Quote:
Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane
I don't see who was harmed or misled here. They guaranteed 600k prior to two legs of the sequence being cut from 24 horses to 11. Had they waited until after the first leg was run when bettors had placed their wagers expecting more bang for their buck then I could see your point.
These guarantees, no matter what jurisdiction are almost always meaningless. Marketing knows they will meet the threshold based on previous handle and field size. Someone was on the ball enough to recognize the scratches could affect handle and informed the public before the sequence began that there would be no guarantee. I don't mind playing if I know the rules going in.
Instead of being insulted by these hollow "big money guarantees" I would rather have them lower the takeout.
|
But that is the whole point, they are aimed to sucker people. I wasn't playing the sequence anyway and I surely don't fall for such nonsense, but a guarantee is not a guarantee if they can pull it when they want to, particularly when they think they can't get the minimum pool and actually have to put up what they have advertised. That is plain and simply false advertising. The definition of the word is clear.
Why make excuses in a situation where the track is plainly in the wrong? I'm tired of horseplayers making excuses when we are being insulted and that is what those that are defending it are trying to do.
If it is meaningless, then why do they advertise a guaranteed minimum pool?
If you know what the rules are going in, then please tell us exactly what circumstances they are permitted to pull their "guarantee?"