Thread Rating:

cclub79
cclub79
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
March 8th, 2010 at 11:36:49 AM permalink
Wizard, simple answer: $2.10 on each horse. They do it all the time. (Some tracks have a min of $2.20 on all payouts, something to look for if you are a BJumper.)
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1382
  • Posts: 23104
March 8th, 2010 at 11:47:20 AM permalink
Thanks. I just updated my horse racing page with that bit of information.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
March 8th, 2010 at 7:35:34 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Sandra Bullock is about a 2 to 1 favorite to win best actress. I didn't bet it because she is up against Meryl Streep, who I just learned was nominated more times for Oscars than any other actress. That is another one besides best picture that could go either way.



So much, I guess, for knowing the field you're betting on :)

Streep is arguably one of the best actresses that ever lived. Whatever character she plays, you only see the character, not her. naturally she's been nominated a lot, and has won twice (once for a supporting role).

How much would you have had to lay to win $500 on Sandra Bullock?

I think she was as near a shoo-in as you can get at the Oscars. She'd won the Golden Globe, the Critics Association and the SGA awards this year. That's a sweep.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
wildqat
wildqat
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 157
March 8th, 2010 at 8:11:58 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

I think [Sandra Bullock] was as near a shoo-in as you can get at the Oscars. She'd won the Golden Globe, the Critics Association and the SGA awards this year. That's a sweep.


Don't forget, she won a Razzie this year, too (Yeah, it was for All About Steve, but still :^P ).
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
March 8th, 2010 at 9:03:09 PM permalink
Quote: wildqat

Don't forget, she won a Razzie this year, too (Yeah, it was for All About Steve, but still :^P ).



Oh, she did more than win. She accepted it.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
Aussie
Aussie
Joined: Dec 29, 2009
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 414
March 8th, 2010 at 11:16:12 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

This is getting off topic, but in the event a huge favorite does show, can the track take from the show pools on the other two horses to cover the 10 cents on the big favorite? For example, let's say the total show pool is $300,000, the take-out is 17%, and show bets on the three winning horses are divided as follows:

A 97%
B 2%
C 1%

How much would a $2 show ticket on each horse pay?




In Australia they would not take from other runners.
Thete was an Interesting case in Australia several years ago where a Canadian man manipulated the pari-mutual pool in a greyhound race so that the place pool looked similar to those percentages you quoted. When I'm home and on a proper computer instead of my phone I'll find the details for you.
Aussie
Aussie
Joined: Dec 29, 2009
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 414
March 9th, 2010 at 3:05:09 AM permalink
I haven't been able to find a detailed news story on what actually happened but I recall what happened.

Background is that in Australia we don't have place and show bets like you do in the US, we simply have a place bet which pays on the top 3 in fields of 8 or more and top 2 in fields of 7 or less. The minimum payout is $1 for every $1 wagered (yes just the return of the original stake) and the payout is simply 1/3 of the place pool less takeout divided by the number of dollars bet on the runner. Therefore is a huge amount is bet on one runner the dividend for the other runners is inflated to the point where in extreme cases (such as this) there could be more paid out that was bet ie the operator would lose.

In 2000 a Canadian man manipulated the place pool in a coule of obscure greyhound races. The place pool for this kind of race with this particular operator would typically be $2-4k. This man chose two dogs that he was very confident would run in the top 3 and bet $350k on each of them and $5k on each of the remaining 6 dogs. Total bet $730k. The massive bets on the two favoured dogs resulted in their place dividends being $1 with the other 6 dogs paying around $40. The two favoured dogs ran in the top 3 which meant he got $700k (2 x $350k) back plus $200k ($5k x 40) from the 3rd dog. Total return of $900k when there was less than $740k bet in total. He tried to do the same thing on another race later that night but the operator froze his account and prevented him.

The operator refused to pay but I believe they were taken to court and forced to pay eventually. Heres a transcript of an interview he did with a radio program shrotly after it occurred.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s202115.htm
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1382
  • Posts: 23104
March 9th, 2010 at 12:32:47 PM permalink
Very interesting! I think I will make a semi-fake Ask the Wizard question out of this. For the sake of explaining how he did it, do you know the takeout percentage in Australia?

This would not work in the U.S., by the way, because we make separate pots for the return of the original winning wagers and winnings. In this race there would not have been enough money after the takeout to cover all the original winning bets, so it would have defaulted to the minimum win of $2.10 for a $2.00 bet.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Aussie
Aussie
Joined: Dec 29, 2009
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 414
March 9th, 2010 at 1:18:16 PM permalink
Takeout is around the 17% mark I believe.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1382
  • Posts: 23104
March 9th, 2010 at 1:59:07 PM permalink
Thanks. Here is a draft of how I plan to respond to this in my next Ask the Wizard column. Your comments would be appreciated.

Quote: wizard


That is an interesting story. The terminology is a bit different in Australia. As I understand it, in Australia there are not separate bets for place and show, but just a place bet. The place bet will pay bettors on the first two dogs in races with seven or less dogs, and the first three dogs with eight or more total in the race. In the race in question there were eight dogs, two of whom where strong favorites. Following is the general way the winning odds are calculated on a three-dog place pool in Australia.

1. Take out the track cut from the total pool of place bets. For the sake of argument, let's use the usual American take-out of 17%.
2. Divide the rest into three pools.
3. Pay the winners on each dog a pro-rata basis according to the size of the pool and the amount bet on the dog. If the amount bet on the dog exceeds its share of the pool, then bettors will get a refund.

Let's look at an example. Suppose $100,000 is bet on the a pool with three dogs. Assume bets on the winning dogs totaling $5,000 on dog A, $10,000 on dog B, and $15,000 on dog C. First the 17% would be deducted, leaving $83,000. That would be divided by 3, leaving $27,667 to pay the winners of each dog. Winning bets on dog A would be paid $27,667/$5,000 = 5.53 for 1, before any rounding (I'm not sure how they round down under). Likewise, winning bets on dog B would be paid 27667/10000=2.77 for 1, and on dog C 27667/15000 = 1.84 for 1.

The bettor in this case exploited the rules by betting such huge amounts that he pretty much controlled the odds. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume he was the only bettor. The article said he bet $350,000 on the two favorites, and $5,000 on each additional dog. With six underdogs (pun intended) that resulted in a total pool of $730,000. After the takeout and split, there was 201,997 to the winners of each dog. The rule about getting at least a push resulted in bets on the two favorites being refunded. However, the share of the pool on the third dog was huge compared to wagers on it. The winning odds would have been 201,997/5000 = 40.4 to 1. So the profit on the third dog was $5,000 * 39.4 = $197,000. He actually only won $170,000, probably because of other bets on the third dog.

This technique would not work in the U.S., by the way, because here we deduct the original wagers made on each winning dog from the total show pool, and then add them back in after dividing by 3. This deduction would have caused the pools to be negative, resulting in just small winnings of the minimum $0.10 per $2 bet.

It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.

  • Jump to: