The never-ending horse thread
January 26th, 2019 at 8:04:38 AM
permalink
I was cleaning out a storage unit and I came across some items I thought a racing fan may like.
Two copies of the Belmont program for the Marlboro Cup of 1979, and several copies of the first two issues of a magazine called Off Track, that was put out in the late 1970s by NYC OTB. Very nice shape for forty years old.
Free to the first person who requests them. I'll pay to ship domestic, you get to pay if foreign.
These guys could use some loving attention after thirty plus years of being in storage.
Two copies of the Belmont program for the Marlboro Cup of 1979, and several copies of the first two issues of a magazine called Off Track, that was put out in the late 1970s by NYC OTB. Very nice shape for forty years old.
Free to the first person who requests them. I'll pay to ship domestic, you get to pay if foreign.
These guys could use some loving attention after thirty plus years of being in storage.
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
January 26th, 2019 at 6:47:15 PM
permalink
WTF ? ? ?
2nd Race Today
1 & 6 = Green 2 & 4 = Red 3 & 5 = Black
$2 bet on #5 , the winner paid $5.00
$2 bet on Black paid $5.60
REALLY, check the chart.
Santa Anita
WIF
2nd Race Today
1 & 6 = Green 2 & 4 = Red 3 & 5 = Black
$2 bet on #5 , the winner paid $5.00
$2 bet on Black paid $5.60
REALLY, check the chart.
Santa Anita
WIF
January 29th, 2019 at 9:55:57 PM
permalink
Quote: FinsRuleRaintree makes her next start at Oaklawn on opening day Friday.
Race 7 - Allowance Optional Claiming. 5.5 furlongs. Purse of 78k. Alex Canchari aboard. She breaks from the 6 post. If she wins, on to stakes races.
Wow, nice win on opening day in Hot Springs. What a thrill. I actually watched the race live but completely forgot your connection to her. Cool to see the trainer finish 1-2 in the race. I was watching/waiting for the Smarty Jones race later in the day. I need to add her to my watch list. Congrats.
February 9th, 2019 at 5:45:40 PM
permalink
Santa Anita WPS 3rd Race$237,056 4th race $751,261 = $500k difference. Bridge jumper in show pool on BELLAFINA ????
6 horse field 2.20 2.10 2.10 I will watch for BELLAFINA next out and bet $20 show on 2nd choice and try to get lucky
6 horse field 2.20 2.10 2.10 I will watch for BELLAFINA next out and bet $20 show on 2nd choice and try to get lucky
February 9th, 2019 at 6:15:53 PM
permalink
Raintree Starlet was nominated to the Dixie Belle stakes on 2/16 and is expected to compete.
Entries are drawn Wednesday.
Entries are drawn Wednesday.
February 10th, 2019 at 3:11:55 PM
permalink
I don't disagree with the general idea of that at all. I'm mostly with you on that line of thinking, most of the time when something like that happens. But.Quote: jackmagic777Santa Anita WPS 3rd Race$237,056 4th race $751,261 = $500k difference. Bridge jumper in show pool on BELLAFINA ????
6 horse field 2.20 2.10 2.10 I will watch for BELLAFINA next out and bet $20 show on 2nd choice and try to get lucky
In this particular case of the half-million bump in the show wagering in the 4th at Santa Anita yesterday, I have good reason to say most of it was likely not bridge jumper money. Due to a quirk in the distribution of money from show pools, from time to time there are circumstances which make it possible to make a series of wagers in such a way that it creates an absolute mathematical certainty of making a profit, regardless of the outcome of the race. Doing this under the correct set of very specific factual parimutual wagering conditions will have nothing whatsoever to do with any prediction about the horses, and when executed correctly the bettor's financial interest will be indifferent to how they run.
A couple of people reading this will immediately recognize what I'm talking about. Even so, though I understand this may be frustratingly vague to some folks, I think it is best not to get any more specific than that. But this situation definitely did exist in that race. With that specific race outcome & distribution of money, wagering $216,000 in this manner would have produced a gross return of $221,200, for a net profit of a little over $5,000 in this case. Any different race results would have changed the return only a little, still resulting in about a 2.0% to 2.5% profit on the total amount put in play in the series of wagers, with zero risk, no matter which three of the five starters hit the board, even if the very heavy favorite was out of the money.
This situation does not occur every day at all, and the correct set of circumstances certainly does NOT exist for most races involving extremely heavy prohibitively short-priced favorites. Most show pools that look like a bridge jumper just took a plunge do, in fact, involve exactly that. Except for just a few others that don't. This was one of those "others."
Suck dope, watch TV, make up stuff, be somebody on the internet.
February 10th, 2019 at 3:30:56 PM
permalink
I wonder who has enough liquid cash to do that. But if you’ve got it, might as well make 2k or whatever
February 10th, 2019 at 4:33:39 PM
permalink
URBAN MYTH No way to overcome the takeout, even with a 3 percent rebate a bettor might get from somewhere. 1 to 10 favorite, stakes race 6 horse field BRIDGE JUMPER.
There is no quirk in para mutuel betting. Wish I had been there to see the board !
There is no quirk in para mutuel betting. Wish I had been there to see the board !
February 10th, 2019 at 5:27:51 PM
permalink
I will put $5 across to show some support.Quote: FinsRuleRaintree Starlet was nominated to the Dixie Belle stakes on 2/16 and is expected to compete.
Entries are drawn Wednesday.
February 10th, 2019 at 5:40:08 PM
permalink
Well, okay then. Nevermind, and y'all go right on according to your belief.Quote: jackmagic777URBAN MYTH No way to overcome the takeout, even with a 3 percent rebate a bettor might get from somewhere. 1 to 10 favorite, stakes race 6 horse field BRIDGE JUMPER.
There is no quirk in para mutuel betting. Wish I had been there to see the board !
But, by the way, you don't need to be there to see the totalizator wagering data, and to do it better than you could by looking at the slightly later and less consistent updates of twinkling lights on that physical board in the infield. The pools can be seen quicker & easier & with superior accuracy through other means, distributed from the actual primary electronic source which is then subsequently transmitted to what you'll see on that track's tote board. That's been true for decades now, ever since racing was taken out from under the prohibitions contained in the federal Wire Act that applies to transmission of sports bet information, and the subsequent creation of inter-track wagering hubs in the 1990's to aggregate race bets. And I choose get it that way, on my phone, tablet, or netbook, even when I'm on-track, as do many others who are serious about it.
The situation at-hand which apples to the circumstances of that race involves very straightforward arithmetic, and nothing but that, rigorously applied to knowledge of the peculiarities of exactly how payouts are actually calculated in North American racing specifically for distributing parimutual wagering show pools, and with no rebate of any part of a 15-18% takeout + breakage involved in the calculation. It probably hasn't occurred to you that there are a number of DIFFERENT CHOICES in how it can be done by tracks among multiple payout pools, some of which are used elsewhere in other racing jurisdictions, and which have significant effects that are highly relevant. But by all means, please do go ahead and believe whatever you most comfortably decide to "know" about it, however you wish.
But there was, is, and remains no "para" in the mutuals of the basic pari-mutual math, and more importantly for the matter at hand, it was NOT a six horse field. Five. There were five. And that last number has absolutely essential significance to those who truly do the actual precise math involved in the matter. And no-doubt none at all to those who like choosing to "know" stuff... differently.
But good luck to you, however you like to seek it.
Last edited by: DrawingDead on Feb 10, 2019
Suck dope, watch TV, make up stuff, be somebody on the internet.
February 10th, 2019 at 6:56:37 PM
permalink
Urban myth. Lol.
Don’t try to convince him DD. Anyone who pays attention knows it can be and is done.
Don’t try to convince him DD. Anyone who pays attention knows it can be and is done.
February 10th, 2019 at 8:07:08 PM
permalink
Lets see all $750,000 was in show pool, 15.4% was taken out, and somehow you can bet all 5 horses to show and mathematically insure a profit. Of course you can. Just like placing varying bets at roulette you can even overcome a roulette game with quadruples zeros.
February 10th, 2019 at 8:41:26 PM
permalink
You’re missing a critical fact, which is what is causing you to analyze the situation incorrectly. Five minutes on google let me figure it out. So it doesn’t seem to be a state secret. But this site frowns on publicly outing AP plays, so will leave you to JFGI.Quote: jackmagic777Lets see all $750,000 was in show pool, 15.4% was taken out, and somehow you can bet all 5 horses to show and mathematically insure a profit. Of course you can. Just like placing varying bets at roulette you can even overcome a roulette game with quadruples zeros.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 10th, 2019 at 8:43:53 PM
permalink
15.4 % takeout, SAY NO MORE. Will you parlay your winning on DI ?
February 10th, 2019 at 8:45:33 PM
permalink
Again. Spend five minutes on Google. Or don’t. Up to you.Quote: jackmagic77715.4 % takeout, SAY NO MORE. Will you parlay your winning on DI ?
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 11th, 2019 at 1:18:38 AM
permalink
Quote: unJonYou’re missing a critical fact, which is what is causing you to analyze the situation incorrectly. Five minutes on google let me figure it out. So it doesn’t seem to be a state secret. But this site frowns on publicly outing AP plays, so will leave you to JFGI.
This is so common that there’s no issue in talking about it. But I think it’s already been explained enough.
February 11th, 2019 at 1:39:12 AM
permalink
if a bettor used a strategy of betting against Bellafina showing in this race by betting every other horse to show, if she had not shown the bettor would have benefited by getting 3 giant payouts on the other 3 horses
as it was she did show so that type of bet was a loss
but because of net pool pricing the 2 other horses who showed payed $2.40 and $3.20.
so on a total bet of $8 (4 horses, $2.00 each) the bettor would have only lost $2.40 or 30% of his total wager
I believe under the old standard pool pricing each other horse would have payed $2.10
which means the bettor would have lost $3.80 or 47.5% of his total wager
I believe this is also a benefit to the strategy mentioned by DD
if I made any errors here I'm sure I will be corrected
as it was she did show so that type of bet was a loss
but because of net pool pricing the 2 other horses who showed payed $2.40 and $3.20.
so on a total bet of $8 (4 horses, $2.00 each) the bettor would have only lost $2.40 or 30% of his total wager
I believe under the old standard pool pricing each other horse would have payed $2.10
which means the bettor would have lost $3.80 or 47.5% of his total wager
I believe this is also a benefit to the strategy mentioned by DD
if I made any errors here I'm sure I will be corrected
Last edited by: lilredrooster on Feb 11, 2019
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
February 11th, 2019 at 6:21:37 AM
permalink
Quote: jackmagic77715.4 % takeout, SAY NO MORE. Will you parlay your winning on DI ?
if you had of been nice and thought that there is perhaps something I'm not aware of the posters here might have been kind enough to explain it to you
when an extraordinary amount of money is bet to show on one horse it's called a minus pool - if the horse with so much show money on it shows:
𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐦 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 $𝟐.𝟏𝟎 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 $𝟐.𝟎𝟎 𝐛𝐞𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝟓% 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭
if the standard takeout was applied a $2.00 bet might pay back $1.74 meaning the bettor lost money on a winning bet
the track doesn't want that to happen so that is the reason for the regulation and the rest of it should be easier to understand
Last edited by: lilredrooster on Feb 11, 2019
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
February 11th, 2019 at 12:06:06 PM
permalink
Gentleman, and I mean that, I have backtracked your post here and on Kentucky Derby threads. But I can only assume , you were mislead by this and similar post on the internet.
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/show-us-money-plight-simple-wager/
Especially “If you have a five-horse race and the favorite has 94 percent of the pool or more, we would bet $5,000 to show on the favorite and then a hundred to show on the other four horses,” he said. “Only two things that can happen. You either win a couple hundred (favorite runs 1, 2, 3) or if the favorite doesn't hit the board, you win a couple thousand. It's a no-lose scenario.”
NOT TRUE Look at example given Show prices of 19.60, 12.40 45.40 $100 ticket on each returns $980 $620 $ 2270. $3870 TOTAL
Thats a long way from $5400 Bet And if third place horse finished 4 th? Well , he was 15-1 versus 31-1 Looking at $22.80 with breakage in your favor. Now it's $980 $620 $1140 for a $2740 total on a $5400 bet.
BECAUSE THE TAKEOUT IS 15.4% plus breakage.
Now lets see what happens when 1/10 Favorite hits the board. Bellafino pays $2.10 on 5K bet $5250 6.40 -1 second place horse pays 2.40 $100 bet pays $120 3rd place horse at 19.70-1 pays 3.20 $100 bet pays $160.... $5250 & $120 & $160 = $5530 for a profit of $130 on a $5400 bet. Of course just 5K bet to show would have profited $250
Now if 4 th place horse 6-80 to 1 had finished 3rd, will $5250 & $120 & $120 = $5490.
So a profit of $90 on a $5400 bet versus $250 profit on a $5k bet.
The takeout of 15.4% must be paid when 1/10 is off the board.
If there was magic formaula the show pool would have been $7,500,000 . They are syndicates that can raise that sort of capitol. Whales too. Sorry
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/show-us-money-plight-simple-wager/
Especially “If you have a five-horse race and the favorite has 94 percent of the pool or more, we would bet $5,000 to show on the favorite and then a hundred to show on the other four horses,” he said. “Only two things that can happen. You either win a couple hundred (favorite runs 1, 2, 3) or if the favorite doesn't hit the board, you win a couple thousand. It's a no-lose scenario.”
NOT TRUE Look at example given Show prices of 19.60, 12.40 45.40 $100 ticket on each returns $980 $620 $ 2270. $3870 TOTAL
Thats a long way from $5400 Bet And if third place horse finished 4 th? Well , he was 15-1 versus 31-1 Looking at $22.80 with breakage in your favor. Now it's $980 $620 $1140 for a $2740 total on a $5400 bet.
BECAUSE THE TAKEOUT IS 15.4% plus breakage.
Now lets see what happens when 1/10 Favorite hits the board. Bellafino pays $2.10 on 5K bet $5250 6.40 -1 second place horse pays 2.40 $100 bet pays $120 3rd place horse at 19.70-1 pays 3.20 $100 bet pays $160.... $5250 & $120 & $160 = $5530 for a profit of $130 on a $5400 bet. Of course just 5K bet to show would have profited $250
Now if 4 th place horse 6-80 to 1 had finished 3rd, will $5250 & $120 & $120 = $5490.
So a profit of $90 on a $5400 bet versus $250 profit on a $5k bet.
The takeout of 15.4% must be paid when 1/10 is off the board.
If there was magic formaula the show pool would have been $7,500,000 . They are syndicates that can raise that sort of capitol. Whales too. Sorry
February 11th, 2019 at 12:22:15 PM
permalink
You’re mistaken because you’re using an example of prices that does not reflect the actual strategy.
But that is a special race, because Streamline won. She’s from the same stable as Raintree and loved when I brought her peppermints. I miss her, but she’s about to have a date with Classic Empire.
But that is a special race, because Streamline won. She’s from the same stable as Raintree and loved when I brought her peppermints. I miss her, but she’s about to have a date with Classic Empire.
February 11th, 2019 at 12:26:20 PM
permalink
If you are talking about the other strategy on placing $2 ( or any equal amount )on each of other 4 horse, that doesn't work either. I repeat if there was a guaranteed win, that pool would be $7,500,000.
Just where does the 15.4% come from when 1/10 is off the board ??????
Just where does the 15.4% come from when 1/10 is off the board ??????
February 11th, 2019 at 12:31:21 PM
permalink
Quote: jackmagic777If you are talking about the other strategy on placing $2 ( or any equal amount )on each of other 4 horse, that doesn't work either. I repeat if there was a guaranteed win, that pool would be $7,500,000.
Just where does the 15.4% come from when 1/10 is off the board ??????
this is a 1995 column from Andrew Beyer that totally explains it. Beyer is regarded by many as being racing's greatest writer. He uses a race with the great horse Cigar for his example
from the article:
"Suppose, for simplicity's sake, that in a six-horse field the show betting looks like this:
* Cigar $1,450,000
* Horse A $10,000
* Horse B $10,000
* Horse C $10,000
* Horse D $10,000
* Horse E $10,000
* Total pool $1,500,000.
We start by subtracting the track's 15 percent takeout from the total pool, which leaves $1,275,000. If Cigar finishes in the money, there won't be enough money in the pot to pay all the winners, so the track has to make up the difference -- what is called a minus pool. Therefore, each horse returns the minimum $2.10.
But what if Cigar finishes out of the money, with A, B and C running 1-2-3? We subtract the $30,000 bet on them from $1,275,000, leaving $1,245,000.
Dividing this figure by three, we find that $415,000 will be paid in profit to the bettors on each of the top three finishers.
We divide the $10,000 bet on an individual horse into the $415,000, and find that the horse will pay odds of 41.5 to 1 in the show pool. A single ticket returns a profit of $83 for $2, plus the original $2 bet -- a whopping $85 show price.
If we bet $2 to show on Cigar's five rivals in this example, we would invest $10 and collect three $85 show payoffs -- a net profit of $245 if Cigar finishes out of the money. By betting just a little bit less than this amount on Cigar, we will have a profit no matter what happens. Suppose we play the race this way:
* Cigar $230
* Horse A $2
* Horse B $2
* Horse C $2
* Horse D $2
* Horse E $2
* Total $240. If Cigar finishes in the money, we collect our wager on him plus 5 percent, or $241.50. We also get a pair of $2.10 payoffs on the other top two finishers, for a total return of $245.70. That's a profit of more than 2 percent on our investment. If the favorite finishes out of the money, we do even better. This may not sound exciting, but when U.S. treasury bonds are paying annual interest of less than 6 percent, there is nothing wrong with making a certain 2 or 3 percent in a few hours."
in Beyer's example Cigar had 96.6% of the show money on him
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1995/10/03/heavy-bets-offer-a-little-show-and-tell/e1b7679e-4200-44f6-abe6-573696a9db26/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e01b6178ee3b
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
February 11th, 2019 at 12:36:33 PM
permalink
I remember when Andrew Byesr was giving his picks on telecast at Pimlico race track, LOL Post link or PM me same. I can assure you it does not work. Nor does overlooking basic handicapping and just using speed figures.
February 11th, 2019 at 12:40:20 PM
permalink
I can assure you that you’re wrong. This is frustrating.
February 11th, 2019 at 12:43:06 PM
permalink
Quote: jackmagic777I remember when Andrew Byesr was giving his picks on telecast at Pimlico race track, LOL Post link or PM me same. I can assure you it does not work. Nor does overlooking basic handicapping and just using speed figures.
I agree with you that Beyer's picks are flawed.
that doesn't mean other things that he writes are flawed - in the example I gave there is no flaw
it doesn't happen often and nobody will get rich from it - but it is not a falsehood
also, after a period of time and the mass publication of his figures, he recognized that his figures were not as powerful as they once were
he admitted this and embraced "trip handicapping" which incorporates how a horse ran his race; i.e. did he overcome trouble which would tend to favor him or did he have an easy trip loose on the lead which would tend to disfavor him
Beyer is not the originator of "trip handicapping," but he did publicize and embrace its value. I believe it is an important addition to other tools in evaluating a race.
despite all of his faults Andrew Beyer made an important contribution to racing through his writings.
he was willing to publicly criticize racing management, druggy trainers, and other stuff that most writers left alone
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
February 11th, 2019 at 2:42:47 PM
permalink
REALLY You fell for this. a 6 horse field and 10K on A, B,C,D,& E. 10k to show on the 6-1 2nd favorite (A) and 10K on the 45-1 (E) long shot.
Now let's get real Try 20 ,10. 10, 6 & 4. Or any realistic numbers. Mix em up. Is 5 times as much on second favorite versus longest shot on board unreal ? Or just spread an extra 10 k anyway you want across 1st three choices.
Gee what happens now A pays $43.16 OOOPs breakage $43.00 No longer $85 for B & C , Each share now $411,666 instead of $415,000 B & C pay $84.32 OOOPS breakage $ 84.20 So NOW 84.20 & 84.20 & 43.00 = $211.40
OHHH NOOO $211.40 is less than $240. How did that happen !!!!
Only works when people bet same amount on longest shot on the board as the second favorite.
Not a math guy but don't think you have to have much more than 60% of non chalk money on 3 horses that hit the board to lose money on your $240 bet.
I am trying Finn, really I am But it just does not work. 10 K to show on 2nd favorite and 10K on longest shot in the race. I just can not believe that happens.
That 2 % return on bridge jumping bet used to be called instant !0% back in the day. But the term bridge jumper does have meaning !!
Now let's get real Try 20 ,10. 10, 6 & 4. Or any realistic numbers. Mix em up. Is 5 times as much on second favorite versus longest shot on board unreal ? Or just spread an extra 10 k anyway you want across 1st three choices.
Gee what happens now A pays $43.16 OOOPs breakage $43.00 No longer $85 for B & C , Each share now $411,666 instead of $415,000 B & C pay $84.32 OOOPS breakage $ 84.20 So NOW 84.20 & 84.20 & 43.00 = $211.40
OHHH NOOO $211.40 is less than $240. How did that happen !!!!
Only works when people bet same amount on longest shot on the board as the second favorite.
Not a math guy but don't think you have to have much more than 60% of non chalk money on 3 horses that hit the board to lose money on your $240 bet.
I am trying Finn, really I am But it just does not work. 10 K to show on 2nd favorite and 10K on longest shot in the race. I just can not believe that happens.
That 2 % return on bridge jumping bet used to be called instant !0% back in the day. But the term bridge jumper does have meaning !!
February 11th, 2019 at 3:20:27 PM
permalink
The real answer to this back and forth is thus..... If there are different show pools for the non massive favorite it is certainly possible to end up losing if the second and third and fourth favorite show and not the favorite and fifth and sixth favorite.
But.... I'd agree with all the other posters that betting the heavy favorite as they state, then $2 on all the others, is positive EV. Since it is parimutual, you cannot know the exact correct amount to bet on the other horses until after betting has closed. It may be you need to bet $3 on horses 2 and 3, and just $2 on 4, 5, and 6.
I just hate carrying a half million with me to the track......
If I was Judge Judy I'd vote against jack magic, even though he is sort of right but.......
But.... I'd agree with all the other posters that betting the heavy favorite as they state, then $2 on all the others, is positive EV. Since it is parimutual, you cannot know the exact correct amount to bet on the other horses until after betting has closed. It may be you need to bet $3 on horses 2 and 3, and just $2 on 4, 5, and 6.
I just hate carrying a half million with me to the track......
If I was Judge Judy I'd vote against jack magic, even though he is sort of right but.......
February 11th, 2019 at 3:30:35 PM
permalink
" you cannot know the exact correct amount to bet on the other horses until after betting has closed. " Then the system does work if you can post bet LOL Have you been fooling around with the (N20) NITROUS OXIDE?
February 11th, 2019 at 4:21:37 PM
permalink
If you bet enough, the tiny difference between the other finishers doesn’t matter. But yes, you might need to smooth out your bets a bit.
Edit - preferably you don’t want there to be a strong 2nd choice.
Edit - preferably you don’t want there to be a strong 2nd choice.
February 11th, 2019 at 4:41:18 PM
permalink
Quote: jackmagic777" you cannot know the exact correct amount to bet on the other horses until after betting has closed. " Then the system does work if you can post bet LOL Have you been fooling around with the (N20) NITROUS OXIDE?
I think this is progress. Jack is no longer saying this can’t happen. Just that it hardly ever should happen and nearly impossible to know it’s going to happen at the moment you bet. If that’s where Jack is, then I can’t fault him.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 11th, 2019 at 4:45:30 PM
permalink
So it is no longer a Guaranteed win...DUH
February 11th, 2019 at 5:05:14 PM
permalink
Quote: jackmagic777So it is no longer a Guaranteed win...DUH
You can guarantee it if you have good tote access.
February 11th, 2019 at 5:12:52 PM
permalink
NOT TRUE... I am done with this foolishness
February 11th, 2019 at 5:37:14 PM
permalink
Just keep a open mind. I will google it later.Quote: jackmagic777NOT TRUE... I am done with this foolishness
February 11th, 2019 at 6:11:06 PM
permalink
Was it foolish when you learned that the 15.4% take isn’t an absolute?Quote: jackmagic777NOT TRUE... I am done with this foolishness
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 11th, 2019 at 6:14:33 PM
permalink
Santa Anita ABSOLULETY does take 15.4% of the money wagered when there is not a MINUS POOL.
February 11th, 2019 at 6:21:22 PM
permalink
Hence not absolute. But conditional.Quote: jackmagic777Santa Anita ABSOLULETY does take 15.4% of the money wagered when there is not a MINUS POOL.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 11th, 2019 at 6:29:30 PM
permalink
My mistake You can have a guaranteed win if people will bet as much to show on the longest shot in the race as on the second favorite, Certainly that happens a lot. Or if you are allowed to post bet, so you can adjust the amounts bet on the non-favorite horses. Silly me.
February 11th, 2019 at 6:33:05 PM
permalink
Quote: jackmagic777My mistake You can have a guaranteed win if people will bet as much to show on the longest shot in the race as on the second favorite, Certainly that happens a lot. Or if you are allowed to post bet, so you can adjust the amounts bet on the non-favorite horses. Silly me.
Indeed. Horses 2 through 6 don’t need to have the same odds for this to work. Interesting math exercise to see the conditions when you can still win no matter how the horses finish. Hint: you don’t bet the same amount on the horses.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 11th, 2019 at 6:34:48 PM
permalink
Gee I was told that earlier . Just have to be able to post bet. HINT : No such condition exists
February 11th, 2019 at 6:42:55 PM
permalink
You don’t have to post bet
February 11th, 2019 at 6:53:46 PM
permalink
Sure, Absolutely Guaranteed Can't lose Easy as pie
February 11th, 2019 at 6:57:35 PM
permalink
Good luck with your horse REALLy This thread becoming like trying to teach pigs to sing. Annoys the pig and wastes my time. Hope you are in winner's circle next out. Stakes races no less.
February 11th, 2019 at 7:04:28 PM
permalink
I don’t understand why you need to post the bet. Also your Hint: is a wrong conclusion as a matter of pure math. (Set aside ability to bet in different pool or at some books at a fixed price.) But as I’m the Pig in your last post (despite me not defending whether this practice works, lmao) I wouldn’t ask you to throw any more of your pearls before me.Quote: jackmagic777Gee I was told that earlier . Just have to be able to post bet. HINT : No such condition exists
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 11th, 2019 at 7:20:14 PM
permalink
I just wish Andrew Beyer would have kept his mouth shut or left out in his book about the rail bias at Pimlico. I was having a very nice year before he spoiled it. Especially inside horses with early speed at 1 m and 1/16. Gate was set just before first turn. But would like to book his picks in stakes races. LOL
February 12th, 2019 at 12:39:59 PM
permalink
Mmmkay Buzzard, this is now beyond pointless; time to go.
Suck dope, watch TV, make up stuff, be somebody on the internet.
February 12th, 2019 at 12:57:43 PM
permalink
I know My fault for getting this horse thread so many views . Still doesn't make it possible to guarantee a profit on a parimutuel pool.
So have fun. This is your response rather than defending your position. Finn had no problem, but evidently you do GSIYH APIDOYE
So have fun. This is your response rather than defending your position. Finn had no problem, but evidently you do GSIYH APIDOYE
February 12th, 2019 at 1:01:07 PM
permalink
Quote: DrawingDeadMmmkay Buzzard, this is now beyond pointless; time to go.
Give me your mailing address and I will send you a tin moderator badge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
February 12th, 2019 at 1:08:28 PM
permalink
Go to a community mental health center, and they will try to work with you and help you learn to cope with your problems, regardless of income and ability to pay, on a sliding fee scale which can be zero if needed,. There are several in Grand Junction. Good luck. Quite seriously.
Quote: jackmagic777Give me your mailing address and I will send you a tin moderator badge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
Suck dope, watch TV, make up stuff, be somebody on the internet.
February 12th, 2019 at 1:12:06 PM
permalink
Come on you know you have moderator envy. Come to Grand Junction and lets discuss your insult about Bab's integrity as a moderator. I will probably be in RED soon . So you will get the last word. Everybody's a tuff guy on the internet. Try this old man face to face, sissy
