NYRA adding third daily Pick 4 to wagering menu

[Al Gobbi]

24% takeout still in effect - placement will depend on the number of races on the card

NYRA adds middle Pick 4 to wagering menu
The New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA) today announced the addition of a middle Pick 4 to the daily wagering menu beginning with the Thursday, October 27th card at the Belmont at the Big A fall meet.

The Pick 4, offering the standard 24 percent takeout rate, requires bettors to the select the first-place finisher of four designated races on the card. The middle Pick 4 will begin in Race 3 on nine-race cards; Race 4 on 10-race cards; and in Race 5 on 11-race cards.

[$w1fT]

Seems like this will do as well as the triple play pick 3.

[Tom]

More opportunities are always good. I don't play P4's, but I'm sure those who do will appreciate this.

What we need now is to add the W/S exacta! :cool:

[classhandicapper]

What we need now is to add the W/S exacta! :cool:

That's sort of like the omni/swinger bet.

I would have had a very good day yesterday if they had that bet available. As is, I'd rather not talk about it. :rolleyes:

[Brass Hat]

I don't pay attention to the pools, they may be profitable for the NYRA, but NYRA still offers the Grand Slam, a bet that never made sense to me.

[westernmassbob]

I don't pay attention to the pools, they may be profitable for the NYRA, but NYRA still offers the Grand Slam, a bet that never made sense to me.

Oh it made more sense in its infancy. The bet was created to keep bettors around for the later races. Of course on track this makes perfect sense and smaller players like the bet. Now how it’s doesn’t make sense is that simply doing a win parlay will make you more money 90% of the time. I think it’s kept around for conveinance of bettors or fans who can play a little and still have a bet to get excited about and keep them watching.

[BarchCapper]

Oh it made more sense in its infancy. The bet was created to keep bettors around for the later races. Of course on track this makes perfect sense and smaller players like the bet. Now how it’s doesn’t make sense is that simply doing a win parlay will make you more money 90% of the time. I think it’s kept around for conveinance of bettors or fans who can play a little and still have a bet to get excited about and keep them watching.

Grand Slam - introduced May 2006

Belmont - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - $30,844 wagered.
BAQ - Saturday, October 22, 2022 - $34,554 wagered.

[The_Turf_Monster]

24% takeout remains prohibitive. It's one thing if you're in the WPS pool and you know 2:1 is going to pay 2:1 but you're betting blind into a high takeout pool

[the little guy]

24% takeout remains prohibitive. It's one thing if you're in the WPS pool and you know 2:1 is going to pay 2:1 but you're betting blind into a high takeout pool

Feel free to share all the NYRA Pick-4s that come back short the parlay.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Feel free to share all the NYRA Pick-4s that come back short the parlay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[the little guy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

In other words, you have none.

You also fail to understand that extrapolating through four slots at 24% is better than one slot at 16%.

[The_Turf_Monster]

In other words, you have none.

You're equating apples to oranges as a rationale, try to focus


You also fail to understand that extrapolating through four slots at 24% is better than one slot at 16%.

Paying a higher rate on a single bet is never going to be better for the bettor, particularly when factoring in that the pool is blind.

[the little guy]

You're equating apples to oranges as a rationale, try to focus




Paying a higher rate on a single bet is never going to be better for the bettor, particularly when factoring in that the pool is blind.

No and No.

It's a far more complicated discussion that you seem to believe. The reality of playing horses is that exotic bets, be they verticals or horizontals, offer better value for sophisticated horseplayers by dispersing takeout through each addition slot. This is a fact.

[Tom]

Here;s another realty. If you don't like the bet, don't play.
Kudos to NYRA for offering choices.

That is always good for the bettors.

[PaceAdvantage]

Here;s another realty. If you don't like the bet, don't play.
Kudos to NYRA for offering choices.

That is always good for the bettors.Don't tell this to AskinHaskin

[classhandicapper]

The higher the track take for a bet, the more horse players will lose as a group per dollar bet.

Math is math. End of story.

What exotic bets allow you to do is leverage multiple opinions into better value than a win, place or show bet.

In other words

If you think some 5-1 shot is decent value and you hate the 2nd choice in the same race, you can make exactas that key on the 5-1 shot on top and leave off the over bet 2nd choice. That will create greater betting value than betting the 5-1 to win. The two value oriented opinions compound into greater value.

If you think a horse in the 1st race of a Pick 4 and the last race of a Pick 4 are both good value, the tickets combining them will be greater value than the individual horses are, because again, value to value compounds.

The reason these exotic bets pay more than the parlays (which is the standard way to think about them but imo a terrible way to think about the values) has nothing to do with the value of the bets.

It has to do with the amount of money you put through the window in each case.

A four horse parlay will involve putting a ton of money through the windows taxed a lower rate (which no one does anyway) than a pick 4 where you will put a smaller amount of money through the windows taxed at a slightly higher rate.

Imagine one coin flip at 3/5 vs 20 coin flips at 4/5. 4/5 is the better deal but not if you have to flip 20 times.

But critically, unless you are good at discerning value and structuring your tickets properly, your ROI will be LOWER in the exotics with higher takes than WPS. And as a group, that's exactly what happens, because well, math is math and fantasy is fantasy.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

In other words, you have none.

You also fail to understand that extrapolating through four slots at 24% is better than one slot at 16%.

So a P-10 at 60% takeout is better than a win bet at 16%?

If you'd like to extrapolate further it gets worse.

[classhandicapper]

So a P-10 at 60% takeout is better than a win bet at 16%?

If you'd like to extrapolate further it gets worse.

The misunderstandings about these bets are so beyond mind boggling to me I don't even know what to think anymore. It must be some kind of mental block. We are going on decades now with these fallacies.

[Rutgers]

So a P-10 at 60% takeout is better than a win bet at 16%?

If you'd like to extrapolate further it gets worse.

In theory, yes.

Assuming 8 horse fields, a win wager has 8 possible outcomes (assuming no dead heats)..with takeout at 16% the effects of the takeout is spread out over 8 possible outcomes.(2% per possible outcome)

The P10 has 1,073,741,824 possible outcomes (assuming no dead heats)..with a takeout out of 60% the effects of the takeout is spread out over a billion plus possible outcomes. (A number so small I don't even know how to write it)

Of course, in reality the pool size for the P10 would need to be in the billions, even with fractional betting, for it to be a good bet. So any P10 wager, even with zero takeout is going to be a bad bet.

But NYRA is not introducing a P10, only an additional P4. 8 horse fields give you 4,096 possible outcomes. With a 24% that's .006 per possible outcome much lower than win betting.

With fractional betting, NYRA pools are large enough to make the wager profitable.

In order to win long term win betting you need to find and bet horses that are under bet by 16%. With only 8 possible outcomes (in an 8 horse field) it is very difficult to do, especially in today's world of rebates.

It is much easier to find combos that are under bet when there are 4,096 possible outcomes, even if those combos need to be under bet by more.

As a disclaimer, my views should not be construed to mean I'm in favor of high takeouts. I wish they would be lowered, but I was merely trying to show why some bets with higher takeout may be better than others with lower.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

In theory, yes.

Assuming 8 horse fields, a win wager has 8 possible outcomes (assuming no dead heats)..with takeout at 16% the effects of the takeout is spread out over 8 possible outcomes.(2% per possible outcome)

The P10 has 1,073,741,824 possible outcomes (assuming no dead heats)..with a takeout out of 60% the effects of the takeout is spread out over a billion plus possible outcomes. (A number so small I don't even know how to write it)

Of course, in reality the pool size for the P10 would need to be in the billions, even with fractional betting, for it to be a good bet. So any P10 wager, even with zero takeout is going to be a bad bet.

But NYRA is not introducing a P10, only an additional P4. 8 horse fields give you 4,096 possible outcomes. With a 24% that's .006 per possible outcome much lower than win betting.

With fractional betting, NYRA pools are large enough to make the wager profitable.

In order to win long term win betting you need to find and bet horses that are under bet by 16%. With only 8 possible outcomes (in an 8 horse field) it is very difficult to do, especially in today's world of rebates.

It is much easier to find combos that are under bet when there are 4,096 possible outcomes, even if those combos need to be under bet by more.

As a disclaimer, my views should not be construed to mean I'm in favor of high takeouts. I wish they would be lowered, but I was merely trying to show why some bets with higher takeout may be better than others with lower.

R! U! Rah! Rah!

[the little guy]

Math gets 'em every time.

[cj]

Regardless of how it is spun, 24% isn't good. Is it better than a 4 horse win parlay? Sure, because 16% compounded 4 times is terrible.

[the little guy]

Regardless of how it is spun, 24% isn't good. Is it better than a 4 horse win parlay? Sure, because 16% compounded 4 times is terrible.

It's hardly spin, Craig. We bet in a pari-mutual system, with takeout, because we believe that our handicapping acumen is better than enough other players in the pool to overcome takeout. Every time you add a slot, be it a double or exacta, Pick-3 or Trifecta, etc, we are able to stretch a theoretical advantage even farther. This gets to the heart of playing pari-mutually. I understand less money is returned, obviously, but as a player, these wagers are better, if we actually have an advantage, even with a higher takeout. That is what is being discussed by the reasonable people in this thread.

None of this has anything to do with personal opinions about takeout. You know how I feel about that.

[classhandicapper]

>It is much easier to find combos that are under bet when there are 4,096 possible outcomes, even if those combos need to be under bet by more.>

That's another way of saying what I'm saying.

In a horizontal there can be errors in 2 or more legs and in verticals there can be errors in 2 or more positions. Those unique double error combos (or worse) will typically be off by enough to overcome the higher take and more. However, the higher the take relative to the win pool, the harder it is to find combos that will be better than Win. 24% is tricky but doable if you bet well. IMO 60% in a 10 race sequence would be close to impossible.

That's all different than saying that the track take of 24% is through 4 races or that the Pick 4 paying more than the parlay is proof of anything. No one should ever mention the parlay price in relation to a horizontal bet ever again in the history of humanity.

Let's say I have 4 horses with an estimated win% of:

1. 20%
2. 50%
3. 25%
4. 33%

That's an expected hit% of .008333%

Let's say my win parlay comes back around $120 and my Pick 4 comes back around $182.

Wow, the Pick 4 is way better than the Parlay, except that "typical" Pick 4 payoff is wildly EV- and will cost me around 24 cents on the dollar which is worse than the Win take. So it proves nothing except that putting a lot more money through the windows with a parlay costs the player more. The value of the Pick 4 is determined the same way as all other bets. It's probability of cashing and the payoff. I want a lot more than $240.

[The_Turf_Monster]

In theory, yes.

Assuming 8 horse fields, a win wager has 8 possible outcomes (assuming no dead heats)..with takeout at 16% the effects of the takeout is spread out over 8 possible outcomes.(2% per possible outcome)

The P10 has 1,073,741,824 possible outcomes (assuming no dead heats)..with a takeout out of 60% the effects of the takeout is spread out over a billion plus possible outcomes. (A number so small I don't even know how to write it)

Of course, in reality the pool size for the P10 would need to be in the billions, even with fractional betting, for it to be a good bet. So any P10 wager, even with zero takeout is going to be a bad bet.

But NYRA is not introducing a P10, only an additional P4. 8 horse fields give you 4,096 possible outcomes. With a 24% that's .006 per possible outcome much lower than win betting.

With fractional betting, NYRA pools are large enough to make the wager profitable.

In order to win long term win betting you need to find and bet horses that are under bet by 16%. With only 8 possible outcomes (in an 8 horse field) it is very difficult to do, especially in today's world of rebates.

It is much easier to find combos that are under bet when there are 4,096 possible outcomes, even if those combos need to be under bet by more.

As a disclaimer, my views should not be construed to mean I'm in favor of high takeouts. I wish they would be lowered, but I was merely trying to show why some bets with higher takeout may be better than others with lower.

You started with a false premise and I didn't keep reading. Takeout is not spread evenly against betting options in the WPS pool, it is applied to the pool in total before betting options are calculated.

[Poindexter]

Basically the math is as follows.

On a 4 horse parlay .84*.84*.84*.84 is .4978 which means as CJ mentioned that by parlaying 4 horses you subject yourself to a 50.22% takeout theoretically.

Tlgs's argument is that by applying the greater takeout of 24% just once you get back 76% on the dollar vs 49.78% on the dollar so over a typical 4 horse parlay you would expect a 50% higher payout on the pick 4 than you would get on the 4 horse win parlay.

Now I would suggest if there are rolling doubles and the pools are large enough (which depends on how big a bettor you are) a third option would be a daily double parlay. The double has a 18.5 % takeout so you are getting 81.5% back twice or 66.4%. Now this option gives you 30% higher than the 4 horse parlay, eliminates the blind pool concern because you know the probable payoffs up until post time (so if you were planning to key a horse that you thought was going to be 6/5 but he is actually 2/5 in the double pool you now have that option to skip if he is in leg 3 or leg 4-an option you do not have with a pick 4) and also gives you the flexibility of being more selective on your races (if the races you really think you have some good value in are races 3 and 4 and 7 and 8-you can now play a pick 4 in those races by parlaying the double and not be stuck playing 2 races you do not like just to play a pick 4. So all things being equal I think the daily double parlay actually makes a lot more sense than the pick 4.

The other variable that comes into play in pick 4's is the nature of how people play them. If you are looking to play a pick 4 consisting of a lot of chalk, you very likely aren't going to see that 50% bonus that you are expecting. Most pick 4 players are singling, doubling, or even just combining the obvious horses, so you need some outsiders (all 4 races no favorites-maybe one favorite max with a couple of horses above 8-1.....) I haven't done the research, but if you are interested it is very easy to enter each days results with the winning 4 horses odds, public ranking, the pick 4 payout, compare it to the parlay amount see if you are above that 50% expected value or not).

Then in NYRA, there is that Caw factor. Assuming they are not in the win pools as TLG has stated and they are in pick 4 pools getting double digit rebates (speculation on my part but with a 24% takeout I would think they are probably getting at least 10% back in rebates), then the math changes again. Because let's say hypothetically they are getting 10% rebates and are investing 30% of the pool in your typical pick 4. That means that they are like losing about 6% on their 30,000 of a $100,000 pool. Since the takeout on $100,000 pool is $24,000 and they are contributing $1800, that means the public would be losing $22,200 on $70,000 bet. That means there 24% take has just climbed to over 30%. That also means that expected 50% bonus likely doesn't occur often (I have not researched it-if anyone has they can correct me if I am wrong). Of course not everybody in the public loses30% long run. Some may actually win, some will lose 0-10%.......on up. All these people that do better mean that there are some people that do a lot worse. So some really bad bettors might lose 40 to 60% on the dollar long run pick 4. Think long and hard about what I have just posted and what it does for the longevity of the casual bettor that is involved in this game. If they are losing 30% or 40% on the dollar in these pools long run, coupled with the real low probability of hitting these tickets(2x2x4x6 for $48 might buy you an 8% chance of hitting or 1 in 12 shot). That means they can go 10, 15, 20 or even 30 times before hitting one. You have to look to what this does their psyche, how it shapes their betting goals (if you are a $20 a race bettor and you are down $1000 bucks chasing pick 4's, when you hit a 9/2 for $112 does it do anything for you emotionally). To assume the casual and novice bettor is going to have the sophistication to take in all in stride is a grave mistake imo. In fact the whole ideal of putting the lower takeouts in the pick 5 and pick 6 pools is the complete opposite of what racing should be doing. They are training the casual bettor to bet over their head in very low probability wagers that end up shaping the personality of their patrons. Racing was and should be built on churn. This training does not create any churn. Thus the game becomes more reliant on Caw.

The last point on this is the way people play pick 4's. If I were to pick out 1 or 2 anticipated good value horses in each race and combined them in a pick 4 (and passed when these opportunities did not exist), though I would rarely hit, the times I do I likely would get that 50 % bonus from the parlay or more and this would be a winning strategy long run. But let's face it, hardly anyone plays the pick 4 that way. Typical tickets will be 2x2x4x6 or 1x2x4x10 or abc type plays etc. When people are playing so many horses in some races they are including a lot of undervalued horses and they are just erasing the edge that the extra bonus is supposed to give them. So the assumption that the bonus of having one takeout instead of 4 is a good thing is not fully analyzing the situation. Lots of folks play the all button in a one or more races of a pick 4. You certainly are not going to bet every horse to win a race, so when you are doing so you are just giving back some of that edge you think you are getting with a one takeout wager. Do this over multiple races and suddenly that extra edge has more than evaporated. We all remember that one longshot we threw out that cost us dearly, but we end up losing a fortune trying not to make that mistake a 2nd time.

[PhantomOnTour]

Just bet the Pick 5, it's the best value IMO, with a 50cent minimum and a lower takeout at 15%

[classhandicapper]

On a 4 horse parlay .84*.84*.84*.84 is .4978 which means as CJ mentioned that by parlaying 4 horses you subject yourself to a 50.22% takeout theoretically.

Tlgs's argument is that by applying the greater takeout of 24% just once you get back 76% on the dollar vs 49.78% on the dollar so over a typical 4 horse parlay you would expect a 50% higher payout on the pick 4 than you would get on the 4 horse win parlay.

That's the wrong way to think about it.

In the first case you are getting subjected to 16% on a lot of money bet.

In the 2nd case you getting subjected to 24% on a small amount of money bet.

If you put as much money into the Pick 4 you as you did the win bets you'd lose more betting the Pick 4.

I am granting that the exotics offer you a chance to find overlays that are far enough out of whack to overcome the higher exotic takes. That why I focus on exactas and trifectas. But imo it's a TERRIBLE idea to encourage people to play exotics on the very false premise that the value is better or that the payoffs are higher than the parlay.

Most people can not only not identify those value combinations well, even if they do, like you said, they piss away most or all of the advantage with other combinations and wind up losing a lot more in the exotics. The typical ticket construction obliterates a player's chance to use these bets well. I did that for years.

[cj]

It's hardly spin, Craig. We bet in a pari-mutual system, with takeout, because we believe that our handicapping acumen is better than enough other players in the pool to overcome takeout. Every time you add a slot, be it a double or exacta, Pick-3 or Trifecta, etc, we are able to stretch a theoretical advantage even farther. This gets to the heart of playing pari-mutually. I understand less money is returned, obviously, but as a player, these wagers are better, if we actually have an advantage, even with a higher takeout. That is what is being discussed by the reasonable people in this thread.

None of this has anything to do with personal opinions about takeout. You know how I feel about that.

Comparing the P4 to what would be a god awful bet, a four race win parlay at the current rates, is the spin. I would never tell somebody Spam is great because it tastes better than artificial crab meat. The rest, sure, I know the advantages.

But 24% is too high in my opinion. I'd bet racetracks would make more money with more reasonable rakes, particularly in the P4/P5 arena. But my opinion doesn't really matter. People are being paid a lot of money to make these decisions.

[$w1fT]

I guess Fairgrounds didn’t get the memo about their 25% takeout pick 5 as “better than the win parlay” since they lowered takeout to 15%.

And guess what, I will play the bet there now. Didn’t before. Won’t play the NYRA pick 4 until they lower the takeout.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Math gets 'em every time.

The average horseplayer loses takeout.

If the avg horseplayer bets $200W they lose $32 on that bet.

If the avg horseplayer bets $200 P-4 they lose $48 on that bet.


If a win pool is $100K the bettors pay $16K for that pool.

If a P-4 pool is $100K the bettors pay $24K for that pool.

99.9% of horseplayers lose long term so justifying 24% takeout which crushes those horseplayers worse than 16% takeout is a wonderful tact to take.

That's what is called "real life math"

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Comparing the P4 to what would be a god awful bet, a four race win parlay at the current rates, is the spin. I would never tell somebody Spam is great because it tastes better than artificial crab meat. The rest, sure, I know the advantages.

But 24% is too high in my opinion. I'd bet racetracks would make more money with more reasonable rakes, particularly in the P4/P5 arena. But my opinion doesn't really matter. People are being paid a lot of money to make these decisions.

We've got guys like Andy justifying high takeout with bogus math which is why racing is in the shape it's in.

How's high takeout working out for racing?

Handle down 50% AFI since 2005.

Keep on killing players with high takeout and horrible advice.

Without casino welfare it'd be on it's death bed.

[The_Turf_Monster]

We've got guys like Andy justifying high takeout with bogus math which is why racing is in the shape it's in.

How's high takeout working out for racing?

Handle down 50% AFI since 2005.

Keep on killing players with high takeout and horrible advice.

Without casino welfare it'd be on it's death bed.

It's not bogus math insofar as it's bogus logic. We can all play it.

Betting $0.50 in the pick 4 is better than betting $2 in the WPS pool because you're only losing 12 cents as opposed to 32 cents in takeout! See how simple that is? Play the pick 4, dummy

[o_crunk]

The average horseplayer loses takeout.



It's actually worse than this.

Here's the after takeout ROI by origin of wager for "track X" the last 10 years cumulative. This is real data.

NYRA simulcast:

DD $0.74
EX $0.71
P03 $0.70
P04 $0.56
PLC $0.79
SHW $0.80
SPR $0.67
TRI $0.68
WIN $0.80

The "public" at large (this is everything that isn't the bigger teams who have their own tote codes):

DD $0.72
EX $0.72
P03 $0.72
P04 $0.71
PLC $0.80
SHW $0.80
SPR $0.72
TRI $0.71
WIN $0.80

The "average" player is doing worse than losing takeout in the harder to hit exotics.

[the little guy]

Theoretically that's the beauty of the pari-mutual system, while handle minus takeout is returned to players, the "average" player will lose more than takeout. This is all part of the reason that if you are, in face, above average, your advantage increases with every additional slot you play in exotics, be they verticals or horizontals. It's just common sense.

Ask yourself how much of a win pool a 2:1 favorite comprises. What percentage, then, of the exacta pool? The trifecta pool? The Super pool?

It's a good discussion in general. Thanks for the numbers.

[Poindexter]

It's actually worse than this.

Here's the after takeout ROI by origin of wager for "track X" the last 10 years cumulative. This is real data.

NYRA simulcast:

DD $0.74
EX $0.71
P03 $0.70
P04 $0.56
PLC $0.79
SHW $0.80
SPR $0.67
TRI $0.68
WIN $0.80

The "public" at large (this is everything that isn't the bigger teams who have their own tote codes):

DD $0.72
EX $0.72
P03 $0.72
P04 $0.71
PLC $0.80
SHW $0.80
SPR $0.72
TRI $0.71
WIN $0.80

The "average" player is doing worse than losing takeout in the harder to hit exotics.

You have two groups of numbers, mostly similar, huge difference in the pick 4. First group indicates what? Second group indicates what?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Theoretically that's the beauty of the pari-mutual system, while handle minus takeout is returned to players, the "average" player will lose more than takeout. This is all part of the reason that if you are, in face, above average, your advantage increases with every additional slot you play in exotics, be they verticals or horizontals. It's just common sense.

Ask yourself how much of a win pool a 2:1 favorite comprises. What percentage, then, of the exacta pool? The trifecta pool? The Super pool?

It's a good discussion in general. Thanks for the numbers.

Of course it's better for those that have an advantage...that's not what the initial discussion was.

24% takeout P-4 is much worse than a 16% win bet for 99.9% of horseplayers. It's not better cause it's four spots. I think crunk's data shows how really bad it is.

I can't understand how anybody who cares at all about horseplayers or the sport can defend or justify stuff like this.

[GMB@BP]

Is 24% the norm for pick 4's? If it isnt why play this pick 4 at that price?

Feels like its an option, dont have to take it, especially if there is better pricing out there.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

It's actually worse than this.

Here's the after takeout ROI by origin of wager for "track X" the last 10 years cumulative. This is real data.

NYRA simulcast:

DD $0.74
EX $0.71
P03 $0.70
P04 $0.56
PLC $0.79
SHW $0.80
SPR $0.67
TRI $0.68
WIN $0.80

The "public" at large (this is everything that isn't the bigger teams who have their own tote codes):

DD $0.72
EX $0.72
P03 $0.72
P04 $0.71
PLC $0.80
SHW $0.80
SPR $0.72
TRI $0.71
WIN $0.80

The "average" player is doing worse than losing takeout in the harder to hit exotics.

Real data gets 'em every time.

[classhandicapper]

Theoretically that's the beauty of the pari-mutual system, while handle minus takeout is returned to players, the "average" player will lose more than takeout. This is all part of the reason that if you are, in face, above average, your advantage increases with every additional slot you play in exotics, be they verticals or horizontals. It's just common sense.

Ask yourself how much of a win pool a 2:1 favorite comprises. What percentage, then, of the exacta pool? The trifecta pool? The Super pool?

It's a good discussion in general. Thanks for the numbers.

Everyone here understands why you like exotics. Most here are putting most of their money in exotics. But your presentation for "why" is wrong and encourages wrong thinking.

The addition of extra slots has no impact on the take and the parlay price has almost nothing to do with whether you got good value in your horizontals bets.

What exotics do is open the door to MULTIPLE errors within the same race or race sequence that allow you to more than overcome the larger take.

Error + Error often has greater value than the higher take as in my examples above.

When you understand that much about the math, you will also start creating better tickets because you'll be thinking more clearly about the values, where the EV+ combinations are likely located, and can pull out all the garbage combos most people add in now. Talk about number of slots/take and parlays encourages wrong thinking, especially for weaker players that are going to get buried.

[ScottJ]

Let's take a fresh approach to this discussion regarding the Win Pool at 16% and the Pick-4 Pool at 24%. Before starting, I acknowledge that 16% < 24% making a single $2.00 Win bet less "costly" than a Pick-4 bet as a single bet, however I would contend that this is not the right comparison to be making.

Suppose we consider any Pick-4 where we invest $2.00 in a Pick-4 coupling four individual horses and $2.00 in a single Win ticket on the first of those four horses. Our cost of these wagers implies that we have $1.52 of post-rake money in the Pick-4 pool and $1.68 post-rake money in the Win pool.

We hit the first leg. Now, we are alive to the next Pick-4 leg however would need to rebet in the next Win pool to continue that thread of activity.

Let's say I make a new $2.00 win bet in Leg 2. Now, I will be paying another $0.32 in rake while paying no more to the Pick-4 pool. Clearly after four legs, I would have paid the same $0.48 in rake to the Pick-4 pool however I would have paid $1.28 to play in the Win pools.

A counter-argument might be that you can take money off the table during the four race Win pool that you cannot do with the equity built in the Pick-4 pool. Fair observation - hedge your Pick-4 equity if that is a concern.

However, one cannot deny that more active cash plays during the Pick-4 pool sequence than a four race Win pool sequence.

[ScottJ]

Of course it's better for those that have an advantage...that's not what the initial discussion was.

24% takeout P-4 is much worse than a 16% win bet for 99.9% of horseplayers. It's not better cause it's four spots. I think crunk's data shows how really bad it is.

I can't understand how anybody who cares at all about horseplayers or the sport can defend or justify stuff like this.Arguing against higher take-out pools is fine. However arguing that a 24% Pick-4 wager is a worse proposition than a 16% Win wager does not hold water.

Is a 10% takeout Pick-5 wager better than a 16% takeout Win wager? From a percentage perspective, the answer is yes, however the key is how much variance (or its square root, standard deviation) your bankroll can handle between wins.

As a side note, if a 10% pool is the natural choice for you, my suggestion is that the 0% pool - meaning not playing at all - is probably a better long term choice.

[ScottJ]

It's actually worse than this.

Here's the after takeout ROI by origin of wager for "track X" the last 10 years cumulative. This is real data.

NYRA simulcast:

DD $0.74
EX $0.71
P03 $0.70
P04 $0.56
PLC $0.79
SHW $0.80
SPR $0.67
TRI $0.68
WIN $0.80

The "public" at large (this is everything that isn't the bigger teams who have their own tote codes):

DD $0.72
EX $0.72
P03 $0.72
P04 $0.71
PLC $0.80
SHW $0.80
SPR $0.72
TRI $0.71
WIN $0.80

The "average" player is doing worse than losing takeout in the harder to hit exotics.Can you share the source of the data used to derive these calculations? If you did calculations on the raw data, could you share those formulae?

[Poindexter]

I am astounded that nobody is reacting to the numbers Ocrunk put up. Every exotic pool showed the public losing 28 to 29% (caws make that expected loss for the aggregate betting public). That includes the 18.5 takeout Daily Double and Exacta pools. It is basically black and white proof of every post I have made about rebates destroying this game of the last number of years. More importantly winning players or even just better than average players are driving their expected loss even higher. The typical novice bettor is going to lose close to 40% in all of these exotic pools because sharp guys(that are not Caw) are either in the positive roi or in the very low negative roi. More upward pressure on the newbies negative roi. So I ask again, how do you build this sport when every potential new customer is losing about 40% of every dollar they bet in any exotic pools. My answer again is you can't. Oh, I forgot it is not a gambling game it is is entertainment.

[castaway01]

I am astounded that nobody is reacting to the numbers Ocrunk put up. Every exotic pool showed the public losing 28 to 29% (caws make that expected loss for the aggregate betting public). That includes the 18.5 takeout Daily Double and Exacta pools. It is basically black and white proof of every post I have made about rebates destroying this game of the last number of years. More importantly winning players or even just better than average players are driving their expected loss even higher. The typical novice bettor is going to lose close to 40% in all of these exotic pools because sharp guys(that are not Caw) are either in the positive roi or in the very low negative roi. More upward pressure on the newbies negative roi. So I ask again, how do you build this sport when every potential new customer is losing about 40% of every dollar they bet in any exotic pools. My answer again is you can't. Oh, I forgot it is not a gambling game it is is entertainment.

The public always gets destroyed. What gambling game does the public not get destroyed? Slots are high takeout and relentless churn. The lottery is 40% take out, yet people fight to get in line. You wrote "the novice bettor is going to lose close to 40%"...yeah, no bleep. That's why we need more novice bettors in the pools. That's the only way (other than massive rebates) to keep the less-than-sheep in the game.

[Poindexter]

The public always gets destroyed. What gambling game does the public not get destroyed? Slots are high takeout and relentless churn. The lottery is 40% take out, yet people fight to get in line. You wrote "the novice bettor is going to lose close to 40%"...yeah, no bleep. That's why we need more novice bettors in the pools. That's the only way (other than massive rebates) to keep the less-than-sheep in the game.

The lottery is not even in the discussion, because people play it for a different reason. They plop down ten, twenty, thirty bucks with the hope that they will hit 500 million dollar prize. It is not rational, but in the course of life and its struggles, people with little hope are finding hope that maybe they will become the next person that wins 500 million dollars. In many drawing somebody wins. Tell the person who wins 500 million in the next big jackpot pool how irrational he or she was. There is nothing in the racing world that can compete with that so no point in even thinking about or talking about. Completely irrelevant.

Slot machines in Vegas on the high end hold almost 9%, not 40%.

re: That's why we need more novice bettors in the pools. That's the only way (other than massive rebates) to keep the less-than-sheep in the game.


NSS. Yes you need novice bettors in the pool. But they are not going to stay in the game when they are losing 30 or 40% on the dollar. They may be suckers but they are not stupid (at least most). What was the backbone of this game in 1975? It was the guy who would go to the track once or twice a week, bet his $200 a day, lose $30 to $50 a day and come back next time and hope he does better. Not bet $200 a day and lose $$60 to $80 a day. Also in 1975, racing was the only legal gambling game around sans Poker which was not very popular back then. There just comes a point where the game is asking too much of it's patrons and they walk. That happened years ago in racing. It doesn't matter that many walked, because there is a brand new market. But how do you attract the market when you are asking them to overcome a 28 to 29% hold? You don't and you can't. So racing is left with people that are just going or betting for entertainment and are either paltry bettors or have so much money they don't care. The paltry bettors do little for the game and I would argue that the people who have so much money they don't care would bet significantly more if they were doing better(not winning but better). So racing has two options, they can stick with the status quo and watch the game wither away (the sharpies will graduate to rebates if they can and the rest will wave the sport good bye or bet very small) or they can fix the pricing, eliminate rebates and correct the takeout to competitive numbers.

Everybody that has ever bet this game wants fish in the pool. But the racing industry has done the opposite. They have driven the fish out of the pool and have saturated the pools with the sharpest money ever. If you think that is the recipe for success, than enjoy the procession.

[castaway01]

Everybody that has ever bet this game wants fish in the pool. But the racing industry has done the opposite. They have driven the fish out of the pool and have saturated the pools with the sharpest money ever. If you think that is the recipe for success, than enjoy the procession.

No one thinks that. I'm saying that if you broke down the percentages for every other gambling endeavor and took out the jackpot payoffs (the times the $2 player wins the $10,000 contest/pool/trifecta/pick a wager) they would all look like that. We all know that horse racing gambling AS A FLAT-BET WAGER FOR THE TOTALLY UNINFORMED is worse than most other options because the take is so high, but it's always been that way. It's not "new" information or due to rebates. You can argue whatever you want but unless takeout is going to 3% there is no way to change this fact.

[Poindexter]

No one thinks that. I'm saying that if you broke down the percentages for every other gambling endeavor and took out the jackpot payoffs (the times the $2 player wins the $10,000 contest/pool/trifecta/pick a wager) they would all look like that. We all know that horse racing gambling AS A FLAT-BET WAGER FOR THE TOTALLY UNINFORMED is worse than most other options because the take is so high, but it's always been that way. It's not "new" information or due to rebates. You can argue whatever you want but unless takeout is going to 3% there is no way to change this fact.

I never said it was new information. I have always said that rebates do not belong in pari mutuel markets. I am sure I have made over 100 posts on this very subject. I have given example after example of how high the takeout becomes on those that are not rebated. SRU used to argue with me forever about fuzzy math and a 16 percent takeout is a 16 percent takeout. But now we have actual 10 year data
Illustrating that the public as a whole is losing 28 to 29 percent in every exotic, even those with a takeout of 18.5 percent.

Cj posted above that he thought 24 percent on the pick 4 was very excessive, so what does that make 28 percent?

Since ocrunk posted those numbers this thread went really quiet. Tlg posted some silliness about this being the beauty of pari mutuel betting. Itp learned that the public gets crushed in every exotic pool. So I guess the narrative that public selectors giving out bad pick 4,5,6 advice is largely irrelevant, although I am sure that he can show me a tweet from 30 people who now beat this game like a drum thanks to his masterful advice.

Regarding your points Racing is a niche form of gambling. If you are real good you can beat it. The problem that too many cannot seem to get through their head is that the rebates eliminate. for just about everyone, any chance of beating it without getting rebates themselves. So while a lot of young people play poker and bet sports and dfs, they will not transition to horse race betting. Why would they play a 20 to 30 percent takeout game when there are so many better options. Those that try will soon learn the foolishness of trying.

Regarding takeout. Eliminate rebates, charge 8 percent wps 10 percent exacta and double 15 percent everything else and this game can grow. Some would then be able to beat it and grow their betting significantly. Many others will get very close and will invest a lot of time and energy and money trying to up their game. Plenty of others will lose 10 to 20 percent, but enjoy the game and support the game. This is the only model that will work.

You can agree or disagree. Doesn’t matter to me. I am not invested in this game. I enjoy racing but honestly if I never bet a horse race again I would be fine. I believe a lot of people who once loved this game have reached a similar conclusion all because of a stupid idea that they have gone all in with forever. This industry will rationalize their mistakes forever, but one day they might want to look in the mirror and realize that they screwed up but they can fix this. Or not!

[classhandicapper]

Some of the calculations on how much the public loses can be misleading.

We’ve all seen those charts where the very short priced favorites lose less than the track take, the 30-1 horses and higher lose way more than the take (and everything in between).

The problem with them is that they often average each category at the bottom and get a number that’s much higher than the take. That’s not the correct math. Way more money is bet on the short priced horses that either outperform the take or approximate it than the long shots. If you did a weighted average you’d get the right number.

I’ll make up some numbers to illustrate the point.

Let’s say short priced favorites lose 14% and huge long shots lose 30%. The average is 22% (much higher than the take), but more money is bet on the favorites. So if you did a weighted average it would approximate the track take plus breakage.

[Poindexter]

Some of the calculations on how much the public loses can be misleading.

We’ve all seen those charts where the very short priced favorites lose less than the track take, the 30-1 horses and higher lose way more than the take (and everything in between).

The problem with them is that they often average each category at the bottom and get a number that’s much higher than the take. That’s not the correct math. Way more money is bet on the short priced horses that either outperform the take or approximate it than the long shots. If you did a weighted average you’d get the right number.

I’ll make up some numbers to illustrate the point.

Let’s say short priced favorites lose 14% and huge long shots lose 30%. The average is 22% (much higher than the take), but more money is bet on the favorites. So if you did a weighted average it would approximate the track take plus breakage.

Ocrunks post stated that the public roi after takeout (not teams) was .72 over 10 years data in doubles for instance. That has only one meaning. For every million dollars they bet collectively they lost 28 percent and received back $720,000. There is no other way to interpret his post. Since tlg did not state otherwise I take it as fact.

What you have posted has nothing to do with this subject.

[classhandicapper]

Ocrunks post stated that the public roi after takeout (not teams) was .72 over 10 years data in doubles for instance. That has only one meaning. For every million dollars they bet collectively they lost 28 percent and received back $720,000. There is no other way to interpret his post. Since tlg did not state otherwise I take it as fact.

What you have posted has nothing to do with this subject.

I haven’t looked at any data on pools besides WPS because I don’t have it available. I would have to do it manually. I would only suggest there’s a difference between the average player ROI and the overall ROI. That’s the point I was making.

To make the point another way, there are probably people out there that have lost 100% of everything they’ve put into the Pick 6 this year and there are people that are profitable. The average is pretty bad, but the net ROI of all the money is different than the average because some people bet more than others. Both pieces of information are useful.

[Poindexter]

CH, I do not disagree with some of the points you are making. I have said the same in my own posts (eg some will win, some will lose 0 to 10 percent etc). That doesn’t take away from any point I am making. At nyra in just about every exotic pool any bettor that was not part of a team as a group was paid out 71 to 72 cents on the dollar. Yes some of those players made money or lost so little money that rebates or rewards made them profitable. Others got completely crushed. But do not pretend that the takeout for a non rebated bettor in the exacta or double pool is only18.5 percent plus breakage.

If the sport ever wants to have a chance to grow, they have to fix this. IMO there is only one way.
The fact you find some info useful does not help the sport.

[classhandicapper]

CH, I do not disagree with the points you are making. I have said the same in my own posts (eg some will win, some will lose 0 to 10 percent etc). That doesn’t take away from any point I am making. At nyra in just about every exotic pool any bettor that was not part of a team as a group was paid out 71 to 72 cents on the dollar. Yes some of those players made money or lost so little money that rebates or rewards made them profitable. Others got completely crushed. But do not pretend that the takeout for a non rebated bettor in the exacta or double pool is only18.5 percent plus breakage.

If the sport ever wants to have a chance to grow, they have to fix this. IMO there is only one way.
The fact you find some info useful does not help the sport.

I understand everything you are saying.

What I think is happening is that the typical VERY BAD long shot player is actually losing LESS now than he used to because years ago he used to take 20-1 on some hopeless horse that should be 80-1 in all pools. Now they are 40-1 or 50-1 because the teams make the pools more efficient (looks at the Derby for example of how it used to be).

On the flip side, people like us used to be able to find some live horse at 8-1 and now he’s 6-1 because of them. Maybe there was some 2-1 shot I would play in the past and now he’s 8/5.

In the grand scheme of things there were always terrible players that lost their shirts, but now it’s harder to be good enough to beat the game because the pools are more efficient. Me personally, I view it as I’m trying to beat the take in a pool that is more efficient now than before. So it’s harder.

[Poindexter]

I understand everything you are saying.

What I think is happening is that the typical VERY BAD long shot player is actually losing LESS now than he used to because years ago he used to take 20-1 on some hopeless horse that should be 80-1 in all pools. Now they are 40-1 or 50-1 because the teams make the pools more efficient (looks at the Derby for example of how it used to be).

On the flip side, people like us used to be able to find some live horse at 8-1 and now he’s 6-1 because of them. Maybe there was some 2-1 shot I would play in the past and now he’s 8/5.

In the grand scheme of things there were always terrible players that lost their shirts, but now it’s harder to be good enough to beat the game because the pools are more efficient.

Bingo! Add this to the fact that there is a huge market of recreational advantage gamblers now that are ripe for conversion and you can see how foolish racing is to continue with this plan that does not and cannot work.