How the HECK DID THE PREAKNESS EX..

[Citation33]

only pay $171. I mean the Triple pays about $4,000 and the Super pays over $11,000. I mean a 13-1(12.90-1) wins over a 8-1 shot and the two heavy favorites run out and you get back $171?? I thought that was weird. Even in 2001 Point Given who was the 2-1 fav comes over A P Valentine and pays $82.Heavy favorite War Emblem beats a longshot Magic Weisner and it pays $328. I know its based on pools but that seemed very low for two longshots and the heavy favorites not on the board.

[HolyBull29]

Yeah I did think that was crazy. Hey even in last years Preakness,Afleet Alex the favorite comes over the 13-1 shot Scrappy T and paid $153. $170 bucks for two longshots.hmmm dont know. If I had it I'd be alittle disappointed. Maybe it'll be better in the Belmont for ya:jump:

[Ron]

In race 7, an 8/1 over a 6/1 paid 153.80.
I agree, 171.00 seems like the price of a dollar exacta.

Although they were longshots, they were the 3rd and 4th betting choices.

[HolyBull29]

Yeah I thought it was based on a dollar when I first saw it. Agree they were 3 and forth choice,but you figure everybody and their mother had Barbaro and brother Derek somewhere in every exacta. Yeah I dont know just seems so low with BD and Barb not on the board.

[JustRalph]

Heavy favorite War Emblem beats a longshot Magic Weisner and it pays $328.

having it ten times was pretty nice..............

I think this one was low. I bet there were a gazillion exacta box tickets with Barb-SNS-Bernardini.............those were the consensus picks on every damn show in the country, whether radio or online or NBC. That may explain it.

[Hank]

Fair pay should have been no less than 260.00 so yea it was light.

[Joe L.]

I think this one was low. I bet there were a gazillion exacta box tickets with Barb-SNS-Bernardini.

Ralph is right, couple of my friends who only bet during TC races had the exacta just as you said ex box 6-7-8..... and yes, I do have friends. :D

[rrpic6]

Good posts guys. The payoffs all weekend at Pimlico were very low in my opinion. The early Pick 4 Sat. with a 20-1 ML winner in a 13 horse field along with a 7-1 winner only pays about $570 for a dollar? The show prices for the Preakness are 5.00 to 8.00 with a 1-2 and 3-1 not hitting the board? Are there that many great bettors coming out of the woodwork on these big days?

[RXB]

War Emblem was not a "heavy favourite" in the Preakness. I believe he went off at 5/2. That $328 hook was a bit bigger than expected but not outrageously so.

Also, the fair value payoff for this year was not $260. Typically, I would've expected right around $200. So it was a little light, but not horrifically so.

[JPinMaryland]

No, I think Hank is right RXB. I dont know how you calculate "fair play value" but I had looked at the last 5 years of exactas for the Preakness and it comes out to:

odds of winner TIMES odds of place TIMES 1.4= exacta payout

Going by this years odds line, I would guess the exacta should have paid 140-1 or $280 for a $2 so I believe Hank must be somewhere close.

How do you guys calculate "Fair play value"?

[rrpic6]

The Special Pim. Special/Preak. DD was also horrible. The parlay was almost $199 the actual payoff $121. The 4th longest shot in a 5 horse field and the 4th favorite?? Who pounded this one??

[RXB]

JP, I wish that I played at a track where that formula would hold up in the long run, but it doesn't.

Yes, there is a semantics issue, too. When a lot of people think of what the exactor should pay, they think in terms of break-even payoffs. I think in terms of a probable payout given the takeout. So I guess that if it's a break-even payout relative to the horses' odds, I calculate that the Preakness exacta should've paid around $250. But given the 21% Maryland exacta takeout, I knock it down to around $200.

I do have to correct myself on the War Emblem - Magic Weisner exacta. I'm right about War Emblem being 5/2 rather than a heavy favourite, but I was incorrectly thinking that Magic Weisner was something like 70/1 or 80/1 when in fact he was 45/1. (I should check these things before I post, shouldn't I?) So that $328 payout was indeed very generous.

[Niko]

What about the Oaks/Derby double pay-out. I was excited to be alive but very dissapointed at the probably pay-outs. I asked a couple knowledgable people before they knew the odds what they thought the expected pay-outs would be and it was always at least 50% higher. I didn't plug in the break-even formula, we were just going off of a lot of years of experience. The longest shot (40-1) in a 14 horse field going into a contentious 20 horse field. Maybe it was an easier double than I thought? Looking at other serial type bets on the big days lately I'm usually left asking...where's the value that I used to see? I hope this isn't a continuing trend. But maybe the games getting easier for a lot of people.

[Ron]

I bet a lot of people ALL the first leg of these Triple Crown doubles.

[toetoe]

It was low, and the field size of nine is one big factor.

[NEhandicapper]

About five minutes before post time, I checked out the exacta matrix. The payouts for Bernardini were very low comapred to his win odds. As JustRalph mentioned, many bettors probably boxed Barbaro, SNS, and Bernardini. But across the board, the exacta payoffs for Bernardini with any other horse in the field were still low - As also mentioned, field size enters the equation

For a long shot play I was going to box Bernadini with Like Now, but the projected payoffs were both under $200 so I passed. So I guess Bernardini had more respect in the exacta then in the win pool.