Show bet plunge?

[AceInTheHole]

“@raypaulick: Because of show bet plunge, OK Derby wnr Broadway Empire paid $8.80 to win, $4.20 place, $30 to show. Other show payoffs $43.60 & $76.40”

This was at Remington Park I believe. Someone I follow on twitter. What does a "show bet plunge" mean? That not too many bet to show? Why wouldn't this be seen in the pool activity and wouldn't someone take advantage of this? Why does this happen?

[burnsy]

It happens when bettors hammer what they percieve is an "overwhelming" favorite to show. This usually creates a negative show pool which means the horse will pay 2.10 because the pool is so skewed that it should not even pay that much but the track has to pay at least 10 cents.( I think in every state) When a horse like that loses and does not even hit the board, this pool is distributed amoung the top 3. Its a very large show pool where most of the money was bet on the big, "can't lose" favorite.......that horse is off the board so the 3 horses that hit the board pay a huge show price. People do take advantage of it, some bet their favorite horse thats not the favorite to show and other people will bet all the others to show in a short field, you have to see the show pool distribution first.

Yeah, Departing hes the best 3 YO (some say) even though Palice Malice ran second in the Jockey Gold Cup? Those are the kind of people jumping off their nearest local bridge last night. There are others that have a "can't lose" attitude when they see certain horses, thats not a healthy attitude when gambling because anything can happen. The "sharp" people just made 30, 43.60 and 76.40 by paying attention and by realizing that horse races are anything but a "sure thing". Just my opinion but people are creatures of habit, even when they get screwed or see it happen time and again. They have more money than brains until the money is gone....then they are left with niether. The other thing is some of these bettors are big and it won't kill them, they are just trying to make 5% in under 2 minutes.

[Vinman]

It seems to me that if your were to bet $20 to show on every horse other than the "bridgejump" horse in these situations, you'd be way ahead, as most of these races do not involve large fields.


Vinman

[brivolta]

It seems to me that if your were to bet $20 to show on every horse other than the "bridgejump" horse in these situations, you'd be way ahead, as most of these races do not involve large fields.


Vinman

Only if the "bridgejump" doesn't finish in the money, which is rare.

[Vinman]

I haven't been keeping records on bridgejump races, but I've noticed several situations in recent months where a bridgejump horse finished off the board, resulting in "big ballons" in the show pool. Unlike the bridgejumpers, who have to hit 19 out of 20 or so to stay above water, the "anti bridgejump" maneuver of betting all the other horses to show does not have to be right very often to make a profit, especially when you get paid generously on 3 of your bets. A $76 show horse will sure cover a lot of the contrarian plays that don't pan out.

There was one last week at Mountaineer, a former Pletcher trainee that had run in stakes at NYRA....off the board after leading early. It was discussed under the Mountaineer Pick 5 thread. Look for my post in it and Mountainman's reply.

Gonna start keeping score on these.

Vinman

[Stillriledup]

The key to successful bridgejumping, believe it or not, isnt necessarily betting against the horse with the big show bet...its betting against the horse with the big show bet only if the public "hasnt caught on". The remington horse yesterday had about 280k on him to show, but the other main contenders only had like 5 or 6k and the longshots only had like 2k. If this had happened at a more major track, the other horses would have had 10 or 15k to show or maybe more, no way those horses pay as big as they did if the other horses were hammered.

Royal Delta at Belmont had a HUGE show bet on her, and i believe the winner also had a big show bet, big enough that if RD was off the board, the winner wouldnt have paid 30 bucks to show, she might have only paid like 10 or something like that.

So, it all depends on how much is bet on other horses.

I remember a situation a couple years ago at one of the Calif fair tracks, might have been ferndale, where there was a big favorite in a short field who had nothing unusual in the show pool.....but i thought to myself "this horse could get bombed late to show" so i bet a few bucks on all the others hoping that someone would come in at the bell....and that's what happened, 150k came in too late to see, but because the other runners had very little show money, the prices were HUGE. in the 100s.

[AceInTheHole]

So is bridgejumping looking for a vulnerable favorite in the show pool and then betting the other horses?

[Light]

The bridge jumped horse form did look awesome but had a higher than normal risk factor for a huge show bet: 3YO with a "top" in its last race. The "top" was five points higher than any of its previous three races at this distance and surface. Small fry like us can take a shot that horse will not bounce, but not someone betting over $200K.

[Stillriledup]

So is bridgejumping looking for a vulnerable favorite in the show pool and then betting the other horses?

That would be anti-bridgejumping. The actual practice of bridgejumping is someone betting a lot more than they can afford to lose, all with the prospect of making a "free' 5% on their money....and you know, if they lose, they jump off a bridge because they lost their "life savings".

[Stillriledup]

The bridge jumped horse form did look awesome but had a higher than normal risk factor for a huge show bet: 3YO with a "top" in its last race. The "top" was five points higher than any of its previous three races at this distance and surface. Small fry like us can take a shot that horse will not bounce, but not someone betting over $200K.

This was also his first ever race on the Remington surface?

[moneyandland]

5% ers missed at Zia R10 and MNR R2 already tonight

[rrpic6]

“@raypaulick: Because of show bet plunge, OK Derby wnr Broadway Empire paid $8.80 to win, $4.20 place, $30 to show. Other show payoffs $43.60 & $76.40”

This was at Remington Park I believe. Someone I follow on twitter. What does a "show bet plunge" mean? That not too many bet to show? Why wouldn't this be seen in the pool activity and wouldn't someone take advantage of this? Why does this happen?

There is a whole thread on this subject with over 400 responses dating back to 09. Check it out. BRIDGE JUMPER ALERT-TWITTER.

RR

[overthehill]

if you are trying to benefit from a bridge jumper you are best off betting the second choice to show and at least one other horse in the race. that way you are almost guaranteed to make some pretty good money. when i was going to the track regularly and could see this stuff, 3 year old colt races werent a particularly good spot to collect on these. the form usually held up pretty well. but this before simulcasting. but the way horses are handled in the gate these days, where hitting the gate and or getting left seems way more common than i remember, there are even less sure things in racing than there used to be. if i were gonna try to collect on a sure thing, it would probably in some starter handicap where a horse just has a history of winning and the race is restricted. why not play a restricted race where probably half the field cant run a step as opposed to a stake race where everyone thinks they have a shot to show or they wouldnt enter.

[green80]

if you are trying to benefit from a bridge jumper you are best off betting the second choice to show and at least one other horse in the race. that way you are almost guaranteed to make some pretty good money. when i was going to the track regularly and could see this stuff, 3 year old colt races werent a particularly good spot to collect on these. the form usually held up pretty well. but this before simulcasting. but the way horses are handled in the gate these days, where hitting the gate and or getting left seems way more common than i remember, there are even less sure things in racing than there used to be. if i were gonna try to collect on a sure thing, it would probably in some starter handicap where a horse just has a history of winning and the race is restricted. why not play a restricted race where probably half the field cant run a step as opposed to a stake race where everyone thinks they have a shot to show or they wouldnt enter.

Your last statement is very true. If players applied this to their handicapping they would all do better.

[burnsy]

So, it all depends on how much is bet on other horses.

I remember a situation a couple years ago at one of the Calif fair tracks, might have been ferndale, where there was a big favorite in a short field who had nothing unusual in the show pool.....but i thought to myself "this horse could get bombed late to show" so i bet a few bucks on all the others hoping that someone would come in at the bell....and that's what happened, 150k came in too late to see, but because the other runners had very little show money, the prices were HUGE. in the 100s.

Thats why i said you have to look at the show pool distribution..........are the others(or the one you like) way outnumbered by money in the show pool? Thats the key to taking a shot.

[Stillriledup]

Thats why i said you have to look at the show pool distribution..........are the others(or the one you like) way outnumbered by money in the show pool? Thats the key to taking a shot.

Exactly.

[lamboguy]

who needs pick fours when you have show pools all over North America?