where the favorite was 7-2.

The super paid $17k

To hit supers for higher minimums, one had to be more accurate in betting. There was little dilution of pools with higher minimums.

To summarize--- Find races with equal number of entries where the minimum super was a $1, and races with equal number of entries in recent years, at tracks with similar sized pools, and compare the payouts.

I would guess that the comparison would show the current dime payouts would be smaller than the equivalent dollar. The $1000 dollar super might pay $80 for a dime.

Those with a data base can probably make this comparison fairly quickly.

I have drastically reduced my super play because I don't play dime supers.

And don't start me on the twenty cent pick threes at Hawthorne, a track I used to play a lot.

[AltonKelsey]

Heck, I remember , as you probably remember was well, when NJ and NY set min wager amount at $3 for trifecta's( NY called them triples) and also at YR and RR, the OTB Pick 4 min was $3.
That was back when pari-mutuels were the only legal form of betting in town.

I do not recall a $3 min at the track. $2, yes. Maybe the trotters, but not flats.

[cj]

I do not recall a $3 min at the track. $2, yes. Maybe the trotters, but not flats.

There have definitely been three dollar minimum bets on thoroughbreds in the past.

[schweitz]

There have definitely been three dollar minimum bets on thoroughbreds in the past.
As well as five dollar min bets.

[cj]

As well as five dollar min bets.

Yep, I remember the exacta in Cali was $5 minimum.

[dilanesp]

As well as five dollar min bets.

When i was young, this was a major bone of contention between Santa Anita and Hollywood Park. Santa Anita had a $5 minimum on exactas (probably more than $15 in inflation adjusted dollars) while Hollywood had $2 exactas. Horseplayers complained to SA but they stuck to their guns for several years.

[thespaah]

I do not recall a $3 min at the track. $2, yes. Maybe the trotters, but not flats.
That's correct. NYRA tracks had a $2 min on triples.
Yonkers and Roosevelt it was $3...Over at Meadowlands, the min was also $3.
In 1980, NYRA went to a $1 min on all bets.
Oh, one other thing. Triples on the last race only. Doubles on 1st and 2nd and the last two.....Exactas on races 3,5,7.....Only

[aaron]

Hence the reason for the lower minimums. Using your scenario, lower budget bettors can enter the pools. If they don't win, the investment does not leave too large of a hole in their budget. They keep coming back for more.
A better question would be if the uneducated bettor goes into these pools,will he ever win. I guess you could compare it to playing penny slots. If that is the case,why not just go to casino's. If you are not going to learn to handicap,I see no point in betting horses.

[EMD4ME]

This is 1 thread, where I can't even BELIEVE it's a discussion.

It's black and white, 100% that the STUPID dime super has depressed payoffs on 90% of races run.

Yes, you might get $1.24 on a super that used to pay $1.04 now as small time players are betting $6 to get that $1.24 but overall, I HATE the dime super.

It has killed what used to be a horizontal attempt at a score (often with the 1st 3 slots hit and missing the 4th).

[Saratoga_Mike]

Maybe 90 percent of races run where the results are dominated by long shots, but I doubt the dime super suppresses prices without the long shot qualifier. What's happened to super pools since the advent of the dime?

[AndyC]

This is 1 thread, where I can't even BELIEVE it's a discussion.

It's black and white, 100% that the STUPID dime super has depressed payoffs on 90% of races run.

Yes, you might get $1.24 on a super that used to pay $1.04 now as small time players are betting $6 to get that $1.24 but overall, I HATE the dime super.

It has killed what used to be a horizontal attempt at a score (often with the 1st 3 slots hit and missing the 4th).

What am I missing? If the pool is $100,000 and the take is 25% the winners will split $75,000 regardless of the denomination of the minimum bet. So essentially your argument is that $.10 players are smarter than $1.00 players.

[AltonKelsey]

That's correct. NYRA tracks had a $2 min on triples.
Yonkers and Roosevelt it was $3...Over at Meadowlands, the min was also $3.
In 1980, NYRA went to a $1 min on all bets.
Oh, one other thing. Triples on the last race only. Doubles on 1st and 2nd and the last two.....Exactas on races 3,5,7.....Only\

Yep. And back in the day, the only way to wheel or box was to do it one ticket at a time. So to wheel the fave on top for instance, you had to punch out 110 tickets in a 12 horse field.

[EMD4ME]

What am I missing? If the pool is $100,000 and the take is 25% the winners will split $75,000 regardless of the denomination of the minimum bet. So essentially your argument is that $.10 players are smarter than $1.00 players.

My argument is that when you have tons of players spreading for a dime, ALL combos are covered more than they should. Almost every super that had any value in it, is now covered for a .10 or .30 or .60 by many semi-sharpies in addition to the "pounders".

Without question, from anyone here, the .10 super has helped cover all combos. You rarely see a .10 super pay to all (3/4).

The .10 Supresses prices. I don't need to theorize about it, I've lived it. As has Thaskolos and many others.

The only "sweet spot" I see for .10 supers is when you pound it cold and the chalk payout come out a bit higher when .10 spreaders lose money on their $12 ticket. (Having it for a .10 when pays $5.00 for a dime).

Shoot, I'm the one who hates the .50 pick 4 as IMO, it has killed prices. I want the $1 pick 4 back.

[P Matties Jr]

What am I missing? If the pool is $100,000 and the take is 25% the winners will split $75,000 regardless of the denomination of the minimum bet. So essentially your argument is that $.10 players are smarter than $1.00 players.


This is an example of what a CRW/batch superfecta play looks like now that you can play 10 cent denominations.

Superfecta $4.30 1/2/5/7
Superfecta $3.80 1/2/5/6
Superfecta $24.50 1/2/5/4
Superfecta $18.80 1/2/5/3
Superfecta $3.40 1/3/5/2
Superfecta $2.00 1/3/2/5
Superfecta $32.90 1/4/5/2
Superfecta $26.80 1/4/2/5
Superfecta $13.00 1/5/2/4
Superfecta $4.60 1/5/2/3
Superfecta $3.80 2/1/5/7
Superfecta $3.30 2/1/5/6
Superfecta $40.20 2/1/5/4
Superfecta $37.90 2/1/4/5
Superfecta $6.40 2/1/4/3
Superfecta $12.70 2/5/1/4
Superfecta $7.00 3/4/5/2
Superfecta $7.30 3/4/2/5
Superfecta $35.70 4/1/2/5
Superfecta $0.50 4/5/2/7
Superfecta $24.40 4/2/5/1
Superfecta $1.50 5/2/7/4
Superfecta $0.60 5/2/3/6

[EMD4ME]

This is an example of what a CRW/batch superfecta play looks like now that you can play 10 cent denominations.

Superfecta $4.30 1/2/5/7
Superfecta $3.80 1/2/5/6
Superfecta $24.50 1/2/5/4
Superfecta $18.80 1/2/5/3
Superfecta $3.40 1/3/5/2
Superfecta $2.00 1/3/2/5
Superfecta $32.90 1/4/5/2
Superfecta $26.80 1/4/2/5
Superfecta $13.00 1/5/2/4
Superfecta $4.60 1/5/2/3
Superfecta $3.80 2/1/5/7
Superfecta $3.30 2/1/5/6
Superfecta $40.20 2/1/5/4
Superfecta $37.90 2/1/4/5
Superfecta $6.40 2/1/4/3
Superfecta $12.70 2/5/1/4
Superfecta $7.00 3/4/5/2
Superfecta $7.30 3/4/2/5
Superfecta $35.70 4/1/2/5
Superfecta $0.50 4/5/2/7
Superfecta $24.40 4/2/5/1
Superfecta $1.50 5/2/7/4
Superfecta $0.60 5/2/3/6

Is this the end of this thread? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sharp POST !!! :ThmbUp:

[iceknight]

Just like those who want the 10c supers killed and the 50c pick 4 to go away....there were those that raised the day trading minimum from 2000 to 25000 effectively making it harder to small time stock traders to day trade and benefit from smaller fluctuations.

It is basically jealousy that the "poor" are able to play the same supers and get to take a shot at the occasional large payout along with several decent payouts (if you are betting 60 c to $2.40 in many cases but go home with 35, 60 or 120 dollars, many people are happy). The elite in racing (ie. the self appointed on message boards who claim they are always rolling in big cash) - not the real elite who own the colts running in the big stakes races -- are complaining because they are - how do I put this - greedy.

Deal it with. Or if you are real big shot, lobby your representative over this frivolous issue and get it changed to suit your taste.
If you need some cheese with your whine, Kroger is having a sale.

I am really confused and not clear what Thask's arguments are considering his famous thread here
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83249

which I had fully saved to offline so I can look at it regularly.
I am a small time bettor and once I figured out how to arrange my keys, I really enjoy the superfecta bets.. even if it hits rarely.

[Fox]

What am I missing? If the pool is $100,000 and the take is 25% the winners will split $75,000 regardless of the denomination of the minimum bet. So essentially your argument is that $.10 players are smarter than $1.00 players.

For what it's worth, I don't think you're missing anything. By the logic of some of the people in this thread, it would be terrible for everyone else if I did a 10 cent superfecta box of the entire field simply because more combos are being covered. Spreading out like that would not lower every payoff as it seems was suggested in the first sentence a few posts up. It would lower some payoffs while raising others.

[thaskalos]

Just like those who want the 10c supers killed and the 50c pick 4 to go away....there were those that raised the day trading minimum from 2000 to 25000 effectively making it harder to small time stock traders to day trade and benefit from smaller fluctuations.

It is basically jealousy that the "poor" are able to play the same supers and get to take a shot at the occasional large payout along with several decent payouts (if you are betting 60 c to $2.40 in many cases but go home with 35, 60 or 120 dollars, many people are happy). The elite in racing (ie. the self appointed on message boards who claim they are always rolling in big cash) - not the real elite who own the colts running in the big stakes races -- are complaining because they are - how do I put this - greedy.

Deal it with. Or if you are real big shot, lobby your representative over this frivolous issue and get it changed to suit your taste.
If you need some cheese with your whine, Kroger is having a sale.

I am really confused and not clear what Thask's arguments are considering his famous thread here
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83249

which I had fully saved to offline so I can look at it regularly.
I am a small time bettor and once I figured out how to arrange my keys, I really enjoy the superfecta bets.. even if it hits rarely.

Who knew that the game would get dominated by the 7-horse fields...which get further reduced to 5 horses because of the obligatory late scratches? Has anyone been paying attention to what has happened to this game on the weekdays?

Even in my "famous" superfecta thread I spoke out against the "evils" of the short fields when it comes to the 10-cent super.

[dilanesp]

For what it's worth, I don't think you're missing anything. By the logic of some of the people in this thread, it would be terrible for everyone else if I did a 10 cent superfecta box of the entire field simply because more combos are being covered. Spreading out like that would not lower every payoff as it seems was suggested in the first sentence a few posts up. It would lower some payoffs while raising others.

The contempt that many experienced gamblers have for basic math (which fundamentally governs all forms of gambling) is one of the mysteries of life. I see it all the time in poker too.

[dilanesp]

Just like those who want the 10c supers killed and the 50c pick 4 to go away....there were those that raised the day trading minimum from 2000 to 25000 effectively making it harder to small time stock traders to day trade and benefit from smaller fluctuations.

It is basically jealousy that the "poor" are able to play the same supers and get to take a shot at the occasional large payout along with several decent payouts (if you are betting 60 c to $2.40 in many cases but go home with 35, 60 or 120 dollars, many people are happy). The elite in racing (ie. the self appointed on message boards who claim they are always rolling in big cash) - not the real elite who own the colts running in the big stakes races -- are complaining because they are - how do I put this - greedy.

Deal it with. Or if you are real big shot, lobby your representative over this frivolous issue and get it changed to suit your taste.
If you need some cheese with your whine, Kroger is having a sale.

I am really confused and not clear what Thask's arguments are considering his famous thread here
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83249

which I had fully saved to offline so I can look at it regularly.
I am a small time bettor and once I figured out how to arrange my keys, I really enjoy the superfecta bets.. even if it hits rarely.

Yeah, in that thread, thask recognizes that you have to play higher probability "basic" tickets that "keep you alive" between big scores. But here, it's llke he has forgotten his own advice. Suddenly, the payoffs of the "basic tickets" are ignored, even though you presumably hit more of them than you do the big scores and thus an increase in their payoffs would be quite helpful.

[Poindexter]

It is not contempt of basic math. Consider that the typical horse player has about $36 to $48 to pump into a superfecta(if that). If he is playing for a buck, his options are really limited. He may be able to key 1 horse on top with 4 to 6 others depending how he structures the ticket. If the horse comes 2nd, loser, if the horse comes 3rd, loser if he is 3 deep in the 2 hole and his next horse comes 2nd, loser.....................you multiply this by hundreds of people playing a $1 superfecta and you see why with a buck superfecta it wasn't that hard to get nice scores. Throw in a 20-1 1st or 2nd or 2 longhots in the superfecta, and the typical player was eliminated. In fact with a buck superfecta, I would aruge that the chalks/obvious contenders are probably way overbet(just like the most obvious favorite is in a carryover pick six sequence-since everybody needs singles).

Then fast forward to the 10 cent superfecta and now the player has all kinds of options. He can play 10 cent superfectas and have all kinds of cover tickets. Now instead of getting back squat, he now has to be almost right to cash(key horse runs 2nd or 3rd or all spot in the 4 hole.......). Once again multiply this by 100s of horseplayers who are spreading the 10 cent super wide and not a whole lot gets missed.

So yes, the pool is the pool and the takeout is the takeout, but the bargains(astronomical payoffs) aren't going to be there nearly as often. Sure if you are Joe chalk who keys the favorite over the next 4 favorites, you probably love the 10 cent Super, because you have people wasting money on the all box left and right. But if you catch trip note that nobody else does and have a very live longshot, who you sneak into the super in say the 3 hole, your payoff gets watered down by the same people "wasting money on the all box".

I personally love the low denomination wagers because it gives me a lot of flexibility in my play. I wish they would bring the low takeout pick 5 down to 20 cents. I also really wish they would bring the super high 5 down to 20 cents. I dont want to have to put $300 or $400 in a $1 pick 4 or a $1 superfecta. But I am not pretending that the payoffs on my 30-1 key who connects is going to pay the same as it would have had the minimum bet denominations been higher. Personally I would rather hit more often with more efficient payoffs than hit seldom knocking it out of the park on rare occasion. The latter takes a major toll emotionally and financially and makes it is very hard to keep your head up and confidence high. To those like Thaskalos and EMD and SRU who have lost out on a number of scores due to the switch to lower bet denominations, I completely get it. They had opportunity in this game and it was taken away(albeit for a very good reason).

[thaskalos]

Yeah, in that thread, thask recognizes that you have to play higher probability "basic" tickets that "keep you alive" between big scores. But here, it's llke he has forgotten his own advice. Suddenly, the payoffs of the "basic tickets" are ignored, even though you presumably hit more of them than you do the big scores and thus an increase in their payoffs would be quite helpful.

I have not forgotten my own advice. As I said earlier, I clearly stated in that older thread of mine that the 10-cent superfecta wasn't a good betting option in the 7-horse fields. The way the game has evolved these last few years...even the 7-horse field has now become a luxury...as the all-too-frequent late scratches have further reduced most fields to 6, and even 5 horses.

Of course...one has to be a frequent player in order to realize that this "short-field" problem now exists in our game. To the weekend player...this obvious problem remains unnoticed.

When the fields get short and non-competitive...the value goes right out the window, as far as the superfecta is concerned.

[thaskalos]

To those like Thaskalos and EMD and SRU who have lost out on a number of scores due to the switch to lower bet denominations, I completely get it. They had opportunity in this game and it was taken away(albeit for a very good reason).

My main concern isn't that the lower bet denominations are depriving me of my share of big "scores". My overriding concern is that this reduction in the minimum betting units will spiral out of control...and infiltrate the "easier" wagers on the betting menu. Some racetracks have now adopted the 20-cent trifecta...and the 20-cent pick-3 looms alarmingly near. A 20-cent Pick-5 may sound reasonable...but a 20-cent trifecta and Pick-3 do not...in my opinion at least.

A 6-horse field with a 20-cent trifecta attached to it isn't something that I wished I lived long enough to see.

[AndyC]

My argument is that when you have tons of players spreading for a dime, ALL combos are covered more than they should. Almost every super that had any value in it, is now covered for a .10 or .30 or .60 by many semi-sharpies in addition to the "pounders".

Without question, from anyone here, the .10 super has helped cover all combos. You rarely see a .10 super pay to all (3/4).

The .10 Supresses prices. I don't need to theorize about it, I've lived it. As has Thaskolos and many others.

The only "sweet spot" I see for .10 supers is when you pound it cold and the chalk payout come out a bit higher when .10 spreaders lose money on their $12 ticket. (Having it for a .10 when pays $5.00 for a dime).

Shoot, I'm the one who hates the .50 pick 4 as IMO, it has killed prices. I want the $1 pick 4 back.


Please explain how you would know which payoffs offered value and which ones did not before you bet them. There is still that silly little math problem that requires underlays in order to have overlays.

[AndyC]

.....When the fields get short and non-competitive...the value goes right out the window, as far as the superfecta is concerned.


Do you make win bets in a 7 horse field? It would seem that all value would be squeezed out of the pool because of the ease of covering all the win potentials. But isn't the essence of good handicapping the ability to have your analysis be more accurate than the public on certain races? If so, why wouldn't the same approach be taken with superfectas or trifectas, etc.?

[AndyC]

My main concern isn't that the lower bet denominations are depriving me of my share of big "scores"...........

Your big scores being a function of a large enough bankroll to get your needed coverage and the cajones to make the bet?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Do you make win bets in a 7 horse field? It would seem that all value would be squeezed out of the pool because of the ease of covering all the win potentials. But isn't the essence of good handicapping the ability to have your analysis be more accurate than the public on certain races? If so, why wouldn't the same approach be taken with superfectas or trifectas, etc.?

If one could achieve a measure of profitability based on a wagering method that relied on utilizing public choices and the natural variability found in horse races without really handicapping that much, would one do it? How important is it to us that the winner is "our choice"...?

How important is it to be "right" about the winning horse versus being "right" about wagering? At the end of the day, does one enjoy identifying with the winners of races, or with having the profits that clearly demonstrate that one is successful at gambling on horses?

[AndyC]

If one could achieve a measure of profitability based on a wagering method that relied on utilizing public choices and the natural variability found in horse races without really handicapping that much, would one do it? How important is it to us that the winner is "our choice"...?

How important is it to be "right" about the winning horse versus being "right" about wagering? At the end of the day, does one enjoy identifying with the winners of races, or with having the profits that clearly demonstrate that one is successful at gambling on horses?

In my methodology, I rate the horses based on their probability of winning the race. My "choice" would be the highest probability horse. My bets would be made where there is a clear difference between the public's opinion and my opinion regarding a horse's probability of winning. Ideally that difference would occur with my highest rated horse.

[thaskalos]

Do you make win bets in a 7 horse field?

No.

[thaskalos]

Your big scores being a function of a large enough bankroll to get your needed coverage and the cajones to make the bet?
My regret is that the game, as it's currently run, does not allow me to make adequate use of my bankroll...OR my cajones. That's why I am always on the lookout for a "bigger" game to play. As it stands right now, horse racing is definitely the "minor leagues" of gambling...IMO.

[cj]

My regret is that the game, as it's currently run, does not allow me to make adequate use of my bankroll...OR my cajones. That's why I am always on the lookout for a "bigger" game to play. As it stands right now, horse racing is definitely the "minor leagues" of gambling...IMO.

What a lot of people are missing (not you) is that pool size at most tracks makes a large number of combinations automatic underlays with bets like the superfecta, and that would be true even if the takeout were 0%. Those are obviously the longshot ones.

Which leaves the "logical" superfectas to pick from for value. Good luck doing that with a 25% takeout. I'm sure there are some large rebate people that can do just that, but your typical bettor has no chance against those guys in the superfecta pools.

[AltonKelsey]

Is this the end of this thread? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sharp POST !!! :ThmbUp:

That super that paid 540,000-1 , the one that kicked off this epic thread. There must have been an internet glitch that prevented the batch guys from pounding it down to 5000-1. Waffles caught on fire maybe, distracted them.

Is this the end of this thread?

[thaskalos]

What a lot of people are missing (not you) is that pool size at most tracks makes a large number of combinations automatic underlays with bets like the superfecta, and that would be true even if the takeout were 0%. Those are obviously the longshot ones.

Which leaves the "logical" superfectas to pick from for value. Good luck doing that with a 25% takeout. I'm sure there are some large rebate people that can do just that, but your typical bettor has no chance against those guys in the superfecta pools.

Why can't others see what YOU see?

[AndyC]

What a lot of people are missing (not you) is that pool size at most tracks makes a large number of combinations automatic underlays with bets like the superfecta, and that would be true even if the takeout were 0%. Those are obviously the longshot ones.

Which leaves the "logical" superfectas to pick from for value. Good luck doing that with a 25% takeout. I'm sure there are some large rebate people that can do just that, but your typical bettor has no chance against those guys in the superfecta pools.

The same is true of the P-6.

The beauty of the dime bet is that the pool can be 10X or 5X smaller and cover most of the combinations and not make them automatic underlays.

[thespaah]

A better question would be if the uneducated bettor goes into these pools,will he ever win. I guess you could compare it to playing penny slots. If that is the case,why not just go to casino's. If you are not going to learn to handicap,I see no point in betting horses.
Hang on a second. Just because a player does not have a large budget does not mean they are not 'educated'...
You are posting to one of those people.
No I do not have a large budget. However, I have been around this game for almost 40 years....

[aaron]

Hang on a second. Just because a player does not have a large budget does not mean they are not 'educated'...
You are posting to one of those people.
No I do not have a large budget. However, I have been around this game for almost 40 years....
I am not talking about players who have played this game forever. I am sure a player like you knows the score and knows when to make the proper play. I am talking about new players trying to learn the game. They will probably be attracted to the harder bets with the bigger payoffs,thus making winning even harder.

[thespaah]

What am I missing? If the pool is $100,000 and the take is 25% the winners will split $75,000 regardless of the denomination of the minimum bet. So essentially your argument is that $.10 players are smarter than $1.00 players.
I think the complaint here is that with the dime minimum it invites more players betting less money but more combinations. And with that, using a shotgun style of wagering. Essentially , the dime allows players to bet more combinations without going deeply into their budget. Therefore the perception is that with the dime "interlopers" the payoffs are skewed lower.
My contention is that those with larger budgets should ignore the minimum and go 5X the minimum. Or even 10X.....So if that "should have paid" is lower, say $1200( for a dime $24k for $2) instead of the expected $2500, the 10X player yanks down not $1200, but $12k....Now let's say the min is a dollar. The larger budget player will have the super 1X....Or $2500( twice as much as the "should have paid")....So with the $1 min, they receive one fifth the payoff.
Anyway. It is a matter of perception.
Many large budget players go after the super looking for a huge score. Based on the feedback here. they don't like it when their dime super brethren chop "their" pot.

[thespaah]

\

Yep. And back in the day, the only way to wheel or box was to do it one ticket at a time. So to wheel the fave on top for instance, you had to punch out 110 tickets in a 12 horse field.
I remember the NYRA tracks, NY Harness and meadowlands all having windows exclusive to box wagers. Otherwise, you are correct....Going to the single ticket type windows could result in quite a lengthy stay at said window,
And of course there were "those People"...The ones that waited until the last freaking nanno second to make their bets and of course they never had their money in hand.....And don't get me started on the dolts that never found it necessary to write down their bets. There they were flipping the pages of the Form, calling out their bets......Wanted to just walk up behind them and yell at them "YOU JUST DROPPED A FIFTY ON THE FLOOR!!!!"

[thespaah]

Is this the end of this thread? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sharp POST !!! :ThmbUp:
Not yet...What's a "CRW/Batch?

[dilanesp]

What a lot of people are missing (not you) is that pool size at most tracks makes a large number of combinations automatic underlays with bets like the superfecta, and that would be true even if the takeout were 0%. Those are obviously the longshot ones.

Which leaves the "logical" superfectas to pick from for value. Good luck doing that with a 25% takeout. I'm sure there are some large rebate people that can do just that, but your typical bettor has no chance against those guys in the superfecta pools.

If pool size is the problem, that would make cheaper bets ADVANTAGEOUS to advantage players.

A $100,000 pool with a $1 minimum contains 100,000 bets. A $100,000 pool with a 10 cent minimum contains a million and is functionally the same as a million dollar pool at $1.

(Indeed it is probably better than that because the lower minimum brings additional players in.)

[thespaah]

I am not talking about players who have played this game forever. I am sure a player like you knows the score and knows when to make the proper play. I am talking about new players trying to learn the game. They will probably be attracted to the harder bets with the bigger payoffs,thus making winning even harder.
Sure. To the newbie, its gambling. Of course they are going to look for a score.
Once they learn that gambling on horse racing is not a good idea and take up learning to handicap, they become "horseplayers"....The idea is to keep them coming back by offering a chance to win something.
The idea is to get them through the door and keep them coming back.
The average age of the horse player is what? 137 years old( ok so I stole a joke) The game needs new blood.

[thespaah]

Who knew that the game would get dominated by the 7-horse fields...which get further reduced to 5 horses because of the obligatory late scratches? Has anyone been paying attention to what has happened to this game on the weekdays?

Even in my "famous" superfecta thread I spoke out against the "evils" of the short fields when it comes to the 10-cent super.
I favor the dime minimum. However, I think the minimum number of betting interests for a super wager should be eight.
In fact, I remember correctly, in NY if the number of interests was less than 7 ( Harness half mile track) and 8 for thoroughbred, the trifecta bet was cancelled on those races.

[AndyC]

..... Therefore the perception is that with the dime "interlopers" the payoffs are skewed lower.........

The hard to reach high probability combos might be skewed lower. But that shouldn't be a problem anymore because the sharp high-bankroll types have quit playing the dime supers and their money won't be on those combos. ;)

[AndyC]

I favor the dime minimum. However, I think the minimum number of betting interests for a super wager should be eight.
In fact, I remember correctly, in NY if the number of interests was less than 7 ( Harness half mile track) and 8 for thoroughbred, the trifecta bet was cancelled on those races.


I think that the track should decide when and where and for how much they should have a superfecta or trifecta. It's very simple, if you don't like small field supers don't bet them. We don't need a bureaucracy to dictate the bets. At this point most tracks can't make any changes without governmental approval.

[dilanesp]

I think the complaint here is that with the dime minimum it invites more players betting less money but more combinations. And with that, using a shotgun style of wagering. Essentially , the dime allows players to bet more combinations without going deeply into their budget. Therefore the perception is that with the dime "interlopers" the payoffs are skewed lower.
My contention is that those with larger budgets should ignore the minimum and go 5X the minimum. Or even 10X.....So if that "should have paid" is lower, say $1200( for a dime $24k for $2) instead of the expected $2500, the 10X player yanks down not $1200, but $12k....Now let's say the min is a dollar. The larger budget player will have the super 1X....Or $2500( twice as much as the "should have paid")....So with the $1 min, they receive one fifth the payoff.
Anyway. It is a matter of perception.
Many large budget players go after the super looking for a huge score. Based on the feedback here. they don't like it when their dime super brethren chop "their" pot.

Imagine a poker game with a gigantic rake that funds a bad beat jackpot, but with negative expectation. They rake so much out of every pot as to render the game unbeatable long term, but the jackpot, which is impossible to hit (straight flush beaten by straight flush), is several million dollars.

Now, the casino gets rid of the bad beat jackpot and cuts the rake. Suddenly, a good poker player can beat the game for, let's say, $15 or $20 per hour. But there's no longer the possibility of a big score.

Which game should one prefer? Well, it depends on whether you are playing for lottery-related reasons-- to have the tiny opportunity of getting really lucky and scoring big; or for advantage-play related reasons-- because you are statistically likely over the long term to win money in the game.

Note that in saying that, I do not say there is no reason to prefer game 1 to game 2. In fact, there is one, if what you are looking for is the big score.

But I do say that IF YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A WINNING POKER PLAYER, you should prefer game 2, because that's a game you can beat.

If all one is looking for from the superfecta is the possibility of a monster payoff, and one doesn't care whether one is actually a winning player at the bet, sure, you should prefer whatever structure gives you the biggest occasional monster payoffs.

But that reasoning, while defensible, isn't the reasoning of a winning horseplayer-- it's the reasoning of a lottery player. The reasoning of a winning horseplayer should be "give me whatever structure where the math bends most sharply in my favor, even if my biggest scores are smaller".

[thespaah]

My main concern isn't that the lower bet denominations are depriving me of my share of big "scores". My overriding concern is that this reduction in the minimum betting units will spiral out of control...and infiltrate the "easier" wagers on the betting menu. Some racetracks have now adopted the 20-cent trifecta...and the 20-cent pick-3 looms alarmingly near. A 20-cent Pick-5 may sound reasonable...but a 20-cent trifecta and Pick-3 do not...in my opinion at least.

A 6-horse field with a 20-cent trifecta attached to it isn't something that I wished I lived long enough to see.
Cant say I disagree.
The $1 min for P-3's is reasonable. 50 cent pick 4 and 5's is also reasonable.
50 cent trifectas? No way..Should be a dollar.

[AltonKelsey]

Since I've advertently opened up this can of squirming things, here's another notion.

There's no reason why ANY combination of bets shouldn't be permitted for a set cost. In other words, for a tri, give me the 345/34567/ALL for $20.

The computer calculates the cost per ticket that will amount to a total of $20. Could be 5 cents a ticket, 10 cents, doesn't matter.

This really would amount to the democratization of the game for the small player. Yeah, I know, this will kill all the big payoffs, as the pikers will now hit every tri no matter who is in it, 20-1, 50-1, doesn't matter, they will pound the value right out of it.

I doubt it.

First track that does this gets a lot of good press.

I can see it all now, "Hey , I hit that 10k payoff!, bad news is I only had it for a https://www.fleur-de-coin.com/images/Thumbnails/KM200-km181_2002b-SIZE150x150.jpg

[VigorsTheGrey]

Since I've advertently opened up this can of squirming things, here's another notion.

There's no reason why ANY combination of bets shouldn't be permitted for a set cost. In other words, for a tri, give me the 345/34567/ALL for $20.

The computer calculates the cost per ticket that will amount to a total of $20. Could be 5 cents a ticket, 10 cents, doesn't matter.

This really would amount to the democratization of the game for the small player. Yeah, I know, this will kill all the big payoffs, as the pikers will now hit every tri no matter who is in it, 20-1, 50-1, doesn't matter, they will pound the value right out of it.

I doubt it.

First track that does this gets a lot of good press.

I can see it all now, "Hey , I hit that 10k payoff!, bad news is I only had it for a https://www.fleur-de-coin.com/images/Thumbnails/KM200-km181_2002b-SIZE150x150.jpg

Interesting idea...I understand what you are saying...I like learning new things...this was a new idea for me to ponder...thank you for sharing this!

[AltonKelsey]

Though this 'name your total bet' thing is a concept I've considered for many decades, I believe Hong Kong already implements the idea (or something like it) with the 'Flexi Bet'.

[ultracapper]

I'd bet the dime super has a declining negative effect as the probability of the outcome becomes more random. When the super was a dollar, for every ticket that had the 4 longest shots on the board there may have been "X" amount with the 4 shortest prices on the board. I would bet that ratio is now 5"X" or maybe even 10"X". The repeat button must be getting worn out by those bettors that don't want to hit a $6.47 super, but feel enough confidence in their play to bump the repeat button enough times to make it a $64.70 superfecta. If you have the 4 longest shots on the board, no need to hit the repeat button. If it comes in, you'll be in a very short line to cash as it is.

[dilanesp]

I'd bet the dime super has a declining negative effect as the probability of the outcome becomes more random. When the super was a dollar, for every ticket that had the 4 longest shots on the board there may have been "X" amount with the 4 shortest prices on the board. I would bet that ratio is now 5"X" or maybe even 10"X". The repeat button must be getting worn out by those bettors that don't want to hit a $6.47 super, but feel enough confidence in their play to bump the repeat button enough times to make it a $64.70 superfecta. If you have the 4 longest shots on the board, no need to hit the repeat button. If it comes in, you'll be in a very short line to cash as it is.

It can't simply be a declining negative effect. There must be combinations that see an increased payoff as well. That's how the math works.

If your scenario is true, than the longshot superfectas should pay more. In contrast, in other scenarios posited in this thread, they should pay less and the more logical combinations should pay more.

Somebody's got to be wrong, and some types of superfectas have to be paying more, unless the dime super has no effect whatsoever.

[cj]

It can't simply be a declining negative effect. There must be combinations that see an increased payoff as well. That's how the math works.

If your scenario is true, than the longshot superfectas should pay more. In contrast, in other scenarios posited in this thread, they should pay less and the more logical combinations should pay more.

There is only so much in the super pools to go around. And as I've already said, nobody is grinding out overlays on chalky combos with a 25% takeout.

[dilanesp]

There is only so much in the super pools to go around. And as I've already said, nobody is grinding out overlays on chalky combos with a 25% takeout.

Well, if THAT's true, than thas' highly praised betting strategy, where he said you need to win fairly frequently with "basic" tickets to keep you alive to win big scores, is wrong. Because all those "basic" tickets would be negative expected value due to the 25 percent takeout.

But further, mathematically, the takeout should have no effect other than to equally diminish all expected values (except for breakage and if it were to create a minus pool, which never happens in a superfecta).

Here's a simple example. Combination 1 has a 5 percent chance of winning. This is our longshot. Combination 2 has a 20 percent chance of winning. This is our favorite.

In a pool with zero takeout, combination 1 will pay $20 for a $1 ticket, and combination 2 will pay $5.

In a pool with a 25 percent takeout, well, let's say the pool is $10,000, with $500 bet on combination 1 and $2000 on combination 2. We take out 25 percent which leaves $7500 to pay winning tickets.

Combination 1 will now pay $15 ($7500/$500). Combination 2 will now pay $3.75 ($7500/$2000).

So, if we bet combination 1 20 times, it will come in once and pay $15, meaning that our expected value is minus $5 over 20 bets, or $0.25 a bet.

If we bet combination 2 20 times, it will come in 4 times and pay $3.75 each time, or $15 total, also $0.25 a bet.

As I said, breakage can affect this around the edges. But basically, if the 25 percent takeout is making the short priced combinations into bad bets, it is having exactly the same effect on the larger priced combinations.

In contrast, if you think the bet is beatable at all, then if the dime super makes the shorter priced combinations more valuable the bet should be beatable by emphasizing those combinations.

[ReplayRandall]

In contrast, if you think the bet is beatable at all, then if the dime super makes the shorter priced combinations more valuable the bet should be beatable by emphasizing those combinations.

I would be interested in data that shows the payouts for low-odds horses on top of 8,9,10,11 and 12 horse fields. This would help as a foundational starting point, in finding any value from favorites keyed on top. Of course, the follow-up would then be odds layering going up the scale to find any potential nuggets of average payout disparity.

Example, if you wheeled the favorite on top in an 8-horse field, the cost is $20.10 per .10 super. Now show data of average payouts for these exact scenarios.
Cost to wheel-
9-horse field= $33.60
10-horse field= $50.40
11-horse field= $72.00
12-horse field= $99.00

BTW, I'm aware that these stats will be pool size dependent, but we'll filter for that at a later time.

[cj]

Well, if THAT's true, than thas' highly praised betting strategy, where he said you need to win fairly frequently with "basic" tickets to keep you alive to win big scores, is wrong. Because all those "basic" tickets would be negative expected value due to the 25 percent takeout.

But further, mathematically, the takeout should have no effect other than to equally diminish all expected values (except for breakage and if it were to create a minus pool, which never happens in a superfecta).

Here's a simple example. Combination 1 has a 5 percent chance of winning. This is our longshot. Combination 2 has a 20 percent chance of winning. This is our favorite.

In a pool with zero takeout, combination 1 will pay $20 for a $1 ticket, and combination 2 will pay $5.

In a pool with a 25 percent takeout, well, let's say the pool is $10,000, with $500 bet on combination 1 and $2000 on combination 2. We take out 25 percent which leaves $7500 to pay winning tickets.

Combination 1 will now pay $15 ($7500/$500). Combination 2 will now pay $3.75 ($7500/$2000).

So, if we bet combination 1 20 times, it will come in once and pay $15, meaning that our expected value is minus $5 over 20 bets, or $0.25 a bet.

If we bet combination 2 20 times, it will come in 4 times and pay $3.75 each time, or $15 total, also $0.25 a bet.

As I said, breakage can affect this around the edges. But basically, if the 25 percent takeout is making the short priced combinations into bad bets, it is having exactly the same effect on the larger priced combinations.

In contrast, if you think the bet is beatable at all, then if the dime super makes the shorter priced combinations more valuable the bet should be beatable by emphasizing those combinations.

We're never going to agree on this. I'm basing mine on real world experience. I used to be able to get 2,500 to 1 on what was a 1,000 to 1 or even 500 to 1 combination because people didn't go deep in superfectas. Those days are gone with the advent of 10 cent superfectas. Now that same $2500 dollar payout, if I still bet it a dollar, is split with 5 or 10 other dime tickets.

I don't think payouts on lower priced combinations have gone up much at all, certainly not to "overlay" status, and even in those cases where they have it would be tough to guess before the race.

Just for shits and grins, I calculated the "fair" payoff for the first race I saw today, the 1st at Parx. It featured an even money horse winning, a bomb (34 to 1 and longest shot in the field) running second, and the 3rd and 4th finishers were 9 and 5 to 1. All the other horses outside the top two finishers were between 4 and 9 to 1. The fair payout based on off odds was 756 to 1, or 75.60 for a dime. The actual payoff was $57.85.

I see this same stuff over and over every day. That isn't really a surprise given the 25% takeout, and now the jackpot element of the bet is mostly gone. That was the selling card in my opinion. Of course every now and then you'll get a bonanza payout, but nothing like in the past.

[dilanesp]

I would be interested in data that shows the payouts for low-odds horses on top of 8,9,10,11 and 12 horse fields. This would help as a foundational starting point, in finding any value from favorites keyed on top. Of course, the follow-up would then be odds layering going up the scale to find any potential nuggets of average payout disparity.

Example, if you wheeled the favorite on top in an 8-horse field, the cost is $20.10 per .10 super. Now show data of average payouts for these exact scenarios.
Cost to wheel-
9-horse field= $33.60
10-horse field= $50.40
11-horse field= $72.00
12-horse field= $99.00

BTW, I'm aware that these stats will be pool size dependent, but we'll filter for that at a later time.

I think this post points us in the right direction.

[ultracapper]

It can't simply be a declining negative effect. There must be combinations that see an increased payoff as well. That's how the math works.

If your scenario is true, than the longshot superfectas should pay more. In contrast, in other scenarios posited in this thread, they should pay less and the more logical combinations should pay more.

Somebody's got to be wrong, and some types of superfectas have to be paying more, unless the dime super has no effect whatsoever.

What I said doesn't contradict your counterpoint at all. Matter of fact, I agree with you. I said negative effect declines as the results become more random. I agree that there is a point where negative effect stops and positive effect begins.

[AltonKelsey]

Randomly picking out some payoff and claiming it was a gyp, is not the way to measure the 10c effect.

Since I haven't seen anyone claim that the payoff on Trifecta's have been particularly abused, let's assume that the average Tri pay's what it should.

Look atthe number of horses MINUS 3, which gives you what it would cost to wheel the WINNING tri in the super.

So in an 8 horse race , you have to buy 5 Superfecta's to simulate hitting the Tri.

1/2/3 4-5-6-7-8

Now, look at the payoff Vs the Tri. Depending on the odds of the 4th placer, it will vary wildly. You have to say, well, if the favorite runs 4th , is a super 4X the Tri payoff good/bad/par ? I'd say very good, considering the fave was most likely to run 4th.

How about 3X. Still good. You get the picture

You can do this for any result. Compared to the tri, how hard was the getting the 4th place horse, and what was the payout multiple.

If you can find a pattern of UNDERPAYS, then you have a case that the 10c unit is killing payoffs by some miracle of handicapping genius.

If not, then the premise is declared invalid.

Now, in all fairness, I get that you are less likely to have badly underbet combinations, so the 'jackpot' effect is lower. But that's really a secondary issue, not addressing the fairness of Super payouts overall.

[citygoat]

5$ exactas at Santa Anita used to make an exacta bet a nice pool

[lansdale]

Anyone who read my earlier posts in this thread would rightly assume I was doubtful about the possibility of the .10 super being much of a profit center, although I was never much of an exotics player even when I was playing seriously. The responses from better and more experienced handicappers in this thread like Thask, cj, and EMD4ME seemed to confirm my instinct.

But I also knew that dilanesp's posts re the math of these pools was correct. So, out of curiosity, I started looking into the way this bet has been running at various tracks. I've been pretty surprised at what I've found -- there may be gold in those hills. I'm always extremely skeptical about any apparently positive gambling results, so I'm not going to make any more of this until I think they can be extended. I will say that I'm not completely surprised that opportunities still exist, given the way even the best handicappers approach the game.

I'd like to thank the OP, Alton Kelsey, for making me think twice.

[AltonKelsey]

That's the idea. I'm not easily discouraged by bashers. :D

[thaskalos]

...I've been pretty surprised at what I've found -- there may be gold in those hills.

Careful. All that shines is not gold. :)

[thespaah]

That's the idea. I'm not easily discouraged by bashers. :D
Define "bashing"....
I really am sick and tired of that term.
It seems that whenever one person feels their point of view is the ONLY valid point of view is met with opposing opinions from several fronts, they throw down the "he's bashing me" card..So, in this thread has "bashed" you?. And it would be prudent to provide an example, the words you consider to have caused this grave transgression.
Thanking you in advance.

[cj]

Define "bashing"....
I really am sick and tired of that term.
It seems that whenever one person feels their point of view is the ONLY valid point of view is met with opposing opinions from several fronts, they throw down the "he's bashing me" card..So, in this thread has "bashed" you?. And it would be prudent to provide an example, the words you consider to have caused this grave transgression.
Thanking you in advance.

I was going to say the same thing. I don't see any bashing.

[AltonKelsey]

Sherlock Holmes you AIN'T.

Um, what do you call this , the second response to my thread?

I have thick skin, but if you are gonna bash, at least be man enough to admit that's what you're doing.

Let's not waste time on nonsense.

[thaskalos]

Um, what do you call this , the second response to my thread?

I have thick skin, but if you are gonna bash, at least be man enough to admit that's what you're doing.

Let's not waste time on nonsense.

Friend...if I wanted to "bash" you...I would have done it in a more forthright manner. In post #3, you posted that you watch the pools...and you have "detected" that there is no validity to the notion that the dime minimum suppresses the superfecta payoffs. You used the word DETECT...and that's why I made the Sherlock Holmes reference. I said that you are "no Sherlock Holmes"...because there is plenty of "proof" around to validate that the dime super is detrimental to the superfecta payoffs out there. If the superfecta payoffs weren't negatively affected by the 10-cent minimum...then you wouldn't have had to wait until those two aberrant payoffs to make your point.

If calling you "no Sherlock Holmes" is BASHING you...then I have been "bashed" here 100 times.

[thaskalos]

And...I am not a 10-cent superfecta HATER. I was strongly in favor of the bet early on...and I even started a separate thread here in which I voiced my enthusiasm for the wager. But times have changed...and the fields have gotten unappetizingly low during the weekdays. And that has made the 10-cent superfecta only an infrequent wagering option for the value-seeking player...IMO.

No one that I am aware of has stated what you claim to have been "repeatedly said". We KNOW that the superfecta still pays huge when the extreme longshots dominate the wager's placings. But those infrequent bonanza payoffs are not enough to prove the validity of your point. For every one race that you can point to, where the 10-cent super pays in the thousands...I can point to FIFTY races where the 10-cent payoff comes back at less than $20. The 10-cent superfecta is not a good match for the short fields...and, unfortunately...that's what we got during the weekdays in today's game.

[AltonKelsey]

Forget about short fields, 7 or less.

I posted a fairly detailed method, by which the super payoffs could be compared to the tri's.

I don't have a payoff database to run a scan, but I know some here do. I invite them to do some analysis in their spare time.

No need to guess, the numbers will speak for themselves.

[thaskalos]

Forget about short fields, 7 or less.

I posted a fairly detailed method, by which the super payoffs could be compared to the tri's.

I don't have a payoff database to run a scan, but I know some here do. I invite them to do some analysis in their spare time.

No need to guess, the numbers will speak for themselves.

How can I forget about the short fields...when that's all that I get to choose from on the weekdays?

[ReplayRandall]

Forget about short fields, 7 or less.

I posted a fairly detailed method, by which the super payoffs could be compared to the tri's.

I don't have a payoff database to run a scan, but I know some here do. I invite them to do some analysis in their spare time.

No need to guess, the numbers will speak for themselves.

Did you read post# 133? For some reason, I don't think you understand Thask's point.......It was similar to mine,---> supers in fields of 8 or more, anything less, it's then pointless to discuss.

[thaskalos]

Did you read post# 133? For some reason, I don't think you understand Thask's point.......It was similar to mine,---> supers in fields of 8 or more, anything less, it's then pointless to discuss.

That's right!

Someone posted in this thread..."I don't understand the point that Thask is trying to make here. He started a nice superfecta thread a few years ago...where he highly recommended the 10-cent super. Now...he seems to have forgotten his own advice".

I haven't forgotten my own advice. Even in my thread a few years ago, I stated that the 10-cent superfecta isn't, IMO, a recommended play for fields consisting of 7 horses or less.

[AltonKelsey]

That's right!

Someone posted in this thread..."I don't understand the point that Thask is trying to make here. He started a nice superfecta thread a few years ago...where he highly recommended the 10-cent super. Now...he seems to have forgotten his own advice".

I haven't forgotten my own advice. Even in my thread a few years ago, I stated that the 10-cent superfecta isn't, IMO, a recommended play for fields consisting of 7 horses or less.

Even a $20 super payoff is 200-1. I think that gets lost in the shuffle. And you don't have to have it once.

Not suggesting the super is a great play in short fields, but depending on your opinion , it may well be. Blanket rules like nothing under 8 runners is not productive.

Many times you'll like some 20-1+ to run well but you know damn well it's not going to win. Does it matter what the field size is?

[thaskalos]

Does it matter what the field size is?

To me, it matters. But, as with everything else in this game...each individual player reserves the right to hold his/her own opinion about these things. What is "true", and what is "productive" varies as we go from individual to individual.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Not suggesting the super is a great play in short fields, but depending on your opinion , it may well be. Blanket rules like nothing under 8 runners is not productive.
In a 10 horse field, the number of possible combinations is 5,040. With nine horses it is 3,024. Eight horses is 1,620. Seven horses is 840 and six horses is 360. You can see that the number of combinations drops by 40%, 46%, 48% and 57% respectively.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nonproductive." The bet becomes a poorer and poorer proposition as the number of starters decreases, and becomes unattractive to those who might substantially grow the pool. With lower combinations the potential for a high payoff also decreases. That makes the pool unattractive to even the medium bettor. The only bettor who is probably happy with a small number of starters is the ultra small bettor who can keep churning for a while with his $6.40 collection.

One of the things my research suggests is that horses with very low probabilities of winning can have high probabilities of finishing third or fourth, although this becomes less relevant as the number of starters decreases. In essence, overpays are more likely in races with higher number of starters and underpays are more likely as the number of starters decreases. In a six horse race, you could cover AB/AB/ALL/ALL for $2.40. In an eight horse race that same bet costs almost three times as much and in a ten horse race, almost five times as much. From the bettor's perspective, I can't see any good parimutuel reason to allow supers in fields with less than eight (ok, maybe seven) starters.

[lansdale]

Careful. All that shines is not gold. :)

Seeing is believing. Time will tell.

Should you take the blue pill or the red pill to know how deep the rabbit hole goes? :-)

[EMD4ME]

Even a $20 super payoff is 200-1. I think that gets lost in the shuffle. And you don't have to have it once.

Not suggesting the super is a great play in short fields, but depending on your opinion , it may well be. Blanket rules like nothing under 8 runners is not productive.

Many times you'll like some 20-1+ to run well but you know damn well it's not going to win. Does it matter what the field size is?

I see your point BUT IMHO, I have liked many 20/1 shots who have won AND when I cashed my super payout, I was PISSED as the payoffs were less than what they should've paid. Of course, due to the evil dime super.

When it was $1. The 20/1 shot was more like 40/1 in the win end. Now, they are more like 16/1 on the win end because small tickets can be purchased more often with a bomb on top.

"I'm only betting $10 who cares: let's go ALL/234/234/23456 or Bombs/chalks/chalks/chalks.

Those combos would not be punched if it wasn't for the low minumum.

2nd, with smaller field sizes, it becomes much easier to hit the super (with that bomb 1st or 2nd AND completing a ticket in a short field) VS. finding a price and then completing the ticket in an 11 horse field.

Of course, the evil dime super, makes it almost affordable to do so, suppressing payouts.

[pandy]

Even a $20 super payoff is 200-1. I think that gets lost in the shuffle. And you don't have to have it once.

Not suggesting the super is a great play in short fields, but depending on your opinion , it may well be. Blanket rules like nothing under 8 runners is not productive.

Many times you'll like some 20-1+ to run well but you know damn well it's not going to win. Does it matter what the field size is?


Good point. Every situation should be evaluated individually. I've made some of my best bets in 5 and 6 horse fields. Some bettors will go right past every short field, assuming that it's not worth their time. One of the biggest hits I ever had was in a 6 horse field at Hollywood, keyed by a $46 winner, which was my Best Bet of the day (breaking another myth that if you tout a horse you'll ruin your payoff).

[VigorsTheGrey]

If you are going to use multiple horses in a superfecta, which leg is it most profitable to use them in?

1, 2, 3, or 4th leg....in other words,

a/bc/bcd/bcdefg or

bcdefg/a/bcd/bc...for example...

[AltonKelsey]

If you are going to use multiple horses in a superfecta, which leg is it most profitable to use them in?

1, 2, 3, or 4th leg....in other words,

a/bc/bcd/bcdefg or

bcdefg/a/bcd/bc...for example...

In most cases I'd say the 3rd and 4th slots, where the 'noise' is. No earth shaking revelation there.

But I'm sure there are situations where other strats might be optimal.