7 days until they drop the bomb at GP

[Frost King]

If Gulfstream wanted as many winners as possible, then they would card a couple of gimme races in the sequence to insure that result. By offering horseman extra money to FILL the fields, they are doing the exact opposite. They are making it harder, to increase the handle, and insure the BIG PAYOFF for a couple of dimes. The fact, that they have sucked the money out of the system, and possibly hurt other circuits, is not their concern. Just like any businessman that says competition is healthy, is liar. You want to drive your competition out of your area, so that you are the only seller of your widgets. Therefore, you set the rules of pricing.

[tector]

Is there anything preventing other tracks from offer a similar bet? Certainly any of the major players could do it.

GP primes the pump on this wager during the core of their winter meet, and now has been able to carry it forward an extra 8 weeks or so. Good for them, and tough crap for loser tracks that can't (or increasing in the case of CDI tracks, won't) compete.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by tector

Is there anything preventing other tracks from offer a similar bet? Certainly any of the major players could do it.

GP primes the pump on this wager during the core of their winter meet, and now has been able to carry it forward an extra 8 weeks or so. Good for them, and tough crap for loser tracks that can't (or increasing in the case of CDI tracks, won't) compete.

Agree - it is brilliant strategy. I've played it quite regularly since March, a time when typically I write off South FL racing until December

[Rudeboyelvis]

I'm curious how many syndicates would consider buying the sequence - to draw some rough assumptions - say 8 mill in the total pool and, for the sake of my poor math skills, 10 betting interests per race -

So to cover every horse, 10 to the 6th power or 1 million / .20 wager so $200,000 to buy the field. Is that right?

I'd say that the reality of it paying that well is minimal.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I'm curious how many syndicates would consider buying the sequence - to draw some rough assumptions - say 8 mill in the total pool and, for the sake of my poor math skills, 10 betting interests per race -

So to cover every horse, 10 to the 6th power or 1 million / .20 wager so $200,000 to buy the field. Is that right?

I'd say that the reality of it paying that well is minimal.

Would be a shame if someone scooped it Friday-Saturday or Sunday while everyone was waiting for the big day

[tector]

Originally Posted by jms62

Would be a shame if someone scooped it Friday-Saturday or Sunday while everyone was waiting for the big day

Well, let's hope at least two syndicates try it and hit it.

[declansharbor]

When do they draw the card? Friday?

Thx in advance.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by jms62

Would be a shame if someone scooped it Friday-Saturday or Sunday while everyone was waiting for the big day

Have to admit, that would be kinda funny.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by jms62

Would be a shame if someone scooped it Friday-Saturday or Sunday while everyone was waiting for the big day

[pointman]

I wonder if it hurt that most stayed away playing today.

I still can't reconcile in my mind, but could the Johnny Pinwheel theory actually have been right?

[tector]

The amount of the payout is kind of beside the point. What IS the point is that you are going to have a net negative takeout, unless the total pool reaches over $30 million or so (which seems highly unlikely).

If you give me a daily double at Fairmount Park with two 4 horse fields and a negative takeout, I am betting it.

[lemoncrush]

Originally Posted by Frost King

If Gulfstream wanted as many winners as possible, then they would card a couple of gimme races in the sequence to insure that result. By offering horseman extra money to FILL the fields, they are doing the exact opposite. They are making it harder, to increase the handle, and insure the BIG PAYOFF for a couple of dimes. The fact, that they have sucked the money out of the system, and possibly hurt other circuits, is not their concern. Just like any businessman that says competition is healthy, is liar. You want to drive your competition out of your area, so that you are the only seller of your widgets. Therefore, you set the rules of pricing.

I don't disagree, but making the sequence of races tough is done to force people to throw more money (and create bigger priced tickets) rather than just hoping that only a few hit it. Getting more money back in more horseplayers pockets is good for their bottom line too, hoping many will put at least a portion of that back into the races at GP (might be wishful thinking based on their limited schedule and quality of races until their meet ends in late June).

[ranger5830]

Originally Posted by lemoncrush

I don't disagree, but making the sequence of races tough is done to force people to throw more money (and create bigger priced tickets) rather than just hoping that only a few hit it. Getting more money back in more horseplayers pockets is good for their bottom line too, hoping many will put at least a portion of that back into the races at GP (might be wishful thinking based on their limited schedule and quality of races until their meet ends in late June).

This, plus remember that the more money that gets bet into it, the more they get in takeout. If everybody (say 100,000 players just for example,) thought they could hit it with a $16 ticket, that's $1.6 million in handle. If every one of those players plays a $144 ticket because it's more challenging and they need to spread more, then they handle (and take 20% of) over $12 million. And when you consider it will likely be the largest pool of the year that doesn't involve a triple crown race, and a secondary track like GP in the summer only gets one shot at it, they certainly want to make it as tough as possible to build that day's pool.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ranger5830

This, plus remember that the more money that gets bet into it, the more they get in takeout. If everybody (say 100,000 players just for example,) thought they could hit it with a $16 ticket, that's $1.6 million in handle. If every one of those players plays a $144 ticket because it's more challenging and they need to spread more, then they handle (and take 20% of) over $12 million. And when you consider it will likely be the largest pool of the year that doesn't involve a triple crown race, and a secondary track like GP in the summer only gets one shot at it, they certainly want to make it as tough as possible to build that day's pool.

While recognizing that tracks can often have an incentive to make a pic-6 sequence difficult to encourage carryovers (which importantly is NOT the case here given the mandatory payout), I am not of the belief that making a pic-6 as hard as possible is a way to increase handle on the wager. To the contrary, for a player with a limited bankroll, if the sequence is too difficult, to the point that where he or she concludes that a typical play offers no realistic chance to hit the bet, then they player simply opts out of the wager. That is why the $.50 pic 4s and 5s have become far more popular with the average player than the $2.00 pic-6. That said, the $.20 increment on this wager does give the small player the opportunity for more coverage, so opting out is less likely (but it does not mean he or she bets more).

[Walt Gekko]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

While recognizing that tracks can often have an incentive to make a pic-6 sequence difficult to encourage carryovers (which importantly is NOT the case here given the mandatory payout), I am not of the belief that making a pic-6 as hard as possible is a way to increase handle on the wager. To the contrary, for a player with a limited bankroll, if the sequence is too difficult, to the point that where he or she concludes that a typical play offers no realistic chance to hit the bet, then they player simply opts out of the wager. That is why the $.50 pic 4s and 5s have become far more popular with the average player than the $2.00 pic-6. That said, the $.20 increment on this wager does give the small player the opportunity for more coverage, so opting out is less likely (but it does not mean he or she bets more).

And this is why I'd like to see NYRA dump the traditional Pick-Six in favor of this 20-cent version and perhaps also do a 20-cent Jackpot Pick 5 (like Pimlico did this meet as a 10-cent wager) and also do 20-cent Pick 3s and Pick 4s and trifectas like Woodbine does. The 20-cent minimum satisfies the needs of Canadian bettors and I think can bring in more lottery-type players, more than a few of which I suspect we'll see Monday at Gulfstream.

I'd also look at add a 10 or 20-cent pick-nine wager if I were at NYRA (on all nine races or the last nine when more than nine are carded) that also I think would be popular with small and big bettors alike.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Walt Gekko

And this is why I'd like to see NYRA dump the traditional Pick-Six in favor of this 20-cent version and perhaps also do a 20-cent Jackpot Pick 5 (like Pimlico did this meet as a 10-cent wager) and also do 20-cent Pick 3s and Pick 4s and trifectas like Woodbine does. The 20-cent minimum satisfies the needs of Canadian bettors and I think can bring in more lottery-type players, more than a few of which I suspect we'll see Monday at Gulfstream.

I'd also look at add a 10 or 20-cent pick-nine wager if I were at NYRA (on all nine races or the last nine when more than nine are carded) that also I think would be popular with small and big bettors alike.

.20 Cent Pick 4's so they will pay 7.65 instead of 76.50 .