![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I'm confused how offering opportunities to large bettors to make gigantic show wagers is an investment in the future.
__________________
Just more nebulous nonsense from BBB |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
“Songbird is the draw,” Morris said. “And then to take the big draw and tell newcomers they can’t make a bet on her is not a good decision. … We’re in the wagering business, so it should be difficult to a make a decision to not take a wager.”
__________________
Curlin and Hard Spun finish 1,2 in the 2007 BC Classic, demonstrating how competing in all three Triple Crown races ruins a horse for the rest of the year...see avatar photo from REUTERS/Lucas Jackson |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Just more nebulous nonsense from BBB |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() 6, 9, 6, 5 horse fields when she ran at Santa Anita, and was 1/20 in three of them. It was a virtual certainty there was going to be a minus show pool.
It's an interesting argument on what the impact of cancelling show wagering is. My take is any time you have a severely heavy favorite like this it hurts handle- the average OTB/home online player is going to see a 1/5 or 1/9 shot and pass. Los Al cancelled show AND place wagering on the CC "race" with the tomato cans- there was a negative win pool instead. Were they rooting for him to lose to avoid the negative pool? Of course not. (Note: on this example, while it was a minus pool, the track did not "lose" money- total takeout was roughly $110k vs a minus pool of $60k, so it merely made less.)
__________________
please use generalizations and non-truths when arguing your side, thank you |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|