|
|
|
|
|
Topic: "Paramutual Wagering at Dirt Tracks"
|
Email this topic to a friend |
Subscribe to this Topic
| Report this Topic to Moderator
|
|
Page 1 of 1 of 5 replies
|
|
|
|
|
February 16, 2008 at
10:26:12 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
04/18/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
4764
|
|
|
|
with the inversion of the point setup for heats and A Mains - taking guys anywhere between around 10th-25th in the standings could possibly consistently turn a profit.
But man I've kinda wandered that as well............... it is done so often at horse tracks - even dog racing. I'm not for or against it either way - but why the other types of "racing" - but not auto racing? It doesn't have to be a high limit type deal - those bets are hard to collect. But instead maybe set a relatively low cap on bet amounts. Take a % of total and put it into nightly purse or season long point fund. interesting thought Bobcat.
How much would could a wouldchuck chuck if a
wouldchuck could chuck would
|
|
|
|
February 16, 2008 at
11:52:53 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
07/25/2006
|
|
Posts:
|
418
|
|
|
Reply to:
I'm wondering how to take that........
It's not HOW fast you go, but how you GO fast.
www.myspace.com/bucky65c
|
|
|
|
February 17, 2008 at
01:18:27 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
12/03/2006
|
|
Posts:
|
7918
|
|
|
|
This would open a lot issues. Everybody wants more cash! Even the ones with more than they know what to do with. Since racers will bend the rules to win, don't you think those in control of the tables would like to control the outcome when it suits them? Manipulation from the establishment(officials, high rollers) could be much more involved.
Auto racing and gambling have had trysts in the past and still do now and then. They have never had an exclusive relationship out in the open.
From the little guy point of view, the control over your own destiny could be severly diminished. The fight for control goes on between racers and the officials. The gambling contingent would want a peice of that fight, but it would favor where the money is rather than do the right thing in most cases.
So, when you win a race under those conditions, there will be doubt as to legitamacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 18, 2008 at
05:07:47 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
04/18/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
4764
|
|
|
This message was edited on
February 18, 2008 at
05:27:35 AM by OKCFan12
Reply to:
Posted By: brian26 on February 17 2008 at 01:18:27 AM
This would open a lot issues. Everybody wants more cash! Even the ones with more than they know what to do with. Since racers will bend the rules to win, don't you think those in control of the tables would like to control the outcome when it suits them? Manipulation from the establishment(officials, high rollers) could be much more involved.
Auto racing and gambling have had trysts in the past and still do now and then. They have never had an exclusive relationship out in the open.
From the little guy point of view, the control over your own destiny could be severly diminished. The fight for control goes on between racers and the officials. The gambling contingent would want a peice of that fight, but it would favor where the money is rather than do the right thing in most cases.
So, when you win a race under those conditions, there will be doubt as to legitamacy.
|
great points. I think this could be a deal where for every positive - there could be more than a few negatives. you are right - there is no real way to govern this type of deal. even if there was - with a high amount of money switching hands - control and power would rear an ugly head somewhere - kinda human nature.
thats why I say - if there could be a low limit on bets - to where the total would not reach high numbers. I mean, let's just say - no one could bet more than 5$ - multiply that by around a thousand folks and thats 5k. take 10-20% or maybe more of that every time it's done - and it could be a very healthy contribution to something good. I don't know all the specifics of how it would be done - or how someone gets paid when their pick wins with the odds and everything. frankly, I have no clue.
and for something like that to work - many licenses would prob. have to be paid for. so a low cap like I mention would probably be even less likely. It would a very intricate thing. and one that would probably be best left alone. If honorable people were always in charge of it - I think it would have a chance. but we all know thats a long shot at best. maybe an impossibility. but still a great thought provoking topic.
How much would could a wouldchuck chuck if a
wouldchuck could chuck would
|
|
|
|
February 18, 2008 at
09:59:41 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/21/2004
|
|
Posts:
|
172
|
|
|
Reply to:
It didn't seem to work for the nags. Of course, that may be because they are boring.
|
|
|
|
|
February 18, 2008 at
10:43:05 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
04/18/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
4764
|
|
|
Reply to:
can't disagree - at a track like SFS where they don't check for it all (or anything else for that matter) - might as well. Up there they at least know it's goin on' - here everyone knows its goin on and just ignores it.
How much would could a wouldchuck chuck if a
wouldchuck could chuck would
|
|
|
