SPLASH AT SANTA- RACE # 1

[DelMarJay]

I get a big show bet on some stakes runner who has dominated class he/she is running against, but I'll never understand the thinking behind a six yr. old maiden. That's a bet against 100% of the time.

I'm going to end the day with that hit and start handicapping the 50 cent Pick Threes, Fours, and a Pick 5 for the awesome card at Pimlico manana.

Apologies for the no-heads up as I turned the tv on with 1 minute to go as the horses were approaching the gate. Lucky I even looked at the pools as never would have thought the idiocy lurking in the show betting.

[Stillriledup]

That's the kind of splash i don't mind getting a little "wet" from.

[DelMarJay]

130K to show on a six yr. old maiden. I wish to someday be that rich but please let me not be that stupid!

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by DelMarJay

130K to show on a six yr. old maiden. I wish to someday be that rich but please let me not be that stupid!

Its amazing how someone that stupid got rich in the first place.

#

[ribjig]

Consider this:

they proportionally bet all entries whilst
purposely created a negative show pool,
& guaranteed themselves a 2-3% profit
regardless of results...

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by ribjig

Consider this:

they proportionally bet all entries whilst
purposely created a negative show pool,
& guaranteed themselves a 2-3% profit
regardless of results...

I think the key is that the jumper horse has to have enough money on him so that the other horses pay massive show prices, i don't know if this horse had enough to show to create that situation. If you bet 2k to show on the favorite and 100 dollars spread amongst all the other runners, would you have gotten 2100 back in total to at least break even? Answer in this case is no. If you divided up the '100' and bet 25 to show on the other 4 runners, you get back under 1k.

[DelMarJay]

Originally Posted by ribjig

Consider this:

they proportionally bet all entries whilst
purposely created a negative show pool,
& guaranteed themselves a 2-3% profit
regardless of results...

I'm confused(No surprise there). Are you saying gigantic show bets like this
are because of computer programs and rebates? On all minus show pools or does there have to be some factor found in the equation?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by DelMarJay

I'm confused(No surprise there). Are you saying gigantic show bets like this
are because of computer programs and rebates? On all minus show pools or does there have to be some factor found in the equation?

The key to success in this area is to find a way to bet a lot of money on the favorite while at the same time, being able to bet a lot of money on the other runners while at the same time as that, having not that many people betting a lot of money on the other runners so that if the fave is OTB, you get MASSIVE show prices and not watered down show prices.

In the first race today at SA, the race in question, all the "wiseguys" and people who think they're pretty sharp made the 2nd choice have over 10k to show, so that 'watered down' the show prices to a level where there's no way this "system" could have ever worked on this race, i dont think there was enough money on the fave and i there was too much money on the 2nd choice.

If you stick 2k on the favorite trying to win 100 and you stick 50 bucks on the other 4 runners, there are combinations of results where you won't cash for 2200. If the favorite hits, you're guaranteed to get back 2200, but in this case, if you bet 50 on all the other runners, you only get back 1400 and lose 800 on the race.

Now,if you had put 2000 on the fave and 75 on the other 4 runners, you would have gotten most of your money back....but not all of it.

[ribjig]

> all the "wiseguys" and people who think they're pretty sharp made the 2nd choice have over 10k to show, so that 'watered down' the show prices to a level where there's no way this "system" could have ever worked on this race

TVG talking heads reported $124K show pool, $122K of that on 4/5 entry.
That's ~98.3%, more than enough to create negative show pool
& allow a proper proportional show bet formula to guarantee small profit
by betting all entries, regardless of outcome.
(except possibly if only two entries finish race)
Was TVG wrong? Anyone have screenshot of final toteboard?

[moneyandland]

Originally Posted by ribjig

> all the "wiseguys" and people who think they're pretty sharp made the 2nd choice have over 10k to show, so that 'watered down' the show prices to a level where there's no way this "system" could have ever worked on this race

TVG talking heads reported $124K show pool, $122K of that on 4/5 entry.
That's ~98.3%, more than enough to create negative show pool
& allow a proper proportional show bet formula to guarantee small profit
by betting all entries, regardless of outcome.
(except possibly if only two entries finish race)
Was TVG wrong? Anyone have screenshot of final toteboard?

Wrong 129722 of 156673 = 82.8% a negative pool yes but not enough to guarantee any profit regardless of how the proportions were spread, especially with 2nd choice holding 12%, the payoffs are already posted and you cant show a way to profit so how do you think you'd fare just guessing before final pools? The amount bet on the favorite to show has to be almost enough to cover all the takeout minus the minimum payout before you can even approach a guaranteed profit

[moneyandland]

Originally Posted by ribjig

> all the "wiseguys" and people who think they're pretty sharp made the 2nd choice have over 10k to show, so that 'watered down' the show prices to a level where there's no way this "system" could have ever worked on this race

TVG talking heads reported $124K show pool, $122K of that on 4/5 entry.
That's ~98.3%, more than enough to create negative show pool
& allow a proper proportional show bet formula to guarantee small profit
by betting all entries, regardless of outcome.
(except possibly if only two entries finish race)
Was TVG wrong? Anyone have screenshot of final toteboard?

[ribjig]

> 82.8% a negative pool yes

That's borderline neg pool at best?
Safe proportional betting may need
stronger neg pool, maybe 95%+ in order
to have enough "headroom" to overcome
last moment non-heavy-favorite bettors
reacting to bet making neg pool...

[Some_One]

Originally Posted by DelMarJay

I get a big show bet on some stakes runner who has dominated class he/she is running against, but I'll never understand the thinking behind a six yr. old maiden. That's a bet against 100% of the time.

I'm going to end the day with that hit and start handicapping the 50 cent Pick Threes, Fours, and a Pick 5 for the awesome card at Pimlico manana.

Apologies for the no-heads up as I turned the tv on with 1 minute to go as the horses were approaching the gate. Lucky I even looked at the pools as never would have thought the idiocy lurking in the show betting.

Any word on the source of the wager? wonder if it was so sort of pool manipulation for a bet with the asian exchanges.