The 15-30 Takeout Solution. Would it work?

[Andy Asaro]

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/On-The-Line/comments/09122017-the-15-30-takeout-solution/#comments

Excerpt:

A friend and grassroots activist made a suggestion that was thought provoking and makes sense. Think of takeout rates as the difference between a main course and dessert menu. Daily churners, the meat and potatoes guys, need help.

The bettors we’re talking about here are those who wager a couple of thousand dollars per week—every week, and receive the equivalent of shinier bangles and multi-stringed beads.

In its simplest terms, bet-takers won’t punish their best customers to help the serious middle-class players, fearing that takeout reductions will result in revenue reductions, which will happen in the short term. Their concerns are understandable.

But it takes time to convert added churn into higher revenue, and tracks have been unwilling to take haircuts for several years for their own long term growth and that will have a deleterious effect on the entire industry going forward.

So let the rank-and-file, the solid everyday churn player, meat-and-potatoes: The straight and duel multiple pools; daily doubles, exactas and quinellas.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/907682224408948736


https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/907682407200866304


And I'd certainly be willing to give it a try.

[betovernetcapper]

Does anyone have a link to the current take out rates?
I have a link to an older one

http://www.sportsbettingacumen.com/horse-racing/takeout-chart-north-american-racetracks

Turf Paradise is (according to this old chart) 20% on win bets.

[AndyC]

I agree with him on one point; he is no mathematician. My guess is that John is not much of a bettor or he would have a better grasp of the problems. He deserves a participation trophy for trying.

[AndyC]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/907682224408948736


https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/907682407200866304


And I'd certainly be willing to give it a try.

Of course you would if those were your preferred bets.

[Andy Asaro]

Of course you would if those were your preferred bets.

They would become the "preferred" bets for a lot more people IMO

[AndyC]

They would become the "preferred" bets for a lot more people IMO

The choices of W-P-S and exactas are arbitrary. Allowing confiscatory rates on some bets is like saying a little rape is acceptable.

[Andy Asaro]

The choices of W-P-S and exactas are arbitrary. Allowing confiscatory rates on some bets is like saying a little rape is acceptable.

The reality is that they're doing that already on most wagers. If we want to grow the game and grow handle and revenue LONG TERM then the Industry needs the gamblers to churn a lot more than they currently do. Much easier for newbies to learn the game if directed to start with WPS and Exactas IMO.

[Jeff P]

Does anyone have a link to the current take out rates?
I have a link to an older one

http://www.sportsbettingacumen.com/horse-racing/takeout-chart-north-american-racetracks

Turf Paradise is (according to this old chart) 20% on win bets.


You might try the HANA 2017 Track Ratings link (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/2017Sortable.html) on the HANA site (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/):
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/2017Sortable.html



-jp

.

[AndyC]

The reality is that they're doing that already on most wagers. If we want to grow the game and grow handle and revenue LONG TERM then the Industry needs the gamblers to churn a lot more than they currently do. Much easier for newbies to learn the game if directed to start with WPS and Exactas IMO.

In reality the current practices have reduced the number of players. A newbie who understands gambling will not jump for joy playing odds roulette with win bets not knowing what price they will get until after the horses hit the wire. Getting 2.80 on a show horse doesn't raise the heart rate much either.

In CA where the W-P-S takeout is 15.43% they are already essentially at the 15% mark. By switching to the 15-30 plan they would only really be changing the exacta takeout and raising everything else. Put me down in the you've-got-to-be-kidding-me column.

[thaskalos]

So...the poor pick-3 bettor, who has seen his payoffs PLUMMETING in recent years, should now have to suffer anew by paying a 30% takeout...per Mr. Pricci? Why this blatant discrimination against the horizontal bettor?

[thaskalos]

The reality is that they're doing that already on most wagers. If we want to grow the game and grow handle and revenue LONG TERM then the Industry needs the gamblers to churn a lot more than they currently do. Much easier for newbies to learn the game if directed to start with WPS and Exactas IMO.

If the WPS wagers and the exactas were so "efficient" at growing long-term handle and revenue...then the more complicated wagers would have never been introduced, IMO.

[AltonKelsey]

15% still too high to cause any meaningful impact. Need to get down to 10% for any real results. Even lower would be better.

[thaskalos]

It's ludicrous to think that you can bring about "long-term growth" in the handle and revenue of this game through the use of "smoke-and-mirrors". As long as the field sizes and the competitive levels of the races continue their downward trend...the mutuel handles will trend likewise. The churn is less because today's races SUCK...and it's disheartening that a veteran horseracing writer like Mr. Pricci needs to be reminded of that.

[Afleet]

I stopped reading after he said clown in the white house. I figure it takes one to know one

[Andy Asaro]

This is a theory. Most people would change the way they play to take advantage of the lower WPS and Exacta Takeout. My suggestion would be 12% take for both. The status quo isn't working and blended take is going up. This whole thing was brought about by Keeneland raising WPS take to 17.5% or whatever it is.

Just about everyone agrees that lower takeout for all is preferable to large rebates for some so this is a first step to see what would happen. Very little risk for whoever tries it IMO

[AndyC]

This is a theory. Most people would change the way they play to take advantage of the lower WPS and Exacta Takeout. My suggestion would be 12% take for both. The status quo isn't working and blended take is going up. This whole thing was brought about by Keeneland raising WPS take to 17.5% or whatever it is.

Just about everyone agrees that lower takeout for all is preferable to large rebates for some so this is a first step to see what would happen. Very little risk for whoever tries it IMO

Do you really believe that some smart young gambler would be attracted to win betting given the drastic odds movements with last second betting? That bet doesn't ooze with that come hither look required to lure the new players.

[Andy Asaro]

Do you really believe that some smart young gambler would be attracted to win betting given the drastic odds movements with last second betting? That bet doesn't ooze with that come hither look required to lure the new players.

It's about a program sponsored by Americas Best Racing/Jockey Club/Industry that teaches people to start with WPS and Exactas. Say a $1 three horse exacta box and bet the longest shot WPS. The only way for them to learn to read PP's and handicap (for the fullest experience IMO) is by concentrating on those wagers. Smart and young gamblers aren't gonna get within a hundred miles of horse racing unless the rebates are Xtra-large.

Give me a solution that's not a perfect world scenario because it's not gonna happen but some kind of solution that doesn't always end up with the status quo.

[drib]

From the article:
"The math that follows is easy enough for me to understand: If you bet a million dollars a year, thoughtfully arbitrage your bets to break even, and get 8-to-10% on your money in the form of a rebate, that kind of return can support a family, even at today’s prices. But that $80,000 to $100,000 is made at the expense of powerless rank-and-file players who can wager $500 per session and at the end of the day collect the dollar equivalent of bangles and beads."

The rebate $ come from the pockets of the simulcast providers. Not one cent of the $80-100k noted is taken from other horseplayers......however, anyone who wins or loses less than the takeout does reduce the parimutuel payoffs.
Here is quick example: Consider exacta pool of 300k with 20% takeout. Say $10k is bet on winner; it pays $48. Now suppose a big bettor (or multiple bettors) put $60k into race (not far fectched b/c many in industry say the whales account for 25% of handle). They have $2400 on winner. It now pays $46.40. The rebate players lose $4320, but with a 10% rebate show a profit on race. Everyone else who hits the number loses $1.60 per two dollar winner.

[AndyC]

It's about a program sponsored by Americas Best Racing/Jockey Club/Industry that teaches people to start with WPS and Exactas. Say a $1 three horse exacta box and bet the longest shot WPS. The only way for them to learn to read PP's and handicap (for the fullest experience IMO) is by concentrating on those wagers. Smart and young gamblers aren't gonna get within a hundred miles of horse racing unless the rebates are Xtra-large.


So are you suggesting to go after all other bettors not smart and young? Most people that I have met through racing have been quite intelligent. Racing is not push a button, pick a color, throw some dice gambling. Staying power requires intellectual curiosity to try and figure out the puzzle of each race.

[Andy Asaro]

So are you suggesting to go after all other bettors not smart and young? Most people that I have met through racing have been quite intelligent. Racing is not push a button, pick a color, throw some dice gambling. Staying power requires intellectual curiosity to try and figure out the puzzle of each race.

Start offering some solutions. It's easy to knock everything down without offering anything of your own. The Industry is full of people telling everyone what they can't do. Take a shot at it.

[classhandicapper]

I think ~10% is the magic number that would cause a large enough increase in handle to actually generate increased bottom line for the tracks. I say that because I think a lot of players can outperform the take, but not by enough to become winners. At ~10% a lot more people would win. We need more winners. If the game was seen as very beatable, a flood of NEW money would come in just like it did with poker. It wouldn't just be greater churn of the same money. The problem is getting a track to take that risk because in the short term they'd get increased handle, but probably take a bath on the bottom line for awhile.

[betovernetcapper]

I never visit casinos, but if I were to visit, I'd play the games with the lowest house edge, Craps, Blackjack & Baccarat. All have an edge of 2% or less. I'd never play the Wheel of Fortune that has a 25% edge.
There are 11 tracks that have a win takeout of 16% or less. The NY tracks have 16% on the win end and a exacta take out of 18.5 and Suf is 19%.
Dmr,Sa & GG all have a 15.43 win take out.
Wo has a win (not place or show) take out of 14.95%.
Hastings is 15% on the win end.
Med is 15% for all bets.

OK right now these are the tracks offering the best deals. Wouldn't it make sense to focus on these tracks & ignore the others?

[Andy Asaro]

I never visit casinos, but if I were to visit, I'd play the games with the lowest house edge, Craps, Blackjack & Baccarat. All have an edge of 2% or less. I'd never play the Wheel of Fortune that has a 25% edge.
There are 11 tracks that have a win takeout of 16% or less. The NY tracks have 16% on the win end and a exacta take out of 18.5 and Suf is 19%.
Dmr,Sa & GG all have a 15.43 win take out.
Wo has a win (not place or show) take out of 14.95%.
Hastings is 15% on the win end.
Med is 15% for all bets.

OK right now these are the tracks offering the best deals. Wouldn't it make sense to focus on these tracks & ignore the others?

It's becoming nuts. We have all these different tracks offering certain wages that might be attractive and then we have all these ADW's with their promo's. We should have an option to print a DRF race card with all the best bets of the day and not just one card.

[AndyC]

Start offering some solutions. It's easy to knock everything down without offering anything of your own. The Industry is full of people telling everyone what they can't do. Take a shot at it.

Solutions? I am not sure anybody has solutions. I have suggested fully embracing exchange wagering. Would that heal all of racing's problems? Hardly, but it might provide a betting platform that is palatable to young intelligent gamblers.

We need more people telling the industry what they can't or shouldn't do! When I am told by people in the industry that bettors prefer a jackpot P-6 or that they don't mind higher takeout. I think, how could that be?

I spent a lot of time and energy offering suggestions through my time on the NTRA Players Panel. The effect the panel had on the racing industry did not leave me with high hopes. My pessimism and negativity do not come without battle scars.

[Andy Asaro]

Solutions? I am not sure anybody has solutions. I have suggested fully embracing exchange wagering. Would that heal all of racing's problems? Hardly, but it might provide a betting platform that is palatable to young intelligent gamblers.

We need more people telling the industry what they can't or shouldn't do! When I am told by people in the industry that bettors prefer a jackpot P-6 or that they don't mind higher takeout. I think, how could that be?

I spent a lot of time and energy offering suggestions through my time on the NTRA Players Panel. The effect the panel had on the racing industry did not leave me with high hopes. My pessimism and negativity do not come without battle scars.

Exchange wagering is good. Doesn't 12% take WPS and Exactas get you closer to that?

The only way you get positive things done for Gamblers is by force. The Industry would change in less than a month if we could knock down handle by 30% or more at a major track.

[Franco Santiago]

I think ~10% is the magic number that would cause a large enough increase in handle to actually generate increased bottom line for the tracks. I say that because I think a lot of players can outperform the take, but not by enough to become winners. At ~10% a lot more people would win. We need more winners. If the game was seen as very beatable, a flood of NEW money would come in just like it did with poker. It wouldn't just be greater churn of the same money. The problem is getting a track to take that risk because in the short term they'd get increased handle, but probably take a bath on the bottom line for awhile.

Well said, sir.

I might add that it is very important to have competitive (large?) fields. I believe that even at a 10% takeout, the kind of lopsided, small fields you see at FL, GG, Mnr, SA, etc., are unbeatable in the win pool. They are just to efficient and the odds a too well-reflective of a horse's probability of winning.

But, again, you said it perfectly!! "We need more winners. If the game was seen as very beatable, a flood of NEW money would come in just like it did with poker." In fact, I swear you stole the words from me lol.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Start offering some solutions. It's easy to knock everything down without offering anything of your own. The Industry is full of people telling everyone what they can't do. Take a shot at it.

You get kudos for supporting ideas for improving racing. Personally I think we're long past "growing handle" or "growing the sport", as that's only happening at a handful of venues now. Perhaps suggestions on retaining the quality of some of the meets, or improving the "betability" of racing while undergoing contraction is in order.

Many suggestions have been made in other threads, but most are in contradiction to the decision makers in the game. Outlawing race day meds would be the best thing for racing, based on how formful the game used to be, and how much more formful the higher levels of the sport are overseas.

Fewer race days, fewer races and even fewer pools would probably help. Do we really need to confuse the novice horseplayer with 7 or more wager types each race?

Locking the pools earlier. Would you be more inclined to bet on a race if you knew the pools were locked at least 2 minutes to post, and final odds displayed prior to the start?

Stricter enforcement of the rules. Would you be more inclined to bet at a track where jockeys are banned for life when using buzzers, or trainers are banned for life for repeated substance violations? Would you pay a higher takeout knowing the money would be used to monitor the pools more closely, and investigate the betting coups?

Inquiries and DQs. Would you be more inclined to bet at a track where the stewards have less influence/latitude on infractions, or even no influence as SRU's "pay the winners" attitude? Would you be more inclined to bet at a track where the jockey's infractions are dealt with post-race and are penalized heavily for unsafe or rough riding? (i.e., Hong Kong)

More details on equipment changes (tongue tie, bit type, etc.), racing intent, or changes to racing style - these are often announced and available to bettors overseas. Why not here?

In a world where competition for disposable income is ever increasing, the sport needs to improve its image, and IMHO some of these suggestions would help.

[Andy Asaro]

You get kudos for supporting ideas for improving racing. Personally I think we're long past "growing handle" or "growing the sport, as that's only happening at a handful of venues now. Perhaps suggestions on retaining the quality of some of the meets, or improving the "betability" of racing while undergoing contraction is in order.

Many suggestions have been made in other threads, but most are in contradiction to the decision makers in the game. Outlawing race day meds would be the best thing for racing, based on how formful the game used to be, and how much more formful the higher levels of the sport are overseas.

Fewer race days, fewer races and even fewer pools would probably help. Do we really need to confuse the novice horseplayer with 7 or more wager types each race?

Locking the pools earlier. Would you be more inclined to bet on a race if you knew the pools were locked at least 2 minutes to post, and final odds displayed prior to the start?

Stricter enforcement of the rules. Would you be more inclined to bet at a track where jockeys are banned for life when using buzzers, or trainers are banned for life for repeated substance violations? Would you pay a higher takeout knowing the money would be used to monitor the pools more closely, and investigate the betting coups?

Inquiries and DQs. Would you be more inclined to bet at a track where the stewards have less influence/latitude on infractions, or even no influence as SRU's "pay the winners" attitude? Would you be more inclined to bet at a track where the jockey's infractions are dealt with post-race and are penalized heavily for unsafe or rough riding? (i.e., Hong Kong)

More details on equipment changes (tongue tie, bit type, etc.), racing intent, or changes to racing style - these are often announced and available to bettors overseas. Why not here?

In a world where competition for disposable income is ever increasing, the sport needs to improve its image, and IMHO some of these suggestions would help.

IMO it all comes down to how good a gamble it can be. The better the gamble the less problems people will have with the industry. People bet on cage fighting, boxing, football, and just about anything since the beginning of time. You can only believe you have a shot for so long without winning.

[cutchemist42]

The reason I dislike this is because I dislike the win bet as it stands now. Have not bet it since I lost access to Betfair as a Canadian. Give me win bet with exchange wagering or fixed odds and Im in.

[AndyC]

Exchange wagering is good. Doesn't 12% take WPS and Exactas get you closer to that?

The only way you get positive things done for Gamblers is by force. The Industry would change in less than a month if we could knock down handle by 30% or more at a major track.

Exchange wagering fixes my odds. Lowering the takeout does not. Betting parimutuel is like betting on a coin flip where you are offered 3/2 before the flip but are forced to take 7/10 before the coin hits the ground.

People who advocate closing the windows 2 minutes before post time miss the point. There will still be late betting that changes odds but the late betting will be happening at 2:01 before post. The issue does not get resolved but bettors get pissed off because they get shut out having become accustomed to timing their bets to where the horses are relative to the start of the race.

[Andy Asaro]

Exchange wagering fixes my odds. Lowering the takeout does not. Betting parimutuel is like betting on a coin flip where you are offered 3/2 before the flip but are forced to take 7/10 before the coin hits the ground.

People who advocate closing the windows 2 minutes before post time miss the point. There will still be late betting that changes odds but the late betting will be happening at 2:01 before post. The issue does not get resolved but bettors get pissed off because they get shut out having become accustomed to timing their bets to where the horses are relative to the start of the race.

I agree but we're talking about moving in the right direction. We both know that the Industry isn't investing in the future with the latest technology.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Exchange wagering fixes my odds. Lowering the takeout does not. Betting parimutuel is like betting on a coin flip where you are offered 3/2 before the flip but are forced to take 7/10 before the coin hits the ground.

People who advocate closing the windows 2 minutes before post time miss the point. There will still be late betting that changes odds but the late betting will be happening at 2:01 before post. The issue does not get resolved but bettors get pissed off because they get shut out having become accustomed to timing their bets to where the horses are relative to the start of the race.

The point about locking the wagering early is not to avoid the late avalanche of money that changes the odds.

Locking the wagering early and displaying the odds prior to the start removes all doubt that any "hanky panky" can happen during the running or after the race - in other words, the integrity of the betting system itself is maintained. Personally, I don't think this is that much of a problem, but not everyone is comfortable with the current system, and some believe the pools are changed late.

As for people getting shut out, yes, that can be a source of irritation. But back in the old days, the tote would lock when the first horse was loaded. And even today, you better be on the ball to avoid getting shut out at Woodbine - they launch most races at precisely post time. A period of "adjustment" would be necessary where players would bet early, but a clearly displayed countdown timer to lock up would help avoid some of the shut outs.

[AndyC]

....Locking the wagering early and displaying the odds prior to the start removes all doubt that any "hanky panky" can happen during the running or after the race - in other words, the integrity of the betting system itself is maintained. Personally, I don't think this is that much of a problem, but not everyone is comfortable with the current system, and some believe the pools are changed late...

If I thought that there was "hanky panky" I wouldn't bet. I prefer a last second close so that I can view my horse's behavior at the gate. I do know that there is no solution that pleases everybody.

[JohnGalt1]

Do the takeout rates posted for NY and Canada factor in the dime breakage? Collecting $9.70 instead of $9.60 is big plus for win betters.

[ultracapper]

If the WPS wagers and the exactas were so "efficient" at growing long-term handle and revenue...then the more complicated wagers would have never been introduced, IMO.

How obvious is this point? Every new wager in my lifetime has been to grow handle. Until the past 5 years I'd never heard the term "canabalize pools", which makes me believe those initial introductions of the P3, Trifecta, Superfecta and P6 accomplished attracting new money.

Maybe the betting menu is a little saturated as it is, but major contraction to WPS and exacta by means of pricing other bets out of play seems rather extreme, and counter-productive.

[ultracapper]

Locking the windows early would ultimately be a positive. Even though, if you placed your bet with 5 minutes to post and betting was closed at 2 minutes to post, your odds could go down dramatically in those 3 minutes, you don't feel like your odds got hammered because your horse broke well and others still had access to the pools 10 seconds into the race. That's the big complaint about late odds moves. They happen during the race. Lock the windows at 2 minutes to post, and even though your horse may get hammered late in the betting, you don't feel like it's getting hammered turning for home.

[Mike_412]

I saw exchange wagering mentioned in a previous post. I wish the industry had some foresight along with a willingness to work together years ago and created an industry owned exchange. I'd like to think the cost of a bet could have been kept low, liquidity at this point would have been rather high, and those new bettors racing wants to target would have dipped their toes in the water by now. I probably should have my head examined for thinking this could have been possible considering post time coordination in 2017 seems to be a foreign concept.

As far as Mr. Pricci's article, he lost me the minute 30% takeout was mentioned. No thanks.

I love this sport but my biggest frustration with it from a gambling perspective is what racing is vs. what it could (and should) be.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

There is some merit to Pricci's proposal

Rebate players bet some pools more than others. Target these pools most frequented by rebaters for big takeout increases to offset their rebates and then cut the takeout in the other pools less frequented by rebate players. Not a bad idea

Exchange wagering would be the best overall solution however. Parimutuel betting is nearing the end of its life

[Dave Schwartz]

15-30?

It seems like that was where we WERE years ago.

15.33% was too much when Santa Anita was charging that 3 decades back and they were one of the lowest!

Horse racing is FAILING because they are just not competitive.

The tax is just too high.

They say that we need to see horse racing as "entertainment," sort of like a movie. But that metaphor breaks down fast because it doesn't cost $100s to go to a movie and nobody goes (especially at that price) three times a week.

As someone said in another thread, the fact that it costs racing too much to put on the show does not cause the customer to say, "Oh, okay. I'll just pay more."

The reason they are in this mess is because they did not grow the sport as the other sports did back in ESPN revolutionary days. That is because management was not willing to sell their signal for a reasonable fee.

So, all the other sports have video revenues and horse racing does not.

Remember that until 1986, horse racing was the #1 spectator sport in the world; even higher than soccer.


Amazingly, horse racing once had higher handle than the NFL!

The title from this article from Forbes says it all. Thanks To Roger Goodell, NFL Revenues Projected To Surpass $13 Billion In 2016 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2016/02/29/thanks-to-roger-goodell-nfl-revenues-projected-to-surpass-13-billion-in-2016/#1d7c40491cb7)

This article in Blood Horse (https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/218842/more-modest-changes-in-2016-handle-race-days) says that racing's handle was just under $11b in 2016.

So, today it is NFL $13b and horse racing $11b. It is only a few years ago that racing was at $14b.

[AndyC]

.......Rebate players bet some pools more than others. Target these pools most frequented by rebaters for big takeout increases to offset their rebates and then cut the takeout in the other pools less frequented by rebate players. Not a bad idea.....

So let's say a rebate player is getting 10% in the trifecta pools and a track raises their rate from 23% to 30%. What would you expect the rebate player to do? Bet the same amount? Quit betting? Or ask for a higher rebate? Clearly rebate players are generally smart players so I doubt that they would continue betting the same amount. Not betting trifectas would be a disaster for both the track and the ADWs. Giving bigger rebates would not work given the razor thin margins that they operate on. The ADWs would go back to the tracks and request a bigger piece of the trifecta pie. So targeting rebate players favorite bets may not exactly be the answer.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/908435055424311296

[Jeff P]

Because different bets have different demand curves/elasticity values.

Example:

Historically, show pools have a lower demand curve than both place and win.

Yet almost universally (at the same track) all three pools (win place and show) have identical takeout rates.

One could make a strong argument that handle data suggests tracks could maximize revenue and purses by experimenting with takeout rates in an effort to seek an optimal pricing level for each pool separately.

Imo, Oaklawn demonstrated this with their on track show pool bonus during their 2017 meet.


-jp

.

[AltonKelsey]

I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with demand curves.

They traditionally imposed higher takeouts on exotics because they assume horseplayers are idiots and would not notice the rake off a much higher average DD , EXACTA, TRI , SUPER payoff.


This recent P5 lower takeout is going in the opposite direction, for whatever reason. Promotional value would be my guess.

There's actually ZERO justification for a single race bet (ex,tri,super) to have a higher takeout.

Multi race, I can see, as you are getting, at least if you are alive after a leg, more than once race worth of action for the bet. Less churn for the track.

The only curve they care about is your money curving into their pocket.

[toddbowker]

So let's say a rebate player is getting 10% in the trifecta pools and a track raises their rate from 23% to 30%. What would you expect the rebate player to do? Bet the same amount? Quit betting? Or ask for a higher rebate? Clearly rebate players are generally smart players so I doubt that they would continue betting the same amount. Not betting trifectas would be a disaster for both the track and the ADWs. Giving bigger rebates would not work given the razor thin margins that they operate on. The ADWs would go back to the tracks and request a bigger piece of the trifecta pie. So targeting rebate players favorite bets may not exactly be the answer.
Assuming the track didn't raise the host fee, the high volume rebate player in most cases would be getting 17% and not the same 10% (at least they would at PTC). Their effective takeout rate would be the same (13%).

If the track raised the host fee, then the high volume player's effective takeout rate would go down. There would be a possibility that their wagering on that track/pool would decrease, or they would try to find another ADW with a better deal.

The proliferation of the multi-race bets kills churn. Using a P4 or P5 as a track's low takeout "promotion" bet is a mistake IMO because there is too much money tied up for too long a time. If a track wants to do a promotional rate, it's far better to use a single race bet that is easier to hit (WPS, EX or maybe a TRI), or if you have to, the DD.

These bets were only put in during the time when the industry thought they could compete with the lottery if they had "jackpot" sized payoffs. It was compounded by the carryover Pick(n) bets (I know, my bad, I wrote the rules for the first one in the US in Ohio for Beulah Park). Look at how much money gets tied up for weeks/months/entire meets. That's money that could be churning every day which is instead sitting around doing nothing.

[AndyC]

Assuming the track didn't raise the host fee, the high volume rebate player in most cases would be getting 17% and not the same 10% (at least they would at PTC). Their effective takeout rate would be the same (13%).

the whole idea of raising the rates would be to put more money in the hands of the track and not to enrich the ADWs so I would have to assume that the host fee would be raised.

If the track raised the host fee, then the high volume player's effective takeout rate would go down. There would be a possibility that their wagering on that track/pool would decrease, or they would try to find another ADW with a better deal.

Better deals would be limited by the percentage earned by the ADW for handling the bet.

The proliferation of the multi-race bets kills churn. Using a P4 or P5 as a track's low takeout "promotion" bet is a mistake IMO because there is too much money tied up for too long a time. If a track wants to do a promotional rate, it's far better to use a single race bet that is easier to hit (WPS, EX or maybe a TRI), or if you have to, the DD.

These bets were only put in during the time when the industry thought they could compete with the lottery if they had "jackpot" sized payoffs. It was compounded by the carryover Pick(n) bets (I know, my bad, I wrote the rules for the first one in the US in Ohio for Beulah Park). Look at how much money gets tied up for weeks/months/entire meets. That's money that could be churning every day which is instead sitting around doing nothing.

You can't unring the multi-race exotic bell. They are exciting and bring in new customers and also keep exisiting customers playing. If the business model was just to churn money with the single race bets it would make slow moving race betting even slower.

[ronsmac]

If the net takeout is the same then a higher exotic take would help churn more money for some players. Those bets are so hard to hit that a bigger rebate would put more money into circulation.

[Poindexter]

Assuming the track didn't raise the host fee, the high volume rebate player in most cases would be getting 17% and not the same 10% (at least they would at PTC). Their effective takeout rate would be the same (13%).

If the track raised the host fee, then the high volume player's effective takeout rate would go down. There would be a possibility that their wagering on that track/pool would decrease, or they would try to find another ADW with a better deal.

The proliferation of the multi-race bets kills churn. Using a P4 or P5 as a track's low takeout "promotion" bet is a mistake IMO because there is too much money tied up for too long a time. If a track wants to do a promotional rate, it's far better to use a single race bet that is easier to hit (WPS, EX or maybe a TRI), or if you have to, the DD.

These bets were only put in during the time when the industry thought they could compete with the lottery if they had "jackpot" sized payoffs. It was compounded by the carryover Pick(n) bets (I know, my bad, I wrote the rules for the first one in the US in Ohio for Beulah Park). Look at how much money gets tied up for weeks/months/entire meets. That's money that could be churning every day which is instead sitting around doing nothing.


Multi race bets certainly can kill churn. No question about it. No sure sure they are a mistake however. When you see a low takeout pick 5 pay ridiculously well, whether you hit it or not, there is certainly a strong motivation to play that pick 5. The low takeout pick 5 is sort of the one opportunity that the typical horseplayer has of beating this game, because the rest of the pools grind him into smithereens. I do think they would be better served if they made it a 20 cent minimum so that the smaller player can have a better chance of bringing it down. It is an incredibly fun bet at the 20 cent level. At the 50 cent level it can be very expensive and often too challenging, especially at tracks with competitive racing.

Regarding the jackpot sized payoffs what is Woodbines excuse for pulling out close to 1 1/2 million dollars on a 20 cent Pentafecta just to give it all out tomorrow to a whole different group of players. I think the Harness is up to about half a million right now. On very rare occasions the harness jackpot gets paid out, but really do not understand why this industry doesn't go with a 12% 20 cent late super high 5. It would be a tremendously fun bet at every track. I would bet it with 3 hands at every track I play.

Obviously they get better numbers with the jackpots, but they have to be a little more responsible with what they are doing. Once the jackpot reaches a certain number, it isn't coming down and does it really matter if they have a half a million dollar carryover of a million carryover? At least if they came up with a plan that once it reaches half a million dollars they will not longer add to the jackpot (and thus pay out the entire non non jackpot pool nightly), from that point on the players will get a low takeout super high 5(or pick 6 or pick 5 or whatever the case) with BIG pools and with a tiny chance of hitting a jackpot. How cool would that be? Would that not prove more popular and drive more handle than a jackpot pool that has virtually no chance of paying out.

I know racing isn't going to give an inch on takeout, but man they need to improve on some of the stuff they are doing at the very least.

[ultracapper]

Locking the windows early would ultimately be a positive. Even though, if you placed your bet with 5 minutes to post and betting was closed at 2 minutes to post, your odds could go down dramatically in those 3 minutes, you don't feel like your odds got hammered because your horse broke well and others still had access to the pools 10 seconds into the race. That's the big complaint about late odds moves. They happen during the race. Lock the windows at 2 minutes to post, and even though your horse may get hammered late in the betting, you don't feel like it's getting hammered turning for home.

Prime example. 2nd race at LosAl 9/16/17. Ultimate winner blasts out of the gate and is 8/5 all the way down the backstretch while nursing a 4 length lead. They get to the quarter pole, odds change to even money. Horse cruises home for the win. TOTAL BS from a gambler's standpoint. If that odds change would have happened after betting was closed but before the gates opened, it would be much easier to swallow.

[Poindexter]

Prime example. 2nd race at LosAl 9/16/17. Ultimate winner blasts out of the gate and is 8/5 all the way down the backstretch while nursing a 4 length lead. They get to the quarter pole, odds change to even money. Horse cruises home for the win. TOTAL BS from a gambler's standpoint. If that odds change would have happened after betting was closed but before the gates opened, it would be much easier to swallow.

Another side of the coin, but yesterday at Mountaineer there was a horse
7/5 very late in the wagering (how late I can't tell you as I wasn't staring at the tote board, but I believe the track announcer announced him as the favorite as they were loading. Horse breaks slowly and finishes up the track. I look at the tote board and he is 7/2. He did show 7/2 on the screen during the running of the race (watched to replay to see), but don't think he made the screen until almost the far turn.

Even if it was a legitimate big bet cancelled because somebody did not like the way the horse looked or was behaving entering the gate. it sure looks bad. Also could have been a decoy bet. I sure didn't like the horse. But bottom line is stuff like this makes the sport appear to have no credibility.

I agree with UC, the game would be much better served, if they close the betting and posted the final odds prior to starting the race.

[thaskalos]

This "late-late" money is much too "informed" to be just the "random money" that the racing industry tells us it is. If it was really just "random money" from different wagering outlets...then it wouldn't focus on a single horse as much as it does.

This is very suspicious...to say the least.

[cj]

There was a movement in place (after the Pick 6 scandal I think) to close the pools and have them final before the gate opened. It may have been 1 MTP or something like that. You know who killed it? Idiot gamblers who were getting shut out because they couldn't figure it out. Tracks took the easy way out and reverted. Nobody in this game can handle a little pain to do things right. After a few months everyone would have adapted and been fine.

[cj]

This "late-late" money is much too "informed" to be just the "random money" that the racing industry tells us it is. If it was really just "random money" from different wagering outlets...then it wouldn't focus on a single horse as much as it does.

This is very suspicious...to say the least.

I'd bet anything that included in the "late late" money is the whale money being bet at discount rebate shops. That is what is driving the late odds changes IMO. It isn't just poor technology, though that certainly doesn't help matters.

[One Eye]

The industry made a mistake by catering to elite high-volume players. The rest of the non-rebated players (or poorly rebated players) are forced to pay full freight while the chosen few receive significant cuts. To compound matters, the highly-rebated players make the game even tougher since they only have to beat the discounted takeout.

How do you get new players excited about a game where there are no visible winners. Additionally, you have insane 17% takeouts on WPS (plus breakage) and up to 31% takeouts on exotics. Horse racing is a skill game that attracts mathematically-minded skill players. Newer players see what is being offered and they smell a bad deal. The current system is unworkable and the only way to attract players is through significantly reduced takeout or exchange wagering.

[AndyC]

The industry made a mistake by catering to elite high-volume players. The rest of the non-rebated players (or poorly rebated players) are forced to pay full freight while the chosen few receive significant cuts. To compound matters, the highly-rebated players make the game even tougher since they only have to beat the discounted takeout.

How do you get new players excited about a game where there are no visible winners. Additionally, you have insane 17% takeouts on WPS (plus breakage) and up to 31% takeouts on exotics. Horse racing is a skill game that attracts mathematically-minded skill players. Newer players see what is being offered and they smell a bad deal. The current system is unworkable and the only way to attract players is through significantly reduced takeout or exchange wagering.

What smart business doesn't cater to its best customers?

No one is "forced to pay full freight". You can either say the cost is too high and not bet or increase your bets so that you can be one of the chosen few.

[cj]

What smart business doesn't cater to its best customers?

No one is "forced to pay full freight". You can either say the cost is too high and not bet or increase your bets so that you can be one of the chosen few.

It is a little trickier than that. In other businesses, people aren't competing against each other.

And plenty of people are choosing not to bet. Unfortunately, the industry response is generally more price increases and / or more gimmick bets that hurt churn.

[AndyC]

It is a little trickier than that. In other businesses, people aren't competing against each other.

And plenty of people are choosing not to bet. Unfortunately, the industry response is generally more price increases and / or more gimmick bets that hurt churn.

In a supply and demand situation we are always competing against each other. As bettors, the only thing we control is demand. The industry believes (rightly or wrongly) that there is an inelastic demand for betting on horses. Until that reality or perception changes look for more of the same. A one month boycott of Keeneland will only cement the perception further. Yes the bettors don't want to pay more but they will be back in a month.

[One Eye]

What smart business doesn't cater to its best customers?

No one is "forced to pay full freight". You can either say the cost is too high and not bet or increase your bets so that you can be one of the chosen few.


Greetings,

You are forced to pay full freight, depending on what state you live in and your level of handle, if you decide to play. What makes this particularly obnoxious is that horse racing is a paramutuel game and the industry lacks transparency. Expose these hidden rebate deals to the public and let us assess if they are problematic. Clearly, many people believe they damage the integrity of the game and impart a higher takeout on all the other players (see Oaklawn).

Imagine a poker game where the dealer takes differing amounts of rake based on what state you live in or how frequently you visit the room. Additionally, imagine this poker room allows some players to bring computers to the table, provided they place enough bets. Next, imagine the casino allows certain players to move around from table to table while a game is in progress. This would antagonize other players, and rightly so! Similarly, legal sports books do not offer cash rebates or change the morning lines based on who is betting.

Of course, you ultimately have do have a choice. You are only forced to pay full freight if you choose to participate. I have chosen to radically reduce my play and mostly pay the pick 5 (or win bets where the takeout hovers around 15%). My handle has dropped 85% since 2014 (when I had deep rebates given my handle and residency). Most horseplayers I talk to have given up on the game because they feel any attempt to beat the game is a fool's errand.

[Andy Asaro]

In a supply and demand situation we are always competing against each other. As bettors, the only thing we control is demand. The industry believes (rightly or wrongly) that there is an inelastic demand for betting on horses. Until that reality or perception changes look for more of the same. A one month boycott of Keeneland will only cement the perception further. Yes the bettors don't want to pay more but they will be back in a month.

Boycotting Keeneland is as much about a deterrent to others as it it Keeneland. With no pushback Del Mar will likely raise WPS take. We should have boycotted Ca months ago and Keeneland may have thought twice.

[cj]

In a supply and demand situation we are always competing against each other. As bettors, the only thing we control is demand. The industry believes (rightly or wrongly) that there is an inelastic demand for betting on horses. Until that reality or perception changes look for more of the same. A one month boycott of Keeneland will only cement the perception further. Yes the bettors don't want to pay more but they will be back in a month.

That is my point though. They aren't coming back. They aren't leaving because of boycotts. They just stop betting and vanish into the night, finding better things to waste money on. Check handle a dozen years ago versus today. With inflation, it is about half that now.

[Poindexter]

In a supply and demand situation we are always competing against each other. As bettors, the only thing we control is demand. The industry believes (rightly or wrongly) that there is an inelastic demand for betting on horses. Until that reality or perception changes look for more of the same. A one month boycott of Keeneland will only cement the perception further. Yes the bettors don't want to pay more but they will be back in a month.

Racing has been doing the same wrong thing for many years and that obviously isn't changing. We can type till our fingers fall off and they will continue to live their fantasy world that optimal takeout is somewhere in the 16 to 30% range and rebating actually is effective. I think in essence they have been and continue to be penny wise and dollar foolish. They are so worried about protecting their profit margin, they ignore the fact that they constantly drive away their actual and potential customer base. Also doesn't help that so many racetracks have neighboring casinos. They probably figure that if they lose them at the racetrack they will get them to come next door to the casino. It is the Santa Anita's and the Del Mar's of the world that need to lead the way.

All the boycott really does is drive home the message that we as horseplayers are unwilling to take further price increase. Doesn't fix anything. All we are basically doing is trying to stop a bad situation from becoming worse.

Slightly off topic, but it is really funny hearing the harness analysts at Mohawk, rave almost nightly about how great the pick 5 payoffs are (and these are the 20 cent variety which so many of you claim kills payoffs) . Yes it is there job to promote the bet, but it is also an illustration to what a difference it makes when pools are closer to fair takeout. This is in contrast to the jackpot super high 5 which now has a $600,000 carryover. They are always insisting that you have to play it (God may know why, I certainly don't) but I have never heard them ever say, "wow what an incredible payoff on that super high 5 the other night". Well guess what, they can't, because all that extra money goes into that worthless jackpot pool, killing the payoff.

[AltonKelsey]

I'd bet anything that included in the "late late" money is the whale money being bet at discount rebate shops. That is what is driving the late odds changes IMO. It isn't just poor technology, though that certainly doesn't help matters.


give that man a

https://icdn4.themanual.com/image/themanual/lighting-cigar-800x1500.jpg
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjn0sKJtLnWAhUJ5IMKHRSaBOoQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.themanual.com%2Ffood-and-drink%2Fhow-to-smoke-a-cigar-properly%2F&psig=AFQjCNF4v9RGMSR9p4zWiT8ACFrb2Ddulw&ust=1506190782800699

[thaskalos]

One Eye said:

Most horseplayers I talk to have given up on the game because they feel any attempt to beat the game is a fool's errand.



And they are absolutely right! Trying to beat today's game is a "fool's errand". But the game still offers certain advantages which other forms of gambling simply can't match...so, the game will always find participants.

1.) CONVENIENCE: What other game can a gambler play from his own home, in his pajamas? All other legal gambling venues force him to travel, sometimes for long distances...in order to amuse himself.

2.) BUDGET CONCERNS: Where else can a retiree, living on a fixed income, take a meager $50 bankroll...and gamble while exercising the "little grey cells" of his brain? Every other legalized form of gambling has priced him out, with the exception of slots...which he considers a "mindless" activity.

It's no coincidence that this game attracts mainly retirees.

[AltonKelsey]

The game can still be beaten but only by

1) Intense workload and even more intense experience

2) Luck

[AndyC]

That is my point though. They aren't coming back. They aren't leaving because of boycotts. They just stop betting and vanish into the night, finding better things to waste money on. Check handle a dozen years ago versus today. With inflation, it is about half that now.

I am sure there are some leaving because of takeout rates (cost) but most leave or don't play anymore due to better alternatives. I don't think there would be a significant increase in horse betting if rates were cut to 10% across the board.

[Cholly]

There was a movement in place (after the Pick 6 scandal I think) to close the pools and have them final before the gate opened. It may have been 1 MTP or something like that. You know who killed it? Idiot gamblers who were getting shut out because they couldn't figure it out. Tracks took the easy way out and reverted. Nobody in this game can handle a little pain to do things right. After a few months everyone would have adapted and been fine.
We’ve traded conjecture on this before. Cholly’s POV:
There was a massive drop in handle, on the order of 30%, after they began closing the pools before the gates opened.
Was it the $2 & $5 bettors who caused that? No way. Even if every one of them forgot to get their bet in, they don’t constitute enough money to cause that drop.
Was it $10K & $20k bettors, accustomed to getting their bet in at the last minute, who got shut out? Don’t think so. They didn’t get that kind of dough to bet by being sloppy in their wagering, unaware of changes in betting protocols.
Who’s left? Large bettors who previously had been betting 20-30 seconds after the break. If that was their advantage on the game, of course they’re not going to keep betting.

I’m not saying there is past-posting going on now (but I’m not saying there isn’t!). You may be right about what’s causing odds drops in today’s racing. After the Fix 6 the tote companies surely began reviewing their protocols, perhaps they’ve gotten that problem resolved. But pre-Fix 6, was there massive past posting occurring? Cholly says ANQAI--ain’t no question about it. I won’t claim to have any forsenic evidence. But as Sherlock Holmes said, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

[cj]

I am sure there are some leaving because of takeout rates (cost) but most leave or don't play anymore due to better alternatives. I don't think there would be a significant increase in horse betting if rates were cut to 10% across the board.

I think if that were to happen current players would bet a lot more. My handle would go up exponentially. My guess is we will never really know.

[cj]

We’ve traded conjecture on this before. Cholly’s POV:
There was a massive drop in handle, on the order of 30%, after they began closing the pools before the gates opened.
Was it the $2 & $5 bettors who caused that? No way. Even if every one of them forgot to get their bet in, they don’t constitute enough money to cause that drop.
Was it $10K & $20k bettors, accustomed to getting their bet in at the last minute, who got shut out? Don’t think so. They didn’t get that kind of dough to bet by being sloppy in their wagering, unaware of changes in betting protocols.
Who’s left? Large bettors who previously had been betting 20-30 seconds after the break. If that was their advantage on the game, of course they’re not going to keep betting.

I’m not saying there is past-posting going on now (but I’m not saying there isn’t!). You may be right about what’s causing odds drops in today’s racing. After the Fix 6 the tote companies surely began reviewing their protocols, perhaps they’ve gotten that problem resolved. But pre-Fix 6, was there massive past posting occurring? Cholly says ANQAI--ain’t no question about it. I won’t claim to have any forsenic evidence. But as Sherlock Holmes said, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

I don't disagree that it was going on previously, and at the least big bettors were being allowed to cancel bets after the race started...either way the edge was gone.

But, there were many people of the $5 bettor variety that were crying like little schoolboys that scraped their knees at recess every time they got shut out. It can be found here on this site. Tracks used that as a convenient excuse to go back to the way it was.

[thaskalos]

I am sure there are some leaving because of takeout rates (cost) but most leave or don't play anymore due to better alternatives.


What "better alternatives" do you suppose drove most of these disgruntled horseplayers away from their favorite game?

[Poindexter]

I am sure there are some leaving because of takeout rates (cost) but most leave or don't play anymore due to better alternatives. I don't think there would be a significant increase in horse betting if rates were cut to 10% across the board.

I consider this statement to be completely illogical. All numbers will be pre rebate as many cannot get rebates. I believe there are a lot of horseplayers that currently lose about 7 % on the dollar(that is a very achievable number). I believe that only a tiny fraction cross into that profit zone(very tough to do). Now let's examine your statement. I would venture a guess that the typical blended takeout right now is about 20%. So if they reduced takeout to 10% that payoffs would increase 12.5%(90 they would payout divided by the 80 they currently pay out). So a player that is currently at -7% would transform into a a player that is +4.6%(.93*1.125) Even a player that is -10 % would become above break even. Even someone that can play just at -20 % would now be losing half as much, be losing at a much more comfortable rate, will stay in the game much longer, if not for their entire life. New players will not give up nearly as quickly and will be much more motivated to improve their game rather than quit. Poker Players and sports bettors and fantasy sports bettors would join the game in droves over time and with proper marketing and education.

This game should tower over every other every other gambling game. There is nothing even close in entertainment value. Yet it fades with every stride. Yet you and the powers that be keep singing that lowering takeout to a competitive level would be futile, yet nobody ever tries it. They just ASSUME. So little vision.

[AndyC]

What "better alternatives" do you suppose drove most of these disgruntled horseplayers away from their favorite game?

24/7 access to sports betting. If that had been around when I first started with racing I would have never started.

I think there are people who leave all different kinds of gambling every year. The problem is that racing doesn't replace the ones that leave.

[AndyC]

I consider this statement to be completely illogical. All numbers will be pre rebate as many cannot get rebates. I believe there are a lot of horseplayers that currently lose about 7 % on the dollar(that is a very achievable number). I believe that only a tiny fraction cross into that profit zone(very tough to do). Now let's examine your statement. I would venture a guess that the typical blended takeout right now is about 20%. So if they reduced takeout to 10% that payoffs would increase 12.5%(90 they would payout divided by the 80 they currently pay out). So a player that is currently at -7% would transform into a a player that is +4.6%(.93*1.125) Even a player that is -10 % would become above break even. Even someone that can play just at -20 % would now be losing half as much, be losing at a much more comfortable rate, will stay in the game much longer, if not for their entire life. New players will not give up nearly as quickly and will be much more motivated to improve their game rather than quit. Poker Players and sports bettors and fantasy sports bettors would join the game in droves over time and with proper marketing and education.

This game should tower over every other every other gambling game. There is nothing even close in entertainment value. Yet it fades with every stride. Yet you and the powers that be keep singing that lowering takeout to a competitive level would be futile, yet nobody ever tries it. They just ASSUME. So little vision.

You vastly overestimate the entertainment value of racing versus other alternatives. There might be a slight draw of hardcore serious gamblers who see an opportunity but as for attracting new players, no chance.

[ultracapper]

I disagree that lowering take would not create new players. Gamblers, in general, are smarter people than the general population. They are creative, analytical, opportunistic and energetic. Even the unrealistic dreamers will be attracted if they see an even playing field.

[dilanesp]

The game can still be beaten but only by

1) Intense workload and even more intense experience

2) Luck

The fundamental paradox powering all advantage gambling is that most people get attracted to gambling because of the possibility of making money without working for a living, abd in fact successful advantage gambling requires massive amounts of work.

[dilanesp]

I don't disagree that it was going on previously, and at the least big bettors were being allowed to cancel bets after the race started...either way the edge was gone.

But, there were many people of the $5 bettor variety that were crying like little schoolboys that scraped their knees at recess every time they got shut out. It can be found here on this site. Tracks used that as a convenient excuse to go back to the way it was.

It should be mentioned that the best way to do this reform would be by regulation. Take it out of the track's hands and let the state take the blame for shut-outs.

[AndyC]

I disagree that lowering take would not create new players. Gamblers, in general, are smarter people than the general population. They are creative, analytical, opportunistic and energetic. Even the unrealistic dreamers will be attracted if they see an even playing field.

There is a small percentage of gamblers that I would define as you have up above. The overwhelming majority of gamblers couldn't calculate a probability if their life depended on it. They crave action! Las Vegas wasn't built by a bunch of smart gamblers losing millions of dollars. If the estimated percentage of winning horseplayers is less than 5% what does that make the other 95% plus players not so smart or just down on their luck?

[thaskalos]

The game can still be beaten but only by

1) Intense workload and even more intense experience



Who but a FOOL would undertake an "intense workload"...in order to learn how to beat a dying game? I think the younger generation has rightly deduced that their "intense efforts" could be better rewarded somewhere else.

[ReplayRandall]

Who but a FOOL would undertake an "intense workload".

I guess your calling ME a FOOL then.....Care to rephrase your statement??

[thaskalos]

I guess your calling ME a FOOL then.....Care to rephrase your statement??

You were careless when you initially read my post. Read it again...and you'll see that I was talking only about those who are NOW attempting to learn how to beat this game.

[AltonKelsey]

Who but a FOOL would undertake an "intense workload"...in order to learn how to beat a dying game? I think the younger generation has rightly deduced that their "intense efforts" could be better rewarded somewhere else.

If the game were actually dying , then you would be correct.


But as discussed on Byk's show , the game is quite healthy in other parts of the world, notably in Hong Kong.

Even if all we had were a few super tracks with big handles, the game will not be dead within anyone's lifetime.

[ReplayRandall]

You were careless when you initially read my post. Read it again...and you'll see that I was talking only about those who are NOW attempting to learn how to beat this game.

Don't bother explaining what you just wrote.....:sleeping::sleeping:

Some boring blather there Thask, you've been hanging around Ultracrapper too much.....Yeah, you're a real POS Ultracrapper. You want Dahoss to speak for you all the time?

[ultracapper]

Do you care to rephrase that?

You really come from left field sometimes.

[thaskalos]

Don't bother explaining what you just wrote.....:sleeping::sleeping:

Some boring blather there Thask, you've been hanging around Ultracrapper too much.....Yeah, you're a real POS Ultracrapper. You want Dahoss to speak for you all the time?

First you misunderstood what I wrote...and now you call me a "POS Ultracrapper"? When did I ask "Dahoss to speak for me all the time"? On second thought...forget what I just asked you. I wouldn't want to "bore you" even more with my replies. I'll try to post more "exciting" things in the future...:rolleyes:

[ReplayRandall]

Do you care to rephrase that?

You really come from left field sometimes.

Don't play dumb with me Pal, you know exactly what I'm talking about......On second thought, maybe you are that dumb.

[ReplayRandall]

I'll try to post more "exciting" things in the future...:rolleyes:

Now THAT happening is the true definition of a "longshot"....

[ultracapper]

That time of the month?

[ReplayRandall]

That time of the month?

HERE....let me refresh your selective memory, Einstein...

It sure does....if you had any humility to begin with.

I bow to your performance his meet. I hope the money you made was able to make up for your lack of 'atta boys you didn't get here.

You got a good touch at this posting game Dahoss. Keep up the good work.

You're the one that's the pussy here Ultracrapper, there's no doubt...

[Dahoss9698]

HERE....let me refresh your selective memory, Einstein...





You're the one that's the pussy here Ultracrapper, there's no doubt...

Now who needs the Midol?

[ReplayRandall]

Now who needs the Midol?

Go somewhere else for a while.....this doesn't involve you. Damn Dahoss, quit trolling me...:lol::lol:

[thaskalos]

Randall is probably upset because no-one commented that they missed him, when he didn't post on this board for a few days. He is the "sensitive" type...

[ReplayRandall]

Randall is probably upset because no-one commented that they missed him, when he didn't post on this board for a few days. He is the "sensitive" type...

Glad to know that you care so much....:kiss:

How's that couponing coming along? I'm out of coups, Dahoss used the last of mine and the rest of the Midol....Go hustle up some on your own.

[Dahoss9698]

Randall is probably upset because no-one commented that they missed him, when he didn't post on this board for a few days. He is the "sensitive" type...

I missed him but didn't comment about it. Does that count?

[ReplayRandall]

I missed him but didn't comment about it. Does that count?

You just did.....thanks Pal.

[AndyC]

If the game were actually dying , then you would be correct.


But as discussed on Byk's show , the game is quite healthy in other parts of the world, notably in Hong Kong.

Even if all we had were a few super tracks with big handles, the game will not be dead within anyone's lifetime.

If not dying how would you describe US racing? Napping? Do you really think bettors will flock to Hong Kong when the last US track shuts down?

[ultracapper]

HERE....let me refresh your selective memory, Einstein...





You're the one that's the pussy here Ultracrapper, there's no doubt...

Where do I bow down to the self-made monument to your breath taking display of dart throwing exhibited during the Saratoga meet? I'd hate to see all that shining you spent on it go to waste. If you spent more time making a case for your picks rather than screaming at the top of your sissy ass lungs lookie what I did, maybe somebody might take note.

Do you have a database of all the posts you make so you can quickly refer posters back to statements you've made whenever somebody may have a thought that you've already had, as if every utterance from your gold plated tongue is of original and divine inspiration?

Just wondering. Maybe you'll trudge on back to the little hole you run back to anytime your feelings are hurt or when you're not lifted upon the board's shoulders and recognized for the brilliance you so readily credit yourself with.

Aaah. That felt good.

Anything to add DaHoss? After all, it's you that I draw my courage from. What would I be without you? Just another Thaskolas type blathering fool I guess. Better work on that Thask. You've been lumped in with the cowardly Ultracapper.

Edit: Forgot POS Ultracapper.

[ReplayRandall]

Such a crushing reply from such a genius as yourself...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

When someone proves themselves over and over, which I have, there's always going to be the jealous haters who have a smart-ass comment to give, like yourself, who've rarely ever proven anything on this board. It sucks that you've been doing this to me for that last few years, yet you think I don't notice YOU in particular. You're comments in the past of "WOW, I can't believe you just said that" prove that you have no clue what it takes to be at the top. It must frustrate you to see players that are better than you, who walk the walk, and then can talk about it, the real deal, not a poser as yourself.

Many posters here have PM'd me for helpful tips, both in live or tourney play, and I sometimes point them in the direction they need to go. It's up to them to put in the hard work and discipline it takes to be profitable in this game, but few actually do it. There are thresholds and breakthroughs you must bust through mentally to get to the rare pathways of profitability that are left, but I doubt you've ever worked that hard with algorithms, methodologies, raw data mining, odds-line making/layering or pro level replay analysis.

In the end, all you've done Ultracapper is prove that there's no age limit to YOU still being a punk....

PS- You can have the last word, as you're on IGNORE for good.

[ultracapper]

Good God. What a dweeb.

[Poindexter]

You vastly overestimate the entertainment value of racing versus other alternatives. There might be a slight draw of hardcore serious gamblers who see an opportunity but as for attracting new players, no chance.

:lol::lol::lol:

Yet another victim of high takeout. Best gambling game there is, but because the takeout is so high, a long time horse player can't see it. You just proved my point. Some serious burnout.

Seriously, sadly we will never know.Racing is not going to every try. So your entitled to your opinion, I will stick with mine. We can spend the next number of years having this argument, while racing takes the bullet train into obscurity.

By the way sorry to break up the love fest here. Quite the reunion.

[ultracapper]

There is a small percentage of gamblers that I would define as you have up above. The overwhelming majority of gamblers couldn't calculate a probability if their life depended on it. They crave action! Las Vegas wasn't built by a bunch of smart gamblers losing millions of dollars. If the estimated percentage of winning horseplayers is less than 5% what does that make the other 95% plus players not so smart or just down on their luck?

I agree that saying gamblers are smarter was way too general. I should have said gamblers that are inspired to really apply themselves, especially as horse race handicappers, are, damn, I can't find the word, smarter isn't quite it. I'm thinking of guys like Beyer and Negranu and those kinds of people. But not only the best of the best. There is a lot of riff raff at my OTB, but there are a number of people there that have a real aptitude for problem solving and sound, solid thinking, in all phases of life. Very intelligent people.

[thaskalos]

I agree that saying gamblers are smarter was way too general. I should have said gamblers that are inspired to really apply themselves, especially as horse race handicappers, are, damn, I can't find the word, smarter isn't quite it. I'm thinking of guys like Beyer and Negranu and those kinds of people. But not only the best of the best. There is a lot of riff raff at my OTB, but there are a number of people there that have a real aptitude for problem solving and sound, solid thinking, in all phases of life. Very intelligent people.

Sadly...I can't say the same about my OTB. The patrons that I have encountered there during my many years of attendance are exactly the type that I would travel a great distance to avoid...if "conversation" was the main reason for our gathering there. Twenty years I spent in those places...and I didn't meet a "Beyer-like" figure even ONCE.

[AndyC]

:lol::lol::lol:

Yet another victim of high takeout. Best gambling game there is, but because the takeout is so high, a long time horse player can't see it. You just proved my point. Some serious burnout.

Seriously, sadly we will never know.Racing is not going to every try. So your entitled to your opinion, I will stick with mine. We can spend the next number of years having this argument, while racing takes the bullet train into obscurity.


Calling racing the "the best gambling game" may have been true 25 years ago but much has changed. Personally I am not a victim of anything!

While any serious player (other than big rebate players) would be overjoyed with a large takeout decrease, the prospect of new players being drawn to the game at a significant rate because of it is wishful thinking. I would love to see my opinion proved wrong but I agree that racing probably will never try.

[thaskalos]

Horse racing isn't a new betting enterprise that the gamblers have to be "introduced" to for the first time. The game has been around forever...and most serious gamblers, of all ages, have wandered into a racetrack or an OTB from time to time. The fact that they didn't remain there long means that they didn't like what they found there...and a re-introduction isn't likely to bring about any better results this time around.

The way the game is being run right now makes it the most unappetizing game in existence for the profit-minded player...IMO. Whenever a young gambler asks me for guidance in his gambling journey...I always dissuade him from taking the horses seriously as a money-making venture. I assure him that there are much better things out there to do with his time, and his money. In this game, the workload is too large...and the upside is too small.

[Tom]

Iad Ortiz has brought hundreds of WWE fans to the game.
No better wrestler around than Irad the "Strangler."

[NY Racing Fan]

Wouldn't it helped if you explained what your "15-30 takeout solution" means?

[LemonSoupKid]

All of the friends I've ever brought to a track (or OTB occasionally) have loved it. But, the big difference here is that they have me, a guy who actually knows what he's doing. I feel that if you don't have a guide, you probably a) don't go in the first place or b) get overwhelmed and somewhat paralyzed, though I think you can still have fun. That's why it's better to go to a local (nice) track so you can see the horses and it's a combo petting zoo with gambling for the novices.

I've been into this since I was 15 and I have a knack for it, beyond all the years I spent learning. This doesn't happen much anymore (let's just say I'm older than 30), for many reasons, and there are more options of random stuff to do to entertain oneself, online or in person these days.

I could do very well even on non big race days (I don't play them, typically) at this point due to even off the cuff handicapping. But the time spent even peripherally, studying the program, following the races, etc requires a near entire day of dedicated time. Ironically, this is exactly what most of the guys I randomly see at OTBs have --- time. And it seems to be low class type time, just being honest. You can see that in how they act and what they bet, or how much, and the fact that when you return to the same OTB let's say, they're there with the same look, in the same location, with the same friends.

My question is not necessarily what draws more people in, but what's good for the bettor. That will make the whole game better, and potentially draw people in --- it can't hurt. Track take and taxes approaching what is normal in sports betting (10%) seems to me to be the most realistic and achievable, and I think that would improve the game overnight. Much as the new withholding rules are a win for everyone, I believe that would be too.

[LemonSoupKid]

I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with demand curves.

They traditionally imposed higher takeouts on exotics because they assume horseplayers are idiots and would not notice the rake off a much higher average DD , EXACTA, TRI , SUPER payoff.


This recent P5 lower takeout is going in the opposite direction, for whatever reason. Promotional value would be my guess.

There's actually ZERO justification for a single race bet (ex,tri,super) to have a higher takeout.

Multi race, I can see, as you are getting, at least if you are alive after a leg, more than once race worth of action for the bet. Less churn for the track.

The only curve they care about is your money curving into their pocket.

Precisely. When I looked at the HANA grid I was aghast at the P4 take and instantly became a P5 bettor, it's a no brainer, especially since I've hit all the horizontals and don't find 5 to bet that much harder if I am hitting that day, anyway. Sometimes it's over 10% take difference. People don't understand how huge that is, or they were never told what the takeouts were, or both.

I think Alton nails it with his explanation of arbitrary lottery mentality by central government type thinkers. When you hear guys like Ed Rendell from PA speak, you know this is exactly how the big wigs think ... and how we got to where we are.

I have found this thread fascinating. I went back and read the original Pricci article and (knew it after the first sentence) found it to be, frankly, retarded and essentially playing into the establishment game, the inertia that's always been there. Be happy with 15% and bargain for 2% here or there (but then skyrocket another bet to 30%!???). I can't believe the man clicked publish on such a thing. And the boomers talk about the "millenials" being a problematic class, uff