pick 6 PE - Disaster

Titch Wrote:

---

> No couplings in the Lotto were does that leave the
> smaller punter?? and yet the queues just keep
> growing


Haha Titch

You forget..........FAFI numbers has partners boet

Titch, not being rude bud but I think you miss the point a little. It doesn't matter what the P6 would have paid today with the couplings, maybe it wouldn't have been caught either way. The point surely is that with his R20 Mr Sit In The Corner in Nelspruit could previously cover all of say 4 Smith runners, 3 Greefs and 2 Snaiths in one race with 3 selections. Now they have to make 9 selections to cover all three. The cost of doing that for a small punter is huge, so now they have to choose to select less horses and get Agent Smithed or do them all for a sweet fark all %. For a "rich" punter it is merely an inconvenience so to speak and no doubt they can still do as many horses as they wish. So who now is the much likelier to win a decent amount, the rich man of course. Without being rude (again ) to your country, it is especially disappointing to see it introduced here. It is a system to benefit the rich at the poorer man's expense. I think it stinks ethically, not only with its blatant exploitative encouragement to those who can't afford it to spend more (gambling is addictive let us not forget as I am sure those who introduced this new rule didn't) with incessant advertising and constant reminders on tv of how much is in the pool etc etc but also, and by all means most, in who it now, more than ever, favours to win big... and no doubt some of those winners will soon be paying the entrance fees for the Think I am King of the Punters comp. The whole thing leaves a very bad taste, in my mouth at least.

Englander, with the utmost respect and I mean it.

I agree that with the new format the payouts will be bigger.
If R50.00 got you 10% of the P6 of a smaller dividend, the same R50.00 will get you probably 5% or 6% of a much larger dividend.
In slang , " the difference is the same"

agra Wrote:

---

> Englander, with the utmost respect and I mean it.
>
> I agree that with the new format the payouts will
> be bigger.
> If R50.00 got you 10% of the P6 of a smaller
> dividend, the same R50.00 will get you probably 5%
> or 6% of a much larger dividend.
> In slang , " the difference is the same"

Agra... thanks

But with so many couplings in PE, the best centre example I think, being lost how do you go from 10 to 5%

A very simple example...
Without couplings
10 selections x banker x 10 selections x banker x 10 selections x banker = 1331 combos, R20 = 0.015%

With couplings
3 selections x banker x 3 selections x banker x 3 selections x banker = 27 combos, R20 = 74%
4 selections x banker x 4 selections x banker x 4 selections x banker = 64 combos, R20 = 15.5%

Whether the pool be 1.5 million or 1 million it is clear that the rich man who can obviously find it easier to do the 10 selections etc and fork out R660 at 50% is the likelier winner than both being able to do the selections of 27 combos... or do I miss your point?

Titch Wrote:

---

> Am i wrong .. is 10% of a 10c unit the same as 1%
> of a R1 unit??


Titch, I knew you were a man after my own heart!!!! These are exactly the arguments we had with people when fractional betting was first implemented. Nobody fully understood exactly how it worked. There is no difference between a 10c unit and 10% of a R1 unit, but sometimes people don't understand the math and also they are afraid of new things.

We are now afraid of the new no couplings rule. Perhaps it works and perhaps it doesn't, who really knows.

Better we give them time and see how they apply the carryover rule and how many people can actually catch this challenging bet.

I for one won't touch it with a barge pole because at least I have some concept of mathematics in gaming but I'm just one very nondescript punter. My money or lack thereof makes no difference.

Agra sorry, and maybe sorry again if I still misunderstand lol... I think you are referring to the bigger payouts and if you catch it then you earn as much or whatever even though your % win is much lower. I understand that. I still think my example is relevant but, the main point is that the small punter can still only wager R20. The "rich man" can do the R660 or whatever and adjust his stakes to the new ruling whereas the poor man can't. It is thus much more likely now that the "rich man" will win and the poor man will need to rely on luck far more than before and far more than the "rich man". I hope that makes sense (and also responds to Tommy's comment?).

I completely agree Englander. The guys in their ivory towers forget who the real "meat" in the sandwich is so to speak. Yeah there will be syndicates trying to catch the dream P6 but the guys who used to spend between R20 and R200 to try and catch a tail of "their dream P6" will now migrate away from that bet. They know they cannot possibly even afford 1% of this bet anymore.

The Arlington meeting cannot be taken on face value in way way, shape or form. There are a few issues:

1) Everyone got caught up in the moment and marketing and decided to get into the bet. Thus the pool was bigger than normal but is not sustainable imo.
2) The results were poor but quite average for a day in PE.

Let's give this bet a month or two and see how many people get fed up after not being able to catch a wet fart in a rainstorm........
Phumelela won't admit they had a bad idea and won't change but the pools will reflect it.

I don't mind it if I'm wrong, in fact I HOPE I'm wrong and this bet does as much for horse racing as fractional betting did all those years back.......

Let's wait and see!

at Tommy on a day like yesterday it would make a huge difference betting into a 10cent unit as opposed to a R1 unit .

lets say my pick 6 is 10 000 lines @ R1 a unit , my spend is R1000 for 10% , if i caught it my retun would have been R90k

However due to the unpredicability of the results yesterday had the bet unit been 10cents my same 10000 lines would have cost R1000 for a full unit therefore i would have scooped R900k ie the pool,

This would only materialise when the results are ousider after outsider as yesterdays arlington meeting .

Hope this makes sense . PeterD explains it better on one of his earlier posts !

what I can't understand is the coincidence.
Many clanners spoke highly of PE racing and the fact that value was had and that racing there attracted big fields and that certain trainers unlike at other centres were transparent.
Is that all out the window now.Is that center not ok now.
The first meeting with the new rules and boom boom boom form out the window

Also I want to say horseshiet to those that make some trainers more transparent just because information is offered.It will take decades of practicing before you can understand trainers speak.Do me a favour and tell me of a trainer that is transparent.They always have two sets of statements -one for me and one fir u.Fark me I might be the village idiot but you not going to pull the wool over my eyes.
There is no trainer worth anything that cannot tell the type of race his or her horse is gonna run.
cliche but please remove your blinkers some of you
For the best part you stand alone The Poor Punter nothing more nithing less.
To any trainer that says um wrong I will say you don't know how to train horses

The p6 must rollover to the next day , what's the fucking point of creating an impossible bet if you create a pool one day then start afresh the next day

Ben hur don't know who you are , but pricks like you mess the game up for others
With transparency we are only trying to put out there what we see at work ,amazing when it goes right then all is well
What have you done for the game??
Apart from telling every one that you cleaned up wogsy ,the horse went from 12/1 to 33/1 so "show me the money" eg ticket
Remember horses do make fools of trainers
Honesty is our policy
Ask Dave Scot what was discussed with him about Miss Diana and Bud at the races yesterday
Don't hide behind a Pseudonym. If people only did things for themselves the game will go nowhere.put something back that isn't always negative
Mark Sham

Mark is 100% right. We(most trainers) try and help the punter. We will never get it right every time but I for 1 do not lie to people!