PDA

View Full Version : 50 Cent Pick 4 In New York?


Stevie Belmont
01-06-2009, 10:31 AM
Who thinks a 50 cent Pick 4 in New York is a good idea? At least one? Early or late?

boomman
01-06-2009, 10:42 AM
Who thinks a 50 cent Pick 4 in New York is a good idea? At least one? Early or late?

Stevie: BOTH! If it follows exotic betting trends at other tracks that have done this, their handle will increase when the minimum wager is decreased. You gotta LOVE lower denomination wagering from a W2-G standpoint as well.....;)

Boomer

facorsig
01-06-2009, 11:39 AM
It's such a good idea that they are already doing it at FL.

Greyfox
01-06-2009, 01:07 PM
I beg to differ with you guys.

Back in the 1950's the lowest bet that you could make was for $ 2.00.

A two dollar wager in that period had a hell of a lot more purchase power than two dollars does today. Are tracks trying to attract a number of chicken shit bettors?


The minimum wager should be $ 1 on all bets. I am not a fan of the dime supers either. :ThmbDown:

richrosa
01-06-2009, 01:20 PM
Back in the 1950's the lowest bet that you could make was for $ 2.00.


It fair to note that the $2 bet wasn't done for purely business reasons, rather the limitations of the technology at the time. Today's technology affords more options that supposedly allows the racing wager to compete against other forms of legalized gaming.

Greyfox
01-06-2009, 01:21 PM
Are you saying they didn't have $ 1 bills in 1955?

richrosa
01-06-2009, 01:26 PM
Are you saying they didn't have $ 1 bills in 1955?

As much as I would prefer the way it was, its a vastly different world than 1955. Times change.

What I would suggest is that every track standardized its reporting of payoffs against a $1 unit/base bet. That would make life easier for everyone, despite the actual base that could be takes on a particular wager.

Greyfox
01-06-2009, 01:46 PM
Times change.

.

Times change? You bet they do. In fact that's the one thing that you can bet on, is things will change. The problem though is that the changes aren't always for the better. For example, this morning I found out that Yahoo changed my incoming mail. Now I can barely read the small window pane that it's presented in. Some change.

I'm saying that the net effect of 50 cent pick 4's and dime super tri's is a general lowering of the big ticket. Sure more players are hitting them, but the chance to hit a big score is reduced.

InsideThePylons-MW
01-06-2009, 02:29 PM
I'm jumping up and down with anticipation waiting for the nickel quinella and the penny pick-6 with carryover.

Greyfox
01-06-2009, 02:31 PM
I'm jumping up and down with anticipation waiting for the nickel quinella and the penny pick-6 with carryover.

:lol: :lol: :ThmbUp:

boomman
01-06-2009, 02:38 PM
Times change? You bet they do. In fact that's the one thing that you can bet on, is things will change. The problem though is that the changes aren't always for the better. For example, this morning I found out that Yahoo changed my incoming mail. Now I can barely read the small window pane that it's presented in. Some change.

I'm saying that the net effect of 50 cent pick 4's and dime super tri's is a general lowering of the big ticket. Sure more players are hitting them, but the chance to hit a big score is reduced.

I remember having this discussion with someone else on this board a ways back when we were discussing the minimum $1 bet on the pentafecta (which I also disagree with and KNOW the only reason they did it was to create carryovers)...I am as big a player (most likely) as any player on this board, and have consistently found that if anything, the $1 superfectas (since the invention of the dime super) have probably INCREASED in average return, and if not , damn close, not to mention the fact that the pools have CERTAINLY increased. Add to that factor 6000x1 on your minimum wager that doesn't require a signature on a W2-G form (as the minimum signing amount is $600), and you put a ton more money in your pocket at the end of the year, especially if you're an everyday player. The argument that higher minimum bet denominations is a better deal for the player just doesn't cut it!!!!!! :bang:

Boomer

Greyfox
01-06-2009, 03:03 PM
Does the 10 cent super tri have any impact on the time spent in betting lines?

InsideThePylons-MW
01-06-2009, 03:17 PM
I remember having this discussion with someone else on this board a ways back when we were discussing the minimum $1 bet on the pentafecta (which I also disagree with and KNOW the only reason they did it was to create carryovers)..

And you were 100% wrong about it.

I am as big a player (most likely) as any player on this board,

Still as hilarious as the first time you said this.

and have consistently found that if anything, the $1 superfectas (since the invention of the dime super) have probably INCREASED in average return, and if not , damn close, not to mention the fact that the pools have CERTAINLY increased.

Great observation again! Wagering is down but the dime supers are thriving????? If they actually are, at what cost to the other pools? How much faster do the nits lose their money when they get payoff's that are 10% of what they use to get even though they bet the same amount of money?

Add to that factor 6000x1 on your minimum wager that doesn't require a signature on a W2-G form (as the minimum signing amount is $600), and you put a ton more money in your pocket at the end of the year, especially if you're an everyday player.

If you are a professional player, what does it matter if you sign your name to a form? Are you saying you don't do your taxes or don't want to do your taxes properly? If you are a successful pro, it's just a part of doing business.

What you are saying is that McDonalds would be better off if they just bought a hot dog cart and sold hot dogs for a $1.00 cash so they wouldn't have to worry about IRS paperwork.

As for withholding, it's just like any worker in the country paying their taxes.

You do pay taxes, don't you?

The argument that higher minimum bet denominations is a better deal for the player just doesn't cut it!!!!!! :bang:

The main argument is that because of the lower increments, it automatically makes bettors spread out much deeper therefore making the unobvious have anti-value and the obvious have value. It basically takes value away from someone with a good opinion affecting big bettors and small bettors alike.

BombsAway Bob
01-06-2009, 05:21 PM
fifty-cent Pick-4's are a great wager for tracks & bettors.
It gets people into the pool that are 'on the fence' about playing a Pick-4.Turf Paradise is a good example.
It also creates handle for tracks in later races in the sequence, as players who have handicapped them either:
A.) Cover runners they didn't use in the live ticket they have, or
B.) Play a late Pick-3 or Double if they get knocked out of the P4 early.
There's a reason Casinos are filling their floors with Penny Slots instead of Dollar Slots. People want value when gambling, wether it's real or perceived. If Fifity-Cent Pick-4's are beneath you, by All Means play for a Buck(or a Fin).

Light
01-06-2009, 06:53 PM
It didnt hurt the super payouts when they went to a dime.It didn't hurt exactas when they were lowered to $1. And it wont hurt pk4's or pk6's to lower their denominations.By lowering the minimum requirement,it will reach a wider audience and in this economy,sticking with the status quo may be foolish. Times like these call for flexiblity.

The Bit
01-06-2009, 07:49 PM
I'm all for the lower denominations. I play the Fair Grounds pick 4 more than any other these days because of the .50 cent option.

I rarely played supers until .10 centers were offered. I just couldn't play them effectively with my bankroll. That being said, now that I play them, I bet more per race and per card than I would otherwise have.

boomman
01-06-2009, 07:56 PM
It didnt hurt the super payouts when they went to a dime.It didn't hurt exactas when they were lowered to $1. And it wont hurt pk4's or pk6's to lower their denominations.By lowering the minimum requirement,it will reach a wider audience and in this economy,sticking with the status quo may be foolish. Times like these call for flexiblity.

Light: Absolutely true! And for those of you that brought to my attention that ITP had some disparaging remarks for my post and asked me to respond, thanks so much for your support, but I put him on "iggy", and gave up on reading his ranting piles of "poop" a long time ago.....Dissenting opinions don't bother me at all but personal attacks are childlish, uncalled for and I'll have nothing to do with anyone (especially an anonymous poster) that brings that attitude to this or any other board! I have EXACTLY ONE poster on ignore on this ENTIRE board..........

Guess Who?????????:D

Boomer

InsideThePylons-MW
01-06-2009, 08:35 PM
Personal attacks?

I found a ridiculous comment you made hilarious and that is a personal attack?

Every other thing I wrote can't even be remotely considered a personal attack even using heavy paranoia.

Here's what you wrote about the SA Super High-5 in this thread when it was introduced http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42275&highlight=minimum

IMHO this is very simple: If they allow dime wagering on it, it will work.....If they don't, it won't:confused:

Boomer

Pace and Ralph: this is exactly why it won't get any play..it MUST be a dime unit for them to have any chance. I can't believe they wouldn't know that after seeing the increases in the superfecta pools froim the dime supers being added :bang:

Boomer

Only 1 year after being introduced as a brand new wager....Friday's pool had $208,000 chasing a $78,000 c/o and Saturday's pool came right back with $180,000 with no c/o.

I would have to say that's pretty good for 1 year and a little bit better than the wager has no chance, won't get any play, and it won't work.

InsideThePylons-MW
01-06-2009, 08:44 PM
It didnt hurt the super payouts when they went to a dime.

I disagree.

Let's say you are an avg/mid-level player with a great opinion and knows how to bet properly.

You look at a race....hate the 6/5 favorite....like a 12-1 shot so you decide to key him 1st and 2nd....and like 5 others to use with him in the other 3 spots.

So you play $120 in the $1 superfecta and your 12-1 wins, a 6-1 is second, a 8-1 thrid and a 9/2 fourth.

If it's a $1 superfecta, there are very few people who can get to that number unless they are talented and have a great opinion.

If it's a 10 cent minimum, there are numerous people that can now land on this number because with the lower minimum, it let's the dull bettors with no opinion into your number just because they can mark cheap boxes.

Nobody can possibly say that this super would have paid the exact same with a dollar minimum vs a dime minimum.

InsideThePylons-MW
01-06-2009, 08:49 PM
I rarely played supers until .10 centers were offered. I just couldn't play them effectively with my bankroll. That being said, now that I play them, I bet more per race and per card than I would otherwise have.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question.....

If you played 10 cent supers and at the end of year your records showed that 15% of your return was on tickets where they paid off on all's for 3rd or 4th because nobody had the winning combo......

Would you still play every super for 10 cents if they lowered the minimum to a penny and that 15% was now gone because they now hit every super?

Light
01-06-2009, 10:23 PM
I disagree.

Let's say you are an avg/mid-level player with a great opinion and knows how to bet properly.

You look at a race....hate the 6/5 favorite....like a 12-1 shot so you decide to key him 1st and 2nd....and like 5 others to use with him in the other 3 spots.

So you play $120 in the $1 superfecta and your 12-1 wins, a 6-1 is second, a 8-1 thrid and a 9/2 fourth.

If it's a $1 superfecta, there are very few people who can get to that number unless they are talented and have a great opinion.

If it's a 10 cent minimum, there are numerous people that can now land on this number because with the lower minimum, it let's the dull bettors with no opinion into your number just because they can mark cheap boxes.

Nobody can possibly say that this super would have paid the exact same with a dollar minimum vs a dime minimum.


In your example,I would pass for $120. For $12 I would take a chance.If I win, that's still only 1/10th of the $1 payout. I'm not reducing the payout that much. Most people are going to play who they like on top wether its for a $1 or a penny.If they dont like the 12-1 shot,they are not going to put him on top, even for a dime. BTW a large chunk (in some cases over 50%) of the super pools are funded by dime supers.

InsideThePylons-MW
01-06-2009, 10:36 PM
In your example,I would pass for $120. For $12 I would take a chance.If I win, that's still only 1/10th of the $1 payout. I'm not reducing the payout that much. Most people are going to play who they like on top wether its for a $1 or a penny.If they dont like the 12-1 shot,they are not going to put him on top, even for a dime. BTW a large chunk (in some cases over 50%) of the super pools are funded by dime supers.

I guess you didn't understand.

The Bit
01-06-2009, 11:43 PM
Let me ask you a hypothetical question.....

If you played 10 cent supers and at the end of year your records showed that 15% of your return was on tickets where they paid off on all's for 3rd or 4th because nobody had the winning combo......

Would you still play every super for 10 cents if they lowered the minimum to a penny and that 15% was now gone because they now hit every super?

In those instances you are probably correct.

That being said, until I see evidence that says the superfecta, pick 4, etc handle went down after the addition of these lower denominations than I'll continue to believe that it is better for a majority of the customers and help the handle.

I wouldn't be playing half of the pick 4's at the Fair Grounds and I wouldn't be playing 90% of the supers I play if it wasn't for the discounted price.

Pace Cap'n
01-06-2009, 11:58 PM
From hearsay at the simo, a $30 ticket on the dime super is not unusual. 299 losers have to help the pools.

Also, structuring bets to minimize witholding does not imply one is tax cheat. It just means they would prefer to retain the cash rather than letting the IRS hold it.

ezrabrooks
01-07-2009, 12:00 AM
In your example,I would pass for $120. For $12 I would take a chance.If I win, that's still only 1/10th of the $1 payout. I'm not reducing the payout that much. Most people are going to play who they like on top wether its for a $1 or a penny.If they dont like the 12-1 shot,they are not going to put him on top, even for a dime. BTW a large chunk (in some cases over 50%) of the super pools are funded by dime supers.

Hey Light, weren't you the one bad mouthing Steve Crist about going to deep in a P6?

Ez

Light
01-07-2009, 12:37 AM
Hey Light, weren't you the one bad mouthing Steve Crist about going to deep in a P6?

Ez

Yes. But I was reffering to the unrealistic amount he put into the pk6. ITP also brings up an unrealistic amount to play in the super,$120 for one bet? Most players dont play like that either.Not only that but who would be stupid enough to single a 12-1 shot on top and in the 2nd hole in a super with a $120 investment. Wouldn't betting $100 to win,backed up in second by a few $5 exactas, be a much saner and safer bet? What if that favorite he tossed runs 4th. You're out 1200 clams you could have betting straight.Nothing worse than watching your 12-1 shot win and not making a penny off him cause you were too greedy trying to make a life changing score. Another reason to play the super only for a dime so you got some left to put on the nose.

SeattleSlew@BP
01-07-2009, 01:21 AM
Yes. But I was reffering to the unrealistic amount he put into the pk6. ITP also brings up an unrealistic amount to play in the super,$120 for one bet? Most players dont play like that either.Not only that but who would be stupid enough to single a 12-1 shot on top and in the 2nd hole in a super with a $120 investment. Wouldn't betting $100 to win,backed up in second by a few $5 exactas, be a much saner and safer bet? What if that favorite he tossed runs 4th. You're out 1200 clams you could have betting straight.Nothing worse than watching your 12-1 shot win and not making a penny off him cause you were too greedy trying to make a life changing score. Another reason to play the super only for a dime so you got some left to put on the nose.

Who says he didn't also play win, exacta, tri's, along with the $120 super?

You act like the guy is spending everything in his pocket on the Super.

It's one of the things that always baffles me. People incredulous there are bettors who bet much bigger than they do on horses. There are people who bet tens of thousands per roll/spin in a casino. So why would there not be in a game that requires some actual skill to win at?

Greyfox
01-07-2009, 07:28 AM
In your example,I would pass for $120. For $12 I would take a chance.If I win, that's still only 1/10th of the $1 payout. I'm not reducing the payout that much. .

Nope. You're not quite right here Light.
If there are no $ 1 bettors who win, and you with your dime are the only winner, what is your payout?
Your dime takes the whole pool.
What it boils down to is that with the dime system in place, a bettor is stupid to make $ 1 bets. There are at least two reasons for making 10 dime bets over $ 1 dollar bet. 1. IRS 2. You might take the entire pool.
I'm still not in favour of less than $ 1 bets being offered. But if they are, then it's silly not to play them.

Light
01-07-2009, 01:19 PM
Who says he didn't also play win, exacta, tri's, along with the $120 super?

You act like the guy is spending everything in his pocket on the Super.

It's one of the things that always baffles me. People incredulous there are bettors who bet much bigger than they do on horses. There are people who bet tens of thousands per roll/spin in a casino. So why would there not be in a game that requires some actual skill to win at?

This board is not geared to the rich and famous. It's about Joe the Horseplayer. Dude,how much do you bet a race? What's your bankroll per outing? You dont think its a big deal betting $120 in one super,when there may be 8 per card on a weekend,then you want to play the rest of the wagering menu? Get real. If you and the rest of those in your camp want to fantasize that you play $2000 per day and can handle a streak of losing a mere 10 days in a row amounting to a $20,000 loss in just 2 weeks,have at it.

According to Equibase,T-bred wagering was down 7% in 2008 due in large part to the struggling economy. You and the rest of the knuckleheads in your camp,talk like its a piece of cake to wager in 2 weeks what a large part of the horseplaying population earns in a year.Sometimes I wonder why I even respond to such stupidity. Yes I know there are people with that capability. But they can jump in the ocean for all I care or commit suicide which several of them have done recently due to losing their precious billions. I'm talking about the horseplayers who are the cornerstone of the t-bred industry.Without those people the industry would collapse. And they dont bet like you,ITP or SC.

SeattleSlew@BP
01-07-2009, 04:50 PM
This board is not geared to the rich and famous. It's about Joe the Horseplayer. Dude,how much do you bet a race? What's your bankroll per outing? You dont think its a big deal betting $120 in one super,when there may be 8 per card on a weekend,then you want to play the rest of the wagering menu? Get real. If you and the rest of those in your camp want to fantasize that you play $2000 per day and can handle a streak of losing a mere 10 days in a row amounting to a $20,000 loss in just 2 weeks,have at it.

According to Equibase,T-bred wagering was down 7% in 2008 due in large part to the struggling economy. You and the rest of the knuckleheads in your camp,talk like its a piece of cake to wager in 2 weeks what a large part of the horseplaying population earns in a year.Sometimes I wonder why I even respond to such stupidity. Yes I know there are people with that capability. But they can jump in the ocean for all I care or commit suicide which several of them have done recently due to losing their precious billions. I'm talking about the horseplayers who are the cornerstone of the t-bred industry.Without those people the industry would collapse. And they dont bet like you,ITP or SC.

You have to be rich and famous to bet $120 on a Super? I better go check my bank account.

There are plenty of games out there where people bet big and aren't rich. Including horse racing. Last time I went into the OTB the "cornerstone" of the industry looked like a leper colony better off flipping coins between one another. I don't think they would mind bigger players, sharp and square, coming in and helping build pools. Call me crazy but that's a GOOD thing!

Bruinswin
01-07-2009, 06:10 PM
All of these lower minimums might mean something if they actually brought new people out to the track. The fact is that new people aren't coming, and the money the horseplayer competes for is still coming from the same customers. I don't see how a lower minimum does anything for the pari-mutuel enviornment.

Light
01-07-2009, 06:28 PM
You have to be rich and famous to bet $120 on a Super? I better go check my bank account.


$120 per super times 8 per race card = $960 a day just in supers. At that rate you'll need another $1000 for betting your win,exactas,pk3,4.6 etc. If you lose $2000 a day times 10 days = $20,000 in 2 weeks. Yes I think you have to be rich and famous to afford losses like that and greater that you will inevitably face betting $120 supers.What dont you get? This is why I'm saying $120 supers are a joke for ITP or you to even talk about with a straight face.

2low
01-07-2009, 06:33 PM
People who believe "signers" have anything to do with taxability have a very bad day ahead when the IRS decides to look at ADW accounts.

BUD
01-07-2009, 06:44 PM
I would consider playing the lower minimums---My money is new money so to speak of---Then on the occasions I have friends over during a race day---They DO jump in on some of the Cheaper multi race schemes at times---

Now I am 1 guy and this does not happen often so your probably correct.

But I think I will stick to vertical playing....Now being a Neophyte my money will make it into 10 cent supers and 1 dollar Tri's----

But In the early stages I was Nearly priced out of this Game----But I would think many do not come to find this game the route I have----Nor have had the Charity and good will of others like I have had in my attempt to become a player of some competence..

So I guess I can say the Lower minimums have aided in my education having less confidence in my ability at taking a shot at some of the vertical exotics---

Damn I hope that came out correct----I wanted to add that---But in fairness to common sense--I feel like $h7t------That is a good indication to hold off on handicapping and posting---

JustRalph
01-07-2009, 06:46 PM
People who believe "signers" have anything to do with taxability have a very bad day ahead when the IRS decides to look at ADW accounts.

would you care to explain that remark? They already look at them............

I am in favor of the lower min. bet. I might be willing to make a play or jump into a pool I normally don't........

How many people here have ever bet $120 bucks on a Super ticket? not me..........

Signed

Just Another ChickenShit Bettor

SeattleSlew@BP
01-07-2009, 07:01 PM
$120 per super times 8 per race card = $960 a day just in supers. At that rate you'll need another $1000 for betting your win,exactas,pk3,4.6 etc. If you lose $2000 a day times 10 days = $20,000 in 2 weeks. Yes I think you have to be rich and famous to afford losses like that and greater that you will inevitably face betting $120 supers.What dont you get? This is why I'm saying $120 supers are a joke for ITP or you to even talk about with a straight face.

Who says I play the whole 8 race card? Who says I play a super in every race? So what if I did? There are doctors, lawyers, stock brokers who fly to Vegas and lose 20k in a poker session. Not billionaires. There are professionals that lose that in one hand. No reason horse racing can't get in on the action.

2low
01-07-2009, 07:46 PM
would you care to explain that remark? They already look at them............



I may be wrong, but I get the feeling many people believe if they didn't win enough to sign, the win isn't taxable. This simply isn't true. A small win is not subject to withholding, but it is every bit as reportable as a very large score.

cees with dees
01-07-2009, 07:46 PM
A 50 cent pick 4 is a great idea. It's already done at some tracks and it invites the smaller players to a shot a good money for a minimal investment and would increase the pools substantially. At least I think so.
How are you Stevie???
Long time, no talk.
Ben

Stevie Belmont
01-08-2009, 02:10 PM
Hey Hey Big Ben

Well, I like the 50 cent Pick 4....Why not?

I think it's a good idea.

mnmark
01-08-2009, 03:15 PM
From a business standpoint 10 cent supers and 50 cent pick fours will almost always generate larger overall pools. Why do you think casinos have so many penny slot machines? because there customers want them. Why would any business turn away any potential business or revunue. The wagering public has spoken and smaller denomination wagering is here to stay. Like it or not it is a very simple decision for 90% of the tracks that need every penny of handle they can get.

Monty Capuletti
01-08-2009, 09:19 PM
$120 per super times 8 per race card = $960 a day just in supers. At that rate you'll need another $1000 for betting your win,exactas,pk3,4.6 etc. If you lose $2000 a day times 10 days = $20,000 in 2 weeks. Yes I think you have to be rich and famous to afford losses like that and greater that you will inevitably face betting $120 supers.What dont you get? This is why I'm saying $120 supers are a joke for ITP or you to even talk about with a straight face.

If someone is playing 5 horse super boxes every race, every day, good luck making money for a dollar or a dime.

toetoe
01-09-2009, 01:17 PM
Dudes (if I may presume),

Imagine an all-fecta, where you would need to get the entire field in order, in order to cash. I'm sure it would be popular in our lotteried-down world. Is this really "success ?" We could have hookers and porn thrown in for whales, too. How about we draw some lines here ?

BombsAway Bob
01-09-2009, 01:49 PM
Dudes (if I may presume),

Imagine an all-fecta, where you would need to get the entire field in order, in order to cash. I'm sure it would be popular in our lotteried-down world. Is this really "success ?" We could have hookers and porn thrown in for whales, too. How about we draw some lines here ?
that'll get 'em out to the track! (The All-Fecta might,too..)

citygoat
01-10-2009, 10:10 AM
I remember when you had to play a $5 exacta at Santa Anita.It seemed I had to be more confident in my choices than I do now with the $1 exacta.

twindouble
01-10-2009, 01:42 PM
These wagers have been around for some time now in various pools and they are being expanded. One would think the tracks and ADW'S would know by now how they have effected handle. The answer is they have helped, otherwise they would have done away with them or plan to do so. I remember the one cent numbers game was huge for the bookies when they flourished. That says a lot as to why casino's and racing have got on the bandwagon.

As a traditional handicapper I'm concerned about the direction racing has been on for sometime now. Primarily because I think turning it into a lottery type game not only diminishes the strengths of good handicappers, it doesn't expose new players to the true essence of the game. That's learning how to handicap, getting to know the horses and who's who that make up the game. Pulling slots and rolling the dice runs counter to historical traditions we all hung our hat on.

Yes, things have changed, as said "is it for the better"? Only time will tell but for me, I'm not happy with it.


Good luck,

twindouble

TimesTheyRAChangin
01-10-2009, 07:48 PM
TD,
You haven't posted since '06!
Hope you plan to stay for a while?
TTRAC


These wagers have been around for some time now in various pools and they are being expanded. One would think the tracks and ADW'S would know by now how they have effected handle. The answer is they have helped, otherwise they would have done away with them or plan to do so. I remember the one cent numbers game was huge for the bookies when they flourished. That says a lot as to why casino's and racing have got on the bandwagon.

As a traditional handicapper I'm concerned about the direction racing has been on for sometime now. Primarily because I think turning it into a lottery type game not only diminishes the strengths of good handicappers, it doesn't expose new players to the true essence of the game. That's learning how to handicap, getting to know the horses and who's who that make up the game. Pulling slots and rolling the dice runs counter to historical traditions we all hung our hat on.

Yes, things have changed, as said "is it for the better"? Only time will tell but for me, I'm not happy with it.


Good luck,

twindouble

twindouble
01-10-2009, 10:00 PM
TTRAC;

Sorry but I don't remember your handle but thanks for the welcome back. Even though I haven't posted in a long time, I do keep up with what's going on here. In spite of the pit falls here now and then, this is still one of the best forums on the Internet. I've been involved in other things more to my liking, including playing the horses like I have for the last 48 years.

I'll stop in now and then.

Good luck to you,

TD

Bruinswin
01-10-2009, 10:55 PM
From a business standpoint 10 cent supers and 50 cent pick fours will almost always generate larger overall pools. Why do you think casinos have so many penny slot machines? because there customers want them. Why would any business turn away any potential business or revunue. The wagering public has spoken and smaller denomination wagering is here to stay. Like it or not it is a very simple decision for 90% of the tracks that need every penny of handle they can get.

Lower minimums create larger pools at the expense of more traditional pools.
If the people are spending their money on these low priced wagers, they aren't spending it elsewhere. Casinos provide penny slots because they know they will take the money regardless. Horse racing and Casinos should not try to be the same, we are playing against eachother.

Pace Cap'n
01-10-2009, 11:01 PM
Last penny slot I saw had a maximum bet of $3.60.

And, good to see you, TD.

twindouble
01-11-2009, 02:45 PM
Thanks Pace Cap'n.

This forum is hard to ignore. It's been on fire lately with very important topics to all of us, including the racing industry as a whole. To those who think this medium isn't worth it's salt and only professionals have a grasp on horse racing or players needs, to them I say listen closely. You all just might learn a few things right here if you haven't already. Of course I don't agree with everything being said but when other things bubble to the top that I feel very strongly about, that's a good feeling.


Good luck, I have a foot of snow to shovel.

T.D.

raybo
01-11-2009, 06:46 PM
I'm saying that the net effect of 50 cent pick 4's and dime super tri's is a general lowering of the big ticket. Sure more players are hitting them, but the chance to hit a big score is reduced.

Obviously you are not a full time superfecta (or trifecta) player. The advent of the dime super, for example, has increased the pool sizes dramatically. While there is the possibility of more players hitting the super, most of those extra hits are with dime supers which divides the normal $1 or $2 share of the pool by either 10 or 20. The increase in pool size, resulting from the additional dime shooters is more (much more) than compensating for the additional hits. The first year that dime supers were available pool sizes increased by as much as 50%, in many cases, and at one track, in particular, the pool sizes doubled.

The dime super allowed vast numbers of very inexperienced exotics players to enter the game, increasing the pool sizes by leaps and bounds, while not substantially increasing the number of knowledgeable superfecta wagerers. Ticket structure, in supers (and tris) accounts for a majority of the skill required to be successful.

So, you say, what happens when these "new" dime players become proficient in ticket structure and start hitting more often? Well, it's simple, they start increasing the size of their wager, from $.10 to $.30 to $.50 to $1 to $2 and more, thus increasing the pool sizes even more.

The dime supers (and tris) are good for everyone involved in them. They allow the larger wagerer to garner a larger share of a larger pool while also allowing new players to get their feet wet in the game while learning to structure their tickets properly (or not, some never learn to structure right and thus are simply giving their money to the experienced players, which is where all successful players, of any type wager, get their profits from, the less skillful players)

raybo
01-11-2009, 07:01 PM
Nope. You're not quite right here Light.
If there are no $ 1 bettors who win, and you with your dime are the only winner, what is your payout?
Your dime takes the whole pool.
What it boils down to is that with the dime system in place, a bettor is stupid to make $ 1 bets. There are at least two reasons for making 10 dime bets over $ 1 dollar bet. 1. IRS 2. You might take the entire pool.
I'm still not in favour of less than $ 1 bets being offered. But if they are, then it's silly not to play them.

A bettor is NOT stupid to make $1 bets, or $2, or $3, if his bankroll is large enough to make these larger wagers he is stupid NOT to bet larger. He gets 10, 20 or 30 times more of the share of a much larger pool.

If you ask any full time Tri or Super player if they are glad the "dime" was introduced you will receive a resounding "YES!!!!".

raybo
01-11-2009, 07:22 PM
From a business standpoint 10 cent supers and 50 cent pick fours will almost always generate larger overall pools. Why do you think casinos have so many penny slot machines? because there customers want them. Why would any business turn away any potential business or revunue. The wagering public has spoken and smaller denomination wagering is here to stay. Like it or not it is a very simple decision for 90% of the tracks that need every penny of handle they can get.

Correct, and I might add, in response to the poster who said that the increase in the "dime" pools reduced the pools in the other wager types, he was completely wrong. The typical "dime" player is not new to horseracing, he was a player already. Does he stop playing his $5, $10, $20 win, place, show, or exacta bets? No, he doesn't, he continues to play his previous bets but now can afford to throw in an additional few Tri or Super combinations for only an additional dollar or 2. He can afford to "gamble" a little, hoping to get lucky.

How many people go to their local convenience store EVERY day and buy 1 lottery combination for $1 or 1 scratch-off ticket for $1? Tens of thousands do, hundreds just in my little town, I see them there every day on their way to work while getting their morning coffee for the commute to work.

Would they do this if the cost was a minimum of $10 or $20? No way!

raybo
01-11-2009, 07:26 PM
If someone is playing 5 horse super boxes every race, every day, good luck making money for a dollar or a dime.

I agree, if someone has to box 5 horses, he/she needs to find another hobby because obviously he/she doesn't have a clue about handicapping or ticket structure. Just 1 of those things will keep him/her from being successful, both will surely doom them.

Bruinswin
01-13-2009, 01:05 PM
If you ask any full time Tri or Super player if they are glad the "dime" was introduced you will receive a resounding "YES!!!!".


Not me. I'd say about 25% of my play is directed at tris, and I would never even consider buying a dime tri. As for an increase in pools...in no way does this compensate the guy who gets a big hit, and has to share it with a bunch of dime bettors who would have never had it. Just leave the minimums at $1, and let people bet their money back into the more traditional pools.

raybo
01-13-2009, 03:55 PM
Not me. I'd say about 25% of my play is directed at tris, and I would never even consider buying a dime tri. As for an increase in pools...in no way does this compensate the guy who gets a big hit, and has to share it with a bunch of dime bettors who would have never had it. Just leave the minimums at $1, and let people bet their money back into the more traditional pools.

Then you're not a "full time tri or super player" are you? If you were, you would know what I'm talking about.

And, if you think that the increase in pools hasn't more than compensated for the dime players, you might try reading all of the thread. If that doesn't change your mind then there's no hope.

Bruinswin
01-13-2009, 05:15 PM
And, if you think that the increase in pools hasn't more than compensated for the dime players, you might try reading all of the thread. If that doesn't change your mind then there's no hope.

You can't just make these statements as if they are matter of fact.
If you were to show proof that the payouts have gone up since the implementation of dime plays, then you might be able to say so.

I happen to have the figures in front of me here, but I'm just curious to see what you think the payout change looks like Raybo?