Nice Exacta

[miff]

Last race of the meet at Churchill Downs was a MSW with 12 horses. The winner went off at like 8-1 and the second horse at 60-1(a firster)

The exacta only paid like $243.00(should be like 7-8 hundred). The exacta pool had like $218k. The other exotic payoffs credible.

Think the Clueless Clowns at CD will order a forensic analysis of the betting in the exacta pool?


Mike

[Rick B.]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Last race of the meet at Churchill Downs was a MSW
> with 12 horses. The winner went off at like 8-1
> and the second horse at 60-1(a firster)
>
> The exacta only paid like $243.00(should be like
> 7-8 hundred). The exacta pool had like $218k. The
> other exotic payoffs credible.
>
> Think the Clueless Clowns at CD will order a
> forensic analysis of the betting in the exacta
> pool?
>
>
> Mike

Love the \"should have paid\" mentality -- based on what, exactly? 100% \"guaranteed efficient\" win and place pools?

Here is what I do whenever I start having flashbacks due to adolescent indulgences, and I begin to think a given race\'s payoffs are \"wrong\": I pull out a pencil and piece of paper.

Last I heard, the takeout for most exotics at Churchill are 19%. Apply that to the $218,422 exacta pool, and $176,921.82 is left to pay the winning exacta tickets. Dividing this number by the $243.20 exacta payoff (for a $2 bet) shows that the equivalent of 726.5 $2 exacta tickets were purchased (after accounting for breakage).

In other words, exactly $1453 worth of exacta tickets were purchased on the winning combination of 9-2.

Out of a total pool of $218,422.

About 2/3 of 1% of the whole pool was bet on the winning combo. Think about that for a moment...then ask yourself: if you \"knew\" the winning exacta in advance, how much would you bet?

Miff, you think a \"forensic analysis\" of the betting is a good use of CD\'s time and money -- because you didn\'t bother to do the math? There was no \"betting coup\" here.

No wonder the tracks don\'t listen to us, when we hit them with this kind of rubbish.

[miff]

Rick,

You overwhealmingly win the \"Clueless Award\".That exacta can\'t pay less than 7-8 hundred or more in that sized pool unless someone made a much larger than normal bet on that combination for whatever reason. Might be someone\'s favorite numbers, an owner a big gambbler or whatever.

There is no chance that the exacta price was just the result of the public making it\'s normal 2,4 10, 20, 50 dollar plays, not a chance!!


Mike

[Topcat]

The thing clearly came back short . . . an 8-1 shot wins, and the exacta with a 60-1 shot on the bottom only comes back $243.   Dot\'s short.

Margolis is a long-term strong percentage trainer, who has a following.   Still, I doubt anybody punched the 9-2 straight, and left the grounds laughing hysterically.   Figure someone involved harbored a good deal of confidence, and would guess
at least one player wheeled the winner on top, aggressively.

CD in the spring is a great gambling meeting, especially during the final couple of weeks.   They can\'t wait any more, and the missiles are launched.

[Rick B.]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick,
>
> You overwhealmingly win the \"Clueless Award\".That
> exacta can\'t pay less than 7-8 hundred or more in
> that sized pool unless someone made a much larger
> than normal bet on that combination for whatever
> reason. Might be someone\'s favorite numbers, an
> owner a big gambbler or whatever.
>
> There is no chance that the exacta price was just
> the result of the public making it\'s normal 2,4
> 10, 20, 50 dollar plays, not a chance!!
>
>
> Mike

Funny, Miff -- you were 1/9on to admit that *maybe* you made a mistake. Can\'t trust them \"straight\" pools like we might think, I guess...which was a minor point I made in my initial post. You missed it.

I\'ll have to be more direct: who is to say the exacta payout is \"wrong\", and the place pool was \"right\"? Are you the Prime Poo-bah of Place Prices? Is it possible that the #2 would have been a more reasonable 8-1 to 15-1 in the straight pools until some maniac plunged on another horse? Were you even watching?

This is what is wrong with the whole \"exacta should pay win times x% of place price\", or any other cockamamie formula that is bandied about by so-called \"sharp\" horseplayers -- THESE ARE ALL SEPARATE, UNRELATED POOLS! If you think there is any sort of rigid, fixed formula for correlating the pools that passes mathematical muster, I assure you that YOU are the clueless one here. Just because you have been using some asinine formula for 60-odd years (as it were) doesn\'t make it right.

The only significant numbers in this discussion are $1453, and $218,422 -- no chance of a betting coup with that tiny amount bet on the winner, out of that big of a pool. The math is incontrovertible.

[Rick B.]

Topcat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The thing clearly came back short . . . an 8-1
> shot wins, and the exacta with a 60-1 shot on the
> bottom only comes back $243.   Dot\'s short.

Who said the 2nd place horse\'s odds were *valid* at 60-1?

A wild number upstream throws off all other calculations -- even if those calculations have merit, which the \"exacta price cross-check\" does not. Can\'t stress this enough.

[Topcat]

Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Topcat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The thing clearly came back short . . . an 8-1
> > shot wins, and the exacta with a 60-1 shot on
> the
> > bottom only comes back $243.   Dot\'s short.
>
> Who said the 2nd place horse\'s odds were *valid*
> at 60-1?
>
> A wild number upstream throws off all other
> calculations -- even if those calculations have
> merit, which the \"exacta price cross-check\" does
> not. Can\'t stress this enough.


I don\'t debate that point -- though the closing market was what it was.   If the McGees liked their horse to perform respectably against those, I can envision some box action with other contenders they deemed live.   $200-$300 of highly-educated money on such combinations
likely drove the final payoff down, considerably.

[miff]

Rick,


Re that exacta,you should school them on your inane math theory.

Mike

\"Both the TRPB and the racing commission staff are looking at the situation\".

 

Greg Lamb
Supervisor of Parimutuel Wagering
Kentucky Horse Racing Commission

[moosepalm]

I\'m fairly certain that the 2 horse, at 60-1, was one of three that was paying off on 5 out of 6 in the Pick 6.  The other two were the 3 & 4, who went off at 5-2 and 2-1.  The rest were paying off on 4 out of 6.  The pool was fairly small at 15K, but that, combined with the exacta and place payoffs, suggests that the betting on the 2 might have been skewed.

A friend uses the \"win\" times \"place\" prices for the 1st two finishers to give a ball park idea of what the exacta payoff might be.  In the other ten races at Churchill on that day, the variances of the exacta prices to the win/places multiples were all in the range of 1-21%.  In the 11th race, it was 76%.  

Nothing is conclusive here other than these are funny numbers.  If the connections decide to load up on a specific pool, or pools, is that a problem?  I don\'t know, just asking.

[Topcat]

moosepalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'m fairly certain that the 2 horse, at 60-1, was
> one of three that was paying off on 5 out 6 in the
> Pick 6.  The other two were the 3 & 4, who went
> off at 5-2 and 2-1.  The rest were paying off on 4
> out of 6.  The pool was fairly small at 15K, but
> that, combined with the exacta and place payoffs,
> suggests that the betting on the 2 might have been
> skewed.
>
> A friend uses the \"win\" times \"place\" prices for
> the 1st two finishers to give a ball park idea of
> what the exacta payoff might be.  In the other ten
> races at Churchill on that day, the variances of
> the exacta prices to the win/places multiples were
> all in the range of 1-21%.  In the 11th race, it
> was 76%.  
>
> Nothing is conclusive here other than these are
> funny numbers.  If the connections decide to load
> up on a specific pool, or pools, is that a
> problem?  I don\'t know, just asking.

So long as you\'re betting on your own horse -- alone, or in combination -- no problem from this corner.

[Silver Charm]

Hold on here guys!! The Paul Mc Gee trained runerup was 15-1 ML and wnet off a 60-1....Probably more shocking to me than the Exacta payoff. McGee is a high percentage Trainer, WHO HAS A FOLLOWING IN LOUISVILLE!!!

I know the guy from when he was walking hots for Carl Bowman and he has friends who do nothing but BET HIS HORSES.

This horse was two jumps from getting up and you would have to go back more than twenty years to find a more shocking $120+ winner on the last race of the Meet to when it was one Trained by Shug McGaughey at about $130 and this was a Fall meet.

[Topcat]

McGee horse paid better than 26-1 in the middle.   For a 60-1 shot, that\'s decent.

[Silver Charm]

You are coreect!

As soon as the race was over I texted to a few friends who were at the track along the lines of how did a McGee horse who was 2 JUMPS from winning go off at 60-1.

For people discussing this exacta and the pick six the thing you can say is the money was buried. Or the guys I know were tapped out for the Meet and almost saw their gravy train come in with no money left......HA!

[alydar66]

I hope McGee\'s friends aren\'t betting his 1st starters because he is 1 for his last 49 with only 18% ITM.  Thats how the horse goes off at 60-1.

[Boscar Obarra]

alydar66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope McGee\'s friends aren\'t betting his 1st
> starters because he is 1 for his last 49 with only
> 18% ITM.  Thats how the horse goes off at 60-1.

 Why ruin a good story with facts? -)

 I\'ve mentioned a few times, with little notice apparently, that the exacta matrix is frequently dotted with massive underlays. Most don\'t win. When they do , folks get all bent.

 Doesn\'t mean that there weren\'t a few wise guys who knew the fts was live and bet accordingly with horses they liked.

 Without seeing the board, I can\'t tell you what happened. But rest assured , for every one like this that hits, there are 200 that don\'t.

  And I\'d feel sympathy for the winners, they got robbed.

  PS I just looked at the chart. It may be seen as stretch here, but it could have been the names

Windswept
Chilled

  If you\'re tempted to think I\'m joking, don\'t be.