|
|
12-24-2017, 08:26 PM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 53
|
How are payoffs more than the pool?
I'm looking at historical data for a project, and came across this:
http://www.equibase.com/premium/char...17&cy=USA&rn=4
In this race, the superfecta pool was $6,860, but the payout was $10,262.60.
Sorry if this is a "newbie" question, but please explain how this works.
Thanks
|
|
|
12-24-2017, 08:53 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Houston Tx.
Posts: 3,130
|
Mountaineer offers 50 cent supers.
That price is for a $2.00 superfecta.
In reality only $1.00 worth of supers was paid out for $5131.00.
The pool $6,860.00 minus the takeout.
__________________
Laboratory rats are susceptible to drug addiction, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
|
|
|
12-24-2017, 09:11 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 53
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MONEY
Mountaineer offers 50 cent supers.
That price is for a $2.00 superfecta.
In reality only $1.00 worth of supers was paid out for $5131.00.
The pool $6,860.00 minus the takeout.
|
Ty - but how the **** am I supposed to understand the Equibase results when it reports that the payout for a $2.00 superfecta was $10,262.60?
|
|
|
12-24-2017, 09:31 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,643
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragon49
Ty - but how the **** am I supposed to understand the Equibase results when it reports that the payout for a $2.00 superfecta was $10,262.60?
|
what about the places that offer 10 cent supers? you will really be confused
|
|
|
12-24-2017, 09:36 PM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,549
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragon49;22[B
[/B]53678]Ty - but how the **** am I supposed to understand the Equibase results when it reports that the payout for a $2.00 superfecta was $10,262.60?
|
I recall a couple of years ago at Evangeline, when it was reported on the TV monitors that the $2 superfecta for a particular race paid $150,000...even though the superfecta pool only held about $20,000 total. Two dime-supers won for $7,500 each...but the track projected the payoff out to a $2 wager...just so they could advertise a "life-changing score". That unscrupulous practice was carried out quite often at several tracks back then...but, thankfully, you don't see it much anymore.
__________________
Live to play another day.
|
|
|
12-24-2017, 11:12 PM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 53
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
I recall a couple of years ago at Evangeline, when it was reported on the TV monitors that the $2 superfecta for a particular race paid $150,000...even though the superfecta pool only held about $20,000 total. Two dime-supers won for $7,500 each...but the track projected the payoff out to a $2 wager...just so they could advertise a "life-changing score". That unscrupulous practice was carried out quite often at several tracks back then...but, thankfully, you don't see it much anymore.
|
So why doesn't Equibase just report the payout for the cheaper superfectas and state that nobody hit the $2.00 one?
|
|
|
12-25-2017, 11:22 AM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,549
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragon49
So why doesn't Equibase just report the payout for the cheaper superfectas and state that nobody hit the $2.00 one?
|
Maybe Equibase is too busy doing other things...and they don't notice the "discrepancies" in the payoffs that they report.
__________________
Live to play another day.
|
|
|
12-25-2017, 11:56 AM
|
#8
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
All US tracks ought to report all wagering outcomes based on a $1 wager regardless of the minimum wager amount...that form of standardization, IMO, would be welcome by nearly everyone...
|
|
|
12-26-2017, 12:34 AM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 15,123
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
All US tracks ought to report all wagering outcomes based on a $1 wager regardless of the minimum wager amount...that form of standardization, IMO, would be welcome by nearly everyone...
|
Come on Vigors, standardization from tracks and reporting agencies? Your radical views are inspiring but this industry would implode if this happened.
|
|
|
12-28-2017, 05:41 PM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 53
|
I have a follow-up question which is important:
How much would a single winner $2.00 superfecta ticket have paid off?
If more than one $2.00 ticket had the winning superfecta numbers, can I do the simple math and divide the single prize by the number of winners?
|
|
|
12-28-2017, 07:24 PM
|
#11
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay68802
Come on Vigors, standardization from tracks and reporting agencies? Your radical views are inspiring but this industry would implode if this happened.
|
Hope springs eternal I guess....
|
|
|
12-28-2017, 07:56 PM
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 15,123
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
Hope springs eternal I guess....
|
Like my mother always told me, "You are not dumb as a rock, you are smart as a stone."
|
|
|
12-28-2017, 08:02 PM
|
#13
|
dGnr8
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Niagara, Ontario
Posts: 3,023
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragon49
How much would a single winner $2.00 superfecta ticket have paid off?
|
To paraphrase Money
Quote:
The pool $6,860.00 minus the takeout = $5131.00
|
Quote:
If more than one $2.00 ticket had the winning superfecta numbers, can I do the simple math and divide the single prize by the number of winners?
|
If all the winners had $2 tickets, then the answer is yes.
__________________
.
The great menace to progress is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge - Daniel J. Boorstin
The takers get the honey, the givers sing the blues - Robin Trower, Too Rolling Stoned - 1974
|
|
|
12-30-2017, 01:05 PM
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 53
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Knave
To paraphrase Money
The pool $6,860.00 minus the takeout = $5131.00.
|
I saw the post but thought this meant that nobody hit the $2.00 superfecta and the payout was for one of the cheaper supers that the track offers.
|
|
|
12-30-2017, 02:58 PM
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Houston Tx.
Posts: 3,130
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragon49
I saw the post but thought this meant that nobody hit the $2.00 superfecta and the payout was for one of the cheaper supers that the track offers.
|
You're not getting it.
Let's say that after takeout there is $9,000.00 in prize money left in the super pool.
If just one person hits it for $2.00, he would collect all $9,000.00.
An only winner that bet just 10 cents, would also get all $9000.00.
In this case equibase would report the $2.00 payoff as $180,000, even though there was no $2.00 payoff.
If one person hits for $2.00 and another one hits for 10 cents,
The one that hit for $2.00 would get $8,571.42, the 10 cent winner would get $428.57.
10 cents goes into $2.00, twenty times so the $2.00 winner gets twenty times what the 10 cent
winner gets, and the total adds up to $8,999.99. The track keeps an extra penny.
If only two people hit it for $2.00, the winners would get $4,500.00 each.
If only two people hit it for $1.00, the winners would still get $4,500.00 each.
If only two people hit it for 10 cents each, each winner would get $4,500.00.
__________________
Laboratory rats are susceptible to drug addiction, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|