A Query

[Hoofhearted]

Gents,
May I ask a somewhat naive question please.

Last night watching live coverage of Rachel Alexandra's Monmouth race here in Europe I was animated to hear the commentator's report that of the $620,000 in the Tote pool $600,000 of that was for the "Show".
At the time (5 minutes before the Off) the Tote Win for R.A. indicated a price of 1/9. If the vast amount of wagering was on the Show element am I to deduce that the minimum guaranteed Pay-Out on the Show is equal to that of the Win of very short-priced favourites in U.S. racing? Is there a minimum Win payout and is there a minimum Show payout ........... and are they the same? (All my wagering is on the exchanges, so I am embarassingly ignorant on the matter).

Thanks in advance for any reply.

[toddbowker]

It was actually worse than that. The final number came to $1,234,515 bet to show on Rachel Alexandra out of a total pool of $1,300,465.

For pari-mutuel wagering, the regulatory body where the race is run determines the minimum guaranteed payout for all wagers. At most tracks here in the US, it's $2.10.

Usually a minus pool will only come into play on Place and Show pools because the pool is split between multiple runners. Mathematically it is possible to happen in a win pool (or any other pool for that matter) but it very rarely happens.

[Hoofhearted]

Many thanks for that, Todd. That clarifies the matter superbly.
I had reckoned that the minimum tote payout for both Win and Show had to be the same judging by the overwhelming percentile amount wagered on RA to Show.

[eastie]

in the Tyro today, why are the 1 and 1a coupled with the same trainer and different owners, and the 2 hall/breen hosses aren't coupled ?

[Hoofhearted]

So the guy ( or syndicate) who put down that $500,000 bet on R.A. five minutes before the Off was happy enough to risk half-a-mill for a return of 25 Kay's ??? :eek:

I'm quite taken aback.
Surely if you have 1/2 a million dollars to play around with, you don't need the other $25,000 that badly?

[highnote]

So the guy ( or syndicate) who put down that $500,000 bet on R.A. five minutes before the Off was happy enough to risk half-a-mill for a return of 25 Kay's ??? :eek:

I'm quite taken aback.
Surely if you have 1/2 a million dollars to play around with, you don't need the other $25,000 that badly?


Hoof, you might be interested in a paper by Hausch and Ziemba called "Locks at the Racetrack". In a race like Rachel's it is possible to bet every horse to show in the proper combination and guarantee a profit no matter which horses finish in the money.

Here's a link to the paper:

http://pubsonline.informs.org/interfaces/abstract15432

[toddbowker]

in the Tyro today, why are the 1 and 1a coupled with the same trainer and different owners, and the 2 hall/breen hosses aren't coupled ?Hard telling, since Equibase has deleted all owner/trainer references to the scratched POE, and even deleted the stakes noms and PP's for the race.

Generally, it is allowed for a trainer to request his entry remain coupled. This is more common in non-stakes events where the trainer ultimately knows he will only start one horse, and especially when there are rules about naming of riders.

Also, what appears to be a different owner entry can actually be a coupled entry based on the ownership. Sometimes people own horses as part of a partnership or run under a stable name, but also have horses in their own name. Also happens when you have husband/wife situations, or when the trainer is (or is closely related to) one of the 'different' owners. In those cases, entries do have to be coupled in most jurisdictions.

[Hoofhearted]

a paper by Hausch and Ziemba called "Locks at the Racetrack".

Regrettably,John, I'm blocked from reading that paper unless I pay a fee to "INFORMS" to access it.
I would have liked to peruse it -- sounds very interesting -- although I'm pushed to understand how one could successfully actualize an arbitrage in a Tote environment ............... i.e., without knowing the ultimate concluding odds.

Regarding the Rachel Alexandra race, it would appear that the exacta provided the best "value" alternative of all the availing bets.
Rachel Alexandra: .............................. 1/10 to win.
Queen Martha: ................................... 8/1 to win.
Rachel Alexandra/Queen Martha f/cast: ... 8/1 paid.
(easy being wise after the event! ). :)

[Stillriledup]

Yes, its all the same, 2.10.

Some tracks have a minimum of 2.20, but most of them its 2.10.

[highnote]

I thought about this again last night. Some of these bridgejumpers may be arbitraging in order to lock in a profit.

Or maybe they break even if the favorite wins, but win a substantial amount if the favorite is out of the money?

There may be other ways to play this besides making a huge show wager on the favorite in hopes of getting a 5% profit or losing it all.

I thought I had seen that paper online for free in the past. I just sent you that link to let you know the paper exists. I'll google it again and if I find it I'll let you know.

Regrettably,John, I'm blocked from reading that paper unless I pay a fee to "INFORMS" to access it.
I would have liked to peruse it -- sounds very interesting -- although I'm pushed to understand how one could successfully actualize an arbitrage in a Tote environment ............... i.e., without knowing the ultimate concluding odds.

Regarding the Rachel Alexandra race, it would appear that the exacta provided the best "value" alternative of all the availing bets.
Rachel Alexandra: .............................. 1/10 to win.
Queen Martha: ................................... 8/1 to win.
Rachel Alexandra/Queen Martha f/cast: ... 8/1 paid.
(easy being wise after the event! ). :)

[gm10]

I thought about this again last night. Some of these bridgejumpers may be arbitraging in order to lock in a profit.

Or maybe they break even if the favorite wins, but win a substantial amount if the favorite is out of the money?

There may be other ways to play this besides making a huge show wager on the favorite in hopes of getting a 5% profit or losing it all.

I thought I had seen that paper online for free in the past. I just sent you that link to let you know the paper exists. I'll google it again and if I find it I'll let you know.

You are absolutely right. This kind of race is an arbitrager's dream. If RA hadn't placed, an arbitrager with access to Betfair could have made many thousands risk-free.