Quote:
Originally Posted by Poindexter
I agree some, but I disagree more. The day this sport decided to rebate some players and not others, they made it an unfair game to the masses. I am not going to get into the whole rebate thing again(I have at least 100 posts on it, maybe 200), but the best even a lot of solid horseplayers can get to is maybe -10 % or -5 %. So if they want to lose a little or maybe make a little instead of donating constantly I am not going to hold it against them if they want to get good rebates. If racing was dealing from a fair deck (so to speak) I might fully agree with you. Yes it is unfair to participants of the sport, but it is also unfair to joe public that they can bet on track and get no rebate while Mr. Whale or just someone who happens to live in the right state might be getting 20% trifecta rebates at some tracks. Fix the game and I agree with you, until then, racetracks do what they choose to do to survive, why shouldn't players do the same.
|
I'd avoid offshore because I don't like to see a situation where no money is getting back to the tracks but your points are valid IMO. I would also add that the number of trainers who aren't above manipulating performance using legal (yes legal) drugs is now such a large number of trainers that the game is not what it once was in the pre-clenbuterol days or pre-lasix days and when they do this they do it IMO for their own wagering purposes i.e. to know when to zig while the public zags. They're not doing this for the integrity of the game, they're definitely not doing this FOR the players and yet the player's money is expected to get back to them. It's a broken system at the moment IMO. Things may get better, I'm optimistic.
