Wagering menu on BC Day:

Saturday, November 4 - Breeders' Cup Day:

Race Post Time Wagering
1 11:15 AM WPS EX TRI DD SPR P3
2 11:45 AM WPS EX TRI DD SPR P3
3 12:30 PM WPS EX TRI DD SPR P3 DD P4
4 1:10 PM WPS EX TRI DD SPR P3
5 1:55 PM WPS EX TRI DD SPR P3 P6
6 2:35 PM WPS EX TRI DD SPR P3
7 3:15 PM WPS EX TRI DD SPR P3 P4
8 3:55 PM WPS EX TRI DD SPR P3
9 4:35 PM WPS EX TRI DD SPR
10 5:20 PM WPS EX TRI SPR

rolling doubles ala Socal. Has that been done before?

'shoes

I don't believe there will be rolling doubles, although I was hoping there would be. This is from bloodhorse:

Race no.; Post time; Bet types
1. Emirates Airline Ack Ack Mile, 11:15 a.m., WPS Ex Tri Super DD Pick 3
2. Emirates Airline Very Subtle Stakes; 11:45 a.m.; WPS Ex Tri Super Pick 3
3. Breeders' Cup Juvenile Fillies; 12:30 p.m.; WPS Ex Tri Super Pick 3 Pick 4 DD
4. Bessemer Trust Breeders' Cup Juvenile; 1:10 p.m.; WPS Ex Tri Super Pick 3
5. Emirates Airline Breeders' Cup Filly & Mare Turf; 1:55 p.m.; WPS Ex Tri Super Pick 3
6. TVG Breeders' Cup Sprint; 2:35 p.m.; WPS Ex Tri Super Pick 3
7. NetJets Breeders' Cup Mile; 3:15 p.m.; WPS Ex Tri Super Pick 3 Pick 4
8. Emirates Airline Breeders' Cup Distaff; 3:55 p.m.; WPS Ex Tri Super Pick 3
9. John Deere Breeders' Cup Turf; 4:35 p.m.; WPS Ex Tri Super DD
10. Breeders' Cup Classic - Powered by Dodge; 5:20 p.m.; WPS Ex Tri Super

WPS = Win, Place, Show
Ex = Exacta
Tri = Trifecta
Super = Superfecta
DD = Daily Double

In case anyone was wondering about the head to head wagers, they were eliminated this year. Here's the link.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/79895.html

Not sure why there is a discrepancy between Jason's post and mine. I cut and pasted from the CD website. Guess we'll have to wait and see how many doubles they offer.

This is weird. I just went over to the Churchill website and they have the same discrepancy within two separate links they provide.

If you click on the wagering schedule link, you get the same info Jason copied from Bloodhorse. It takes you to the NTRA page with only 3 DD showing. Here's that link from the CD website.

http://www.ntra.com/content.aspx?type=other&id=20300&style=purple§ion=bc

Now if you click on the CD post times link directly above the wagering schedule link you get the same info that Gam copied that shows rolling doubles. Here's that link.

http://www.churchilldowns.com/racing_information/todays_race_card/post_times_and_wagering.html

I for one would love to see rolling doubles. I love the bet as it's easy to crush and the ability to see will pays allows you to assess value rather than blindly playing into something. We'll see. I won't get my hopes up though.

Yeah, that that second link is where I cut and pasted from. My guess is the NTRA info will prove correct as, I believe, the actual program is run by the BC people and not CD.

I hope they offer rolling doubles, never understood why they offered every bet but that...


Will they be offering $.10 superfectas this year?

I wouldn't expect the $.10 supers, either.

They better not be offering $.10 Supers. If I get stuck behind some chooch who has $8.70 left on him, keeps calling out a ticket that costs $9.60, has to change it up and spit out some new combinations, all while the teller has no clue what's going on, I will lose my freakin mind and the Sicilian in me will come out. I can deal with it occasionally on a weekend trip to the track. Don't play games with me on BC day.

Just say no to the $.10 Super. I'm gonna have T-Shirts made up with that slogan on it.

Wow...you're intense.

No sir, intense would be you, last January, Green Valley Ranch, and the annoying guy sitting next to you in the racebook after you got beat out of something. That was intense. LOL.

Valid point...that was intense...when Kerwin John costs you money it's hard not to get intense...check your email.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe the BC people run the show, including the betting on BC day. If they won't cut the pick-6 to $1, they're not going to offer up the $.10 super.

I believe you're right in that the BC runs the show with local taxation laws being the only variance from year to year.

The BC pick 6 should be lowered to a $1 minimum. This is supposed to be the championship day of racing and a bettor's paradise. Why not allow the bettor a chance to go after the biggest bet of the year? A strong opinion is obviously needed, but the $1 minimum as opposed to a $2 minimum would allow for much more flexibility.

When you're a bit wishy washy on a particular race or two you'd be able to properly spread rather than cutting down or just cancelling the bet all together. A strong opinion needed to play it would essentially become a strong enough opinion to possibly get the job done.

Problem is that I doubt they'll ever go for it down the road. They love the stories of the $3.1 million payout or the $2.7 million score. It makes for great advertising. Not to say those tremendous payouts wouldn't be possible, but allowing more people accessibility into the pool will drop the odds of that happening. It'd be great if one day they went for it. Unfortunately, I highly doubt we'll see it come to fruition.

Or how about the good ol' SoCal $1 Place Pick all. I bet that would pay a ton and I'd be tempted to try for it.

Well, when it was a pick-7, it was a $1.

I can't say for sure, but I believe the BC people fear the pool will be smaller if it is a $1 ticket. Backward thinking, of course, which seems to permeate the industry. Similar to the politicians who equate a drop in the tax rate as leading to reduced tax revenues. The politicians, and pehaps the tracks, fail to recognize the possibility that a lower takeout might result in more churn and bring in enough extra action to overcome the reduced takeout and possibly act to actually increase tax revenue and revenues to the track. Similarly, a $1 base wager may actually lead to larger pools by bringing in more players who now realize that it is a pipe dream and usually won't invest in it (for the most part, guys like me). Also, the guys that currently invest smaller sums, say $24 or $48, are just as likely to spend the same amount of money and simply buy more combinations (similar to what I've been doing at Keeneland with $.50 pick-4s). On the other hand, I do think they like to sell the prospect of one lucky person taking down the whole pool and it helps their cause that it's been done in the past with relatively small investments.

>>>The politicians, and pehaps the tracks, fail to recognize the possibility that a lower takeout might result in more churn and bring in enough extra action to overcome the reduced takeout and possibly act to actually increase tax revenue and revenues to the track.


Interesting considering that these same guys run tax policy just like that.

Apparently 'voodoo economics' only works on a national scale.

"Interesting considering that these same guys run tax policy just like that."

The problem here is that although tax policy on a national/federal level has been run with this concept in mind (especially under Republican leadership) parimutuel takeout is decided at a state level. I don't think too many states decide tax policy on a "less is more" platform. Of course, state tax income levels are dwarfed by the federal income tax leaving states essentially powerless to create a "trickle down" effect by reducing their taxes. Also, individual states are also without much of the federal government's ability to run at a perrennial deficit. Thus, they are prone to a higher level of fiscal responsibility. The result of this, it seems to me, is that at the state level the concept of growing tax revenues by reducing tax rates seems counter-intuitive and the legislators are not terribly receptive to the notion.

An astute State racing operation would go to its legislature and make the case that a lower take out would bring in more money from out of state betting interests looking for an edge. Thus there would be more tax dollars paid by non-Constituents, so even if it were a revenue neutral move, the tax burden on your voters would be lower.

Personally, I've been very disappointed that the NTRA hasn't done something in this regard. Racing has no lobbying agencies that I am aware of and the NTRA is the closest thing to such a group. I've felt for some time that they should take some of that budget and put together a video presentation laying out the case for growing the industry and thus the tax revenue by cutting takeout. They could then send the video/dvd to all the state legislators in racing states in an effort to sell this concept. The fact that no action has been taken in this regard might reflect that the tracks don't buy into this theory or are too conservative to give it a try. Let's face it, if the tracks collectively don't want a lower takeout, then were not going to get one. Maybe horseplayers need an organization to sell the concept to the tracks. Lol