Why no show wagering

[rmania]

I don't recall ever seeing a 5 horse race that didn't offer show wagering. That is until today.

Today's featured 8th at Del Mar (which featured Azeri) offered no show wagering.

Seems to me that they were trying to avoid a negative show pool. I guess that's one way to do it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[kenwoodall]

At $2.10 show pools overall will never be negative for track profit so if they are targeting 1 race they are as chicken ___ as Las Vegas card tables! I play place if 6 or less entries.
At some small tracks someone with $10,000.00 to spend could easily cause 50% of show pools to be negative for 2 weeks with no more than $300.00 to $500.00 per bet, using my w/p/s stsyem.
If you play show think about 7 or more entries per race, and be careful of sprints with early speed inside of your picks, and watch out for speedy favorites on a slow track.

[depalma13]

They canceled show bets in her last race too. First time I had ever seen it then. Even so, there was a negative place pool on her in both.

[rmania]

Originally posted by depalma13
They canceled show bets in her last race too. First time I had ever seen it then. Even so, there was a negative place pool on her in both. ARE YOU SURE ??? There were 7 freak'in horses in that race !!

And to think, for all these years I just assumed that track operators were bound by some sort of rules or guidlines.

I guess that in her next race we can expect WIN ONLY wagering (even if it's the BC).

And these guys wonder why racing is losing it's popularity. :rolleyes:

[Buddha]

Originally posted by rmania
ARE YOU SURE ??? There were 7 freak'in horses in that race !!

And to think, for all these years I just assumed that track operators were bound by some sort of rules or guidlines.

I guess that in her next race we can expect WIN ONLY wagering (even if it's the BC).

And these guys wonder why racing is losing it's popularity. :rolleyes:

Yea, pretty much every race Azeri will be in will be no show wagering. What is the fun in getting $2.10 backc on a $2 wager anyways? I wondered the same thing about the place wagering. There is still a negative pool, so I wonder if they will go to win only. Will be interesting to see.

[rmania]

Originally posted by Buddha
Yea, pretty much every race Azeri will be in will be no show wagering. What is the fun in getting $2.10 backc on a $2 wager anyways? I wondered the same thing about the place wagering. There is still a negative pool, so I wonder if they will go to win only. Will be interesting to see.
Now see... I didn't realize that it was up to the individual track operators to decide when and where win, place and show wagering would be allowed.

I always figured that the size of the field was the deciding factor.

But if they (the operators) can minipulate the format in this way then there's a problem here. I mean, what's to stop them from eliminating place and show wagering whenever there is likely to be a prohibitive favorite.

Taling about wanting their cake and eating it too. :eek:

[Buddha]

Originally posted by rmania
Now see... I didn't realize that it was up to the individual track operators to decide when and where win, place and show wagering would be allowed.

I always figured that the size of the field was the deciding factor.

But if they (the operators) can minipulate the format in this way then there's a problem here. I mean, what's to stop them from eliminating place and show wagering whenever there is likely to be a prohibitive favorite.

Taling about wanting their cake and eating it too. :eek:

Yea, the tracks can cancel the show wagering. I have seen Mountaineer cancel show when they scratch down to 5 horses. I just think it is the fact that Azeri has won now 11 in a row, and the tracks know there will be HUGE bridgejumpers to show, so they are limiting to win/place to lessen the effects of the lost money. There were $250,000 minus pools when they did offer show wagering on Azeri. I don't think it is right to take it away, but there also isn't much for the track to gain by allowing it. Just look at all the times when bridgejumpers are wrong, and the show prices are huge. That could happen with Azeri, but is unlikely.

[sq764]

I don't understand how people can say its not right to take away show wagering. This is a business and why should a business be forced to take an almost guaranteed loss?

This is like forcing a company to sell a product that costs $5 to make for $3.50.

[rmania]

Originally posted by sq764
I don't understand how people can say its not right to take away show wagering. This is a business and why should a business be forced to take an almost guaranteed loss? There are risks associated with virtually all businesses. Why should that of a track operator be any different.

Hell, everyone complains about the "take" (they're robbing us blind) and now we're supposed be ok with the fact that they're doing away with the "give".

I'm not a bridge jumper, but if I was.........

[sq764]

Well, let's look at your concern from a business standpoint.

If Wendy's charges $3 for a chicken sandwich and McDonald's charges $2, you have the choice to go to McD's.

If PA tracks have the outrageous take of 30% on trifecta's, you have the choice to play elsewhere. If enough people do it, maybe they will notice.

Unfortunately, tracks know they screw the bettor, and they also know the bettor will complain, BUT, they will keep coming back.

[Observer]

All businesses need to protect themselves from major losses .. and in cases like this, where you have a horse like Azeri .. I can understand the decision for no show wagering.

In this game .. it doesn't matter what anyone does about anything .. because there is always going to be someone complaining about something .. but isn't that just the way of life, anyway???

If the bettor is really feeling that screwed .. and they keep going back .. it leaves me wondering why.

Maybe they should offer Superfecta on 3 horse fields?? Hey, why should the "give" be taken away just because a race came off the grass and none of those turf horses wanted to run in the extremely sloppy conditions that they had never encountered before!

(And yes, I know .. Trifectas are 3, Superfectas are 4 .. I was being sarcastic).

[SAL]

I have to side with the tracks on this one. Minus show pools have to be paid out, and it comes out of the track's pocket when it happens. I don't blame them for trying to cut down losses. In fact, I saw a harness race with 8 entries a few years ago that had win and exacta wagering only. The favorite was 1-10. He had dominated and won like 15 races in a row. Made it 16 that night.

[PaceAdvantage]

Same reason a casino can lawfully ban a card counter at the blackjack table...

In any event, the elimination of show wagering in fields where there is a dominant favorite has been around ever since the first bridgejumper appeared on the scene...this certainly isn't anything new....

And I've seen show wagering eliminated in fields of 6....I think Yonkers eliminated show wagering in a field of 8 once or twice....

[sq764]

If Yonkers had an Azeri situation with the show pool, they could conceivably be knocked out of business in one night.