What should that GG pick 6 have paid?
I was right the whole way through to the last leg. I didn\'t have Golden Ocean. Imagine my surprise when I woke up and checked my online account to see that I\'d hit the P6 70 times!
So the point of this redboard? Sometimes it\'s better to be lucky than good. And hey, maybe the stewards made the right safety decision. Or maybe there was something more nefarious. Personally, I\'m a Polly Anna and believe everything is on the up and up, for, as Voltaire\'s Candide says, \"Everything is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds!\"
That said, Mister Jerry Brown asks a very pertinent question.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What should that GG pick 6 have paid?
Man, between the two off-the-turfers and the DH to open the sequence, this one was a mess.
The payout for the 2/3-7-3-ALL-5-ALL combination was $146.16 to the 31,438 winning tickets. The pool was $4,594,997, which along with the $1,408,071 carryover, produced a total pool of $6,003,068.
In terms of takeout, there was 0.2368*$4,594,997 = $1,088,095 subtracted from the pool in the form of the 23.68% takeout and $1,408,071 added to the pool by way of the carryover, for a net addition of $319,976, a positive advantage for the horseplayer of +$319,976/$4,594,997 = +7.0%.
The two off-the-turf races turned the Pick 6 into a de facto Pick 4 in which many players wound up sitting on a good number of duplicate tickets. Taking into account the DH in the opening race of the sequence (which is adjusted for by adding the win probabilities of the two horses and converting back to a blended winning payout -- $10.74 in this case), the $.20 parlay on the bet was $118.72, in which there is an inherent -15.43% takeout in each leg. But since you only get hit with the takeout once in the wager, and because in this particular case the effective \"takeout\" was actually a positive 7.0%, the expected payout was 1.07/(1-.1543)^4 = 2.09 times the parlay, or $248.12.
The fact that it paid less than the estimate in this case is not surprising. As I noted in another thread relating to a similar example, I've observed that when the sequences come back quite chalky (in this case the longest of the four winners paid $11.20), the result is more prone to come in light. This is especially true on carryover days and mandatory payout days, when everybody is focusing on the favorites because they expect any winning ticket at all, even those involving all short-priced favorites, to produce a windfall because of the free carryover money. It's likely that both the whales and particularly the little fish with their $50 net outlay caveman tickets overemphasize the favorites/logical contenders, which, when the short-priced combos do come in, ends up producing the opposite effect – an underlaid payout vis-à-vis the win parlay, even when players have a positive advantage expectation on the bet.
Man, I REALLY like reading your stuff.
Molesap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Man, I REALLY like reading your stuff.
agreed, really great analysis and very clearly and concisely stated.
I\'m pretty sure that was Professor Pangloss (Leibniz), and Voltaire was not being sympathetic to that view.
Pangloss = dodie
Voltaire = miff