Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 08-09-2021, 07:55 AM   #76
Hedevar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago area.
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespaah View Post
Paddy Power/Betfair is owned by a holding company named Flutter Entertainment.
Wow/....This company owns a lot of sh...I mean Stuff.
LOL
https://www.flutter.com/
If you like, you can buy Flutter stock. It trades on the Pink Sheets. Symbol is PDYPY.
Hedevar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2021, 09:59 AM   #77
KingAnon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 26
I had something like $7 or $8 in my account and they took a dollar or two out of it as a penalty for not betting. I really wasn't happy about that at all. It's my money, not yours, and if I don't want to bet that's my decision only.
KingAnon is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2021, 11:02 AM   #78
moneyandland
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Saratoga, NY
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post
You don't understand what you're (writing) about - still.


The track "offered the wager". Your ADW does nothing but facilitate parimutuel wagering. This isn't like Vegas of old where the casino was merely booking bets.

There remains no "onus on the bettor to determine if (any parimutuel wagering) pool has the potential to be negative". Any bettor with a remote amount of understanding of parimutuel wagering knows that all parimutuel pools have the potential to be negative.



Nobody "routinely" "eliminates the option to make a show wager on potential minus pools". Every single pool out there is a "potential minus pool".

If you have no understanding yet as to how parimutuel wagering works, just ask somebody.


And please tell the crowd how one random person on an internet message board effects the bottom line of a bet-taker? What the heck does that gibberish even mean?


At the end of your time with TVG, you were habitually making wagers that each saw money coming out of your ADW's pocket to pay them off. The only negotiating point beyond that is amount.

For the same reason that the person betting $30 at the track should be afforded nearly all of the same courtesies known to a $300 bettor, the guy who is hitting his ADW for the negative pool on a $30,000 wager should be treated in the same way as the guy habitually hitting his ADW for the cost of the negative pool on his $30 wagers. You're both just as guilty - beyond that you are just the bean counter in your equation.


Nice try though!

I dont know what Im talking about? turn to the mirror bud.


You state "Nobody "routinely" "eliminates the option to make a show wager on potential minus pools".....
NYRA BETS absolutely does. If a horse shows any hint of a potential minus pool the bet is taken off the board.

When you talk about me "habitually making wagers that each saw money coming out of your ADW's pocket to pay them off" if 3 out of 600 bets is considered habitual over a 3 month period I guess we differ on the definition of habitual.

You mention the money coming out of there pockets from these bets, but fail to mention money going in them from other my other bets... That's where the bean counting comes in.

From your perspective of this if someone bets $30 show wager at Assiniboia 6 hours before the race and then 0 mtp someone bets $3000 and the pools end up $1000 negative, the $30 bettor should be banned also for contributing to a minus pool because he should of known that pool had potential to be negative. Ridiculous.
moneyandland is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2021, 11:31 AM   #79
moneyandland
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Saratoga, NY
Posts: 393
Seven and a half hours from post and NYRABETS has removed show wagering from the 1st at CT. This is the proper course of action for an ADW that doesn't wish to be hurt by minus pools, be proactive not reactive with suspension of an account after the fact. This is perfectly acceptable to me as it puts the onus on them to determine what bets to accept. Gambling on horse racing is hard enough to not have to factor in "will this wager get my account canceled"

Attached Images
File Type: png nyrabetsnoshow.png (170.3 KB, 4 views)

Last edited by moneyandland; 08-14-2021 at 11:35 AM.
moneyandland is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2021, 11:43 AM   #80
moneyandland
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Saratoga, NY
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post
You don't understand what you're (writing) about - still.


The track "offered the wager". Your ADW does nothing but facilitate parimutuel wagering. This isn't like Vegas of old where the casino was merely booking bets.

There remains no "onus on the bettor to determine if (any parimutuel wagering) pool has the potential to be negative". Any bettor with a remote amount of understanding of parimutuel wagering knows that all parimutuel pools have the potential to be negative.



Nobody "routinely" "eliminates the option to make a show wager on potential minus pools". Every single pool out there is a "potential minus pool".

If you have no understanding yet as to how parimutuel wagering works, just ask somebody.


And please tell the crowd how one random person on an internet message board effects the bottom line of a bet-taker? What the heck does that gibberish even mean?


At the end of your time with TVG, you were habitually making wagers that each saw money coming out of your ADW's pocket to pay them off. The only negotiating point beyond that is amount.

For the same reason that the person betting $30 at the track should be afforded nearly all of the same courtesies known to a $300 bettor, the guy who is hitting his ADW for the negative pool on a $30,000 wager should be treated in the same way as the guy habitually hitting his ADW for the cost of the negative pool on his $30 wagers. You're both just as guilty - beyond that you are just the bean counter in your equation.


Nice try though!

A simple "I'm sorry you were right, someone routinely does eliminate show betting." will suffice.
moneyandland is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2021, 10:41 PM   #81
Elkchester Road
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Near Lexington, KY
Posts: 3,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyandland View Post
Seven and a half hours from post and NYRABETS has removed show wagering from the 1st at CT. This is the proper course of action for an ADW that doesn't wish to be hurt by minus pools, be proactive not reactive with suspension of an account after the fact. This is perfectly acceptable to me as it puts the onus on them to determine what bets to accept. Gambling on horse racing is hard enough to not have to factor in "will this wager get my account canceled"
__________________
Just when you least expect it...just what you least expect-The Pet Shop Boys.
Elkchester Road is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply





Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
Wh deserves to be the favorite? (last 4 figures)
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.