Handle Analysis in California. Wow.

[DeanT]

Horseplayers are generally pretty bright. (http://thorotrends.com/news-and-views/50-blog/77-those-brainy-horseplayers)To have a modicum of success you have to analyze hundreds if not thousands of factors, put those factors into an overall odds line and pull the trigger. Even when you do that, then you have to structure tickets properly. It's like analyzing a business case.

Jeff Platt is a pretty smart horseplayer, and analyzes data better than most.

In a two part series on the HANA blog, he looked at the thinking behind the daily double takeout changes in California. As most know, they changed the double takeout from last year to this, dropping it about 4%. They also, for some reason unbeknownst to anyone I have spoken to, eliminated the rolling doubles, only offering three per day.

So, when analyzing the above, you have to take into account variables like the overall handle change, daily double handle changes, and the lost number of daily doubles. Some standardization is in order.

At the CHRB meeting last month, as Jeff spoke of in part one, this was not done. Overall double handles were looked at without looking at any other variable. Clearly handle would be down, because only 207 doubles were offered, from 545 during the apples to apples period but they did not take this into account. Politics? Probably. If McDonald's dropped the price of Big Mac's by 10 cents, closed 62% of their stores and saw (the only obvious result with that many store closings) gross Big Mac sales go down they would never say the 10 cent drop was a bad idea. But Cali racing did.

If you like to see the inner workings of this sport, and why math, science and real analysis takes a back seat to people, politics and personality, it's eye opening.And it provides us with a good glimpse on why policies that raise handle in racing have been so difficult to get enacted.

Give part I (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2014/08/the-flawed-logic-behind-higher-takeout.html) and part II (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2014/08/double-gate-part-ii.html) a read here.

[cj]

The simple question tracks need to answer in these situations, but never seem to bother, is if the increased handle is enough to offset the drop in takeout.

Let's use Jeff's 24% increase at 18% vs 22%. Assume the following:

Handle at 22%: 1,000,000
Handle at 18%: 1,240,000

Revenue via takeout at 22%: 220,000
Revenue via takeout at 18%: 223,200

So not only did handle rise, which we all knew it would, it rose enough to INCREASE REVENUE. Only fools would fight against that. Further drops would probably raise revenue more. There would be a tipping point. But instead of trying to find it, the industry (most, not all) seems hellbent on going in the wrong direction.

[GameTheory]

I understand that in most situations "politics" means opposing groups want different things for themselves, and when one group gets more, some other group get less, and so they fight and a compromise is reached (or everyone digs in and nothing happens). But in this case we're arguing, begging for THEM to make more money, for everyone to win, and yet they resist and resist as if we just want to take something at someone else's expense. I think they fight without even knowing what they are fighting assuming you are trying to take something from them. We need a series of one-on-one meetings (or personalized letters/presentations directed to a single person at a time) that will explain things and how they personally will benefit so they know exactly what they are saying no to.

[Exotic1]

The simple question tracks need to answer in these situations, but never seem to bother, is if the increased handle is enough to offset the drop in takeout.

Let's use Jeff's 24% increase at 18% vs 22%. Assume the following:

Handle at 22%: 1,000,000
Handle at 18%: 1,240,000

Revenue via takeout at 22%: 220,000
Revenue via takeout at 18%: 223,200

So not only did handle rise, which we all knew it would, it rose enough to INCREASE REVENUE. Only fools would fight against that. Further drops would probably raise revenue more. There would be a tipping point. But instead of trying to find it, the industry (most, not all) seems hellbent on going in the wrong direction.

Concise and perfect illustration.

[DJofSD]

Thanks to Dean and Jeff for the work, sharing it and posting.

[JustRalph]

Why is this so hard for horse racing management to figure out?

It doesn't matter what your product is, from candy to automobiles, the same principle applies. And there will always be a breaking point, but good businesses have been doing this for centuries. Why not racing?





The simple question tracks need to answer in these situations, but never seem to bother, is if the increased handle is enough to offset the drop in takeout.

Let's use Jeff's 24% increase at 18% vs 22%. Assume the following:

Handle at 22%: 1,000,000
Handle at 18%: 1,240,000

Revenue via takeout at 22%: 220,000
Revenue via takeout at 18%: 223,200

So not only did handle rise, which we all knew it would, it rose enough to INCREASE REVENUE. Only fools would fight against that. Further drops would probably raise revenue more. There would be a tipping point. But instead of trying to find it, the industry (most, not all) seems hellbent on going in the wrong direction.

[GameTheory]

Why is this so hard for horse racing management to figure out?
They don't seem to even know they are in a business. It is operated like government.

[dilanesp]

The simple question tracks need to answer in these situations, but never seem to bother, is if the increased handle is enough to offset the drop in takeout.

Let's use Jeff's 24% increase at 18% vs 22%. Assume the following:

Handle at 22%: 1,000,000
Handle at 18%: 1,240,000

Revenue via takeout at 22%: 220,000
Revenue via takeout at 18%: 223,200

So not only did handle rise, which we all knew it would, it rose enough to INCREASE REVENUE. Only fools would fight against that. Further drops would probably raise revenue more. There would be a tipping point. But instead of trying to find it, the industry (most, not all) seems hellbent on going in the wrong direction.

While I agree with this narrowly, horseplayers should be careful about this argument because it's like Republican supply-side arguments about tax cuts-- it's sometimes true but not with any regularity.

The best arguments for cutting takeout are (1) it encourages people to bet, (2) it might attract more gamblers to the game by making the game more attractive as compared to competition, (3) it's good customer service, rewarding the people without whom the game would not exist in anything like its current form, (4) even in situations where it is likely to cost revenue, it won't cost that much, and it will sometimes raise revenue too.

[Robert Fischer]

Thank you Jeff Platt and DeanT.

[classhandicapper]

The simple question tracks need to answer in these situations, but never seem to bother, is if the increased handle is enough to offset the drop in takeout.



This is what I've been saying for years and years.

The entire discussion of this issue has been flawed for as long as I've been reading about it. That's even true among horse players where the emphasis has often been placed on changes to the handle instead of the bottom line to the track.

Even some of the discussions about specific low take bets like the pick 5 are flawed. They may attract huge handles and even encourage betting on the individual races that make them up, but where is that money coming from?

Is that brand new money?

Is that money being diverted from other exotic bets or races on the same card?

Is that money being diverted from another circuit? (Which means it's a positive for one circuit but a negative for others. Which could in turn mean that if other tracks followed suit it could turn into a negative on the bottom line for all the tracks.)

These are very difficult questions to answer because there are so many moving parts it's close to impossible to control for all of them and isolate the impact of track take on bottom lines. There are also economic changes (local and national) that have huge impacts.

IMO the easiest and best argument for a lower take would be demonstrating that you could attract brand new players to the game (away from sports, poker, lotteries etc...). That way you would know for sure the pie was growing and not just being shuffled around.

[Stillriledup]

I think the 2 biggest problems (not counting Game Theory's comments that they're running this like the government) is the WAY that takeout is distributed to all the hands that are in the cookie jar. They don't divide the money, they divide the percentage...and when the percentage goes down, someone loses a percentage of their percentage. Now, i'm sure they might realize that while their percentage is lower, their rake is going to be significantly higher. Well, maybe they don't have any clue at all.

The other problem that they see is with simulcasting. If Santa Anita lowers their DDs from 22 to 18, they theoretically save their customers money. BUT, many of their customers are not betting JUST on Santa Anita...so, the money the Santa Anita bettor (who is out of state) saves might go into the 5th at Arlington or the 3rd at Lone Star. Santa Anita doesn't mind saving their customers money by lowering takeout, but they want that "savings" to be rebet on THEIR races, and that's not always the case.

[DJofSD]

I think the 2 biggest problems (not counting Game Theory's comments that they're running this like the government) is the WAY that takeout is distributed to all the hands that are in the cookie jar. They don't divide the money, they divide the percentage...and when the percentage goes down, someone loses a percentage of their percentage. Now, i'm sure they might realize that while their percentage is lower, their rake is going to be significantly higher. Well, maybe they don't have any clue at all.

The other problem that they see is with simulcasting. If Santa Anita lowers their DDs from 22 to 18, they theoretically save their customers money. BUT, many of their customers are not betting JUST on Santa Anita...so, the money the Santa Anita bettor (who is out of state) saves might go into the 5th at Arlington or the 3rd at Lone Star. Santa Anita doesn't mind saving their customers money by lowering takeout, but they want that "savings" to be rebet on THEIR races, and that's not always the case.
Good points.

However, if I am not mistaken, the focus of Jeff's efforts is strictly how they count and account for monies coming in through the window.

The sordid history of how the state and the CHRB has justified increases makes me wonder if the books have ever been audited and if they use generally accepted accounting practices.

[RXB]

http://www.horseracingintfed.com/resources/WorldMedia/ICHA_2007/Chang_2007E.pdf

Look, they actually used legitimate analytical techniques to determine approximately where their sweetspot might be for takeout.

In North America, horse trainers and political hacks make the calls on takeout. Gee, I wonder why the sport is doing alright in HK and failing here.

[Stillriledup]

http://www.horseracingintfed.com/resources/WorldMedia/ICHA_2007/Chang_2007E.pdf

Look, they actually used legitimate analytical techniques to determine approximately where their sweetspot might be for takeout.

In North America, horse trainers and political hacks make the calls on takeout. Gee, I wonder why the sport is doing alright in HK and failing here.

There aren't too many businesses in the world that have data thrust upon them to show them conclusively that they're "leaving money on the table" and yet, they just ignore the data and leave money on the table.

Maybe they need to hire Marcus Lemonis to come in and make them a "profit".

[Zydeco]

They don't seem to even know they are in a business. It is operated like government.
Bingo!

[JustRalph]

They don't seem to even know they are in a business. It is operated like government.

Excellent point. Players treated like tax payers makes perfect sense

[EMD4ME]

I have a question...

If I bet the SA DD at NYRA, doesn't SA receive 5% (or whatever the set % is for the signal)? So if the DD vig goes down, doesn't that mean that NYRA is making less money on the wager (or the site taking the wager)?

It seems to me that any track lowering the vig is only losing money when it comes to on track handle. Am I wrong?

[fmhealth]

Interesting perspective to say the least.

http://www.barntowire.com/smf/index.php?topic=67302.0

[GameTheory]

Interesting perspective to say the least.

http://www.barntowire.com/smf/index.php?topic=67302.0

Jeff Platt *caused* all of racing problems, that's hilarious. (Because management can't stop listening to him -- they are his puppets!) Wow.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Interesting perspective to say the least.

http://www.barntowire.com/smf/index.php?topic=67302.0

Surely nobody can be that ignorant? RacetrackRailboard obviously can't find his own arse with both hands.....wow.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

I have to say that Racetrack Railbird and the The Turf Monster at that website make some sense

The problem with this debate about takeout rates is this

It is simply not true that tracks are unwilling to try lower takeout. They have enthusiastically been offering lower takeout since the late 1990s. The problem is these massive takeout reductions (sometimes in the order of 40% of the takeout) have only been made available to a select few. Only about 20% of the money being bet has enjoyed them

The results of this experiment (AKA rebates) has not seen handle go up or revenue increase for the tracks long term

Can you blame the tracks for not wanting to lower takeout for all now when lowering it drastically for the select few has failed? I can't

[cj]

I have to say that Racetrack Railbird and the The Turf Monster at that website make some sense

The problem with this debate about takeout rates is this

It is simply not true that tracks are unwilling to try lower takeout. They have enthusiastically been offering lower takeout since the late 1990s. The problem is these massive takeout reductions (sometimes in the order of 40% of the takeout) have only been made available to a select few. Only about 20% of the money being bet has enjoyed them

The results of this experiment (AKA rebates) has not seen handle go up or revenue increase for the tracks long term

Can you blame the tracks for not wanting to lower takeout for all now when lowering it drastically for the select few has failed? I can't

Imagine where handle would be without rebates. The product is getting worse, that it's why business is declining, not rebates.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

cj

I agree racing product is getting worse all round the world. A key reason for this is the game only caters for a small group who make a killing while most people involved in racing go broke. The people going broke leave the game and are not replaced by younger people

Rebates lock in a small cartel of big rebate players as perpetual winners while everyone else betting loses

Turning a blind eye to drugs etc allows some trainers to train lots of winners which means honest trainers go broke and leave the game because they cannot train enough winners

Allowing syndicators to get rebates at yearling sales so they can claim they bought the horse for 150K when they really paid 120K and syndicating the horse for the full 150K to the new owners who will go broke in the long run paying overs

Allowing Coolmore and Godolphin to dominate in the breeding world has seen them destroy competitive racing at the top in the UK and now these 2 operations are spreading over the world and will kill top racing in other countries too. Coolmore got to where they did through tax breaks which is like rebates

Too much of the wealth in racing is flowing to a few. And if you look closely you will see it is happening because these few have some nice little rorts working for them. Rebates is just one of these rorts

In the end racing will die because it has become too expensive for the Average Joe to play whether as a bettor or an owner of racehorses

[classhandicapper]

http://www.horseracingintfed.com/resources/WorldMedia/ICHA_2007/Chang_2007E.pdf

Look, they actually used legitimate analytical techniques to determine approximately where their sweetspot might be for takeout.



I skimmed the article, but again, he seems to be focusing on "revenue" (turnover) instead of actual track profits.

The best point he made was that cutting the take closed the gap between legal and illegal betting and reduced leakage. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. There are so many moving parts when it comes to handle and track bottom line it's hard to control for everything. But if you can demonstrate that "new players" are coming to the party, you have something concrete demonstrating that the pie is actually growing instead of being shuffled around to different bet types, different circuits, different days, etc... and there is actually a chance for the bottom line to the tracks to grow.

[Grits]

Interesting perspective to say the least.

http://www.barntowire.com/smf/index.php?topic=67302.0

Three words for this...

TWITTER INCOMING. Expanded.

You can't present yourself, your points by any means other than namecalling? Morons, pimps, clueless fools, stupid?

You have nothing, least of all, everyone's attention. Having gone to one of the poster's blogs, I'm reminded why I have little use for many horseracing bloggers. They have poor writing skill. Some, even none. They're legendary in the cheap, cocky, one shot world of Twitter.

[DJofSD]

Three words for this...

TWITTER INCOMING. Expanded.

You can't present yourself, your points by any means other than namecalling? Morons, pimps, clueless fools, stupid?

You have nothing, least of all, everyone's attention. Having gone to one of the poster's blogs, I'm reminded why I have little use for many horseracing bloggers. They have poor writing skill. Some, even none. They're legendary in the cheap, cocky, one shot world of Twitter.
There's one word at the top of the page that tells me all I need to know - Chicago.

[AndyC]

I have to say that Racetrack Railbird and the The Turf Monster at that website make some sense

The problem with this debate about takeout rates is this

It is simply not true that tracks are unwilling to try lower takeout. They have enthusiastically been offering lower takeout since the late 1990s. The problem is these massive takeout reductions (sometimes in the order of 40% of the takeout) have only been made available to a select few. Only about 20% of the money being bet has enjoyed them

The results of this experiment (AKA rebates) has not seen handle go up or revenue increase for the tracks long term

Can you blame the tracks for not wanting to lower takeout for all now when lowering it drastically for the select few has failed? I can't

Less than 2% of the bettors know about takeout yet rebates are destroying the game? How is that possible?

If you don't know or care about the takeout you are merely betting horses for fun. Serious horseplayers are not lottery players. Lottery players are too caught up in their dream world to even understand that there is a takeout.

Tracks don't give rebates, the ADWs do. To say that rebates haven't increased handle dramatically is ridiculous. The handle hasn't gone down from the players getting rebates. The handle has dropped because the lottery type bettors have found other avenues to get their gambling endorphins flowing.

[Stillriledup]

cj

I agree racing product is getting worse all round the world. A key reason for this is the game only caters for a small group who make a killing while most people involved in racing go broke. The people going broke leave the game and are not replaced by younger people

Rebates lock in a small cartel of big rebate players as perpetual winners while everyone else betting loses

Turning a blind eye to drugs etc allows some trainers to train lots of winners which means honest trainers go broke and leave the game because they cannot train enough winners

Allowing syndicators to get rebates at yearling sales so they can claim they bought the horse for 150K when they really paid 120K and syndicating the horse for the full 150K to the new owners who will go broke in the long run paying overs

Allowing Coolmore and Godolphin to dominate in the breeding world has seen them destroy competitive racing at the top in the UK and now these 2 operations are spreading over the world and will kill top racing in other countries too. Coolmore got to where they did through tax breaks which is like rebates

Too much of the wealth in racing is flowing to a few. And if you look closely you will see it is happening because these few have some nice little rorts working for them. Rebates is just one of these rorts

In the end racing will die because it has become too expensive for the Average Joe to play whether as a bettor or an owner of racehorses

Rebates have nothing to do with people winning or losing. You have to be incredibly great to win, even if you are getting a massive rebate. The people who are losing are just being "outbet" and "outhandicapped" by smarter people. The game has gotten much harder to beat because the information that is now public has made the market so much tighter. There are no "select few" you have just as much of a chance as anyone to be a high roller. Thats how life works, Porsche doesn't stop making 911's because poor people can't afford them.

[GameTheory]

Rebates have nothing to do with people winning or losing. You have to be incredibly great to win, even if you are getting a massive rebate.I'm sorry but this makes no sense. The bigger the rebate you get, the easier it is to win. How is that not obvious? Just take it to the logical extreme and imagine you got a 90% rebate. It would basically impossible to not win -- you certainly wouldn't have to be "incredibly great". With 0% rebate, you do have to be pretty good though, yes...

[Robert Fischer]

There are at least two significant inefficiencies in racing.

1. use of the media (worst offender)

2. optimum takeout (significant losses)


I haven't had time to study Chang's process or Jeff Platt's.
I did want to add that setting optimum takeout is in fact a fairly complex task and there are a variety of factors(some of which are mentioned in this thread) that can at various times "move" the optimum takeout.

[AndyC]

I'm sorry but this makes no sense. The bigger the rebate you get, the easier it is to win. How is that not obvious? Just take it to the logical extreme and imagine you got a 90% rebate. It would basically impossible to not win -- you certainly wouldn't have to be "incredibly great". With 0% rebate, you do have to be pretty good though, yes...

True, but the theory being espoused is that rebates are driving people away from racing. Of course the people driven away are the ones who define takeout as a fast food restaurant.

[AndyC]

There are at least two significant inefficiencies in racing.

1. use of the media (worst offender)

2. optimum takeout (significant losses)


I haven't had time to study Chang's process or Jeff Platt's.
I did want to add that setting optimum takeout is in fact a fairly complex task and there are a variety of factors(some of which are mentioned in this thread) that can at various times "move" the optimum takeout.


Optimal takeout is pipe dream in the US with pari-mutuel wagering and low cost alternatives for gamblers.

[GameTheory]

True, but the theory being espoused is that rebates are driving people away from racing. Of course the people driven away are the ones who define takeout as a fast food restaurant.
People are confusing the issue when they read that high takeout or rebates are driving people away, and insisting most people don't really know about these things so they can't be driven away by them. The point is that it doesn't matter if they know the underlying mechanisms or not -- they know the money in their pocket is gone, and if it were easier to win they'd be around longer (maybe they'd even stay). They look at the prices on the board and even if they don't know why the odds are as low as they are, they'd nevertheless like it more if they were higher, etc. Every bettors that doesn't have an unlimited bankroll is "price-sensitive" whether they know it or not...

[AndyC]

People are confusing the issue when they read that high takeout or rebates are driving people away, and insisting most people don't really know about these things so they can't be driven away by them. The point is that it doesn't matter if they know the underlying mechanisms or not -- they know the money in their pocket is gone, and if it were easier to win they'd be around longer (maybe they'd even stay). They look at the prices on the board and even if they don't know why the odds are as low as they are, they'd nevertheless like it more if they were higher, etc. Every bettors that doesn't have an unlimited bankroll is "price-sensitive" whether they know it or not...

Takeout during my roughly 40 years of play has not changed so much as to cause the decline in racing. While it is true that people are price sensitive whether they know it or not, that sensitivity is heightened by low-priced available alternatives racing.

[GameTheory]

Takeout during my roughly 40 years of play has not changed so much as to cause the decline in racing. While it is true that people are price sensitive whether they know it or not, that sensitivity is heightened by low-priced available alternatives racing.
I don't think anyone has argued that high takeout is solely or even primarily to blame for the decline in racing. Doesn't mean it isn't a problem, and now that we are where we are, further raising of takeout (or non-reduction to more optimal levels) only continue and hasten that decline...

[dilanesp]

Takeout during my roughly 40 years of play has not changed so much as to cause the decline in racing. While it is true that people are price sensitive whether they know it or not, that sensitivity is heightened by low-priced available alternatives racing.

It isn't so much that takeout changes have "caused" the decline. Racing has more competition. It has more competition as a sport-- some of those people who used to go to the racetrack are all attending other sports events.

But it also has much more competition as gambling. On the one hand, the lottery has siphoned off all the $2 bettors. On the other hand, high rollers care about takeout. And many of horse racing's competitors-- poker, blackjack, sports betting, etc.-- have lower takeouts.

So takeouts that were fine in an era of less competition are not fine now.

It's like the airlines. Back when there was regulation and little competition, there was no need to cut costs and the airlines could serve steak dinners in coach class, allow people to check 3 bags at no charge, sell fully refundable and changeable tickets with free standby, etc.

Now, with so much competition, they have to squeeze every dollar out of their business model.

Horse racing was created to act as a monopoly (in many states for years it was the only form of legal gambling) and now has to act as a business with a ton of competition. Takeout matters more now.

[DJofSD]

It isn't so much that takeout changes have "caused" the decline. Racing has more competition. It has more competition as a sport-- some of those people who used to go to the racetrack are all attending other sports events.

But it also has much more competition as gambling. On the one hand, the lottery has siphoned off all the $2 bettors. On the other hand, high rollers care about takeout. And many of horse racing's competitors-- poker, blackjack, sports betting, etc.-- have lower takeouts.

So takeouts that were fine in an era of less competition are not fine now.

It's like the airlines. Back when there was regulation and little competition, there was no need to cut costs and the airlines could serve steak dinners in coach class, allow people to check 3 bags at no charge, sell fully refundable and changeable tickets with free standby, etc.

Now, with so much competition, they have to squeeze every dollar out of their business model.

Horse racing was created to act as a monopoly (in many states for years it was the only form of legal gambling) and now has to act as a business with a ton of competition. Takeout matters more now.
I would add another difference which I believe has altered things for the worse is the availability of many more betting opportunities at the track, both, through simulcasts and more exotic wagers.

[dilanesp]

I'm sorry but this makes no sense. The bigger the rebate you get, the easier it is to win. How is that not obvious? Just take it to the logical extreme and imagine you got a 90% rebate. It would basically impossible to not win -- you certainly wouldn't have to be "incredibly great". With 0% rebate, you do have to be pretty good though, yes...

In online poker, we had all the information about all the players and their winrates via a service called "table ratings". It was possible to back out the rake and see how many people were turned into losing players by the rake.

It really didn't have as great an effect as you might think. In a typically raked limit hold 'em game, about 4 percent of the player pool were winning players. Back out the rake, and it went up to about 9 percent.

Now, of course, horse racing takeout is higher. But the brutal math about beating horse racing is what Stillriledup mentioned-- the player pool is so tough. And it actually takes several losing players and several breakeven players to generate the profits that the winning players take home. Most gamblers MUST lose, even in advantage games with no takeout at all, in order to support a very, very few winners. Every person who ever decides to gamble either doesn't understand this or believes him- or herself to be one of the chosen few. My friend Jesse, a professional poker player, did a blog post on this aspect of the game:

http://jessetakesashot.blogspot.com/2013/04/delusion-and-arrogance.html

[highnote]

Interesting perspective to say the least.

http://www.barntowire.com/smf/index.php?topic=67302.0


Sounds like HANA struck a very sensitive nerve.

Also, Platt's comment that was criticized was taken out of context.


Betting handle and takeout rates share an elastic relationship.

The fact is handle is created by bettors who are price sensitive.

Platt was criticized by RacetrackRailbird for saying "Handle is created by bettors who are price sensitive." Taken out of context this might sound wrong, but when you tie this sentence together with the point that handle and takeout rates share an elastic relationship, it makes perfect sense.

Perhaps Platt could have said "The size of handle is affected by bettors who are price sensitive", but it wasn't necessary to say that unless you can predict that a critic will quote you out of context.

[Robert Goren]

They don't seem to even know they are in a business. It is operated like government.It is operated by the horsemen. They don't believe that revenue will increase enough to off set the drop in decrease in takeout. You need more numbers to convince them and I am not even sure that would do it. The answer is take the decision power over rates away from the horsemen. Good luck with that.
For those who don't believe me, go back and see who was pushing the rise in takeout in CA a few years ago.

[Poindexter]

A number of points have been raised. I have cover a number of these in past posts so I will refrain from doing so. When I say rebates kill he game, that does not mean that the game was ever easy(over 90% lost at this game in the good ole days too) and it doesn't mean that I think you can eliminate rebates, lower takeout and presto, the handle magically doubles. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lot of the damage has already been done. A lot of people that quit this game and decided to never come back, are lost. But it is okay, we have a huge population to exploit and they can bet the game from their living room. They have to believe they can beat the game(doesn't matter if they can or not). The best way to do so is to make the game comfortable when newbies take it on. They do not have to win, but you really do not want it to be over their first visit, bet $150, lose $90.....and after the course of 10 visits bets $1500, lose $600....after 20 visits bet $3000 lose $1000....after 30 visits bet $4500, lose $1400.......after 100 visits bet $15,000 lose $4000. That is a lot of money for somebody who bets $100 a day to lose. When you are dealing with ironed out pools due to rebates and high takeouts and breakage and low probability super exotics, this is the reality. What rational mind would take on this sport, lose that kind of money and every have the perception that it worth the tremendous investment of time and energy to take this game on.

Frankly, it really doesn't matter if the daily double takeout is 22% or 18%. It is irrelevant to the growth of the game. Nobody is going to start seeing a huge upside to their game because one pool is a little more competitively priced.

This game has only one chance to ever grow and that is to make itself competitive with all other forms of gambling. To do so, they have to eliminate rebates and that requires a wps takeout of 8% and an exotic takeout of 12 to 13%. Super exotic like pick sixes, super high 5's, place alls.....they can probably go as high as 20% or higher, it is not going to make much of a difference. People that are interested are going to play those pools anyways and they aren't churning anyways, they are just donating until they finally have a score. If these changes were initiated yes revenues would initially tumble, but as time went on, newbies entered the game and stayed in the game, good players started winning instead of losing, or at the very least lose a lot less, more and more gets churned and suddenly this great game grows leaps and bounds and eventually the revenues are a net increase and people realize that this is a much better option for their gambling dollar than pulling a fricking lever on a machine or sitting on a poker table hoping going all in with your pocket queens and hoping it holds up against an ace king or hoping that Lebron misses that 3 pointer with 25 seconds to go so his team can cover. .
Moreover, there are no excuses. Racing needs to do whatever it can to fix the deterrents. Whether it is a change in tax structure, adw structure, whatever.


But since there is a better chance at world peace than racing ever seeing the light, than the sport will continue to spiral downwards and the game will get tougher and tougher and the product will get worse and worse and we can read thread after thread about drugs and quality of racing and cheats and so and so is up to a 35% take and so and so closed after 100 years and so and so is closing and turning into a casino. Meanwhile I will take my offshore rebates play the game for fun and have a ball with it, still probably lose, but not nearly as much as Joe Public and the sad part is that many thousands of dollars that should be helping in its small way will not even see the pools because the dinosaurs who run the show cannot come up with a better way.

Now you can go back to worrying about whether the takeout of doubles should be 18% or 22% or if a guy who receives income from referring others to rebate shops(at least from what I have seen posted-maybe I am wrong) should be the head of an organization that is supposed to represent horse players.

[Stillriledup]

A number of points have been raised. I have cover a number of these in past posts so I will refrain from doing so. When I say rebates kill he game, that does not mean that the game was ever easy(over 90% lost at this game in the good ole days too) and it doesn't mean that I think you can eliminate rebates, lower takeout and presto, the handle magically doubles. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lot of the damage has already been done. A lot of people that quit this game and decided to never come back, are lost. But it is okay, we have a huge population to exploit and they can bet the game from their living room. They have to believe they can beat the game(doesn't matter if they can or not). The best way to do so is to make the game comfortable when newbies take it on. They do not have to win, but you really do not want it to be over their first visit, bet $150, lose $90.....and after the course of 10 visits bets $1500, lose $600....after 20 visits bet $3000 lose $1000....after 30 visits bet $4500, lose $1400.......after 100 visits bet $15,000 lose $4000. That is a lot of money for somebody who bets $100 a day to lose. When you are dealing with ironed out pools due to rebates and high takeouts and breakage and low probability super exotics, this is the reality. What rational mind would take on this sport, lose that kind of money and every have the perception that it worth the tremendous investment of time and energy to take this game on.

Frankly, it really doesn't matter if the daily double takeout is 22% or 18%. It is irrelevant to the growth of the game. Nobody is going to start seeing a huge upside to their game because one pool is a little more competitively priced.

This game has only one chance to ever grow and that is to make itself competitive with all other forms of gambling. To do so, they have to eliminate rebates and that requires a wps takeout of 8% and an exotic takeout of 12 to 13%. Super exotic like pick sixes, super high 5's, place alls.....they can probably go as high as 20% or higher, it is not going to make much of a difference. People that are interested are going to play those pools anyways and they aren't churning anyways, they are just donating until they finally have a score. If these changes were initiated yes revenues would initially tumble, but as time went on, newbies entered the game and stayed in the game, good players started winning instead of losing, or at the very least lose a lot less, more and more gets churned and suddenly this great game grows leaps and bounds and eventually the revenues are a net increase and people realize that this is a much better option for their gambling dollar than pulling a fricking lever on a machine or sitting on a poker table hoping going all in with your pocket queens and hoping it holds up against an ace king or hoping that Lebron misses that 3 pointer with 25 seconds to go so his team can cover. .
Moreover, there are no excuses. Racing needs to do whatever it can to fix the deterrents. Whether it is a change in tax structure, adw structure, whatever.


But since there is a better chance at world peace than racing ever seeing the light, than the sport will continue to spiral downwards and the game will get tougher and tougher and the product will get worse and worse and we can read thread after thread about drugs and quality of racing and cheats and so and so is up to a 35% take and so and so closed after 100 years and so and so is closing and turning into a casino. Meanwhile I will take my offshore rebates play the game for fun and have a ball with it, still probably lose, but not nearly as much as Joe Public and the sad part is that many thousands of dollars that should be helping in its small way will not even see the pools because the dinosaurs who run the show cannot come up with a better way.

Now you can go back to worrying about whether the takeout of doubles should be 18% or 22% or if a guy who receives income from referring others to rebate shops(at least from what I have seen posted-maybe I am wrong) should be the head of an organization that is supposed to represent horse players.


Why do people need to believe they can BEAT the game? People play the lottery and not too many people are playing it thinking they'll beat it. Sure they WANT to beat it, but nobody would play the lottery if they only played games they thought they could beat.

As far as eliminating "bulk discounts" how does business grow if you tell "good customers" that they can"t get "discounts" on large "purchases"?

[Poindexter]

Why do people need to believe they can BEAT the game? People play the lottery and not too many people are playing it thinking they'll beat it. Sure they WANT to beat it, but nobody would play the lottery if they only played games they thought they could beat.

As far as eliminating "bulk discounts" how does business grow if you tell "good customers" that they can"t get "discounts" on large "purchases"?

Racing is a game of skill. The lottery players mostly do not have the skill level to ever contribute to the racing game. If they did, they would not be throwing there money away at the corner liquor store. The 100 million dollar jackpot thing is just the masses reacting to the fact that for a buck or 2 they have a chance to win 100 million dollars. There is a big difference between pulling into a 7/11 and spending 4 bucks on mega millions tickets and what we all do on a fairly steady basis. What percentage of the people who play a mega millions ticket would even know what to do with a racing form.

If you want to compete in the horse racing game you have to be smart. The smarter you are the less enticing the mindless games are. That is why I say that racing needs to get rid of rebates, lower takeout and lure sports bettors and poker players. They are your target market. They are intelligent and they use their brain to try to win at the game they are taking on. They are just taking on a different game, because it is more familiar to them and the takeout is significantly less.

Regarding bulk discount, they can take their best customers, put them in a directors room, feed them the best food and Wine known to man, provide very sexy bet runners, and even give them entertainment for the night if they so choose. They can give them concert tickets or theater tickets or Knicks tickets or Yankees tickets. Just do not give them rebates, because when they do they make the game too expensive for the non rebated bettors and they lose potential new customers and they kill any chance for the game to grow.

[taxicab]

Here's the pecking order in California for all things horse racing(including takeout rates):
1)- Trainers
2)- Owners{a close second}
3)- Race track owners (more/less Frank Stronach)
4)- California Horse Racing Board

Here's how it should be:
1)- California Horse Racing Board
2)- Race track owners
3)- Owners
4)- Trainers

Trainers are horrid business people.
In terms of the takeout issues,they would rather screw people and make less money,then do things the right way and make more money.
But there is a method to their madness....
Even though they make less money screwing the player,it's part of keeping "all things POWER" in their pockets.
But sometimes this mindset can backfire on the horsemen.
Churchill Downs is a prime example.
They absolutely "played" the horsemen in Kentucky with the clever/brilliant(not sarcastic) well timed,self serving takeout increase for their high profile spring meet earlier this year.
The way Churchill played poker with takeout was brilliant.
They absolutely knew their handle would crash and burn.
CD knew the players would pull back their money.
What?......you think they didn't know it was coming?
CDI wanted to lose handle.....it's all part of their master plan.
CDI has plenty of sharp minds expertly calling the financial shots.
CDI knows the real money is in casino/online action....not horse racing handle.
For example....just watch how quickly CDI jumps in when online poker finally gets legalized.
They already have everything in place.
They want in on the Casino/Online gambling pie badly.
Going back to last Spring....
All CD needed to do was outsmart the horsemen and convince(lie) to them that the takeout hike was in their(horsemen) best interest.
Schooled!!
CD didn't screw the bettors......the bettors just took their wagering dollars elsewhere(NY/Calif....etc,).
Just what CD wanted.
But here's the best part.
Who really got screwed in the takeout hike ?
The horsemen.
CD cut the purses 20% for the upcoming fall meet.
And don't think for a minute that will be the only purse cut coming the horsemens way.
Summing it up in a nice little package....
CDI gambled that the horseplayer was smarter than the horsemen.....they were right,and they won.
Brilliant.

[fmhealth]

Crist, Panza & some spot-on comments.

http://www.drf.com/news/crist-racing-needs-improve-its-product-and-change-times

[Stillriledup]

Racing is a game of skill. The lottery players mostly do not have the skill level to ever contribute to the racing game. If they did, they would not be throwing there money away at the corner liquor store. The 100 million dollar jackpot thing is just the masses reacting to the fact that for a buck or 2 they have a chance to win 100 million dollars. There is a big difference between pulling into a 7/11 and spending 4 bucks on mega millions tickets and what we all do on a fairly steady basis. What percentage of the people who play a mega millions ticket would even know what to do with a racing form.

If you want to compete in the horse racing game you have to be smart. The smarter you are the less enticing the mindless games are. That is why I say that racing needs to get rid of rebates, lower takeout and lure sports bettors and poker players. They are your target market. They are intelligent and they use their brain to try to win at the game they are taking on. They are just taking on a different game, because it is more familiar to them and the takeout is significantly less.

Regarding bulk discount, they can take their best customers, put them in a directors room, feed them the best food and Wine known to man, provide very sexy bet runners, and even give them entertainment for the night if they so choose. They can give them concert tickets or theater tickets or Knicks tickets or Yankees tickets. Just do not give them rebates, because when they do they make the game too expensive for the non rebated bettors and they lose potential new customers and they kill any chance for the game to grow.

So, you're not ok with the rebate shop handing their customers cash, but you are ok if they take that cash they would have otherwise gave them, purchase yankee tickets, give the customer the yankee tickets which the customer sells on stubhub and gets the cash without you knowing about it?

[Poindexter]

Not exactly what I meant. If I give a guy who puts through $100.000 a month through the windows a month some Yankee tickets for his family once in a while it is not quite the same as giving him a 7% rebate(Do not think it will drive him to bet his fair value 2-1 down to 2-1 without a rebate). But if you think it is a problem than stick to the free food in the directors room or are you scared he is going to bring it into the grandstand and start selling it :lol: :lol: :lol:

Also, in my perfect world there are no margins for the ADW to be able to even afford a pair of Yankee tickets. I was talking about the racetrack giving perks to it's best customers.

[davew]

If higher takeout means more for track purses, they should try 100% takeout for awhile and see how that works for them. (they would not need tellers, could just use deposit locations around the track)

[Charli125]

Not exactly what I meant. If I give a guy who puts through $100.000 a month through the windows a month some Yankee tickets for his family once in a while it is not quite the same as giving him a 7% rebate(Do not think it will drive him to bet his fair value 2-1 down to 2-1 without a rebate). But if you think it is a problem than stick to the free food in the directors room or are you scared he is going to bring it into the grandstand and start selling it :lol: :lol: :lol:

Also, in my perfect world there are no margins for the ADW to be able to even afford a pair of Yankee tickets. I was talking about the racetrack giving perks to it's best customers.

So let me make sure I'm understanding your point. You would like takeout to be low enough that there is no remaining margin for ADW's? Reason being that handle will go up or that it will end rebates? That kind of takeout sounds great, but there are a few issues.

The fact is that without ADW's, we'd all have to go to the track to bet. Or we'd have to have 15 different accounts to bet. The only innovation in the game has been the ADW's, and they've invested a good bit of money to come up with those innovations. Our totes are ridiculously out-dated, but the ADW I use at least uses cutting edge technology. Video for all tracks so I don't have to watch replays on each tracks' website, conditional wagering, batch upload, handle reports, etc. I really don't care if a track or someone else owns the ADW I use as long as they provide what I need.

As for rebates killing the game, it's the exact opposite. Rebates are life support for a game with absurdly high takeout. People that have lost their rebates have gone from betting 6-figures to 5-figures or less. People that have started receiving rebates have gone from betting 5-figures to 6-figures. I know this for a fact, and I know multiple people in both scenarios. Whatever your beliefs on rebates, there's no doubt that they increase handle.

The same thing could be done by lowering takeout drastically, but if that happens, and the ADW's go out of business, a lot of us will lose a lot of the features we currently require to wager.

I don't think many would argue that the current model is flawed. The revenue needs to be shared more intelligently. Lowering takeout at the same time as lowering rebates is one thing. Getting rid of rebates before lowering takeout will just drive more players away.

I won't comment on your misguided insults, but if you truly feel that you have a valid point, and truly want to bring people over to your way of thinking, probably not the best idea to start out by insulting people.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Charli125

Your point about give a player a rebate and their turnover goes from 5 figures to 6 figures but take their rebate away and their turnover goes from 6 figures to 5 figures tells us all we need to know. Rebates give a player a big advantage over the other players in the game who don't have them. The problem is that this advantage is an unfair one

If people want rebates they should have to earn them in some way other than betting volume. Like you have to put your bets on at least 10 minutes before the start time of the race to get a rebate. In this scenario the rebated player is adding liquidity to the pools. Other players will see the pools are bigger well before the jump and be inspired to bet more. But I bet there are no takers amongst the rebate crowd for such an idea as they would expect to lose their money betting this way all the time. Right now the opposite happens and most of the rebate money jumps on at the last second. And because this rebate money happens to be smarter than average players grow suspicious about the odds drops after the jump. This in turn drives players away from the game even more than the simple effect of rebates by themselves

If you removed the ADWs I can see no reason why you would lose internet betting

[Stillriledup]

Charli125

Your point about give a player a rebate and their turnover goes from 5 figures to 6 figures but take their rebate away and their turnover goes from 6 figures to 5 figures tells us all we need to know. Rebates give a player a big advantage over the other players in the game who don't have them. The problem is that this advantage is an unfair one

If people want rebates they should have to earn them in some way other than betting volume. Like you have to put your bets on at least 10 minutes before the start time of the race to get a rebate. In this scenario the rebated player is adding liquidity to the pools. Other players will see the pools are bigger well before the jump and be inspired to bet more. But I bet there are no takers amongst the rebate crowd for such an idea as they would expect to lose their money betting this way all the time. Right now the opposite happens and most of the rebate money jumps on at the last second. And because this rebate money happens to be smarter than average players grow suspicious about the odds drops after the jump. This in turn drives players away from the game even more than the simple effect of rebates by themselves

If you removed the ADWs I can see no reason why you would lose internet betting

Tracks just need to ban computer assisted betting. Problem solved. The computer is what creates the "behind the 8 ball" situation for most bettors, not the profit sharing.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Both rebates and computer assisted betting combine to give the players with both a big advantage

[Poindexter]

This is my response to Charli.


So let me make sure I'm understanding your point. You would like takeout to be low enough that there is no remaining margin for ADW's? Reason being that handle will go up or that it will end rebates? That kind of takeout sounds great, but there are a few issues.

The fact is that without ADW's, we'd all have to go to the track to bet. Or we'd have to have 15 different accounts to bet. The only innovation in the game has been the ADW's, and they've invested a good bit of money to come up with those innovations. Our totes are ridiculously out-dated, but the ADW I use at least uses cutting edge technology. Video for all tracks so I don't have to watch replays on each tracks' website, conditional wagering, batch upload, handle reports, etc. I really don't care if a track or someone else owns the ADW I use as long as they provide what I need.

------

Why do ADW's have to be paid in a way that encourages them to rebate customers? How about a flat fee, or fee per customer? If they do indeed bring extra value to the game, they should be rewarded financially, but not as a middle man because that encourages the rebate system that has destroyed the game.




As for rebates killing the game, it's the exact opposite. Rebates are life support for a game with absurdly high takeout. People that have lost their rebates have gone from betting 6-figures to 5-figures or less. People that have started receiving rebates have gone from betting 5-figures to 6-figures. I know this for a fact, and I know multiple people in both scenarios. Whatever your beliefs on rebates, there's no doubt that they increase handle.
--------

This has been addressed by Seabiscuit, but just because x number of players start betting 6 figures instead of 5 figures due to rebates, does not mean they increase handle over the long run. The more rebated customers extract out of the pools, the more at a disadvantage the non rebated customers are at. The reason that pools continue to slide is because the game is too expensive for anybody except for the exceptionally sharp or for rebated bettors. With todays technology the game should be thriving.



The same thing could be done by lowering takeout drastically, but if that happens, and the ADW's go out of business, a lot of us will lose a lot of the features we currently require to wager.
--------
Addressed above, but even if a deal could not be worked out, couldn't the racetracks partner in the big ADW's, run them as non profits and let the tracks benefit from the features of the adw.


I don't think many would argue that the current model is flawed. The revenue needs to be shared more intelligently. Lowering takeout at the same time as lowering rebates is one thing. Getting rid of rebates before lowering takeout will just drive more players away.
-------------

Agreed. I posted earlier, that tracks need to eliminate rebates, lower the takeout on wps to 8% and exotics to 12 or 13%. The lone exceptions would be the pick six, place all and super high 5, in which they can charge more.





I won't comment on your misguided insults, but if you truly feel that you have a valid point, and truly want to bring people over to your way of thinking, probably not the best idea to start out by insulting people.
------------------------
Who exactly have I insulted? Feel free to comment. I know I have a valid point, just think it will fall upon deaf ears in the racing world.

[DeanT]

It isn't so much that takeout changes have "caused" the decline. Racing has more competition. It has more competition as a sport-- some of those people who used to go to the racetrack are all attending other sports events.

But it also has much more competition as gambling. On the one hand, the lottery has siphoned off all the $2 bettors. On the other hand, high rollers care about takeout. And many of horse racing's competitors-- poker, blackjack, sports betting, etc.-- have lower takeouts.

So takeouts that were fine in an era of less competition are not fine now.

It's like the airlines. Back when there was regulation and little competition, there was no need to cut costs and the airlines could serve steak dinners in coach class, allow people to check 3 bags at no charge, sell fully refundable and changeable tickets with free standby, etc.

Now, with so much competition, they have to squeeze every dollar out of their business model.

Horse racing was created to act as a monopoly (in many states for years it was the only form of legal gambling) and now has to act as a business with a ton of competition. Takeout matters more now.

Good post.

[Charli125]

I won't comment on your misguided insults, but if you truly feel that you have a valid point, and truly want to bring people over to your way of thinking, probably not the best idea to start out by insulting people.
------------------------
Who exactly have I insulted? Feel free to comment. I know I have a valid point, just think it will fall upon deaf ears in the racing world.

Are you not the person that wrote the post on the other forum? If not then I apologize. I took from your response that you were defending that piece. Whoever wrote that piece, did a lot of insulting which in my opinion, won't lead to productive dialogue.

As for the rest of the arguments, we've been through all of them before so I'm not going to repeat all of the same arguments again. I receive rebates, and my handle is much higher with than it was without. That being said, if takeout were lowered to what you mention above, and I still had the same online access I have now, my handle would go up even more. Pools would be larger, I would bet more, and I would get paid more when I was right, thus making up for the lack of rebate when I lost. I've done the math on my own handle to confirm this, though it won't be the same for everyone. I'd rather have low takeout than rebates, but the idea that rebates are bad just astounds me since it's pretty standard in the business world.

I'll say one thing about Rebates and ADW's that perfectly illustrates how well low takeout works. And on this, we're most certainly in agreement. As you mention in your post, ADW's get paid more for bringing more handle. They're incentivized to increase handle. Because of this, they give back some of what could take as profit, as a rebate. They realized that by lowering takeout on their players, they will increase their overall profit. For all of the studies, panels, experiments, etc., this is the perfect real world example of why takeout needs to be lowered.

[Charli125]

Tracks just need to ban computer assisted betting. Problem solved. The computer is what creates the "behind the 8 ball" situation for most bettors, not the profit sharing.

Good example. By that same logic, the stock market should go back to individual brokers trading pieces of paper.

We need to figure out how to grow the game in the world we live in rather than trying to stop the advancement of the world so it fits our game.

[AndyC]

Tracks just need to ban computer assisted betting. Problem solved. The computer is what creates the "behind the 8 ball" situation for most bettors, not the profit sharing.


Please expand. I agree with Charli125, I think the industry needs to embrace technology and not run from it.

[Poindexter]

Are you not the person that wrote the post on the other forum? If not then I apologize. I took from your response that you were defending that piece. Whoever wrote that piece, did a lot of insulting which in my opinion, won't lead to productive dialogue.

As for the rest of the arguments, we've been through all of them before so I'm not going to repeat all of the same arguments again. I receive rebates, and my handle is much higher with than it was without. That being said, if takeout were lowered to what you mention above, and I still had the same online access I have now, my handle would go up even more. Pools would be larger, I would bet more, and I would get paid more when I was right, thus making up for the lack of rebate when I lost. I've done the math on my own handle to confirm this, though it won't be the same for everyone. I'd rather have low takeout than rebates, but the idea that rebates are bad just astounds me since it's pretty standard in the business world.

I'll say one thing about Rebates and ADW's that perfectly illustrates how well low takeout works. And on this, we're most certainly in agreement. As you mention in your post, ADW's get paid more for bringing more handle. They're incentivized to increase handle. Because of this, they give back some of what could take as profit, as a rebate. They realized that by lowering takeout on their players, they will increase their overall profit. For all of the studies, panels, experiments, etc., this is the perfect real world example of why takeout needs to be lowered.

No I am not the person who made the post at the other forum. I only post here. Apology accepted :lol:

I think for the most part we can agree to agree. We both know takeout is too high. The racing industry know it is too high. There way of combating that issue is to give big price breaks to the biggest bettors which on the surface sounds great. We are rewarding our best customers. But as I have mentioned in other threads before, it is at the cost of all non rebated bettors. A quick refresher on the math, Joe Public bet $100,000 at a 15% takeout. Then comes the sharp rebated bettors and whales who add $50,000 but they only lose 3 %. Now the pool is $150,00 for which $22500 is removed. But since Whales/sharps only lose 3% they are contributing only $1500. Joe Public is now contributing $21,000 or is now at a 21% take. So an already overpriced market has now become complete price gouging. While joe public has no idea what the takeout is, they find out really quickly as they money disappears very quickly and they realize that this game is a black hole for money...and they ultimately leave the game. So while the business model is excellent at building business from guys like you, it is a nightmare on generating any new business or growing the sport. Because ultimately guys like you will only be betting against guys like you and it will be strictly survival of the fittest.

By lowering the takeout to the levels I suggest(and eliminating rebates) they attract brand new markets of players, they keep guys like you happy, and they make the game affordable for everyone. They sacrifice? It would require a brave new world in which they will to make some initial financial sacrifice until they can grow the new model. Since what they are currently doing simply leads to racetracks being turned into commercial developments or casinos, you would think that somebody in the industry would have some vision.........................

Regarding computerized batch betting, imo it is the lesser evil of the two as long as the racetracks keep blind data, blind(money bet on pick 3's, pick 4's, in transit....). I think they claim to, but I really doubt they would admit it if this info was actually available. All it does it enable guys like you to go through the pools via computer at the last moment and iron out inefficiencies. Pricing is the bigger problem of the two imo, but in combo with rebates it is a potent force for whales that makes the game impossible to beat for the layperson and extremely difficult for the non rebated bettor.

[Stillriledup]

Please expand. I agree with Charli125, I think the industry needs to embrace technology and not run from it.

Its a really slippery slope. When massive gamblers have the ability to spread money into the pools via computer, that has nothing to do with handicapping, picking winners or betting horses like everyone else bets them. All that does is make the market much tighter which means less profit for everyone else.

The computers that bet for people just eat up the inefficiencies that are created by humans being humans. This, i believe, its why its so much harder to win these days, you didnt have to worry about this stuff decades ago.

I agree that you don't want to put the genie back in the bottle from a technological standpoint, but how can you make this stuff easily available for everyone and even make it available for people who don't know what they're doing. Its one thing to have advancing technology, but if only a few people can use it, i don't see that as "Advancing technologically" it just stunts the game because a few people have figured out how to siphon money from the betting pools, that doesn't do anyone else any good.

[AndyC]

Its a really slippery slope. When massive gamblers have the ability to spread money into the pools via computer, that has nothing to do with handicapping, picking winners or betting horses like everyone else bets them. All that does is make the market much tighter which means less profit for everyone else.

The computers that bet for people just eat up the inefficiencies that are created by humans being humans. This, i believe, its why its so much harder to win these days, you didnt have to worry about this stuff decades ago.

I agree that you don't want to put the genie back in the bottle from a technological standpoint, but how can you make this stuff easily available for everyone and even make it available for people who don't know what they're doing. Its one thing to have advancing technology, but if only a few people can use it, i don't see that as "Advancing technologically" it just stunts the game because a few people have figured out how to siphon money from the betting pools, that doesn't do anyone else any good.

You can only "eat up the inefficiencies" if you are able to identify them. So wouldn't the biggest technology culprit be the computer programs that aid a bettor in finding inefficiencies? I sincerely doubt that most handicappers are able to find the inefficiencies but are prevented from taking advantage due to a lack of computer assisted betting.

[Charli125]

Regarding computerized batch betting, imo it is the lesser evil of the two as long as the racetracks keep blind data, blind(money bet on pick 3's, pick 4's, in transit....). I think they claim to, but I really doubt they would admit it if this info was actually available. All it does it enable guys like you to go through the pools via computer at the last moment and iron out inefficiencies. Pricing is the bigger problem of the two imo, but in combo with rebates it is a potent force for whales that makes the game impossible to beat for the layperson and extremely difficult for the non rebated bettor.

Just to clarify, I'm not some big computer bettor. And I've never had access, or known anyone with access, to "blind money". Not saying it doesn't happen, but at best it's far from common. Ideally all information would be equally available, but with so many powers involved in the data(tote companies, tracks, ADW's, etc.), it's wishful thinking on my part.


I agree that you don't want to put the genie back in the bottle from a technological standpoint, but how can you make this stuff easily available for everyone and even make it available for people who don't know what they're doing. Its one thing to have advancing technology, but if only a few people can use it, i don't see that as "Advancing technologically" it just stunts the game because a few people have figured out how to siphon money from the betting pools, that doesn't do anyone else any good.

I look at computerized wagering as identical to high frequency trading in the stock market. They're sucking up every bit of calculated overlay. It does make it harder to find overlays when the computers are right, but that's part of an evolving game. Let's not forget the costs of getting involved in the "Advanced Technology". From servers and software designers, to betting capital, it'll never be easy for everyone no matter how it's changed.

Betfair has a ton of automated betting going on, and they've created an API which makes it extremely easy to write your own algorithm. Still not easy to write something profitable, and there are still start-up costs, but a lot of the barriers are removed.

I'd guess at some point that some ADW(timeform/tvg or drfbets look the closest currently since they already incorporate pp's) will come up with a program that allows you to input an algorithm(think conditional wagering with a lot more factors), and it will make betting decisions for you. Once that happens, others will follow. It's the next logical step just in the way that websites are now available to the masses without needing any programming knowledge.

At that point, the current computer teams will have to get creative in order to keep their edge, and the evolution will continue. Not saying it's perfect, but I think it's working the way a market should. Early innovators make money, the rest of the market catches up, and the cycle starts all over again.

[Stillriledup]

You can only "eat up the inefficiencies" if you are able to identify them. So wouldn't the biggest technology culprit be the computer programs that aid a bettor in finding inefficiencies? I sincerely doubt that most handicappers are able to find the inefficiencies but are prevented from taking advantage due to a lack of computer assisted betting.

You just can't take advantage as efficiently. Humans being humans is the key. Humans don't have the ability to wager on dozens of specific tri or super combinations with .002 seconds before the betting shuts and make those wagers in exact relation to their own specific opinion.

[AndyC]

.......A quick refresher on the math, Joe Public bet $100,000 at a 15% takeout. Then comes the sharp rebated bettors and whales who add $50,000 but they only lose 3 %. Now the pool is $150,00 for which $22500 is removed. But since Whales/sharps only lose 3% they are contributing only $1500. Joe Public is now contributing $21,000 or is now at a 21% take. So an already overpriced market has now become complete price gouging.


I believe your math is flawed. The amount taken from Joe Public is only $15,000 and the amount taken from the rebate players is $7,500. The track then takes then divvies up the takeout between the state, purses, ADWs, etc. The amount of takeout the track receives and from whom doesn't change because ADWs are giving out rebates.

The fact that ADWs give out rebates does not mean that the amount of rebates needs to be replenished from other sources. It is a marketing expense of the ADW.

[AndyC]

You just can't take advantage as efficiently. Humans being humans is the key. Humans don't have the ability to wager on dozens of specific tri or super combinations with .002 seconds before the betting shuts and make those wagers in exact relation to their own specific opinion.


See last 2 paragraphs of number 61 of this thread. I am in complete agreement.

[Charli125]

The fact that ADWs give out rebates does not mean that the amount of rebates needs to be replenished from other sources. It is a marketing expense of the ADW.

Yeah, that's the key part of the argument. Both the rebated and the non-rebated player provide the same amount for purses/track income. Instead of the rebate going to the ADW as profit like some ADW's do, it goes back to the players to be churned in the case of rebates.

[ronsmac]

Just to clarify, I'm not some big computer bettor. And I've never had access, or known anyone with access, to "blind money". Not saying it doesn't happen, but at best it's far from common. Ideally all information would be equally available, but with so many powers involved in the data(tote companies, tracks, ADW's, etc.), it's wishful thinking on my part.




I look at computerized wagering as identical to high frequency trading in the stock market. They're sucking up every bit of calculated overlay. It does make it harder to find overlays when the computers are right, but that's part of an evolving game. Let's not forget the costs of getting involved in the "Advanced Technology". From servers and software designers, to betting capital, it'll never be easy for everyone no matter how it's changed.

Betfair has a ton of automated betting going on, and they've created an API which makes it extremely easy to write your own algorithm. Still not easy to write something profitable, and there are still start-up costs, but a lot of the barriers are removed.

I'd guess at some point that some ADW(timeform/tvg or drfbets look the closest currently since they already incorporate pp's) will come up with a program that allows you to input an algorithm(think conditional wagering with a lot more factors), and it will make betting decisions for you. Once that happens, others will follow. It's the next logical step just in the way that websites are now available to the masses without needing any programming knowledge.

At that point, the current computer teams will have to get creative in order to keep their edge, and the evolution will continue. Not saying it's perfect, but I think it's working the way a market should. Early innovators make money, the rest of the market catches up, and the cycle starts all over again.The computer teams can't still make a profit on underlays if their rebate is large enough. Theoretically every possible result can be an underlay in every single race and they still can make money if good enough. A player without that technology or equivalent rebate would be a long term loser no matter how smart he was. This has been discussed a million times on Pace, so need to really go into in any further.

[dilanesp]

I'll say one thing about Rebates and ADW's that perfectly illustrates how well low takeout works. And on this, we're most certainly in agreement. As you mention in your post, ADW's get paid more for bringing more handle. They're incentivized to increase handle. Because of this, they give back some of what could take as profit, as a rebate. They realized that by lowering takeout on their players, they will increase their overall profit. For all of the studies, panels, experiments, etc., this is the perfect real world example of why takeout needs to be lowered.

I've never been much of a fan of rebates, but has it occurred to you that the Price Elasticity of Demand of ADW customers is different than it is for live human beings who go to the track?

I can remember my microecon professor saying that where different market segments have different elasticities, the optimal pricing approach is to segment the market and price discriminate.

In other words, the rebate system targets people who care about takeout and will adjust their betting handles accordingly, whereas the people who don't care about takeout as much bet at the track and pay full freight.

[ronsmac]

The computer teams can't still make a profit on underlays if their rebate is large enough. Theoretically every possible result can be an underlay in every single race and they still can make money if good enough. A player without that technology or equivalent rebate would be a long term loser no matter how smart he was. This has been discussed a million times on Pace, so need to really go into in any further.
That was can still make a profit not can't . typo

[Stillriledup]

The computer teams can still make a profit on underlays if their rebate is large enough. Theoretically every possible result can be an underlay in every single race and they still can make money if good enough. A player without that technology or equivalent rebate would be a long term loser no matter how smart he was. This has been discussed a million times on Pace, so need to really go into in any further.

But even if every result is an underlay and they make money, all that's happening is the market is so efficient, that the 15 or 20 % takeout (give or take) makes ALL combinations losers to non rebate players. But, this could happen with or without rebates as long as the market is efficient and there are no overlays left. No overlays being left on the board is a product of an efficient market, which could happen with or without rebate bettors betting into the pools.

[ronsmac]

But even if every result is an underlay and they make money, all that's happening is the market is so efficient, that the 15 or 20 % takeout (give or take) makes ALL combinations losers to non rebate players. But, this could happen with or without rebates as long as the market is efficient and there are no overlays left. No overlays being left on the board is a product of an efficient market, which could happen with or without rebate bettors betting into the pools. Yes but they wouldn't bet combinations down with the sole purpose of grinding a small profit , without the technology to make dozens or more bets in the blink of an eye and a rebate large enough to ensure that profit. A combination that was a small overlay can now be pounded by them to slight overlay ensuring their profit, at the same time guaranteeing a loss for a non rebated player. Of course they have to be very good to accomplish all of this.

[Stillriledup]

Yes but they wouldn't bet combinations down with the sole purpose of grinding a small profit , without the technology to make dozens or more bets in the blink of an eye and a rebate large enough to ensure that profit. A combination that was a small overlay can now be pounded by them to slight overlay ensuring their profit, at the same time guaranteeing a loss for a non rebated player. Of course they have to be very good to accomplish all of this.

It never ends up totally efficient because there are more than 1 rebate player and if they all get the same idea at the same time, it could turn a break even bet to an underlay to a huge underlay.

Also, even if they can bet a +EV wager down to break even, we can't hold it against them for betting on a horse that is providing value.

I guess the 64 dollar question would be is it bad for the non rebate bettor if a rebate bettor bets on a break even bet and makes the horse an underlay. I would say no because when he makes a bet on a horse, other runners go up in price. You can't depress the odds on a horse without some other horse going up.

[ronsmac]

It never ends up totally efficient because there are more than 1 rebate player and if they all get the same idea at the same time, it could turn a break even bet to an underlay to a huge underlay.

Also, even if they can bet a +EV wager down to break even, we can't hold it against them for betting on a horse that is providing value.

I guess the 64 dollar question would be is it bad for the non rebate bettor if a rebate bettor bets on a break even bet and makes the horse an underlay. I would say no because when he makes a bet on a horse, other runners go up in price. You can't depress the odds on a horse without some other horse going up.
With no rebate and 15 to 30% takeouts, every single horse and combination can be underlays.

[AndyC]

Yes but they wouldn't bet combinations down with the sole purpose of grinding a small profit , without the technology to make dozens or more bets in the blink of an eye and a rebate large enough to ensure that profit. A combination that was a small overlay can now be pounded by them to slight overlay ensuring their profit, at the same time guaranteeing a loss for a non rebated player. Of course they have to be very good to accomplish all of this.

Good and lucky. Good from the standpoint of identifying opportunities and lucky if nobody else betting at the last second duplicates their strategy.

It seems to me that there can only be a finite number of good rebate players otherwise all of the markets will produce underlays even with rebates.

[Stillriledup]

With no rebate and 15 to 30% takeouts, every single horse and combination can be underlays.

But that has nothing to do with rebate bettors.....its just a product of the takeouts being very high combined with an efficient market. If every horse is exactly what they are "supposed to be" than the horse is "break even minus the takeout".

There wouldnt' all of a sudden be piles of overlays if the rebate bettors all left the game, the market would still be efficient and overlays would be few and far between. Not much would change for the non rebate bettor other than the pool sizes going way down.

[fmhealth]

Here's a simple idea that might actually work!

http://www.drf.com/news/letter-editor-give-tracks-takeout-flexibility

[Poindexter]

I believe your math is flawed. The amount taken from Joe Public is only $15,000 and the amount taken from the rebate players is $7,500. The track then takes then divvies up the takeout between the state, purses, ADWs, etc. The amount of takeout the track receives and from whom doesn't change because ADWs are giving out rebates.

The fact that ADWs give out rebates does not mean that the amount of rebates needs to be replenished from other sources. It is a marketing expense of the ADW.


There is nothing flawed at all about my math. As a group the sharp rebated bettors and whales and aggregate might work on -3% pre rebate in the straight pools and get rebates of 6%(the exact numbers I do not know and I am sure vary from track to track, but this is the general gist of what goes on). So while yes the takeout of 15% is removed from the $50,000 they bet, as a group they only lose $1500. Since $22,500 is removed from the total pool, that means the other group(joe public is losing $21,000 or 21% on the dollar bet). In fact the numbers I am using as a plugin was from an article I read a number of months back about a whale who claimed he did exactly what I said, betting at -3% pre rebate and getting rebates of 6%. Now whether they comprise 1/4 of the pool, 1/3 of the pool or 1/2 the pool I haven't the faintest idea, but the racing industry does, and the adw's know exactly what these players are working on pre rebate, so they can plug in the exact numbers. I would be very surprised if the actual numbers were not very close to the public working on -20% in the straight pools and this is before breakage. The same applies for the exotic pools that are beginning with a takeout of over 20%, I just do not really know what kind of rebates the whales get in the exotic pools. But whatever it is, when you plug in the numbers for joe public, it will not be pretty.

Now back to the straight pool example I gave you, what happens if rebates are removed but takeout remains the same(not advisable, but for illustration purposes). Suddenly Joe public still bets there $100,00(eventually that would grow) and the sharp/whale group might only bet $20,000(because now they have to bet on value horses, not even sure they would be able to bet that much relatively speaking). Now they would I assume work on about 3% in aggregate as a group and would net $600 profit. So since there is now $120,000 bet the new takeout is $18,000, but $600 is being paid out to the whale group so the effective takeout is $18,600 on on the $100,000 bet by joe public, so they would be working on 18.6% takeout.

So either way Joe public is getting the worst of it because of sharp players, it just gets magnified with rebates. That is the difference between 1970 and 2015. Also as mentioned by others back in 1970 there wasn't much in the way of competition, now there is. Now you can argue that 21% is not that big of a deal compared to 18.6% for customers that are not that price conscious(and that is the industries' stance), especially when you are gaining the added volume of big bettors. In theory I understand, as mentioned earlier by game theory, these novice players do know about the takeout they are facing and may not think it is a big deal, but when they see the massive losses accumulating, the alternatives like slots and poker and sports and casino gambling just become more appealing. Also, not only are we dealing with a 18.6% to 21% takeout jump for these novice players, but as mentioned before they bet all "value" horses down to fair value or less and take most if not all good options for even smart non rebated players.


Now lets look at a 8% takeout. Lets assume the public is betting $100,000 still(they actually would eventually bet a lot more.....). Now add this group of sharp players who might bet $50,000 again, but this time instead of -3% they are now at +4%. So they win $2000 off of their 50,000. So with an 8% takeout, we have a $12,000 takeout total + $2000 won by the sharps/whales or 14% takeout for the public group as a whole. Eventually they bet more, the sharps/whales bet more, more and more money is churned, people are losing at a lot comfortable 14% clip on average instead of a 21% clips, more and more horse players are now able to become like charli and increase there betting significantly, Whales are betting horses to above break even and not below, Poker players and sports bettors start realizing there is a great alternative out here and join the party and the sport becomes more and more popular and more importantly the game has a much higher retention rate of customers................and then I wake up and we are back to racing today.

[ronsmac]

But that has nothing to do with rebate bettors.....its just a product of the takeouts being very high combined with an efficient market. If every horse is exactly what they are "supposed to be" than the horse is "break even minus the takeout".

There wouldnt' all of a sudden be piles of overlays if the rebate bettors all left the game, the market would still be efficient and overlays would be few and far between. Not much would change for the non rebate bettor other than the pool sizes going way down.
This is the last I'm going to say about this because it always ends up going in circles. An exacta is paying 42 bucks at post time. Non rebated player makes his bet because he thinks it's a good value. Computer whale thinks it's fair value at 38 bucks. His last flash bets come in and knock it down to 35 bucks and he gets enough of a rebate that long term he's making a profit. Non rebated bettor now gets an underlay and is a long term loser. Without the ability to get rebate and get bets in at the speed of light rebate player doesn't knock price to 35 bucks. Thus it does effect non rebated player. This is all hypothetical. I'm out.

[Stillriledup]

This is the last I'm going to say about this because it always ends up going in circles. An exacta is paying 42 bucks at post time. Non rebated player makes his bet because he thinks it's a good value. Computer whale thinks it's fair value at 38 bucks. His last flash bets come in and knock it down to 35 bucks and he gets enough of a rebate that long term he's making a profit. Non rebated bettor now gets an underlay and is a long term loser. Without the ability to get rebate and get bets in at the speed of light rebate player doesn't knock price to 35 bucks. Thus it does effect non rebated player. This is all hypothetical. I'm out.

But the thing you're not considering is that the non rebate guy has the ability to bet someone else if he's not happy with the price he's receiving.

There's more than one horse in the race, if you dont like the price on one of them, bet someone else.

As far as the non rebated bettor getting an underlay, that "underlay" was the market price by definition. Didnt matter who made it an underlay, that was the market value for the non rebated bettor.....the horse would still have paid the same exact price, rebate bettors in the pool or not.

[Stillriledup]

This is the last I'm going to say about this because it always ends up going in circles. An exacta is paying 42 bucks at post time. Non rebated player makes his bet because he thinks it's a good value. Computer whale thinks it's fair value at 38 bucks. His last flash bets come in and knock it down to 35 bucks and he gets enough of a rebate that long term he's making a profit. Non rebated bettor now gets an underlay and is a long term loser. Without the ability to get rebate and get bets in at the speed of light rebate player doesn't knock price to 35 bucks. Thus it does effect non rebated player. This is all hypothetical. I'm out.

Sorry Ron that you're out, but horses pay what they're supposed to pay, doesn't matter who bets them and who "splits the money" in the back room by the boiler at a later date, i'm not sure why you feel that if rebates went away all of a sudden there would be overlays and juicier prices, but that's not the case. 8 dollar horses pay 8 dollars. If a smart non rebate bettor sees an 8 dollar horse sitting up there at 7-2, he's betting it and so are other smart non rebate bettors....they're betting it until that horse is 3-1 and if its supposed to be 3-1, it will be.

Now, i know that your theory is that a rebate guy can see 3-1 and still bet the horse down to 5-2 and that its not fair to you that he's making your 3-1 shot 5-2 and if there were no rebates, your 3-1 shot would pay 3-1. My rebuttal is that if someone bets down your 3-1 to 5-2 (for whatever reason) some other horse goes up in price, which means you can get off that horse and bet someone else who is going UP in price.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Stillriledup

You cannot just go and bet something else. Horse racing is a very negative sum game meaning most horses are negative ROI bets. NYRA takeouts for example range between -15% and -24%

Any horse picked at random is likely to be a negative ROI bet. Any horse not bet by the big whale rebate syndicates with their team of full time form analysts is extremely likely to be a negative ROI bet. Even if you find a method that the rebate syndicates are not using you will likely have very few bets which will mean tiny turnover and tiny profit. You will spend most of your time doing the form for races and then passing on them. In the end the game will become a waste of your time

[Poindexter]

But the thing you're not considering is that the non rebate guy has the ability to bet someone else if he's not happy with the price he's receiving.

There's more than one horse in the race, if you dont like the price on one of them, bet someone else.

As far as the non rebated bettor getting an underlay, that "underlay" was the market price by definition. Didnt matter who made it an underlay, that was the market value for the non rebated bettor.....the horse would still have paid the same exact price, rebate bettors in the pool or not.

Hate to break it to you, but when Ron's exacta that he bet at $42 gets clobbered to $35 and that change doesn't happen until the horse hit the backstretch, Ron does not have a lot of options. Can't cancel bet, change to another combination that might have gone up....He is stuck with his now undervalued exacta play, because rebates have motivated the whales to bet this down below fair value.

Also contrary to what you might think, the market price when whales are being rebated is not the same as the market price when they are not being rebated. Because like Ron once they are not being rebated, they now need $42 to play the exacta and make a sufficient profit, not $35.

[AndyC]

Hate to break it to you, but when Ron's exacta that he bet at $42 gets clobbered to $35 and that change doesn't happen until the horse hit the backstretch, Ron does not have a lot of options. Can't cancel bet, change to another combination that might have gone up....He is stuck with his now undervalued exacta play, because rebates have motivated the whales to bet this down below fair value.

Also contrary to what you might think, the market price when whales are being rebated is not the same as the market price when they are not being rebated. Because like Ron once they are not being rebated, they now need $42 to play the exacta and make a sufficient profit, not $35.


So you are saying that 1) fair value is known, 2) exotic payoffs are also known and 3) the rebate bettors know how much will be bet on the last flash by other bettors so that they will neither overbet or underbet. Call me skeptical.

[Poindexter]

So you are saying that 1) fair value is known, 2) exotic payoffs are also known and 3) the rebate bettors know how much will be bet on the last flash by other bettors so that they will neither overbet or underbet. Call me skeptical.

Obviously if you are skeptical, then this subject rings silly to you. My guess is that in a 7 horse field you might have something like this

whale 1 whale 2 whale 3 odds very late

1) 2-1 1) 3-1 1) 9/5 1) 7/5
2) 4-1 2) 3-1 2) 9/2 2) 5/2
3) 6-1 3) 9/2 3) 5-1 3) 6-1
4) 4-1 4) 9/2 4) 6-1 4) 6-1
5) 20-1 5) 12-1 5) 15-1 5) 8-1
6)30-1 6) 25-1 6) 15-1 6) 11-1
7)20-1 7) 50-1 7)30-1 7)18-1


Obviously just a hypothetical, but in this case 1 is over bet so nobody will hit it. #3 is going to be interesting to whale 2 and whale 3 so they will bet it. #4 is going to be hit by whale 1 and 2. If the odds go up on 1 in time to bet it, then Whale 3 might bet him. Whale 2 might hit the #2 if the price goes up high enough. Horse 5 for sure will drift up, horse 7 will drift up. #6 will drift up. So basically you have an overbet favorite who the whales are cold on and you have the outside 3 horses who the whales give little chance of winning and those are the horses that are going to go up because of the whales. Meanwhile all the main contenders except the overbet favorite are going to be hamerred down. So it is not a matter of every whale knowing the exact probability of each horse winning, it is a matter of one is going to knock the value out here and another is going to knock the value out there and assuming these guys are as sharp as they are advertised to be, there just will not be any value left when they get done.

[Stillriledup]

Obviously if you are skeptical, then this subject rings silly to you. My guess is that in a 7 horse field you might have something like this

whale 1 whale 2 whale 3 odds very late

1) 2-1 1) 3-1 1) 9/5 1) 7/5
2) 4-1 2) 3-1 2) 9/2 2) 5/2
3) 6-1 3) 9/2 3) 5-1 3) 6-1
4) 4-1 4) 9/2 4) 6-1 4) 6-1
5) 20-1 5) 12-1 5) 15-1 5) 8-1
6)30-1 6) 25-1 6) 15-1 6) 11-1
7)20-1 7) 50-1 7)30-1 7)18-1


Obviously just a hypothetical, but in this case 1 is over bet so nobody will hit it. #3 is going to be interesting to whale 2 and whale 3 so they will bet it. #4 is going to be hit by whale 1 and 2. If the odds go up on 1 in time to bet it, then Whale 3 might bet him. Whale 2 might hit the #2 if the price goes up high enough. Horse 5 for sure will drift up, horse 7 will drift up. #6 will drift up. So basically you have an overbet favorite who the whales are cold on and you have the outside 3 horses who the whales give little chance of winning and those are the horses that are going to go up because of the whales. Meanwhile all the main contenders except the overbet favorite are going to be hamerred down. So it is not a matter of every whale knowing the exact probability of each horse winning, it is a matter of one is going to knock the value out here and another is going to knock the value out there and assuming these guys are as sharp as they are advertised to be, there just will not be any value left when they get done.

If you told me i can have one of two things:

1) Large bettors running around betting multiple horses to win
2) Large bettors not in the pools at all.

I would choose 1.

[Robert Goren]

Here's the pecking order in California for all things horse racing(including takeout rates):
1)- Trainers
2)- Owners{a close second}
3)- Race track owners (more/less Frank Stronach)
4)- California Horse Racing Board

Here's how it should be:
1)- California Horse Racing Board
2)- Race track owners
3)- Owners
4)- Trainers

. The CA Horse Racing Board is made up of political appointees and horse owners and breeders. The political appointees followed the lead of the horse owners and breeders. At least, that is the way appears from here.

[Poindexter]

If you told me i can have one of two things:

1) Large bettors running around betting multiple horses to win
2) Large bettors not in the pools at all.

I would choose 1.

What is it about my advice to eliminate rebates and cut takeout to 8% in straight pools and 12 or 13% in the exotics would drive large bettors out of the pool. Charli says he would bet more based off of his data, and the public would obviously bet a lot more, and the more that the public bets, the more the whales are able to bet. So the pools would eventually go up astronomically. But you and the racing industry seem dead focused on a model that doesn't work and has failed since day 1 despite the fact that the ease of entry into this game for the consumer is ridiculously easy. I used to have to drive 30 miles, buy a racing form(I guess they are about 10 bucks these days in print form) Pay $10 bucks or so to get in the track, spend an entire day there, pay excessive prices for food and drink all for the privilege of what I can do now with the extremely burdensome take of

1) open an account with Twinspires or expressbet(take all of 3 minutes) or whoever else there is.
2) Print out past performances which are free if I bet anything on the card.
3) set up an easy cash transfer from my bank account to this account.
4) watch the races live via tv or internet.

Yet for some reason, despite the fact that the sport can now easily reach millions of people it could not reach before(because they were at work or school, they had to be at home with the kids, they lived too far away from an otb site....), handle has halved in the last number of years.

Now you can look at it 2 ways. This sport is just completely uninteresting to the masses relative to its competition or it is priced too high(relative to its competition). As someone who has loved horse racing since the age of 5, I do not buy that is completely uninteresting to the masses, so I guess it must be overpriced (relative to its competition).

The bottom line is what racing has been doing for the last 20 years are so is a complete failure. No matter how much they clean up the sport from drugs and no matter how big the fields are and no matter how few race tracks there are, this broken model will not work. It at best will hover where it currently is or continue to get worse. The relief that some racetracks received from adding slots should have been used to reduce the takeout, educate its fan base, market and build the sport and not gone straight to purses. Somewhere down the line that relief will be gone and those track will die.But meanwhile it is great because the cheap claimers at Yonkers or wherever are running for big money. That solves everything. This industry is full of short sighted and self serving idiots(now I am being insulting :lol: ).

[Stillriledup]

What is it about my advice to eliminate rebates and cut takeout to 8% in straight pools and 12 or 13% in the exotics would drive large bettors out of the pool. Charli says he would bet more based off of his data, and the public would obviously bet a lot more, and the more that the public bets, the more the whales are able to bet. So the pools would eventually go up astronomically. But you and the racing industry seem dead focused on a model that doesn't work and has failed since day 1 despite the fact that the ease of entry into this game for the consumer is ridiculously easy. I used to have to drive 30 miles, buy a racing form(I guess they are about 10 bucks these days in print form) Pay $10 bucks or so to get in the track, spend an entire day there, pay excessive prices for food and drink all for the privilege of what I can do now with the extremely burdensome take of

1) open an account with Twinspires or expressbet(take all of 3 minutes) or whoever else there is.
2) Print out past performances which are free if I bet anything on the card.
3) set up an easy cash transfer from my bank account to this account.
4) watch the races live via tv or internet.

Yet for some reason, despite the fact that the sport can now easily reach millions of people it could not reach before(because they were at work or school, they had to be at home with the kids, they lived too far away from an otb site....), handle has halved in the last number of years.

Now you can look at it 2 ways. This sport is just completely uninteresting to the masses relative to its competition or it is priced too high(relative to its competition). As someone who has loved horse racing since the age of 5, I do not buy that is completely uninteresting to the masses, so I guess it must be overpriced (relative to its competition).

The bottom line is what racing has been doing for the last 20 years are so is a complete failure. No matter how much they clean up the sport from drugs and no matter how big the fields are and no matter how few race tracks there are, this broken model will not work. It at best will hover where it currently is or continue to get worse. The relief that some racetracks received from adding slots should have been used to reduce the takeout, educate its fan base, market and build the sport and not gone straight to purses. Somewhere down the line that relief will be gone and those track will die.But meanwhile it is great because the cheap claimers at Yonkers or wherever are running for big money. That solves everything. This industry is full of short sighted and self serving idiots(now I am being insulting :lol: ).

Hopefully i'm one of the people you're insulting, i would take it as a badge of honor because you know, if people aren't insulting me, i'm not doing my job. :D

I think that the industry has not done a heck of a lot to help themselves. Betting aside, rebates aside, there are a LOT of problems as to why people don't wager on the horse races.

The argument about rebates and why Joe Blow doesn't get 7.20 on horses that pay 7.00 (or, something like that) is way at the bottom of the list as to why the average schmoe isnt betting horse races.

In some states, they still don't have full card simulcasting as of yet and some states, that are very large, have very few opportunities to wager on the races thru satellite locations, most force you to go to a live track to place wagers, that's so 1970 and has no resemblance to 2014.

Also, Hong Kong has a pretty good model of being strict towards drug cheats. In America, they don't care nearly as much, slaps on the wrist for offenders, guys can kill multiple horses thru malpractice and get 0 days suspension and 0 dollar fine, its business as usual in the states...and that has nothing to do with profit sharing.

[Poindexter]

Hopefully i'm one of the people you're insulting, i would take it as a badge of honor because you know, if people aren't insulting me, i'm not doing my job. :D

I think that the industry has not done a heck of a lot to help themselves. Betting aside, rebates aside, there are a LOT of problems as to why people don't wager on the horse races.

The argument about rebates and why Joe Blow doesn't get 7.20 on horses that pay 7.00 (or, something like that) is way at the bottom of the list as to why the average schmoe isnt betting horse races.

In some states, they still don't have full card simulcasting as of yet and some states, that are very large, have very few opportunities to wager on the races thru satellite locations, most force you to go to a live track to place wagers, that's so 1970 and has no resemblance to 2014.

Also, Hong Kong has a pretty good model of being strict towards drug cheats. In America, they don't care nearly as much, slaps on the wrist for offenders, guys can kill multiple horses thru malpractice and get 0 days suspension and 0 dollar fine, its business as usual in the states...and that has nothing to do with profit sharing.

I am not insulting you, I am insulting the decision makers in the industry. That being said, you like many others in this forum, think that this sport is dying because of drugs and cheating and short fields....Drugs and cheating have always and will always be a part of this game. It takes money to clamp down on it, probably a lot more than this industry will ever have to spend on it with their current business model.Major league baseballs biggest stars get busted for drugs throughout the years. Are you trying to tell me that Supertrainers were not part of the game in 1976? They may have won at a 26% clip instead of a 40% clip, but they have been in this game my entire life and will not be leaving the game before I die, no matter what anyone does about it. As a horse player it is irrelevant. You see that SRU's Dream was claimed from a 6% trainer and is now trained by a 40% trainer who wins 35% 1st off the claim, you realize that whether he is being given juice, or Vitamins, or there is a very good horse swim instructor in the barn or whatever else it takes to improve a horse.........you know he is going to be a better horse today than he was in his last race.

Do not get me wrong, I do not like hearing about so in so killed 11 horses and certainly do not think it is okay......but I am talking about the betting aspect of the sport not the humanitarian aspect of the sport.

We see things completely different. So we will agree to completely disagree. To me you fix the pricing issue in the sport, you build the sport, you make the sport profitable again and then you start focusing on the other stuff, when you have money to do so. It doesn't make a lot of sense to spend an extra million dollars a year(or whatever it takes) on enforcement of drugs and cheating when you business is likely to be out of business in 5 or 10 years. You build a successful, sustainable business model and then you have the options to focus on all the other issues that need to be addressed.