Ask The Experts
General Category => Ask the Experts => Topic started by: banditbeau on July 26, 2014, 09:56:39 AM
-
I need Math or someone to explain the 7th at DMR double payout yesterday. I am curious what happened. It obviously paid what it paid, $74.20, but with a $31.20 winner of the 6th, followed by a $17.60 winner of the 7th, the double should have been in the $250 plus range? Anyone see it? bb
-
You underestimate what it should have paid, closer to 350.
Happens. Not often. Certainly those that cashed didn\'t do themselves a favor.
-
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You underestimate what it should have paid, closer
> to 350.
This [stuff] again?
Why shouldn\'t that double pay $10,000.
Why is the win price the \"driver\" for what the DD should pay?
Maybe the DD is correct and the win prices were too high.
Independent pools, gents. Not indexed to each other. They
pays what they pays, period. Stop lettting the payoffs
press your greed button and this issue will go away, forever.
-
You\'re probably right Rick, the DD , the exacta, no relationship at all to the win odds, separate pools after all.
lol
-
Rick,
I agree with you in general on this topic. However, considering the win prices on this double the payout was far below normal.
Even if you\'re correct that the win prices were too high, the payout makes no sense.
-
bb --
You and Boscar are right - based on the win prices and the takeout, that DD should\'ve paid $296.
A $75 DD implies the two horses were something like 4-1 and 6-1 in the DD pools. The correlation between the win and DD pools can be off a bit for any particular DD pairing, but never to that extent. They\'re generally pretty closely in line with each other. Looks like a misplaced bet to me.
Rocky
-
I can\'t help but wonder what is the purpose of keeping the payoffs a secret until after the first leg is complete?
-
Wonder no more. There\'s no secret. The DD will pays are posted, same as the exactas
-
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You\'re probably right Rick, the DD , the exacta,
> no relationship at all to the win odds, separate
> pools after all.
Scoff if you want, but you are on record for ducking
what I think is a salient question:
\"Why is the win pool the basis for what the exotics
should pay? Sez who?\"
If there is no intelligent answer for this (never heard
one here), then the whole concept of the \"relationship
between the pools\" is suspect, at best. It\'s simply one
more distraction for the unfocused horseplayer.
-
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick,
> I agree with you in general on this topic.
> However, considering the win prices on this double
> the payout was far below normal.
>
> Even if you\'re correct that the win prices were
> too high, the payout makes no sense.
Opinions are fine...but when people start backing
into contrived equations to justify their opinion,
my Math / Logic Violation alarm goes to eleven.
-
Obviously the double pool is not joined at the hip with win pools, but whether there\'s a logical correlation or not, the reality is that, with large pools, there is a range of predictability for doubles by tying the win pools together. When something like this is so far outside that range then it leaves one scratching his head. Could be any number of reasons, but statistically, it\'s a rarity.
-
There\'s a little more of a correlation than that.
-
Rick --
There is no \"correct\" probability line, but the win pool tends to be the most efficient, which is why the other pools are compared to it.
There can always be anomalies with any single combo, but in general the probabilities of horses in the other pools tend to reflect those in the win pool pretty closely.
If a horse is 4-1 on the board, he\'s likely to be around 7-2 to 9/2 in the exotics, but you\'re rarely going to see him something like 10-1.
Big bettors, the computer guys and the arb guys who have a good idea of what the fair odds of a horse should be will see the mispricing in the other pools and push those odds closer to fair value.
The correlation isn\'t perfect of course, especially when dealing with smaller pools, but anomalies of the type bb pointed out are a rarity.
-
Mathcapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick --
>
> There is no \"correct\" probability line, but the
> win pool tends to be the most efficient, which is
> why the other pools are compared to it.
In this case it appears the win pool was *not* so
efficient, in back to back races:
* In race 6, the quoted ML for Mark of a Gem was 6-1; she
slipped away from the field (and the bettors) in an accident
marred race, paying a whopping $31.20...incredible overlay,
and remember, now the DD prices for the end of race 7 are
locked in regardless of how the win betting goes in the final leg.
* In race 7, Irish Surf was quoted at 8-1 before 3 scratches
were announced. I didn\'t see a recalculated ML, but of
some significance is that one of the scratches was Soi Phet, the
likely ML fave. Once that one scratched, it\'s easy to imagine
Irish Surf being on LOTS of tickets in the DD.
Whether the above is a plausible explanation for what happened
with the prices, trying to judge what happened from the raw
numbers alone is an exercise in futility, IMO: so, you are
right and the payoffs are \"wrong\" -- what is your next move?
-
Rick B. wrote:
-------------------
> Whether the above is a plausible explanation for what happened
with the prices, trying to judge what happened from the raw
numbers alone is an exercise in futility, IMO: so, you are
right and the payoffs are \"wrong\" -- what is your next move?
It\'s not an exercise in futility at all - if you see that the pools aren\'t in line with one another, you can get better value on your wager by betting the pool where the horse\'s odds are higher than what you think fair value is.
I didn\'t happen to download the matrix of DD Will Pays for the 7th race, but if I did I could tell you the exact odds that Mark of the Gem was in the DD pools to every single horse in the the 7th race. Same with Irish Surf to every horse in the 6th race. It\'s a closed-form solution.
It\'s possible that the winning combo was the only one that was an anomaly with respect to the win pools. It\'s also possible (but I doubt it) that Mark of a Gem was closer to 6-1 in the DD pools to each horse in the 7th race, or that Irish Surf was a much lower price in the DD pools to each horse in the 6th race than he was on the win pool.
Can\'t say for sure without seeing the DD Will Pays matrix. All I can say is that anomalies like the one seen with the winning combo are the exception, not the rule. The pools are generally in line with one another for the reasons I stated in my last post.
Morning lines and scratches are irrelevant. What determines a horse\'s odds in the DD pools is the same thing that determines his odds in the win pool - his probability of winning the race. How many tickets a horse will be on is simply a reflection of that probability.
Btw, this holds true even when you look all the way out to a pick 6 payoff. Overall, even pick 6 payoffs are in line with what you\'d expect based on the win probabilities (odds) of each horse: (Pick 6 Payoff Stats (https://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,84344,84407#msg-84407)).
Rocky
-
I\'ll add that screwy underlaid payoffs are more common than is generally believed, it\'s just that they seldom win and are invisible to all but a few of us tote watching degenerates.
-
Yep, including the pick-4 ending with the Haskell. From memory, with less than 10 minutes to post, Untapable was even money in the win pool but the P4 will-pay was about $1400. Social Inclusion was at 12-1 to win, but he was the clear 2nd choice in the P4 pool at about $2000. Late money on SI to win brought his final odds down to $6.8-1, and Untapable went up to $1.4-1; but that is still well out of whack with the P4 where his payoff was only about 1.5 times that of the chalk.
-
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'ll add that screwy underlaid payoffs are more
> common than is generally believed, it\'s just that
> they seldom win and are invisible to all but a few
> of us tote watching degenerates.
Paolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, including the pick-4 ending with the Haskell.
> From memory, with less than 10 minutes to post,
> Untapable was even money in the win pool but the
> P4 will-pay was about $1400. Social Inclusion was
> at 12-1 to win, but he was the clear 2nd choice in
> the P4 pool at about $2000. Late money on SI to
> win brought his final odds down to $6.8-1, and
> Untapable went up to $1.4-1; but that is still
> well out of whack with the P4 where his payoff was
> only about 1.5 times that of the chalk.
Wait.
Do the win odds correlate *more often* with the exotics?
Or less?
I still think some of you guys took shows like The X-Files
too seriously; weird payoffs happen. There\'s nothing \"out there\".
-
I\'ll just make a note that trainer/owner Yakteen/Pasko MAY have been very confident
going in and wheeled the double rather than play the win pool.
-
Yeah. There\'s nothing out there. Those FTO 2 YOs who get hammered is nothing more than John Q Public.
-
$1000 wheel?
-
Not sure why the angst over this Rick, but after watching the board for 40 years, I think I have maybe a slight clue as to what the real deal is.
Then again, my tinfoil hat may need a retread.
I don\'t think anyone said there was something going on. Just a shmuck betting too much on the double.
-
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure why the angst over this Rick, but after
> watching the board for 40 years, I think I have
> maybe a slight clue as to what the real deal is.
I\'m a bit behind you with only 25 years of tote
watching, but the difference (I suspect) is that
I have taken the time to do the computations and
find out just how much money is involved in these
so-called \"wrong payoffs\". Most of the time, it\'s
less than $200 \"extra\" bet on the payoff in question.
Large charge.
> I don\'t think anyone said there was something
> going on. Just a shmuck betting too much on the
> double.
Which would seem to tie in perfectly with the smallball
amount of the \"extra\" money bet...and should we really
care if one or two guys light up a few combos with an
extra c-note or two? Didn\'t you write earlier that there
are many times when the short payoffs are on the combos
that *did not* hit?
You and all the other mutuel monitors are simply niggling over nickels.
-
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah. There\'s nothing out there. Those FTO 2 YOs
> who get hammered is nothing more than John Q
> Public.
And if the linemaker is on the ball, this is accounted
for in an accurate ML.
When I said \"there is nothing out there\", I meant
there is no mysterious guy or group of bettors who are
ALWAYS on the short payoffs and killing all the mutuels.
Are there steam horses? Sure, every day. It\'s our job
as horseplayers to try to define it and validate it, then
deal with it -- BEFORE the race. Afterwards is when the
whining starts.
-
Rick B. Wrote:
> Are there steam horses? Sure, every day. It\'s our
> job
> as horseplayers to try to define it and validate
> it, then
> deal with it -- BEFORE the race. Afterwards is
> when the
> whining starts.
For people who track potential payoffs and look for the best value by comparing win pools vs. exotics, BEFORE the race, then this is relevant information. I think that\'s what a number of people are talking about here. If your issue is some variation on a \"conspiracy theorists\" theme, then you are certainly entitled to be bothered by whatever bothers you, but I think there is a clear distinction.
-
Speaking of seniority, and age before beauty and all that, here\'s a little math lesson for Rick, who seems to think a $20 bill was all it took to skew this payoff.
Pool 54,000
Ill use a 25% take, leaving 40,000
If the DD had paid $300 (a conservative figure) that would have been $265 on the number.
As it is it paid $74, meaning there was $1135 on the ticket.
$835 extra. Pretty close to my \'off the cuff\' $1000 wheel comment.
So Rick, would you call an 800 punch on two longshots \"simply niggling over nickels\"
PS Out of curiosity, I looked up the matrix for the race. No question that single # was skewed low, paying only a little more than the 1-1 favorite, but the #11 in the second half also paid high to win in the race, making it look even worse. It was near second choice with a few horses in the DD\'s.
You think reading sheets or pp\'s is hard...nothing compared to trying to make sense of the betting, where lunatics and drunks cohabit with insiders for attention.
-
Boscar,
How are you able to pull up the DD matrices for prior days races? Is that info available online somehere?
Thx
Rocky
-
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of seniority, and age before beauty and
> all that, here\'s a little math lesson for Rick,
> who seems to think a $20 bill was all it took to
> skew this payoff.
Huh? A $20 bill? I wrote that I had found a couple
of hundred dollars difference numerous times.
> Pool 54,000
> Ill use a 25% take, leaving 40,000
>
> If the DD had paid $300 (a conservative figure)
> that would have been $265 on the number.
$300? For two ML 6-1 shots? (The 2nd would be an adjusted
ML, after three early scratches.)
> As it is it paid $74, meaning there was $1135 on
> the ticket.
>
> $835 extra.
Um...$870 extra, using your numbers. But do continue
with my \"math lesson\", Professor.
> So Rick, would you call an 800 punch on two
> longshots \"simply niggling over nickels\"
No...if it actually happened. It didn\'t happen that way.
In this case, you failed to look at the win prices
in context of what actually happened on the race course.
You seem married to the idea that only the DD payoffs
can be short, and win prices are always a fair basis
for DD price projections.
(This is the same sort of flat earth thinking that leads
some number services to use one variant for a whole day\'s
races, no matter what happens weather-wise. But I digress.)
Those win prices were inflated, most any way you look
at it. Under the circumstances there was hardly a chance
in hell that the DD would pay $300.
Most everywhere I play, two ML 6-1 shots pay about
$100 for the DD, which, after calculation, means this
number had about $335 \"extra\" bet on it, just over
0.5% of the total pool...the pittance I usually find when
I have run the numbers in the past.
Sorry, nothing here.