You say you are agreeing with Bada and Jim, but what you wrote
is exactly the opposite.
A $24 minimum cost for a tri package serves as a "barrier
to entry" which excludes the cheap-ass bettors, and causes
the tri pools to shrink. But the 50 cent option lets them in,
which puts more $$$ into the pool, and therefore is good for the
viability of trifecta betting overall. The fact that your whopper
payoff on an unlikely number is less than it would be with a $2
minimum format is more than compensated for by the better-than-you-deserve
payoffs on the high-frequency numbers.
This is really important because the small size of the win pools
means that they are basically "broken", which means
that to back a "win" selection - which is the most fundamental
form of handicapping - you are forced to take your chances with
some kind of tri package. So you could bet $2 to win on post 1,
but to convert that to a tri equivalent, you might need to take
the top 23 or so outcomes starting with "1", which means
that in that case the people who insist on a $2 min tri wager
are forcing all trifecta-as-a-form-of-win-betting players to suffer
a $46 minimum wager. And still risk a painful loss if it's 156,
187 or whatever. Sucks, but with the 50 cent option you could
either scale down to $11.50 or $23 or stay at $46 but add some
of the dubious numbers as 50 cent second tier selections to cover
your butt.
Finally, with all the complaining here about the evilness of the
10 cents supers, prior to Dania entering the Twilight Zone in
September, which fronton do you think had the healthier superfecta
pools?
