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


August 28, 2014, 10:35:46 PM *
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]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: BRIDGEJUMPERS NEVER LEARN  (Read 807 times)
vegas jay
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1230




Ignore
« on: July 20, 2006, 08:32:46 PM »

You'd have thought the bridgejumpers who took the plunge betting ridiculous amounts to show on odds-on Devilfish last week---and other bettors so inclined---would have learned a lesson.

Apparently not.

In Thursday night's 6th race at the Meadowlands, 1-5 shot What's Up Now had 86 percent of the show pool ($11,859 of the total $13,846), with the final $9,000 being poured in on the very last flash.

What's Up Now fiinished first, as expected, but was disqualified and placed out of the money for two separate breaking incidents, one of which caused interference to another horse.

The official winner became Liberated Artist, paying $24.60, $14.00 & $34.60. The second horse, Hedge Fund at 41-1, paid $28.00 & $41.00. The third horse, Pinkerton at 38-1, paid $42.60.

When you try to "steal" money in this manner, it is positively a fact that you will eventually pay a BIG price for your greed and utter stupidity!
Report to moderator   Logged
LV_GaryD
Highly Unesteemed Former Horseman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 707




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2006, 09:10:56 PM »

Exactly Jay! This is why I find it hard to believe tracks bar show wagering from time to time.
Report to moderator   Logged
vegas jay
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1230




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2006, 10:56:39 PM »

Exactly Jay! This is why I find it hard to believe tracks bar show wagering from time to time.

Gary: You're absolutely right. I did the math on this race, and if the 1-5 shot had not been DQ'd out of the money, The Meadowlands would have had a small minus show pool of about $400. As it was, the 17 percent takeout from the $13,846 show pool netted the track & state $2,353.

If I were a bookmaker, I'd take as much of these idiot bridgejumpers' show bets as they wanted to wager. With payoffs of $2.20, they would have to win 20 bets for each loss just to break even!

Report to moderator   Logged
vegas jay
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1230




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2006, 10:57:36 PM »

Gary: You're absolutely right. I did the math on this race, and if the 1-5 shot had not been DQ'd out of the money, The Meadowlands would have had a small minus show pool of about $400. As it was, the 17 percent takeout from the $13,846 show pool netted the track & state $2,353.

If I were a bookmaker, I'd take as much of these idiot bridgejumpers' show bets as they wanted to wager. With payoffs of $2.20, they would have to win 20 bets for each loss just to break even!


Report to moderator   Logged
vegas jay
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1230




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2006, 10:59:21 PM »



Correction: I meant to say "with payoffs of $2.10 (not $2.20) they would need to win 20 races for each loss just to break even!"
Report to moderator   Logged
LV_GaryD
Highly Unesteemed Former Horseman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 707




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2006, 04:14:45 PM »

Exactly. I knew you realized the slight math error-in earlier times, minimum payoff was $2.20.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwardwilliam
Annnnnnnnnd they're off!
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6252

Rebate shops are not the devil.


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2006, 04:39:14 PM »

Exactly. I knew you realized the slight math error-in earlier times, minimum payoff was $2.20.

There are still states with a $2.20 minimum.  Iowa and New Hampshire come to mind, and there could also be more.

If you combine a 10% guarantee with a 8 or 9% win rebate, it starts to get to the point that you can almost justify it.  You are essentially earning a minimum of 1/5 on a show bet.  I know I wouldn't do it, but it's much more understandable than $2.10.

Best,
EW
Report to moderator   Logged

Stick to Fantasyland pal, because you'll NEVER make it in the real world - TC
Esab
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 330




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2006, 06:13:32 PM »

Don't complain these heavy favorites in the show pool provide guaranteed profits!

I remember when someone made a $150,000 show bet at Laurel. It created a genuine "sure thing'' for anybody with the proper capital.

Andy Beyer wrote about it. Under normal conditions, serious horseplayers rarely think about making show bets. But when a favorite looks absolutely unbeatable, a gambler might reasonably try to collect the minimum return of $2.10 for $2 (or, in some generous states, $2.20). If a bettor had the necessary
temperament and a $100,000 bankroll, he might earn a decent living by looking for 10 solid
show bets across the country during the course of a year.

In the Laurel race, there was approximately $160,000 in the show pool, of which $154,000
had been wagered on Bet Twice. There were four other horses.

Here's what Beyer wrote about the race and the guaranteed profit:

   If Bet Twice finished in the money (as he did), all the show payoffs would be $2.10, of
course. But what if Bet Twice finished out of the money? What would the show payoffs be?

   With $160,000 wagered, the state and track extract their standard 17 percent ""take,''
which leaves $132,800 to be distributed to the fans. This money is divided in three equal
parts … $44,266 each … paid out to the holders of tickets on the three horses who finished in
the money.

   If $1,500 was bet on a horse to show, that is the equivalent of 750 $2 tickets. Divide 750
into $44,266 and the show payoff is supposed to be $59.02. The track takes the odd cents, so
that if Bet Twice had finished out of the money in our hypothetical example, each of the top
three finishers would pay a whopping $59 to show.

   It would be possible for us to make our own sizable show bet on Bet Twice, but also to make
small wagers on each of the other horses so that we would still make a profit if the favorite
finished out of the money. After tinkering with the numbers for a few minutes, I came up with
this investment: Bet $10,000 to show on the favorite, and $130 on each of the other four
horses, for a total play of $10,520.

   If Bet Twice finishes in the money, we collect on our $10,000 bet and two of our $130 bets.
A 5 percent return on $10,260 yields $10,773. We have made a profit of $253.

   If Bet Twice finishes out of the money, our wagers on the other horses would have altered
the payoffs slightly, reducing the show prices to $57.80 on each of the horses. A $130 wager
on a horse who pays $57.80 would yield $3,757, and we would collect three such payoffs … for a
total of $11,271. This is a profit of $751.

   A mathematically sophisticated bettor could surely program a pocket-sized computer to
calculate the amount that should be wagered on each horse. In actual practice, of course,
different amounts would have to be bet on each horse, and the calculations would have to be
made a minute or two before post time. But the effort would be worthwhile. A bet of this type
would typically yield a 3 percent profit. It would take half a year to generate that income
with an investment in U.S. Treasury bills. At the track it takes only two minutes.

Report to moderator   Logged
edwardwilliam
Annnnnnnnnd they're off!
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6252

Rebate shops are not the devil.


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2006, 06:22:24 PM »

Don't complain these heavy favorites in the show pool provide guaranteed profits!

I remember when someone made a $150,000 show bet at Laurel. It created a genuine "sure thing'' for anybody with the proper capital.

Andy Beyer wrote about it. Under normal conditions, serious horseplayers rarely think about making show bets. But when a favorite looks absolutely unbeatable, a gambler might reasonably try to collect the minimum return of $2.10 for $2 (or, in some generous states, $2.20). If a bettor had the necessary
temperament and a $100,000 bankroll, he might earn a decent living by looking for 10 solid
show bets across the country during the course of a year.

In the Laurel race, there was approximately $160,000 in the show pool, of which $154,000
had been wagered on Bet Twice. There were four other horses.

Here's what Beyer wrote about the race and the guaranteed profit:

   If Bet Twice finished in the money (as he did), all the show payoffs would be $2.10, of
course. But what if Bet Twice finished out of the money? What would the show payoffs be?

   With $160,000 wagered, the state and track extract their standard 17 percent ""take,''
which leaves $132,800 to be distributed to the fans. This money is divided in three equal
parts … $44,266 each … paid out to the holders of tickets on the three horses who finished in
the money.

   If $1,500 was bet on a horse to show, that is the equivalent of 750 $2 tickets. Divide 750
into $44,266 and the show payoff is supposed to be $59.02. The track takes the odd cents, so
that if Bet Twice had finished out of the money in our hypothetical example, each of the top
three finishers would pay a whopping $59 to show.

   It would be possible for us to make our own sizable show bet on Bet Twice, but also to make
small wagers on each of the other horses so that we would still make a profit if the favorite
finished out of the money. After tinkering with the numbers for a few minutes, I came up with
this investment: Bet $10,000 to show on the favorite, and $130 on each of the other four
horses, for a total play of $10,520.

   If Bet Twice finishes in the money, we collect on our $10,000 bet and two of our $130 bets.
A 5 percent return on $10,260 yields $10,773. We have made a profit of $253.

   If Bet Twice finishes out of the money, our wagers on the other horses would have altered
the payoffs slightly, reducing the show prices to $57.80 on each of the horses. A $130 wager
on a horse who pays $57.80 would yield $3,757, and we would collect three such payoffs … for a
total of $11,271. This is a profit of $751.

   A mathematically sophisticated bettor could surely program a pocket-sized computer to
calculate the amount that should be wagered on each horse. In actual practice, of course,
different amounts would have to be bet on each horse, and the calculations would have to be
made a minute or two before post time. But the effort would be worthwhile. A bet of this type
would typically yield a 3 percent profit. It would take half a year to generate that income
with an investment in U.S. Treasury bills. At the track it takes only two minutes.



Dutching is an excellent tool, however, Beyer's suggestion really isn't feasible.  One late $500 show bet on any of the entrants could absolutely sink your "sure thing."

Best,
EW
Report to moderator   Logged

Stick to Fantasyland pal, because you'll NEVER make it in the real world - TC
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.088 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
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

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