Tell Churchill Downs You Want Dime Supers!

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Can't speak for everyone, but I wager fairly often and hardly ever play superfectas, but the dime super is intriguing to me, and is something I'd definitely be playing on Derby day.

Exactly. I don't play superfectas.. or dime supers very often either. But when the $1 super payoff can be 40K in the derby(creating a 4k payoff for a dime), I'm more interested... or at least I was.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

Exactly. I don't play superfectas.. or dime supers very often either. But when the $1 super payoff can be 40K in the derby(creating a 4k payoff for a dime), I'm more interested... or at least I was.

i made the mistake of thinking dime supers always pay a 10th of the payout for the $1 super. not so. we were at arlington, the super paid over 3k, so i figured hey, 300-or so bucks. paid $14 for the dime.
i've never played one again.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i made the mistake of thinking dime supers always pay a 10th of the payout for the $1 super. not so. we were at arlington, the super paid over 3k, so i figured hey, 300-or so bucks. paid $14 for the dime.
i've never played one again.

How did that happen?

[Danzig]

because i'd imagine the pool that hit the dime super was filled by a lot more players than those that paid for the dollar bet. only thing i can figure. i have no idea.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

because i'd imagine the pool that hit the dime super was filled by a lot more players than those that paid for the dollar bet. only thing i can figure. i have no idea.

I guess I've always assumed it's all put into the same pool... at least, any dime super I've ever hit (which isn't that many)... has always paid 1/10th of what the $1 payout was. Maybe they do things differently at Arlington.

[Danzig]

yeah, i figured that they did. so i was none too thrilled to get the payout.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, i figured that they did. so i was none too thrilled to get the payout.

I totally understand.. I'd be pretty peeved too.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i made the mistake of thinking dime supers always pay a 10th of the payout for the $1 super. not so. we were at arlington, the super paid over 3k, so i figured hey, 300-or so bucks. paid $14 for the dime.
i've never played one again.

something is wrong with this, i have never seen this happen. its always 1/10th of the dollar payout.

[Travis Stone]

Dime supers actually hurt overall handle believe it or not. It detracts from the overall pools. For example, if someone decides to bet $50 on a race at your track, they'll bet $50. But, if dime supers are available, they might only bet $30 (because they can bet for cheaper) and they spend the $20 on other racetracks.

In a big race like the Derby, I don't disagree with them not allowing 10-cent supers, with so much money being handled.

[booner]

I can understand them not wanting to offer dime supers at the track on Derby Day. I would hate to be a teller constantly handing out the extra $.60 all day long.

I don't see any reason why they couldn't be offered through ADW's.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by booner

I can understand them not wanting to offer dime supers at the track on Derby Day. I would hate to be a teller constantly handing out the extra $.60 all day long.

I don't see any reason why they couldn't be offered through ADW's.

I'd play the supers, but like many others here, I will be in attendance and adding them to the wagering menu could cause a nightmare at the windows. It's not unusual to wait 30 minutes in line to wager and still get shutout of a race. Think about what you have. 75% of the tellers are temps there for one day, and 75% of the crowd doesn't have any clue what they are doing. I've heard a lot of folks go to the window and try to call the horse's name instead of number.

[Travis Stone]

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not necessarily against 10-cent supers, and the jury I suppose is still out on whether or not they're good thing for the bottom line.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Dime supers actually hurt overall handle believe it or not. It detracts from the overall pools. For example, if someone decides to bet $50 on a race at your track, they'll bet $50. But, if dime supers are available, they might only bet $30 (because they can bet for cheaper) and they spend the $20 on other racetracks.
In a big race like the Derby, I don't disagree with them not allowing 10-cent supers, with so much money being handled.

or they could spend the $20 on dime supers in the next race at YOUR track.

what is to say that if your track didn't have the dime super that the bettor wouldn't have bet the entire $50 at other tracks?

The bottom line is this. The people with alot of cash to not want to share the big hits with people who will be spending 500-1000 rather than thousands so they can keep all the cash for themselves. money going to money.... big surprize. I still dont understand the difference between an 700000 dollar super and maybe a 500000 for every dollar. just plan old greedyness. What else is new?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Dime supers actually hurt overall handle believe it or not. It detracts from the overall pools. For example, if someone decides to bet $50 on a race at your track, they'll bet $50. But, if dime supers are available, they might only bet $30 (because they can bet for cheaper) and they spend the $20 on other racetracks.

In a big race like the Derby, I don't disagree with them not allowing 10-cent supers, with so much money being handled.

This is a very naive approach and exactly the kind of thinking by racetrack management ( on a variety of situations ) that helps keep racing in the dark ages. Just because a change, in this case a popular one, does not pay immediate dividends does not mean it won't be successful in the long run. While takeout obviously doesn't change from $1 supers to dime supers, the dime super obviously allows more coverage overall for all your players, and probably rates to keep more money in action, and thus possibly raises the churn on this bet....which is what increases handle. Instead of the money from the pool being dispersed to a few bettors it ends up spreading it more thinly to many betters. Theoretically this is better for churn ( and thus handle ). It's early ( for me and this bet ) and over time it is highly possible that this bet will prove a handle booster.

It's also worth noting that the $20 you give as an example that is wagered at another track, through simulcasting, provides only incremental less dollars to the simulcasting outlet. One could argue that the few lost dollars are more than made up by keeping your customer happy.

Churchill Downs Inc. makes baffling decisions all the time ( did they not raise their takeout substantially on Pick-4s and, I think, Supers or Pick-3s for the recently begun Calder meeting? ) so this recent one comes as no great surprise. However, the simple solution offered in this thread of allowing Supers on only self-service machines on Derby Day seems to have alluded them. Do they honestly believe that the carnage of Derby Day will be further exacerbated by doing so? Or, more likely, did they not really think this through? Your core players should never be dismissed just because it's the one day you can do no wrong. Racetracks seem to make this kind of mistake far too often.

[mik9872]

I agree that Churchill should offer .10 supers on Derby and Oaks days, even if only on automated machines or Adw. Oops, there won't be Adw

[booner]

If I read an article correctly (can't remember where), you will be able to bet the Oaks, Woodford Reserve and Derby through twinspires and Xpressbet. Those 3 races are the sole property of CDI and they can offer those.

It went something like that, but I may be wrong.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is a very naive approach and exactly the kind of thinking by racetrack management ( on a variety of situations ) that helps keep racing in the dark ages. Just because a change, in this case a popular one, does not pay immediate dividends does not mean it won't be successful in the long run. While takeout obviously doesn't change from $1 supers to dime supers, the dime super obviously allows more coverage overall for all your players, and probably rates to keep more money in action, and thus possibly raises the churn on this bet....which is what increases handle. Instead of the money from the pool being dispersed to a few bettors it ends up spreading it more thinly to many betters. Theoretically this is better for churn ( and thus handle ). It's early ( for me and this bet ) and over time it is highly possible that this bet will prove a handle booster.

It's also worth noting that the $20 you give as an example that is wagered at another track, through simulcasting, provides only incremental less dollars to the simulcasting outlet. One could argue that the few lost dollars are more than made up by keeping your customer happy.

I don't think the churn figures are as high as we might think. People are not attacking the wager properly. If you walk around our track, the floor is scattered with $2.40 super boxes. Obviously, this is an ineffective way to bet the wager (and yes, all tix on the floor are losers to begin with). Personally, I am constantly struggling with the best way to play them and have almost phased them out completely.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I don't think the churn figures are as high as we might think. People are not attacking the wager properly. If you walk around our track, the floor is scattered with $2.40 super boxes. Obviously, this is an ineffective way to bet the wager (and yes, all tix on the floor are losers to begin with). Personally, I am constantly struggling with the best way to play them and have almost phased them out completely.

you can go in the Gold Room at Arlington and find $10 super box tickets on the floor.

[Monarchos1]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Dime supers actually hurt overall handle believe it or not. It detracts from the overall pools. For example, if someone decides to bet $50 on a race at your track, they'll bet $50. But, if dime supers are available, they might only bet $30 (because they can bet for cheaper) and they spend the $20 on other racetracks.

In a big race like the Derby, I don't disagree with them not allowing 10-cent supers, with so much money being handled.

I haven't seen any evidence to support your assertion that dime supers hurt the pools. What is the source for your information?

I, for one, play the bet in multiples, usually equally a dollar, to avoid the tax withholdings when I hit. I don't think punching the repeat button takes much time at the machines or the windows.