A great day for the sport.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

The NYRA format is already far and away closest to the step that will educate the newbie given the wealth of information that is given and why one should or should select a particular horse. That said, rather than having Maggie tell you the 6 has dapples, why not have her sit in front of a computer and show how one would bet the horses given the information that Andy and Eric provided?

I think a person in the paddock with a clue is a big positive as the info she gives isnt found on paper anywhere else. IMO you cant teach people how to construct tickets in between races, at least very well. I think the best way to educate people is push them to the sources we used when learning about the game including books by Beyer and others.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Educating new fans and current bettors is all well and good -- but they're going to need a whole lot of disposable time and income and they're going to struggle against that rake.

It's a noble but wasted effort.

You have to detach the "suckers game" label that cripples the sport so badly.

Younger people will educate themselves. Poker is absolutely dominated by young people. Many of the best players in the world are only in their 20's.

I believe horse racing could certainly become a lot bigger deal than sports like the NFL, MLB, and NBA if you see a combination of betting exchanges, in-race betting, and low exotic takeout rates in play.

A show like SportsCenter would ultimately feature at least as much horse racing coverage as it would for any other sport.

It wouldn't be a big deal for serious people who know nothing about horse racing right now to eventually be betting $20,000 - $40,000 -- $50,000 on a race. More horses would be bred, tracks that really ought to be closed would thrive. The whole industry would be a ton better off.

Anyone who thinks that's unrealistic is clueless as far as I'm concerned.

If you don't address the suckers game label -- you're just staying in the same old position you're in right now.

You need 7-day a week fans that will carry the water and bet at least hundreds of dollars on several races each day -- these type of people don't care about horse racing right now.

The difference is that in other sports people can watch the games and not have even the slightest clue and still enjoy them. People may have played these sports as kids and have a basic understanding even though they are still pretty clueless. In horse racing that just doesn't work plus for the gambling aspect to work you have to have rudimentary math skills and American kids arent exactly been mathmatic aces lately. It is far easier to bet sports as anyone can understand point spreads and over/unders.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

The NYRA format is already far and away closest to the step that will educate the newbie given the wealth of information that is given and why one should or should select a particular horse. That said, rather than having Maggie tell you the 6 has dapples, why not have her sit in front of a computer and show how one would bet the horses given the information that Andy and Eric provided?

Maggie does A LOT more than that. Take the 6th race today as an example. She remarked not only that she liked the impression that Won Wild Dude made in the paddock but also that his small feet made him likely to handle the slop well. She also said that Driven By Solar, the favorite, was not his normal self in the paddock and was going first off a claim by Jacobson from Pletcher.

That is useful information IMO.

[blackthroatedwind]

I'm not sure where the idea that Maggie should be explaining ticket construction came from.

We prefer to have people stick to their strengths. Maggie's not a bettor, but I defy anyone to point out someone who gives out more useful opinions on physicality on a daily basis.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm not sure where the idea that Maggie should be explaining ticket construction came from.

We prefer to have people stick to their strengths. Maggie's not a bettor, but I defy anyone to point out someone who gives out more useful opinions on physicality on a daily basis.

Before you get defensive, no one challenged the job that Maggie does.

That said, don't you think that it would be beneficial for someone to be teaching ticket structure based upon the information that you are handing out?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Maggie does A LOT more than that. Take the 6th race today as an example. She remarked not only that she liked the impression that Won Wild Dude made in the paddock but also that his small feet made him likely to handle the slop well. She also said that Driven By Solar, the favorite, was not his normal self in the paddock and was going first off a claim by Jacobson from Pletcher.

That is useful information IMO.

It is all useful information IMO, but if you're trying to learn the game it would be extremely worthwhile to be able to take that information and use it to your advantage. And while you see it as useful information, I can tell you as a horsewoman myself and who looks at those types of things, I've been told more times than not that the physical impression of a horse isn't important. So I'm not so sure a newbie would be listening to that information if that is what they are lead to believe.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think a person in the paddock with a clue is a big positive as the info she gives isnt found on paper anywhere else. IMO you cant teach people how to construct tickets in between races, at least very well. I think the best way to educate people is push them to the sources we used when learning about the game including books by Beyer and others.

That may as well be true. Like Math said pages ago, finding resources on the internet really changed things for him.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Before you get defensive, no one challenged the job that Maggie does.

That said, don't you think that it would be beneficial for someone to be teaching ticket structure based upon the information that you are handing out?

I'm not getting defensive at all.

I don't agree that discussing ticket construction between races is a good idea.

I think helping people learn about ticket construction is a good idea. However, doing it during pre-race prattles would not be a good way to get the information across. It's more conceptual than real time specific.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The difference is that in other sports people can watch the games and not have even the slightest clue and still enjoy them. People may have played these sports as kids and have a basic understanding even though they are still pretty clueless. In horse racing that just doesn't work plus for the gambling aspect to work you have to have rudimentary math skills and American kids arent exactly been mathmatic aces lately. It is far easier to bet sports as anyone can understand point spreads and over/unders.

The math you need to do in Poker is a lot more difficult -- and so many of the top players are very young.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

The math you need to do in Poker is a lot more difficult -- and so many of the top players are very young.

I don't agree at all. Using math to understand theories of figure making and properly constucting tickets is far more complicated than sitting there waiting for the jack of hearts which is how the vast majority of people play. High stakes Poker between the very best players is a different story but that is .0000001% of the players.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I need to go to PA. 10x on the easy numbers is lovely, best I ever got was 8x on 6,8 and 9x on 5,9.

Not to argue with you - but I doubt the number was 9x for the 5 and 9. That would lead to an odd number a fair amount of the time, which is an obvious problem for a 3-to-2 fair odds bet.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I don't agree at all. Using math to understand theories of figure making and properly constucting tickets is far more complicated than sitting there waiting for the jack of hearts which is how the vast majority of people play. High stakes Poker between the very best players is a different story but that is .0000001% of the players.

They are both difficult, but for different reasons. You have a lot more time (days) to lay out the math required to handicap and even construct tickets, so long as you revise for scratches. This math is tough, but you can use computers if necessary to help you out.

The math in Poker is tough because you have no computational equipment and very little time. So if the goal is to bet for positive expectation at the poker table, you first need to estimate the number of outs that will give you the BEST hand, approximate that to 2% times those outs, figure the odds as (100 - 2*OUTS)/(2*OUTS) and compare to what the pot odds are. This is all done in your head. Even better - and this is what the pros do - figure what your opponent(s) have, and bet accordingly to make that same equation done by them show the play to be unprofitable for them so they may fold. This is very tough in my opinion.

Ever see how some of these guys even send signals to each other through betting? Let's say Phil Ivey has a straight, and he's playing someone who he is pretty sure is looking to complete his flush. Phil says, "Raise" to $7250. Why not $7000 or $8000 even? Well, if $7250 makes the pot odds for his opponent JUST below the even expectation number, Phil has pretty much just told his opponent that he knows his cards, and is implying that he has a better hand. That's intimidating.