It also doesnt prove one large more expensive ticket with several back-up tickets is the road to victory. We would need Scavs to construct two sets of wagers for every pick 4 event to decide which format was better. If the avg pk4 payout is say $800, then scavs can go several weeks without a hit, and if he gets one he is even. In the larger play w/ backup format, you obvously have to cash at a much higher rate. I would love to see this exercise in addition, but I know this is already a serious time investment from Scavs.

I have been wrestling with the issue of ticket size and structure a lot lately.

Guess that exercise really is the best way to really find out. Certainly would be time consuming. I also don't think any outcome could be applied across the board to everyone.

Maybe a pick4 symposium?

Lets all relax, it is 6 days in, I am one ticket away from being up for a while.

Lets visit this once the Hollywood meet is over and anaylze then

I think it is a good idea. I haven't taken part in a P6, but I love watching and learning from the threads...

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Yes, a good opinion of some sort is a necessity to make money at the racetrack. But, regardless of how good one's opinion may be, they will NEVER make money in the long run playing small Pick-4 tickets. Of that I am certain.

you shouldn't at all be discouraged. I told you that its hard to hit on $50.
here's why;
assuming 10 horse fields, throwing $50 at the pick 4 gives you the same coverage of all potential combinations as you would get by firing $4 at a trifecta in a 10 horse field.

No problem.

In Scav's we trust.... Go Get'em !

11/16 Late P4
 

5: 4,5
6: 3,4,6
7: 1,2,7,8
8: 3,6

$48

Running total including today's wager: ($331.00)(7)

Note: I probably won't be able to get the TVG announcer late pick four tickets tonight so if anyone is paying attention, please post them. thank you in advance

Simon
5: 2 4 5 7 8
6: 4
7: 6 7 8
8: 1 3 6
$45

Nick
5: 5 6
6: 2 3 4 7
7: 1 7 8
8: 3 4
$48

So Nick hits with a ticket that cost less than $50 bucks......I for the small single ticket people!!!

Obviously tickets will hit occasionally. But, one in 30 is hardly a great success. It will be interesting to see people's ROIs at the end of the meet.

To me the contest would be better if you had, say, four or five people that actually followed the races at Hollywood, or any track, that made two plays a day.....one for $48 and one for $144. Then, see what the ROIs for the two plays were at the end of the meet. I think with even a mediocre opinion the bigger play would do better over time ( even though both would probably lose ).

Im willing to do it for the upcoming Tampa meet. Maybe Bigs and RudeboyElvis will be willing to as well. Not sure who else follows Tampa as religiously as us 3. Maybe Leo could join us as well.

You put my thoughts into words better than I did. Great point.

Always the optimist.....

I'm in. Big ticket vs. little ticket each day. Do we want to limit the big ticket to $144 (or round it to $150) as Andy suggested?

I would think limit the small ticket to under $50 and the larger ticket must be at least $150. Im open to any suggestions though..

That'll work. Say at least $144 as that is an easy combo to come up with.

works for me.


As a side note, im glad we were able to hijack Scavs thread...even if for a little while.

11/17 Late P4
 

6: 1,3,4,10,11,12
7: 7,11
8: 1,5
9: 3,4

$48

That was a lousy beat.

yes it was...considering both the 3 & 4 had will pays showing almost $590 for $1

Sure was. It looked good as the 3 took the turn sharply.
Tough one Scavs. Dont worry, you'll pop one and be in the black.

Agreed, was a nice payoff for a good ticket and I thought he was home free at the top of the lane.. Had no problem with him taking a stand against the #7 at 4/5, either.

On a completely unrelated side note, my friend hit the late pick 4 at Aqueduct today with a $48 ticket. Talk about a ROI! Congrats to him!

That was nice for your friend....but unless he also used the second horse ( who I needed for the late Pick-3 ) he was extraordinarily lucky.

OTE=philcski]
On a completely unrelated side note, my friend hit the late pick 4 at Aqueduct today with a $48 ticket. Talk about a ROI! Congrats to him![/quote]

That is a feat. Think it paid $46K for $2. Damn...

That is a feat. Think it paid $46K for $2. Damn...[/quote]

No kidding. Nice hit...

The absurdity of that comment is surpassed only by the consistency of your perpetual desire to demean and devalue the success of other handicapping opinions....the individual who won that Aqu. P4 obviously made superb handicapping decisions that brought success for his effort. Because the guy didn't use a horse that you used doesn't make him any less intelligent on this particular day. To characterize that as "lucky" reveals how seriously you take your own opinion and how little you think of the rest of horse playing nation.......geez give the guy a break he brought down an incredible score.

I don't know Doc, I don't think he is around here to 'demean' anyone. I have read what he said about 10 times and I still can't figure out what he is trying to say (probably becuase I am tired) but it could very easily be one of those message board statements that is 'read' wrong.

He has been nothing but cool with me.

11/18 Late P4
 

7: 1,2,3,4,6,8
8: 4,7
9: 1
10: 1,9,12,13

$48

7: 1
8: 4,7
9: 1
10: 9

$2

Scav I hope he says he was kidding and I'l recant but we would have no credibility as a community if this type of thing went uncommented upon.

Would you not agree that it reads a bit "unfortunate" to be kind. The only question I have is why Phil has nothing to say about the comment...maybe there is another level to this one to be fair. I am fine with the benefit of the doubt...

the way I read it is that the horse that came in second had a bad trip and should have won.

not demeaning, just race analysis maybe

thats how i read it. But everyone knows that you need that fortunate trip to make the big score. Most of the time we seem to be on the bad end of the trip. Nice score....

I completely agree with this! I wouldn't know a good trip for a horse I have bet on recently if it bit him on the ass! But the trip, especially on the turf, is critical. Letting Prado crawl around the track on a slow horse was an absolute gift to Phil's friend (and an indictment on the Aqueduct jockey colony, yesterday anyway).

Demeaning someone? Give me a break and stop misreading what I write to suit your ridiculous personal agenda.

For anyone confused....

The last winner was a first timer on the turf with some breeding and was certainly not an illogical winner on paper and hardly a surprising winner per se and just as unsurprising a use by someone playing the race. However, after the race was run, a proper analysis of the race reveals that he was a fortunate recipient of extraordinarily favorable circumstances.

First of all, take a good look at the pps of the entire field and tell me honestly that the pace figured to unfold in the advantageous manner it did for the winner. Magic Wand dueled in a 22 and 45 pace in her debut. Vivacious Vivian was involved in reasonable paces in sprints in her two races ( both on the turf ). Justinline was on or very near the lead in three previous turf sprints. Stormy Miracle, the winner, also had shown real speed, but to predict that the horse would easily make the lead, and be able to run his middle half in 53 seconds, while on the lead, would have been near inpossible. The pace was so helpful to the frontrunner that Justinline, who stalked him, was able to hold to the finish of this mile race even though he had lost ground in the stretch in all of his previous efforts going a quarter of a mile, or more, less ground.

But there's more....much more. While the second place finisher did benefit from a ground saving trip, as the winner did, she was shuffled a bit into and around the turn, but more importantly when she tried to get outside for clear running into the stretch she was completely shut off. This forced her rider to alter course back to the inside where she moved up and was only able to get clear when it was too late. Like many horses, she clearly did her best running when free and outside of horses, and had she split at the top of the stretch she most likely would have won. Now, she would have done so with a sweet trip, but considering the pace dynamics of the race, and the fact that little ground was gained by any closers, she hardly ran in a race that suited her running style. You combine these factors and she was an unfortunate loser.

But there's more......the fourth place finisher Kristi with a K blew the break by breaking to the far outside and continued with a wide trip against the aforementioned slow pace. In a mildly fairly run race, even with the ground loss, she too would probably have beaten the winner.

In my opinion had the race been run fairly, and by this I mean an honest and not crawling pace, not a blistering speed duel either, both the second and fourth finishers would have beaten the winner. If this doesn't make the winner fortunate I simply don't know what does.

Somebody cashes every bet that pays off at the racetrack. That does not change the reality of any given race and how it played out upon reflection. Explaining this obviously doesn't demean anyone, and certainly we have all cashed when we got lucky, but perverting the events to somehow suit some ridiculous additional personal need would be absurd.....and I'm sure Phil was neither doing that nor would he disagree about this race.

it was already obvious you weren't demeaning anyone outside the original poster's head.

and i doubt they are subject to your persuasion.

so...don't take this wrong but...

if you managed to accomplish anything with this long explanation, you got extremely lucky.

It would be the first time in a while.

My Two cents
 

BTW

If you would learn how the turf rail affects the dynamics of the race you might get "luckier" more often. BBB