|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
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.
Last edited by SCUDSBROTHER : 02-26-2007 at 08:47 PM. 
|
|
#2
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.
|
|
#3
02-26-2007, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
(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?
|
Hybrid Mode
