2009 NY handle -10%, attendance just -4%

[herkhorse]

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but my personal NY handle is down because I'm not allowed to watch NY races online, due to the fact that I live in NY.

[3kings]

Does the lack of $0.10 supers on races with an entry or less than 8 horses have an effect? Does it drive the big score for a few buck players to other tracks?

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by 3kings

Does the lack of $0.10 supers on races with an entry or less than 8 horses have an effect? Does it drive the big score for a few buck players to other tracks?

i don't think that matters much. but they should get the .50 cent pick 4. i don't know how much they can do about attendance, its weather related up here and you can't control triple crown attempts. the horse has to win two legs first, before belmont matters. getting the big names to race each other would go a long way to help interest.

[Patrick333]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

i don't think that matters much. but they should get the .50 cent pick 4. i don't know how much they can do about attendance, its weather related up here and you can't control triple crown attempts. the horse has to win two legs first, before belmont matters. getting the big names to race each other would go a long way to help interest.

I agree with you. I think to get people to the track they need The Belmont to be for the triple crown. I think that gives racing in New York a big lift. Of course if they can get Rachel and Zenyatta together this spring that won't hurt either.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

i don't think that matters much. but they should get the .50 cent pick 4..

Disagree completely.

A .50 minimum on the P4 dillutes the play and takes the entire lure of it's big return away.

[Travis Stone]

I think lowering minimums is generally overrated. There is a finite amount of money in play in racing each day. Minimums just dictate where that money goes. Conversely, I think it would be cool to explore the opposite and the possibility of a "high stakes" wager.

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I think lowering minimums is generally overrated. There is a finite amount of money in play in racing each day. Minimums just dictate where that money goes. Conversely, I think it would be cool to explore the opposite and the possibility of a "high stakes" wager.

I disagree.
Anything that can save the bettor a tax ticket by ducking the 300-1, I support.

[jballscalls]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Disagree completely.

A .50 minimum on the P4 dillutes the play and takes the entire lure of it's big return away.

i know looking at the pools for the 6th race yesterday with 3 minutes to post, the pick 4 had far and away the most money into it, so clearly that's not the wager that is hurting.

and i agree, the fractional wagers suck! man up and bet a dollar! nothing more annoying than waiting in line to make a bet and someguy is taking a year to read off his 5.40 superfecta play for a 7 horse field at SA!!

ok rant over

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Disagree completely.

A .50 minimum on the P4 dillutes the play and takes the entire lure of it's big return away.

I don't get it. You don't like .50 pic-4 because it "dilutes the play," but always seem to use that denomination (at tracks that allow fractional wagering) when posting your wagers in the selections forum. Am I missing something?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I don't get it. You don't like .50 pic-4 because it "dilutes the play," but always seem to use that denomination (at tracks that allow fractional wagering) when posting your wagers in the selections forum. Am I missing something?

Why would I not use the minimum amount as the denomination where the bet is taken at .50? I don't set the minimums. And how does using the .50 denomination have anything to do with a preference for pools maintaining a higher minimum? Should I bet or suggest $2 denominations for Magna 5 plays now that they take it for $1?

When pools accept reduced minimums, they make it far easier to hit and thereby generally diminish the average payouts of said wager. This whole conversation has been had regarding the creation of the Super High 5 from focus group discussions with disaffected Superfecta bettors at Santa Anita. They complained that the .10 super had so greatly impacted the payouts that they were no longer interested in the play. Hence the creation of a higher minimum/higher risk/higher reward wager in the '5'.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Why would I not use the minimum amount as the denomination where the bet is taken at .50? I don't set the minimums. And how does using the .50 denomination have anything to do with a preference for pools maintaining a higher minimum? Should I bet or suggest $2 denominations for Magna 5 plays now that they take it for $1?

Because, using your own words, it "dilutes the play."

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Kasept

When pools accept reduced minimums, they make it far easier to hit and thereby generally diminish the average payouts of said wager. This whole conversation has been had regarding the creation of the Super High 5 from focus group discussions with disaffected Superfecta bettors at Santa Anita. They complained that the .10 super had so greatly impacted the payouts that they were no longer interested in the play. Hence the creation of a higher minimum/higher risk/higher reward wager in the '5'.

I agree that fractional denominations make the wager easier to hit for the player with a limited bankroll, but I've never seen any study that establishes that fractional wagers lower the average payouts of those wagers (although recognizing that dime supers may permit a super to get hit, where it previously would have had an "all" in the fourth slot). Pic-4 payoffs at tracks like Keeneland and Gulfstream are plenty generous (often more so than corresponding wagers at NYRA which has the $1 minimum), despite the lower minimums.

I understand the tracks' desire to foster carryovers with wagers like the pic-6 (and am willing to accept the $2 minimum), but for non-carryover wagers, it's about catering to the tracks' customers. The arguments that you are advancing are same as those made by the "whales" or other large bankroll players who want the pools to themselves. If you are going to try to grow participation in the sport, I don't believe that's the way to go. And this speaks nothing to the IRS reporting benefits associated with fractional wagering.