Chicago Barn to Wire
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


November 24, 2014, 08:57:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Lane's End Stakes  (Read 3572 times)
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #50 on: March 21, 2009, 04:36:15 PM »

You are aware, are you not, that the odds on the board are only rounded down approximations of the actual odds?  doh

1 15.0-1
2 2.9-1
3 2.4-1
4 7.2-1
5 2.2-1
6 6.6-1
7 67.1-1
8 26.3-1


Sure Im aware. What's with the  doh?  Can you do me a favor and check the attitude at the door? Listen King, if you have a computer in your brain you're more than welcome to make any ol adjustment you feel like to what the chart shows after they roll it out, then you'll know the odds the tracks gonna give you, and by the way the grab was, I believe if my memory is good, exactly 23%, normal enough, but still high. We're running out of cups.
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #51 on: March 21, 2009, 04:39:14 PM »

Very disappointing mistake in dismissing the Mott horse. Every time I think I know more about a horse than his trainer, I get kicked in the nutsack -- and deservedly so, I guess.

I was sure his horse was going to get bet -- I predicted he'd be an underlay -- but when he didn't get bet, I was even more certain that I had the right read on his horse.  doh

Played some small saver exactas with Flying Private and Proceed Bee top and bottom and managed to cover the cost of my bets, but a giant missed opportunity like this makes me sick.

I was going to play some more races today, but forget it now. I had this damn thing nailed almost perfect, top to bottom -- I know, A.P. didn't pick up his feet, but the important parts were being right about Bittel Road not having any chance, and being willing to take a swing against Bernie.

One mistake -- and not a completely unreasonable one, downgrading a horse coming in off of the longest layoff in the field at 4 months off -- and that's the f*cker that wins the race!  Angry  

Yep if you'd really liked him you would have done all right. Including the Hail Marys.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #52 on: March 21, 2009, 04:49:10 PM »

Including the Hail Marys.

If you were using ThoroGraph, you wouldn't call them "Hail Marys".

You'd call them what they are: "Contenders, at big prices".  Wink

Or, do you think it's just some sort of bullshit luck that 5 of the 6 that I identified as contenders lined up and ran 2nd through 6th?

Sorry if I'm being oversensitive. I'm not through being pissed at myself.
Report to moderator   Logged
jrstark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6339



« Reply #53 on: March 21, 2009, 04:51:31 PM »

I put $36 into the high five at Haw and hit it. Not sure what it'll pay with 8-5, 8-5, 4-1, 21-1 and 5-1. $11k carryover, though.

@$920
Report to moderator   Logged
glahn
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2523




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: March 21, 2009, 04:54:27 PM »

If you were using ThoroGraph, you wouldn't call them "Hail Marys".

You'd call them what they are: "Contenders, at big prices".  Wink

Or, do you think it's just some sort of bullshit luck that 5 of the 6 that I identified as contenders lined up and ran 2nd through 6th?

Sorry if I'm being oversensitive. I'm not through being pissed at myself.

Bullshit luck, hehe. The way you went about it is a good and valid way to play. If there's a 12-horse field with a handful of obvious tosses, and a very strong opinion against two 2-1 shots, with the rest of the field wide open, I see nothing wrong with going deep in various exotics. Yeah, you rely to extent on "luck" or "chaos," but this is yet another way to take advantage of opportunity, and is not akin to simply "throwing darts."

Now, Horse Voice, there'll be more opportunities. I wouldn't get too pissed about it. Well actually, I would. And I am. But you know the expression--do as I say...
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2009, 04:59:26 PM »

If you were using ThoroGraph, you wouldn't call them "Hail Marys".

You'd call them what they are: "Contenders, at big prices".  Wink

Or, do you think it's just some sort of bullshit luck that 5 of the 6 that I identified as contenders lined up and ran 2nd through 6th?

Sorry if I'm being oversensitive. I'm not through being pissed at myself.

Please don't complain about me, Horse. Mott's horse was well-bet. I never said he wasn't. He won though the public felt he wouldn't run better than 4th. Still, he took a lot of money. My point is: you must be a very cool customer, not ever to cross your fingers before a horse race.

By the way, I'm on prednisaone steroids to speed up my recovery time after a bout of asthma related bronchitis and they've turned me into a total sh1t. I hope I can get better and get this behind me.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 05:13:50 PM by Edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2009, 05:16:55 PM »

Please don't complain about me Janine

You responded to my post, but I'm not Janine.

Unless you meant, "Please don't complain about me to Janine?", in which case my reply is: I didn't think you said anything objectionable.

My point is: you must be a very cool customer, not ever to cross your fingers before a horse race.

It has nothing to do with being a cool customer. This is the kind of race I look for every day, every time I gamble on horses -- the kind that can make your whole month, pay for vacations and other boodle, etc. There's nothing for me in races with logical $6.00 horses. I can't grind like some guys do. Too boring, too much work, and too much risk...for too little reward.
Report to moderator   Logged
glahn
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2523




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2009, 05:19:30 PM »

@$920


I only had it for $1. 5 / 1,2,6 / 1,2,6 / 1,2,3,6,10 / 1,2,3,6,10
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2009, 05:34:03 PM »

By the way, I'm on prednisaone steroids to speed up my recovery time after a bout of asthma related bronchitis and they've turned me into a total sh1t. I hope I can get better and get this behind me.

No worries. Just make sure you are off the junk 72 hours before your next post. This is a steroids-free forum, you know.  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
glahn
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2523




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2009, 06:08:26 PM »

No worries. Just make sure you are off the junk 72 hours before your next post. This is a steroids-free forum, you know.  Wink

Is 72 hours enough withdrawal time? Or do the rules vary depending on what location Ed is posting from?
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #60 on: March 21, 2009, 06:44:21 PM »

Is 72 hours enough withdrawal time? Or do the rules vary depending on what location Ed is posting from?

My answers are "maybe", and "yes, definitely" -- and that's how we'll nail him, especially if we decide we don't like him that much, or we need to make it look like we are "doing something" about medication violations.

Hey, horse racing has had a huge jump on internet forums when it comes to developing uniform medication rules, and they aren't even close to having their act together yet -- why should we be expected to?  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #61 on: March 21, 2009, 08:30:20 PM »

Sure Im aware. What's with the  doh?  Can you do me a favor and check the attitude at the door?

The door of your broom closet?

Quote
Listen King, if you have a computer in your brain you're more than welcome to make any ol adjustment you feel like to what the chart shows after they roll it out, then you'll know the odds the tracks gonna give you

This discussion has nothing to do with that, it's about effective takeout.

Quote
and by the way the grab was, I believe if my memory is good, exactly 23%, normal enough, but still high. We're running out of cups.

You must be doing your calculation wrong.

I did write down all the pools for the 11th. $63,822 to win, of which $3,140 was bet on the eventual winner.

$63,822 minus a 17.5% takeout = $11,169 leaving $52,653 to be distributed.
$52,653 minus the winning bets of $3140 makes a won pool of $49,513.
$49,513 divided by all the winning dollars $3140 is 15.77/1 odds. Breakage to the dime makes 15.70/1 <-- same as the chart
15.7 times $2 + $2 = $33.40 <-- same as the chart

You can run your own numbers and use something like 23% and find yourself down around 14.60/1 <-- doesn't work.

Incidentally, $3140 = 1570 winning $2 bets x $33.40 = $52,438 paid out.
Even with breakage (a nice high one in this example, but not so brutal because of the lonshot), the total paid is 82% of the original betting pool, or only an 18% total "takeout".

So now, you go ahead and show us how you came up with 33.8% on the 9th.  screwy

And NYRA, if you also have the win amount that was on Cliffy in that race, too, I'll run through the same exercise.
Report to moderator   Logged
NYRA 792
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1827




Ignore
« Reply #62 on: March 21, 2009, 08:48:01 PM »

21,643
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #63 on: March 21, 2009, 08:54:09 PM »

show us

You must be crazy. I'll never show you how to compute the booking percentage off any toteboard.  Now get lost.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 09:17:52 PM by Edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #64 on: March 21, 2009, 09:15:45 PM »

I can't grind like some guys do. Too boring, too much work, and too much risk...for too little reward.

Yep.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 09:30:38 PM by Edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #65 on: March 21, 2009, 11:20:48 PM »

You must be crazy. I'll never show you how to compute the booking percentage off any toteboard.  Now get lost.

Yeah, right ... because your claims are wrong, your methodology is flawed, and you don't want anyone to get a look at it to point out the errors.

Now we'll run through those 9th race numbers right here in real time (and hope NYRA got the true finals):

$215,258 to win, of which $21,643 was bet on the eventual winner.

$215,258 minus a 17.5% takeout = $37,670 leaving $177,588 to be distributed.
$177,588 minus the winning bets of $21,643 makes a won pool of $155,945.
$155,945 divided by all the winning dollars $21,643 is 7.205/1 odds. Breakage to the dime makes 7.2/1 <-- same as the chart (! Again! )
7.2 times $2 + $2 = $16.40 <-- same as the chart (! Again!)

$21,643 = 10,821.5 winning $2 bets x $16.40 = $177,473.60 paid out.
And with breakage (nearly zero in this case), the total paid is 82.34% of the original betting pool, or less than 18% total "takeout" - damn close to 17.5%, in fact!

Isn't that amazing how, when you use the real numbers and the real methodology and run through the numbers in the light of day (or evening) in front of everyone, it comes out SO CLOSE to the advertised takeout rate of 17.5% ? As opposed to some  screwy percentages like 33.8% or 29.2% or even exactly 23% that were plucked out of God knows where by some space alien methodology that's just too secret to subject to public scrutiny?

Get lost, indeed.
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #66 on: March 22, 2009, 05:11:04 AM »

Get the phuck out of here !! 
You're on the wrong page.   You didn't pay attention.   screwy

« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 05:29:30 AM by Edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #67 on: March 22, 2009, 06:27:19 AM »

Hey hotshot.  You solved the wrong problem. 
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 06:50:25 AM by Edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #68 on: March 22, 2009, 08:35:06 AM »

Hey hotshot.  You solved the wrong problem. 

I admit that could be the case, because it's hard to tell what you're talking about when you claim you can tell there was a 33% takeout when you're just looking at the win odds on the toteboard. So, run through the numbers for us. Show us what it is you're writing about. Here are your claims that need an explanation, because without one, they're baseless rambling:

Takeout for the 9th race win pool, TUP, 0 mtp, is a whopping 33.8%

1  15-1
2  5-2
3  2-1
4  7-1
5  2-1
6  6-1
7  60-1
8  25-1  = 33.8% but who's counting?

We'll see the actual chart later to find if it's actually closer to normal. The counting room could have had a problem posting closing odds.

Ok, on to the tenth, the Lanes End.

Ok ,it looks like the board for the Lanes End closed at 29.2%.  5 co-favored horses are under 10-1. I defy anyone to beat this on a regular basis.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 08:38:44 AM by CLOCKERTERRY » Report to moderator   Logged
glahn
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2523




Ignore
« Reply #69 on: March 22, 2009, 10:34:39 AM »

Takeout for the 9th race win pool, TUP, 0 mtp, is a whopping 33.8%

1  15-1
2  5-2
3  2-1
4  7-1
5  2-1
6  6-1
7  60-1
8  25-1  = 33.8% but who's counting?

Terry, this may be what he did:

1/(15+1) + 1/(2.5+1) + 1/(2+1) + 1/(7+1) + 1/(2+1) + 1/(6+1) + 1/(60+1) + 1/(25+1) = 1.337593076

1.337593076 - 1 = .337593076, or 33.8%

Which is the wrong way to calculate it. If he did it this way, he'd want to compute like so: 1 / 1.337593076 = .747611525

1 - .747611525 = .252388475, or 25.2%.

Given that those odds could be, say, 15.9-1 and 2.9-1 instead of 15-1 and 5/2, this looks like it could yield an accurate line. For example, if each of the odds were their maximum before ticking up (i.e. 15.9, 2.9, etc.), you get a take of: 16.4%.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #70 on: March 22, 2009, 05:33:09 PM »

Terry, this may be what he did:

1/(15+1) + 1/(2.5+1) + 1/(2+1) + 1/(7+1) + 1/(2+1) + 1/(6+1) + 1/(60+1) + 1/(25+1) = 1.337593076

1.337593076 - 1 = .337593076, or 33.8%

That is my suspicion, as well, but we will never know for sure, because it's too secret and beyond the understanding of mere mortals.  Roll Eyes

Quote
Which is the wrong way to calculate it. If he did it this way, he'd want to compute like so: 1 / 1.337593076 = .747611525

1 - .747611525 = .252388475, or 25.2%.

This is still a mostly wrong approximation, IMHO.

The odds on the board show the rounded down odds after takeout and breakage for every horse, to inform the public the minimum number their horse will pay if it wins. However, one and only one horse does win. Breakage occurs for one and only one payout number, that of the winning horse, and you end up getting paid your real odds after breakage, not necessarily the board odds. All those other possibilities and approximations disappear, because there's no breakage kept from a bet that didn't win, and they pay the full odds after breakage, not limited by what tote boards can display.
Report to moderator   Logged
glahn
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2523




Ignore
« Reply #71 on: March 22, 2009, 06:00:38 PM »

This is still a mostly wrong approximation, IMHO.

The odds on the board show the rounded down odds after takeout and breakage for every horse, to inform the public the minimum number their horse will pay if it wins. However, one and only one horse does win. Breakage occurs for one and only one payout number, that of the winning horse, and you end up getting paid your real odds after breakage, not necessarily the board odds. All those other possibilities and approximations disappear, because there's no breakage kept from a bet that didn't win, and they pay the full odds after breakage, not limited by what tote boards can display.

That's why I explained what the take would be if you took the highest possible odds given what was displayed on the board. If you want to figure out takeout before getting a result chart, or looking at a resource such as the track's website, taking high and low as I did is about the only way to do it.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #72 on: March 22, 2009, 06:22:49 PM »

That's why I explained what the take would be if you took the highest possible odds given what was displayed on the board. If you want to figure out takeout before getting a result chart, or looking at a resource such as the track's website, taking high and low as I did is about the only way to do it.

Gotcha.

But really, who wastes time to sit down to figure/estimate takeout during a race, when the actual numbers are well publicized?
Report to moderator   Logged
glahn
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2523




Ignore
« Reply #73 on: March 22, 2009, 06:27:50 PM »

Gotcha.

But really, who wastes time to sit down to figure/estimate takeout during a race, when the actual numbers are well publicized?

Evidently Ed does.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #74 on: March 22, 2009, 06:39:13 PM »

Evidently Ed does.

"Arrrrgh! They're screwin' me for 33.8%! Who can win against that?!!? Arrrrgh!"
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.126 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Breeders' Cup
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Breeders' Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy