Place and Show Pool Value

[MrUniverse99]

Is there a formula to tell when there is value in a Place or Show pool. For example, I saw a race in which the favorite was a heavy odds-on (.20). He won and paid 2.40 but Place paid 2.80. Shouldn't a keen observer been able to see that on the toteboard beforehand? Thanks.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Your pick's limit of share % should be 40% of place pool, and 50% as combination of the 2 horses with the biggest show pool %, if yours is one of those 2.
I am leery of any w/p/s bet if a horse is less than 4/5 win odds, as the payoff is low as the horse may very well be overworked.
As a simple rule you can use less than even win odds to stay away from in paper testing.

[JPinMaryland]

Can you back up a bit and explain that again. Slowly.

I didnt understand much of that and I doubt the apprentice did either. WHen you say "4/5 win odds" what does that mean exactly? You referred to this in connection with w/p/show bets so is this 4/5 calculation different for each bet? what figure is in the denominator? THe total w/p/s pool? Or a different denominator for each type of bet; win place or show?

What the heck is "in paper testing???"

Sorry, I'm pretty naive w/ betting analysis and I'd wager (3-1 in the parimutual pool) that some others are as well.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I am leery of any w/p/s bet if a horse is less than 4/5 win odds
________
If a horse's toteboard win odds is less than 4:5, I am take a very careful look at the 4:5 horse's record before I think about making straight bets be it win, place, or show on the horse that is less than 4:5 on the toeboard.
Pare testing- the term means testing of a method, system or angle by handicapping and them checking results for success % and ROI (Return On Investment; profit in terms of increments of payoff per each $1.00 bet including wins and losses).
If you 10 picks based on a method you are trying out for $20.00 imaginary bets, andby checking the results you find your bets would have paid you back $30.00, divide the $30.00 by the $20 and the answer would be 1.50 which is your original average $1.00 bet plus a 50 cent or 50% profit.
___________
I have found that often a horse that is bet down below 4:5 is often heavily bet because it has done well in the last couple of races but the horse may not be able to withstand the strain and keep doing well.
The harder and longer a horse works or runs the more trime it takes to get its body back to peak condition. Of course this varies slightly from horse to horse, and horses with better stamina over all (like horses in bigger races) can recover faster.
____________
This is a general rule, and there are situations where a horse is very low odds because the circumstances of its races has changed, like shipping to a cheaper track or a big drop when healthy- situations where they can really outclass their opponents clearly. Some horses on "horses to watch" type lists are these types and can be of ROI value to bet.
____________
In a lot of races a very low odds horse is merely racing in conditions and situations similar to recent successes with the same type of competition because they are doing well. They may even be brought back sooner for another purse.
These are the horses to be careful about.

[MrUniverse99]

Why 40%? That is what I am trying to figure out. Let's say 40% is a good figure. If my pick's place total is 30% of the place pool and the pick is still the favorite, does that mean that the payout for place will be larger than if my pick's place total was 40%? Intuitively, a larger place % means (to me) that the bettors don't have as much confidence in a win.

Thanks in advance.

[JPinMaryland]

Here is what I dont understand:


>>> If a horse's toteboard win odds is less than 4:5, I am take a very careful look at the 4:5 horse's record before I think about making straight bets be it win, place, or show on the horse that is less than 4:5 on the toeboard.

Does this have anything to do with gaining an edge over the betting public by calculating w/p/show pools?

I thought the original question had to do with finding values where certain horses were not be enuf to show or to place. THis woudl be valable information to me, since I see and hear about this angle being talked about. It seems like a real angle.

All I can gather from the above post, is to be leery of horses that are less than odds on favorites. Uh, okay, I guess I wont put down a $2 bet on Count Fleet to win at Belmont....

How do I look at Ct. Fleets show and place pools and determine if there is good value there?

Still confused.

[DJofSD]

Is there a formula to tell when there is value in a Place or Show pool.

I can't recall all the specifics, but, yes, there's a study that was done and published in a book, "Dr. Z's Method to Beat the Race Track" or something similar.

As I remember, it was a mult-demensional analysis of the minor pools based upon a study Zeimba (sp?) had done in the stock market.

What he presented in the book was a set of formulae you could plug the total win, place and/or show pool along with the corresponding dollar amounts for a specific horse in the corresponding win, place and/or show pool. This would result in a number (ratio). If it was larger than 1.2 or 1.3 then you had an overlay; less than that, an underlay.

DJofSD

[Chico]

Originally posted by MrUniverse99
Is there a formula to tell when there is value in a Place or Show pool? .

First it is necessary to examine how the Place pool is divided. After the track takes its 15-20% parimutuel the remaining balance is divided in half. Then the starting money for each of the 2 qualifying horses is deducted. The remaining balances are then distributed equally among the wagerers on each horse.

Example: After the track takes its share there remains $100,000
in the place pool. Horse A (the chalk) has $40,000 bet on it and the other horse has $15,000 bet on it. The track deducts that $55,000 to be returned to the wagerers. (After all, the $2 bettor has to get his starting money back.) The remaining $45,000 is now divided in half and distributed to the players (less any breakage, of course.) Horse A (chalk) gets $22,500 divided among $40,000 in bets (approximately $3.12 return - after breakage on a 20 cent line the actual payoff would be $3.00.) Horse B gets $22,500 divided among $15,000 in bets for exactly a $5.00 payoff for $2.00.

As you can see, the payoffs are influenced by BOTH horses. If two chalky horses run 1-2 the Place payoffs can be paltry. If a longshot comes in with the chalk the chalk's payoff will improve.

To determine if there would be a fair return, not only must you guage the percentage of the total pool wagered on the favorite but you must also have a good idea of what other horse will place in the pool. Whether your choice represents fair value or not depends on the minimum amount you are prepared to accept.
Work out some trial numbers on your own using the above formula.
Good luck,
Chico

[DJofSD]

If you want a quick and dirty way to spot a likely overlay in either the place or the show pools, do this.

Look at the total win pool then look at the total place or show pool. Compute a rough ratio of the total win/total place, or, total win/total show.

Now do the same for the horse(s) you think could hit the board. If there's a higher ratio, it's under bet relative to the total pool.

Yes, it's true you have to factor in one or two other pots of money to compute the probable payout. But if all you initially want to do is find an underbet entry, you don't need to carry it out to 3 places past the decimal point. It's going to change any ways by the time the horses break from the gate.

DJofSD

[JPinMaryland]

Okay now this is getting interesting, I havent finished reading Chicos explanation but while I do that here is a real life example, the 2001 BC classic at Belmont, won by Tiz now:


http://iwon.gamblingtimes.com/writers/wziemba/wziemba_spring2002.html

THe article mentions Dr Z and is pluggign an equibase product but nonetheless, it shows the tote board. THe 2:1 favorite has a place pool of something like 25% and the second favorite at 3:1 has a place pool of some 33%.

Can you guys look at this example and apply the formula, or a rough formula to it?

THanks. Now I'll go back and read the rest of it and see if I can figure this out.

[JPinMaryland]

Okay looking at that 2001 BC link, the total win/total place ratio is about 3:1. (these numbers round off well). THe two chalks combined total win/total place is about 5:1. An underlay???

Hmm, now to look at the payouts for that race.

[Charlie Judge]

Get Ziemba and Hausch's Beat the Racetrack to understand the place and show betting theories.

It is for sale used/ new on Amazon for about $70.00 or so.

Dr. Z (Ziemba) betting looks at the proportion of money bet on a horse in the place and show pools compared to the proportion in the win pools and determines when there is a place or show pool overlay.

If you get the program ATR ( At The Races) by Gary Pizzagatti, you can look at real time place and show pool odds and look for overlays. You will quickly see that there are lots of program traders in the market, and an overlay at 1 minute to post usually evaporates by off time.

CAJ

[JPinMaryland]

Neither of the two favorites hit the board. Damn! There goes my $2 bet.

Tiznow paid 15.80 7.20 and 5.60 it looks like. So should I have:

a) bet Tiznow to place?
b) Albert the Great to show?
c) box the 3 chalks?
d) Buy Dr. Z's book?

[JPinMaryland]

You know, I dont want to rain on your parade or anything, but for the life of me I cant see shelling out $70 for a book on handicapping.

See if my thinking is reasonable or just plain dumb...

The way I see it is there are two possibilities:

1) There really is a logical science to handicapping including finding value in these place/show pools. If that were true this logical science could be boiled down to one equation. Or perhaps several different equations, but clearly there should be a readily understandable algorithm to give us the correct answer.

I mean even Einstein's theory of relativity comes down to a few equations. SUrely handicapping based on numbers cant be more difficult.

If no. 1 is true then I am paying $70 to pay for an equation or maybe several, but still why wouldnt something like that be on the internet? or be at the local library?

Possibility 2. There really is no logical science to handicapping and all the book can give you are rough ideas and some equations to flesh out these rough ideas, but still no golden rule and no answer to everything.

WHy would I pay $70 to learn that? I already know that...

Interestingly enuf an hour or so spent on google reveals precious little about place pools and overlays. However a few possibly valuable nuggets are:

If you feel the favorite is an underlay, then you want to look at the place pool. If the fav. is 40% or more of that pool there may be value in there. Goes down to 30% for the show pool, same idea.

You should work the numbers in the place pool by substracting the house cut off the top and then working it based on the amount of money bet on the chalk, since if one the favs comes in, that money has to paid out first to cover the initial wagers. Guy up thread mentioned this, I didnt fully get that, but it makes sense.

Short fields and/or heavy favorites should be a hint that place pool bears watching.

[Charlie Judge]

It is worth the $70.00.

It has a lot of math. The solution is unfortunately a lot more complicated than the approach you describe. The problem is the pools usually correct themselves before post time.

CAJ

[Dave Schwartz]

JPin,

Horse racing is a game of information and part of that "information" is simply knowledge. Included in that "knowledge" is simply an understanding of what the other guys are doing or capable of doing.

Although I would not use what is in Ziemba's book I have it. In fact, I have 3 copies; one for my collection and two for resale when the prices come back. (The price of collectible books has dropped significantly in the last year.)

As Charlie alluded to, Ziemba's approach is probably impractical in this day and age.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[JPinMaryland]

Clearly the game is dynamic. That's why I dont play many horses unless I am there at the track looking at the tote board, looking at the track condition, etc. Then placing a bet at the last minute.

I think most people realize that and most people tend to play accordingly. They play only one track, they play only one type of race, etc.

But it would be nice to be able to draw some quantitative conclusions based on some real life examples with real life numbers, say the 2001 BC I posted with the tote info.

Obviously, real time changes have to be accounted for, but there are other aspects (non dynamic) to the game that would help me make some calculations...

[highnote]

Originally posted by MrUniverse99
Is there a formula to tell when there is value in a Place or Show pool. For example, I saw a race in which the favorite was a heavy odds-on (.20). He won and paid 2.40 but Place paid 2.80. Shouldn't a keen observer been able to see that on the toteboard beforehand? Thanks.

Dr. Z's Beat The Racetrack has some formulas that you might find useful. I've always believed that if you buy a book for $50 and get one or two good ideas then you've got your money's worth. You'll get lots of good ideas from Beat The Racetrack. There are some good anecdotes, too.

A lot of people think that Dr. Z's methods don't work anymore. That's good for Dr. Z system players. The less people who use his system the more money that can be made from using his system.

In the pari-mutuel game you need to be like a good poker player (or an agent for the CIA) you want your opponent to think just the opposite of the truth. So when people tell you a system doesn't work, you might want to check it out yourself. Maybe it does work, and they're using it to make money. If you start using it, that means less money for them.

It's true that Dr. Z bets often disappear as post time approaches. In fact, that's always been true. However, Dr. Z bets do not always disappear as post time approaches. Sometimes they get better. It's not a get rich system. It's a grinding system. You probably can't make a living betting to place and show. But you'll win lots of bets on a consistent basis. That's always good for the psyche. If you add some good fundamental handicapping in conjunction with the system, the results will be even better.

Now, if you'd have been using the Dr. Z system at this year's Belmont Stakes, you'd have known that Smarty Jones was the Dr. Z bet of the century. I think he paid something like $2.40, $3.00 and $2.80. (I forget the exact amounts). It was a dream situation because you could bet a lot and not effect the payoffs because the pools were huge (by American standards).

It's not a system that suits everyone's tastes. But it's a good starting point and it will serve you well in the coming years. It goes in and out of fashion, but it's principles are based on sound mathematics.

Last, I always like to mention that I'm biased because I'm a friend of Z's and I sell his stuff on my website. I'll also say that I've made more betting it than I've made selling it.

Good luck and good betting,
John Swetye

[MrUniverse99]

Thanks to everyone for their responses. I have a lot to digest and play with. Thanks

[NoDayJob]

:D 70 doll hairs for Dr. "Z's" book is just about all it's worth. To make any real monely, you'd need a super computer and a direct hook up to the paramutual pools to know exactly how much is being wagered in real time. Then, you'd have to be able to place your bet milliseconds before the machines close. Dream on folks! :D

NDJ

[highnote]

Originally posted by NoDayJob
:D 70 doll hairs for Dr. "Z's" book is just about all it's worth. To make any real monely, you'd need a super computer and a direct hook up to the paramutual pools to know exactly how much is being wagered in real time. Then, you'd have to be able to place your bet milliseconds before the machines close. Dream on folks! :D

NDJ

If this is your belief then that's great for the rest of us who use the Dr. Z system as a tool in our handicapping box. As we all know, under the pari-mutuel system, the less people use a piece of information the more valuable it becomes.

The worth of Dr. Z's book is a matter of opinion. If you get nothing out of it, then it's worthless. If you get some good ideas it's probably worth at least what you paid for it. If you learn a lot then 70 bucks is a bargain.

No one I know who is associated with the Dr. Z system ever claimed you'd make a million dollars in a year using it. But "real money" to one person is maybe nothing to someone else. I think it's reasonable to expect that a $100 place and show better could make a couple extra thousand or more per year using the system 5 days per week at one track. If you think you're going to make a ton of money using it a couple of weekends per month betting $20 per race, then you're dreaming.

The tote pool information is so simple, a 386 computer running Windows 3.1 can process it. No supercomputer necessary.

The later you bet the better, but 1 or 2 minutes before post time is sufficient.

Regards,
John

[DJofSD]

The tote pool information is so simple, a 386 computer running Windows 3.1 can process it. No supercomputer necessary.

Heck, a programmable calculator is good enough. I used an HP-29S for many years for finding Dr. Z bets.

DJofSD

[MrUniverse99]

There was a race on 10/3 at Melville. Race 6. A short field of 5. Favorite wins at 0.65 and the highest odds horse (7-1) places.
The favorite pays 3.30 to win and 8.60 to place. A program of watching pool ratios should be able to point this out. That seems like a good value play. Especially in a short field like this. That discepency in the pools should have been easy to spot or figure on a calculator don't you think?

[highnote]

Bris Supertote will display the pool ratios.

The Dr. Z Beat THe Racetrack Toteboard Browser will also point out this overlay, calculate the advantage and recommend an optimal bet based on the bankroll.

[JPinMaryland]

Nice catch Mr Universe, I have a similar observation/question about a race on TV, see the weekend post mortem folder...

I dont know how anyone can say a book is worth "just about x number of dollars...." ?


You know, a book is either worth it or is not. its like going to the movies, if a movie is bad, the price you paid for admission doest even compare to the time you wasted. if hte movie is good, the entertainment value is far more valuable then the minor admission price.

Or so it would seem. Is the price of admission just too high? All I'm saying is show me ONE TANGIBLE EQUATION OR ALGORITHM from the Dr. z book, THAT IS CONCRETE and useful to me at the track. I mean even Einstein had to stand up one day and say "E equals mc squared."

He didnt just say "there is an equation.....buy my book"

How can you say:

>>> I think he paid something like $2.40, $3.00 and $2.80. (I forget the exact amounts

He didnt pay anything to win, did he? I mean SJ came in second. Are you saying IF he had won? I dont get it..

[DJofSD]

Equations in and of themselves offer no value. It's what you can do with them that makes them valuable.

Here's a simple test: What does E=mc**2 really mean? What can you, personally, do with it?

DJofSD

[highnote]

Originally posted by JPinMaryland
All I'm saying is show me ONE TANGIBLE EQUATION OR ALGORITHM from the Dr. z book, THAT IS CONCRETE and useful to me at the track.


ONE TANGIBLE EQUATION:

Let's say HORSE NUMBER 1 is less than 8-1.

(TOTAL WIN BETS ON HORSE 1 divided by TOTAL WIN POOL)

Compare that ratio to:

(TOTAL PLACE BETS ON HORSE 1 divided by TOTAL PLACE POOL)

If the place ratio is much less than the win ratio then the place payoffs may be higher than they should be. That is to say that a market inefficiency exists.

Same thing holds true for the SHOW POOL.


How can you say:

>>> I think he paid something like $2.40, $3.00 and $2.80. (I forget the exact amounts

He didnt pay anything to win, did he? I mean SJ came in second. Are you saying IF he had won? I dont get it..

The Dr. Z Beat The Racetrack System is a PLACE and SHOW system. It assumes that the win pool is efficient because win odds are more easily understood by the public than the place and show odds. Since the place and show odds are harder to figure it's more likely that the public will make an error in the place and show pools.

So if Smarty's win odds were correct then his place and show odds were incorrect. If the win odds are correct then the place and show payoffs should always be less than the win payoffs. In Smarty's case he paid more to place and show than to win because the public made an error.

Same thing with the race Mr. Universe was talking about. The place and show payoffs should never be more than the win payoffs if the win market is efficient.

Dr. Z's hypothesis is that the win market is efficient with a minor favorite/longshot inefficiency and the place and show markets are inefficient and can be exploited.

I hope this answers your question. Please let me know if I can clarify this more. Thanks for your input.

Regards,
John

[JPinMaryland]

>> In Smarty's case he paid more to place and show than to win because the public made an error

He DIDNT WIN. HE DIDNT WIN HE DIDNT WIN.

Jeez-us. Here is my question again, where are those numbers coming from those win/p/s payout numbers

"....$2.40, $3.00 and $2.80"

If you dont tell me how this is calculated I am at a loss.

Is the 2.40 what smarty would have paid had he won? I am not sure you can know that since the tote board is not in real time, you dont know how much money came in later...

Or where you standing at Belmont counting the tote board on that day? Is it some number put out by BEL to say "If smarty had won...."

Is it what Birdstone paid?

[hurrikane]

IMO the only time you are looking at the place/show pools is if there is a bridge jumper.

If you are looking to make an extra .20 on a 4/5 fav then you are never going to beat this game. You are swinging at flies with a baseball bat. Are there overlays - yes. Is it worth all this effort - absolutely not. It would take you years just to make back your 70.00.

Seems every time I have run across this it is usually because someone is tired of getting beat in the win circle. So the obvious solution...bet place and show. Now you just have to justify to everyone why you are making such chicken shit place and show bets. Answer - there are overlays in them thar pools.

So what. Go sit with Ken and your grandmother. :D

Just my opinion.

[highnote]

Originally posted by hurrikane
Now you just have to justify to everyone why you are making such chicken shit place and show bets.

Hurrikane,
Good point. This is one reason for overlays in the place and show pools. Some bettors think that it's not macho to bet place or show. Bettors who avoid place and show betting think that there are no bragging rights to hitting a $2.60 show horse.

However, I would counter that betting $1000 to place or show is just as macho as betting, say, $300 to win or a $50 exacta box. However, making exacta boxes isn't as macho as betting a cold exacta. So I probably shouldn't make reference to boxed bets.

It also depends on the individual. I know a wealthy gentleman who bet $10,000 to win on Bago in the Arc. He wouldn't have blinked an eye if he lost. So what is the threshold for chicken shit betting? If someone bets less than $10,000 to win, is that person a chicken shit bettor? I think it depends on the individual.

I think any bet size in any pool is valid. You beat this game by betting when you have an edge and never overbetting -- regardless of the pool. You bet a proportion of your available bankroll. Bet too much, too often, you go broke. To me, there's nothing macho about going broke.

Regards,
John

[highnote]

Originally posted by JPinMaryland
>> In Smarty's case he paid more to place and show than to win because the public made an error

He DIDNT WIN. HE DIDNT WIN HE DIDNT WIN.

Jeez-us. Here is my question again, where are those numbers coming from those win/p/s payout numbers

"....$2.40, $3.00 and $2.80"

If you dont tell me how this is calculated I am at a loss.


You are correct. Smarty did not win. Sorry I wasn't clearer on that. I can see how that made understanding my point more difficult.

If my memory serves me correctly, he WOULD HAVE paid about $2.40 if he had won. So, if win odds are an accurate reflection of a horse's chance of winning, then he should have been bet more than he was in the place and show pools.


Is the 2.40 what smarty would have paid had he won? I am not sure you can know that since the tote board is not in real time, you dont know how much money came in later...

Or where you standing at Belmont counting the tote board on that day? Is it some number put out by BEL to say "If smarty had won...."

Is it what Birdstone paid?


I was at Belmont on Belmont Stakes day and was watching the toteboard with the other people in my party. We were struck by the discrepancy of Smarty's win ratio to his place and show ratio.

Below are those Belmont Stake pools from 1 minute to post until the off. O minutes was post time. Notice that post time lasted about 9 minutes! So you had at least 9 minutes to analyze the toteboard before placing your bet.


At 1 MTP Smarty had 66% of the win pool, but only 34% of the place pool and 35% of the show pool. At about 3 minutes from the OFF he had 63% if the win pool, but only 35% of the place pool and still 35% of the show pool.

In those last 3 minutes of betting during post time only about 40,000 was bet in the entire win pool. That should have been the most heavily bet period. People had already made their bets. So the odds weren't going to move much, if at all. Same with the payoffs in the place and show pools. Everyone was interested in watching the race, not in betting.

For these reasons, the place and show pools were inefficient. No bragging rights for betting Smarty to place or show. Except to say that you were smart enough to recognize what a GREAT place and show bet he was!

I hope this makes clearer my point. If not, please let me know, and I will try to provide some more examples.

Here are those pools I mentioned.
Time, Date, Track, Race No. MTP
Win Pool Ttl, Place Pool Ttl, Show Pool Ttl
Smarty Win, Place Show


18:17:56 20040605 BEL 11 1
14368030 3652710 3765905
9420188 1236055 1311546

18:18:27 20040605 BEL 11 0
14422580 3652710 3765905
9447320 1236055 1311546

18:19:02 20040605 BEL 11 0
14422580 3677455 3782770
9447320 1248350 1314877

18:19:33 20040605 BEL 11 0
14511604 3708787 3802971
9483689 1264966 1320974

18:20:05 20040605 BEL 11 0
14569563 3733998 3830166
9510216 1275651 1337330

18:21:09 20040605 BEL 11 0
14825565 3759764 3856364
9538902 1286646 1348907

18:21:41 20040605 BEL 11 0
15168901 3778479 3871158
9557958 1293050 1354552

18:22:13 20040605 BEL 11 0
15213027 3778479 3871158
9587210 1293050 1354552

18:22:45 20040605 BEL 11 0
15213027 3797243 3887584
9587210 1304851 1364469

18:23:17 20040605 BEL 11 0
15242155 3805414 3898387
9598154 1307510 1368918

18:23:49 20040605 BEL 11 0
15265640 3816339 3898387
9610019 1312742 1368918

18:24:21 20040605 BEL 11 0
15265640 3816339 3905984
9610019 1312742 1372030

18:24:53 20040605 BEL 11 0
15286923 3832987 3917724
9620707 1323387 1378650

18:25:57 20040605 BEL 11 0
15307354 3846269 3931248
9631956 1332093 1387590

18:26:30 20040605 BEL 11 0
15325970 3855653 3968449
9639453 1337553 1420914

18:27:02 20040605 BEL 11 0
15346943 3881528 4015061
9648822 1358637 1462160

18:28:07 20040605 BEL 11 off
15363822 3888721 4064761
9656196 1362334 1509097

18:29:12 20040605 BEL 11 off
15378593 3906059 4071078
9661061 1374661 1510992

[JPinMaryland]

Excellent information and excellent post!

Thanks a lot. I go back to Belmont on sat. so I need to sharpen my skills. I was there for Smarty's Belmont but did not understand how to watch the pools. Hopefully now I know more.

May I ask for one clarification:

>>ONE TANGIBLE EQUATION....If the place ratio is much less than the win ratio then the place payoffs may be higher than they should be. That is to say that a market inefficiency exists.

Okay to be sure, let's say a horse is 6:1 odds. he command approx. 14% of the win pool. I look at the place pool and he commands say 10% of the place pool, that would be a good bet to consider: this horse to place.

I want to clarify because you used the word "ratio" when you divided money on the horse by total win pool. This would produce a percentage or a decimal fraction.

So I use the above example w/ 14% in order to see if we are on the same page. It could be you are using the odds ratio (6:1) for the term "ratio."

THank you so much!

[highnote]

JPin,

By ratio I am refering to percentage. And by odds I am refering to ratio (or percentage) converted to odds. I used them interchangably. I should have been more consistent. But they are both the same -- except that technically odds incorporates the takeout while percentage is just straight percentage without takeout.

So with track take = 15%

Percentage would be 10,000 bet on horse divided by 100,000 win pool = 10%

and of course,

odds would be [(100,000 * (1- .15)) / 10,000] - 1


js