NYRA pulls show betting on La Verdad race
 

Race met minimum number of starters yet they pull show betting. :zz: they still need to run the damn race and we all have been here long enough to have seen unbeatable horses run out of the money.

Paid workout complete. Won by 7 in textbook hand ride. Negative place pool if my calculation is correct.

A guy here had place money on the 2 and his money was refunded. I had place money on the 4 and my money was NOT REFUNDED. That is basically stealing money. Hey Andy please explain this?

Update. He was paid on his place bet and I lost on my place bet so everything is square. Still pulling the show bet is total bullshit.

This has been a recent trend at NYRA. In both the Woody Stephens (due to the presence of Competitive Edge) and Ogden Phipps (Untapable), no show wagering was taken despite having six horse fields. It would be interesting to know who is making these decisions.

The Big M used to have a daily list of no show bets years ago aimed at the high rollers who needed to bet alot for thirr higher rebate levels when they were te highest simo $$ location in the country, don't know now adays.

What many people probably realize is that the simulcast outlet that takes a show wager is liable for any minus pool costs associated with that wager. However, what some may not know is that many simulcast outlets will not allow show wagering on a specific race even if the host track allows it. Subsequently, this will increase the likelihood of any bridge jumping taking place at the host track, or other sites that allow it.

In races with minus pools, those accepting those bets are essentially deviating from the pari-mutual system, and actually gambling on the results. It's sort of interesting.

Isn't this a relatively new tactic for tracks to back away from taking a bet even though the law states that the minimum payout is 2.10? TVG was blaming NYRA for pulling show betting on that race even though as you said and I have witnessed them pulling show betting even when the track had it.

I don't know. I would guess it has happened over time with the advent of simulcasting, which obviously increased the size and frequency of bridge jumping.

While I have learned not to accept second hand info, the use of the word "blame" seems unfair. If a track doesn't have show wagering, who else but them would have cancelled it?

I believe that the NY State law allows show wagering to be cancelled in Sweepstakes ( or Stakes ), but honestly, it's not exactly my department.

As someone who loves to bet against the bridgejumpers, I was disappointed to find I was unable to bet "all to show" on the Woody Stephens. I was at Belmont, so it had nothing to do with a 3rd party taking the bet. This is a new wrinkle as I often made the "all" wager when as few as 5 were running.