Place betting calculations anomaly

The place fractions infact favour longer priced selections if the win prices are accurate.
On betfair you'd get more than Evens for a 4/1 shot in 12-15 runner Handicaps.

JML, I realise that but I'm struggling to understand why the 4/1 shot is 1/1 a place, but 4/6 in a three way dead heat. They both cant be right.

It's even more confusing if you use an Even money shot.

There's nothing wrong with the maths kenilworth tbh and both are correct , think of it as two separate columns for win & place and the percentages should make perfect sense , the thing that never makes consistent sense these days is the default place terms used by bookmakers but long may it continue as there's a consistent angle in itself , I fear long term though the place terms will fluctuate outside the current terms available in line with modern bookmaker needs but hope that day is later rather than sooner.

If the true odds of the 4/1 shot to place was evens, the odds(for example)
on it finishing second would be 5/1 and 13/2 for third.

A £100 place bet is infact £40 to win ,£33.33 to finish 2nd and £26.67 to finish 3rd.

Having some of your money at 5/1 and 13/2 results in a higher payout.

Mathematically the triple dead heat has to be correct as 1/3rd stake as opposed to any other method of calculation such as 1/3rd odds etc is totally correct , the anomaly you're seeing is entirely due to the default place terms mentioned and the best way to help get your head around it would be to calculate the % place book and compare that over round in proportion to the % win book , the answer will always be that the default place terms fit some races but not others , that's why it will eventually all change and bad each way races will be unfortunately be a distant memory as soon as they come up with a way to deal with it all operationally.

HAYDEN is entirely correct above. Thinking of the win part as paying 4/6 is misleading. It has paid 4/1 on 1/3 the stake. Just consider an even money shot in a three way dead heat. What odds have been returned then?

If there was a deadheat in a 7 runner race, place terms 1/4 1-2, the win would pay 6/4 and the place would pay evens. The example given is an anomaly in an imprecise cover all method, as pointed out by Hayden.

Thank you for the replies.

Ken, I know you like to explore different angles, but is there a situation where you were looking to apply this. I'm presuming that a three way deat heat win wasn't your full motivation?

Why is it an anomaly? You are betting on different outcomes so why do you expect the payouts to be related? In your scenario, the horse has placed, so a full payout from the place bet, but it hasn't entirely won, so a partial payout from the win bet. The place bet gives you lower odds in return for being easier to hit. I see no reason why it should pay out less than a win bet which didn't quite win.

If you take an x horse race where the true decimal odds of eaxh horse is x and suppose there are p places available then the true decimal odds of each horse being placed is x/p. If p horses dead heat for first place then win bets will be paid out at decimal odds x/p (which equals the place odds).

I think that's what ken is getting at but it doesn't work that way because there's no real linear relationship between win and place odds.

e.g. A derby winner is racing against selling platers. The odds of it placing must be almost equal to the odds of it winning (i.e. it will either win or meet with a mishap).

I put up the 4/1 dead heat example as it seems to mathematically favour the place over the three way tie, when it seems they should be the same. For what it's worth, this 'anomaly' exists for all prices below 8/1, then works the other way above that price. For example a 20/1 chance works out 6/1 for the deadheat, but 5/1 for the place. I was curious as to what response my thread would get. Thanks again for all the civil replies. GL.