Apple Blossom

[JimP]

We are seeing something special. She shows up every time and runs her race. Just the consistency alone is special. Appears there are no others (male or female) who want to take her on. What now? Her name in the entries is enough to scare off all the other top femaless. Where do they go now to find something to run against? Unless Rachel returns to form, I suppose they will have to go after the top males. I hope they find some spots so we can see this spectacular mare continue to perform.

[sekrah]

Greatest Synth runner of all time.. All 5 years of it.  She\'s set the benchmark for synthetic surfaces.   That clearly will never be enough for you.

[P-Dub]

I\'m done with it.

[richiebee]

Sekrah:

For some reason I was under the impression that you were an insider of sorts...
owner? syndicate member? I don\'t know, but I guess I was wrong.

Because if you had been involved in Racing in some capacity other than as a
horseplayer, you would be able to appreciate what a feat it is... for both the
animal and all the human connections... to run up a 16 race win streak at any
level.

The fact that many of the victories in this mare\'s undefeated career include
multiple Grade I races, including the Breeders Cup Classic, makes your
protestations regarding surface and level of competition a bit shallow.

Sekrah I seem to recall that you like to make selections on this board at Penn
National in the dead of winter. This is a different kinda hoss, partner.

RIP Personal Ensign. Thankfully we have TWO great female runners to carry the
torch.

[sekrah]

richiebee.. Is it really so wrong to not be impressed by her dirt credentials?

[Flighted Iron]

\"Thankfully we have TWO great female runners to carry the
torch\".

Hear! Hear!

 As a Horseracing fan and player it\'s good to see Z on her game.I hope it\'s a shared sentiment when I say,I hope Rachel gets on her game as well.Holding my breath with fingers crossed that our racing babes hook and are at their best.One
curious thought though,why would Smith have Z lose ground in turn one?

mjs

[magicnight]

\"why would Smith have Z lose ground in turn one?\"

That was just part of the spot. Z is quite the sport.

[smalltimer]

Its not so much going wide on the turn as it is giving Z a reminder of what its like to have some real dirt kicked in her face. Off the pace synthetic horses  sometimes tend to shy away from dirt flying in their faces.  

Z continues to work on her game.... lol   Actually, she has some smart people that handle her, they pay close attention to detail.

Last thing on the topic of Z.  I think you\'ll see Shireffs and Moss announce Zenyatta\'s next expected start.  I know Z is going to Churchill, we\'ll see if she and Rachel get matched up there.

[Uncle Buck]

Anyone care to guess what her TG figure will be for today\'s 3w4w effort?

[sekrah]

The time was horrific, 1:50 something.   Will be her slowest race in quite some time.

[Flighted Iron]

sekrah,

 Don\'t know if horrific is the adj I\'d use(considering she was in gallop/2 min lick mode),but my guess on her fig is between a 1/2 to 1 range.

good luck,
mjs

[Boscar Obarra]

reminds me of all the bashers of the stock market , up 80% off the lows. No matter how it climbs, they find something not to like, the volume, the this, the other thing.

 Hey you were 100% right about 1 thing. She was 1 to 9.

[TGJB]

Speaking of 1/9, someone has to explain this net pricing thing to me. Huge minus place pool, 5 horse field, the one that ran second pays 6.40 to place.

[Boscar Obarra]

I\'m not 100% up to speed, but it\'s something about the hub that creates the minus pool eating the loss. You no longer see the 2.10\'s all the way down like you used too.

[Rick B.]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of 1/9, someone has to explain this net
> pricing thing to me. Huge minus place pool, 5
> horse field, the one that ran second pays 6.40 to
> place.

I don\'t have the exact numbers from the Apple Blossom, but I was monitoring them right up to post time, and what I remember is that Zenyatta had about $555K of the ~ $600K place pool, and Taptam had about $10000. This is close enough for illustration.

I\'m not going to get into any discussions of varying takeouts here, because while that was one of the problems net pool pricing was designed to address (the other being currency translations), it just muddies up the answer to the question at hand: how the heck did that (non-heavy favorite) horse pay so much? So I\'ll just use 20% as the takeout, and be done with it.

Finally, let me stress that this is MY understanding of how it works. Plenty of horse racing web sites mention net pool pricing, and try to explain how it works, but I could not find any definitive source for the EXACT calculations; what follows is what I have cobbled together from 2 years of on-again, off-again farting around with the calculations. I think I finally have it very close, if not completely correct, but if anybody out there wants to chime in with corrections, etc., PLEASE DO SO! I promise to not be offended -- I just want the damn thing solved.

***

Under the old pricing model, the place calculation would be over pretty quick:

Total place pool: $600,000

1. Subtract takeout from gross pool: $480,000 remains.

Well, the rest of the calculation (remove money bet on Z and Taptam, divide remainder by 2, allocate winnings back on a per dollar basis, calculate raw price and round down for breakage) is moot at this point -- there isn\'t enough money left to give the winners back their *bets*, let alone the mandated 5% minimum return. There are $565,000 in winning place wagers to be paid at 5 cents on the dollar, and calculation shows a minus pool of $113,250 is needed to pay the place bettors, all of whom receive $2.10.

***

Under the new pricing model, the order of calculations are tinkered with, yielding obviously different results,

The total place pool is still $600,000, and the amounts bet on all the horse remain the same, but the first step is different -- the \"net\" winnings are derived first:

1. Total pool $600,000 minus $555,000 bet on Z, minus $10,000 bet on Taptam = $35,000

2. Remove 20% takeout from $35,000. $28,000 remains.

3. Split the $28,000 amongst the winning place bettors by horse -- $14,000 to the Z place bettors, and $14,000 to the Taptam place bettors.

4. Calculate raw price for each place price:

Taptam: $10,000 wagered minus 20% takeout = $8000. Add the $8000 to the $14,000 from step 3, for a total of $22,000 available to be paid back to the Taptam place bettors. Allocate this amount per dollar wagered, which is $2.20 to $1, for a payout of $6.40.  

Z: $555,000 wagered minus 20% takeout = $444,000. Add this to the $14,000 from step 3 for a total of $458,000, and...you still have a minus pool situation, to the tune of $124,750.

So, the takeout is the same, but the dollar amount of the minus pool goes up under my net pricing example.

I\'ve been told that the agreement under this model is that the host track is no longer stuck with the whole minus pool, that it is allocated back to each entity based on the percentage of bets each entity has booked to that pool. True? Again, chime in if you know.