Santa Anita to debut "Group Bet (Horse Racing Roulette)".

[Andy Asaro]

Takeout will be 15.43%

Definitely not for me.

And I understand that novices are the group who they are targeting.

@BH_JBalan


Sooooo... Here's an interesting little tidbit on the upcoming meets at Santa Anita and Golden Gate. I missed it on the meet applications that were approved by the CHRB last month, and no CHRB members asked any questions about a brand-new wager on the menu.

Jeremy Balan‏Verified account @BH_JBalan

So what's a "Group Bet (Horse Racing Roulette)," you ask? I've tried to get an explanation on exactly how it will be deployed from multiple executives at The Stronach Group and have not received a response. And it's not in the meet application to the CHRB.

Jeremy Balan‏Verified account @BH_JBalan

In the absence of a response from anyone at The Stronach Group, here is the ARCI rule for the wager, which is cited in the meet application to the CHRB. It's kind of word soupy.

Jeremy Balan‏Verified account @BH_JBalan

So here's my best guess... Every race will have "red," "black," and "green" groups of horses to wager on to win (like roulette). So if there is a 7-horse field (1-3 might be red, 4-6 might be black & 7 might be green). Odds will be parimutuel, but in a standalone pool.

[dilanesp]

Wait for a track bias and cash in.

[AlsoEligible]

So here's my best guess... Every race will have "red," "black," and "green" groups of horses to wager on to win (like roulette). So if there is a 7-horse field (1-3 might be red, 4-6 might be black & 7 might be green). Odds will be parimutuel, but in a standalone pool.

That's basically correct. On the groupings, my understanding is that they'll be based on morning line odds, so that red and black are as close as possible to a 50/50 proposition. While the green group will be all longshots.

So for example, if the morning line for a race is:

#1 - 5/2
#2 - 7/2
#3 - 12/1
#4 - 12/1
#5 - 9/2
#6 - 3/1
#7 - 15/1

Then the roulette groups would be something like:

Red - #1, #5
Black - #2, #6
Green - #3, #4, #7

Won't be a perfect science, and once money starts coming in and odds change, the groups will get totally skewed. Probably some value to be found by a smart bettor, just a question of whether there's enough liquidity to care. Think it's just TSG tracks and maybe XpressBet that will be wagering to start, with the other ADWs and totes taking a wait-and-see approach.

[dilanesp]

That's basically correct. On the groupings, my understanding is that they'll be based on morning line odds, so that red and black are as close as possible to a 50/50 proposition. While the green group will be all longshots.

So for example, if the morning line for a race is:

#1 - 5/2
#2 - 7/2
#3 - 12/1
#4 - 12/1
#5 - 9/2
#6 - 3/1
#7 - 15/1

Then the roulette groups would be something like:

Red - #1, #5
Black - #2, #6
Green - #3, #4, #7

Won't be a perfect science, and once money starts coming in and odds change, the groups will get totally skewed. Probably some value to be found by a smart bettor, just a question of whether there's enough liquidity to care. Think it's just TSG tracks and maybe XpressBet that will be wagering to start, with the other ADWs and totes taking a wait-and-see approach.

I actually think this is a very good idea. It could both attract show-betting type novices and offer some value to experts.

[Andy Asaro]

I can see a problem if the favorite is a late scratch or any horse in each group is scratched late and people aren't able to cancel in time.



https://twitter.com/BH_JBalan/status/1072563639134113792

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/InsideThePylons/status/1072568332640051202

[biggestal99]

That's basically correct. On the groupings, my understanding is that they'll be based on morning line odds, so that red and black are as close as possible to a 50/50 proposition. While the green group will be all longshots.

So for example, if the morning line for a race is:

#1 - 5/2
#2 - 7/2
#3 - 12/1
#4 - 12/1
#5 - 9/2
#6 - 3/1
#7 - 15/1

Then the roulette groups would be something like:

Red - #1, #5
Black - #2, #6
Green - #3, #4, #7

Won't be a perfect science, and once money starts coming in and odds change, the groups will get totally skewed. Probably some value to be found by a smart bettor, just a question of whether there's enough liquidity to care. Think it's just TSG tracks and maybe XpressBet that will be wagering to start, with the other ADWs and totes taking a wait-and-see approach.


They have a similar bet in Hong Kong.


Allan

[cj]

Another terrible bet takeout wise being introduced.

[thaskalos]

Are people PAID for with these wagering ideas?

[biggestal99]

They have a similar bet in Hong Kong.


Allan


Its called the 3 Pick 1 where they group horses based upon the morning line


A1. Chalk(s)
A2. Mid price(s)
A3. everyone else


Payoffs were between 2.60 and 5.80 (for a 2 unit bet) this past Saturdays races.


Allan

[dilanesp]

Another terrible bet takeout wise being introduced.

The takeout is pretty low. It's not like a show pool. There is one payout and one breakage.

[biggestal99]

Are people PAID for with these wagering ideas?


and to boot its a copycat.


Allan

[cj]

The takeout is pretty low. It's not like a show pool. There is one payout and one breakage.

For a three horse bet? No way that is low.

[dilanesp]

For a three horse bet? No way that is low.

It's one betting interest! Like a 3 horse entry!

[cj]

It's one betting interest! Like a 3 horse entry!

Yes, I get it. You have three betting options with a 15+% takeout. That is terrible for horseplayers. It is slightly better than the same takeout on a coin flip, but here you won't even know the odds you are getting until after the bell.

[thaskalos]

If the industry is looking into 3-way betting as an interesting wagering option...all they have to do is be a little patient. If past history is any indication...the "normal" game will evolve to that stage in due time. :ThmbUp:

[cj]

If the industry is looking into 3-way betting as an interesting wagering option...all they have to do is be a little patient. If past history is any indication...the "normal" game will evolve to that stage in due time. :ThmbUp:

Tried to add to your rep for this one it was so funny, but it wouldn't let me so instead...

:lol::lol::lol:

[thaskalos]

Tried to add to your rep for this one it was so funny, but it wouldn't let me...


No doubt a conspiracy on the part of PA-Mike...in order to keep my popularity-level down. :)

[ReplayRandall]

Tried to add to your rep for this one it was so funny, but it wouldn't let me so instead...

:lol::lol::lol:
Mine went through for Thask…...First time it went through in 3 previous attempts...:ThmbUp:

[cj]

No doubt a conspiracy on the part of PA-Mike...in order to keep my popularity-level down. :)

The system makes you "spread it around"...guess I gave you some too recently.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

I have a feeling this will die out like those fancy Horse Racing Wizard machines.

[dilanesp]

Yes, I get it. You have three betting options with a 15+% takeout. That is terrible for horseplayers. It is slightly better than the same takeout on a coin flip, but here you won't even know the odds you are getting until after the bell.


Let's add the breakage (California breaks to 10 cents on the dollar), so that's an additional 4.5 percent.


So the takeout is about 20 percent.


Now, let's take two pools, one a 10 horse field and one a field with three betting interests.


We'll put $300,000 in each pool.


In the first pool, if you bet $20 each time, you on average lose 9 times and then get paid on your 10th bet, an average of $160. Over 30 bets, you bet $600 and return $480.


In the second pool, if you bet $20 each time, you on average lose twice and get paid on your 3rd bet, an average of $48. Over 30 bets, you bet $600 and return $480.


Mathematically there is no difference in the world between a 20 percent takeout on a field with 3 betting interests and one with 10.


The reason why players prefer a field with 10 betting interests is because the probability of there being a play with positive expected value in any particular race is higher. That's true. But that would be true whether the takeout was 20 percent or 2 percent.


But there's no particular reason to think this is a bad bet because of the takeout. If you find 15 percent + breakage to be potentially beatable with larger numbers of betting interests, it should also be potentially beatable with three betting interests, with the caveat that you may have to wait longer between profitable spots. (Though maybe you don't have to wait so long if I am right that this bet is a hit with novices.)

[cj]

Let's add the breakage (California breaks to 10 cents on the dollar), so that's an additional 4.5 percent.


So the takeout is about 20 percent.


Now, let's take two pools, one a 10 horse field and one a field with three betting interests.


We'll put $300,000 in each pool.


In the first pool, if you bet $20 each time, you on average lose 9 times and then get paid on your 10th bet, an average of $160. Over 30 bets, you bet $600 and return $480.


In the second pool, if you bet $20 each time, you on average lose twice and get paid on your 3rd bet, an average of $48. Over 30 bets, you bet $600 and return $480.


Mathematically there is no difference in the world between a 20 percent takeout on a field with 3 betting interests and one with 10.


The reason why players prefer a field with 10 betting interests is because the probability of there being a play with positive expected value in any particular race is higher. That's true. But that would be true whether the takeout was 20 percent or 2 percent.


But there's no particular reason to think this is a bad bet because of the takeout. If you find 15 percent + breakage to be potentially beatable with larger numbers of betting interests, it should also be potentially beatable with three betting interests, with the caveat that you may have to wait longer between profitable spots. (Though maybe you don't have to wait so long if I am right that this bet is a hit with novices.)

You are overestimating the effect of breakage. No way it is 4.5% at the bigger field size. It varies and increases as payoffs get lower, but on average it adds about 1% to takeout. However, in this case, the payoffs will certainly average lower in a three horse field than a 10 horse field, so it will hurt more. That is the main culprit...lower field size means payoffs will be smaller and breakage hurts more.

You can't put a precise number on it because payoffs vary. However, lets say the average payoff for a three horse field is 5.10, and the average payoff for a 10 horse field is 12.10. Those may or may not be correct but they are close enough to make the point. A $2 bet paying 5.10 means breakage, which should average about 10 cents per winning bet (actually 9.5), cuts your profit by about 3.1%. (3.10 / 3.20) = .969. A 12.10 payoff is affected less by breakage. (12.10 / 12.20) = .992, or less than 1% additional breakage, or about 0.8%. That is a 2.3% difference and will be quite meaningful long term.

For those wondering, breakage should average about 9.5 cents per $2 bet on the California rate because it will range from 0 to 19 cents. Over a large sample it should come out to about 9.5 cents.