i have a question about a show

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by jms62

Are you suggesting that reducing the minimum has did not affect 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.

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.

[moses]

Originally Posted by freddymo

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.

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

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.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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 ).

[Alabama Stakes]

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.

[jms62]

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)

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by jms62

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)

You do understand that under your example, when they win, they often have the sequence for half as much as they did before....right?