Del Mar cancels show betting on a Ferndale race.

[Stillriledup]

STOP HANDICAPPING. Geez, i took this from the CHRB news and notes section for del mar (aug 21). Now we have guys looking at the morning line and deciding what kind of bets they are going to accept? Leave the handicapping up to the horseplayers. If someone wants to make a large show bet on a mule race, let them. Its a long run losing bet anyway. I don't understand why these people continue to do dumb things. Ferndale had no problem having show wagering on their race, but Del Mar got yellow fever and cancelled it.




DEL MAR CANCELS SHOW WAGERING ON FERNDALE MULE RACE
Michael Ernst, the Executive Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer for Del Mar Thoroughbred Club, came into the office shortly before 2:00 P.M. this afternoon to alert the Stewards to the fact that early this morning-around 8:00 A.M. – he made the unilateral decision to not accept “Show” wagers on the first race at the Humboldt County Fair in Ferndale. He said that he was alerted to the fact that the mule, #5 My Allowance, was even money in the morning line and appeared to be much the best. There was the possibility that one of the “plungers” in Southern California could wager a large sum of money on the mule to “Show”, causing a large minus pool which could impact purse money. It should be noted that this race was for mules with a speed index of 70 or under, so suffice it to say that there was no Zenyatta or even a Bar JF Hot Ticket in the field.
Pari-mutuel Manager William Navarro was contacted and said that on Thursday morning he became aware of the possible minus pool and sent an e-mail to Humboldt County Fair Manager Stuart Titus requesting he petition the Board to allow Ferndale to cancel Show wagering on the first race Friday. He received a response from Titus at 5:17 P.M. denying his request. Seemingly, case closed and Del Mar would be expected to offer whatever Ferndale was offering.
Additionally, Mr. Ernst said that he was not able to get in touch with any Commissioner or anyone on the Board’s executive staff so he took it upon himself to not offer the wager. He took full responsibility for his actions.
At one point during the conversation Mr. Ernst brought up the possibility of opening up Show wagering on the Ferndale race. The Stewards informed him that doing so would only compound the problem since the pool had not been open for approximately six hours. Kirk Breed was alerted to the matter for further

[kenwoodall2]

"Rule No. Rule Title
1954 Parimutuel Pools.
Rule Text The association shall provide, win, place and show pools in any race in which there are five ormore separate wagering interests which are obligated to start. The association shall provide winand place pools where there are four separate wagering interests which are obligated to start.The association shall provide a win pool only in any race where less than four separatewagering interests are obligated to start. Upon a showing of good cause, the Board may waivethe requirement for a place or show pool in any race. "

I will no longer bet or support California racing until further notice.

[Charlie D]

I agree with your stance Kenwoodhall2. They can't just go about changing rules when it suits imho.

[kenwoodall2]

Your quote is from the Steward's meeting 8-21, not "New and notes". Thank you. I sent emails to CHRB and NYRA ending my relationship with Ca racing and offering to give NYRA promotional suggestions.

[therussmeister]

They can get rid of bridge jumpers simply by eliminating breakage. Make the minimum payout $2.02.

[Stillriledup]

Your quote is from the Steward's meeting 8-21, not "New and notes". Thank you. I sent emails to CHRB and NYRA ending my relationship with Ca racing and offering to give NYRA promotional suggestions.

Correct. Sorry about the error.

[rwwupl]

"Rule No. Rule Title
1954 Parimutuel Pools.
Rule Text The association shall provide, win, place and show pools in any race in which there are five ormore separate wagering interests which are obligated to start. The association shall provide winand place pools where there are four separate wagering interests which are obligated to start.The association shall provide a win pool only in any race where less than four separatewagering interests are obligated to start. Upon a showing of good cause, the Board may waivethe requirement for a place or show pool in any race. "

I will no longer bet or support California racing until further notice.


Ken, The CHRB is investigating this, and they will report what is going on...I t appears that the D/M exec. overstepped his authority and made a mistake.

I have also filed,as you have that they should put up a sign " No gambling allowed"

Do not be hasty...lets see what they do. I will post it .

[TEJAS KIDD]

They can get rid of bridge jumpers simply by eliminating breakage. Make the minimum payout $2.02.

They can get rid of bridge jumpers simply by making sure My Allowance doesnt finish in the money.

[affirmedny]

Meadowlands does this EVERY DAY. The track taking the bet is responsible for paying any bridgejumper bet made at their facilities. That's why they do it. They have some dolt from the racing office go through every card and he cancels show wagering on every race where the ML favorite is less than 2-1 and there are 6 horses or less (or so it seems).

[David-LV]

Meadowlands does this EVERY DAY. The track taking the bet is responsible for paying any bridgejumper bet made at their facilities. That's why they do it. They have some dolt from the racing office go through every card and he cancels show wagering on every race where the ML favorite is less than 2-1 and there are 6 horses or less (or so it seems).

There may be different rules governing cancelling of pools in New Jersey.

________
David-LV

[kenwoodall2]

Ken, The CHRB is investigating this, and they will report what is going on...I t appears that the D/M exec. overstepped his authority and made a mistake.

I have also filed,as you have that they should put up a sign " No gambling allowed"

Do not be hasty...lets see what they do. I will post it .
What they do= Not require AT at LA; key cars; censor Steve Woods (then ashalt floats up at SA); Harris, Moss win BC's then lobby for future extreme takeout given to themselves; special privilege given owners in an illegal bill in violation Ca codes; make jokes out of serious horseplayers; admit fear of trainers' lawyers; test only 1/2 of post race samples taken; refuse to ban cancel delays. All in all, allow too much room for cheating and corruption. I voicemailed Perez' George about violation of "Urgency bill" Ca code today as 2414 sits in the Rules committee.
All I am waiting for is the rejection or withdrawal of 2414.

[startngate]

They can get rid of bridge jumpers simply by eliminating breakage. Make the minimum payout $2.02.Making the minimum payout $2.02 would not eliminate minus pools, it would just reduce the number, or minimize the size. Eliminating breakage without a minimum payout would do it, as people wouldn't bridge jump if they knew they could actually lose money on a successful bet.
"Rule No. Rule Title
1954 Parimutuel Pools.
Rule Text The association shall provide, win, place and show pools in any race in which there are five or more separate wagering interests which are obligated to start. The association shall provide win and place pools where there are four separate wagering interests which are obligated to start.The association shall provide a win pool only in any race where less than four separate wagering interests are obligated to start. Upon a showing of good cause, the Board may waive the requirement for a place or show pool in any race. "This only states that the host track has to offer the pool. It does not state that a guest site must accept wagers for it. For example, if NYRA cancelled show betting on one of its races, I doubt Del Mar would be required to create a pool to offer it (assuming the field size requirements were met). There may be another rule that covers it though for in-State races.

[kenwoodall2]

I think this is the right one, why the DM exec said he would independently take responsibility for refusing the pool!:
(9) No guest association shall conduct wagering on any race or races other than those approvedby the Board or simulcast by its host association. (10) No guest association, except as provided for in Business and Professions Code Section19605.3, may discontinue its operation nor conduct any activity which would causeinterruption of the signal without giving the Board and the host association prior written noticewithin fifteen (15) calendar days of such discontinuance or other change

[InTheRiver68]

You guys really need to get over this. Ernst made a decision to protect his organization's business interests ... good for him! That's his job! And remember, this is coming from someone who LOVES to bet against bridgejumpers.

- InTheRiver68

[bane]

What a bunch of JACKASSES! :D

[startngate]

I think this is the right one, why the DM exec said he would independently take responsibility for refusing the pool!:
(9) No guest association shall conduct wagering on any race or races other than those approved by the Board or simulcast by its host association. (10) No guest association, except as provided for in Business and Professions Code Section19605.3, may discontinue its operation nor conduct any activity which would cause interruption of the signal without giving the Board and the host association prior written notice within fifteen (15) calendar days of such discontinuance or other changeStill doesn't really cover it. Would be a huge stretch of this regulation ... which certainly the CHRB is capable of.

There might be a rule along the lines of Ohio's though.

3769.089 Simulcast horse racing
"In addition, in order for a permit holder to offer simulcasts of horse races conducted at facilities located outside this state, the permit holder shall offer all simulcasts of horse races conducted in this state made available to it."

Still doesn't specify all pools, but 'all simulcasts' could be interpreted to mean it.

You guys really need to get over this. Ernst made a decision to protect his organization's business interests ... good for him! That's his job! And remember, this is coming from someone who LOVES to bet against bridgejumpers. +1

[Phantombridgejumpe]

Did the mule win?

[SMOO]

They can get rid of bridge jumpers simply by eliminating breakage. Make the minimum payout $2.02.
:ThmbUp:

I'd love to get 3.57 instead of 3.40 or 3.50

BTW, the "official" reason for rounding off (down) was to get rid of pennies. Yet we now have 10 cent supers that pay off.......to the penny. :lol:

[cj]

I have to be honest here. Racing has many more important problems that I care about. I'm not going to lose any sleep over missing the opportunity to bet a mule to show.

[BMustang]

On Tuesday the mutuals manager at River Downs (Ohio) made the decision to cancel show betting in an 8 horse field, in an obvious attempt to avert a major minus pool.

I sent an E/Mail to Jack Hannessian, the GM, with a link to this thread attached, asking him how the incident cited here is different than that at River Downs.

While he did not reply the Mutuals Manager sought me out and informed me that it was strictly his decision, and that the stewards at River Downs nor did the mutuals manager at Thisledowns (our 7/7 partner) question him.

Obviously, in California there is a regulation governing when show pools are conducted but in Cincinnati, it is at the whim of the mutuals manager.

[kenwoodall2]

I have to be honest here. Racing has many more important problems that I care about. I'm not going to lose any sleep over missing the opportunity to bet a mule to show.
Just depends if you care about the principal if tracks can change state code just because they may be minus once in a long time. I do not get to break whatever vehicle code I want, and restaurants don't either!

[jamey1977]

Just depends if you care about the principal if tracks can change state code just because they may be minus once in a long time. I do not get to break whatever vehicle code I want, and restaurants don't either!
What a bunch of morons. They are about as lame as the Sore-Loser Casinos who throw-out successful black-jack players. You frickin fools have taken millions from us and there's a chance some bridge-jumper can take 5,000 dollars from you , morons and still taking extreme risk. I would never bet any 4 to 5 morning line on a 6 horse field. Even 100 thousand to show, The 6 and 5 horse fields are the hardest ones sometimes. No pace, just wild, anything can happen. These idiots should be outlawed from doing this. What's next cancelling win wagering on 2 horse fields. ? You idiots can go stuff it.

[jballscalls]

On Tuesday the mutuals manager at River Downs (Ohio) made the decision to cancel show betting in an 8 horse field, in an obvious attempt to avert a major minus pool.

I sent an E/Mail to Jack Hannessian, the GM, with a link to this thread attached, asking him how the incident cited here is different than that at River Downs.

While he did not reply the Mutuals Manager sought me out and informed me that it was strictly his decision, and that the stewards at River Downs nor did the mutuals manager at Thisledowns (our 7/7 partner) question him.

Obviously, in California there is a regulation governing when show pools are conducted but in Cincinnati, it is at the whim of the mutuals manager.

there are many tracks where it is at the whim of a manager. the reason they are doing it is so that they don't kill their simulcast partners who take their signal.

River Downs sells their signal to places all over the country. if they are putting out huge odds on favorites all the time (joe woodard anyone?) and lets say for instance Arlington Park trackside has a guy who is doing huge bridgejumping at River and hitting everytime, it's AP who is takiing the worst of it and having to pay out much of the negative pool. Therefore if AP keeps getting burned by River sending out short priced favorites, AP isn't going to continue to take River's signal, which in turn will cost RD money. So RD cancels show betting when there is an obvious spot for a Bridgejump

i don't like it, but this is why those decisions are made

[Stillriledup]

What a bunch of morons. They are about as lame as the Sore-Loser Casinos who throw-out successful black-jack players. You frickin fools have taken millions from us and there's a chance some bridge-jumper can take 5,000 dollars from you , morons and still taking extreme risk. I would never bet any 4 to 5 morning line on a 6 horse field. Even 100 thousand to show, The 6 and 5 horse fields are the hardest ones sometimes. No pace, just wild, anything can happen. These idiots should be outlawed from doing this. What's next cancelling win wagering on 2 horse fields. ? You idiots can go stuff it.


Here's the deliciously ironic part of it all. Is that these bets that they're NOT booking are long term losers. They're saying to no to money. Not only that, but when someone plunks down a large show bet, other people send money into all the other horses, so, not only do you make a profit when the heavy chalk is off the board at least 1 out of 20 times, but you make a profit on all the other horses from monies that you never otherwise would have seen.

There was a race last summer, i believe it was the summer, up in the No Cal fairs where a horse named Tribesman was banned from the show betting. When i saw this i was sick to my stomach because i knew he was a prime candidate to be off the board. You see, Tribesman is a one dimensional speed horse and if he doesnt get the lead, he probably won't hang around for 2nd and 3rd either. Sure enough, he got dueled into defeat by a horse who had an inside post and ran up the track. There was even a minus PLACE pool of like 30k. I took as much as i could take, but i was ill knowing that if 30k came in to place, its a lock that 100k would have come in to show.

NOT booking short term losing bets just shows you the mentality of tracks. These tracks have a short term philosophy, that's why they can't stand the thought of lowering takeout. They know in the short term they're going to lose a few bucks, but as time wears on, they'll get all that money back and then some.

The biggest problem with horse racing in America is that horse track managements know nothing about GAMBLING. They might know something about horses, but nothing about gaming. Racetrack managements running racetracks is like the delivery man who brings the supplies to a bakery actually coming inside and baking the bread also.

Thank god Betfair is inflitrating themselves into American racing, we need SOMEONE who 'gets it"

[InTheRiver68]

Here's the deliciously ironic part of it all. Is that these bets that they're NOT booking are long term losers. They're saying to no to money. Not only that, but when someone plunks down a large show bet, other people send money into all the other horses, so, not only do you make a profit when the heavy chalk is off the board at least 1 out of 20 times, but you make a profit on all the other horses from monies that you never otherwise would have seen.
OMG, Stillriledup, have you ever bothered to do the math on bridgejumping?

Are you even listening to yourself? They make their profit "at least 1 out of 20 times" when the heavy chalk is off the board. Okay, then do you know what happens when the heavy chalk is in the money 19 out of 20 times? They lose money on EACH of those races, and the amount they lose is bigger than the profit they made on that 1 race in 20.

The money they make on the "other horses" isn't enough to wash away the loss from the bridgejumper.

Also, bridgejumping *IS* a long-term loser for the tracks (and their simulcast outlets).

I'm too tired for logic, but I'll be back for more later.

- InTheRiver68

[Robert Goren]

I have to be honest here. Racing has many more important problems that I care about. I'm not going to lose any sleep over missing the opportunity to bet a mule to show.Amen to that.

[lamboguy]

this is just a prime example of what is wrong with racing. if it was up to them they would not even bother running the races and expect the customer to bring there money over and get nothing for it and not even make a bet. the game has got the wrong attitude. i see no solution but to completely clean house of these slobs and start fresh. even if it means suspending the sport for 2 years or more. almost every single fasset of the game is wrotten down to the core. for these guys to complain about maybe losing $1000 on an afternoon is crazy. i don't see them complaining about all that breakage money they recieve every single day 365 days a year that must amount to millions. maybe bridgejumping is a small loser to them, i would use it a loss leader, because the action that they get on those bets might turn out to someone giving up 25% takeout on a pick six ticket or some other ticket.

the more i think about it the more i come up with the conclusion that these guys running the show must be removed imediately from this sport,

[David-LV]

Joni James once sang a song that I think fits this situation, it was called:

"How Important Can It Be."

To spend this much time on a show bet in a mule race that will pay $2.10 if it runs in the top three is comical. :D

_________
David-LV

[Stillriledup]

OMG, Stillriledup, have you ever bothered to do the math on bridgejumping?

Are you even listening to yourself? They make their profit "at least 1 out of 20 times" when the heavy chalk is off the board. Okay, then do you know what happens when the heavy chalk is in the money 19 out of 20 times? They lose money on EACH of those races, and the amount they lose is bigger than the profit they made on that 1 race in 20.

The money they make on the "other horses" isn't enough to wash away the loss from the bridgejumper.

Also, bridgejumping *IS* a long-term loser for the tracks (and their simulcast outlets).

I'm too tired for logic, but I'll be back for more later.

- InTheRiver68


If you bet 2 dollars to show on a 2.10 horse, and you lose 1 out of 20, don't you break even?

If you make 10 cents twenty times, you double your two dollars and turn it into 4. If you lose one out of 20, you're back to square one. Nobody goes 20 for 20, they lose at least 1, maybe 2.

[InTheRiver68]

If you bet 2 dollars to show on a 2.10 horse, and you lose 1 out of 20, don't you break even?

If you make 10 cents twenty times, you double your two dollars and turn it into 4. If you lose one out of 20, you're back to square one. Nobody goes 20 for 20, they lose at least 1, maybe 2.
The math on the bettor's end is easy enough. I'm not disputing that you can make a small amount of money in bridgejumping, AS A BETTOR.

But you're complaining because the *tracks* are refusing to take show wagers in some situations where massive negative break is a possibility. You appear to think that because the bettor is able to eke out a small gain over the long run, that the track is making money on the wagers, too:

NOT booking short term losing bets just shows you the mentality of tracks. These tracks have a short term philosophy, that's why they can't stand the thought of lowering takeout. They know in the short term they're going to lose a few bucks, but as time wears on, they'll get all that money back and then some.

Except that logic is so flawed as to be comical. When the heavy chalk runs off the board, the tracks make their usual cut ... on a $200,000 show pool, that's about $12,000 (6%) that's divided between the host track and the simulcast outlets, in proportion to how much was bet at each location.

But when the heavy favorite runs in the money (and bridgejumpers rejoice because they get their 5%), the host track and simulcast outlet have to fork over anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000 or more (depending on their jurisdiction, and how revenue is distributed). And don't say, "well, they just don't get their commission", because it's more than that. They have to give up the commission PLUS another $10,000 to $30,000 more out of pocket ON TOP OF it, because the state still wants their taxes, the pension fund still wants their cut, the host track still wants their signal fee, etc. AND THIS HAPPENS 19 TIMES OUT OF 20. The tracks lose money 19 times out of 20 when they allow show pools with heavy favorites, and the chalk finishes in the money.

Bridgejumping is far and away a LOSING proposition for the tracks. Any reasonable person can see that. The only value it MAY have is in public relations ... 'yes, we offer the full wagering menu, even though we're taking a bath on bridgejumpers.' But to expect the tracks to bleed money just so one or two whales can make 5% on a fat show wager, just shows that some bettors have an amazing sense of entitlement.

- InTheRiver68

[InTheRiver68]

i don't see them complaining about all that breakage money they recieve every single day 365 days a year that must amount to millions.
Breakage almost always ends up being less than 1/2 of 1% of handle, and less than 2% of commission.

You'll get about $1M in breakage for every $250M in handle.

But breakage isn't free money for the track, any more than lost tickets are. The breakage and commission get lumped together and divided among every entity that has its hand out to the track ... horsemen (purses), bred fund, state, pensions, impact funds, etc. So really, the track doesn't get to "keep" $1M in breakage until they've gotten to about $750M in handle.

- InTheRiver68

[kenwoodall2]

The fact is, the host track whose secretary wrote (mule) race conditions so a mule can have those odds refused to cut out that race's show betting. The gripe should be with that raceing Secty. Chalk, chalk, chalk, means bad race making.

[Stillriledup]

The math on the bettor's end is easy enough. I'm not disputing that you can make a small amount of money in bridgejumping, AS A BETTOR.

But you're complaining because the *tracks* are refusing to take show wagers in some situations where massive negative break is a possibility. You appear to think that because the bettor is able to eke out a small gain over the long run, that the track is making money on the wagers, too:



Except that logic is so flawed as to be comical. When the heavy chalk runs off the board, the tracks make their usual cut ... on a $200,000 show pool, that's about $12,000 (6%) that's divided between the host track and the simulcast outlets, in proportion to how much was bet at each location.

But when the heavy favorite runs in the money (and bridgejumpers rejoice because they get their 5%), the host track and simulcast outlet have to fork over anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000 or more (depending on their jurisdiction, and how revenue is distributed). And don't say, "well, they just don't get their commission", because it's more than that. They have to give up the commission PLUS another $10,000 to $30,000 more out of pocket ON TOP OF it, because the state still wants their taxes, the pension fund still wants their cut, the host track still wants their signal fee, etc. AND THIS HAPPENS 19 TIMES OUT OF 20. The tracks lose money 19 times out of 20 when they allow show pools with heavy favorites, and the chalk finishes in the money.

Bridgejumping is far and away a LOSING proposition for the tracks. Any reasonable person can see that. The only value it MAY have is in public relations ... 'yes, we offer the full wagering menu, even though we're taking a bath on bridgejumpers.' But to expect the tracks to bleed money just so one or two whales can make 5% on a fat show wager, just shows that some bettors have an amazing sense of entitlement.

- InTheRiver68


Maybe you're not understanding what i'm saying.

My point is that this is a long run losing bet for the PLAYER. You're saying its a long run losing bet for the track. I'm not sure how a bet can be long run loser for both the player and the track. Someone has to win. If a player loses 2 out of 20, he's losing money which means the track, with all things being equal, is making money.

I just don't understand what you're saying.

[lamboguy]

Maybe you're not understanding what i'm saying.

My point is that this is a long run losing bet for the PLAYER. You're saying its a long run losing bet for the track. I'm not sure how a bet can be long run loser for both the player and the track. Someone has to win. If a player loses 2 out of 20, he's losing money which means the track, with all things being equal, is making money.

I just don't understand what you're saying.i have been betting minus pools for 3o years. it is the only bet that i am not losing on.

in today's world because of small handles, big players have taken on minus pools and i have to admit, they are the most stupid players i have ever seen in my life. i see lots of stake races with huge minus pools where there are competetive fields, lots of horses that have only one dimension, speed, are being bet today. so i understand where the perception is that the minus pool is a losing bet for the players. but its really not if you eliminate those very 2 factors from above
there was one last week at charles town with russel road in it, they bet $260,000 on him because they pay $2.20 in west virginia. the pace of the race was a big disadvantage for that horse. in my mind he was even money to run out. meaning if he doesn't get the lead he won't be on the board. he didn't make the lead and that led to $60, 90, $140 show payoffs. and those horses were easy to find. i though that 3 of them would have been on the board even if russel road won. if you play minus pools the only way you are supposed to lose is if the rider falls off, horse breaks down, or the judges disqulify the horse for some type of interference. there is the occasional time when the horse is just plain sick or has an injury, but most good trainers tend to pick those factors out before the race because most of the bridgejump opportunity's are with horses that have top notch trainers.
but all in all if you are just bridgejumping on where the money shows up you will go broke these days. i see about 1 in every 15 run out that has 80% or more of the show money on those horses.

[thaskalos]

The math on the bettor's end is easy enough. I'm not disputing that you can make a small amount of money in bridgejumping, AS A BETTOR.

But you're complaining because the *tracks* are refusing to take show wagers in some situations where massive negative break is a possibility. You appear to think that because the bettor is able to eke out a small gain over the long run, that the track is making money on the wagers, too:



Except that logic is so flawed as to be comical. When the heavy chalk runs off the board, the tracks make their usual cut ... on a $200,000 show pool, that's about $12,000 (6%) that's divided between the host track and the simulcast outlets, in proportion to how much was bet at each location.

But when the heavy favorite runs in the money (and bridgejumpers rejoice because they get their 5%), the host track and simulcast outlet have to fork over anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000 or more (depending on their jurisdiction, and how revenue is distributed). And don't say, "well, they just don't get their commission", because it's more than that. They have to give up the commission PLUS another $10,000 to $30,000 more out of pocket ON TOP OF it, because the state still wants their taxes, the pension fund still wants their cut, the host track still wants their signal fee, etc. AND THIS HAPPENS 19 TIMES OUT OF 20. The tracks lose money 19 times out of 20 when they allow show pools with heavy favorites, and the chalk finishes in the money.

Bridgejumping is far and away a LOSING proposition for the tracks. Any reasonable person can see that. The only value it MAY have is in public relations ... 'yes, we offer the full wagering menu, even though we're taking a bath on bridgejumpers.' But to expect the tracks to bleed money just so one or two whales can make 5% on a fat show wager, just shows that some bettors have an amazing sense of entitlement.

- InTheRiver68So the solution to this "bridgejumper" problem, is to have the manager scan the racing card, and eliminate show wagering from the races that may attract bridgejumpers...even if they are 8 horse fields?

[kenwoodall2]

You must have bet Hollendorfer chalk in sprints with an outside post?

[InTheRiver68]

So the solution to this "bridgejumper" problem, is to have the manager scan the racing card, and eliminate show wagering from the races that may attract bridgejumpers...even if they are 8 horse fields?
If the mutuel manager wants to take a proactive approach to it, yes. They could also set limits in the tote system so that you can't bet any more than $X to show in the race. Yes, you could just go from machine to machine, but it would discourage the biggest of the jumpers.

- InTheRiver68