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
__________________
Curlin and Hard Spun finish 1,2 in the 2007 BC Classic, demonstrating how competing in all three Triple Crown races ruins a horse for the rest of the year...see avatar
photo from REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
|