PDA

View Full Version : what can a 5 length lead do for you


lamboguy
07-07-2009, 05:32 PM
the setting today is prarrie meadows, the time is race #3, the horse is post position # 6. his odds leaving gate is 2-1. the horse winds up winning. he pays for the win $2.80 he returns 4.40 to the place bettors, and the bridgejumpers get 3.80 for their efforts.


this is one nice country!

Cangamble
07-07-2009, 06:25 PM
the setting today is prarrie meadows, the time is race #3, the horse is post position # 6. his odds leaving gate is 2-1. the horse winds up winning. he pays for the win $2.80 he returns 4.40 to the place bettors, and the bridgejumpers get 3.80 for their efforts.


this is one nice country!
The horse came off the pace, he started second according to the charts.
However, the exactors with him on top in a five horse race were
31,14,21,15 Which means that if you wheeled him on top, the worst you would have got on your money for a wheel was $3.50 to win.

Definitely a heck of a lot was bet to win, and I'll take your word that it was very late money.

Bottom line. Close the windows before the first horse loads, and there is no debate, and no perception problem.

SansuiSC
07-07-2009, 06:33 PM
I'd say it looks like a solid 10k win bet by the pools if he was 2/1 at the start.

rgustafson
07-07-2009, 09:03 PM
the setting today is prarrie meadows, the time is race #3, the horse is post position # 6. his odds leaving gate is 2-1. the horse winds up winning. he pays for the win $2.80 he returns 4.40 to the place bettors, and the bridgejumpers get 3.80 for their efforts.


this is one nice country!

Kind of going off on a tangent here, but his post position was actually #5 while his program number was #6. Just a pet peeve of mine identifying horses by their program number, but I imagine there were a few thousand yoyos yelling "c'mon 2 and go 2" when Secretariat won the 1973 Belmont.:eek:

lamboguy
07-07-2009, 09:20 PM
The horse came off the pace, he started second according to the charts.
However, the exactors with him on top in a five horse race were
31,14,21,15 Which means that if you wheeled him on top, the worst you would have got on your money for a wheel was $3.50 to win.

Definitely a heck of a lot was bet to win, and I'll take your word that it was very late money.

Bottom line. Close the windows before the first horse loads, and there is no debate, and no perception problem.ok, my only question is when was the money bet, and why would someone bet the stupid horse to win when they could have got more to show?

a little on the BAZZAR side of things, of course as usual i do have an explanation, you see there is some kind of lunar eclipse going on, and that brings on all types of crazy things!

for the record i bet the horse $20 wps before the race started

Cangamble
07-07-2009, 09:30 PM
ok, my only question is when was the money bet, and why would someone bet the stupid horse to win when they could have got more to show?

a little on the BAZZAR side of things, of course as usual i do have an explanation, you see there is some kind of lunar eclipse going on, and that brings on all types of crazy things!

for the record i bet the horse $20 wps before the race started
If a couple of bigger bettors, or maybe more, had the horse as a tremendous value at 2-1, in other words, their automated program said to bet the horse if it is over even money or over 4-5, and maybe even double or triple the bet at 2-1.....they may of automatically put a few thousand each on the horse as they were loading into the gate.

Track Collector
07-07-2009, 11:31 PM
ok, my only question is when was the money bet, and why would someone bet the stupid horse to win when they could have got more to show?


The simple answer is that they would not have made more money betting to show due to pool dilution.

Let's assume that the amount in question is $10K that was bet late on the horse to win. As is, the win bet paid $2.80 and the person (assuming it was a single person) would have ended up making 40% of $10K or $4K profit. Now instead, let's see what putting that $10K in the show pool instead would have yielded:

Total WPS pool was $ 48473. Using the distribution of 65%,25%,10% for WPS, the show pool before this wager would have been $4874. After takeout of 16%, the available pool would be $4094. Since the $3.80 actual show payout reflects some level of breakage, let's say the pre-breakage payout would be in the middle range of $3.80 to $3.99, or $3.90. At $3.90 there would be approximately 1050 "two-dollar" winning tickets. A person wagering $10K to show would increase the net pool of $4094 by $8400 (or $10K minus 16% takeout) to $12494. The total number of theoretical "two-dollar" winning tickets would be increased by 5000 from this new show wager making the total equal to 1050 + 5000 or 6500.

The show payoff would be $12494 / 6500 = $ 2.07, which would be a minus pool, and rounded up to the state mandated $ 2.20. Thus the person would make 10% on his/her $10000 show wager for a profit of $1K.

So, you have a $4K profit from the win wager vs. the $1K profit for the show wager. I also suspect that this person or group of people whose late wagers lowered the win odds from 2 to 1 did not expect to end up at the very low final win odds of 0.40 to 1.:)