PDA

View Full Version : Twin Exacta


the little guy
09-14-2016, 08:39 PM
We've been bouncing around some bet ideas and I was curious what people think about a twin exacta bet, where you have to hit two straight exactas?

Secondbest
09-14-2016, 08:42 PM
Didn't they do that at roosevelt or yonkers years ago?

EMD4ME
09-14-2016, 08:46 PM
Yes, Do it.


NYRA'S Biggest players have been exacta players. Anything with a chance at a carryover and skill can be a good thing.

I am sure NYRA will pick 2 hard races for the bet so it should work. However, there are so many sharpies out there at NYRA, so I'm sure they will have $50 or $100 on the 1st race combo, so I would consider a 3 race sequence.

Lemon Drop Husker
09-14-2016, 08:48 PM
We've been bouncing around some bet ideas and I was curious what people think about a twin exacta bet, where you have to hit two straight exactas?

Interesting.

Just wondering if you're thinking it will bring in more money into the pools, or would it take away from other pools?

Payouts should be good, if not even great. I look at it as essentially a mini P4. Get back to back 10+ horse fields, and it becomes really interesting.

johnhannibalsmith
09-14-2016, 08:49 PM
I loved the twin-trifecta when it was still a thing at Turf Paradise. Half the time you could sell part of your ticket to someone else after the first one for a nice profit and still roll into the second leg. It was not only lucrative at times, but added a different dimension of fun if you were on-track. I can't see why I wouldn't at least give the twin-exacta a try.

alydar
09-14-2016, 09:08 PM
Interesting.

Just wondering if you're thinking it will bring in more money into the pools, or would it take away from other pools?

Payouts should be good, if not even great. I look at it as essentially a mini P4. Get back to back 10+ horse fields, and it becomes really interesting.
This is the question that is always out there. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if the Grand Slam was killed and replaced with this idea. I would go for trying to get it done.

This would be a straight bet not an exchange bet, I assume.

Zaf
09-14-2016, 09:23 PM
I like the idea :ThmbUp: Takeout ?

Z

rrpic6
09-14-2016, 09:29 PM
I think it was called "The Big P" at Waterford Park in the early 70's. It was quite the bet from what I've been told. A little before my legal age of wagering though. I loved trips to Laughlin and Vegas playing the Twin Q at their Station Casinos. I even had a few signers! That was mostly due to the limited access to large pools. Most bettors would play small tickets. 1,2,3 with 1,2 for example. I think that's a $6.00 bet. I might have spent about $80 to hit over $1000. I think the Twin Exacta at NYRA would be less tempting in the long run due to the large pools and sharp nationwide players. A similar $80 (or $160) since its an Exacta not a Quinella would eventually become frustrating as the Whales eat up the small fish IMO.

RR

elhelmete
09-14-2016, 09:38 PM
I loved the Twin-Tri at Suffolk Downs back in the day.

A Twin-Exacta (call it a Twin-Perfecta for nostalgia's sake) is intriguing, seems like a good companion to the DD.

pele polo
09-14-2016, 09:46 PM
I like the idea but believe the menu is already full and in need of trimming especially if another wager is introduced.

I've always liked how Oaklawn keeps there wagering menu simple. But of course NYRA has the handle to sustain all the rolling doubles and pick threes, I wonder if it's really necessary sometimes. There are those gamblers that can't help themselves and the less options the better. If they were able to create more churn, I think that is what is more beneficial in the long run.

horses4courses
09-14-2016, 09:47 PM
We've been bouncing around some bet ideas and I was curious what people think about a twin exacta bet, where you have to hit two straight exactas?

Twin Exacta sounds promising to me.

Having booked and played a Twin Quinella jackpot wager for years,
I know enough about the bet to recommend that you would need
flexibility in the races chosen on a daily basis. Also, there must be a
minimum number of runners provision. For instance, if less than 8
go to post in either leg, all bets are refunded for that day.

The races used would not have to be selected until 2 hours before first post.
In that case, late scratches would factor into the races chosen.

$2 increments.
For example, if you box 3 horses in Leg 1, going to a key horse
over 4 others in Leg 2, your ticket cost would be $48 ($12 X 4).

Small bettors can play a $2 ticket, if they wish.
They would have to hit 2 cold exactas to get their share of the jackpot.

I would play it in a heartbeat. :ThmbUp:

parlay
09-14-2016, 09:47 PM
i could never figure out the twin tri. i believe they had it at Gulfstream in the late 80's early 90's. I asked people and no one ever explained it to me clearly.
My belief was that you could exchange every $2 winning tri in the first leg for a $2 tri in the second leg. If that is correct, could you exchange a $10 winning ticket in the 1st leg for 5 x $2 tickets in the 2nd leg?

pele polo
09-14-2016, 09:51 PM
i could never figure out the twin tri. i believe they had it at Gulfstream in the late 80's early 90's. I asked people and no one ever explained it to me clearly.
My belief was that you could exchange every $2 winning tri in the first leg for a $2 tri in the second leg. If that is correct, could you exchange a $10 winning ticket in the 1st leg for 5 x $2 tickets in the 2nd leg?

That's correct and there's also a payoff in the first half.

I think the Twin Exacta may work more similar to the Big Quin which is popular at some dog tracks, where you must select the first and second half at the same time (before the first race).

horses4courses
09-14-2016, 09:53 PM
That's correct and there's also a payoff in the first half.

I think the Twin Exacta may work more similar to the Big Quin which is popular at some dog tracks, where you must select the first and second half at the same time (before the first race).

Agreed.
Exchange wagers complicate things,
and are really only feasible on-track.

sammy the sage
09-14-2016, 09:54 PM
might be ok...certainly better than the LAME Grand slam bet....never played that once...and the pools for it are dwindling....

hyipro
09-14-2016, 10:04 PM
Years ago they used to have twin doubles also, I think they stopped all the doubles, exacta, tri, etc. due to the selling of the second half, caused a lot
of issues, if I remember right............

ReplayRandall
09-14-2016, 10:25 PM
I think a catchy name, NYRA style, would be, "The Big Apple Twin-Exacta"...

Lemon Drop Husker
09-14-2016, 10:32 PM
I think a catchy name, NYRA style, would be, "The Big Apple Twin-Exacta"...

Nah.

"Be Belmont, Be Exactaly Exactaly Right"....,and get paid. :ThmbUp:

horses4courses
09-14-2016, 10:40 PM
Would NYRA guarantee, or seed, the starting pool?
They would be raking in takeout after the initial dangling carrot.

ReplayRandall
09-14-2016, 10:46 PM
Nah.

"Be Belmont, Be Exactaly Exactaly Right"....,and get paid. :ThmbUp:

Big Apple is the right call...I could see EMD posting, "I hit the Big Apple last night and scooped"...:cool:

Lemon Drop Husker
09-14-2016, 10:47 PM
Would NYRA guarantee, or seed, the starting pool?
They would be raking in takeout after the initial dangling carrot.

A $20K Twin Exacta guarantee?

Now we are talking. I mean, it can obviously grow from there if the interest is there. The PA board of solid wagerers is obviously interested.

Maybe start with a $50K guarantee to give it the needed boost as a new wager?

Lemon Drop Husker
09-14-2016, 10:49 PM
Big Apple is the right call...I could see EMD posting, "I hit the Big Apple last night and scooped"...:cool:

Ooooohh!

BAD.

The Big Apple Double. :ThmbUp:

Wanna be bad? Be BAD at Belmont and hit the Big Apple Double. Hit the winner and the 2nd place finisher in xx races, and you'll be as BAD as you wannbe.

thaskalos
09-14-2016, 10:53 PM
How about a TRIPLET exacta...for those weekday cards where the short fields dominate?

johnhannibalsmith
09-14-2016, 11:00 PM
...I could see EMD posting, "I hit the Big Apple last night and scooped"...:cool:

Except he'd say 'scoped'.

ReplayRandall
09-14-2016, 11:04 PM
Except he'd say 'scoped'.

STONE COLD called it.... :lol:E:lol:M:lol:D

AltonKelsey
09-14-2016, 11:12 PM
What happened to the Swinger bet, where the thing pays off on any two horses in the money.

Good enough for Hong Kong, would let folks get paid for being right about live longshots without having to buy dozens of combinations in trifectas, and maybe miss it anyhow.

Lemon Drop Husker
09-14-2016, 11:25 PM
What happened to the Swinger bet, where the thing pays off on any two horses in the money.

Good enough for Hong Kong, would let folks get paid for being right about live longshots without having to buy dozens of combinations in trifectas, and maybe miss it anyhow.

No offense, but that is the biggest money burner in all of horse race betting.

Even if you get your shot home, if the other two are somewhat favs you get zero. And that is in 16 horse fields or more. Zero reward for the risk.

chenoa
09-14-2016, 11:27 PM
Copy Hong Kong and bring in the TRIPLE TRIO, believe it's the top 3 finishers in 3 races and the field size is usually 14 per race.

Jocks could have day carrying that baby over. ;)

EMD4ME
09-14-2016, 11:28 PM
TLG...BLG

The Little Guy Big Little Guy

You hit the 1st leg, you get the normal size Andy.

You hit the 2nd leg, you get a BLOWN UP SIZE Andy.

Obviously a play on Andy but bettors will get the point.

Maybe show average 1st leg payoffs and then 2nd leg payoffs throughtout the history of the wager.

EMD4ME
09-14-2016, 11:29 PM
And boy I can't wait for the day where a jock stands up prior to the wire (of the 2nd leg of the wager on a huge carryover day) and blows second by a nose :lol: :lol: :lol:

SG4
09-15-2016, 12:40 AM
We've been bouncing around some bet ideas and I was curious what people think about a twin exacta bet, where you have to hit two straight exactas?

I'm apparently going to fall in the minority side here as I would just have no interest in this bet. One of the nice things about NYRA is the always robust exacta pools - if you hit one exacta & you want to parlay it on to another, you're probably not going to have to worry much about affecting the payouts & that is essentially what this bet would be, just an exacta parlay.

My other main concern is there won't ever be a way to see probable payouts on this bet, so it'll be hard to gauge if you're going to get good value. All 3+ race multi-race wagers suffer from this, but I feel like it's a lot easier to ballpark what to expect when it's just figuring in winners on top. Also, would this bet come with graphics & willing ADW partners to post potential will-pays after the first leg? Imagine bettors might be interested in hedging if alive after leg 1, very hard to do when you don't know potential winnings.

Now if this type of bet is offered at a very low takeout & its value becomes apparent after some data comes in on winning payoffs then maybe I'd take a peek, but off the bat it wouldn't be my cup of tea.

AltonKelsey
09-15-2016, 12:59 AM
No offense, but that is the biggest money burner in all of horse race betting.

Even if you get your shot home, if the other two are somewhat favs you get zero. And that is in 16 horse fields or more. Zero reward for the risk.

Not sure zero would be the correct term.

You have 3 ways to collect vs 1. That cuts the return you'd expect to get from a Quinella by quite a bit.

Happened to eyeball recent HK results.

Some 260-1 shot won the other day. Prob only looked 100-1 on paper so was quite an overlay.

Anyhow, it ran with the fave and the second choice, perfect for this discussion.

With the fave paid 60-1, and the second choice paid 100-1.

The two chalks paid 1-1.

So if you want to call 60 and 100-1 zero reward, I guess you can.

Of course, 260-1 shots are uncommon, but if you look at the other payoffs, they seem fair enough, nothing approaching highway robbery.

PS The winner was trained by the same guy as the 9/2 second choice, apparently he was shocked. So they have the same uncoupled problem over there, only the winners pay more.
https://www.punters.com.au/news/268-winner-lobs-in-Hong-Kong_153396/

lamboguy
09-15-2016, 02:41 AM
its not my type of bet, but neither are any multiple race bets for me. i do think its the best idea for an exotic wager since the pick 6. so i guess it will be adopted. for me hopefully it won't effect those nice straight wager pools that still exist in New York.

Poindexter
09-15-2016, 04:10 AM
I'm apparently going to fall in the minority side here as I would just have no interest in this bet. One of the nice things about NYRA is the always robust exacta pools - if you hit one exacta & you want to parlay it on to another, you're probably not going to have to worry much about affecting the payouts & that is essentially what this bet would be, just an exacta parlay.

My other main concern is there won't ever be a way to see probable payouts on this bet, so it'll be hard to gauge if you're going to get good value. All 3+ race multi-race wagers suffer from this, but I feel like it's a lot easier to ballpark what to expect when it's just figuring in winners on top. Also, would this bet come with graphics & willing ADW partners to post potential will-pays after the first leg? Imagine bettors might be interested in hedging if alive after leg 1, very hard to do when you don't know potential winnings.

Now if this type of bet is offered at a very low takeout & its value becomes apparent after some data comes in on winning payoffs then maybe I'd take a peek, but off the bat it wouldn't be my cup of tea.

Pretty much how I feel. See little point in it. IMO players would likely be better off just using a round robin on their strong exacta plays rather than being forced into the chosen races of this wager, if this idea appeals to them.

OTM Al
09-15-2016, 09:25 AM
We've been bouncing around some bet ideas and I was curious what people think about a twin exacta bet, where you have to hit two straight exactas?
Hey Andy. While the regular exacta is probably my favorite bet, I don't like the idea of yet another multi race super exotic bet. I feel that we've gone too far with these super exotics and they are creating more damage to handle than they are adding, IMO more damage than high takeout. I say this for several reasons.

First, money bet into such a pool is frozen for the second race of the sequence. Because there is no winner after the first race, there is no churn.

Second, these potentially high paying bets add to leakage in the system. I'm sure you recall the concept of the money multiplier from studying economics in your days in college. An effect like that exists at the track where an initial dollar brought in gets replayed through churn. But the higher the payoff of a bet, the larger the amount of that money is going to be taken out of the bankroll to spend on other things. A single player winning $10K is going to cause more leakage than 1000 people winning $10. So this is a secondary hit to handle.

Third, bets like this are hard to hit, resulting in very few winners, most of whom are likely to be the more accomplished player rather than the lower level better. These lower level players are like not to become higher level players unless they have a feeling they can succeed. Even though this is not a P6 level of difficulty bet (I don;t think anyway...the twin tri certainly was more difficult than the P6 so hard to say without doing some math) it is not something that is likely to draw new people.

As much as they were hated in idea and execution the "imperfecta" as you called it, and the Grand Slam, being nothing more than a modified win bet, seemed to me much more conducive to positive effects for the player and the track. But, as you well know, too many are lured by the "life changing score" to quote that well remembered phrase from Andy B's books. Most of us will never see that. I know a few of your stories but how often has that sort of thing even happened to you, who are an extremely good and knowledgeable player?

I think the way to go is to simply do things to make the win bet sexy again. What can be done there? You want jackpot sort of results? Give 1% of purse value to a randomly selected winner who bet the horse to win. Make win takeout lower. I know that is a way tougher thing to do than say though. I'm no marketing person, but I just don't think the proliferation of these super exotics is going to do that much and others will just copy them anyway, so you will quickly lose any additional play due to uniqueness

cj
09-15-2016, 10:20 AM
We've been bouncing around some bet ideas and I was curious what people think about a twin exacta bet, where you have to hit two straight exactas?


Interesting, and certainly better than all the silly jackpot bets that seem to be everywhere these days.

Broad Brush
09-16-2016, 06:57 PM
I think it was called "The Big P" at Waterford Park in the early 70's. It was quite the bet from what I've been told. A little before my legal age of wagering though. I loved trips to Laughlin and Vegas playing the Twin Q at their Station Casinos. I even had a few signers! That was mostly due to the limited access to large pools. Most bettors would play small tickets. 1,2,3 with 1,2 for example. I think that's a $6.00 bet. I might have spent about $80 to hit over $1000. I think the Twin Exacta at NYRA would be less tempting in the long run due to the large pools and sharp nationwide players. A similar $80 (or $160) since its an Exacta not a Quinella would eventually become frustrating as the Whales eat up the small fish IMO.

RR

Good memory!! I remember as a kid being there and when the first leg
was a couple of longshots--watching the frenzy of big players hustling
to buy up the live tickets. Lots of deals were cut. It was fun to watch.

sammy the sage
09-16-2016, 08:33 PM
Done some more thinking on this topic..(yes, I know..dangerous)...and considering how often some jockeys do NOT ride to the wire if beaten from win spot...and tracks VERY RARELY do anything about it to protect the bettor...thinking it's a bad bet/idea...if installed...I certainly won't partake in it...

anyways...that's my 2 cents...1943 copper that is...

rastajenk
09-16-2016, 08:40 PM
Interesting, and certainly better than all the silly jackpot bets that seem to be everywhere these days.I tend to agree. This thread is all over the place with responses, and some of them seem to me to be off the mark, but maybe I'm making some wrong assumptions.

Is it an old style exchange bet with a winning combination in the first leg earning one shot in the second, like some respondents have alluded to from past experience; or is the bettor calling out two races worth of exacta combos at once like horse4courses pimps in #11? I can't imagine the latter would appeal to anyone except maybe him.$2 increments.
For example, if you box 3 horses in Leg 1, going to a key horse
over 4 others in Leg 2, your ticket cost would be $48 ($12 X 4).Better make it a small minimum.
If it's the former, I don't see it as a big carryover type of bet at all like the guy who knows everything, EMD, or needs a seeded pot.
Yes, Do it. NYRA'S Biggest players have been exacta players. Anything with a chance at a carryover and skill can be a good thing.I just assumed it would be a hit-able two race exchange bet that wouldn't affect the churn all that much, like OTM Al mentions; the idea of picking the races affected each day is just plain goofy, but I will give horse4courses credit for pointing out that exchanges could be clumsy at off-track locations; if it's the opportunity for a life-changing score, I'd be less in favor of it than if it's a doable wager that can pay nicely; and whatever it is, I agree with the responses that preferred it replace another bet and trim the menu somewhat.

Since I quoted cj using the term "silly jackpot bets" I'm going to assume my assumptions are reality-based. Am I right?

horses4courses
09-16-2016, 08:46 PM
Better make it a small minimum.

A buck might work.
Anything less would be ridiculous.

I agree that choosing races each day would be impractical.
Whatever race number they might decide on, it better include
the final race of the day. Very often, that's the most open on the card.

Lemon Drop Husker
09-16-2016, 08:47 PM
Done some more thinking on this topic..(yes, I know..dangerous)...and considering how often some jockeys do NOT ride to the wire if beaten from win spot...and tracks VERY RARELY do anything about it to protect the bettor...thinking it's a bad bet/idea...if installed...I certainly won't partake in it...

anyways...that's my 2 cents...1943 copper that is...

So you are solely a WIN bettor?

HalvOnHorseracing
09-16-2016, 08:53 PM
As a preface, one of racing's problems is not that there aren't enough pools to get into.

And as a sub-preface, any bet that cannot attract some minimum pool size, should be discontinued. You'd have a hard time convincing me that the pools for a double-exacta at most tracks would hit critical mass.

People who have read my opinion pieces know that I've always favored a condensed betting menu with higher bet minimums.

Win
Place (the place bet pays off to first, second and third with no show betting)
Exacta ($2 minimum and no quinella)
Trifecta ($1 minimum, minimum of 8 starters)
Superfecta (50 cent minimum, minimum of 8 starters)
Daily Double ($2 minimum)
Pick 3 ($1 minimum)
Pick 4 ($1 minimum)
Pick 5 (50 cent minimum)
Pick 6 ($2 minimum)

Nitro
09-17-2016, 12:26 AM
I'm apparently going to fall in the minority side here as I would just have no interest in this bet. One of the nice things about NYRA is the always robust exacta pools - if you hit one exacta & you want to parlay it on to another, you're probably not going to have to worry much about affecting the payouts & that is essentially what this bet would be, just an exacta parlay.

My other main concern is there won't ever be a way to see probable payouts on this bet, so it'll be hard to gauge if you're going to get good value. All 3+ race multi-race wagers suffer from this, but I feel like it's a lot easier to ballpark what to expect when it's just figuring in winners on top. Also, would this bet come with graphics & willing ADW partners to post potential will-pays after the first leg? Imagine bettors might be interested in hedging if alive after leg 1, very hard to do when you don't know potential winnings.

Now if this type of bet is offered at a very low takeout & its value becomes apparent after some data comes in on winning payoffs then maybe I'd take a peek, but off the bat it wouldn't be my cup of tea.Finally some sanity! It might very well be a minority opinion, but in this game that's not necessarily a negative since the majority of players are in the red anyway.

I think it’s a inane type of concept trying to combine these two verticals into a horizontal. Parlaying an Exacta win into another Exacta of YOUR choice is much more practical. As you mentioned, seeing the Will Pays for any chosen subsequent Exacta play can determine the value for a play or a pass. Being forced into playing any sequence of races that requires guesswork is not very smart. Not having any idea of how your selections may look before the race is also a cause for concern. I don’t play horizontals for those very reasons. I would prefer choosing the races that offer some value, and rely on my own judgment to determine play-ability.

I don’t know about any body else, but I certainly enjoy reading those fictitious comments about the so-called value of Hong Kong verticals, especially by those who regularly follow and play HK. Anyone who attempts to downplay the wagering on a Quinella (in HK) that pays like Exacta (in the U.S.) really doesn’t understand the basic concept of cost-to-benefit-ratio.

JohnGalt1
09-17-2016, 08:22 AM
As a preface, one of racing's problems is not that there aren't enough pools to get into.

And as a sub-preface, any bet that cannot attract some minimum pool size, should be discontinued. You'd have a hard time convincing me that the pools for a double-exacta at most tracks would hit critical mass.

People who have read my opinion pieces know that I've always favored a condensed betting menu with higher bet minimums.

Win
Place (the place bet pays off to first, second and third with no show betting)
Exacta ($2 minimum and no quinella)
Trifecta ($1 minimum, minimum of 8 starters)
Superfecta (50 cent minimum, minimum of 8 starters)
Daily Double ($2 minimum)
Pick 3 ($1 minimum)
Pick 4 ($1 minimum)
Pick 5 (50 cent minimum)
Pick 6 ($2 minimum)

Wow!

How'd you get inside my head?

I'd also eliminate the pick 5 carryover if not hit, and pay 4 instead, and pay out to 5 and 4 winners.

The one addition to your list is to eliminate jackpot bets.

castaway01
09-17-2016, 08:36 AM
As a preface, one of racing's problems is not that there aren't enough pools to get into.

And as a sub-preface, any bet that cannot attract some minimum pool size, should be discontinued. You'd have a hard time convincing me that the pools for a double-exacta at most tracks would hit critical mass.

People who have read my opinion pieces know that I've always favored a condensed betting menu with higher bet minimums.

Win
Place (the place bet pays off to first, second and third with no show betting)
Exacta ($2 minimum and no quinella)
Trifecta ($1 minimum, minimum of 8 starters)
Superfecta (50 cent minimum, minimum of 8 starters)
Daily Double ($2 minimum)
Pick 3 ($1 minimum)
Pick 4 ($1 minimum)
Pick 5 (50 cent minimum)
Pick 6 ($2 minimum)

To me, your thinking is antiquated and illogical. Restricting trifecta bets to races with 8 starters will wipe out 60% of all trifecta races. In what way does this increase handle or give bettors more options?

Lower minimum bets have some negatives, but they also are a major tax benefit. Until they decide to change the tax withholding laws, lower minimums are better for bettors overall.

Now personally I'm not betting on a trifecta in a 5-horse race, but I don't see why these options should be restricted. If you enter a casino, they don't still have one type of slot machine with cherries, lemons, and plums. There are a million different varieties and styles, and they all take your money the same way. People like options and I don't see the benefit of trying to pretend it's 1935 again.

ronsmac
09-17-2016, 09:57 AM
I remember when Charlestown had that bet but they called it the Big Exacta. It didn't last too long. It was a couple of years before they closed down.

BCOURTNEY
09-17-2016, 10:02 AM
We've been bouncing around some bet ideas and I was curious what people think about a twin exacta bet, where you have to hit two straight exactas?

I like the idea, but it would nice if it was non consecutive races to distinguish itself from double pools. The downside with using consecutive races is that people would make value decisions and it could place money into the double pools instead of this wager. Needs to be non consecutive races.

davew
09-17-2016, 10:20 AM
Interesting idea - what percentage of NYRA bets comes from off-site?

I am curious if you were thinking about an exchange, or bet complete before first race?

I have a hard time seeing any/many carry-overs.

EMD4ME
09-17-2016, 10:22 AM
I remember when Charlestown had that bet but they called it the Big Exacta. It didn't last too long. It was a couple of years before they closed down.

When did Charles Town close down?

cj
09-17-2016, 11:02 AM
When did Charles Town close down?

I think he meant closed the bet down since CT is obviously still open...G3 Charles Town Oaks tonight!

Saratoga_Mike
09-17-2016, 11:21 AM
I don't think it's a good idea for all the reasons well articulated by OTMAl, but hats off to Serling for seeking out bettor input.

EMD4ME
09-17-2016, 11:26 AM
I think he meant closed the bet down since CT is obviously still open...G3 Charles Town Oaks tonight!

I hope every horse comes home safe tonight. (And jockey)

HalvOnHorseracing
09-17-2016, 01:25 PM
To me, your thinking is antiquated and illogical. Restricting trifecta bets to races with 8 starters will wipe out 60% of all trifecta races. In what way does this increase handle or give bettors more options?

Lower minimum bets have some negatives, but they also are a major tax benefit. Until they decide to change the tax withholding laws, lower minimums are better for bettors overall.

Now personally I'm not betting on a trifecta in a 5-horse race, but I don't see why these options should be restricted. If you enter a casino, they don't still have one type of slot machine with cherries, lemons, and plums. There are a million different varieties and styles, and they all take your money the same way. People like options and I don't see the benefit of trying to pretend it's 1935 again.
My thinking is completely economic. It's quite logical because number one, the high-number combination bets cannibalize the pools that most players can afford to be in. Because you aren't diluting the pools, payoffs can be higher to the pools players can best afford to be in. More players because they have greater success and higher churn. In a race with no trifecta, the exacta pool goes up. In a race with no quinella, the exacta pool goes up.

Second, if you've read the thread about the 10 cent super, it has not had a positive effect on payoffs. The point of the exotics originally was to provide boxcar payoffs as a response to other jackpot games. The 50 cent P4 has had a similar effect. I've talked to other professional players who used to be big P4 players, but have dropped the bet, me included. I've done abbreviated studies that show at least a third of P4's don't pay as much as the parlay.

The one legitimate point you made is the tax argument. But if that is the main impediment, it is at least fixable.

This is not an effort to take racing back to the 60's when you had WPS, a few exactas and a daily double. Getting rid of show betting is more modern than old school, and all the popular combination bets are included in what I posted. If your argument is that field minimums and bet minimums are archaic, we'll just have to disagree. I went with a 50 cent minimum on P5 because they currently almost all overpay with a 50 cent minimum. I went with a $2 minimum for P6 both to build higher carryovers and create more lottery payoffs. I honestly believe a $1 minimum on the P4 will result in bigger payoffs and thus more action.

The slot machine argument is absurd. A dollar slot that has a 95% return is the same bet regardless of the pretty colors on the machine.

The point is that you increase handle and return by emphasizing the pools where bettors have the best chance of success and where the payoffs are fair. 95% of horseplayers have no business in the P6, and your argument that tracks are just responding to what the public wants has a ring of "bread and circuses" to it. You have too many pools that are undercapitalized, vulnerable to manipulation, and ultimately underpay.

As with many things 20% of the bettors represent 80% of the handle. My concept caters to both the 20% and the 80%. Sometimes less is more.

thaskalos
09-17-2016, 01:43 PM
The vast majority of the horseplayers are small bettors...whose wagers do not threaten the payoffs in any significant way. Consequently...the call to reduce the diversification of the ever-shrinking mutuel pools is liable to fall on many deaf ears. Only the BIGGER bettor can readily see the evils of negatively impacting your own wagers in a major way. But these bigger bettors are relatively few...and their calls of warning are easily drowned out.

HalvOnHorseracing
09-17-2016, 01:51 PM
The vast majority of the horseplayers are small bettors...whose wagers do not threaten the payoffs in any significant way. Consequently...the call to reduce the diversification of the ever-shrinking mutuel pools is liable to fall on many deaf ears. Only the BIGGER bettor can readily see the evils of negatively impacting your own wagers in a major way. But these bigger bettors are relatively few...and their calls of warning are easily drowned out.
Horseracing's sell used to be that it was the one game you could beat because it was clearly skill. You may have heard that in the "old days" but it seems less operational today.

Is the Cheesecake Factory the best restaurant ever because they have 1.4 million mediocre dishes on their menu, or is the restaurant with eight high quality entrees in an evening better?

ReplayRandall
09-17-2016, 01:54 PM
Horseracing's sell used to be that it was the one game you could beat because it was clearly skill. You may have heard that in the "old days" but it seems less operational today.

Is the Cheesecake Factory the best restaurant ever because they have 1.4 million mediocre dishes on their menu, or is the restaurant with eight high quality entrees in an evening better?

It depends on what the PRICE is......Value, value, value.

thaskalos
09-17-2016, 02:02 PM
Horseracing's sell used to be that it was the one game you could beat because it was clearly skill. You may have heard that in the "old days" but it seems less operational today.



And horse racing's CURRENT sell is that it's a game where the players play against each OTHER...and not against the "house". BOTH those sells are inaccurate...IMO. Run the sport in an incompetent manner...and the game stops being a "game of skill". And, when 16% to 31% of the mutuel pool is taken off the top before the race...then the "house" becomes the player's most formidable opponent out there.

whodoyoulike
09-17-2016, 04:38 PM
We've been bouncing around some bet ideas and I was curious what people think about a twin exacta bet, where you have to hit two straight exactas?

I hope you've read all or most of the responses. So, how about expanding on what exactly was or is being bounced around with some specifics so we don't have to speculate on what you you guys are considering. Part of playing an exacta is the ability to see the payoff before one bets. In this case, it doesn't appear the payout would be known for the entire twin payout before the first race.

Or, will it?

Also, is one of the intents and purposes to have a large jackpot (or carryover jackpot)?

And, what's the takeout %?

EMD4ME
09-17-2016, 08:22 PM
I personally would like to see a place pick all at NYRA.

BMustang
09-17-2016, 08:30 PM
Haven't been to Vegas lately, but back in the day when I did go, it seems each racebook conducted an in-house Double-Quinella with a designated prize amount.

Granted they picked the two toughest, full-field races that they could find, but the prize money was always sufficient enough to lure you in.

ronsmac
09-17-2016, 10:32 PM
When did Charles Town close down?1993 I think but don't quote me. It wasn't for too long and they subsequently got slots and later table games. The same thing happened to Delaware Park around a similar time.

ronsmac
09-17-2016, 10:35 PM
1993 I think but don't quote me. It wasn't for too long and they subsequently got slots and later table games. The same thing happened to Delaware Park around a similar time.
I may be wrong and it looks like they just threatened closure.

thespaah
09-17-2016, 10:43 PM
We've been bouncing around some bet ideas and I was curious what people think about a twin exacta bet, where you have to hit two straight exactas?
Inrteresting......Ok...
Why not....Keep the takeout reasonable and it just might get the attention the bettors.

SG4
09-18-2016, 12:15 AM
I personally would like to see a place pick all at NYRA.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this bet seems to be completely ignored (as in less handle than the maligned Grand Slam) at all the major CA tracks, and they're as exotic happy as it gets. Don't see why the need to try it in NY if it already has a long history as a dud.

Someone had mentioned the Swinger/Omni bet earlier as something to consider, I had high hopes for this, but once I started to see some payouts on tracks which offered it my enthusiasm was tempered. I guess the question is what might be the next innovative bet to capture bettors attention?

I thought a nice middle of the road type experiment (not all that innovative, more like a combination of existing popular exotics), would be a 50 cent base wager jackpot pick 6, with carryovers not exceeding the end of each month. I think NYRA would be a great place for this as the standard pick 6 pool continues to handle less & this would be a way to give it a new kick in the pants & possibly generate a lot of excitement on an ongoing basis with potential large carryover days & a number of large pools on must pay days on month ends.

Alwaysonpoint36
09-18-2016, 01:15 AM
I'd play into it. Often. If the payouts are as imagined it could easily be my primary wager. it could turn the chalkiest day at aqu into something something phenomenal. Daisy chain a couple bomb exactas and you could be looking at serious dough.

no breathalyzer
09-18-2016, 09:06 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this bet seems to be completely ignored (as in less handle than the maligned Grand Slam) at all the major CA tracks, and they're as exotic happy as it gets. Don't see why the need to try it in NY if it already has a long history as a dud.

Someone had mentioned the Swinger/Omni bet earlier as something to consider, I had high hopes for this, but once I started to see some payouts on tracks which offered it my enthusiasm was tempered. I guess the question is what might be the next innovative bet to capture bettors attention?

I thought a nice middle of the road type experiment (not all that innovative, more like a combination of existing popular exotics), would be a 50 cent base wager jackpot pick 6, with carryovers not exceeding the end of each month. I think NYRA would be a great place for this as the standard pick 6 pool continues to handle less & this would be a way to give it a new kick in the pants & possibly generate a lot of excitement on an ongoing basis with potential large carryover days & a number of large pools on must pay days on month ends.

i like this... for all the hardcore betters they could leave the $2 pick six alone and start a separate pool if possible

Cholly
09-19-2016, 02:22 PM
We've been bouncing around some bet ideas and I was curious what people think about a twin exacta bet, where you have to hit two straight exactas?

wouldn't give it even a second look

whodoyoulike
09-19-2016, 10:36 PM
We've been bouncing around some bet ideas and I was curious what people think about a twin exacta bet, where you have to hit two straight exactas?

Is this similar to a twin pk3 idea aka a pk6 or a pk4 with a DD aka a pk6?

Again, how about some specifics?

We aren't going to hold anyone to them since the idea is just being bounced around.

davew
09-20-2016, 12:31 AM
I am surprised that racing officials keep trying to find jackpot/lottery type bets. Don't you ever walk through the casino and understand the affect of churn at the blackjack table or slots?

I would suggest easier to cash bets (without such high takeout) like the HK quinella place or UK swinger, that are not multi-race.

VigorsTheGrey
09-20-2016, 01:25 AM
May sound kind of silly but what about exotics for the other end of the finish like a last-2nd last exacta AND last three trifecta?

rastajenk
09-20-2016, 08:08 AM
Pretty silly. You don't want to encourage not riding to the wire, or worse. And how do you handle the DNF's? Are they last, and part of the payout, or do you require a horse to finish the race, albeit at a slow trot, to be included in a winning wager?

I don't think racing fans really want to witness a situation where a big favorite in the win pool suffers some distress during a race, and then have people standing around saying, with a big grin, "Wow, he really blew up the last-place exacta payout, didn't he?" :D :D Laughs all around. No, I don't think so.

lamboguy
09-20-2016, 08:57 AM
matchup betting would be big if someone decides to implement it like they have in the casino's with set prices. NYRA could quadruple their handle overnight and not have to worry about twin exacta's or grand slams and bring lots more people into their racetracks and the casino at the Big A.

VigorsTheGrey
09-20-2016, 12:01 PM
Since the great majority of bettors feed their winnings back into the game anyway....why not have a selected bet with zero takeout?
Like the other early pick 3...for example....bettors would play into it hoping for a bigger payout...we all know most of the winnings end up on future losing tickets anyway....when was the last time you paid a bill from your racetrack winnings?

EMD4ME
09-20-2016, 12:41 PM
As a streaky player, I pay stuff off well in advance many times of racetrack winnings. My formulator costs 1295 a year and now that I use TFUS I paid that off in advance for the year. Car insurance too.

There's something gratifying of knowing your pick 5 just paid a years worth of cell phone bills, pps etc.

I shouldn't say that as I'm talking someone out of a 0% wager but its true. Shoot, the government is possibly lowering my handle by withholding so much. That I dont mind though as its a tax free loan to gov that gets paid back yearly.

SandyW
09-20-2016, 01:09 PM
Didn't they do that at roosevelt or yonkers years ago?

No, they had the twin double, you hit the double on the 5th and 6th race, then you exchange your winning ticket for the 7th and 8th races. if you hit the double in the 7th and 8th races then you hit the twin double.
They had the twin double at Roosevelt, Yonkers, and Liberty Bell if my memory serves me right.
It was a very popular bet at the time and maybe some track could revisit this type of wager in the future.

SandyW
09-20-2016, 01:15 PM
We've been bouncing around some bet ideas and I was curious what people think about a twin exacta bet, where you have to hit two straight exactas?

A good idea, anything that may create a large payout should be of interest to the betters. It never hurts to try new things, if it does not work you can always get rid of it.

EMD4ME
09-20-2016, 02:13 PM
I think the grand slam should be renamed the double grandslam..

Add 2 more legs to the show component. Make it harder.

thaskalos
09-20-2016, 03:35 PM
I think the grand slam should be renamed the double grandslam..

Add 2 more legs to the show component. Make it harder.

"GRAND SLAM"?

Judging by its payoffs...it should be called the "bunt single".

johnhannibalsmith
09-20-2016, 03:46 PM
"GRAND SLAM"?

Judging by its payoffs...it should be called the "bunt single".

Was really hoping you'd go with 'suicide squeeze'. :D

HalvOnHorseracing
09-20-2016, 04:23 PM
Clearly the problem isn't that the existing bets just aren't enough to make profit. Same mantra from me. Too many pools leads to pool dilution and cannibalization. I agree with a previous poster. You want to raise interest? Cut the take in a pool to close to zero and that bet becomes popular. Thinking like the lottery - put different pictures on your scratch off games doesn't change the odds of winning and probably doesn't fool the people who buy scratch tickets.

thaskalos
09-20-2016, 04:25 PM
Was really hoping you'd go with 'suicide squeeze'. :D

I wish I had your intelligence, sir. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

whodoyoulike
09-20-2016, 05:36 PM
Since this thread is about generating new ideas to help track handle, they should be bouncing around ideas which will give back an immediate benefit to the bettors. Follow the Indian casino models, draw bettors by giving them something even though it's only just an individual's perception. Those going to tracks and casinos like to gamble when they think they have a chance to win.

Bounce around ideas such as:

:1: free or minimum parking cost.
:2: free or lower admission cost.
:3: free popcorn. They can follow the movie theater and fast food model by increasing the salt in each bag and follow up by jacking up the beverage prices.
:4: charge to use the restrooms. Maybe even reduce the number of restrooms and they should be able to charge even more. The old supply and demand concept.
:5: have sign ups for fan appreciation where they mail out coupons for :1: and :2:.
:6: I remember casinos always had give aways but you had to be present on-site. They should be able to figure out something for ADW bettors.

Why do tracks charge for parking and admission and don't provide free popcorn?

EMD4ME
09-20-2016, 07:50 PM
"GRAND SLAM"?

Judging by its payoffs...it should be called the "bunt single".

Exactly why it should be extended. If it were up to me, it would be 8 races of show, with a win requirement in the last race.

no breathalyzer
09-21-2016, 08:19 AM
Exactly why it should be extended. If it were up to me, it would be 8 races of show, with a win requirement in the last race.

Thant would be sweet especially since they love to end the card that 40k mdn claimer on the grass.

Alwaysonpoint36
10-26-2016, 11:16 AM
Any news on this tlg?

the little guy
10-26-2016, 11:18 AM
Any news on this tlg?

Not that I know of.

EMD4ME
10-26-2016, 11:25 AM
Since this thread is about generating new ideas to help track handle, they should be bouncing around ideas which will give back an immediate benefit to the bettors. Follow the Indian casino models, draw bettors by giving them something even though it's only just an individual's perception. Those going to tracks and casinos like to gamble when they think they have a chance to win.

Bounce around ideas such as:

:1: free or minimum parking cost.
:2: free or lower admission cost.
:3: free popcorn. They can follow the movie theater and fast food model by increasing the salt in each bag and follow up by jacking up the beverage prices.
:4: charge to use the restrooms. Maybe even reduce the number of restrooms and they should be able to charge even more. The old supply and demand concept.
:5: have sign ups for fan appreciation where they mail out coupons for :1: and :2:.
:6: I remember casinos always had give aways but you had to be present on-site. They should be able to figure out something for ADW bettors.

Why do tracks charge for parking and admission and don't provide free popcorn?

Charge to use restrooms?

For real?

Alwaysonpoint36
10-26-2016, 11:25 AM
Not that I know of.

Maaaan, that's unfortunate...you gotta push this through :D

MonmouthParkJoe
10-26-2016, 11:38 AM
Since this thread is about generating new ideas to help track handle, they should be bouncing around ideas which will give back an immediate benefit to the bettors. Follow the Indian casino models, draw bettors by giving them something even though it's only just an individual's perception. Those going to tracks and casinos like to gamble when they think they have a chance to win.

Bounce around ideas such as:

:1: free or minimum parking cost.
:2: free or lower admission cost.
:3: free popcorn. They can follow the movie theater and fast food model by increasing the salt in each bag and follow up by jacking up the beverage prices.
:4: charge to use the restrooms. Maybe even reduce the number of restrooms and they should be able to charge even more. The old supply and demand concept.
:5: have sign ups for fan appreciation where they mail out coupons for :1: and :2:.
:6: I remember casinos always had give aways but you had to be present on-site. They should be able to figure out something for ADW bettors.

Why do tracks charge for parking and admission and don't provide free popcorn?

From a business standpoint, parking and admission make sense to charge for, it is one of the revenue streams that dont have incremental costs with the exception of the labor costs for working the gate. Unlike all the taxes or fees a track must pay with handle or other services. Especially parking, you park your car and they take your money.

The margins on concessions are pretty big, especially popcorn. It costs very little to make. On the other hand, when you buy a form on sight, they tracks usually make $1 on the sale of each. Not exactly huge.

The rest room charge is insane.

Some tracks, the meadowlands for example, do send out mailers for free bets and sodas or a hot dog on occasion. They also have giveaways on many weekends during the harness meet that you must be there for.

In fact, they do a great job with what they can. Rides in the starting car, sign ups for free winner circle presentations, vacation giveaways, voucher drawings, hell even one year they had a drawing to share in the revenue from a horse with no expenses attached. That horse was captain treacherous and the winners share was several thousand over the season. One year I won the contest for another horse that wasnt as successful, but got back a couple hundred.

Millpond68
10-26-2016, 01:00 PM
They had this at Brandywine years ago. All the sharpies would try to buy all the first half winning tickets. The Mutuel manager would inform them what the first half was worth and they paid accordingly. Also I remember this at Dover Downs trot meet.

EJXD2
12-01-2016, 06:30 PM
This is the question that is always out there. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if the Grand Slam was killed and replaced with this idea. I would go for trying to get it done.

This would be a straight bet not an exchange bet, I assume.

Please no. I love the grand slam

Elliott Sidewater
12-02-2016, 12:28 AM
Too easy - why not make it a twin pick 9, you have to sweep the card on day 1 and then again on day 2 to collect. And have it carry over into perpetuity until someone hits it. I even have a name for this new bet : Game of Whales.