View Full Version : Betting Rules--Suggestions?
BMeadow
08-15-2005, 12:04 PM
I am going to be meeting with some members of the California Horse Racing Board on Friday, August 19, and some track executives and others, for a discussion regarding possible modifications of certain wagering rules, as well as possible modifications of requirements for various betting services.
Among the possible topics:
(1) race for purse money only when part of an entry is scratched
(2) making all tickets winners in multiple-win exotics if a race is taken off the turf after the betting for the first leg is closed
(3) offering consolation payoffs for tickets when horse is scratched from a later leg of a pick 3 or pick 4
(4) make it mandatory for all betting services to have an "alternate" selection instead of automatically giving players the favorite if there is a scratch
(5) discussion of new bets such as choose six, cross-country pick 4's, etc.
(6) discussion of rebates
There may be other topics. If you have suggestions on ANY wagering rules in California, please post your suggestions and I will try to see that the Board members are made aware of your concerns.
3 is better than 4 in my opinion. In the long run, 6 is a must for the industry if they want to stay in business.
Not sure if this counts as wagering, but when are those more frequent tote updates coming?
Valuist
08-15-2005, 01:26 PM
A few suggestions; letting the public know who's stuck, who's been privately sold since their last race, and first time gelding (some tracks already do that but most do not). Also, reduced takeout days or reducing takeout for on-track bettors.
twindouble
08-15-2005, 01:36 PM
I am going to be meeting with some members of the California Horse Racing Board on Friday, August 19, and some track executives and others, for a discussion regarding possible modifications of certain wagering rules, as well as possible modifications of requirements for various betting services.
Among the possible topics:
(1) race for purse money only when part of an entry is scratched
(2) making all tickets winners in multiple-win exotics if a race is taken off the turf after the betting for the first leg is closed
(3) offering consolation payoffs for tickets when horse is scratched from a later leg of a pick 3 or pick 4
(4) make it mandatory for all betting services to have an "alternate" selection instead of automatically giving players the favorite if there is a scratch
(5) discussion of new bets such as choose six, cross-country pick 4's, etc.
(6) discussion of rebates
There may be other topics. If you have suggestions on ANY wagering rules in California, please post your suggestions and I will try to see that the Board members are made aware of your concerns.
On #1 We all have to deal with scratches, I see no reason for racing for purse only if one part of the entry is scratched, the most important thing is to be able to cancel your wager if your betting online if you so choose and having the time to do it.
#4, this is a good idea and it solves the problem of #1 because not everyone plays the picks. Another idea when it comes to #4 and the entries is to attach the horses names the entry in your software programs, in other words your playing the horse not the entry, if your part of the entry is scratched then the alt horse is kicked in. Having Alt horses in your picks does away with the idea of consolations and the pools will stay healthy.
Getting rained on playing the horses it goes with the game, conditions change all the time, to attempt to cover every eventuality when it come to wagering would make things to confusing for the average player. I would only allow one alt horse per race in the picks.
#2 When it comes to the pick 3,4,or 6 and races taken off the turf prior to the first leg and scratches are known, nothing should change with the exception of late scratches and the alt would kick in anyway. The biggest thorn in any players side when it comes to the picks is off the turf after the first leg is run and many scratches take place, even your alt could get scratched then what, you still get the chalk? I would like to see the pick canceled and refunded then end up with a chalk I don't like. I would rather have my money back and prep for another day. That consolation payoff your proposing may not cover my investment.
#5 the cross county pick for is a good play. On the choose 6, I'm not sure how that would work, are you talking about seperate pools based on the people playing the same races where the whole card is their menu and fixed races for the 6 is gone? If so that wouldn't appeal to me at all. If all the money goes into one pool and the whole card is the menu, it wouldn't make any sense to me when some could share in the pool and playing chalk races where as others had a picked five races with value. How would that wash out? Explain how this gimmick would work.
#3 I see no reason for change if the player can select an alt horse, that's an improvement, that's for sure. What the likeyhood of both your horses getting scratched under normal conditions wouldn't happen that often so once in a while you may have to deal with getting the chalk. I can live with that.
kenwoodallpromos
08-15-2005, 01:44 PM
I like your "alternate pick" idea!
$3 WPS minimum during fairs;
An extra line on the program at the top of each race so you can fill in what kind of bet to make.
Have a barrel with a big slot for recycling the form and program. The one for losing tickets can be used as a hopper to pick a ticket out after every race and give a prize. All single race winners go into a special hopper to win a new car at the end of the meet!.
Grifter
08-15-2005, 02:17 PM
Barry -- Says something about this forum that you chose to ask here for opinions....
I second CJ's thoughts... I think #6 in particular is something that needs to be addressed. If CHRB leads, the rest of the country may follow....
-- Grifter
toetoe
08-15-2005, 02:43 PM
Barry,
How about upgrading from 486's so that we can have:
alternates in serial bets,
more betting interests in races with entries, e.g., 1/1, 2/2
current odds on imported races, on top of the horse's # on the SAM.
Thank you.
twindouble
08-15-2005, 02:57 PM
3 is better than 4 in my opinion. In the long run, 6 is a must for the industry if they want to stay in business.
Not sure if this counts as wagering, but when are those more frequent tote updates coming?
cj; I think the whole idea of giving just certain people rebates and not the general public flys in the face of fairness, ESP in a game that hasn't needed to do that over a century. It's the same bull, the rich sucking it out of the middle class, like the guy that's struggling has to pay a higher intrest rate to insure his failure.
Like I said before, the rich are highjacking the sport to a greater degree today than ever. The best horses going on the block today go to the rich or anything that's halfway decent for that matter. I see nothing wrong with catering to people in the form of a club house, box seats, passes and so on but when it comes to wagering they are no better than we are and it should have stayed that way. Yes I know, I know it's for the good of the sport to pay a million for questionable quailty horses and offer million dollar purces in return, then find ways to suck as much as they can from the average player offering rebates to boot to those we compete with. If we have to pay for the greater percentage of the the take out, the freaking club house should be ours along with the box seats.
I support twindoubles #4 (in response to your #1). You get to choose the part of the entry you like, if the horse scratches your ticket is refunded, if not it's a live ticket. I hate it when the part of the entry you like runs for purse money after handicapping. Happened recently at Belmont when the horse won.
#3 is better than #4. Either I'm keying a favorite or trying to beat a couple. If my horse scratches, there's goes my value and money when they give me the favorite. Not a good feeling for a horseplayer when the track places your money on a horse you figured would lose at low odds.
#6. I'm one of the foolish ones who hasn't gone offshore. I will be by 2006 at the latest. If they can't provide rebates, how about free PP's, datafiles and other information the handicapper can use to bet MORE money. Like Brisbet does now to an extent but offer the players a choice of information. They can write the costs off as expenses without having to fight unfair tax laws. Not an easy solution but doable.
As for providing a lower takeout to on-track patrons, I personally don't like it because I can't make it to the track as much as I'd like. If it wasn't for interent bettting I (and I would think a lot of other players) wouldn't play nor bet 1/10th of what I do now year round. If I'm betting against large players getting 5-10% rebates and on track players getting 5-10% rebates where does that leave me, the simulcast player going through US hubs. Bigger players get bigger rebates, not a problem..happens in business all the time.
What can be done about all the race day scratches. CA does a better job than other tracks. Who likes to handicap the night before when you squeeze in some time only to find 3-4 horses scratched in a race (non-weather related).
One bet I love at CA that they don't do at other tracks, rolling doubles. Anybet more then 4 legs and my friends are out due to low win rate and required bankroll. How about more doubles combining feature races instead of some 2 year old maiden race or $10,000 claimer attached to it.
Lastly, no bets after 1 minute to post (just put 0 minutes to post and start the race 1 minute later, people can figure that out. Odds are final once the race goes off.
ryesteve
08-15-2005, 06:12 PM
Lastly, no bets after 1 minute to post
This is going to cost the track some handle, and I don't see who would benefit from this.
This is going to cost the track some handle, and I don't see who would benefit from this.
How would it cost the track? Bettors should get used to it pretty quickly. No matter when the windows close, some people get shut out.
Who would benefit? Bettors, that is who. We wouldn't have odds changing during the running of the races, sometimes drastically, which leads to much skepticism and questions of betting after the bell.
WaHoo
08-16-2005, 09:17 AM
(no bets after 1 minute to post (just put 0 minutes to post and start the race 1 minute later, people can figure that out. Odds are final once the race goes off.)
I'm for shutting down the betting at 0 to post or when the first horses is loaded for all the simulcast/off shore outlets, but at the track when gate opens. too many times you see a horse at 9:2 and at second call 2:1 or less and when they win 6:5, there probably isn't any cheating but sure looks like it.
cnollfan
08-16-2005, 07:08 PM
We shouldn't penalize the last-minute bettors because the tote companies are using betting software insufficient for the task at hand.
ceejay
08-16-2005, 07:39 PM
(3) offering consolation payoffs for tickets when horse is scratched from a later leg of a pick 3 or pick 4
(4) make it mandatory for all betting services to have an "alternate" selection instead of automatically giving players the favorite if there is a scratch
The most fair thing to do here is like Pinnacle does: offer a refund for all wagers using a downstream scratch (even if the ticket is dead).
melrose
08-16-2005, 08:18 PM
With the amount of betting that occurs online, and at the automated mutual machines, is this still necessary?
trying2win
08-16-2005, 09:59 PM
Barry,
I think the California tracks should model their straight bet takeouts and breakage, after the New York tracks. I think it is something like 14% takeout on straight bets and the breakage is figured out to the next lowest 10 cent level at the New York tracks, not the next lowest 20 cent level like most U.S. tracks.
Also, I think California tracks should eliminate quinellas. I would say the quinellas payoffs are too small frequently, as compared to the exactor payoffs. If they want to retain quinellas in some form, why don't they implement a novel bet like they have done in the past at greyhound tracks...i.e. the quinella double. That's a kind of gimmick bet, where you had to pick the correct quinella two races in-a-row.
T2W
You have to adopt either #3 or #4 (people can argue back and forth on what is most fair, etc. pick one)
YOu have to adopt #6 (rebates) in some form. I have not gone offshore for a variety of reasons, but sometimes I feel like a dumb*** for taking that position (and I know I have left money on the table). Sooner or later I, and everyone else, will be offshore if the industry does not adapt to the situation.
Here's a helpful hint from someone who has survived a meetings with bureaucrats: drink a LOT of coffee
Cheers, Cato
We shouldn't penalize the last-minute bettors because the tote companies are using betting software insufficient for the task at hand.
No matter when betting ends, there is still going to be a last minute, and now you would know exactly when that minute would be. What is so tough about that?
Perfect example, just bet $100 on a horse at Mth. Horse is 5-2 as they near the gate. 5-2 as they load. 5-2 as they break. Then, the horse opens a two length lead, and suddenly, as they near the turn, he is 7-5. These were the odds on the TV screen, not my internet tote.
Why did I win and am pissed? Perceptions I guess.
I've actually stopped playing some of the smaller tracks CJ, just for the reason you mentioned. I'm not sure if it's the offshore people trying to spread more money around because certain tracks aren't taking their money anymore or what, but it seems like it's getting worse again. It may be my perception but I'm not betting into it, that's for sure. Only time I will is if I like a closer or off the pace runner. But how many really good bets on the dirt or in short races do you get with that approach..not many. I've visitied my little local track 1/5th of what I normally do this year.
Or maybe it's just a lot of smart people laying down at the last second but you would think some of that money would be showing up before they near the turn?
I don't see how it penalize last minute bettors either. There's still a 2 minutes to bet, 1 minute to bet, 0 minutes to bet???
Hi Barry
I don't play a lot of California any longer. But I'll chip in with a trend nationwide that irks me.
MDNCLM'rs with a purse of 16 grand with a tag price of 32K. And Similiar situations.
The claim game drives the game.....and when guys can put 15,000 dollar horses up for sale for twice the purse it dilutes the purpose. imho.
Done everywhere I know...and not directly a betting issue... but it is one of the things I dislike about california racing. Small Purses with Huge tag prices makes it difficult to navigate a Past Performance line with out advanced tools or local knowledge.
You see these CLM32, CLM40 and AOC's that totally misrepresent the class level of the field.
Topcat
08-18-2005, 01:25 AM
Barry,
Rebates is the number one topic they should tackle. The question should not be how they can avoid it or how they can shut down rebate shops but how they can compete. The attitude seems to be that they are entitled to the existing handle and that it is a fixed amount. What I would hope they would grasp is that they can grow the handle and that they should look at it as a having a base business with incremental potential.
They can imitate the supermarket industry and issue frequent shopepr club cards or frequent shopper bettor cards. The advantage of a frequnest shopper card is that there is a perentage of "purchases" or wagers that will never be asking for a rebate since they haven't bothered to sign up for a card. Of cours i think this shoudl be valid online too. Since the tracks are reluctant to go head to head with the rebate shops they can offer rebates on a sliding scale like ehorse does based on the level of wagers per week:
$1 - $1,999 3%
$2,000 - $4,999 3½%
$5,000 - $9,999 4%
$10,000 - $19,999 4½%
$20,000 - + 5%
If they won't go for this then tier the first level to start at $500-$1,999.
It is not all the way to bright but it will give an incentive for increased wagering and will recapture some of the Pinnacle bets.
My other pet issue is breakage-it is time to come into the 21st century.
rrbauer
08-19-2005, 11:18 AM
melrose wrote regarding "dime breakage":
"With the amount of betting that occurs online, and at the automated mutual machines, is this still necessary?"
Comment:
Of course it isn't, we didn't always have computerized pari-mutuel systems. There was a time when off in the corner of the Racetrack Mutuels Department there was a room known as the "Calc Room". Guess what happened in the Calc Room--if you said the payoff prices were calculated there you're right. Well, at one time breakage (and this still happens in some places) was done to the nearest five (5) cents. But as a convenience to the dudes with the green eyeshades back in the Calc Room, some places made the payoffs break to the dime, which made the calculations easier.
Why should it be changed? Simple: It's not fair. It's arbitrary. It's not necessary. And, we (the customers) need the money! Who is benefiting from breakage now? Generally, it's the state, the track and the horsemen. I think it's safe to assume that none of these groups are going to part with any share of their millions without a lot of resistance. We have met the enemy!
Short of paying out to the penny, what are some other alternatives? How about breaking at the nearest five (5) cents instead of ten (10) cents. If this were the case, a 2.51 payoff calculation would still break at 2.50 but a 1.18 would break at 1.15. Instead of $2 payoffs being in increments of 20 cents, they would be in increments of 10 cents (or 5 cents to the dollar).
What about rounding? If the odd cents (that term again) are less than 5, round down to the next lowest ten cents; if the cents are 5 or higher, round up to the next highest ten cents. In the example above, the 2.51 would round to 2.50; but, the 1.18 would round to 1.20. The main argument against this would be that there would be some slight risk that the amount lost by rounding up, would not be completely offset by the amount gained by rounding down. OK. So, the first day of the meet, you only round down (Seasonal BREAKAGE) and that amount is used to cushion the risk; better yet, just reduce the state's proceeds from the takeout by any rounding losses. It ends up that we pay for that one way or the other anyway.
If BREAKAGE is going to continue, now that we have all of this stuff computerized, it should be a function of the transaction size. For example, the payoff calculation should be done using the whole cents times the bet amount (ie. $2, 5, 100, etc.) and then break to the ten cents for the actual payout. For those three bet sizes, using the previous example, the payoffs (plus the bet) for the 2.51 would be $5.00,12.50 and $251. Note that there was no breakage for the $100 bet, 5-cents breakage for the $5 bet and 2-cents breakage for the $2 bet. The 1.18 payoffs (without the bet return) would be $2.30 (6 cents breakage), $5.90 (no breakage) and $118 (no breakage). So, by breaking to the dime, after factoring in the bet or transaction size, the impact of breakage on payoffs is reduced significantly. There would still be some breakage due to fractions of a cent in situations where the takout percent is fractional. Giving up fractions of a cent to accommodate convenience makes a lot more sense (and cents!) to me than the current practice which is unfair and without merit.
Finally, with the advent of account wagering where the only money changing hands is electronic and account balances are maintained to the penny anyway; and, with the abundance of self-service terminals at tracks and simulcast sites where vouchers rule and settlement usually occurs at the end of the day, why not carry the voucher-based payoff balances to the nearest penny until the voucher is exchanged for cash and then apply nickel- or dime-breakage to the balance being redeemed to remove any pennies.
Everytime that I have mentioned breakage-reform to racetrack officials and state agency officials, the excuses roll; and, there is absolutely no consideration for the fact that we as customers did not invite nor, do we need, the money-sucking elements of the game to become our partners when we cash a ticket.
That post has got to earn rrbauer some rep points!
AngelEyes
08-19-2005, 12:21 PM
Question with regards to bets made at sites like Youbet.com :
Does money get added to the tracks pool instantaneously or when race goes off ? Maybe that explains why odds sometimes change dramatically as race is being run as CJ mentions above.
Also , can someone give me examples of so called "Rebate Shops" ? I thought that many tracks were discontinuing their use for some strange reasons .... something to do with .... mafia - milkshakes ?????????
midnight
08-19-2005, 12:55 PM
My suggestions:
(1) race for purse money only when part of an entry is scratched
If any part of the entry is scratched after the horses have paraded, the rest of the entry races for purse only. If there's a scratch earlier, then the bettors have plenty of time to take that into account.
(2) making all tickets winners in multiple-win exotics if a race is taken off the turf after the betting for the first leg is closed
Good idea.
(3) offering consolation payoffs for tickets when horse is scratched from a later leg of a pick 3 or pick 4
That would allow trainer manipulation.
(4) make it mandatory for all betting services to have an "alternate" selection instead of automatically giving players the favorite if there is a scratch
Here's another idea along that line: Allow an alternate choice, but if they have more than one horse chosen in the race, and one or more of their horses are scratched: 1) If they still have one horse left, transfer the bets to that horse, 3) If they have more than one horse left, transfer all bets to the horse with the lowest odds. The only way the alternate would come into play is if all of the horses (except the alternate) were scratched
(5) discussion of new bets such as choose six, cross-country pick 4's, etc.
I don't know what a choose six is. A pick whatever number involving other tracks is a good idea.
(6) discussion of rebates
Unless the tracks/shops can compete with the offshores that are offering 10% to select heavy hitters, it simply isn't going to help anything from the tracks, shops, horsemen's and state's point of view.
BMeadow
08-19-2005, 10:52 PM
Thanks to all of you for your input. The meeting was held at Del Mar this morning and included two members of the California Horse Racing Board (Jerry Moss and Ingrid Fermin), the president of Magna (Ron Charles), one magazine editor (Jeff Sotman of Horseplayer Magazine), one former Racing Associations director (Norm Towne), an executive of AutoTote (Dave Haslett), one member of the media (Kurt Hoover) and me.
Some new rules for California that either go into effect immediately, or soon may:
1. When a race is taken off the turf after the close of betting for a pick 3, pick 4, or pick 6, all horses in that race will be considered winners.
2. Alternate selections will be available at all sites where paper tickets are printed.
3. A new head-to-head (proposition bet) is likely to be added in the future.
4. It is possible that betting may close, except on track, when the first horse enters the gate. That should cut down on late odds changes after the race begins.
5. If part of an entry is scratched after the betting opens, the entry will race for purse money only.
6. Rebates are somewhere off in the future, as there is still an ongoing debate about whether they help or hurt.
Little of this is official as yet, but I would look for announcements in the near future. Thanks to all of you for your excellent comments and suggestions.
toetoe
08-19-2005, 11:36 PM
Wow, sounds like they're flattering NYRA with that sincerest of forms --- imitation. Great. Now, how about nickel breakage? A fair compromise between zero, where it should be, and a dime, where it is now. Love Crist or hate him, credit is due for that part of the equation. The takeout on exotics I have nothing nice to say about.
trying2win
08-20-2005, 01:10 AM
Some new rules for California that either go into effect immediately, or soon may:
6. Rebates are somewhere off in the future, as there is still an ongoing debate about whether they help or hurt.
.
I had to laugh at the answer given here on number 6. The California tracks don't seem to get it. Guess they've never heard of the wise advice, that you have to 'GIVE BEFORE YOU RECEIVE'. It seems California tracks (and racetracks in general) only want to 'TAKE, TAKE, TAKE'.
One other thing that never was discussed, is the vast amount of money raked in every year by racetracks from bettors lost or discarded winning mutuel tickets. I think the rule is (correct me if I'm wrong) if you want to put in a written claim at a racetrack for a lost or discarded winning ticket, then you have to wait a year to see if anyone cashes in the alleged winning mutual ticket. I think a good percentage of this tidy sum of extra revenue that racetracks rake in each fiscal year for unclaimed tickets, should be given as bonuses for their best customers, instead of putting in it their own pockets.
I will give credit to Northlands Park (our local track) for one thing this year. At the start of the thoroughbred meet this year, they sent me a $25 cash voucher in the mail for playing the horse races. Not only that, but in addition ,they also sent me another $5 cash voucher for playing the slot machines at the track. That's more like it! Has your local racetrack ever done anything unexpected like that in the past? I believe the only customers getting these cash vouchers were Northlands Park Players Club members. More racetracks should do things like this for their good customers. I gladly cashed in the vouchers and put the $30 in my pocket. The slot machines didn't get any of the $5 voucher, because I don't play them. Like all casino games, they're a losing game in the long run, because of the house edge on every bet. Horse racing is enough fun, thank you.
Kudos to Richard Bauer on your post on this thread about the topic of breakage. You made some excellent points that I totally agree with.
T2W
46zilzal
08-20-2005, 02:13 AM
make all scratches a part of the past perfromances and the REASON for same
twindouble
08-20-2005, 11:13 AM
"I think a good percentage of this tidy sum of extra revenue that racetracks rake in each fiscal year for unclaimed tickets, should be given as bonuses for their best customers, instead of putting in it their own pockets."
tryingtowin;
I agree this money should come back to the "public" in one form or another but I don't agree to what your proposing. Who is going to determin who these "best" coustomers are? To me everyone that goes to the track, sits here online making wagers regardless of what they churn over in dollars are the racing industries "best" coustomers. What your suggesting is this money should go to a elite few just like the rebates.
make all scratches a part of the past perfromances and the REASON for same
I see this done in harness PP's. It is nice stuff to know about. You can det this info from VBRIS now - it is in a summary at the bottom of the page of Instant Entries:
Scratch Watch - Finger Lakes - Saturday, August 20th, 2005
RaceHorseDate / RaceClassReason
1King of the Blues23Jul05 FL8ALW 19600 NW1 Trainer
1King of the Blues12Aug05 FL8ALW 19600 NW1 Trainer
2Jet Drive22Jul05 FL3CLM 4000 NW1 Veterinarian
3Lotsa Mojoe8Jul05 BEL4CLM 16000 Trainer
3Mad Bob Cat17Jul05 FL4MSW 17500 Trainer
twindouble
08-20-2005, 11:58 AM
"I see this done in harness PP's."
Tom; I wonder how many harness players are here on the forum? Would like to know how they see harness racing compared to thoroughbreds when it comes to handicapping and wagering opertunities.
Thanks
GameTheory
08-20-2005, 12:58 PM
The scratch info appears at the bottom of the free HTML programs from both BRIS and TSN...
One other thing that never was discussed, is the vast amount of money raked in every year by racetracks from bettors lost or discarded winning mutuel tickets. I think the rule is (correct me if I'm wrong) if you want to put in a written claim at a racetrack for a lost or discarded winning ticket, then you have to wait a year to see if anyone cashes in the alleged winning mutual ticket. I think a good percentage of this tidy sum of extra revenue that racetracks rake in each fiscal year for unclaimed tickets, should be given as bonuses for their best customers, instead of putting in it their own pockets.
T2W
Refered to as the "outs" in massachusetts.... until recently it was State law that Suffolk had to give the outs to the state. 3 or 4 years ago in a piece of legislation described as "distressed", suffolk got the law changed...and now they keep the outs.
How much? At Suffolk downs, a small track... 600 thousand dollars in unclaimed winners.
rrbauer
08-20-2005, 02:47 PM
make all scratches a part of the past perfromances and the REASON for same
Comment:
Good idea. And, it will save me from making those entries in my "notes" file!
rrbauer
08-20-2005, 02:59 PM
trying2win wrote:
"One other thing that never was discussed, is the vast amount of money raked in every year by racetracks from bettors lost or discarded winning mutuel tickets. I think the rule is (correct me if I'm wrong) if you want to put in a written claim at a racetrack for a lost or discarded winning ticket, then you have to wait a year to see if anyone cashes in the alleged winning mutual ticket. I think a good percentage of this tidy sum of extra revenue that racetracks rake in each fiscal year for unclaimed tickets, should be given as bonuses for their best customers, instead of putting in it their own pockets."
In California, the "uncashed" ticket money (after the ticket "expires") goes to the jockey's benevolent fund. I don't know about other states.
twindouble
08-20-2005, 03:21 PM
"In California, the "uncashed" ticket money (after the ticket "expires") goes to the jockey's benevolent fund. I don't know about other states."
__________________
Richard Bauer
That I can live with.
T.D.
trying2win
08-20-2005, 09:01 PM
SUFF and RICHARD--Thanks for the info about Suffolk Downs and the California tracks. My assumption that all U.S. and Canadian tracks keep the money from unclaimed tickets is obviously not true in all cases. I can't see what gives state or provincial government the right though, that they should get the money from unclaimed tickets.
As I mentioned earlier, Northlands Park at the start of the current thoroughbred meet, gave out a $25.00 cash voucher to some "points" card customers. Some of my friends at the track claim they never got such a bonus in the mail. Maybe a customer had to bet a certain amount through HPI during 2005 to get this deal. I don't know what the criteria was to get the voucher. Does Suffolk Downs offer a $25.00 cash voucher to their regular customers now and then during the year? That is to the patrons who have some kind of "points" card, as a thank you token for their patronage?
That's a good idea for the California tracks to supplement the Jockey's Benevolent Fund with the cash from unclaimed tickets. The money in that case is going for a good cause in my opinion. Do California tracks give out $25.00 cash vouchers now and then to their regular customers as well, such as in the Northlands Park case?
TWIN D--Good point about tracks handing out bonuses to their best customers, from the unclaimed tickets cash fund. On second thought I should have said, tracks should hand out bonuses to their regular customers who have perhaps a "points" card.
T2W
EQUIPACE
08-20-2005, 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted By Suff
“I don't play a lot of California any longer. But I'll chip in with a trend nationwide that irks me.
MDNCLM'rs with a purse of 16 grand with a tag price of 32K. And Similiar situations.
The claim game drives the game.....and when guys can put 15,000 dollar horses up for sale for twice the purse it dilutes the purpose. imho.
Done everywhere I know...and not directly a betting issue... but it is one of the things I dislike about california racing. Small Purses with Huge tag prices makes it difficult to navigate a Past Performance line with out advanced tools or local knowledge.
You see these CLM32, CLM40 and AOC's that totally misrepresent the class level of the field.”
Suff,
I am with you on this one... If you are correct, then handicapping these horses in the future are going to be presented to us hadicappers at levels in the racing form that look better than they really are... This is mismisrepresentation at its best and just unacceptable. And they wonder why bettors are leaving the sport, and why they are not attracting more people to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted By Suff
"Refered to as the "outs" in massachusetts.... until recently it was State law that Suffolk had to give the outs to the state. 3 or 4 years ago in a piece of legislation described as "distressed", suffolk got the law changed...and now they keep the outs."
How much? At Suffolk downs, a small track... 600 thousand dollars in unclaimed winners."
Suff,
Small track or not this is peanuts, compared to the millions wagered daily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by trying2win
"One other thing that never was discussed, is the vast amount of money raked in every year by racetracks from bettors lost or discarded winning mutuel tickets. I think the rule is (correct me if I'm wrong) if you want to put in a written claim at a racetrack for a lost or discarded winning ticket, then you have to wait a year to see if anyone cashes in the alleged winning mutual ticket. I think a good percentage of this tidy sum of extra revenue that racetracks rake in each fiscal year for unclaimed tickets, should be given as bonuses for their best customers, instead of putting in it their own pockets."
T2W
I am going to speculate that the majority of uncashed or lost tickets are mostly smaller wagers. And if someone has lost a winning ticket worth several thousand or more, then they deserve to lose! I dont care how you slice it, They have to be a SPECIAL KIND OF STUPID... To Lose that ticket.
The track should have the right to decide where that money ends up. And I agree with others here, I would prefer to see it go back to the bettors first in one way or another. In order to track each ticket, they would have to to ask for a name and SS # every time they made wagers at the window.
Is that possible? I think it could be. Internet and phone wagers get logged to your account along with a ticket number. So again, I'm only speculating, but my guess is that everyone might someday have a card... like a grocery - safeway or albertsons card that gets scanned before your wagers are input by the clerk.
If it ever comes to this, it will certainly keep uncle sam happy!
John
~¿o
Whirlaway
08-21-2005, 01:09 AM
Not a wagering issue, but one rule I'd like to see: Claim is considered null and void if horse does not pass the wire within 5 seconds of the winner. I'm sick of seeing horses break down when run one last time in hopes some sucker will claim them. It gives the sport a PR headache and drives away prospective owners.
JackS
08-21-2005, 03:48 AM
Equipace- I like the bet card idea. Load up the card that has all your personal Info (ss#, Address etc.) and funded or cashed as needed.
Only problem I can think of would be security. A pin number would be fine but could cause some irrate customers waiting behind a guy trying unsuccessfully to enter and reenter his PIN. Multiply this problem 2-3 times one minuite to post and I think you'll routinly see a few fist fights break out.
With some clever thinking, I think it's still workable and would hope to see somthing like this eventually.
"I see this done in harness PP's."
Tom; I wonder how many harness players are here on the forum? Would like to know how they see harness racing compared to thoroughbreds when it comes to handicapping and wagering opertunities.
Thanks
Try the Harness thread elsewhere on tis board. Ask for melman or JoeG.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted By Suff
"Referred to as the "outs" in Massachusetts.... until recently it was State law that Suffolk had to give the outs to the state. 3 or 4 years ago in a piece of legislation described as "distressed", Suffolk got the law changed...and now they keep the outs."
How much? At Suffolk downs, a small track... 600 thousand dollars in unclaimed winners."
Suff,
Small track or not this is peanuts, compared to the millions wagered daily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
~¿o
Millions wagered where? A huge day at Suffolk is 1.5 mil. 3/4'rs of that from SIMO players. At 3% take, 600 grand, that'd be 20 Million in interstate handle to "earn" that money. So as far as Suffolk downs goes.. its mega-money. Essentially its a months simo revenue. I did track down the story for those interested.
Tuesday, November 13, 2001
Finally, a racing bill for Bay State
After three years of bitter political infighting, and eight separate legislative extensions, Massachusetts lawmakers have passed new racing legislation that should boost purses at Suffolk Downs.
The legislation also provides for "outs" money, or uncashed winning tickets, to be added to the purse account. Under the previous legislation, the "outs" money reverted to the state. That money amounts to $500,000 annually at Suffolk Downs.
The bill will take effect as soon as the governor signs it, and will expire on Dec. 31, 2005
The Massachusetts bill, enacted last Thursday, calls for the state to return a substantial portion of the $8 million in taxes paid annually by the tracks to the account which funds prize money for racing. That money will be divided among the state's four pari-mutuel facilities according to a complex formula, but Suffolk executives estimate the new
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20011113/SP_005.htm
EQUIPACE
08-22-2005, 01:02 AM
Millions wagered where? A huge day at Suffolk is 1.5 mil. 3/4'rs of that from SIMO players. At 3% take, 600 grand, that'd be 20 Million in interstate handle to "earn" that money. So as far as Suffolk downs goes.. its mega-money. Essentially its a months simo revenue. I did track down the story for those interested.
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20011113/SP_005.htm
Suff,
First, I just want to make sure... You havent lost any winning tickects lately have you? :eek: You stated this... "At Suffolk downs, a small track... 600 thousand dollars in unclaimed winners." I only saw the original 600K figure when I posted. And if you are right... 20 Mil is a different story. Thanks for clarifying that and putting up the link to the article. (Interesting Info) . If Magna comes aboard, I would think that it might put Suffolk Downs on the better tracks radar screen for sure. But, I still believe that the unclaimed/lost money needs to go back to us bettors first. In Perks, Swag or Incentives of some sort. That was the original intent of my post...
John
~¿o
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.