King's Bishop

[Topcat]

FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rob,
>
> We must love to disagree but I do respect any
> opinion backed up by a valid argument.
>
> His high Beyer is a 98 earned on a muddy track, a
> horse with a 442 Tomillison on an off track. His
> next highest Beyer for all the toilet paper they
> are worth is a 94 which is 7th fastest of the 11
> starters?
>
> This was a good Old Fashioned put over on a day
> with lots of $$$ in the pool.
> Vini Vedi Vici:
> They came, They took the purse down and a couple
> of empty suitcases went home full. Maria Borell is
> the highest % trainer in the country!
>
> Frank D.


Bet Runhappy -- not with all-out gusto, but I played him.   One of the three Twitter guys I\'ll follow virtually-blind on true price horses was all over him.  And, yes, I\'ll acknowledge it didn\'t look good, turning for home.  But then, the afterburners fired . . . They must have won the world.

[Boscar Obarra]

I consider myself duly chastised and appreciate the lesson in humility,

 I\'ll try to do better.

 Boscar

[Mathcapper]

Fairmount1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'ll let Boscar and Mathcapper explain what the
> odds on the Ellis Park horses should be based on
> the multi payoffs and double will pays.  But based
> on the win odds which one should have paid
> more?(or what would you guess)?  More sharpies in
> the late pick 4?  Or Runhappy was way longer in
> the stakes pick 4?
>
> Check my math but....
>
>
> Races 8-11, 41 horses in sequence
>
> $24.60  (11)  7th choice
> $5.20  (12)  Favorite
> $4.00  (  Favorite
> $34.00  (10) 5th choice
>
> Pick 4: $9,500.00 for $2.00
> $2 parlay $2,174.64
>
> Races 10-13, 39 horses in sequence
>
> $4.00  (  Favorite
> $34.00  (10)  5th choice
> $17.00  (9)  6th choice
> $21.40  (12) 6th choice
>
> Pick 4:  $6237.00 for $2.00
> $2 parlay $6184.60

Fair,

Runhappy was 13-1 in the Will Pays, which was pretty much in line with his morning line (12-1) and final odds (11-1). Have to say that based on the 12-1 morning line, I didn't see the so-called "smart money" in play on this horse as has been suggested, unless  Eric's line was off and the public really should have had him 20-1 or so as Boscar suspected.

The other Ellis Park horse did get significant play in all the pools. Btw, the all-Ellis exacta ($358) came back right about as expected ($374) based on the two horses' win odds using discounted Harville approach.

As for the Pick 4's, at NYRA tracks they should generally pay around 1.53x the parlay because of the fact that you only get hit with the takeout once.

The stakes sequence (R8-R11) came up much higher than expected (4.37x) as you noted. Some could argue that a lot of players singled AP, which created a big overlay when KI KO'd him from the sequence.

But let's suppose for a moment that Private Zone, Flintshire, and Keen Ice were all bet in the Pick 4 in the same proportion as their win odds. That would imply that Runhappy was 34-1 in the Pick 4. What's more likely is that Runhappy was somewhere between his 13-1 tote odds and the 34-1 implied odds, and that some or all of the other three horses were also slightly underbet in the Pick 4 pool vis-a-vis their win odds.

The late Pick 4 sequence (R10-R13), at $6,185, only paid 1.01x the parlay, which is actually quite a bit less than the 1.53x ($9,440) expected payout. And since this sequence also included the Travers, it\'s unlikely that AP getting knocked out of the sequence was the sole cause of the overlaid earlier Pick 4 payout.

The main cause of the underlaid payout in the late Pick 4 sequence appears to have been some combination of Dacita and Foxhall Drive being bet a little closer to their morning line odds than their final odds (both went off at significantly higher odds than their morning line, as Rob noted).

Rocky R

[Topcat]

Mathcapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fairmount1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I\'ll let Boscar and Mathcapper explain what the
> > odds on the Ellis Park horses should be based
> on
> > the multi payoffs and double will pays.  But
> based
> > on the win odds which one should have paid
> > more?(or what would you guess)?  More sharpies
> in
> > the late pick 4?  Or Runhappy was way longer in
> > the stakes pick 4?
> >
> > Check my math but....
> >
> >
> > Races 8-11, 41 horses in sequence
> >
> > $24.60  (11)  7th choice
> > $5.20  (12)  Favorite
> > $4.00  (  Favorite
> > $34.00  (10) 5th choice
> >
> > Pick 4: $9,500.00 for $2.00
> > $2 parlay $2,174.64
> >
> > Races 10-13, 39 horses in sequence
> >
> > $4.00  (  Favorite
> > $34.00  (10)  5th choice
> > $17.00  (9)  6th choice
> > $21.40  (12) 6th choice
> >
> > Pick 4:  $6237.00 for $2.00
> > $2 parlay $6184.60
>
> Fair,
>
> Runhappy was 13-1 in the Will Pays, which was
> pretty much in line with his morning line (12-1)
> and final odds (11-1). Have to say that based on
> the 12-1 morning line, I didn't see the so-called
> "smart money" in play on this horse as has been
> suggested, unless  Eric's line was off and the
> public really should have had him 20-1 or so as
> Boscar suspected.
>
> The other Ellis Park horse did get significant
> play in all the pools. Btw, the all-Ellis exacta
> ($358) came back right about as expected ($374)
> based on the two horses' win odds using discounted
> Harville approach.
>
> As for the Pick 4's, at NYRA tracks they should
> generally pay around 1.53x the parlay because of
> the fact that you only get hit with the takeout
> once.
>
> The stakes sequence (R8-R11) came up much higher
> than expected (4.37x) as you noted. Some could
> argue that a lot of players singled AP, which
> created a big overlay when KI KO'd him from the
> sequence.
>
> But let's suppose for a moment that Private Zone,
> Flintshire, and Keen Ice were all bet in the Pick
> 4 in the same proportion as their win odds. That
> would imply that Runhappy was 34-1 in the Pick 4.
> What's more likely is that Runhappy was somewhere
> between his 13-1 tote odds and the 34-1 implied
> odds, and that some or all of the other three
> horses were also slightly underbet in the Pick 4
> pool vis-a-vis their win odds.
>
> The late Pick 4 sequence (R10-R13), at $6,185,
> only paid 1.01x the parlay, which is actually
> quite a bit less than the 1.53x ($9,440) expected
> payout. And since this sequence also included the
> Travers, it\'s unlikely that AP getting knocked out
> of the sequence was the sole cause of the overlaid
> earlier Pick 4 payout.
>
> The main cause of the underlaid payout in the late
> Pick 4 sequence appears to have been some
> combination of Dacita and Foxhall Drive being bet
> a little closer to their morning line odds than
> their final odds (both went off at significantly
> higher odds than their morning line, as Rob
> noted).
>
> Rocky R


Will only note that RH was 16-1 until deep into the wagering session . . . suddenly dropped to 12 with a few minutes left, eased slightly to 13, then closed at 11 . . . that was a signficant, concerted late move in my eyes, especially given the size of the day\'s pools.

[Mathcapper]

Thanks Top - I hadn\'t been watching the late action on RH.

I often see significant late moves (as late as the backstretch) on a horse as they converge on their Will Pays-based odds, especially on favorites and major contenders.

When a longer-priced horse\'s odds are a fair amount above its Will Pays-based odds, and then those odds close below the Will Pays-based odds, as this one did, that\'s usually a strong sign that the horse is going to run big today.

Same thing happened a couple of weeks ago with Grand Arch in the ROTW, for reasons that were probably less suspect to TG players. ;-)