i have a question about a show
 

a couple of days ago I was listening to steve talk to paul mattice and he said something I didn't understand not that I disagree with him I just didn't understand why
he said
that people betting a 50 cent pick 5 works against the better

could someone go a little in depth as to why that is? thank you

What Paul means is that the low minimum provides too much opportunity for coverage in the sequence, thereby allowing more people to hit which depresses the payouts.

ahh got you steve
 

but couldn't I reverse it and say without the 50 cent pick maybe the pool would be as big to diminish

Perhaps, to an extent.. but those playing a P5 are looking for a bonus return based on the degree of difficulty. Could be reasoned that a $1 increment makes up for the loss of .50 players. There would potentially be more carryovers too under the $1 increment scenario.

These are interesting discussions.

Look at the creation of the Super Hi-5. It came out of Santa Anita focus group conversations years ago with serious $1 Superfecta bettors who felt disenfranchised when the .10 minimum was added. There were players whose major action was big ticket $1 Supers and suddenly the big payoffs evaporated. Aaron Vercruysse was responsible for the work that created the Hi-5.

as usuall great info steve
 

well I know his ive his some nice payoffs with the 50 cent just by listening to your show about a month ago I hit a ticket worth 162 for me and it payed 14 grand king Zackary startedthe pick 5 for me at 26 bucks ill stay with the 50 cents

Couple of questions
Do you think making the early pick 4 a $1 minimum would attract much more action and good payoffs?
I think the pick 5@.50 is fine as the payoffs are usually pretty good.
Do you think making the triple $1 minimum would boost the handle on the triple? It used to be a deuce back when it cost a buck for a racing form not The sawbuck it is these days.
Isn't .50 a more reasonable minimum for the super than the ridiculous ten cent minimum ? With the new tax rules in effect, isn't this a logical move ?

I guess I cant argue with the carryover point but, in addition to the larger pool, shouldn’t each individual player, in theory, also be hitting Pick 5s more frequently, which makes up a little bit for the lower payout?

I definitely noticed it when they decreased the minimum in trifectas. The change from $1 to 50 cent really impacted the payouts. Even playing them for $1 doesn't make up for it. So it's a two edged sword. More people can play more horses and have more hits, but the pie is sliced many more times.

Are you suggesting payoffs have declined on average 50%?

Are you suggesting that reducing the minimum has had no effect on the payout to a $1 standard? If so then please cite the study of this so we can put it to bed once and for all. When I bring up the subject I usually get double teamed and my math abilities questioned but logically it is inconceivable that payoffs have not been negatively impacted. Simply because on average horse players are spending the same amount of money they used to spend on a ticket and covering more horses. We can see an example of this on our play along threads now vs before the minimums were raised.

The triples pay lousy. Everyone knows it. Hitting it for a buck does not give you the same bang for your buck as it used to when it was a buck minimum. It should be a deuce minimum in the last race like it used to be.they should try making the double a deuce again. Maybe a $5 min exacta in the featured race every day or the last race of the day.

No. He’s only suggesting that the increase in the pool hasn’t made up for the increase in payouts. If you start with a pool of $100 and split it between 10 people, everyone gets $10. If you double the pool to $200 but split it between 25 people, more people win but the average payout is now $8.

It doesn’t really matter what your wager is since the payout per win is smaller.

A few things to consider: To suggest they have declined 50% is not realistic. Another element worthy of consideration, and there are many, are the Algo guys who have entered into that pool as well as the much more sophisticated handicapping methodology in 2018. So while I get the min is a culprit and perhaps the primary driver behind lower payouts, I seriously doubt it's 50% or that its the ONLY reason.

IMO this would help the Algo guys, even more. Remember when they break even on a race it's a wonderful result.

You are right that there are other factors, but the $0.50 wager is probably the primary driver.

There is also more information out there than ever, or so I assume. More information should provide better results. I wonder if we have seen a higher number of favorites winning in recent years. Does anyone keep track of that information (maybe something like average payout on a win bet)? We know that favorites have had a streak in the Derby.

I rarely bet pick-fours, pick-fives or anything like that. I'm pretty much a win and place bettor. But I would think that when you lower the minimum bet by alot and allow tons of people to hit the all button, that would lower the payout on a sequence where a lot of longshots win, but raise the payout of a sequence when a lot of chalk wins. The reason is obvious. This is an extreme example and would never happen, but let's just say there was a race where every single person hit the all button. That would mean that a 50-1 shot winning the race would have the same effect on the payoff as a 4-5 shot winning the race. So if the 4-5 favorite won the race, the payout would obviously be higher than it should be. But if a 50-1 shot won the race, it would pay far less than it should because if everyone marked the all box then everyone would have the 50-1 shot.

Basically, you're correct. It could lower the payoffs on outliers, especially cases with two longer priced winners, just as with doubles involving two long prices, it rarely plays close to the parlay ( when people playing birthdays and the like can actually affect the payoffs ). The notion that overall, lowering the minimums is a reason payoffs are lower makes no mathematical sense, as ex-takeout, it's still a zero sum game. If one goes down, another must go up.

The pools may have gotten more efficient, as players become better at playing multi-race bets, and the CAW players got more involved as well. However, because of dispersal of takeout, the Pick-4s and Pick-5s still rate to create value as long as the pools are big enough. The continued insistence that lower minimums have ruined payoffs somehow is simply mathematically impossible over time ( though your outlier argument has great merit ).

Q. Why not lower the pick 3 to half a buck in New York or the pick 6 to a buck ?
A. It would kill the payoffs, like in the triple and Super.

The argument about the math only holds water if players didn't change their ticket structure and simply bet half as much as before or hit the old ticket stucture twice. We all can agree that this simply isn't happening from just our own play along thread. They are not all of a sudden better players, they are able to cover more horses and not only high end but mid range you know the 3rd choice that wins when it looks like the top 2 are mortal locks. The algo players exacerbate as it is cheaper for them to cover their combinations which include the longest shots and cheaper for them to bang their shorter plays many multple times.

Think about it like you are a fisherman and all of a sudden all boats are 50% off. You can either buy the same boat at a 50% discount or buy a bigger boat at the same spend. The new boat will allow you to stay on the water longer cover more ground reach fertile fishing grounds.. You buy the bigger boat but alas everyone else did also and suddenly those fertile grounds arent so fertile anymore and the grounds your old boat could reach are barren.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)