PDA

View Full Version : new wager in NYC


SaratogaBailey
04-25-2006, 02:19 PM
i was just watching ESPN and they were talking about a new wager that will take place after May 3rd and it will be called the grand slam. It encompasses four races. For the first three races you have to pick a horse to come in the money (win place or show) therefore loading the bases and then in the fourth race you have to pick the winner.

Vegas711
04-25-2006, 03:37 PM
Why would ANYONE play this bet? Race 1 you pick a 20-1 he wins, in 2nd place is the 3-5 favorite. Race 2 your 12-1 horse comes in first, again the 2-1 favorite comes in 2nd. Race 3 you pick a 6-1 horse who wins, the second fav comes in 2nd. You and the other players both have the 3-1 choice in the Grand Slam 4th race.You end up collecting a very small Grand slam payoff. The person who plays your same horses in a pick 4 collects a monster payoff.


If i understand this bet correctly it sounds like a horrible bet.

garyoz
04-25-2006, 04:00 PM
Sounds like a situational bet. If you like a price horse in the 4th leg and favorites in the earlier legs it could work, plus it doesn't sound like it will attract very smart money. But overall it doesn't seem like a very good wager.

Ron
04-25-2006, 04:08 PM
I think Nader should be applauded for introducing a low-risk bet for the casual fan. Anything that can be done to bring new fans to the sport is commendable.

OTM Al
04-25-2006, 04:20 PM
Its actually not a bad idea for the casual fan. Yes, the payoffs will usually not be huge but consider there is no need to spread very much to hit this thing, so the amount invested will likewise be less and if you do spread, you may hit with multiple winning tickets, up to 27 times if you have the first 3 finishers in the first 3 races.

Also it will not be offered on the same 4 races as the standard pick 4, so that comparison is moot.

BetHorses!
04-25-2006, 08:24 PM
What is the takeout?

the little guy
04-25-2006, 10:04 PM
Even though it is unlikely to be a bet I will play very often, there's nothing wrong with trying something new, and there can be situations where it may be a somewhat juicy play.

Suppose you feel there are a couple of legs where the favorite is very weak, or even one, there could be good value. The favorite will be a substantial part of the pool for each leg, and should it fail to hit the board, the possibilities for decent payoffs exist. Like any bet, it will be worth paying attention to, and seeing if possibly the situation dictates a play. Imagine, for example, had you played it at Saratoga on the day before Travers Day, and pitched Ashado from the Personal Ensign, as anyone that knows me knows I would have, wouldn't there have been big value?

samyn on the green
04-25-2006, 11:00 PM
If I take some new jacks to the track I will direct them to play this. It has all the fun and tension building momentum of a pick 4 with substanually reduced risk. Perhaps if you figure this wager out before the masses do you can score for a few months before the value is usurped out of the wager. Instead of being a typical negitive horseplaying loser/cormudgoen, be positive and you may find yourself a winner. There is an oppurtunitry here for those with vision. I can imagine this is going to pay 2X or 3X the win price of the winner of the forth leg but perhaps with a odds on horse off the board it may be overlaid. Something new is the spice of life. I think Nader should be applauded for introducing a low-risk bet for the casual fan. Anything that can be done to bring new fans to the sport is commendable.

classhandicapper
04-28-2006, 09:01 AM
Isn't everyone just going to bet the favorite in the first 3 legs and then select the horse they like in the final leg?

If the payoff is the same no matter who you select in the first 3 legs, you might as well have the most probable win/place/show horse - which almost invariably will be the favorite (of course there will be some small exceptions and races where there are co-favorites etc..)

Ron
04-28-2006, 09:32 AM
Unless the favorite runs off the board, which happens quite often too.

classhandicapper
04-28-2006, 10:43 AM
Unless the favorite runs off the board, which happens quite often too.

I realize that, but if the payoff is identical whether I pick the typical 3-5 shot or or the typical 8-1 shot, I'd have to be crazy to take the 8-1 shot.

andicap
04-28-2006, 11:24 AM
I realize that, but if the payoff is identical whether I pick the typical 3-5 shot or or the typical 8-1 shot, I'd have to be crazy to take the 8-1 shot.

I see your point -- why use a longshot in the first three legs if you think the favorite will finish in the money? True. If you think the chalk is solid for all three legs there is no value in the bet. But don't people bet trifectas and leave out the favorite in hopes of huge payoffs? Here you might get an overlay for less outlay. Probably not life-changing but value is value.

I would think the best races will be E horses with strong Beyers earned from slow paces who are in tougher today pacewise. Or horses with two strong efforts in a row with little rest.

ceejay
04-28-2006, 06:04 PM
I see value here if there's a short-priced favoirte that you HATE.

Ron
04-28-2006, 06:56 PM
I see value here if there's a short-priced favoirte that you HATE.

Or don't think is going to be in the top three. I hate all short-priced favorites! ;)

BetHorses!
04-28-2006, 10:45 PM
I'll ask again

Does anyone know what the takeout will be

Rico8812
04-29-2006, 01:04 AM
I like the idea and hope the bet takes off. If I was playing, i'd probably structure my bet like: 2x1x2x4. $16 investment. Chance to cash a couple tickets. Not bad.

Ron
04-29-2006, 09:04 AM
I'll ask again

Does anyone know what the takeout will be

"The Grand Slam wager is classified as an exotic bet and is subject to the prevailing exotic takeout rate set forth in sections 228 and 229 of the Racing Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law 9 (between fifteen to twenty-five per centum of total deposits in pools resulting from on-track exotic bets and selected by a racing association or corporation and approved by the Board)."

http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/proposed_rules/Rule%20Text/GrandSlam.htm

classhandicapper
04-29-2006, 09:40 AM
I see value here if there's a short-priced favoirte that you HATE.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Valuist
05-02-2006, 10:29 AM
It definitely makes no sense to play longshots in the first 3 legs....but what about 2nd or 3rd choices? You have to figure the public is going to overbet the favorite in the first 3 races.

I wonder if this will be offered offshore.

PaceAdvantage
05-02-2006, 12:47 PM
It won't be offered at NYC OTB...at least not Wednesday....they are having some problems integrating the new bet into their systems....

Correction....it won't be offered at ANY of the NY OTB regions, at least not right away....weird....you'd think they had plenty of notice this bet was coming up...

classhandicapper
05-02-2006, 03:01 PM
It definitely makes no sense to play longshots in the first 3 legs....but what about 2nd or 3rd choices? You have to figure the public is going to overbet the favorite in the first 3 races.

I wonder if this will be offered offshore.

I guess we are going to have to see what the payoffs look like the first few days. I'm intending on trying to use the first 3 legs to get value on the 4th horse. If people are using medium priced horses and longshots, I'm going to focus on solid favorites and close choices when the favorite looks very vulnerable .

AwolAtPA
05-02-2006, 03:04 PM
refer paragraph 9 http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/proposed_rules/Rule%20Text/GrandSlam.htm

9. Providing information to any person regarding covered combinations, amounts wagered on specific combinations, number of tickets sold, or number of live tickets remaining prior to the third segment of the wager being made official is strictly prohibited. This shall not prohibit necessary communication between totalisator and pari-mutuel department employees for processing of pool data.

'..Providing information..' is NOT ALLOWED!!

my guess is that this is an attempt to control '..unauthorized betting..'

does anyone have a better explanation for this rule?

awol

twindouble
05-02-2006, 05:09 PM
refer paragraph 9 http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/proposed_rules/Rule%20Text/GrandSlam.htm



'..Providing information..' is NOT ALLOWED!!

my guess is that this is an attempt to control '..unauthorized betting..'

does anyone have a better explanation for this rule?

awol

I think the rule is a carry over from days gone by. Nowadays, it's just one wager and the possible payoffs in the picks are posted anyway, nothing changes, you can't effect the payoff. Any fix would be well planed to begin with, because it takes four races to get there. If it boiled down to getting a chalk or two beat, here again that's planed and has nothing to do with the information about the mutuals. Your a loser anyway.

Information on how many live tickets were out there when I was playing the Twin Double was very important when it came to my exchange strategy for the second half. I was able to get that information, whereas others didn't bother or didn't know enough to nurture good relationships with key tellers.

T.D.

WINMANWIN
05-02-2006, 05:45 PM
It won't be offered at NYC OTB...at least not Wednesday....they are having some problems integrating the new bet into their systems....

Correction....it won't be offered at ANY of the NY OTB regions, at least not right away....weird....you'd think they had plenty of notice this bet was coming up...

That doesnt surprise me, N.Y. OTB'S will always be a comedy to horseplayers :ThmbDown:

Does anyone know if BRIS or YOUBET will accept the wager ?

superfecta
05-03-2006, 12:22 AM
`havent seen the rules but if the base bet is $1,wonder what the return would be if you bet the fav in the first three and just punched all in the fourth leg?Say the last race has 10 horses,cost is ten bucks.For thirty bucks you could get close to a 80% win rate using the first three favs.Looks like a lock for a winning ticket,but the return could really suck.

twindouble
05-03-2006, 09:36 AM
I don't think this gimmick will fly, the payoffs will suck ESP if it's a $1.00 play. You'll be better off playing the supers in those 4 races. I won't play it.

I think any time a player can wager once on multiple races that ticket goes in his wallet and there's no incentive to hang in and gamble some more. Not everyone of course but to me the more that hang in and play the better.

Take the pick 6, that's a $2.00 wager, anyone who's serious about playing it will more than likely make a sizable investment, the majority of players at the tracks or online don't fall in that category, those below that with a marginal bankrolls that do play it and get beat in the early legs it's a lottery play with no other wagering strategy to back them up. With a stressed bankroll that causes them to back off, if they don't get lucky along the way they will pass on it. The tracks think by coming up with gimmicks like this solves the problem, it's like the slot machine that kicks out a little now and then. What do you think would happen to DD's, rolling doubles, pick 3's and 4's if your horses didn't have to win, then make it a 50 cent play.

To me this type of dilution isn't good for gamblers like me, here again the tracks are destroying what was a traditionally a game of skill and sound wagering strategies into everyone can win game. Dime supers, dollar this dollar that, pick losers and still win. The dollar wager I can live with but when all the pick 6's go to a buck or 50 cent play that will really upset me. The guy in the middle needs a good score now and then to stay ahead of the game.

What's next, a power ball horse? Scratch tickets on the winning numbers for the day, yes I see it all now, buy a scratch ticket on the way in and sit there and see if your numbers come in, that would be better than diluting the pools. A luxury cruse, new car, cash prizes, bonus points, hot dogs, Top Jock dolls, A day with top trainers, dinner with Beyer, a lesson in Handicapping and English with T.L.G., Free DRF for a year. IF they want to turn racing into a freaking lottery game, do it right. Just don't mess with what makes up the core of the game.

I was going to get into back up wagering strategies when playing the pick 6, that's subject for another day. Kind of off topic here.

T.D.

ryesteve
05-03-2006, 01:27 PM
the tracks are destroying what was a traditionally a game of skill and sound wagering strategies into everyone can win game. Dime supers, dollar this dollar that, pick losers and still win. The dollar wager I can live with but when all the pick 6's go to a buck or 50 cent play that will really upset me.
I don't understand your logic at all. Reducing the size the the minimum bet doesn't make the takeout magically go away. The element of skill and strategy required to show a profit is no different. The only difference is that there'd be less of an advantage to those players with the highest bankrolls. Personally, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about them.

ryesteve
05-03-2006, 01:30 PM
bet the fav in the first three and... you could get close to a 80% win rate
How did you figure the odds of the favorite hitting the board 3 races in a row is 80%?? It's more like 30%

twindouble
05-03-2006, 02:39 PM
I don't understand your logic at all. Reducing the size the the minimum bet doesn't make the takeout magically go away. The element of skill and strategy required to show a profit is no different. The only difference is that there'd be less of an advantage to those players with the highest bankrolls. Personally, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about them.

I don't spend a lot time worrying about anything, the take out is a factor, the less take out the more money comes back to the winners and in a good percentage that money goes back through the windows. Anyway I made no reference to Take Out.

Look at it this way, say you apply your skill in the pick 6 and go for a $2.00 play off in a $100,000.00 pool, the $1.00 player covers more horses, ( less skill involved) yet he'll get $50,000.00, half the pool. I'll tell you what, make him play a $2.00 ticket and you'll the $100,000.00 on your "Skill". He'll still put in the same amount of money but he'll lose that edge. Maybe you never had to share half of a pool with a $1.00 player, I have. Not lately though, those kind opportunities don't come every day.

How much money the $1.00 player adds to the pool, I don't know but you would have to think a good percentage of them would play $2.00 ticket, have to factor that in. Sure you can adjust your wagering strategy and still make a buck, that's not what I'm saying.

What really got my attention was when that guy hit the breeders cup pick 6 using a quick pick machine, lots of skill involved in that case. :bang: Just think of what those people would have got having pick 5. I didn't know they had a quick pick at the track.

Good luck,



T.D.

ryesteve
05-03-2006, 03:14 PM
Anyway I made no reference to Take Out.
I know you didn't mention it, I did... in order to point out that it's still ~20% for everyone, regardless of how much they're betting. So in order to turn a profit, the same level of skill is still required.


Look at it this way, say you apply your skill in the pick 6 and go for a $2.00 play off in a $100,000.00 pool, the $1.00 player covers more horses, ( less skill involved) yet he'll get $50,000.00, half the pool.

Are you telling me that if you have a $2 winning pick six ticket, and I have a $1 pick six ticket, we both get the same payout?!

ryesteve
05-03-2006, 03:17 PM
How did you figure the odds of the favorite hitting the board 3 races in a row is 80%?? It's more like 30%
Edit: your math confused me. If that 80% hit rate was for betting 3 horses in each of the first 3 legs, that could be a reasonable guess at the hit rate, but the cost of that ticket is $270 not $30

JackS
05-03-2006, 03:25 PM
Hypothetical but if you considered that the public favorite or ML favorite would fill one of the top two slots in the first three legs 75% of the time and that the average payoff would be something less than $2.50, the only way to play this bet is as a single ticket from start to last leg.
From off the top of my head, this would be a multiplier of about 3 or 4 to one on that last leg in which the favorite (2-1) would now have to pay at least 6-1 to break even.
Impossible to be absolutist here so one must reasonably conjecture as to what average fair odds should be. Since were dealing with expected low odds, errors should be reasonable and within our (say 3-1) on that last race.

twindouble
05-03-2006, 03:39 PM
I know you didn't mention it, I did... in order to point out that it's still ~20% for everyone, regardless of how much they're betting. So in order to turn a profit, the same level of skill is still required.


Are you telling me that if you have a $2 winning pick six ticket, and I have a $1 pick six ticket, we both get the same payout?!

No no, I'm saying it pays $100,000.00 for a $2.00 ticket and he gets $50,000.00, whereas I would have collected $150,000.00. My mistake, didn't word it right. :bang:

Ron
05-03-2006, 03:53 PM
I think this is just supposed to be a fun bet.

ryesteve
05-03-2006, 07:28 PM
No no, I'm saying it pays $100,000.00 for a $2.00 ticket and he gets $50,000.00, whereas I would have collected $150,000.00. My mistake, didn't word it right. :bang:
Ok... so your bet size was twice as much, and your payout was twice as much. Still not seeing how it's unfair...

twindouble
05-03-2006, 08:07 PM
Ok... so your bet size was twice as much, and your payout was twice as much. Still not seeing how it's unfair...

What I'm saying is with no $1.00 wager he's no compitition, he wouldn't have covered the horses with a $2.00 wager. He ends up taking a good % of the pool with lesser skills. No different than the $1.00 super, now they have 50 and 10 cent plays. I think the majority of players would have spent the same amout with a $2.00 play. I don't know how else to explain it other than the example I gave.


T.D.

ryesteve
05-03-2006, 09:27 PM
What I'm saying is with no $1.00 wager he's no compitition
... and his money's not in the pool either... or maybe he would've been forced to buy $2 tickets, hit it anyway, in which case you'd be getting 50% of the pool instead of 2/3 of the pool.

You don't need to explain it any better or differently... I understand what you're saying, but your logic doesn't hold up.

twindouble
05-03-2006, 10:19 PM
... and his money's not in the pool either... or maybe he would've been forced to buy $2 tickets, hit it anyway, in which case you'd be getting 50% of the pool instead of 2/3 of the pool.

You don't need to explain it any better or differently... I understand what you're saying, but your logic doesn't hold up.

Well, look at it this way. A deck of cards has 4 aces but one guy gets to draw from a deck with 8 and your stuck with the four, and the game is black jack. Who has the edge??? Can't be any clearer than that when it comes to Logic. Think about the skill involved, when it comes handicapping and picking the horses, the guy with the extra tickets for the same bucks as you has good shot to share in the pools, take away the extra tickets and he like I said, is no competition. The whole idea about the $1.00, 50 cent and 10 cent plays are to give others a chance to win some money. On the average the payoffs drop considerably. Sometimes they can cost you a lot of money, that was my first example.

T.D..

samyn on the green
05-03-2006, 10:44 PM
Awesome value here with the Grandslam wager. One of my track partners made a minor investment here and scored. The show/win parlay would have paid $13 but the Grand Slam returned $46 for just a cold wager.


Think the stategy is to go deep in the showlegs and lay down a winner in the finale for a multiticket score. Not a life changing return but a fun wager that offers value with reduced risk and reduced investment. Those shrewd enough to master this wager early will have an edge for a while, the publics learning curve is usally way behind a sharp individual. $46 for three chalk shows and a 5.60 chalk winner is awesome.

Indulto
05-04-2006, 01:38 AM
What I'm saying is with no $1.00 wager he's no compitition, he wouldn't have covered the horses with a $2.00 wager. He ends up taking a good % of the pool with lesser skills.TD,
Read the following article in its entirety which happens to be my alltime Crist favorite since he revealed himself as an another "alliterate" [thanks to TT]:


New bets - now there's an idea By STEVEN CRIST 01/13/2006
http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=71519&subs=0&arc=1 (http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=71519&subs=0&arc=1)

“…What in the world is wrong with letting someone make a six-horse trifecta box, which requires 120 combinations, for $12 at a dime unit or $30 at a quarter unit instead of demanding he spend $120 at a $1 minimum? People aren't going to bet any less. More likely, they will bet more because they are cashing more often and not constantly feeling they are being bullied by bigger bankrolls.”


TD,
Having a bigger bankroll isn't a skill, it's an unfair advantage. Now if you succeeded despite betting beyond your means, then I'll give you credit for bigger balls, but not superior skills. ;)

ryesteve
05-04-2006, 09:15 AM
Well, look at it this way. A deck of cards has 4 aces but one guy gets to draw from a deck with 8 and your stuck with the four, and the game is black jack. Who has the edge???
There's no analogy there. Blackjack isn't a parimutuel game... and besides, if the payouts in your example were directly proportional to each person's chances of winning, as they are at the racetrack, I would tell you that NEITHER player has an edge.

Here's MY analogy for you: let's say each pick 6 ticket cost $2,000 instead of $2. Because your daddy is Bill Gates, you can afford to play... but no one else can. Without all those pesky $2 bettors in the pool, do you now feel like you have the ultimate edge?

twindouble
05-04-2006, 09:41 AM
TD,
Read the following article in its entirety which happens to be my alltime Crist favorite since he revealed himself as an another "alliterate" [thanks to TT]:


New bets - now there's an idea By STEVEN CRIST 01/13/2006
http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=71519&subs=0&arc=1 (http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=71519&subs=0&arc=1)

“…What in the world is wrong with letting someone make a six-horse trifecta box, which requires 120 combinations, for $12 at a dime unit or $30 at a quarter unit instead of demanding he spend $120 at a $1 minimum? People aren't going to bet any less. More likely, they will bet more because they are cashing more often and not constantly feeling they are being bullied by bigger bankrolls.”


TD,
Having a bigger bankroll isn't a skill, it's an unfair advantage. Now if you succeeded despite betting beyond your means, then I'll give you credit for bigger balls, but not superior skills. ;)

What? Just because Crist is promoting them, that makes me wrong? I never felt bullied by anyone at the track until others were getting upwards of 9 to 14 percent in rebates and we didn't qualify. Plus I've always stressed the need for a reasonable bankroll to compete.

My God, just think about what they are doing, a pick 4 where you don't have to pick winners in three races. Like I said, sell a dam scratch ticket at the track! Throw away the racing form and just box 7 horses. That's not horse racing to me and never will be. The whole game is being watered down and diluted to a point where the average new comer won't ever understand the true essence of the game or won't care to. Hell, if put to a vote guys like me would be relegated to the attic to collect dust.


Good luck,

T.D.

twindouble
05-04-2006, 10:08 AM
There's no analogy there. Blackjack isn't a parimutuel game... and besides, if the payouts in your example were directly proportional to each person's chances of winning, as they are at the racetrack, I would tell you that NEITHER player has an edge.

Here's MY analogy for you: let's say each pick 6 ticket cost $2,000 instead of $2. Because your daddy is Bill Gates, you can afford to play... but no one else can. Without all those pesky $2 bettors in the pool, do you now feel like you have the ultimate edge?

Any analogy that incorperates gambling, risk and having an edge fills the bill. MR. Gates would more than likely buy a track or a few of those 16 million dollar horses. We will just have to agree to disagee on the subject.

Good luck, I respect your persistence and tone of argument.

T.D.

Indulto
05-04-2006, 12:04 PM
What? Just because Crist is promoting them, that makes me wrong? I never felt bullied by anyone at the track until others were getting upwards of 9 to 14 percent in rebates and we didn't qualify. Plus I've always stressed the need for a reasonable bankroll to compete.

My God, just think about what they are doing, a pick 4 where you don't have to pick winners in three races. Like I said, sell a dam scratch ticket at the track! Throw away the racing form and just box 7 horses. That's not horse racing to me and never will be. The whole game is being watered down and diluted to a point where the average new comer won't ever understand the true essence of the game or won't care to. Hell, if put to a vote guys like me would be relegated to the attic to collect dust. Good luck, T.D.TD,

I share your reactions to rebates and the "Grand Scam" P4. And a Crist counter-opinion hardly makes you wrong (he never advocates lowering the minimum for a standard P6).

I know I'm repeating myself, but in the good old days prior to exotics other than the double and the exacta, horseplaying was an equal opportunity activity whether you stood in the $2 line or frequented the $50 window. My first encounter with income-based injustice at the track was the $5 min EX at Santa Anita which disabled my EX Wheel capacity by requiring a $55 dollar investment instead of my accustomed $22 in NY. Eventually they "allowed" (as opposed to "offered") $1 EX Box (min 3 horse), but still not Wheels.

It was the P6 that saved the whales while horseplayers turned into an endangered species. Affordable STANDARD P6/P4 plays are the last hope for a decent score by the average player in a game where bankroll now trumps skill. Yes, there is the occasional Graham Stone (winner of a multi-million BC Ultra P6 with an $8 ticket), but his reasoning behind his selections and late switches suggested that luck supplanted skill to some extent.

I hope this thread hasn’t discouraged you from sharing your P6 strategies here in the future. I was really looking forward to them as I continue collecting dust in my attic.

twindouble
05-04-2006, 01:45 PM
Indulto, I had to look up the word "alliterate" and it's still not clear in my mind, I may very well have miss understood what you were saying. Nothing new with me. :D

Thanks, I'll start a thread on the pick 6 strategies after I get by the Derby. Not that it will be anything earth shattering to some here.


It was the P6 that saved the whales while horseplayers turned into an endangered species. Affordable STANDARD P6/P4 plays are the last hope for a decent score by the average player in a game where bankroll now trumps skill. Yes, there is the occasional Graham Stone (winner of a multi-million BC Ultra P6 with an $8 ticket), but his reasoning behind his selections and late switches suggested that luck supplanted skill to some extent.Quote; Indulto.



I don't consider myself to be a whale, maybe a large mouth bass to some. :D Like I said, last year with one good pick 6 put me in comfort zone. The way the last 3 MO have gone, I'll need another. I know Crist wasn't advicating a $1.00 pick 6 but I see it coming. Maybe it's there at some track but I don't know.

When it comes to whales, I don't know how many times I've seen them with fists full of those $50 tickets on horses I thought had no shot to win. That was in my prime, meaning I would be driving nails and at the same time running a race in my mind. Lunch to me was a coffee and a racing form. Everyone wants instant gradifaction and the tracks know it so this is what we get with gimmicks like the Grand Slam.


T.D.

Indulto
05-04-2006, 04:43 PM
Indulto, I had to look up the word "alliterate" and it's still not clear in my mind, I may very well have miss understood what you were saying. Nothing new with me. :D

...I don't consider myself to be a whale, maybe a large mouth bass to some. :D TD,
According to www.wsu.edu (http://www.wsu.edu/), "alliterate" is a verb describing the pairing of words with the same initial sound and "illiterate" is a noun describing those who can't read. The very clever TT originally and brilliantly played "alliterate" as a noun to mean one who alliterates which will forever endear the toedoubled one to me just as large mouth bass has achieved the same effect for you. ;)

Between Toe and Tom, I really get a lot of laughs coming here, but every once and a while you and others really tickle me. It'll take some effort, though, to top chickenhead's "helmet" post. I think the wolf avatar really helped that one.

twindouble
05-04-2006, 05:02 PM
TD,
According to www.wsu.edu (http://www.wsu.edu/), "alliterate" is a verb describing the pairing of words with the same initial sound and "illiterate" is a noun describing those who can't read. The very clever TT originally and brilliantly played "alliterate" as a noun to mean one who alliterates which will forever endear the toedoubled one to me just as large mouth bass has achieved the same effect for you. ;)

Between Toe and Tom, I really get a lot of laughs coming here, but every once and a while you and others really tickle me. It'll take some effort, though, to top chickenhead's "helmet" post. I think the wolf avatar really helped that one.

Yes, that cracked me up also. We all should keep a helmet handy when it comes to off topic. Can't shoot anyone from here.:D

toetoe
05-04-2006, 11:28 PM
Dubbular One,

I won't rise to the bait. And we should mention that alliteration only applies to consonants. The wonderful word for terms starting with the same vowel escapes me at the moment.

My apologies if I sound crappie. I promise to scale it down, but you must understand --- I haven't been scrod since Moby Dick was a tadpole. :(

--- Ralph Gar

P.S. Hand me those needlenose, there's a good chap. rg

Steve 'StatMan'
05-04-2006, 11:39 PM
And we should mention that alliteration only applies to consonants. The wonderful word for terms starting with the same vowel escapes me at the moment.

My Webster's Dictionary has alliteration as a repetition of initial sounds in adjacent words or syllables.

So maybe you haven't forgotten the word - might be the same thing.
Maybe?

I'm not sure, man.
I'm not Sherman.
I'm not your man.
I'm not German.
I'm "Nacho Man."

Sorry, straying off topic - the Grand Slam.

toetoe
05-05-2006, 12:10 AM
Hey, thass NACHO CHIP! Hands off!

I must say, any time you bet to show, you're running the risk of diluting your value, depending upon which horses come in. It's just that the Not-So-Grand Slam seems so tame. I guess it's better than the mega-lottery mentality that's been sweeping the sport. It's good that it's for our kids' education ... no, wait, that's the California Lottery. D'OH!

superfecta
05-09-2006, 01:05 AM
Edit: your math confused me. If that 80% hit rate was for betting 3 horses in each of the first 3 legs, that could be a reasonable guess at the hit rate, but the cost of that ticket is $270 not $30
Not on one ticket,three tickets at 10 dollars each.
like so(1st fav,2nd fav 3rd fav,not number of horses)
1x1x1xall(assuming ten horses in the last leg)=10
2x2x2xall =10
3x3x3xall =10

what you are shooting for is a price horse in the last leg of course.