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 08-25-2010, 03:16 PM   #16
startngate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 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 change
Still 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
+1
startngate is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-25-2010, 04:17 PM   #17
Phantombridgejumpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,242
Well...

Did the mule win?
Phantombridgejumpe is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-25-2010, 04:18 PM   #18
SMOO
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by therussmeister
They can get rid of bridge jumpers simply by eliminating breakage. Make the minimum payout $2.02.


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.
SMOO is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-25-2010, 06:37 PM   #19
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
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.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-25-2010, 07:49 PM   #20
BMustang
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 236
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.
BMustang is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-25-2010, 09:14 PM   #21
kenwoodall2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Still in Cali!
Posts: 677
Depends

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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!
__________________
If you cannot control the bettors, control the law.
kenwoodall2 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-25-2010, 11:56 PM   #22
jamey1977
Registered User
 
jamey1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 249
Idiots

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenwoodall2
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.
__________________
Winners Are Losers Who Got Up And Gave It One More Try.
jamey1977 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-26-2010, 12:09 AM   #23
jballscalls
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
jballscalls is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-26-2010, 02:03 AM   #24
Stillriledup
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamey1977
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"
Stillriledup is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-26-2010, 02:55 AM   #25
InTheRiver68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stillriledup
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
InTheRiver68 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-26-2010, 07:03 AM   #26
Robert Goren
Racing Form Detective
 
Robert Goren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lincoln, Ne but my heart is at Santa Anita
Posts: 16,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Amen to that.
__________________
Some day in the not too distant future, horse players will betting on computer generated races over the net. Race tracks will become casinos and shopping centers. And some crooner will be belting out "there used to be a race track here".
Robert Goren is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-26-2010, 07:56 AM   #27
lamboguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston+Ocala
Posts: 23,653
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,
lamboguy is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-26-2010, 10:10 AM   #28
David-LV
Veteran
 
David-LV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,188
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.

_________
David-LV
David-LV is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-26-2010, 10:29 AM   #29
Stillriledup
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheRiver68
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.
Stillriledup is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-26-2010, 12:52 PM   #30
InTheRiver68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stillriledup
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stillriledup
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 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:42 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.