New Cal. P6? It would be better than the Gulf. 6.

[Andymays]

At one of the short meets later in the year they should give this a shot.

A 50 cent Pick 6 wager with no consolations and a jackpot provision whereby 15% of the pool carries over if there are more than 3 TRANSACTIONS ( or pick your number). I would say anywhere from 2-5 transactions.

The difference between transactions and tickets is that it allows someone to play say a $5 increment and not be penalized for having it more than one time if they really like the sequence. That helps handle. The one ticket only thing might be a good marketing gimmick but that also makes it a BAD bet.

Oh yah, and make the takeout a REASONABLE 18%.

I noted that there would be no consolation even though there could be if that’s what that’s what the Track wants to have. I think that the only time winners without 6 (say 5) should be paid is if there are NO Tickets with 6. In that case 25% of the pool should be paid to those Gamblers. The remainder goes into a carryover pool.

Additionally there would have to be 2 pools in the event of nobody hitting 6 and along with the JACKPOT POOL (equal to 15% of the pool) in the event there are more transactions with 6 than required. For some reason 3 or less transactions with 6 sounds about right to qualify for the jackpot bonus.

From a marketing standpoint California Racing would be able to send out an email every day with either a Jackpot amount or a jackpot and a carryover amount. This is a good way to go about it because it is a fair bet unlike the Gulfstream 10 cent P6 and only one ticket B.S.

This will handle a minimum of 500k on weekdays and 750k on weekends but likely will handle a lot more than that. At 500k you would have $57,240 going into the jackpot after the takeout. My guess is that the Jackpot will be paid every week or two and hitting the jackpot along with having 6 is a huge bonus. The tracks should get 1-3 carryovers per meet. On carryover days if the jackpot is high too the new money bet could be astronomical and easily exceed the current Gulf. jackpot pool of 1.4 million dollars. Getting 2-5 million in new money on those days is easily attainable when you consider that at Del Mar last season they got 2.5 million in new money on a P5 carryover day.

Any improvements to the suggestion?

[Andyc]

First of all, any bet is better than the Gulfstream P-6. It is the biggest money sucking bet for the average player EVER. So the bar you would want to jump over with your new P-6 is a really low one.

As for your idea, any time you restrict the jackpot payoffs to the times when there are only a few winning tickets you are making the game unfair to the small bettors.

[Andymays]

First of all, any bet is better than the Gulfstream P-6. It is the biggest money sucking bet for the average player EVER. So the bar you would want to jump over with your new P-6 is a really low one.

As for your idea, any time you restrict the jackpot payoffs to the times when there are only a few winning tickets you are making the game unfair to the small bettors.

The 50 cent increment makes them more competitive than the current six. Pick Six handle in Ca. has been going down for a few years now. This could even cannibalize the P5. Remember my solutions are something that the Tracks, TOC, and Gamblers might all go for. I don't know what the current daily average P6 handle is but this will at least double it and bring more Gamblers back to California Racing.

[Andyc]

The 50 cent increment makes them more competitive than the current six. Pick Six handle in Ca. has been going down for a few years now. This could even cannibalize the P5. Remember my solutions are something that the Tracks, TOC, and Gamblers might all go for. I don't know what the current daily average P6 handle is but this will at least double it and bring more Gamblers back to California Racing.

It is simply bad policy to offer bets that are inherently skewed to the bigger player.

[Andymays]

The 50 cent increment makes them more competitive than the current six. Pick Six handle in Ca. has been going down for a few years now. This could even cannibalize the P5. Remember my solutions are something that the Tracks, TOC, and Gamblers might all go for. I don't know what the current daily average P6 handle is but this will at least double it and bring more Gamblers back to California Racing.

It is simply bad policy to offer bets that are inherently skewed to the bigger player.

From a marketing standpoint this has been a big winner for Gulfstream. The idea I'm floating will be a big winner and is much more fair to the Gambler. How many transactions would you prefer to get into the jackpot pool? You have to balance the tracks/marketing success along with the fairness to the player.

[Andyc]

From a marketing standpoint this has been a big winner for Gulfstream. The idea I'm floating will be a big winner and is much more fair to the Gambler. How many transactions would you prefer to get into the jackpot pool? You have to balance the tracks/marketing success along with the fairness to the player.

If the track was presenting a fair bet to its patrons then I would be concerned about a marketing standpoint. When it is selling gambling poison I could give a rat's behind about the marketing affect.There should never have to be a balance between marketing and fairness.The 2 should never be linked in the first place.

So in my view, any limitations on transactions creates unfairness to the smaller bettors.

[Andymays]

From a marketing standpoint this has been a big winner for Gulfstream. The idea I'm floating will be a big winner and is much more fair to the Gambler. How many transactions would you prefer to get into the jackpot pool? You have to balance the tracks/marketing success along with the fairness to the player.

If the track was presenting a fair bet to its patrons then I would be concerned about a marketing standpoint. When it is selling gambling poison I could give a rat's behind about the marketing affect.There should never have to be a balance between marketing and fairness.The 2 should never be linked in the first place.

So in my view, any limitations on transactions creates unfairness to the smaller bettors.

You still have to have money for the Track to operate and money for purses. Do you think my proposal is more or less fair than the current California P6?

[Andyc]

You still have to have money for the Track to operate and money for purses. Do you think my proposal is more or less fair than the current California P6?

Your proposal is less fair.

[Andymays]

You still have to have money for the Track to operate and money for purses. Do you think my proposal is more or less fair than the current California P6?

Your proposal is less fair.

Bigger pools and lower increment and 18% take?????

[Andyc]

Bigger pools and lower increment and 18% take?????

Pool size has little to do with fairness.

Bet increment has little to do with fairness. See Rainbow P-6 for example. Would a penny slot machine that returns only 3% be fair just because you could bet a penny?

18% take would only be considered "fair" in racing.

The fairness I am concerned about is the fairness between the bettors. A win bet is not skewed toward a big bettor, neither is an exacta, a trifecta, superfecta, P-3, P-4 nor P-5.