Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dunbar
One article I read before Pool 2 said that CD was using the exacta pool as a guage of how much interest there is to expand the pools to more horses. Not sure of that reasoning, but if they adhere to it, there's nothing to suggest they should expand the number of horses.
The 104K exacta pool (nice call on the pool size, Justin!) was hardly inspiring, and it probably contributed to the decline in the win pool by $50K from last year's already low amount. But I don't think there's strong correlation between exacta betting and bettors' interest in betting more horses in the futures.
I think expanding the number of horses is a bad idea for a different reason. In Pool 1, "All Others" attracted more than $134,000 of the $478,721 of bets in the pool. Does anyone really think that the added horses, most of which will be showing odds of 100-1 or more, will attract $134K of action to offset the loss of "All others"? Extremely small chance of that happening, IMO.
--Dunbar
|
Honestly, I totally disagree.
First off, the exacta pool being used as a gauge to whether or not additional horses would be of interest to bettors seems crazy? I see no correlation between an exacta offering insight into potential interest in a 400 horse pool.
Secondly, the appeal of more horses is the prices and diversity. A line-up of 400 horses with some horses at 700-1 will most certainly garner and generate interest.
There is some validity to the thought that the amount of win $ bet on the field and whether or not it would spread to other interests, but in my opinion, it's completely offset by the spark and interest the higher priced horses, larger options and infinite additional options you can generate from it.