XpressBet policy prompts review in California

[takeout]

This is rich :) :

http://www.drf.com/news/xpressbet-policy-prompts-review-california

[trying2win]

TAKEOUT:

Thank you for the link to that DRF article. I'm guessing that Barry Meadow found some races in which he felt the favorites were weak 'bridgejumper specials', and decided to capitalize on those opportunties by betting one or more other horses in those particular races to show, in the hope that the hot favorite would run out-of-the-money and he would be rewarded with one or more big show payoffs. I'm also guessing in those two particular races, that the hot favorites still managed to finish in-the-money along with the horses that Barry Meadow bet, and thus raising the ire of track officials because of Barry's big show bets.

It doesn't mention in the article if track management ever threatens to close accounts of customers who bet heavy amounts to show on 'bridgejumper specials'. Aren't they a cause of concern for minus pools for track managements too? Will track executives start to eliminate show betting on more horses going off at less than even money on the morning line in the future? I don't know.

T2W

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
~"I lost $2 at Santa Anita and I've spent $3 million trying to get it back."

--Mickey Rooney

[PaceAdvantage]

Why would an ADW be concerned about an anti-bridgejumper? If Barry was betting AGAINST the heavy favorite to show, he wouldn't be contributing to a minus show pool, and thus he wouldn't be putting the ADW on the hook to make up the difference.

[thaskalos]

And then the racetrack executives have the gall to say that, in this game, the horseplayer is NOT betting against the house...

Closing players' accounts because of legitimate winning wagers is spineless. If the tracks don't want to subject themselves to the financial risk of the minus pools, then they should stop offering the show bet. You can't have it both ways.

There is no more pathetic sight than a scared bookie...

[takeout]

You beat me to it. Ditto that!

Crist weighs in on it:
http://www.drf.com/news/time-show-bettors-get-paid-what-they-deserve

[Zman179]

Is there a difference between threatening to close an ADW account due to bridgejumping and a casino throwing someone out because they're win too much, too often?

[Tom]

Is there a difference between threatening to close an ADW account due to bridgejumping and a casino throwing someone out because they're win too much, too often?

No, both are signs of bottom feeding cowards.
Regulation is needed.

[cj]

Is there a difference between threatening to close an ADW account due to bridgejumping and a casino throwing someone out because they're win too much, too often?

Yes, one is paramutuel. If the tracks didn't card crappy races there wouldn't be a lot of bridgejumping.

[Stillriledup]

Steve Crist weighs in on this.

http://www.drf.com/news/time-show-bettors-get-paid-what-they-deserve

[PaceAdvantage]

Steve Crist weighs in on this.

http://www.drf.com/news/time-show-bettors-get-paid-what-they-deserveWow man...proof positive you don't even read the threads you post in...

Sad, man...sad...

(pssst...reply #5)

[Rise Over Run]

It' s been a year since I wagered through NJBETS, but they routinely removed show wagering availabilty on races where show wagering is offered at the host track.

[Robert Goren]

I am not so sure that an ADW would consider losing CA race tracks a disaster anymore.

[takeout]

The absurdness of it all was discussed on the Roger Stein show.

http://www.rogerstein.com/radio/archive2.asp

Saturday 03/26/2011(WMA)

Starts at 22:20 in.

[Robert Fischer]

BULL SH*T! BS! BS! http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/smilies/43.gif

[takeout]

I am not so sure that an ADW would consider losing CA race tracks a disaster anymore.Me either, except that Stronach pretty much owns this whole train wreck himself (XpressBet and the two tracks involved). Wouldn’t it be ironic if his ADW couldn’t take bets from his own CA tracks. :)

[Zman179]

Yes, one is paramutuel. If the tracks didn't card crappy races there wouldn't be a lot of bridgejumping.

Literally speaking, it's only pari-mutuel if a wager doesn't create a minus pool, otherwise it creates a bookmaker out of the bet taker (and we all remember how Vegas would treat horse bettors when they used to book). Remember how the tracks have always painted pari-mutuels in saying that, "With pari-mutuel wagering, the track doesn't have any interest in the outcome of a race." Well, except...

[HUSKER55]

singling people out like that is wrong. If this is really a big issue then close the betting when the payout hits $2.20 for everyone and avoid this issue altogether.

But I don't play show pools.

[cj]

Literally speaking, it's only pari-mutuel if a wager doesn't create a minus pool, otherwise it creates a bookmaker out of the bet taker (and we all remember how Vegas would treat horse bettors when they used to book). Remember how the tracks have always painted pari-mutuels in saying that, "With pari-mutuel wagering, the track doesn't have any interest in the outcome of a race." Well, except...

I get that, but the tracks have control over what races they actually card. Anyone that has gone to the track for a few weeks can figure out races where a minus pool might occur.

[TurfRuler]

It's sad to see that ADW's don't want any "Phamton Plungers" to take home $130 on a show bet when the wager could be lost to the tune of thousands from a measly personal bankroll.... :ThmbDown:

[Kelso]

If the tracks didn't card crappy races there wouldn't be a lot of bridgejumping.And therein lies the key ... grossly uncompetitive races. The tracks should pay the entire price for those races.

Is there a formal association of ADWs? Its time for them to fight back. Bridgejumpers are caused by tracks, not by ADWs.

Perhaps they can start by refusing to book any show bets at any track that refuses to pay the entire price for carding races that invite bridge jumpers.

If necessary, an ADW industry-wide boycott against an individual track or two might get the ball rolling. It's clear ... and the tracks must know it even if they might not admit it ... that ADWs are a colossal percentage (even the largest piece?) of tracks' total handle.

ADWs' have also demonstrated (although not their preference) that they can exist without carrying every track. My guess is that few, if any, tracks can exist without any ADWs bringing customers into their pools.

[mannyberrios]

Can Hanna do something about this?

[Coleman]

Not much chance of ADWs boycotting tracks when the largest ADWs and the largest tracks are co-owned.

[Coleman]

Another solution: .05 breakage, with .05 minimum payouts. Or do what they do in England: if there is a negative pool, a 2.00 bet gets you...2.00. In Ireland you get a 2.04 payout for who knows what reason (Irish sense of humor?)

I'm not sure why ADWs take West Virginia tracks; with their 2.20 minimums it's the Bridge-Jumping State. Same for Suffolk, if they manage to survive.