Can someone simply explain rebates to me? Is it only off losses?

[Neumeier]

I've never dealt with rebates before so I have a question. It's very simple but for some reason the site can't give me a simple answer.

The site offers 7% rebate. I'm guessing this is off losses.

I asked my 3rd person at the site after no luck with the 1st two.

They said I get 7% back the next day off all bets winners or losers. Is this normally correct?

Hypothetically I can put $10,000 to show on a 1-9 shot and get $700 back? I know the answer to that has to be no but can someone give me a very simple explanation? Thanks

[classhandicapper]

Hypothetically I can put $10,000 to show on a 1-9 shot and get $700 back? I know the answer to that has to be no but can someone give me a very simple explanation? Thanks

You have to check the rules at your site.

I was betting to "place" fairly heavily with a 7% rebate during the 14% take period at NYRA in the pre net pool pricing days. To get the rebate, you needed a minimum payoff of 2.30. If the horse lost you got the 7%. If the horse won and paid 2.20, no rebate.

[therussmeister]

Also many places will not give a rebate on a bet into a negative show pool.

[Poindexter]

Yes rebates are payed on all bets win or lose(as mentioned by CH-books all have rules for low priced horses). You need to read the rules and familiarize with the rules no matter who you use. There are some offshore books that offer a 10% bonus on winning payouts rather than a rebate. Obviously if you are break even or better that would likely be better than a rebated(bet $100,000, break even and get $110,000 back-which is essentially a 10% rebate and if you are a winner even better-bet $100,00 get back $120,000 and get $12,000 in bonuses or a 12% rebate......).

[SG4]

Would you mind sharing the site who is offering 7%? Does anyone else have suggestions for places that offer rebates of such a nice amount?

[green80]

Would you mind sharing the site who is offering 7%? Does anyone else have suggestions for places that offer rebates of such a nice amount?

I ask the same question, 6% is the largest rebate I have found on WPS wagering with about 9% on exotics. This varies according to the host track's signal fees. This is on the total amount bet, it doesn't matter how much you win or lose.

[Track Collector]

Getting 7%+ rebate legally on WPS is possible for many different tracks, provided one wagers BIG money each year. Even then, minus pools typically do not have rebates paid on them.

[Fox]

Would you mind sharing the site who is offering 7%? Does anyone else have suggestions for places that offer rebates of such a nice amount?

My guess is he is referring to non-parimutuel offshore book Betonline.

[Stillriledup]

I was thinking about this yesterday and how some people say that if rebate bettors are in the pools, the prices 'pay less' or something like that.

Ok, so as an example, here are the final odds (with rebate bettors in the pools) of Race 2 at Aqu on March 4th.

Here are what each runner pays on a 2 dollar bet if they had won.

4.10
4.30 (winner)
34.60
68.00
12.00

Some might suggest that without the rebate bettors in the pool, the 4.30 winner might have paid 4.40 or 4.50. But if that's the case, woudnt the horse who was supposed to pay 4.10 only pay 4.00 or 3.90? Doesn't another runner have to go down in odds if the 4.30 winner goes up?

If the 4.30 winner went up to 4.50 and the 4.10 horse went to 3.90 (I know that's not how it works as other horses come into play, just using this for an example) can't you say the same thing about the other main contender that he 'would have' paid more had he won?

I know you want to think you get 'higher win prices' if rebate bettors aren't allowed in the pools, but that money has to come from somewhere, if the winner goes up, others come down.

[green80]

I was thinking about this yesterday and how some people say that if rebate bettors are in the pools, the prices 'pay less' or something like that.

Ok, so as an example, here are the final odds (with rebate bettors in the pools) of Race 2 at Aqu on March 4th.

Here are what each runner pays on a 2 dollar bet if they had won.

4.10
4.30 (winner)
34.60
68.00
12.00

Some might suggest that without the rebate bettors in the pool, the 4.30 winner might have paid 4.40 or 4.50. But if that's the case, woudnt the horse who was supposed to pay 4.10 only pay 4.00 or 3.90? Doesn't another runner have to go down in odds if the 4.30 winner goes up?

If the 4.30 winner went up to 4.50 and the 4.10 horse went to 3.90 (I know that's not how it works as other horses come into play, just using this for an example) can't you say the same thing about the other main contender that he 'would have' paid more had he won?

I know you want to think you get 'higher win prices' if rebate bettors aren't allowed in the pools, but that money has to come from somewhere, if the winner goes up, others come down.

You are exactly right. This argument about the horses paying less because of the big rebate bettors has to be based on these guys being always right. If the whale money comes in on a loser, the winner has to pay more. If these guys hit 40%, they still are wrong 60% of the time.

[Dave Schwartz]

It isn't just about lowering the odds. It is about lowering the odds on the winners.

Our wagering does not exist in a vacuum. That is, if a large segment of pool money has gotten smarter, it makes it more difficult for anyone (including the "smarter segment") to be profitable.


The extreme odds shifts of this age are caused by the fact that it is a much smaller "pool" of people who are driving the odds changes. Literally, just a half-dozen or so wager about 1/7th of every dollar. Since there are less people wagering, they are (logically) going to fall on the same horse(s) more often.

That's why it is pretty common for a horse to drop from (say) 3/1 to odds-on during the running of the race: the big boys are in agreement.

[Stillriledup]

It isn't just about lowering the odds. It is about lowering the odds on the winners.

Our wagering does not exist in a vacuum. That is, if a large segment of pool money has gotten smarter, it makes it more difficult for anyone (including the "smarter segment") to be profitable.


The extreme odds shifts of this age are caused by the fact that it is a much smaller "pool" of people who are driving the odds changes. Literally, just a half-dozen or so wager about 1/7th of every dollar. Since there are less people wagering, they are (logically) going to fall on the same horse(s) more often.

That's why it is pretty common for a horse to drop from (say) 3/1 to odds-on during the running of the race: the big boys are in agreement.

But that's a smartness thing and not a rebate thing. Taking away rebates from everyone isn't going to make the crowd 'less smart' it's not going to make 4 dollar winners pay 4.20

[green80]

you are right, the rebates have nothing to do with the prices except maybe attracting the smart guys who in turn bet on the winner lowering the price.

But... they are not right all the time, so the prices on the horses they don't bet are higher when they win. So I would say they help prices more than hurt, the smart guys can't be right over 50% of the time.

[biggestal99]

you are right, the rebates have nothing to do with the prices except maybe attracting the smart guys who in turn bet on the winner lowering the price.

But... they are not right all the time, so the prices on the horses they don't bet are higher when they win. So I would say they help prices more than hurt, the smart guys can't be right over 50% of the time.

well they were right yesterday in aqueduct's 7th. Imslowpokerodriguez Paid 4.50 tote. Paid 6.00 on Betfair.

the money flowed in from off track like a sure that it was.

Allan

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Stillriledup

You are correct that the odds on the horses not backed by the big rebate syndicates will go up. However those horses will be losing over -20% in the long run anyways

The second point is that if instead of paying a 10% rebate to 20% of the money invested you instead lowered the takeout for everyone by 2% then the odds on the horses not backed by the rebaters would be the same as they are with the rebaters in the pools

So in your example the 4.10 horse with rebates would have paid 4.10 if you lowered the takeout for everyone by 2%

Lowering the takeout for all is a much better option than selective rebating

[MonmouthParkJoe]

To add to what everyone has said already, depends on the program itself

I really dont use an ADW, but have a monmouth and big m players card

Each level you earn points based on lifetime wager amounts since you had the card. At each level you earn points back based on the amount you wagered, has nothing to do with payoffs. Each track and type of wager gets you different points based on their import agreements. Point levels are something like 2,000 points for a $20 voucher, programs, food, everything. At the diamond level I get a free live and simulcast program every day. It certainly helps over the course of the live meet, and I absolutely get back a significant amount over the course of the summer or winter meet at the big m

[ronsmac]

Stillriledup

You are correct that the odds on the horses not backed by the big rebate syndicates will go up. However those horses will be losing over -20% in the long run anyways

The second point is that if instead of paying a 10% rebate to 20% of the money invested you instead lowered the takeout for everyone by 2% then the odds on the horses not backed by the rebaters would be the same as they are with the rebaters in the pools

So in your example the 4.10 horse with rebates would have paid 4.10 if you lowered the takeout for everyone by 2%

Lowering the takeout for all is a much better option than selective rebatingI used to think lower take was better than rebates. I've changed my mind about that. Players who aren't pros or mathematically inclined don't seem to grasp the lower takeout angle. They seem to understand getting a few bucks added to their accounts or freebies more readily. Sort of like a sale for shoppers instead of already low prices. It has the psychological affect of getting a better deal even though the net may be the same.

[Stillriledup]

I used to think lower take was better than rebates. I've changed my mind about that. Players who aren't pros or mathematically inclined don't seem to grasp the lower takeout angle. They seem to understand getting a few bucks added to their accounts or freebies more readily. Sort of like a sale for shoppers instead of already low prices. It has the psychological affect of getting a better deal even though the net may be the same.

Lower take only matters if you cash your ticket. Most people lose more bets than they win, so more times than not, you're not getting 'paid' for the lower take.

[PaceAdvantage]

Congrats on yet another one

[cj]

Lower take only matters if you cash your ticket. Most people lose more bets than they win, so more times than not, you're not getting 'paid' for the lower take.

Unless you cash ZERO tickets lower takeout helps even the worst bettor.

[Parson]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the rebates come from whoever is granting it and it does not lower the take out. For an example, Oaklawn park has a takeout of 17% on wps wagers. If your ADW takes wages on the that track, the take out is still 17% and they get to keep a small amount of that 17%. That small amount is where the rebate comes from. 7% sounds a bit high for wps wagering to me. IMHO
Now I do not know where you can get a 7% rebate on wps wagers, unless you are wagering 100k per year. The most I have seen for someone wagering less is 3.5% and that depends upon the track. Now on exotics, I have seen that rebate be as high as 10.5% depending on the exotic and the track. That is regardless of your wager limits and this same ADW offers a 10% win bonus on exotics on top of the rebate.

[Stillriledup]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the rebates come from whoever is granting it and it does not lower the take out. For an example, Oaklawn park has a takeout of 17% on wps wagers. If your ADW takes wages on the that track, the take out is still 17% and they get to keep a small amount of that 17%. That small amount is where the rebate comes from. 7% sounds a bit high for wps wagering to me. IMHO
Now I do not know where you can get a 7% rebate on wps wagers, unless you are wagering 100k per year. The most I have seen for someone wagering less is 3.5% and that depends upon the track. Now on exotics, I have seen that rebate be as high as 10.5% depending on the exotic and the track. That is regardless of your wager limits and this same ADW offers a 10% win bonus on exotics on top of the rebate.

Correct, the rebate some receive doesn't affect non rebate players at all. If the published takeout at a track is 15.43 percent, that's the rate you pay regardless of who you are betting against.

[steveb]

Correct, the rebate some receive doesn't affect non rebate players at all. If the published takeout at a track is 15.43 percent, that's the rate you pay regardless of who you are betting against.

you must work for a pari-mutuel company.
that is just so simplistic.
while your last sentence is correct, to say that rebates have no effect on those that don't receive them is nonsensical in the extreme.

[Stillriledup]

you must work for a pari-mutuel company.
that is just so simplistic.
while your last sentence is correct, to say that rebates have no effect on those that don't receive them is nonsensical in the extreme.

They have no affect on you at all. The math says so. If you stick 2 dollars on a 4-1 shot, you get 10 bucks, not 9.80, the rebate boogie man doesn't come to your house at 8pm and knock on the door and say 'sorry but we need 20 cents to pay the rebate guys' that's not how it works.

[ronsmac]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the rebates come from whoever is granting it and it does not lower the take out. For an example, Oaklawn park has a takeout of 17% on wps wagers. If your ADW takes wages on the that track, the take out is still 17% and they get to keep a small amount of that 17%. That small amount is where the rebate comes from. 7% sounds a bit high for wps wagering to me. IMHO
Now I do not know where you can get a 7% rebate on wps wagers, unless you are wagering 100k per year. The most I have seen for someone wagering less is 3.5% and that depends upon the track. Now on exotics, I have seen that rebate be as high as 10.5% depending on the exotic and the track. That is regardless of your wager limits and this same ADW offers a 10% win bonus on exotics on top of the rebate.Racetrack Gms and even the owners of 2 seperate adws who gave big bettors rebates explained how this raised the takeout for non rebated players nearly a decade ago. This has been explained a hundred times here and the math is pretty basic so I won't rehash the same stuff. You can do a couple of easy searches and get more details.

[Stillriledup]

Racetrack Gms and even the owners of 2 seperate adws who gave big bettors rebates explained how this raised the takeout for non rebated players nearly a decade ago. This has been explained a hundred times here and the math is pretty basic so I won't rehash the same stuff. You can do a couple of easy searches and get more details.

It doesn't raise the takeout. If there's a 100k in a win pool at 15 pct takeout there is 85000 given back. 85k is given back whether it's a rebate track or a track like Oaklawn that supposedly doesn't give rebates.

[green80]

It doesn't raise the takeout. If there's a 100k in a win pool at 15 pct takeout there is 85000 given back. 85k is given back whether it's a rebate track or a track like Oaklawn that supposedly doesn't give rebates.

the rebates come from the ADW's cut, not the track. Horses pay the same, rebate or not.

[ronsmac]

It doesn't raise the takeout. If there's a 100k in a win pool at 15 pct takeout there is 85000 given back. 85k is given back whether it's a rebate track or a track like Oaklawn that supposedly doesn't give rebates.
The reason there is 100k in the pool and not 85 in the first place is because of the big bettors rebates.

[Parson]

the rebates come from the ADW's cut, not the track. Horses pay the same, rebate or not.

That is the point I was trying to make. To make the math easy, if the take out is 15% and the ADW has negotiated to forward 10% take out to the live track, then what they do with the remaining 5% is income for the ADW. What they choose to do with the 5% can be given in rebates, contests, etc...

I do not know of any easier way to explain it than that. Some on here must wear a tinfoil hat and think the takeout is higher for them than others. :D

[steveb]

That is the point I was trying to make. To make the math easy, if the take out is 15% and the ADW has negotiated to forward 10% take out to the live track, then what they do with the remaining 5% is income for the ADW. What they choose to do with the 5% can be given in rebates, contests, etc...

I do not know of any easier way to explain it than that. Some on here must wear a tinfoil hat and think the takeout is higher for them than others. :D

the rake IS higher for those that don't get rebates.
if you don't think the rebate enables those that get them, to get better returns then you are dreaming.
if it did not favour them, then take it away and then watch them whinge.
the rebate is no different to punters that win.
it is a de facto increase in take to those that don't get rebates and/or can't win.
if the take is maybe 14.5% and there are winners involved then it follows that the losers MUST lose at a greater rate.
rebates allow punters that receive them to take shorter odds than those that don't receive them, even if their probs are identical.
winning punters are POISON to those that lose, and rebates are the same.
not to mention most that get rebates would be winners more likely than not.

you and stillriledup must live in alternate universe to the rest of us.

[Stillriledup]

the rake IS higher for those that don't get rebates.
if you don't think the rebate enables those that get them, to get better returns then you are dreaming.
if it did not favour them, then take it away and then watch them whinge.
the rebate is no different to punters that win.
it is a de facto increase in take to those that don't get rebates and/or can't win.
if the take is maybe 14.5% and there are winners involved then it follows that the losers MUST lose at a greater rate.
rebates allow punters that receive them to take shorter odds than those that don't receive them, even if their probs are identical.
winning punters are POISON to those that lose, and rebates are the same.
not to mention most that get rebates would be winners more likely than not.

you and stillriledup must live in alternate universe to the rest of us.

It's pretty obvious that getting a rebate is better than not getting one, but that's not what's being discussed.

[cj]

It's pretty obvious that getting a rebate is better than not getting one, but that's not what's being discussed.


It is also pretty obvious he said a lot more than what you took from the post.

[Track Collector]

Correct, the rebate some receive doesn't affect non rebate players at all. If the published takeout at a track is 15.43 percent, that's the rate you pay regardless of who you are betting against.

Without a doubt, I believe it DOES impact non-rebate players.

First, if I am receiving a 2% rebate on the above track, the EFFECTIVE takeout rate for me is 13.43%, whereas it is 15.43% for a person not receiving that rebate. The net impact is that the amount of money I pay to attempt to win the posted mutuel payout is 2% less ALL the time. It may not make me a winner, but it puts me closer to even than the non-rebate player given equal skill levels.

But there is more to it than this. Let us say that I receive a 5% rebate, and thru studies I have found a particular handicapping angle that results in 1000 plays a year which pre-rebate yields an ROI of 0.98 (or 2% loss). Without the rebate I would not engage in these plays, but with the 5% rebate I can engage with an expected net profit of 3%. And, depending on the odds of the horse and the amount I wager, I will lower the $2 mutuel payout payout for everyone (including myself) when the desired horse wins. The amount of mutuel price reduction can be substantial, especially given that some other rebate players may be on to the same horse. Now what about when my key horse does not win, does that not inflate the mutuel prices of the other winners? Not necessarily, as not all rebate players end up on the same horses, and money on other horses in the same race by other rebate players will just as surely deflate (reduce) those mutuel payouts as well.

[green80]

Any player that is not getting a rebate is wagering at his own peril. There are places where even the small bettor can get 5-6% on straight bets at most tracks. Why not take this if it is available? I'm talking legal adw's here, not offshore bookmakers.

[Track Collector]

They have no affect on you at all. The math says so. If you stick 2 dollars on a 4-1 shot, you get 10 bucks, not 9.80, the rebate boogie man doesn't come to your house at 8pm and knock on the door and say 'sorry but we need 20 cents to pay the rebate guys' that's not how it works.

Basic Rule of Pari-mutuel wagering --> The more money wagered on a horse, the more depressed their odds will become.

If a player is wagering because of a rebate, their activity is going to depress the odds of the horse(s) they are playing, and that depressed amount is going to be factored in to the tote odds you see.

[Stillriledup]

Basic Rule of Pari-mutuel wagering --> The more money wagered on a horse, the more depressed their odds will become.

If a player is wagering because of a rebate, their activity is going to depress the odds of the horse(s) they are playing, and that depressed amount is going to be factored in to the tote odds you see.

But every horse in every race has non rebate money on them too, why is it always the rebate money that's depressing the price and not the non rebate money?

[Fox]

If a player is wagering because of a rebate, their activity is going to depress the odds of the horse(s) they are playing, and that depressed amount is going to be factored in to the tote odds you see.

You could also say this:

If a player is wagering because it's a nice sunny day, their activity is going to depress the odds of the horse(s) they are playing, and that depressed amount is going to be factored in to the tote odds you see.

It's not the rebate depressing the price, it's the bet.

If we get rid of rebates and reduce takeout across the board, is betting on a horse no longer going to affect the odds?

Rebates are just a form of price discrimination and volume discounting that is common in our economy. Do some of you guys complain about things like coupons and frequent flyer clubs too?

[proximity]

Without a doubt, I believe it DOES impact non-rebate players.
.

i think sru could better make his point by asking if YOU would be negatively impacted if EVERYONE that plays horses suddenly started getting rebates equal to your rebates and i'd say the answer is NO and would even argue that the greater handle generated would be of help to you.

[Stillriledup]

You could also say this:

If a player is wagering because it's a nice sunny day, their activity is going to depress the odds of the horse(s) they are playing, and that depressed amount is going to be factored in to the tote odds you see.

It's not the rebate depressing the price, it's the bet.

If we get rid of rebates and reduce takeout across the board, is betting on a horse no longer going to affect the odds?

Rebates are just a form of price discrimination and volume discounting that is common in our economy. Do some of you guys complain about things like coupons and frequent flyer clubs too?

Exactly. Money that's bet on horses doesn't know where it came from, it also doesn't affect the pool any differently since the pool treats 1 dollar as 1 dollar. It's not like a Canadian exchange where rebate money has a different value, a dollar is a dollar, if the track advertised rate is 15 pct and there's 100k bet, there's 85k given back to the winners.

Also, nobody ever says that many rebate players get paid on volume and not 'winners' so the tendency is to bet races they might normally skip and spread money around on more combos than they otherwise would, this not only increases pool sizes (which is good for everyone) but it lowers the ROI of the bettor which is good for everyone too, the bettor who spends 336 dollars to box 8 horses in the tri isn't as 'smart' as an equally sharp player who is only investing 40 dollars on a much tighter opinion. Players spreading dollars around while concentrating on volume are not going to be as effective as an equally smart player who is going to be much more selective and only bet on his very best opinions.

[steveb]

i think sru could better make his point by asking if YOU would be negatively impacted if EVERYONE that plays horses suddenly started getting rebates equal to your rebates and i'd say the answer is NO and would even argue that the greater handle generated would be of help to you.

that would be tantamount to there being NO rebate, and would in effect be a lowering of take out rates for non-rebate players, to that of those getting them
thus it would be a level playing field.
the result of that WOULD impact those getting a rebate, and favour those that did not.

[Stillriledup]

that would be tantamount to there being NO rebate, and would in effect be a lowering of take out rates for non-rebate players, to that of those getting them
thus it would be a level playing field.
the result of that WOULD impact those getting a rebate, and favour those that did not.

But your rate doesn't change because the rebate isn't coming out of your share of the profits. 8 dollar winners aren't going to start magically paying 8.20 if rebates dried up, you can even make the case that rebates drying up would cause the 8 dollar winner to start paying 7.80 because if rebates dry up what also dries up is people spreading money on many different horses, the elite players will be more selective and less 'reckless' in their betting, they won't be betting for volume, they'll have to concentrate on gaining a much better ROI.

[proximity]

the result of that WOULD impact those getting a rebate, and favour those that did not.

negatively? you'll have a very hard time convincing me that the average or median odds of a typical track collector overlay would decline due to every american horseplayer suddenly getting rebates. on the contrary i'd say the increased pools would HELP his bottom line by ultimately allowing him to bet more money.

[steveb]

negatively? you'll have a very hard time convincing me that the average or median odds of a typical track collector overlay would decline due to every american horseplayer suddenly getting rebates. on the contrary i'd say the increased pools would HELP his bottom line by ultimately allowing him to bet more money.

maybe i am just stupid, but the way i look at it.......if EVERYBODY got the same rebate, then effectively NOBODY is getting a rebate.
it just would be a de facto lowering of the takeout rate.
i don't doubt it would give increased pools.
and it WOULD make the non rebate players money last longer, before they inevitably lost the lot.

[proximity]

maybe i am just stupid, but the way i look at it.......if EVERYBODY got the same rebate, then effectively NOBODY is getting a rebate.
it just would be a de facto lowering of the takeout rate.
i don't doubt it would give increased pools.
and it WOULD make the non rebate players money last longer, before they inevitably lost the lot.

i certainly don't think you're stupid steve but if EVERYBODY is getting a rebate then EVERYBODY is getting a rebate.

a rising tide raises all boats. :)

[RXB]

negatively? you'll have a very hard time convincing me that the average or median odds of a typical track collector overlay would decline due to every american horseplayer suddenly getting rebates. on the contrary i'd say the increased pools would HELP his bottom line by ultimately allowing him to bet more money.

Joe Average, betting an extra $100 per week because of rebates means nothing.

But if Joe Whale-Syndicate (he's English, or Australian, obviously) bets an extra $1,000,000 per week because of big rebates, and he collects back $950,000 from the mutuel pools, assuming an 20% takeout rate he would remove $150,000 from the returns to his competitors.

Of course, it's largely a matter of perspective. Let's say that someone is a below-average handicapper: his loss percentage of wagered money is worse than the takeout rate. He won't be negatively affected by all of the rebate-incented whale money because of course they'd be broke in no time if they were betting on a lot of the same horses that he does. He might even get a slight boost from the whale money over the long haul because indeed it will inflate the odds on his horses more often than not. (Of course, they are still terrible bets with a huge minus ROI, but the minus would get reduced slightly.)

It's the group with higher ROI's that really get trimmed by the big rebate syndicates.

[Rutgers]

Taking away rebates from everyone isn't going to make the crowd 'less smart' it's not going to make 4 dollar winners pay 4.20

No, but WITH rebates $4.00 winners pay $4.20, just not to you.

[Fox]

No, but WITH rebates $4.00 winners pay $4.20, just not to you.

Or maybe it pays 3.80 because the rebate guys were more on the second choice that race.

[proximity]

Joe Average, betting an extra $100 per week because of rebates means nothing.


collectively these players represent the average non-rebated dollar in track collector's pools. the argument has been made that giving these players rebates would hurt the profits of track collector (a rebated player). i don't agree.

another example (and a personal one) is that when the pa source market fees caused my rebates to vanish i didn't cry foul that players in other states could still get rebates on my tracks. sure i bet fewer horses against the higher effective take but i don't think taking away their rebates would have helped me get better prices and likely would've diluted pools on any overlays i did get. jmo.....

[proximity]

another thing i will say is that in 2016 where you live is much more important than how much you bet as far as getting the lion's share (but certainly not all) of the available rebate percentage. so for most of the rebate, being a whale isn't important but where you live is.

[Poindexter]

Rebates are great. Giving huge financial incentive to the sharpest/most informed bettors on the planet to knock out any and all value from the pools is brilliant. Letting these rebated bettors bet at the bell(or maybe even after the bell) so that nobody at the track knows whether he will get 8/5 or 5/2 on the horse he bets until the far turn, is sheer genius.

[green80]

Look at it like this: You and your buddy go to the track to bet a horse. There are two lines. One where a $2 win ticket cost $2. Another where a $2 win ticket on your horse cost $1.88. Which line are you getting into?

[Jeff P]

Look at it like this: You and your buddy go to the track to bet a horse. There are two lines. One where a $2 win ticket cost $2. Another where a $2 win ticket on your horse cost $1.88. Which line are you getting into?

If they were smart - that window (with a big sign over it) would be available on track - at every track.



-jp

.

[Rutgers]

Look at it like this: You and your buddy go to the track to bet a horse. There are two lines. One where a $2 win ticket cost $2. Another where a $2 win ticket on your horse cost $1.88. Which line are you getting into?

The problem is there is also a window where the bet costs $1.80 that only a few players can get into. (and not all players can get into the $1.88 line).

But because horse racing is pari-mutual wagering, and unlike casino or fixed odds gambling, the few players that can into the $1.80 line have an advantage over the others. You can debate whether or not that is fair or not, but the players that can only get into the $2.00 or $1.88 will eventually stop playing.

[Rutgers]

If they were smart - that window (with a big sign over it) would be available on track - at every track.



-jp

.


If they were smart, they would partner with a horseplayer‘s group to support raising their signal fees and lowering their takeout by the same percentage and banning their bet-takers from rebating

[Stillriledup]

If they were smart, they would partner with a horseplayer‘s group to support raising their signal fees and lowering their takeout by the same percentage and banning their bet-takers from rebating

So you're suggesting to do something to cause People betting millions a year to stop betting altogether?

[ronsmac]

If they were smart, they would partner with a horseplayer‘s group to support raising their signal fees and lowering their takeout by the same percentage and banning their bet-takers from rebatingThey're already raising a lot of signal fees. It's the lowering of the takeout which hasn't caught on . This has only affected small to medium sized bettors to my knowledge. I don't think it's affected the whales much.

[davew]

I've never dealt with rebates before so I have a question. It's very simple but for some reason the site can't give me a simple answer.

The site offers 7% rebate. I'm guessing this is off losses.

I asked my 3rd person at the site after no luck with the 1st two.

They said I get 7% back the next day off all bets winners or losers. Is this normally correct?

Hypothetically I can put $10,000 to show on a 1-9 shot and get $700 back? I know the answer to that has to be no but can someone give me a very simple explanation? Thanks

If you have a 7% rebate, generally you bet $10,000 you get credited by your ADW $700 sometime (depending on ADW rules). Usually the ADWs have different rules for negative pools - which your $10K show bet may become.

If your 1/9 shot is out of the money, it will (probably) not be a negative pool and you will get your $700.

If your 1/9 is in the money, it will most likely be a negative pool. The ADWs have to absorb the 'negative pool' losses by the track. What they do with the player causing this is ADW dependent.

It I also possible in a giant race with a 1/9, that your $10K bet might not cause a negative pool. A theoretical would be a Derby with over a million in the show pool.

[steveb]

what, may i ask is a 'negative pool'?

[thaskalos]

what, may i ask is a 'negative pool'?

A negative pool is when the winning tickets outnumber the losers...and the track has to reach into its own pocket in order to pay the minimum payoff in the race.

[steveb]

A negative pool is when the winning tickets outnumber the losers...and the track has to reach into its own pocket in order to pay the minimum payoff in the race.

thanks.
never has happened in my part of the world.
once there was never a minimum payoff and you could actually win the race but lose.
now that there is, the dividends are reduced for the other payoffs, so that it's now robbing peter to pay paul.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

If a track has a 20% takeout and then gives a 10% rebate to 20% of the money bet it has effectively reduced its overall takeout to 18%.

This is why the runners not bet by the rebaters improve their payoffs
If the track were to simply have no rebates but reduce its takeout from 20% to 18% then you get the same impact

The key is with the horses bet by the rebaters. On these horses you effectively have 2 different dividends/payouts. The players getting the 10% rebate are obviously receiving a big reduction in takeout but the players not getting the rebate backing the same horse will be facing a large effective hike in takeout (vs the pool with no rebates)

[green80]

The problem is there is also a window where the bet costs $1.80 that only a few players can get into. (and not all players can get into the $1.88 line).

But because horse racing is pari-mutual wagering, and unlike casino or fixed odds gambling, the few players that can into the $1.80 line have an advantage over the others. You can debate whether or not that is fair or not, but the players that can only get into the $2.00 or $1.88 will eventually stop playing.

The 2.00 players, if they work hard and are successful graduate to the $1.88 line one day and the $1.88 players can move up too.

[Stillriledup]

If a track has a 20% takeout and then gives a 10% rebate to 20% of the money bet it has effectively reduced its overall takeout to 18%.

This is why the runners not bet by the rebaters improve their payoffs
If the track were to simply have no rebates but reduce its takeout from 20% to 18% then you get the same impact

The key is with the horses bet by the rebaters. On these horses you effectively have 2 different dividends/payouts. The players getting the 10% rebate are obviously receiving a big reduction in takeout but the players not getting the rebate backing the same horse will be facing a large effective hike in takeout (vs the pool with no rebates)

Every horse in every race has some rebate money on them and some non rebate money. Nobody is receiving a 'hike in takeout'. If a track advertises 15 pct and there's 100k in the pool, 85k gets divided up amongst the winners. If you are one of the winners, you share that 85k.

[bobbyt62]

i just started a complementary post asking if anyone knew (for sure) which tracks dont take the offshore (big rebates, not the 3-6% most of us get now) rebate money. using win pools (which i get 3% on now, but its futile) as an example, and i quote steve crist from page 182 of "horseplayers" by ted mcclelland ..."Imagine a betting pool with $100 in it. After $20 in takeout, the remaining $80 is distributed among the holders of winning tickets. Now add another $100 to the pool from a group that over time gets back $90 out of every $100 it invests. The total pool is now $200, with $160 paid back after takeout. If the new group is getting back $90, that now leaves only $70, rather than the original $80, for the first group of bettors. So even while losing, the new group is taking money from the old one. Someone who loses 10 percent is really doing two different things: losing 20 percent to takeout but winning 10 percent from the other players." very clearly (to me ) stated, unarguable in logic and math. thats why i asked if folks knew where i could play on an (almost-i do get 3%) level playing field. im not looking to argue about what i , steve crist, and many others know. im just trying to figure out if theres any track(s) i can bet without having to fade the offshore(or onshore in north dakota, etc.??) folks.

[Stillriledup]

i just started a complementary post asking if anyone knew (for sure) which tracks dont take the offshore (big rebates, not the 3-6% most of us get now) rebate money. using win pools (which i get 3% on now, but its futile) as an example, and i quote steve crist from page 182 of "horseplayers" by ted mcclelland ..."Imagine a betting pool with $100 in it. After $20 in takeout, the remaining $80 is distributed among the holders of winning tickets. Now add another $100 to the pool from a group that over time gets back $90 out of every $100 it invests. The total pool is now $200, with $160 paid back after takeout. If the new group is getting back $90, that now leaves only $70, rather than the original $80, for the first group of bettors. So even while losing, the new group is taking money from the old one. Someone who loses 10 percent is really doing two different things: losing 20 percent to takeout but winning 10 percent from the other players." very clearly (to me ) stated, unarguable in logic and math. thats why i asked if folks knew where i could play on an (almost-i do get 3%) level playing field. im not looking to argue about what i , steve crist, and many others know. im just trying to figure out if theres any track(s) i can bet without having to fade the offshore(or onshore in north dakota, etc.??) folks.

The wrong part is that you don't get back 70, you get back 80. It's sleight of hand from people who want to make you believe you're not really getting back 80.

If the takeout is 20 and 100 is bet, 80 is paid back to bettors, the rest of it is just made up stories from people who aren't smart enough to bet big enough to get their own rebate.

[Fox]

im not looking to argue about what i , steve crist, and many others know.

That's cute.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Every horse in every race has some rebate money on them and some non rebate money. Nobody is receiving a 'hike in takeout'. If a track advertises 15 pct and there's 100k in the pool, 85k gets divided up amongst the winners. If you are one of the winners, you share that 85k.

SRU, for God's sake do us ALL a favor and take an accounting class. The rebates do NOT, repeat, DO NOT exist in a vacuum. The track's published takeout IS NOT, repeat IS NOT directly applicable to rebates. The rebate monies are taken out UP front, before the ADW is paid their cut which is TOO HIGH and which allows them the latitude to pay a rebate to begin with.

In your example, $85K is NOT returned to the bettors. It's really $85K PLUS the rebates to the rebate bettors. For non-rebate bettors, the takeout is 15%. For rebate bettors, the EFFECTIVE takeout is something less.

For those of us who are on the anti-rebate side of the argument, we'd prefer no rebates and a lower effective takeout for all.

[baconswitchfarm]

This is like that groundhog day movie. :lol:

[Stillriledup]

SRU, for God's sake do us ALL a favor and take an accounting class. The rebates do NOT, repeat, DO NOT exist in a vacuum. The track's published takeout IS NOT, repeat IS NOT directly applicable to rebates. The rebate monies are taken out UP front, before the ADW is paid their cut which is TOO HIGH and which allows them the latitude to pay a rebate to begin with.

In your example, $85K is NOT returned to the bettors. It's really $85K PLUS the rebates to the rebate bettors. For non-rebate bettors, the takeout is 15%. For rebate bettors, the EFFECTIVE takeout is something less.

For those of us who are on the anti-rebate side of the argument, we'd prefer no rebates and a lower effective takeout for all.

All I'm talking about is what's returned to non rebate bettors.

[iamt]

I'm convinced SRU is is an account operated by some large whale syndicate at an attempt to get more money into the pools.

He seems to be up at all hours
Presents himself as an expert across all tracks and race types
Watches more races and tracks live than one person possibly could

And if you were a new player wouldn't you like to think:

Rebates make no difference to the payout
If your bet gets beaten it is only the result of jockey error
And that to win you only need to beat someone who can't see such obvious issues even when explained in multiple ways by multiple people.

[Stillriledup]

I'm convinced SRU is is an account operated by some large whale syndicate at an attempt to get more money into the pools.

He seems to be up at all hours
Presents himself as an expert across all tracks and race types
Watches more races and tracks live than one person possibly could

And if you were a new player wouldn't you like to think:

Rebates make no difference to the payout
If your bet gets beaten it is only the result of jockey error
And that to win you only need to beat someone who can't see such obvious issues even when explained in multiple ways by multiple people.

:lol:

Post of the century.

[no breathalyzer]

tin foil hat :lol: