Twinspires Players Pool
 

Any of you out there who played the Pick 6 and didn't hit, don't fret, the Twinspires Players Pool put 100k in and got back $6,104 for having 5 of 6 on two different tickets.

Their main ticket was $90,720 and missed Hooligan's Delight.

:eek:

How much per person did they cash for? 40 cents?

And how much of that will be taxed? :rolleyes:

If they would have hit they would have gotten 3/1 assuming one tix sad

That's classic.

Hey Nick, who is charge of putting the players pool ticket together? Who makes the final decision on what horses to use? Any idea how they work that?

As far as I know three guys put it together. I know one is Rich Nilsen, who has been with Bris for quite some time and the other is Bryan Wagner, a veteran tournament player who won the NHC Tour in 2010. He sat 3 seats down from me at the NHC in 2009 but I didn't talk to him. I was there on business. ;)

:rolleyes:

F that, though. I can lose my money just fine. I don't need to give it to someone else to do that, veteran tournament player, or not. I just can't imagine I would gather a great amount of joy letting someone else bet with my money. Unless it was Hossy, of course.

They might have had better luck if instead of Bryan, his wife Judy was involved.

Rich left Brisnet at the end of April so I am not sure if he is still involved. The people they have used are all excellent handicappers. But these are almost always bad investments as they will almost always be forced to spend more than they should to promote the gimick.

Paul

They've also played and won. I don't think it's fair to mock them now considering they lost. I seem to recall a recent play of their's that did very well. You didn't invest with them, which is your prerogative, and fine, but some did...and they lost. Why would we laugh at them? We're all horseplayers. We lose all the time. We win sometimes too. Just like them.

I don't think I was hitting it for $100K....and frankly I'm glad I didn't have to try.

I put money in the players' pool once last summer at Saratoga and got a nice return when they won. But they put, maybe, $30,000 in that day. The last few times they've played, I've had no interest because they are playing $100,000.

It just seems ludicrous to put that type of money together, not to mention a ridiculous caveman play of $90,000+. Do you play on the off chance of being the only ticket to pull down about $4,000,000 when that is ridiculously remote?

When you win, it looks great. When you lose, it looks awful.

They had a ticket alive for 6 going into the last leg. ON their main play they used 1,3,4,11, on another backup, they had 1,4,11, but on the ticket that singled the 3 in the 8th race, they only used 1,11.

The tickets seemed to inconsistently apply their opinions, which leads to another though. What of offering players the chance to link up to four or five pools each run seperately by different handicappers of their choosing, each controlling $20,000 or so?

They are f'n clueless on ticket structure, the next time around they do it, we should have a DT contest on how to spend 100k in a P6, cause I can think of about 15 people here that have more of a clue then what they doing there with that crap.

:rolleyes:

If you are playing a 100k pick 6 ticket, do you really need the "experts" constructing the tickets. Is there really a strategy involved in this ticket? Create a ticket and hope 2 or 3 big longshots come in?

I just don't understand the 90k into ONE ticket. They do that all the time. With that type of bankroll. I probably do two 30k tickets, and 5 other 8k tickets.

90k in one ticket puts a ton of emphasis on some really bad horses.

Actually, in this case, while I couldn't have hit it for $100K, I would have had a better chance with a Caveman ticket. Now, I don't believe in Caveman tickets, but in this particular Pick-6, I can't see how I could have had five As, and one C, for under $100K. And, forget about 6 As or Bs in a multi-ticket approach....for under $100K that is. The last winner would have required a virtual " all " and I don't know how I could have managed the other legs to have gotten that far....especially given the second winner. Frankly, the winner of the 5th leg would have been no problem, relatively speaking.

This sequence was impossible going in and no easier going out.

I agree. The so called handicapping these experts do on a 90k ticket is pointless. They can afford to go as much as 6 horses deep in every race. With that bankroll I can skim the racing form for 5 min and construct my ticket and I am still not garaunteed to win above 100k IF I win. There is no point of having "experts" or that big bankroll.

I completely disagree.

90% of your bankroll on one ticket when dealing with that kind of money is pointless, reckless and also downright wrong, having that type of bankroll is definately not pointless though.

You could probably get this info, although I'm not sure how easy it is to find, but I would be curious what woud be the largest ticket played that pool today.

I would think 90k is probably close to the top 3 tickets cost wise. Maybe I'm wrong.

First of all, that is not what the other poster said....so why quote my post disagreeing with him?

However, since you asked....I don't think you have really thought this one through. I am not saying I would construct the play as they did, but I will guess it wasn't random, and they certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I don't have the prior tickets as proof, but I recall them normally spending alot of money on one ticket and then smaller backups.

I guess there isn't a correct answer when it comes to structuring a bunch of tickets because it will always depend on the sequence, but at some point I would trust my handicapping.

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.