Surprised not to see any discussion of the Lake Placid Photo Finish

[toddbowker]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

NO they don't NOT with today's technology....I had lots of old 35 MM film around and messed with it for comparison sakes and with today's cameras that is not longer the case.

I'll defer to you on that one. I haven't been a placing judge for awhile. I also wasn't a placing judge anywhere that 35mm film was used, it was always medium format.

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

There are only about three major companies that are mainstream and many use the same one as Woodbine Finish Lynx. I understand that a Japanese one is comparable.

Not sure what technology that American Teletimer uses, but they are the major player. Major tracks in California use Plusmic. I think International Sound provides a version of Finish Lynx to many tracks.

[46zilzal]

all these systems (digital) are basically the same....

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

That may or may be true, but it is irrelevant as it relates to the photo finish competence in HORSE racing.

The tech even showed us that in the Middle East they use it with camel racing.

I am not saying the technology isn't wonderful (although honestly so was the old style black and white film technology- look at the famous photo of the 1944 triple dead heat in the Carter Handicap at Aqueduct: https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/...BNYAXCUQRU.jpg ).

Rather, I am saying that the technology is only as good as its implementation, and FinishLynx is not a company I have a very high opinion of based on personal observation as well as their reputation.

At any rate, this thread has devolved into excuse making for something that just never would have happened if NYRA was run properly. They have this racetrack that gets bad weather every year, where races sometimes get run in very dark conditions, and their photo finish equipment wasn't up to snuff and took an inconclusive photograph when many other tracks throughout the country battle similar conditions and take a reasonable photo finish. It's not really defensible.

[cj]

Originally Posted by toddbowker

Not true. The takeout is the takeout. It doesn't change because there is a dead heat. The public as a whole collectively retained the same amount of money (other than a possible change in breakage). An individual person may have received a smaller payout, but not the public as a whole.

As I noted earlier, the more payouts there are, the more that is withheld for breakage. There were a lot of pools and the pools were big.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

As I noted earlier, the more payouts there are, the more that is withheld for breakage. There were a lot of pools and the pools were big.

Essentially, a dead heat for win is paid out the same way as a place pool would be. And everyone knows there's more breakage withheld in a place pool than in a win pool.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

There are only about three major companies that are mainstream and many use the same one as Woodbine Finish Lynx. I understand that a Japanese one is comparable.

I get it...I was making a point.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

They should (1) install lights (they can afford it!) and (2) use any photo finish system that is successful at one of the many tracks in North America that has twilight racing.

I mean, what did they use at Hollywood Park before they closed? I saw several race cards where the track was obscured by fog and rain, where the sun was setting or night had fallen, and the photo finishes always came out fine no matter the conditions.

Considering that NYRA knows that there are weather and darkness issues at Saratoga (this is not a new phenomenon) and the race meet makes all sorts of money for NYRA, this is not a big ask.

What photo finish system do they use?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

At any rate, this thread has devolved into excuse making for something that just never would have happened if NYRA was run properly.

lulz

[delsully]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Why am I so nice to people who should have been banned long ago? Oh that's right...because they just come back under another name, 'cause they can't get enough of this place, no matter how many bad things they say about it, or me.

Fun times.

Then ban me champ. You got all the answers.

Im just a random a-hole, not a ghost chasing you.

[toddbowker]

Originally Posted by cj

As I noted earlier, the more payouts there are, the more that is withheld for breakage. There were a lot of pools and the pools were big.

While it's possible that breakage could increase, that is not an absolute. Breakage is a factor of dividing winning dollars (or "profit" under net pool pricing) into the remainder of the pool after takeout. If everything divided perfectly, there would be no breakage at all, regardless of the size of the pool or number of winning dollars. You could also end up with negative breakage if one of the horses involved in the dead heat was a short priced horse.

There's no question the breakage would likely be different in a dead heat scenario, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the breakage would always be higher.

[cj]

Originally Posted by toddbowker

While it's possible that breakage could increase, that is not an absolute. Breakage is a factor of dividing winning dollars (or "profit" under net pool pricing) into the remainder of the pool after takeout. If everything divided perfectly, there would be no breakage at all, regardless of the size of the pool or number of winning dollars. You could also end up with negative breakage if one of the horses involved in the dead heat was a short priced horse.

There's no question the breakage would likely be different in a dead heat scenario, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the breakage would always be higher.

I think it would always be higher, it would have to be. Instead of one winner, you now have two, each still breaking to the same amount. You also have multiple exacta, trifecta, superfecta, P3, P4, P5, doubles, etc. I can't imagine any scenario where there wouldn't be quite a bit more breakage in a dead heat for the win scenario.

[cj]

Just the win pool, here is one quick example. 100,000 pool, 15% takeout.

1 horse has 33,000 bet to win, 2 horse has 22,000 (I just made those up).

If the 1 wins, the horse pays 5.15, rounded down to 5.00 at most tracks. The means the track pays out 82,500 and keeps 2,500 for breakage.

If the 2 wins, the horse pays 7.72, rounded down to 7.60. They return 83,600 to bettors and keep 1,400 for breakage.

If the two dead heat, they now split up the 85,000 left after takeout.

1 pays 2.57, rounded down to 2.40. this returns 39,600 to bettors and keeps 2,900. Breakage has already increased and we haven't even gotten to the second horse yet.

2 pays 3.86, rounded down to 3.80, so 41,800 is returned to bettors and 700 is breakage.

Breakage went from either 2500 or 1400 in the win pool to 3600 with the dead heat. I would guess there is the possibility that at times it could decrease, but I'd also bet that is a pretty small amount of the time.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by cj

I think it would always be higher, it would have to be. Instead of one winner, you now have two, each still breaking to the same amount. You also have multiple exacta, trifecta, superfecta, P3, P4, P5, doubles, etc. I can't imagine any scenario where there wouldn't be quite a bit more breakage in a dead heat for the win scenario.

How can that be?
Breakage is what is left over from the pool once payoffs are calculated.
The pool is still the pool. Breakage should not change due to the number
of winning tickets. It should only change marginally due to a dead heat,
and it could go up or down. Take out is legally binding, is it not?

Tracks and racing associations that have adopted dime mutuel payoffs are to be applauded. Their slice of the breakage pie decreases when winning mutuels can be rounded up by a dime. For example, a place payoff that can't quite make $2.80 is paid off at $2.60 by most tracks. The ones that pay at $2.70 are doing the right thing. The excess held by the track paying $2.60 leads to higher amounts of breakage, and jurisdictions have different regulations for putting it to use at the end of a meet. This is a grey area when it comes to pari-mutuel wagering.

Bettors pay a hefty price for breakage in the long run.
Makes it even tougher to win.

[cj]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

How can that be?
Breakage is what is left over from the pool once payoffs are calculated.
The pool is still the pool. Breakage should not change due to the number
of winning tickets. It should only change marginally due to a dead heat,
and it could go up or down. Take out is legally binding, is it not?

Tracks and racing associations that have adopted dime mutuel payoffs are to be applauded. Their slice of the breakage pie decreases when winning mutuels can be rounded up by a dime. For example, a place payoff that can't quite make $2.80 is paid off at $2.60 by most tracks. The ones that pay at $2.70 are doing the right thing. The excess held by the track paying $2.60 leads to higher amounts of breakage, and jurisdictions have different regulations for putting it to use at the end of a meet. This is a grey area when it comes to pari-mutuel wagering.

Bettors pay a hefty price for breakage in the long run.
Makes it even tougher to win.

Takeout and breakage are two different things. Takeout comes right off the top. That is always going to be the same amount. The breakage comes from the remainder.

My example pretty much summed it up. Payoffs get lower, which usually lead to more breakage being withheld, and you are doing it with two horses instead of one.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by cj

Just the win pool, here is one quick example. 100,000 pool, 15% takeout.

1 horse has 33,000 bet to win, 2 horse has 22,000 (I just made those up).

If the 1 wins, the horse pays 5.15, rounded down to 5.00 at most tracks. The means the track pays out 82,500 and keeps 2,500 for breakage.

If the 2 wins, the horse pays 7.72, rounded down to 7.60. They return 83,600 to bettors and keep 1,400 for breakage.

If the two dead heat, they now split up the 85,000 left after takeout.

1 pays 2.57, rounded down to 2.40. this returns 39,600 to bettors and keeps 2,900. Breakage has already increased and we haven't even gotten to the second horse yet.

2 pays 3.86, rounded down to 3.80, so 41,800 is returned to bettors and 700 is breakage.

Breakage went from either 2500 or 1400 in the win pool to 3600 with the dead heat. I would guess there is the possibility that at times it could decrease, but I'd also bet that is a pretty small amount of the time.

Your math is right.
I stand corrected.

Another example on how bettors keep this game alive.