My idea for a new wager that all of you will undoubtedly ridicule
 

New idea for a horse racing wager. It's called The Noid. You must pick exactly three horses in every race on the card. If any of your horses win, you lose the bet. If your ticket is the only ticket that picked zero winners, you win the entire pot. If multiple tickets had zero winners, they split 50% of the pot, and the remaining 50% carries to the next day. No part wheels. $20 straight bet.... No, I did not invent this wager after going 0 for 6 in a Pick Six. Need to work out the details on what happens with late scratches and 3 or 4-horse fields. But I want to know what people think.

PG might have a future after all

Here is my thinking. If you offer a low takeout and require a $20 straight bet, you could get some decent pools. If there are nine races on the card with an average field size of, say, eight horses, it would probably only take one decent-price horse per day to insure people who picked zero winners got at least a modest profit. And if you have a few bombs on one card, I can see there being only one winning ticket.

For example, if only 500 people played the bet, you would have $10,000 in the pool. With a 12% takeout, you'd have $8,800 in the pot. If you have an average field size of 8 horses, you are probably going to see at least one of the bottom three betting choices win at least one of the races. That alone would knock out a chunk of the tickets and guarantee that players didn't lose money by hitting the bet but getting back less than $20 due to the takeout.

I know it's fun to act witty and post quick responses bashing new ideas, but give this some thought and tell me why it can't work.

For one, because it's stupid. Two, the name sucks. Three, I'd rather light myself on fire than give your latest attempt at attention any further thought. It's a lot more fun to just mock.

Not to give the leader for the third slot in the desperate for attention Trifecta on DT any undeserved credit, but bets that rely on horses running poorly will never work......for the obvious reasons.

So, then you're against betting exchanges?

It's interesting. I get the average jerkoffs on the internet that twist things others say in pathetic attempts to be smug. However, I thought, believe it or not, that you were better than that.

I was wrong. It happens.

Wow, I haven't been on DT for a while. It seems like the mood has gotten far angrier than usual.

I wasn't being smug or twisting anything. You said bets that require one to pick a losing horse never work. I then asked if you were against betting exchanges, which require that very thing. I mean, was it not a legitimate question?

So far, I have gotten three explanations for why my idea for a bet can't work:

1) Because it's stupid
2) Bets that make you pick the winner can't work
3) The name is stupid

Feel free to add to the list.

I didn't see the question mark.

That changes everything. Well, maybe not everything.

Who's angry?

The guy who alluded to me as a pathetic, smug jerkoff.

Yo Andy,

You're a hell of an handicapper and I really enjoy watching you on NYRA but you need to get over that small guy complex.
What's the deal with putting eveyone down? You have a career that most us on this site are jealous of so chill out dude.

That would sort of qualify as cutting and pasting....don't you think?

I better go before someone mistakenly thinks I'm being serious and then decides to use the opportunity to take an idiotic shot.

Oops, too late.

So, then you DO like the idea of my bet? I'm confused here. Where was the mistake on the part of me and the other posters?

You've never made a mistake....save perhaps your recent facebook picture.

Look, the family was breaking my balls for not posting enough shots of myself with the baby. I hate having my picture taken. Hate hate hate. I can't smile on demand. I have a huge head, which limits acceptable angles. And my hairline, even though it stopped receding about 10 years ago, isn't helping matters. It's a sad state of affairs.

Luckily, the baby will inherit her mother's good looks. So she has that going for her.

Yet another one of my posts has dissolved into a psychological mud bath.

DOES ANYONE HAVE A SPECIFIC REASON WHY MY EFFING BET CAN'T WORK!!!

Scratches.........small fields.

It won't be as cool to redboard hitting this. Does that count as a reason?

Can't? That's probably not the right word to use, but in a nutshell, and I'll be serious for a second, it's too convoluted. It's actually intellectually kind of interesting, but it's too complicated to garner enough interest to make it work.

I'm not as big on the whole " the industry needs new bets " thing as some people. That doesn't make me right...but it's my opinion. We have interesting bets, sometimes however we hurt them by offering too many options when our handle can't support them, and we end up diluting the handles too much.

Your bet is kind of cool....but it won't fly....in my opinion.

Agreed. They present a real problem. The bet is badly hurt by small fields. In order to really work you would need consistent full fields.

i don't know that any track would be interested in a bet that involves picking just losers. seems there'd be an awful lot of concern about losing on purpose. i think that's why they don't have bets now like that here, but they do overseas.
interesting idea, but i doubt it would get used.

Definitely an issue. Maybe a late scratch means a free square for everyone. And perhaps the same could hold true for five horse fields and less.

I think it would be much easier to hit than you think.

Why are you still posting on this thread? I mean, I realize Andy jumped in AFTER you proclaimed it wasn't worth your time and now you want to take any chance to look witty in front of him. But stick to your guns, man.

You are, in fact, male, right?

These are major issues. Another issue is the average 2-3 time per month OTB bettor doesn't do the whole card in advance. This type of bet needs advance work that a good percentage of horse players don't put in.

I thinks it's kind of a neat idea that would be fun on big racing days. It's to hard to implement on a daily basis.

Taking shots at my man is definitely not going to curry favor with me.

I appreciate you standing up for me.

very good point.

Legit concern, but I think enough people would play it. Just like the Pick 6 and the Place Pick All.

I think being the lone winner would be tough. And to hit it at all, you pretty much have to either have a card where not one price hits, OR you have to spot a live longshot that others will miss.

The last thing racing needs is more silly exotic bets that dilute the already dwindling pools we have.

The irony here is priceless.

Picking losers is not as easy as one would think. I knew a guy that would put up any amount of money that his opponent couldn't pick 100 consecutive losers. Had to be on the same curcuit with no races passed. He won much more often than he lost.

Much easier to do at a slots track in the mid-atlantic with gyp trainers starting nags in almost every race with big field sizes -- than tracks that offer quite a few small fields but relatively more competitive racing.

I think it would make a pretty cool long term contest to see who could pick the highest percentage of favorites who finish worse than 3rd.

A title of Pathetic, smug jerkoff around here should be a badge of honor... certainly nothing to get defensive about.

I'm seriously considering only posting in the form of Haiku's from now on.

Yeah. My guy always offered the play in So. Cal. To this day remember the one time I tried it. Was at loser 96 when in the first race at Santa Anita a horse who a week before had been trounced at Caliente named Bigbadandmean trained by Anthony Hemerick scooted home at 46-1 in a seven horse 10k claimer. During the sequence there were several times I had to survive close scrapes with 2nd place finishes sometimes pretty close photos. Not as easy as one might think.

Even people that like me on here call me worse. Cmon Mountain Dew. Cowboy up and fire away!!