Horse Racing Question Re Minus Pools

attn: Dead, Keeneone, thatDonGuy and anyone else

If you were betting Charlestown and you saw a very strong horse in a short 5 or 6 horse field that was sure to generate a minus pool in the show pool;
And you know that WVA regulations require the minimum show profit to be DOUBLE that of everywhere else; 2.20 instead of 2.10 or 10% profit instead of 5%;
And this horse was a legit speedster who wouldn't have closer problems in a very short 4.5 furlong stakes race and is clearly way faster with way higher Beyers and of a higher class than its' closest rival;
And you are thinking that this horse will surely win unless he has a hidden injury or there is an incident on the track;
Although it is not really easy to estimate the probability that this horse will show;
How would you regard making a large bet in the show pool?
Would you say this type of bet is:



1. Terrible

2. Marginal

3. A Good Bet

4. A Great Bet

I'm pretty sure that back in the day all minimum payouts were $2.20 and this was gradually changed to $2.10 almost everywhere probably due to greed but possibly because they analyzed the $2.20 payout and found that many bettors were getting too good a deal. This is an interesting paste from a DRF article stating that plunger Barry Meadow made a big show bet paying $2.10 and Expressbet then threatened to close his account.


"Barry Meadow, a prominent handicapping author and horseplayer, is a contrarian whose favorite bet is the pick six but who also makes the occasional show bet expecting only a $2.10 for $2 payoff. As a pioneering proponent of value betting, he believes there are situations when a horse’s (or a coupled entry’s) true chances of running third or better are so high that a mere 5 percent profit is actually a bargain. He recently made two such winning online wagers on coupled entries, betting $2,600 for a $130 profit at Golden Gate and $2,400 for a $120 profit at Santa Anita.

“These are legal bets,” Meadow said. “A similar bet ontrack would have gotten me a thank you.“

Instead, Meadow got a letter from a customer-service manager at Xpressbet, the ADW through which he placed the two show wagers:

“Dear Mr. Meadow, Recently your account has fallen under internal review for unusual wagering activity . . . . Because certain regulations require minimum payouts on winning bets, this requires the wagering host (in this case, XpressBet) to contribute additional funds to compensate for the ‘negative breakage’ created. Due to these actions, this letter is serving as a warning that if such irregular and improper wagering activity continues, your account will be subject to closure as allowed per the Terms and Conditions you agreed to when you opened your account . . . ”"

Could it be value ? Yes
But then again a large enough bet that it means something is different for everyone
I can see it worth Yoyr time for less then 1000 which would require a 10k bet

Not worth the many risks imo. Especially adding in the human factor that the Nicky simply falls off or other horses bounce into him.

A lot of things have value but aren't worth the risk
Happens every day in casinos
Some promotions have way higher value but the variance is beyond what I'm willing to risk for a smaller profit .

I know a casino where you can play 500k coin in and the host will give you 5k immediately after. The best game is bonus poker 8-5. Worth the risk? Prolly not

A long time ago in the UK there was on-course gaming tax (i.e. you lost 4%, so £1 on a 6/4 paid £2.40 not £2.50) but this was abolished in 2001. This meant that it became feasible to bet on short priced favourites and thus there were a few opportunities to make money by betting on the tote.

I think they've tightened the rules since, but can't find the link, however the Irish have a normal minimum of E1.10 but in special cases can pay E1.02.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tote-warn-of-threat-to-minimum-payout-1244381.html
https://www.thetote.com/bet_types/169

So if you are guaranteed 1.10 then I can't see any reason not to bet. Also you might be able to hedge - although the only race I've actually seen had WInner 1/33 (touched 1/16 £500/£8000) and the other two were 25/1 and 33/1.

I have seen too many of these "bridge jumper" bets crash and burn to rate it anything above marginal.

In fact, it might be a better bet to bet the second-favorite to show, since the show price will be heavily inflated (it could even be above the win price) if the favorite is out of the money.

(I was going to ask if WV allows show bets on a 5-horse field, but I checked the latest WV pari-mutuel betting rules, and it does.)

Quote: lilredrooster

attn: Dead, Keeneone, thatDonGuy and anyone else

If you were betting Charlestown and you saw a very strong horse in a short 5 or 6 horse field that was sure to generate a minus pool in the show pool;
And you know that WVA regulations require the minimum show profit to be DOUBLE that of everywhere else; 2.20 instead of 2.10 or 10% profit instead of 5%;
And this horse was a legit speedster who wouldn't have closer problems in a very short 4.5 furlong stakes race and is clearly way faster with way higher Beyers and of a higher class than its' closest rival;
And you are thinking that this horse will surely win unless he has a hidden injury or there is an incident on the track;
Although it is not really easy to estimate the probability that this horse will show;
How would you regard making a large bet in the show pool?
Would you say this type of bet is:



1. Terrible

2. Marginal

3. A Good Bet

4. A Great Bet

If I recall Arizona used to have minimum mutuel prices too, I don't know if they still do. I know someone who cashed in like that on Easy Goer, way back when. (1989?) I made the bet for him because he was too crippled to go to the track.

I know Charles Town pretty well, it is one of my favorite tracks to follow. Sounds like a marginal wager but I would not be surprised if they cancelled Show betting in that situation.

I am rather shocked at what the other poster in this thread said about Barry Meadow.

After years of not beating the horses the one factor that improved my game beyond anything else was to learn physicality handicapping. That was in 1990, and I beat the game now. Without that knowledge I never would have advanced.