The Show Bet

[pweizer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Racetracks are in the pari-mutual wagering business. There is an argument that races with bridgejumpers put the tracks in a situation where they have a rooting interest against a horse. I don't think this is what the laws that enable pari-mutual wagering had in mind.

Think about it.

Good point. But, the liability is relatively small since the track is only paying on track wagers and they still take money out of every bet. Non-betting races wouldn't attract many people. In the grand scheme of things, I think offering these bets would help more than hurt the bottom line.

Paul

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by pweizer

Good point. But, the liability is relatively small since the track is only paying on track wagers and they still take money out of every bet. Non-betting races wouldn't attract many people. In the grand scheme of things, I think offering these bets would help more than hurt the bottom line.

Paul

You wouldn't want to be responsible for that "relatively small" liability. It's not small.

As far as your last line....you are wrong. It's not close.

[ranger5830]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You wouldn't want to be responsible for that "relatively small" liability. It's not small.

As far as your last line....you are wrong. It's not close.

This all begs the question, why are there minimum payouts at all? When I was watching Irish racing a couple years ago, I saw many instances where successful "place" bets on big favorites paid less than $2 for each $2 wagered. They also offered penny breakage, which would be a huge boon to show bettors, but that's a different story. Even now, lots of UK races have big favorites that pay $2.04 to place. I think a similar payout structure here would eliminate a lot of the minus pools.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by ranger5830

This all begs the question, why are there minimum payouts at all? When I was watching Irish racing a couple years ago, I saw many instances where successful "place" bets on big favorites paid less than $2 for each $2 wagered. They also offered penny breakage, which would be a huge boon to show bettors, but that's a different story. Even now, lots of UK races have big favorites that pay $2.04 to place. I think a similar payout structure here would eliminate a lot of the minus pools.

I agree they should let the parimutual pool to play out as is and not have minimum guaranteed returns.

[Alabama Stakes]

Tracks like that $19,000 takeout on the $100,000 wager though. If there's a minus pool once in a while it should be considered the price of doing business.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You wouldn't want to be responsible for that "relatively small" liability. It's not small.

Are you referring to the financial liability of the minus pool or something else?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Are you referring to the financial liability of the minus pool or something else?

What else could I be referring to?