Impossible task: Overcoming Penn Nat tri takeout

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Just have separate pools, that way, bettors who want to know they won't go from 3-1 to 8-5 at the top of the lane (like Browneyed Bachelor did today in the 5th at Hawthorne) can know for sure the final price.

While that trifecta price was short, if you're playing Penn National trifectas, you don't have to ask who the sucker at the table is because it's you.

[olddaddy]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

Japan do close the tote pools for betting about 2 minutes before the advertised start time for the race

Is that in the Japan pools or the north american japan pools?

[Tall One]

Anybody remember when they cut off wagering when the MTP hit zero, early 2000s I want to say? Or, at least TVG quit accepting bets at the zero.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

olddaddy

I was referring to the Japanese pools in Japan for the JRA races there

[Stillriledup]

I need some help with the math part of this, something happened today at another track, similar situation.

Want to bring your attention to the 5th today at Laurel.

You had a 9 horse field. There were two bombs, the 4 and the 7. The 7 was more safely tossed than the 4 as it did look like the 4 had some shot to be at least 3rd. The remaining 7 horses were very wide open. You had 6 of the 7 horses between 6-1 and 8-1 and you had a 6-5 favorite.

Now, if you box the tri for 50 cents and you toss the 2 bombs completely, the bet costs 105 for 50 cents.

Now, you get the 6-5 entirely off the board, the SIXTH choice wins the race, and you get a 6-1 and a 7-1 underneath and the tri pays 66 for 50 cents, which means your 7 horse box (throwing out 2 horses mind you) is "successful" as you did what you needed to do, you got the 6-5 shot off the board and you got the 6th choice to win and you only recouped 60% of your money. Now, if the takeout is 25%, you weren't even able to get the takeout back, in a 9 horse field that seemed wide open.

Help me out with the math here....i'm just not following how these tris are not even coming close to break even.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Maybe the Tri takeout is 99%

Look at tonight's 4th race.

You have a 9 horse field, which means 504 possible tri combinations. Or, a 252 50 cent wager if you box all 9.

168 if you throw out 1 horse and box 8 of the 9

Ok, so lets say you toss the 32-1 shot and box the other 8.

The winner was a 14-1 shot, the race was WIDE open otherwise, there was a 2-1 favorite who was off the board.

The winning Tri for 50 cents?

61.50

That means if you spent the 168 and boxed the field minus one, you got the horse who was the 2nd longest shot in the race (tied with another runner) and you weren't even really close to recouping 50% of your bet. In fact, you almost got a THIRD.

So, your box em up strategy was at least mildly successful, you got the favorite off the board, you got a bomb on top and you basically lost 60% of your investment.

Is there something i'm missing? How could you not at least come close to breaking even on that bet?

The payoff appears to be pretty short. I could go along with the 61.5 for half a buck if the 14-1 was 2nd or 3rd.....
Anyway, I think this is a perfect example of why tracks should at least display pool numbers on each entrant in a trifecta race. This would assist trifecta players to help determine value.
I don't think the ( confiscatory) 30% takeout is the issue here.
The fact that players could not see on which entrants the trifecta money was going. Having that info would help me to cobble together my bets...Or skip the race entirely

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Want to bring your attention to the 5th today at Laurel.

This was not a good example of a red-flag type of short payout scenario.

I am with you on the general theme, but not for this race.

It's very important to pick out really strong examples or else the really strong ones get weakened.

the # (FAVORITE) who was the favorite was 1.3-1 in the win pool, but she wasn't heavily bet overall.

only 22% of the show pool on the 9.

That should be a tip-off right away that the 9 wasn't tremendously backed in the trifecta pool.

trifecta finished - -

The lowest exacta with that favorite that lost ( the # ) was the .
This is important for two reasons.
First, it shows that the was thought highly of by the exotic bettors.
2nd it was paying a relatively high $27.40.
Because of the fact that $27.40 is a high exacta for the lowest probable under a favorite, it is yet another indicator that the favorite was not a pool-dominating heavy favorite. It also reflects the clustering of that group of 2nd favorites.
Other than the favored , and hapless longshots and , there was a relatively homogenous grouping of secondary contenders.

This race's trifecta payout ($264.60 for $2), was in no way highly unusual or suggestive of foul play.

I have not been able to review the other example(s) that you posted in this thread, but they did seem to be more interesting than this one.
Quality over quantity is the key for something like this in order to determine if there is a problem.

[olddaddy]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

olddaddy

I was referring to the Japanese pools in Japan for the JRA races there

I thought so because I have made bets here with the horses loading.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

This was not a good example of a red-flag type of short payout scenario.

I am with you on the general theme, but not for this race.

It's very important to pick out really strong examples or else the really strong ones get weakened.

the # (FAVORITE) who was the favorite was 1.3-1 in the win pool, but she wasn't heavily bet overall.

only 22% of the show pool on the 9.

That should be a tip-off right away that the 9 wasn't tremendously backed in the trifecta pool.

trifecta finished - -

The lowest exacta with that favorite that lost ( the # ) was the .
This is important for two reasons.
First, it shows that the was thought highly of by the exotic bettors.
2nd it was paying a relatively high $27.40.
Because of the fact that $27.40 is a high exacta for the lowest probable under a favorite, it is yet another indicator that the favorite was not a pool-dominating heavy favorite. It also reflects the clustering of that group of 2nd favorites.
Other than the favored , and hapless longshots and , there was a relatively homogenous grouping of secondary contenders.

This race's trifecta payout ($264.60 for $2), was in no way highly unusual or suggestive of foul play.

I have not been able to review the other example(s) that you posted in this thread, but they did seem to be more interesting than this one.
Quality over quantity is the key for something like this in order to determine if there is a problem.

Not suggesting foul play, pretty sure i didn't mention that in my post.

I like the idea that maybe the 6-5 was not really a 6-5, but i'm pretty sure bettors don't care about any of that, 6-5s are 6-5s and if you want to try and show me that this particular 6-5 wasn't really bet like a true 6-5 shot, how about coming up with an example, at any track in the nation, where a 6-5 won a race and the tri paid much more than it should.

As far as this particular 6-5 shot goes, if she had won, the tri would have paid exactly what you have expected for a 4.40 winner, bubkus. That tri if it came in 9-5 something would have paid 30 bucks for 50 cents tops.

My general overall question is about the math, it seems like in order to "break even" you really have to only box 3 or 4 horses and actually pick winners. You can't box 7 and make a profit, even with the 6-5 shot off the board.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Not suggesting foul play, pretty sure i didn't mention that in my post.

I like the idea that maybe the 6-5 was not really a 6-5, but i'm pretty sure bettors don't care about any of that...
...

...

My general overall question is about the math, it seems like in order to "break even" you really have to only box 3 or 4 horses and actually pick winners. You can't box 7 and make a profit, even with the 6-5 shot off the board.

Then your thread just amounts to complaining.

I got suckered-in to your thread here, and I have no one blame, but my self.

Yes, horse racing is hard.

Yes it is a losing endeavour to box a bunch of non-favorites when you feel the favorite is vulnerable, and the favorite isn't a very heavy favorite.

That is reality. There isn't anything wrong about it.


I saw an initial post or two that without doing my homework like I just did for the Laurel race to determine whether it was an accurate portrayal, looked like red-flag type of stuff.

Stuff that others had commented about a need for tax changes, and transparent pools, and hubs closing with 3 mins/post, and fixed odds, and japanese style stuff, and past-posting, and separate pools, and hand-towels in the clubhouse bathrooms...

but apparently we don't need hand-towels in the clubhouse bathrooms. Not if we're talking about laurel race 5.

Laural race 5, you make a fist and you push your jacket on the hand-dryer and you rub your hands under the air and you keep it moving.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Then your thread just amounts to complaining.

I got suckered-in to your thread here, and I have no one blame, but my self.

Yes, horse racing is hard.

Yes it is a losing endeavour to box a bunch of non-favorites when you feel the favorite is vulnerable, and the favorite isn't a very heavy favorite.

That is reality. There isn't anything wrong about it.


I saw an initial post or two that without doing my homework like I just did for the Laurel race to determine whether it was an accurate portrayal, looked like red-flag type of stuff.

Stuff that others had commented about a need for tax changes, and transparent pools, and hubs closing with 3 mins/post, and fixed odds, and japanese style stuff, and past-posting, and separate pools, and hand-towels in the clubhouse bathrooms...

but apparently we don't need hand-towels in the clubhouse bathrooms. Not if we're talking about laurel race 5.

Laural race 5, you make a fist and you push your jacket on the hand-dryer and you rub your hands under the air and you keep it moving.

I'm not asking for reality, i'm asking for math.

The math will help me (and you) determine if its worth it to "keep moving" or not. The math will decide if betting tris with 50 cent bases are worth it, or is it the "evil 50 cent tri" that waters down the prices to impossibly low levels.

i don't think its the 50 cent base, but you never know, that's where the math comes in.

We agree to disagree on Laurel race 5, i think the tri was extremely short, i think that tri needs to pay 100 for 50 cents just for starters and it wasn't even close.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

I'm not asking for reality, i'm asking for math.

The math will help me (and you) determine if its worth it to "keep moving" or not.

Here's a shortcut: the 40% rule

Go to the favorite in a race, and then look at the show pool for that horse.

If you think that favorite is false, You will want at least 40% (preferably more than that) of the total show pool to have been wagered on that favorite, before you even think about excluding that favorite and boxing a group of others.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Here's a shortcut: the 40% rule

Go to the favorite in a race, and then look at the show pool for that horse.

If you think that favorite is false, You will want at least 40% (preferably more than that) of the total show pool to have been wagered on that favorite, before you even think about excluding that favorite and boxing a group of others.

See now, this is interesting to me. Could you tell me more about this, because i've just recently been noticing place and show pools and it does seem that the live-r horses are the ones with more PS money, its almost as if the place and show "idiots" know what they're doing. You wouldn't think they know anything, but that money seems to be smarter than meets the eye.

Why do you say that place and show bettors actually know anything at all? (i agree with you that the place and show pools actually can tip off live vs dead situations, how that happens i have no idea)

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

do that and live in a state that doesn't let you itemize, you are really gone.

It's like paying the takeout again.......

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

That means you would have to be on-track to take advantage of this. and then you could only bet the track you are at. I don't very many posters here want that.

You guys are then buying into the notion that past posting actually exists?
Confirmed?