Question of the Day - 29 May 2022

Isn't saying you won the exacta and trifecta being redundant? If you won the trifecta you won the exacta. Or did they have two separate tickets? Which seems like a trillion to one shot.

@Straski
.
My wife goes to the horse races with her sister and they tell me the exacta and trifecta are separate bets. So on your exacta bet you could bet on different horses (or the same horses but in a different order of finish) than you bet on the trifecta wager. The bets don't have to match each other or be similar in any way. Those bets are popular because you don't have to bet much to possibly win a lot. Similar gambling thrill to playing slots I guess.

I doubt they hit the Exacta and Trifecta . sounds like a fake question.  

These are 2 separate bets and you do not need to bet both (or either). The Exacta means you need to pick the top 2 finishers in exact order. The trifecta, a separate bet, means you must pick the first 3 finishers in exact order. There are many ways to play those bets, a lot of people "box" the horses so that they have a winning ticket whichever order they finish in. It is very likely that anyone who had the 80-1 shot winner could have had either the exacta or trifecta or both since the top 2 favorites ran 2nd and 3rd.

Bettors ALWAYS have more money to spend. It's inconceivable that everyone who lost on the Derby (me included) was broke. However, it seems to me that a longshot, one that the "smart" handicappers didn't have, encourages others to try to pick the next longshot. Barry answered the question, and he is a much better handicapper than I am, but I'm guessing he didn't have it either, so like playing the lottery or the slots, anything can happen and more people will spend more money trying their hand at it. Longshots don't stop people from betting. Just the opposite.

Usually bettors will make a partial wheel bet meaning they will pick maybe a couple of horses to come in first and a few to come in second and a couple for third for trifecta. Not unusual for bettors to hit the superfecta too while hitting the other three bets, but usually they will pick only one horse as a “key horse” to make it a lot less expensive. 

Odd like ten years ago I think it was at The Mirage we bet The Preakness Stakes and I asked the sports bets manager if bets at the mirage were part of the pari-mutuel pool. And he told me NO that they paid track odds but the booked the bets them self. With a 15 to 25% pari-mutuel take out depending on the track and the type of bet I can see doing this. But it opens them up for some big losses. My group hit the winner, exacta, and the trifecta but they were not huge payouts. Also the exacta and trifecta payout this year for the Derby would be tax form payouts so it would be a little time before you got the money and there are only a couple races after the derby. So there is a little truth to question of does the track make less in there is a big payout to only a few winners. But the two races after there derby are two of the more lights bet races because most people are leaving after there derby.

I guess I'm going to have to wade into this one since it was my question.  I had two separate winning tickets.  The trifecta tickets cost $108.   I "wheeled" the two horses that I thought were the best with the field (all the other horses). That was 108 combinations for a dollar each.  I expected a long shot to come in but probably third.  That ticket paid $ 14,870 and yes, they took out about $ 3,600 for federal tax.  I used the same logic for the exacta tickets--I thought the best horse might get edged at the wire, so I bought a $ 38 ticket with my pick coming in either first or second--two $38 bets ($2 each times 19 horses). No tax was taken on that ticket which paid $ 4,101. When I was cashing in the trifecta ticket I started wondering about how that result would affect the sports books since there were not many others cashing in tickets.  As stated in one of the comments most patrons had left the track!