NY - Bel P4 payouts

[gales0678]

don't know if anyone had these today but if you did congrats , both were very hard to hit

the early P4 came back extremely light

the early p4 paid only $9,491 , the parlay brought back over $23,000 - this is almost un-imagianble

the pick 3 ending on race 5 paid over $3,700 and the parlay of those 3 winners was $2,021 - a much more plausible payout

the late p4 paid over 18k and the parlay was around 8k

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by gales0678

don't know if anyone had these today but if you did congrats , both were very hard to hit

the early P4 came back extremely light

the early p4 paid only $9,491 , the parlay brought back over $23,000 - this is almost un-imagianble

the pick 3 ending on race 5 paid over $3,700 and the parlay of those 3 winners was $2,021 - a much more plausible payout

the late p4 paid over 18k and the parlay was around 8k

You keep firing these bullets. Maybe you should leave the heavy lifting to the guys who actually do this. Your a great fan of the sport, this mutual forecast/recap dulls the regard you have for the sport.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by freddymo

You keep firing these bullets. Maybe you should leave the heavy lifting to the guys who actually do this. Your a great fan of the sport, this mutual forecast/recap dulls the regard you have for the sport.

He's right though. The early pick 4 and the pick 3 from races 2-4 were comically light. Even figuring the firster in the 2nd at the ML of 5-1... they were still light.

[blackthroatedwind]

There was $20 on the winning combination in the early Pick-4.

I hope that explains things. If it doesn't.....

[blackthroatedwind]

Let me add, in the Pick-4, the 3rd winner was probably a CLEAR 2nd choice, despite being almost 4:1, with his odds in that bet probably closer to 2:1 or 5:2. However, considering the amount wagered on the winning combo, given the pool size, of course there is a lot of randomness to the payout given the last two legs were won by roughly $30 horses.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by philcski

He's right though. The early pick 4 and the pick 3 from races 2-4 were comically light. Even figuring the firster in the 2nd at the ML of 5-1... they were still light.

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.

[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]

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).

[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.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Can't sleep. Thought I'd help.

I respect that. Both in fact....not being able to sleep and correcting poor spelling.

[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.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by philcski

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.

Therein lies the crux of this entire thing....you are willing to argue the wrong side of an argument just to contradict me. I got it before.

By the way, what I said you were wrong about was when you said " I would be upset by the payoff " if I had it....I would not have been. I would have understood. Just as I do now.

Phil, I know you, you're a nice person....you shouldn't have let yourself become led astray by misinformation on the internet. You'll see this in time...because you are smart...and you're a good guy.

[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.