Win PayOut On A Dead Heat

[EQUIPACE]

Ok, Was looking at results today from CD. 09/13/19

In Race 1 at Churchill and there was a dead heat for the win bet.
The #5 horse Kimberley Dream went off at final odds of 44.40-1
The #6 horse Lady Cleopatra went off at final odds of 3.30-1

There was a dead heat for the win. (#5 & #6)
Can someone help me understand the paltry payoff's or lack of bigger returns due to this dead heat?

#5 on any given day would and should have paid about $90.00 on the win bet.
#6 on any given day would and should have paid just under $9.00 on the win bet. Yet both horses returned way under what was normal.

#5 Kimberly Dream @ 44-1 Returned $37.40 for a win Bet.
#6 Lady Cleopatra @ 7-2 Returned $5.00 for a win Bet.

Now let me say up front, I did not bet this race, but if I had, I would have felt
hosed having the winner either way. How can either horse not pay their typical post odds return x 2 +2 ? Is it something to do with the win pool shared on each horse? Man, if I had a substantial win bet on the #5 and he won, which he did, I would be pretty P'O'd … I would have still expected something closer to the $90 he should have paid. Why does this happen? Seen this before in other races too. Thanks for your input!

Equipace

[cj]

Yes, the win pool is cut in half and split up among winning tickets on each horse. It used to be pretty straight forward math, but now I would assume net pool pricing is used like it is in the place and show pools and that probably cuts a little into the price as well, though there are times it helps the price versus the old method.

You can read on net pool pricing briefly here.

[mike_123_ca]

It's a fair question, but you need to understand that in pari-mutuel wagering, the losing money (less the egregious takeout percentage) is divided equally amongst the winning tickets. Since there was 2 winners, there is less losing money and more winning tickets. The deadheat essentially turns the win pool into a place pool with similar payoffs.

[BarchCapper]

This got me wondering - betting through the tote in Europe would result in the same thing, a split of the win pool.

But if you bet with a bookmaker at fixed odds, how do they handle a dead heat? Do they just pay you half-odds?

[flatstats]

Originally Posted by BarchCapper

This got me wondering - betting through the tote in Europe would result in the same thing, a split of the win pool.

But if you bet with a bookmaker at fixed odds, how do they handle a dead heat? Do they just pay you half-odds?

They would halve the stake not the odds.

e.g. you back a 4/1 shot at £5 and it dead heats.

Your return is £2.50 at 4/1 = £12.50

Betting exchanges would do the same. Half of your stake is classed as a winner the other half a loser.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by mike_123_ca

It's a fair question, but you need to understand that in pari-mutuel wagering, the losing money (less the egregious takeout percentage) is divided equally amongst the winning tickets. Since there was 2 winners, there is less losing money and more winning tickets. The deadheat essentially turns the win pool into a place pool with similar payoffs.

Is this the way it works now?

I always thought it was a little different:

1. Take the pool.
2. Remove takeout.
3. Remove winning bets.
4. Split the remainder between the two sides (i.e. A & B.)
5. Determine prices.
6. Apply breakage.


Thus, the low-odds horse might get (say) $1.68 profit and the higher odds might get $6.41 profit.

Adding the original bet ($2) back gives us:
A=$3.68
B=$8.41

Breakage
A=$3.60
B=$8.40

Am I wrong about this?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Is this the way it works now?

I always thought it was a little different:

1. Take the pool.
2. Remove takeout.
3. Remove winning bets.
4. Split the remainder between the two sides (i.e. A & B.)
5. Determine prices.
6. Apply breakage.


Thus, the low-odds horse might get (say) $1.68 profit and the higher odds might get $6.41 profit.

Adding the original bet ($2) back gives us:
A=$3.68
B=$8.41

Breakage
A=$3.60
B=$8.40

Am I wrong about this?

It used to go like this, but with net pool pricing it is probably different.

Pool 10,000
Takeout 17%
Remainder 8,300

Horse A 2,000 to win
Horse B 1,000 to win

They dead heat.

4,150 is split to each horse.

Horse A pays 4,150 / 1000 = 4.15, then breakage applied.
Horse B pays 4,150 / 500 = 8.30, then breakage applied.

At least that is what I've always thought anyway, could be wrong.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by cj

It used to go like this, but with net pool pricing it is probably different.

Pool 10,000
Takeout 17%
Remainder 8,300

Horse A 2,000 to win
Horse B 1,000 to win

They dead heat.

4,150 is split to each horse.

Horse A pays 4,150 / 1000 = 4.15, then breakage applied.
Horse B pays 4,150 / 500 = 8.30, then breakage applied.

At least that is what I've always thought anyway, could be wrong.

I’ve heard that phrase “net pool pricing”. Thanks for an example. Now the question is, short-priced favorite in the dead heat. Horse A now 5,000 to win with horse B still 1000.

Before you’d have 1,150 to distribute to each set of winners (8300-6000=2300 then divide by 2)

With 4150/5000 what happens? Minus pool for the short priced winner and minimum payoff, and still the 8.30 base on the longer priced winner?

[cj]

Originally Posted by BarchCapper

I’ve heard that phrase “net pool pricing”. Thanks for an example. Now the question is, short-priced favorite in the dead heat. Horse A now 5,000 to win with horse B still 1000.

Before you’d have 1,150 to distribute to each set of winners (8300-6000=2300 then divide by 2)

With 4150/5000 what happens? Minus pool for the short priced winner and minimum payoff, and still the 8.30 base on the longer priced winner?

I really don't know enough about net pool pricing to say. I can't confirm the example given in that link is accurate. I just know it isn't done the way it used to be done in all the books I read.

[davew]

the pool is split into 2 winners instead of 1 - you can think of it as a place pool where the pay-offs depend on which horses are involved.


just wait until you get involved with exchange wagering and a dead heat involves a big favorite - you could get back less than you paid

[EQUIPACE]

Thanks for the replies.
CJ's link says a lot about this situation in the show pools. Please click and read his link. It talks more about the Show pool, But this is the win pool and there is no comparison. In the past, I've occasionally worn a T-Shirt that say's "Show Bets Are For Pussies" Now if My horse went off at 45-1 as in my example above, and I like his chances, I would be a fool to not bet the show at those odds. Believe me, I've missed some serious coin wearing that stupid shirt. Lesson Learned. And Dave S, I have always thought about dead heats in a similar way but I figured they would still pay much more. I get the impression this might be a rule that tracks combine the two win pools together, subtract the take out and divide it between winning tickets with a (track scale) that says the higher odds horse gets X return and the lower horse gets Y return. Simple, Right? I hate conspiracy, but I'm thinking that tracks are certainly pocketing a lot of extra coin on these types of dead heats. How about half of the return at least? Occasionally, I find a longshot that is a top pick in a figure on my spreadsheet, rarely do I bet them unless they figure somewhere else in multiple angles. Like I said in the original post. A horse at 45-1 should pay $90+ to win not $37, even in a dead heat. Someone is getting hosed. Guess who it is? I'll just answer, I think, Us Bettors!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by EQUIPACE

Thanks for the replies.
CJ's link says a lot about this situation in the show pools. Please click and read his link. It talks more about the Show pool, But this is the win pool and there is no comparison. In the past, I've occasionally worn a T-Shirt that say's "Show Bets Are For Pussies" Now if My horse went off at 45-1 as in my example above, and I like his chances, I would be a fool to not bet the show at those odds. Believe me, I've missed some serious coin wearing that stupid shirt. Lesson Learned. And Dave S, I have always thought about dead heats in a similar way but I figured they would still pay much more. I get the impression this might be a rule that tracks combine the two win pools together, subtract the take out and divide it between winning tickets with a (track scale) that says the higher odds horse gets X return and the lower horse gets Y return. Simple, Right? I hate conspiracy, but I'm thinking that tracks are certainly pocketing a lot of extra coin on these types of dead heats. How about half of the return at least? Occasionally, I find a longshot that is a top pick in a figure on my spreadsheet, rarely do I bet them unless they figure somewhere else in multiple angles. Like I said in the original post. A horse at 45-1 should pay $90+ to win not $37, even in a dead heat. Someone is getting hosed. Guess who it is? I'll just answer, I think, Us Bettors!

If the 45-1 horse in the dead-heat paid $90+...where would they get the money to pay the OTHER horse in the dead heat? I don't know how they figure out the dead-heat payoffs...but I know that they can't pay both horses off at full odds.

[AltonKelsey]

Let me be the first to welcome Equipace as a breath of fresh aire(sic) and a source of great insight

[horses4courses]

The bookmaker's pay off on dead heats for fixed odds is more equitable.

Half your bet wins, half loses - the winning half being paid at full odds.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by EQUIPACE

A horse at 45-1 should pay $90+ to win not $37, even in a dead heat. Someone is getting hosed. Guess who it is? I'll just answer, I think, Us Bettors!

Why should a 45/1 horse pay $90+ when he didn't deserve it? (i.e. didn't actually win; only tied for the win.)

Not how the parimutuel system works. Don't get me wrong... I love the concept of fixed odds. Love it even more if you can take either side with a little vig tossed in.


Have I misunderstood?