Kee .50 cent minimums

[upthecreek]

If I'm reading my Bris PP's correctly, Kee has .50 cent dd, exacta's, along with the tri, pick 3 & pick 4

[EasyGoer89]

They should make all bets a penny, that way everyone can win.

[Parson]

$1 exactas
$.50 Tri, pk3, pk4 and pk 5


https://www.keeneland.com/racing/wagering-menu-takeout

[upthecreek]

$1 exactas
$.50 Tri, pk3, pk4 and pk 5


https://www.keeneland.com/racing/wagering-menu-takeout

Like I said NOT what my Bris PP's Say

[upthecreek]

Like I said NOT what my Bris PP's Say

And it lists the pick 6 as $1?

[Parson]

$1 pick 6 would be correct

[Poindexter]

These are the perfect minimums across the board(although I am fond of the 20 cent minimums they have at Woodbine Harness). Due to the flexibibity of the smaller minimums I actually bet a lot more than i do with the higher minimums. I also see they are number 2 on the Hana 2016 takeout list. Will have to make them my track of choice for the next couple weeks.

I bet so much less in pick 3's and tris in southern California because they stubbornly hold onto their $1 minimums. We all have our preferences, but remembe joe fan who bets in a day what I bet in 3 minutes has a lot more options with the lower minimums. Remember the idea is to make the sport enjoyable for everyone not just big bettors.

As mentioned in another thread, $1 pick sixes actually make the pick six playable on occassion whereas with $2 pick sixes for the most part are just flat out too expensive.

[olddaddy]

Ive never seen .50 cent doubles or exactas anywhere if this is true.

[VigorsTheGrey]

These are the perfect minimums across the board(although I am fond of the 20 cent minimums they have at Woodbine Harness). Due to the flexibibity of the smaller minimums I actually bet a lot more than i do with the higher minimums. I also see they are number 2 on the Hana 2016 takeout list. Will have to make them my track of choice for the next couple weeks.

I bet so much less in pick 3's and tris in southern California because they stubbornly hold onto their $1 minimums. We all have our preferences, but remembe joe fan who bets in a day what I bet in 3 minutes has a lot more options with the lower minimums. Remember the idea is to make the sport enjoyable for everyone not just big bettors.

As mentioned in another thread, $1 pick sixes actually make the pick six playable on occassion whereas with $2 pick sixes for the most part are just flat out too expensive.

Yes, I agree...$2 Pick 6 too expensive to have a reasonable chance to hit it...Makes one wonder who the Track thinks their target customers are...the bet totally favors the big bettors...with field size shrinking and racing in decline, the California Tracks should appeal to a larger demographic, bet wise...

[upthecreek]

$1 exactas
$.50 Tri, pk3, pk4 and pk 5


https://www.keeneland.com/racing/wagering-menu-takeout
Confirmed by Kee mutuels dept They actually answer emails I should have known Brisnet was screwed up

[Murph]

Confirmed by Kee mutuels dept They actually answer emails I should have known Brisnet was screwed up Keeneland is awesome! .50 cent minnies AND a free databse!

http://www.keeneland.com/racing/handicapping-database

KY/IN racing is going in the right direction. UP! I'm pumped.

[JustRalph]

Doesn't the fact that they went from dirt to plastic and back to dirt during the ten years that database encompasses really screw its usefulness?

[Zaf]

I doubt we will ever see a new plastic track. Thank god :headbanger:

Z

[no breathalyzer]

TRAINER INTENT still the same

[Murph]

Doesn't the fact that they went from dirt to plastic and back to dirt during the ten years that database encompasses really screw its usefulness?
That's a really good question, Ralph. I'll have to look closer to answer that.

[Murph]

That's a really good question, Ralph. I'll have to look closer to answer that.
The page link will display a sortable list of 2016 races on a single line and the surface column shows turf or dirt. They include a link to a CSV file for races dating back to 2006. I am web based and having a bit of trouble getting to it thru my online storage. I cannot say how the surface changes will be noted in the archive data yet. I had not planned to use data before last year.

Maybe someone with a real computer could take a look?

[Murph]

Doesn't the fact that they went from dirt to plastic and back to dirt during the ten years that database encompasses really screw its usefulness?
As far as statistically useful, I think if you can break each surface down, each data set will remain valid. If they maintain the all weather tag in the data this should be easy enough.

[therussmeister]

Just saw the payoffs for 6th race on Kee track feed. They gave $0.50 exacta and $0.10 trifecta prices.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I believe 10 cent/50 cent minimums are a horrible idea, as is the $1 Pick-6.

100,000 10-cent superfecta tickets is less revenue than 11,000 $1 tickets. How many people betting a dime will wind up putting more into the pool than they would at a dollar? And if they won't make the bet at a dollar, good. It will reward sharp handicapping and betting instead of having coverage players affect the prices. In a 10 horse race, there are 5,040 possible combinations. For $504 you can box the field. At that price, even if you don't do it, you can be sure all the combinations will be covered with multiple tickets. And the field is covered with $4,536 less than if the superfecta minimum was $1. The pools are likely to be much smaller, as are the payoffs, especially for the favored combinations.

At $1 you'll have fewer carryovers in the P6, and as everyone knows the carryovers are what really bumps the pool to its biggest levels.

It is as if racetrack management went to the Wal-Mart school of retail management. They take away the advantage of the sharp players because the "quick pick" players have easy entry into the pool. There are already too many pools, with too low minimums, and for all the complaining about lowering the take, it isn't going to happen when low minimums keep pools small.

[Poindexter]

I believe 10 cent/50 cent minimums are a horrible idea, as is the $1 Pick-6.

100,000 10-cent superfecta tickets is less revenue than 11,000 $1 tickets. How many people betting a dime will wind up putting more into the pool than they would at a dollar? And if they won't make the bet at a dollar, good. It will reward sharp handicapping and betting instead of having coverage players affect the prices. In a 10 horse race, there are 5,040 possible combinations. For $504 you can box the field. At that price, even if you don't do it, you can be sure all the combinations will be covered with multiple tickets. And the field is covered with $4,536 less than if the superfecta minimum was $1. The pools are likely to be much smaller, as are the payoffs, especially for the favored combinations.

At $1 you'll have fewer carryovers in the P6, and as everyone knows the carryovers are what really bumps the pool to its biggest levels.

It is as if racetrack management went to the Wal-Mart school of retail management. They take away the advantage of the sharp players because the "quick pick" players have easy entry into the pool. There are already too many pools, with too low minimums, and for all the complaining about lowering the take, it isn't going to happen when low minimums keep pools small.


Let's start with $1.00 superfecta. I almost NEVER play a $1 superfecta. I play superfectas of the 10 cent to 50 cent variety very often. As far as the racetracks are concerned I am sure they have data that indicates they get bigger pools when the bet size is a dime than a dollar or else they wouldn't do it. NO?

Regarding $1 pick sixes, they give the smaller player a chance(albeit a small chance). $2 pick sixes are too darn expensive. Look at the pick six at Santa Anita the other day. Carryover, big jackpot, $2 pick six brought it all down. Cost $14,000. Yeah, that works great, all the little guys go down in flames and a player who can afford to put in a $14,000 ticket brings it down. That is what happens with $2 pick sixes. It rewards super wealthy players/groups who can afford to put in 10 and 20 thousand dollar tickets and it becomes a donation for the masses. Great idea. :rolleyes:

Regarding too many pools. What is wrong with that . If I want to dial up a trifecta in a 5 horse field I shouldn't have that right, because Halv, say there are too many pools? Really. Choice is good. The sport is tough and we need as many options as we can to make it fun, playable and beatable. When California first introduced tris they required 8 horse fields, it used to drive me crazy that I couldn't play tri's in short fields. You want to go back to that?

What is the difference between 10 cent supers and $1 supers or 50 cent tris and dollar tris or 50 cent pick 3's and $1 pick 3's. Only that more combos are covered and the pools are more efficient. As has been discussed before here, inefficient pools can work against you just as well as they can work for you. Sure everybody likes to get paid $600 for a pick 3 that probably should have been closer to $200, but that isn't the job of the racing and it is the exception not the rule even in small pools. From a players perspective the flexibility of 50 cent pick 3's and 10 cents supers is great. I hit a lot of tris at tracks that provide 50 cent tris that I would not hit if it was a $1 minimum. I used to play so cal exclusively, but played very little Santa Anita over the last few months for this very reason. I love their big pools, I hate their short fields and I hate the $1 minimums on pick 3's and tris.

If your "betting menu" was actually implemented my volume would drop about 50% and my non offshore volume(which is all racing should care about) would drop about 80%. Moreover I would enjoy the game about half as much as I do now. All because Halv thinks his ideas are better. Think again.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Let's start with $1.00 superfecta. I almost NEVER play a $1 superfecta. I play superfectas of the 10 cent to 50 cent variety very often. As far as the racetracks are concerned I am sure they have data that indicates they get bigger pools when the bet size is a dime than a dollar or else they wouldn't do it. NO?

Regarding $1 pick sixes, they give the smaller player a chance(albeit a small chance). $2 pick sixes are too darn expensive. Look at the pick six at Santa Anita the other day. Carryover, big jackpot, $2 pick six brought it all down. Cost $14,000. Yeah, that works great, all the little guys go down in flames and a player who can afford to put in a $14,000 ticket brings it down. That is what happens with $2 pick sixes. It rewards super wealthy players/groups who can afford to put in 10 and 20 thousand dollar tickets and it becomes a donation for the masses. Great idea. :rolleyes:

Regarding too many pools. What is wrong with that . If I want to dial up a trifecta in a 5 horse field I shouldn't have that right, because Halv, say there are too many pools? Really. Choice is good. The sport is tough and we need as many options as we can to make it fun, playable and beatable. When California first introduced tris they required 8 horse fields, it used to drive me crazy that I couldn't play tri's in short fields. You want to go back to that?

What is the difference between 10 cent supers and $1 supers or 50 cent tris and dollar tris or 50 cent pick 3's and $1 pick 3's. Only that more combos are covered and the pools are more efficient. As has been discussed before here, inefficient pools can work against you just as well as they can work for you. Sure everybody likes to get paid $600 for a pick 3 that probably should have been closer to $200, but that isn't the job of the racing and it is the exception not the rule even in small pools. From a players perspective the flexibility of 50 cent pick 3's and 10 cents supers is great. I hit a lot of tris at tracks that provide 50 cent tris that I would not hit if it was a $1 minimum. I used to play so cal exclusively, but played very little Santa Anita over the last few months for this very reason. I love their big pools, I hate their short fields and I hate the $1 minimums on pick 3's and tris.

If your "betting menu" was actually implemented my volume would drop about 50% and my non offshore volume(which is all racing should care about) would drop about 80%. Moreover I would enjoy the game about half as much as I do now. All because Halv thinks his ideas are better. Think again.
There are tracks that have given up the 10 cent superfecta for precisely the reason I said. They could not generate the pool size they can with a larger bet. Eventually you will see more of it.

I don't think you understand the arithmetic (that's not even mathematics) of betting. My concern is two fold. One, increasing volume, and two decreasing the take, and there are two big impediments: one, pools are cannibalizing each other and two, any respective pool size isn't large enough to lend itself to dropping the take. If you ask professional bettors - and I know my share - they will tell you that when the P4 went to 50 cents they abandoned the bet. I gave you some simple arithmetic to demonstrate how a 10 cent bet can actually reduce pool size, and as I said, there are tracks that had to abandon the 10 cent bet because instead of the $2,000 pool they were getting with a dollar minimum, they would only get $750 in the pool. 5,500 more combinations bet, less than half the money. You have to make the pool attractive enough for people to jump into it. If you bet $12 into 10 cent supers, and the super comes back $300 for a dollar, your 10 cent hit is worth $30, or odds of 3/2. I can get that on some favorite to win. You'd have to hit 60% of the supers you bet at that price just to break even. If it pays $840 for a dollar, you got 6-1. On a bet that may have 4-10,000 combinations. That's what I mean by arithmetic.

And I'll bet that when you look at your return on the 50 cent trifecta, you are upping the number of combinations you are covering and getting a lower actual return. Unless you are an amazing handicapper and can limit your combinations and still hit at the same percentage, instead of getting 10-1 on a tri, you'll get 6-1, primarily because you are investing in too many races where you don't have a strong opinion and you compensate by covering more combinations. The fact is that most players should be in pools where the individual event return might come in smaller chunks, but the overall return is higher. Although I've consistently recommended that reserving 25% of your bankroll for exotics and super exotics can take care of the need to gamble.

If people want to gamble their money away in the more complicated exotics, I'm not going to stop them, If people want to actually make money at the track, I'd like to see them have the best opportunity, and that is by making it more attractive to get into pools. The ideas I have do not have anything to do with me personally benefitting, other than making racing more attractive to people.

I understand you can't save people from themselves, and you can't change the minds of anyone who won't think through a problem analytically. But don't be a cynic. If I think I have good ideas, that is based on research and the fact I play professionally (meaning I don't have another job). I can say this. Letting things go on the way they have been going on is going to result in the same deterioration of racing that has been occurring over the last few decades. If we're just going to discard out of hand ideas that change things, we'll just see a continuation of the trend. You're right. One of us needs to think again.

[Poindexter]

I do not know what there is for me to think about. The more options I have the more I bet. The less the minimum is the more I bet simply because I can get the proper coverage. Maybe in your world a pick 4 involves a 2x2x3x4 ticket. That is not how I play pick 4'. If I am keying a 30-1 longshot to come 3rd in the tri, say 4x8x1 and 1x8x1 and 1x4x1. At a buck that is too much to bet on the said horse to come 3rd. At 50 cents it is affordable and playable.

You make the assumption that everyone bets like you. We don't.

Honestly I have no clue what your point is. I am done with the subject. You believe what you want, but I assure you the numbers in my previous post are accurate. Smaller minimums and more options equal much more money bet. Maybe I am the exception and not the rule, but I doubt it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I do not know what there is for me to think about. The more options I have the more I bet. The less the minimum is the more I bet simply because I can get the proper coverage. Maybe in your world a pick 4 involves a 2x2x3x4 ticket. That is not how I play pick 4'. If I am keying a 30-1 longshot to come 3rd in the tri, say 4x8x1 and 1x8x1 and 1x4x1. At a buck that is too much to bet on the said horse to come 3rd. At 50 cents it is affordable and playable.

You make the assumption that everyone bets like you. We don't.

Honestly I have no clue what your point is. I am done with the subject. You believe what you want, but I assure you the numbers in my previous post are accurate. Smaller minimums and more options equal much more money bet. Maybe I am the exception and not the rule, but I doubt it.

I don't make the assumption everyone bets like me, and thank goodness they don't. I need their money.

You're right. Not worth discussing until you get the arithmetic of betting.

[ronsmac]

I don't bet supers but I wish the 50 cent tri p3 and p4 came into existence two decades ago. They have saved me thousands in withholding. I wouldn't mind if they were 20 cent wagers.

[EasyGoer89]

I believe 10 cent/50 cent minimums are a horrible idea, as is the $1 Pick-6.

100,000 10-cent superfecta tickets is less revenue than 11,000 $1 tickets. How many people betting a dime will wind up putting more into the pool than they would at a dollar? And if they won't make the bet at a dollar, good. It will reward sharp handicapping and betting instead of having coverage players affect the prices. In a 10 horse race, there are 5,040 possible combinations. For $504 you can box the field. At that price, even if you don't do it, you can be sure all the combinations will be covered with multiple tickets. And the field is covered with $4,536 less than if the superfecta minimum was $1. The pools are likely to be much smaller, as are the payoffs, especially for the favored combinations.

At $1 you'll have fewer carryovers in the P6, and as everyone knows the carryovers are what really bumps the pool to its biggest levels.

It is as if racetrack management went to the Wal-Mart school of retail management. They take away the advantage of the sharp players because the "quick pick" players have easy entry into the pool. There are already too many pools, with too low minimums, and for all the complaining about lowering the take, it isn't going to happen when low minimums keep pools small.

The value gets sucked dry w small minimums, i agree that in a 10 horse race you can buy the winner for 500. If the bet was a buck, most can't buy it, they have to HANDICAP it.

[no breathalyzer]

The value gets sucked dry w small minimums, i agree that in a 10 horse race you can buy the winner for 500. If the bet was a buck, most can't buy it, they have to HANDICAP it.

who the fck does that?.. and if people really did do that it would help the 10 cent super

[HalvOnHorseracing]

who the fck does that?.. and if people really did do that it would help the 10 cent super

The point is not that people do that. The point is that they put extra dimes into the bet and wind up with 2-1 return on their money when they hit, meaning they have to hit one out of three to break even. That is the point of the 10 cent super- to up the number of combinations you are betting, but still you'd have to see people bet 10 times the number of combinations to equal the action of people betting a dollar.

At AQU on Sunday there were three good paying supers for a dime - $171, $275, and $520 in the last race. All of those races had in common that a long shot either won or finished second and the favorite was either out (two cases) or third/fourth. In the last race you had to have a ticket where a 76-1 shot finished second and the favorite was fourth. I'd like to see the ticket construction of people who hit that one and how much they spent. In the fourth race you had to have a $22 horse on top with the favorite third and in the sixth race you had to have a $31 horse on top with the favorite out. To do that you have to bet a lot of combinations, and if you are doing that every race you probably would have lost money on the supers that paid $4.75, $12, and $3.70, and you wouldn't have a big return on the supers that paid $41 and $50 (all for a dime).

You may not box the board in a 10 horse race, but you might come close in a six horse race where you don't like the favorite. You also have to hit a lot of supers to get a decent return on your money. In nine races on Sunday, if you had bet $200 in dime supers and hit every single super, you'd have made a little less than 5-1 on your investment. And that's with a five figure super thrown in.

I wish I had hard evidence at the bigger tracks that the 10 cent super reduces the pool, but I only have it at smaller tracks that had to discontinue the 10 ccent minimum because the pools went down by quite a bit. If you are betting supers, a 2 X 2 X 3 X 2 sequence at a dollar would put the same in the pool as someone betting 5 X 4 X 4 X 3, but if it hits and pays $100 for a dollar, the first guy gets a 3-1 positive return and the second guy loses $14. In other words, good handicapping gets rewarded.

If someone has figured out how to hit big supers consistently and make a good return, great, but I'm having a hard time seeing how the pools grow over the dollar minimum and people get a good return on investment. I'm not trying to talk anybody into or out of anything - bet however you want. Doesn't matter to me if you win or lose.

[AndyC]

The value gets sucked dry w small minimums, i agree that in a 10 horse race you can buy the winner for 500. If the bet was a buck, most can't buy it, they have to HANDICAP it.

Value does not reside in a static position on a tote board. It moves based on money going in the wrong direction. It also can't be bought or destroyed due to small minimums. Small minimums do not make bettors smarter.

[Robert Fischer]

Vote = AndyC

[Nitro]

Value does not reside in a static position on a tote board. It moves based on money going in the wrong direction. It also can't be bought or destroyed due to small minimums. Small minimums do not make bettors smarter.Value resides in the comparison of your selections with the odds on the tote board at some pre-selected point during the typical betting cycle of any given race.

The only “static” position of the tote board occurs when betting is completed and the odds are finalized. At any other time during the betting cycle Value is dynamic and the “right” or wrong direction in terms of the Value changing can only be appreciated from the perspective of how those odds are related to your selections and whether a play is worthwhile or not.

I totally agree that smaller wagers will not make a bettor smarter or more successful. However, they will make certain betting pools accessible to those with a limited bankroll.

[VigorsTheGrey]

While in principle I like that the P6 can be .20...because then I can play it, otherwise at $2 or even $1 my risk aversion kicks in because I KNOW it is tough to hit on a ticket with only a few selection each race...
What I do wonder about is the gimmick nature of the "Rainbow" in that they withhold substantial portion of the pool if there is more than 1 ticket with the right combination....I wonder what the Track does with the Jackpot funds while waiting for the improbable event that it will be hit...I'm fairly certain the surplus is "reinvested" short term somehow, but does the Track disclose this...? Maybe it is somehow used to cover operations in the short term....thereby making their "take" more profitable...all on the backs of the bettors once again...

[rastajenk]

What tracks have dumped the dime super? I haven't run across any of those yet.

[AndyC]

Value resides in the comparison of your selections with the odds on the tote board at some pre-selected point during the typical betting cycle of any given race.

The only “static” position of the tote board occurs when betting is completed and the odds are finalized. At any other time during the betting cycle Value is dynamic and the “right” or wrong direction in terms of the Value changing can only be appreciated from the perspective of how those odds are related to your selections and whether a play is worthwhile or not.


The theory dragged out here with regard to low minimum bets is that everybody can now make bets and get coverage that only the brave and rich dared take in the past. My problem with this theory is that if value was so apparent with high minimums you would have to believe that smart whales would swoop in and suck the value right out.

My use of "static' referred to a type of play that would always be profitable because so few players could afford to play it.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Would it be a stretch to believe that in the $2 Pick 6 pools that 20% of the bettors have 80 % of the coverage...maybe even 10% of the bettors have 90% of the coverage....

[Robert Fischer]

Super is a gimmick, but is one of my fav wagers, when certain models stick out.

As far as the discussion at hand - some comments (please bear with my voice to text typographical errors):
Superfecta and P6 are different enough that the minimums effect the payouts differently. A pick six of eight horse fields contains 262144 possibilities. And eight horse super Phecda contains 1680 possibilities ( 8×7×6×5 ). Two different worlds.
A super factor is kind of in a sweet spot(IMO), where it is impractical to cover extremely difficult-to-have Long shots, and is also affordable enough and gimmicky enough that the general public can partake in some significant inefficient wagering pools and patterns.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What tracks have dumped the dime super? I haven't run across any of those yet.

Arapahoe Park did. Because instead of a $1,500 pool, they'd get a $500 pool.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Would it be a stretch to believe that in the $2 Pick 6 pools that 20% of the bettors have 80 % of the coverage...maybe even 10% of the bettors have 90% of the coverage....

Whatever pools you decide to bet into, you have to be properly capitalized. At $2, people who bring $200 to the track couldn't afford to spend much on the P6. It wouldn't be surprising if a small percentage of bettors had a majority of the pool.

One of the things I've written about is is that people have learned to handicap for the win slot, but are not as efficient in selecting in the other slots. So a horse that has say a 10% chance of winning may have a 30% chance of finishing in one of the first four slots. One of the reasons the super is such a tough bet is that longshots can abound in the back holes because as you move farther away from the winning slot the odds of each horse that didn't win finishing in one of the other slots becomes lower than its tote board odds. In other words the longer odds horses can have chances much better than their win odds to finish in one of the other three slots, but their actual odds are very difficult to calculate.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Whatever pools you decide to bet into, you have to be properly capitalized. At $2, people who bring $200 to the track couldn't afford to spend much on the P6. It wouldn't be surprising if a small percentage of bettors had a majority of the pool.

One of the things I've written about is is that people have learned to handicap for the win slot, but are not as efficient in selecting in the other slots. So a horse that has say a 10% chance of winning may have a 30% chance of finishing in one of the first four slots. One of the reasons the super is such a tough bet is that longshots can abound in the back holes because as you move farther away from the winning slot the odds of each horse that didn't win finishing in one of the other slots becomes lower than its tote board odds. In other words the longer odds horses can have chances much better than their win odds to finish in one of the other three slots, but their actual odds are very difficult to calculate.

I am one of those bettors that brings $200-300 to the Track each day and am risk averse to losing any more than that on any given day....so you're right, I never play the $2 Pick 6...

But I do play the dime Super a lot and also the half-dollar Trifectas and the rolling half-dollar Pick 3 and Pick 4...and still with that low betting bankroll I'm pretty sure that my bankroll is larger than 70% of the bettors...

I know that I was very happy that the bet minimums went down because THEN I could at least participate in the pools with the larger payout potentials...One thing I know for sure, that if one never bets into those pools, one will never win one...

The Track MUST understand who their customers are...the majority of them only have $200 in their pockets or even less...

Maybe some Tracks are making the decisions that "these customers" are not the ones they wish to please...

Maybe these customers provide marginal returns nowadays since racing has changed and is no longer quite the mass spectator sport it used to be...

[EasyGoer89]

Value does not reside in a static position on a tote board. It moves based on money going in the wrong direction. It also can't be bought or destroyed due to small minimums. Small minimums do not make bettors smarter.

While this is true, I don't care about 'chalk supers' I care about the ones that have longshots scattered all over the place, and in those ones, there is much more likely a 'stray dime' finds its way onto that combo. The dime bet makes the pool much more efficient.

While the chalk super that paid 31 for a dime might be an overlay due to the stray dimes on the bingo numbers, I'm not looking to exploit a 31 dollar super that's 'supposed to pay' 28, I'd trade that in to get the stray dime off the longshot combo.

How many supers win that have 9 dimes on the winning combo or less? That happens quite often esp at smaller tracks, in all those races where there isn't at least 10 winning dime supers, those races are 'pool shot' possibilities for the buck Bettor.

Isn't the entire premise of a 'pick the top 4 finishers in order' bet so that the winning bettors could make a major score ? (Vs making the minimums so low that anyone w 168 dollars who can make an 8 horse box can hit)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I am one of those bettors that brings $200-300 to the Track each day and am risk averse to losing any more than that on any given day....so you're right, I never play the $2 Pick 6...

But I do play the dime Super a lot and also the half-dollar Trifectas and the rolling half-dollar Pick 3 and Pick 4...and still with that low betting bankroll I'm pretty sure that my bankroll is larger than 70% of the bettors...

I know that I was very happy that the bet minimums went down because THEN I could at least participate in the pools with the larger payout potentials...One thing I know for sure, that if one never bets into those pools, one will never win one...

The Track MUST understand who their customers are...the majority of them only have $200 in their pockets or even less...

Maybe some Tracks are making the decisions that "these customers" are not the ones they wish to please...

Maybe these customers provide marginal returns nowadays since racing has changed and is no longer quite the mass spectator sport it used to be...

There are two important questions: how do we increase the volume and how can we reduce the take? Understand that we can never reduce the take without increasing the volume unless tracks are willing to suffer with less revenue. I've mentioned previously that many bigger money players stopped playing the Pick-4 when the minimum dropped to 50 cents because it took away a lot of their edge. The question - and I don't know the answer - is, did the P4 pool increase when the bet was dropped to 50 cents? Same question with the super when it was dropped to a dime. The fact that you will get into a pool at a dime when you wouldn't at $1 only pays off for the track if there are bigger money players who keep their action the same.

Bettors can be like spoiled kids and tracks like the parents who can't resist them. When bettors wanted to get into the pool but didn't want to pay the freight at $1, tracks accommodated them by dropping the minimum, eventually to 10 cents. Unless that increased the volume it was a bad decision, even if a lot of smaller customers are happier that they can get into the pool.

The tracks asked the question, how can we make smaller bankroll players happy. The answer was by allowing them to get into every pool. But as I said, if it didn't increase volume, it ultimately wouldn't be a good move for the horseplayers. If you love horseracing, anything that decreases volume you should be against, and anything that increases volume you should be for.

[VigorsTheGrey]

There are two important questions: how do we increase the volume and how can we reduce the take? Understand that we can never reduce the take without increasing the volume unless tracks are willing to suffer with less revenue. I've mentioned previously that many bigger money players stopped playing the Pick-4 when the minimum dropped to 50 cents because it took away a lot of their edge. The question - and I don't know the answer - is, did the P4 pool increase when the bet was dropped to 50 cents? Same question with the super when it was dropped to a dime. The fact that you will get into a pool at a dime when you wouldn't at $1 only pays off for the track if there are bigger money players who keep their action the same.

Bettors can be like spoiled kids and tracks like the parents who can't resist them. When bettors wanted to get into the pool but didn't want to pay the freight at $1, tracks accommodated them by dropping the minimum, eventually to 10 cents. Unless that increased the volume it was a bad decision, even if a lot of smaller customers are happier that they can get into the pool.

The tracks asked the question, how can we make smaller bankroll players happy. The answer was by allowing them to get into every pool. But as I said, if it didn't increase volume, it ultimately wouldn't be a good move for the horseplayers. If you love horseracing, anything that decreases volume you should be against, and anything that increases volume you should be for.

And what exactly is that edge here....That the larger customers are better capitalized and sustained-loss resistant than their smaller counterparts...The ability to wager deeper into fields with substantially more combinations is without a doubt a key factor in separating winning ticket holders...

The Tracks are in a bind of sorts: They don't wish to put off their elite clientele with lower buy-ins, but realize that the Carriage of Racing relies on non-elites to sustain the over-all Enterprise...so they MUST throw the bone of lower buy-in to appease the working, and primarily losing, wagering serfs....so if the Tracks require a rather moderate takeout and require the serfs to remain in the game, then the only place for adjustment MUST be that the elites accept lower margins of gains from the serfs who support them...

[Poindexter]

There are two important questions: how do we increase the volume and how can we reduce the take? Understand that we can never reduce the take without increasing the volume unless tracks are willing to suffer with less revenue. I've mentioned previously that many bigger money players stopped playing the Pick-4 when the minimum dropped to 50 cents because it took away a lot of their edge. The question - and I don't know the answer - is, did the P4 pool increase when the bet was dropped to 50 cents? Same question with the super when it was dropped to a dime. The fact that you will get into a pool at a dime when you wouldn't at $1 only pays off for the track if there are bigger money players who keep their action the same.

Bettors can be like spoiled kids and tracks like the parents who can't resist them. When bettors wanted to get into the pool but didn't want to pay the freight at $1, tracks accommodated them by dropping the minimum, eventually to 10 cents. Unless that increased the volume it was a bad decision, even if a lot of smaller customers are happier that they can get into the pool.

The tracks asked the question, how can we make smaller bankroll players happy. The answer was by allowing them to get into every pool. But as I said, if it didn't increase volume, it ultimately wouldn't be a good move for the horseplayers. If you love horseracing, anything that decreases volume you should be against, and anything that increases volume you should be for.

So when Santa Anita has a million dollars in a 50 cent minimum pick 4 pool as they did on Sunday, these big money professional playing friends of yours do not feel that they are able to get an edge? Really? Fascinating! Or are you just talking about the pick 4 pools at wheretfdowns that has a pool of $11,000 and they resent the fact they can't scoop the pool with a $300 play anymore.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

So when Santa Anita has a million dollars in a 50 cent minimum pick 4 pool as they did on Sunday, these big money professional playing friends of yours do not feel that they are able to get an edge? Really? Fascinating! Or are you just talking about the pick 4 pools at wheretfdowns that has a pool of $11,000 and they resent the fact they can't scoop the pool with a $300 play anymore.

Any pool that grows large will attract large players just by virtue of that fact. You certainly picked a good week for Santa Anita - it was SA Derby week and Saturday was historically one of the biggest handle days. By the way, Saturday's Pick-4 on a pool almost $1.5 million paid a whopping $196 for 50 cents.

I ask two simple questions:how can we increase volume and how can we reduce take. I don't know what the pool would have been at a dollar so any argument is moot, and I've already said any evidence I have is mostly anecdotal. I played the Pick-4 religiously when it was $1, and it was nothing to put $300 into the pool. In fact, it gets orders of magnitude harder to hit five figure Pick-4's without being able to cover the chaos races in a sequence. I know my strategy was to have multiples when the sequence was lower priced horses and break even, and hit the big payoffs by having wider coverage in those 12 horse NY state bred maidens on the turf.

I rarely play it these days mostly because I perceived prices went down at 50 cents. Payoffs with the choices were lower and boxcar payoffs seemed less frequent. I actually did a study on the Pick-4 for a season at Aqueduct a few years ago and about a third of the time the Pick-4 paid less than the parlay. That was a change from previous years when the Pick-4 didn't often pay less than the parlay. This is the issue for the bigger money players, that they see too many underpays now, and it is easy to measure an underpay - the Pick-4 should pay more than the parlay because the take only occurs once instead of four times with a parlay. When you stop getting a worthwhile return on your investment, you stop making the bet if you are rational.

Whether or not a guy with a big bankroll can muscle people out of a pot isn't the issue for discussion. It is whether volume is higher with the big bankroll people in the game. You can't drop the take - goal number one for horseplayers - unless you can keep revenue constant by growing volume.

[AndyC]

........The dime bet makes the pool much more efficient........

The most efficient pool at the track is probably the win pool. Do you avoid efficient pools or do you try to find situations where your handicapping results in a different opinion than the "efficient" public?

[AndyC]

.....I rarely play it these days mostly because I perceived prices went down at 50 cents. Payoffs with the choices were lower and boxcar payoffs seemed less frequent. I actually did a study on the Pick-4 for a season at Aqueduct a few years ago and about a third of the time the Pick-4 paid less than the parlay. That was a change from previous years when the Pick-4 didn't often pay less than the parlay. This is the issue for the bigger money players, that they see too many underpays now, and it is easy to measure an underpay - the Pick-4 should pay more than the parlay because the take only occurs once instead of four times with a parlay. When you stop getting a worthwhile return on your investment, you stop making the bet if you are rational........

P-4 payoffs don't pay less than a parlay because of reduced minimums.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

P-4 payoffs don't pay less than a parlay because of reduced minimums.

What's that? A teaser? Should we try to divine why you think that?

[Poindexter]

Any pool that grows large will attract large players just by virtue of that fact. You certainly picked a good week for Santa Anita - it was SA Derby week and Saturday was historically one of the biggest handle days. By the way, Saturday's Pick-4 on a pool almost $1.5 million paid a whopping $196 for 50 cents.

I ask two simple questions:how can we increase volume and how can we reduce take. I don't know what the pool would have been at a dollar so any argument is moot, and I've already said any evidence I have is mostly anecdotal. I played the Pick-4 religiously when it was $1, and it was nothing to put $300 into the pool. In fact, it gets orders of magnitude harder to hit five figure Pick-4's without being able to cover the chaos races in a sequence. I know my strategy was to have multiples when the sequence was lower priced horses and break even, and hit the big payoffs by having wider coverage in those 12 horse NY state bred maidens on the turf.

I rarely play it these days mostly because I perceived prices went down at 50 cents. Payoffs with the choices were lower and boxcar payoffs seemed less frequent. I actually did a study on the Pick-4 for a season at Aqueduct a few years ago and about a third of the time the Pick-4 paid less than the parlay. That was a change from previous years when the Pick-4 didn't often pay less than the parlay. This is the issue for the bigger money players, that they see too many underpays now, and it is easy to measure an underpay - the Pick-4 should pay more than the parlay because the take only occurs once instead of four times with a parlay. When you stop getting a worthwhile return on your investment, you stop making the bet if you are rational.

Whether or not a guy with a big bankroll can muscle people out of a pot isn't the issue for discussion. It is whether volume is higher with the big bankroll people in the game. You can't drop the take - goal number one for horseplayers - unless you can keep revenue constant by growing volume.

Saturday wasn't really a pick 4. Sircat Sally won at .30 on the dollar after the clear 2nd favorite was a late scratch, so everybody that played a pick 4 had the winner either once or twice. It became a pick 3. Sunday where the winning prices were
3.4-1
22.7-1
9.1-1
3.4-1

the parlay would have been $2317.02 and the pick 4 paid $3411.40.

If you want value in a pick 4 you have to consider how most people attack and structure your tickets accordingly. If you single the same horse that many others are singling it will obviously be a lot harder to get value. Because even at .50 cent denominations a lot of smaller players will latch on to singles. If you play only 3-1 to 5-1 shots, than the caveman tickets will likely share in your glory as they, as there are plenty of people that will play 3x4x3x2 and no matter what the minimum is, they collect. I haven't researched this, but when I look at daily double payoffs it seems like there is better value favorite to longhot than there is longshot to longshot. So I would imagine that a pick 4 with too many longshots might underpay relative to the parlay amount(but I could be wrong). Also you have to factor in many people use ticketmaker or play needing 2 of 4 top choices. So I assume that if you want really good value on your pick 4 payoff, you want a good mix of mid price horses(say 9/2 to 6-1) an longshots. For instance Sundays payoff might have been a little better(relative to the parlay) if the 1st and 2nd leg were won my say 5-1 shots instead of 3.4-1 shots which many players might have used as "A" choices and found it easier to hit.

My point is that as a horse player you adapt to what you are given. If the .50 cent minimum causes horseplayers to attack differently than the $1 minimum, try to figure out how they are now attacking and structure your play to avoid the overbet combos. To not play the pick 4 because you believe that is has suddenly become unbeatable because the minimum is 50 cents and not $1, makes absolutely no sense to me. For one I really don't think it varies payoffs much in a half million to a million dollar pool anyhow (while obviously it will in a $20,000 pool).

Also I believe that for every person like yourself who has abandoned the pick 4 because there are far more putting more money in because it is now affordable for them to do so. Same reasoning that people were putting in $400,000 pools at Gulfstream the last week(more like 2 weeks ago), when there were a bunch of short fields and not a chance of hitting the jackpot, but at Santa Anita where there was a half million dollar jackpot pool that there was a very decent chance of hitting the jackpot, the pools were like half as much.

Regarding increasing volume and lowering takeout. I have about 100 posts on the subject here. The cannibalizing that you refer to is not from small minimum bets it is from rebating the sharpest bettors on the planet who in turn remove most of the value out of the pools, and magnify the negative impact of the high takeout. I suppose that the reason that pick 4's and pick 5's are so popular is that the public has come to the realization that they aren't beating the sport, but they may get lucky and one day hit a $5000 or $10,000 pick 4 or 5. As long as rebates remain part of this game, the non rebated bettor is toast and only a rare breed will stay in this game very long. Ultimately that rare breed will realize to survive he needs rebates and if he lives in one of the many states that do not permit rebates(like myself) then he will take his action offshore (and thus provide little benefit to racing-I actually give racing a lot of action because I like low minimum bets). But it is okay, Santa Anita has it all figured out. They now charge a fee to use Cal Racing live so there signal doesn't get pirated by bookies in some other country and if you bet a million dollars a year they will give you a 6% rebate. Meanwhile someone who could bet $10,000 or $20,000 a month with them, would be foolish to do so, because they have to bet in another country to get rebates. But all is well, because Halv has a new betting menu that will solve all of racing's problems.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Saturday wasn't really a pick 4. Sircat Sally won at .30 on the dollar after the clear 2nd favorite was a late scratch, so everybody that played a pick 4 had the winner either once or twice. It became a pick 3. Sunday where the winning prices were
3.4-1
22.7-1
9.1-1
3.4-1

the parlay would have been $2317.02 and the pick 4 paid $3411.40.

If you want value in a pick 4 you have to consider how most people attack and structure your tickets accordingly. If you single the same horse that many others are singling it will obviously be a lot harder to get value. Because even at .50 cent denominations a lot of smaller players will latch on to singles. If you play only 3-1 to 5-1 shots, than the caveman tickets will likely share in your glory as they, as there are plenty of people that will play 3x4x3x2 and no matter what the minimum is, they collect. I haven't researched this, but when I look at daily double payoffs it seems like there is better value favorite to longhot than there is longshot to longshot. So I would imagine that a pick 4 with too many longshots might underpay relative to the parlay amount(but I could be wrong). Also you have to factor in many people use ticketmaker or play needing 2 of 4 top choices. So I assume that if you want really good value on your pick 4 payoff, you want a good mix of mid price horses(say 9/2 to 6-1) an longshots. For instance Sundays payoff might have been a little better(relative to the parlay) if the 1st and 2nd leg were won my say 5-1 shots instead of 3.4-1 shots which many players might have used as "A" choices and found it easier to hit.

My point is that as a horse player you adapt to what you are given. If the .50 cent minimum causes horseplayers to attack differently than the $1 minimum, try to figure out how they are now attacking and structure your play to avoid the overbet combos. To not play the pick 4 because you believe that is has suddenly become unbeatable because the minimum is 50 cents and not $1, makes absolutely no sense to me. For one I really don't think it varies payoffs much in a half million to a million dollar pool anyhow (while obviously it will in a $20,000 pool).

Also I believe that for every person like yourself who has abandoned the pick 4 because there are far more putting more money in because it is now affordable for them to do so. Same reasoning that people were putting in $400,000 pools at Gulfstream the last week(more like 2 weeks ago), when there were a bunch of short fields and not a chance of hitting the jackpot, but at Santa Anita where there was a half million dollar jackpot pool that there was a very decent chance of hitting the jackpot, the pools were like half as much.

Regarding increasing volume and lowering takeout. I have about 100 posts on the subject here. The cannibalizing that you refer to is not from small minimum bets it is from rebating the sharpest bettors on the planet who in turn remove most of the value out of the pools, and magnify the negative impact of the high takeout. I suppose that the reason that pick 4's and pick 5's are so popular is that the public has come to the realization that they aren't beating the sport, but they may get lucky and one day hit a $5000 or $10,000 pick 4 or 5. As long as rebates remain part of this game, the non rebated bettor is toast and only a rare breed will stay in this game very long. Ultimately that rare breed will realize to survive he needs rebates and if he lives in one of the many states that do not permit rebates(like myself) then he will take his action offshore (and thus provide little benefit to racing-I actually give racing a lot of action because I like low minimum bets). But it is okay, Santa Anita has it all figured out. They now charge a fee to use Cal Racing live so there signal doesn't get pirated by bookies in some other country and if you bet a million dollars a year they will give you a 6% rebate. Meanwhile someone who could bet $10,000 or $20,000 a month with them, would be foolish to do so, because they have to bet in another country to get rebates. But all is well, because Halv has a new betting menu that will solve all of racing's problems.

It wasn't a bad post until you had to take a shot in the last sentence. Your solution is apparently for horseplayers to put up with whatever we are given and adapt to it. Brilliant. The point of debate is to argue or refute a point, not to make fun of someone's idea.

If you were a rebate whale, which pool would you get into? Many of the big-money bettors employ similar handicapping techniques — multiple regression being a popular choice. Thus, in a sense, the real competition is among the whales, not the average punter. If they are in the win pool, they are either on the favorite or making their choice a favorite. This cuts both ways. Unless they are picking at some incredible percentage, it is jut as likely they are creating overlays on other horses as overbetting favorites.

In an article I did on Betting Whales,

In 1968, Richard Carter using the pseudonym Tom Ainslie, published the seminal work, Ainslie’s Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing. On page 38 he talks about The Magic Number. Basically Ainslie suggests that no one should lose more than the track take on the win pool. So if the take is 17%, at worst, even if you are betting randomly, you should lose no more than 17% of your bankroll in the long run. He goes on to say that if you only bet favorites, you can reduce that loss to around 8%. Now imagine you are a whale getting a 10% rebate. Betting only favorites to win, you do two things. First, you skew the pool by making the favorite all but unbettable. Second, you still make a 2% profit. Think about it. You are an 8% loser making money, and the more you bet the more you make. If you are any type of handicapper, or if you are using a sophisticated betting program, you might erase half of that 8%, making you a 6% winner. Our same $250,000 a week whale would net a cool three-quarters of a million dollars.

Whales don't cannibalize the betting pools. They dilute the betting pools. Cannibalize means that people move their money from one pool to another. How does a rebate affect you? It is far worse for them to muscle you out of a pool. What the rebate whales are banking on is the rebate, which means they are better off getting into a high hit rate pool even if they get a low return on their money. They will get into P6 pools when the return justifies the investment, but often they are often competing with each other.

Dan Borislow spent $15,206.40 to win a $6,678,939 Rainbow 6 jackpot 2014. He fashioned two nearly identical tickets using the "all" button in five of the Rainbow Six races. He played four horses in the sixth race, two on each ticket, costing $7,603.20 apiece. This in one of the other ways in which whales operate. The point is that they can often use their muscle to buy pools or overwhelm the small bettors. How in the world does a small guy really stand a chance to grab a huge Rainbow 6 jackpot against a guy like Borislow? And Borislow says he only bets into a P6 jackpot less than a dozen times a year. He's waiting until you have built the pool and he swoops in to take your money.

In some Asian self-defense techniques, like judo, you learn to use an opponent's force against him. You can beat the whales, at least occasionally, by taking advantage of their mistakes in the pools where you can make decent profit without making five figure bets, like win or exacta. You wait for them to make a mistake and bet an overlay.

As for people who picked up the Pick-4, I'm not sure they are putting as much money into it as larger bettors were. I'd still like to see evidence the pools grew when they dropped the bet minimum.

Depending on your source of information, something less then 5% of players are long term winners. There can be a few reasons why. One is that people don't bet well. If you look at my betting menu, I still give you all the betting options. The biggest change is that you have fewer races for the higher level exotics, and minimums are increased. I argued that if a $1 P4 keeps people out of the pool, good. They shouldn't be in the pool if they can't afford it. They can get into the WPS or exacta or maybe trifecta pools, which I suggested would be on every race where there were enough starters. You seem to think I've made some sort of radical suggestion. I just believe people betting into the pools they can best afford more than the pools where they are taking a flyer is best for the players and best for the track, but nothing stops them from playing the jackpot bets if they want.

I believe more people could make profit at the track by dividing their bankroll 50-25-25, win-exacta-exotics. But I've also said, you have as much right to lose if you want to spend your track budget in more difficult pools. I know when I started focusing on win and exacta, my ROI went much higher. I only suggest people keep records and see exactly what return they are getting from respective pools and invest in the ones with the highest ROI.

[Poindexter]

It wasn't a bad post until you had to take a shot in the last sentence. Your solution is apparently for horseplayers to put up with whatever we are given and adapt to it. Brilliant. The point of debate is to argue or refute a point, not to make fun of someone's idea.

If you were a rebate whale, which pool would you get into? Many of the big-money bettors employ similar handicapping techniques — multiple regression being a popular choice. Thus, in a sense, the real competition is among the whales, not the average punter. If they are in the win pool, they are either on the favorite or making their choice a favorite. This cuts both ways. Unless they are picking at some incredible percentage, it is jut as likely they are creating overlays on other horses as overbetting favorites.

In an article I did on Betting Whales,

In 1968, Richard Carter using the pseudonym Tom Ainslie, published the seminal work, Ainslie’s Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing. On page 38 he talks about The Magic Number. Basically Ainslie suggests that no one should lose more than the track take on the win pool. So if the take is 17%, at worst, even if you are betting randomly, you should lose no more than 17% of your bankroll in the long run. He goes on to say that if you only bet favorites, you can reduce that loss to around 8%. Now imagine you are a whale getting a 10% rebate. Betting only favorites to win, you do two things. First, you skew the pool by making the favorite all but unbettable. Second, you still make a 2% profit. Think about it. You are an 8% loser making money, and the more you bet the more you make. If you are any type of handicapper, or if you are using a sophisticated betting program, you might erase half of that 8%, making you a 6% winner. Our same $250,000 a week whale would net a cool three-quarters of a million dollars.

Whales don't cannibalize the betting pools. They dilute the betting pools. Cannibalize means that people move their money from one pool to another. How does a rebate affect you? It is far worse for them to muscle you out of a pool. What the rebate whales are banking on is the rebate, which means they are better off getting into a high hit rate pool even if they get a low return on their money. They will get into P6 pools when the return justifies the investment, but often they are often competing with each other.

Dan Borislow spent $15,206.40 to win a $6,678,939 Rainbow 6 jackpot 2014. He fashioned two nearly identical tickets using the "all" button in five of the Rainbow Six races. He played four horses in the sixth race, two on each ticket, costing $7,603.20 apiece. This in one of the other ways in which whales operate. The point is that they can often use their muscle to buy pools or overwhelm the small bettors. How in the world does a small guy really stand a chance to grab a huge Rainbow 6 jackpot against a guy like Borislow? And Borislow says he only bets into a P6 jackpot less than a dozen times a year. He's waiting until you have built the pool and he swoops in to take your money.

In some Asian self-defense techniques, like judo, you learn to use an opponent's force against him. You can beat the whales, at least occasionally, by taking advantage of their mistakes in the pools where you can make decent profit without making five figure bets, like win or exacta. You wait for them to make a mistake and bet an overlay.

As for people who picked up the Pick-4, I'm not sure they are putting as much money into it as larger bettors were. I'd still like to see evidence the pools grew when they dropped the bet minimum.

Depending on your source of information, something less then 5% of players are long term winners. There can be a few reasons why. One is that people don't bet well. If you look at my betting menu, I still give you all the betting options. The biggest change is that you have fewer races for the higher level exotics, and minimums are increased. I argued that if a $1 P4 keeps people out of the pool, good. They shouldn't be in the pool if they can't afford it. They can get into the WPS or exacta or maybe trifecta pools, which I suggested would be on every race where there were enough starters. You seem to think I've made some sort of radical suggestion. I just believe people betting into the pools they can best afford more than the pools where they are taking a flyer is best for the players and best for the track, but nothing stops them from playing the jackpot bets if they want.

I believe more people could make profit at the track by dividing their bankroll 50-25-25, win-exacta-exotics. But I've also said, you have as much right to lose if you want to spend your track budget in more difficult pools. I know when I started focusing on win and exacta, my ROI went much higher. I only suggest people keep records and see exactly what return they are getting from respective pools and invest in the ones with the highest ROI.

There is a lot to respond to. First the pick 4 and other exotics. High minimums do not keep people out of them, it keeps people from spreading (which imo is optimal-in your opinion is throwing money away-we disagree and probably always will). It means they cash less often, they get more frustrated and they have less fun. As an example I like the 3 horse key in trifectas, but I often cover with the 1/3/all/3 superfecta. This saves me often and often pays well. With a 10 cent super it is easy to work into my arsenal, if it was a buck super it would be too expensive and I would miss out on some nice winning bets. With pick 4's, I can play $1 pick 4(an in fact with a rebate) but I am going to bet the same amount of money, hit for more when I hit but hit 40% as often as I currently do if that and of course have a lot longer dry spells. That is your preference not mine. As I said in my previous post, I don't buy that in $700,000 pick 4 pools there is going to be a big difference between payouts one way or the other. If you have proof I will be glad to look at it.

Regarding whether they get more or less volume with lower minimums, I believe for the reasons stated that it is more volume. Also, while I don't have a lot of respect for racetrack management, I do assume that they have the data that their lower minimums are working for them or else they will/would change.

A big problem with whales is not that they overbet chalk, but they cause frustrations for bettors. Not me-because I rarely bet chalk to win-if I like the chalk I prefer to single it or key it-so in my case they do move me from one pool to another-and I would be surprised if others react the same way.

You are of the belief that if people bet your way they would do better. We all have our ways of playing. In between typing my posts today I am playing Tampa Bay Downs. Race 5, 6 looks best, 1-3-4 look good 2 and 5 look like they have little chance. There was no value on the board, but the tri and super were easy as it came 6-4-3-1. $1 tri $19.60, $1 super $47. In your betting world I don't get that betting opportunity. That to me sucks, whether you think it is for a greater good or not. For me there is nothing good about taking away betting opportunities. It easily could have lost and I would feel the same way. Betting opportunities make the game fun and for most of us that is the purpose of betting this game(obviously we hope to make money also).

[EasyGoer89]

The most efficient pool at the track is probably the win pool. Do you avoid efficient pools or do you try to find situations where your handicapping results in a different opinion than the "efficient" public?

I'd prefer to bet Into a less efficient pool.

[EasyGoer89]

What tracks have dumped the dime super? I haven't run across any of those yet.

Bigger players tend to keep more quiet and adapt while it's the 2 dollar jagoffs who do the most complaining. Tracks don't want to deal with those people so they keep the dime minimum.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You are of the belief that if people bet your way they would do better. We all have our ways of playing. In between typing my posts today I am playing Tampa Bay Downs. Race 5, 6 looks best, 1-3-4 look good 2 and 5 look like they have little chance. There was no value on the board, but the tri and super were easy as it came 6-4-3-1. $1 tri $19.60, $1 super $47. In your betting world I don't get that betting opportunity. That to me sucks, whether you think it is for a greater good or not. For me there is nothing good about taking away betting opportunities. It easily could have lost and I would feel the same way. Betting opportunities make the game fun and for most of us that is the purpose of betting this game(obviously we hope to make money also).

In my betting world, as I said, you allocate your bankroll 50-25-25, win-exacta-exotics. That means there is plenty of space to bet tri's and supers. I am of the belief that if you focus more of your money on the win and exacta pools, you collect more of your bets and you churn more, and that's a fact not a guess. If you stick to betting overlays, and you are any good at calculating overlays, mathematically you should be a winner in the long run. I've also said I don't care how you bet. If that works for you, great.

And for the last time, I didn't take away any bets (except show, and I combined that with place but still paid to the first three slots), all I did was focus the pools so that you didn't have races with 10 different pools cannibalizing each other. I even said you could have tris and supers every race with a minimum number of starters.

Numbers don't lie. If the current system is so great, why do less than 5% of the players win in the long term? If your experiences are anything like mine, you know a lot of people who are good handicappers. The reason they lose is that they are not good bettors. And the reason they are not good bettors is that they (1) don't understand the numbers, and (2) they spread their action in ways that create lower percentage returns. People who get 3-1 on an exotic with 1,500 combinations aren't great bettors in my opinion, and too many people bet tri's and supers that way.

Nobody has to listen to me. But I got a lot of good, positive feedback on my article, including one from a track owner. And I've had a number of people tell me they switched to my money management method and improved their ROI. And that is all I really care about. If I've helped a few people, it's worth presenting the ideas. And if I'm wasting my time, it's my time to waste.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There was no value on the board, but the tri and super were easy as it came 6-4-3-1. $1 tri $19.60, $1 super $47.

I don't know exactly how you bet the tri and super, but it sounded like you bet 6/1-3-4. That meant you got slightly better than 2-1 on the tri and 7-1 on the super.

The exacta in that race paid $16.60, almost the same return as the trifecta for the same amount bet and you didn't have to sweat one of the outless horses jumping into third, which will happen.

And if you want to point out under my proposal there wouldn't have been tri or super, right. But it would have pumped up the exacta pool and you may have even gotten a better return.

If you thought the 4 was a clear second choice, you could have bet a little less in the tri and super, but at the same you could have done even better by pumping up the exacta bet.

That's thinking about the numbers. Just because I said 50-25-25 doesn't mean you have to bet win and exacta on every race. That's just your bankroll.

[thaskalos]

In my betting world, as I said, you allocate your bankroll 50-25-25, win-exacta-exotics. That means there is plenty of space to bet tri's and supers. I am of the belief that if you focus more of your money on the win and exacta pools, you collect more of your bets and you churn more, and that's a fact not a guess. If you stick to betting overlays, and you are any good at calculating overlays, mathematically you should be a winner in the long run. I've also said I don't care how you bet. If that works for you, great.

And for the last time, I didn't take away any bets (except show, and I combined that with place but still paid to the first three slots), all I did was focus the pools so that you didn't have races with 10 different pools cannibalizing each other. I even said you could have tris and supers every race with a minimum number of starters.

Numbers don't lie. If the current system is so great, why do less than 5% of the players win in the long term? If your experiences are anything like mine, you know a lot of people who are good handicappers. The reason they lose is that they are not good bettors. And the reason they are not good bettors is that they (1) don't understand the numbers, and (2) they spread their action in ways that create lower percentage returns. People who get 3-1 on an exotic with 1,500 combinations aren't great bettors in my opinion, and too many people bet tri's and supers that way.

Nobody has to listen to me. But I got a lot of good, positive feedback on my article, including one from a track owner. And I've had a number of people tell me they switched to my money management method and improved their ROI. And that is all I really care about. If I've helped a few people, it's worth presenting the ideas. And if I'm wasting my time, it's my time to waste.

I think that the long-term winners in this game are substantially less than the 5% that you mention here. And I seriously doubt that "good betting" is the main reason why that number is kept so low. When the game syphons off 17-30% of the mutuel pool as the "cost of doing business"...then, there is no way that any long-term money could be left on the table for anyone but the game's very best players. And "very best", IMO, means being excellent in BOTH...handicapping AND betting. I too know a lot of "good handicappers"...and I considered MYSELF a "good-enough" handicapper...for MANY years. But I was wrong. I WAS a good handicapper...but I wasn't NEARLY good enough. Ask 100 horseplayers why they lose...and 95% will say that "their handicapping is good enough...but they need a little help in structuring their bets".

"Excellent betting" is a byproduct of "excellent handicapping". The sharper and more insightful the player's handicapping opinions are...the sharper and more insightful his wager construction will be. And, if his handicapping opinions are vague and indecisive...his betting will necessarily be vague and indecisive as well. Handicapping and betting go hand in hand in this game...and being merely "good" ain't good enough.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I think that the long-term winners in this game are substantially less than the 5% that you mention here. And I seriously doubt that "good betting" is the main reason why that number is kept so low. When the game syphons off 17-30% of the mutuel pool as the "cost of doing business"...then, there is no way that any long-term money could be left on the table for anyone but the game's very best players. And "very best", IMO, means being excellent in BOTH...handicapping AND betting. I too know a lot of "good handicappers"...and I considered MYSELF a "good-enough" handicapper...for MANY years. But I was wrong. I WAS a good handicapper...but I wasn't NEARLY good enough. Ask 100 horseplayers why they lose...and 95% will say that "their handicapping is good enough...but they need a little help in structuring their bets".

"Excellent betting" is a byproduct of "excellent handicapping". The sharper and more insightful the player's handicapping opinions are...the sharper and more insightful his wager construction will be. And, if his handicapping opinions are vague and indecisive...his betting will necessarily be vague and indecisive as well. Handicapping and betting go hand in hand in this game...and being merely "good" ain't good enough.

When you read my stuff one of the main reasons I argued for fewer pools on a respective race was to increase volume to lower the take. I said many times lowering the take is the number one aspiration of horseplayers. I don't have any proof it would work - it's not like somebody has tried it - but we know increasing the take has the effect of reducing the volume. The other thing is that the number of good handicappers exceeds the number of good bettors, and by emphasizing the pools where bettors have the best chance of return, you have a better chance of keeping people in the game and maximizing the churn.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I've known some great handicappers who were simply average bettors and struggled to keep their heads above water. I would say excellent betting being a byproduct of excellent handicapping is too simplistic. When you have a horse that you've handicapped on top, you still have to make the decision of whether or not it is value, and by how much, and how to bet the horse. I'm just making the selection process discreet from the investment process, although I could agree there is plenty of overlap.

If I get you correctly, a great handicapper will inherently know Horse A has a 30% chance of winning and he is 4-1 on the board so I'm going to make a bet. He would still have to determine what the size of the bet is.

The other thing I am saying is that the more you simplify your personal betting menu, the less margin for error your handicapping would have, and the lower the probability of making a betting error. In other words, the simpler you keep it, the more likely you'll come out ahead. Obviously if your concern is winning against the take, you have a better chance with the pools with the lower take. And if you are talking about the win pool, at one end of the continuum, if everyone bets the same amount of money, it is possible for 83% of the people to break even. The makes the game tough to overcome, but given the small percentage of people who win long term and the potential for distributing 70-85% of the money bet, the is every reason to be optimistic.

[Jeff P]

...In an article I did on Betting Whales,

In 1968, Richard Carter using the pseudonym Tom Ainslie, published the seminal work, Ainslie’s Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing. On page 38 he talks about The Magic Number. Basically Ainslie suggests that no one should lose more than the track take on the win pool. So if the take is 17%, at worst, even if you are betting randomly, you should lose no more than 17% of your bankroll in the long run. He goes on to say that if you only bet favorites, you can reduce that loss to around 8%. Now imagine you are a whale getting a 10% rebate. Betting only favorites to win, you do two things. First, you skew the pool by making the favorite all but unbettable. Second, you still make a 2% profit. Think about it. You are an 8% loser making money, and the more you bet the more you make. If you are any type of handicapper, or if you are using a sophisticated betting program, you might erase half of that 8%, making you a 6% winner. Our same $250,000 a week whale would net a cool three-quarters of a million dollars.

Rich,

I have no way of knowing what the numbers were in the years leading up to 1968 when Ainslie’s Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing was published.

But I can tell you the following with absolute certainty:

Despite what most of us might intuitively think, using chart data from today's game, the player's true long term expectation for random selections in WPS pools is not 1 minus the takeout rate.

Based on chart data for present day North American thoroughbred races, the player's true long term expectation for random selections in WPS pools is a return of approximately 75 cents per each $1.00 wagered. (Or put another way: the player making random selections in WPS pools can expect to lose approximately 25 cents per each $1.00 wagered.)

This is what I have in my 2017 database -- $2.00 to WIN PLACE and SHOW on every starter for all track codes, thoroughbred only, ytd for 2017, current through yesterday 04-11-2017 with other recent years showing similar numbers:
Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE [DATE] >= #01-01-2017#
AND [DATE] <= #04-11-2017#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 100627.20 100853.60 100908.90
Bet -132854.00 -132854.00 -132854.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -32226.80 -32000.40 -31945.10

Wins 8590 17112 25243
Plays 66427 66427 66427
PCT .1293 .2576 .3800

ROI 0.7574 0.7591 0.7595
Avg Mut 11.71 5.89 4.00

Also, the following table shows the above numbers broken out by odds rank in the win pool:
By: Odds Rank

Rank P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 -2783.50 17634.00 0.8422 3303 8817 .3746 2.8969
2 -3418.60 16866.00 0.7973 1759 8433 .2086 1.6130
3 -2832.70 16810.00 0.8315 1312 8405 .1561 1.2071
4 -4665.60 16870.00 0.7234 840 8435 .0996 0.7701
5 -3935.00 16560.00 0.7624 598 8280 .0722 0.5585
6 -4858.60 15534.00 0.6872 356 7767 .0458 0.3544
7 -3517.60 12482.00 0.7182 213 6241 .0341 0.2639
8 -2749.40 8880.00 0.6904 113 4440 .0255 0.1968
9 -1610.80 5748.00 0.7198 61 2874 .0212 0.1641
10 -889.40 3360.00 0.7353 25 1680 .0149 0.1151
11 -827.80 1428.00 0.4203 6 714 .0084 0.0650
12 -183.80 628.00 0.7073 3 314 .0096 0.0739
13 60.00 40.00 2.5000 1 20 .0500 0.3867
14 -14.00 14.00 0.0000 0 7 .0000 0.0000

Note that ytd for 2017 post time favorites show an approximate loss of 16 cents per each $1.00 wagered. Also note that the second favorite shows an approximate loss of more than 20 cents per each $1.00 wagered. (The longer the odds the bigger the loss.)

In today's game, even the most heavily rebated whale cannot blindly bet chalk in WPS pools (with say an 8% to 10% rebate) and expect to grind out profits.

I want to respond to the following statement:So if the take is 17%, at worst, even if you are betting randomly, you should lose no more than 17% of your bankroll in the long run.Most of us wish it worked like that! (But it doesn't work like that.)

About a year and a half ago I made the following post in the private section of my message board:

There is no known betting scheme, methodology, or algorithm in existence capable of generating a long term profit for the player across any sizable series of bets if the player has a negative edge.

If you have a negative edge and use a flat percentage of bankroll for bet sizing across a sufficiently large series of individual wagers - or if you have a negative edge and use The Kelly Criterion for bet sizing across a sufficiently large series of individual wagers:

The result, with mathematical certainty will be a complete loss of capital.

Every single betting scheme, methodology, or algorithm you might think is capable of growing a smaller amount of capital into a larger amount of capital across a sizable series of individual wagers can do so IF AND ONLY IF the player has a positive edge.

If the player has a negative edge: The result with mathematical certainty across a sizable series of individual wagers will be a complete loss of capital.
I then went on to demonstrate this by running something called a Bankroll Detail Report in JCapper. It's basically a report that shows the detail for individual win bets across a large series of wagers and the effect of edge for those wagers on bankroll size. (Even though the report is a simulation it uses actual final odds and actual win payoffs pulled from actual chart data.)

Here's a link to the report itself:
http://www.jcapper.com/Messageboard/Reports/BankrollDetailReport_04.html

Note that the above linked to report shows what happens to a hypothetical player who mistakenly thinks he has a 12.5% edge and who formulates "a plan" whereby he posts up a $5k bankroll and uses the Kelly Criterion for bet sizing on win wagers for every post time favorite during the month of November, 2015.

Note that this hypothetical player who began with a $5k bankroll tapped out by the end of day four (despite the fact that post time favorites won a respectable 41 percent of the races during the simulation - and despite the fact that the simulation shows a win on row #3 for the largest bet made during the simulation.)




-jp

.

[ReplayRandall]

Also, the following table shows the above numbers broken out by odds rank in the win pool:
[code]By: Odds Rank

Rank P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 -2783.50 17634.00 0.8422 3303 8817 .3746 2.8969
2 -3418.60 16866.00 0.7973 1759 8433 .2086 1.6130


Jeff, do me a favor and explain to me why there are 384 more top favorites than 2nd favorites....Must be getting old, I just can't see it.

[thaskalos]

When you read my stuff one of the main reasons I argued for fewer pools on a respective race was to increase volume to lower the take. I said many times lowering the take is the number one aspiration of horseplayers. I don't have any proof it would work - it's not like somebody has tried it - but we know increasing the take has the effect of reducing the volume. The other thing is that the number of good handicappers exceeds the number of good bettors, and by emphasizing the pools where bettors have the best chance of return, you have a better chance of keeping people in the game and maximizing the churn.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I've known some great handicappers who were simply average bettors and struggled to keep their heads above water. I would say excellent betting being a byproduct of excellent handicapping is too simplistic. When you have a horse that you've handicapped on top, you still have to make the decision of whether or not it is value, and by how much, and how to bet the horse. I'm just making the selection process discreet from the investment process, although I could agree there is plenty of overlap.

If I get you correctly, a great handicapper will inherently know Horse A has a 30% chance of winning and he is 4-1 on the board so I'm going to make a bet. He would still have to determine what the size of the bet is.

The other thing I am saying is that the more you simplify your personal betting menu, the less margin for error your handicapping would have, and the lower the probability of making a betting error. In other words, the simpler you keep it, the more likely you'll come out ahead. Obviously if your concern is winning against the take, you have a better chance with the pools with the lower take. And if you are talking about the win pool, at one end of the continuum, if everyone bets the same amount of money, it is possible for 83% of the people to break even. The makes the game tough to overcome, but given the small percentage of people who win long term and the potential for distributing 70-85% of the money bet, the is every reason to be optimistic.

Most of the betting action is generated by the exotics, but, ironically, most of the conversation here revolves around win-betting. "Let's create an effective betting line, compare it to the odds-board, and determine whether or not the wager offers the desired "value"...the conventional wisdom seems to go around here. Well...the truth is that the exacta is the most popular wager nationwide...with the trifecta not far behind. There is no great "secret" to win-betting, IMO...your horse is either a perceived overlay, or it's not. The vast majority of the bettors make their wagering mistakes in the vertical exotics...because they lack the handicapping skills needed in order to properly "grade" the horses in a particular race...to see how they rate among each other. That's why "wheeling" is such a popular topic whenever exotic wagering is discussed around here.

I have never met a long-term profitable win-bettor in my entire life...and the results of the various handicapping exhibitions put on from time to time on this board prove that profitable win-betting is indeed a very difficult endeavor. The betting public is well-aware of this...that's why the exotics are getting the play that they currently do. Of course...the player can go broke betting the exotics just as easily as he can go broke betting to win...and, when he does...he blames the construction of his wagers. But the cardinal sin of overspreading (or underspreading) in the vertical and the horizontal wagers is mainly a HANDICAPPING problem, and not a betting one...IMO. The player does not have the penetrating vision into the race that the advanced handicapping skills provide...and his consequent betting suffers as a result.

I am not saying that the betting aspect of the game is of lesser importance...mind you. BOTH are vital if the horseplayer is to succeed. But, IMO, the wagering aspect of the game is often tied to the individual player's personality, temperament...and psychological make-up. And these are issues that cannot be addressed by simplistic (or even complicated) "money-management" rules. That's why long-term winners at the track are so rare. The endeavor calls for a complete set of skills...and the horseplayer is an incomplete creature, by nature.

[Jeff P]

Jeff, do me a favor and explain to me why there are 384 more top favorites than 2nd favorites....Must be getting old, I just can't see it.

I'm using a simple head count of horses with the lowest odds in each race with no attempt to break ties.

I'm thinking what you noticed is very likely the result of coupled entries.


-jp

.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

About a year and a half ago I made the following post in the private section of my message board:


I then went on to demonstrate this by running something called a Bankroll Detail Report in JCapper. (It's basically a report that shows the detail for individual win bets across a large series of wagers and the effect of edge for those wagers on bankroll size.)


I absolutely get what you were saying.

Ainslie was cribbing from Dr. Burton P. Fabricand. Dr. Fabricand was a Ph.D. from Columbia who published widely in the fields of atomic and nuclear physics, oceanography and finance. Being an aficionado of the Sport of Kings, he thought there had to be a way to apply a high level scientific approach to making money at the track, and in 1965 he published “Horse Sense: A New and Rigorous Application of Mathematical Methods to Successful Betting at the Track.” Fabricand studied 10,035 (I’m sure you’re wondering the same thing I am – why didn’t he stop at 10,000) races and found that a flat bet on every favorite would result in a loss of nine cents on the dollar. Based on the calculations from Fabricand, Ainslie pointed out that simply by betting on the race favorite, the 17% loss gets cut in half.

Ainslie's initial conclusion - that even betting randomly to win, players shouldn't be more than 17% losers - was a very simplistic conclusion which, as we all know, rarely comes out that way. Ainslie channeling Fabricand suggested that you could reduce the loss to 9% by betting favorites. In theory, that all makes sense given the statistics at the time.

My point in my article was that, regardless of what the average pay is for favorites, you can essentially change the take by only betting favorites. So if you bet every favorite, hit at 35%, and get an average mutuel of $5.40, in 100 races you lose $11. The take obviously affects the mutuel price, but otherwise is not something you have to account for. But this assumes every favorite gets the same bet - it doesn't use Kelly, and of course as the average mutuel reduces, it becomes a bigger loss.

What I argued in my article was that if you can successfully eliminate (in the example case) 6 "false favorites" - in other words, you have to do some handicapping - you are a very slight winner. In other words, you can overcome the take with a very simple mechanical betting/handicapping strategy in the win slot, IN THEORY. All you need to know is the percentage of winning favorites and the average mutuel of the favorite, eliminate a few horses in every sequence, and voila, you're not a loser. BUT, you have to eliminate favorites, and you have to eliminate more than a handful to actually make money. But if you are a whale with a 10% rebate, it may make some sense.

This was all done to make the point that even if you aren't a winner in the win pool, you are probably better off in the win pool than the other pools. The interesting thing was in a time period when there were fewer pools (Ainslie called the Daily Double a "lottery bet") and most people were in the win pool, favorites didn't hit at a higher rate than they do today, and they paid an average of 8/5 or 9/5.

Naturally in the article I explain this is not how you bet to win, but that is a different post.

It works, in theory, for any betting position for which you have data. For example, if 10th choices win at 2% and pay an average mutuel of 38-1, if you can eliminate 22 tenth choices in 100 races you break even. It was a theoretical mathematical analysis.

That has all colored my opinion that the win pool should be the number one place for bettors to look, followed by the exacta pool, and in one of my articles I even give you a chart to show when the exacta is an advantageous bet.

[ReplayRandall]

I'm using a simple head count of horses with the lowest odds in each race with no attempt to break ties.

I'm thinking what you noticed is very likely the result of coupled entries.


-jp

.
Didn't know you were using just head count, now it makes sense.....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I hope there are people reading the thread that think it's great all this information is flying back and forth! LOL

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Most of the betting action is generated by the exotics, but, ironically, most of the conversation here revolves around win-betting. "Let's create an effective betting line, compare it to the odds-board, and determine whether or not the wager offers the desired "value"...the conventional wisdom seems to go around here. Well...the truth is that the exacta is the most popular wager nationwide...with the trifecta not far behind. There is no great "secret" to win-betting, IMO...your horse is either a perceived overlay, or it's not. The vast majority of the bettors make their wagering mistakes in the vertical exotics...because they lack the handicapping skills needed in order to properly "grade" the horses in a particular race...to see how they rate among each other. That's why "wheeling" is such a popular topic whenever exotic wagering is discussed around here.

I have never met a long-term profitable win-bettor in my entire life...and the results of the various handicapping exhibitions put on from time to time on this board prove that profitable win-betting is indeed a very difficult endeavor. The betting public is well-aware of this...that's why the exotics are getting the play that they currently do. Of course...the player can go broke betting the exotics just as easily as he can go broke betting to win...and, when he does...he blames the construction of his wagers. But the cardinal sin of overspreading (or underspreading) in the vertical and the horizontal wagers is mainly a HANDICAPPING problem, and not a betting one...IMO. The player does not have the penetrating vision into the race that the advanced handicapping skills provide...and his consequent betting suffers as a result.

I am not saying that the betting aspect of the game is of lesser importance...mind you. BOTH are vital if the horseplayer is to succeed. But, IMO, the wagering aspect of the game is often tied to the individual player's personality, temperament...and psychological make-up. And these are issues that cannot be addressed by simplistic (or even complicated) "money-management" rules. That's why long-term winners at the track are so rare. The endeavor calls for a complete set of skills...and the horseplayer is an incomplete creature, by nature.

Again, I am in general agreement. In my prime, when horseracing was actually a viable game where I lived, and there wasn't simulcast wagering, I was a winner 8 years in a row, and almost all my action was win, exactas and trifectas. When the track closed, other than road trips, I rarely got to make bets. Lately I have stuck fairly close to my 50-25-25 formula, and have been ahead the last two years. I've never suggested being a win bettor only - just focusing the biggest part of your bankroll on that pool because it is the simplest pool in which to calculate your advantage. The exacta is a logical extension from the win pool, and the trifecta a logical extension from the exacta pool.

Perhaps this is temperament, but I very quickly got sick and tired of having a 4-1 winner on top and seeing my second place horse run third. That convinced me that the win bet has to be made in conjunction with the exotics as long as the top choice is an overlay. You bet an exacta and you put a horse on top, you are in essence making a win bet. Same with the trifecta. Same with the Pick-3/4 when you single a horse. In each of those bets you have to determine if you are better off in the win pool, and that is no easy calculation. If you bet $40 into the P4 pool, and you single a horse at 7/2, you need to have a good sense your P4 will pay more than $180 for 50 cents. I find it amazing how some people will happily throw $40 into the P4 pool with a single but can't make more than a $5 straight win bet. If you want to watch your head explode, watch some of the tickets the TVG guys construct. Talk about not understanding the percentages of betting.

I don't have a formula. But I have a sense of whether I should focus my money to win or on a combination bet. I generally stay away from supers, P5/P6, and will occasionally bet the P3/P4, specifically when I have a strong opinion against a very short priced favorite and in favor of medium priced horses in all the legs.

We used to be good friends with the head state tax guy assigned to NYRA (a Greek guy coincidentally). One time I was in his office between the 8th and 9th races, and he was excited because he had bet a $20 DD wheel to a horse in the 9th. It was a $200 bet and the horse in the 9th was going to pay $9 to win. I suggested to him after checking the probables in the 8th, he should have bet those DD's that paid over $450 (for $20) and bet the rest to win. If one of the favorites won the 8th, the DD would have paid a lot less than the $900 to win he would have collected betting the $200 on his horse. But it was ok to split the bet because the combination of win and DD on the longer priced horses in the 8th would have maximized the collection. He could not see that, and it is the case a lot of people don't get the numbers. If you wheel or ladder, you won't get encouraging comments from me.

[AndyC]

What's that? A teaser? Should we try to divine why you think that?

Why would anybody think otherwise? If horses are bet in the same percentages in horizontal bets as they are in the win pool the horizontal bet would never pay less than a parlay. It's only when combos are overbet in relation to their win odds that a return less than a parlay happens.

[pandy]

Arapahoe Park did. Because instead of a $1,500 pool, they'd get a $500 pool.


Halv, You make a good point about the small tracks, but generally speaking I would disagree with you. Industry insiders (people who work in management at the racetracks) have indicated that at the bigger tracks that have good handle, the lower minimums result in bigger pools overall. This is a more complex issue than it seems because of the high takeouts and general mismanagement of the racing industry. When the takeout is reasonable and an exotic wager is well crafted and marketed, lower minimums result in dramatically higher handle.

Some of the biggest pools in the history of racing have been generated with bets that were under $1.00. For instance, in Sweden they have the V75, which is a harness Pick 7 with a 10 cent minimum. This is one of the most popular bets in the world with an average pool of $11 million. The highest payout was $9.4 million. This bet is available on Twinspires and the races are on Saturdays.


http://www.twinspires.com/v75


There are many other examples of this, including this $3 million dollar 50 cent Pick 5 pool at Del Mar:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/horse-racing/sdut-del-mar-makes-horseracing-history-pick-5-pool-2012aug15-story.html

[pandy]

The biggest problem with pool size is the amount of bets that are being offered. For instance, at the small tracks, it may be true that low minimums reduce handle, but the problem is magnified by having too many pools. For instance, there are tracks that generate $400,000 total handle for a 10 race card and have 50 cent trifectas and 10 cent superfectas in every race, pllus many other bets. They would be better off with one 10 cent superfecta in the largest field, or even a higher minimum superfecta, such as $1.00, but in a big field and only in one race.

When I first started betting superfectas at the NY harness tracks, there was only one superfecta a night and the minimum bet was $3.00. The pools were huge. People would actually go partners with friends and send someone to the track to bet the race.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Halv, You make a good point about the small tracks, but generally speaking I would disagree with you. Industry insiders (people who work in management at the racetracks) have indicated that at the bigger tracks that have good handle, the lower minimums result in bigger pools overall. This is a more complex issue than it seems because of the high takeouts and general mismanagement of the racing industry. When the takeout is reasonable and an exotic wager is well crafted and marketed, lower minimums result in dramatically higher handle.

Some of the biggest pools in the history of racing have been generated with bets that were under $1.00. For instance, in Sweden they have the V75, which is a harness Pick 7 with a 10 cent minimum. This is one of the most popular bets in the world with an average pool of $11 million. The highest payout was $9.4 million. This bet is available on Twinspires and the races are on Saturdays.


http://www.twinspires.com/v75


There are many other examples of this, including this $3 million dollar 50 cent Pick 5 pool at Del Mar:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/horse-racing/sdut-del-mar-makes-horseracing-history-pick-5-pool-2012aug15-story.html
I appreciate the perspective, and I certainly could be wrong about the handle. Even so, I'd still question how advantageous it is for people to bet $12 worth of 10 cent combinations to receive 3-1 on their money when they hit. I mean, isn't easier to do that in the win pool? To hit a big superfecta you may have to bet a really large number of combinations, which I'd readily admit is far more doable at 10 cents than at a dollar, but I'd still wonder about ROI if you were betting that way. As I've mentioned, I've got no empirical data on this, so the 10 cent super advocates may be 100% right.

What would be interesting to know is what the average person bets in 10 cent combinations. Assuming everyone is betting a dime on each combination of the superfecta, a $40,000 pool (that was yesterday's average pool at AQU) has 400,000 bets. That's a lot of combinations per bettor, and it still makes me want to ask the question, does that mean they would have handled less than the average at a higher minimum? I don't doubt tracks believe they have higher handle with lower minimums - to believe otherwise would make you like the few bankers who warned the housing bubble was going to burst before it did - unemployed. What I know about economics is that if you lower the price, you increase sales, but if you lower the price too much you may not increase sales to the point where revenues were equivalent to what they were at the higher price. Similarly you can raise price, and if you do it right you may decrease sales but increase revenues. In the superfecta, you have to sell greater than 10 times the humber of combinations to equal revenues at a dollar. At the smaller tracks they would only get 3-5 times the number of combinations bet, but obviously the potential pool of bettors is a lot smaller at those tracks. I'm wondering if that would fully explain why the larger tracks would get more than 10 times the combinations bet with a 10 cent minimum. Unless one of those tracks actually changes the minimum, we're mostly stuck speculating.

I remember when the P6 first came to CA. It was a huge success. But if I remember correctly, it took years to catch on in NY. Sometimes bets, like the V75, capture the imagination of people and do much better than you might expect them to do. I'll admit that the few times a year PowerBall hit half a billion I bought a ticket. As they used to quip in the lottery, if you never play you never win.

[pandy]

I understand both sides. Most professional bettors or whales probably prefer higher minimums. But if horseracing is going to survive long term, it has to offer an attractive product, and these lower minimums are more enticing to the average person.

My parents went to Vegas in the 1960's and played blackjack for $1.00. My mom had never played blackjack. My dad gave her $100 and she sat there for hours playing a game that she essentially knew nothing about, and she had a great time. My parents became Casino regulars.

Now that the blackjack tables have much higher minimums, you are only going to get hard core players, which makes it harder to attract new fans.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I understand both sides. Most professional bettors or whales probably prefer higher minimums. But if horseracing is going to survive long term, it has to offer an attractive product, and these lower minimums are more enticing to the average person.

My parents went to Vegas in the 1960's and played blackjack for $1.00. My mom had never played blackjack. My dad gave her $100 and she sat there for hours playing a game that she essentially knew nothing about, and she had a great time. My parents became Casino regulars.

Now that the blackjack tables have much higher minimums, you are only going to get hard core players, which makes it harder to attract new fans.

I totally get that. I think that when my grandfather first started playing the races, the minimum bet was $2 and that was back when Herbert Hoover was president. Had tracks never changed the minimum from $2, I'm guessing no one would have complained. But once they dropped the minimums they put themselves in a position they aren't ever likely to get out of. All the people who have figured out they are 50 cent trifecta or 10 cent superfecta bettors would scream holy hell if they took away the bet at this point. It may be too late to change the minimums.

The 80-20 rule applies to a lot of things. Like taxes - 20% of the people pay 80% of the taxes. You simply have to have a balance between the 80% and the 20% and not always cater entirely to one group of the other. But, keeping the small player happy can't come at the expense of the big players either. Tracks need to figure out how to maximize revenue, which may be different than having the most people feel good.

[pandy]

If done correctly, you can satisfy both. Tracks have to figure out which bets do well with the lower minimums, and where that minimum should be. The Meadowlands harness track lowered the Pick 4 from a buck to 50 cents and handle went up. But I was told that their testing showed that if they lowered it to 20 cents the handle would have dropped.

If you look at the Pick 5, the 50 cent minimum works for that bet.

[Nitro]

The problem I have with discussions like this is that the audience and those responding are in all likelihood betting at different levels with varying bankroll sizes. So, when talking about bet sizes involving a Vertical or Horizontal exotic one man’s betting size comfort zone may be too rich for another man’s blood. Not only that, because very often the resultant overall bet size which is determined by the number of entries used and the bet structure may seem to be an exorbitant amount to one player and very reasonable to another. Very often this can also be caused by not fully recognizing the betting structure itself.

For example, this past Sat I posted my selections for the Santa Anita Derby using my usual format with 2 Keys and 3 others. http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=137613&page=3

It just so happened that those 5 selections were among the top 5 finishers in the race. Yet, the last comment on the thread indicated to me that the poster first of all thought that a full Super box (5x4x3x2 = 120 combos @ $2/ea = $240) of those picks was a bit much. Personally I don’t, but he also doesn’t realize that there’s a simple way of reducing the bet size by structuring the bet properly when considering that the 2 Keys are there for a reason. It actually costs a bit more (4x3x2 = 24 x 4 positions = 96 x 2 Keys = 192 bets x $2 = $384), but if both keys wind up finishing in the Top 4, you hit the Super Twice!


I have never met a long-term profitable win-bettor in my entire life...and the results of the various handicapping exhibitions put on from time to time on this board prove that profitable win-betting is indeed a very difficult endeavor. The betting public is well-aware of this...that's why the exotics are getting the play that they currently do. Of course...the player can go broke betting the exotics just as easily as he can go broke betting to win...and, when he does...he blames the construction of his wagers. But the cardinal sin of overspreading (or underspreading) in the vertical and the horizontal wagers is mainly a HANDICAPPING problem, and not a betting one...IMO. The player does not have the penetrating vision into the race that the advanced handicapping skills provide...and his consequent betting suffers as a result.
I disagree with this only because in my mind I believe that handicapping or any selection process for that matter has nothing to with arriving at a decision to make or break an Exotic play. (At least a Vertical type) The final decision for play has to be based simply on the odds Value of the pre-selected entries and compared to size of the anticipated bet.

In the example above the odds of my selections were holding steady at the following levels:

9(3/1) – 2(3/1) W/ 8(6/1) – 13(12/1) – 3(7/1)

My personal Value calculator for a Super play: (Note both Keys had same value)
3/1 x 6/1 x 12/1 x 7/1 = 1512/1 x $2 = $3,024 Return (on the high-side with 1 Key)
Of course, if both Keys finish in the Top 4 the Return is less, but you hit the Super Twice.
So, I’m figuring about an 8/1 Return. The actual Return of $4,198. (11/1) was a bonus!

Unfortunately with Horizontal beting you don’t have the same advantage of determining a possible Return and comparing that to a necessary bet size.

[AndyC]

Lower minimums have been good for the track and the player from a tax administration perspective. Far fewer signers for the players and far less work for the clerks and ADWs. Dodging the taxman is done by large and small players alike. I doubt that a poll of larger players would find a big call for higher minimums.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If done correctly, you can satisfy both. Tracks have to figure out which bets do well with the lower minimums, and where that minimum should be. The Meadowlands harness track lowered the Pick 4 from a buck to 50 cents and handle went up. But I was told that their testing showed that if they lowered it to 20 cents the handle would have dropped.

If you look at the Pick 5, the 50 cent minimum works for that bet.

That is exactly the point. There is a value that will maximize revenues, and lowering the minimum doesn't always increase revenue.

I'd be interested to see if the increase in volume held up a year later.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Lower minimums have been good for the track and the player from a tax administration perspective. Far fewer signers for the players and far less work for the clerks and ADWs. Dodging the taxman is done by large and small players alike. I doubt that a poll of larger players would find a big call for higher minimums.

Spot on...and the larger players are no doubt addicted to the "repeat bet" dime button....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Here's a piece from Pull the Pocket that makes the point on pricing I've been pushing.

http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2017/04/how-world-outside-of-racing-sets-prices.html?spref=tw

While the news cycle is dominated by a black swan, where one customer did something 45,999 didn't the last year, [the airline passenger who refused to de-plane] the pricing system done by airlines in near-perfect competition seems to be working as prescribed. Why? Because they set prices by study, experimentation, field tests and everything you're supposed to. Racing might want to try it someday.

There is someone who knows a lot about econometrics who can figure out the ideal number of bets per event, the pricing of those bets and the take that would maximize revenues. I agree it would be great if racing hired that guy to do an analysis.

[EasyGoer89]

There's no 50 c exa? Aren't they showing 50 cent prices I could have sworn I saw that displayed

[thaskalos]

I disagree with this only because in my mind I believe that handicapping or any selection process for that matter has nothing to with arriving at a decision to make or break an Exotic play. (At least a Vertical type) The final decision for play has to be based simply on the odds Value of the pre-selected entries and compared to size of the anticipated bet.

In the example above the odds of my selections were holding steady at the following levels:

9(3/1) – 2(3/1) W/ 8(6/1) – 13(12/1) – 3(7/1)

My personal Value calculator for a Super play: (Note both Keys had same value)
3/1 x 6/1 x 12/1 x 7/1 = 1512/1 x $2 = $3,024 Return (on the high-side with 1 Key)
Of course, if both Keys finish in the Top 4 the Return is less, but you hit the Super Twice.
So, I’m figuring about an 8/1 Return. The actual Return of $4,198. (11/1) was a bonus!

Unfortunately with Horizontal beting you don’t have the same advantage of determining a possible Return and comparing that to a necessary bet size.

Using your "Value calculator for a Super play"...the 3/1 x 6/1 x 12/1 x 7/1 sequence suggests a $3,024 $2 payoff.

But if we realign the hypothetical outcome in the order of 12/1 x 7/1 x 6/1 x 3/1...the calculated expected superfecta return remains the same $3,024 for $2. Does this appear logical to you? Because, to me, these two odds sequences do not look as if they would generate similar superfecta payoffs.

[ultracapper]

When you multiply a series of numbers, regardless of what order you put them in, you will arrive at the same sum.

[ultracapper]

Never mind the math tutorial Thask. I see what you're getting at.

[Poindexter]

The true math on a superfecta fair value payoff should look like this(I believe).

A=Chances of top(horse who won) horse winning
B=Chances of 2nd horse(horse who came 2nd) coming 2nd assuming top choice wins
C=Chances of 3rd horse(horse who came 3rd) coming 3rd assuming top choice wins and 2nd horse comes 2nd
D=Chances of 4th horse coming 4th(horse who came 4th) assuming top choice wins and 2nd horse came 2nd and 3rd horse came 3rd.

Easy formula AXBXCXD.

Now assuming that the horses win odds were reflective of their chances of coming 2nd, 3rd, 4th......than the math would be easy(of course that is a fault assumption-as some horses might have very little chance to win but a very reasonable chance of coming in 4th or 5th-maybe due to running style or how the race figures to play out). Also if you make your own line than you probably need to factor in a blended line. Since you do not know what the super is paying anyhow, doing any math on this is sort of pointless unless of course you are madigster lugi(forgive my spelling) who has the ability I am certain to project the superfecta probabilities and payoffs within a buck or 2.

But assuming 3-1 over 6-1 over 7-1 over 12-1 represented fair value and not final odds (assuming I did not screw up my spreadsheet then the fair value for a super would be
$639-1 where as reversed 12-1 over 7-1 over 6-1 over 3-1 I get $1405-1 as the fair value.

[Nitro]

Using your "Value calculator for a Super play"...the 3/1 x 6/1 x 12/1 x 7/1 sequence suggests a $3,024 $2 payoff.

But if we realign the hypothetical outcome in the order of 12/1 x 7/1 x 6/1 x 3/1...the calculated expected superfecta return remains the same $3,024 for $2. Does this appear logical to you? Because, to me, these two odds sequences do not look as if they would generate similar superfecta payoffs.

Yes, it did in fact SUGGEST that type of payoff, but I’m sure that you and anyone else that’s really interested must be able to grasp that it’s just a rough estimate. Generally, when only using this type of calculation a very conservative estimate of the payoff will result.

Of course, the final order of finish will have an impact as evidenced by the actual return of $4,198.. However, it’s not just the “order of finish” that impacts the Value of these type of Vertical exotics. The Actual number of entries in the race also has a significant influence because that number will affect the actual pool size and final return as well. I also use a unique factor that takes this into consideration. I didn’t want to include that variable and possibly complicate my example any more than it apparently is.

When all is said and done there’s NO real concern (In this particular case) about the final order of finish as long as 4 of the 5 selections are there at the end of the race. That’s because of the betting structure that was used. (It takes all possibilities of the order of finish into consideration!)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It's a fascinating calculation, and I'm wondering why it works, at least considering it doesn't represent the actual probability of a respective finish occurring (which is why it looked like no matter what the order of finish the probable pay was the same). Although making a real calculation of probability would probably take up a lot of time, would be very subjective, and wouldn't have much value in return.

[thespaah]

I do not know what there is for me to think about. The more options I have the more I bet. The less the minimum is the more I bet simply because I can get the proper coverage. Maybe in your world a pick 4 involves a 2x2x3x4 ticket. That is not how I play pick 4'. If I am keying a 30-1 longshot to come 3rd in the tri, say 4x8x1 and 1x8x1 and 1x4x1. At a buck that is too much to bet on the said horse to come 3rd. At 50 cents it is affordable and playable.

You make the assumption that everyone bets like you. We don't.

Honestly I have no clue what your point is. I am done with the subject. You believe what you want, but I assure you the numbers in my previous post are accurate. Smaller minimums and more options equal much more money bet. Maybe I am the exception and not the rule, but I doubt it.

I have seen this argument before.
Clearly, there is a rift between the professional/high volume players and the general public. I might even go as far as to call it a hostile rivalry.
The pro players want large pools to shoot at and want their strikes to result in large payoffs. the pros seem to view the public as useless interlopers into their livelihood. Frankly, it appears to me, they would rather we not bet at all.
On the other hand, the public unfairly view the pro players as pool manipulating rich guys who want the public to "donate" and walk away.
So its a no win.
I have seen other ideas. One such is separate pools on horizontal and vertical bets where the minimums are $1 or $2 for the large volume players and the smaller mins for everyone else.
Now, why this cannot work is the old "stick in the mud" attitude the industry and to a greater extent, the bettors who view pari-mutuel wagering must remain as is. Excuse me, but don't casinos do the same thing? Casinos have the general tables and then they have the "velvet rope' areas for the whales.
Surely the tracks can hire programmers to write the programs into the systems that would permit this.
When the machine breaks down, people want it changed. But in the same instance, they also fear it. They cannot have it both ways. We've reached a tipping point. Something has to give.

[thespaah]

The value gets sucked dry w small minimums, i agree that in a 10 horse race you can buy the winner for 500. If the bet was a buck, most can't buy it, they have to HANDICAP it.

Ah....I have heard that music before.
This is what I was able to I overheard at the track...."People that bet a lot of combinations are not handicapping."
To that I politely say "BUNK".....I will concur that if a bettor buys the entire field, that's not handicapping. Ok fine. But who the hell is anyone to decide how another person spends their money?
If I want to play 6 of 9 in a bunch of Tri or Super combos, that is MY freakin business. The difference is I am not handicapping to include. I am handicapping to exclude.
I stand down from my soap box.

[thespaah]

The theory dragged out here with regard to low minimum bets is that everybody can now make bets and get coverage that only the brave and rich dared take in the past. My problem with this theory is that if value was so apparent with high minimums you would have to believe that smart whales would swoop in and suck the value right out.

My use of "static' referred to a type of play that would always be profitable because so few players could afford to play it.

"smart whales would swoop in and suck the value right out."
How do you know they do not?
Quite frankly, the point of this is the whales are complaining about the low payoffs on vertical bets and they blame the low minimums.
Ok, if the whales were not trying to scoop the pots, then why complain about the low payoffs?...

[EasyGoer89]

Ah....I have heard that music before.
This is what I was able to I overheard at the track...."People that bet a lot of combinations are not handicapping."
To that I politely say "BUNK".....I will concur that if a bettor buys the entire field, that's not handicapping. Ok fine. But who the hell is anyone to decide how another person spends their money?
If I want to play 6 of 9 in a bunch of Tri or Super combos, that is MY freakin business. The difference is I am not handicapping to include. I am handicapping to exclude.
I stand down from my soap box.

It's easier for Joe blow to have a stray 50 cents on a longshot combo, much harder to catch a tri with bombs littered in the top 3 with a buck minimum, that buck bet would prevent a few strays from catching it and watering it down.

Buck supers on derby day is a day and a bet I wait for all year.

[AndyC]

"smart whales would swoop in and suck the value right out."
How do you know they do not?
Quite frankly, the point of this is the whales are complaining about the low payoffs on vertical bets and they blame the low minimums.
Ok, if the whales were not trying to scoop the pots, then why complain about the low payoffs?...

My point was that with higher minimums, if there was a corridor of value created by a lack of ability to cover combinations, then the whales would swoop in and cover that corridor. Low minimums create a much better distribution of opinion, so in order to win your opinion must differ from the public's.

[EasyGoer89]

My point was that with higher minimums, if there was a corridor of value created by a lack of ability to cover combinations, then the whales would swoop in and cover that corridor. Low minimums create a much better distribution of opinion, so in order to win your opinion must differ from the public's.

But this suggests that regardless of the minimum, the prices are the same. Santa Anita and Golden Gate have buck trifectas, are you saying they would pay the same if they were lowered to 50?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The difference between good bettors and bad bettors is that they understand the percentages and exploit them. The simplest example is being able to identify overlays in the win pool. If you can exploit the percentages, you can win. Whales exploit the percentages and make profit based on volume.

Good bettors also understand that ROI is a longer term statistic. When I'm playing the Pick-4, I want to give myself a chance to hit a 500-1 payoff (based on total amount invested), with the understanding that the more common lower paying Pick-4's have the primary purpose of keeping the account capitalized. You balance the need to stay alive with the ideal of catching the big ones. If you only bet to catch the big ones, you have to be able to sustain long periods of loss, which is why people who bet that way prefer low minimums. It overcomes, to a small degree, betting against the percentages.

There is only one measure of success at the track. Did you come out ahead? Or at least, if you lost, did you get value for your entertainment dollar.

[Poindexter]

[QUOTE=HalvOnHorseracing;2158009]The difference between good bettors and bad bettors is that they understand the percentages and exploit them. The simplest example is being able to identify overlays in the win pool. If you can exploit the percentages, you can win. Whales exploit the percentages and make profit based on volume.

Good bettors also understand that ROI is a longer term statistic. When I'm playing the Pick-4, I want to give myself a chance to hit a 500-1 payoff (based on total amount invested), with the understanding that the more common lower paying Pick-4's have the primary purpose of keeping the account capitalized. You balance the need to stay alive with the ideal of catching the big ones. If you only bet to catch the big ones, you have to be able to sustain long periods of loss, which is why people who bet that way prefer low minimums. It overcomes, to a small degree, betting against the percentages.

There is only one measure of success at the track. Did you come out ahead? Or at least, if you lost, did you get value for your entertainment dollar.[/QUOTE$


Enlighten me please. If I can spend about $250 into a 50 cent pick 4 and have about a 40% chance of hitting, why exactly do I need 500-1 on my total investment? Wouldn't an average payoff of $1000 (which is only 4 times my outlay) make it a very profitable long term play?

[AndyC]

But this suggests that regardless of the minimum, the prices are the same. Santa Anita and Golden Gate have buck trifectas, are you saying they would pay the same if they were lowered to 50?

Are you suggesting that because of lower minimums that bettors are wildly playing wildly playing numerous combinations thus bringing down payoffs for everybody? It is completely illogical to believe that higher minimums will always yield value in the longshot category because of lack of coverage. For every under covered gem that you might hit, you will probably hit 3 others that are way over covered.

Personally, I am for the minimum bet size that will produce the highest pool amounts.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

[QUOTE=HalvOnHorseracing;2158009]The difference between good bettors and bad bettors is that they understand the percentages and exploit them. The simplest example is being able to identify overlays in the win pool. If you can exploit the percentages, you can win. Whales exploit the percentages and make profit based on volume.

Good bettors also understand that ROI is a longer term statistic. When I'm playing the Pick-4, I want to give myself a chance to hit a 500-1 payoff (based on total amount invested), with the understanding that the more common lower paying Pick-4's have the primary purpose of keeping the account capitalized. You balance the need to stay alive with the ideal of catching the big ones. If you only bet to catch the big ones, you have to be able to sustain long periods of loss, which is why people who bet that way prefer low minimums. It overcomes, to a small degree, betting against the percentages.

There is only one measure of success at the track. Did you come out ahead? Or at least, if you lost, did you get value for your entertainment dollar.[/QUOTE$


Enlighten me please. If I can spend about $250 into a 50 cent pick 4 and have about a 40% chance of hitting, why exactly do I need 500-1 on my total investment? Wouldn't an average payoff of $1000 (which is only 4 times my outlay) make it a very profitable long term play?

If you can accurately calculate 40% hit percentage, then if you can get 9/5 on your investment you are at least break even. So to make it easy, if you are hitting four bets out of 10 and you are investing $200 per bet, each payoff has to average $500 for 50 cents (that's $2,000 per $2 bet) to break even.

If you're getting $1,000 (that would be an average payoff of $4,000 for a $2 bet) each time you collect on your Pick-4, you are making even money on the Pick-4. So if you think even money is a long term profitable play, yes, you're doing great. The only problem is that you have to get those P4's to pay $1,000 for 50 cents when you hit them.

I looked at the late P4 for Aqueduct for the month of April. That was 16 days, admittedly not a robust sample, but just for grins.

- The average P4 payoff was $682 for 50 cents

- If you hit 40% of the P4's (that would be six) and you only hit the highest paying P4's, that would have been an average collection of $1,352 for 50 cents. Of course, that would be a pretty low probability assumption, and considering one of those P4's paid $10,366 for $2, if you take that P4 payoff out you'd be averaging $920 for each 50 cent ticket.

- In 16 events you'd bet $3,200. If you hit the six highest paying P4's, you'd have collected $8,116 in 50 cent bets. That would give you a massive return of 3/2 on your money. If you take out the highest paying collection, your collection would go down to $5,524, meaning you got a little less than 4/5 on your investment. And that's assuming you are hitting all the biggest P4's

- So it's possible you have a positive ROI betting $200 per bet and hitting at 40%, but you'd have to be phenomenal at collecting. If you hit anything less than the highest paying P4's, it would be hard to have a positive ROI.

The real odds of hitting four even money shots is 6.25%, and that isn't going to pay $1,000 for 50 cents. In order to hit 40%, you'd have to have an 80% probability (on average) of hitting each of the four events. Obviously you'd have to be an amazing handicapper, since if you had 10 runners in two of the events and 8 runners in the other two, you'd have 6,400 combinations and 40% of those combinations is 2,560. Since you are getting 80% probability from only 400 combinations, that would put you in the handicapping elite statistically.

So the answer to your question is, as long as you are getting 25 to 50-1 on your $200 investment 40% of the time, you wouldn't need 500-1. You could make up to 3/2 on your money no problem.

You figure you're beating the races, I say good for you. All I can do is run the numbers based on the assumptions you gave me.

[ReplayRandall]

[quote=Poindexter;2158053]
So it's possible you have a positive ROI betting $200 per bet and hitting at 40%, but you'd have to be phenomenal at collecting. If you hit anything less than the highest paying P4's, it would be hard to have a positive ROI.
Your math is fine, but serious Pick-4 players play "weighted" combos, and throws your simplistic calculation method out the window. The more probable the combo, the serious player will have it 10-20 times, layered down as the probability lessens.....Overall, more money is wagered, but ratio-wise, will achieve the desired hit rate, thus making the endeavor profitable.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

[quote=HalvOnHorseracing;2158332]
Your math is fine, but serious Pick-4 players play "weighted" combos, and throws your simplistic calculation method out the window. The more probable the combo, the serious player will have it 10-20 times, layered down as the probability lessens.....Overall, more money is wagered, but ratio-wise, will achieve the desired hit rate, thus making the endeavor profitable.

Remember I was responding to a post about betting $200 and collecting a thousand. That was how he bet, and the math was just pointing out that (1) a guy betting $200 and collecting $1,000 40% of the time is getting an even money return, and (2) you'd have to be a helluva handicapper to hit P4's that are paying $4,000 for a $2 bet 40% of the time, especially considering the average P4 pays a lot less. In other words, considering the percentage of combinations $200 covers, to hit four or five figure payoffs seems to imply a lot of the money is covering the potential high pay combinations.

I know how serious Pick-4 players play. There was a point in my career when quite a bit of my betting money went into the P4 pool - I can assure you I wasn't a nickel and dime player - and my strategy was to make a little when lower priced horses came in (with multiples), and make a lot when the results were more unpredictable. And I was pretty good at it.

[ReplayRandall]

[]

Remember I was responding to a post about betting $200 and collecting a thousand. That was how he bet, and the math was just pointing out that (1) a guy betting $200 and collecting $1,000 40% of the time is getting an even money return, and (2) you'd have to be a helluva handicapper to hit P4's that are paying $4,000 for a $2 bet 40% of the time, especially considering the average P4 pays a lot less. In other words, considering the percentage of combinations $200 covers, to hit four or five figure payoffs seems to imply a lot of the money is covering the potential high pay combinations.

I know how serious Pick-4 players play. There was a point in my career when quite a bit of my betting money went into the P4 pool - I can assure you I wasn't a nickel and dime player - and my strategy was to make a little when lower priced horses came in (with multiples), and make a lot when the results were more unpredictable. And I was pretty good at it.

It's all good.....we're on the same frequency/signal. I just wanted others who were reading this thread to know what the FULL scenario looks like when played out correctly....

[EasyGoer89]

Are you suggesting that because of lower minimums that bettors are wildly playing wildly playing numerous combinations thus bringing down payoffs for everybody? It is completely illogical to believe that higher minimums will always yield value in the longshot category because of lack of coverage. For every under covered gem that you might hit, you will probably hit 3 others that are way over covered.

Personally, I am for the minimum bet size that will produce the highest pool amounts.

No, but I think with lower minimums, The 'home run' prices aren't such home runs. The odd thing about 50 cent tri is that I haven't seen this split affect the pick 5 payoffs as much as the tri.

When I hit a longshot-ish tri at a 50 cent place, the first thing I say is 'boy i wish this was a buck minimum place' ( unless of course it's a tri I know I wouldn't have hit w buck minimums)

[Murph]

No, but I think with lower minimums, The 'home run' prices aren't such home runs. The odd thing about 50 cent tri is that I haven't seen this split affect the pick 5 payoffs as much as the tri.

When I hit a longshot-ish tri at a 50 cent place, the first thing I say is 'boy i wish this was a buck minimum place' ( unless of course it's a tri I know I wouldn't have hit w buck minimums)
At a couple of tracks I've noticed decent return on short odds combos in tris. It feels like some expert tri money is going to the super pools and leaving some trifecta money on the table. I have better pays recently with a x bc x bcd type tri tickets so I'm trying a few more of these instead of short odds exactas.

[Poindexter]

By the way for those of you who believe that small minimums take away your chance at a score and value, you might want to take a look at the pick 5 at Mohawk tonight(Thursday). Races 1 to 5, 20 cent pick 5

9.90
19.00
47.90
6.1
3.40

a 20 cent parlay came back $2836.05, yet somebody brought down the entire pool for $70,530.22.

[EasyGoer89]

By the way for those of you who believe that small minimums take away your chance at a score and value, you might want to take a look at the pick 5 at Mohawk tonight(Thursday). Races 1 to 5, 20 cent pick 5

9.90
19.00
47.90
6.1
3.40

a 20 cent parlay came back $2836.05, yet somebody brought down the entire pool for $70,530.22.

The pick 5 seems immune to this phenomenon. Check out last race tri price at penn national, that's more in tune with what the 50 cent thing does.

[EasyGoer89]

I think you coulda squeezed out a wee bit more from last race at CD tri, I think that pays more than 160 for a buck if it's a buck bet. Maybe not much more, I think a little bit though. If you said 'what's the lowest price I could get for this' 80 was it I believe. you got the low end, not the high end or even the median.

[EasyGoer89]

Check out 2nd race super price at CD. Buck minimums today. 9 horse field w 2 longest shots out of super, no way that pays 1000 for a dime if there was some split.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

These were the $1 Super payoffs at CD with the odds of the winner.

1 623 (7-2)
2 10,433 (14-1)
3 274 (2-1)
4 1,186 (6-1)
5 1,272 (7-1)
6 2,254 (6-1)
7 2,057 (3-1)
8 3,353 (3-1)
9 13,469 (30-1)
10 2,222 (1-1)
11 85,555 (9-1)
12 402 (3-1)
13 257 (2-1)

I'm not saying if the minimum was a dime the payoffs would have been less across all the races, but when longer prices came in....