Bowling alleys and race tracks

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

Wait is this about Medicaid reform or meeting hotties?

farcical.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Not promoting when someone who isn't caw hits for 1.8 million dollars on a fairly small ticket is ridiculous. This is the ONLY thing the sports offers the layman in its current state. A tiny chance for the score.

Here is the disconnect that exists between members of this board (an experienced community) and the "least sophisticated" player: $354 is not a small ticket by any means to the latter.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Here is the disconnect that exists between members of this board (an experienced community) and the "least sophisticated" player: $354 is not a small ticket by any means to the latter.

$354 isn't a small ticket even to the "experienced community".

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Here is the disconnect that exists between members of this board (an experienced community) and the "least sophisticated" player: $354 is not a small ticket by any means to the latter.

Don't friends and groups pool money in the lottery? Hey they are giving a huge carryover and mandatory in the rainbow 6 Sunday, would you like to join in. I think Twinspires even has a function where you can share a ticket and buy in.
Don't know about the others. But it can easily be done. I would love this sport to do things the right way but I dropped dead holding my breath on that one.
They better do something.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

$354 isn't a small ticket even to the "experienced community".

I thought you were betting $200 win bets on 30 races a day? What is $354.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

First, let's define "least sophisticated". These are not "dumb gamblers" but instead are individuals who might frequent a track for a boutique meeting or make a couple of bets per year on a big race. They have little experience and our collective arrogance relishes the fact that the game is difficult to learn. Hell, chess is hard when played against Magnus Carlsen but easy when played against a group of elementary school students.

For these least sophisticated folks, the game is not costly based on takeout since they are typically making just a few casual bets.

One of the most interesting introductory bets remains the show wager and Oaklawn has one of the most interesting promotions with their on-track show ticket bonus.

So, why rekindle interest in show wagering when so many want to eliminate it due to small pools and lack of interest as a product? Show wagering creates an opportunity to cash a ticket more often and feel the "success" of being right. Think about blackjack - you "win" single hands although you might not have a winning session. It gives the new gambler the sense that they have a fighting chance.

We should absolutely NOT ask new players to participate in multi-leg horizontals or complex verticals despite the appeal of a big score. The time between wins is simply too long. For those that have a bigger bankroll and a longer time horizon to score, these bets are fine, however not for the occasional player.

Fifty years back when I placed my first show bet on-track at Aqueduct, I was convinced that "entries" and "fields" were the biggest freebies given to the public. That's where you start and it is a long road getting from there to $100 bet on a program and investing in Pick-X wagers.

Yes, but here's the thing. The casual bettor who is looking for a small return with a decent winning percentage can do just as well by wagering on a ballgame. And chances are he knows a lot more about the sports teams in a game than he does about the horses in a race.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I thought you were betting $200 win bets on 30 races a day? What is $354.

And if I am betting $200 to win on 30 races a day...should that make me think that $354 is a "small wager"? I don't follow your thinking here.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

$354 isn't a small ticket even to the "experienced community".

Point taken.

The winning combination included these winners.

5 (Tidal Force, $7.00)
11 (Break Out, $19.40)
9 (Bird Wildcat, $24.40)
10 Spirit Animal, $22.60)
11 (Bring Theband Home, $20.20)
7 (Sweet Mimi, $52.50)

Cash on one, two, or three of those winners during the day and you are probably having a very good day at the races, much less hitting all six - which is what the less sophisticated player should have the chance to experience.

Regarding the impact on total wagering due to jackpot wagers, $900,000 was being held into the final pool (and therefore not churning) with $5,600,000 bet into the pool.

Only three winning tickets were issued.

What do you think the impact on meet-long or year-long thoroughbred wagering handle will be by taking that $6,500,000 out of action, not considering the churn of the original $900,000?

After four churn rounds of wagering at 20% withholding means that the total handle impact of more than $15,000,000, based on the iterations $5,200,000, $4,160,000, $3,328,000, and $2,662,400.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Don't friends and groups pool money in the lottery? Hey they are giving a huge carryover and mandatory in the rainbow 6 Sunday, would you like to join in. I think Twinspires even has a function where you can share a ticket and buy in.

There is no reason that a group ticket function could not be built, but identifying available groups, joining such a group, and haggling over which horses to include, even if a caveman ticket, is surely beyond the "least sophisticated" players modus operandi.

The logistics of deciding whether a ticket was "fully funded" or "partially funded through shares" is an item that I will leave for another discussion thread on another day.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Point taken.

The winning combination included these winners.

5 (Tidal Force, $7.00)
11 (Break Out, $19.40)
9 (Bird Wildcat, $24.40)
10 Spirit Animal, $22.60)
11 (Bring Theband Home, $20.20)
7 (Sweet Mimi, $52.50)

Cash on one, two, or three of those winners during the day and you are probably having a very good day at the races, much less hitting all six - which is what the less sophisticated player should have the chance to experience.

Regarding the impact on total wagering due to jackpot wagers, $900,000 was being held into the final pool (and therefore not churning) with $5,600,000 bet into the pool.

Only three winning tickets were issued.

What do you think the impact on meet-long or year-long thoroughbred wagering handle will be by taking that $6,500,000 out of action, not considering the churn of the original $900,000?

After four churn rounds of wagering at 20% withholding means that the total handle impact of more than $15,000,000, based on the iterations $5,200,000, $4,160,000, $3,328,000, and $2,662,400.

Brutal!

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

And if I am betting $200 to win on 30 races a day...should that make me think that $354 is a "small wager"?

If you bet $6000 to win on a typical day, then betting 6% of it for a chance at a score is pretty paltry imo. Doesn't mean you don't pick your spots and look for opportunity. Personally I am the opposite. I feel I have a much better chance of making money in the pick 5's and pick 6's in the right situations, so even if I will not bet a horse I might single him in a $150 pick 5 if there is a carryover and it looks like a solid play. Different strokes for different folks.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

If you bet $6000 to win on a typical day, then betting 6% of it for a chance at a score is pretty paltry imo. Doesn't mean you don't pick your spots and look for opportunity. Personally I am the opposite. I feel I have a much better chance of making money in the pick 5's and pick 6's in the right situations, so even if I will not bet a horse I might single him in a $150 pick 5 if there is a carryover and it looks like a solid play. Different strokes for different folks.

You are looking at this the wrong way. It doesn't matter what my day's handle is, every bet is a separate entity. And if my top betting unit is $200...then there is no way on earth that I could consider a $354 wager to be "pretty paltry".

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

There is no reason that a group ticket function could not be built, but identifying available groups, joining such a group, and haggling over which horses to include, even if a caveman ticket, is surely beyond the "least sophisticated" players modus operandi.

The logistics of deciding whether a ticket was "fully funded" or "partially funded through shares" is an item that I will leave for another discussion thread on another day.

The point I am trying to make is people have friends. The conversation goes " I have $400 ticket play in the big rainbow 6 carryover on Sunday and would like to sell 50% of the ticket, would you like to go in". They either join in or they don't. No haggling over horses. I make the ticket they choose whether to join in and for how much. Many people probably don't know the first thing about horse racing and would be happy to join in for small percentage, just to have some fun.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

There is no reason that a group ticket function could not be built, but identifying available groups, joining such a group, and haggling over which horses to include, even if a caveman ticket, is surely beyond the "least sophisticated" players modus operandi.

The logistics of deciding whether a ticket was "fully funded" or "partially funded through shares" is an item that I will leave for another discussion thread on another day.

I couldn't agree more!

[Candybag]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

Wait is this about Medicaid reform or meeting hotties?

farcical.

Not Medicaid reform, current law:

https://www.macpac.gov/subtopic/thir...e%20individual.

Do state governments ever use tax money for racetracks?