Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of seniority, and age before beauty and
> all that, here's a little math lesson for Rick,
> who seems to think a $20 bill was all it took to
> skew this payoff.

Huh? A $20 bill? I wrote that I had found a couple
of hundred dollars difference numerous times.

> Pool 54,000
> Ill use a 25% take, leaving 40,000
>
> If the DD had paid $300 (a conservative figure)
> that would have been $265 on the number.

$300? For two ML 6-1 shots? (The 2nd would be an adjusted
ML, after three early scratches.)

> As it is it paid $74, meaning there was $1135 on
> the ticket.
>
> $835 extra.

Um...$870 extra, using your numbers. But do continue
with my "math lesson", Professor.

> So Rick, would you call an 800 punch on two
> longshots "simply niggling over nickels"

No...if it actually happened. It didn't happen that way.

In this case, you failed to look at the win prices
in context of what actually happened on the race course.
You seem married to the idea that only the DD payoffs
can be short, and win prices are always a fair basis
for DD price projections.

(This is the same sort of flat earth thinking that leads
some number services to use one variant for a whole day's
races, no matter what happens weather-wise. But I digress.)

Those win prices were inflated, most any way you look
at it. Under the circumstances there was hardly a chance
in hell that the DD would pay $300.

Most everywhere I play, two ML 6-1 shots pay about
$100 for the DD, which, after calculation, means this
number had about $335 "extra" bet on it, just over
0.5% of the total pool...the pittance I usually find when
I have run the numbers in the past.

Sorry, nothing here.