twenty cent trifecta

[baconswitchfarm]

Woodbine has now gone to .20 trifecta plays. With such good pools I don't see how this adds a thing. At tiny tracks I could see the effort. Anyone thinks this helps them long term

[speed]

Woodbine has now gone to .20 trifecta plays. With such good pools I don't see how this adds a thing. At tiny tracks I could see the effort. Anyone thinks this helps them long term
Helps me a bunch. Only need to find 24 soda cans now to make a 3 horse box.

[WoxFan]

I wish they would reduce the takeout - 25% is way too high.

[raybo]

A 20c tri is similar to a 10c super. Cheap way to take a shot. Or a great hedge bet.

If you have a good odds closer, say at 8/1 or so, singled on top, against 2 speed burners, say at 2/1 or so, it costs you only 40 cents to take a shot that might pay $25 or more, depending on pool size, if the closer catches the 2 speed burners before the wire.

Just 1 example, of many scenarios, that could be very possible.

[davew]

In some wide open races, I will bet using 10 or 20 cent supers, but stay out of the trifecta pool with $1 min - now I may use tri's rather than supers in some of those races where offered.

[MightBeSosa]

I always thought the min bet size in exotics was too high. Favored the whales.

After 20 + years they finally figured it out

And the BIGGER the pool the better for small bet sizes, not the other way around. What good is hitting a super with 3 or 4 longshots if the MAX payoff is 3k?

[raybo]

I always thought the min bet size in exotics was too high. Favored the whales.

After 20 + years they finally figured it out

And the BIGGER the pool the better for small bet sizes, not the other way around. What good is hitting a super with 3 or 4 longshots if the MAX payoff is 3k?

Agree, big pools only help the smaller player. You can still get a large share of the pool with penny wagers, if you have 1 of only a few winning tickets.

I think the penny exotics are a great boost for the game, and the general public, who has been scared off by high exotic ticket costs previously.

[thaskalos]

Agree, big pools only help the smaller player. You can still get a large share of the pool with penny wagers, if you have 1 of only a few winning tickets.

I think the penny exotics are a great boost for the game, and the general public, who has been scared off by high exotic ticket costs previously.
IMO...the penny exotics are a good thing when they are applied to the more difficult, higher paying wagers, like the superfecta or the pick-5...but they are a bad idea when they are applied to the lesser-paying propositions like the trifecta or the pick-3.

The trifecta payoffs have already declined sharply in recent years...and this 20-cent version of the bet -- if it catches on -- is sure to destroy any remaining value still to be found in the wager.

The trifecta bettor today already faces stiff competition in the short fields and the high takeout; he cannot hope to profit when he also has to compete against players who can spread out in the trifecta for the cost of $4.80.

[raybo]

IMO...the penny exotics are a good thing when they are applied to the more difficult, higher paying wagers, like the superfecta or the pick-5...but they are a bad idea when they are applied to the lesser-paying propositions like the trifecta or the pick-3.

The trifecta payoffs have already declined sharply in recent years...and this 20-cent version of the bet -- if it catches on -- is sure to destroy any remaining value still to be found in the wager.

The trifecta bettor today already faces stiff competition in the short fields and the high takeout; he cannot hope to profit when he also has to compete against players who can spread out in the trifecta for the cost of $4.80.

Understand, but they are getting a small portion of the payout, too.

[MightBeSosa]

By what standard have trifecta payouts declined? Lower payouts due to smaller fields doesn't really count, as the bet is easier to cash in that case.

If you're saying that somehow, the payoff for three 5-1 shots in a 10 horse field used to pay 600 and now pays 500, I'd have to see proof of that.

If anything, the super payoffs seem enormous in many cases, even in wise guy territory like NY.

Where you are often robbed blind is the exacta pool, not the tri's and supers.

[thaskalos]

By what standard have trifecta payouts declined? Lower payouts due to smaller fields doesn't really count, as the bet is easier to cash in that case.

If you're saying that somehow, the payoff for three 5-1 shots in a 10 horse field used to pay 600 and now pays 500, I'd have to see proof of that.

If anything, the super payoffs seem enormous in many cases, even in wise guy territory like NY.

Where you are often robbed blind is the exacta pool, not the tri's and supers.
I disagree.

IMO, the exacta payoffs have held up nicely through the years...but the trifecta payoffs have declined drastically; and I don't mean just because of the size of the fields.

You used to see signer payoffs in trifectas regularly...but not anymore -- even when high-priced horses dominate the board.

The pick-3 payoffs have declined sharply too...

[thaskalos]

If you're saying that somehow, the payoff for three 5-1 shots in a 10 horse field used to pay 600 and now pays 500, I'd have to see proof of that.


500??

You are lucky to get 300. :)

http://www1.drf.com/drfPDFChartRacesIndexAction.do?TRK=HAW&CTY=USA&DATE=20121102&RN=7

[traynor]

500??

You are lucky to get 300. :)

http://www1.drf.com/drfPDFChartRacesIndexAction.do?TRK=HAW&CTY=USA&DATE=20121102&RN=7

I don't understand why anyone would think there was (is, or should be) a relationship between win odds, or win, place, and show mutuels, and trifecta mutuels. They are discrete pools.

The reason for lower trifectas is that more and more bettors believe win or win/place wagering is not worth the hassle when the prospective reward of such wagering is compared to trifecta payoffs. More people betting trifectas, more winning tickets, smaller trifectas. No mystery at all.

[raybo]

Players are just getting smarter and no longer think that the only game in town is WPS. That was going to happen regardless.

The best thing about penny exotics is all the "uneducated" money now in those pools.

[DeltaLover]

Agree, big pools only help the smaller player.

Ray,

if this was true (which for a number of reasons I do not believe it...) then it is a good reason why a small player should target the big pools rather then smaller.

Avoiding small tracks like Mountaineer for example, since this was the topic of one of our previus discussions prefering to add his action to Belmont or Woodbine instead...

This view is not alligned with what you have already said about the smaller pools..

Can you please clarify?

[thaskalos]

I don't understand why anyone would think there was (is, or should be) a relationship between win odds, or win, place, and show mutuels, and trifecta mutuels. They are discrete pools.

The reason for lower trifectas is that more and more bettors believe win or win/place wagering is not worth the hassle when the prospective reward of such wagering is compared to trifecta payoffs. More people betting trifectas, more winning tickets, smaller trifectas. No mystery at all.
I disagree. Of course there is a "relationship" between win-odds and exotic payoffs...and we are all aware of this fact -- or so I thought. All things being equal...the longer-priced horses are expected to produce the higher exotic payoffs.

I never suggested that the lower trifecta payoffs in recent years were a "mystery"...I only said that they had indeed declined; and that this 20-cent version of the wager -- were it to catch on -- would cause the payoffs to decline even further.

The trifecta is not the type of complicated wager that needs the relief provided by the 20-cent bet size. 50-cent trifectas is enough reduction...IMO.

[thaskalos]

Players are just getting smarter and no longer think that the only game in town is WPS. That was going to happen regardless.

The best thing about penny exotics is all the "uneducated" money now in those pools.
I don't think that the value which exists in exotic wagering is there mainly because of the presence of "uneducated" money. I think the value is there because the "uneducated" money sometimes cannot afford to spread out far enough to meet the demands of the situation.

If the betting unit is reduced far enough, then everyone can afford to spread out adequately...and the bet gets much tougher to beat.

Low betting units, when coupled with the smaller fields, are the anathema of the trifecta bettor...IMO.

[DeltaLover]

If the betting unit is reduced far enough, then everyone can afford to spread out adequately...and the bet gets much tougher to beat. :ThmbUp:

ΔΑΣΚΑΛΕ διδαξες παλι!

[traynor]

I disagree. Of course there is a "relationship" between win-odds and exotic payoffs...and we are all aware of this fact -- or so I thought. All things being equal...the longer-priced horses are expected to produce the higher exotic payoffs.

I never suggested that the lower trifecta payoffs in recent years were a "mystery"...I only said that they had indeed declined; and that this 20-cent version of the wager -- were it to catch on -- would cause the payoffs to decline even further.

The trifecta is not the type of complicated wager that needs the relief provided by the 20-cent bet size. 50-cent trifectas is enough reduction...IMO.

Saying "of course there is" does not make it so, nor does saying "we are all aware of the fact" change a fiction to a truth. In discrete pools the number of wagers (and winning tickets) in other pools is (are) irrelevant.

[TrifectaMike]

:ThmbUp:

ΔΑΣΚΑΛΕ διδαξες παλι!

Whatever he said, I agree.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[TrifectaMike]

Saying "of course there is" does not make it so, nor does saying "we are all aware of the fact" change a fiction to a truth. In discrete pools the number of wagers (and winning tickets) in other pools is (are) irrelevant.

A "tricky" response, but doesn't address the question of correlation between pools.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[DeltaLover]

Whatever he said, I agree.

Mike (Dr Beav)

I said that Thaskalos gave his morning lecture with success!

[tophorse1145]

I also think that players are already playing very smartly.
<a ref="http://www.tophorse.com.au/">horse deals </a>

[traynor]

"In logic (http:///wiki/Logic), an argumentum ad populum (Latin (http:///wiki/Latin) for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument (http:///wiki/Fallacy) that concludes a proposition (http:///wiki/Proposition) to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] (http://#cite_note-0) including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, democracy, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin (http:///wiki/Latin) as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement (http:///wiki/Communal_reinforcement) and the bandwagon effect (http:///wiki/Bandwagon_effect). The Chinese proverb (http:///wiki/Proverb) "three men make a tiger (http:///wiki/Three_men_make_a_tiger)" concerns the same idea."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[MONEY]

I just want to thank baconswitchfarm for starting this thread.

It reminded me that Retama has 10 cent triples.

I bet $16.20 in tris in Retama's 1st 3 races & hit the 3rd for $133.47.

There is no way that I would have bet enough combos to win if it was not
for the 10:ThmbUp:cent minimum.

[baconswitchfarm]

Congratulations. Any way you win counts. Glad I could help.

[Ray2000]

Didn't see this thread until after I posted this in Harness Forum :blush:

Some early numbers.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98934