|
07-06-2020, 12:20 AM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,678
|
Longshots in trifetca
Did you ever feel snake-bit? I have seen 3 horses with the highest odds fill the trifecta before, but not with odds as high as this. I bet this is a new high when adding the odds of the 3 trifecta horses. These are the 3 horses I told everyone to not bet.
Mth 9th 7/5/20
#1 Promise Illgetyou----off at 107:1-----216.00, 83.00, 32.00
#2 So Hot----------------off at 65:1--------------, 44.40, 21.20
#4 Shoeless--------------off at 107:1--------------------, 34.00
If my calculation is correct, you could expect a score like this once every 750,000 races.
__________________
“Man is a slow, sloppy, and brilliant thinker; computers are fast, accurate, and stupid.”
― John Pfeiffer
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 07:27 AM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,819
|
the answer
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 08:14 AM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mukwonago, WI
Posts: 3,208
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aner
Did you ever feel snake-bit? I have seen 3 horses with the highest odds fill the trifecta before, but not with odds as high as this. I bet this is a new high when adding the odds of the 3 trifecta horses. These are the 3 horses I told everyone to not bet.
Mth 9th 7/5/20
#1 Promise Illgetyou----off at 107:1-----216.00, 83.00, 32.00
#2 So Hot----------------off at 65:1--------------, 44.40, 21.20
#4 Shoeless--------------off at 107:1--------------------, 34.00
If my calculation is correct, you could expect a score like this once every 750,000 races.
|
That tri was a gyp. A once on a lifetime score that should have paid much more than it did. I would have been pissed if I had it.
__________________
"I don't always frequent message boards, but when I do, I prefer PaceAdvantage."
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 09:56 AM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,822
|
I thought the trifecta was low too, but the race result was so incredibly random that I'm not sure what we can take from it other than it was a freak event.
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 12:56 PM
|
#5
|
Registered Wacko
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Belmont-ish
Posts: 2,242
|
That tri was super low at $11,000 for a deuce. Numbers players, perhaps?
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 01:58 PM
|
#6
|
clean money
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,558
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zman179
That tri was super low at $11,000 for a deuce. Numbers players, perhaps?
|
IDK, seems low,
and the first-glance heuristics I can think of (pool-size, field size, form, etc...) get mostly dismissed by the raw WPS payouts posted ITT.
If you were on some 1/750,000 race 'system' from hell, it SUCKS... but if you were some knucklehead who played his house number or 'baxed the three longest shots for a 'lotto' ticket, you're on cloud nine.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 03:18 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 1,189
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wisconsin
That tri was a gyp. A once on a lifetime score that should have paid much more than it did. I would have been pissed if I had it.
|
Seemed light to me at first glance, too. If my calcs are right the hit rate on the exacta was lower than the tri which seems weird but is probably purely randomness. I was surprised so many people hit even the exacta. There was about $90,000 to distribute in the exacta pool, so there were 9 $1 winning bets, but the tri rate was a little higher. I guess the lower denomination on the tri helps create the higher hit rate and thus lower price.
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 09:44 PM
|
#8
|
Out-of-town Jasper
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,364
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by alhattab
Seemed light to me at first glance, too. If my calcs are right the hit rate on the exacta was lower than the tri which seems weird but is probably purely randomness. I was surprised so many people hit even the exacta. There was about $90,000 to distribute in the exacta pool, so there were 9 $1 winning bets, but the tri rate was a little higher. I guess the lower denomination on the tri helps create the higher hit rate and thus lower price.
|
I believe there was $9 bet on the winning trifecta. I don't know for sure because I don't know what their takeout is.
__________________
“If you want to outwit the devil, it is extremely important that you don't give him advanced notice."
~Alan Watts
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 10:20 PM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,286
|
I was wondering if anyone on pace advantage took Aner's throw outs and boxed the 3, just to do it.
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 10:41 PM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 444
|
Turf routes at Monmouth yesterday looked like they favored inside trips, and to a degree speed. This is from the charts for that race:
PROMISE ILLGETYOU raced off the pace inside, advanced on the rail in upper stretch, angled out at the sixteenth marker, made a late run
and was just up for the win. SO HOT showed good early speed to set the pace, showed the way into the far turn, shook free again at the furlong
marker, dug in gamely and was caught at the wire. SHOELESS raced off the pace inside, saved ground on the far turn and rallied mildly inside
Would have never had it but know guys that live for these type of bets, where it's a function of how a track is playing more so than who the best horses are.
.10 cent super box with the 5 inside horses ($12) would have gotten 25K.
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 11:31 PM
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,286
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by metro
Turf routes at Monmouth yesterday looked like they favored inside trips, and to a degree speed. This is from the charts for that race:
PROMISE ILLGETYOU raced off the pace inside, advanced on the rail in upper stretch, angled out at the sixteenth marker, made a late run
and was just up for the win. SO HOT showed good early speed to set the pace, showed the way into the far turn, shook free again at the furlong
marker, dug in gamely and was caught at the wire. SHOELESS raced off the pace inside, saved ground on the far turn and rallied mildly inside
Would have never had it but know guys that live for these type of bets, where it's a function of how a track is playing more so than who the best horses are.
.10 cent super box with the 5 inside horses ($12) would have gotten 25K.
|
Actually, another winner would have cut the payoff to $12,975 and pennies. Nevertheless, a good payoff. There was only 1 winning ticket on the superfecta.
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 11:45 PM
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 278
|
Did anyone think that with these results a drug test could've been in order??
They had to be the worst 3 horses in the bunch.
Makes me wonder.
|
|
|
07-07-2020, 12:06 AM
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 915
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksinger
Did anyone think that with these results a drug test could've been in order??
They had to be the worst 3 horses in the bunch.
Makes me wonder.
|
I do believe the top 3 finishers in any race are tested, so looks like you'll get your wish. Is there any jurisdiction where all the horses in the money aren't subject to a post-race sample?
|
|
|
07-07-2020, 06:19 PM
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 1,189
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by therussmeister
I believe there was $9 bet on the winning trifecta. I don't know for sure because I don't know what their takeout is.
|
I believe you are correct. Pretty sure the tri takeout is 25%.
|
|
|
07-07-2020, 06:42 PM
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,725
|
The $.10 super paid nearly $26k with one of the two chalks in 4th.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|