I\'ve never felt stronger about a race. I see the race as cold trifecta
Ap
Materiality
Frosted
What will $100 bring back ???? $600?
More than 6-1. You really think one in every 7 or so bets in the pool will be that bet? I would say twice that for starters.
If your strongest you\'ve ever felt about a race is the favorite winning and the only other 2 fast horses coming second and third (as the clear second and third choices), then you may have bigger issues than what it will pay...
But maybe a litte more than 600. Maybe 1000.
Rob
What not hit the all button for 4th?
If you\'re doing that why not play a super with \"all\" in the last spot for a $20 super? And that triple would also pay more than 6.00 for a dollar; I\'d say 12.00 maybe. Too bad they don\'t have a high 5, the dinosaurs at NYRA apparently can\'t get the software for that wager. That\'s a fun bet too when you\'re sure of the top finishers you can wheel the back spots and get lucky.
Somebody help with my math. You like a cold tri in a 8 horse field.
If you take the advice given in two of the posts here and hit the all button for the super, the cost goes up by a factor of 5.
What are the chances the super pays better than 5 times the tri?
$0.00
I understand your point,I figured their is a chance... I\'ve been wrong before..
The last time the fastest horse in this race actually won the race was Afleet Alex in 2005. You have to go back another 8 years before that to 1997 and Touch Gold to find the next one. And look how slow some of the past winners have been relative to the rest of the field coming into the race. Seems to be that having already run fast is actually a disadvantage in the Belmont. The race yields some funny results.
First off, if anyone thinks any Tri in a TC race is going to pay only 6-1, then I don\'t know what to say to that. That is the most crazy thing I think I\'ve ever read on here. AP/Mat and AP/Frost exactas will probably pay 4-1 at minimum. Fair exacta odds based on their likely betting odds should be closer to 10-1 for both. I\'d be shocked if the Tri was any less than 20-1.
But I agree with jerry on the point that the Belmont, historically, has been an awful race to just play the fastest horses, and cold tris with the top 3 betting choices are probably one of the lowest EV plays you can possible play in any race.
I\'m betting AP doesn\'t hit the exacta. That\'s why I like exactas over triples. I do think he could hit the tri which kills that price.
Sek,
Zero chance that Tri pays $40 for $2.
Not that I care, because I won\'t be playing it. Your exacta estimates seem right 4-1 or so. So how would you expect the ONLY other fast horse in the race, who will be only other single digit odds horse, to \"juice\" the exacta by 5x!! ($4 to $20)
No.
But like I said, I am not playing it, and you are saying you like Keen Ice, so neither of use has skin in the game.......
Rob
ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sek,
>
> Zero chance that Tri pays $40 for $2.
>
Totally disagree. The only way it\'s not is if there\'s a scratch or two to the others. The larger the pool gets, the less like you\'re going to get an dirt cheap price on favorites in the verts. Point Given won at 6/5 with 3rd and 2nd choice coming in 2-3 and paid 38-1. This isn\'t the 7th race at Mountaineer on a Tuesday night.
Exact as will be around $10 each, tri around 20-25 for 2. If we find out I won\'t be cashing.
Side bet: I\'ll put a grand on that $2 tri being greater than $25 if it hits. Scratches void.
Exactly what i said, 10 to 1 odds or so.
Since TGJB agreed, I must be wrong.
Sorry Sekrah, it will pay $75 for $2..... :)
Rob
The average tri (forgetting even the takeout difference) is exacta times number of remaining horses (which I thought was 5, it\'s 6), so 60 if the exacta is ten. You then adjust for the relative price of the third horse. Whichever of those is third will be way shorter than anyone else.
Another way to do it is, what price the third horse would be against the others if the first two were not in the pool. Which in this case will not be much higher than even money. So if the exacta is 10, and horse would be 3/2 (at most) tri would pay 25.
I never claimed it would pay $75 for two. I think it\'d be somewhere in $40-$60 range for $2 for that combo.
Zenyatta won 6-horse fields at 1/9 and had some 20-1 trifectas.
A.There\'s no super-dead 100-1 shots to completely toss out of your exotics. One can even make a reasonable case for the two longest shots.
B.There\'s no stand-out second choice, both Frosted and Mat will go off around 5-1.
C.There\'s just too many mid-range horses like Mub, ToV, MFL that will be taking money to make it any cheaper than 20-1.
Sek,
You are WAY off base.
But I hope we don\'t get to see it.
Heavy 1-2 favorite
Two Clear middle range 5-1 shots
Longshots at 10-1 + the rest.
Smallish 8 horse field
1-2 over 5-1 over 5-1 is about $20
Good luck
Rob
Another issue which players should not have to concern themselves with. Technology is there to show the possible payoffs in all pools, the jackoffs just don\'t show them all.Know we are speaking before the pools open.
Would lean to the TRI paying a little more than expected for 3 favs given the enormous pool size.
In a first/last pool, one entry only allowed, the selection for last much tougher process.
AND... if someone is getting into the pools, the place to do it (after the wire and before it\'s official) is in the ones which are not there for the public to see. I would like to see a study of the actual vs. expected relationship between exacta and tri payoffs throughout the year, track by track.
JB,
The lightweights are reluctant to show the info you mention.
NYRA talked about it, decided against it for one specific reason. Attached to this data shows the inflow/ouflow of settlements to and from all the hubs that make up the pools.It is evident that the bots(computer program rebaters) are killing the regular players based on the strong $$ outflow to hubs handling the bots.
This was a mini scandal back when Barry K Schwartz was NYRA CEO, Charlie Hayward was concerned.It\'s a powder keg imo,a few tracks, after seeing the outflow,shut out the bots.It appears that up to 20 % of handle is bots.
Mike
Side bet anyone?
ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sek,
>
> You are WAY off base.
>
> But I hope we don\'t get to see it.
>
> Heavy 1-2 favorite
> Two Clear middle range 5-1 shots
>
> Longshots at 10-1 + the rest.
>
> Smallish 8 horse field
>
> 1-2 over 5-1 over 5-1 is about $20
>
> Good luck
>
> Rob
You couldn\'t be more wrong, sorry. Find me an example of an odds-on fav in an 8-horse field, with two 5-1\'s finishing 2nd/3rd,with 3 more horses shorter than 20-1, that pays a 10-1 trifecta. Just one example. You won\'t.
They also don\'t even have one type of info I asked them about-- structure of tickets that cashed. They need to look for dummy tickets, the kind of things the BC kids did, that can be easily altered afterwards, electronically.
http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=MTH&raceDate=08/02/2009&cy=USA&rn=13
2009 Haskell.
Rachel A. 1-2
Summer Bird 4-1
Munnings 5-1
Papa Clem 10-1
Duke of Mischief 19-1
Atomic Rain 20-1
Bunker Hill 48-1
7 horse field and the trifecta paid 12-1.
Add another 15-1 shot to this field and you have roughly the composite of the Belmont. That one extra horse adds significantly more money to the exotic pools and you\'re likely get at least 20-1 on the same combo. Also, Frammento is probably a far more appealing exotic use in the Belmont than what Bunker Hill was in that race.
The only way it\'s less than 20-1 Saturday is if there\'s a scratch.
http://www.wired.com/2015/06/science-says-american-pharoah-wont-win-triple-crown/
Mike, Mike, Mike,
You have way too much time on your hands :)
If the one other horse is an out price-- which it has to be or the odds of the first three will be longer-- the tri will pay only slightly more than the 12-1 in that race. There will be six for the third slot instead of five, with that one being many many times the price of the actual third finisher. Might add 10%, tops. So instead of the $25 I predicted you might get $29.
Look-- let\'s say AP gets 50% of the action, the other two 15 each. That leaves 20 for the rest. So for the third spot, 65 (50+15) is already out of play because they finished first and second. For the third spot it\'s 15 to win 20, odds of 20/15, on what the exacta pays.
The AVERAGE exacta if AP pays $3 is 3x7, $21. With the overwhelming second and third choices, maybe $10. If so tri comes out 20/15 times $10, plus $10.
Frank,
How long can you look at an 8 horse field with 5 slugs in there?Weather looks ok!
Mike
On the contrary! That\'s as good an explanation of why horses bounce as you will ever see.
AP might not reach .50-1 and Frosted probably won\'t reach 4.30-1 either. Books have him at +500 and Mat +600. Also, the Belmont has significantly bigger handle than a G1 at Monmouth.
I still don\'t see how it\'s less than $40 for $2.
Did miff even read that article or was he being sarcastic?
That\'s what most of us figured was behind the patterns all along.
What are the fair odds prop for the top three betting choices running 1,2,3?
Sek,
Read this other hypothesis years ago.None identify the individually of each horse, i.e they are NOT all the same in their ability to recover from stress. If you think a number on a piece if paper can identify stress, you are delusional.
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are the fair odds prop for the top three
> betting choices running 1,2,3?
Where\'s Mathcapper when you need him ... Rocky??
As someone who follows price movement in exactas and doubles, the price action is grotesque. Doesn\'t matter which track. Which do you think is the bigger issue in thoroughbred racing, medication or pool integrity?
Manson or Bundy?
We can somewhat gauge drugs, pool integrity no way.
If you think that\'s all we\'re doing, you are.
Oh yea? How about a -6?
You don\'t examine the long-term conditioning patterns? I thought the fact that some horses recover from hard races better than others was pretty standard sheets knowledge.
JB,
Said stress can not be identified by a number on a piece of paper, that\'s indisputable.
Mike
Mike,
Only a slight chance of scattered showers for tomorrow bodes well for SR. Covello on Saturday. Buona Fortuna Jim. A beautiful day on tap for Saturday, if I wasn\'t 56 and grumpy I\'d sell my seats and hang in the backyard all day if I knew I could get cell and WiFi for sure?
I just did my racing form run through of Saturdays card before I mix in the
\"Kool Aide\" outside in the sun with a cocktail and am left in amazement at the opportunities!!!
The rumor mill is churning about the Desormeaux brothers traveling with an extra suit case for tomorrows Tremont?
Good luck,
Frank D.
On a percentage basis, in context, it can, and that\'s indisputable. See \"Thoro-Patterns\" for proof. But aside from that, all the things that affect this question are what we discuss in ROTW and handicapping-- how big the top is, time since, how the horse has reacted to previous tops. You are framing the question as a straw man-- we\'re not seeing an amount of stress in one number.
By the way, if the only way to make decisions was if you had first hand physical knowledge of the individual horse, it would be awful tough to bet horses. You would have to know not only about that one, but all the ones he\'s running against, too.
Likewise all other bets and investment decisions...
Pool integrity without a doubt.
We may be behind in catching drug cheaters, but pool manipulation......does anyone have a clue what is going on there?
\"By the way, if the only way to make decisions was if you had first hand physical knowledge of the individual horse, it would be awful tough to bet horses. You would have to know not only about that one, but all the ones he\'s running against, too\"
...I could have written that, in the reality of the game, you said it all!
Yeah. But A-- you still do, and B-- fortunately, it\'s not.
What do we know about pool manipulation?
1) Integrity is inversely proportional to opportunity.
2) Ignorance is bliss if you have a healthy ROI.
Paolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do we know about pool manipulation?
>
> 1) Integrity is inversely proportional to
> opportunity.
> 2) Ignorance is bliss if you have a healthy ROI.
What did we know about the BC betting scandal? Before the idiots got caught??
So as long as you have a healthy ROI, it doesn\'t matter if it should be healthier?
If you win the lottery for 10 mil, but 4 mil gets lost, its ok. You still have 6 mil?? You seriously believe that??
What did we know about the BC betting scandal? Before the idiots got caught??
So as long as you have a healthy ROI, it doesn\'t matter if it should be healthier?
If you win the lottery for 10 mil, but 4 mil gets lost, its ok. You still have 6 mil?? You seriously believe that??
P-Dub
Silly season, indeed.
Rub-a-Dub-Dub. I should have put a sarcasm emoji on item #2? Or a pic of Yogi Berra? If you don\'t know about something, you don\'t know about it.
As for item #1, it is an absolute. Where there is opportunity to chisel, you will find chiselers.
Over and out.
Paolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What did we know about the BC betting scandal?
> Before the idiots got caught??
>
> So as long as you have a healthy ROI, it doesn\'t
> matter if it should be healthier?
>
> If you win the lottery for 10 mil, but 4 mil gets
> lost, its ok. You still have 6 mil?? You seriously
> believe that??
>
> P-Dub
>
>
> Silly season, indeed.
>
> Rub-a-Dub-Dub. I should have put a sarcasm emoji
> on item #2? Or a pic of Yogi Berra? If you don\'t
> know about something, you don\'t know about it.
>
> As for item #1, it is an absolute. Where there is
> opportunity to chisel, you will find chiselers.
>
> Over and out.
Please stick to your over and out. Your comments are ridiculous.
FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rumor mill is churning about the Desormeaux
> brothers traveling with an extra suit case for
> tomorrows Tremont?
This one could like Belmont-- both his sire and dam sire won the Champagne
Stakes.
Took a look back to see how Baffert brought his other Two Gem winners to the Belmont Stakes and AP\'s recent works look similar to Real Quiet\'s.
All three previous attempts went with the plan to not work at Elmont. Obviously not a trainer, but I don\'t agree. You acclimate your horse to the track when you have the chance and Baffert had that chance. Hopefully, that failure bites him again.
Having watched all of American Pharoah\'s recent workouts it sure appeared that he was \"head lugging\" further to the right more than usual in that final workout. The time wasn\'t as flashy either and Baffert was not as ebullient as he was when say Silver Charm last prepped at Churchill for the Belmont Stakes. Will have to grant that AP was under some subtle restraint and that could have exacerbated the head lugging. The track looked a little wet as well. Hopefully, we catch a deep dry surface Saturday.
AP Work (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=american+pharoah+6%2f1+workout&FORM=VIRE11#view=detail&mid=451AFCAA2BE93EF93F57451AFCAA2BE93EF93F57)
Now I have to say the field is not as deep as I\'d like to see, but then neither is this crop. However I have three picked out that I believe can do the job if AP isn\'t up to the Big Sandy and/or the grind. Will discuss those soon.
Pivoting from Wired magazine to Slate magazine, more from the non-kook aid drinkers camp:
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/06/american_pharoah_triple_crown_smart_bettors_will_put_their_money_on_the.html
Looking at the list he puts in the story, it makes a better case for betting all the horses over 29-1 than betting them all. 4 of the races paid over 29-1 making his stats for betting them all look better than they are, since in 8 of the 12 years he either loses or doesn\'t make much money. $357 of the $427.10 are from those 4 races, leaving only $70.10 for the other 8 years, an average of $8.76, a 3/1 payoff for betting all others. Since there\'s a 2/3 chance of his method failing, change it to just the longest odds horses & he improves his ROI. I guess the best way is use any horse over 25/1.
Joe Kennedy, Bernard Baruch, et al:
WHEN THE SHOESHINE BOYS TALK STOCKS IT WAS A GREAT SELL SIGNAL IN 1929.
2015:
When the pseudo-scientists who don\'t follow horse racing talk about betting ALL, it\'s a great signal to key AP on top, especially if you have reason to toss Mat (Pletcher and big figs at GP), and Frosted (did Kiaran have reservations about running him the Belmont in the week following the Derby?). Will the exotics be diluted enough with \'chaos chasers\' such that there will be value with the fastest horse in the race?
Paolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joe Kennedy, Bernard Baruch, et al:
> WHEN THE SHOESHINE BOYS TALK STOCKS IT WAS A GREAT
> SELL SIGNAL IN 1929.
>
> 2015:
> When the pseudo-scientists who don\'t follow horse
> racing talk about betting ALL, it\'s a great signal
> to key AP on top, especially if you have reason to
> toss Mat (Pletcher and big figs at GP), and
> Frosted (did Kiaran have reservations about
> running him the Belmont in the week following the
> Derby?). Will the exotics be diluted enough with
> \'chaos chasers\' such that there will be value with
> the fastest horse in the race?
They are going to be a lot more once-a-year \"pseudo-scientist\" fans betting ON Pharoah than betting against him.
Super did pay more than 5x the tri...