Calder Bridgejumper(s) left holding an empty bag

[Vinman]

I was in Favorites OTW restaurant in Woodbridge NJ yesterday when these four women sitting near me started screaming when a horse went down in the 10th race at Calder. I ran over to the large monitor they were watching and noticed there was a horse in the race, the 1, who was 1-9......the one that fell with a clear lead at the top of the stretch. I ran back to my table to pull up the pools on my laptop and sure enough, there was $157,000 out of $165,000 bet to show on the 1. Ouch. The show payoffs were $36.00, $42.00 and $43.00.

So much for that John Nerud saying "A bad day at the track is better than a good day anywhere else". I'm assuming the worst for the horse that fell, Paizano, coming off an easy win at Gulfstream. Any word on the jock, Luis Saez? How 'bout the bridgejumper(s)?

Vinman

[ClassTrumpsSpeed]

I was in Favorites OTW restaurant in Woodbridge NJ yesterday when these four women sitting near me started screaming when a horse went down in the 10th race at Calder. I ran over to the large monitor they were watching and noticed there was a horse in the race, the 1, who was 1-9......the one that fell with a clear lead at the top of the stretch. I ran back to my table to pull up the pools on my laptop and sure enough, there was $157,000 out of $165,000 bet to show on the 1. Ouch. The show payoffs were $36.00, $42.00 and $43.00.

So much for that John Nerud saying "A bad day at the track is better than a good day anywhere else". I'm assuming the worst for the horse that fell, Paizano, coming off an easy win at Gulfstream. Any word on the jock, Luis Saez? How 'bout the bridgejumper(s)?

Vinman


Today's bridgejumpers try to LOSE the big bet rather than win it.

They don't pay rebates on show bets that pay $2.10, but they do pay a big fat 12 percent on a losing show bet. it's the same math as before, but with a profitable payoff in this scenario, rather than a mere break-even ,due to the rebate on the losing bets.

[GameTheory]

Today's bridgejumpers try to LOSE the big bet rather than win it.

They don't pay rebates on show bets that pay $2.10, but they do pay a big fat 12 percent on a losing show bet. it's the same math as before, but with a profitable payoff in this scenario, rather than a mere break-even ,due to the rebate on the losing bets.You'll have to explain that math to me. How is losing 88% profitable?

[Robert Goren]

You'll have to explain that math to me. How is losing 88% profitable? Me too

[Robert Goren]

Today's bridgejumpers try to LOSE the big bet rather than win it.

They don't pay rebates on show bets that pay $2.10, but they do pay a big fat 12 percent on a losing show bet. it's the same math as before, but with a profitable payoff in this scenario, rather than a mere break-even ,due to the rebate on the losing bets. What make you think they are not getting a rebate on the winning show bet.

[therussmeister]

Today's bridgejumpers try to LOSE the big bet rather than win it.

They don't pay rebates on show bets that pay $2.10, but they do pay a big fat 12 percent on a losing show bet. it's the same math as before, but with a profitable payoff in this scenario, rather than a mere break-even ,due to the rebate on the losing bets.

Then they should be playing the worst horse in the field. That would give juicy show prices to all of us that don't get 12% rebates on losers.

[The Hawk]

I could be wrong, but maybe what this guy is trying to say that with the 12% rebate they can figure a way to bridgejump on the favorite AND make the right sized bets on the others, to ensure a profit? The math is over my head, and I'm not even sure that would work out, but I can't think of what else he could mean.

[ronsmac]

They don't pay the rebates on negative show pools. That's clearly stated when you sign up with the big rebate shops.

[InTheRiver68]

They don't pay the rebates on negative show pools. That's clearly stated when you sign up with the big rebate shops.
I can't imagine any big rebate shop that could stay in business if they did rebate on a negative break pool.

- InTheRiver68

[frankcolt]

HI I just joined so this is a bit last for this dicussion but there my story with this race

I saw that the 1 (Paizano )horse had over 100,000 dollars to show. One of the things I look for in a race. That means that if the 1 horse doesn't show up 1st, 2nd or 3rd that show money will be huge. Well, the 1 horse went off at 1-9 (or there about) so I put 5 to show on the 6 (Numb Lips) and 5 to show on the 2 (Smoking the Field). The 1 horse was wayyy in front when it broke down - it was out of the race. it came in

4 Rickyontherun - 23.40 10.60 36.00
6 Numb Lips - 7.00 42.00
2 Smoking the Field - 43.00

So I got my show money (212.50 for 2 - 5 dollar bets to show)
If I add things up Correctly (or at least closely) the Tri should pay 6923.00 So I'm having a bit of a freakout thinking I might have just won a massive TRI.
SO I'm thinking the Tri is going to be huge (I mean HUGE) but it only paid 369.00. I was pissed. SO I bought a couple of beers (more than a couple) and bought a couple of steaks to take home and BBQ.
But that horse racing.

[Robert Goren]

I can't imagine any big rebate shop that could stay in business if they did rebate on a negative break pool.

- InTheRiver68 I read the rules on a couple of the rebate shops and they don't do rebates on winning bridge jumpers bets, but it was not clear whether they would on losing ones. If you only lose $0.95 instead of a buck, you wouldn't have to win quite as often. I still think that is very bad bet even if you win often enough to show a profit. Unless you are Bill Gates, you risking too much of your bank roll. There is a whole branch of mathematics devoted to this kind of stuff. It is called Utility Theory. It is boring as hell. JMO

[InTheRiver68]

I read the rules on a couple of the rebate shops and they don't do rebates on winning bridge jumpers bets, but it was not clear whether they would on losing ones.
They would almost have to rebate a losing bridgejumper bet. It would be just like any other losing bet at that point, as it didn't cost the shop any break.

I still think that is very bad bet even if you win often enough to show a profit.
Wouldn't "winning often enough to show a profit" make it a good bet? Isn't that what we're all striving for? :)

But seriously, I see what you're saying. The bridgejumper who risks too much of his bankroll on a single horse finishing in the money deserves to bust out of the game.

frankcolt, your noob is showing. :p You can't "calc" a triple payout with any accuracy under these circumstances. To expect a $7,000 triple in a six-horse field is wholly unrealistic.

- InTheRiver68

[lamboguy]

They would almost have to rebate a losing bridgejumper bet. It would be just like any other losing bet at that point, as it didn't cost the shop any break.


Wouldn't "winning often enough to show a profit" make it a good bet? Isn't that what we're all striving for? :)

But seriously, I see what you're saying. The bridgejumper who risks too much of his bankroll on a single horse finishing in the money deserves to bust out of the game.

frankcolt, your noob is showing. :p You can't "calc" a triple payout with any accuracy under these circumstances. To expect a $7,000 triple in a six-horse field is wholly unrealistic.

- InTheRiver68
years ago when new york racing was $2.20 minimum pay i would bet the same amount evey time on a bridgejump horse to show. i might have found one once every 3 weeks. i might have lost 1 in every 25 that i bet. today i see that there are alot more pools that have bridgejumping activity in them. there is maybe 1 a day now. but lots of them look like very poor quality ones to me, and it looks to me like they lose more frequently like something like 1 in 8 times. i have no idea how a person can turn that into a winning proposition at a minimum payoff of 2.10 even if the guy did get some type of a rebate, more than likely because it happens so frequently it must be a hedged opportunity. otherwise those that have been playing them would have to be clean as a clam right now.

yesterday while the money came in on the hollywood horse that blew up that i could never birdgejump, i found one in sun ray park. hollywood had $143,000 on it, the one at sunray had $3200 on it, $500 of that was mine, and another $500 was a friend of mines.

[salty]

keep an eye on suffolk, they still pay 2.20 minimum and there were a lot of good beats against the bridgejumpers last year.

[lamboguy]

keep an eye on suffolk, they still pay 2.20 minimum and there were a lot of good beats against the bridgejumpers last year.
anytrack with the 2.20 is going to attract the bridgjumping, only thing about it is there are not that many people paying attention to it. i have a theory that someone dumps alot of money into a show hole and tries to attract others to chase him down the lane and then the guy hedges the other side of the deal and makes money from it. i bet against a bridgjump last year at sulfolk in a nw of 2 for $5000 tag that had $80k on it and the horse was a 6 yo. and i didn't think the horse had a 50% chance of hitting the board. he blew up and the show tickets were from $14.00 to $27.00. i played 3 horses and hit 2 of them. it was a big field like 10 horses. but most of the time i am on the side of a bridgejump though.

[Learned Hand35]

Looking like a possible jumper at the Mountain right now in the 4th.

[lamboguy]

Looking like a possible jumper at the Mountain right now in the 4th.that was not such an easy one to do, it was only about a 90% to run third or bettor.