Bizarre payoff of another kind

[takeout]

The first pick-3 at Keenland today paid $204.40. The pool was $24,215. With the 16% take I figure 99.5 winning tickets. The odds on the horses were 50-1, 29-1 and 9-2. The field sizes were 10,10, and 8. Right about now I'm thinking maybe the Mid-Atlantic boys might have done me a favor. (Truth is I don't bet Keenland but you get the point.)

What do you think? The fact that there were 99.5 winning tickets out in this modest pool makes it all the more horrendous.

Anyone have any theories? Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe someone that actually looked at the PPs could give me their "take" on the situation. ;) :confused:

[superfecta]

what really makes it bad is that a 2 dollar parlay would have paid $16269 if I figure it right.
Doesn't make good sense unless the races were so wide open that some syndicate bought multiple tickets on the races and the lead pipe cinches lost,thereby inflating the odds on the other horses in the races.
I can't remember the horse,but it was a Derby prep race(at Gulfstream) and the horse I liked on the morning line was 8-1.Well , I didn't like him enough to hurry to the track,so when I got there the race had just started and I heard the announcer scream "HE'S 99 TO 1!"I get to the monitor and sure enough its the 8-1 morning liner crossing the wire first.Go figure.....

[PaceGuy]

Takeout-

Yup. You are missing something. The low pick three payout was due to the fact that nobody in the country today had three correct for those first three races. They paid $204.40 for two of three.

[takeout]

The air smells a lot sweeter now with that bit of illumination. One would think that Equibase might have included this most pertinent fact in their charts. :)

[ceejay]

One surprising thing to me with that payoff is that the same trainer/owner for the winners in the 2nd and 3rd. The horses both won convincingly.

For $10 she could have bet All/5/3 and taken the pool down! On the other side the 2nd race P3 (5-3-7) paid $1116, which is shorter than the paralay.

[takeout]

Originally posted by ceejay
One surprising thing to me with that payoff is that the same trainer/owner for the winners in the 2nd and 3rd. The horses both won convincingly.

Geez, I didn't even notice that. Probably a few woulda-coulda-shouldas tossed around after that one.

[takeout]

Just saw the Simulcast Weekly with the opening day at Keeneland in it. The first pick-3 payoff was never corrected. Still reads: "$2 Pick Three (7-5-3) Paid $204.40; Pick Three Pool $24,215."

From now on I'll glance at the odds, then the payoff, and if it looks way out of whack I'll just ASSume that it was any-2-of-3.

Question: How much of this stuff do you think ever gets corrected?

[Tom]

[
Question: How much of this stuff do you think ever gets corrected?
[/B][/QUOTE]

None of it.

Tom

[takeout]

Question: How much of this stuff do you think ever gets corrected?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of it.

Tom
****

I was afraid you'd say that. :eek:

I suppose in the overall scheme of things it's not that big a deal but it's troublesome nonetheless because of the potential mushrooming effect. I know there's always going to be some mistakes in the data from time to time but it's worrisome when they don't get fixed down the line.

Suppose it was in the trainer or owner data (which has certainly happened before) or something else a little more important than just a pick-3 payoff. (Actually, I guess a pick-3 payoff would be pretty important to someone who unknowingly tossed their cashable tickets.) It then stays that way in the database and is probably printed that way in the Racing Manual (at $60 a pop.) Perhaps even more importantly it stays that way in EVERYBODY'S PPs and is imported into the databases of individuals, and so on. And, what about any extra stuff that is purchased to try and improve one's game? Just about every seller of handicapping aids of all types (trainer stats, numbers of all descriptions, etc.) built their information from that exact same source. There's no escaping it.

I remember one year when a trainer (who had a sizable stable) won 3 races on the card on January 1st. It took so long for those wins to show up in the PPs that I've never been sure if he was indeed EVER credited with them. I also considered the possibility that they may have been placed in his previous year's stats. Who knows? And, who ever will?

[karlskorner]

On numerous occasions I have e-mailed Bris or Equibase and stated that I found an error in the charts.The corrections were made and I have received a thank you e-mail in return.

If you don't tell them, they won't know.

Karl

[ceejay]

Originally posted by karlskorner
On numerous occasions I have e-mailed Bris or Equibase and stated that I found an error in the charts.The corrections were made and I have received a thank you e-mail in return.

If you don't tell them, they won't know.

Karl

I contacted DRF last week about a mistake in Simo Weekly's Beyer Pars. They checked it out, gave me the correction over the phone and promiced to fix it in the next issue.

[takeout]

You probably have to contact both Equibase and DRF when you find a mistake these days. I'm not sure that one necessarily equates to the other. I once had a trainer's name corrected at Equibase and about a year later I noticed that it was still wrong in the DRF PPs. Now it's right everywhere - I think.

I notice that at brisnet is still says DRF data and at their other site, tsnhorse, it still says Equibase data. I think the fact that TSN was even created in the first place speaks volumes to the data issue. Hopefully both companies (Equibase & DRF) are on the same page these days.