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.

[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.

[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.

[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