Talk:Parimutuel betting

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 October 2015. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator.

Gambling Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Opening comment[edit]

In case anyone's wondering about exactor and triactor, they're Canadian names. I'd have added some other countries' betting propositions if I knew enough about them.

I am pretty sure that Superfecta is picking the first four finishers in exact order, not the first six. It may be a regional thing though I am not sure.

Don't know about elsewhere, but in Australia it's the first six finishers in correct order. However, at this time most of the Australian off-course betting agencies don't offer Superfecta betting. --kudz75 00:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to most of the entries that come up on google when I search for superfecta, it is the first four in correct order. Here is a link to the New York Racing Association that defines it at least for horse races in New York. "Superfecta". Retrieved July 1 2005. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Danny31415 1 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

I believe the superfecta is the first 4 nearly everywhere. Perhaps this should be noted in the article with an exception for Austrailia

Computational examples[edit]

For people as inept as I am in understanding betting, some computational examples would make this article, and other articles on gambling, more comprehensible. Jm546 17:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy[edit]

Does it bother anybody else that we substantially have the trifecta listed twice? First as "across the boards" and then under "exotic bets" under its common name. Matt Gies 17:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxes[edit]

Please explain box betting.

Place and Show[edit]

Could someone discuss in more detail how the payoffs for Place and Show bets are calculated? I'm assuming that it is the same as for Win bets (some slice of the overall pool), but that is an assumption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.179.128.52 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're correct in your assumption. The net place pool (place pool minus the takeout) is split in half between the first and second finishers and then divided by the number of dollars bet on those two finishers to determine their payouts. For example, the "4" finishes first and has $55 bet on it in the place pool, the "3" finishes second and has $240 bet on it in the place pool. Lets say the net place pool is $1000, that amount is cut in half ($500) because the first two finishers split the place pool. We then take that amount and divide it by the dollars bet on each of the first two finishers to determine there payout. The $1 place price on the winner "4" will be $500/$55= $9.05, the $1 place price on the second place finisher will be $500/$240= $2.05. In the example we assume rounding down and breaking to the nickel, this can vary from track to track. The show pool works the same way except the net pool is divided into three equal shares to be split among the first three finishers. Another interesting note, US tracks are obligated by law to pay a profit to winning wagers, they must pay at least $1.05 for a $1.00 wagered. This is known as a minus pool, the only time a race track loses money. In the example above if the "3" had $600 wagered in it's place pool, the calculated $1 place price would be $500/600= $.80, by law the track must pay $1.05 to each of the 600 winning dollars for a total of $630 less the net place pool share of $500 equals a minus pool of $130. Although not uncommon, especially when there are few runners in the race, this generally happens in the show pool.

Some definition[edit]

Would be nice having some clear definitions as:

- net/gross pool - net pool on a bet and a race minus the taxes: is there a specific term? Maybe prizemoney? - On several website I found horse racing statistics which uses "annual turnover". What does it means turnover on horse racing? Is it the sum of net pools on all the races and bets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.175.51.15 (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example is wrong[edit]

Hello,

In the example: "Thus, the total pool of money on the event is $1028.00." This is wrong, the total sum is 798 dollars. The whole example may need to be corrected.

Irmo322 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original table was changed (vandalised) by an IP in May[1]. I've restored it to the original, which matches the text, and reverted a fix[2] to the calculated odds table that used the vandalised figure for horse #1. Tobus (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]