You may be asking what is single pool wagering and how it impacts you? I am seeking clarification but from what I have read, this is what is involved.
- A gambler can make a limit wager (not accepting odds less than X)
- The wager may partially be filled.
- The gambler may specify all or none, meaning either the entire wager is honored or none of it is.
- Legalizes combination wagers. New wagers can be accepted, such as picking two of the top three finishers in a race in any order.
- In the case of a dead heat, provides for distribution of payoffs as currently done or when only two horses are involved, allows for a payoff half of what it would have been if no dead heat occurred.
- The existence of an unawarded surplus. Say, no one picks a horse to finish second and the horse does indeed finish in the second position. It creates an unawarded surplus which is to be paid out in a manner approved by the commission.
- Single pool wagering can only be approved for simulcasting provided participating states permit wagering into single pool wagering.
I am sure when single pool wagering is actually approved, there will be a guide towards single pool wagering made available. Now if we can get them to work on Exchange Wagering rules.....
It was announced that 116 horses were nominated for the 2013 Hambletonian. I was curious to know what the impact of the format change would have on nominations so I contacted Darin Zoccali of the Meadowlands who provided the nomination count from last year. One may suspect the number was cut down when it was announced the race will return to an earlier format; where eliminations and the final were raced the same day. Well, you would be wrong if you thought that as last year the Hambletonian drew only 108 nominations. Apparently, when there is enough money on the line, racing two heats is not a problem; especially when the final goes for $1.2 million.
On the filly side, The Oaks did have a drop in nominations, from 105 to 91. Is it possible the thought of meeting To Dream On scared off some nominations. It should be noted that unlike the Hambletonian, the Oaks retains the running of the eliminations the week before the final.
In what I hope will be my final mention of cartels for a while, Eric Cherry opines on the subject.
Hit them where it hurts. Bill Finley in a column for ESPN writes how suspensions don't work thanks to beards. Hit them with a $70,000 fine instead of a six month suspension and that they will notice. There is something to be said about it. What do you think?