Effects of sports betting on horse racing to be examined

[Andy Asaro]

https://www.gamingtoday.com/article/73063-Effects_of_sports_betting_on_horse_racing_to_be_ex amined

Excerpt:

The continuing examination of the possible effects of national sports wagering, should it become legal in the U.S., continues March 13-17 in New Orleans at the Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Association (HBPA) convention.

Sports betting and its possible ramifications on horse racing will come under scrutiny in a discussion panel featuring William Hill U.S. CEO Joe Asher.
===========================================

Only way it can benefit racing IMO is to only allow it at tracks, OTB's, and Casinos (Brick and Mortar) for first few years. The States that do that will help horse racing. The ones that don't will hurt horse racing.

[AlsoEligible]

Only way it can benefit racing IMO is to only allow it at tracks, OTB's, and Casinos (Brick and Mortar) for first few years. The States that do that will help horse racing. The ones that don't will hurt horse racing.

Agreed. Although even in those cases, how many existing horse players at the track will bail on the game to go wager on sports instead?

Sure, facilities will get a huge influx of new people showing up to place sports wagers, and maybe a few of them will throw some dollars at horse racing. But would that be offset by the number of existing players who take their money out of the pools to go put it on football or basketball instead?

Maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but I just don't see how racing (at least in it's current form) survives the nationwide legalization of sports betting. Whether wagering is allowed online from day one, or not until year three, sooner or later it will happen. Nothing I've seen from inside the industry shows that anyone is prepared for that. Nor do I have any faith that the industry would use a 2-3 year buffer to come up with a plan.

[jay68802]

Why look at the possible effects on horse racing? The effect is rather obvious, more competition for the wagering dollar. Giving a track a cut of the revenue without any incentive to change has proven unhealthy for the sport already. If a track wants a cut, say ok if the field size is 9 or more starters. Set the take out at the same rate as sports betting. Make accurate information available to the public. Make your drug enforcement have some teeth. In other words, make your product competitive. Horse racing has already proven that without incentive, they will continue in the same direction as they were heading before casino money came along, downward.

[PointGiven]

I am wanting to know how it will effect states that don't have horse wagering will it be now allowed under "sport"

[Poindexter]

I have repeatedly stated this game is way overpriced for the masses. That being said if the masses want to bet sports, isn't the door already open? Offshore sports betting has been here for over 20 years. Bookies have always have been here. I highly doubt anyone who wants to bet games is not betting games. So the way I look at it is that if sports betting were to become legal, it introduces gambling to a large chunk of society that has mostly abstained from it. Sure they may play in a weekly card game or go to Vegas a couple times a year......but for the most part they are living their life without gambling.

So in my mind the problem is not that sports betting could be here to stay and that horseplayers are going to leave the game in droves to suddenly bet sports. To me the problem is that when the horse player bets sports they realize that there $500 betting sports provides a lot more entertainment. They bet 10 games a week for $55/$50 (whether they will be able to get a bet down at 11/10 remains to be seen) and on a typical week they go 5-5 an lose a whopping $25. In contrast if they are betting $500 a week on racing, they are losing 100 to $150 a week(Multiply that by 52 weeks and you have something to talk about). So if sports betting is offerred at 11/10 then it will not take very long for the masses to figure out that there is a better gamble out there. On the other hand if the greed of the leagues causes sports betting to be offerred at 12/10 or even 13/10 which is very possible (I haven't been following it but I know these discussions are out there ) then the sports bettor is losing $50 or $75 a week and it is a little less obvious that sports betting is the better gamble.

Whatever the case racing has to figure out if they want to become a player in the gambling industy (by eliminating rebates and bringing takeout to 8/10/12 %). If they do sports betting will transform a lot more of the population into gambling which could in turn will transform more people into horse racing. Initially a good % of the public isn't going to know they are getting gouged at racetracks, so sports betting may actually help racing for a time, but unless racing wants to compete in the gambling market by offerring a competitive betting marketplace, I think we will have much of what we have today until sports betting eventually starts siphoning off players at a pretty fast rate.............At this point it can get pretty ugly.

Any chance racing sees the light? Sadly I think not. If they don't they can look back to this moment in time and realize this was the point in time they really needed to do something right and they failed to act and it cost them everything. Of course they can always hope that sports betting is not leagalized and everything will be just peachy keen. :rolleyes:

[Andy Asaro]

Agreed. Although even in those cases, how many existing horse players at the track will bail on the game to go wager on sports instead?

Sure, facilities will get a huge influx of new people showing up to place sports wagers, and maybe a few of them will throw some dollars at horse racing. But would that be offset by the number of existing players who take their money out of the pools to go put it on football or basketball instead?

Maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but I just don't see how racing (at least in it's current form) survives the nationwide legalization of sports betting. Whether wagering is allowed online from day one, or not until year three, sooner or later it will happen. Nothing I've seen from inside the industry shows that anyone is prepared for that. Nor do I have any faith that the industry would use a 2-3 year buffer to come up with a plan.

Only way to go if they have brick and mortar wagering only is to lower takeout on the high churn wagers. Exactas have to be down to 16% and must pay to the penny on breakage. BTW sports bettors do understand parlays and round robins. They would have 2 or 3 years to convert a lot of them if the price is right IMO

[Denny]

What's great about 16% on Exactas? Nothing really.

It's still way OVERPRICED.

Parimutuel wagering was invented with an ideal TAKEOUT OF 10%. No one ever remembers this (or is aware), including so-called EXPERTS.

Poindexter is the only one right so far in this thread.

[Andy Asaro]

What's great about 16% on Exactas? Nothing really.

It's still way OVERPRICED.

Parimutuel wagering was invented with an ideal TAKEOUT OF 10%. No one ever remembers this (or is aware), including so-called EXPERTS.

Poindexter is the only one right so far in this thread.

It would be the lowest of any major jurisdiction by far. NYRA is 18.5%.

[PaceAdvantage]

Parimutuel wagering was invented with an ideal TAKEOUT OF 10%.Source?

[dilanesp]

So in my mind the problem is not that sports betting could be here to stay and that horseplayers are going to leave the game in droves to suddenly bet sports. To me the problem is that when the horse player bets sports they realize that there $500 betting sports provides a lot more entertainment.

There is an argument that I have heard made that for a casual player, a bet on a game is the absolute best form of gambling.

The basic argument is that when you bet on a game, it gives you hours of action on one bet. A horse race gives you a couple of minutes of action, a poker hand about a minute of action, and a roulette wheel or slot machine gives you a few seconds of it. Which then requires the player to put additional money into the game to keep the action going, which means they lose their money faster.

Honestly, I think legal sports betting is a threat to a LOT of other forms of gambling with respect to the casual bettor's dollar.

[Denny]

PA, you do the research. I came across it years ago. It started in France, thus the name. The originator/inventor pegged the takeout at 10% as being equitable for BOTH sides. Then one side got greedy as time went on.

Good research project for a Math major looking for a PhD. I'm too old.
________

AA, just because it's lower doesn't make it right. It's too high everywhere.
16% is a poor bargaining position to take.
Start with our side demanding 10% and work from there.

[onefast99]

There is an argument that I have heard made that for a casual player, a bet on a game is the absolute best form of gambling.

The basic argument is that when you bet on a game, it gives you hours of action on one bet. A horse race gives you a couple of minutes of action, a poker hand about a minute of action, and a roulette wheel or slot machine gives you a few seconds of it. Which then requires the player to put additional money into the game to keep the action going, which means they lose their money faster.

Honestly, I think legal sports betting is a threat to a LOT of other forms of gambling with respect to the casual bettor's dollar.As with horse racing where no one plays every race other forms of gambling allow you to sit out a few hands or rolls of the dice.

[Andy Asaro]

PA, you do the research. I came across it years ago. It started in France, thus the name. The originator/inventor pegged the takeout at 10% as being equitable for BOTH sides. Then one side got greedy as time went on.

Good research project for a Math major looking for a PhD. I'm too old.
________

AA, just because it's lower doesn't make it right. It's too high everywhere.
16% is a poor bargaining position to take.
Start with our side demanding 10% and work from there.

Our side????

[Afleet]

Source?

is there a source that says 25% is ideal?

[horses4courses]

is there a source that says 25% is ideal?

The Track Executive Manifesto? :eek:

[dilanesp]

As with horse racing where no one plays every race other forms of gambling allow you to sit out a few hands or rolls of the dice.

What is allowed and how the human brain approaches gambling action are two different things.

[Denny]

AA,

What I mean by 'our side' is the horseplayers side. The bettors side.

Not the racetrack/bet takers side.

Thought that would obvious.

I'm NOT saying you and I are necessarily on the same side. I'm not really sure about that considering our past exchanges - here or elsewhere. We don't exactly have a great relationship.

[Something you seem to be taking out on Pricci. I don't work or represent him or HRI. Just give my opinion there a lot.]

[Andy Asaro]

AA,

What I mean by 'our side' is the horseplayers side. The bettors side.



I am on the side of 10% takeout. What is your plan to make it happen? And more importantly what are you doing to make it happen?

[Denny]

I am on the side of 10% takeout. What is your plan to make it happen? And more importantly what are you doing to make it happen?

I do what I can. I write endlessly on the problems that exist in this "sport" of horse racing, making observations and providing remedies. Complaining a lot.

Little of what I say is taken seriously by the powers that be.

I have no power. If i was Frank S, there's plenty i would do.

I'd take the industry lead and just do it. Whatever is needed. The horsemen don't like me lowering takeout? Screw them, i'd drop it anyway. i'm a multi-billionaire and what do i care if some of them leave. The ones who stay would reap the rewards of a boom in business from horseplayers increased betting - like they've never seen before.

I wouldn't be so big on the class of the races either. It's already been shown by what's going on with handle at Gulfstream that people will bet if fields are big enough and the races competitive.
Sure we can have a big day once in a while, like Pegasus for the big shots.

Horseplayers would bet my track, not the tracks with high takeout.
It might take a few years, but, how many year's do I have left anyway (if i'm Frankie).

If I could, i'd do something for the horses. I'd stop the drugs. Again the heck with the horsemen. Run clean or don't run at all.

There's a start.

PS.
Did you know i suggested parlays and round-robbins a couple of years ago at HRI.
Or that I suggested NYRA put back in the second turf course - something I wrote about a couple of years ago.

Maybe somebody does read what i say, after all.

[AndyC]

......I'd take the industry lead and just do it. Whatever is needed. The horsemen don't like me lowering takeout? Screw them, i'd drop it anyway.....

Therein lies the problem. It doesn't matter what the track owners want to do, they are at the mercy of the horsemen and the state governments to give their blessings.

[PaceAdvantage]

PA, you do the research. I came across it years ago. It started in France, thus the name. The originator/inventor pegged the takeout at 10% as being equitable for BOTH sides. Then one side got greedy as time went on.

Good research project for a Math major looking for a PhD. I'm too old.
________

AA, just because it's lower doesn't make it right. It's too high everywhere.
16% is a poor bargaining position to take.
Start with our side demanding 10% and work from there.OK...the originator/inventor created his invention in the 1800s...

Something tells me the 10% number might not be applicable today. Just a hunch though...

[PaceAdvantage]

is there a source that says 25% is ideal?No clue...all I know is 10% is ideal because Denny said the guy who invented pari-mutuel wagering in 1867 supposedly came up with that number...

[PaceAdvantage]

https://www.gamingtoday.com/article/73063-Effects_of_sports_betting_on_horse_racing_to_be_ex amined

Excerpt:

The continuing examination of the possible effects of national sports wagering, should it become legal in the U.S., continues March 13-17 in New Orleans at the Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Association (HBPA) convention.

Sports betting and its possible ramifications on horse racing will come under scrutiny in a discussion panel featuring William Hill U.S. CEO Joe Asher.
===========================================

Only way it can benefit racing IMO is to only allow it at tracks, OTB's, and Casinos (Brick and Mortar) for first few years. The States that do that will help horse racing. The ones that don't will hurt horse racing.Almost anyone who really wants to bet sports can bet sports in the USA right now. There have been bookies in neighborhoods since the beginning of time. If you really want to bet sports on the internet, you can...right now...even if you live in the USA.

Hell, not too long ago, I was able to fund an off-shore poker account with a US Bank credit card...and they offered sports betting too...and online casino games...the whole shebang. All this within the last year or so (I scratched the online poker itch, blew my $100 initial deposit, and haven't been back since). So even with all the restrictions in place, you can STILL get online action even using a VISA or MASTERCARD if you go to the right website.

Bottom line, sports betting is pretty much readily accessible to almost anyone who REALLY wants to bet on games. And racing obviously hasn't been impacted all that much, or they wouldn't be doing a study on the impact IF it becomes legalized in the US.

I don't see current horseplayers abandoning the game for sports...sure, they might bet sports IN ADDITION to racing...and by the way, betting sports isn't easier than betting horses...if it were, Vegas would be overrun with professional sports bettors and there would be no place to live there...EVERYONE would be betting sports for a living...

Obviously, that's not the case...

How many stories have I read over the years of professional poker players blowing their profits in the sports book...more than a few...

[horses4courses]

Almost anyone who really wants to bet sports can bet sports in the USA right now. There have been bookies in neighborhoods since the beginning of time. If you really want to bet sports on the internet, you can...right now...even if you live in the USA.

Hell, not too long ago, I was able to fund an off-shore poker account with a US Bank credit card...and they offered sports betting too...and online casino games...the whole shebang. All this within the last year or so (I scratched the online poker itch, blew my $100 initial deposit, and haven't been back since). So even with all the restrictions in place, you can STILL get online action even using a VISA or MASTERCARD if you go to the right website.

Bottom line, sports betting is pretty much readily accessible to almost anyone who REALLY wants to bet on games. And racing obviously hasn't been impacted all that much, or they wouldn't be doing a study on the impact IF it becomes legalized in the US.

I don't see current horseplayers abandoning the game for sports...sure, they might bet sports IN ADDITION to racing...and by the way, betting sports isn't easier than betting horses...if it were, Vegas would be overrun with professional sports bettors and there would be no place to live there...EVERYONE would be betting sports for a living...

Obviously, that's not the case...

How many stories have I read over the years of professional poker players blowing their profits in the sports book...more than a few...

You're right.
Things won't change much.

The 50 and 60+ year old race bettors will just have to
make room for the 20 and 30-something sports players.
There will be bigger crowds at the tracks and parlors,
but not to bet on the races.

Been watching it since the late 1980s in Nevada.
They get along just fine with each other.

The game changer these days is betting with phone apps.
That's in it's infancy here - not the case in Europe.

[cj]

Only way it can benefit racing IMO is to only allow it at tracks, OTB's, and Casinos (Brick and Mortar) for first few years. The States that do that will help horse racing. The ones that don't will hurt horse racing.

Don't see any way it helps the sport from a bettor's prospective. We've already seen what happens over and over again with slots. Until betting horses is priced reasonably, inviting a better priced gambling game onto your property is not going to help.

[onefast99]

Don't see any way it helps the sport from a bettor's prospective. We've already seen what happens over and over again with slots. Until betting horses is priced reasonably, inviting a better priced gambling game onto your property is not going to help.I don't agree. Wouldn't adding another form of gaming to your current menu be an attractor? You will have people coming in for several hours at a time(current MLB games average 2 hours 54 minutes)if you have a bar a decent menu and yes live horse racing those people coming for sports wagering will spend a few bucks on the races. The object here per the numerous sports wagering studies done for NJ show there will be an increase in attendance at those venues that have SW. Right now MP will reap the benefits as they are the only ones set up to go once SCOTUS approves SW.

[Andy Asaro]

Don't see any way it helps the sport from a bettor's prospective. We've already seen what happens over and over again with slots. Until betting horses is priced reasonably, inviting a better priced gambling game onto your property is not going to help.

If it's brick and mortar only for a few years and the tracks OTB's provide a comfortable and fun place to hang out sports bettors will begin to see some huge payouts for small increments. That's the only shot Horse Racing has. If they don't do the brick and mortar thing they're gonna get hurt.

[Denny]

It's not important when it was invented PA.

10% is fair to both sides. Time hasn't changed that.

Greed by tracks, horsemen, and government have ruined everything.

Sports operate at 5% approx., horse racing is up to 25- 30% on some bets.
17% on WPS is about the standard now. Way too high!!! (Add breakage too).

Which is doing better? Sports or horseracing?

Start with 10% as the goal and work from there.

Only Poindexter at this site seems to get it. He's explained it quite well, in fact.

Most of you seem to be siding with the tracks, the status quo, and the game is going nowhere.

[cj]

I don't agree. Wouldn't adding another form of gaming to your current menu be an attractor? You will have people coming in for several hours at a time(current MLB games average 2 hours 54 minutes)if you have a bar a decent menu and yes live horse racing those people coming for sports wagering will spend a few bucks on the races. The object here per the numerous sports wagering studies done for NJ show there will be an increase in attendance at those venues that have SW. Right now MP will reap the benefits as they are the only ones set up to go once SCOTUS approves SW.

We've already seen this with slots. Good luck.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's not important when it was invented PA.

10% is fair to both sides. Time hasn't changed that.

Greed by tracks, horsemen, and government have ruined everything.

Sports operate at 5% approx., horse racing is up to 25- 30% on some bets.
17% on WPS is about the standard now. Way too high!!! (Add breakage too).

Which is doing better? Sports or horseracing?

Start with 10% as the goal and work from there.

Only Poindexter at this site seems to get it. He's explained it quite well, in fact.

Most of you seem to be siding with the tracks, the status quo, and the game is going nowhere.Sports betting basically entails setting up a room with a counter, a couple of machines, a couple of people, some TVs, maybe a big board and someone to run the ship and post some lines.

Compare that with running a racetrack and then tell me again that you're sure 10% take will work for both industries just the same.

10% is probably NOT the optimal takeout for racing, where it will benefit the game as a whole. And you have zero evidence to say that it is.

[Denny]

"Sports betting basically entails setting up a room with a counter, a couple of machines, a couple of people, some TVs, maybe a big board and someone to run the ship and post some lines."

Sounds like an OTB or simulcast.

The racing parimutuel model is broken. Admit it.

The tracks must love you taking their side.

[PaceAdvantage]

"Sports betting basically entails setting up a room with a counter, a couple of machines, a couple of people, some TVs, maybe a big board and someone to run the ship and post some lines."

Sounds like an OTB or simulcast.

The racing parimutuel model is broken. Admit it.

The tracks must love you taking their side.Don't be an a-hole. I'm not taking anyone's side...just teaching you to think about reality.

Running a racetrack in no way compares to running a sports book.

OTB or simulcast outlets have little to do with it, but thanks for playing.

[cj]

Sports betting basically entails setting up a room with a counter, a couple of machines, a couple of people, some TVs, maybe a big board and someone to run the ship and post some lines.

Compare that with running a racetrack and then tell me again that you're sure 10% take will work for both industries just the same.

10% is probably NOT the optimal takeout for racing, where it will benefit the game as a whole. And you have zero evidence to say that it is.

Why have the percentages changed? Percentages don't have inflation.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why have the percentages changed? Percentages don't have inflation.Not sure what you're referring to...please explain

[cj]

Not sure what you're referring to...please explain


The cost of running a track has always been there even when takeout was much lower. Why has racing kept having to raise prices? Making the game tougher and tougher to beat will only ensure its demise.

[Denny]

CJ,

The difference is slots are kept totally separate from the racing.

Imagine an OTB or a simulcast location with the sports betting integrated.

TV's with sports, nearby TV's with horses. There's going to be crossover.

Our OTB is practically dead. Maybe a quarter of the space is being used.
The back room that was used for the smokers is a storage room for broken/outdated equipment and broken benches.

It could come alive again with sports. People that never bet racing might actually get interested just by being there with the horseplayers.

[cj]

CJ,

The difference is slots are kept totally separate from the racing.

Imagine an OTB or a simulcast location with the sports betting integrated.

TV's with sports, nearby TV's with horses. There's going to be crossover.

Our OTB is practically dead. Maybe a quarter of the space is being used.
The back room that was used for the smokers is a storage room for broken/outdated equipment and broken benches.

It could come alive again with sports. People that never bet racing might actually get interested just by being there with the horseplayers.

At this point it can't hurt to try, but I've seen that experiment many times in Vegas casinos. I don't see a lot of crossover. Sports betting is a competitor, not a partner. The only answer for racing is to compete, sink or swim on its own merits. Right now it will get crushed.

[Denny]

"...just teaching you to think about reality."

You're "teaching me" LOL.

You have an awfully high opinion of yourself PA.

BTW.

Tracks ALWAYS had to pay to put on the show. Even in 1876, or whatever.

Maybe you need to learn a few things hotshot.

[cj]

And just to be clear, takeout on sports is not 10%, it is significantly less.

[PaceAdvantage]

"...just teaching you to think about reality."

You're "teaching me" LOL.

You have an awfully high opinion of yourself PA.You're not living in reality if you think racing in its current, self-imposed state, can survive on 10% takeout.

I'm not saying takeout shouldn't be lowered, so don't put words in my mouth.

[PaceAdvantage]

"...just teaching you to think about reality."

You're "teaching me" LOL.

You have an awfully high opinion of yourself PA.

BTW.

Tracks ALWAYS had to pay to put on the show. Even in 1876, or whatever.

Maybe you need to learn a few things hotshot.Keep it up.

Instead of verbal jousting, show me ONE bit of research that says racing takeout should be at 10%

Surely you have SOMETHING other than "the guy who invented pari-mutuel determined 10% to be the optimal takeout"


That's LAUGHABLE...

[cj]

You're not living in reality if you think racing in its current, self-imposed state, can survive on 10% takeout.

I'm not saying takeout shouldn't be lowered, so don't put words in my mouth.

That is my point. Racing has done this to itself with a multitude of short sighted decisions. Sadly at this point there probably is no way out. If there is, it will take major changes and a LOT of pain that until now only horseplayers have had to endure.

[jay68802]

How any one thinks that bringing potential new customers to a track so that horse racing can show how bad their product is, is a good idea, is beyond me. And once they show these new customers how bad their product is, even if they change and improve their product, good luck getting them to come back. Sure, at first you might get a small increase in handle, but in the long run, the tracks will lose what they desperately need, and that these potential new customers.

[Denny]

PA,

It wasn't just "the Guy" who invented it.

Takeout WAS 10% AT RACETRACKS.

Do the research - that you want me to do for you.

Even in the mid 20th century it was 14%. It's even in Ainslie's books written in the 70's.

You're the one that doesn't know very much.

[PaceAdvantage]

PA,

It wasn't just "the Guy" who invented it.

Takeout WAS 10% AT RACETRACKS.

Do the research - that you want me to do for you.

Even in the mid 20th century it was 14%. It's even in Ainslie's books written in the 70's.

You're the one that doesn't know very much.What don't I know?

That takeout used to be lower in racing? :lol:

No shit.

How about actually addressing what is being discussed?

SO WHAT that it used to be 10% or 14% or whatever lower number than it is today.

Just because it used to be 10% doesn't mean we can magically go back to 10% and everything will be peachy.

Jeez man...how do you even arrive at that conclusion?

Oh, I know...because SPORTS BETTING can work at that number

[cj]

What don't I know?

That takeout used to be lower in racing? :lol:

No shit.

How about actually addressing what is being discussed?

SO WHAT that it used to be 10% or 14% or whatever lower number than it is today.

Just because it used to be 10% doesn't mean we can magically go back to 10% and everything will be peachy.

Jeez man...how do you even arrive at that conclusion?

Oh, I know...because SPORTS BETTING can work at that number

As I said, takeout on sports betting is much lower than 10%. It is sub 5%. :)

Also, there is some risk to the bet taker in sports. There is no risk in horse racing.

[cj]

How any one thinks that bringing potential new customers to a track so that horse racing can show how bad their product is, is a good idea, is beyond me. And once they show these new customers how bad their product is, even if they change and improve their product, good luck getting them to come back. Sure, at first you might get a small increase in handle, but in the long run, the tracks will lose what they desperately need, and that these potential new customers.

https://rlv.zcache.com/winner_winner_chicken_dinner_funny_postcard-rfd5b1ad5b0ba4a9bb11cce9c8cc9d022_vgbaq_8byvr_540. jpg

[PaceAdvantage]

cj, that's way too old school...

https://www.n3rdabl3.com/wp-content/images/uploads/2017/12/pubg-chicken-dinner-shirt.jpg

[jay68802]

I prefer "mid-age school".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZKUmLoSSuM

[biggestal99]

Very surprised no one is talking about the huge elephant in the room.

The Betfair exchange. Huge in online sports betting.

The american standard. Bet and wait for result.

Betfair allows in-play wagering.

Can you image the NFL inplay with Brady and his antics?

Its great betting in race right now for me.

even if I lose (yes I do lose some of my wagers).

Its a blast.

Its a winning idea for Monmouth park.

BTW wagering on the sport of horse racing is sports betting.

the more sports that we can legally bet on the better.

In play. lots of props for each game.

I am ready for it.

Allan

[biggestal99]

As I said, takeout on sports betting is much lower than 10%. It is sub 5%. :)

Also, there is some risk to the bet taker in sports. There is no risk in horse racing.

No risk on the exchange sports betting on betfair. 1. make you bet 2. winner pays commission on winnings. Betfair makes money on every winning market.

The only thing that matters is handle, not which side wins or loses.

very simple concept.

Allan

[cj]

No risk on the exchange sports betting on betfair. 1. make you bet 2. winner pays commission on winnings. Betfair makes money on every winning market.

The only thing that matters is handle, not which side wins or loses.

very simple concept.

Allan

Agree, but until the rest of the world gets it legalized, not so great. Betfair does usually forget to mention those commissions when touting the price you can get.

[biggestal99]

Agree, but until the rest of the world gets it legalized, not so great. Betfair does usually forget to mention those commissions when touting the price you can get.

Yeah there always that. I have my account on Betfair setup so that I see my winnings WITH commission included. so a 1 dollar winning becomes 88 cents won. disconcerting at first but now after 2 years on the exchange I am used to it.

Allan

[Poindexter]

You're not living in reality if you think racing in its current, self-imposed state, can survive on 10% takeout.

I'm not saying takeout shouldn't be lowered, so don't put words in my mouth.


What is the self imposed state that cannot be changed for the better(or better yet, BETTOR)? You act like they are in fricking shackles. I just see a bunch of pompous executives that think they are geniuses.

[PaceAdvantage]

What is the self imposed state that cannot be changed for the better(or better yet, BETTOR)? You act like they are in fricking shackles. I just see a bunch of pompous executives that think they are geniuses.The proverbial rock and a hard place.

And a lot are in shackles. For example, many "pompous executives" would have a hard time convincing all the powers that be (horsemen's groups, the state, etc. etc...in essence everyone who has their HAND in the TILL), that lowering takeout and thus risking lower revenues would be a GOOD THING in the long run.

So yeah, they are in shackles...but only because the industry as a whole has put itself there due to poor decision making through the years.

People think a track can just wave their magic wand and the next day takeout will drop a few points on a whim?

[cj]

Well, it certainly seems takeout raises on a whim are easy enough to implement. :lol:

[Poindexter]

Well, it certainly seems takeout raises on a whim are easy enough to implement. :lol:

Indeed fascinating. Keeneland raises purses, causing a huge public outcry and organized boycott including an angry response from one of it's biggest owners, yet no problem there. But if they want to bring down takeout to a compettive level, so this game can take off, "no can't do that".

[PaceAdvantage]

Well, it certainly seems takeout raises on a whim are easy enough to implement. :lol:You know why that is...since when do horsemen or the state ever say no to a takeout raise?

[cj]

You know why that is...since when do horsemen or the state ever say no to a takeout raise?

I haven't read many reports about lower takeout requests being shot down.

[fiznow]

Why make a difference between horse racing and other sports? At European bookies you can play a parlay with a horse race, a tennis match and a football game or what ever...

[ultracapper]

Comparing the take on sports wagering and horse racing is like comparing a '56 Ford pickup and the space shuttle. When the casinos must build the stadiums, set up the leagues, pay the athletes, rely heavily on the gambler to pay for a big chunk of it, and then administer the entire thing, and still offer 110/100, now we can talk apples to apples.

If the casinos had to run the NFL in the same manner track owners have to run horse racing, there'd be a bank of 500 slot machines at the entrance to Levi Stadium to help make the money to pay Jimmy Garrapollo for the next 5 years.

As for Betfair, if all horse racing action went through them, the horse racing industry would be dead in 2 weeks. The leaches in horse racing don't add a thing to the survival of the game.

I'm not giving the powers that be a pass, just saying that they are in a different situation than just about any other form of gambling.

[cj]

Comparing the take on sports wagering and horse racing is like comparing a '56 Ford pickup and the space shuttle. When the casinos must build the stadiums, set up the leagues, pay the athletes, rely heavily on the gambler to pay for a big chunk of it, and then administer the entire thing, and still offer 110/100, now we can talk apples to apples.

If the casinos had to run the NFL in the same manner track owners have to run horse racing, there'd be a bank of 500 slot machines at the entrance to Levi Stadium to help make the money to pay Jimmy Garrapollo for the next 5 years.

As for Betfair, if all horse racing action went through them, the horse racing industry would be dead in 2 weeks. The leaches in horse racing don't add a thing to the survival of the game.

I'm not giving the powers that be a pass, just saying that they are in a different situation than just about any other form of gambling.

In the end it doesn't really matter. Blended takeout on horse racing is 20+ percent. Sports betting is sub 5%. Gamblers don't care about the costs to put on the show, nor should they. If horse racing can't get costs under control to the point that it is a viable gambling game, it will lose. That is the death spiral we are in. Rather than try to compete, racing just keeps raising the price. It will never work long term.

The irony is the game would be nearing death already if not for tracks giving big takeout cuts to the biggest bettors. It has paused the death spiral for a while, but it won't last. You can only fool people for so long.

[Valuist]

Interesting how the NBA is trying to stick its greedy hands into the mix, for a so-called "integrity tax":confused:. Note to Adam Silver: you should be thankful that sports betting draws attention to a God awful boring 82 game season. Trying to impose a tax that will amount to 20% of sportsbooks revenues is ridiculous, as that would get passed on to the public.

This sports betting thing is no slam dunk. Between the greediness of politicians and league commissioners, it could be poorly run.

[ultracapper]

Horse racing has no fan base. Other sports are regularly on TV, not HRacing. The leagues make huge amounts of revenue selling commercial time during their events, not HRing. In Seattle, a city with no team, the NBA sells exponentially more swag than Emerald Downs ever will. The sale of LeBron James jerseys at Northgate Mall alone out paces the sales at the EMD gift shop for an entire meet.

A body with no head is just a carcass. I have no idea how horse racing would get around state involvement to form a national executive board, one with teeth, but that is what is needed, if for no other reason than to coordinate marketing.

We've had this discussion here a million times. No reason to bring it up here. But other sports aren't reliant on gambling to survive. The NFL, MLB, and the NBA would all be every bit as healthy as they are now if gambling on their games were outlawed and pushed back into the rear rooms of the laundry mats.

[Poindexter]

Comparing the take on sports wagering and horse racing is like comparing a '56 Ford pickup and the space shuttle. When the casinos must build the stadiums, set up the leagues, pay the athletes, rely heavily on the gambler to pay for a big chunk of it, and then administer the entire thing, and still offer 110/100, now we can talk apples to apples.

If the casinos had to run the NFL in the same manner track owners have to run horse racing, there'd be a bank of 500 slot machines at the entrance to Levi Stadium to help make the money to pay Jimmy Garrapollo for the next 5 years.

As for Betfair, if all horse racing action went through them, the horse racing industry would be dead in 2 weeks. The leaches in horse racing don't add a thing to the survival of the game.

I'm not giving the powers that be a pass, just saying that they are in a different situation than just about any other form of gambling.

Regarding leaches, aren't whales leaches? They bet 2 Billion a year supposedly(maybe more) and if they are extracting 5% out of this game (and I suspect they are and perhaps more) they are extracting 100 million from this game each year. Racing has unwittingly made them a fairly big partner (and in the eyes of racing too important to lose) causing extreme detriment to their regular customers.. Some argue there is a tradeoff. I don't see the tradeoff. I think you are all (anyone who sees it as a tradeoff ) drinking the Kool Aid. Whatever they bring to the game in volume they take away from the game in sustainability and growth. Long term numbers show that. Common sense shows that (does it take Einstein to realize that when hedge fund types are investing millions before they make their first bet, that rebates are leaving a huge slice of the pie for the taking?).

So to put it bluntly, racing has two options adapt or die (where did I come up with that one?). You see PA, a lot of adapting can be done to the detriment of racing . Regular horseplayers can limit their play to carryover, off site tournament and low takeout situations. Horseplayers can make their bets offshore and get up to 8% rebates and racing won't see a dime of it. Or horseplayers can just decide it isn't worth the effort and just flee the game. Many horseplayers are adapting (just not your way) and racing will ultimately die unless it adapts to the current marketplace.

[Valuist]

We've had this discussion here a million times. No reason to bring it up here. But other sports aren't reliant on gambling to survive. The NFL, MLB, and the NBA would all be every bit as healthy as they are now if gambling on their games were outlawed and pushed back into the rear rooms of the laundry mats.

How popular would the NFL be without gambling and fantasy leagues? It would be a niche sport. There would be absolutely no reason for the person in Florida to watch Cleveland playing Buffalo.

[ultracapper]

Regarding leaches, aren't whales leaches? They bet 2 Billion a year supposedly(maybe more) and if they are extracting 5% out of this game (and I suspect they are and perhaps more) they are extracting 100 million from this game each year. Racing has unwittingly made them a fairly big partner (and in the eyes of racing too important to lose) causing extreme detriment to their regular customers.. Some argue there is a tradeoff. I don't see the tradeoff. I think you are all (anyone who sees it as a tradeoff ) drinking the Kool Aid. Whatever they bring to the game in volume they take away from the game in sustainability and growth. Long term numbers show that. Common sense shows that (does it take Einstein to realize that when hedge fund types are investing millions before they make their first bet, that rebates are leaving a huge slice of the pie for the taking?).

So to put it bluntly, racing has two options adapt or die (where did I come up with that one?). You see PA, a lot of adapting can be done to the detriment of racing . Regular horseplayers can limit their play to carryover, off site tournament and low takeout situations. Horseplayers can make their bets offshore and get up to 8% rebates and racing won't see a dime of it. Or horseplayers can just decide it isn't worth the effort and just flee the game. Many horseplayers are adapting (just not your way) and racing will ultimately die unless it adapts to the current marketplace.

When I said leaches, I meant those that don't contribute to the pools. The whales are leaches, and every bit as dangerous, but of a different stripe.

[ultracapper]

How popular would the NFL be without gambling and fantasy leagues? It would be a niche sport. There would be absolutely no reason for the person in Florida to watch Cleveland playing Buffalo.

How do you subtract somebody's reputation points, because you should lose like half of them just for this incredible blithering nonsense. The NFL was so popular after the Colts-Giants Championship game of 1959 that a second, competing major league was able to take hold. Then after the Colt-Jet Super Bowl, became so popular that the two leagues merged, and all but took over Monday Night TV in the next decade.

[ronsmac]

How popular would the NFL be without gambling and fantasy leagues? It would be a niche sport. There would be absolutely no reason for the person in Florida to watch Cleveland playing Buffalo.So true. Most of my co-workers only care about football because of fantasy and 20 years ago my friends and I only cared because of gambling.

[dilanesp]

In the end it doesn't really matter. Blended takeout on horse racing is 20+ percent. Sports betting is sub 5%. Gamblers don't care about the costs to put on the show, nor should they. If horse racing can't get costs under control to the point that it is a viable gambling game, it will lose. That is the death spiral we are in. Rather than try to compete, racing just keeps raising the price. It will never work long term.

The irony is the game would be nearing death already if not for tracks giving big takeout cuts to the biggest bettors. It has paused the death spiral for a while, but it won't last. You can only fool people for so long.

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that all bettors care equally about takeout.

What is the most profitable strategy if some bettors care a lot about takeout and some don't?

Answer that question and it leads inexorably to rebate shops.

[horses4courses]

In the end it doesn't really matter. Blended takeout on horse racing is 20+ percent. Sports betting is sub 5%. Gamblers don't care about the costs to put on the show, nor should they. If horse racing can't get costs under control to the point that it is a viable gambling game, it will lose. That is the death spiral we are in. Rather than try to compete, racing just keeps raising the price. It will never work long term.

The irony is the game would be nearing death already if not for tracks giving big takeout cuts to the biggest bettors. It has paused the death spiral for a while, but it won't last. You can only fool people for so long.


Let me ask you this.

Say, in a perfect world, US horse racing lowered takeout to 5%
across the board. What effect do you think that would have?

I know what I think.
Interested to know your thoughts.

[cj]

Let me ask you this.

Say, in a perfect world, US horse racing lowered takeout to 5%
across the board. What effect do you think that would have?

I know what I think.
Interested to know your thoughts.

I would never expect 5%, but if that happened, obviously I think betting would increase by a lot. You'd essentially be giving everyone about a 15% rebate overnight. Would it be enough to make up for lost revenue? Not initially, for sure. Eventually, probably.

But of course there are always problems with what ifs. Race tracks would have to start taking the bets themselves, no middle men. They'd have to have deals in place with OTBs, each other, the state, and horsemen.

[cj]

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that all bettors care equally about takeout.

What is the most profitable strategy if some bettors care a lot about takeout and some don't?

Answer that question and it leads inexorably to rebate shops.

It really doesn't matter that much if bettors think they care. If they are going through the money too fast, churn stops and handle shrinks. That is exactly what is happening now. The big whales are extracting a lot of money from the pools. I've always said too many winners aren't good for tracks because they take money out of circulation. But tracks have gone and created winners that are doing that very thing, taking a lot of money out of circulation.

[dilanesp]

It really doesn't matter that much if bettors think they care. If they are going through the money too fast, churn stops and handle shrinks. That is exactly what is happening now. The big whales are extracting a lot of money from the pools. I've always said too many winners aren't good for tracks because they take money out of circulation. But tracks have gone and created winners that are doing that very thing, taking a lot of money out of circulation.

Churn only matters for bettors with a fixed bsnkroll who bet a lot.

[cj]

Churn only matters for bettors with a fixed bsnkroll who bet a lot.

I think there are a whole bunch of those people out there.

[ultracapper]

So true. Most of my co-workers only care about football because of fantasy and 20 years ago my friends and I only cared because of gambling.

Tell that to 1.2 million people who 17 Thursdays, Sundays, and Mondays every year fill NFL stadiums to 93% capacity at an average of $53 per ticket. Tell that to the more than 1 in 3 homes in the USA that have an NFL licensed product in their home. That's more homes in this country than have a crucifix. Tell that to all the TV viewers, who since SB VI between Dallas and Miami, the first SB to reach top 5 in the Nielsen ratings for the year, that haven't allowed the SB to go that low since. Tell that to the more than 24,000 people that purchased Russell Wilson jerseys in 2016.......In the state of South Carolina.

Maybe your heads are all gambling and FF, but the NFL is burned into the American psyche like no other entertainment in history. The NFL is nothing short of the most successful marketing venture of post WWII western civilization. It has been an awesome undertaking. Incomparable.

And Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Budweiser, Allstate, and numerous other mega-american advertisers will be more than happy to fill every minute of that Cleveland-Buffalo game in the Miami TV market. Because if that's the only game they have to watch, those well informed advertisers know damn well that's what the people of Miami are gonna be watching.

[onefast99]

We've already seen this with slots. Good luck.
You cannot compare a slot/VLT/Series 7 gaming venue with a SW venue. Those betting sporting events study the game like we handicap a horse race.
Slots and table games have very little preparation once you know how to play that particular game. SW will do very well in NJ once it is legalized. As I have stated in numerous posts it will not be the much needed revenue stream tracks will need to go forward who do not have slot fueled purses, it will be a step in the right direction to slowly get the train back on the track.

[Valuist]

How do you subtract somebody's reputation points, because you should lose like half of them just for this incredible blithering nonsense. The NFL was so popular after the Colts-Giants Championship game of 1959 that a second, competing major league was able to take hold. Then after the Colt-Jet Super Bowl, became so popular that the two leagues merged, and all but took over Monday Night TV in the next decade.

1959? The NFL was such a far distant second to MLB back then, they couldn't even see them. The NFL didn't become the top sport until nearly 20 years after that.

Next point

[Valuist]

Tell that to 1.2 million people who 17 Thursdays, Sundays, and Mondays every year fill NFL stadiums to 93% capacity at an average of $53 per ticket. Tell that to the more than 1 in 3 homes in the USA that have an NFL licensed product in their home. That's more homes in this country than have a crucifix. Tell that to all the TV viewers, who since SB VI between Dallas and Miami, the first SB to reach top 5 in the Nielsen ratings for the year, that haven't allowed the SB to go that low since. Tell that to the more than 24,000 people that purchased Russell Wilson jerseys in 2016.......In the state of South Carolina.

Maybe your heads are all gambling and FF, but the NFL is burned into the American psyche like no other entertainment in history. The NFL is nothing short of the most successful marketing venture of post WWII western civilization. It has been an awesome undertaking. Incomparable.

And Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Budweiser, Allstate, and numerous other mega-american advertisers will be more than happy to fill every minute of that Cleveland-Buffalo game in the Miami TV market. Because if that's the only game they have to watch, those well informed advertisers know damn well that's what the people of Miami are gonna be watching.

Everyone knows the money in football comes from TV ratings, not the seats in the stadium. You are forgetting a very important point: TEAMS ONLY PLAY SIXTEEN REGULAR SEASON GAMES A YEAR!

Maybe you haven't heard, but the NFL TV ratings have been in decline and it didn't start last year. The product is slipping, and people are tuning it out.

[ultracapper]

1) I'd like to publicly apologize to Valuist for such a blunt and unnecessarily rude post. Sorry.

Couple corrections.

1) Average weekly attendance at NFL games (17 weeks of regular season) is 1.02 Million. I stated 1.2 million.

2) Average ticket price is $93 per ticket. I stated $53. (Need to use my glasses when viewing websites on my iPhone).

71% of all Americans consider themselves a fan of professional football.

Source: Statista.com

Edit: I just have to add this. The NFL is way beyond being just the stomping grounds of gamblers and board game players. I know many people like to break stuff into just plain cold dollars and cents, but the NFL generates emotions in some people that matches a religious fervor. The NFL is long beyond the bookies and the office pools. It's a way of life. I see it every day, in technicolor, where I live.

[ultracapper]

1959? The NFL was such a far distant second to MLB back then, they couldn't even see them. The NFL didn't become the top sport until nearly 20 years after that.

Next point

The NFL, in 1959, was actually behind, well behind, MLB, Boxing, and HORSE RACING. You've just made my point. The NFL certainly, at this date, is anything but well behind those 3 sports, or any other sport.

[ultracapper]

Everyone knows the money in football comes from TV ratings, not the seats in the stadium. You are forgetting a very important point: TEAMS ONLY PLAY SIXTEEN REGULAR SEASON GAMES A YEAR!

Maybe you haven't heard, but the NFL TV ratings have been in decline and it didn't start last year. The product is slipping, and people are tuning it out.

And you can bet your life the powers that be in the NFL have made this the number 1 priority moving forward. It would be nice to see horse racing just address this kind of an issue with some thought and effort.

[ronsmac]

Tell that to 1.2 million people who 17 Thursdays, Sundays, and Mondays every year fill NFL stadiums to 93% capacity at an average of $53 per ticket. Tell that to the more than 1 in 3 homes in the USA that have an NFL licensed product in their home. That's more homes in this country than have a crucifix. Tell that to all the TV viewers, who since SB VI between Dallas and Miami, the first SB to reach top 5 in the Nielsen ratings for the year, that haven't allowed the SB to go that low since. Tell that to the more than 24,000 people that purchased Russell Wilson jerseys in 2016.......In the state of South Carolina.

Maybe your heads are all gambling and FF, but the NFL is burned into the American psyche like no other entertainment in history. The NFL is nothing short of the most successful marketing venture of post WWII western civilization. It has been an awesome undertaking. Incomparable.

And Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Budweiser, Allstate, and numerous other mega-american advertisers will be more than happy to fill every minute of that Cleveland-Buffalo game in the Miami TV market. Because if that's the only game they have to watch, those well informed advertisers know damn well that's what the people of Miami are gonna be watching.
I'm only speaking for the 20 or25 people I know who play fantasy. None have season tickets or go to the games but can tell me how many fantasy points some obscure player on the titans had .

[ultracapper]

One thing about fantasy football....no such thing as an obscure player anymore. I belong to a fantasy football info service run by a guy named Joe Bryant. This service has their eyes on every move some WR makes on the Cleveland practice squad in mid-June. I mean nobody is off the radar anymore.

[castaway01]

One thing about fantasy football....no such thing as an obscure player anymore. I belong to a fantasy football info service run by a guy named Joe Bryant. This service has their eyes on every move some WR makes on the Cleveland practice squad in mid-June. I mean nobody is off the radar anymore.

Which is exactly why people watch NFL games that have no meaning other than who is on your fantasy team playing, or if you've got money on the game. Fantasy sports and gambling are a huge boost to the hardcore fanbase and to the now-flagging TV ratings. Take the gambling away and the NFL is nowhere near what it is now.

[ultracapper]

Nobody's arguing that gambling, or any other vested involvement, doesn't have an impact. But the NFL will not, in my or your lifetime, only play a "niche" role in American entertainment.

If all it takes is gambling of some sort, what's horse racing's problem then? The take is way too simplistic, and even those that propose dropping the take dramatically must either be honest and/or get their heads out of the sand and admit that the problems in horse racing go much, much deeper than the take. You can legally gamble on women's pro basketball. Why isn't it as big as the NFL? Where's the fantasy women's basketball leagues? There's nothing holding back anybody anywhere to make women's basketball fantasy leagues every bit as prevalent as fantasy football. Except, FOOTBALL HAS A FAN BASE. If being able to place a bet is the only criteria for a successful sport league, they'd ALL be in our faces every where, every day.

The NFL isn't there because gamblers need something to bet on, gamblers bet on the NFL because they LIKE FOOTBALL.

[cj]

People like betting sports. They like that they know the price ahead of time, and that they can drop 55 bucks on a team and get three hours of entertainment and have basically a coin flip to win. Racing can't really compare to that in its current state.

[ultracapper]

I can't do it right now, but when I get home, I'm going to do a little research on NFL merchandising, something that has very little to do with gambling. But before I even do it, I'm leaning towards the thought that the money spent on NFL merchandise will out strip money bet on numerous different sports. I'm thinking that football fans, who disappear in flocks if not for betting, would rather spend their money on "crap" rather than put a bet on something even as popular as a golf tournament or a NASCAR race, or even something as close to a coin flip as an NHL game. That's my preliminary prediction. I'll see if I'm right.

[Redboard]

I originally I thought the title of this thread was "Effects of betting on horse racing to be examined."

That would be some study. I'm sure the tracks would fund that.

[onefast99]

People like betting sports. They like that they know the price ahead of time, and that they can drop 55 bucks on a team and get three hours of entertainment and have basically a coin flip to win. Racing can't really compare to that in its current state.
So adding SW to the menu at a racetrack or casino wont draw anymore to the venue? That is the main reason Christie fought hard for this along with the horseman's association.


But when gamblers go to casinos to bet on sports, “that’s not all they’ll do,” said Lloyd D. Levenson, a prominent casino-law attorney.

“They have to eat. They’ll drink. They’ll buy some retail. They’ll see a show. They’ll stay in a hotel room.”

The big boon from legal sports betting is “the ancillary benefit, not just the benefit that comes from sports wagering,” he said.

[cj]

So adding SW to the menu at a racetrack or casino wont draw anymore to the venue? That is the main reason Christie fought hard for this along with the horseman's association.


But when gamblers go to casinos to bet on sports, “that’s not all they’ll do,” said Lloyd D. Levenson, a prominent casino-law attorney.

“They have to eat. They’ll drink. They’ll buy some retail. They’ll see a show. They’ll stay in a hotel room.”

The big boon from legal sports betting is “the ancillary benefit, not just the benefit that comes from sports wagering,” he said.


Of course they'll get more to the building. I'm sure they'll sell more food and drink. What it won't do is get them to bet on horse racing. Someday it will just be a sports book unless racing stops trying to sponge off of other activities rather than improving its own product.

[Valuist]

I think the racing die hards are forgetting one important point: when many of us got into horse racing, we were already sports fans. But we didn't want the hassle of betting with bookmakers. If sports betting was legal back then, how many would've turned to racing? I didn't start going to the track for pageantry and to see the horses.

[onefast99]

Of course they'll get more to the building. I'm sure they'll sell more food and drink. What it won't do is get them to bet on horse racing. Someday it will just be a sports book unless racing stops trying to sponge off of other activities rather than improving its own product.If cleaning up the game is what is needed then so be it. The discussion is will SW bring in more patrons to that particular venue and will they bet sports without even considering betting on the horses. I think those who are looking to pass the time while watching a 3 hour baseball game or 3 hour football game will gravitate to the horses from time to time. Those who are just coming in to make a bet on a game will probably get their ticket and leave. It is up to that particular venue to create an environment to keep the bettor at the venue and occupy his/her time. Marketing 101. Those marketing that venue cant use the antiquated marketing ideas of the 70's and 80's. Too many tracks do that and they will need to step it up if SW becomes part of their menu.

[dilanesp]

As a counterpoint to cj, at the old Hollywood Park casino (before it was sold to its current owners), the races were shown on big screen TV's and betrunners came to the tables to pick up your bets and bring back your winnings. And people did bet.

[onefast99]

As a counterpoint to cj, at the old Hollywood Park casino (before it was sold to its current owners), the races were shown on big screen TV's and betrunners came to the tables to pick up your bets and bring back your winnings. And people did bet.At GP they have bet runners who are in the Ten Palms restaurant and owners boxes, for bigger events they are all over the place.

[GMB@BP]

I dont think the biggest impact will neccesarily be taken customers away from racing but how it may open up gambling on horses in markets that its not in yet due to very strict laws about betting on anything.

I know where I live the indian casinos hold the cards, its tough to bet, if it becomes legal you will see american casinos and other forms of online wagering, and I have to assume that trickles down to horse racing. Texas is another state I imagine this would help racing out with.

[1GCFAN]

At my local harness track I don't see that any crossover will occur with Sports. They will aggressively go after these new patrons by setting up a sports betting bar far removed from the simulcast (clubhouse) room. It would be one off from the casino floor and have the amenities the younger crowd would want.

The owners have already discouraged horse betting by:


Planning to tear down the grandstand
Eliminating a separate simulcasting room that had a kitchen
Chopped up the clubhouse (previously only open for live racing) to provide 90 carrels for simulcasting
Moving the entrance to the simulcasting far away from the casino
Eliminated a parking lot where horse players parked and made it a gated preferred casino player lot
Eliminated any fresh prepared food

This summer during live racing that crowd will be forced to interact with the simulcast crowd and will thin out further to justify the downsizing.

[Afleet]

I dont think the biggest impact will neccesarily be taken customers away from racing but how it may open up gambling on horses in markets that its not in yet due to very strict laws about betting on anything.

I know where I live the indian casinos hold the cards, its tough to bet, if it becomes legal you will see american casinos and other forms of online wagering, and I have to assume that trickles down to horse racing. Texas is another state I imagine this would help racing out with.

this is what I think also. I live in a no horse racing state-sucks. ADWs illegal. If sports betting is allowed, horse racing will/should be added also. Have 3-4 casinos, but can't bet the Ky Derby w/o going out of state-makes no sense. I spend a lot of money on hotel rooms!

[dilanesp]

At my local harness track I don't see that any crossover will occur with Sports. They will aggressively go after these new patrons by setting up a sports betting bar far removed from the simulcast (clubhouse) room. It would be one off from the casino floor and have the amenities the younger crowd would want.

The owners have already discouraged horse betting by:


Planning to tear down the grandstand
Eliminating a separate simulcasting room that had a kitchen
Chopped up the clubhouse (previously only open for live racing) to provide 90 carrels for simulcasting
Moving the entrance to the simulcasting far away from the casino
Eliminated a parking lot where horse players parked and made it a gated preferred casino player lot
Eliminated any fresh prepared food

This summer during live racing that crowd will be forced to interact with the simulcast crowd and will thin out further to justify the downsizing.

One thing I noticed in my visit to Aqueduct is how hermetically sealed they made the casino-- which shocked me because the casino was built into the grandstand. It would have been trivially easy to allow casino patrons to access the apron and/or look out and view the races (and to put some betting windows in there), but they didn't do any of that. You have to cross over into the old Aqueduct clubhouse to bet or have any access to the track.

[PaceAdvantage]

One thing I noticed in my visit to Aqueduct is how hermetically sealed they made the casino-- which shocked me because the casino was built into the grandstand. It would have been trivially easy to allow casino patrons to access the apron and/or look out and view the races (and to put some betting windows in there), but they didn't do any of that. You have to cross over into the old Aqueduct clubhouse to bet or have any access to the track.Have you ever known any casino, anywhere, to offer a reason for patrons to leave the casino? :pound:

[jay68802]

Have you ever known any casino, anywhere, to offer a reason for patrons to leave the casino? :pound:

I was on a river boat casino on the Ohio river and when we left that night there was a police car at the exit. He was directing traffic in the opposite direction of where I needed to go. When I asked why he said a tornado had touched down about a 1/4 mile away and had put a lot of trees and a few buildings on the road. We never were told of the tornado warning buy the casino and were gambling away the whole time.

[dilanesp]

Have you ever known any casino, anywhere, to offer a reason for patrons to leave the casino? :pound:

I have been to other racinos. Gulfstream Park and Tampa Bay Downs both make it really easy for casino players to play and watch the races, and Hollywood Park wasn't hermetically sealed. Delta Downs isn't like Aqueduct either.

[onefast99]

I have been to other racinos. Gulfstream Park and Tampa Bay Downs both make it really easy for casino players to play and watch the races, and Hollywood Park wasn't hermetically sealed. Delta Downs isn't like Aqueduct either.You seemed to miss the fact that Genting is permitted to do anything they want. I agree, Aqueduct is sealed off and as you mentioned GP isn't. Parx is sealed off as it is now a separate facility, Penn isn't sealed off and you can go to the casino and come back out to the grandstand and watch the races anytime you want.

[cutchemist42]

I think the racing die hards are forgetting one important point: when many of us got into horse racing, we were already sports fans. But we didn't want the hassle of betting with bookmakers. If sports betting was legal back then, how many would've turned to racing? I didn't start going to the track for pageantry and to see the horses.

I'll just toss in my anecdotal experience as a 31 year old who got into racing back in 2012. I only went cause it was the last sports venue I never went to Winnipeg and people said the prime rib buffet was legit there.

Fell in love watching from the restaurant but did feel overwhelmed at first. ASD had a decent 2 page intro to reading their Equibase form. Stumbling upon this forum helped.

[menifee]

The answer to the question depends on how the laws are written. If the states make a racing or gaming license a condition of obtaining a sportsbook license, then legalized sports gambling will be a boon to racetracks. We’ll see part II of what has happened with the racino experiment. Hopefully, this time they will get it right.

The economic reality is that racing needs subsisdies. You cannot operate a track at a 10 percent takeout. The mistake the states made in part I of the experience was subsidizing supply. RHDF funds were utilized to augment purses benefiting the tracks as they no longer needed to fund a major expense (track purses). As a result in some states you had artificially large purses for 5k claimers with 6 horse fields. This does nothing to attract the bettor. Further, the tracks did not nothing to update the racing facilities, etc.

The smartest way to subsidize racing would be to subsidize demand, not supply. Hopefully, they will get it right this time. There are tremendous agricultural benefits by subsidizing racing, but the Racino experiment has showed you cannot blindly subsidize purses and expect those benefits to be enjoyed by many.

[thaskalos]

"Racetrack officials who believe they have met the enemy have not met the truly dangerous competition at all. Lotteries and casino games will not be life-threatening to horse racing, but sports betting may. Betting on sports is also a positive-expectation game. Skillful players can win. Players can study the sport, collect the information they need, analyze specific situations, and bet on outcomes when they think they have the edge.

Sports bettors are eerily similar to horse bettors. The players form highly practiced opinions, and like to bet on them. If track officials want to know where the authentic competition for the racetrack lurks, it's sports betting. Someday, maybe soon, maybe not so soon, sports betting in America will be legalized. Thoroughbred racing had best be properly prepared."
-- James Quinn (ON TRACK/ OFF TRACK: Playing the Horses in Troubled Times...circa 1996)

[LemonSoupKid]

^ I'm a sports bettor who loves horse racing, but looks at it as another entity that provides me with entertainment during spots or lulls in the year otherwise, precisely due to Quinn's point and what everyone knows (the essentially double vig or more that horses carries over sports).

Do you think the decision which is likely to overturn PASPA will cause a large consolidation effort around the states? It's clear historically, as you and Quinn suggest, that any type of action (up til now just gambling expansion out of Vegas in general) will hurt horses, which then causes a negative feedback loop by tracks with further bad decisions affecting takeout and as a result, handle.

As a big racing day guy, I hope at least the great parts of the sport are maintained, of course. The SCOTUS moment/decision on such an unconstitutional law has finally arrived.

avgolemono

[LemonSoupKid]

The smartest way to subsidize racing would be to subsidize demand, not supply. Hopefully, they will get it right this time. There are tremendous agricultural benefits by subsidizing racing, but the Racino experiment has showed you cannot blindly subsidize purses and expect those benefits to be enjoyed by many.

What is the proper action to "subsidize demand"? You said what the subsidization of supply was, which didn't work.

Monmouth should be a great combination of both. Getting more people to the track can only help. So maybe the compromise has to be that you bet sports LIVE, ie, you only get a license if you have a live requirement, no (internet) betting that makes it, in a sense, too convenient and only really rewarding models that are ADW types. Lots of people won't like that, but it would be interesting, and certainly a boon to tracks.

[thaskalos]

^ I'm a sports bettor who loves horse racing, but looks at it as another entity that provides me with entertainment during spots or lulls in the year otherwise, precisely due to Quinn's point and what everyone knows (the essentially double vig or more that horses carries over sports).

Do you think the decision which is likely to overturn PASPA will cause a large consolidation effort around the states? It's clear historically, as you and Quinn suggest, that any type of action (up til now just gambling expansion out of Vegas in general) will hurt horses, which then causes a negative feedback loop by tracks with further bad decisions affecting takeout and as a result, handle.

As a big racing day guy, I hope at least the great parts of the sport are maintained, of course. The SCOTUS moment/decision on such an unconstitutional law has finally arrived.

avgolemono

Those who think that sports-betting will be confined to the premises of the racetracks have their heads stuck in the sand. Sports-betting is too big of an enterprise to be restricted to being a "partner" of a dying industry like horse racing. Soon after sports-betting is legalized, it will be swept up by the internet world...and it will be offered widely in a myriad forms. The "illegal" sports-betting websites currently offer "live betting", where the bettor can keep betting as the game goes on...and, take my word for it, this provides more betting "action" than any sports-fan can handle. The days where you placed your sports-bet and waited for 3 hours to know if you won or not have been over for a long time.

IMO...sports-betting and horse racing cannot peacefully coexist. And...it doesn't take a genius to realize who the casualty will be.

[menifee]

What is the proper action to "subsidize demand"? You said what the subsidization of supply was, which didn't work.

Monmouth should be a great combination of both. Getting more people to the track can only help. So maybe the compromise has to be that you bet sports LIVE, ie, you only get a license if you have a live requirement, no (internet) betting that makes it, in a sense, too convenient and only really rewarding models that are ADW types. Lots of people won't like that, but it would be interesting, and certainly a boon to tracks.

There are a couple of ways to do it. One would be allow to create rebating programs with RHDF funds for bets on local races. Alternatively, you could allow bettors to deduct local race losses on their state tax returns and fill that budget hole with RHDF funds. Essentially, you are just trying to create churn and handle. You cannot subsidize the track, however. Bad policy.

[LemonSoupKid]

Those who think that sports-betting will be confined to the premises of the racetracks have their heads stuck in the sand. Sports-betting is too big of an enterprise to be restricted to being a "partner" of a dying industry like horse racing. Soon after sports-betting is legalized, it will be swept up by the internet world...and it will be offered widely in a myriad forms. The "illegal" sports-betting websites currently offer "live betting", where the bettor can keep betting as the game goes on...and, take my word for it, this provides more betting "action" than any sports-fan can handle. The days where you placed your sports-bet and waited for 3 hours to know if you won or not have been over for a long time.

IMO...sports-betting and horse racing cannot peacefully coexist. And...it doesn't take a genius to realize who the casualty will be.

I'm sad to say that this is the likely, null hypothesis.

So, prediction time, thaskalos:

If on March 5 a ruling comes down in part for New Jersey, or full for all states who want to pass legislation, what becomes of racing in 5 years? 10?

[LemonSoupKid]

There are a couple of ways to do it. One would be allow to create rebating programs with RHDF funds for bets on local races. Alternatively, you could allow bettors to deduct local race losses on their state tax returns and fill that budget hole with RHDF funds. Essentially, you are just trying to create churn and handle. You cannot subsidize the track, however. Bad policy.

Thanks for the answer. Good stuff, mate. I have to say, I might make my way to a local track even for simulcasting, if they allowed that, if I could write off the state portion. As opposed to going to a more convenient (OTB) location. That's mostly because I'm a large multirace player though. I can't imagine most others would choose that, but hey, there is a lot of strength in numbers, so maybe they vastly outweigh guys like me.

[biggestal99]

What is the proper action to "subsidize demand"? You said what the subsidization of supply was, which didn't work.

Monmouth should be a great combination of both. Getting more people to the track can only help. So maybe the compromise has to be that you bet sports LIVE, ie, you only get a license if you have a live requirement, no (internet) betting that makes it, in a sense, too convenient and only really rewarding models that are ADW types. Lots of people won't like that, but it would be interesting, and certainly a boon to tracks.

In the UK, lots of tracks have sports books inside. lots of people in there, lots of people who pay good money to get inside the track and watch racing. I was at the Newmarket during the July meeting in 2012 and they were showing a cricket match. Racing and sports betting co exist in the UK rather nicely, they also can bet sports at home using bookies or betfair exchange. Yet they show up at the track.

Allan

[dilanesp]

In the UK, lots of tracks have sports books inside. lots of people in there, lots of people who pay good money to get inside the track and watch racing. I was at the Newmarket during the July meeting in 2012 and they were showing a cricket match. Racing and sports betting co exist in the UK rather nicely, they also can bet sports at home using bookies or betfair exchange. Yet they show up at the track.

Allan

Yeah. It's probably better to look at horse racing as a FORM of sports betting. It actually goes along nicely as an option along with other sports. Heck, that's what happens at every race and sports book in Nevada and New Jersey.

The ultimate problem is that there aren't enough Americans interested in horse racing outside of the Triple Crown right now. Get that number up and horse racing will do just fine against other sports. If that number decreases, we are in deep trouble as more sports betting becomes available.

[LemonSoupKid]

There is an outside hope of normal sports bettors or average joes who now can bet sports easily also seeing the horses run and figure, "why not try betting those?".

The problem I see with that, given the Vegas reality of it already existing (and racebooks dominate in screens and square footage), is that learning racing and reading the form is a daunting task = too much activation energy.

I handicap for friends to pass the time before we watch ball games during March Madness in Vegas. They love it because it's exciting, different kind of action, and lucky for them, I'm a good handicapper. But they have no clue about picking winners and I think most think that I'm odd being interested in what they perceive is an "old man's" game.

It does suck being on the west coast for racing though, mostly by early afternoon all that's left is the late Santa Anita card.

[upthecreek]

https://twitter.com/2minutes2post/status/974016073090691073

[JerryBoyle]

"Racetrack officials who believe they have met the enemy have not met the truly dangerous competition at all. Lotteries and casino games will not be life-threatening to horse racing, but sports betting may. Betting on sports is also a positive-expectation game. Skillful players can win. Players can study the sport, collect the information they need, analyze specific situations, and bet on outcomes when they think they have the edge.

Sports bettors are eerily similar to horse bettors. The players form highly practiced opinions, and like to bet on them. If track officials want to know where the authentic competition for the racetrack lurks, it's sports betting. Someday, maybe soon, maybe not so soon, sports betting in America will be legalized. Thoroughbred racing had best be properly prepared."
-- James Quinn (ON TRACK/ OFF TRACK: Playing the Horses in Troubled Times...circa 1996)

If I'm interpreting this correctly, the author is saying that sports betting will hurt racing because it's perceived as a game of skill and so one can obtain + edge? If so, that sounds like a good thing. I'd submit that if you're looking for a form of gambling where one can obtain positive edge AND put down large amounts of money, racing is the way to go.* If the above is what sports gamblers are looking for then horse racing should be in a golden age...

*Note I'm not saying that horse racing is easier to win at necessarily. I'm saying that for the most talented programmers/statisticians/etc, my guess is horse racing is the most profitable avenue. The author of the book "Gambling Wizards" says the same...

[thaskalos]

If I'm interpreting this correctly, the author is saying that sports betting will hurt racing because it's perceived as a game of skill and so one can obtain + edge? If so, that sounds like a good thing. I'd submit that if you're looking for a form of gambling where one can obtain positive edge AND put down large amounts of money, racing is the way to go.* If the above is what sports gamblers are looking for then horse racing should be in a golden age...

*Note I'm not saying that horse racing is easier to win at necessarily. I'm saying that for the most talented programmers/statisticians/etc, my guess is horse racing is the most profitable avenue. The author of the book "Gambling Wizards" says the same...

I can't agree with you on this. Sports-betting allows much larger wagers than horse racing does...simply because the sports-betting wagers are FIXED, and do not adversely affect the bettor who makes them. Sports-betting also allows the bettor to hold down a regular job, and tend to his family obligations, while still seriously engaging in his gambling endeavor...while horse racing is run during the time of day that is considered very inconvenient for the vast majority of its prospective customers who happen to hold down regular jobs. And let's not even bother to address the "integrity factor" involved in these two competing gambling venues.

All in all...I believe that sports-betting offers advantages to the serious bettor that horse racing cannot even BEGIN to approach.

[dilanesp]

I can't agree with you on this. Sports-betting allows much larger wagers than horse racing does...simply because the sports-betting wagers are FIXED, and do not adversely affect the bettor who makes them. Sports-betting also allows the bettor to hold down a regular job, and tend to his family obligations, while still seriously engaging in his gambling endeavor...while horse racing is run during the time of day that is considered very inconvenient for the vast majority of its prospective customers who happen to hold down regular jobs. And let's not even bother to address the "integrity factor" involved in these two competing gambling venues.

All in all...I believe that sports-betting offers advantages to the serious bettor that horse racing cannot even BEGIN to approach.

1. Does sports betting really allow larger wagers? Don't books sometimes refuse your action?

2. Sports are contested on weekdays just like horse racing is.

3. Obviously there are more betting shenanigans in horse racing, but on the other hand there is an aspect of point spreads that is analogous, which is that teams aren't supposed to try to beat the spread and can be punished for caring about it, whereas in horse racing, it is the opposite- participants can be punished for not trying hard on behalf of the people who bet their horses.

[thaskalos]

1. Does sports betting really allow larger wagers? Don't books sometimes refuse your action?

2. Sports are contested on weekdays just like horse racing is.

3. Obviously there are more betting shenanigans in horse racing, but on the other hand there is an aspect of point spreads that is analogous, which is that teams aren't supposed to try to beat the spread and can be punished for caring about it, whereas in horse racing, it is the opposite- participants can be punished for not trying hard on behalf of the people who bet their horses.

1. No self-respecting bookie would ever refuse a customer's wager. If you are a proven winning player, then the bookie may even offer you a "bonus" for betting with him...because then he can use your sound betting knowledge to his own advantage.

2. Yes...sports are contested on the weekdays. But they don't obligate you to immerse yourself in them for at least four hours during the time of day when you need to show up at your job.

3. If we can't even agree that our professional sports are more "honest" than the horse races are...then the two of us really have nothing more to talk about.

[JerryBoyle]

I can't agree with you on this. Sports-betting allows much larger wagers than horse racing does...simply because the sports-betting wagers are FIXED, and do not adversely affect the bettor who makes them. Sports-betting also allows the bettor to hold down a regular job, and tend to his family obligations, while still seriously engaging in his gambling endeavor...while horse racing is run during the time of day that is considered very inconvenient for the vast majority of its prospective customers who happen to hold down regular jobs. And let's not even bother to address the "integrity factor" involved in these two competing gambling venues.

All in all...I believe that sports-betting offers advantages to the serious bettor that horse racing cannot even BEGIN to approach.

I don't think bold should be taken as fact. Fixed odds betting does not guarantee that you can put down more money on an event. I get your point that large wagers in a pari-mutuel system drop the price, but once bookies know you're a sharp you'll have minimums set quickly. From a modeling perspective, I think PM systems allow a bettor to better estimate how much he can put down. It's simply solving for bet size given pool total. With fixed-odds, I need to figure out how many friends I can get to place bets for me. That said, personally, I think exchange betting is the best of both worlds.

Being a sharp sports bettor requires no different time commitment than being a sharp horse player, at least structurally. Maybe one is harder than the other, but the timing of events argument is not valid.

Integrity factor I agree with if you mean race fixing/trainers obfuscating facts/etc. Those are not good, but not so bad that they stop a serious bettor from gaining edge. If you're talking about all the "late odds changes" shenanigans, I disagree.

[dilanesp]

1. No self-respecting bookie would ever refuse a customer's wager. If you are a proven winning player, then the bookie may even offer you a "bonus" for betting with him...because then he can use your sound betting knowledge to his own advantage.

2. Yes...sports are contested on the weekdays. But they don't obligate you to immerse yourself in them for at least four hours during the time of day when you need to show up at your job.

3. If we can't even agree that our professional sports are more "honest" than the horse races are...then the two of us really have nothing more to talk about.

You miss the point on 3.

Yes other sports are more honest. But part of that honesty is a rule that thery are actually not allowed to try to win your bet for you. That isn't dishonesty. But it has the exact same effect on a bettor as dishonesty in horse racing does. In both cases, the competitor is not trying to win your bet.

(EDIT: also, on 1, if the bookie is knowingly welcoming giant amounts of action from a player, it almost certainly does not mean the player is a winner and the bookie is using the information. It means something else. :) )

[thaskalos]

I don't think bold should be taken as fact. Fixed odds betting does not guarantee that you can put down more money on an event. I get your point that large wagers in a pari-mutuel system drop the price, but once bookies know you're a sharp you'll have minimums set quickly. From a modeling perspective, I think PM systems allow a bettor to better estimate how much he can put down. It's simply solving for bet size given pool total. With fixed-odds, I need to figure out how many friends I can get to place bets for me. That said, personally, I think exchange betting is the best of both worlds.

Being a sharp sports bettor requires no different time commitment than being a sharp horse player, at least structurally. Maybe one is harder than the other, but the timing of events argument is not valid.

Integrity factor I agree with if you mean race fixing/trainers obfuscating facts/etc. Those are not good, but not so bad that they stop a serious bettor from gaining edge. If you're talking about all the "late odds changes" shenanigans, I disagree.

The sports bettor, if he chooses, can bet several thousands of dollars on a basketball or baseball game, and tens of thousands of dollars on a football game, without ever resorting to the assistance of any of his friends when placing his bets. If he tries to do that in horse racing...he ends up decimating his own odds. This is the reality of the matter...regardless of whether we accept it or not.

When I made my "convenience" argument...I wasn't talking about the time-commitment involved in handicapping races or sports. I was talking about the additional time-commitment that the horseplayer has to make while the races are being run. Horse-betting being what it is, the horseplayer has to actually be attentive as the races are run, in order to actualize the "edge" that he supposedly holds on the game...because the complexity of the game does not allow him to place all his bets before the races start, so he can then spend the rest of his day however else he chooses. Track biases, late scratches, surprising tote-board action, etc, are all factors that affect the structuring of the wagers that the sharp horseplayer has to make. And the sad truth is that the races are currently being run while the vast majority of the horseplayers are otherwise occupied.

I've been a horseplayer and a sports-bettor for many years...and I find that betting sports is the much more convenient gambling venture.

[thaskalos]

You miss the point on 3.

Yes other sports are more honest. But part of that honesty is a rule that thery are actually not allowed to try to win your bet for you. That isn't dishonesty. But it has the exact same effect on a bettor as dishonesty in horse racing does. In both cases, the competitor is not trying to win your bet.

(EDIT: also, on 1, if the bookie is knowingly welcoming giant amounts of action from a player, it almost certainly does not mean the player is a winner and the bookie is using the information. It means something else. :) )

Tell the truth...where did you ever hear that a sports-bettor had his action refused by a bookie? You seem to be a nice guy, and you know your way around a poker table...but your sports-betting knowledge isn't up to par, IMO. This was revealed when you posted in another thread here that the major sportsbooks in Vegas had raised their takeouts on the NFL playoff games to the -115 and even the -120 level. I responded to you in that thread by pointing out your obvious oversight in this matter...and you never acknowledged your mistake.

Come to Vegas...and I promise you that we will be able to bet whatever amount you want on these games, without any problem at all. :)

[dilanesp]

The sports bettor, if he chooses, can bet several thousands of dollars on a basketball or baseball game, and tens of thousands of dollars on a football game, without ever resorting to the assistance of any of his friends when placing his bets. If he tries to do that in horse racing...he ends up decimating his own odds. This is the reality of the matter...regardless of whether we accept it or not.

When I made my "convenience" argument...I wasn't talking about the time-commitment involved in handicapping races or sports. I was talking about the additional time-commitment that the horseplayer has to make while the races are being run. Horse-betting being what it is, the horseplayer has to actually be attentive as the races are run, in order to actualize the "edge" that he supposedly holds on the game...because the complexity of the game does not allow him to place all his bets before the races start, so he can then spend the rest of his day however else he chooses. Track biases, late scratches, surprising tote-board action, etc, are all factors that affect the structuring of the wagers that the sharp horseplayer has to make. And the sad truth is that the races are currently being run while the vast majority of the horseplayers are otherwise occupied.

I've been a horseplayer and a sports-bettor for many years...and I find that betting sports is the much more convenient gambling venture.

I would think that if any "edge" exists at all in sports betting, it would come from the same close observation of the sport as handicappers must make. For instance, it would be really useful from watching game film to determine that a number 7 seed in the NCAA tournament has a defense that will match up particularly well against the 2 seed in that region. How will you find that out? By doing a ton of homework. Just like horse race bettors have to do.

[dilanesp]

Tell the truth...where did you ever hear that a sports-bettor had his action refused by a bookie? You seem to be a nice guy, and you know your way around a poker table...but your sports-betting knowledge isn't up to par, IMO. This was revealed when you posted in another thread here that the major sportsbooks in Vegas had raised their takeouts on the NFL playoff games to the -115 and even the -120 level. I responded to you in that thread by pointing out your obvious oversight in this matter...and you never acknowledged your mistake.

Come to Vegas...and I promise you that we will be able to bet whatever amount you want on these games, without any problem at all. :)

I don't remember that thread, but I do remember being in the Tropicana sports book before the conference championship games this past January when the book was offering unbalanced lines where the percentage takeout had obviously been increased.

[thaskalos]

I would think that if any "edge" exists at all in sports betting, it would come from the same close observation of the sport as handicappers must make. For instance, it would be really useful from watching game film to determine that a number 7 seed in the NCAA tournament has a defense that will match up particularly well against the 2 seed in that region. How will you find that out? By doing a ton of homework. Just like horse race bettors have to do.

You can tape these games and watch them at your convenience...but the races must be acted upon in "real time". Surely you can ascertain the difference...

[JerryBoyle]

The sports bettor, if he chooses, can bet several thousands of dollars on a basketball or baseball game, and tens of thousands of dollars on a football game, without ever resorting to the assistance of any of his friends when placing his bets. If he tries to do that in horse racing...he ends up decimating his own odds. This is the reality of the matter...regardless of whether we accept it or not.

When I made my "convenience" argument...I wasn't talking about the time-commitment involved in handicapping races or sports. I was talking about the additional time-commitment that the horseplayer has to make while the races are being run. Horse-betting being what it is, the horseplayer has to actually be attentive as the races are run, in order to actualize the "edge" that he supposedly holds on the game...because the complexity of the game does not allow him to place all his bets before the races start, so he can then spend the rest of his day however else he chooses. Track biases, late scratches, surprising tote-board action, etc, are all factors that affect the structuring of the wagers that the sharp horseplayer has to make. And the sad truth is that the races are currently being run while the vast majority of the horseplayers are otherwise occupied.

I've been a horseplayer and a sports-bettor for many years...and I find that betting sports is the much more convenient gambling venture.

I can get down thousands of dollars on a horse race and maintain edge assuming I'm betting all pools. And there are many more races than there are football games or hockey games or whatever sport you prefer other than maybe baseball?. I'd wager $5 that one running a betting operation can get down more money in a year on horse racing than he can on any other sport in the USA. Admittedly, I've never bet on sports, but I feel confident about this from what I've read from professional sports bettors.

The start of the discussion was about savvy bettors who are searching for edge. Presumably, you have to actively try at that, so is a convenience argument relevant? I agree that there is more data changing and available to analyze prior to the start of a horse race than any other sport, but I think most of it can be automated. Certainly things such as late scratches, jockey changes, etc. I currently run a system which accounts for all of that and is entirely automated. The one thing you mention that I don't account for is prior performances on that day's card (from which we could obtain track bias). But I could if I wanted to scrap the results. I also don't use any visual clues some use such as paddock behavior or whether the horse took a massive shite.

[dilanesp]

You can tape these games and watch them at your convenience...but the races must be acted upon in "real time". Surely you can ascertain the difference...

The only thing real time in racing is (1) the odds and (2) sight handicapping.

(2) has an analogue in sports, which is watchng pregame workouts, field conditions, wind, etc. Nobody does it, but there is definitely information contained therein. Lots of bettors don't watch post parades either.

As for (1), you can easily hold a day job and then take a couple of minutes break right before a race you are interested in and check the odds on an ADW site.

[thaskalos]

I don't remember that thread, but I do remember being in the Tropicana sports book before the conference championship games this past January when the book was offering unbalanced lines where the percentage takeout had obviously been increased.

The takeout was increased on one team...but DECREASED on the other. When one side features a -115 takeout...the OTHER side's takeout is reduced to -105. This is a strategy that the bookie sometimes employs when he tries to swing action to a particular side without moving the line off of a "key number". This is a far cry from declaring that "the takeout has obviously increased"...because the totality of the wager is still offered at -110.

[JerryBoyle]

Tell the truth...where did you ever hear that a sports-bettor had his action refused by a bookie? You seem to be a nice guy, and you know your way around a poker table...but your sports-betting knowledge isn't up to par, IMO. This was revealed when you posted in another thread here that the major sportsbooks in Vegas had raised their takeouts on the NFL playoff games to the -115 and even the -120 level. I responded to you in that thread by pointing out your obvious oversight in this matter...and you never acknowledged your mistake.

Come to Vegas...and I promise you that we will be able to bet whatever amount you want on these games, without any problem at all. :)

Here's a video of Bob Voulgaris repeatedly bashing an exec from Cantor Gaming because they are disingenuous about the action they'll let sharp bettors get down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeQ71jF1Qzc And I believe Bob mentions that Cantor is better than most other sports books. Also, I vaguely recall another interview he mentions that part of the value he provided in his operation was knowing how to get $$ down

[ultracapper]

You can get a bet down on a Sunday game that you feel real strong about on Thursday and forget about it. You can be sure the line may move, but if it's one of those games that you're totally set on, the 2 or 3 points it could move either way probably isn't going to deter you. You gotta keep your eye on any news coming out of practice, and maybe the weather forecast, but there are many football games you can get down in advance and let it go. If you have a horse you really like Sunday afternoon, I would strongly suggest putting the time aside starting an hour or so before post, and keep your eye on a little bit of everything until the race goes off.

[dilanesp]

The takeout was increased on one team...but DECREASED on the other. When one side features a -115 takeout...the OTHER side's takeout is reduced to -105. This is a strategy that the bookie sometimes employs when he tries to swing action to a particular side without moving the line off of a "key number". This is a far cry from declaring that "the takeout has obviously increased"...because the totality of the wager is still offered at -110.

1. The line was 120-105, as I recall. That is more than the usual 4.5 percent even assuming equivalent action.

2. This works in combination with expected value analysis that is too deep for this thread. But essentially, a good book can increase its takeout substantially by (1) adjusting the money line on point spread bets while (2) having an accurate predictive model about betting action. As a result, sports books are now making far more than 4.5 percent on point spread bets. They have increased their takeout.

[thaskalos]

1. The line was 120-105, as I recall. That is more than the usual 4.5 percent even assuming equivalent action.

2. This works in combination with expected value analysis that is too deep for this thread. But essentially, a good book can increase its takeout substantially by (1) adjusting the money line on point spread bets while (2) having an accurate predictive model about betting action. As a result, sports books are now making far more than 4.5 percent on point spread bets. They have increased their takeout.

You are wrong again. The line was -120/-100.

[dilanesp]

You are wrong again. The line was -120/-100.

At the Tropicana it was 120-105. I know this because I had a fairly long conversation with a sports book employee about it.

[thaskalos]

At the Tropicana it was 120-105. I know this because I had a fairly long conversation with a sports book employee about it.

And what did the Tropicana sportsbook employee say?

[dilanesp]

You can get a bet down on a Sunday game that you feel real strong about on Thursday and forget about it. You can be sure the line may move, but if it's one of those games that you're totally set on, the 2 or 3 points it could move either way probably isn't going to deter you. You gotta keep your eye on any news coming out of practice, and maybe the weather forecast, but there are many football games you can get down in advance and let it go. If you have a horse you really like Sunday afternoon, I would strongly suggest putting the time aside starting an hour or so before post, and keep your eye on a little bit of everything until the race goes off.

Someone who bets a game on Thursday and forgets about it is highly unlikely to be a winning player.

[dilanesp]

And what did the Tropicana sportbook employee say?

Essentially, that Las Vegas sports books are in the midst of huge changes in their business model, that those changes are reflective of the fact that certain types of bets attract a ton of "dumb money", and that the traditional 11-10 sports bet is going to become as rare as the 3 to 2 blackjack table with respect to the biggest football games.

[upthecreek]

https://twitter.com/HR_Nation/status/974358821329162245

[dilanesp]

Here's some math on what is going on with sports betting and takeout, in case anyone is interested in it.

The traditional model of a sports book is as follows. You set a point spread at a point where you get about half the action on each side. If you do that consistently, the book never loses. It is basically just like pari-mutuel betting-- the winnings get paid out of the total amount bet, and the sports book keeps a takeout of about 4 1/2 percent, calculated as follows:

Losing bets X number at 110-100 = 110X.
Winning bets X number paid out at 100-100 = 100X
Takeout = (1/11) / 2 = approximately 4 1/2 percent

The books are doing three things now to increase that takeout:
1. Setting lines with money spreads other than 110-110.
2. Setting lines with unbalanced money spreads.
3. Using computer simulations to increase takeout on bets that attract "dumb" money.

Let's go through these in turn.

Thask starts out by talking about 120-100 lines. A 120-100 line sounds like the same as a 110-110 line. But it isn't. It has a higher takeout.

The takeout on a 120-100 line is the average of the take on the 120 side and the take on the 100 side. The 120 side's takeout is 20/120, or .167. The 100 side's takeout is 0. So if equivalent amounts are bet on both sides, the sports book is getting over 8 percent of the total money back in takeout rather than 4 1/2 percent. The book has almost doubled its profit margin while making it look like it did nothing other than adjusted the odds.

Now, if the book can set the odds at 120-105, as the Trop did, they are printing money. Because now it is getting 16 percent of the money bet on the 120 side, plus 4.5 percent of the money bet on the 105 side. A takeout of more than 10 percent!

It's the exact same logic that gets you to 6 to 5 blackjack. Casual players don't care, they just want to bet the game. So you can attract plenty of money with higher takeouts.

But all that assumes the sports book is taking equal action on both sides. But what if the sports book isn't doing that. What if the sports book could find a way to get the "dumber" money to overbet? Well, it turns out there's a way you can do that. With a computer, you can set up models for setting spreads so that more money is bet on the side with the higher takeout. In other words, you can set the point spread so that the 120 side will look like a more attractive bet, and the bettors, taking 4 points instead of 3, will bet more money at 120-100 than is bet at 100-100. If the sports book can set the line where it gets 55 percent of the money at 120 and only 45 percent at 100, it can achieve a 9 percent takeout rather than an 8 percent takeout.

This is exactly what they are doing. And as a result, they are taking a lot more money out of the hands of football bettors than they used to. And while this is happening, an experienced gambler like thask isn't even aware that it is happening. Nor are most bettors, I would imagine.

[thaskalos]

Here's some math on what is going on with sports betting and takeout, in case anyone is interested in it.

The traditional model of a sports book is as follows. You set a point spread at a point where you get about half the action on each side. If you do that consistently, the book never loses. It is basically just like pari-mutuel betting-- the winnings get paid out of the total amount bet, and the sports book keeps a takeout of about 4 1/2 percent, calculated as follows:

Losing bets X number at 110-100 = 110X.
Winning bets X number paid out at 100-100 = 100X
Takeout = (1/11) / 2 = approximately 4 1/2 percent

The books are doing three things now to increase that takeout:
1. Setting lines with money spreads other than 110-110.
2. Setting lines with unbalanced money spreads.
3. Using computer simulations to increase takeout on bets that attract "dumb" money.

Let's go through these in turn.

Thask starts out by talking about 120-100 lines. A 120-100 line sounds like the same as a 110-110 line. But it isn't. It has a higher takeout.

The takeout on a 120-100 line is the average of the take on the 120 side and the take on the 100 side. The 120 side's takeout is 20/120, or .167. The 100 side's takeout is 0. So if equivalent amounts are bet on both sides, the sports book is getting over 8 percent of the total money back in takeout rather than 4 1/2 percent. The book has almost doubled its profit margin while making it look like it did nothing other than adjusted the odds.

Now, if the book can set the odds at 120-105, as the Trop did, they are printing money. Because now it is getting 16 percent of the money bet on the 120 side, plus 4.5 percent of the money bet on the 105 side. A takeout of more than 10 percent!

It's the exact same logic that gets you to 6 to 5 blackjack. Casual players don't care, they just want to bet the game. So you can attract plenty of money with higher takeouts.

But all that assumes the sports book is taking equal action on both sides. But what if the sports book isn't doing that. What if the sports book could find a way to get the "dumber" money to overbet? Well, it turns out there's a way you can do that. With a computer, you can set up models for setting spreads so that more money is bet on the side with the higher takeout. In other words, you can set the point spread so that the 120 side will look like a more attractive bet, and the bettors, taking 4 points instead of 3, will bet more money at 120-100 than is bet at 100-100. If the sports book can set the line where it gets 55 percent of the money at 120 and only 45 percent at 100, it can achieve a 9 percent takeout rather than an 8 percent takeout.

This is exactly what they are doing. And as a result, they are taking a lot more money out of the hands of football bettors than they used to. And while this is happening, an experienced gambler like thask isn't even aware that it is happening. Nor are most bettors, I would imagine.

Why should I care that the sportsbook may have figured out a way to get the "dumber" money to overbet? Does that affect ME in any way? How could the sportsbook's "computer models" persuade ME to take the side that they want me to take...can you tell me THAT?

[Parkview_Pirate]

Essentially, that Las Vegas sports books are in the midst of huge changes in their business model, that those changes are reflective of the fact that certain types of bets attract a ton of "dumb money", and that the traditional 11-10 sports bet is going to become as rare as the 3 to 2 blackjack table with respect to the biggest football games.

If true, then won't all the sportsbooks have to do this in tandem, to avoid being priced out? It wasn't that long ago a serious sports bettor would rely on a team of runners to place bets around town to get the best prices on games. If a book offers -120 and -105 on a game, I'd certainly be looking elsewhere to place my bet.

This thread is a reminder of how much trouble the gambling industry is in, which IMHO is a reflection of the economy. 30 years ago, over 40,000 foals were born each year - now it's estimated to be less than 20,000 and a 53 year low for 2018.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/foal-crop-may-hit-53-year-low-in-2018/

The decline of horse racing shows no signs of slowing down. Other than occasional temporary pop in handle, the numbers continue to slide, and it's no surprise to see it happen in other forms of gambling and sports as well.

A 15% takeout on a pick 5 is not going to save the industry.

As the boomers retire and retire and start counting their pennies, their gambling handle is not going to be replaced by millenials living in their parent's basement. Sports and online gambling may provide some relief for the early adopting states, assuming the Supreme Court allows expansion, but the long-term trend is still down. I would be shocked if the sports operators repeated the mistakes of the casinos, and piggy-backed again via the racetracks.

In North America, the intermediation (fingers in the pie) has been worse than many venues overseas, and I don't see any signs of states, the Feds, the horsemen or the track owners in providing the players (or owners) any breaks. The death spiral is well underway, and the parasites are killing the host. Speculating about a 5% takeout is a nice distraction, but will not happen any time soon. 30 years from now will the crop be 10,000 and takeout averaging 30%?

There's an irony about the HBPA "funding" a study about the effects of horse racing - it's another finger in the pie. The money spent ultimately came from the players and owners, and I for one am highly skeptical that the ROI on it will be positive.

[LemonSoupKid]

First, there has never been a sports line set at -120/-105.

Second, no one (bookmaker) ever gets 50/50 action on sides. One of the proofs of this is that they change the above money lines precisely because they don't. All that said, they don't mind not getting 50/50, because in aggregate they are taking what they believe to long term winning "risks" with the margin of error being their 10% vig, which any bettor will tell you is not a nominal thing in terms of success.

Not only is the vig higher, but the fact that you can't lock prices and know what your ROI is (if you make models or handicap however), or know your expected return or beat people to numbers, all mean that horse racing can't sniff sports. Horses loses in all of those aspects. The lone exception is horizontal wagers; the only problem there being that you have pretty much no idea what others are doing. You do have some idea of what other bettors are doing in moving pool prices in horses or lines in games.

Most, if not all of what I say above, agrees with Thaskalos' sentiments.

[Hambletonian]

Sports betting is a better deal than horse racing, and if horse players start betting on sports, handle will go way down. Sports bets tie up funds for hours, which will kill churn.

From my experience, you go to the track once or twice a year you will get killed. You can go to Las Vegas every year and bet sports, and if you understand money management and managing risk you can stay alive. There are far more factors to consider in horse racing, and beating a 5% take is a lot easier than 20% or so.

Think of it this way, you go to Las Vegas for a weekend, bet 10k on horses, you will lose on average 2k or so. Same amount of action on sports, you would lose 500. Sports betting is also more attractive to the young.

Don't see sports betting helping horse racing in any way shape or form.

[AndyC]

Here's some math on what is going on with sports betting and takeout, in case anyone is interested in it.

Let's go through these in turn.

Thask starts out by talking about 120-100 lines. A 120-100 line sounds like the same as a 110-110 line. But it isn't. It has a higher takeout.

The takeout on a 120-100 line is the average of the take on the 120 side and the take on the 100 side. The 120 side's takeout is 20/120, or .167. The 100 side's takeout is 0. So if equivalent amounts are bet on both sides, the sports book is getting over 8 percent of the total money back in takeout rather than 4 1/2 percent. The book has almost doubled its profit margin while making it look like it did nothing other than adjusted the odds...........

You would have a good argument if your math was correct. On a 120-100 line with equal action on both sides and where in the long run each side wins 50% of the time there is absolutely no difference in how much the book would win.

[dilanesp]

You would have a good argument if your math was correct. On a 120-100 line with equal action on both sides and where in the long run each side wins 50% of the time there is absolutely no difference in how much the book would win.

My math is correct. The percentage takeout is higher. 120-100 is not the same as 110-110, any more than 440-420 is the same as 110-110.

[dilanesp]

More generally, i think there's a gigantic amount of delusional thinking associated with sports betting. Yes, takeouts are still lower than horse racing. But you guys really have no idea all the changes that are going on to increase sports books' margins, and also have no idea the variance, amount of information necessary(daily fantasy sports are an indicator of this), and difficulty of long term profit.

Sports betting is a huge money pit for a lot of otherwise sensible players.

[thaskalos]

More generally, i think there's a gigantic amount of delusional thinking associated with sports betting. Yes, takeouts are still lower than horse racing. But you guys really have no idea all the changes that are going on to increase sports books' margins, and also have no idea the variance, amount of information necessary(daily fantasy sports are an indicator of this), and difficulty of long term profit.

Sports betting is a huge money pit for a lot of otherwise sensible players.

Gee...and I thought you were just the resident "poker expert" here. But here you are taking us to school on sports betting too. What's next...HORSE RACING? :ThmbUp:

[AndyC]

My math is correct. The percentage takeout is higher. 120-100 is not the same as 110-110, any more than 440-420 is the same as 110-110.

OK we will keep this simple. Team A plays Team B twice. In both games the line is -120 A and -100 B. The first game is won by A and the second game is won by B. There are only 2 bettors making a bet on each game and they are both trying to win $100 each game. Bettor 1 bets $120 on team A and bettor 2 bets $100 on team B. So the book takes in $220 on each game and a total of $440 for the 2 games. When A wins the first game the book pays bettor 1 a total of $220 and when B wins the second game the book pays bettor 2 a total of $200. So the book after 2 games has taken in $440 in bets and paid out $420 to the winners resulting in a net win of $20.

If the games were at -110 A and -110 B the book would be taking in $220 of bets on each game and paying out $210 each game. For the 2 games the book would take in $440 of bets and payout $420 to the winners, again netting $20.

[Poindexter]

My math is correct. The percentage takeout is higher. 120-100 is not the same as 110-110, any more than 440-420 is the same as 110-110.

In traditional sports betting(110/100 on each side) 220 is collected(110 on each side) $10 is profit, $210 is paid out. So as stated takeout is 10/220 or about 4.55%

Using the 120/100 model 220 is risked on one side 200 is risked on the other side. So assuming a 50/50 proposition(over the long run the -120 side would win about 51% of the time the -100 side would win about 49% of the time but for the sake of ease we will go with 50/50) and once again 220 is risked $10 is profit(assuming equal amounts were bet on each team 1/2 the time the -120 side wins in which the profit is $20, half the time the -100 side wins in which the profit is $0, so on average the profit remains $10 the amount bet is still $220 and the takeout still remains about 4.55%.

I am hardly a bookmaker and honestly don't follow sports betting that much anymore. I bet the NBA for recreation and that is about it. But it is my opinion the reason that bookmakers move a game to -115 or -120 rather than than going straight from -4 to -4.5 is to lessen their exposure to middles. If they screw up a opening line open the Pats at -4 and let the public ride it up to -6, if the Pats win by 4 or 5 or 6, often get screwed on the outcome(those who bet the Pats at -4 win or push those who bet the other team at +6 either win or push. At least by raising the lines to -115 and -120 they are getting those Pats players to lay extra juice on these games and this practice probably eliminates a lot of players from attempting to middle (middles are hard enough to hit at -110, but if you are having to lay -115 or -120 your chances of making money long run go down dramatically). In other words I think this is more a way of balancing books by reducing exposure rather than any attempt at suckering players into the wrong side (if they knew the right side they can print money just like a sharp bettor can). Also, most sports bettors have been paying -110 for their entire life, to suddenly subject them to -115 or -120 is bad pr.

The one thing that I assume might go on with sports betting is profiling of players. Assuming that sports betting is eventually going to be available on line, I am sure these computer analytics will be tracking every play you make will probably know the players tendencies better than the player does and will likely charge them excessive juice on the plays they are more likely going to make. So if the computer has me tracked as say a value player, it may offer me -115 on the value side and -105 on the other side, if it has me pegged as a sharp, it will offer me -115 on the sharp side and -105 on the other side if it has me pegged as a local/favorite team player (tend to bet my hometown teams or certain teams) they will once again probably try to take advantage of this. How well this will go in the the internet/social media era I do not know. Something tells me if a player is consistently paying -115 on his favorite team the book will lose that player to another book that doesn't profile.

ps. Andy C addressed the takeout issue in prior post.

[AndyC]

....The one thing that I assume might go on with sports betting is profiling of players. Assuming that sports betting is eventually going to be available on line, I am sure these computer analytics will be tracking every play you make will probably know the players tendencies better than the player does and will likely charge them excessive juice on the plays they are more likely going to make. So if the computer has me tracked as say a value player, it may offer me -115 on the value side and -105 on the other side, if it has me pegged as a sharp, it will offer me -115 on the sharp side and -105 on the other side if it has me pegged as a local/favorite team player (tend to bet my hometown teams or certain teams) they will once again probably try to take advantage of this. How well this will go in the the internet/social media era I do not know. Something tells me if a player is consistently paying -115 on his favorite team the book will lose that player to another book that doesn't profile.

Profiling on a macro level might be done to set the initial lines but money will dictate the line movements from there. We are quickly approaching full legalized sports betting where bettors will be able to choose whatever line is best for them. Just like the customers who pay $.40 a gallon more for gas across the street from the station selling at $.40 less, there will be some bettors who will pay up because they don't care or don't know. Right now there is still a little bit of the book controls the customers but that will change to the customers control the book. That's the beauty of open markets, something horse racing doesn't have.

[LemonSoupKid]

I am most interested in seeing who does it and where/why, due to convenience is it worth it for tracking purposes? That's the sell at the OTB or at the track live if you can stay below reporting. The corollary is betting with a local. No tax, no tracking, all cash. You would assume they'll retain the most competitive prices as well. This will be very interesting ...

[Parkview_Pirate]

More generally, i think there's a gigantic amount of delusional thinking associated with sports betting. Yes, takeouts are still lower than horse racing. But you guys really have no idea all the changes that are going on to increase sports books' margins, and also have no idea the variance, amount of information necessary(daily fantasy sports are an indicator of this), and difficulty of long term profit.

Sports betting is a huge money pit for a lot of otherwise sensible players.

Many of us go through life in a state of delusion, but that's irrelevant for those who maintain accurate records. When it comes to sports betting, I would venture to say that it's tougher than it was 30 years ago, in part due to the amount of information that's more readily available. The lines are sharper, and line movements not nearly as telling (IMHO) as they once were. In spite of that, I can count the number of winning horseplayers I've ever met on one hand, while even today I continue to run into new acquaintances, often younger, who crush the man in sports.

What you seem to be hinting at though is something else, and it's unclear to me what "changes" are taking place. Are the sports books sharing pools now? Do they have the inside scoop on drugged up or injured players and fixed games, offering sucker juicy lines on the wrong side? Perhaps a shady timekeeper with a slow hand providing an edge to the over? I can see one edge of analyzing the wagers made, and fading the losers. But that's easy enough to do from the player's side.

How does not using numerous accounts/books reduce any additional risk if we're just talking juice?

As for variance, some of us are well aware of the statistics involved. I also know that I'd never have a sample size large enough to bet on a game for another 400 or 500 years of results in the database, so I've decided to gamble on my gut instinct. I can live with being "lucky" with a positive balance, and still sleep at night.

And out of curiosity, what game are these "sensible" players displaying their sensibility? Poker? The stock market? Bonds?

[cutchemist42]

First, there has never been a sports line set at -120/-105.

Second, no one (bookmaker) ever gets 50/50 action on sides. One of the proofs of this is that they change the above money lines precisely because they don't. All that said, they don't mind not getting 50/50, because in aggregate they are taking what they believe to long term winning "risks" with the margin of error being their 10% vig, which any bettor will tell you is not a nominal thing in terms of success.

Not only is the vig higher, but the fact that you can't lock prices and know what your ROI is (if you make models or handicap however), or know your expected return or beat people to numbers, all mean that horse racing can't sniff sports. Horses loses in all of those aspects. The lone exception is horizontal wagers; the only problem there being that you have pretty much no idea what others are doing. You do have some idea of what other bettors are doing in moving pool prices in horses or lines in games.

Most, if not all of what I say above, agrees with Thaskalos' sentiments.

Im about to get back access to Betfair as a Canadian, and I cant wait to get back to fixed odds.

i dont see how people stood for parimutuel for so long. Its just too random. you need to know the price.

[JerryBoyle]

First, there has never been a sports line set at -120/-105.

Second, no one (bookmaker) ever gets 50/50 action on sides. One of the proofs of this is that they change the above money lines precisely because they don't. All that said, they don't mind not getting 50/50, because in aggregate they are taking what they believe to long term winning "risks" with the margin of error being their 10% vig, which any bettor will tell you is not a nominal thing in terms of success.

Not only is the vig higher, but the fact that you can't lock prices and know what your ROI is (if you make models or handicap however), or know your expected return or beat people to numbers, all mean that horse racing can't sniff sports. Horses loses in all of those aspects. The lone exception is horizontal wagers; the only problem there being that you have pretty much no idea what others are doing. You do have some idea of what other bettors are doing in moving pool prices in horses or lines in games.

Most, if not all of what I say above, agrees with Thaskalos' sentiments.

Could some of these be considered advantages for those who are good at modeling? That is, if I can predict the expected payout of a runner or a combination better than my competitors, am I in a better situation than if we both know the payout ahead of time?

[PaceAdvantage]

Im about to get back access to Betfair as a Canadian, and I cant wait to get back to fixed odds.

i dont see how people stood for parimutuel for so long. Its just too random. you need to know the price.If you are watching a race live, you pretty much know what price you're going to be getting as the clock goes from 1mtp to 0mtp and beyond...not exactly of course, but you pretty much know where it's heading from there...and if you don't, you haven't been watching races for very long.

[cj]

Supreme Court doesn't appear to be in any hurry on deciding.

https://twitter.com/WALLACHLEGAL/status/976459752115965952

[dilanesp]

Many of us go through life in a state of delusion, but that's irrelevant for those who maintain accurate records. When it comes to sports betting, I would venture to say that it's tougher than it was 30 years ago, in part due to the amount of information that's more readily available. The lines are sharper, and line movements not nearly as telling (IMHO) as they once were. In spite of that, I can count the number of winning horseplayers I've ever met on one hand, while even today I continue to run into new acquaintances, often younger, who crush the man in sports.

What you seem to be hinting at though is something else, and it's unclear to me what "changes" are taking place. Are the sports books sharing pools now? Do they have the inside scoop on drugged up or injured players and fixed games, offering sucker juicy lines on the wrong side? Perhaps a shady timekeeper with a slow hand providing an edge to the over? I can see one edge of analyzing the wagers made, and fading the losers. But that's easy enough to do from the player's side.

How does not using numerous accounts/books reduce any additional risk if we're just talking juice?

As for variance, some of us are well aware of the statistics involved. I also know that I'd never have a sample size large enough to bet on a game for another 400 or 500 years of results in the database, so I've decided to gamble on my gut instinct. I can live with being "lucky" with a positive balance, and still sleep at night.

And out of curiosity, what game are these "sensible" players displaying their sensibility? Poker? The stock market? Bonds?

You actually are getting at the major sources of the delusion. I am glad you realize the things that 99 percent of my sports betting friends do not.

No, sports books are not generally trading on inside information. But they are no longer fully balancing the action in the events that draw the biggest hamdle. Using computer modeling, they can position themselves to make some more money.

[dilanesp]

Could some of these be considered advantages for those who are good at modeling? That is, if I can predict the expected payout of a runner or a combination better than my competitors, am I in a better situation than if we both know the payout ahead of time?

Yep.

Fixed odds take away a form of information asymmetry. Whether that helps a player depends on which side of the asymmetry they are on.

[dilanesp]

Gee...and I thought you were just the resident "poker expert" here. But here you are taking us to school on sports betting too. What's next...HORSE RACING? :ThmbUp:

Part of my knowledge of sports betting is of the negative kind-I know several winning poker players who are addicted to it and spout the worse sorts of fallacies when discussing it.

[lamboguy]

just yesterday i watched a race at Will Rodgers. the horse left the gate at 1/9, about $2500 came off the horse, the horse finished the race at 3/5 and crossed the wire first. i said to myself they got these after the bell players, but wait a second, the horse came down and got placed second. i am scratching my head because i really didn't see anything that would bring the horse down, and these guys must have seen it.

[dilanesp]

OK we will keep this simple. Team A plays Team B twice. In both games the line is -120 A and -100 B. The first game is won by A and the second game is won by B. There are only 2 bettors making a bet on each game and they are both trying to win $100 each game. Bettor 1 bets $120 on team A and bettor 2 bets $100 on team B. So the book takes in $220 on each game and a total of $440 for the 2 games. When A wins the first game the book pays bettor 1 a total of $220 and when B wins the second game the book pays bettor 2 a total of $200. So the book after 2 games has taken in $440 in bets and paid out $420 to the winners resulting in a net win of $20.

If the games were at -110 A and -110 B the book would be taking in $220 of bets on each game and paying out $210 each game. For the 2 games the book would take in $440 of bets and payout $420 to the winners, again netting $20.

Netting $20 off how much bet?

When the numbers change, the total amount bet changed too. A $440 bet is not the same as a $110 bet.

That would be like a racetrack counting $10 on a 5 to 1 shot as the same amount of handle as $50 on an even money shot. And calculating the takeout percentage on that.

[cj]

Netting $20 off how much bet?

When the numbers change, the total amount bet changed too. A $440 bet is not the same as a $110 bet.

That would be like a racetrack counting $10 on a 5 to 1 shot as the same amount of handle as $50 on an even money shot. And calculating the takeout percentage on that.

He was only using 440 to show all four combinations, two people betting both scenarios. If lines were 110, each four bets would still add up to 440.

110 X 4

120 X 2 + 100 X 2

[AndyC]

Netting $20 off how much bet?

When the numbers change, the total amount bet changed too. A $440 bet is not the same as a $110 bet.

That would be like a racetrack counting $10 on a 5 to 1 shot as the same amount of handle as $50 on an even money shot. And calculating the takeout percentage on that.

I am all eyes. Give an example of how your scenario works in real life with real numbers.

[Jeff P]

just yesterday i watched a race at Will Rodgers. the horse left the gate at 1/9, about $2500 came off the horse, the horse finished the race at 3/5 and crossed the wire first. i said to myself they got these after the bell players, but wait a second, the horse came down and got placed second. i am scratching my head because i really didn't see anything that would bring the horse down, and these guys must have seen it.

This same pattern (not the horse coming down part but the money coming off a 1/9 or 1/5 shot so that it ends up at 3/5 or 4/5 part) has been repeated hundreds of times over the past 4 or 5 years - mostly at tracks with smallish pools. Maybe it's been going on at tracks with large pools too - but harder to spot when the pools are bigger.

I suspect the player or group who made the initial bets that put the horse at 1/9 going to the gate were employing a strategy that goes something like this:

Bet so much on the horse that it becomes patently unattractive to players like you and I from a risk vs. reward standpoint. The idea being to persuade players like you and I to not bet their horse - and maybe take a small stab on one of the other horses.

Cancel (a big part) of their bets right before the race off or shortly after if betting where a cancel delay is offered.

If I can make an educated guess: They have a pretty good idea what final pool size will be after they cancel. They have a pretty good idea what final odds will be after they cancel. They have a pretty good idea what their edge will be given final pool size and final odds after they cancel.

If the type of strategy described above enables them to accomplish most of that:

From a Kelly perspective, I suspect they have a pretty good idea how much better off they are in terms of maximizing their edge vs. using a "normal betting strategy" where players like you and I are more likely to bet money on their horse.

All of that said, I think the incident you described yesterday Tues 03-20-2018 at WRD involved the #4 horse in R6... which according to the chart took place inside the eighth pole.

If they are now canceling after seeing an incident that occurs in mid stretch likely to make their number come down:

THAT'S a huge can of worms -- one I haven't seen before!


-jp

.

[cj]

This same pattern (not the horse coming down part but the money coming off a 1/9 or 1/5 shot so that it ends up at 3/5 or 4/5 part) has been repeated hundreds of times over the past 4 or 5 years - mostly at tracks with smallish pools. Maybe it's been going on at tracks with large pools too - but harder to spot when the pools are bigger.

I suspect the player or group who made the initial bets that put the horse at 1/9 going to the gate were employing a strategy that goes something like this:

Bet so much on the horse that it becomes patently unattractive to players like you and I from a risk vs. reward standpoint. The idea being to persuade players like you and I to not bet their horse - and maybe take a small stab on one of the other horses.

Cancel (a big part) of their bets right before the race off or shortly after if betting where a cancel delay is offered.

If I can make an educated guess: They have a pretty good idea what final pool size will be after they cancel. They have a pretty good idea what final odds will be after they cancel. They have a pretty good idea what their edge will be given final pool size and final odds after they cancel.

If the type of strategy described above enables them to accomplish most of that:

From a Kelly perspective, I suspect they have a pretty good idea how much better off they are in terms of maximizing their edge vs. using a "normal betting strategy" where players like you and I are more likely to bet money on their horse.

All of that said, I think the incident you described yesterday Tues 03-20-2018 at WRD involved the #4 horse in R6... which according to the chart took place inside the eighth pole.

If they are now canceling after seeing an incident that occurs in mid stretch likely to make their number come down:

THAT'S a huge can of worms -- one I haven't seen before!


-jp

.

This is a strategy. I remember a big bettor, Ernie Dahlman maybe but don't quote me, saying he would bet horses he really liked early to to discourage others from betting the horse at smaller pool tracks. The difference is he had no intention of canceling the bet.

Those cancels should not be allowed. We've been down this road many times before. It is pool manipulation plain and simple. I doubt it had anything to do with something seen during the race.

[cutchemist42]

If you are watching a race live, you pretty much know what price you're going to be getting as the clock goes from 1mtp to 0mtp and beyond...not exactly of course, but you pretty much know where it's heading from there...and if you don't, you haven't been watching races for very long.

We have a whole thread dedicated to odds changes during a race and you are still saying that?

Im sorry but when it comes to handicapping, I only want to consider the horses in relation to fixed odds, the same that sport bettors only need to consider the sport.

Guessing a payout on a win is not what I think should be part of this game. You really think it should be?

[thaskalos]

IMO...it's no longer possible to regularly predict the closing odds of these horses with any noticeable degree of accuracy. And I've been watching races on a daily basis since 1981.

[cutchemist42]

IMO...it's no longer possible to regularly predict the closing odds of these horses with any noticeable degree of accuracy. And I've been watching races on a daily basis since 1981.

Yeah so with all respect,I dont understand what pace is saying.

[cj]

Yeah so with all respect,I dont understand what pace is saying.

You can better predict the closing odds based on DD and P3 payoffs than using the tote board alone. But with the accuracy people are hoping to find? Not likely.

[upthecreek]

https://www.thelines.com/tropicana-william-hill-sports-betting/

[AstrosFan]

If the racinos didn't work for most tracks, why should sports betting?

[lamboguy]

https://www.thelines.com/tropicana-william-hill-sports-betting/i know that in Nevada the odds for all the 100 William Hill locations are all the same. they all change at the same time and they offer small limits on their wagering.

i wonder if by chance sports gambling becomes legal outside of Nevada if Hill will link the odds together like he does in Nevada? if he does then sports gambling will be another waste of time here with those small limits.

[AstrosFan]

William Hill seems to take a bath on some major losses according to their own twitter page. Race books are way too small as well.

[biggestal99]

If the racinos didn't work for most tracks, why should sports betting?

Works quite fine in the uk, how it will work in the us is the great unknown.

People are used to it in the uk, as the sports book at the tracks take lots of bets.

In the us where most bettors have never bet sports legally is a huge question.

There is a difference between sports betting and slot machines.

Allan