Impossible task: Overcoming Penn Nat tri takeout

[Stillriledup]

9-2 over 8-1 over 25-1 you get 50 bucks for the tri?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

9-2 over 8-1 over 25-1 you get 50 bucks for the tri?

RFs "place and show theory" worked well here, the winner paid 9-2 and took a sneaky show bet (a few hundred bucks) with a few mins to post, the winner ended up as the show pool fave even though he was the 4th choice to win.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

RFs "place and show theory" worked well here, the winner paid 9-2 and took a sneaky show bet (a few hundred bucks) with a few mins to post, the winner ended up as the show pool fave even though he was the 4th choice to win.

I don't even have to 'correct' your complaints if you catch it.

I agree with your point and I would phrase it that the FAVORITE PATRIOT failed to dominate the show pool.

I have no idea about the board when approaching the gate, but he finished with just 20% of the place and show pool in spite of his even-money win odds. So for anyone planning on ditching the favorite and then boxing a bunch of others in trifecta - that should raise <red flags>.

So in general, it's not safe to simply toss a favorite and play 'blindfolded butcher' by spreading/boxing a slew of others IF said favorite is not giving off indicators that he will be KEYED heavily in those trifectas.

MR 20%er FAVORITE PATRIOT probably was not heavily keyed in those trifectas, and his show and plc probably could have been used as indicators.

Now looking away from generalities and at the race itself...

The race ultimately turned into a pace meltdown.

BLUES ALLEY is quite interesting. Fundamentally sound. Ridden properly can sit near a pace. Bred in Pa. Worth a look as both a claim (could be available for 6250 next out) and a wager(he actually does belong @ 6250, and should win barring a strong-for-class rival and/or a poor ride).

In hindsight this race races a question about running styles.

If hypothetically we felt that FAMOUS PATRIOT were a pass, it invites the question about grouping and or alternating the running styles.
(In this case the pre-race running styles were clearly defined and due to the collapse finished in like-clusters.)

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

I don't even have to 'correct' your complaints if you catch it.

I agree with your point and I would phrase it that the FAVORITE PATRIOT failed to dominate the show pool.

I have no idea about the board when approaching the gate, but he finished with just 20% of the place and show pool in spite of his even-money win odds. So for anyone planning on ditching the favorite and then boxing a bunch of others in trifecta - that should raise <red flags>.

So in general, it's not safe to simply toss a favorite and play 'blindfolded butcher' by spreading/boxing a slew of others IF said favorite is not giving off indicators that he will be KEYED heavily in those trifectas.

MR 20%er FAVORITE PATRIOT probably was not heavily keyed in those trifectas, and his show and plc probably could have been used as indicators.

Now looking away from generalities and at the race itself...

The race ultimately turned into a pace meltdown.

BLUES ALLEY is quite interesting. Fundamentally sound. Ridden properly can sit near a pace. Bred in Pa. Worth a look as both a claim (could be available for 6250 next out) and a wager(he actually does belong @ 6250, and should win barring a strong-for-class rival and/or a poor ride).

In hindsight this race races a question about running styles.

If hypothetically we felt that FAMOUS PATRIOT were a pass, it invites the question about grouping and or alternating the running styles.
(In this case the pre-race running styles were clearly defined and due to the collapse finished in like-clusters.)

I really liked Blues Alley and the winner in there, not sure why the 2 was so heavily played, didnt love the 1 as he showed very slow running in a route race on the far turn in previous, he was shoved along, that slow turn of foot isnt going to get it done in a sprint.

Your P/S theory was giant in the 3rd at FG, an off the turf special, a turf horse took ALL the show money and won at 5-1 as the show pool fave.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

I really liked Blues Alley and the winner in there, not sure why the 2 was so heavily played, didnt love the 1 as he showed very slow running in a route race on the far turn in previous, he was shoved along, that slow turn of foot isnt going to get it done in a sprint.

Your P/S theory was giant in the 3rd at FG, an off the turf special, a turf horse took ALL the show money and won at 5-1 as the show pool fave.

I wasn't a huge fan of the 2 Famous Patriot either. Relatively talented, but I don't love the suffolk form, or the fact that he doesn't change leads any more.
I think you have to give the 3 speeds a mulligan there, because of the pace.
2-Favorite Patriot could do better in similar or cheaper with a better pace scenario, you just want a price.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Your P/S theory was giant in the 3rd at FG, an off the turf special, a turf horse took ALL the show money and won at 5-1 as the show pool fave.

If you are using it as a tip-off for a 'live' winner at possibly overlaid odds, then I have to give you credit for the idea.

All I am suggesting is that if a horse is not heavily bet (arbitrarily said 40%) in the show pool, then it is dangerous to assume that that horse will be heavily keyed in trifectas (for the purpose of knowing when spreading/boxing others than a false-favorite has the greatest payout potential).

[sidenote 1]I do better in general with negative stuff than saying 'this horse will win'.
In general they are higher percentage, safer types of things. But you may be on to something. -If you see a 9-2, 5-1 shot taking a bunch of money in PLC or SHW it certainly could be used as an additional factor to indicate that the horse is live.

[sidenote 2] - Such a pattern can at times indicate confidence from the barn. They know their horse is ready to run a big one, but they see that the favorite is indeed a formidable foe on paper. It may not be the most sophisticated or efficient wager, but it makes some sense that you'd see someone 'force' such a wager in that situation.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

If you are using it as a tip-off for a 'live' winner at possibly overlaid odds, then I have to give you credit for the idea.

All I am suggesting is that if a horse is not heavily bet (arbitrarily said 40%) in the show pool, then it is dangerous to assume that that horse will be heavily keyed in trifectas (for the purpose of knowing when spreading/boxing others than a false-favorite has the greatest payout potential).

You know what, im going to give YOU the credit, and yes, i have noticed the place and show money is a good "angle" to find sneaky longshots imo.

[Stillriledup]

So, the 7th today at Penn Nat saw a field of horses where the entire field was off a layoff for the most part. There was a 9 horse field, but one horse was 99-1 so lets say for arguments sake, the field was 8.

The winner was a 4-5 shot......seemed overbet...did look like the most likely winner, but no sure thing by any stretch.

So, the chalk wins, a 7-1 gets 2nd and a 35-1 gets 3rd. the 35-1 was the longest shot in the field not counting the 99-1.

The tri pays 24 bucks for 50 cents.

There was a 3-1 who was off the board.

If the 3-1 shot got 2nd and the 7-1 who originally got 2nd finished 3rd, what would the tri have paid? 2.60? 4.60?

This winner was bet in Tri's like it was 1-5 but even at 1-5, the tri still might be a little low.

[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 money was well distributed in the win pool..5 of the nine betting interests were 6.7-1 or lower. The second and third choices in the win betting finished 2-3....Assuming the Trifecta betting followed the win betting pattern, combined with the assumption that larger volume players are using the lower base bet amounts ( multiple times) to avoid signers, it comes as no surprise that trifecta payoffs have been noticeably lower at most tracks.
I think this is something we will have to deal with.
Now, on the other hand, unless the larger volume and professional players are getting generous rebates, a couple things may be true...One, they are NOT playing against a 30% takeout( Pennsylvania's rate on tri's).....
Or, if they are playing these Penn tracks, they are NOT doing the box 'em up strategy. The risk of a negative ROI on a winning ticket is just too great.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Right? Do you need a 20 horse field with three 20-1s finishing 1-2-3 to get more than 100 bucks for 50 cents, my god.

My thinking is you are battling large volume players and professionals who are betting multiple 50 base bets on a few of the combinations.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...the problem with the trifecta payoffs at PENN isn't the takeout. It's the past-post wagering.

Come on......That again?...Look, if you can show credible evidence of past posting, I'd be on board with you.
But, really...Haven't we been around this mulberry bush one too many times?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Come on......That again?...Look, if you can show credible evidence of past posting, I'd be on board with you.
But, really...Haven't we been around this mulberry bush one too many times?

I remember that Drexelgate thing during the Pick 6 scandal over 10 years ago. Do you have a link to an article from anyone in the last decade that talked, in detail, how much money the racing industry spent upgrading tote systems and what they've done to make their betting system "unhackable". Now remember, this is 2015 and some of these hackas are very VERY good.....are they not good enough to sneak into the racing industry and siphon a few bucks here and there? Is the racing industry's tote system "fort knox" when it comes to hackers?

In otherwords, is it "unhackable"?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

WOULD IT REALLY BE A BAD DEAL IF THE TRACKS MADE THE HUBS CLOSE OUT AT 3-5 MIN TO POST?

The professional players that typically like to bat the bell or have the ability to cancel wagers once the horses get to the gate would hate it.
And because these are whales, the tracks will not want to piss off the people that are major contributors to daily handle.
Quite frankly, I would like to see all tracks go to the the system NYRA once used. Their clock (Mins to Post) would count down to "0"....Once the tote board displayed 0 mins to post, the bell to signify the end of wagering sounded and the machines locked. One thing though. NYRA was very efficient at getting the horses loaded and off on time.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thespaah

The money was well distributed in the win pool..5 of the nine betting interests were 6.7-1 or lower. The second and third choices in the win betting finished 2-3....Assuming the Trifecta betting followed the win betting pattern, combined with the assumption that larger volume players are using the lower base bet amounts ( multiple times) to avoid signers, it comes as no surprise that trifecta payoffs have been noticeably lower at most tracks.
I think this is something we will have to deal with.
Now, on the other hand, unless the larger volume and professional players are getting generous rebates, a couple things may be true...One, they are NOT playing against a 30% takeout( Pennsylvania's rate on tri's).....
Or, if they are playing these Penn tracks, they are NOT doing the box 'em up strategy. The risk of a negative ROI on a winning ticket is just too great.

That tri seems like what it would have paid if the 2 was a late scratch. The 5 was 7-1 and the 2 was 3-1 and had way more win money and yet, the 5's exactas were just as short as the 2 even though the 5 was double the price. Maybe some extremely large bettor knew the 2 had no shot and also knew the winner was a lock. Not sure if there's any other explanation.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thespaah

The professional players that typically like to bat the bell or have the ability to cancel wagers once the horses get to the gate would hate it.
And because these are whales, the tracks will not want to piss off the people that are major contributors to daily handle.
Quite frankly, I would like to see all tracks go to the the system NYRA once used. Their clock (Mins to Post) would count down to "0"....Once the tote board displayed 0 mins to post, the bell to signify the end of wagering sounded and the machines locked. One thing though. NYRA was very efficient at getting the horses loaded and off on time.

You know what would be awesome? If there were 2 pools.....one pool locked at 0 mtp and the other pool locked at off time.....I think it would be pretty obvious that the pool that locked 0 mtp would provide much higher win prices in the long run, there would be none of this stuff where horses go to 8-5 at the top of the lane.