PDA

View Full Version : Santa Anita Mandatory Pick 6 Payout. Pool should easily pass 5 million dollars


Andy Asaro
11-04-2018, 10:20 AM
https://twitter.com/Xpressbet/status/1059102471652405248

Andy Asaro
11-04-2018, 11:08 AM
https://twitter.com/DRFInsidePost/status/1059114562438361089

Andy Asaro
11-04-2018, 11:14 AM
https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/1059116453402558466

MadVindication
11-04-2018, 12:36 PM
Sounds like a great day to pick horses 'cause I like their names. :4: Kazan in R8 :2: Lord Guinness R9 on my tix for sure.

ronsmac
11-04-2018, 01:48 PM
My favorite thing about the rainbow p6 at Santa Anita is they way the onsite talent urged people to bet every day. Telling everyone how great a bet it was before the big whales swooped in on the final day.

Andy Asaro
11-04-2018, 03:43 PM
https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/1059183828520984576

:3::8::11: to start it off for me. Good luck.

Andy Asaro
11-04-2018, 04:37 PM
https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/1059197574114988033

:1::10: to keep going and start a pick 5. Good luck.

Andy Asaro
11-04-2018, 05:10 PM
:11: singled Good luck.

Friggin chalkfest

MadVindication
11-04-2018, 06:00 PM
:3::4:

But one down anyway

Andy Asaro
11-04-2018, 07:21 PM
Paid $601.10 (6OF6)

SharpCat
11-04-2018, 07:39 PM
Paid $601.10 (6OF6)


Not even close to right mate. Try $3005.50 for 6 of 6.

GMB@BP
11-04-2018, 07:43 PM
Not even close to right mate. Try $3005.50 for 6 of 6.

no, you guys are using different bet amounts

20 cent paid 600, the $1 paid 3k.

jay68802
11-04-2018, 07:44 PM
Not even close to right mate. Try $3005.50 for 6 of 6.

For $1.00, it paid that, for $.20 it paid $601.10.

BillC
11-04-2018, 07:53 PM
It's a 20 cent bet, if you bet the minimum you got a payoff of $601.10. That doesn't sound like much, but think of it this way -- if you used a betting unit of $100 per combo instead of $0.20, your payoff would have been a princely $300,550.00. And yet people will still insist on saying that the modest $600 and change minimum bet payoff on an almost $8 million pool was anti-climatic.

Robert Fischer
11-04-2018, 08:42 PM
$600/.20 ,3k/$ does not entice...

5 of 6 favorites won, and a third-choice won the other race

in order to profit from a payout that low, you either need to have scored a lottery 'single' type of ticket, played all favorites, or a whale really 'emphasizing' favorites with a series of tix.

If you did the ABC thing, you could spend $300 or so in 20cent tickets ...

rrpic6
11-05-2018, 08:06 AM
$600/.20 ,3k/$ does not entice...

5 of 6 favorites won, and a third-choice won the other race

in order to profit from a payout that low, you either need to have scored a lottery 'single' type of ticket, played all favorites, or a whale really 'emphasizing' favorites with a series of tix.

If you did the ABC thing, you could spend $300 or so in 20cent tickets ...


Redboard alert! Great value for a 20 cent bet. The only time I bet the Pick 6 this meet. Hard to believe it would have paid 6K for the conventional $2.00 Ticket. Parlay was less than half that.




Race 5 Santa Anita $0.20 P6 (PWHL) 3, 6, 11 / 1 / 6, 8, 11 / 3, 8, 9 / 4, 6 / 2, 3, 9, 10 Bet $43.20 $601.10


RR

airford1
11-05-2018, 11:47 AM
Horse racing keeps making the wagering so difficult to understand for the new player. The jackpot wager is STUPID and we have to listen to Santa Anita officials keep telling us that it is a ray of hope for the future of racing in this Economy. I cant believe horse racing goes from Breeders Cup on Saturday and then HIPES Up the mandatory pay out on the Crappy Jackpot 6. Pretty sad.
:bang:

Andy Asaro
11-05-2018, 11:53 AM
Horse racing keeps making the wagering so difficult to understand for the new player. The jackpot wager is STUPID and we have to listen to Santa Anita officials keep telling us that it is a ray of hope for the future of racing in this Economy. I cant believe horse racing goes from Breeders Cup on Saturday and then HIPES Up the mandatory pay out on the Crappy Jackpot 6. Pretty sad.
:bang:

The mandatory payout days are the best bets you're ever gonna bet on. 7.9 million dollar pool. It doesn't get better than that.

ronsmac
11-05-2018, 01:39 PM
The mandatory payout days are the best bets you're ever gonna bet on. 7.9 million dollar pool. It doesn't get better than that.When it's 20c bet the 6.8 million bet doesn't really help the bettor but it's great for the track. The payoff would have been much higher if yesterday's pool had been much smaller. The 1.1 million dollar carryover would have had a greater impact on the payoff.

AndyC
11-05-2018, 03:41 PM
When it's 20c bet the 6.8 million bet doesn't really help the bettor but it's great for the track. The payoff would have been much higher if yesterday's pool had been much smaller. The 1.1 million dollar carryover would have had a greater impact on the payoff.

The carryover didn't even cover the takeout on the new money. Hard to get terribly excited about jumping into that pool.

Andy Asaro
11-05-2018, 03:51 PM
I've never heard the "pool was too big for me to bet" argument but here it is. If the payouts were 20K for 50 cents instead of $600 I don't think people would be making the same argument IMO

JohnGalt1
11-05-2018, 04:29 PM
How many lost money winning the SUCKER jackpot 6 Sunday with $7 million in the pool?

On e should not lose money on bets like superfecta's, pick 5's and sixes.

I played Santa Anita twice this fall, and yes I played a pick six ticket yesterday for $28.80, because it was cheap. After I saw what it paid, I felt I had just bought a fake Rolex that didn't work. I'm a SUCKER.

At least I had winning days both times I played.

I was surprised Churchill had $2 pick six bets Friday and Saturday.


I hope new York doesn't change.

At least there are pick 4 and 5's to play than can return boxcar payoffs, except at tracks like Canterbury that have a SUCKER jackpot 5.

Another good thing is if people avoid all SUCKER bets they will have a better chance at profits because they will churn their money more efficiently.

ronsmac
11-05-2018, 04:44 PM
I've never heard the "pool was too big for me to bet" argument but here it is. If the payouts were 20K for 50 cents instead of $600 I don't think people would be making the same argument IMO The point isn't that the pool is too big or too small ,the point is the larger the pool in relation to the carryover the less value. If only $1,000,000 was bet yesterday it would have been a tremendous value to have a 1.1 million dollar carryover. It was still better than the horrible value you normally get with the jackpot p6 I'll give you that.but it's bankroll sucking get every other day.

Andy Asaro
11-05-2018, 05:05 PM
The point isn't that the pool is too big or too small ,the point is the larger the pool in relation to the carryover the less value. If only $1,000,000 was bet yesterday it would have been a tremendous value to have a 1.1 million dollar carryover. It was still better than the horrible value you normally get with the jackpot p6 I'll give you that.but it's bankroll sucking get every other day.

I'll take the 8 million dollar pool over the 2.5 million dollar pool anytime.

castaway01
11-05-2018, 06:24 PM
I'll take the 8 million dollar pool over the 2.5 million dollar pool anytime.

With the $8 million pool, the pool is that big because of all the players who are smarter than you are had the winning ticket multiple times. When it comes out chalky, you lose a lot of your advantage from that carryover.

I guess when the best thing you can say is that one day a year our sucker play is actually decent instead of gouging you to death, then you latch onto it though. So good job carrying the water.

Andy Asaro
11-05-2018, 06:33 PM
With the $8 million pool, the pool is that big because of all the players who are smarter than you are had the winning ticket multiple times. When it comes out chalky, you lose a lot of your advantage from that carryover.

I guess when the best thing you can say is that one day a year our sucker play is actually decent instead of gouging you to death, then you latch onto it though. So good job carrying the water.

You're like Mr. Wrong 90% of time. What was the last shot you took? I was trying to co opt the board because I didn't have any twitter followers. LOL Only about 3400.

If you think betting into yesterdays pool was a sucker play then you have zero credibility. If you thought it would be chalky you play your ticket multiple times. For what came in $600 was pretty good. Without the mandatory payout what would it have paid?

coachv30
11-05-2018, 06:55 PM
I don’t get this....I had the payout twice due to the scratch of 7 in last leg..

$1200 return for a $43.20 ticket. Should I not be happy?

AndyC
11-05-2018, 07:08 PM
I'll take the 8 million dollar pool over the 2.5 million dollar pool anytime.

The math says you are wrong unless of course you hit a ticket with 6 longshots. On a payoff like yesterday you want the carryover to be the biggest percent of the total pool as possible.

AndyC
11-05-2018, 07:24 PM
If you think betting into yesterdays pool was a sucker play then you have zero credibility. If you thought it would be chalky you play your ticket multiple times. For what came in $600 was pretty good. Without the mandatory payout what would it have paid?

It would have paid about $492. Just a tad bit over an 18% premium.

Andy Asaro
11-05-2018, 09:20 PM
The math says you are wrong unless of course you hit a ticket with 6 longshots. On a payoff like yesterday you want the carryover to be the biggest percent of the total pool as possible.

Pool size matters a lot. If it didn't then the experiment at Canterbury where they had P5 takeout at 12% but pools were 10K and they didn't grow during the meet. Same with some other small tracks with low takeout horizontals.

I'd rather play into a pool of 500K with 23.68% take than a 20K pool with 12% takeout.

I understand your point about the math but the reality is that most people want to be able to make a score of 20K -50k in those pools and that can't happen at certain low takeout venues.

Andy Asaro
11-05-2018, 09:22 PM
It would have paid about $492. Just a tad bit over an 18% premium.

Without a mandatory payout wouldn't most of the pool carryover to the jackpot? The fairs do it from meet to meet. Theoretically Santa Anita could hold it over till December 26th if they really wanted to. It would be a PR disaster.

AndyC
11-05-2018, 10:32 PM
Pool size matters a lot. If it didn't then the experiment at Canterbury where they had P5 takeout at 12% but pools were 10K and they didn't grow during the meet. Same with some other small tracks with low takeout horizontals.

I'd rather play into a pool of 500K with 23.68% take than a 20K pool with 12% takeout.

I understand your point about the math but the reality is that most people want to be able to make a score of 20K -50k in those pools and that can't happen at certain low takeout venues.

I think your missing my point and the point Ronsmac was making. We were referring to yesterday's must-pay jackpot. Given the same winning horses and new money of only $3,000,000 the winning payoff would have been much higher. Less new money in the pool helps the payoff on days where the results are formful.

Andy Asaro
11-06-2018, 09:27 AM
I think your missing my point and the point Ronsmac was making. We were referring to yesterday's must-pay jackpot. Given the same winning horses and new money of only $3,000,000 the winning payoff would have been much higher. Less new money in the pool helps the payoff on days where the results are formful.

Yes, I understand your point on the math. Once the new money passed that amount the effective takeout went up.

cj
11-06-2018, 09:46 AM
Are these really great days to bet into these pools any longer? This is the best I can figure from news reports and the charts. There was a 1,143,194 carryover from Saturday. There was 6,745,114 of new money bet into the pool, for a total of 7,888,308.

According to Steve Anderson of DRF, there were 10,466 winning tickets that paid 601.10 each. Simple multiplication tells me that 6,291,112.60 was paid out. Only 79% of the total pool was paid out. Is that supposed to be a "value" bet?

castaway01
11-06-2018, 09:57 AM
Are these really great days to bet into these pools any longer? This is the best I can figure from news reports and the charts. There was a 1,143,194 carryover from Saturday. There was 6,745,114 of new money bet into the pool, for a total of 7,888,308.

According to Steve Anderson of DRF, there were 10,466 winning tickets that paid 601.10 each. Simple multiplication tells me that 6,291,112.60 was paid out. Only 79% of the total pool was paid out. Is that supposed to be a "value" bet?

That's basically what everyone but Andy A. is saying. The only value in these bets is if you happen to be the one person who hits for a million bucks. Once every shark and whale out there is aware of the mandatory payoff, they're smart enough to crush all that value.

cj
11-06-2018, 10:01 AM
That's basically what everyone but Andy A. is saying. The only value in these bets is if you happen to be the one person who hits for a million bucks. Once every shark and whale out there is aware of the mandatory payoff, they're smart enough to crush all that value.

The common theory has been that on mandatory payout days the carryover overcomes the takeout, or greatly reduces it. If the numbers I found are correct, that wasn't the case. People seem to be overbetting the pools on these days to the point of greatly reducing the carryover benefit. I've seen the same at Gulfstream on their massive carryover days, but not to this extent.

I now see I'm late to the party, sorry for not reading back far enough. :)

Robert Fischer
11-06-2018, 10:30 AM
I agree with CJ.

Pool Size cannibalizes the Carryover in general, but especially so in a chalky sequence.


I LOVE huge carryovers. They generally offer a potential for an opportunity. This specific was sequence did not.

It's still a parimutuel game.


**
If there's a silver-lining(for serious multi-race bettors) with this specific recent 'jackpot', it's that EVERYBODY hit! ... Next time or two, it may be rewarding.

Andy Asaro
11-06-2018, 10:33 AM
I agree with CJ.

Pool Size cannibalizes the Carryover in general, but especially so in a chalky sequence.


I LOVE huge carryovers. They generally offer a potential for an opportunity. This specific was sequence did not.

It's still a parimutuel game.

When it looks chalky, and it did look chalky there's not rule against playing a small ticket 10 or 20 times. I'll take the massive pool any day. Kinda why Hong Kong is so successful.

turfnsport
11-06-2018, 10:36 AM
Are these really great days to bet into these pools any longer? This is the best I can figure from news reports and the charts. There was a 1,143,194 carryover from Saturday. There was 6,745,114 of new money bet into the pool, for a total of 7,888,308.

According to Steve Anderson of DRF, there were 10,466 winning tickets that paid 601.10 each. Simple multiplication tells me that 6,291,112.60 was paid out. Only 79% of the total pool was paid out. Is that supposed to be a "value" bet?

The amount of money these jackpot bets take out of circulation is staggering. It is a churn killing sucker bet. These bets are and will continue to send ill informed horseplayers to the exits wondering where their bankroll went.

Andy Asaro
11-06-2018, 10:37 AM
The amount of money these jackpot bets take out of circulation is staggering. It is a churn killing sucker bet. These bets are and will continue to send ill informed horseplayers to the exits wondering where their bankroll went.

I agree with that but we're talking about mandatory payout days and massive pools on that day.

Robert Fischer
11-06-2018, 10:40 AM
When it looks chalky, and it did look chalky there's not rule against playing a small ticket 10 or 20 times. I'll take the massive pool any day. Kinda why Hong Kong is so successful.

No rule, but there's actually a 'law' :pound: against singling sequences of favorites in parimutuel wagering :lol:

I'll take a massive pool any day as well - It offers a potential opportunity.


It does not offer a free ride, long-term, vs. takeout

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

Andy Asaro
11-06-2018, 10:42 AM
No rule, but there's actually a 'law' :pound: against singling sequences of favorites in parimutuel wagering :lol:

I'll take a massive pool any day as well - It offers a potential opportunity.


It does not offer a free ride, long-term, vs. takeout

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

Totally agree with the first point. Very hard for me to do it and lately the chalfests have been killing me. I did what I said for Sunday but singled the 11 horse in the 20k maiden race with the 6 length lead that got caught.

turfnsport
11-06-2018, 10:50 AM
I agree with that but we're talking about mandatory payout days and massive pools on that day.

Keep supporting these bets and sooner rather than later every single minnow in the betting pool will be playing golf.

These bets will eventfully KILL the game.

Best of luck in the meantime.

Andy Asaro
11-06-2018, 10:59 AM
Keep supporting these bets and sooner rather than later every single minnow in the betting pool will be playing golf.

These bets will eventfully KILL the game.

Best of luck in the meantime.

I play every mandatory payout day with 50K or more in the jackpot.

I've been vocal about not liking them and believing they're bad for the game. But here's the thing. There are more and more of them because the tracks make more money from them.

I told Ritvo I didn't like them. His job is to make as much money for the Stronach Group as possible. When you look at the results year over year from Laurel and Gulfstream it's hard to argue that he should eliminate the jackpot wagers.

My point to him is that handle on U.S. racing should be three times what it is and revenue should double. Before the Pacific Classic I met with him and M. Rogers about paying penny breakage on WPS and lowering exacta take to 17.5% and gave them a marketing plan to ensure success. That day they agreed to give it a try. Then crickets. Then this lawsuit.

If we are/were right about jackpot bets then why are they getting more popular? They aren't going away anytime soon unless enough of us boycott and knock handle down 25% or more. I'm up for it but there is nobody/no organization to lead.

Anyway this was my last shot at getting something done. The Stronach Group was the most likely to do it. I'd put the chances of them implementing my recommendations at about 5% and that's high.

turfnsport
11-06-2018, 11:11 AM
I play every mandatory payout day with 50K or more in the jackpot.

I've been vocal about not liking them and believing they're bad for the game. But here's the thing. There are more and more of them because the tracks make more money from them.

I told Ritvo I didn't like them. His job is to make as much money for the Stronach Group as possible. When you look at the results year over year from Laurel and Gulfstream it's hard to argue that he should eliminate the jackpot wagers.

My point to him is that handle on U.S. racing should be three times what it is and revenue should double. Before the Pacific Classic I met with him and M. Rogers about paying penny breakage on WPS and lowering exacta take to 17.5% and gave them a marketing plan to ensure success. That day they agreed to give it a try. Then crickets. Then this lawsuit.

If we are/were right about jackpot bets then why are they getting more popular? They aren't going away anytime soon unless enough of us boycott and knock handle down 25% or more. I'm up for it but there is nobody/no organization to lead.

Anyway this was my last shot at getting something done. The Stronach Group was the most likely to do it. I'd put the chances of them implementing my recommendations at about 5% and that's high.

Sure they are popular, because many do not know they are betting into a wager with a 45+% takeout except on mandatory days. Tracks are selling ill informed customers a bill of goods. Much like the media plays up the Lotto.

They will continue to be popular for another year or two while they slowing erode customers bankrolls until they quit playing.

These bets are as dangerous as anything else wrong in the game right now.

It's really not that hard to see.

cj
11-06-2018, 11:47 AM
I agree with CJ.

Pool Size cannibalizes the Carryover in general, but especially so in a chalky sequence.


I LOVE huge carryovers. They generally offer a potential for an opportunity. This specific was sequence did not.

It's still a parimutuel game.


**
If there's a silver-lining(for serious multi-race bettors) with this specific recent 'jackpot', it's that EVERYBODY hit! ... Next time or two, it may be rewarding.

It really doesn't matter if the sequence was chalky or not. They paid out 79% of the pool, whether it was chalky or six longshots won.

My point about the huge carryovers is they aren't what they used to be. Even the 10,000,000 dollar carryovers at Gulfstream, which used to offer a positive expectation, have become near break even propositions and will probably not be much longer. Bettors are overdoing it IMO.

cj
11-06-2018, 11:50 AM
Sure they are popular, because many do not know they are betting into a wager with a 45+% takeout except on mandatory days. Tracks are selling ill informed customers a bill of goods. Much like the media plays up the Lotto.

They will continue to be popular for another year or two while they slowing erode customers bankrolls until they quit playing.

These bets are as dangerous as anything else wrong in the game right now.

It's really not that hard to see.

The Powerball and such is a positive expectation bet when the carryover gets to 600 million or so, we just aren't likely to live long enough to actually cash in on the odds. :)'

Similar to these pools, though, if five billionaires decided on the same day to bet every number at a cost of 584 million, and the pot was only bet to a billion, they'd lose a ton, as at least five tickets would hit and possibly more.

EDIT:

Boy, what a stupid post that was. If the five billionaires all bet 584 million obviously the pot would be much more than a billion. DOH! :)

In any case, there is still a solid chance they lose money and you can over bet the pools.

ronsmac
11-06-2018, 12:14 PM
I play every mandatory payout day with 50K or more in the jackpot.

I've been vocal about not liking them and believing they're bad for the game. But here's the thing. There are more and more of them because the tracks make more money from them.

I told Ritvo I didn't like them. His job is to make as much money for the Stronach Group as possible. When you look at the results year over year from Laurel and Gulfstream it's hard to argue that he should eliminate the jackpot wagers.

My point to him is that handle on U.S. racing should be three times what it is and revenue should double. Before the Pacific Classic I met with him and M. Rogers about paying penny breakage on WPS and lowering exacta take to 17.5% and gave them a marketing plan to ensure success. That day they agreed to give it a try. Then crickets. Then this lawsuit.

If we are/were right about jackpot bets then why are they getting more popular? They aren't going away anytime soon unless enough of us boycott and knock handle down 25% or more. I'm up for it but there is nobody/no organization to lead.

Anyway this was my last shot at getting something done. The Stronach Group was the most likely to do it. I'd put the chances of them implementing my recommendations at about 5% and that's high.You're knowledgeable of Socal. Do you believe Santa Anita will stay with the $0.20 Pick 6 when their winter meeting opens?

JohnGalt1
11-06-2018, 01:50 PM
cj or other moderators--

Could you please post the Beyer video Talking jackpot bets with Ron Nocolleti as a permanent and separate location on this site so people can be reminded?