Xpress Bet Says No To Bridge Jumpers

[robfla]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Here's the chart of the race I was talking about from the 2010 Preakness Day.

It was a race at Calder and the 1/10 favorite broke down on the lead.

http://www1.drf.com/drfNCWeeklyHorse...0515&raceNo=10

Someone I was sitting near had $8,000 bet to show on the horse. There were other bridgejumpers who took a bath with him on this horse.

I remember this race precisely. I had Pick 3's worth $900 with him winning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-GCc...feature=relmfu

[pointman]

The shocking thing here to me is that someone was actually publically willing to admit that they are a bridgejumper.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by pointman

The shocking thing here to me is that someone was actually publically willing to admit that they are a bridgejumper.

Believe it or not .... every once and a blue moon a situation comes along where it makes perfect sense to toss a couple grand at a bridgejump horse.

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/sho...t=bridgejumper

Mostly though - it's a highly idiotic play.

[mark2061mn]

According to Steve Crist article the guy made a $2600 bet for a $130 profit at GG and a $2400 bet for a $120 profit at SA. Those bets aren't bridgejumping, maybe stoop jumping but not bridgejumping. If that is correct this is totally ridiculous of Xpressbet.


http://www.drf.com/news/time-show-be...t-they-deserve

[Dunbar]

XPressbet threatens Barry Meadow with account closure because of large show bets:

http://www.drf.com/news/time-show-be...t-they-deserve

Here's what Expressbet wrote to Meadow according to Crist's article:

“Dear Mr. Meadow, Recently your account has fallen under internal review for unusual wagering activity . . . . Because certain regulations require minimum payouts on winning bets, this requires the wagering host (in this case, XpressBet) to contribute additional funds to compensate for the ‘negative breakage’ created. Due to these actions, this letter is serving as a warning that if such irregular and improper wagering activity continues, your account will be subject to closure as allowed per the Terms and Conditions you agreed to when you opened your account . . . "

"improper wagering activity"??? As Crist points out, if Meadow were at the track, his bets would have been accepted without complaint. Where does Xpressbet get off sending a "warning" about "improper wagering activity"?!

I had a related experience with YouBet a couple of years ago. After a couple of very large show bets, they prohibited me from betting more than $500 to show. They accomplished it through the software. Never announced it to me, either. They just flipped some software switch that maxed my show bets at $500. I resented it, but never pursued it as Meadow is doing.

I hope Meadow gets some kind of satisfaction from XPressbet.

--Dunbar

[randallscott35]

already a thread on this

[joeydb]

Steve,

Was there any mention of whether the restriction was implemented as account-specific versus wager-specific? In other words, if Barry made 5 bets @ $500 would the restriction still apply?

I realize that the message to him was in reference to his account, not the wagers.

There should not be a fear element induced in pari-mutuel wagering. This is sounding too similar to the practices of bookmakers in the UK where if you're too good too often, they won't take your action.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Was there any mention of whether the restriction was implemented as account-specific versus wager-specific? In other words, if Barry made 5 bets @ $500 would the restriction still apply?

I'm pretty sure the software would prevent that.

Offshore rebate sites always deny you a rebate on winning wagers that pay $2.20 or less ... but they still pay you a rebate on losing wagers - so if the bridge jump fails you'll at least get a rebate out of it.

In instances like the race above at Charles Town - the software will refuse all action after about $100.

[VOL JACK]

To each his own but, this game is about putting up a little to hopefully cash for a lot in exotics.

I can't imagine risking a ton of to make a 10% profit.
I guess the are the people that make the stock market comparison.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I'm pretty sure the software would prevent that.

Offshore rebate sites always deny you a rebate on winning wagers that pay $2.20 or less ... but they still pay you a rebate on losing wagers - so if the bridge jump fails you'll at least get a rebate out of it.

In instances like the race above at Charles Town - the software will refuse all action after about $100.

No emails would've been sent had he lost.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

No emails would've been sent had he lost.

True. Good point. They should let him play as much as he wants.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Crist's column was great by the way.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You're right.

Simulcast contracts - and who gets what of what - is an area I have absolutely no experience with. And it would be a gigantic waste of time for me to research that aspect.

However - generally speaking - bridgejump bettors are nothing like card counters. If anything they probably lose at a rate close to or above takeout. When they lose - some entity is gaining a lot of added handle... and over the long haul ... it's going to be enough to offset the liabilty of negative pools here and there.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The analogy was stupid....that goes without saying.

The analogy was not stupid at all. Bridgejumpers like Meadow are very much like cardcounters, and kasept's analogy is on the mark. There are a lot of blackjack players who know enough to to call themselves cardcounters, but who do not play with an edge. That doesn't mean cardcounting doesn't work.

Meadow is an expert card counter. He's used to finding opportunities where he has an edge. I'm confident that he would not be making these show bets without having done a lot broader study of it than trying to draw conclusions from a few recent races.

In both cases, bridgejumping and cardcounting, the "house" is trying to keep someone from making perfectly legal bets, because the "house" does not like situations where it thinks a player has the advantage.

If skill-less bridgejumpers are also being backed off, there's a cardcounting precedent for that, too. Casinos will occasionally jump the gun and ask a semi-skilled player to not play anymore. Collateral damage.

--Dunbar

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Good luck to him and his $2,400 bridge-jump bets out there - where he has to be right 20 out of 21 times at the $2.10 minimum.

I can promise you he has no edge. More and more - they're cancelling show wagering in the truest mis-matches out there.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Good luck to him and his $2,400 bridge-jump bets out there - where he has to be right 20 out of 21 times at the $2.10 minimum.

I can promise you he has no edge. More and more - they're cancelling show wagering in the truest mis-matches out there.

Well, I guess that settles it. Barry will be terribly disappointed to hear that you've determined he has no edge.

--Dunbar

[Seattleallstar]

I regularly put 4 digit win bets and have had no problems with TVG

[3kings]

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

I regularly put 4 digit win bets and have had no problems with TVG

Why would there be? When was the last time you saw a negative pool for win?