Derby Day Pools
 

Hopefully this could be helpful in deciding when and where to put your money.

EVERY Derby day pool is way bigger than the normal day......So why does it matter ?

You're welcome.

The most surprising thing about that spreadsheet is that the 12 horse Churchill Downs out-handled the 13 horse Woodford Reserve in every exotic pool. Must have been all that money from people like me who bet Capt. Candyman Can and got one of the worst rides of Calvin Borel's career.

Bombs away last year.

Isn't the Woodford Reserve the race they inexplicably don't show every year?

They showed it last year.

It's usually the Manhattan that gets blacked out pre-Belmont.

It just kills me we can't bet a dime super on either day.

I'm for getting rid of dime supers and .50 P4's all-together. Can anyone truly say that their ROI on P4's has improved since they have gone the .50 route? People spend just as much playing .50 as they would a dollar get more combinations and IMLHO severly watered down payouts. I wish the industry or DRF would publish a study of .50 P4's. I do realize I won't get any support on my position but that is how I see it.

Lots of angles from which to talk about this but what comes to mind first is that "watered down payouts" mean more people are winning which a racetrack will never be too upset about. More churn.

That said, I know my personal action is dictated a lot by minimums. I never venture in a Superfecta pool where there isn't a dime minimum. Only rarely. And I appreciate my ability to get more action on a 50-cent Trifecta vs. a $1 minimum pool. Sure you win less, but in general people would rather win, even if it's less, with less risk than the opposite.

Derby Day and BC day are the only days Ill play the 50 cent min. I mean I play the 50 cent min and punch it 3 or 4x. But these days Im fine with just my 50 cent spread. 1 price and your getting $$.

Winning is walking out with more money then you start with. Cashing more tickets isn't winning unless you walk out with more money. ;)

except for the track as Travis pointed out regarding churn

But are they winning if they are driving away their whales becuase they have watered down payouts?

Disagree. I like the fact the minimums are higher on this big day. Encourages players to go for gusto with some monster scores possible from $1 super plays.

ditto

jms, when you analyze what you said above it is the combinations that affect the roi not the minimums.
For example if I was to play the late DD at Hollywood 5x5 it would cost me $50. How much can I expect from my dollar if a $14 horse wins one of the legs and a 5-2 second choice wins the other? I'll get my money back plus a few bucks.

On the same racecard I instead decide to play the late pick 4 1x1x5x5. My investment is $12.50 and I hit the first two legs. I can now compare the p-4 payout for $.50 to a $12 DD in legs 1 and 2. In most cases the $12 DD in legs 1 and 2 will pay very close to the $.50 p-4 payout. It is the races in which I spread that determines my profit margin.

The way I see it is that the lower the minimum the more amateur money gets into the pools.

LOL... Sorry Port I am not smart enough to have the faintest clue of what you are trying to say.

I'm sure you're smart enough. I didn't make it clear.


I'm trying to point out that ultimately it is where you spread that will determine how profitable your p-4 wager will be. If people are spreading more because of the minimum cost they better be getting at least $12 horses. Its the winning chalk that keeps the payoffs low not the base wager.

Call me what you may, but at Travis says, I'm not involved in the supers for these contentious 14 horse fields with dollar minimums unless I'm pooling with friends. I'd rather just bet $100 to win than try to get skinny.

I think it's like that to discourage people from holding up betting lines with a bunch of 10cent super part-wheels.

I agree with Port Conway Lane.

Further -- 10-cent supers help take eliminate the tax man (signers are greatly reduced and withholding becomes extremely rare)

If I want a superfecta combo for $1 ... I'll play it ten times for a dime.

The only people who should be opposed to cheap minimums in exotics are the people at the track who get 10% for cashing other peoples signers.

Thats the fact, and it also explains why the Churchill HC had more in it than the Woodford. By that point of the day, you're at a 30 minute line, and many people are putting in all their bets through the Derby, which slows it further. Add to that the fact that most of the tellers are one day temps, you'd never get out of there if people start wheeling a ton of combos on supers. It's hard enough to get an Exacta ticket correct.

Churchill for the longest time (up until the mid 80's) did not offer Daily Double wagers on Derby day for the exact same reason as the Trifecta and Superfecta are $1 these two days, they didn't want people stuck at the windows for the longest time.

I couldn't disagree more.
I think the payoffs take a tiny hit with the Trifecta's but, it is a fair trade off to help avoid taxable tickets.

I can't speak for everyone but, I have hit at least three Pick 4's this year that I would have never had if the bet had been at a $1 minimum. They all paid me over four figures. I have also avoided paying taxes in 5 or 6 other situations by using multiple fifty cent punches on the same ticket.

:tro:

Thanks for making my point. Many people hitting who wouldn't be hitting for a buck hence the depressed payouts. Your 4 figure scores could have been a 5 figure score a few years back. Of course neither of us have the stats to backup our position so you have your opinion and I have mine which is certainly in the minority on this board; as a matter of fact I think I stand alone on this issue. To those that say simply bet your .50 ticket multiple times I just chuckle. Having said that maybe the solution is what appears to be happening at Belmont today... 4 12+ horse fields in the late P4...

Well it wouldn't have been a 5 figure score for me, because I would've never played a $200 ticket for a $1 minimum.

In an era where pools of all types are shrinking, having more people involved is a good thing.

Do you think this has any impact on the big players exiting the game?

"Big players exiting the game" has FAR more to do with high, oppressive takeout than low minimums.

Big players care about rebates, pool size and field size more than payoffs, because payoffs are relative.