Confused about Show Payouts

[nickjohnson7]

I've always wondered how show payouts work, do they take the pool and divide by 3, and then divide my amount of $ bet on that horse?

For example let's look at Scioto Downs (H) Race 12

The Show pool, according to Twinspires:

$890 - Pool
1 - $55
2 - $128
3 - $42
4 - $186
5 - $128
6 - $68
7 - $56
8 - $80
9 - $147

The order of finish was: 2, 8, 4, with the 2 paying $3.60, 8 paying $5.00, and the 4 paying $3.00 to show. My question is how they are determining the payouts. If my calculations are right:

$890/3 = $296.66

2 Horse - $296.66/$128 = $2.31 x 2 ($2 bet) = $4.62 x .8 (Track cut) = $3.70
8 Horse - $296.66/$80 = $3.70 x 2 ($2 bet) = $7.40 x .8 (Track cut) = $5.90
4 Horse - $296.66/$186 = $1.59 x 2 ($2 bet) = $3.18 x .8 (Track cut) = $2.50

I'm using 20% as the track cut for the W/P/S bets, and I'm not true if thats true at this track, but would be suprised, as I have never heard of any %'s over 20% for W/P/S.

Their payout for the 2 was about right, however they took out about 15% for the 8 horse, and added about 20% for the 4 horse. Why is this? Am I missing something about the show pool. I have not been told this is how it works, just the only way I could imagine it could work.

I rounded DOWN to the lowest dime.

Thanks for your help!

[lamboguy]

that is what you call net pool pricing. it depends from where the money is coming from what the payoff price is.

i find the value in show betting to be on or against negative pools

[Tom Barrister]

The gross pool isn't divided by three first. The parimutuel takeout and the amounts bet on the three successful entries/horses are taken out of the pool first. Then the remainder is divided by three:

The order it's done in s as follows:

1) The parimutuel takeout is deducted from the pool.

2) The total amount bet on all three entries who show is deducted from this.

3) What is left is now divided by three.

4) This figure is returned to each of the three winning entries.

5) The amount returned to each entry/horse is divided by the total amount bet on that entry/horse; this is the "winnings" per dollar bet. To get a $2 mutuel, the "winnings per dollar" is then multiplied by two, then the $2 original bet is added. Then breakage is applied to get the payoff price.

We'll use the example you listed. Ohio has a takeout of 18% on "straight" wagers, with a breakage of 10 cents on a dollar (truncated to the next lowest 20 cents on a $2 payoff).

18% is deducted from the $890 in the pool, leaving $729.80.

Now the amounts on the first, second, and third place horses ($128, $80, $186) are deducted, leaving $496.

This is divided by three, returning $335.80, the amount to be returned to the winners (plus their original bets).

That figure is divided by three, leaving $111.93 to be returned to the bettors of each horse.

#2''s payoff is 111.93/128, or 0.874. Multiplied by two, this is 1.749, to which the original $2 is added, making $3.749. Breakage lowers this to $3.60

#8's payoff is 111.93/80, or 1.399, times two is 2.798, to which $2 is added, making $4.798. Breakage lowers this all the way down to to $4.60.

#4's payoff is 111.93/186, or .602, times two is 1.202, plus $2 is $3.204, which becomes $3.20 after breakage.

The actual payoffs were $3.60, $5.00, and $3.00, and the differences are due to what's known as "net pool pricing", as lamboguy explained.

[Burls]

#8's payoff is 111.93/80, or 1.399, times two is 2.798, to which $2 is added, making $4.798. Breakage lowers this all the way down to to $4.60.Isn't that enough to drive you around the bend?

First the 18% comes out of the whole pool instead of just out of the winnings.

So, $160.20 or 32.3% is taken from the $496 to be divided amongst the winners.

Then, if you bet on the 8, an additional 7.1% of your winnings is subtracted through the marvellous custom known as 'breakage'.

In a truly paramutuel arrangement, the person who bet $2 on the 8 to show would win $2.64 for a total return of $4.64.

But, in the real world, the track keeps 39.4% of the $2.64 which is $1.04, and the the person who bet $2 on the 8 to show only wins $1.60 for a total return of $3.60.

This is more than double the so-called "18% takeout rate".

[magwell]

Wow that just ducky....:bang: :bang:

[Murph]

Isn't that enough to drive you around the bend?

First the 18% comes out of the whole pool instead of just out of the winnings.

So, $160.20 or 32.3% is taken from the $496 to be divided amongst the winners.

Then, if you bet on the 8, an additional 7.1% of your winnings is subtracted through the marvellous custom known as 'breakage'.

In a truly paramutuel arrangement, the person who bet $2 on the 8 to show would win $2.64 for a total return of $4.64.

But, in the real world, the track keeps 39.4% of the $2.64 which is $1.04, and the the person who bet $2 on the 8 to show only wins $1.60 for a total return of $3.60.

This is more than double the so-called "18% takeout rate".Yet the tracks cannot maintain profitable operation? They get plenty of the revenues going straigt to the bottomline. No horseman should be forced to take any less than they currently recieve on any wager,no matter where the bet originates.

Murph

[nickjohnson7]

Thank's I really appreciate the explanation, on second note, do any of you take into account the track percentage taken out to decide where you handicap? I noticed Belmont is the lowest (15%) in the American thoroughbred tracks, according to DRF, and I think I might start focusing on them.

[Jeff P]

No horseman should be forced to take any less than they currently recieve on any wager, no matter where the bet originates.
I couldn't disagree more strongly with this - especially the bolded part.

This fiasco between the horsemen and the tracks has made one thing abundantly clear to me. Both groups are missing the big picture here. Both groups are guilty of forgetting the single most important entity in the industry:

The customer.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are a horseman and that you have a horse entered today at CD. Without ADWs and interstate wagering the only handle (pct of takeout) that you as a horseman can possibly hope goes towards purses is whatever happens to be bet ontrack at CD.

Let's say for the sake of argument that I am a bettor living thousands of miles away from CD. The chances of me waking up one morning and deciding to drive to KY to bet the CD card are remote at best. Without the current ADW system I can not bet CD. I (and thousands like me) bet ZERO dollars on your races.

"Where the bet originates" has everything to do with whether or not the bet is money that would have had no chance whatsoever to go towards purses without the help of an ADW and CUSTOMERS living thousands of miles away.

Keep it up. You are alienating the customer and hurting the game. Your pissing contest with the tracks will have an unintended effect. After the horsemen and the tracks have reached an agreement - and it looks like that might not happen until next year - there's a very good chance you will have driven thousands of bettors like me offshore. Possibly for good. And then me (and thousands like me) will be betting ZERO dollars on your races. But you will have gotten your wish. You will be able to keep a bigger pct of ZERO dollars going to purses.

You the horseman seem to have forgotten one thing: I am the one who is really paying you when one of your horses wins a race. You benefit from my betting. And you benefit by doing absolutely nothing that you weren't already doing before ADWs came along. All you as a horseman have to do is let the tracks distribute signals so that bettors like me can pay you.

If horsemen were really seeing the big picture they would be doing everything in their power to make it easy and financially worth my while to bet "the show" they are putting on.


-jp

.

[ezrabrooks]

I couldn't disagree more strongly with this - especially the bolded part.

This fiasco between the horsemen and the tracks has made one thing abundantly clear to me. Both groups are missing the big picture here. Both groups are guilty of forgetting the single most important entity in the industry:

The customer.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are a horseman and that you have a horse entered today at CD. Without ADWs and interstate wagering the only handle (pct of takeout) that you as a horseman can possibly hope goes towards purses is whatever happens to be bet ontrack at CD.

Let's say for the sake of argument that I am a bettor living thousands of miles away from CD. The chances of me waking up one morning and deciding to drive to KY to bet the CD card are remote at best. Without the current ADW system I can not bet CD. I (and thousands like me) bet ZERO dollars on your races.

"Where the bet originates" has everything to do with whether or not the bet is money that would have had no chance whatsoever to go towards purses without the help of an ADW and CUSTOMERS living thousands of miles away.

Keep it up. You are alienating the customer and hurting the game. Your pissing contest with the tracks will have an unintended effect. After the horsemen and the tracks have reached an agreement - and it looks like that might not happen until next year - there's a very good chance you will have driven thousands of bettors like me offshore. Possibly for good. And then me (and thousands like me) will be betting ZERO dollars on your races. But you will have gotten your wish. You will be able to keep a bigger pct of ZERO dollars going to purses.

You the horseman seem to have forgotten one thing: I am the one who is really paying you when one of your horses wins a race. You benefit from my betting. And you benefit by doing absolutely nothing that you weren't already doing before ADWs came along. All you as a horseman have to do is let the tracks distribute signals so that bettors like me can pay you.

If horsemen were really seeing the big picture they would be doing everything in their power to make it easy and financially worth my while to bet "the show" they are putting on.


-jp

.

If you are worried about the "bettors", what about the player at the track...not thousands of miles away, who is paying more for the product, in increased take out. Why don't you all just admit it, give YOU a kick back on your wagers, and everything is OK.

[Jeff P]

Actually I could care less about rebates. The one thing I really want to see is a boom in handle growth.

If takeout was something reasonable... say 10-15 pct in all pools at all tracks everywhere... there wouldn't be a need for rebates... Just make it so that takeouts aren't exhorbitant. The only reason rebates exist in the first place (or that offshore betting/exchanges becomes attractive at all) is that takeouts at some tracks are so ridiculously high.

I'm a true believer that reasonable takeouts (a level playing field for all) combined with track signals that are widely distributed to ALL ADWs without exclusivity or interruption as a result of industry infighting is the first thing that needs to happen before any type of handle growth can occur.

Make it easy for me to bet and I'm there. Make me have to jump through hoops and I'll go offshore.


-jp

.

[Marlin]

It would be interesting, at least to me, to see the geographic distribution of ADW wagering. What % of wagers are indeed made a thousand miles away and what % is made from across the street. (nearby)

[Burls]

It would be interesting, at least to me, to see the geographic distribution of ADW wagering. What % of wagers are indeed made a thousand miles away and what % is made from across the street. (nearby)
Select 'The Full Card' and scroll down to the last race of the day.
Look on the bottom of the page.

It tells you:

1) The Track Handle
2) The In-State Handle
3) The Out Of State Handle

for that track on that day.


http://equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/index.html?SAP=HLN

[Marlin]

Look on the bottom of the page of the full cart of the last race.

It tells you:

1) The Track Handle
2) The In-State Handle
3) The Out Of State Handle

for that track for that day.


http://equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/index.html?SAP=HLN Yes, I guess I was thinking about a more detailed breakdown.

[vikingrob]

I've always wondered how show payouts work, do they take the pool and divide by 3, and then divide my amount of $ bet on that horse?

For example let's look at Scioto Downs (H) Race 12

The Show pool, according to Twinspires:

$890 - Pool
1 - $55
2 - $128
3 - $42
4 - $186
5 - $128
6 - $68
7 - $56
8 - $80
9 - $147

The order of finish was: 2, 8, 4, with the 2 paying $3.60, 8 paying $5.00, and the 4 paying $3.00 to show. My question is how they are determining the payouts. If my calculations are right:

$890/3 = $296.66

2 Horse - $296.66/$128 = $2.31 x 2 ($2 bet) = $4.62 x .8 (Track cut) = $3.70
8 Horse - $296.66/$80 = $3.70 x 2 ($2 bet) = $7.40 x .8 (Track cut) = $5.90
4 Horse - $296.66/$186 = $1.59 x 2 ($2 bet) = $3.18 x .8 (Track cut) = $2.50

I'm using 20% as the track cut for the W/P/S bets, and I'm not true if thats true at this track, but would be suprised, as I have never heard of any %'s over 20% for W/P/S.

Their payout for the 2 was about right, however they took out about 15% for the 8 horse, and added about 20% for the 4 horse. Why is this? Am I missing something about the show pool. I have not been told this is how it works, just the only way I could imagine it could work.

I rounded DOWN to the lowest dime.

Thanks for your help!

The straight-pool takeout in Ohio is 18%.

Since most tracks now use net pool pricing to calculate payouts, let's take a look at what the NET pool is.

Total: $729.80
2: $104.96
8: $65.60
4: $152.52
Profit to split: $406.72 (split 3 ways: $135.573333333)

Payouts per $1 net value in the pool would be, calculated to six decimal places:
2: $2.291667
8: $3.066667
4: $1.888889

Then multiply by 0.82 (to account for takeout) to get the unbroken payouts per $1 gross ($1 gross = 82¢ net):

2: $1.879167
8: $2.514667
4: $1.548889

Then apply breakage and multiply by 2 (to get $2 payouts).

As for the reason why I use the same takeout rates for all bets into the pool: Generally, in common pool simulcasting, the guest uses the same takeout rates as the host track. However, there are exceptions, and generally one would think that the betting percentages at sites that are the exception would not be significantly out of line with the host.

[LemonSoupKid]

If I'm not mistaken, unless something has changed, the track take is from the PROFIT, that is, the pool MINUS the money returned to bettors. It would be unethical to take a percentage from the money "set aside" by the winning bettors, since we should get cuts of losing money, not winning money.

The 17% is taken from the pool - winning wager tickets. Then these dollars are divided into the "remaining profit" ... with 2 equal shares if place and 3 equal shares if show.

I hope, Tom, they haven't switched because I know they used to do it the way I'm describing, which is the proper way. Gambling houses, however, wouldn't surprise me if they tried this were able to pass this maneuver.

LSK

[rastajenk]

The take comes off the top, before any other calculations are made. Why is it any more or less ethical to rake from losing money and not all the money? It's all just money. If I'm reading you right.

[raybo]

Personally, I don't care what the takeout is or any of that other mumbo-jumbo, just allow the signals out so I can decide if I want to invest against the available profit. I just wish they'd show me the total superfecta pool so I could make a more intelligent decision regarding possible wagers.

[LemonSoupKid]

The take comes off the top, before any other calculations are made. Why is it any more or less ethical to rake from losing money and not all the money? It's all just money. If I'm reading you right.


A) because it takes more from the winners
B) no other sport that handles money makes winners pay vig
C) It seems right that you should have profit, which is defined by total pool minus [winning] money wagered be taxed.

Basically what I'm saying is that they are taxing risked money, which is bull-dookie. I don't know how you can defend taking a cut of the money I risked, that is supposed to be returned to me, as agreed by our betting contract.

Tax profits, like everyone else does, including the federal gov't. I can't possibly think of an argument against this, which is why I hope you are wrong.

What if I made 30% profit on a stock going from my invested $10,000 to $13,000. Would they tax the 13k? NO. Because it isn't right. Just tax the 3. Unless you're going to give me money when I lose, to say it's unfair is to be euphemistic about it. It's much worse.