My guess on why SA might offer it is that they have found that a very small percentage is actually bet through SA ( or even Expressbet ) or maybe they aren't paying as much attention as I would. However, in a business where making money is extremely difficult, everything matters. What is the upside of offering these opportunities? False handle?
People are constantly suggesting that racetracks are not run responsibly. Perhaps in many cases they are correct. Not offering these bridge jumping opportunities, where essentially you become a bookmaker, the antithesis of what pari-mutual wagering is about, is part of running a responsible business, as by cancelling them, you limit your exposure in situations that over time are proven unprofitable. Yet, I see the same people that bitch about racetracks being run irresponsibly, gripe when show wagering gets cancelled. You can't argue both sides. Simply put, cancelling show betting makes fiscal sense. Racetracks that don't, unnecessarily put other simulcast outlets at risk, as well as themselves. Given the amount of wagering opportunities we offer as a whole, I have trouble seeing why responsibly not offering bets in these cases is unfair to our customers. Show wagering was not started with these kinds of situations in mind.
It often seems on the internet that people criticize us for everything we do ( some people ). They may be right some of the time....but not all of the time.
I hope this makes some sense to you.
__________________
Just more nebulous nonsense from BBB
|