NY - Bel P4 payouts

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Surely you realize the board odds in both the 3rd and 4th were not reflective of certain horse's odds in the multi-race bets. Roderick was not 7:5 in these bets....and thus the winner had to be a LOT lower.

I also think it's fair to say that Friendly Wager was higher than 6/5 in the pick 4, as I expect a lot of pick 4s to single a 6/5 and there's no way he was a single on most tickets. If you cut the 3rd race winner to $8, take 80% of races 2 & 4, you are still higher than the parlay value. Even making those reasonable assumptions (and ignoring the fact that the runner in the 5th was probably higher than 12-1 in the pick 4 given there were three solid choices in the race and two others ordinally ranked ahead)- the payoffs were low relative to what would be expected.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by philcski

I also think it's fair to say that Friendly Wager was higher than 6/5 in the pick 4, as I expect a lot of pick 4s to single a 6/5 and there's no way he was a single on most tickets. If you cut the 3rd race winner to $8, take 80% of races 2 & 4, you are still higher than the parlay value. Even making those reasonable assumptions (and ignoring the fact that the runner in the 5th was probably higher than 12-1 in the pick 4 given there were three solid choices in the race and two others ordinally ranked ahead)- the payoffs were low relative to what would be expected.

There was $20 on the winning combination. Surely you understand that the payoffs become random given the prices of the last two horses...especially, in this case, given the excessive play in the win pool on Roderick that probably came close to doubling the win price of the eventual winner...and thus greatly increasing the parlay.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

There was $20 on the winning combination. Surely you understand that the payoffs become random given the prices of the last two horses...especially, in this case, given the excessive play in the win pool on Roderick that probably came close to doubling the win price of the eventual winner...and thus greatly increasing the parlay.

I'm very aware of the fact that as the number of tickets remaining the more random the payoff is. But my point still stands. Roderick was a silly price in the win pool but the double prices support the fact that it was low. We can argue all night long, but there's no real answer because we can't go back and actually see what percentages runners were bet in the hidden legs. There are inferences possible, like in the doubles and pick 3's, which contradict each other.

I know you trying to toe the line of reason, but if you had this pick 4 today wouldn't you feel like you got shortchanged a couple grand or more? I know I would. It was a very difficult sequence with some very difficult runners to have on the same ticket.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by philcski

I know you trying to toe the line of reason, but if you had this pick 4 today wouldn't you feel like you got shortchanged a couple grand or more? I know I would. It was a very difficult sequence with some very difficult runners to have on the same ticket.

You're wrong.

I would understand exactly why the payoff was less than the parlay. I don't have the time, or interest, in explaining this further. There are many sides...and all explain why the payoff was, essentially, as it was. You should understand all this stuff implicitly.

Pointing out " It was a very difficult sequence with some very difficult runners to have on the same ticket " is irrelevent...and a given considering there was $20 on the given sequence....less than .016% of the total pool.

[blackthroatedwind]

Let me also add that while a great reason Pick-4s rate to pay better than the parlay is the dispersion of the takeout, another reason is that outlyers, on both ends, are also short the parlay for the expected reasons. Today's result was obviously an outlyer.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Let me also add that while a great reason Pick-4s rate to pay better than the parlay is the dispersion of the takeout, another reason is that outlyers, on both ends, are also short the parlay for the expected reasons. Today's result was obviously an outlyer.

Outliers

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Outliers

Can't sleep. Thought I'd help.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You're wrong.

I would understand exactly why the payoff was less than the parlay. I don't have the time, or interest, in explaining this further. There are many sides...and all explain why the payoff was, essentially, as it was. You should understand all this stuff implicitly.

Pointing out " It was a very difficult sequence with some very difficult runners to have on the same ticket " is irrelevent...and a given considering there was $20 on the given sequence....less than .016% of the total pool.

Actually, I'm not wrong. I've given you mathematical proof why I think it was much lower than expected, including reasonable adjustments based on the discussion, and it still ends up far lower than the parlay- and all you've presented is conjecture on one leg which may or may not be true, based on your educated guess.

Plenty of tickets have paid the quote-on-quote "correct" amount with 1/10000th of the pool winning, that isn't a viable answer, even though I granted you that it adds volatility to the result.

If you're going to play the "I'm much smarter than you" game which you've been resorting to frequently lately, you should make the time (and interest) to back it up. It's rather unfair to the rest of the people here if you don't.

[philcski]

Willpays for the 5th:
1 4632 (actual odds 7-2, ML 4-1)
2 4872 (actual odds 14-1, ML 6-1)
3 19021 (actual odds 50-1, ML 20-1)
4 5951 (actual odds 3-1, ML 3-1)
5 3657 (actual odds 2-1, ML 7-2)
6 9491 (actual odds 12-1, ML 15-1)
7 47457 (actual odds 36-1, ML 20-1)
8 15845 (actual odds 6-1, ML 8-1)
9 11864 (actual odds 10-1, ML 6-1)
10 27196 (actual odds 34-1, ML 15-1)

On a rolling basis, the doubles:
Races 2-3 paid 139, parlay 114
Races 3-4 paid 239, parlay 148
Races 4-5 paid 527, parlay 408
- so right in line with what one would expect (and even a bit higher on races 3-4).

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by philcski

Willpays for the 5th:
1 4632 (actual odds 7-2, ML 4-1)
2 4872 (actual odds 14-1, ML 6-1)
3 19021 (actual odds 50-1, ML 20-1)
4 5951 (actual odds 3-1, ML 3-1)
5 3657 (actual odds 2-1, ML 7-2)
6 9491 (actual odds 12-1, ML 15-1)
7 47457 (actual odds 36-1, ML 20-1)
8 15845 (actual odds 6-1, ML 8-1)
9 11864 (actual odds 10-1, ML 6-1)
10 27196 (actual odds 34-1, ML 15-1)

On a rolling basis, the doubles:
Races 2-3 paid 139, parlay 114
Races 3-4 paid 239, parlay 148
Races 4-5 paid 527, parlay 408
- so right in line with what one would expect (and even a bit higher on races 3-4).

I don't want you to think I ignored this....

The parlay of the the 2nd through the 4th was roughly $1700 ( $1696 but we can round to make it easier ) so using the exact odds you listed here are the parlays versus the payoffs...

1 - $7650 ( payoff was 60% of parlay )

2 - $25,500 ( 19% )

3 - $85K ( 22% )

4 - $ 6800 ( 87% )

5 - $5100 ( 72% )

6 - $22100 ( 43% )

7 - $62,900 ( 75% )

8 - $11,900 ( 133% )

9 - $18,700 ( 63% )

10 - $59,500 ( 46% )

So, only the payoff on the 8 horse was better than the parlay, with all the others some version of relatively to significantly short of the parlay. Here are the amount of dollars on each potentiall winning combo...

1 - $41

2 - $39

3 - $10

4 - $32

5 - $52

6 - $20

7 - $4

8 - $12

9 - $16

10 - $7

It doesn't appear the winner ( #6 ) had a significantly lower payoff relative to the others. The average payoff was 56% of the parlay ( related to the factors I think we agreed on ) so the winning combination was hardly a statistical aberration at 43% of the parlay. The winning dollar amounts on each combination was also so small that it seems fairly easy to see how volitile the payoffs are and thus a small confluence of events will easily lead to the appearance of " low " payouts.

[miraja2]

Is it sad for me that I've been betting horses for quite a few years now, and yet I still didn't understand roughly half of the stuff in this thread?

[cakes44]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Is it sad for me that I've been betting horses for quite a few years now, and yet I still didn't understand roughly half of the stuff in this thread?

Nope. Just don't play multi-race wagers.

Or do I guess...if I want to be a d!ck about it.

[randallscott35]

I should really play more of them. I don't like signers is one reason. (Not that I expect to hit tons of them)

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by cakes44

Nope. Just don't play multi-race wagers.

I do play Pick-3s and Pick4s on occasion, but they make up a very small percentage of my bets.
However, that's not because I don't understand the payout structure, but rather because given my lack of handicapping success the last two years, I'm lucky if I can find three winners in an entire meet, let alone in consecutive races.

[gales0678]

folks look at the dicatomy of the early p4 from yesterday to today

yesterday as has been stated the early p4 paid $9,491 , the parlay was over $23k

today's early p4 paid $14,466 and the parlay was just about $3900

surley you can see the difference today's p4 paid about 3.7 (370%) x the parlay yesterdays p4 parlay only returned around .41 (41 %)

it also can be argued that today's winning combo was easier to come up with than yesterday's . What can be surmized by this ....there was some very welll hidden $$$ in the pools yesterday , especially the early pick 4 and 3 , sharp $$$$ on some sharp horses took down the payoff in yesterday's pools