The Show Bet

[blackthroatedwind]

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.

[Alabama Stakes]

What is the criteria for determining what races won't have show betting? Is it field size ? Or someone's opinion that it might be risky to action in races where fillies like Songbird , or hosses like California Chrome are running ? What about the short field on the inner with the dropper that lays over the field in the first race, where it's him and 4 hosses with no run at all ? Who decides?

[Dunbar]

First, thanks for taking the time to spell out your reasoning.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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?

One upside IMO is creating a sense of fairness. Avoiding the perception that the track is greedy. Avoiding disappointing potential future bettors who came to make a trophy show bet on a famous horse. (like Morris said, I think.) Maybe Morris's future bettors are an illusion, but speaking for myself, yeah, I'm annoyed when a track cancels show betting. Granted, I'm hardly a typical bettor, but I know there have been times when I've been interested in betting a minus pool, but since I was betting that race (and only because I was betting that race) I capped the entire card. Not saying that's going to be a common situation with other bettors, just my experience.

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.

Just to be sure we're on the same page, I don't think I've ever argued that racetracks are run irresponsibly. And it's clear that cancelling show betting will save tracks money in the short term. What's not clear to me (and appears to not be clear to Santa Anita's Morris), is whether it's a net longterm winning policy. NTAMM wrote that he'd love to see the data on that. Me, too, but it's hard to think of how you'd parse the relevant info. I don't see how the Santa Anita approach can be dismissed without evidence that it's hurting them. I guess one could make the nuclear argument--that Santa Anita is exposing itself to a potential catastrophic loss, and that's what I was trying to explore with my 9-figure examples. But if we're limiting ourself to historic levels of minus pools, then IMO it remains to be seen whether the Santa Anita approach is foolish or healthy.

...
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.

Thanks for engaging. I do value your and NTAMM's opinions.