What's wrong with this picture?

[cj]

9th race at Colonial on 4 Jul 02:

3 horse field

$2 1-4 exacta - 3.60
$3 1-4-6 trifecta - 4.20

Its bad enough they had trifecta wagering on a stinkin' 3 horse field, but how in the world does the trifecta pay more when its the same result with a higher takeout?

CJ

[4thandlong]

When you normalize the $3 tri to $2 it does pay less than the exactor.

[tdthomas]

The takeout for exactas and trifectas is 22%, unless it has changed.

I think that trifecta price is for a $2 tri.

[takeout]

I'm still trying to comprehend that there was $42,634 bet on that race!

[cj]

4thandlong,

Sorry about the typo, it was a $2 tri.

takeout,

Couldn't agree more, how in the world could anyone actually bet this race!

CJ

[Dick Schmidt]

Been there, seen that.

I spent some time at a tiny track just across the Kansas border from Kansas City called the Woodlands during a couple seminars and saw the tri pay less than the exacta several times. It all has to do with the betting patterns. The people at the Woodlands (so named because there wasn't a tree within 100 miles) were mostly dog players making the switch to the really big dogs. They bet the tri as a matter of course. Most never bet to win or even looked at the exacta pool. I saw this happen in a 10 horse field as well as a couple of smaller ones. It's all a matter of how the money is bet. There is certainly no guarantee that there is some relationship between the exacta and the tri. One tri at the Woodlands was only $1.60 more than the WIN price, and half the exacta. Go figure.

Dick

[tdthomas]

Here are some funky payoffs from 5Arapahoe Park on the 4th

$2 Exacta 2-6 Paid $884.20

$2 Quinella 2-6 Paid $264.00

$2 Trifecta 2-6-4 Paid $7,296.00

$2 Superfecta 2-6-ALL-ALL Paid $1,232.00

The exacta paid more than 3 times the quinella. Tri paid more than the Super.