Bridge Jumping in Oaklawn

[Boris]

Racheal Alexandra is soaking up the Place pool. No show dough in play. $614K out of $631K with 6 minutes to go. She's a beast, but......

[formula_2002]

Racheal Alexandra is soaking up the Place pool. No show dough in play. $614K out of $631K with 6 minutes to go. She's a beast, but......
and it looks like an overlay in the place pool!! :)

PoolsPercentagesTrack Race Post MTP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Oaklawn Park 9 6:20 5 1/9 22 8 23 23 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Win Pool $76,748 62476 2680 6392 2553 2641 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Place Pool $655,657 636453 4350 7482 4500 2871 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Show Pool $0 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

harvill formula's have it at $2.04 place mutual

[Boris]

I think Borel said "boo" at the top of the stretch, and sseeeeyya!! Very professional despite the short field.

The #2 managed to pay $4 to place.

[formula_2002]

paid 2.20 to place (and win)
my place price was calculated at 2.08
that's at 240% overlay!!!
and my bet did not budge the pool :)

[DanG]

A free bingo square in the Oaks / Derby double.

As they say in hold em poker; Rachel Alexandra is…
http://www.justthechips.com/archives/images/pokerCover.jpg

[Bettowin]

Did you see the jumpers out on Acoma yesterday at Oaklawn? Over $500K in the show pool and Acoma barely hung on for third by a nose. Those guys had to "puckering" in the stretch.

[rgustafson]

paid 2.20 to place (and win)
my place price was calculated at 2.08
that's at 240% overlay!!!
and my bet did not budge the pool :)

How much money do these fools have to lose on negative pools before they go to the $2.10 payout instead of $2.20

[Spendabuck85]

From DRF.com article:
"as the 1-9 favorite in a five-horse field she created a $3,382 minus win pool and a $227,722 minus place pool"

I can't recall the last time I saw a minus win pool.

[Imriledup]

Anyone who bet win was a sucker. She wasn't ever paying 2.40 to win, so why not just bet place, its the same price?


What i want to know is why was there no show wagering, anyone know?

[sonnyp]

as usual its always in their direction. massachussets, another state with .20 min. payout, after getting "abused" by jumpers got legislation passed to eliminate show pools on races where the favorite will likely cause huge minus pools. i believe it has to get the o k from the racing commission.

i assume arkansas has done the same.

[Imriledup]

as usual its always in their direction. massachussets, another state with .20 min. payout, after getting "abused" by jumpers got legislation passed to eliminate show pools on races where the favorite will likely cause huge minus pools. i believe it has to get the o k from the racing commission.

i assume arkansas has done the same.
So,
What you are saying is that sometimes racetracks don't just book bets, they turn into handicappers and, on occasion, decide which races they want to take bets on and which races they want to NOT take bets on?

Racetracks should just book bets and not try and 'handicap' the horses and try and decide which bets they are going to take. If you are a bookie, just book. If you want to handicap, than get out of the booking business altogether. (or card more competitive races so you wont have to eliminate betting on some of them)

[sonnyp]

could not agree more !!!! thats why i started my post with " as usual...."

casinos have a license to steal mandated by the government, takeouts at the tracks have been ridiculous for decades mandated by the government, withholding on w2-g's is absurd mandated by the government, lotteries run by the government don't even pay what the bookies used to on the "numbers" which was a rip off.

you see the common thread ? the government has complete distain for gamblers and they and their agents are the mobsters in their treatment of those that participate.

just look at the time, effort and resources that goes into busting bookies. if you really want to get pissed, check out search and seizure cases, especially now that the jerks have the patriot act to use in combating dangerous terrorists engaged in gambling on horseraces.

[formula_2002]

How much money do these fools have to lose on negative pools before they go to the $2.10 payout instead of $2.20
I was not aware of the $2.20 min payout, I thought it to be $2.10.. neat!

[lamboguy]

don't you know that bridgejumping is unhealthy to your bankroll?

if you don't beleive me turn on TVG this afternoon and DR RICHARD PERLOFF will explain it to you. if you don't get it today, he will come and explain it to you further on tuesday.

[startngate]

How much money do these fools have to lose on negative pools before they go to the $2.10 payout instead of $2.20Actually the 'fools' likely aren't the ones losing.

The outlet that takes the bet has to pay for the minus pool, so if the host track doesn't have any local bridge jumpers, then it's in their best interest to offer the dime break as it will generate more handle, and therefore more host fees.

Before there was simulcasting, it was common practice for a track to eliminate show wagering on races with short fields and heavy favorites.

A guest site also has the right to refuse to take a pool, and some do. There are also many guest sites that ban bridge jumpers or limit their play once they are discovered.
So,
What you are saying is that sometimes racetracks don't just book bets, they turn into handicappers and, on occasion, decide which races they want to take bets on and which races they want to NOT take bets on?

Racetracks should just book bets and not try and 'handicap' the horses and try and decide which bets they are going to take. If you are a bookie, just book. If you want to handicap, than get out of the booking business altogether. (or card more competitive races so you wont have to eliminate betting on some of them)Obviously tracks don't 'book' bets, and surely you can't be advocating that a track should be forced to take wagers on a race or pool where they have some expectation of losing money by doing so. Quite frequently in these races, the minus pool will exceed the takeout. The tracks are not booking races, they are just managing the pool for the customers (for a percentage of course) and therefore are not in the habit of 'expecting' to lose money by virtue of the betting as a bookmaker would be.

As for the competitive races comment, in this particular case, it was a stakes race, and they were probably lucky to get the short field they did to run against her. Are you really advocating that she never gets to run again because there aren't any horses that can be lined up to make for a competitive race? Or how would you feel if there were only 3 or 4 races carded each day because there weren't any competitve races. And then of course you have the problem of who determines whether or not a race is competitive ...

The history of racing is littered with bridge jumpers that failed. Should all of those races have not been held? Should NYRA have cancelled the '73 Belmont? Sorry, but I just can't agree with you on that one.

There is one easy fix though ... eliminate the minimum payoff and let the pool pay what it calculates to. That will stop the bridgejumpers immediately when their $2.00 show bet comes back a winner and pays $1.60 ... :)

[SMOO]

There is one easy fix though ... eliminate the minimum payoff and let the pool pay what it calculates to. That will stop the bridgejumpers immediately when their $2.00 show bet comes back a winner and pays $1.60 ... :)

:D

Reminds me of pic 3s that pay less than the previous double because so many people used one horse as a single on the last leg.

[lamboguy]

Actually the 'fools' likely aren't the ones losing.

The outlet that takes the bet has to pay for the minus pool, so if the host track doesn't have any local bridge jumpers, then it's in their best interest to offer the dime break as it will generate more handle, and therefore more host fees.

Before there was simulcasting, it was common practice for a track to eliminate show wagering on races with short fields and heavy favorites.

A guest site also has the right to refuse to take a pool, and some do. There are also many guest sites that ban bridge jumpers or limit their play once they are discovered.
Obviously tracks don't 'book' bets, and surely you can't be advocating that a track should be forced to take wagers on a race or pool where they have some expectation of losing money by doing so. Quite frequently in these races, the minus pool will exceed the takeout. The tracks are not booking races, they are just managing the pool for the customers (for a percentage of course) and therefore are not in the habit of 'expecting' to lose money by virtue of the betting as a bookmaker would be.

As for the competitive races comment, in this particular case, it was a stakes race, and they were probably lucky to get the short field they did to run against her. Are you really advocating that she never gets to run again because there aren't any horses that can be lined up to make for a competitive race? Or how would you feel if there were only 3 or 4 races carded each day because there weren't any competitve races. And then of course you have the problem of who determines whether or not a race is competitive ...

The history of racing is littered with bridge jumpers that failed. Should all of those races have not been held? Should NYRA have cancelled the '73 Belmont? Sorry, but I just can't agree with you on that one.

There is one easy fix though ... eliminate the minimum payoff and let the pool pay what it calculates to. That will stop the bridgejumpers immediately when their $2.00 show bet comes back a winner and pays $1.60 ... :)

i have a better idea, instead of opening up the track, they should put buckets in front of the front door and have people drive up to the bucket drop their money off and go home. don't bother running the races.

[Imriledup]

Originally Posted by Imriledup
So,
What you are saying is that sometimes racetracks don't just book bets, they turn into handicappers and, on occasion, decide which races they want to take bets on and which races they want to NOT take bets on?

Racetracks should just book bets and not try and 'handicap' the horses and try and decide which bets they are going to take. If you are a bookie, just book. If you want to handicap, than get out of the booking business altogether. (or card more competitive races so you wont have to eliminate betting on some of them)
Obviously tracks don't 'book' bets, and surely you can't be advocating that a track should be forced to take wagers on a race or pool where they have some expectation of losing money by doing so. Quite frequently in these races, the minus pool will exceed the takeout. The tracks are not booking races, they are just managing the pool for the customers (for a percentage of course) and therefore are not in the habit of 'expecting' to lose money by virtue of the betting as a bookmaker would be.

As for the competitive races comment, in this particular case, it was a stakes race, and they were probably lucky to get the short field they did to run against her. Are you really advocating that she never gets to run again because there aren't any horses that can be lined up to make for a competitive race? Or how would you feel if there were only 3 or 4 races carded each day because there weren't any competitve races. And then of course you have the problem of who determines whether or not a race is competitive ...

The history of racing is littered with bridge jumpers that failed. Should all of those races have not been held? Should NYRA have cancelled the '73 Belmont? Sorry, but I just can't agree with you on that one.

There is one easy fix though ... eliminate the minimum payoff and let the pool pay what it calculates to. That will stop the bridgejumpers immediately when their $2.00 show bet comes back a winner and pays $1.60 ... :)
------------------------------------------------------new post:
As far as the expectation of losing money goes, that's up to the players to decide. Who is the track to pick and choose which races they accept betting on? They're not handicapping experts. What if my opinion was that RA wasn't going to hit the board, why should i be punished from taking advantage of that? The previous day, Oaklawn had a minus pool on a horse who looked just as much of a sure thing to at least show and they had show wagering. She didn't run a lick and almost created a great show payoff for those handicappers who were smart enough to play against her.

Whether the track is booking or managing, lots of people spent countless hours deciphering these races, they spend countless hours on videotape and pen and paper handicapping....they don't need the racetrack to come along and say, "sorry, all the work you did is moot, you can't bet on this race"

I've seen a few occasions in the past in racing where a track banned show betting on a horse who had previously galloped out like crap the race before. It pulled up short and was a few steps from being vanned off yet the track cancelled show wagering anyway. Did they know that some handicappers were salivating to bet against this runner?

Tracks make money, they don't lose with bets like this because once one of them loses, they have made 'free money' to cover the losses for all the ones that win. If a show jumper runs out, the track gets to apply a takeout rate to the million bucks (for example). That's a 'free' 150k or more they get to 'tax'.

I just don't like being told what races i can bet and which ones i cannot. Just accept bets and stop 'handicapping' which races might create a minus pool and which ones might not.

When tracks start 'handicapping' than you have to start to wonder if the tracks really care which ones win and which ones do not. You have to start questioning their integrity. Some people argue that tracks want longshots to win to create carryovers. We need to eliminate any doubt that these tracks are manipulating races behind the scenes to get the best possible outcomes for their bottom line.

[Bruddah]

Actually the 'fools' likely aren't the ones losing.

The outlet that takes the bet has to pay for the minus pool, so if the host track doesn't have any local bridge jumpers, then it's in their best interest to offer the dime break as it will generate more handle, and therefore more host fees.

Before there was simulcasting, it was common practice for a track to eliminate show wagering on races with short fields and heavy favorites.

A guest site also has the right to refuse to take a pool, and some do. There are also many guest sites that ban bridge jumpers or limit their play once they are discovered.
Obviously tracks don't 'book' bets, and surely you can't be advocating that a track should be forced to take wagers on a race or pool where they have some expectation of losing money by doing so. Quite frequently in these races, the minus pool will exceed the takeout. The tracks are not booking races, they are just managing the pool for the customers (for a percentage of course) and therefore are not in the habit of 'expecting' to lose money by virtue of the betting as a bookmaker would be.

As for the competitive races comment, in this particular case, it was a stakes race, and they were probably lucky to get the short field they did to run against her. Are you really advocating that she never gets to run again because there aren't any horses that can be lined up to make for a competitive race? Or how would you feel if there were only 3 or 4 races carded each day because there weren't any competitve races. And then of course you have the problem of who determines whether or not a race is competitive ...

The history of racing is littered with bridge jumpers that failed. Should all of those races have not been held? Should NYRA have cancelled the '73 Belmont? Sorry, but I just can't agree with you on that one.

There is one easy fix though ... eliminate the minimum payoff and let the pool pay what it calculates to. That will stop the bridgejumpers immediately when their $2.00 show bet comes back a winner and pays $1.60 ... :)

Sir, you stated the case and several of the arguments of why and why not, quite fairly. I appreciate your post. Some will be educated and enlightened by your well written post.

Thanks Bruddah

[Oaklawn]

I know this is an old post, but would someone explain to me what bridgejumping means? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I will guess that it is an obvious favorite that will pay just as much or more to place than to win? Sorry for being unenlightened.

[Show Me the Wire]

I know this is an old post, but would someone explain to me what bridgejumping means? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I will guess that it is an obvious favorite that will pay just as much or more to place than to win? Sorry for being unenlightened.

It is usually a very large show wager attempting to earn $0.10 return on a dollar. If you win it is a good thing. If you lose, well.....

[Oaklawn]

It is usually a very large show wager attempting to earn $0.10 return on a dollar. If you win it is a good thing. If you lose, well.....

Ok, so the bridge jumped is from win to place?

[Warren Henry]

Bridge Jumpers refers to bettors who make very large wagers into the show pool based on the assumption that their pick can't possibly miss. The track can not pay back less than the bet itself, so the money earned is "sure profit". However, sometimes the sure thing does miss. That is when the bettor considers jumping off a bridge.

[Show Me the Wire]

Ok, so the bridge jumped is from win to place?

Never thought it could interpreted as meaning a bridge from win to show. Oh, the complexity of communication.

Warren Henry says it all, the bridge is for jumping off after losing a substantial amount of money