First off, thanks for the kind words! Even if I've given you cause to re-think them, I appreciate it.

I'm sorry if my post seemed hostile. I was admittedly somewhat ticked at your "What else could I be referring to?" after I asked, "Are you referring to the financial liability of the minus pool or something else?". You could have simply said "Financial liability of the minus pool." (The reason I'd asked was that you had written earlier "There is an argument that races with bridgejumpers put the tracks in a situation where they have a rooting interest against a horse.", and I thought maybe there was a liability angle there that I was missing.)

Still, I didn't intend my numerically challenged response ($500K is indeed NOT 5% of $100M, so that's downright embarrassing!) to be hostile. I was trying to think how big a minus pool would have to be to impact a major track's bottom line. Can you give me an example of the level that would start to be painful.

I did take the Joe Morris comments at face value. I don't know a thing about the man beyond what was written in the article. Without other info, I'd normally think a person in that position would be competent. (Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of counter-examples.)

If you're still willing to discuss it, I guess my question now is why can Santa Anita allow show betting in races for which NY tracks would not allow show betting?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

I'm confused how offering opportunities to large bettors to make gigantic show wagers is an investment in the future.

from the OP's article:

“Songbird is the draw,” Morris said. “And then to take the big draw and tell newcomers they can’t make a bet on her is not a good decision. … We’re in the wagering business, so it should be difficult to a make a decision to not take a wager.”

She was in eight to ten horse fields as I recall. Probably not much risk, plus I am guessing that if they did their homework and made this choice, it was because they found that bridge jumping was not being done at their home track. I highly doubt they are risking tens of thousands of dollars, and possibly more, so that perhaps a few stray people can make a two dollar show bet. At least I would hope not.

6, 9, 6, 5 horse fields when she ran at Santa Anita, and was 1/20 in three of them. It was a virtual certainty there was going to be a minus show pool.

It's an interesting argument on what the impact of cancelling show wagering is. My take is any time you have a severely heavy favorite like this it hurts handle- the average OTB/home online player is going to see a 1/5 or 1/9 shot and pass.

Los Al cancelled show AND place wagering on the CC "race" with the tomato cans- there was a negative win pool instead. Were they rooting for him to lose to avoid the negative pool? Of course not.

(Note: on this example, while it was a minus pool, the track did not "lose" money- total takeout was roughly $110k vs a minus pool of $60k, so it merely made less.)