Xpress Bet Says No To Bridge Jumpers

[randallscott35]

Interesting

http://www.drf.com/news/xpressbet-po...iew-california

[The Indomitable DrugS]

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.

[justindew]

What the eff does "get over" mean?

[3kings]

Originally Posted by justindew

What the eff does "get over" mean?

This isn't from a dictionary but:
to take advantage of a person or situation, to use to your benefit, often without the other party knowing about it.

[Kasept]

I had an Email exchange with Meadow about this after he copied me in on the letter he sent to XpressBet, Hegarty, CHRB, et al Wednesday. It led to the surprising element of the scenario that individual bet-takers are responsible for the minus distribution they bring to the pool. I don't think too many people were aware of that.

The letter that went out was an auto-generated response triggered by a cap amount on a minus pool. They aren't closing anyone's account over occasional incidents, but they make the logical point that they cannot on a regular basis 'lose' money if someone is specifically making large bets like this. They also have tried to open wider discussion within the industry that these situations would be better shared equally by everyone that is co-mingling.

It's an interesting business dilemma, and I suppose you could point to casinos excluding card counters from their tables as a similar scenario. The thought also occurs that it may be a little disingenious of whales, whose rebate shops would never let them do this regularly, to be surprised when approached about the practice by their ADW.

Anyway, Barry Meadow will be on with me next week to talk about this and other player concerns.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I had an Email exchange with Meadow about this after he copied me in on the letter he sent to XpressBet, Hegarty, CHRB, et al Wednesday. It led to the surprising element of the scenario that individual bet-takers are responsible for the minus distribution they bring to the pool. I don't think too many people were aware of that.

The letter that went out was an auto-generated response triggered by a cap amount on a minus pool. They aren't closing anyone's account over occasional incidents, but they make the logical point that they cannot on a regular basis 'lose' money if someone is specifically making large bets like this. They also have tried to open wider discussion within the industry that these situations would be better shared equally by everyone that is co-mingling.

It's an interesting business dilemma, and I suppose you could point to casinos excluding card counters from their tables as a similar scenario. The thought also occurs that it may be a little disingenious of whales, whose rebate shops would never let them do this regularly, to be surprised when approached about the practice by their ADW.

Anyway, Barry Meadow will be on with me next week to talk about this and other player concerns.

What about doing away with the minimum payout and pay what the mutual pool math states.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I had an Email exchange with Meadow about this after he copied me in on the letter he sent to XpressBet, Hegarty, CHRB, et al Wednesday. It led to the surprising element of the scenario that individual bet-takers are responsible for the minus distribution they bring to the pool. I don't think too many people were aware of that.

The letter that went out was an auto-generated response triggered by a cap amount on a minus pool. They aren't closing anyone's account over occasional incidents, but they make the logical point that they cannot on a regular basis 'lose' money if someone is specifically making large bets like this. They also have tried to open wider discussion within the industry that these situations would be better shared equally by everyone that is co-mingling.

It's an interesting business dilemma, and I suppose you could point to casinos excluding card counters from their tables as a similar scenario. The thought also occurs that it may be a little disingenious of whales, whose rebate shops would never let them do this regularly, to be surprised when approached about the practice by their ADW.

Anyway, Barry Meadow will be on with me next week to talk about this and other player concerns.

It's their business, they can do what they want, but Doug makes the key distinction which is that over the long term bridge jumpers get burned. Maybe a simple cap on the total wager they will payout at 2.10, say 10 grand...I find it hard to believe they would boot someone for winning 500 on an individual bet if they are willing to continually risk 10k on a show fave.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Kasept

It's an interesting business dilemma, and I suppose you could point to casinos excluding card counters from their tables as a similar scenario.

Downright horrible comparison Steve!

Card counters can gain a slim edge and bleed the casinos. If you took the ROI of bridgejumpers this year ... in California especially ... I can promise you that they've been absolutely crushed!

And don't get me wrong ... if I was trying to get over on someone who I knew was utterly clueless ... I'd make that exact same comparison with card counting that you did.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Kasept

It led to the surprising element of the scenario that individual bet-takers are responsible for the minus distribution they bring to the pool. I don't think too many people were aware of that.

With all due respect......WRONG.

[blackthroatedwind]

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.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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.

You're right.

Simulcast contracts - and who gets what of what - is an area I have absolutely no experience with. And it would be a gigantic waste of time for me to research that aspect.

However - generally speaking - bridgejump bettors are nothing like card counters. If anything they probably lose at a rate close to or above takeout. When they lose - some entity is gaining a lot of added handle... and over the long haul ... it's going to be enough to offset the liabilty of negative pools here and there.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You're right.

Simulcast contracts - and who gets what of what - is an area I have absolutely no experience with. And it would be a gigantic waste of time for me to research that aspect.

However - generally speaking - bridgejump bettors are nothing like card counters. If anything they probably lose at a rate close to or above takeout. When they lose - some entity is gaining a lot of added handle... and over the long haul ... it's going to be enough to offset the liabilty of negative pools here and there.

The analogy was stupid....that goes without saying.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You're right.

Simulcast contracts - and who gets what of what - is an area I have absolutely no experience with. And it would be a gigantic waste of time for me to research that aspect.

However - generally speaking - bridgejump bettors are nothing like card counters. If anything they probably lose at a rate close to or above takeout. When they lose - some entity is gaining a lot of added handle... and over the long haul ... it's going to be enough to offset the liabilty of negative pools here and there.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The analogy was stupid....that goes without saying.

The analogy was not stupid at all. Bridgejumpers like Meadow are very much like cardcounters, and kasept's analogy is on the mark. There are a lot of blackjack players who know enough to to call themselves cardcounters, but who do not play with an edge. That doesn't mean cardcounting doesn't work.

Meadow is an expert card counter. He's used to finding opportunities where he has an edge. I'm confident that he would not be making these show bets without having done a lot broader study of it than trying to draw conclusions from a few recent races.

In both cases, bridgejumping and cardcounting, the "house" is trying to keep someone from making perfectly legal bets, because the "house" does not like situations where it thinks a player has the advantage.

If skill-less bridgejumpers are also being backed off, there's a cardcounting precedent for that, too. Casinos will occasionally jump the gun and ask a semi-skilled player to not play anymore. Collateral damage.

--Dunbar

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Good luck to him and his $2,400 bridge-jump bets out there - where he has to be right 20 out of 21 times at the $2.10 minimum.

I can promise you he has no edge. More and more - they're cancelling show wagering in the truest mis-matches out there.

[Dunbar]

XPressbet threatens Barry Meadow with account closure because of large show bets:

http://www.drf.com/news/time-show-be...t-they-deserve

Here's what Expressbet wrote to Meadow according to Crist's article:

“Dear Mr. Meadow, Recently your account has fallen under internal review for unusual wagering activity . . . . Because certain regulations require minimum payouts on winning bets, this requires the wagering host (in this case, XpressBet) to contribute additional funds to compensate for the ‘negative breakage’ created. Due to these actions, this letter is serving as a warning that if such irregular and improper wagering activity continues, your account will be subject to closure as allowed per the Terms and Conditions you agreed to when you opened your account . . . "

"improper wagering activity"??? As Crist points out, if Meadow were at the track, his bets would have been accepted without complaint. Where does Xpressbet get off sending a "warning" about "improper wagering activity"?!

I had a related experience with YouBet a couple of years ago. After a couple of very large show bets, they prohibited me from betting more than $500 to show. They accomplished it through the software. Never announced it to me, either. They just flipped some software switch that maxed my show bets at $500. I resented it, but never pursued it as Meadow is doing.

I hope Meadow gets some kind of satisfaction from XPressbet.

--Dunbar

[randallscott35]

already a thread on this

[joeydb]

Steve,

Was there any mention of whether the restriction was implemented as account-specific versus wager-specific? In other words, if Barry made 5 bets @ $500 would the restriction still apply?

I realize that the message to him was in reference to his account, not the wagers.

There should not be a fear element induced in pari-mutuel wagering. This is sounding too similar to the practices of bookmakers in the UK where if you're too good too often, they won't take your action.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Was there any mention of whether the restriction was implemented as account-specific versus wager-specific? In other words, if Barry made 5 bets @ $500 would the restriction still apply?

I'm pretty sure the software would prevent that.

Offshore rebate sites always deny you a rebate on winning wagers that pay $2.20 or less ... but they still pay you a rebate on losing wagers - so if the bridge jump fails you'll at least get a rebate out of it.

In instances like the race above at Charles Town - the software will refuse all action after about $100.

[VOL JACK]

To each his own but, this game is about putting up a little to hopefully cash for a lot in exotics.

I can't imagine risking a ton of to make a 10% profit.
I guess the are the people that make the stock market comparison.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I'm pretty sure the software would prevent that.

Offshore rebate sites always deny you a rebate on winning wagers that pay $2.20 or less ... but they still pay you a rebate on losing wagers - so if the bridge jump fails you'll at least get a rebate out of it.

In instances like the race above at Charles Town - the software will refuse all action after about $100.

No emails would've been sent had he lost.