When it comes to gambling, there's an old saying - the House always wins. Churchill Downs is the House.
I don't blame the owner of Country House, the second place horse who complained about obstruction - although Maximum Security did not obstruct Country House, and none of the owners of the horses allegedly "obstructed" complained. Country House's owner saw a chance to complain himself into the $3M winner's purse, and did so.
But what was the motivation behind the folks at Churchill Downs? Me, I'd like to see the payouts they would have had to make for Maximum Security at 9-2, and the payouts they actually made on Country House at 65-1. Sure, the odds were a lot longer on Country House, but the wagers were way heavier on Maximum Security. The suspicion is that Churchill Downs scored millions of dollars by overturning the winner.
Libertyman left a comment to yesterday's post about the race:
You don't think things involving gambling may, just may, be fixed?Motive and opportunity. Makes you wonder.
Donald Trump agrees with you about the DQ
ReplyDeletehttps://thebiglead.com/2019/05/05/donald-trump-tweets-disappointment-over-kentucky-derby-dq-win-by-country-house/
Anything that is bet on is fixed. Baseball did it's best in 1920 to make itself honest after a scandal and that may have worked for decades. I dunno, we could ask Pete Rose. Soccer? Football? Basketball? NASCAR? I would assume it's all fixed. Even horse racing without all this sort of drama. How hard would it be for a jockey to ease off just a bit in the back straightaway? What would that be worth to someone that was invested in the outcome of a race?
ReplyDeleteYou might want to brush up on your knowledge of how Parimutuel betting actually works. It doesn't work like a casino in Las Vegas. Churchill Downs is not "the house". In Parimutuel betting you are not betting against a house, you are betting against the other bettors. The track does not have a stake in the winner. In other words, it doesn't matter to them *who* wins. What matters is how much is bet. The track (and the state) take a fixed portion of that betting pool and the rest is divided among the winning tickets. That is how the odds are determined.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Churchill Downs has *NO* stake in the winner. Fixing the race would gain them nothing.
Roy, the house still takes it's cut. Though the house doesn't lose as much in payouts, they still lose some. Though the house isn't in to it as heavily as in regular betting. There has to be money in it for the house for the house to be running it.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm. Are the track officials ex-DNC party committee members? This reminds me of the shafting that Bernie got in the 2016 primaries...
Roy, I'm by no means an expert on parimutuel betting, but it seems that Churchill Downs was in fact on the hook for some bets.
ReplyDeleteBut this looks pretty egregious no matter the motivations. Epic blown call is epic.
I worked in a racetrack & casino. Washington DC is more honest.
ReplyDeleteBeans and Borepatch, Churchill Downs is not "on the hook". Again, if you guys really have an interest, go look up parimutuel betting.
ReplyDeleteIn parimutuel betting, everyone who bets on a horse to win, their bet goes into the "win" pool (...or the place, or the show pool etc.). This pool is the total of all bets placed to win regardless of the horse bet on. Churchill Downs (and the state of KY) do take a cut, but their cut is a percentage of this *entire* betting pool. Once the track and the state take that cut, the rest of the win pool is then divided up among the winning bettors. This is how the odds are determined.
Let me state it again... The track's take is going to be the same regardless of which horse wins. It's the bettors who have bet on the losing horses that are "on the hook". (...but they have already paid at the betting window, so they aren't really on the hook either.)
The fact that the "house" (the track) has no actual stake in the winner is why, in some states, parimutuel betting is allowed while casino gambling is not.
So how does the track make money? Well, there's the aforementioned take of the win, place, and show pools - which for the KY Derby is quite substantial - but which is the same regardless of the winner of the race. And they also get to charge money for gate entrance, food and beverages, souvenirs and promotional stuff - the same as any other sporting event. Their costs are things like track maintenance, the purse - which again, is the same regardless of who wins it - and the trophy. (That fancy garland of roses is donated by a sponsor.)
Look, I am not trying to say there has never been skullduggery in horse racing, but to say the track has a stake in whether a 4-2 horse or a 65-1 horse wins, is just wrong.
Now, having said all of that, I have looked at all of the replays and it is *MY OPINION* that the stewards made the right call. There was interference at the top of the stretch and *by the rules of the Kentucky racing commission*, "Maximum Security" is disqualified. Churchill Downs itself, had *NO* say at all in that decision!
It's unfortunate that the call had to be made for the most famous horse race in the world. If this had happened during the third race on a Wednesday afternoon in June, no one would have cared except for those directly involved.
And one last thing... This has absolutely *NOTHING* to do with politics.