Quote:
Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS
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.
|
Here's the problem with your misunderstanding of the truth.....the " host " track gets only a simulcast fee for bets taken, the bulk of the takeout is kept by the simulcast outlet, which is why it is " fair " that they, too, should be responsible for their share of the minus pool. You are acting like they aren't keeping any of the takeout, or at least just a small persentage of such, on these show bets.