NYRA Jackpot P6

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by arw629

Why hasn’t a big track experimented with a $0.20 pick 6 with low takeout and no jackpot provisions ??

Because the jackpot works in tandem with the smaller minimum wager.

Indeed, for years, tracks kept the normal Pick 6 a $2 wager when almost everything else went down to $1 or less. Why? Because the $2 minimum made the old-style jackpot (the carryover) build faster.

That system goosed Pick 6 play when there was a large carryover, but priced plenty of folks out of the day to day Pick 6.

The genius of the new style is you still get to hang a big number of the jackpot- indeed, that big number stays up for weeks at a time, whereas the old Pick 6 only had that big number occasionally- while also decreasing the minimum wager to encourage more low-bankroll bettors to bet it.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

..........

That system goosed Pick 6 play when there was a large carryover, but priced plenty of folks out of the day to day Pick 6.

The genius of the new style is you still get to hang a big number of the jackpot- indeed, that big number stays up for weeks at a time, whereas the old Pick 6 only had that big number occasionally- while also decreasing the minimum wager to encourage more low-bankroll bettors to bet it.

I am priced out of a beach front property in La Jolla. Why is everyone supposed to have every bet available in their price range?

Is it really genius to have a bet designed to have the squares build a pool so that the big players can swoop in and make a killing? Eliminating good bets for a gimmicky bet that preys on the ignorance and naivety of smaller bettors shouldn't be the growth plan for any racetrack. If something similar was done in another business your legal brethren would be lining up to file lawsuits against such a practice.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am priced out of a beach front property in La Jolla. Why is everyone supposed to have every bet available in their price range?

Is it really genius to have a bet designed to have the squares build a pool so that the big players can swoop in and make a killing? Eliminating good bets for a gimmicky bet that preys on the ignorance and naivety of smaller bettors shouldn't be the growth plan for any racetrack. If something similar was done in another business your legal brethren would be lining up to file lawsuits against such a practice.

Andy, all gambling businesses depend on fleecing mathematically illiterate patrons.

I hate to be so reductive and cynical, but it is true. That is literally the business model of every gambling business in the world.

Specifically, there's only two types of bets in horse racing. Either (1) you put a bet out there that is impossible for anyone to make money on (for instance, the show pool, other than in rare situations involving minus pools); or (2) you put a bet out there where the vast majority of bettors (including just about all smaller bettors) will lose in the long term but a few advantage players may be able to swoop in and make money. That's it. Either everyone loses or almost everyone loses.

The reason why me and my legal brethren don't get involved, for the most part, is that offering such bets is lawful under the statutes legalizing gambling. As long as the track doesn't put out any false advertising, they are fine.

As for what is the growth plan for any racetrack, that is beyond my knowledge. I understand the theory behind the $0.20 jackpot pick 6, just as I understand the theory behind the $2 carryover pick 6. But I don't have the numbers or the market research to know which works better.

But I definitely do know that all gambling purveyors are in a business that involves getting people to lose their money over the long term. The fact that the $0.20 jackpot pick 6 does that does not make it any different than any other product in the field.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Andy, all gambling businesses depend on fleecing mathematically illiterate patrons.

I hate to be so reductive and cynical, but it is true. That is literally the business model of every gambling business in the world.

Specifically, there's only two types of bets in horse racing. Either (1) you put a bet out there that is impossible for anyone to make money on (for instance, the show pool, other than in rare situations involving minus pools); or (2) you put a bet out there where the vast majority of bettors (including just about all smaller bettors) will lose in the long term but a few advantage players may be able to swoop in and make money. That's it. Either everyone loses or almost everyone loses.

The reason why me and my legal brethren don't get involved, for the most part, is that offering such bets is lawful under the statutes legalizing gambling. As long as the track doesn't put out any false advertising, they are fine.

As for what is the growth plan for any racetrack, that is beyond my knowledge. I understand the theory behind the $0.20 jackpot pick 6, just as I understand the theory behind the $2 carryover pick 6. But I don't have the numbers or the market research to know which works better.

But I definitely do know that all gambling purveyors are in a business that involves getting people to lose their money over the long term. The fact that the $0.20 jackpot pick 6 does that does not make it any different than any other product in the field.

I am not against a racetrack taking their cut from the pools to help pay for the costs associated for putting on the races. Yes a show bet is generally not a profitable bet but the outcome of the bet treats all equally poorly. The jackpot bets treat the bigger player exponentially better than the smaller players. I understand that you are OK with that, I'm not.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am not against a racetrack taking their cut from the pools to help pay for the costs associated for putting on the races. Yes a show bet is generally not a profitable bet but the outcome of the bet treats all equally poorly. The jackpot bets treat the bigger player exponentially better than the smaller players. I understand that you are OK with that, I'm not.

Don't larger bettors have a big advantage in the $2 carryover version too, because they can wait until a big carryover and then cover far more combinations than a small player can afford?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Don't larger bettors have a big advantage in the $2 carryover version too, because they can wait until a big carryover and then cover far more combinations than a small player can afford?

I have to agree with this.

If there's any value in those pools, it's most likely located in areas the majority of players can't afford to cover. There are always exceptions, but coverage almost has to be a factor in pools with that many combinations.

There's an endless list of reasons "most" people shouldn't be involved in the Pick 6 pool, but many people are more attracted to making a score than actually trying to win long term.

If you get $3.80 to place on a horse with a 70% chance of being 1st or 2nd people will make fun of you. If you lose 5K a year for 20 years but hit for 10k last week, you are a superhero.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Don't larger bettors have a big advantage in the $2 carryover version too, because they can wait until a big carryover and then cover far more combinations than a small player can afford?

A big advantage? No. There is huge risk in going too deep in a P-6. Betting more or spreading does not necessarily bring with it added value. Yes there were occasions when the seemingly impossible to hit carryover P-6 was taken down by a large bettor but those times were rare.

What I do know is that a bettor used to be able to bet $2 and take away their share of 80% of the pool now they get to split from only 50% of the pool.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I have to agree with this.

If there's any value in those pools, it's most likely located in areas the majority of players can't afford to cover. There are always exceptions, but coverage almost has to be a factor in pools with that many combinations.

There's an endless list of reasons "most" people shouldn't be involved in the Pick 6 pool, but many people are more attracted to making a score than actually trying to win long term.

If you get $3.80 to place on a horse with a 70% chance of being 1st or 2nd people will make fun of you. If you lose 5K a year for 20 years but hit for 10k last week, you are a superhero.

With regard to being able to "cover" bets I would encourage anybody to take an imaginary bankroll and make some big tickets. They soon find out that it isn't the big advantage that it might appear to be.

Agree with your second point.

If I was a bettor who found comfort in my $3.80 place bets I would get a job. I have honestly never met any players who were making their way via the place or show pools. I do believe that personality traits should probably dictate where a player should focus. A person who can't stand to lose more than 3 bets in a row should probably be dutching or playing place and show.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

A big advantage? No. There is huge risk in going too deep in a P-6. Betting more or spreading does not necessarily bring with it added value. Yes there were occasions when the seemingly impossible to hit carryover P-6 was taken down by a large bettor but those times were rare.

What I do know is that a bettor used to be able to bet $2 and take away their share of 80% of the pool now they get to split from only 50% of the pool.

I'm not saying "anyone who spreads is betting efficiently". I am saying that every $2 that you can afford to put in when there is a big carryover is a $2 with vastly reduced takeout. Which gives a big better who knows what she is doing a huge advantage over an equally knowledgeable handicapper with a smaller bankroll, because the well-rolled player can cover a whole bunch more profitable combinations on days when the carryover is big.

In contrast, the person who just bets $2 is really not hurt that much by the lowered EV of the bet, because variance is never going to catch up to him anyway. It's like playing the lottery-- deliberately playing a high variance, -EV bet in hopes of getting lucky.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I'm not saying "anyone who spreads is betting efficiently". I am saying that every $2 that you can afford to put in when there is a big carryover is a $2 with vastly reduced takeout. Which gives a big better who knows what she is doing a huge advantage over an equally knowledgeable handicapper with a smaller bankroll, because the well-rolled player can cover a whole bunch more profitable combinations on days when the carryover is big.

In contrast, the person who just bets $2 is really not hurt that much by the lowered EV of the bet, because variance is never going to catch up to him anyway. It's like playing the lottery-- deliberately playing a high variance, -EV bet in hopes of getting lucky.

How often have you played the P-6? I played them seriously for over 30 years and charted the betting flows as well. There is no saying what a "profitable combination" is before the sequence begins.

Just covering more horses does not give a bettor a huge advantage over another. Generally when a bettor covers more horses they are covering horses that are fringe contenders. Adding additional fringe contenders can cost thousands on a big ticket. For such action to be a huge advantage your bets that include your fringe picks must be wildly profitable.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

How often have you played the P-6? I played them seriously for over 30 years and charted the betting flows as well. There is no saying what a "profitable combination" is before the sequence begins.

Just covering more horses does not give a bettor a huge advantage over another. Generally when a bettor covers more horses they are covering horses that are fringe contenders. Adding additional fringe contenders can cost thousands on a big ticket. For such action to be a huge advantage your bets that include your fringe picks must be wildly profitable.

Again, if you are covering unprofitable combinations, I agree, they are unprofitable.

What the carryover should do is take some combinations that would be -EV at normal takeout and move them to +EV. Which means that a pick 6 player should, all things being equal, spread somewhat broader with the carryover.

Now all other things are not equal. If there's a really chalky sequence it doesn't matter what the carryover is, spreading is going to be unprofitable. But in your more typical sequence where there are some races where one might want to go deep, the existence of a carryover will increase the EV of those combinations and the existence of a bankroll will allow a player to play them.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

With regard to being able to "cover" bets I would encourage anybody to take an imaginary bankroll and make some big tickets. They soon find out that it isn't the big advantage that it might appear to be.

Agree with your second point.

If I was a bettor who found comfort in my $3.80 place bets I would get a job. I have honestly never met any players who were making their way via the place or show pools. I do believe that personality traits should probably dictate where a player should focus. A person who can't stand to lose more than 3 bets in a row should probably be dutching or playing place and show.

On your first point, we already discussed this in a previous tread. IMO, coverage is only good when the combination is EV+. What I am suggesting is the potential for EV+ tickets is probably not the same across the entire pool because the smaller bettors focus on similar "major contenders" when creating their smaller tickets. Only the bigger players have the option of spreading more when appropriate.

Before they instituted Net Pool Pricing (which impacted place and show payoffs), I had a terrific year or two making heavy place bets with rebates offshore (sometimes 2-3 plays in a day). I had a clear flat bet edge and was getting a generous rebate on top of it. I brought that up on another forum. Instead of trying to learn the details of what I was doing, they laughed at me. I'd be willing to bet 80% of the people laughing never had a winning year in their life and at least 95% were and still are net losers.

That wasn't the only thing I was doing, but the place money was just as green.

An increase in the take on WPS in NY, a lower rebate, net Pool Pricing, and one other trend I'd rather not talk about, took away so much of the edge it's not worth it for me to mostly just churn money now, but I still see one a few times a year I can't resist.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Again, if you are covering unprofitable combinations, I agree, they are unprofitable.

What the carryover should do is take some combinations that would be -EV at normal takeout and move them to +EV. Which means that a pick 6 player should, all things being equal, spread somewhat broader with the carryover.

Now all other things are not equal. If there's a really chalky sequence it doesn't matter what the carryover is, spreading is going to be unprofitable. But in your more typical sequence where there are some races where one might want to go deep, the existence of a carryover will increase the EV of those combinations and the existence of a bankroll will allow a player to play them.

I agree 100%. You explained what I am saying better than I did.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Again, if you are covering unprofitable combinations, I agree, they are unprofitable.

What the carryover should do is take some combinations that would be -EV at normal takeout and move them to +EV. Which means that a pick 6 player should, all things being equal, spread somewhat broader with the carryover.

Now all other things are not equal. If there's a really chalky sequence it doesn't matter what the carryover is, spreading is going to be unprofitable. But in your more typical sequence where there are some races where one might want to go deep, the existence of a carryover will increase the EV of those combinations and the existence of a bankroll will allow a player to play them.

You dodged my question. How often do you/did you play the $2 Pick 6?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

On your first point, we already discussed this in a previous tread. IMO, coverage is only good when the combination is EV+. What I am suggesting is the potential for EV+ tickets is probably not the same across the entire pool because the smaller bettors focus on similar "major contenders" when creating their smaller tickets. Only the bigger players have the option of spreading more when appropriate.......

The problem is a bettor really has no idea if any particular combination is EV+. Including or excluding horses based on their "value" is a fool's game with the $2 P-6.