Has anyone else besides me been frustrated with pk4 payouts lately at all tracks, and to a lesser extent, trifectas? I feel as if the 50 cent base is destroying the value of the wager. I do not have statistical studies to back it up, but I do play everyday and have noticed it getting worse and worse. Routinely now I am seeing pk4 payouts paying the same or less than the parlay at alot of the major tracks.....an occurrence that should be far less common given that the whole appeal to a pk4 is only getting hit with the takeout once, as opposed to a win parlay where you get hit 4 times. If these bets are barely paying the parlay at best, what\'s the point anymore?
The 50 cent base has it made it way too easy to cover and spread, not to mention in this age of small fields (lookin at you California), it becomes way too cheap and easy to just buy races. This results in more and more tickets having all four winners. The pie is getting sliced too many ways anymore. A losing ticket with a dollar base can easily turn into a winner for 50 cents, if you allow yourself to double the amount of combinations you can play within your budget. Yes, I realize big tickets for 50 cent bases arent very economical, or even value based, but most players dont care about that. They treat it like a pk6, just try to get all the winners on one ticket. Not to mention it is tougher to even measure the value of the ticket before hand (different than win and exacta wagering) so most dont even bother to worry about pk4 value. Want to play a trifecta? Forget it. That 40/1 shot you got to run third is irrelevant anymore. It is way too cheap and easy to just hit all. If a bomb runs third, the payoffs, in my opinion, seem to be very compressed lately.
Im curious other\'s thoughts. Has anyone else been noticing this the past year or two, or am I just in a bad spell of getting crummy payouts and need to suck it up?
I\'ve noticed it too...Pick 4\'s that I would\'ve seen paying $1k+ to $.50 cents are paying half of that. That\'s one reason why I\'m glad that the Super is still a $1.00 minimum on Derby day @ Churchill.
Just saw that GP lowered the Pick 3 to 50 cents.
TheBull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has anyone else besides me been frustrated with
> pk4 payouts lately at all tracks, and to a lesser
> extent, trifectas? I feel as if the 50 cent base
> is destroying the value of the wager. I do not
> have statistical studies to back it up, but I do
> play everyday and have noticed it getting worse
> and worse. Routinely now I am seeing pk4 payouts
> paying the same or less than the parlay at alot of
> the major tracks.....an occurrence that should be
> far less common given that the whole appeal to a
> pk4 is only getting hit with the takeout once, as
> opposed to a win parlay where you get hit 4 times.
> If these bets are barely paying the parlay at
> best, what\'s the point anymore?
>
> The 50 cent base has it made it way too easy to
> cover and spread, not to mention in this age of
> small fields (lookin at you California), it
> becomes way too cheap and easy to just buy races.
> This results in more and more tickets having all
> four winners. The pie is getting sliced too many
> ways anymore. A losing ticket with a dollar base
> can easily turn into a winner for 50 cents, if you
> allow yourself to double the amount of
> combinations you can play within your budget. Yes,
> I realize big tickets for 50 cent bases arent very
> economical, or even value based, but most players
> dont care about that. They treat it like a pk6,
> just try to get all the winners on one ticket. Not
> to mention it is tougher to even measure the value
> of the ticket before hand (different than win and
> exacta wagering) so most dont even bother to worry
> about pk4 value. Want to play a trifecta? Forget
> it. That 40/1 shot you got to run third is
> irrelevant anymore. It is way too cheap and easy
> to just hit all. If a bomb runs third, the
> payoffs, in my opinion, seem to be very compressed
> lately.
>
> Im curious other\'s thoughts. Has anyone else been
> noticing this the past year or two, or am I just
> in a bad spell of getting crummy payouts and need
> to suck it up?
I think you answered your own question. Bets that \"aren\'t very economical, or even value based\" are good for your bottom line. They lose, you win.
Competing wagers that are economical and value based are not good. We don\'t want those.
Bull --
I\'ve done some pretty large sample studies over the years of Pick 4 expected payouts (as well as all the other exotic wagers), and I haven\'t seen any negative impact of the move to the $.50 minimum (or for any other wagers either), although I admittedly haven\'t looked too closely at actual vs. expected payouts in the last year or so.
If you want to give me a specific meet you think looks particularly suspicious, I can run the numbers and post the results.
Without having done any studies, I\'d expect a lower minimum to limit outlier payoffs , but not to have a major impact on value.
You might for instance ,get a lower return on 4 longshots in a pick 4 with a 50c minimum, vs $1 or more. But with a normal mix of prices, I don\'t see why you\'d get a significant lowering of the payoff.
Better to do the actual research, but that\'s my guess.
Anyone catch this race? 1-5 #3 wipes out the 2 at the start and then gets dq\'d from 3rd. The online telecast then had the cujones to put up the CHRB explanation about reasonably affecting the placing. Just wondering if they changed the rule (or interpretation) since the BC fiasco. I mean the 2 was an absolute no hoper imo. Anyway, as to this thread, they drop the 1-5 out of the exotics and put up a 70-1 and the payouts looked really weak. Short field the explanation??