DMR 7th Daily Double

[Boscar Obarra]

I\'ll add that screwy underlaid payoffs are more common than is generally believed, it\'s just that they seldom win and are invisible to all but a few of us tote watching degenerates.

[Paolo]

Yep, including the pick-4 ending with the Haskell. From memory, with less than 10 minutes to post, Untapable was even money in the win pool but the P4 will-pay was about $1400. Social Inclusion was at 12-1 to win, but he was the clear 2nd choice in the P4 pool at about $2000. Late money on SI to win brought his final odds down to $6.8-1, and Untapable went up to $1.4-1; but that is still well out of whack with the P4 where his payoff was only about 1.5 times that of the chalk.

[Rick B.]

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'ll add that screwy underlaid payoffs are more
> common than is generally believed, it\'s just that
> they seldom win and are invisible to all but a few
> of us tote watching degenerates.


Paolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, including the pick-4 ending with the Haskell.
> From memory, with less than 10 minutes to post,
> Untapable was even money in the win pool but the
> P4 will-pay was about $1400. Social Inclusion was
> at 12-1 to win, but he was the clear 2nd choice in
> the P4 pool at about $2000. Late money on SI to
> win brought his final odds down to $6.8-1, and
> Untapable went up to $1.4-1; but that is still
> well out of whack with the P4 where his payoff was
> only about 1.5 times that of the chalk.


Wait.

Do the win odds correlate *more often* with the exotics?
Or less?

I still think some of you guys took shows like The X-Files
too seriously; weird payoffs happen. There\'s nothing \"out there\".

[gteasy]

I\'ll just make a note that trainer/owner Yakteen/Pasko MAY have been very confident
going in and wheeled the double rather than play the win pool.

[jerry]

Yeah. There\'s nothing out there. Those FTO 2 YOs who get hammered is nothing more than John Q Public.

[Boscar Obarra]

$1000 wheel?

[Boscar Obarra]

Not sure why the angst over this Rick, but after watching the board for 40 years, I think I have maybe a slight clue as to what the real deal is.

 Then again, my tinfoil hat may need a retread.

 I don\'t think anyone said there was something going on. Just a shmuck betting too much on the double.

[Rick B.]

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure why the angst over this Rick, but after
> watching the board for 40 years, I think I have
> maybe a slight clue as to what the real deal is.

I\'m a bit behind you with only 25 years of tote
watching, but the difference (I suspect) is that
I have taken the time to do the computations and
find out just how much money is involved in these
so-called \"wrong payoffs\". Most of the time, it\'s
less than $200 \"extra\" bet on the payoff in question.
Large charge.

> I don\'t think anyone said there was something
> going on. Just a shmuck betting too much on the
> double.

Which would seem to tie in perfectly with the smallball
amount of the \"extra\" money bet...and should we really
care if one or two guys light up a few combos with an
extra c-note or two? Didn\'t you write earlier that there
are many times when the short payoffs are on the combos
that *did not* hit?

You and all the other mutuel monitors are simply niggling over nickels.

[Rick B.]

jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah. There\'s nothing out there. Those FTO 2 YOs
> who get hammered is nothing more than John Q
> Public.

And if the linemaker is on the ball, this is accounted
for in an accurate ML.

When I said \"there is nothing out there\", I meant
there is no mysterious guy or group of bettors who are
ALWAYS on the short payoffs and killing all the mutuels.

Are there steam horses? Sure, every day. It\'s our job
as horseplayers to try to define it and validate it, then
deal with it -- BEFORE the race. Afterwards is when the
whining starts.

[moosepalm]

Rick B. Wrote:

> Are there steam horses? Sure, every day. It\'s our
> job
> as horseplayers to try to define it and validate
> it, then
> deal with it -- BEFORE the race. Afterwards is
> when the
> whining starts.


For people who track potential payoffs and look for the best value by comparing win pools vs. exotics, BEFORE the race, then this is relevant information.  I think that\'s what a number of people are talking about here.  If your issue is some variation on a \"conspiracy theorists\" theme, then you are certainly entitled to be bothered by whatever bothers you, but I think there is a clear distinction.

[Boscar Obarra]

Speaking of seniority, and age before beauty and all that, here\'s a little math lesson for Rick, who seems to think a $20 bill was all it took to skew this payoff.


Pool 54,000
Ill use a 25% take, leaving 40,000

If the DD had paid $300 (a conservative figure) that would have been $265 on the number.

 As it is it paid $74, meaning there was $1135 on the ticket.

 $835 extra.  Pretty close to my \'off the cuff\' $1000 wheel comment.

 So Rick, would you call an 800 punch on two longshots \"simply niggling over nickels\"


PS Out of curiosity, I looked up the matrix for the race.  No question that single # was skewed low, paying only a little more than the 1-1 favorite, but the #11 in the second half also paid high to win in the race, making it look even worse. It was near second choice with a few horses in the DD\'s.

You think reading sheets or pp\'s is hard...nothing compared to trying to make sense of the betting, where lunatics and drunks cohabit with insiders for attention.

[Mathcapper]

Boscar,

How are you able to pull up the DD matrices for prior days races? Is that info available online somehere?

Thx

Rocky

[Rick B.]

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of seniority, and age before beauty and
> all that, here\'s a little math lesson for Rick,
> who seems to think a $20 bill was all it took to
> skew this payoff.

Huh? A $20 bill? I wrote that I had found a couple
of hundred dollars difference numerous times.
 
> Pool 54,000
> Ill use a 25% take, leaving 40,000
>
> If the DD had paid $300 (a conservative figure)
> that would have been $265 on the number.

$300? For two ML 6-1 shots? (The 2nd would be an adjusted
ML, after three early scratches.)

>  As it is it paid $74, meaning there was $1135 on
> the ticket.
>
>  $835 extra.  

Um...$870 extra, using your numbers. But do continue
with my \"math lesson\", Professor.

>  So Rick, would you call an 800 punch on two
> longshots \"simply niggling over nickels\"

No...if it actually happened. It didn\'t happen that way.

In this case, you failed to look at the win prices
in context of what actually happened on the race course.
You seem married to the idea that only the DD payoffs
can be short, and win prices are always a fair basis
for DD price projections.

(This is the same sort of flat earth thinking that leads
some number services to use one variant for a whole day\'s
races, no matter what happens weather-wise. But I digress.)

Those win prices were inflated, most any way you look
at it. Under the circumstances there was hardly a chance
in hell that the DD would pay $300.
 
Most everywhere I play, two ML 6-1 shots pay about
$100 for the DD, which, after calculation, means this
number had about $335 \"extra\" bet on it, just over
0.5% of the total pool...the pittance I usually find when
I have run the numbers in the past.

Sorry, nothing here.