Lower Takeout Panel Discussion

[HuggingTheRail]

Sorry if this is a repost, and I thought about dropping it into one of the threads such as Canterbury, etc... so please move if better elsewhere


http://www.standardbredcanada.ca/news/9-27-16/takeout-rates-discussed.html

[AlsoEligible]

Strange that this has no replies in two days. By far the biggest complaint of players is high takeout, and yet when the industry does have an actual discussion about it, we get crickets?

Big thumbs up to these tracks for a) recognizing that high takeouts are actually a problem, and b) setting a trend that will hopefully continue. It's up to the bettors now to prove that lower takeout works by putting their money where their mouths are.

[thespaah]

Strange that this has no replies in two days. By far the biggest complaint of players is high takeout, and yet when the industry does have an actual discussion about it, we get crickets?

Big thumbs up to these tracks for a) recognizing that high takeouts are actually a problem, and b) setting a trend that will hopefully continue. It's up to the bettors now to prove that lower takeout works by putting their money where their mouths are.
This is the first time I have seen this thread listed.
Lower takeout usually does result in increased handle.
Canterbury was mentioned in the linked article. The spokesperson stated on track business was down, but off track was up 20%...
One thing not mentioned is the weather. Minnesota, along with the remainder of the Upper Midwest, experienced a particularly hot and humid summer. Minnesotans are not used to 90* plus with high humidity. I think this chased off on track business. Nobody I know unless there are one of these types that thrives in hot sticky weather where one can break a drenching sweat by just thinking intently. Most folks hate that crap.....
Anyway..I equate takeout to taxation. When government increases taxes, in the long term revenues actually decrease because people have less to spend thus reducing consumer spending. Takeout reduces potential ROI by limiting payouts. Less money going back to the bettors mean less churn. Less churn means less money going into the pools.

[no breathalyzer]

honestly take out does not mean shit to me unless its a amount to actually mean something, I'm going to bet and beat wherever and whenever i see odds posted in my advantage regardless of takeout regardless of track... quality trumps take out 9/10 times

[AltonKelsey]

It's a lot easier to get value with a low takeout.

Unless you think the wise guys are going to pound all the winners down to the same 'price' no matter what the takeout.

Unlikely, they are not that good.

[classhandicapper]

It's a lot easier to get value with a low takeout.

Unless you think the wise guys are going to pound all the winners down to the same 'price' no matter what the takeout.

Unlikely, they are not that good.

The flip side would be that if a track has a high takeout all the wise guys will avoid it and as a result there will be more mistakes on the board. I don't know how much validity there is to that, but I think you can sometimes find better value in smaller pools because all the big betters avoid them. It would be a similar idea.

[AskinHaskin]

Strange that this has no replies in two days. By far the biggest complaint of players is high takeout.



LOL - where did you get that bit of absurdity?

Studies done five years ago showed that almost nobody in racing grandstands in the 2000's even knows about takeout.


Nobody cares... and the results at Cby underscored as much, and the early, dismal returns at the Big "M" have echoed that same reality.


Furthermore, takeout is not "high". It's generally the same as it was decades ago, while everything else all around has increased in cost.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I didnt read the article, but my general thinking is that it needs time. Time for bettors to learn and catch on as well as the general public. After years of increased takeouts, running a small meet with a reduced takeout may see some increase but for the effects to be realized it has to be in place for some time.

Yes weather, field size, and a number of other things factor into this. A track that really wants to try this has to be able to ride the waves, and not let a short term experiment dictate the long term benefit this could have.

[EMD4ME]

LOL - where did you get that bit of absurdity?

Studies done five years ago showed that almost nobody in racing grandstands in the 2000's even knows about takeout.


Nobody cares... and the results at Cby underscored as much, and the early, dismal returns at the Big "M" have echoed that same reality.


Furthermore, takeout is not "high". It's generally the same as it was decades ago, while everything else all around has increased in cost.

Steve Travers, is that you?

[ReplayRandall]

Furthermore, takeout is not "high". It's generally the same as it was decades ago, while everything else all around has increased in cost.

Yes, the takeout has been insanely high for decades, with no compromise for the wagering public, while competition with better value for the entertainment dollar, ultimately gained huge market share which decimated horse racing...:faint:

[andtheyreoff]

LOL - where did you get that bit of absurdity?

Studies done five years ago showed that almost nobody in racing grandstands in the 2000's even knows about takeout.

It doesn't matter if nobody knows about it. It still affects them.


Nobody cares... and the results at Cby underscored as much, and the early, dismal returns at the Big "M" have echoed that same reality.


Furthermore, takeout is not "high". It's generally the same as it was decades ago, while everything else all around has increased in cost.

I know it's been said before, but given the circumstances of Canterbury's products, there's no way they would've been up 7% if not for the takeout reduction. And the Meadowlands meet is two days old. Give it some time.

[thespaah]

LOL - where did you get that bit of absurdity?

Studies done five years ago showed that almost nobody in racing grandstands in the 2000's even knows about takeout.


Nobody cares... and the results at Cby underscored as much, and the early, dismal returns at the Big "M" have echoed that same reality.


Furthermore, takeout is not "high". It's generally the same as it was decades ago, while everything else all around has increased in cost.
When the track is taking as much as 31% ( Pennsylvania trifecta, super and all horizontal bets) of every dollar wagered, yeah it matters.
If one had to pay a 30% sales tax, they'd be marching on the State Capitol with pitch forks and torches.

[SuperPickle]

Until someone with significant liquidity in the pools did it the data would be incomplete.

If Nyra was smart they use some of the casino money to finance a lower takeout to try and grow handle. But why try and grow your core business when you can do nothing and collect welfare.

[AskinHaskin]

People, you are just not getting it.


The disparity between racing and other forms of gambling has zero to do with racing's takeout.

Rather, it is the imbalance between those in one end of the grandstand, vs. the other, which has the would-have-been new people wanting nothing to do with racing's equation.


Think of, say, 3 or 4 teeter-totters:


the first, is the state lottery... where the takeout is approximately 50%


the teeter-totter is balanced efficiently on that 50% with all but a microscopic percentage of players steadily distributed across the full array of (steadily poor) results (for each)... but balanced.


the next teeter-totter represents Roulette... with the whole field of players balanced efficiently across the plane of a tiny little takeout percentage


Another can represent craps, or whatever... but the same thing holds true, where the entire field of players is balanced efficiently.


Horse racing, because it fails to optimize its unique parimutuel wagering, is a teeter-totter, with a 20% 'rake' underneath, but it is akin to some fat kid sitting on the ground, one foot from the center (on which it could be balanced )... while the other 80% of the long board is miles in the air, with 95+% percent of the fan base just clinging there for dear life.


That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with horse racing as it is presented today. It was nowhere near this extreme in 1950, or 1970, or 1982.


"Takeout" by itself has exactly zero to do with the difference between racing's dwindling success and that of other games of chance.

[thaskalos]

LOL - where did you get that bit of absurdity?

Studies done five years ago showed that almost nobody in racing grandstands in the 2000's even knows about takeout.


Nobody cares... and the results at Cby underscored as much, and the early, dismal returns at the Big "M" have echoed that same reality.


Furthermore, takeout is not "high". It's generally the same as it was decades ago, while everything else all around has increased in cost.

Any idea why so many former horse bettors have fled the game?

[thaskalos]

Furthermore, takeout is not "high". It's generally the same as it was decades ago, while everything else all around has increased in cost.

Are you suggesting that the takeout rates in horse racing should be increasing in accordance with the cost of living increases of life in general?

[Poindexter]

People, you are just not getting it.


The disparity between racing and other forms of gambling has zero to do with racing's takeout.

Rather, it is the imbalance between those in one end of the grandstand, vs. the other, which has the would-have-been new people wanting nothing to do with racing's equation.


Think of, say, 3 or 4 teeter-totters:


the first, is the state lottery... where the takeout is approximately 50%


the teeter-totter is balanced efficiently on that 50% with all but a microscopic percentage of players steadily distributed across the full array of (steadily poor) results (for each)... but balanced.


the next teeter-totter represents Roulette... with the whole field of players balanced efficiently across the plane of a tiny little takeout percentage


Another can represent craps, or whatever... but the same thing holds true, where the entire field of players is balanced efficiently.


Horse racing, because it fails to optimize its unique parimutuel wagering, is a teeter-totter, with a 20% 'rake' underneath, but it is akin to some fat kid sitting on the ground, one foot from the center (on which it could be balanced )... while the other 80% of the long board is miles in the air, with 95+% percent of the fan base just clinging there for dear life.


That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with horse racing as it is presented today. It was nowhere near this extreme in 1950, or 1970, or 1982.


"Takeout" by itself has exactly zero to do with the difference between racing's dwindling success and that of other games of chance.

So what is your suggestion for horse racing to optimize its unique parimutuel wagering?

[DeanT]

I don't know how to solve racing's myriad betting issues, but this sure didn't help keep people interested while competitors came on line in the 60's through 80's.

[AskinHaskin]

Any idea why so many former horse bettors have fled the game?


Graveyards, for the largest segment.


Are you suggesting that the takeout rates in horse racing should be increasing in accordance with the cost of living increases of life in general?

No, only that, as an approximate constant, the takeout simply can not be any part of the reason for racing's demise.



So what is your suggestion for horse racing to optimize its unique parimutuel wagering?


Instead of directing all of the attention toward the same small segment of the audience which doomed it to this fate, racing should be doing everything it can to help everybody do better at the windows. Only after that will racing be able to right its sinking ship.

As it is now, people thinking about gambling are like young children heading toward the playfield. Upon arriving at the playfield, and seeing the teeter-totters, the kids are easily drawn toward those with level playing fields (Lottery, Keno, Roulette, Slots), while horse racing's teeter-totter has some 27yo rotund kid sitting square on one side, rendering the other side only a fool's move. (those who have left racing {and who are still alive to tell about it} effectively finally fell from the dizzying heights of one side of the teeter-totter after having been there when the 27yo showed up and sat down)

Then you have the John Pricci's of the world, still in it for only the rotund 27yo: "Kent Desormeaux... cost big show bettors a small fortune". The fact remains that the entire realm of show bettors received more money collectively than they would have in the scenario that Pricci would have preferred. This is a microcosm of the entire, upside-down presentation of horse racing as it stands in 2016.

Present yourself to the entire adult public, and not just to the tiny sliver of the tiny sliver of humanity who would ever give a darn about horse racing.

It should be so simple to understand that when your unique form of wagering affords you a massive edge over all other forms of gambling in your midst, that you should utilize and eventually optimize that edge rather than simply ignoring it, as you've always done.

The game changed... you (meaning horse racing and those running it) didn't... and as such you rendered yourself nearly obsolete.

[AltonKelsey]

The last people we should worry about are large show bettors looking to scalp 2.10

Still can't fathom where that money even comes from , because the chance of them actually winning long term is quite low.

[AskinHaskin]

The last people we should worry about are large show bettors looking to scalp 2.10



Tell that to Pricci then.

[cj]

The last people we should worry about are large show bettors looking to scalp 2.10

Still can't fathom where that money even comes from , because the chance of them actually winning long term is quite low.

People are betting tris and supers and Super Hi 5s too though. Just ride the damn horse to the wire, not too much to ask.

[Poindexter]

Graveyards, for the largest segment.




No, only that, as an approximate constant, the takeout simply can not be any part of the reason for racing's demise.






Instead of directing all of the attention toward the same small segment of the audience which doomed it to this fate, racing should be doing everything it can to help everybody do better at the windows. Only after that will racing be able to right its sinking ship.

As it is now, people thinking about gambling are like young children heading toward the playfield. Upon arriving at the playfield, and seeing the teeter-totters, the kids are easily drawn toward those with level playing fields (Lottery, Keno, Roulette, Slots), while horse racing's teeter-totter has some 27yo rotund kid sitting square on one side, rendering the other side only a fool's move. (those who have left racing {and who are still alive to tell about it} effectively finally fell from the dizzying heights of one side of the teeter-totter after having been there when the 27yo showed up and sat down)

Then you have the John Pricci's of the world, still in it for only the rotund 27yo: "Kent Desormeaux... cost big show bettors a small fortune". The fact remains that the entire realm of show bettors received more money collectively than they would have in the scenario that Pricci would have preferred. This is a microcosm of the entire, upside-down presentation of horse racing as it stands in 2016.

Present yourself to the entire adult public, and not just to the tiny sliver of the tiny sliver of humanity who would ever give a darn about horse racing.

It should be so simple to understand that when your unique form of wagering affords you a massive edge over all other forms of gambling in your midst, that you should utilize and eventually optimize that edge rather than simply ignoring it, as you've always done.

The game changed... you (meaning horse racing and those running it) didn't... and as such you rendered yourself nearly obsolete.

As I see it the 27yo rotund kids are excessive takeout and whales getting heavy rebates and hammering all of the opportunity out of the pools, thus leaving the masses fighting over the remaining crumbs. Also, I think for the most part the masses have little awareness of all this. They just know that when they save up $500 to play horses, it soons becomes $400, 300, $100, zippo. I also think these same whales make helping the masses a very difficult(near impossible task). If a line looks like this

fair line, actual line

1) 3, 2
2) 6, 4
3) 20, 22
4) 30, 27
5) 2, 1.4
6) 8, 7
7) 10, 7


Where exactly are your newly educated masses going to find opportunity to beat this game? Lines like this are typical, not out of the ordinary. If I am missing something, feel free to spell it out sans the analogy.

ps look at the amount of work (either personally or via computers) that emd and CH and CJ and Delta and Traynor and Thaskalos and Cratos and many other on this forum I am not mentioning..... put into this game. The masses aren't going to do the same(well maybe 1 in 100 will).

I am not saying this game is not beatable(but I have been betting horses since I was 5 -I am now 52). Just saying that in order for the public to compete, gain interest and have a chance to be lifelong customers, rebates need to go and takeout needs to be cut in about half. Otherwise they will piss there money away playing poker or slots or whatever else they might choose. While I try to support every step in the right direction, I know darn well these paltry takeout reductions at C and D level tracks are not going to do a whole lot. But my hope is that enough people will send the right message and other more prominent tracks will take steps in the right direction.

[AltonKelsey]

People are betting tris and supers and Super Hi 5s too though. Just ride the damn horse to the wire, not too much to ask.

This is true.

anyone have a link to the replay of the los alamitos race in question?

[AskinHaskin]

As I see it the 27yo rotund kids are excessive takeout and whales getting heavy rebates and hammering all of the opportunity out of the pools, thus leaving the masses fighting over the remaining crumbs. Also, I think for the most part the masses have little awareness of all this. They just know that when they save up $500 to play horses, it soons becomes $400, 300, $100, zippo. I also think these same whales make helping the masses a very difficult(near impossible task). If a line looks like this

fair line, actual line

1) 3, 2
2) 6, 4
3) 20, 22
4) 30, 27
5) 2, 1.4
6) 8, 7
7) 10, 7


Where exactly are your newly educated masses going to find opportunity to beat this game? Lines like this are typical, not out of the ordinary. If I am missing something, feel free to spell it out sans the analogy.

ps look at the amount of work (either personally or via computers) that emd and CH and CJ and Delta and Traynor and Thaskalos and Cratos and many other on this forum I am not mentioning..... put into this game. The masses aren't going to do the same(well maybe 1 in 100 will).

I am not saying this game is not beatable(but I have been betting horses since I was 5 -I am now 52). Just saying that in order for the public to compete, gain interest and have a chance to be lifelong customers, rebates need to go and takeout needs to be cut in about half. Otherwise they will piss there money away playing poker or slots or whatever else they might choose. While I try to support every step in the right direction, I know darn well these paltry takeout reductions at C and D level tracks are not going to do a whole lot. But my hope is that enough people will send the right message and other more prominent tracks will take steps in the right direction.


Again, the difference between racing past and present has zero to do with "takeout".

Why weren't you standing outside of a track somewhere in 1978, perhaps with a picket sign that said "takeout is too high" (with the same approximate takeout in effect then as is the case now)?

(I know you're going to cite your then-age - but I suggest you'd have been old enough to notice if there had been anyone else there picketing with the same sign/belief)


You may be able to say that, in 1978, there was only a single teeter-totter on the playfield, and that any kid who turned the corner then, would have to entertain himself in the presence of the rotund 27yo, and perhaps with enough friends, maybe eventually challenge the 27yo by climbing onto the perilous end of the teeter-totter.

So now, the playfield is filled with many other teeter-totters, still all but one offering a *balance* in the middle... and lots of new kids rounding the corner each time the recess bell rings... and every one of them quite interested in playing on a teeter-totter... (it doesn't matter whether the "takeout" or the teeter-totter is balanced on 20%, on 50%, on 3%, on 1 foot, on 2 feet, on 3 feet, 7 inches... only that it is balanced)

They are all looking for one that is balanced... and racing's answer to this is to keep feeding the rotund 27yo, which is absolutely pointless.

Anyone should be able to understand that when you have the only game in town where you can eagerly/excitedly/willingly/happily help your customers do much better against the game (or the won-loss column), you should do so for all of them... instead of habitually continuing to feed your hefty 27yo mainstay whose mere presence causes your teeter-totter to get little or no interest from the tens of thousands of new 'kids' who turn 18 and race onto the 'gaming' playfield each week. (while at the same time completely ignoring the only edge you have over all of the other teeter-totters)


Racing's rotund 27yo has a sign in one hand that says "Feed Me (even more)!" and a sign in the other hand that says: "The conditions on this teeter-totter suck! (I might move to another one if the conditions don't improve)".


... and horse racing keeps feeding him, to its own continuous detriment.

[DeanT]

People are betting tris and supers and Super Hi 5s too though. Just ride the damn horse to the wire, not too much to ask.

Simple, straightforward.

[classhandicapper]

One of the things that helped online poker take off was watching Chris Moneymaker make a major score against a field of pros. Almost immediately, a generation of young people concluded that if Moneymaker could compete and win that much against the best in the world, then maybe they had a shot also.

IMO, that's the mindset the racing industry has to create.

I'm not sure if it should be via tournaments, a lower take, different marketing, all of the above, or something else. But until bright young kids with an inclination towards gambling believe they can compete and win, they aren't going to play. It's not enough to just teach people how to handicap. They have to see other people just like them succeeding.

I'm not a tournament player. In fact, I don't like them much because they run counter to my own style of waiting for good opportunities. I don't like the idea of selecting horses in a tournament I would never touch with cash because game theory suggests that's the best way to win. There are also some issues that have to be resolved between tracks and tournament hosts. But maybe if some of the large tournaments were on TV (like the WSOP), that might generate interest. Then many of those players would also become cash players. If people saw amateurs taking on and winning tournaments against pros (which would surely happen often), it might change the mindset.

[ReplayRandall]

I'm not sure if it should be via tournaments, a lower take, different marketing, all of the above, or something else. But until bright young kids with an inclination towards gambling believe they can compete and win, they aren't going to play. It's not enough to just teach people how to handicap. They have to see other people just like them succeeding.

I'm not a tournament player. In fact, I don't like them much because they run counter to my own style of waiting for good opportunities. I don't like the idea of selecting horses in a tournament I would never touch with cash because game theory suggests that's the best way to win. There are also some issues that have to be resolved between tracks and tournament hosts. But maybe if some of the large tournaments were on TV (like the WSOP), that might generate interest. Then many of those players would also become cash players. If people saw amateurs taking on and winning tournaments against pros (which would surely happen often), it might change the mindset.

I can assure you that there's more dead money in tournaments versus live betting, and the vig in most tourneys is only 10%......But a man does have his limitations.