can someone please explain this?

[motorhead]

hello all

when looking at some old races through equibase, i came across this:

Columbus Aug 14, 2005

$2 tri payoff: $3493 though the reported pool was $2329

$1 super : $10682 though the reported pool was $5341

what am i missing? are the payoffs based on all the off-track pools being mingled in?

thanks

[Ron]

3 fifty cent tris and 5 dime supers hit. Payoffs are still based on $2 and $1.

[saratoga guy]

Yeah, they should have an asterisk, or some type of symbol to denote these situations...

When the payout is higher than the pool, the bet was hit with fractional wagers.

For example, if there is a single winning dime superfecta ticket that takes down the whole superfecta pool of, say $5000, the charts will show that a $1 super paid $50,000 (ten times what the single dime super paid).

There was only that single dime ticket, that paid $5000, no one had a $50K $1 ticket -- but the chart publishers have not deemed it necessary to distinguish these instances.

[ryesteve]

What makes the most sense would be to report the payoff relative to the minimum bet permitted... eg, "10 cent Superfecta paid $5,000"

[takeout]

What makes the most sense would be to report the payoff relative to the minimum bet permitted... eg, "10 cent Superfecta paid $5,000"
Amen!

This has long been one of my pet peeves and IMO would be out and out fraud if the pool totals weren’t also in the charts. It's an irksome misrepresentation and I have heard some of these bogus amounts announced at the track.

[rastajenk]

Personally, I don't see the big deal about it. Most bettors can recognize the situation for what it is, and those that can't, like motorhead, ask and learn. There's nothing fraudulent or misleading about it.

[skate]

ill buy that

[ryesteve]

Personally, I don't see the big deal about it. Most bettors can recognize the situation for what it is, and those that can't, like motorhead, ask and learn. There's nothing fraudulent or misleading about it.
If you're looking at a chart, yes, most of us understand what it means and it's not a problem. The problem is if you're mining data. Your software isn't likely to be smart enough to adjust payouts and get everything on the same base.

[BillW]

What makes the most sense would be to report the payoff relative to the minimum bet permitted... eg, "10 cent Superfecta paid $5,000"

How about simply reporting the odds that were paid. :eek:

[takeout]

Personally, I don't see the big deal about it. Most bettors can recognize the situation for what it is, and those that can't, like motorhead, ask and learn. There's nothing fraudulent or misleading about it.
Maybe not fraudulent, if the pool totals are in view, but certainly misleading, IMO.

I agree with ryesteve. Report the payoff relative to the minimum bet permitted. I don’t see why that would be hard to do at all. That way they’re not jerking people around. I’ve had a lot of people tell me of big payoffs that just weren’t so.

[jballscalls]

Something else to consider. Even though many times superfecta payouts aren't correct because they show a 2 dollar payout when only a dime super was hit. I'm sure the tracks love to have huge payouts shown and/or, because an unanalytical fan wont know any better and think that they should play superfectas. Just a thought.

[joeyreb]

I wished they would base everything on a $1 pay out.

[rastajenk]

I’ve had a lot of people tell me of big payoffs that just weren’t so.So what? Did you feel lied to, or something? What did it really matter?
I wished they would base everything on a $1 pay out.I agree with that completely. The $2 payoff is an anachronism from another era that has no use anymore.

[takeout]

So what? Did you feel lied to, or something?
Yes I do. Why should customers have to figure out what the real payoffs actually are? It’s absurd. The number of winning tickets should also be shown right beside the real payoffs.

[rastajenk]

To my ear, "customers" implies people actually at the track, or OTB/simulcast facility. And those people get the ten-cent payoff. Every track that takes the bet includes them in their payoff summaries following the race. If they take ten-cent or fifty-cent trifectas, they post those. If they take fifty-cent pick 4's or pick 5's or whatever, they post that.

If we're just talking about template-generated charts that only serious or semi-serious players look at anyway, then my original opinion still stands: it ain't no big deal. :cool:

How should they post the number of winning tickets? Does a fifty cent super wheel count as five winning tickets, or one? If the thing comes back paying five bucks or less because there are hundreds or thousands of them, is that number required reading too? Should they post the number of winning exactas too? At what point does a rational person say, "eh, I guess that's not really useful information after all?"

[takeout]

How should they post the number of winning tickets? At what point does a rational person say, "eh, I guess that's not really useful information after all?"
By the minimum payoff amount.

The number of winning tickets in a pari-mutuel pool is not useful information?

[Ron]

Some tracks take $1 WPS bets but I don't want to see $1 payouts for WPS.

[motorhead]

to those that too the time to respond to my question and to give some input on this matter