DMR 7th Daily Double

[banditbeau]

I need Math or someone to explain the 7th at DMR double payout yesterday.  I am curious what happened.  It obviously paid what it paid, $74.20, but with a $31.20 winner of the 6th, followed by a $17.60 winner of the 7th, the double should have been in the $250 plus range?  Anyone see it?  bb

[Boscar Obarra]

You underestimate what it should have paid, closer to 350.

  Happens. Not often. Certainly  those that cashed didn\'t do themselves a favor.

[Rick B.]

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You underestimate what it should have paid, closer
> to 350.

This [stuff] again?

Why shouldn\'t that double pay $10,000.

Why is the win price the \"driver\" for what the DD should pay?
Maybe the DD is correct and the win prices were too high.

Independent pools, gents. Not indexed to each other. They
pays what they pays, period. Stop lettting the payoffs
press your greed button and this issue will go away, forever.

[Boscar Obarra]

You\'re probably right Rick, the DD , the exacta, no relationship at all to the win odds, separate pools after all.

 lol

[P-Dub]

Rick,
I agree with you in general on this topic.  However, considering the win prices on this double the payout was far below normal.

Even if you\'re correct that the win prices were too high, the payout makes no sense.

[Mathcapper]

bb --

You and Boscar are right - based on the win prices and the takeout, that DD should\'ve paid $296.

A $75 DD implies the two horses were something like 4-1 and 6-1 in the DD pools. The correlation between the win and DD pools can be off a bit for any particular DD pairing, but never to that extent. They\'re generally pretty closely in line with each other. Looks like a misplaced bet to me.

Rocky

[Tavasco]

I can\'t help but wonder what is the purpose of keeping the payoffs a secret until after the first leg is complete?

[Boscar Obarra]

Wonder no more. There\'s no secret. The DD will pays are posted, same as the exactas

[Rick B.]

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You\'re probably right Rick, the DD , the exacta,
> no relationship at all to the win odds, separate
> pools after all.

Scoff if you want, but you are on record for ducking
what I think is a salient question:

\"Why is the win pool the basis for what the exotics
should pay? Sez who?\"

If there is no intelligent answer for this (never heard
one here), then the whole concept of the \"relationship
between the pools\" is suspect, at best. It\'s simply one
more distraction for the unfocused horseplayer.

[Rick B.]

P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick,
> I agree with you in general on this topic.
> However, considering the win prices on this double
> the payout was far below normal.
>
> Even if you\'re correct that the win prices were
> too high, the payout makes no sense.

Opinions are fine...but when people start backing
into contrived equations to justify their opinion,
my Math / Logic Violation alarm goes to eleven.

[moosepalm]

Obviously the double pool is not joined at the hip with win pools, but whether there\'s a logical correlation or not, the reality is that, with large pools, there is a range of predictability for doubles by tying the win pools together.  When something like this is so far outside that range then it leaves one scratching his head.  Could be any number of reasons, but statistically, it\'s a rarity.

[jerry]

There\'s a little more of a correlation than that.

[Mathcapper]

Rick --

There is no \"correct\" probability line, but the win pool tends to be the most efficient, which is why the other pools are compared to it.

There can always be anomalies with any single combo, but in general the probabilities of horses in the other pools tend to reflect those in the win pool pretty closely.

If a horse is 4-1 on the board, he\'s likely to be around 7-2 to 9/2 in the exotics, but you\'re rarely going to see him something like 10-1.

Big bettors, the computer guys and the arb guys who have a good idea of what the fair odds of a horse should be will see the mispricing in the other pools and push those odds closer to fair value.

The correlation isn\'t perfect of course, especially when dealing with smaller pools, but anomalies of the type bb pointed out are a rarity.

[Rick B.]

Mathcapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick --
>
> There is no \"correct\" probability line, but the
> win pool tends to be the most efficient, which is
> why the other pools are compared to it.

In this case it appears the win pool was *not* so
efficient, in back to back races:

* In race 6, the quoted ML for Mark of a Gem was 6-1; she
slipped away from the field (and the bettors) in an accident
marred race, paying a whopping $31.20...incredible overlay,
and remember, now the DD prices for the end of race 7 are
locked in regardless of how the win betting goes in the final leg.

* In race 7, Irish Surf was quoted at 8-1 before 3 scratches
were announced. I didn\'t see a recalculated ML, but of
some significance is that one of the scratches was Soi Phet, the
likely ML fave. Once that one scratched, it\'s easy to imagine
Irish Surf being on LOTS of tickets in the DD.

Whether the above is a plausible explanation for what happened
with the prices, trying to judge what happened from the raw
numbers alone is an exercise in futility, IMO: so, you are
right and the payoffs are \"wrong\" -- what is your next move?

[Mathcapper]

Rick B. wrote:
-------------------

> Whether the above is a plausible explanation for what happened
with the prices, trying to judge what happened from the raw
numbers alone is an exercise in futility, IMO: so, you are
right and the payoffs are \"wrong\" -- what is your next move?


It\'s not an exercise in futility at all - if you see that the pools aren\'t in line with one another, you can get better value on your wager by betting the pool where the horse\'s odds are higher than what you think fair value is.

I didn\'t happen to download the matrix of DD Will Pays for the 7th race, but if I did I could tell you the exact odds that Mark of the Gem was in the DD pools to every single horse in the the 7th race. Same with Irish Surf to every horse in the 6th race. It\'s a closed-form solution.

It\'s possible that the winning combo was the only one that was an anomaly with respect to the win pools. It\'s also possible (but I doubt it) that Mark of a Gem was closer to 6-1 in the DD pools to each horse in the 7th race, or that Irish Surf was a much lower price in the DD pools to each horse in the 6th race than he was on the win pool.

Can\'t say for sure without seeing the DD Will Pays matrix. All I can say is that anomalies like the one seen with the winning combo are the exception, not the rule. The pools are generally in line with one another for the reasons I stated in my last post.

Morning lines and scratches are irrelevant. What determines a horse\'s odds in the DD pools is the same thing that determines his odds in the win pool - his probability of winning the race. How many tickets a horse will be on is simply a reflection of that probability.

Btw, this holds true even when you look all the way out to a pick 6 payoff. Overall, even pick 6 payoffs are in line with what you\'d expect based on the win probabilities (odds) of each horse: (Pick 6 Payoff Stats).

Rocky