Del Mar cancels show betting on a Ferndale race.

[InTheRiver68]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

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]

Originally Posted by InTheRiver68

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]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

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]

Originally Posted by InTheRiver68

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

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?

[kenwoodall2]

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

[InTheRiver68]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

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