Will There Be Show Betting on the Zenyatta and/or RA Races?

[The Paddock Room]

Will SA or FG not allow show betting, for fears of a big minus show pool? Any thoughts?

[lamboguy]

Will SA or FG not allow show betting, for fears of a big minus show pool? Any thoughts?these are probably the worst type of races to plunge in on. if rachel is ever going to lose a race this could easily be the one. asmussen may not have her completely cranked because he is looking to win the big prize in the apple blossom. in the past the first race of the 4 year old year against these types are the very toughest to gauge. good luck if you jump. i will watch and enjoy the race.

[The Paddock Room]

these are probably the worst type of races to plunge in on. if rachel is ever going to lose a race this could easily be the one. asmussen may not have her completely cranked because he is looking to win the big prize in the apple blossom. in the past the first race of the 4 year old year against these types are the very toughest to gauge. good luck if you jump. i will watch and enjoy the race.

If Show wagering is offered in the RA race I am thinking of betting $10 to Show on the other 4 horses..just a hunch, and even if RA finishes 1-2-3, it will only cost me around $10 total.

[Robert Goren]

I would be very surprised if the FG had show betting on RA's race with only entries.

[PaceAdvantage]

There is no way there is going to be show betting with only 4 horses + RA.

[Zenyatta To Crush]

There is no way there is going to be show betting with only 4 horses + RA.
Agreed. They'd be giving away a ton of money if they allowed it. I feel like there would be a minus show pool on either of these horses even if there were like 10 horses in the field...assuming they weren't both in the same race of course.

I imagine that the place pools will be bet pretty hard in these races. If I were a bridge jumper, I'd be much more willing to bet Zenyatta rather than Rachel. Zenyatta is apparently in the best form she's ever been in right now according to Mike Smith.

[Stillriledup]

I think cancelling show betting is a bad idea because that sends the message to the players that the track is handicapping FOR them. The track is saying "we've handicapped the race and we have decided that we don't want to accept certain bets because of our handicapping knowledge"

I just wish they would be bookies and book bets. They're in the bet booking business, not in the handicapping business.

I remember a race last year i believe in Northern California where a horse named Tribesman was in a 5 or 6 horse field and the track (one of those fair tracks, solano or stockton) cancelled show wagering. I was really mad because i felt that tribesman, being a one dimensional front runner, could be pace compromised and be off the board if he got challenged hard. He had like 30k to PLACE, i was able to exploit the place pool, i could only imagine how much show money i would have gotten had they not stuck their hands in the till. Also, their 'bad handicapping' cost the track an extra 200k in legitimate handle.

[startngate]

Agreed. They'd be giving away a ton of money if they allowed it. I feel like there would be a minus show pool on either of these horses even if there were like 10 horses in the field...assuming they weren't both in the same race of course.Unfortunately 'they' (if you mean the track where the horses are running) actually won't be giving away all that much money. In the world of simulcasting, minus pools are actually paid by the outlet that took the bet, so the host track is only on the hook for the minus pool created by the customers that walk through their door. Since the host tracks receive a host fee based on gross wagering, there is little incentive for them to eliminate show wagering, even in races like this. I have seen outlets refuse show betting even when the host track offers it because they know they have a large bridge-jumper who plays with them.
I just wish they would be bookies and book bets. They're in the bet booking business, not in the handicapping business.The tracks would love to be in that position, unfortunately the States mandate a minimum payoff. If the players were willing to take whatever the actual payoff was (even if it came out to less than the original bet) then I'm sure the tracks would offer up show bets in three horse fields. Having a show payoff come back at $1.80 would eliminate bridge jumping ... :)

[OTM Al]

Its just like buying insurance. You'd have more if you didn't buy it and everything turned out fine, but it protects you in the perceived rare instance that something goes wrong.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have seen outlets refuse show betting even when the host track offers it because they know they have a large bridge-jumper who plays with them.This is definitely true, as I have seen this as well...I forget where exactly (might have been either Suffolk Downs or the Meadowlands), but their simulcast program would have more than one race where there were relatively full fields but still said NO SHOW BETTING, and indeed the host track was offering show betting...

[jballscalls]

I think cancelling show betting is a bad idea because that sends the message to the players that the track is handicapping FOR them. The track is saying "we've handicapped the race and we have decided that we don't want to accept certain bets because of our handicapping knowledge"

I just wish they would be bookies and book bets. They're in the bet booking business, not in the handicapping business.

I remember a race last year i believe in Northern California where a horse named Tribesman was in a 5 or 6 horse field and the track (one of those fair tracks, solano or stockton) cancelled show wagering. I was really mad because i felt that tribesman, being a one dimensional front runner, could be pace compromised and be off the board if he got challenged hard. He had like 30k to PLACE, i was able to exploit the place pool, i could only imagine how much show money i would have gotten had they not stuck their hands in the till. Also, their 'bad handicapping' cost the track an extra 200k in legitimate handle.

I dont think it's the players they are worried about pissing off in this instance, but rather their simulcast partners who could be hurt by allowing a layup show jumper. Are they handicapping sure, but they handicap everytime they put a small field early in the card and a big field in the pick 6, thinking it will draw more handle. they handicap for players all the time, morning line, selections, what race to put in the pick 4's, what race to make the super high 5, etc.

I know here at Portland Meadows we've taken show wagers off of 5 horse fields, and even took the place off a 4 horse field with a 1/9 shot in there. i've been told by other folks in the business that the site that takes the huge plunge wagers that create negative pools are the ones who have to pay most or all of the negative. So as a small track or even a big track, do you want to alienate or piss of your simulcast partners who take bets on your track everyday by throwing out a race and bet that could cost them thousands of dollars, when your signal is maybe making them only a few hundred or thousand a day?

i know the response back will be "what about the bettors" cause it's PA, and i agree, as a bettor, this blows, hardcore! but it is what is ya know?

[The Paddock Room]

Los Alamitos speedster, Freaky, has faced full fields in the past year, and the track didn't offer Show or even Place wagering on the race.

In "the old days" if there were 5 horses in a race, show wagering would be offered, no matter what. One of Cigar's races (I forgot which one) was a 5 horse field, and Show wagering was offered. There was an over $1,000,000 minus show pool in that race.

[cj]

I can remember seeing harness races where horses weren't even included in the wagering. They could win the top purse, but not be bet in any pools. Redskin at Garden State Park comes to mind right away, and he drew the 10 post!

[startngate]

Los Alamitos speedster, Freaky, has faced full fields in the past year, and the track didn't offer Show or even Place wagering on the race.

In "the old days" if there were 5 horses in a race, show wagering would be offered, no matter what. One of Cigar's races (I forgot which one) was a 5 horse field, and Show wagering was offered. There was an over $1,000,000 minus show pool in that race.Actually, 'in the old days' it was done far more frequently than it is now. Especially in the pre-simulcasting days of racing.

[Phantombridgejumpe]

there to be show betting on the RA race, I would make it my 4th play.

As far as who is a better show play RA or Zenyatta I'd say I'm more comfortable with a front runner for show than a come from behind horse. Plus the weight difference Zenyatta will be giving up this week and that field might be bigger.

I couple other points, I would never give a track a hard time about not having show betting on a given race. It is their business, they are running things and I'm allowed to participate. Yes, I'm the customer, but they are the ones taking the risk of a huge minus pool (how that is split with their outlets I really don't care).

Now, on to that minus pool I don't like the way tracks calculate it. They are assuming they get their usual takeout on those bets. If I make a $100,000 show bet for example in my mind the minus pool can't be more than $5,000 because that is my profit, but the track assumes they should get their usual 15 or so percent takeout first.

If I'm not going to get on the bridgejumper for creating a minus pool (and I don't get on them at all) then I don't feel it is fair for me to blame the tracks for not taking those type of bets.

Hope that made some sense - - I know what I mean :)

[startngate]

Now, on to that minus pool I don't like the way tracks calculate it. They are assuming they get their usual takeout on those bets. If I make a $100,000 show bet for example in my mind the minus pool can't be more than $5,000 because that is my profit, but the track assumes they should get their usual 15 or so percent takeout first. Sort of, but you seem to be forgetting that the net show pool is divided into thirds before calculating the price.

So for the sake of argument, let's assume your example of $100k bet to show on a horse that would generate a minus pool represents 50% of the total show pool, and a takeout of 15%.

$200k * 15% = $30k (takeout)
$200k * 85% = $170k (returned to bettors)
$170k / 3 = $56,666 (net pool available to the bettors)
$100k * $1.05 = $105k (winning dollars * minimum payout, or amount actually owed to the bettors)
$105k - $56,666 = $48,334 (gross loss to track)
$48,334 - $30k = $18,334 (net loss to track after figuring in its takeout)

Still a significant number, and this example is for an on-track bet. It actually gets worse for the outlets because they have to pay a host fee. Also, as the percentage of the total pool those bets represent scale higher, the number gets worse and there are some jurisdictions that still have a $1.10 minimum, which is even more of a killer to the bottom line.

[Hanover1]

I can remember seeing harness races where horses weren't even included in the wagering. They could win the top purse, but not be bet in any pools. Redskin at Garden State Park comes to mind right away, and he drew the 10 post!
Niatross was barred from wagering a staggering 10 times.......

[Stillriledup]

Niatross was barred from wagering a staggering 10 times.......

Big show payouts at Saratoga when he went over the hubrail?