The Show Bet

[Benny]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/more/l...221-story.html

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Benny

http://www.latimes.com/sports/more/l...221-story.html

The most interesting part of the article was in the last few paragraphs. It explained something I've wondered about. Namely, why Santa Anita has the guts/sportsmanship/foresight to allow show betting on races with very heavy favs in short fields, but most other tracks, Aqueduct and Belmont for example, do not.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

The most interesting part of the article was in the last few paragraphs. It explained something I've wondered about. Namely, why Santa Anita has the guts/sportsmanship/foresight to allow show betting on races with very heavy favs in short fields, but most other tracks, Aqueduct and Belmont for example, do not.

Other bet takers would probably call that guts/sportsmanship/foresight something like inconsideration/selfishness/buffoonery.

[pweizer]

Silly me, I thought tracks were in the gambling business.

Paul

[casp0555]

Originally Posted by pweizer

Silly me, I thought tracks were in the gambling business.

Paul

as long as there is a profit

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by pweizer

Silly me, I thought tracks were in the gambling business.

Paul

Like any other business, they are obligated to avoid opportunities to lose money.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by pweizer

Silly me, I thought tracks were in the gambling business.

Paul

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.

[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?

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Like any other business, they are obligated to avoid opportunities to lose money.

Joe Morris, Stronach's senior VP for West Coast operations, argues in that article that selectively cancelling show betting is a net loser for racetracks and for horseracing in general.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Joe Morris, Stronach's senior VP for West Coast operations, argues in that article that selectively cancelling show betting is a net loser for racetracks and for horseracing in general.

I'd LOVE to see the data on that. Unless you know you will not take a show plunge from someone, you are bound to be exposed at some point if you take show bets in likely minus pool situations.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

What else could I be referring to?

Beats me. That's why I asked.

So you're apparently worried about the track getting hit big with a minus payout. Like someone brings $100 million to the track to bet on Chrome in a 5-horse race? (Or do it through his/her wagering account at the track?) That bettor would collect $500K for the bet, if it won. $500K is not a rare purse these days, and paying out an extra $500K is not going to do serious damage to a first rate track. The publicity of paying off a bet like that would be worth quite a bit. Or are you worried about a $billion bet?

At any rate, history (at Santa Anita) seems to suggest that no one is eager to put that kind of money on the line for the sorts of races in which New York tracks cancel showbetting.

[ranger5830]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Beats me. That's why I asked.

So you're apparently worried about the track getting hit big with a minus payout. Like someone brings $100 million to the track to bet on Chrome in a 5-horse race? (Or do it through his/her wagering account at the track?) That bettor would collect $500K for the bet, if it won. $500K is not a rare purse these days, and paying out an extra $500K is not going to do serious damage to a first rate track. The publicity of paying off a bet like that would be worth quite a bit. Or are you worried about a $billion bet?

At any rate, history (at Santa Anita) seems to suggest that no one is eager to put that kind of money on the line for the sorts of races in which New York tracks cancel showbetting.

5 percent of 100 million is 5 million, not 500,000. But beyond that, the bigger problem is that the bet-taker is also liable for the takeout on the 100 million, on top of paying out the 5 million in this example. Some of that is mitigated by the fact you would have significant play against such a huge wager, because theoretically anything can happen in a horse race, but not nearly enough to cover the expense.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Beats me. That's why I asked.

So you're apparently worried about the track getting hit big with a minus payout. Like someone brings $100 million to the track to bet on Chrome in a 5-horse race? (Or do it through his/her wagering account at the track?) That bettor would collect $500K for the bet, if it won. $500K is not a rare purse these days, and paying out an extra $500K is not going to do serious damage to a first rate track. The publicity of paying off a bet like that would be worth quite a bit. Or are you worried about a $billion bet?

At any rate, history (at Santa Anita) seems to suggest that no one is eager to put that kind of money on the line for the sorts of races in which New York tracks cancel showbetting.

I always found you very smart and reasonable....and now you are saying we are foolish to cancel show wagering because someone may bring $100 million to the track to make a show bet. Or maybe that someone has nine figures sitting around in an ADW account. By the way...a $100 million show bet would earn $5 million....but that's sort of irrelevant.

You always struck me as bright....and now you are telling me you think that the bet taker is only liable for the 5% the show bettor wins. Did you think this one through or just decide to attack? Serious question.

I am happy to discuss this with you, but for a guy that seemingly posted sensibly for years, you sure changed your tune quickly here. Much like just accepting what Joe Morris said at face value ( while ignoring Nick's response to you ).

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ranger5830

5 percent of 100 million is 5 million, not 500,000. But beyond that, the bigger problem is that the bet-taker is also liable for the takeout on the 100 million, on top of paying out the 5 million in this example. Some of that is mitigated by the fact you would have significant play against such a huge wager, because theoretically anything can happen in a horse race, but not nearly enough to cover the expense.

Thanks for saving me some time.

We also aren't even touching on what happens in those rare situations when an inordinately large show bet creates the "can't lose unless you mispunch" 2% opportunity.