NYRA pulls show betting on La Verdad race

[blackthroatedwind]

What many people probably realize is that the simulcast outlet that takes a show wager is liable for any minus pool costs associated with that wager. However, what some may not know is that many simulcast outlets will not allow show wagering on a specific race even if the host track allows it. Subsequently, this will increase the likelihood of any bridge jumping taking place at the host track, or other sites that allow it.

In races with minus pools, those accepting those bets are essentially deviating from the pari-mutual system, and actually gambling on the results. It's sort of interesting.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

What many people probably realize is that the simulcast outlet that takes a show wager is liable for any minus pool costs associated with that wager. However, what some may not know is that many simulcast outlets will not allow show wagering on a specific race even if the host track allows it. Subsequently, this will increase the likelihood of any bridge jumping taking place at the host track, or other sites that allow it.

In races with minus pools, those accepting those bets are essentially deviating from the pari-mutual system, and actually gambling on the results. It's sort of interesting.

Isn't this a relatively new tactic for tracks to back away from taking a bet even though the law states that the minimum payout is 2.10? TVG was blaming NYRA for pulling show betting on that race even though as you said and I have witnessed them pulling show betting even when the track had it.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by jms62

Isn't this a relatively new tactic for tracks to back away from taking a bet even though the law states that the minimum payout is 2.10? TVG was blaming NYRA for pulling show betting on that race even though as you said and I have witnessed them pulling show betting even when the track had it.

I don't know. I would guess it has happened over time with the advent of simulcasting, which obviously increased the size and frequency of bridge jumping.

While I have learned not to accept second hand info, the use of the word "blame" seems unfair. If a track doesn't have show wagering, who else but them would have cancelled it?

I believe that the NY State law allows show wagering to be cancelled in Sweepstakes ( or Stakes ), but honestly, it's not exactly my department.

[Linny]

As someone who loves to bet against the bridgejumpers, I was disappointed to find I was unable to bet "all to show" on the Woody Stephens. I was at Belmont, so it had nothing to do with a 3rd party taking the bet. This is a new wrinkle as I often made the "all" wager when as few as 5 were running.