Quote:
A minus pool used to be the sole liability of the racetrack that carded the race. In recent years, however, according to Chris Scherf, the executive vice president of the Thoroughbred Racing Associations, most racetracks have added terms to their simulcasting contracts that allocate the liability for minus pools to the sites that took the wagers.
"Basically, the host tracks are saying, if you're bringing a bridge-jumper into the pool, then it's your responsibility."
|
The host tracks who do that are getting over.
If a bridge-jumper makes a 100K show bet and fails - they treat it no differently than any other bet.
However - if he wins - and scoops 5K - all of a sudden they want no part of paying off a minus pool.
How many bridge-jump plays in California alone have failed this winter? I know I can think of 5 right off the top of my head - and I'd bet there has been at least 7 or 8.
I don't blame the host track for wanting to get over - If I was employed by them to do simulcasting contracts .. of course I'd try every devious little trick and work every little angle to get over.
However, the fact remains, if you take all of the bridgejumpers action over the long haul ... you will certainly come out ahead.
If bridgejumpers all waited for monumental mis-match spots like Rachel Alexandra at Monmouth last year - or exploited mis-matches involving coupled entries at tracks that pay $2.20 minimums ... than yes - the bridgejumpers would most likely be coming out ahead in the longterm. That's not how it goes though.