Santa Anita's Fourth Race "Blind Luck"

[monistee]

In the fourth at Santa Anita, Blind Luck had over 4 Hundred thousand to show on it.
Would the track lose money in the show pool. Also who would be placing huge bets to get 5 cents on the dollar.

If they would of lost, would it be worth the gamble! What's your thoughts. Joe


Win odds, Win, Place and Show pool sizes and exotic pool totals

Pgm # Horse Win Odds Win Pool Place Pool Show Pool
1 Blind Luck 1/5 $173,041 $40,216 $471,319
2 Evening Jewel 18 $10,809 $5,146 $7,439
3 Crisp 6 $29,303 $10,420 $12,928
4 Switch 5 $32,947 $10,816 $12,300
5 La Nez SCR
6 Summer Games 47 $4,374 $2,571 $6,322
Pool Totals $250,474 $69,168 $510,308

Exotic Pool Totals
Pool Total
Daily Double $26,620
Exactor $162,332
Pick 3 $87,093
Superfecta $68,717
Triactor $134,151

[boomman]

In the fourth at Santa Anita, Blind Luck had over 4 Hundred thousand to show on it.
Would the track lose money in the show pool. Also who would be placing huge bets to get 5 cents on the dollar.

If they would of lost, would it be worth the gamble! What's your thoughts. Joe


Win odds, Win, Place and Show pool sizes and exotic pool totals

Pgm # Horse Win Odds Win Pool Place Pool Show Pool
1 Blind Luck 1/5 $173,041 $40,216 $471,319
2 Evening Jewel 18 $10,809 $5,146 $7,439
3 Crisp 6 $29,303 $10,420 $12,928
4 Switch 5 $32,947 $10,816 $12,300
5 La Nez SCR
6 Summer Games 47 $4,374 $2,571 $6,322
Pool Totals $250,474 $69,168 $510,308

Exotic Pool Totals
Pool Total
Daily Double $26,620
Exactor $162,332
Pick 3 $87,093
Superfecta $68,717
Triactor $134,151

Joe:Yes, because the track is required by law to pay a minimum of 2.10 to show or as you said .05 on each dollar, when a large wager such as this is made and the horse actually DOES finish in the top 3 (they often don't) it creates what is called a negative show pool and the track must divy up the difference between the amount remaining in the pool to pay the winning tickets and the winning tickets that remain. These large show wagers are called "bridge jumping" and work fine until the bettor loses one, then not so much........;)

Boomer

[monistee]

Thanks Boomer. Bridge jumper is a appropriate name for it.
Last week on race 2 from Aqueduct where the horse broke his bit. I can't remember the horses name. He was a heavy favorite! There was a bridge jumper in that one. Joe.

[monistee]

That should say "Thanks Boomman"

[johnhannibalsmith]

Boomer... now explain net pool pricing and confuse him to death...

[eddy1]

Boomer... now explain net pool pricing and confuse him to death...

would very much like to hear you explain it Mr Smith.......

[johnhannibalsmith]

would very much like to hear you explain it Mr Smith.......
I wish I understood it in such a way that I could explain it sensibly and simply as applied to every scenario. But, I like this explanation (courtesy of The Red Mile) for a thorough look at it, even though it glosses over the issue of its impact on negative pools (which is the part that I still can't quite come to terms with).

************************************************** ********

Net Pool Pricing
An Explanation of Net-Pool Pricing:
Historically, prices on pari-mutuel races have been calculated by dividing the GROSS amount of winning bets by the net pool. The net pool is the total amount of wagers reduced by the commission rate, or take-out. This process returns a fair price provided all wagers were made using the same take out. Not all international jurisdictions, however, are allowed by local law to wager into U.S. pools using the local take-out rates, and must use the standard take-out rate for their locality. They have, therefore, been forbidden from wagering into our pools.

To accommodate multiple take-out rates, the Net-Pool pricing model was established in approximately 1995. Under the Net-Pool pricing model, the payouts are calculated by dividing NET amount of winning bets, (rather than the GROSS amount as in Standard Pricing) by the net pool. Each locality then multiplies the payout by the compliment of the commission rate (1-commission rate) to arrive at the local payout.

This process weights each wager according to the local commission rate, as the higher the local commission rate (take-out), the lower the local price. For example, $100 bet at 17-percent commission is worth $83, and $100 bet at 18-percent commission is worth $82. The payout at the locality with a 17-percent commission rate will therefore be slightly higher than the payout at the locality with an 18-percent commission rate.


Place and Show Pools:
For most pools and payouts, if all localities were using the same take-out rate, the prices would be identical under both the Standard and Net-Pool pricing models. But in any multiple winning runner pool (Place and Show and any other pool in which a dead-heat creates two or more different payouts), the Net-Pool model distributes the same amount of winnings based on their NET winnings rather than their GROSS winnings. The total amount of monies paid out will not change, but the net effect, in these cases, is that the favorites will pay a little less, while long shots will pay a little more.


$2.10 Payouts and Minus Pools
Fans will notice that show pools with a heavy favorite that you would expect to return $2.10 for all three runners, now may pay significantly higher on the two non-favorite horses. This is because that even though the payout on the favorite is reduced to a number even farther below the minimum $2.10 payout, it still must return $2.10. But the other horses are not participating in the minus pool as they were under the Standard Pricing model.

Calculating Projected Payouts using Tote Board Information
One of the results of Net Pool pricing model is that one can no longer accurately calculate the payouts using only the information available on the tote board. This is true for all pools, including the Win pool. The reason for this is one needs to know the commission rate of the wagers on each runner in each pool to determine the true NET pool and NET winning wagers. (The tote odds continue to be accurate, as tote has all of the necessary information to properly calculate and display the current odds/payouts.)

[Saratoga_Mike]

And that needed explaining? :)

[johnhannibalsmith]

I wish that someone would definitively tell me whether or not the track is responsible for negatives under the net pool model if the wager does not originate at the track (or its subsidiary outlets). I griped about a decision to allow a pool to remain open despite the high likelihood of a negative once and the reply was that it was almost certain that the bulk of the money bet would come from out-of-state and because of net pool pricing, the track wouldn't bear that burden. I can never find a reference to the model specifically operating in that sense. Mr. Director of Racing... clarification, please? :)

[Saratoga_Mike]

I wish that someone would definitively tell me whether or not the track is responsible for negatives under the net pool model if the wager does not originate at the track (or its subsidiary outlets). I griped about a decision to allow a pool to remain open despite the high likelihood of a negative once and the reply was that it was almost certain that the bulk of the money bet would come from out-of-state and because of net pool pricing, the track wouldn't bear that burden. I can never find a reference to the model specifically operating in that sense. Mr. Director of Racing... clarification, please? :)

I believe Steve Crist has addressed this issue on his blog. The off-track betting outlet/entity is responsible for a portion of the loss, if my memory serves me.

[eddy1]

And that needed explaining? :)

many forum members, from the 20 posters to the 1000 posters, whatever level of handicapping skills or lack thereof, will not post a question or open a topic for fear of being belittled in some way by the "professional" handicapper or maybe just an arrogant member.........

my post was a bit of a challenge to johnhannibalsmith.....

he met the challenge, and has my respect........

[Saratoga_Mike]

many forum members, from the 20 posters to the 1000 posters, whatever level of handicapping skills or lack thereof, will not post a question or open a topic for fear of being belittled in some way by the "professional" handicapper or maybe just an arrogant member.........

my post was a bit of a challenge to johnhannibalsmith.....

he met the challenge, and has my respect........

You took my post the wrong way - it's a very complicated issue - that was the reason for the smile after my question.

[Relwob Owner]

many forum members, from the 20 posters to the 1000 posters, whatever level of handicapping skills or lack thereof, will not post a question or open a topic for fear of being belittled in some way by the "professional" handicapper or maybe just an arrogant member.........

my post was a bit of a challenge to johnhannibalsmith.....

he met the challenge, and has my respect........

Yeah, it is pretty clear SM kidding, and joking about what a complicated explanantion it was.....you are right on the ball for posters being afraid to ask/post something for fear of getting blasted and it is kind of absurd that anyone would blast someone trying to learn....cool thing about horse racing is that you can never learn everything...


Bridge jumping is pretty intiguing, if not always smart and Blind Luck was an excellent spot for doing it if someone is in that style of betting....

[eddy1]

no offense Mike......

changing the subject.......

go to off topic general............

[Stillriledup]

I bet a bunch of money against this horse to show. She went against one of my show bet rules of thumb and that is, a horse with a big show bet has to be in the top 3 at all times during the race. This horse figured to be 4th or worse at one point in the race, that's why i made the 'small' plunge against her.

[skate]

I believe Steve Crist has addressed this issue on his blog. The off-track betting outlet/entity is responsible for a portion of the loss, if my memory serves me.

What portion, would be the question.

[Saratoga_Mike]

What portion, would be the question.

I can't remember the splits. I'm pretty sure he did provide that number. I'll see if I can find Crist's post on the issue. If not, you may want to just post the question to him on his blog.