Derby Trail Forums
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Gulfstream Screws the Bettors (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10283)

bugsoup 02-26-2007 06:40 PM
well then why not make it a pk.3 then. or better yet run it on the turf.
to me it won't hurt. its not to sat. before the big races. handicap for turf and dirt or as you know two different things.

plahotnyu 02-26-2007 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin
I think you're missing the point. No one is mad at the plain fact that they took the race off the turf.. The point is the decision about the 9th race could and should have been made BEFORE the 7th race even went off. It's not asking much for a little foresight by the track officials.(or maybe it is in this case)
No, I understand fully, that yes indeed the decision could have been made before the 7th, but we all know that the folks that run racetracks are not MIT graduates.

I'm glad there are still horses out back, 5 years from now, that's exceedingly doubtful--not hide nor hair in sight.

SCUDSBROTHER 02-26-2007 06:43 PM
They really should have cancelled that portion of the pick3 etc.,and gave out consolations to those who had the 1st two winners of the pick 3 etc. I am almost certain that Keeneland did this last fall,and it is not outrageous to cancel that portion of the multirace wager.People cap for a specific surface,and if they want to run it on another surface,then they need to not have multirace wagers on it.It really is simple.If people are not told that a race is gunna be on another surface(before they make a multirace wager that includes the race,) then they need to take that portion out of the multirace,and give consolations..............This whole idea of ........"you bet,and you're gunna get scrwd sometimes" is sad,and that garbage thinking is for losers.

blackthroatedwind 02-26-2007 06:53 PM
I agree there is always some risk, as Sent2Stud said, and it is just the nonchallant disregard to bettors' interests that irks me. Since I was told by maintenance that they considered taking off the 7th the least they could have done was made the decision on the 9th earlier than they did. It seems evident that our interests weren't even really disregarded....they simply never even considered them. And THAT is not right.

Plus, since they are often hasty in taking races off the grass, their decisions are at least open to debate. The basic problem is that little done by Gulfstream management reflects any interest in the concerns of bettors.

SentToStud 02-26-2007 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
Yes they ARE screwing people. Anybody that bet the late Pick-3, Pick-4 or Pick-6 was " screwed " as the race that ended up being run as the 9th race was quite simply NOT the race that was run. I never said they made a conscious decision to screw the bettors, as that would be absurd, and only someone desperately trying to infer something would suggest I did, however the result of their decision was that some bettors got screwed.

I spoke to the second in charge of maintenance at Gulfstream and his decision was not based whatsoever with the bettors' interests in mind. While certainly there are other factors, at the very least we are part of the equation. Since this gentleman also told me they thought about taking the 7th off but as there were only nine minutes til post they left it on, they surely could have, and should have, made their decision in regards to the 9th at that time, as least some late Pick-3 bettors could have been protected. it is 100% clear that the best interests of the bettors were disregarded, and while that may be a risk of the game, it does not change what happened. Considering their questionable removal of turf races in the past, where races were run the next day on turf labeled FIRM, all their decisions in this matter are dubious at best.
I'm not desperately trying to connote you're infering anything. Please, get past that for your sake. I could care less about trying to pretend that I am reading your mind and could shoot back and reply that anyone who is trying to infer that I am trying to connote they are inferring,... Frankly I don't care that much.

Notwithstanding what the second in charge of rakes and mowers said, it WAS raining and it WAS possible that the the 9th could come off. To borrow your word, it could be said that only desperate gamblers would not have thought about passing the 3 there.

blackthroatedwind 02-26-2007 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SentToStud
I'm not desperately trying to connote you're infering anything. Please, get past that for your sake. I could care less about trying to pretend that I am reading your mind and could shoot back and reply that anyone who is trying to infer that I am trying to connote they are inferring,... Frankly I don't care that much.

Notwithstanding what the second in charge of rakes and mowers said, it WAS raining and it WAS possible that the the 9th could come off. To borrow your word, it could be said that only desperate gamblers would not have thought about passing the 3 there.

I have issues....it should be obvious.

I hear what you are saying, and you certainly are far from totally wrong, but the incident is part of a pattern and racetracks have to consider our needs more than they do.

Rakes AND mowers? You're asking a lot.

point given 02-26-2007 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SentToStud
I'm not desperately trying to connote you're infering anything. Please, get past that for your sake. I could care less about trying to pretend that I am reading your mind and could shoot back and reply that anyone who is trying to infer that I am trying to connote they are inferring,... Frankly I don't care that much.

Notwithstanding what the second in charge of rakes and mowers said, it WAS raining and it WAS possible that the the 9th could come off. To borrow your word, it could be said that only desperate gamblers would not have thought about passing the 3 there.
I truly did think about passing the p3 for the last 3 races. I didnot have much time invested as i wasn't really playing today. Then I figured, hey its raining in the 7th race post parade, but they didnot announce that either the 7th or 9th races would be taken off the turf, so I will play it as it lays. The time to cancel the 9th turf race was during the 7th race post parade downpour and they didn't do it. That was their mistake. SCUDS had it right in calling for an" all payout" for the last race of the p3 in consolations for live tickets. I would have lost money on the deal, as i collected 1 conso and the p3, but it would have been the fair thing to do.

-BT- 02-26-2007 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
I agree there is always some risk, as Sent2Stud said, and it is just the nonchallant disregard to bettors' interests that irks me. Since I was told by maintenance that they considered taking off the 7th the least they could have done was made the decision on the 9th earlier than they did. It seems evident that our interests weren't even really disregarded....they simply never even considered them. And THAT is not right.

Plus, since they are often hasty in taking races off the grass, their decisions are at least open to debate. The basic problem is that little done by Gulfstream management reflects any interest in the concerns of bettors.
This could be a permanent thread:
(insert name of track ) Screws the bettors

It seems that tracks rarely have a management team that recognizes that it is the bettors that fund this game. As slots continue to grow will the horseplayer be totally forgotten?

SniperSB23 02-26-2007 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Dollar Bill
Gee..I wonder if they would change the 25 cents slots to 50 cents when people are playing them ? But the horse players can get jerked around every day.. Go Figure !:confused:
You think they would actually notice?

JJP 02-26-2007 11:51 PM
Lets not forget that Tuesday is a dark day so the grass would've gotten a full day off. And they re-did that turf course so they could alter the placement of the rail. What good is a portable rail if you take the races off every time there's a drizzle? But this is a track that cancelled racing two weeks ago when the main track had a little water on it. I'm glad I didn't play GP today. I would've been pissed.

blackthroatedwind 02-26-2007 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJP
Lets not forget that Tuesday is a dark day so the grass would've gotten a full day off. And they re-did that turf course so they could alter the placement of the rail. What good is a portable rail if you take the races off every time there's a drizzle? But this is a track that cancelled racing two weeks ago when the main track had a little water on it. I'm glad I didn't play GP today. I would've been pissed.

I made the same points about the rails to the maintenance person I spoke to.

jvendetti22 02-27-2007 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SentToStud
They're not screwing anybody.

Anyone think a bunch of Magna guys saw it start to rain (and hard for a while AFTER the 7th) went into a conference room and decided to use the weather as an excuse to screw the bettors?

So the race came off after p-4 and p-6 wagers were made.

That's the way it goes sometimes.

You makes your bets and you takes your chances.
Well spoken. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Congrats to you for not being a jaded horseplayer constantly looking to blame someone for a routine surface change to ensure the safety of the horses and the integrity of the racing surface for another day.

I have yet to see horseplayer who hits a PK3 after a late surface change give credit to the track for taking a race off the turf, but surely somebody hit the PK3 even with the surface change. Where is THAT thread?

blackthroatedwind 02-27-2007 12:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog
Well spoken. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Congrats to you for not being a jaded horseplayer constantly looking to blame someone for a routine surface change to ensure the safety of the horses and the integrity of the racing surface for another day.

I have yet to see horseplayer who hits a PK3 after a late surface change give credit to the track for taking a race off the turf, but surely somebody hit the PK3 even with the surface change. Where is THAT thread?
I actually made a lot of money in the 9th race today but since it was completely irrelevant to the topic I felt no reason to bring it up.

I'm not sure what a " routine surface change " is but I don't think today's events were routine. But, I handicap grass and dirt racing differently, so I think this was an important distinction.

By they way, racing on turf with give is not unsafe. Did you know they heavily water the courses in Europe to make them soft?

jvendetti22 02-27-2007 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
I actually made a lot of money in the 9th race today but since it was completely irrelevant to the topic I felt no reason to bring it up.

I'm not sure what a " routine surface change " is but I don't think today's events were routine. But, I handicap grass and dirt racing differently, so I think this was an important distinction.

By they way, racing on turf with give is not unsafe. Did you know they heavily water the courses in Europe to make them soft?
Maybe you haven't seen enough races, but when it rains at a racetrack, they 'routinely' take the races off the turf and run them on the dirt. This event at Gulfstream was not the first time it has ever happened. It happens quite often actually, and if you don't like the wagering rules regarding a surface change in a Pk3, then DON'T PLAY THE PK3.

Oh yeah, they also water the turf courses in America. That green stuff they call the 'turf' is actually grass and it requires water to grow.

Ghostzapperfan 02-27-2007 01:11 AM
At Churchill on July 4 of last year, this same thing happened, and they gave consolations to all Pick 3 tickets that had the first race winner.

This actually turned out good for me, since I had a somewhat longshot in the first race, the favorite in the second, and had 3 horses wheeled into the third race, which became an "ALL" winner.

Problem was, they had a tote problem, and couldn't cash the tickets that day. I lived in Ohio, and rarely went to Churchill, but wound up ahead on Breeder's Cup day when I cashed the tickets....

ALostTexan

SentToStud 02-27-2007 07:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog
Well spoken. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Congrats to you for not being a jaded horseplayer constantly looking to blame someone for a routine surface change to ensure the safety of the horses and the integrity of the racing surface for another day.

I have yet to see horseplayer who hits a PK3 after a late surface change give credit to the track for taking a race off the turf, but surely somebody hit the PK3 even with the surface change. Where is THAT thread?
Actually, I am very jaded. Ever since FOX rejected the pilot episode for my new series, "America's Top Over 40 Fat Nude Male Model" series (produced by, directed by AND starring me), I haven't been the same.

SCUDSBROTHER 02-27-2007 12:28 PM
At some point,this becomes a situation of simple courtesy to your customer.Can you instantly change track surface (legally) from turf to dirt? Yes,but if you don't take that race out of previously bet multi-race wagers,then you'll upset a good portion of your customers.Now,right here is the point where (traditionally) track owners and management have often stated (amongst themselves) that it doesn't matter.It doesn't matter,because gamblers are addicted,and won't leave.I simply disagree.I haven't made more than 3 or 4 bets this whole Gulfstream meet.The reasons for that are varied,but the fact is that gamblers can(and do) bet elsewhere when they don't like the way a track does things.

blackthroatedwind 02-27-2007 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
At some point,this becomes a situation of simple courtesy to your customer.Can you instantly change track surface (legally) from turf to dirt? Yes,but if you don't take that race out of previously bet multi-race wagers,then you'll upset a good portion of your customers.Now,right here is the point where (traditionally) track owners and management have often stated (amongst themselves) that it doesn't matter.It doesn't matter,because gamblers are addicted,and won't leave.I simply disagree.I haven't made more than 3 or 4 bets this whole Gulfstream meet.The reasons for that are varied,but the fact is that gamblers can(and do) bet elsewhere when they don't like the way a track does things.

I couldn't agree more.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 AM.
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.