hmm, i quit trying a long time ago cause i've ALWAYS lost; i just tried for the 20k prize & lost yet again, but -2k is much better than -5k. i'll try for a better odds game next time, so we'll see how it goes...

The recent improvement with the racetrack odds and dialogues (very cute) are a welcome change. It costs only 2,000 Game Dollars to play now and the odds are irresistibly good. There is an additional benefit:

The racetrack is now is a descent way of converting Game Dollars to XP :!: Even in the worst case of loosing all your money, you get 50 XP for $2,000 G$. That is 40 G$ per XP. Not a bad deal: Compare it to the old buy/sell Weather Station that cost 7,125 G$ for around 118 XP (this number depends on your bonus multiplier) which comes to roughly 60 G$ per XP. The only thing is that you can only run the track once every 8 hours, unless you are spending donuts.

I hope this helps those who are trying to level up or chasing bonus rounds for donuts.

Hahaha, I haven't won yet since the change and I have been betting every chance I get. It's cheaper but do you really get to win money? I know the XP is good but if you need money I wouldn't bet to get it

I always bet the long shot. Won on my fifth bet after the update. Haven't won since. Maybe 12 losses in a row now. The xp is worth the 2k anyhow so I love betting on my ponies.

I am now finally way ahead. I got a small winning streak on the 2:1 odds. Then I gambled that the 2 or 3 times in a row would end, so I bet on a slightly higher odds (winning $12.000), and won that too. Got down to 2:1 again, and winning yet again, before going on to an even higher odds (medium odds, can't remember the ratio, but it netted me $20.000), winning again. And finally another win on the 2:1, before I now have lost a few times.

I think I have actually won back what I lost before the change in the odds system too (given I didn't play more than 3-4 times, before I never looked back that time around).

I mentioned this already in another thread, but it kind of got derailed with people posting about their winning/losing the bets. This topic is to discuss the mini-game itself, and why you should play it. Here's what I wrote before:

Statistically, you will now come out AHEAD by betting on the dogs instead of losing. In fact, regardless which type of bet you choose, your expected gain is $1030. Here's the new ratios (which now have payouts that properly reflect the ratio):

Under the old system, you would have to pay $5000 for a 50% chance of winning $6250, meaning on average you would win $3125 at a cost of $5000, thus giving you an expected loss of $1875. Similarly, the other bets had expected losses of $3500 for the middle three and $3750 for the last one.

But now, you pay only $2000 for a 50.51% chance at $6000, meaning on average you win $3030 at a cost of $2000; an expected gain of $1030. In fact you get the same expected gain for any of the new ratios.

When I say "expected gain", I'm referring to what you can expect to average in the long run. After playing 100 times, you're most likely to have gained close to $103000. This likelyhood goes down if you go with the low-chance high-payout options, but they do give you the potential to win a whole lot more. But assuming you want to try to earn a somewhat steady cash flow from Springfield Downs, stick with the 2:1 game and play it as often as you can. After 1 week of playing twice a day, there's a 91.6% chance you'll have gained some money (probability of winning at least 5 of 14 bets, which means $2000 or more). After a month, there's a 99.8% chance you'll break even or better, and 89.3% chance that you'll have made at least $36000. These numbers are the net gain, so they already account for the $2000 cost of the bet. The probabilities are based on the 2:1 bet, they would be lower for the higher risk bets.

So, play the mini-game every chance you get, and don't worry about it when you lose or seem to be on a losing streak... in the long run, it's very probable that you'll have gained from it. I just wish there was such a lottery in real life!

Now I'm confused. While Thomas is right about those odds it leaves 34% unclaimed. So based on the current odds who is suppose to win the other 34% of time. It has to be one of the available dogs so truly their odds are better than stated. Am I wrong? I think we may need a super computer to find this out. Or just someone with an intelligence greater than mine. Mind you I've known a few dogs that could outsmart me.

I mentioned this already in another thread, but it kind of got derailed with people posting about their winning/losing the bets. This topic is to discuss the mini-game itself, and why you should play it. Here's what I wrote before:

Statistically, you will now come out AHEAD by betting on the dogs instead of losing. In fact, regardless which type of bet you choose, your expected gain is $1030. Here's the new ratios (which now have payouts that properly reflect the ratio):

Under the old system, you would have to pay $5000 for a 50% chance of winning $6250, meaning on average you would win $3125 at a cost of $5000, thus giving you an expected loss of $1875. Similarly, the other bets had expected losses of $3500 for the middle three and $3750 for the last one.

But now, you pay only $2000 for a 50.51% chance at $6000, meaning on average you win $3030 at a cost of $2000; an expected gain of $1030. In fact you get the same expected gain for any of the new ratios.

When I say "expected gain", I'm referring to what you can expect to average in the long run. After playing 100 times, you're most likely to have gained close to $103000. This likelyhood goes down if you go with the low-chance high-payout options, but they do give you the potential to win a whole lot more. But assuming you want to try to earn a somewhat steady cash flow from Springfield Downs, stick with the 2:1 game and play it as often as you can. After 1 week of playing twice a day, there's a 91.6% chance you'll have gained some money (probability of winning at least 5 of 14 bets, which means $2000 or more). After a month, there's a 99.8% chance you'll break even or better, and 89.3% chance that you'll have made at least $36000. These numbers are the net gain, so they already account for the $2000 cost of the bet. The probabilities are based on the 2:1 bet, they would be lower for the higher risk bets.

So, play the mini-game every chance you get, and don't worry about it when you lose or seem to be on a losing streak... in the long run, it's very probable that you'll have gained from it. I just wish there was such a lottery in real life!

The terms "even odds", "even money" or simply "evens" (1 to 1, or 2 for 1) imply that the payout will be one unit per unit wagered plus the original stake, that is, 'double-your-money'. Assuming there is no bookmaker fee or built-in profit margin, the actual probability of winning is 50%. The term "better than even odds" (or "better than evens" ) looks at it from the perspective of a gambler rather than a statistician. If the odds are Evens (11), and one bets 10 units, one would be returned 20 units, profiting 10 units. If the gamble was paying 4-1 and the event occurred, one would make 40 units, or a profit of 30 units. So, it is "better than evens" from the gambler's perspective because it pays out more than one-for-one. If an event is more likely to occur than an even chance, then the odds will be "worse than evens", and the bookmaker will pay out less than one-for-one.

You should expect to win 50% of the time on the 2:1 ratio...

I think the problem is assuming that the odds are being computed by the same kind of program used in gambling, when this is the Simpsons, Tapped out. Since no real money is involved their number generator can be completely useless and they wouldn't be held accountable for it.

I think the odds they give are as accurate as the scale of the city. Because I've lost a lot playing it over the last few days.

So you're telling me the characters in the simpsons weren't giants? Maybe I should actually start watching the show. Also where I come from a car can't even fit in the road. Seems like the guys that made this game must live very close to me.

While it is still a worthwhile gamble I need to point out one detail:

The odds on the payouts do NOT need to add up to 100%. While the board will be in the neighborhood of 100% when added up it doesn't have to be.

The odds a horse is paying do not reflect the horse's odds of actually winning a race, only the public's perception. Some may have a greater chance to win than their payout suggests (an overlay) or vice versa. I have no idea if the code reflects this, however thought it is possible and could be regenerated for each race for all I know..

Now I'm confused. While Thomas is right about those odds it leaves 34% unclaimed. So based on the current odds who is suppose to win the other 34% of time. It has to be one of the available dogs so truly their odds are better than stated. Am I wrong? I think we may need a super computer to find this out. Or just someone with an intelligence greater than mine. Mind you I've known a few dogs that could outsmart me.

I'm seeing now how the numbers were calculated. The odds ratio was taken leaving 1/3rd of the races unaccounted for. Previously the total was over 100% which made it terrible. But now it appears you should be getting a 50% return on your bets. For example betting twice costing $4,000 should net you $6,000 (rounding for ease). Or betting 100 times at the low odds will net $300,000.

I'm now I'm agreement with OP. I just had to run the numbers twice.

However, there's the other possibility that they're not using ratios and a 2:1 odds means the dog wins half the time. Strangely this appears to lower the return on the bets to about 15%.

Thanks guys for making me need to break out my statistics textbooks if I can find them.

Can someone quickly link me to the "how to take screenshots with the iPad thread" as I just won the 200k

Take a screenshot hold down the off button & the home button together at the same time till screen flashes (pic taken)
Then you will need to upload the photo to say Photobucket (image hosting site) from the site select the pic you uploaded on the right hand side it will have a list of codes copy the IMG code paste that code here

Take a screenshot hold down the off button & the home button together at the same time till screen flashes (pic taken)
Then you will need to upload the photo to say Photobucket (image hosting site) from the site select the pic you uploaded on the right hand side it will have a list of codes copy the IMG code paste that code here

Game shut down while I was trying to keep it on (forgot to change the auto off from my iPad), fortunately the game itself didn't crash so I got to keep the $$$. Guess I will have to remember for next time, but was a nice cash add-on since I wanted to slowly catch up on the previous missions and now started building the Hospital, Post Office and Wiggum's House at same time.

Now I'm confused. While Thomas is right about those odds it leaves 34% unclaimed. So based on the current odds who is suppose to win the other 34% of time.

## Replies

The racetrack is now is a descent way of converting Game Dollars to XP :!: Even in the worst case of loosing all your money, you get 50 XP for $2,000 G$. That is 40 G$ per XP. Not a bad deal: Compare it to the old buy/sell Weather Station that cost 7,125 G$ for around 118 XP (this number depends on your bonus multiplier) which comes to roughly 60 G$ per XP. The only thing is that you can only run the track once every 8 hours, unless you are spending donuts.

I hope this helps those who are trying to level up or chasing bonus rounds for donuts.

I think I have actually won back what I lost before the change in the odds system too (given I didn't play more than 3-4 times, before I never looked back that time around).

I play every time I can now...

Dude, who did your math?

2:1 odds = 33.3% odds of winning

5:1 = 16.6%

9:1 = 10%

19:1 = 5%

99:1 = 1%

The change in odds has improved to returns being exactly even. So if you bet $100,000 your expected return is $100,000.

While your math is correct from a statistical point, I still believe you are incorrect...

You should expect to win 50% of the time on the 2:1 ratio...

I think the odds they give are as accurate as the scale of the city. Because I've lost a lot playing it over the last few days.

The odds on the payouts do NOT need to add up to 100%. While the board will be in the neighborhood of 100% when added up it doesn't have to be.

The odds a horse is paying do not reflect the horse's odds of actually winning a race, only the public's perception. Some may have a greater chance to win than their payout suggests (an overlay) or vice versa. I have no idea if the code reflects this, however thought it is possible and could be regenerated for each race for all I know..

I'm seeing now how the numbers were calculated. The odds ratio was taken leaving 1/3rd of the races unaccounted for. Previously the total was over 100% which made it terrible. But now it appears you should be getting a 50% return on your bets. For example betting twice costing $4,000 should net you $6,000 (rounding for ease). Or betting 100 times at the low odds will net $300,000.

I'm now I'm agreement with OP. I just had to run the numbers twice.

However, there's the other possibility that they're not using ratios and a 2:1 odds means the dog wins half the time. Strangely this appears to lower the return on the bets to about 15%.

Thanks guys for making me need to break out my statistics textbooks if I can find them.

Take a screenshot hold down the off button & the home button together at the same time till screen flashes (pic taken)

Then you will need to upload the photo to say Photobucket (image hosting site) from the site select the pic you uploaded on the right hand side it will have a list of codes copy the IMG code paste that code here

EA Senior Moderator