i have a question about a show

[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?

[Alabama Stakes]

Does anyone play the triple in New York way less than they used to because of the paltry payouts ?
Does anyone remember the days of the $2 triple ? Of what it meant when you hit the triple in the last?
To me, if you hit the triple when it was for $2 the payoff was nearly double of what it would be now if you had it 4 times for half a buck. At least the pick 3 is a buck . At keeneland and others where it is fifty cents, they all pay terrible. The dime super is a joke. It's refreshing that on oaks and derby day they make it a buck and offer real value. Does anyone think the super in the derby would have paid so well all these years if you could bet it for a dime ?

$10 clubhouse admission and another $10 for a racing form but only a dime to bet the super and fifty cent triples at Saratoga. This only bothers me and no one else ?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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

And you fail to acknowledge that folks are playing th same dollar amount tickets covering more combinations causing the split to be lowered. The effect are more people are splitting the pie but you are saying that is the cause they are better players. What would convince you otherwise? If I was able to easily get my hands on data I would do the study but my data only goes back 3 years.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by jms62

And you fail to acknowledge that folks are playing th same dollar amount tickets covering more combinations causing the split to be lowered. The effect are more people are splitting the pie but you are saying that is the cause they are better players. What would convince you otherwise? If I was able to easily get my hands on data I would do the study but my data only goes back 3 years.

I was responding to YOUR example. Nothing more.


I believe in the laws of mathematics. Nothing is going to change that.