Current State of the Game

[Disenchantedguy]

Time for my Steve Coburn-esque rant :mad: / Jimmy Carter “Malaise Speech” (for those old enough to remember that). Another poster has brought up some of my gripes in the “difficulty of the game thread” and I want to basically dog pile on in perhaps a more general sense. The game seems to have become basically something which it is impossible to have anything more than just fleeting moments of success. I hear the “pundits” all the time espousing the pick 5 as the best bet in racing. Others have written that the ONLY time a horseplayer should EVER play is into the pick 6 when there is a carryover. Who are those the best bets in racing for?? Ken Ramsey and Ogden Mills Phipps? Because they are about the only people who can afford to play them... I understand the low takeout aspect and the carryover aspect, but on a tough track like Del Mar or Saratoga you can quickly put together a ticket that costs stacks and stacks and still feel like you don't have enough coverage. Its easy to say... 3 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 1 is only $18.00 and I agree its only $18.00 but its easy to say that after the fact when you see how the races play out. Undoubtedly, a significant portion of the races (especially at Del Mar and Saratoga) you need to go 4 or 5 deep on almost every leg because its so hard to draw lines between many of the horses. Its almost inevitable that one leg will go up in smoke because of some impossible longshot. Additionally, I've seen many many times people hit pick 3's and pick 4's and not even win back the amount they put in. The sheer randomness of the game is what aggravates me to no end. In Roulette, you are going to lose. The house has an ironclad mathematical edge; play long enough and you will lose everything you have. In theory, horse racing can be “beaten” because we are betting against each other..if I do better than you I win money. However, I know of no successful horseplayer. I know they are out there and I'm sure there are plenty on this message board, but I would be hard pressed to name one winning player by name. I have less confidence in my game than ever before. I go to the track and make what I consider solid plays and even though I win some, I always lose more. This repeating pattern of 1 step forward, 2 steps back causes the game to become psychologically frustrating to say the least. The game is losing its enjoyment because of the difficulty in winning ANY amount of money on ANY wager made. I think this is one of the reasons the game is dying out unfortunately; because of the sheer difficulty in winning anything at all! Lets take a look at the wagering options:

Place Betting- Only applicable in certain circumstances, maybe a long odds horse or used in conjunction with a win bet. Show Betting- Studies show that show betting is absolutely a losing bet over the long run. I can only think of one or two occasions where a player might entertain a show bet. Exactas and Daily Doubles; both bets are hard to cold deck so most people box and wheel and this invariably puts you in an underlay situation most of the time. So you can bet a cold exacta or double and lose the bet most likely or you can wheel and part wheel and not even win back what you bet if your even fortunate enough to hit the bet with your part wheel. Trifectas, Superfectas, Super Hi 5; same problems as the double and exacta just amplified even more. They are basically impossible to cold deck so you have to start part wheeling and undoubtedly put yourself into an underlaid position. Pick 3s: usually you will have one leg that will blow up your ticket with some unforeseen winner. If you do hit a pick 3, the payoff usually always seems to pay way less than it should. The pick 4 has the same pitfalls as the pick 3 except amplified even more because the addition of a 4th leg. One time I played about an $80 ticket on an “All Stakes” pick 4, big fields, tough races.. it paid around $90 and I cleared $10 bucks. Absolutely ridiculous. Pick 5 practically impossible, there is always going to be that “one leg” that destroys your ticket. The Pick 6; only people like Ken Ramsey can play. The ticket cost for an adequate coverage pick 6 ticket is way out of the ballpark for an average horseplayer. That leaves the lowly humble win bet. I have basically decided the win bet is the best bet in racing. Just pick one horse and try to get him home. As I look back at my years of playing, most of my “profits” have come from the plain vanilla win bet. That being said, the sheer randomness of the game makes the win bet basically a losing proposition most of the time. The horse can have a bad break from the gate, the horse can have a bad trip, the horse just might not feel well that day, the horse just might not be the best horse in the race. So many factors can go wrong, that it is my contention that it is inevitable you will lose money with straight win betting also. So basically, all the bets in the game are “bad bets” with very little hope of ever coming out ahead. I play the game for fun, I am not trying to make a living playing the game or anything, but I must admit that it gets very very old and frustrating to rip up tickets and leave the track a loser day after day. I am confident that 99% of players are losing players. Of the 1% of players that come out ahead, I believe most do so by getting a “lucky score”, (some random trifecta or pick 5 just thrown together and you get lucky). I theorize probably .002% of horseplayers are actually beating the game using what most of us would consider “skill”. For those of you doing this you are my heroes and I definitely congratulate you. Lastly, horseplayers today have a vast cornucopia of information at their fingertips and this has made the game that much harder. Basically every player has access to all kinds of speed, pace, trip, class figures, etc for every track. This makes for smarter players which just compounds the difficulty of an already seemingly impossible game. I am venting and frustrated now, but I will continue to play because I love the game as a whole. I'm just becoming jaded with the betting aspect of horse racing. Its just honestly becoming less and less fun as the difficulty increases: I hope the day never comes where I decide I have had enough and realize I don't want to do this anymore. How do you guys/gals cope with the fact that in horse betting losing is the rule, not the exception??

[Augenj]

The only thing that makes losers of the 99 per cent of the players is takeout and breakage. When you throw in $4 and get back $3 over time, only the luckiest and skilled make a profit. Those odds are Las Vegas Keno odds and Keno is not a game of skill but pure luck. None of the dullards who set the takeout understand churn, the thing that makes Las Vegas money hand over fist with their loosened slots.

[thaskalos]

Time for my Steve Coburn-esque rant :mad: / Jimmy Carter “Malaise Speech” (for those old enough to remember that). Another poster has brought up some of my gripes in the “difficulty of the game thread” and I want to basically dog pile on in perhaps a more general sense. The game seems to have become basically something which it is impossible to have anything more than just fleeting moments of success. I hear the “pundits” all the time espousing the pick 5 as the best bet in racing. Others have written that the ONLY time a horseplayer should EVER play is into the pick 6 when there is a carryover. Who are those the best bets in racing for?? Ken Ramsey and Ogden Mills Phipps? Because they are about the only people who can afford to play them... I understand the low takeout aspect and the carryover aspect, but on a tough track like Del Mar or Saratoga you can quickly put together a ticket that costs stacks and stacks and still feel like you don't have enough coverage. Its easy to say... 3 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 1 is only $18.00 and I agree its only $18.00 but its easy to say that after the fact when you see how the races play out. Undoubtedly, a significant portion of the races (especially at Del Mar and Saratoga) you need to go 4 or 5 deep on almost every leg because its so hard to draw lines between many of the horses. Its almost inevitable that one leg will go up in smoke because of some impossible longshot. Additionally, I've seen many many times people hit pick 3's and pick 4's and not even win back the amount they put in. The sheer randomness of the game is what aggravates me to no end. In Roulette, you are going to lose. The house has an ironclad mathematical edge; play long enough and you will lose everything you have. In theory, horse racing can be “beaten” because we are betting against each other..if I do better than you I win money. However, I know of no successful horseplayer. I know they are out there and I'm sure there are plenty on this message board, but I would be hard pressed to name one winning player by name. I have less confidence in my game than ever before. I go to the track and make what I consider solid plays and even though I win some, I always lose more. This repeating pattern of 1 step forward, 2 steps back causes the game to become psychologically frustrating to say the least. The game is losing its enjoyment because of the difficulty in winning ANY amount of money on ANY wager made. I think this is one of the reasons the game is dying out unfortunately; because of the sheer difficulty in winning anything at all! Lets take a look at the wagering options:

Place Betting- Only applicable in certain circumstances, maybe a long odds horse or used in conjunction with a win bet. Show Betting- Studies show that show betting is absolutely a losing bet over the long run. I can only think of one or two occasions where a player might entertain a show bet. Exactas and Daily Doubles; both bets are hard to cold deck so most people box and wheel and this invariably puts you in an underlay situation most of the time. So you can bet a cold exacta or double and lose the bet most likely or you can wheel and part wheel and not even win back what you bet if your even fortunate enough to hit the bet with your part wheel. Trifectas, Superfectas, Super Hi 5; same problems as the double and exacta just amplified even more. They are basically impossible to cold deck so you have to start part wheeling and undoubtedly put yourself into an underlaid position. Pick 3s: usually you will have one leg that will blow up your ticket with some unforeseen winner. If you do hit a pick 3, the payoff usually always seems to pay way less than it should. The pick 4 has the same pitfalls as the pick 3 except amplified even more because the addition of a 4th leg. One time I played about an $80 ticket on an “All Stakes” pick 4, big fields, tough races.. it paid around $90 and I cleared $10 bucks. Absolutely ridiculous. Pick 5 practically impossible, there is always going to be that “one leg” that destroys your ticket. The Pick 6; only people like Ken Ramsey can play. The ticket cost for an adequate coverage pick 6 ticket is way out of the ballpark for an average horseplayer. That leaves the lowly humble win bet. I have basically decided the win bet is the best bet in racing. Just pick one horse and try to get him home. As I look back at my years of playing, most of my “profits” have come from the plain vanilla win bet. That being said, the sheer randomness of the game makes the win bet basically a losing proposition most of the time. The horse can have a bad break from the gate, the horse can have a bad trip, the horse just might not feel well that day, the horse just might not be the best horse in the race. So many factors can go wrong, that it is my contention that it is inevitable you will lose money with straight win betting also. So basically, all the bets in the game are “bad bets” with very little hope of ever coming out ahead. I play the game for fun, I am not trying to make a living playing the game or anything, but I must admit that it gets very very old and frustrating to rip up tickets and leave the track a loser day after day. I am confident that 99% of players are losing players. Of the 1% of players that come out ahead, I believe most do so by getting a “lucky score”, (some random trifecta or pick 5 just thrown together and you get lucky). I theorize probably .002% of horseplayers are actually beating the game using what most of us would consider “skill”. For those of you doing this you are my heroes and I definitely congratulate you. Lastly, horseplayers today have a vast cornucopia of information at their fingertips and this has made the game that much harder. Basically every player has access to all kinds of speed, pace, trip, class figures, etc for every track. This makes for smarter players which just compounds the difficulty of an already seemingly impossible game. I am venting and frustrated now, but I will continue to play because I love the game as a whole. I'm just becoming jaded with the betting aspect of horse racing. Its just honestly becoming less and less fun as the difficulty increases: I hope the day never comes where I decide I have had enough and realize I don't want to do this anymore. How do you guys/gals cope with the fact that in horse betting losing is the rule, not the exception??

I agree with a lot of what you say. I too am of the opinion that the vast majority of the "winning players" out there depend either on rebates or on the super-exotics in order to remain in the black. Those players who win by sticking to conservative methods of betting are 1 in 1000...in my opinion. That's my major gripe with the game as it stands right now; the current field sizes -- especially on weekdays -- make it unduly difficult for the player to implement the "swing-for-the-fences" playing style that profit-making often requires.

Make no mistake about it, the game is now tougher to beat than it's ever been...and things can only get worse.

[JustRalph]

My kingdom for a carriage return!!

[davew]

4,5, and 6 horse fields seem more common now than i the past

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Disenchantedguy

The game as it is set up today is not fair for the average player. So I fully understand where you are coming from

To win at horse racing you need to make bets with a positive ROI (so ROI >0)

The problem for the average player is that other "players" (who are generally syndicates forming a team of many players doing the form full time) are getting big rebates and the effect of these rebates is to remove all or almost all of the positive ROI bets from the pools before the rebate is added back

So it really is impossible or almost impossible for the average player to win. Not only that even if an individual develops a high degree of skill and backs the exact same horses as the big rebate syndicates they will still lose unless they up their turnover to millions a year and get a big rebate themselves. As the pre-rebate odds will be negative ROI bets. But even then, every player getting a big rebate is an impossibility so even this option is not a true one

The big syndicates have rebates plus a team of maybe 10 to 20 people doing the form full time on USA racing. The average player has to work a full time job and limited time to do the form

The big syndicates are driving a formula one car with a full pit crew plus the rebates give them pole position at the start. The average player has a horse and cart and is back in 20th position at the start. They have no hope

In formula one racing there are rules to keep the game somewhat level in that your car has to meet certain specifications. In horse racing there are no such rules and the advantages allowed to the big syndicates are unlimited

The average player should stop donating to the syndicates and tracks and go spend their time and money saved playing the races doing something more enjoyable and/or productive

[Hoofless_Wonder]

My kingdom for a carriage return!!

:D No kidding. Need my eyes checked after reading the start of this thread.

... How do you guys/gals cope with the fact that in horse betting losing is the rule, not the exception??

It's easy if you're a recreational player, and you're betting within your means. Think of the money lost as entertainment expenses, when those rare wins are like hitting a nice shot during a round of golf or reeling in a nice trout when fishing.

It's a much tougher game now than 30 years ago. I don't see how new fans are going to come in the game without takeout reductions, changes in the tax code, and improvements in the racing experience being offered up by most tracks.

But for us old geezers, it's still the greatest sport going.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

...The average player should stop donating to the syndicates and tracks and go spend their time and money saved playing the races doing something more enjoyable and/or productive

Naw. I like to think the money I lose goes directly to the owners, grooms, hotwalkers and the feed bucket (not the trainers, the tracks, the politicians, the syndicates, the whales and the winning players). :)

[lamboguy]

this is how takeout works if i can remember correctly from my younger years.


if a track does $1 million in handle, the customers walk into the track with $333,000 for the first race. if the takeout is 20% or $200,000, the players go home with $133,000 about 1/3 of what they started with. that happens over and over again. what this all means is that there is very little money to win percentage wise before things start. when you factor in other costs like past performances admissions and parking, you will see how tough this game is to win at.

there are people that claim to win at this pari mutuel game. computer groups say they have the tools to win.

the only way i know to beat a track is by betting minus pools. but most people lose betting those lose too because they have poor odds models on them.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

There should be at least 2 races at every meeting which are rebate free to give the average player a chance to win some money

[Stillriledup]

There should be at least 2 races at every meeting which are rebate free to give the average player a chance to win some money

If 2 races at every meeting were rebate free and you didnt know which races they were, would you be able to guess correctly after the fact?

[Pensacola Pete]

Three of the main problems are smart money, dominant and/or crooked trainers, and corrupt racing officials.

The way I stay above even is to play the tracks where these problems have as small a footprint as possible. The serious players and whales bet a larger percentage of the total money bet at the smaller tracks, so out those tracks go. The crooked and/or dominant trainers tend to rule the small and medium tracks, so out those tracks go. Russel Baze has owned NoCal for a long time. A few circuits have more than their share of crooked racing officials (West Virginia, anybody? How about Illinois?), so out they go.

What's left? For me it's SoCal, NYRA, and Keeneland, also Woodbine during the summer. There are crooked trainers and jockeys there, but their footprint is smaller than at other tracks. There is smart money there, but the footprint---the percentage of the total---isn't as high as at other tracks. Because the tracks are generally considered to give the player a fair shot, action players like them; NYRA, SoCal, and Keeneland also the ones with the largest average daily handles, and prices are good at Woodbine in the summer.

The point is: why play a circuit in which 70%+ of the money is bet by tough players and/or whale-bots? Why fight Jamie Ness, Stephanie Beattie, Michael Pino, Jerry Hollendorfer, Ralph Martinez, etc.? Why fight Russel Baze? Bet where the going is good, or at least better than other places.

[Stillriledup]

Interesting post by the OP, good stuff.

I've always been under the impression that you want the game as hard as possible because if you can ever figure out how to beat it, there's actually going to be money to be won.

What has essentially happened is that the game has gotten too EASY and that's why its so hard.


I remember back in the day when the DRF had no Beyer figs, a handicapper would be able to make his own figs, even if they were just glancing at the final times of the 6 furlong races and comparing raw times from class to class. Now, Joe Blow can spend a few bucks for a DRF and he gets a ready made speed figure that might not be as good as Thorograph or Ragozin, but its plenty good for something you get for the price of a copy.

With all the "information" out there for sale, it essentially turns horse betting into a "think tank" where everyone has access.....and, if we all have access to the "winners" it just makes the game virtually impossible to beat.

The game in the 1970s and 1980s being "much easier" than it is today and the advent of clocker reports, beyer figs, replays on the internet, gossip on social media, paddock interviews by TVG, etc wasn't around decades ago, its no coincidence that its harder to win in 2014 than it was in 1974.

And, we want MORE information than ever before, we not only need the gelding info, but we want claims info and we want vet reports, for this year's Belmont stakes, there was specific veterinary information that was published, you never had that "back in the day".

Since horse racing is a horsemens game and not a bettors game, tracks don't card races for the bettor...they're carded for the trainers and owners. If your horse is a superstar and is "eligible" for a certain class, you get in that class no matter what, even if you are destined to be 1-5 and create a terrible betting race, the track puts the horsemen first.......as opposed to not permitting a horse who "cant lose" into the race as a betting interest.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Stillriledup

You could work out after the fact which 2 races were rebate free. But I was thinking more of an official announcement before the race along the lines of race conditions but for the bettors. R5 & R7 = no rebates can be claimed for example

[Stillriledup]

Stillriledup

You could work out after the fact which 2 races were rebate free. But I was thinking more of an official announcement before the race along the lines of race conditions but for the bettors. R5 & R7 = no rebates can be claimed for example

The only advantage you would get betting into a race without rebates for other players would be that smarter players arent in those pools. The pools themselves would be much smaller, but you would be betting against less sophisticated players for the most part.

[Poindexter]

Time for my Steve Coburn-esque rant :mad: / Jimmy Carter “Malaise Speech” (for those old enough to remember that). Another poster has brought up some of my gripes in the “difficulty of the game thread” and I want to basically dog pile on in perhaps a more general sense. The game seems to have become basically something which it is impossible to have anything more than just fleeting moments of success. I hear the “pundits” all the time espousing the pick 5 as the best bet in racing. Others have written that the ONLY time a horseplayer should EVER play is into the pick 6 when there is a carryover. Who are those the best bets in racing for?? Ken Ramsey and Ogden Mills Phipps? Because they are about the only people who can afford to play them... I understand the low takeout aspect and the carryover aspect, but on a tough track like Del Mar or Saratoga you can quickly put together a ticket that costs stacks and stacks and still feel like you don't have enough coverage. Its easy to say... 3 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 1 is only $18.00 and I agree its only $18.00 but its easy to say that after the fact when you see how the races play out. Undoubtedly, a significant portion of the races (especially at Del Mar and Saratoga) you need to go 4 or 5 deep on almost every leg because its so hard to draw lines between many of the horses. Its almost inevitable that one leg will go up in smoke because of some impossible longshot. Additionally, I've seen many many times people hit pick 3's and pick 4's and not even win back the amount they put in. The sheer randomness of the game is what aggravates me to no end. In Roulette, you are going to lose. The house has an ironclad mathematical edge; play long enough and you will lose everything you have. In theory, horse racing can be “beaten” because we are betting against each other..if I do better than you I win money. However, I know of no successful horseplayer. I know they are out there and I'm sure there are plenty on this message board, but I would be hard pressed to name one winning player by name. I have less confidence in my game than ever before. I go to the track and make what I consider solid plays and even though I win some, I always lose more. This repeating pattern of 1 step forward, 2 steps back causes the game to become psychologically frustrating to say the least. The game is losing its enjoyment because of the difficulty in winning ANY amount of money on ANY wager made. I think this is one of the reasons the game is dying out unfortunately; because of the sheer difficulty in winning anything at all! Lets take a look at the wagering options:

Place Betting- Only applicable in certain circumstances, maybe a long odds horse or used in conjunction with a win bet. Show Betting- Studies show that show betting is absolutely a losing bet over the long run. I can only think of one or two occasions where a player might entertain a show bet. Exactas and Daily Doubles; both bets are hard to cold deck so most people box and wheel and this invariably puts you in an underlay situation most of the time. So you can bet a cold exacta or double and lose the bet most likely or you can wheel and part wheel and not even win back what you bet if your even fortunate enough to hit the bet with your part wheel. Trifectas, Superfectas, Super Hi 5; same problems as the double and exacta just amplified even more. They are basically impossible to cold deck so you have to start part wheeling and undoubtedly put yourself into an underlaid position. Pick 3s: usually you will have one leg that will blow up your ticket with some unforeseen winner. If you do hit a pick 3, the payoff usually always seems to pay way less than it should. The pick 4 has the same pitfalls as the pick 3 except amplified even more because the addition of a 4th leg. One time I played about an $80 ticket on an “All Stakes” pick 4, big fields, tough races.. it paid around $90 and I cleared $10 bucks. Absolutely ridiculous. Pick 5 practically impossible, there is always going to be that “one leg” that destroys your ticket. The Pick 6; only people like Ken Ramsey can play. The ticket cost for an adequate coverage pick 6 ticket is way out of the ballpark for an average horseplayer. That leaves the lowly humble win bet. I have basically decided the win bet is the best bet in racing. Just pick one horse and try to get him home. As I look back at my years of playing, most of my “profits” have come from the plain vanilla win bet. That being said, the sheer randomness of the game makes the win bet basically a losing proposition most of the time. The horse can have a bad break from the gate, the horse can have a bad trip, the horse just might not feel well that day, the horse just might not be the best horse in the race. So many factors can go wrong, that it is my contention that it is inevitable you will lose money with straight win betting also. So basically, all the bets in the game are “bad bets” with very little hope of ever coming out ahead. I play the game for fun, I am not trying to make a living playing the game or anything, but I must admit that it gets very very old and frustrating to rip up tickets and leave the track a loser day after day. I am confident that 99% of players are losing players. Of the 1% of players that come out ahead, I believe most do so by getting a “lucky score”, (some random trifecta or pick 5 just thrown together and you get lucky). I theorize probably .002% of horseplayers are actually beating the game using what most of us would consider “skill”. For those of you doing this you are my heroes and I definitely congratulate you. Lastly, horseplayers today have a vast cornucopia of information at their fingertips and this has made the game that much harder. Basically every player has access to all kinds of speed, pace, trip, class figures, etc for every track. This makes for smarter players which just compounds the difficulty of an already seemingly impossible game. I am venting and frustrated now, but I will continue to play because I love the game as a whole. I'm just becoming jaded with the betting aspect of horse racing. Its just honestly becoming less and less fun as the difficulty increases: I hope the day never comes where I decide I have had enough and realize I don't want to do this anymore. How do you guys/gals cope with the fact that in horse betting losing is the rule, not the exception??

I wish every power that be in this sport would read this post every night of their life until they make some real changes for the "bettor". This is the reality that they have created and continue to create for many horse players.

Disenchanted guy, you are just seeing the light. The racing industry subsidizes huge bettors(rebates) to survive(at least that is their idiotic explanation) at the expense of everyone else. The end result if that more and more people reach the same conclusions you do, and leave the game. Then the racing industry blames the casino industry as being too much competition for racing to survive instead of looking at their mistakes(rebates and excessive takeout).

Regarding coping with losing. I think the majority even on this board are in your shoes (didn't you know everybody on the internet is a winner :lol: ). There are some extremely sharp guys on this board that do beat this game, though I am sure most of them are relying on rebates to get ahead of the game. My advice to you and anybody else struggling in the game is get rebates of your own. They will keep you in the game a lot longer and they will make the game more enjoyable.

Regarding the super exotics, I think it is another huge mistake racing makes(and I like them). They are so busy encouraging average horse players to piss away their bankroll on these extremely low probability events. TVG, is relentless with their touting of the pick 4's and pick 6's......The average horse player is not sophisticated enough to know what they are dealing with when jumping into these wagers. Sure I can play a pick 5 3x3x3x3x1 for only $40. But as mentioned, 3 deep at Del Mar these days and you are lucky to hit 50%. Your single, maybe 25%. So .5*.5*.5*.5*.25 or 1.55% roughly. 1 in 70 chance of winning. How many of these will you have to play until you hit one. 70 on average, 100 on a bad streak, 140 on a real bad streak. Let's say you lose 100 straight before hitting 1. $4000 down the tubes. Maybe you only have a bankroll of $4000. Well I guess you are now tapped out, with measly $40 pick 5 plays. Yet racing loves promoting these bets.......So short sighted.
Instead of lowering the take on straight pools where people can get more money back on a regular basis and keep churning that money they reduce the takeout on a pick 5 that most will not hit the majority of the time anyhow. No collection, no money to churn. But this is the brilliance of the racing industry.

[acorn54]

:D No kidding. Need my eyes checked after reading the start of this thread.



It's easy if you're a recreational player, and you're betting within your means. Think of the money lost as entertainment expenses, when those rare wins are like hitting a nice shot during a round of golf or reeling in a nice trout when fishing.

It's a much tougher game now than 30 years ago. I don't see how new fans are going to come in the game without takeout reductions, changes in the tax code, and improvements in the racing experience being offered up by most tracks.

But for us old geezers, it's still the greatest sport going.


these are my sentiments about the game for me.

maybe we are assuming that the people who run the gaming industry are concerned about losing us horsebettors. i notice on some videocasts of the tracks i play, that the announcer says, after the last race, that the horsebettors can go to the casinos to play the slots!
either a significant market share of horsebettors are indiscriminant gamblers, or the gaming authorities have a mis-perception of horseplayers.
it may be that the gaming authorities goal is to get the bulk of the horse gambling dollars spent moved to the casino games, so they can phase out the "headache" of dealing for the dollars of us demanding dyed in the wool horsebettors.

[Some_One]

So many things in this thread that make me facepalm, I'll address a couple easy ones;
Why do tracks push those low takeout, high variance player pick 5's? From what I've seen from people on here, if you told someone they were plus EV on a 2.50 show return they would laugh at you, they rather chase the jackpot thinking that's there ticket to glory.
"Place Betting- Only applicable in certain circumstances, maybe a long odds horse or used in conjunction with a win bet." and "Show Betting- Studies show that show betting is absolutely a losing bet over the long run." - Really? take a look of some numbers I ran from about 30K races I have in an old HSH Database

WIN BETS
Odds Max Starts Pays Pct $Net
---------------------------------------------
3 47,339 14,930 31.5 $1.67
8 67,751 9,260 13.7 $1.61
999 118,699 4,620 3.9 $1.39

SHOW BETS
Odds Max Starts Pays Pct $Net
-------------------------------------------
3 47,332 32,088 67.8 $1.78
8 67,739 31,053 45.8 $1.67
999 118,680 23,182 19.5 $1.34

Betting on a random fav to show appears to be a better bet than betting a random fav to win and betting a random price horse to show is a worse bet than betting a random price horse to win.

A lot of posts in this thread have made assumptions that are wrong IMO, and a lot of it starts with mindset. No doubt the game isn't easy, but because of that it doesn't mean you have to make your handicapping difficult. Ever since I've started listening to podcasts like Micheal Covel's and Rob Bookers (both stock market/fx related), and the theme seems to be to simplify and in horse racing that means looking at non-speed figure, non-final time related factors. If you expect to use the same info as everyone else (i.e. DRF/Final time), you got no chance to beat everyone else.

[AndyC]

The problem for the average player is that other "players" (who are generally syndicates forming a team of many players doing the form full time) are getting big rebates and the effect of these rebates is to remove all or almost all of the positive ROI bets from the pools before the rebate is added back......

If your statement is correct it would seem that syndicates are doing the majority of bettors a great service. By removing the positive ROI bets they are necessarily reducing the large underlay bets in the process. If a bettor was smart enough in the first place to determine whether or not they were making a wager on a positive ROI bet or a negative ROI bet they would never have a problem.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

they will reduce some of the underlay bets but only by a small amount as there will be more underlay bets than overlay bets as a general rule

BUT the key is this. If you reduced takeout for all players by 2% instead of giving a 10% rebate to 20% of players then the impact on the underlay bets will be the same. However the non rebate players who bet the same horses as the rebated players will be far better off if you reduce takeout for all so that the game will be fairer

Rebates only impact those who bet the same horses as the rebate players. As if you gave the rebate to all players then the underlays would improve by the same degree as they do by giving a rebate to some

[AndyC]

they will reduce some of the underlay bets but only by a small amount as there will be more underlay bets than overlay bets as a general rule

BUT the key is this. If you reduced takeout for all players by 2% instead of giving a 10% rebate to 20% of players then the impact on the underlay bets will be the same. However the non rebate players who bet the same horses as the rebated players will be far better off if you reduce takeout for all so that the game will be fairer

Rebates only impact those who bet the same horses as the rebate players. As if you gave the rebate to all players then the underlays would improve by the same degree as they do by giving a rebate to some

If the syndicates are betting down all positive ROI bets then ALL bets would be underlays, right?

Rebates have been discussed ad nauseum in this forum. Unlike most people I think rebates are fair and logical. Pari-mutuel betting necessarily punishes large bettors by greatly reducing their odds something that rarely happens to a small bettor.

Yes, it would be great if take-out was reduced for everybody but I give world peace a greater chance of breaking out before that happens.

[Light]

The game is losing its enjoyment because of the difficulty in winning ANY amount of money on ANY wager made.

That is because you cannot win consistently at this game without serious discipline.

[acorn54]

That is because you cannot win consistently at this game without serious discipline.


well discipline is part of it anyway. there's alot to it though. alot of the difficulty of a positive roi comes from the take out AND dime breakage which is another take out. combine these two "taxes" on top of income tax on profits when you file your 1040. no other "investment" comes close to putting such a burden on the "investor". and there is good reason for this. to the tax authorities horse race betting is a vice.

[Poindexter]

So many things in this thread that make me facepalm, I'll address a couple easy ones;
Why do tracks push those low takeout, high variance player pick 5's? From what I've seen from people on here, if you told someone they were plus EV on a 2.50 show return they would laugh at you, they rather chase the jackpot thinking that's there ticket to glory.
"Place Betting- Only applicable in certain circumstances, maybe a long odds horse or used in conjunction with a win bet." and "Show Betting- Studies show that show betting is absolutely a losing bet over the long run." - Really? take a look of some numbers I ran from about 30K races I have in an old HSH Database

WIN BETS
Odds Max Starts Pays Pct $Net
---------------------------------------------
3 47,339 14,930 31.5 $1.67
8 67,751 9,260 13.7 $1.61
999 118,699 4,620 3.9 $1.39

SHOW BETS
Odds Max Starts Pays Pct $Net
-------------------------------------------
3 47,332 32,088 67.8 $1.78
8 67,739 31,053 45.8 $1.67
999 118,680 23,182 19.5 $1.34

Betting on a random fav to show appears to be a better bet than betting a random fav to win and betting a random price horse to show is a worse bet than betting a random price horse to win.

A lot of posts in this thread have made assumptions that are wrong IMO, and a lot of it starts with mindset. No doubt the game isn't easy, but because of that it doesn't mean you have to make your handicapping difficult. Ever since I've started listening to podcasts like Micheal Covel's and Rob Bookers (both stock market/fx related), and the theme seems to be to simplify and in horse racing that means looking at non-speed figure, non-final time related factors. If you expect to use the same info as everyone else (i.e. DRF/Final time), you got no chance to beat everyone else.

I understand why race tracks promote pick 5's. I am sure it is fairly simple bean counting for them. Intro a new low takeout pick 5, and see what happens to the pools. If the pools(pick 5 and other pools for the day) go up(increasing net profit, bingo we have a winner)....Also, like I said, I like pick4's, pick 3's, pick 5's....so I am not complaining from a personal standpoint. I just know human nature, especially when it pertains to gambling. Highly bankrolled bettors, are not the problem. They can drop 10 k, in a weekend, and completely reload. The problem is with the masses. Most are on fairly fixed bankrolls that once they lose it, they may not come back or may take a long time to come back. You are playing with fire when you constantly ram these bets down everyone's throats. I play a $40 pick 5,, but to get the ticket down to $40, I cut my double in the last race down to a single. Sure enough I am 4 for 4 and my single loses and of course my second choice get their and the pick 5 comes back $750. Boy that is easy, I should be betting $80 + on these things. So next time I fire for $90 and this time results are a little more realistic and I only hit 3 of 5. As I keep firing away I am down $500, $700, $1000......at what point does this lowly capitalized bettor start chasing? At what point does he even give up straight betting because he realize that the $15 win bets he makes on a 5/2 aren't doing a lot to help his bottom line. What has racing created? An action junkie chasing a dream, making low probability wagers hoping for the big one to get out. How much churn do they end up getting out of his initial bankroll? Not much. Now this may seem extreme, but it really isn't far fetched.

Re show betting, it is something I have always had zero interest in. I know with thoroughbreds, there are so many win types... layoffs, potential bounces, suspicious drops, barn changes, surface changes, distance changes.....not to mention the random stuff that happens like getting shut off, unexpected speed duels, getting left in the gate, Mike Smith easing up a horse and saying after the race(the horse is fine, I was just being extra careful). I have a hard time seeing why you would want to bet horses to show and subject yourself to higher breakage and small payoffs, but if that works for you, the window is open.

[thaskalos]

I understand why race tracks promote pick 5's. I am sure it is fairly simple bean counting for them. Intro a new low takeout pick 5, and see what happens to the pools. If the pools(pick 5 and other pools for the day) go up(increasing net profit, bingo we have a winner)....Also, like I said, I like pick4's, pick 3's, pick 5's....so I am not complaining from a personal standpoint. I just know human nature, especially when it pertains to gambling. Highly bankrolled bettors, are not the problem. They can drop 10 k, in a weekend, and completely reload. The problem is with the masses. Most are on fairly fixed bankrolls that once they lose it, they may not come back or may take a long time to come back. You are playing with fire when you constantly ram these bets down everyone's throats. I play a $40 pick 5,, but to get the ticket down to $40, I cut my double in the last race down to a single. Sure enough I am 4 for 4 and my single loses and of course my second choice get their and the pick 5 comes back $750. Boy that is easy, I should be betting $80 + on these things. So next time I fire for $90 and this time results are a little more realistic and I only hit 3 of 5. As I keep firing away I am down $500, $700, $1000......at what point does this lowly capitalized bettor start chasing? At what point does he even give up straight betting because he realize that the $15 win bets he makes on a 5/2 aren't doing a lot to help his bottom line. What has racing created? An action junkie chasing a dream, making low probability wagers hoping for the big one to get out. How much churn do they end up getting out of his initial bankroll? Not much. Now this may seem extreme, but it really isn't far fetched.

Re show betting, it is something I have always had zero interest in. I know with thoroughbreds, there are so many win types... layoffs, potential bounces, suspicious drops, barn changes, surface changes, distance changes.....not to mention the random stuff that happens like getting shut off, unexpected speed duels, getting left in the gate, Mike Smith easing up a horse and saying after the race(the horse is fine, I was just being extra careful). I have a hard time seeing why you would want to bet horses to show and subject yourself to higher breakage and small payoffs, but if that works for you, the window is open.

IMO...the exact same case can be made against the current full-card simulcasting concept of wagering. In the beginning...the industry and the bettors alike thought that it was the greatest thing in the world. But in a game where 98-99% of the players lose...too much of even a GOOD thing can bring about devastating side-effects. The vast majority of the players could manage their losses when they only have a handful of betting opportunities at their disposal...but they risk financial doom when they play a game where their daily betting opportunities are unlimited.

The same thing happened to casino players with the great expansion of casinos and riverboats. Taking a twice-a-year trip to Vegas is manageable...but for the vast majority, living a couple of miles away from a casino is NOT.

Full-card simulcasting and casino expansion have created an ocean of "action junkies", IMO...and the long-term effects are liable to disappoint -- if they haven't already.

[Poindexter]

If the syndicates are betting down all positive ROI bets then ALL bets would be underlays, right?

Rebates have been discussed ad nauseum in this forum. Unlike most people I think rebates are fair and logical. Pari-mutuel betting necessarily punishes large bettors by greatly reducing their odds something that rarely happens to a small bettor.

Yes, it would be great if take-out was reduced for everybody but I give world peace a greater chance of breaking out before that happens.

Hate to break it to you, but because you think rebates are fair and logical and because racing executives think rebates are fair and logical and because horse owner groups think rebates are fair and logical, does not make rebates fair and logical. As mentioned by you, rebates have been discussed ad nauseum, so I will not go there. That being said, the op in this thread is the result of your "fair and logical" system. The despair expressed in the op is despair realized by many horse players that ultimately drop out of the game. This despair is what takes a game that due to technology should be growing very significantly and causes it to lose what (like half its handle over the last 10 years). At what point do you fair and logical thinkers actually see the light. At what point do the powers that be say "what we are doing obviously does not work, maybe we should see a truly "fair and logical" approach to growing the sport. I know, the answer is never.

[Stillriledup]

they will reduce some of the underlay bets but only by a small amount as there will be more underlay bets than overlay bets as a general rule

BUT the key is this. If you reduced takeout for all players by 2% instead of giving a 10% rebate to 20% of players then the impact on the underlay bets will be the same. However the non rebate players who bet the same horses as the rebated players will be far better off if you reduce takeout for all so that the game will be fairer

Rebates only impact those who bet the same horses as the rebate players. As if you gave the rebate to all players then the underlays would improve by the same degree as they do by giving a rebate to some

But isnt it possible that the intelligence of the players and the "tighter" market is the reason for less "Value" than anything else?

By thinking that if you got rid of rebates you would have more overlays is essentially saying that you expect the public to not get it right and that more horses who should be 3-1 will actually pay 7-2.

If a horse who should be 3-1 is sitting up there at 7-2 in a rebateless world, do you expect the horse to just stay at 7-2? If a non rebate bettor sees a 7-2 that should be 3-1, he's going to bet on that horse, rebate or not.

The market is the market and the market is very tight, horses who should be 3-1 are 3-1, horses who should be 1-1 are 1-1 regardless of who's betting into the pools.

[thaskalos]

But isnt it possible that the intelligence of the players and the "tighter" market is the reason for less "Value" than anything else?

By thinking that if you got rid of rebates you would have more overlays is essentially saying that you expect the public to not get it right and that more horses who should be 3-1 will actually pay 7-2.

If a horse who should be 3-1 is sitting up there at 7-2 in a rebateless world, do you expect the horse to just stay at 7-2? If a non rebate bettor sees a 7-2 that should be 3-1, he's going to bet on that horse, rebate or not.

The market is the market and the market is very tight, horses who should be 3-1 are 3-1, horses who should be 1-1 are 1-1 regardless of who's betting into the pools.

Wasn't it you who was complaining in another recent thread that the odds on these horses drop drastically as the race is being run? Whom do you consider responsible for these late drops...the rebate, or the non-rebate player?

[Stillriledup]

Wasn't it you who was complaining in another recent thread that the odds on these horses drop drastically as the race is being run? Whom do you consider responsible for these late drops...the rebate, or the non-rebate player?

Its probably a rebate player because its probably a person with access to have computers bet for them at the very last second. BUT, the late money they're wagering on the horse has nothing to do with a rebate and has everything to do with that player's intelligence at correcting the market.

Its not a rebate thing, its an intelligence thing.

If nobody got rebates, the smartest players would still be the smartest players.

[thaskalos]

Its probably a rebate player because its probably a person with access to have computers bet for them at the very last second. BUT, the late money they're wagering on the horse has nothing to do with a rebate and has everything to do with that player's intelligence at correcting the market.

Its not a rebate thing, its an intelligence thing.

If nobody got rebates, the smartest players would still be the smartest players.
Again I must disagree with you, SRU.

IMO...if nobody got rebates...then the smartest players would flee the game.

[Stillriledup]

Again I must disagree with you, SRU.

IMO...if nobody got rebates...then the smartest players would flee the game.

But so would the money, the pools would be much smaller and not every player would leave. If rebates went away and the game got 'easier' as you and a few others here in this thread think might happen, why would a person who used to get a rebate leave if he's one of the best and can still win in this new climate of an easier game? Wouldn't that player still win anyway? And, if you're a winning player and the game just got 'easier' because a lot of other whales left the sport, wouldnt it behoove you to stay?

[AndyC]

Hate to break it to you, but because you think rebates are fair and logical and because racing executives think rebates are fair and logical and because horse owner groups think rebates are fair and logical, does not make rebates fair and logical. As mentioned by you, rebates have been discussed ad nauseum, so I will not go there. That being said, the op in this thread is the result of your "fair and logical" system. The despair expressed in the op is despair realized by many horse players that ultimately drop out of the game. This despair is what takes a game that due to technology should be growing very significantly and causes it to lose what (like half its handle over the last 10 years). At what point do you fair and logical thinkers actually see the light. At what point do the powers that be say "what we are doing obviously does not work, maybe we should see a truly "fair and logical" approach to growing the sport. I know, the answer is never.

You speak as though there was some sort of bettor's nirvana before rebates came into the picture. Any despair in racing isn't caused by rebates. The despair is caused by competition. Racing simply can't compete for wagering dollars with all of the low cost, low education alternatives available.

[thaskalos]

But so would the money, the pools would be much smaller and not every player would leave. If rebates went away and the game got 'easier' as you and a few others here in this thread think might happen, why would a person who used to get a rebate leave if he's one of the best and can still win in this new climate of an easier game? Wouldn't that player still win anyway? And, if you're a winning player and the game just got 'easier' because a lot of other whales left the sport, wouldnt it behoove you to stay?

I am not worried about all the rebated players, SRU...and I think that I could outplay almost all of them. The WHALES are my primary concern...because they create certain changes within the game which I cannot defend myself against. If the rebates leave the game, then the whales leave too...because they are not interested in the modest financial gains that I am satisfied with.

[AndyC]

IMO...the exact same case can be made against the current full-card simulcasting concept of wagering. In the beginning...the industry and the bettors alike thought that it was the greatest thing in the world. But in a game where 98-99% of the players lose...too much of even a GOOD thing can bring about devastating side-effects. The vast majority of the players could manage their losses when they only have a handful of betting opportunities at their disposal...but they risk financial doom when they play a game where their daily betting opportunities are unlimited.

The same thing happened to casino players with the great expansion of casinos and riverboats. Taking a twice-a-year trip to Vegas is manageable...but for the vast majority, living a couple of miles away from a casino is NOT.

Full-card simulcasting and casino expansion have created an ocean of "action junkies", IMO...and the long-term effects are liable to disappoint -- if they haven't already.

That's a tough concept for many people to understand. More betting opportunities in negative sum games will not make for more winning players. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

[thaskalos]

And, if you're a winning player and the game just got 'easier' because a lot of other whales left the sport, wouldnt it behoove you to stay?

You wanna hear my theory about the current state of the game? OK...here it is:

The "average horseplayer" is either broke...or he is so disenchanted with the game that he is only wagering a tiny fraction of what he wagered in years past. The only reason that this has not become more apparent is because the whales stepped in and picked up the slack. Take the whale money out of the pools today...and you would be shocked at what you'd see. The mutuel pools would plummet to unimagined levels.

[Stillriledup]

I am not worried about all the rebated players, SRU...and I think that I could outplay almost all of them. The WHALES are my primary concern...because they create certain changes within the game which I cannot defend myself against. If the rebates leave the game, then the whales leave too...because they are not interested in the modest financial gains that I am satisfied with.

Why not concentrate on smaller tracks like Mountaineer and places like that? Exa pools are what, 20 or 30k tops? How many "whales" are betting those places, and even if they're betting, they can't be betting enough for it to matter one way or the other.

[lansdale]

That's a tough concept for many people to understand. More betting opportunities in negative sum games will not make for more winning players. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

Psychological research has demonstrated that horserace handicappers are the most overconfident of all gamblers. As you say, for the overwhelming majority of players, full-card simulcasting has been the equivalent of cheap over-the-counter heroin. Why so many have already dropped out of the game.

[thaskalos]

Psychological research has demonstrated that horserace handicappers are the most overconfident of all gamblers. As you say, for the overwhelming majority of players, full-card simulcasting has been the equivalent of cheap over-the-counter heroin. Why so many have already dropped out of the game.

The popular belief is that the horseplayers fled the game in favor of the casinos. IMO...the truth is that the horseplayers who fled the game are sitting on the sidelines, licking their wounds.

[tanner12oz]

Why not concentrate on smaller tracks like Mountaineer and places like that? Exa pools are what, 20 or 30k tops? How many "whales" are betting those places, and even if they're betting, they can't be betting enough for it to matter one way or the other.

then your dealing with manipulated pools...great

[JustRalph]

Yep, that's my problem

I'm over-confident :ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

Why not concentrate on smaller tracks like Mountaineer and places like that? Exa pools are what, 20 or 30k tops? How many "whales" are betting those places, and even if they're betting, they can't be betting enough for it to matter one way or the other.
I wouldn't bet Mountaineer with money that I found on the sidewalk...no offense to Mountainman and Peter Berry -- whom I hold in the highest regard.

[JustRalph]

The popular belief is that the horseplayers fled the game in favor of the casinos. IMO...the truth is that the horseplayers who fled the game are sitting on the sidelines, licking their wounds.

Leave me out of this!

[Light]

well discipline is part of it anyway. there's alot to it though. alot of the difficulty of a positive roi comes from the take out AND dime breakage which is another take out. combine these two "taxes" on top of income tax on profits when you file your 1040. no other "investment" comes close to putting such a burden on the "investor". and there is good reason for this. to the tax authorities horse race betting is a vice.

You're not going to turn losing payers into winning players even with zero takeout.

[OCF]

I'm starting to wonder: are rebates and whales just scapegoats for "What I used to do doesn't work anymore and I:

1. don't want to put in the time, or

2. don't have the ability

to learn/figure out what would work now?"

[Stillriledup]

Psychological research has demonstrated that horserace handicappers are the most overconfident of all gamblers. As you say, for the overwhelming majority of players, full-card simulcasting has been the equivalent of cheap over-the-counter heroin. Why so many have already dropped out of the game.

This is completely true. The arrogance of the average horseplayer is astounding. Very few bettors are as good as they think they are.

[Stillriledup]

The popular belief is that the horseplayers fled the game in favor of the casinos. IMO...the truth is that the horseplayers who fled the game are sitting on the sidelines, licking their wounds.

This is right. True horseplayers are still betting horses if they have money, they're not taking money they have and betting casino games. If horseplayers are not betting horses, its because they can't afford to.

[biggestal99]

The future of making money at horse racing is exchange wagering, imagine a world without
Odds drops caused by last second huge bets. You lock in a price that you consider fair and viola if the horse wins you collect at that price minus commission. No breakage. You bet at 1.76 you collect at 1.76 instead of 3.40 ya get 3.52 :-) 12 more cents in YOUR pocket.

Allan

[Stillriledup]

The future of making money at horse racing is exchange wagering, imagine a world without
Odds drops caused by last second huge bets. You lock in a price that you consider fair and viola if the horse wins you collect at that price minus commission. No breakage. You bet at 1.76 you collect at 1.76 instead of 3.40 ya get 3.52 :-) 12 more cents in YOUR pocket.

Allan

Its called sports betting. You make a bet and you know what price you're getting. You're betting 110 to win 100 and you know the spread when you bet, the spread doesn't change.

[AndyC]

This is right. True horseplayers are still betting horses if they have money, they're not taking money they have and betting casino games. If horseplayers are not betting horses, its because they can't afford to.

Possibly, but with easier access to sports betting and poker, racing is losing some players to those options. More importantly, the new players aren't coming to racing they are going to poker and sports betting.

[Stillriledup]

Possibly, but with easier access to sports betting and poker, racing is losing some players to those options. More importantly, the new players aren't coming to racing they are going to poker and sports betting.

Racing is hard sell at a blended 20% and non fixed odds vs sports betting with an approximately 5% vig and fixed odds.

[AndyC]

The popular belief is that the horseplayers fled the game in favor of the casinos. IMO...the truth is that the horseplayers who fled the game are sitting on the sidelines, licking their wounds.

I haven't known too many gamblers content to sit on the sidelines for too long. To do that they would have to admit that they aren't smart enough to beat the races. I haven't met too many regular players who don't act like a KIA.

[thaskalos]

Possibly, but with easier access to sports betting and poker, racing is losing some players to those options. More importantly, the new players aren't coming to racing they are going to poker and sports betting.
In all fairness...the government is doing its best to severely limit the access that players get to poker and sports betting. But this doesn't seem to be helping horse racing any...

[Robert Goren]

From what I have seen, potential new bettors are going to "stock market". technology has made it much easier to play there and there are nearly limitless markets to play into. And the cost of playing is a lot less. No shortage of dumb money either.

[Some_One]

There was a poll recently where it showed that only ~10% of people in NJ knew that it was finally legal to play online poker. Contrast that culture to UK/Ire/Aus even HK where you can't go more than 500m in major cities without running into a bookmaker and bookmaker ads are prevalent.

[Redboard]

I think it’s harder to get value now than it was 10 years ago, because of the advancement in computers, software, databases and the plethora of information that’s readily available. Farhaan, the winner of yesterday’s Alydar Stakes race yesterday at Saratoga, is a perfect example. 15-1 ML, went off as 8-1, the highest odds in the field. Back in the day, he would have been at least 12-1. OK, it was only a 6-horse field, but somebody should have been 10-1. There is a big difference between 10-1 and 8-1 in the long term.
I’ve said this before here, that I believe that every starter has an absolutely correct mathematical odds that he will win the race. And if everyone gets bet down to their correct odds, because of takeout, then everyone is an underlay. And if everyone is an underlay, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, you are betting underlays and in the long term, you will lose money.

[Disenchantedguy]

And if everyone gets bet down to their correct odds, because of takeout, then everyone is an underlay. And if everyone is an underlay, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, you are betting underlays and in the long term, you will lose money.

Exactly! This man knows what he is talking about. Like I stated in my original post that all wagers are losing wagers in the long run. Anyway you try and slice it almost every wager ends up in some sort of underlaid position. You might come out on top a few times, but you are going to be betting underlays almost all the time no matter the pool. No horseplayer likes to hear it, I guess because of the ego thing someone mentioned earlier, but 99% of us are nothing but pretenders when it comes to betting the ponies.

[Some_One]

That implies that odds reflect every possible ounce of information possible and that excess gains are impossible, well just like in the stock market, that is BS.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Some_One

If you are able to bet fixed odds on Betfair or with a bookie or on a tote without rebates then what you say is correct. But if you are betting on a tote with rebates and you are getting much smaller rebates than other players (or no rebates at all) then it can be impossible to win or near enough to it

[Some_One]

Some_One

If you are able to bet fixed odds on Betfair or with a bookie or on a tote without rebates then what you say is correct. But if you are betting on a tote with rebates and you are getting much smaller rebates than other players (or no rebates at all) then it can be impossible to win or near enough to it

That's different than what DCG mentioned in his last post because a player with a 1.85 tote ROI is beating the game, just not making a profit. His claim was that's not possible.

Of course higher takeout makes it tougher to find +EV spots and will reduce handle, but that's why my US play is small and my handicapping has evolved to allow me to play Aus/UK/HK where the deal is much better.

[thaskalos]

Exactly! This man knows what he is talking about. Like I stated in my original post that all wagers are losing wagers in the long run. Anyway you try and slice it almost every wager ends up in some sort of underlaid position. You might come out on top a few times, but you are going to be betting underlays almost all the time no matter the pool. No horseplayer likes to hear it, I guess because of the ego thing someone mentioned earlier, but 99% of us are nothing but pretenders when it comes to betting the ponies.
It's hard to discern from your posts here how "advanced" you are in your education on the game. How would you rate yourself as a player...and what do you consider to be your strengths and weaknesses as a horseplayer?

We have to educate ourselves as much as we can before we start blaming the game for our misfortunes.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

The Current State of the Game is this

A Horse called Sunline has a 33.33% chance to win so its correct odds are 2-1

Average Joe punter has been studying the game hard and watching the races closely. Average Joe is a newbie though so not confident yet and never bets more than $10 a race so Average Joe gets no rebates. Average Joe does the form for this race and decides that Sunline looks the horse to beat in this race and with tote odds of 3-1 and 1 minute to post time decides those odds are fair enough and backs Sunline for $10

Meanwhile the Rebate Syndicate's computers are crunching their numbers and their computers decide also that Sunline is the horse to beat. They also correctly conclude that Sunline is a 33.33% chance to win. They are receiving a 10% rebate on win bets at this track. This means they can bet Sunline down to 1.80-1 and still profit as their final payout with rebate added back is better than 2-1. Betting it down to 1.80-1 is better for them as they can bet a lot more money than if they only bet it down to 2-1. As the last horse enters the gate they send in their big bets with the aim of a final price for Sunline of 1.80-1

Sunline does the business on the track and wins the race easily. The Rebate Syndicate weight their bet perfectly and Sunline's final odds are 1.80-1

Final wash-up is as follows

Average Joe did the form correctly but will only receive 1.80-1 when he needed 2-1 long term to break even on this bet. Long term this bet is a -6.67% ROI losing bet for Average Joe. If he places $1 million worth of these bets he loses over $66000

The Rebate Syndicate did the form correctly and they receive final odds of 2.08-1 (1.80-1 plus 10% rebate). They were able to bet thousands to win as they knocked the price down to 1.80-1. Long term this bet is a +2.67% ROI profit maker for the Rebate Syndicate. If they place $1 million worth of these bets they win over $26000

Average Joe did nothing wrong when it comes to doing the form. But if this process continues he will be broke long term while the Rebate Syndicate makes a fortune. The whole scenario is very unfair on Average Joe. As a losing player he will never build up the confidence to increase his bets to get a big rebate like the syndicate. But even if he does this the syndicate will likely increase their bets further as the pool increases as with the Triple Crown races. When the pools get really big the syndicate just up their bets to 200K if need be so that they always get bigger rebates than Average Joe. I don't see any way for Average Joe to break this cycle

Sure occasionally Average Joe might find a bet that the syndicate does not have and so find a profitable ROI bet. But with the syndicate employing dozens of full time analysts and computer modellers these opportunities will be few and far between and Average Joe is better off spending his time doing other things

[thaskalos]

The Current State of the Game is this

A Horse called Sunline has a 33.33% chance to win so its correct odds are 2-1

Average Joe punter has been studying the game hard and watching the races closely. Average Joe is a newbie though so not confident yet and never bets more than $10 a race so Average Joe gets no rebates. Average Joe does the form for this race and decides that Sunline looks the horse to beat in this race and with tote odds of 3-1 and 1 minute to post time decides those odds are fair enough and backs Sunline for $10

Meanwhile the Rebate Syndicate's computers are crunching their numbers and their computers decide also that Sunline is the horse to beat. They also correctly conclude that Sunline is a 33.33% chance to win. They are receiving a 10% rebate on win bets at this track. This means they can bet Sunline down to 1.80-1 and still profit as their final payout with rebate added back is better than 2-1. Betting it down to 1.80-1 is better for them as they can bet a lot more money than if they only bet it down to 2-1. As the last horse enters the gate they send in their big bets with the aim of a final price for Sunline of 1.80-1

Sunline does the business on the track and wins the race easily. The Rebate Syndicate weight their bet perfectly and Sunline's final odds are 1.80-1

Final wash-up is as follows

Average Joe did the form correctly but will only receive 1.80-1 when he needed 2-1 long term to break even on this bet. Long term this bet is a -6.67% ROI losing bet for Average Joe. If he places $1 million worth of these bets he loses over $66000

The Rebate Syndicate did the form correctly and they receive final odds of 2.08-1 (1.80-1 plus 10% rebate). They were able to bet thousands to win as they knocked the price down to 1.80-1. Long term this bet is a +2.67% ROI profit maker for the Rebate Syndicate. If they place $1 million worth of these bets they win over $26000

Average Joe did nothing wrong when it comes to doing the form. But if this process continues he will be broke long term while the Rebate Syndicate makes a fortune. The whole scenario is very unfair on Average Joe. As a losing player he will never build up the confidence to increase his bets to get a big rebate like the syndicate. But even if he does this the syndicate will likely increase their bets further as the pool increases as with the Triple Crown races. When the pools get really big the syndicate just up their bets to 200K if need be so that they always get bigger rebates than Average Joe. I don't see any way for Average Joe to break this cycle

Sure occasionally Average Joe might find a bet that the syndicate does not have and so find a profitable ROI bet. But with the syndicate employing dozens of full time analysts and computer modellers these opportunities will be few and far between and Average Joe is better off spending his time doing other things

Very good summary...IMO. Average Joe is not necessarily being "outplayed" by the whales...it's just that the betting outlets have allowed the whales to have more access to the wagering pools than Average Joe -- or even Above-average Joe -- has. The whale is plugged into the system and allowed to place his wagers at the last possible second...which is something that Average Joe is unable to do.

[Billnewman]

The Current State of the Game is this

A Horse called Sunline has a 33.33% chance to win so its correct odds are 2-1

Average Joe punter has been studying the game hard and watching the races closely. Average Joe is a newbie though so not confident yet and never bets more than $10 a race so Average Joe gets no rebates. Average Joe does the form for this race and decides that Sunline looks the horse to beat in this race and with tote odds of 3-1 and 1 minute to post time decides those odds are fair enough and backs Sunline for $10

Meanwhile the Rebate Syndicate's computers are crunching their numbers and their computers decide also that Sunline is the horse to beat. They also correctly conclude that Sunline is a 33.33% chance to win. They are receiving a 10% rebate on win bets at this track. This means they can bet Sunline down to 1.80-1 and still profit as their final payout with rebate added back is better than 2-1. Betting it down to 1.80-1 is better for them as they can bet a lot more money than if they only bet it down to 2-1. As the last horse enters the gate they send in their big bets with the aim of a final price for Sunline of 1.80-1

Sunline does the business on the track and wins the race easily. The Rebate Syndicate weight their bet perfectly and Sunline's final odds are 1.80-1

Final wash-up is as follows

Average Joe did the form correctly but will only receive 1.80-1 when he needed 2-1 long term to break even on this bet. Long term this bet is a -6.67% ROI losing bet for Average Joe. If he places $1 million worth of these bets he loses over $66000

The Rebate Syndicate did the form correctly and they receive final odds of 2.08-1 (1.80-1 plus 10% rebate). They were able to bet thousands to win as they knocked the price down to 1.80-1. Long term this bet is a +2.67% ROI profit maker for the Rebate Syndicate. If they place $1 million worth of these bets they win over $26000

Average Joe did nothing wrong when it comes to doing the form. But if this process continues he will be broke long term while the Rebate Syndicate makes a fortune. The whole scenario is very unfair on Average Joe. As a losing player he will never build up the confidence to increase his bets to get a big rebate like the syndicate. But even if he does this the syndicate will likely increase their bets further as the pool increases as with the Triple Crown races. When the pools get really big the syndicate just up their bets to 200K if need be so that they always get bigger rebates than Average Joe. I don't see any way for Average Joe to break this cycle

Sure occasionally Average Joe might find a bet that the syndicate does not have and so find a profitable ROI bet. But with the syndicate employing dozens of full time analysts and computer modellers these opportunities will be few and far between and Average Joe is better off spending his time doing other things


What also can happen in your scenario is multiple racing syndicates at the same moment say 20 seconds before decide to slam the 2/1 shot. Average Joe changes his mind while standing in line and decides he likes the 3rd choice at 7/2 and bets his $10 feeling $35 return is fair. When the gates open and the horses run the first quarter, the last flash on the tote says the 2/1 shot goes down to 6/5 and Joes horse jumps to 9/2 and wins. And Joe says to himself that was a nice bonus.

[RXB]

PID R2 on Monday a horse went to the gate at 8/1, actually blipped up to 9/1 as they loaded... but the final odds were 7/2. (It won.) Welcome to the new reality.

[Some_One]

So why play PID then?

[Stillriledup]

The Current State of the Game is this

A Horse called Sunline has a 33.33% chance to win so its correct odds are 2-1

Average Joe punter has been studying the game hard and watching the races closely. Average Joe is a newbie though so not confident yet and never bets more than $10 a race so Average Joe gets no rebates. Average Joe does the form for this race and decides that Sunline looks the horse to beat in this race and with tote odds of 3-1 and 1 minute to post time decides those odds are fair enough and backs Sunline for $10

Meanwhile the Rebate Syndicate's computers are crunching their numbers and their computers decide also that Sunline is the horse to beat. They also correctly conclude that Sunline is a 33.33% chance to win. They are receiving a 10% rebate on win bets at this track. This means they can bet Sunline down to 1.80-1 and still profit as their final payout with rebate added back is better than 2-1. Betting it down to 1.80-1 is better for them as they can bet a lot more money than if they only bet it down to 2-1. As the last horse enters the gate they send in their big bets with the aim of a final price for Sunline of 1.80-1

Sunline does the business on the track and wins the race easily. The Rebate Syndicate weight their bet perfectly and Sunline's final odds are 1.80-1

Final wash-up is as follows

Average Joe did the form correctly but will only receive 1.80-1 when he needed 2-1 long term to break even on this bet. Long term this bet is a -6.67% ROI losing bet for Average Joe. If he places $1 million worth of these bets he loses over $66000

The Rebate Syndicate did the form correctly and they receive final odds of 2.08-1 (1.80-1 plus 10% rebate). They were able to bet thousands to win as they knocked the price down to 1.80-1. Long term this bet is a +2.67% ROI profit maker for the Rebate Syndicate. If they place $1 million worth of these bets they win over $26000

Average Joe did nothing wrong when it comes to doing the form. But if this process continues he will be broke long term while the Rebate Syndicate makes a fortune. The whole scenario is very unfair on Average Joe. As a losing player he will never build up the confidence to increase his bets to get a big rebate like the syndicate. But even if he does this the syndicate will likely increase their bets further as the pool increases as with the Triple Crown races. When the pools get really big the syndicate just up their bets to 200K if need be so that they always get bigger rebates than Average Joe. I don't see any way for Average Joe to break this cycle

Sure occasionally Average Joe might find a bet that the syndicate does not have and so find a profitable ROI bet. But with the syndicate employing dozens of full time analysts and computer modellers these opportunities will be few and far between and Average Joe is better off spending his time doing other things

I think the 2 things that you failed to mention in this writeup are:

1) If Average Joe (AJ) determined that a certain horse deserves to be 2-1 and the horse goes off at 8-5, you're assuming that the horse wouldn't be 8-5 if nobody got rebates. But, isn't it possible that the horse was really an 8-5 shot and AJs calculations were off a little bit and the proper market price was really 8-5 and not 2-1?

2) When a horse who is supposed to be 2-1 (according to any handicapper who determines this) goes off at 8-5, that means another horse goes UP in price. So, what if there are 2 horses in the same race that deserve to be 2-1 and one of them gets hit down to 8-5, maybe in a perfect world, the other 2-1 will become value at 5-2.

[Stillriledup]

Very good summary...IMO. Average Joe is not necessarily being "outplayed" by the whales...it's just that the betting outlets have allowed the whales to have more access to the wagering pools than Average Joe -- or even Above-average Joe -- has. The whale is plugged into the system and allowed to place his wagers at the last possible second...which is something that Average Joe is unable to do.

Take a look at the Del Mar Pick 5 pool with 100 minutes to post. Yes, 100. The pool is already almost 100k. That means to me, that "average joes" could care less about waiting till the last second or even waiting till the horses step on the track. Why in tarnation would you bet a pick 5 with 100 minutes to post?

So, i'm not really buying that too many people care about waiting till the horses are loading to bet. Most people have their bets in already.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Stillriledup

for the purposes of my example you can simply assume that 2-1 is the break even price. There is no need to consider that maybe 8-5 was the correct price

The points behind my example were this

1. In a world of big rebates, a player with no rebates (or small rebates) can exhibit the same selection skills as a big rebate syndicate yet go broke at the same time as the rebate syndicate makes a fortune. Betting the same horses can send you broke thanks to the gap in price created by the rebate. If the rebate is 10% then the ROI on the bet might be +5% for the syndicate and -5% for the non rebate player. Or it could be +3% for the syndicate and -7% for the non rebate player. With big rebates it is very easy for the non rebate player to get "gapped" and fall below 0% ROI with their bets at the same time as the big syndicate makes big bets at a positive ROI

2. Given the time and resources available to the syndicate with their full time form analysts, the number of positive ROI bets missed by the big syndicates is likely to be very small. So the amount of profit playing these bets is going to be very small as your turnover will be very small (which again means no rebates for this player)

[castaway01]

Take a look at the Del Mar Pick 5 pool with 100 minutes to post. Yes, 100. The pool is already almost 100k. That means to me, that "average joes" could care less about waiting till the last second or even waiting till the horses step on the track. Why in tarnation would you bet a pick 5 with 100 minutes to post?

So, i'm not really buying that too many people care about waiting till the horses are loading to bet. Most people have their bets in already.

The Pick 5 is obviously different because you aren't waiting to see toteboard odds. Your bets in the 4th leg won't change before the first race, whether it's 10 minutes or 100 minutes.

Also, the facts are that 70% of the money is wagered in the last minute or two before post. It doesn't matter whether you "buy it" or not. Track the pool size at 10, 5, and 2, and 0 minutes to post time and you'll see that's when the money is bet. So you're factually wrong.

[AndyC]

Stillriledup

for the purposes of my example you can simply assume that 2-1 is the break even price. There is no need to consider that maybe 8-5 was the correct price

The points behind my example were this

1. In a world of big rebates, a player with no rebates (or small rebates) can exhibit the same selection skills as a big rebate syndicate yet go broke at the same time as the rebate syndicate makes a fortune. Betting the same horses can send you broke thanks to the gap in price created by the rebate. If the rebate is 10% then the ROI on the bet might be +5% for the syndicate and -5% for the non rebate player. Or it could be +3% for the syndicate and -7% for the non rebate player. With big rebates it is very easy for the non rebate player to get "gapped" and fall below 0% ROI with their bets at the same time as the big syndicate makes big bets at a positive ROI

2. Given the time and resources available to the syndicate with their full time form analysts, the number of positive ROI bets missed by the big syndicates is likely to be very small. So the amount of profit playing these bets is going to be very small as your turnover will be very small (which again means no rebates for this player)

I agree that scenario #1 would happen in the highly unlikely event that a bettor exactly mirrored what a syndicate bet. The takeaway from your example is to not bet like a syndicate. Find areas or betting opportunities that require information unavailable to the syndicates.

You greatly overestimate the abilities of the syndicates. If you are looking for positive ROI bets where they are focusing then there are probably slim pickings.

[jahura2]

Please excuse me if this question is naive but doesn't the above scenario encourage average Joe to stick with horizontal bets? i.e. p3 and p4? I am an average Joe but many on this board recommend WIN bets only. If I am up against the syndicates regarding WIN bets aren't exotics my better option?

[Poindexter]

I agree that scenario #1 would happen in the highly unlikely event that a bettor exactly mirrored what a syndicate bet. The takeaway from your example is to not bet like a syndicate. Find areas or betting opportunities that require information unavailable to the syndicates.

You greatly overestimate the abilities of the syndicates. If you are looking for positive ROI bets where they are focusing then there are probably slim pickings.

The point is that if rebates weren't in the game, these whales would not be knocking a 2-1 fair value from 5-2 to 9/5 there would be no benefit in doing so. They would have to leave a profit margin so they would likely knock the 5/2 down to 2.2 or 2.3. Joe public is now being rewarded with a long term profit instead of a loss if they handicap well.

Based off of what do you claim he is overestimating the ability of the whales?
Every article I have seen about them leads me to believe they are that sharp.

The bigger question is how does a game grow, when Joe Public is given a menu of one undervalued horse after another? Sure there are a few guys on this board that can overcome and even a couple that thrive with the Whales, but they are the rare exception....and this game isn't going to grow if you need a skill set that off the charts to do well or to even hold your own.

[Poindexter]

Please excuse me if this question is naive but doesn't the above scenario encourage average Joe to stick with horizontal bets? i.e. p3 and p4? I am an average Joe but many on this board recommend WIN bets only. If I am up against the syndicates regarding WIN bets aren't exotics my better option?

It is actually a good question, and I tend to lean that direction myself. I have no idea exactly what tools they have at there disposal. In this day and age it would not surprise me if they had the software capable of reading every combination bet and exploit those pools just as vehemently as they attack all the others. I sure do not trust that the racetracks have this info protected. I guess if so interested you can run a study of "live" horses that win and see if they are being hit hard in the pick 3 and pick 4 pools(in other words if a horse gets pounded from 4-1 to 8/5 and runs off-was he an 8/5 shot in the pick3's/pick4;s ending that race. Sounds like a lot of work to me, but it might answer your question. At the very least I am sure they are using win, exacta and daily double pools to help formulate their wagers in these pools.

[thaskalos]

The point is that if rebates weren't in the game, these whales would not be knocking a 2-1 fair value from 5-2 to 9/5 there would be no benefit in doing so. They would have to leave a profit margin so they would likely knock the 5/2 down to 2.2 or 2.3. Joe public is now being rewarded with a long term profit instead of a loss if they handicap well.

Based off of what do you claim he is overestimating the ability of the whales?
Every article I have seen about them leads me to believe they are that sharp.

The bigger question is how does a game grow, when Joe Public is given a menu of one undervalued horse after another? Sure there are a few guys on this board that can overcome and even a couple that thrive with the Whales, but they are the rare exception....and this game isn't going to grow if you need a skill set that off the charts to do well or to even hold your own.

Every entity in the game is primarily interested in fattening their wallets. The horseplayers are the only ones interested in "growing the game"...because a healthy mutuel pool is the only means by which they can realize their own goals. The tracks and the horsemen couldn't care less where their profits are coming from. They would just as easily hope to grow their casino business, instead of the game.

[Stillriledup]

Stillriledup

for the purposes of my example you can simply assume that 2-1 is the break even price. There is no need to consider that maybe 8-5 was the correct price

The points behind my example were this

1. In a world of big rebates, a player with no rebates (or small rebates) can exhibit the same selection skills as a big rebate syndicate yet go broke at the same time as the rebate syndicate makes a fortune. Betting the same horses can send you broke thanks to the gap in price created by the rebate. If the rebate is 10% then the ROI on the bet might be +5% for the syndicate and -5% for the non rebate player. Or it could be +3% for the syndicate and -7% for the non rebate player. With big rebates it is very easy for the non rebate player to get "gapped" and fall below 0% ROI with their bets at the same time as the big syndicate makes big bets at a positive ROI

2. Given the time and resources available to the syndicate with their full time form analysts, the number of positive ROI bets missed by the big syndicates is likely to be very small. So the amount of profit playing these bets is going to be very small as your turnover will be very small (which again means no rebates for this player)

I think that if an Average Joe has the selection skills of someone who is good enough to win, he will win. The "profit" that the rebate players get is after the fact profit, the profit doesn't come out of the takeout. In other words, if the SA win takeout is 15.43 percent (or whatever it is currently) that takeout is how the odds are determined. If 100k is bet into a win pool at SA, they give back 84,570. Now, you did allude in an earlier example of having just 2 races per meet that were "Rebate free". But if the races were rebate free, and the win pool was 100k, the takeout still remains the same, so Average Joe is betting into a pool where the comeback is 84, 570. There's no difference for the Average Joe whether or not that 84,570 is being bet by rebate players or little old ladies from Pasadena.

[Stillriledup]

It is actually a good question, and I tend to lean that direction myself. I have no idea exactly what tools they have at there disposal. In this day and age it would not surprise me if they had the software capable of reading every combination bet and exploit those pools just as vehemently as they attack all the others. I sure do not trust that the racetracks have this info protected. I guess if so interested you can run a study of "live" horses that win and see if they are being hit hard in the pick 3 and pick 4 pools(in other words if a horse gets pounded from 4-1 to 8/5 and runs off-was he an 8/5 shot in the pick3's/pick4;s ending that race. Sounds like a lot of work to me, but it might answer your question. At the very least I am sure they are using win, exacta and daily double pools to help formulate their wagers in these pools.

I've talked about in another thread that i believe players who get the ability to have computers bet for them is much more hurtful to Average Joe than the fact that those players get rebates too. The biggest bettors would not be able to make "Efficient" wagers without the help of a computer, if they had to bet like everyone else does, the market wouldn't be nearly as efficient.

People have said that if you take away the rebates, the biggest bettors would stop betting, but i'll venture to guess that if you took away their COMPUTERS they might leave too, even if you let them have their current rebate.

The day that tracks stop permitting computers to bet FOR people is the day the average bettor starts seeing more value in the pools and less of these wild odd swings at off time.

Its not the rebate that's killing Average Joe, its the ability of large bettors to place their money into the pools by computer which makes the market much more efficient than it would be if those bettors had to bet in other less efficient ways.

[Poindexter]

I think that if an Average Joe has the selection skills of someone who is good enough to win, he will win. The "profit" that the rebate players get is after the fact profit, the profit doesn't come out of the takeout. In other words, if the SA win takeout is 15.43 percent (or whatever it is currently) that takeout is how the odds are determined. If 100k is bet into a win pool at SA, they give back 84,570. Now, you did allude in an earlier example of having just 2 races per meet that were "Rebate free". But if the races were rebate free, and the win pool was 100k, the takeout still remains the same, so Average Joe is betting into a pool where the comeback is 84, 570. There's no difference for the Average Joe whether or not that 84,570 is being bet by rebate players or little old ladies from Pasadena.


SRU, you have a difficult time with this concept. Let’s forget it is a horse race. Let’s assume that the only gambling available is the roll of 1 die. It happens every night at 7 pm. So everybody in the country is betting on the roll of the die. Everyone knows that basically random, so that outcome for 1 to 6 should be 5-1 each. Let’s assume a 15% take. If bet properly every outcome would have the exact same amount bet to win. So assuming $1 million dollars was bet on all 6 outcomes, $900,000 would be the take and 5.1 million would be paid out to the winning outcome. So if each outcome is bet properly all outcomes with a true odds of 5-1 each pay 4.1-1. Now of course that is not going to happen. The number 4 might be hot(winning 6 of the last 7 rolls) and it gets hammered to 2-1. The number 1 may not have won in the last 100 rolls, so people are assuming a big bias and leaving it at 10-1…….The point is that as people make irrational wagers, value often will appear somewhere. In this case the number 1 at 10-1 is your value. The difference between a roll of the die (we know for sure the exact chances of each outcome) vs a horse race(where some have a good feel, others have no feel but as a whole the public does fairly good). Now let’s take the roll of the die and pretend nobody knows what is on the die. In other words it is a secret. We know there are 6 possible outcomes but for all we know there is a 50 % chance of rolling a 3 and a 10% chance of rolling a 6……That makes our game a little more interesting. Now statistical experts, chart the outcome and after a 100 roles or so they have a fairly good idea that each outcome has about the same chance of winning. So they are value seekers and they look for situations where they can get 6-1 or better and bet them. They just keep grinding away a profit. They are the ones who will win consistently, while the public that bets off of silly things like the number is hot or the number is cold or my birth is in month 3, they will tend to lose. Now the sharp members of the public, might not be experts at statistics, but after a while they have a fairly good idea that each number or at least most numbers has about an equal chance of winning and they also look for the inflated value situations and bet them (maybe they are looking for 8-1 or better on the 3 or 4). Now the experts in statistics now have a sure way of winning. Find value, bet value and win. They start making a lot of money and betting more and more. Of course the more they bet the more they knock there odds down. So some genius decides, let us rebate them 7% on every dollar they bet(because like Target we want to reward our good customers). So the group realizes, hey this is pretty good. I can bet every number above 5-1 down to exactly 5-1 and I get a big fat rebate of 7%. The more outcomes I cover, the more money I bet, the more money I win. This is legalized stealing. So they program their computer to read pools at the last second of and to bet exactly the right amount to knock every horse over 5-1 to exactly 5-1. Now what happens to the sharps out there who used to bet 8-1 shots and made nice money, well suddenly there 8-1’s are down to 5-1 and they never bet anymore. “The crowd is just too sharp”. Suddenly this game has become really boring and everyone is losing except for the group getting the 7% rebate. Now the best argument you rebate guys can come up with is well the #4 who is overbet at 3.4-1 is now paying 3.8-1. But what good does that do anyone when the chances of it winning are 1 in 5. Without the rebate the statistic group still has to leave themselves some room for profit, but once rebate enters the picture, they suddenly do not have the motivation to do so. Thus the rebates knock all value out of the pool.

This very analogous to what has been happening in racing. The only difference is we are dealing with subjective probability instead of objective probability, but make no mistake, the guys betting that kind of money have a clear understanding of what each horse should be going off at. They are not making horses that should be 3-1, 4/5. If they were everyone on this board would be commenting how stupid they were for betting so and so down to 4/5 and I do not think I have ever seen a thread like that here……and more importantly they would be going broke very quickly and replaced by guys who did know what they were doing.

[Redboard]

Please excuse me if this question is naive but doesn't the above scenario encourage average Joe to stick with horizontal bets? i.e. p3 and p4? I am an average Joe but many on this board recommend WIN bets only. If I am up against the syndicates regarding WIN bets aren't exotics my better option?

Steven Crist makes this point in the first chapter of his book “Exotic Betting”. “The problem of which horse is going to win the race has been solved.” Which another way of saying that everyone is going off at their correct odds. He goes on to tout the superiority of the multi-race bet. I think that these types of bets are more likely to get the tracks ML odds and are less susceptible to the last-second pari-mutuel fluctuations since the tote board doesn’t tell you if the favorite in the 5th leg is an overlay.

[burnsy]

Steven Crist makes this point in the first chapter of his book “Exotic Betting”. “The problem of which horse is going to win the race has been solved.” Which another way of saying that everyone is going off at their correct odds. He goes on to tout the superiority of the multi-race bet. I think that these types of bets are more likely to get the tracks ML odds and are less susceptible to the last-second pari-mutuel fluctuations since the tote board doesn’t tell you if the favorite in the 5th leg is an overlay.

Its true, if you want to score you gotta play them. But my everyday bet at Saratoga is the exacta. On a good day I can knock down two or three of them without going deep. The pool is always huge and they pay well almost every time.

I understand the complaints, like in the other thread. But I don't see what people can do about it. Other than venting on the internet...it doesn't change jack. Believe me, I used to be the worst complainer too. At my age I have to stay focused and conserve energy so I've come to the conclusion that bitching is a waste of time. Like anything else if you roll with the changes you'll do better. Otherwise, just give it up.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

jahura2

Win bets are your best option against the syndicates. Exotic bets are a worse deal for the player not getting big rebates. This is because the big rebate syndicates generally get bigger rebates on exotic bets than they do for win bets in the USA at least (Hong Kong is different)

http://www.nyrarewards.com/wagering/rebate_schedule.aspx

Just taking the NYRA rebate schedule as one example, the biggest rebate level is Diamond. Diamond players get 3% rebate for Win, Place, Show but 9% rebate for exotic which looks to be a 3 or more horse exotic bet

http://www.nyra.com/saratoga/handicapping/nyra-wagering-info/

NYRA takeout is 16% for Win, Place, Show and 24% for most exotics with some low takeout exotics at 15%

The biggest rebaters at NYRA have a much smaller advantage over you in the Win, Place, Show pools at 3% rebate with 16% takeout than they do in the exotic pools at 9% rebate with 24% takeout

Most rebate deals will be similar to NYRA and offer bigger rebates for more exotic bets

You are much better off betting Win, Place or Show if not getting a rebate or getting only a small rebate

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Stillriledup

I agree with you about the computer assisted wagering being an advantage to the syndicates too

The thing is the players with the biggest rebates also get the most advantage from computer assisted wagering. Put these 2 advantages together and its dynamite. The game becomes completely unfair and Average Joe has no hope

[jahura2]

jahura2

Win bets are your best option against the syndicates. Exotic bets are a worse deal for the player not getting big rebates. This is because the big rebate syndicates generally get bigger rebates on exotic bets than they do for win bets in the USA at least (Hong Kong is different)

http://www.nyrarewards.com/wagering/rebate_schedule.aspx

Just taking the NYRA rebate schedule as one example, the biggest rebate level is Diamond. Diamond players get 3% rebate for Win, Place, Show but 9% rebate for exotic which looks to be a 3 or more horse exotic bet

http://www.nyra.com/saratoga/handicapping/nyra-wagering-info/

NYRA takeout is 16% for Win, Place, Show and 24% for most exotics with some low takeout exotics at 15%

The biggest rebaters at NYRA have a much smaller advantage over you in the Win, Place, Show pools at 3% rebate with 16% takeout than they do in the exotic pools at 9% rebate with 24% takeout

Most rebate deals will be similar to NYRA and offer bigger rebates for more exotic bets

You are much better off betting Win, Place or Show if not getting a rebate or getting only a small rebate
Good stuff here. Thanks for the info. Wasn't aware of the rebate schedule for exotics from NYRA. Will still have to balance my plays between the two. Just trying to make the most informed wagers I can.
Also. With my level of play I just can't get too hung up with what the "syndicates" are doing and concentrate on my own wagers.

[AndyC]

jahura2

Win bets are your best option against the syndicates. Exotic bets are a worse deal for the player not getting big rebates. This is because the big rebate syndicates generally get bigger rebates on exotic bets than they do for win bets in the USA at least (Hong Kong is different)

http://www.nyrarewards.com/wagering/rebate_schedule.aspx

Just taking the NYRA rebate schedule as one example, the biggest rebate level is Diamond. Diamond players get 3% rebate for Win, Place, Show but 9% rebate for exotic which looks to be a 3 or more horse exotic bet

http://www.nyra.com/saratoga/handicapping/nyra-wagering-info/

NYRA takeout is 16% for Win, Place, Show and 24% for most exotics with some low takeout exotics at 15%

The biggest rebaters at NYRA have a much smaller advantage over you in the Win, Place, Show pools at 3% rebate with 16% takeout than they do in the exotic pools at 9% rebate with 24% takeout

Most rebate deals will be similar to NYRA and offer bigger rebates for more exotic bets

You are much better off betting Win, Place or Show if not getting a rebate or getting only a small rebate


I would take the complete opposite approach. I would much rather compete in the blind exotic pools where larger bets are more dilutive than they are in the W-P-S pools. Presumably because the whales have squeezed the ROI out of the horses they have bet you would probably want to be betting another horse or combination.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Man this is a depressing thread. :(

No worries. I'll keep skipping right along as an Average Joe cashing as many signers as possible all the while loving the greatest game on the planet. :jump:

[Redboard]

I would take the complete opposite approach. I would much rather compete in the blind exotic pools where larger bets are more dilutive than they are in the W-P-S pools. Presumably because the whales have squeezed the ROI out of the horses they have bet you would probably want to be betting another horse or combination.

I agree. With a multirace bet the syndicates do not have the ability to trigger large bets 5 seconds before post when the odds are above their threshold line(except for the first race). The low takeout pick 5's offered by Monmouth and others are the best on the menu IMO. If the takeout is only 15%, there's only so much they can rebate which gives the syndicates less room to stay above the threshold.

[Niko]

I still wonder why:

If insider trading is illegal and punishable in the financial markets...

If it's illegal (prohibited) for coaches and players in sports to bet on their sport or throw a game.

why does horse racing encourage their trainers and participants to do so and bet vs their customers (set up a horse for a nice score?) They're already running for purse money (please don't say that it's hard to make money at smaller tracks so it's justified)

If it creates corruption in other arenas of speculation and therefore has been controlled for the most part..why not horse racing?