Ocala races (wagering vs non-wagering)

[Milkshaker]

My guess is it's somehow related to an oddball or archaic state pari-mutuel rule, but does anyone know why there was wagering on only the first two of five Ocala races today?

And why choose the QH race and a 5-horse TB field for those two betting affairs?

There was an 11-horse field and two $100K races later on in the card.

[castaway01]

My guess is it's somehow related to an oddball or archaic state pari-mutuel rule, but does anyone know why there was wagering on only the first two of five Ocala races today?

And why choose the QH race and a 5-horse TB field for those two betting affairs?

There was an 11-horse field and two $100K races later on in the card.

You're right about the archaic pari-mutuel rules...this article from last year sort of explains it:

Ocala wagering (http://www.ocala.com/article/20140117/ARTICLES/140119703)

[Track Collector]

Strange. I wonder why the law was not written to allow EITHER wagering or non-wagering events.

I know that there was some talk not too long ago about running a short pari-mutuel meet.