Poll

2 votes (28.57%)
No votes (0%)
3 votes (42.85%)
1 vote (14.28%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (14.28%)
No votes (0%)

7 members have voted

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard 
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1191
  • Posts: 19909
April 24th, 2017 at 8:01:36 AM permalink
The next game in my continued look at new Playtech games is Derby Day. This is a horse racing game. Every race has six horses of comparable level. Bets to choose from are win, place, show, exacta, pick IV, and pick V. Is anyone else bothered by this abuse of Roman numbers except me? Or is it?

So, please click the link and let me know your thoughts.

The question for the poll is would you play Derby Day. Multiple votes allowed.

It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 174
  • Posts: 10034
April 24th, 2017 at 9:01:50 AM permalink
I don't know a lot about horse racing, but since I deal poker for my poker league at the Meadowlands race track each Friday, I've picked up a couple things.

You make an effort to point out the X FOR 1 payouts as if to say that seems weird. Perhaps it is weird to a regular sports bettor, but it's standard for horse racing.

In this thread you mention an objection to the use of Roman Numerals, but didn't use them in the article. Which way is it in the game? Since you object, I assume the mistake is in the article, not this thread.

Although not offered on every race, and not at all on this game, Daily-Doubles are picking the winners of two consecutive races. Similarly, Pick-4 and Pick-6, also only offered occasionally, are picking the winners of 4 and 6 consecutive races. Perhaps this game's use of Roman Numerals is their way of differentiating themselves.

But it's odd that they'd offer the 2 horse exacta bet, and their 4 and 5 horse bets, but not the standard 3 horse trifecta bet.

Since the game provides historical data about the horses, can the data really be analyzed to get a better feel for the winner? That's what horse bettors attempt to do. But I gotta think that anyone who thinks they can succeed doing that would do it on real races. And is there any time limit to making bets? Horse bettors can get next day programs at the track, and probably even further out online, giving them plenty of time to do their analysis.

This game seems complicated. I didn't play it, so there's no telling if it's fun. I kinda doubt it.

Since you mention Sigma Derby in your poll, I thought I'd mention a big difference. Much of Sigma Derby's fun and appeal is the very simplicity of the bets offered, and the general amazement that all that clunky hardware actually works. Sigma Derby offers no horse history, and only one bet: a quinella which is the first and second horse in either sequence. With 5 horses, that makes only 10 options of what to bet on. I.E. Look at the payouts of the 10 choices, select one (or more), watch the race. Simple and fun.

Similarly, Royal Derby, seen at G2E for the last couple years, retains some of the amazement with the technology that Sigma Derby has, but it also has horse history and complicated betting options that Derby Day has, plus the short time limit to analyze the data and make bets.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁 Note that the same could be said for Religion. I.E. Religion is nothing more than organized superstition. 🤗
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4471
April 24th, 2017 at 11:24:14 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear


Since you mention Sigma Derby in your poll, I thought I'd mention a big difference. Much of Sigma Derby's fun and appeal is the very simplicity of the bets offered, and the general amazement that all that clunky hardware actually works. Sigma Derby offers no horse history, and only one bet: a quinella which is the first and second horse in either sequence. With 5 horses, that makes only 10 options of what to bet on. I.E. Look at the payouts of the 10 choices, select one (or more), watch the race. Simple and fun.



I agree 100% with your statement and don't think the more "modern" versions will ever match the success of the simple original game.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 144
  • Posts: 2129
April 24th, 2017 at 11:27:07 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear



Since the game provides historical data about the horses, can the data really be analyzed to get a better feel for the winner? That's what horse bettors attempt to do. But I gotta think that anyone who thinks they can succeed doing that would do it on real races. And is there any time limit to making bets? Horse bettors can get next day programs at the track, and probably even further out online, giving them plenty of time to do their analysis.



If it's true that the game offers accurate data on the horses from past races, meaning past performances, then the game has a tremendous potential to appeal to veteran or new horseplayers. Past performances are what serious horseplayers use to predict the outcome and the best of them are able to win in the long run. I am assuming that the horses and the outcomes are actually past races with the horses names disguised so that someone could not actually know the outcome. The reason this game has great potential if marketed well is that in actual live horse racing the bettor is up against a crushing takeout that runs from about 15% to as much as 28% depending on the type of bet and the track. There is no reason for a takeout like that on a game such as this because there are none of the typical expenses of a real horse racing event which includes purses and employee wages, track maintenance and all sorts of other costs. Medical care and feeding of the horses are of course factors in the equation.
If the game featured a payback of 97% which is comparable to other machine games it suddenly becomes very interesting. The real question is would current horseplayers, who tend to be older and set in their ways embrace something new? If they have excellent handicapping skills they would be foolish not to.
𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵. 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4471
April 24th, 2017 at 11:39:13 AM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster


If the game featured a payback of 97% which is comparable to other machine games it suddenly becomes very interesting. The real question is would current horseplayers, who tend to be older and set in their ways embrace something new? If they have excellent handicapping skills they would be foolish not to.



The Sigma Derby games can be configured for a 10% to 20% hold percentage. If I remember correctly the picture the Wizard posted a while ago was 20%.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
DiscreteMaths2
DiscreteMaths2
Joined: May 4, 2016
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 239
April 24th, 2017 at 1:33:09 PM permalink
Quote: DRich

I agree 100% with your statement and don't think the more "modern" versions will ever match the success of the simple original game.



Royal Derby has 3 interface options which sounds good but what they call "pro" is no more confusing than a roulette board and simply lists all the possible bets and it isn't the default interface. Although Win, Place, Show isn't confusing once someone explains what those bets are, I feel like on these machines they should rename the bets to simple descriptions. So many people will walk by and watch a race or two and say this looks fun but I don't know how to bet on horse racing and they walk away. I think they should really design these machines to appeal to the total layperson walking by rather than people who have bet at the track before.
Assume the worst, believe no one, and make your move only when you are certain that you are unbeatable or have, at worst, exceptionally good odds in your favor.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard 
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1191
  • Posts: 19909
April 24th, 2017 at 2:12:42 PM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

You make an effort to point out the X FOR 1 payouts as if to say that seems weird. Perhaps it is weird to a regular sports bettor, but it's standard for horse racing.



That's true.

Quote:

In this thread you mention an objection to the use of Roman Numerals, but didn't use them in the article. Which way is it in the game? Since you object, I assume the mistake is in the article, not this thread.



I also complained about them in the list of bets on the write-up. They are the Pick IV and Pick V bets, which are clearly seen in the game.

Here is a direct link to Derby Day.

Quote:

Although not offered on every race, and not at all on this game, Daily-Doubles are picking the winners of two consecutive races. Similarly, Pick-4 and Pick-6, also only offered occasionally, are picking the winners of 4 and 6 consecutive races. Perhaps this game's use of Roman Numerals is their way of differentiating themselves.



You have a point there but I still object. Only outlines and maybe Rocky Movies should have Roman numerals. I also object to them being used in the Super Bowl, especially when they are not consistent about it (they used a 50 instead of an L for the one in 2016).

Quote:

But it's odd that they'd offer the 2 horse exacta bet, and their 4 and 5 horse bets, but not the standard 3 horse trifecta bet.



At least we agree on something.

Quote:

Since the game provides historical data about the horses, can the data really be analyzed to get a better feel for the winner? That's what horse bettors attempt to do. But I gotta think that anyone who thinks they can succeed doing that would do it on real races. And is there any time limit to making bets? Horse bettors can get next day programs at the track, and probably even further out online, giving them plenty of time to do their analysis.



I looked into this. In my first race I wrote down every horse. Three of them repeated in the next race. They positions in the previous race did not match the "last six places" for the horse, which I assume is shown on the left (and for the jockey on the right), for 2 out of the 3 horses. I think the 3rd was right just by chance.

You can see each horse has points but I'm not sure how it translates to performance. It is quite possible that that they do a simulation where the horses's probability of winning is its weight divided by the sum of all weights. For the other positions, it's the same thing, but dividing by the sum of the remaining horses only.


Similarly, Royal Derby, seen at G2E for the last couple years, retains some of the amazement with the technology that Sigma Derby has, but it also has horse history and complicated betting options that Derby Day has, plus the short time limit to analyze the data and make bets.

It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Johnzimbo
Johnzimbo
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 746
April 24th, 2017 at 3:43:23 PM permalink
Horse race wagers are paid as TO 1 not FOR 1. A 2-1 means two TO 1 and that pays $6 for 2 wagers. 2 FOR 1 would only pay back $4
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard 
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1191
  • Posts: 19909
April 24th, 2017 at 3:57:25 PM permalink
Quote: Johnzimbo

Horse race wagers are paid as TO 1 not FOR 1. A 2-1 means two TO 1 and that pays $6 for 2 wagers. 2 FOR 1 would only pay back $4



Thanks. It has been so long since I've been to the track, I forgot.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
sodawater
sodawater
Joined: May 14, 2012
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 3263
April 24th, 2017 at 6:14:20 PM permalink
Wizard, one plausible reason to use Pick IV and Pick V instead of Pick 4 and Pick 5 is that the latter terms are already defined in horse racing as picking the winners of 4 and 5 consecutive races, not the top 4 or 5 finishes in order.

Picking the top four finishers in order is called a superfecta. I have seen the top 5 finishers called a super high five.

Perhaps the maker did not want to use these terms.

  • Jump to: