View Full Version : The dude won his $100,000 bet!
PaceAdvantage
05-01-2010, 06:42 PM
WTG man...WTG.... :ThmbUp:
JBmadera
05-01-2010, 06:44 PM
YAHOO!!!!!! very, very cool...:ThmbUp:
PaceAdvantage
05-01-2010, 06:45 PM
Get's back a cool $900k
Now that is going to get people's attention.
I am so happy - this is life-changing:jump:
It is awesome for that guy, sucks for all the people that bet him with their real money.
InsideThePylons-MW
05-01-2010, 06:55 PM
Tote malfunction.....wager was too large and did not get put into pool
Refunding the 100K
Some guys from Chile and Russia are working on the problem and it will hopefully be corrected by next years race.
maybe he will get a new hair piece :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D
andymays
05-01-2010, 06:59 PM
maybe he will get a new hair piece :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D
Good for him. It took a lot of guts to make the bet. Not a lot of hair :D :ThmbUp:
JustRalph
05-01-2010, 07:07 PM
He should buy Calvin Borel's Wife a New Beemer!
BlueShoe
05-01-2010, 07:08 PM
That bet went into the Churchill mutual pool. Even with the huge size of the pools, a 100k bet would have caused the odds to plunge sharply. Did anyone happen to notice what the odds were before and after the bet was placed?
Valuist
05-01-2010, 07:09 PM
I thought they said SS's odds went from 8-1 to 7-1. I, and many others, were surprised at the early betting on Super Saver. But that early money was right.
Hoofhearted
05-01-2010, 07:10 PM
Wasn't it great to see ...............
Well done to the dude. He made his pick and collected on the bet of a lifetime!
(I have a suspicion he made his selection as a result of browsing this forum and seeing the horse well flagged up on here!) :)
Hajck Hillstrom
05-01-2010, 07:10 PM
I'm really happy for the guy. :ThmbUp: That was one bad rug. :ThmbDown:
....but it does suck for those that bet SUPER SAVER with their hard earned cash.
iwearpurple
05-01-2010, 07:11 PM
That bet went into the Churchill mutual pool. Even with the huge size of the pools, a 100k bet would have caused the odds to plunge sharply. Did anyone happen to notice what the odds were before and after the bet was placed?
With roughly 2.8 million bet on the horse, a 100,000 bet would not make a significant change in the odds.
He should buy Calvin Borel's Wife a New Beemer!
And Calvin a new left boot.:eek:
jonnielu
05-01-2010, 07:13 PM
That bet went into the Churchill mutual pool. Even with the huge size of the pools, a 100k bet would have caused the odds to plunge sharply. Did anyone happen to notice what the odds were before and after the bet was placed?
8-1 before, 7-1 after. 100k in the last 10 mins. today would be like $1k on an average day. I was hoping that he would say that he went with Super Saver because it was the Ability-X ratings "Simple" pick.
jdl
Hoofhearted
05-01-2010, 07:15 PM
Why Hajck ?
S.S. was steady at 8/1 Tote for a couple of hours prior to "Off".
Although it dipped to 7/1 immediately after his bet, the Final Tote reverted to 8/1 even with his K100 input (according to TV post-race) .
WTG man...WTG.... :ThmbUp:
That was great. Excellent TV.
bigmack
05-01-2010, 07:15 PM
I was hoping that he would say that he went with Super Saver because it was the Ability-X ratings "Simple" pick.
Never heard of 'em.
InsideThePylons-MW
05-01-2010, 07:17 PM
That bet went into the Churchill mutual pool. Even with the huge size of the pools, a 100k bet would have caused the odds to plunge sharply. Did anyone happen to notice what the odds were before and after the bet was placed?
He would have paid 18.40 or 18.60 without the bet.....instead of 18.00
horses4courses
05-01-2010, 07:26 PM
He would have paid 18.40 or 18.60 without the bet.....instead of 18.00
I think SS went down a notch from 9 to 8-1.
He would have paid 18.40 or 18.60 without the bet.....instead of 18.00
I honestly didn't pay attention to pool size or do the math obviously. That isn't so bad then, and should be good for the sport.
InsideThePylons-MW
05-01-2010, 07:31 PM
I think SS went down a notch from 9 to 8-1.
Uh.....what does that have to do with a 100K bet on him when he had 2.8 million bet on him total?
BlueShoe
05-01-2010, 07:38 PM
With roughly 2.8 million bet on the horse, a 100,000 bet would not make a significant change in the odds.
Had forgotten just just how enormous the pools are on the Derby. Might have been subconsciously thinking about what a bet that size would have done to the odds at Belmont or Hollypark.
Investorater
05-01-2010, 08:10 PM
In the Superfecta, I gambled or invested $256, to try and win $202,569.
Vinnie
05-01-2010, 08:12 PM
Big Time Congrats to the Dude! I looked at a couple of things that liked Super Saver, but, I just didn't see it.... I really liked Ice Box, but, what a horrible trip he had.
To the Victor goes the spoils... :)
What a nasty race it was to handicap this year..
BlueShoe
05-01-2010, 08:57 PM
Tote malfunction.....wager was too large and did not get put into pool
Refunding the 100K
Some guys from Chile and Russia are working on the problem and it will hopefully be corrected by next years race.
Have the guys that diddled with the Pick 6 at the Breeders Cup a few years ago gotten out of jail yet? If they have, perhaps they can be hired as consultants.;)
fast4522
05-01-2010, 09:05 PM
I guarantee you that 100k man got the attention of President BHO who will in turn make a phone call about him, 15 minutes of fame is not what it used to be.
JustRalph
05-01-2010, 09:31 PM
And Calvin a new left boot.:eek:
I get it! I get it!! :lol:
Fingal
05-01-2010, 09:34 PM
Now that is going to get people's attention.
I am so happy - this is life-changing:jump:
So much for being incognito at the track. :eek:
Think I heard the bet was on 40 seperate tickets, that it was too big to be on just 1- too bad tickets have an expiration date, because then tax planing wise he could have strung out the 900K.
So much for being incognito at the track. :eek:
Think I heard the bet was on 40 seperate tickets, that it was too big to be on just 1- too bad tickets have an expiration date, because then tax planing wise he could have strung out the 900K.
I wonder if by the rules it is even considered a signer? I don't remember how it worked the last time I cashed for 900k.
andymays
05-01-2010, 09:48 PM
I wonder if by the rules it is even considered a signer? I don't remember how it worked the last time I cashed for 900k.
Not a signer.
If nobody knew about it he might be able to get away with it.
On this deal almost everyone knows about it.
Rookies
05-01-2010, 09:58 PM
A buddy had it locked at one Net site @ 14-1.
The beauty of the Internet...
Of course, he wouldn't have been able to get 100 large on it...:lol:
JustRalph
05-01-2010, 10:09 PM
I wonder if by the rules it is even considered a signer? I don't remember how it worked the last time I cashed for 900k.
This should be the test example for HANA to use when lobbying for lower taxes on winnings. Get with the guy and find out how much they take........although I think it will just become income for him.......depending on his tax situation. HANA could still make an example out of it though
BillW
05-01-2010, 10:32 PM
This should be the test example for HANA to use when lobbying for lower taxes on winnings. Get with the guy and find out how much they take........although I think it will just become income for him.......depending on his tax situation. HANA could still make an example out of it though
Odd situation - does the $100000 count as prize winnings and after that the regular parimutuel rules apply? I assume so.
In any case should be zero withholding and owes tax on full $900K
horses4courses
05-01-2010, 10:39 PM
We need a tax expert on here........
I'm guessing the guy was liable to pay taxes on the $100k, as contest winnings, regardless of whether he won, or lost, the bet.
The $800k in winnings should be tax free, imo......
IRS may see it differently, though.....funny how that goes :bang:
toussaud
05-01-2010, 10:39 PM
Odd situation - does the $100000 count as prize winnings and after that the regular parimutuel rules apply? I assume so.
In any case should be zero withholding and owes tax on full $900K
i don't htink the 100k counts as prize winnings, beucase it had no real cash value. he couldn't' have cashed it in like say, a car. it had no real value other than to place a wager.
at least that would be my story in court
Bruddah
05-01-2010, 10:40 PM
Churchill gave him $100k to bet with, but they got $20k plus back on the take out. Therefore, they really on furnished the guy $75k plus. A smart promotion on their part.
Uncle Obama and the rest of his minions will get approx. half the $900k. But hey, what's remaining will make for a rainy day and a cup of chowder. ;)
toussaud
05-01-2010, 10:50 PM
Churchill gave him $100k to bet with, but they got $20k plus back on the take out. Therefore, they really on furnished the guy $75k plus. A smart promotion on their part.
Uncle Obama and the rest of his minions will get approx. half the $900k. But hey, what's remaining will make for a rainy day and a cup of chowder. ;)
please explain to me how they will get 50% of his winnings. there is not one law that says he will have to pay a dime over 28% as long as he has valid ID
horses4courses
05-01-2010, 10:55 PM
i don't htink the 100k counts as prize winnings, beucase it had no real cash value. he couldn't' have cashed it in like say, a car. it had no real value other than to place a wager.
at least that would be my story in court
It did have a cash value if you "hedged" every other horse in the race.
You could have bet them all to win, say, $20k.
Even with the vig, you could lock up a nice 5-figure sum, and still clear a big amount on your $100k choice.
toussaud
05-01-2010, 11:02 PM
It did have a cash value if you "hedged" every other horse in the race.
You could have bet them all to win, say, $20k.
Even with the vig, you could lock up a nice 5-figure sum, and still clear a big amount on your $100k choice.
this is actually what i would have done. i would have tossed 8 or so who i just do not think could win and spread the 100k 12 wide or so.
NikeUnlimited
05-02-2010, 12:03 AM
I'm pretty sure he had to bet it on 1 horse
WinterTriangle
05-02-2010, 12:08 AM
that guy was double lucky. Don't you have to luck out to win the chance to even make the wager? Then, he actually does win it.
WOW!!!! Happy for him.
Robert Goren
05-02-2010, 12:12 AM
Well , we know what he will be doing the rest of the year. He'll be picking up losing tickets off the floor.;)
jamey1977
05-02-2010, 04:36 AM
Poor dude ? he just won 900,000 dollars. I'll wear a skunk on my head for 900,000 dollars on National T.V. in a second. Hairpieces have to be cut short. Short. One clue is thickness. Anyway I am glad he won. Makes my day. Love when the little guy wins and I'm sure he can get a real head of hair now . If you wear hair pieces, cut them into style. They have to be short or they are easily spotted. Anyway, glad he won. 100,000 to win. Love It
098poi
05-02-2010, 08:29 AM
http://www.kentuckyderby.com/news/2010/05/01/derby-dream-bet-winner-glen-fullerton
Rutgers
05-02-2010, 10:19 AM
A couple of quick comments on a few things shown on TV regarding the contest.
First the winner, did not make the wager. He did not hand the money to the teller. He never had $100,000. He could not do as he pleased with it and never had control of the money. Under the terms he probably did not have the right to transfer his chance, therefore his chance and choice to make the wager had no cash value.
The $100,000 could not be considered income, therefore he can not be taxed on it. But on the other side of the coin, if he loss he would not have been able to write it off as a gambling loss or any other type of deductions.
Second, after the race he was handed the tickets worth $900,000. At that point, the tickets had a cash value of $900,000 and he had control of the money. So the $900,000 will be taxed as income. It is not gambling income, because he did not wager. (assuming the contest was free to enter)
If they gave him the tickets before hand, he would have an income of $100,000 (which would have been the cash value of tickets), and he would have owed tax on $100,000 whether he won or loss. (but he would have been able to write it off has a gambling loss). Plus, he would owe tax on the $800,000 in profit.
bisket
05-02-2010, 11:00 AM
Poor dude ? he just won 900,000 dollars. I'll wear a skunk on my head for 900,000 dollars on National T.V. in a second. Hairpieces have to be cut short. Short. One clue is thickness. Anyway I am glad he won. Makes my day. Love when the little guy wins and I'm sure he can get a real head of hair now . If you wear hair pieces, cut them into style. They have to be short or they are easily spotted. Anyway, glad he won. 100,000 to win. Love It
talking about rugs. boy, bob costas better do something about that burber he was sportin yesterday :lol:
eastie
05-02-2010, 11:16 AM
Poor dude ? he just won 900,000 dollars. I'll wear a skunk on my head for 900,000 dollars on National T.V. in a second. Hairpieces have to be cut short. Short. One clue is thickness. Anyway I am glad he won. Makes my day. Love when the little guy wins and I'm sure he can get a real head of hair now . If you wear hair pieces, cut them into style. They have to be short or they are easily spotted. Anyway, glad he won. 100,000 to win. Love It
i thought that thing was gonna jump off his head and make a break for it.
"they have to be short or they are easily spotted" ? I got news for you baldy, they are all easy to spot and you guys who wear them would look 100% better without them. people don't say to their friend when a balding guy walks by..."look at that guy who's losing his hair." but they will always say " look at the stooge with the bad rug. " Even if it's a "good" one.
I was still really glad he won his bet, despite the bad rug.:)
LottaKash
05-02-2010, 12:33 PM
Wow, a 20-horse field of 3yo's, at a never raced distance, in the mud, and $100K to win.....What are the odds ?....
I was happy for the guy to have beaten those odds......His Lucky day, to be sure !
best,
Robert Goren
05-02-2010, 12:48 PM
Give me the 900k and I would pay the taxes although I probably couldn't resisted the urge to bitch about them.;)
Sekrah
05-02-2010, 01:20 PM
A couple of quick comments on a few things shown on TV regarding the contest.
First the winner, did not make the wager. He did not hand the money to the teller. He never had $100,000. He could not do as he pleased with it and never had control of the money. Under the terms he probably did not have the right to transfer his chance, therefore his chance and choice to make the wager had no cash value.
The $100,000 could not be considered income, therefore he can not be taxed on it. But on the other side of the coin, if he loss he would not have been able to write it off as a gambling loss or any other type of deductions.
Second, after the race he was handed the tickets worth $900,000. At that point, the tickets had a cash value of $900,000 and he had control of the money. So the $900,000 will be taxed as income. It is not gambling income, because he did not wager. (assuming the contest was free to enter)
If they gave him the tickets before hand, he would have an income of $100,000 (which would have been the cash value of tickets), and he would have owed tax on $100,000 whether he won or loss. (but he would have been able to write it off has a gambling loss). Plus, he would owe tax on the $800,000 in profit.
It took 4 pages to get to the correct answer. Wtg Rutgers.
Rutgers
05-02-2010, 01:31 PM
Wow, a 20-horse field of 3yo's, at a never raced distance, in the mud, and $100K to win.....What are the odds ?....
I was happy for the guy to have beaten those odds......His Lucky day, to be sure !
best,
About 8/1 :)
Rutgers
05-02-2010, 01:33 PM
Give me the 900k and I would pay the taxes although I probably couldn't resisted the urge to bitch about them.;)
As an American, it is your birthright to bitch about taxes. :)
castaway01
05-02-2010, 02:31 PM
Listen, the guy had bad fake hair and looked like a clown, but he came through in the clutch and hit a massive winning bet, so more power to him. I have bad real hair, but I tip my cap to him today. :D
my_nameaintearl
05-02-2010, 03:14 PM
A lady and her Girlfriend next to me yesterday at like 8:00 cashed for over 100k when she was asked for her ssn by the teller she replied "What do you need that for", the teller responded "Im sure im about to pay a 100 thousand dollar ticket."
horses4courses
05-02-2010, 03:25 PM
It took 4 pages to get to the correct answer. Wtg Rutgers.
Just because he's an academic, does not mean he's a tax expert.......
If I had the $900K, I'd be talking to a tax lawyer pretty quickly.
You could be right, Rutgers, but there's still alot of grey area.
iwearpurple
05-02-2010, 03:32 PM
please explain to me how they will get 50% of his winnings. there is not one law that says he will have to pay a dime over 28% as long as he has valid ID
There are more than one law.
Top Federal Tax rate is 35%
I am sure Kentucky will tax this also, potentially making it close to a 50% tax rate.
Valid ID has nothing to do with how income is taxed. Keep in mind that tax deducted at the racetrack is simply withholding. His actual tax may be more or less than the amount deducted at the source.
fmhealth
05-02-2010, 07:17 PM
Perhaps this article from Forbes this week may help resolve the tax consequences.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0510/investing-irs-gambling-taxes-social-security-tails-you-lose.html
toussaud
05-02-2010, 08:30 PM
Perhaps this article from Forbes this week may help resolve the tax consequences.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0510/investing-irs-gambling-taxes-social-security-tails-you-lose.html
this is probably the sole reason I do not see why everyone does not use an ADW. it does all the dirty tax work for you.
losses.. lol, i can show you loses alright.
we have androids, iphones and ipads and you still have "professionals" going to the window.
I have documented records of every single wager i have placed the last 2 years.
horses4courses
05-02-2010, 09:33 PM
this is probably the sole reason I do not see why everyone does not use an ADW. it does all the dirty tax work for you.
losses.. lol, i can show you loses alright.
we have androids, iphones and ipads and you still have "professionals" going to the window.
I have documented records of every single wager i have placed the last 2 years.
I agree. I, also, keep records.
ADW wagering, and casino's player tracking systems, keep excellent records of player's activities. However, the IRS does not necessarily accept them.
As far as the Forbe's article goes, contest winnings are a whole different ballgame. This particular situation mixes both contest and gambling winnings.
I wonder how much of his $900K he will ever get to keep?
thespaah
05-02-2010, 10:51 PM
WTG man...WTG.... :ThmbUp:
Payoff of 900 large...Very nice...
thespaah
05-02-2010, 11:07 PM
It did have a cash value if you "hedged" every other horse in the race.
You could have bet them all to win, say, $20k.
Even with the vig, you could lock up a nice 5-figure sum, and still clear a big amount on your $100k choice.
That's a violation of the rules. To my knowledge, no licensed person with a horse in a pari-mutuel race may wager on any of the other betting interests in that race.
So the owner could not wager on the other horses.
toussaud
05-02-2010, 11:08 PM
I agree. I, also, keep records.
ADW wagering, and casino's player tracking systems, keep excellent records of player's activities. However, the IRS does not necessarily accept them.
As far as the Forbe's article goes, contest winnings are a whole different ballgame. This particular situation mixes both contest and gambling winnings.
I wonder how much of his $900K he will ever get to keep?
I'm gonna take a stab and say he will get about 550-600k of it
horses4courses
05-02-2010, 11:09 PM
I'm gonna take a stab and say he will get about 550-600k of it
Still a nice score....... :cool:
Robert Goren
05-02-2010, 11:37 PM
Since when do cashiers check ids. The only time they check you is if the ticket is 299-1 or more. Now if you win enough that they cut you check thats a paper trail. So how do they know? JMO
Robert Goren
05-02-2010, 11:51 PM
I agree. I, also, keep records.
ADW wagering, and casino's player tracking systems, keep excellent records of player's activities. However, the IRS does not necessarily accept them.
As far as the Forbe's article goes, contest winnings are a whole different ballgame. This particular situation mixes both contest and gambling winnings.
I wonder how much of his $900K he will ever get to keep? They tend to take ADWs records although they often wonder if that is the only wagering you do. Casino records are another matter. They have very specific way that they want to keep records when gambling at the track. There is some leeway(but not much) the first year you declare race track winnings. After that it is their way or the highway. JMO
JustRalph
05-03-2010, 12:03 AM
However, the IRS does not necessarily accept them.
I got notified of an audit in late 2003 for tax year 2002. I called my accountant and she sent a letter asking for the reason for the audit. In a couple weeks was notified "due to gambling winnings above threshold" whatever the hell that means. I am quoting that off the top of my head, not sure it's exactly the phrasing.
We printed out my report from the ADW and she sent a letter to the person doing the audit (with the excel spreadsheet of the ADW report included) A notice came about two weeks later that the audit had been postponed until further notice. About two weeks after that a letter arrived saying that the audit was canceled due to "provided documentation" and that was the last I heard of it.
bigmack
05-03-2010, 12:30 AM
Power went out in his hotel room the night before. Little fella had trouble sleeping. After pining he takes $900K and plans to return to his cubicle to resume work tomorrow AM.
I can't believe how different some people are than I.
http://www.wftv.com/sports/23366943/detail.html
PaceAdvantage
05-03-2010, 05:05 AM
talking about rugs. boy, bob costas better do something about that burber he was sportin yesterday :lol:What?
andymays
05-03-2010, 06:26 AM
As someone who went through an audit from hell for gambling winnings I can tell you that the more documentation you have to prove losses you are showing the better.
The person doing the audit makes a big difference too. If anyone thinks they're all the same they would be wrong.
The IRS regulations are a little vague when it comes to what is required as proof of losses. Especially for Casino losses if you also bet there.
If you go to the track or satellite and make your bets try to break down the bets. In other words if you bet $200 w-p do it on two tickets. If the horse runs second and you cash the ticket and both bets are on one ticket you lose the $200 loss on the win bet for a write off. That gets a little nuts if you're playing an exotic bet where you're spreading a lot. For the people who think picking up tickets or getting them from someone else will help with showing losses remember you can't be two places at once and there is a time stamp and window number on each ticket. Maybe the person doing the audit will notice and maybe they won't.
If you go through an audit and you know you're right even though the IRS says different you should appeal the ruling. Sometimes the person you get is just a pr**k and they resent your score.
It does kind of suck that as soon as you make a nice score you have to worry about getting audited. That's life. Keep good records just in case.
I believe there is a law firm (tax attorney in vegas) that specializes in gambling winnings cases and has some good information on the subject. I can't remember who they are.
Robert Goren
05-03-2010, 09:55 AM
As someone who went through an audit from hell for gambling winnings I can tell you that the more documentation you have to prove losses you are showing the better.
The person doing the audit makes a big difference too. If anyone thinks they're all the same they would be wrong.
The IRS regulations are a little vague when it comes to what is required as proof of losses. Especially for Casino losses if you also bet there.
If you go to the track or satellite and make your bets try to break down the bets. In other words if you bet $200 w-p do it on two tickets. If the horse runs second and you cash the ticket and both bets are on one ticket you lose the $200 loss on the win bet for a write off. That gets a little nuts if you're playing an exotic bet where you're spreading a lot. For the people who think picking up tickets or getting them from someone else will help with showing losses remember you can't be two places at once and there is a time stamp and window number on each ticket. Maybe the person doing the audit will notice and maybe they won't.
If you go through an audit and you know you're right even though the IRS says different you should appeal the ruling. Sometimes the person you get is just a pr**k and they resent your score.
It does kind of suck that as soon as you make a nice score you have to worry about getting audited. That's life. Keep good records just in case.
I believe there is a law firm (tax attorney in vegas) that specializes in gambling winnings cases and has some good information on the subject. I can't remember who they are. They will not accept tickets with foot prints on them. Don't go in with just a bag full of tickets. They will send you home and tell you to put them in order. Another thing, If you try claim loses and the only winnings you claim are signers, you are in trouble. These people may or may not understand horse race gambling, but they are not totally devoid of common sense. You will not be the first gambler they have dealt with.
Cratos
05-03-2010, 11:23 AM
This was a great promotional idea for racing and should be repeated throughout the TC races and on the BC Classic.
Also, it would be great if racing would advertise this promotion more widely because I believe it would attract a lot more than the 67,000 who entered the Ky Derby promotion.
Fingal
05-03-2010, 12:05 PM
this is probably the sole reason I do not see why everyone does not use an ADW. it does all the dirty tax work for you.
losses.. lol, i can show you loses alright.
we have androids, iphones and ipads and you still have "professionals" going to the window.
I have documented records of every single wager i have placed the last 2 years.
When the majority of my bets were win, I couldn't understand why more people didn't use an ADW, why go to a closed racetrack that was being used as a simulcast location just to watch a TV feed. Now I understand, the printed ticket is power. If one uses a 10 percenter or whatever to cash something that would result in a tax liability, that's their business. But IMO to be able to control the time that you actually receive the income, priceless.
Especially on big days like the Triple Crown undercard & BC where exotics seem to easily go over the signer threshold- I'll never use an ADW for exotics because the chance of falling under their tax policy is too great.
eastie
05-11-2010, 02:39 AM
That's a violation of the rules. To my knowledge, no licensed person with a horse in a pari-mutuel race may wager on any of the other betting interests in that race.
So the owner could not wager on the other horses.
so if my hoss is running, i can't go and box him with someone else in an exacta ? you're dreaming this rule up, plus I thought this thread was about the guy with the bad rug......speaking of which, just watched Howard Cosell interviewing Bud Delp about the Bid. His rug was definitely still breathing..
thespaah
05-11-2010, 07:22 PM
so if my hoss is running, i can't go and box him with someone else in an exacta ? you're dreaming this rule up, plus I thought this thread was about the guy with the bad rug......speaking of which, just watched Howard Cosell interviewing Bud Delp about the Bid. His rug was definitely still breathing..
Nope .That is not what I stated. The rule is, one may not bet against his horse. In other words, one may not EXCLUDE their horse from any wagers made on a race where one owns, trains, grooms or otherwise is an agent.
I tried to find wagering laws/regulations on various state websites to no avail.
I am stating what I believe to be true from memory.
If you can have a look see what you can find.
Perhaps I was not makiong the proper inquiries.
Stillriledup
05-11-2010, 11:40 PM
When this guy's 900k is long gone and spent, he'll still be the guy shown on the NBC feed of the Derby rooting like crazy right after the horses crossed the finish line. Years from now, he can convince people that he owned the winning horse and no one will even question him.
Robert Goren
05-11-2010, 11:57 PM
Nope .That is not what I stated. The rule is, one may not bet against his horse. In other words, one may not EXCLUDE their horse from any wagers made on a race where one owns, trains, grooms or otherwise is an agent.
I tried to find wagering laws/regulations on various state websites to no avail.
I am stating what I believe to be true from memory.
If you can have a look see what you can find.
Perhaps I was not makiong the proper inquiries. The rule in Nebraska used to be that Jockeys could only bet on the horse they were riding. Anyone else could bet on any horse. There were certain employees of the racing track that were barred from betting. I don't not know if that has changed over the years, but I doubt it. I pretty sure that the certain race track employees part hasn't.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.