Bridge jumper on Zenyatta

Originally Posted by dalakhani

But Pgardn, why does bridgejumping have to be a consistent betting pattern? Why can't it simply represent value on an individual race basis?

I love to hear "value of the race". That comment is great especially when the "value" doenst have a realistic shot of actually winning. And how many times have you heard that? The best "value" to me is the bet most likely to win. And Dunbar brought up an excellent point- if there was no value in bridgejumping, why do tracks often cancel show betting in five horse fields?

We differ in this respect. I dont look at bridgejumping as an individual event. I look at it as an opportunity that occurs more than once and someone is going to bet it more than once. Taken as a whole, if you keep making the bets, I see getting stripped eventually.

You might see it as a bet made very, very infrequently. If we take the example that started the thread, you could definitley make some money with a big risk. So again it is how one evaluates risk. I think the risk of Zenyatta finishing out of the money is too large for the bet made for me. So the crux of the matter is how many times out of, lets say 100, does the horse finish out of the money? If your answer is 1, chances are you get stripped if you play it enough.

So in my view, I guess what you should be saying is I am going to play this way very infrequently. And your point is that each individual bridgejump is a diff. race and that is true. But even in the surest of these, I just think the risk of the horse finishing out of the money is too big even though the frequency of occurence is very low ( maybe 1 out of 100, and I think this is being very kind).

And tracks dont take the show bridgejumping bets because the pool just is not big enough to pay back 5% on a big bet. Now if the tracks actually gave you back what your bridgejump is really worth (instead of a mininum of 2.10 it would be the real pool money, say 2.0001) then you would not be making the bet. You are really using the fact the track will pay you that 5 cents on the dollar to your advantage. But in reality, if the track really crunched the pool numbers, they would be giving back some show bets of 1/100 of a penny because the bet was small and someone else came in and bridgejumped.
In other words, tracks could pay out show bets on four horse fields if they did not use 2.10 minimum. The payouts would most likely be pitifully low and no way to pay some patrons 1/100 of a penny they won instead of a dime.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by pgardn

We differ in this respect. I dont look at bridgejumping as an individual event. I look at it as an opportunity that occurs more than once and someone is going to bet it more than once. Taken as a whole, if you keep making the bets, I see getting stripped eventually.

You might see it as a bet made very, very infrequently. If we take the example that started the thread, you could definitley make some money with a big risk. So again it is how one evaluates risk. I think the risk of Zenyatta finishing out of the money is too large for the bet made for me. So the crux of the matter is how many times out of, lets say 100, does the horse finish out of the money? If your answer is 1, chances are you get stripped if you play it enough.

So in my view, I guess what you should be saying is I am going to play this way very infrequently. And your point is that each individual bridgejump is a diff. race and that is true. But even in the surest of these, I just think the risk of the horse finishing out of the money is too big even though the frequency of occurence is very low ( maybe 1 out of 100, and I think this is being very kind).

And tracks dont take the show bridgejumping bets because the pool just is not big enough to pay back 5% on a big bet. Now if the tracks actually gave you back what your bridgejump is really worth (instead of a mininum of 2.10 it would be the real pool money, say 2.0001) then you would not be making the bet. You are really using the fact the track will pay you that 5 cents on the dollar to your advantage. But in reality, if the track really crunched the pool numbers, they would be giving back some show bets of 1/100 of a penny because the bet was small and someone else came in and bridgejumped.
In other words, tracks could pay out show bets on four horse fields if they did not use 2.10 minimum. The payouts would most likely be pitifully low and no way to pay some patrons 1/100 of a penny they won instead of a dime.

Exactly Pgardn. Exactly! The bet should only be paying out 2.0001 and you are going to make 2.10. And thats a bad bet?

You are right though. Bridge Jumping a lot of times is a fools bet and the math that has been layed out in this thread no doubt supports that. No denying. But in the right situation, it seems like you are getting value because the payoff is much higher than it should be. At that point, it depends on how you, as you say, view the risk.

Thanks Pgardn.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Exactly Pgardn. Exactly! The bet should only be paying out 2.0001 and you are going to make 2.10. And thats a bad bet?

For me it would be akin to attending a sale in which I dont want to buy anything because the prices are still too high for the value of the product.

But thats me.

I am also famous for not liking Pik bets (and I got raked
for that) unless I really like all the races I am betting. I see it as more entertainment.
So I still put them together, I just realize I am not following
my usual betting principles. I dont/cant live off this game like
some apparently do.

[Scav]

What I would like to know is how the guy that put 200k on her got the money into the pool so quickly. With 3MTP, the money wasn't there, with 1MTP, the money was in there.

Now at Arlington, the max dollar amount wager is $250, which you can hit multiple times, so he would have had to have 800 $250 show bets on that horse here. Now, I have punched out a ticket 100 times before, and it has taken me about 4 minutes to do it, and that is just hitting the repeat button

[hockey2315]

Batch betting?

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Batch betting?

Excuse the ignorance.
But this sort of implies you would need more than one person placing
bets. Is this correct?

Cause I, like Scavs, dont get how you make a 200k bet in the last minute.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Excuse the ignorance.
But this sort of implies you would need more than one person placing
bets. Is this correct?

Cause I, like Scavs, dont get how you make a 200k bet in the last minute.

That's not what batch betting is. . . here's an explanation: http://www.chrb.ca.gov/committee_pac...pr2003PMOC.pdf

[robfla]

Originally Posted by Scav

What I would like to know is how the guy that put 200k on her got the money into the pool so quickly. With 3MTP, the money wasn't there, with 1MTP, the money was in there.

Now at Arlington, the max dollar amount wager is $250, which you can hit multiple times, so he would have had to have 800 $250 show bets on that horse here. Now, I have punched out a ticket 100 times before, and it has taken me about 4 minutes to do it, and that is just hitting the repeat button

I would imagine it was arranged ahead of time. Maybe even done in Vegas.

$1000.00 can go on each ticket ( 4 x 250 )

200 tickets

[Scav]

Originally Posted by robfla

I would imagine it was arranged ahead of time. Maybe even done in Vegas.

$1000.00 can go on each ticket ( 4 x 250 )

200 tickets

That is kinda what I was thinking but still, 200 tickets is no joke, that is about 1.5 or 2 inches worth of tickets, all having to be punched in 2 minutes, I dont see it.....

I am just curious how it was done, that is all..Maybe some totes can take a 1k bet, and then it would only be 50 tickets

[hockey2315]

Why are you assuming that some dude walked in to a track/sportsbook with $200K and placed the bet?