Did the 1 not get taken down because they didn\'t believe the 4 would have won?

I don\'t understand how an unquestionable foul in the stretch is permissible.

The only reason I can think is that they are ruling that the 1 would have won anyway.  But on that basis, what stops superior horses from just mugging inferior horses?  Isn\'t this a major safety issue?  If you are the better horse, it is okay to take out the inferior horses on the way to the wire? But if you are an inferior horse and you need to take out an opponent, then that is not okay?

What am I missing here?

Also, when a horse checks severely, how can you say what would have happened if the horse wasn\'t checked severely?  That seems like something not even Karnak the Magnificent could divine.

Sometimes I just dont understand this sport.

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Horses who made a (any) start KYDownsRacing the
> same calendar year as the Breeders Cup are
> 0-for-125 in the Breeders\' Cup going back to 2001.
>
>
> Numbers aside the grass racing there is bizarre.
> Hexagon shaped course. One year the grass looks
> like US Open rough. The next year its all speed
> rock hard firm

I would only say the following - the real issue is not just tossing all those automatically.  The issue is a question of price.  In these situations I ask myself - what price is right for a horse breaking this streak.  If they are giving me juicy enough odds - then I like to bet into this stat because the horse doesn\'t know the statistic and if the one that breaks the streak is suitably overlooked the price will be ridiculously juicy because of people tossing the horse without thinking about it.

One way to look at this is - look at the horse - if it comes in will you feel like an idiot for tossing it?  That is the metric I use.  Somebody gave the example of Cogburn. I would have had no problem tossing Cogburn even if he had beat me. You only have to hit bets against a horse like Cogburn a few times, not every time and not most times. The thing that really stinks is when you toss a 70-1 shot that otherwise figured and it is the one that bites you in the a$$. That is when you feel like an idiot. Sometimes in cases like this, I get idiot insurance and just put a few shekels across the board on the horse.  That way if it comes in you dont feel like a total idiot. But I only get idiot insurance when the odds are so so long.

Roman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since organizing a boycott of one race day seems
> like an impossible task, starting with a single
> race seems much more likely. The CAW\'s are not
> going away. The outrage on social media is not
> making an impact.
>
> It\'s all about money and handle. Once they see it
> could be successful in a single race, it might
> force the tracks to listen. Just cut it all off at
> 2 MTP.
> Nobody will be attracted to the game with what is
> going on right now.

Here is an idea - schedule for New Year\'s Day - a switch your action to a contest.

If everybody played a contest instead of the races, I would think that would send a message plus the gambler doesn\'t have to not gamble to do it.  The biggest problem is that it might be too successful - if everybody makes the switch on a permanent basis.

Btw, this would have the positive side effect on your 2026 taxes - there is no question that the tax you will owe on your 2026 gambling will go down if you play a contest instead of betting in the pari mutuel.

FAIR DISCLOSURE - Starting Jan 1, 2026, I personally am going to try to move all of my action to contests.

THis is a Grade 1 race with a bunch of 3yo fillies with little G1 experience. Is the race G1 or mascerading?

The 3 horse has as many G1 starts as the rest of the field combined.  Although the 9 has won the only G1 it started in, there is sparse other G1 form.  The 3 is 24-1 as I write this.  She has a 2nd and 3rds in G1s out of 5 tries.  

If I am right about relative class, even though it is a G1 - for th 3 filly, this is going to feel like class relief and much easier than her usual spot.

I like the 3 at the 20+-1. they are offering on the class drop.

Good luck everybody!

Socalman3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> belmont3 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Byrd Rule
> >
> https://atr.org/congress-should-restore-full-deduc
>
> > tibility-of-gambling-losses/
>
> This is interesting. But leaves a lot unanswered.
>
> First off, I have to think that if they need to
> find extra revenue to fill a gap to comply with
> the Byrd Rule they had some choices - they could
> have added any other tax, but they chose to add
> this one - what were the other candidates that
> lost out (actually won out) to this one? How did
> the jockeying work out?
>
> Second, the Byrd Rule is sort of like balance
> sheet and/or double entry accounting. If they
> needed to add something on one side of the ledger
> to make things balance (my first point above), the
> other way to address it is to reduce the item on
> the opposing side of the ledger.  So, there were
> other candidates to add, but there also had to be
> possible candidates to take away.  What were
> those?
>
> This article seems to suggest that nobody intended
> to stick a fork into gamblers, they just needed to
> find money somewhere fast.  But they always need
> to find money fast and there are always a bunch of
> choices with lobbyists fighting to get picked (or
> not picked). I do not believe that it was an
> innocent oversight.  There were alternatives that
> had bigger protection rackets than our alternative
> had. That is the way things work on capitol hill.
> Unfortunately, these choices are not made based on
> logic, math, and geometry.  They are made by brute
> politics.

I don\'t mean to be critical of the author of the article. I guess you need to put out the mistake or accident language in order to allow the people changing their vote to save face.  But, the reality is what happens behind closed doors.

belmont3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Byrd Rule
> https://atr.org/congress-should-restore-full-deduc
> tibility-of-gambling-losses/

This is interesting. But leaves a lot unanswered.

First off, I have to think that if they need to find extra revenue to fill a gap to comply with the Byrd Rule they had some choices - they could have added any other tax, but they chose to add this one - what were the other candidates that lost out (actually won out) to this one? How did the jockeying work out?

Second, the Byrd Rule is sort of like balance sheet and/or double entry accounting. If they needed to add something on one side of the ledger to make things balance (my first point above), the other way to address it is to reduce the item on the opposing side of the ledger.  So, there were other candidates to add, but there also had to be possible candidates to take away.  What were those?

This article seems to suggest that nobody intended to stick a fork into gamblers, they just needed to find money somewhere fast.  But they always need to find money fast and there are always a bunch of choices with lobbyists fighting to get picked (or not picked). I do not believe that it was an innocent oversight.  There were alternatives that had bigger protection rackets than our alternative had. That is the way things work on capitol hill.  Unfortunately, these choices are not made based on logic, math, and geometry.  They are made by brute politics.

johnnym Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As my professor said and I quote.
> “ It’s one big club and you ain’t in it”.
> Good luck

George Carlin said that. He grew up right next door to my law school.

Socalman3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Re 3), Damon Runyon taught at your law school?
>
> No, but Marvin Chirelstein did.  Chirelstein was a
> tax law professor and a horseplayer.  If he were
> alive today and was available to testify before
> Congress about this particular tax provision he
> would fricassee any proponent of this provision.
> There are only two possible policy explanations
> for this tax provision and any tax professional
> would agree: (a) it is a political hit job by one
> faction against another faction or (b) sin tax
> theory.  There is no bona fide economic theory to
> justify this tax.

Left out the important part, Chirelstein quoted Damon Runyon in our law school class.  I learned the quote in that context, but Chirelstein did not take credit for Runyon\'s quote - pretty sure he gave the cite.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re 3), Damon Runyon taught at your law school?

No, but Marvin Chirelstein did.  Chirelstein was a tax law professor and a horseplayer.  If he were alive today and was available to testify before Congress about this particular tax provision he would fricassee any proponent of this provision.  There are only two possible policy explanations for this tax provision and any tax professional would agree: (a) it is a political hit job by one faction against another faction or (b) sin tax theory.  There is no bona fide economic theory to justify this tax.

johnnym Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Government

Presumably that will be temporary, but who knows. Here are some choice quotes I learned in law school that seem strangely applicable to the current situation:

1) There are no certainties in life except death and taxes.
2) The mills of the gods grind slow, but they grind fine.
3) The race doesn\'t always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet it.


Translation - A reprieve is by definition temporary.

Gerard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A W-2g or 5754 would not be triggered in this
> string\'s scenario as both the $600.00 winning
> wager and a 300x profit on the amount wagered
> needed to trigger the filing are not met. The
> player would then be left on his honor to report
> net (proceeds minus cost basis) winnings on
> Schedule 1 of their return. Professional players
> are either smart enough on their own or have
> someone in the employ to navigate Schedule C.
>
> So we are still left with the ten percent hangover
> on net winnings should it come to fruition. There
> are crypto options and other navigable paths, but
> the racing industry, especially the struggling or
> closed venues could potentially exploit this
> egregious issue, and move to a prediction based
> pari mutuel environment creating a longer term tax
> benefit to the more than everyday player, and
> possibly bring in some new players to a game that
> desperately needs new fans and a new base.
>
> Don\'t post/ don\'t play much anymore, but there is
> no evidence (SO FAR), the filing requirements that
> trigger a W-2g or 5754 for the syndicates will
> change. Hoping a reader out there with any pull
> can see this as a potential advantage to the
> racing industry. Good luck to all.


These are all regulations based on obsolete laws.  The new laws make anybody who cashes a relevant taxpayer. Under prior law, there were virtually no relevant taxpayers.  Existing regulations are irrelevant under entirely different legal regime. Regulations for new law will be dramatically simplified for W-2G -- they write themselves easily.  In new regime, all you need is a very simple W-2G issued by any platform on an annual basis.

In terms of coming to fruition -- the law is the law, it is on the books and exists......what does should it come to fruition mean?

johnnym Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s all shut down anyway.
> Allegedly.

what is?

Tavasco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Socalman3 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Your points about churn are valid imho but there
> is not an intelligence pre-requisite  for
> lawmakers so we end up with stupid laws and
> regulations.
>
>  (b) accept the change and then
> > adapt to the new world (for me, this means only
> > playing in a format that leaves no record, or
> only
> > playing tournaments
>
> I want to add technically it is the taxpayers
> responsibility to report winnings from gambling.
> Whether it came from a tournament or live at the
> track.
>
> Yet regarding ADW\'s only U.S. based ADW\'s are
> required to provide W-2\'s. Offshore ADW\'s have no
> such requirement and do not. I repeat - do not
> report winnings which are available in crypto and
> can be anonymous as well as accessed via VPN.
>
> Wondering how many of us can expect EOY W-2\'for
> our 2025 action?

I wouldn\'t expect anything for 2025 action as the new rules will only apply for 2026.

The reason to play tournaments is that it will dramatically reduce \"Gambling Winnings\" not that you should not report something.  If you play feeders for the BCBC or the NHC - you don\'t win any money....you win an entry to another tournament - at the NHC, you only have winnings if you cash in the end.  For the BCBC, you churn for the whole breeders cup...your \"winnings\" are not your cashes but what is net left in your account at the end. I only plan to play feeders into the largest tournaments and only very large tournaments.  My handle will go way down and so will my cashes. My potential tax bill will be minimized.  The big loser from this is going to be the tracks - they will lose the money in their handle from me and players like me.

I will bet untraceable live cash at racetracks/casinos - but becuase I need to be physically present, my action will be way lower than it is when I am betting in Living Room Downs.  Again, the tracks are the big loser here.

There should not be anything personal in any of this stuff - the arguments and issues going on are larger than any person.  I do not really care about the politics of the change - I care more about either fighting the change or adapting to the change.

What is really frustrating to me is that by considering personalities and politics, we get distracted from what is actually happening.  The truth is the one thing we all on this board can agree on is that we love horseracing and care about its future.  That much we should all be able to agree to.

So let\'s focus on the threat to the thing we love. It is new tax.  It seems there are only three possible responses  - (a) fight the change and hope to succeed, (b) accept the change and then adapt to the new world (for me, this means only playing in a format that leaves no record, or only playing tournaments), or (c) put your head in the sand and then both you and the sport get runover by the steamroller at some point.

If we want the industry to survive, it seems like the industry needs to do either (a) or (b) (and work with its players to survive in the new world).  Unfortunately, it looks like (c) is what is happening (and is the default of neither (a) nor (b) are pursued).  

A long time ago, there were studies about the impact of take out on handle - and the studies showed that if you reduce the percentage of take, your gross take, in absolute terms, goes up.  This is because of churn. If you give bettors back dollars instead of pulling them out of circulation, the bettors rebet those dollars and you get multiple attempts to take stuff out.  The studies showed that churn was the really important factor. In real life terms, compare betting Superfectas at place that takes 30% out of the Superfecta pool with betting pick 5s with a 15% take. The difference is dramatic.  There is no question what is sustainable and what is not. this new tax is going to dramatically reduce churn. This new tax is an absolute assault on churn.  If I were a racetrack operator, I would be messing my pants because of what this does to churn.

Here is an example, lets say you bet $10,000 to show on prohibitive favorites in races with a negative show pool.  Say you do this 20 times in a year, and lets say you go 19 for 20.  In this scenario, you have cashed for $199,500 on wagers of $200,000.  By most sane standards, you lost $500. Also, you don\'t really need a bankroll of $200,000 to bet the $200,000. In the worst case scenario - you lose you first bet and win the others, you only needed a bankroll of $20,000 to have a handle of $200,000 (see, the magic of churn).

Here is the problem -- according to the IRS, you won $199,500 and then you are allowed to deduct only 90% of your losses.  What are you losses here?  it is the single $10,000 bet you lost.  So you won $199,500, you lost $10,000 but you are only allowed to deduct 90% of that or $9,000.  According to the IRS, you owe tax on $190,500.  At 30%, that means your tax bill is $57,150.  Yes, in this scenario, you lost $500 on handle of $200,000 and you owe the IRS $57,150.

Would love to understand why my example is wrong.  Would also love to know why racetracks think this is okay and that their horseplayers will keep coming back for this sort of punishment.

pip4126 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What does that mean?


Milkshaking?

Soda packing?