The 50 cent tri

[Stillriledup]

For every one of these things that pays well, you get 9 others that pay Bupkis.

Look at Remington Race 7, the 3 longest shots run 123 and you can't even get 200 for the tri.

Does anyone think the 50 cent tri provides more value than the tracks that have a 1 dollar minimum?

[Robert Fischer]

I feel like I'm getting suckered into typing out a serious response, and then it will turn out the thread wasn't an authentic question, but rather a thinly veiled conspiracy theory complaint of a betting coup.


Yes, the 50cent min probably does hurt small field sizes like a 6 horse field.

In your race, the payout was lower than expected even without knowing if the tote odds represented the trifecta odds.

Would seem the winner was fairly popular in trifecta wagering and would guess that someone hammered the win pool for the speedy favorite who tired which drove the win odds further out of whack w/ the tri odds.

I handicapped a race yesterday at Parx where a B horse went over an A horse over a C horse in a race where the public was badly off and the .50 tri paid 1397, but that was a 14 horse field and all 3 were overlays.
I didn't play that tri.

[thaskalos]

Why do I get the feeling that we've had this conversation before? :)

[Stillriledup]

Why do I get the feeling that we've had this conversation before? :)

The reason the game is hard is because the game constantly makes it easier. Why make the tri easier to hit? So more people could 'win'?

[thaskalos]

The reason the game is hard is because the game constantly makes it easier. Why make the tri easier to hit? So more people could 'win'?
It's a desperation maneuver orchestrated by the tracks, SRU. They see the mutuel pools in a perpetual downturn, and they feel the need to do something...but they don't know what else to do. Have you been to an OTB lately? I was at one yesterday. Nice roomy place...good location...and it used to be very busy six-seven years ago, when it first opened. But it's been going through hard times in recent years...and it now doesn't even draw enough gamblers for a good-sized poker game. There were 7 older guys there yesterday...but they were there mostly to escape the scorching heat. As I was punching in my bets at the betting terminals, I would occasionally cast a glance at any bettor who happened to use the machine next to me. Biggest voucher I saw all day, not counting my own...was for $9.80 .

The tracks see this...and get motivated to act. But what to do...in order to stimulate business? How can they give the impression that they are "giving away something"...when they really have no intention to give away ANYTHING? They see other struggling businesses putting their wares on sale...and they decide to run a "sale" of their own. What do the racetracks sell? What is their "product"? They sell MUTUEL TICKETS...do they not? So...they drastically reduce the price of the mutuel tickets that they sell, thus making their bets more "affordable".

When you are running a bakery, and business is dying out...what do you do to stimulate some business, when you don't really want to reduce the price of your bread? You cut the price in half, and sell your customers HALF a loaf. And you hope they don't notice that they really haven't gained anything.

[Stillriledup]

It's a desperation maneuver orchestrated by the tracks, SRU. They see the mutuel pools in a perpetual downturn, and they feel the need to do something...but they don't know what else to do. Have you been to an OTB lately? I was at one yesterday. Nice roomy place...good location...and it used to be very busy six-seven years ago, when it first opened. But it's been going through hard times in recent years...and it now doesn't even draw enough gamblers for a good-sized poker game. There were 7 older guys there yesterday...but they were there mostly to escape the scorching heat. As I was punching in my bets at the betting terminals, I would occasionally cast a glance at any bettor who happened to use the machine next to me. Biggest voucher I saw all day, not counting my own...was for $9.80 .

The tracks see this...and get motivated to act. But what to do...in order to stimulate business? How can they give the impression that they are "giving away something"...when they really have no intention to give away ANYTHING? They see other struggling businesses putting their wares on sale...and they decide to run a "sale" of their own. What do the racetracks sell? What is their "product"? They sell MUTUEL TICKETS...do they not? So...they drastically reduce the price of the mutuel tickets that they sell, thus making their bets more "affordable".

When you are running a bakery, and business is dying out...what do you do to stimulate some business, when you don't really want to reduce the price of your bread? You cut the price in half, and sell your customers HALF a loaf. And you hope they don't notice that they really haven't gained anything.

Good post, totally agree.

I never thought of it that way, but that's the tracks version of a blue light special.

My position is that by cutting minimums in half (or in tenths w evil dime super) you defeat the purpose, the bet is supposed to be hard and cutting prices make it easier for everyone.

B and C tracks should designate one race per day where the minimum for the tri is 10 bucks (or a 2 buck super, etc) this way they could create another carryover possibility. Tracks have always tried to create carryovers thru the difficulty of the sequence, but they don't seem to realize the higher the minimum bet is, the more chance of a carryover, which is a win win for everyone.

[no breathalyzer]

It's a desperation maneuver orchestrated by the tracks, SRU. They see the mutuel pools in a perpetual downturn, and they feel the need to do something...but they don't know what else to do. Have you been to an OTB lately? I was at one yesterday. Nice roomy place...good location...and it used to be very busy six-seven years ago, when it first opened. But it's been going through hard times in recent years...and it now doesn't even draw enough gamblers for a good-sized poker game. There were 7 older guys there yesterday...but they were there mostly to escape the scorching heat. As I was punching in my bets at the betting terminals, I would occasionally cast a glance at any bettor who happened to use the machine next to me. Biggest voucher I saw all day, not counting my own...was for $9.80 .

The tracks see this...and get motivated to act. But what to do...in order to stimulate business? How can they give the impression that they are "giving away something"...when they really have no intention to give away ANYTHING? They see other struggling businesses putting their wares on sale...and they decide to run a "sale" of their own. What do the racetracks sell? What is their "product"? They sell MUTUEL TICKETS...do they not? So...they drastically reduce the price of the mutuel tickets that they sell, thus making their bets more "affordable".

When you are running a bakery, and business is dying out...what do you do to stimulate some business, when you don't really want to reduce the price of your bread? You cut the price in half, and sell your customers HALF a loaf. And you hope they don't notice that they really haven't gained anything.

which otb where you talking about, just curious . I haven't been to an otb in at least 5 yrs myself .. there's really no reason nowadays

[no breathalyzer]

Good post, totally agree.

I never thought of it that way, but that's the tracks version of a blue light special.

My position is that by cutting minimums in half (or in tenths w evil dime super) you defeat the purpose, the bet is supposed to be hard and cutting prices make it easier for everyone.

B and C tracks should designate one race per day where the minimum for the tri is 10 bucks (or a 2 buck super, etc) this way they could create another carryover possibility. Tracks have always tried to create carryovers thru the difficulty of the sequence, but they don't seem to realize the higher the minimum bet is, the more chance of a carryover, which is a win win for everyone.

i wouldn't mind seeing some track try doing this or something similar

[thaskalos]

which otb where you talking about, just curious . I haven't been to an otb in at least 5 yrs myself .. there's really no reason nowadays
It's called Lucky Magee's...and it's in Niles, Illinois.

[OTM Al]

Seems to me a couple years ago it was players saying they wanted this. Seems they got what they wished for.

[rastajenk]

That can't be, Al. Racing powers never listen to horseplayers, don'tcha know? Never have, never will. :p

[Robert Fischer]

Only 120 possible combos in a 6 horse field.

720 in a 10 horse field.


In a 6 horse field such as the example, it costs $10 to wheel a horse on top of 'ALL' trying to get a price with Deshawn Parker at Remington. In other words if you like a horse on top, there are only 20 combinations for 2nd/3rd = 5x4 = 20 x .50 =$10.

Trying to hit a jackpot usually isn't going to work in small fields.
50cent denominations probably amplify this.

10 horse field
you have 72 combinations under your 'winner' in a Wheel (9x8).
Now even for a .50c denomination you are still talking $36 outlay.

[AndyC]

What am I missing here? $.50 trifectas are a bad thing because it would allow someone to spread when a higher denomination wouldn't? If overlays exist in abundance when the higher limits are in affect don't you think that a sharp whale would have gotten wind of it and sucked the air right out of that advantage?

[Stillriledup]

What am I missing here? $.50 trifectas are a bad thing because it would allow someone to spread when a higher denomination wouldn't? If overlays exist in abundance when the higher limits are in affect don't you think that a sharp whale would have gotten wind of it and sucked the air right out of that advantage?

Lets say there's a 10 horse field at DMR vs a 10 horse field at Saratoga. Both races are wide open where virtually anyone can win. Lets also say that you fancy a runner in there and want to bet a tri 1 over 234 over 234 and spend 6 bucks. It woud behoove you to make this bet at del mar because if a player wants to box up 7, 8, 9 or 10 runners, the cost is double. A 9 horse tri box at the spa is 252 so a person can virtually 'buy' the bet, at DMR it's 504, not as easy to buy it.

If you're a huge bettor none of this matters, but there are a lot of gamblers who could afford the 252 but can't (or don't want to) afford the 504. Because many wont want to spend the 504, the only way they hit the tri is thru good handicapping.

To take it to an extreme, lets say all bets were 1 penny. You could box an entire field in the 10 horse tri for a very small amount of money, every bettor on the planet would be able to afford a 1 penny box of all the runners. If you had a real opinion, do you really want the minimum so low that anyone with no opinion can have a penny on your winning combo?

[AndyC]

Lets say there's a 10 horse field at DMR vs a 10 horse field at Saratoga. Both races are wide open where virtually anyone can win. Lets also say that you fancy a runner in there and want to bet a tri 1 over 234 over 234 and spend 6 bucks. It woud behoove you to make this bet at del mar because if a player wants to box up 7, 8, 9 or 10 runners, the cost is double. A 9 horse tri box at the spa is 252 so a person can virtually 'buy' the bet, at DMR it's 504, not as easy to buy it.

If you're a huge bettor none of this matters, but there are a lot of gamblers who could afford the 252 but can't (or don't want to) afford the 504. Because many wont want to spend the 504, the only way they hit the tri is thru good handicapping.

To take it to an extreme, lets say all bets were 1 penny. You could box an entire field in the 10 horse tri for a very small amount of money, every bettor on the planet would be able to afford a 1 penny box of all the runners. If you had a real opinion, do you really want the minimum so low that anyone with no opinion can have a penny on your winning combo?


So what if a person buys the bet, how does that affect you? Why would a person spreading be more likely to land on my combination than some other combination? A spread bet does not lower the payoffs for every bet, in fact it actually raises the payoff on many. If spreading were such an advantage wouldn't it be prudent to bet every horse to win in a race?

[Robert Fischer]

Horses that you like, that most people think are "toss-outs" are more likely to be included on a small denomination bet.

But, in a small field size such as the example, it's pointless to be trying to hit a jackpot trifecta. A guy can wheel the whole field behind his pick for $10.

In larger fields the field-size makes up for much of the denomination.

You still get people hammering the chalk and most action players aren't covering the whole field in their wheel bets.

So what if a person buys the bet, how does that affect you? Why would a person spreading be more likely to land on my combination than some other combination? A spread bet does not lower the payoffs for every bet, in fact it actually raises the payoff on many. If spreading were such an advantage wouldn't it be prudent to bet every horse to win in a race?


In races where you've got real opinions, yes.

You know who you like, and you know which horses the public is going to include in their spread. Your horses are outside that pattern, so your overlays(outside those used public horses) will be amplified, and your keys will be amplified.

[Stillriledup]

So what if a person buys the bet, how does that affect you? Why would a person spreading be more likely to land on my combination than some other combination? A spread bet does not lower the payoffs for every bet, in fact it actually raises the payoff on many. If spreading were such an advantage wouldn't it be prudent to bet every horse to win in a race?

But it doesn't raise the payoffs at the top end of the odds board. You know plenty about so cals pick 6, it's 2 bucks for a reason. Would you play the pick 6 If it was a 1 cent pick 6? Or do you like it better as a 2 buck base?

[thaskalos]

The trifecta payoffs have been nosediving for years, due to the emergence of the short fields. Now, the lower bet limits will make things even worse. Lowering the bet limits is acceptable when the fields are full and contentious...but that's not what our game is featuring right now. Right now...most of the fields that we see are short...and whatever competitiveness there is in them could be easily negated by the lower betting units.

[AndyC]

But it doesn't raise the payoffs at the top end of the odds board. You know plenty about so cals pick 6, it's 2 bucks for a reason. Would you play the pick 6 If it was a 1 cent pick 6? Or do you like it better as a 2 buck base?

I play the P-6 for the carryover factor. You wouldn't have many carryovers at a lesser base.

[AndyC]

The trifecta payoffs have been nosediving for years, due to the emergence of the short fields. Now, the lower bet limits will make things even worse. Lowering the bet limits is acceptable when the fields are full and contentious...but that's not what our game is featuring right now. Right now...most of the fields that we see are short...and whatever competitiveness there is in them could be easily negated by the lower betting units.

I'm dense. How exactly is competitiveness being negated by a lower betting limit?

[AndyC]

Horses that you like, that most people think are "toss-outs" are more likely to be included on a small denomination bet.

But, in a small field size such as the example, it's pointless to be trying to hit a jackpot trifecta. A guy can wheel the whole field behind his pick for $10.

In larger fields the field-size makes up for much of the denomination.

You still get people hammering the chalk and most action players aren't covering the whole field in their wheel bets.

In races where you've got real opinions, yes.

You know who you like, and you know which horses the public is going to include in their spread. Your horses are outside that pattern, so your overlays(outside those used public horses) will be amplified, and your keys will be amplified.

So if I understand correctly, with a lower base, bettors will overbet the lower probability combinations making those bets with little or no value. For a bettor who is inclined to play those types of combinations that would certainly be a problem. On the flip side, as a result of the overplay on the long prices wouldn't the higher probability combinations become playable?

[thaskalos]

I'm dense. How exactly is competitiveness being negated by a lower betting limit?
Let them lower the Pick-6 betting limit to 20 cents...and then you'll see what I mean. We share the exotics pools with the other winners, Andy...and, the lower the betting units get...the more winners there are to share the pool with. Are you really saying that you haven't noticed what the short fields and the 50-cent limits have done to the trifecta payoffs?

[no breathalyzer]

I like the GP 20 cent pick six once that dead $$$ gets around 1 million

[Stillriledup]

I play the P-6 for the carryover factor. You wouldn't have many carryovers at a lesser base.

a carryover means that all the times a bet carries, you could have been the solo winner had you hit. With a penny, you have no chance to get a pool shot. If the 2 dollar base creates carryovers and a penny base would not, doesn't that mean by definition the 2 dollar bet is better?

[AndyC]

a carryover means that all the times a bet carries, you could have been the solo winner had you hit. With a penny, you have no chance to get a pool shot. If the 2 dollar base creates carryovers and a penny base would not, doesn't that mean by definition the 2 dollar bet is better?

No. A carryover can create a positive expectation pool. What happens to the betting denomination after that point, I couldn't care less.

[Poindexter]

Let them lower the Pick-6 betting limit to 20 cents...and then you'll see what I mean. We share the exotics pools with the other winners, Andy...and, the lower the betting units get...the more winners there are to share the pool with. Are you really saying that you haven't noticed what the short fields and the 50-cent limits have done to the trifecta payoffs?

Andy is correct. All the lower bet denomination is doing is increasing the number of combinations played, thus making the pools more efficient. When that $1000 trifecta drops to $500 that $500 is going to other combos. Also you have to keep in mind the bankroll of your typical horseplayers. Most are not going to keep refunding their bankroll to play the races. A bet like the Super high 5 at Del mar for a $1 minimum is the worst bet ever. On most days the pool is too small to properly reward you when you hit and it is basically sucks dry the bankroll of anyone who plays it.... I don't feel the racing industry owes horseplayers inefficient pools.

To speak on your point. I was playing a lot of pick 4's last year at Balmoral, not as many this year. If they had a 50 cent minimum, I would have hit so many more than I did, but with a buck minimum, it is a lot tougher. For all the times I missed that I would have hit on a 50 cent minimum, the guys who collected won more than they would have if I had also hit. That is what your point is. You like to use your financial resources to cover the combos that the public in general does not have enough funding to cover. Sort of like the pick six syndicates that will put $20,000 into a pool on a carryover day, while joe fan is trying to hit if for $500.

That being said what is better for racing in general? Guys like SRU and Thaskalos getting an extra $200 on a trifecta they hit, or more people collecting the correct amount they should get and being able to churn more money in the pools. Racing is wrong about a lot of things, but they are right about bringing down the minimums on super exotics and even tris. Given your circumstances (making a living in this game) I understand the frustration, but lower minimums in the super exotic pools are better for racing imo.

[Stillriledup]

Andy is correct. All the lower bet denomination is doing is increasing the number of combinations played, thus making the pools more efficient. When that $1000 trifecta drops to $500 that $500 is going to other combos. Also you have to keep in mind the bankroll of your typical horseplayers. Most are not going to keep refunding their bankroll to play the races. A bet like the Super high 5 at Del mar for a $1 minimum is the worst bet ever. On most days the pool is too small to properly reward you when you hit and it is basically sucks dry the bankroll of anyone who plays it.... I don't feel the racing industry owes horseplayers inefficient pools.

To speak on your point. I was playing a lot of pick 4's last year at Balmoral, not as many this year. If they had a 50 cent minimum, I would have hit so many more than I did, but with a buck minimum, it is a lot tougher. For all the times I missed that I would have hit on a 50 cent minimum, the guys who collected won more than they would have if I had also hit. That is what your point is. You like to use your financial resources to cover the combos that the public in general does not have enough funding to cover. Sort of like the pick six syndicates that will put $20,000 into a pool on a carryover day, while joe fan is trying to hit if for $500.

That being said what is better for racing in general? Guys like SRU and Thaskalos getting an extra $200 on a trifecta they hit, or more people collecting the correct amount they should get and being able to churn more money in the pools. Racing is wrong about a lot of things, but they are right about bringing down the minimums on super exotics and even tris. Given your circumstances (making a living in this game) I understand the frustration, but lower minimums in the super exotic pools are better for racing imo.

Good write up.

If what you say is true, why not lower all the bets to 1 cent, that way everyone can cash on every tri and super.

Isn't that the goal of every track, to have every gambler hit every tri and super?

[AndyC]

Let them lower the Pick-6 betting limit to 20 cents...and then you'll see what I mean. We share the exotics pools with the other winners, Andy...and, the lower the betting units get...the more winners there are to share the pool with. Are you really saying that you haven't noticed what the short fields and the 50-cent limits have done to the trifecta payoffs?


If there is $300,000 in a pool and there is $2,000 of winning bets, what difference does it make whether the $2,000 in bets is comprised of $.10, $.50, or $1.00 denominations?

The top end prices may be reduced with lower minimums but I have a hard time believing that some prices are not benefiting. I would heed the advice of Willie Keeler and "hit em where they ain't".

[AndyC]

Good write up.

If what you say is true, why not lower all the bets to 1 cent, that way everyone can cash on every tri and super.

Isn't that the goal of every track, to have every gambler hit every tri and super?

The tracks are still in business. I believe there is a pricing point where overall handle would drop on a bet if priced too low.

[Poindexter]

Good write up.

If what you say is true, why not lower all the bets to 1 cent, that way everyone can cash on every tri and super.

Isn't that the goal of every track, to have every gambler hit every tri and super?

For racing on pool minimums it is simply math. If lowering minimums on bet A has a positive effect on bet A's handle without hurting the handle of other pools, it is a good move, if not, it is a mistake. It is simple trial an error. Nowhere in the equation is there concern going to be or should it be that the pools will become more efficient and taking away the extra value that a small subset of bettors are getting based off of their style of play. A penny trifecta minimum will not serve a purpose, nor will it make every gambler hit the tri. I think on Tris 50 cents is about as low as you want to go, same with pick 4's and pick 5's. On Supers and super high 5's I like 10 cent minimums. On pick sixes I think 20 cents would be optimal, but that eliminates the carryover 98% of the time, so places like Southern California likely will not go there.

IMO bankroll sucks are not good for the racing betting economy.

[JohnGalt1]

Those who love the fifty cent tris must love the twenty cent pick 3's at Hawthorne, especially when they pay $9.23.

How does a bet 1/2 or 1/5 the "normal" minimum amount add to handle?

Thask, great example about the half loaf.

When I play a 3, 4, or 5 horse or race bet, I want to add a large amount to my betting bankroll or a more substantial amount to my bank!

That, I thought, was the purpose of exotic bets.

[thaskalos]

Andy is correct. All the lower bet denomination is doing is increasing the number of combinations played, thus making the pools more efficient. When that $1000 trifecta drops to $500 that $500 is going to other combos. Also you have to keep in mind the bankroll of your typical horseplayers. Most are not going to keep refunding their bankroll to play the races. A bet like the Super high 5 at Del mar for a $1 minimum is the worst bet ever. On most days the pool is too small to properly reward you when you hit and it is basically sucks dry the bankroll of anyone who plays it.... I don't feel the racing industry owes horseplayers inefficient pools.

To speak on your point. I was playing a lot of pick 4's last year at Balmoral, not as many this year. If they had a 50 cent minimum, I would have hit so many more than I did, but with a buck minimum, it is a lot tougher. For all the times I missed that I would have hit on a 50 cent minimum, the guys who collected won more than they would have if I had also hit. That is what your point is. You like to use your financial resources to cover the combos that the public in general does not have enough funding to cover. Sort of like the pick six syndicates that will put $20,000 into a pool on a carryover day, while joe fan is trying to hit if for $500.

That being said what is better for racing in general? Guys like SRU and Thaskalos getting an extra $200 on a trifecta they hit, or more people collecting the correct amount they should get and being able to churn more money in the pools. Racing is wrong about a lot of things, but they are right about bringing down the minimums on super exotics and even tris. Given your circumstances (making a living in this game) I understand the frustration, but lower minimums in the super exotic pools are better for racing imo.

I disagree with you. The "right thing" for the game is to use discretion when you decide to lower the betting unit limits; you can't just lower them across the board, especially with today's short fields.

The 10-cent superfecta and the 50-cent trifecta would be fine if the fields were full...but they are not. I go to the track Monday to Thursday...and I see nothing but 6 and 7 horse fields...with 50-cent trifectas and 10-cent superfectas attached to them. If you consider this to be "better for racing in general"...then all I can say is that we have completely different opinions about what is really "good" for this game.

No...I don't just look out for the financial welfare of Thaskalos when I contemplate this game; I care about the long-term future of the GAME, as well. And I think that a 6-horse field with a 50-cent trifecta and a 10-cent super attached is a DISGRACE! For EVERYBODY!

[Delta Cone]

Andy is correct. All the lower bet denomination is doing is increasing the number of combinations played, thus making the pools more efficient.

But as a bettor, you don't want efficient pools, right? Don't you want to find very "unefficient" pools and exploit that lack of efficiency?

[Poindexter]

But as a bettor, you don't want efficient pools, right? Don't you want to find very "unefficient" pools and exploit that lack of efficiency?

Inefficient pools can work against you too. If the winning combo is overplayed by some big bettor(s), it helps you when more combinations are being played by smaller players going 4x4x6...................But you are right, you can get some very nice big scores if the right combination of horses comes in for you and much of that value can be knocked out by having smaller bet sizes. Also it works both ways. I mentioned that I missed out on a lot of pick 4's because of the $1 minimum, but I also got a huge payout on one that I hit, because of the inefficient pool caused by the $1 minimum. From the horseplayer perspective inefficient pools can be good (even if there is no clear road map to exploit them) but since racing doesn't believe in competing with other forms of gambling in regards to pricing, they have to do whatever they can to try to preserve the remaining customer base.

Has anybody actually studied what happens to pool size when a track drops a minimum on an exotic. I don't believe they would be dropping them if they did not feel it was to their benefit (then again maybe I am giving them too much credit :lol: ).

[Poindexter]

I disagree with you. The "right thing" for the game is to use discretion when you decide to lower the betting unit limits; you can't just lower them across the board, especially with today's short fields.

The 10-cent superfecta and the 50-cent trifecta would be fine if the fields were full...but they are not. I go to the track Monday to Thursday...and I see nothing but 6 and 7 horse fields...with 50-cent trifectas and 10-cent superfectas attached to them. If you consider this to be "better for racing in general"...then all I can say is that we have completely different opinions about what is really "good" for this game.

No...I don't just look out for the financial welfare of Thaskalos when I contemplate this game; I care about the long-term future of the GAME, as well. And I think that a 6-horse field with a 50-cent trifecta and a 10-cent super attached is a DISGRACE! For EVERYBODY!

When I went to the races as a kid they had a $2 early daily double, $2 WPS betting and three $5 minimum exactas a day. That was all she wrote. How boring can you get, but one thing is did was it caused bettors to churn money through the pools. Now 45 years later if you take into account inflation that would be $12 minimum early doubles, $12 minimum win place show and $30 minimum exactas. But we are currently at $1 minimum exactas and still at $2 win, place, show and daily doubles. Now I do not propose we go back to the good old boring days, nor am I going to blame the transition into exotics as the lone cause for racing downward slope. But I do want people to appreciate that from racing perspective this game is all about churn and when you price people out of exotics (meaning it drains so much of their bankroll-you cause negative consequences that decreases their longevity in this game) you hurt the future growth of the game. Now this is small potatoes compared to the idiocy of high takeout and rebates, but this is the hand they have to play, and I do not disagree with how they are playing it.

Thaskalos, sounds like your problem is more with small fields that exotic minimums. Obviously everything I have written has more to deal with competitive 9 and 10 horse fields than it does with 6 and 7 horse fields. When I was plugging away at Balmoral pick 4's last year, those races were tough. This year many weeks just haven't been the same, so I have lost interest. From a value standpoint 6 and 7 horse field suck period. Whether mixed into a pick 3 or pick 4 or it is a tri or super. IMO, the value of super exotic pools come from large field sizes more than minimum bet size. A competitive 10 horse field with a 50 cent tri, is going to provide you with better opportunities than a $2 tri minimum in a 7 horse field. A pick 4 with four 10 horse fields at a 50 cent minimum is far better in my book than a pick 4 with four 6 horse fields and a $2 minimum. Even singles with are few and far between are much better value as singles in a 10 horse field than they are in a 6 or 7 horse field.

[Stillriledup]

I disagree with you. The "right thing" for the game is to use discretion when you decide to lower the betting unit limits; you can't just lower them across the board, especially with today's short fields.

The 10-cent superfecta and the 50-cent trifecta would be fine if the fields were full...but they are not. I go to the track Monday to Thursday...and I see nothing but 6 and 7 horse fields...with 50-cent trifectas and 10-cent superfectas attached to them. If you consider this to be "better for racing in general"...then all I can say is that we have completely different opinions about what is really "good" for this game.

No...I don't just look out for the financial welfare of Thaskalos when I contemplate this game; I care about the long-term future of the GAME, as well. And I think that a 6-horse field with a 50-cent trifecta and a 10-cent super attached is a DISGRACE! For EVERYBODY!

Bingo.

No reason to have a 10 cent super on a 5 horse field.

[AndyC]

Those who love the fifty cent tris must love the twenty cent pick 3's at Hawthorne, especially when they pay $9.23.

How does a bet 1/2 or 1/5 the "normal" minimum amount add to handle?

Thask, great example about the half loaf.

When I play a 3, 4, or 5 horse or race bet, I want to add a large amount to my betting bankroll or a more substantial amount to my bank!

That, I thought, was the purpose of exotic bets.

Just because the limit is $.20 doesn't mean you can't bet your "normal" $1.00
P-3 and collect $46.

[AndyC]

But as a bettor, you don't want efficient pools, right? Don't you want to find very "unefficient" pools and exploit that lack of efficiency?

I want the biggest pools I can find. I want to exploit my unique opinion on a certain horse or race that doesn't match with the general public's opinion.

For all of those who want to exploit the inefficient pools please tell me how you know which part of the pool will be inefficient before you make your bet. And if you think you know, how can you be sure that smart people with larger bankrolls can't figure it out too?

[AndyC]

I disagree with you. The "right thing" for the game is to use discretion when you decide to lower the betting unit limits; you can't just lower them across the board, especially with today's short fields.

The 10-cent superfecta and the 50-cent trifecta would be fine if the fields were full...but they are not. I go to the track Monday to Thursday...and I see nothing but 6 and 7 horse fields...with 50-cent trifectas and 10-cent superfectas attached to them. If you consider this to be "better for racing in general"...then all I can say is that we have completely different opinions about what is really "good" for this game.

No...I don't just look out for the financial welfare of Thaskalos when I contemplate this game; I care about the long-term future of the GAME, as well. And I think that a 6-horse field with a 50-cent trifecta and a 10-cent super attached is a DISGRACE! For EVERYBODY!


If the 10-cent superfectas and 50-cent trifectas maximize the pools in small fields why on earth would you be against that?

[Stillriledup]

I want the biggest pools I can find. I want to exploit my unique opinion on a certain horse or race that doesn't match with the general public's opinion.

For all of those who want to exploit the inefficient pools please tell me how you know which part of the pool will be inefficient before you make your bet. And if you think you know, how can you be sure that smart people with larger bankrolls can't figure it out too?

If there's a 12 horse field and 4 longshots run 1234 and you have the super for a buck, would it matter to you if the minimum was a buck or 10 cents? (You have super for a buck or ten individual dime ticket winners)

[tanner12oz]

I wish everything was 1$ minimum..only thing I would lower is the pick 6 to a dollar..the .10 and .20 is ridiculous

[AndyC]

If there's a 12 horse field and 4 longshots run 1234 and you have the super for a buck, would it matter to you if the minimum was a buck or 10 cents? (You have super for a buck or ten individual dime ticket winners)

How big is the pool? 1 million or 10,000?

I would hope that after 43 years of betting horses I would know or have a good feeling as to whether or not betting 4 longshots in a super is a good idea. I actually analyze pools before deciding to put my money in them.

[VeryOldMan]

What percentage of the overall handle is accounted for by these wagers, and in particular is composed of the minimum wager units we're discussing here?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I don't play these regularly and don't have a feel. This thread has a "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" feel to me, but I don't have enough evidence to understand it well.

[Pick 'em Charlie]

For every one of these things that pays well, you get 9 others that pay Bupkis.

Look at Remington Race 7, the 3 longest shots run 123 and you can't even get 200 for the tri.

Does anyone think the 50 cent tri provides more value than the tracks that have a 1 dollar minimum?

To play a tri, one needs two natural odds horse to wheel their bet with. Both high odds horses should be singled out and not wheeled.

[Tall One]

I seldom play tri's, and I won't even consider it unless I'm looking at minimum 10 horses, and can eliminate close to half of them right off the bat. I prefer keying my selection (1/3/3 or 1/3/4) at the dollar level. I'll take the loss and make a stand on those plays as opposed to a three horse fifty cent box for $3.

Why even waste time trying to dope a tri in a 6 horse field anyway? Either pass the race, or wonder why SRU hasn't started a thread about supers and why they should be a dollar minimum...Oh wait.

[Longshot6977]

Has anybody actually studied what happens to pool size when a track drops a minimum on an exotic. I don't believe they would be dropping them if they did not feel it was to their benefit (then again maybe I am giving them too much credit :lol: ).

Funny you should ask. I checked a few weeks at CT during June'13. See this link http://216.92.33.211/forum/showthread.php?t=79176&page=9&pp=15&highlight=evil

It shows the payouts went UP when the dime super was introduced. The pool size went down a little, but probably because dimes don't add up as fast as $1's do. Remember, this was just a few short weeks after they dropped the limit to a dime. I have not checked lately though.

[fmhealth]

I believe I'm in the minority on this issue. I'm a very small bettor, or micro-bettor as I like to say. I would be an advocate of fractional betting. Bet whatever amount you like on any wager offered. Have to use the machines for any bet out of the ordinary. Bet a .67 tri or a .89 pk. Your money, your choice!

Why should a customer be limited by the wagering options presented by the track? Let each race & subsequent bet be sized appropriately based upon the thoughts & bankroll of the individual. I think this would increase handle & interest in the game. I know I would find it far more compelling.

Be Well,
fmhealth

[Stillriledup]

How big is the pool? 1 million or 10,000?

I would hope that after 43 years of betting horses I would know or have a good feeling as to whether or not betting 4 longshots in a super is a good idea. I actually analyze pools before deciding to put my money in them.

If you feel that bet minimums have no bearing on final payouts, why does it matter what the pool size is?

[Robert Fischer]

I believe I'm in the minority on this issue. I'm a very small bettor, or micro-bettor as I like to say. I would be an advocate of fractional betting. Bet whatever amount you like on any wager offered. Have to use the machines for any bet out of the ordinary. Bet a .67 tri or a .89 pk. Your money, your choice!

Why should a customer be limited by the wagering options presented by the track? Let each race & subsequent bet be sized appropriately based upon the thoughts & bankroll of the individual. I think this would increase handle & interest in the game. I know I would find it far more compelling.

Be Well,
fmhealth

I like it. Then it's just about betting overlays rather than scooping pools, and you don't need a big bankroll to bet incremental denominations for your various tickets. :ThmbUp:

And pay us out the same way. None of this rounding-down stuff...

[thespaah]

Why do I get the feeling that we've had this conversation before? :)
That thread was entitled "the evil dime super".....
:rolleyes:

[Stillriledup]

That thread was entitled "the evil dime super".....
:rolleyes:

C'mon you love it! :D

[thespaah]

The reason the game is hard is because the game constantly makes it easier. Why make the tri easier to hit? So more people could 'win'?
How is the lower base make it easier to hit? One still has to come up with the correct combination... And must do so in such a manner as to craft their bets so that they turn an appreciable profit. Especially in states where the takeout is 30% ( PA) or more.

[thespaah]

If there is $300,000 in a pool and there is $2,000 of winning bets, what difference does it make whether the $2,000 in bets is comprised of $.10, $.50, or $1.00 denominations?

The top end prices may be reduced with lower minimums but I have a hard time believing that some prices are not benefiting. I would heed the advice of Willie Keeler and "hit em where they ain't".
The argument SRU is making just doesn't fly. Yes the physical payoffs appear to be on a downward trend where the base is lower. But the apparent payoffs are still the same. if a bettor is hitting a trifecta of $1000 in a tow dollar base and he's wagered say $50 to hit that bet his true odds payoff is 20-1........Now lets say the tri pays $300 for 50 cents. Same race...The guy that bet $50 on $2 would for the same number of combinations only bet $5.....his true odds ( investment vs return) was a net plus 60-1...so even thought the payoff was only 30% of the $2 base bet payoff, the odds are higher.

[thespaah]

Those who love the fifty cent tris must love the twenty cent pick 3's at Hawthorne, especially when they pay $9.23.

How does a bet 1/2 or 1/5 the "normal" minimum amount add to handle?

Thask, great example about the half loaf.

When I play a 3, 4, or 5 horse or race bet, I want to add a large amount to my betting bankroll or a more substantial amount to my bank!

That, I thought, was the purpose of exotic bets.
Well ok...So how much would that same P3 pay ( dead of winter 5 to 7 horse fields) pay if the base were $2? maybe 40 to $60?
Look, we're only going to see bigger payoffs if there are larger fields where instead of two live horses, there are 6-7 live horses.

[AndyC]

If you feel that bet minimums have no bearing on final payouts, why does it matter what the pool size is?

If the pool size was 1,000 for the trifecta and you hit a 70-1 over a 50-1 over a 20-1 do you think $1,000 would cover the actual probability of hitting the bet? It is the same reason a bettor would be foolish betting a P-6 with a small pool. Why take a 5000-1 risk and get paid at 200-1?

[Stillriledup]

The argument SRU is making just doesn't fly. Yes the physical payoffs appear to be on a downward trend where the base is lower. But the apparent payoffs are still the same. if a bettor is hitting a trifecta of $1000 in a tow dollar base and he's wagered say $50 to hit that bet his true odds payoff is 20-1........Now lets say the tri pays $300 for 50 cents. Same race...The guy that bet $50 on $2 would for the same number of combinations only bet $5.....his true odds ( investment vs return) was a net plus 60-1...so even thought the payoff was only 30% of the $2 base bet payoff, the odds are higher.

The smaller minimums hurt the higher end of oddsboard, if you go legend, you want the bet for a buck, the lower the minimum the more odds that theres a Stray dime or stray half dollar on your combo.

[Aerocraft67]

Lower minimums allow greater spreading for low-bankroll players, which means higher hit rates per race, but also means more losing wagers in the pool, which is a good thing for the winners, especially ones that played tight. Lower minimums also invite more players in the pool that wouldn't otherwise step in.

Poindexter alluded to tipping points and diminishing returns—tracks should optimize the minimum unit to maximize handle. Too low and the total value drops, too high and the number of wagers drops. We can study whether 50 cents or $1 is more optimal for the trifecta, but lower isn't inherently less favorable.

When minimum bet size goes down, even though the winners have to share the pool with more lucky winning casual wagers, those incremental lucky wagers are smaller. Seems likely there's a net gain in losing casual money in the pool, which is favorable for winners.

Full disclosure, my primary interest in this issue as a casual player is remaining wary of low minimum bet units seducing me into making bad exotic bets. A slightly alternative take if not particularly profound, perhaps.

[Tall One]

I'll add another plus to the .50 tri, and that's if you're expecting a signer return.

Spring meet at Keeneland, guy at the table beside me hit a tri where the dollar return was $900 and change. He had it boxed twice at $3.00 a pop.

[Stillriledup]

Nice tri price in the 6th at Saratoga, 6th choice over 8th choice in top 2 spots.

[thespaah]

Nice tri price in the 6th at Saratoga, 6th choice over 8th choice in top 2 spots.
Second choice in the show slot. No doubt lots of money in the tri pool went on the :5: and :2:
$628 is not out of line....
Exacta was on track....$154. Winner paid $16 to win....Place horse paid $10 to place....

[Stillriledup]

Second choice in the show slot. No doubt lots of money in the tri pool went on the :5: and :2:
$628 is not out of line....
Exacta was on track....$154. Winner paid $16 to win....Place horse paid $10 to place....

There were 9 horses in the race, so if you purchased every combination it would have cost you 252. If all 9 horses were exactly equal, and they ran this race a billion times, the average price would be 252 minus takeout. If the takeout is 25 pct, the average median price would be 189.

Was there ANY combo in this race that would have paid 189 for 50 cents?

[Robert Fischer]

Chad Brown ran 1st and 3rd in a turf route with Castellano/Irad up.

That's a favorite 1st and 3rd in that kind of trifecta.

The 4 is the only reason it paid fairly.

Had the 6 (Clement) run 2nd , the payout would likely be lower even though the win odds of 6 and 4 are similar.

[Stillriledup]

Chad Brown ran 1st and 3rd in a turf route with Castellano/Irad up.

That's a favorite 1st and 3rd in that kind of trifecta.

The 4 is the only reason it paid fairly.

Had the 6 (Clement) run 2nd , the payout would likely be lower even though the win odds of 6 and 4 are similar.

Is there no combination that would have paid 189?

What do you have to do to 'break even' and lose the takeout?

[Robert Fischer]

Is there no combination that would have paid 189?


sure, 4-1-5 would have.

[Stillriledup]

sure, 4-1-5 would have.

I don't think so. 'They' would have nailed that one too.

[AndyC]

There were 9 horses in the race, so if you purchased every combination it would have cost you 252. If all 9 horses were exactly equal, and they ran this race a billion times, the average price would be 252 minus takeout. If the takeout is 25 pct, the average median price would be 189.

Was there ANY combo in this race that would have paid 189 for 50 cents?


Mathematically, given your example, if one combo paid less than $189 there would have to be one that paid more. I don't get what point you are trying to make.

[Robert Fischer]

I don't think so. 'They' would have nailed that one too.

In order of importance, trifecta works like this:






field size
winner
'key' horses to wheel
horses to include (related to larger fields)
Let's look at the race in question.

1. 'field size' = The field of 9 or so was 'playable'. It doesn't set up for a monster score, but doesn't kill the value either.

2.'winner' = Lot of people used Brown/Castelano FTS. No one left this horse off their list of logical winners. No one was shocked or mystified. That's what you need to really 'score' off this angle. Not as bad as a heavy favorite (which didn't exist in this race), but no 'score'. And this is the most important tri factor.

3.'key' horses to wheel = The biggest one in the race finished 3rd. That takes a nice chunk out out of the pool. The winner was also a secondary public choice for a key horse. You really need the key horses off the board to capitalize with a 'score'. Especially if the winner was logical.

(so far, after the 2 main factors, the ticket is looking very light)

4. 'horses to include' = The '4' added some value by running 2nd. He was not significant value for 3rd whatsoever(because 3rd has an even wider base/wheel). Running 2nd he 'blew up' some tri tickets that didn't structure with a wheel mentality. Had he been first and won, he would have impacted the 'logical winner' trifecta factor.
The public is mostly doing a pyramid/wheel structure with logicals on top.

[Stillriledup]

Mathematically, given your example, if one combo paid less than $189 there would have to be one that paid more. I don't get what point you are trying to make.

My point was that if 189 was the 'average' price, how come one of the tris with two of the longer priced horses running 1-2 still not meet that average. If the median is 189, all things being equal, you have 504 possible combos, why did this specific combo not at least reach that median price?

What do you have to do to 'break even' if you spend 252 and box the entire field for 50 cents? I'm not even talking about getting your 252 back I'm talking about breaking even after you paid the takeout, you still couldn't even do that.

[AndyC]

My point was that if 189 was the 'average' price, how come one of the tris with two of the longer priced horses running 1-2 still not meet that average. If the median is 189, all things being equal, you have 504 possible combos, why did this specific combo not at least reach that median price?

What do you have to do to 'break even' if you spend 252 and box the entire field for 50 cents? I'm not even talking about getting your 252 back I'm talking about breaking even after you paid the takeout, you still couldn't even do that.

It's pretty simple, the combo was overbet. Could be because there were sharp handicappers playing that combo or a drunk player in the turf club or someone playing a birth date.

If you actually believe that lower minimums result in lower prices then you should probably know by now which combinations are likely to be overbet as a result. Personally I would be restricting my trifecta play to the areas that are underbet as a result of more spreading due to lower minimums. Adapt or perish.

[Stillriledup]

It's pretty simple, the combo was overbet. Could be because there were sharp handicappers playing that combo or a drunk player in the turf club or someone playing a birth date.

If you actually believe that lower minimums result in lower prices then you should probably know by now which combinations are likely to be overbet as a result. Personally I would be restricting my trifecta play to the areas that are underbet as a result of more spreading due to lower minimums. Adapt or perish.

I think that this specific combo would have been higher if the tri was a buck and not 50 cents, the higher end of the board is overbet. I agree on the adapt or perish.

[Stillriledup]

Anyone want to know the evil nature of this bet only has to look at the tri in the 7th at Aqua.

Wonderful price w 28/1 shot in 2nd :lol:

[Robert Fischer]

I opened this thread, fully expecting SRU to have mentioned that he read this thread carefully, and now understands how .50 tris work.

To my shock and amazement, he instead brought the old thread back to post another low paying .50 tri... :liar:

Anyone want to know the evil nature of this bet only has to look at the tri in the 7th at Aqua.

Wonderful price w 28/1 shot in 2nd :lol:

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Anyone want to know the evil nature of this bet only has to look at the tri in the 7th at Aqua.

Wonderful price w 28/1 shot in 2nd :lol:

The $1 Ex was $15.30.

The problem was the 3/5 on top, and then you had 2nd choice at 9/5 in the Show hole.

Race wasn't going to pay with dead ass 3/5 chalk on top no matter how much you want to laugh.

[Stillriledup]

I opened this thread, fully expecting SRU to have mentioned that he read this thread carefully, and now understands how .50 tris work.

To my shock and amazement, he instead brought the old thread back to post another low paying .50 tri... :liar:

The way they work is that they suck out any value, high end, low end, doesn't matter, almost always pays less than it would if it was a buck

[Robert Fischer]

The way they work is that they suck out any value, high end, low end, doesn't matter, almost always pays less than it would if it was a buck

In order of importance, trifecta works like this:






field size
winner
'key' horses to wheel
horses to include (related to larger fields)




Let's look at the race in question.

1. 'field size' = The field of 8 or so was 'playable'. It doesn't set up for a monster score, but doesn't kill the value either.

2.'winner' = Worst Case Scenario = A strong heavy favorite won the race.

3.'key' horses to wheel = The biggest one in the race was the winner. That takes a massive chunk out out of the pool. The 3rd place finisher was also the secondary public choice for a key horse. You really need the key horses off the board to capitalize with a 'score'.

(so far, after the 3 main factors, the ticket is looking unplayable)

4. 'horses to include' = The '7' added some value by running 2nd. He was not significant value for 3rd whatsoever(because 3rd has an even wider base/wheel). Running 2nd he 'blew up' some tri tickets that didn't structure with a wheel mentality. Had he been first and won, he would have impacted the 'logical winner' trifecta factor.
The public is mostly doing a pyramid/wheel structure with logicals on top.

[caper]

Good post, totally agree.

I never thought of it that way, but that's the tracks version of a blue light special.

My position is that by cutting minimums in half (or in tenths w evil dime super) you defeat the purpose, the bet is supposed to be hard and cutting prices make it easier for everyone.

B and C tracks should designate one race per day where the minimum for the tri is 10 bucks (or a 2 buck super, etc) this way they could create another carryover possibility. Tracks have always tried to create carryovers thru the difficulty of the sequence, but they don't seem to realize the higher the minimum bet is, the more chance of a carryover, which is a win win for everyone.



I don't know. I play Western Fair (harness) that has .2c p4's and their pays relevant to other b tracks is great.

[fiznow]

50 cent tris don't bother me. But I don't think theyre profitable for the player over a longer period. In may cases 2$ exactas pay more than 50 cent tris and theyre easier to hit. It just costs you 4$ to box your 2 top selections and you have the big advantage to see what they will pay before betting. So if you want to save money and have a profit exactas are the better and more effective way imo.

[Stillriledup]

50 cent tris don't bother me. But I don't think theyre profitable for the player over a longer period. In may cases 2$ exactas pay more than 50 cent tris and theyre easier to hit. It just costs you 4$ to box your 2 top selections and you have the big advantage to see what they will pay before betting. So if you want to save money and have a profit exactas are the better and more effective way imo.

the classic argument is that if 50 cent tris water down the higher end of the oddsboard, that should create value at the lower end, but i haven't seen that is the case. when chalk comes in those tris pay really low, so low you cringe, but when the highest end prices come in, it doesnt seem to provide much value at all, and im a higher end of the oddsboard kinda guy so when i hit a tri with a few bombs i want boxcars i prefer the 1 dollar tri if im being really honest.

[thespaah]

the classic argument is that if 50 cent tris water down the higher end of the oddsboard, that should create value at the lower end, but i haven't seen that is the case. when chalk comes in those tris pay really low, so low you cringe, but when the highest end prices come in, it doesnt seem to provide much value at all, and im a higher end of the oddsboard kinda guy so when i hit a tri with a few bombs i want boxcars i prefer the 1 dollar tri if im being really honest.
I don't play them. They are hard enough to hit and find there are too many instances where the $2 exacta will pay more than the 50 Cent Tri...Interesting side note...I will play 50 cent P3's and P4's......These don't appear to have been adversely affected by the lowered base.

[Stillriledup]

I don't play them. They are hard enough to hit and find there are too many instances where the $2 exacta will pay more than the 50 Cent Tri...Interesting side note...I will play 50 cent P3's and P4's......These don't appear to have been adversely affected by the lowered base.

interesting observation, i think you may be right, the 50 cent tri is the 'worst' offender in getting 'robbed' on a price.

[Longshot6977]

interesting observation, i think you may be right, the 50 cent tri is the 'worst' offender in getting 'robbed' on a price.
Worse than the 10 cent tri Sam Houston had?

[Stillriledup]

Worse than the 10 cent tri Sam Houston had?

You might have me there. Those 20 cent tris at Hawthorne and the Canadian harness tracks aren't much better.

[raybo]

There is a point at which a particular minimum bet size is too low, and hurts the player, and the track. A $0.50 tri seems about right to me as long as you enforce a minimum field size requirement. The same is true, IMO, for the dime super, it is about right as long as you enforce a minimum field size requirement. These minimum field size requirements have dropped since these bets first became widespread, and that has hurt the payouts. Shortly after the dime super was introduced, the super pools almost doubled in a very short period of time. That was a good thing for all super players. But, the decrease in minimum field size for tri and super betting made it too affordable to cover many more possible combinations in those races, and drastically reduced payouts on those minimum bet tickets.

Overall, if the fields are large enough, the present minimum bet sizes for those two bets is good for the majority of players in those pools, and in other pools as well because many of those exotic players are also betting into other pools in the same races, because they can afford to. Before the dime super, for instance, most players in that pool, who were covering the bet sufficiently, were not also betting in other pools, because the cost of the super, properly covered, cost them so much.

And finally, in further support for continuation of the $0.50 tri and dime super, remember, with a $0.50 minimum bet size in a tri, the winner of that bet still only gets 1/2 the payout of the dollar player, and 1/4 the payout of the $2 player, etc.. In the dime super, the winner of that bet only gets 1/10 the payout of the $1 player and 1/20 the payout of the $2 player, etc.. The raising of the minimum field size requirement, back to what it used to be, makes it possible for all bettors, minimum base bet and upwards, to make good profit in relationship to amount wagered.

In summary, and again, IMO, the key to the viability of continuing these reduced minimum bets, is the field size requirement. If the field is too short it's far too easy for even the $1 and $2 players to cover the possible combinations quite well, reducing the bet to profit ratio potential. With larger fields it becomes very difficult for even the minimum bet size player to cover the possible combinations well, increasing the bet size to profit ratio potential.

Just my "dime's" worth!!

IMO, there should never be a tri or super in a field of less than 8 horses.

[Stillriledup]

There is a point at which a particular minimum bet size is too low, and hurts the player, and the track. A $0.50 tri seems about right to me as long as you enforce a minimum field size requirement. The same is true, IMO, for the dime super, it is about right as long as you enforce a minimum field size requirement. These minimum field size requirements have dropped since these bets first became widespread, and that has hurt the payouts. Shortly after the dime super was introduced at Sam Houston, the super pools almost doubled in a very short period of time. That was a good thing for all super players. But, the decrease in minimum field size for tri and super betting made it too affordable to cover many more possible combinations in those races, and drastically reduced payouts on those minimum bet tickets.

Overall, if the fields are large enough, the present minimum bet sizes for those two bets is good for the majority of players in those pools, and in other pools as well because many of those exotic players are also betting into other pools in the same races, because they can afford to. Before the dime super, for instance, most players in that pool, who were covering the bet sufficiently, were not also betting in other pools, because the cost of the super, properly covered, cost them so much.

And finally, in further support for continuation of the $0.50 tri and dime super, remember, with a $0.50 minimum bet size in a tri, the winner of that bet still only gets 1/2 the payout of the dollar player, and 1/4 the payout of the $2 player, etc.. In the dime super, the winner of that bet only gets 1/10 the payout of the $1 player and 1/20 the payout of the $2 player, etc.. The raising of the minimum field size requirement, back to what it used to be, makes it possible for all bettors, minimum base bet and upwards, to make good profit in relationship to amount wagered.

In summary, and again, IMO, the key to the viability of continuing these reduced minimum bets, is the field size requirement. If the field is too short it's far too easy for even the $1 and $2 players to cover the possible combinations quite well, reducing the bet to profit ratio potential. With larger fields it becomes very difficult for even the minimum bet size player to cover the possible combinations well, increasing the bet size to profit ratio potential.

Just my "dime's" worth!!

IMO, there should never be a tri or super in a field of less than 8 horses.

excellent post, totally respect your thoughts and opinion.

im also of the belief that in large fields, the 50 cent tri and or super isn't the worst thing, but when you get into the 8 or less stuff, and supers are paying 1.47 for a dime, its time to get rid of that.

there's no reason to have a dime super or a 50 cent tri on a field of 8 or less.

[raybo]

excellent post, totally respect your thoughts and opinion.

im also of the belief that in large fields, the 50 cent tri and or super isn't the worst thing, but when you get into the 8 or less stuff, and supers are paying 1.47 for a dime, its time to get rid of that.

there's no reason to have a dime super or a 50 cent tri on a field of 8 or less.

I think you'll agree, that if all 7 and shorter field size races did not offer the tri or super at all, many of the current dime players would have more money left in their pockets when an 8 horse or larger race comes along, and many of them will bet those larger field size races at a higher base amount, in hopes of hitting a larger piece of a larger pie. In that way, the minimum bet size tickets would be relegated to what I use them for, saver tickets. I can alleviate most of the higher takeouts on supers by betting these small denomination saver tickets.

[pondman]

50 cent tris don't bother me. But I don't think theyre profitable for the player over a longer period. In may cases 2$ exactas pay more than 50 cent tris and theyre easier to hit. It just costs you 4$ to box your 2 top selections and you have the big advantage to see what they will pay before betting. So if you want to save money and have a profit exactas are the better and more effective way imo.

We would disagree with this (speaking for my group.) We group our plays into a 3 or 4 cluster box. At one of our higher performing tracks the exacta group ROI runs at 1.6. It's much smother and easier to manage from a banking standpoint. But at the same track the ROI for the tri is 32. When we first started we played both, but we have suspended all exacta play and go after tris.

The tri suffers just like any other bet because of an increase with in-the- money finishes of favorites. But on the up side, if you find yourself with a group of contenders that doesn't resemble the play of the old geezers boxing speed ratings, then you've got the potential to get +100-1. There are too many example where a 3/5 favorite wins and the tri pays more than 75-1.

I believe why most players find a disdainful taste for the tri, is because they focus most of their energy toward win data, when they need to be focus on an in the money performance. This is an entirely different focus, and requires a different data set. If you are going to play tris, then you have to focus exclusively on the tri, and stop fitting it in with some other betting scheme.

[fiznow]

We would disagree with this (speaking for my group.) We group our plays into a 3 or 4 cluster box. At one of our higher performing tracks the exacta group ROI runs at 1.6. It's much smother and easier to manage from a banking standpoint. But at the same track the ROI for the tri is 32. When we first started we played both, but we have suspended all exacta play and go after tris.

The tri suffers just like any other bet because of an increase with in-the- money finishes of favorites. But on the up side, if you find yourself with a group of contenders that doesn't resemble the play of the old geezers boxing speed ratings, then you've got the potential to get +100-1. There are too many example where a 3/5 favorite wins and the tri pays more than 75-1.

I believe why most players find a disdainful taste for the tri, is because they focus most of their energy toward win data, when they need to be focus on an in the money performance. This is an entirely different focus, and requires a different data set. If you are going to play tris, then you have to focus exclusively on the tri, and stop fitting it in with some other betting scheme.

Well sure, if you play as a group you don't have to pay it alone and can afford to do more combinations. The disadvantage is that you have to share your winnings though.

[AndyC]

Well sure, if you play as a group you don't have to pay it alone and can afford to do more combinations. The disadvantage is that you have to share your winnings though.

If you can't afford to buy the optimal amount of combinations then you probably shouldn't be playing in those pools.

[fiznow]

If you can't afford to buy the optimal amount of combinations then you probably shouldn't be playing in those pools.

For me optimal means to hit a bet as straight as possible. Like I said I prefer exactas, I don't play many tris and when I play them I don't box more than 3 horses. But I play them for more than 50 Cents per combination.

[1GCFAN]

I like the .50 tri and .10 super because they keep the tax man at bay. I insist on at least 8 horse fields and no TAP or Chad Brown with JJ up.