PDA

View Full Version : The Price of Playing


Que
03-23-2004, 05:55 AM
There's an interesting article in last week's Blood-Horse magazine, 13 March, titled "The Price of Playing." The article mentions Tampa Bay's decision to cut off two (rebate) shops because "they were creating imbalances in the pools." In addition, the article stated that these shops were said to "employ 'batch betting' technology that drops large sums of money into pools at the last minute." However, what's most interesting is the fact that these two (rebate) shops reportedly "accounted for $7.4 million in handle and a net contribution of $5.7 million.... (and) the customers ended up with $8 million in 'winning dollars,' or $2.3 million above what they contributed to the pool." Therefore, does this mean that these two shops invested $7.4 million for an $8.0 million return (+8.1% ROI); or did they invest only $5.7 million for an $8.0 million return (+40.3% ROI)? If the later is true, I think that's enough information to begin an investigation to see if these shops had been betting after the bell. However, if the former is true; then these so-called "whales" are still doing much better than the 1-2% ROI that they've been credited for. Not to mention the fact that Tampa Bay has one of highest takeouts of any track in the country (US), i.e. 18.9%, 22.5% and 25.9% on win, exacta, and trifectas, respectively.

Que.

andicap
03-23-2004, 08:08 AM
Que,
it's the latter, according to a Steve Crist column in the DRF a month or two ago. He noted that since the whales bet such large sums of money even a 1-2% ROI is very profitable.

Que
03-24-2004, 04:29 AM
andicap,

I read Steve Crist's column and understand that 1-2% can be very profitable based on the amount these big players wager. However according to the article, the customers of these two rebate shops did much, much better; either +8% or +40%. If the latter figure is in fact true, then I'd be very curious on when these wager's were actually placed. Does "last minute" mean a minute before or after post. Also, what does "accounted for $7.4 million in handle and a net contribution of $5.7 million," really mean? I understand handle, but "net contribution" is somewhat confusing. Thanks...

Que.

raybo
03-24-2004, 11:53 AM
RE:< " However, what's most interesting is the fact that these two (rebate) shops reportedly "accounted for $7.4 million in handle and a net contribution of $5.7 million.... (and) the customers ended up with $8 million in 'winning dollars,' or $2.3 million above what they contributed to the pool." Therefore, does this mean that these two shops invested $7.4 million for an $8.0 million return (+8.1% ROI); or did they invest only $5.7 million for an $8.0 million return (+40.3% ROI)?>

The way I read it the shops wagered $7.4 M resulting in the track receiving $5.7 M of that $7.4 M. The customers received $8 M for the $7.4 M wagered. $600 K profit or 8.1% profit.

raybo
03-24-2004, 12:02 PM
On 2nd thought if you subtract the $5.7 M from the $7.4 M you get $1.7 M which would equal 22.97% or the track's takeout. Is that right? By net contribution I assume they are talking about the actual contribution to the final pools after the takeout.

BillW
03-24-2004, 12:06 PM
Que,

I agree with Raybo. The way I read it was that they were saying that $5.7 million net, after takeout, went into the betting pools. So the 41% number doesn't include beating the takeout.

Bill

raybo
03-24-2004, 12:20 PM
RE: <I'd be very curious on when these wager's were actually placed. Does "last minute" mean a minute before or after post.>

I'd assume that the shops have or had an agreement with the track concerning the times that they actually placed the bets resulting in the track's acceptance of the bets. Like a time stamp indicating that the wagers were actually placed before post time, even though the track may not have received them until after post. If I'm wrong in this assumption, then the shops would be compelled to place the wagers safely before post time to prevent getting shut out and angering their customers for missing the betting opportunity. In any event, they would most certainly place the wagers as late as possible to acheive maximum odds because of the amount of money in the pools close to post time vs that amount prior to post, and also, the resulting public response to a drop in odds before post time.

Que
03-24-2004, 06:44 PM
raybo,

Thanks... your explanation make sense. I can believe a +8.1% ROI, but a +40% ROI seemed unbelievable. However, the +8% ROI is still better than most people give these so-called "whales" credit for.

Que.

raybo
03-24-2004, 09:52 PM
<However, the +8% ROI is still better than most people give these so-called "whales" credit for.>

I wondered about this myself, it seems a little high to me, unless there are more really good handicappers using these services than I thought.

schweitz
03-24-2004, 10:15 PM
We really don't know if the facts are as Tampa Bay says they are.