That's fine...but they have hit before, and I don't think it's particularly fair of people to criticize them after they lost today. If it's not how you want to play, that's great, but we all lose, especially in these types of situations, and there is no reason to knock them after the fact because they lost. Where was the same talk after they won recently?

I agree with this. I had no clue on this sequence as it was extremely difficult, and quite frankly was surprised it was as "formful" as it ended up being (sans the 8th race of course.) While it's tough to do, sometimes it's better to take a pass in the pick 6 even on a monster carryover like this one when it's just not shaping up for you either in terms of the race types or finding the horses you feel comfortable leaning heavily on. For example, turf sprints are the toughest races for me and today had three of them. The times I've done well in the pick 6 were when I looked at the card the first time and said "I'm going to hit this", not "I have no clue in three of the races."

I bought 1% of my friend's $4k ticket just for a rooting interest and he didn't have much luck either.

I thought the last winner was much harder than the winner of the 8th. Much harder.

If you're spending that much, that horse in the 8th should of been on that ticket. If Ken Rudolf liked it, it's pretty obvious longshot stuff. Not like the horse had hated the course every time it's tried it. I mean, for that amount of money, if you can't include that horse, then, you just don't have a good feel for the card. Going too deep in easier races.

I wouldn't criticize anyone for losing, but it's amazing to me how fast people throw money into these pools.

I didn't play it, but if I'm betting NY, I always try to cover Jose Espinoza...I think he's underrated & seems to make the best out of some questionable mounts. Even if he doesn't win, he'll scare ya! I agree with BTW, he probably wasn't the hardest one in the sequence...

I know the players pool guys are excellent handicappers who play for real money every day. I am not criticizing them at all. It is the concept that forces them to play for $100,000 when that number is really overkill. That number forces bad ticket structure and limits the possible return.

Paul

I thought Derek Simon was putting the Brisnet Players pool tickets together. He was on Steve's show a few weeks or maybe a month or so ago. Pick 6, I would take a pick 3 or a double or a winner. I am in my yearly warm weather slump. Just whining a bit not winning.

I don't agree. It gives you more room to play...that's all.

If anything, what it really exposes is just how hard these Pick-6s can be to hit. Take for instance the post earlier in this thread, where somebody says the basically ridiculous " I always throw in Jose Espinoza, " as if that would have made the ticket a winner. This silly notion disregards that doing so may well have added one horse to each of maybe four races....thus further ignoring how exponentially this grows a ticket. This is furthered by the idea that there was one horse missed that easily could have been your next use in a given race. However, this idea ignores how many races included a " next horse " and further ignores which " next horse " was being used before the other one. No race, or horse, lives in isolation in Pick-6 ticket construction.

Bottom line....more money gives you more coverage....period. Yes, it can be argued that one's construction didn't give you optimum coverage...but perhaps the person on the other side has a reasonable argument that disagrees. The smartest, and most successful, player I know does not subscribe to Crists A/B/C/x method. This doesn't make either wrong...it's up to each player to decide.

Yet another great thing about this game....many roads can lead to the right destination.

More like most roads lead to failure in this game when it comes to something like a Pick 6....The average player would be much better off focusing on doubles and an occasional Pick 4.

You are certainly right that a pick 6 is very hard to hit. Which is why it is supposed to be a high risk/high reward proposition.

My main point is that by putting so much money into the pool, even if they hit it, what can their ROI be as a result. If they hit yesterday, they would have managed to get 3-1 on their investment (and that is pre-tax). Aren't there better bets to be made every day that making such a high risk proposition?

I clearly get why Twinspires organizes it as it gets them serious additional handle. But the average person throwing $20 dollars into the pool with dreams of a life changing score will always come away dissapointed. If they hit it yesterday, that same person would have gotten about $60 and a W2-G.

Paul

Forces bad ticket structure: How does a bankroll force bad ticket structure? They had four days of handicapping yet they spent 90k on one ticket. Its lazy and irresponsible.

Limits possible return: True

I obviously put a ticket in yesterday, I was 4 for 4 (1x2x3x2) until the last two legs which I was 3x4 and lost both legs, my ticket was $288

As I have said, next time when they have this thing, I'm gonna start a Players Pool thread in the Selection Room (if I remember) where you have a 100k bankroll. My over/under if the proper people put in tickets is 11 people hitting it.

Personally, I just can't buy into the fact of letting someone else gamble with my money, without me having any say in it. I understand that the only way some people are able to play into a pick 6 like this, is through a players pool. If that is what they choose to do, that's their prerogative. I think it's lazy. I'm not one to play a pick 6. I know and understand my limits, especially with ticket structure and more importantly, having the proper amount of capital required.

After the Derby carryover they invested $80k they put 6 tickets in with the largest being $67k and hit it. They actually had 2 winning tickets due to the late scratch in the first leg which wound up on the PT favorite.

The gross payout for both tickets was $295k which netted down to $220k and added another $33k on 52 consos for a total net collection of $254k

That's a pretty good day

Why can't their ROI be good? I'm no expert in betting Pick 6's, but it's not obvious to me that getting 3-1 disqualifies them from having a good ROI.

This isn't obvious to me, either. Why can't a single ticket cover most of what you want to bet?

--Dunbar

(emphasis added)

I wouldn't hesitate to let someone bet my money if I was confident they had an edge, and it was an area that I either had no expertise or didn't have enough time to analyze myself. I'd be thrilled, in fact.

--Dunbar

What's lazy and irresponsible is this post.

I'm not against it the caveman theory at all. But 90k?

Just yesterday they owned 2.4% of the ENTIRE pool and I personally think they could have done ALOT better with (3) 35k tickets.

With 100k to spend, you can get REAL creative with how you structure, it is basically unlimited because at some point you have to trust your opinions. For example, if I had 100k to spend I probably would have had three tickets that had 1 singles on it each.

I just feel one ticket for 90k considering the sequence was the wrong way to do it, was lazy, and was not thought out throughly.

Ok, so explain to me how having that type of bankroll forces bad ticket structure?

The only way I can see it is if they are told they have to spent x amount on one ticket, which if it is the case, then I am wrong.

Excuse me?

You are making a lot of irresponsible statements here...that's all.