Derby/Oaks Future Wager Pool 2

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by philcski

Actual willpays are up on the Kentuckyderby.com website. Dunkirk closes as the individual favorite, LOL.

Thanks for the heads up on the will-pays, phil. btw, I'm no relation to Dunkirk!

Originally Posted by philcski

Side note, any idea what the hell that guy is talking about money laundering?!?

Not a clue. That's why I said it made as much sense as saying there was a fig newton involved.

--Dunbar

[cassie]

the smallest exactas are over $100GOING UP TOOVER 3000

[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

[Travis Stone]

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.

[philcski]

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

Not sure I agree. Down 15% isn't necessarily a bad number in this economy especially considering the overall gain including the exactas.

[Travis Stone]

Race wagering overall is down... the economic indicator emails I receive from Equibase being down 15% in a pool/wager like this is not that crazy given the playing field today.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

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.

How much money will someone bet on a 700-1 horse? $20? Or do they want to win more than $14,000.

Horses beyond the first 23 entries are only known by a very small % of the betting public. You may argue that the serious bettors will show up to bet. Again, though, how much will they bet on a 200-1 shot? Even a serious bettor is not likely to put up more than $50 on a 200-1 shot. Are there 2600 people in the country willing to suddenly show up and make bets like that? Because that's the number you'd need to offset the money that will NOT be bet on All Others. (or 1300 people, if each is going to find 2 horses to bet $50 on.) I don't think there are anywhere near that number.

At best I think it would be a wash in Pool 1. Now in Pool 2, the amount bet on All Others is smaller, so maybe that amount could be offset by opening up the number of entries. In Pool 3 the amount bet on All Others is smaller still, but so is interest in horses beyond the top 23.

--Dunbar

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by philcski

Not sure I agree. Down 15% isn't necessarily a bad number in this economy especially considering the overall gain including the exactas.

Pool 1 in 2009 was UP 9% over last year, Phil, bad economy notwithstanding. That's why I think the decreased win pool in Pool 2 was probably due to money siphoned off into the exacta pool.

--Dunbar

[CharlieR]

I'm wondering if problems placing the exacta bet contributed to the size of the pool. When I tried to place a bet using my NJ wagering account I'd get messages saying the races were closed for this track or pools not available and it would not allow me to bet. Drove over to Monmouth and tried to use the machines. When you tried to place a bet you could not get a "program" with the names to come up. You had to try to place a bet where you'd then get just the number & odds. At the time I only had the names written down and there wasn't a program or sheet available confirming horse & number. Finally one of teller supervisors was able to lend me a copy of the Pool 2 "program". So now I'm finally ready to place a few bets. For the exacta you could bet $1Box = minimum of $2. Problem I had was that the tab indicating "wrong amount" kept flashing so I gave up and placed $2 exacta boxes. This meant I had to spend more per bet and was not going to be able to cover some of the bets I wanted to. After placing 6 or so bets I asked the supervisor if I could see the sheet again. It clearly said you could place the $1 box for $2. So even though the amount error kept flashing at me I tried it anyway and of course it worked. Now I'm frustrated and mad about what happened and decided I was done with that. Keep in mind I was placing bets for what was supposed to just be fun. I had the family pick by names. I had planned to box several of those together, key a few and box some with the "Field". Instead I walked away angry and the pool did not get all I had planned to bet.