Takeout - How high is too high?

[takeout]

Where do you draw the line at takeout? How high would it have to be for you to give up playing a particular wager?

[superfecta]

When the amount won does not justify the risk,and that would depend on the individual bettor.Sorry to be so vague.

[Rick]

That's a difficult question to answer, because it seem that a lot of smaller tracks with a high takeout have less competition and your increased ROI would more than offset any differences. But, your bet size would be limited in smaller pools, so you may not be able to earn more anyway. If you really want to see some silly money, try betting greyhounds for a while. The competition is much weaker than in horse racing, but the pools are so small I don't see how they can stay in business.

[BillW]

I think the takeout problem takes care of itself. If you are having problems getting into the black at a given track, or not finding enough "value" plays, you move on. Both of these conditions are caused by the style of your game conspiring with the takeout. If you are successful at a track, the takeout is tolerable (although you would make more money if it was lower:rolleyes: )

Bill

[takeout]

Is there a point at which you would quit betting on a certain track or wager on principle alone? For example, some players were so irate with the take at Hialeah that they just quit betting there altogether. I don't think at that point that it was even an issue of whether or not it was possible to still turn a profit.

[rrbauer]

Takeout finances the game at the expense of the players.

Unfortunately some venues can't compete (or, so they say) unless they have takeout jacked up to a level that raises eyebrows, antennas, and the like. Before Hialeah closed, I refused to play a dime at that track because the takeout was outrageous beyond any definition of being competitive. Brunetti laid a lot of gobbledygook on the industry media about how the takeout level at HIA was necessary to keep them in business.

Well, he got his high takeout; and, HIA is out of business!

As "mature", "experienced" horseplayers, we have an obligation to ourselves, and, the game, to thumb our noses at those venues which want more, in exchange for less. "Marked-up" schlock is still schlock!

IMHO.

[Rick]

Richard,

I agree with you about Hialeah, especially when other Florida tracks were able to make it with lower takeouts. Turf Paradise here has a high takeout but it's an easy track to handicap and pretty much the only game in town. However, I think even they would be better off by lowering the takeout to be more like other tracks, since they are competing with other tracks for out-of-state money.

[takeout]

Rick,

That's an interesting point about the competition more than offsetting the higher takeouts of some of the smaller tracks. Regarding the small pools, I once overheard some guys saying that they "shoulda key-horse-wheeled the super," not realizing that their one extra winning ticket would have made the bet a big loser for them. Question: How would you know if you were getting an overlay in an exotic such as the super until after the fact when you knew how many winning tickets there were?

[LoganDimes]

I recently read parts of a book on chance and skill in betting. Horse racing was deemed one of the worst forms of betting for the average player and it all came down to take-out rate. If racing had takes of 5% or less, it would be one of the best gambling options. The 20% take effectively kills the chance to make a consistent profit for all but the very best.

I also read a study by a U of Kentucky economist a few years ago on factors that affect increases or decreases in pari-mutual handle. After controlling for about a dozen possible factors, he found that there were 3 or 4 that consistently affected handle and take was either the 1st or 2nd factor. Meaning, the lower take went, the higher handle went. Of course this makes sense theoretically anyway, but the stupidity continues to proliferate at racetracks. (although I've heard that in some cases take-out rate is determined by state governments, but I don't know which tracks are highly restricted in this way).

[superfecta]

Originally posted by LoganDimes
I recently read parts of a book on chance and skill in betting. Horse racing was deemed one of the worst forms of betting for the average player and it all came down to take-out rate. If racing had takes of 5% or less, it would be one of the best gambling options. The 20% take effectively kills the chance to make a consistent profit for all but the very best.

I also read a study by a U of Kentucky economist a few years ago on factors that affect increases or decreases in pari-mutual handle. After controlling for about a dozen possible factors, he found that there were 3 or 4 that consistently affected handle and take was either the 1st or 2nd factor. Meaning, the lower take went, the higher handle went. Of course this makes sense theoretically anyway, but the stupidity continues to proliferate at racetracks. (although I've heard that in some cases take-out rate is determined by state governments, but I don't know which tracks are highly restricted in this way). Horseracing was one of the worst?!Is the slots the best because of the 2% take?I have a real problem with someone who can say horseplaying is a bad gamble.worse than other gambling.Along with poker and blackjack,it gives the player an advantage over other games of chance.With a little skill,you have a better chance than at a dice table or roulette wheel.

[superfecta]

I didn't mean you personally,Logan,I meant the knucklehead who wrote that book you mentioned....;)

[rrbauer]

I think the operative term from the study is the "average player".

The "average player" might have a good time at the track and feel that the good time outweighs any financial considerations (although an occasional score might merit much "crowing"). But if you've been around this game very long you learn that being "average" won't cut it if profit is the goal! Being honest enough to recognize that; and, being tenacious enough to become better, are two of the attributes needed by a winning horseplayer.

On the flip side, the slot-machine player needs only to recognize that it's a negative-sum game and that the primary attribute needed is to quit when you're ahead!

[LoganDimes]

Superfecta, I should look up the reference on that book. But from what I recall the author's main point was that the 20% take from racing handle eliminates any advantage it has over casino games for the typical bettor because those games usually have a very small take (2-3%). A 15% is huge difference in almost any financial endeavor (think mutual funds for instance) but it's especially bad for racing because most of us who make money are large volume players. The average players stands no chance to make money at the track unless he quits when he's ahead (if he gets ahead) and never comes back.

Blackjack, for one, is a much better gambling option if the casino takes only 3%, even for skilled bettors, if you're just looking to make money. I find it hideously boring, so i stick to the ponies. Sports gambling is also much better than racing whenever the take is low (depends on the out).

Of course if racing's takeout was typically, say, 5% it would be the best betting option. If take was exactly equal to other games, it would be the best option by far. Especially for wiseguys, assuming pari-mutual pools were large enough (I love seeing those $500k win pools!).

[superfecta]

Originally posted by LoganDimes
Superfecta, I should look up the reference on that book. But from what I recall the author's main point was that the 20% take from racing handle eliminates any advantage it has over casino games for the typical bettor because those games usually have a very small take (2-3%). A 15% is huge difference in almost any financial endeavor (think mutual funds for instance) but it's especially bad for racing because most of us who make money are large volume players. The average players stands no chance to make money at the track unless he quits when he's ahead (if he gets ahead) and never comes back.

Blackjack, for one, is a much better gambling option if the casino takes only 3%, even for skilled bettors, if you're just looking to make money. I find it hideously boring, so i stick to the ponies. Sports gambling is also much better than racing whenever the take is low (depends on the out).

Of course if racing's takeout was typically, say, 5% it would be the best betting option. If take was exactly equal to other games, it would be the best option by far. Especially for wiseguys, assuming pari-mutual pools were large enough (I love seeing those $500k win pools!).
Thats what gets me ,when someone says the take of 15% makes it almost impossible to make money.But that is money never seen to the bettor.And that is not taking into account any handicapping skill,just the relationship between natural odds and track odds.Games such as blackjack and sports betting have a smaller edge for the house,but most payoffs are around even money,but its still possible to make a profit.Now how would we feel if track take was 5%,but the best we could do is double our money on any wager at the track?Nothing pays more than 2/1.Could we make a profit then?
Takeout would be the least of worries to me.......

[BillW]

There seems to be confusion over the difference between takeout and edge. They are not the same (although the cost can be).

Bill W.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by BillW
There seems to be confusion over the difference between takeout and edge. They are not the same (although the cost can be).

Bill W. In this case since they are the same %,thats why I use them interchangeably.A hard cost is a hard cost,no matter what you call it.

[BillW]

superfecta,

I was refering to the writer that wrote that horse racing was the worst form of betting. Of course we know that blackjack is just on the negative side of zero in edge (maybe -1%) The writer states that it is better than the -17% takeout for horse wagering. The -1% takes into account the players skill (not including counting ... of course) where the -17% doesn't. Of course that fact would ruin the point he was making.:rolleyes:

Bill

[LoganDimes]

That wasn't realy my point. Obviously if you picked 100% winners it wouldn't matter much what the track take was. But for the typical bettor, racing presents a worse opportunity than blackjack due to the take. Of course both are basically sure losers for nearly everyone, but horse racing would be a viable gamble for more skilled players if the take was lower. It would also lead to higher mutual pools, which adds to the skilled players advantage.

Don't forget also that the racetrack take is typically 1-3% higher than the official rate. That's because tracks always round down to the nearest dime. Doesn't matter if the exact pre-payout return sits at $2.9999999, the track rounds down to $2.90. If anyone knows of a track that doesn't do this, I'd like to know, any edge helps. So, on exotic bets, I suspect we often get a situation where the track is taking 25-30% off the winning tickets. Imagine how much more attractive those bets would be for profit players like myself if the track's take was 5%.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by LoganDimes
That wasn't realy my point. Obviously if you picked 100% winners it wouldn't matter much what the track take was. But for the typical bettor, racing presents a worse opportunity than blackjack due to the take. Of course both are basically sure losers for nearly everyone, but horse racing would be a viable gamble for more skilled players if the take was lower. It would also lead to higher mutual pools, which adds to the skilled players advantage.

Don't forget also that the racetrack take is typically 1-3% higher than the official rate. That's because tracks always round down to the nearest dime. Doesn't matter if the exact pre-payout return sits at $2.9999999, the track rounds down to $2.90. If anyone knows of a track that doesn't do this, I'd like to know, any edge helps. So, on exotic bets, I suspect we often get a situation where the track is taking 25-30% off the winning tickets. Imagine how much more attractive those bets would be for profit players like myself if the track's take was 5%. Logan ,please reread my comparison post ,this is money you never see,so thats why takeout DOESN'T matter.10% more money in the pool will not make you a winner,picking winning tickets does.Dime breakage will not make or break you,if it does you are waaaayy too close to the edge.How many times do you bet a horse at post time and watch his odds fall by 25% or more during the running of the race?Happens all the time,due to simulcasting money coming in late.

[LoganDimes]

Well, really, that's like saying the withholding tax on my paycheck doesn't take anything away from me because it's money I never see in the first place. But yeah I agree with you about dime-breakage to some extent. You don't want to be on that edge, but if you asked me would I rather earn 21% than 20% over 12 months, would there be any doubt? We horseplayers are looking for every advantage, even one percent.

The track take is taken out of the pool before winners are paid, because it's taken out of the money earmarked for winning tickets. If 10 bettors have winning tickets in a pool with $100, and the track takes out $20, that leaves $80 to distribute among the 10 winners. If the track takes out $5, that leaves $95 to distribute to the 10 winning bettors. The less the track takes, the more money is left for winning tickets.

Whether you make a profit or not over time could very well depend on the amount of take by the track. There's a range of bettors playing and losing today who would be making money if track take was lower.

And for those interested, Blood Horse reports today that Magna is pushing for an increase in take at Santa Anita and BM. An exec is quoted as saying that they're operating with "80's level prices".

Wow, they just don't get it. Further proof that you can live and breathe an industry without having any clue what drives consumer behavior or how to turn out a good product and service. Take is a volume dependent income source. The more money that's bet, the more take will increase. If take is increased too high, the track will see a long-term decrease in revenue because the volume of "sales" will decrease and will not be offset by the increase in price. Take is already far higher than its max revenue point. What that is we'll never know until old habits are broken.

[FortuneHunter]

I think the breakage at NYRA is a nickle.

If your ROI for the year is 15% with a take out of 20%, is it true that if the takeout is reduced by 10% your ROI goes to 25%.

I think so, do you agree?

I have read here and other places, about professionals churn millions for a 5% profit and move around the country becuase the take is so important.

FH

[superfecta]

Originally posted by LoganDimes
Well, really, that's like saying the withholding tax on my paycheck doesn't take anything away from me because it's money I never see in the first place


:But withholding is money you've earned,track take is taken out before you get what you won.If you bet on a horse at 9/2 and the pool closes at 9/2,you get 11 bucks.If you work 40 hours at 5 bucks an hour,you dont get $200,you get less.


The track take is taken out of the pool before winners are paid, because it's taken out of the money earmarked for winning tickets. If 10 bettors have winning tickets in a pool with $100, and the track takes out $20, that leaves $80 to distribute among the 10 winners. If the track takes out $5, that leaves $95 to distribute to the 10 winning bettors. The less the track takes, the more money is left for winning tickets.

: Right,but what happens if there is only $75 in the pool to start with because not that many people bet ,or if there are are 20 winners?Those are more important factors....Why do some pools have very little money bet,and others have small payouts irregardless of the take?

Whether you make a profit or not over time could very well depend on the amount of take by the track. There's a range of bettors playing and losing today who would be making money if track take was lower.

:Anyone who would use the excuse" I can't win cause the take is too high "is not too savvy in money management.

And for those interested, Blood Horse reports today that Magna is pushing for an increase in take at Santa Anita and BM. An exec is quoted as saying that they're operating with "80's level prices".

:The california legislature is looking to do that,see my post to Karlscorner about the "great new site"

[rrbauer]

NYRA Breakage:
(For a $2 wager)
$2.10 to 9.99 payoff, break to 10 cents; $10 to 49.99 payoff, break to 20 cents; $50 to 499.99 payoff, break to 50 cents; $500 and up, break to $1.00.

California Takeout Increase:
You may recall that Magna first proposed a takeout increase to finance their CA-bred versus FL-bred home/away series purse fattening. That went nowhere.

Now the takeout increase thrust is being wrapped around the workmen's comp issue. I can tell you that there is one very influential person in California racing (breeder, owner, bettor, track operator) who told me flat out, "I will lay my body down to stop any increase in takeout."

If that thrust results in proposed legislation, posting your complaints here will accomplish zilch...squat...nada. If the legislation gets proposed, it will be time to raise hell with elected officials (read: Assembly & Senate members), track operators and the CHRB.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by FortuneHunter
If your ROI for the year is 15% with a take out of 20%, is it true that if the takeout is reduced by 10% your ROI goes to 25%.

I think so, do you agree?

I have read here and other places, about professionals churn millions for a 5% profit and move around the country becuase the take is so important.

FH I don't think so,unless takeout is a factor in picking a horse to win or not.Your ROI will not go up or down appreciably because of take.It could go up or down depending on the odds of your horse.Your ROI could go up or down depending on the size of the wagering pools.Take does deplete a portion of the pools, but people not betting takes a whole lot more.And the reason people don't bet a certain pool has more to do with those people and their skill at betting,than them saying"that track take is too high".

I think the professionals who have millions to shove thru the window may have a point,but they are few and far between enough so to be irrelevent.

[LoganDimes]

Superfecta, sorry I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than I did in my above post. It's just fundamental to pari-mutual wagering that the level of house take affects the amount of money returned to winning tickets. In fact, that's the only thing that keeps the "mutual" handle from being exchanged on a 1:1 basis. If you bet in an office pool for March Madness, there's a 1:1 exchange from winning to losing "tickets" in that scenario, assuming the administrator doesn't take anything for his work. Say, 20 people put in $5 each. The winner gets $100. But if the administrator does take something for his work, it *necessarily* reduces the amount paid to the winning player.

And, yes, this does mean that there are bettors out there who aren't skilled enough to beat the current system but who would make money if take were lowered.

And, yes, I do vary my bet amounts according to the track take. In fact, there are some tracks I don't play (Pimlico) simply due to take levels. Keeneland, on the other hand, was a dream last year.

RRbauer: thanks for the NYRA info. I didn't realize that the breakage increased at $10 to 20 cents. That means essentially that breakage has the smallest effect roughly between $8-10 and $40-50. Needless to say, I don't hit many of those 20-1 shots, but the 5-1 makes a difference.

And kudos to your Cal friend for opposing the increase in take. Magna is apparently clueless, they're going to run Cal racing into the mediocrity if that's their approach. And SoCal is probably the place that can least afford that, because the only thing that really offsets the small field sizes there today is the low take levels. If they increase the take to industry standard, I'll stop betting probably 50-80% of my current SoCal money as long as the field sizes are so pathetic. I can put that into KY or FL. It's too bad, SoCal pools are usually huge, about the only place I can get good show and place bets. I can only image the $$$ they'd generate with a 10% take and standard fields sizes.

[superfecta]

Ok Logan We'll just disagree on this one.I would say the field size is way more influential on whether you can make a profit on the race than the take.Because more people would bet on the losing horses,rather than not bet cause of the take.Remember, there is so much dumb money in the pools,it easily can surpass the bite of take.If you come across a race that doesn't justify your risk ,just don't bet.

[rrbauer]

Sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand (or more) words!

If the win bets on a horse amount to 20% of the pool, here are its odds under a variety of takeout scenarios:

No takeout 4-1
10% takeout 7/2 (3.5)
15% takeout 3-1 (3.25)
20% takeout 3-1 (3.0)
25% takeout 5/2 (2.75)

Get the picture?

:)

[tanda]

I am stunned that Superfecta believes take does not matter.

It (including breakage) reduces the average winning odds a tremendous amount. The argument that you do not see it is ludicrous. Actually, you do see it. The win pool totals are posted. Those posts are pre-take and breakage. You can calculate for yourself what the payoff would have been with no take and breakage.

With none of either, it is conceivable that over 50% of horseplayers would make a profit. Now only about 0.5% do. That is not significant? However, it is likely that the number of winning players with no take and breakage would be about 35%-40%. Yet, since all the money paid in is paid out, then the public would break even and the number of winners and losers could be equal. Probably the more skilled players would wager more and the dollars would even out but the number of winners and losers would not. I win $100, Joe losses $50 and Mary losses $50 for example.

Assume average winning odds of 9:2 at a track with dime breakage and 17% take. The actual payoff should be 5.68:1 instead of 4.50:1.

Is Superfecta seriously suggesting that payoffs with 1+ more points in odds do not make a difference?

Yes, there are many factors that affect the odds, but take ALWAYS affects the odds and ALWAYS by reducing them. That cannot be considered a non-factor. Whatever payout you receive will ALWAYS be lower than it would have been without take. ALL odds are reduced. The other factors would still impact the odds, but the payoffs after their impact would ALWAYS be higher with less take.

As I have said before, if take does not matter, then why not make it 100%? If it does not matter, then the 100% take will not matter. If the 100% take does matter, then take must matter.

Another way to approach is is this: your ability is measured not by R.O.I., but by how much you beat the crowd. If you beat the crowd by 50% with 20% take and breakage, your R.O.I. will be +20%. Crowd returns 0.80 * 1.5 edge over Crowd = 1.20 R.O.I.
If the combined take and breakage becomes 10%, then 0.90 * 1.5 = 1.35 R.O.I. Nice.

Superfecta says your R.O.I. is affected by your winning odds but probably not by take. Huh? The odds are affected by the take. Thus, his statement cannot be logically true. The payoff odds are calculated as ((1-take %)/(% of pool on winner))-1. Breakage reduces the odds to the nearest dime in most cases. As the take variable increases the payoff odds must increase. The laws of mathematics require that to be true.

If you are on the margin (.80 * 1.25 edge = 1.00 R.O.I.), the reduction makes you profitable (.90*1.25 = 1.125 R.O.I.).

By the way, when you realize that in many cases you must out-perform the crowd by 50% to show a 20% profit, you realize how hard it is and how unlikely it is that there are more than 2 decent overlays in a field. The crowd must make a fairly significant error to create an overlay with +20% R.O.I. A horse with a 20% chance to win must receive only 13.8% of the pool to show a bare 20% profit.

Also, beware the "we do not see it" belief. That is what they want you to think. That is also why when the government dramatically increased income tax rates decades ago, they also enacted wage withholding. If taxpayers received the money and then had to write a check year-end for the amount, most would have a much clearer idea how much they really pay.

[superfecta]

We could play woulda coulda shoulda with this thread from now on,and we still would be no more profitable.Take is a part of pari-mutuel,deal with it.If IF IF,if wishes were horses everybody could make money at the track.Track take is a business expense,so if you think take is keeping you from making money,so be it.Lose.
I will be cashing tickets on horses with good form,favorable pace scenerios,and fair return for the risk.Not holding my bets out because the exotic take is 28%.That is why take doesn't matter.If you can't understand the points I made,thats fine.I will survive.I wish the take was lower,but it isn't so deal with it.Hell, I wish for free admission,and free forms but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon,so why fret over it?

[tanda]

The problem is the issue is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of cold mathematics. There is a right and wrong answer. Every bet you have cashed in the past has been reduced by the take. There are no exceptions. To say that a lower payoff does not matter is only true if you do not want a higher payoff. I assume you do, so it must matter.

The argument that you win with the take so it must not matter is wrong as well. If you do win, then you win less than you otherwise would. That matters. There is a difference from making a 20% profit and a 30% profit. Not all profits are equal. Although the take may not make make the difference between winning and losing to you, it does affect how much you win. The take causes winners to win less, losers to lose more or a winner on the margin to become a loser. A player must fall into one of these three circumstances. I would dare say that the effect on all three groups does matter.

Personally, when I win, I want to win more. When I lose, I want to lose less or become a winner. Those things matter to me. Since that is the effect of the take, it does matter.

There must be a take. The pool operator provides a service and deserves both compensatiuon for that service and a reasonable profit. But, as with all prices, there is a proper level. I believe the takes are too high, but that is another issue.

Unfortunately for Superfecta and many other bettors and fortunately for the tracks, the effects of the take are not always apparent. But if you believe it does not matter, then you are falling for the tracks' spin. Of course they want you to believe that price increases on their part do not hurt you.

Comparison:

17% take with dime breakage v. no take.

Crowd returns 0.81 v. 1.00.

It is mathematically possible and quite likely that there are NO overlays in a field v. It is mathematically required that at least one horse be overlaid and, on average, one-half of the field will be overlays.

The average horse is a 20% underlay v. The average horse is not an underlay.

Betting last race speed figures returns 0.88 v. Betting last race speed figures returns 1.08+.

A person who shows a 10% profits v. A person who shows a 35%+ profit.

It is mathematically possible that nobody profits in the long run and as practical matter it is very, very difficult (less than 1% in all likelihood) to show a profit v. It is mathematically required that if there is one losing player, then there must be one winning player. Further, it is almost a certainty that a least 33% of the players will profit in the long run and possible that as many as 67% will profit. Thus, the take probably reduces the number of winners by about 98%.

Think about that last statement. 98% of the winners pre-take become losers post-take. The remaining 2% have their profits reduced by more than one-half (probably as much as 2/3 or more, see above). A player returning 25% pre-take returns 1% post-take. His profits are reduced 96%. But I guess since he is still winning then it must not matter?

By the way Superfecta, if take does not matter as you repeatedly state, then why do you say that you wish it was lower?

[Rick]

A horseplayer with a little knowledge actually probably loses more than the average take as long as he believes that simple factors will help him. It takes a great deal of experience to even reduce losses to 10% or less. For every player losing only 10% there will be one losing 30%. So many beginners will get disappointed and quit before ever learning much about the game. Some will find it better to play a game that doesn't involve skill where they don't have to think like slots. Others will find it more worthwhile to play a game like blackjack where they can learn to play profitably more quickly.

I myself have a fair amount of experience playing a number of games profitably and would have to say that horse racing required more effort than most of the others. I enjoy the challenge, but I don't think that's an adequate motivation for most people. Some of the easiest games to beat are mind-numbingly boring or require spending a great deal of time with annoying ignorant people. That reminds me a lot of the corporate work world, and I'm not interested in repeating the experience.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by tanda
The problem is the issue is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of cold mathematics. There is a right and wrong answer. Every bet you have cashed in the past has been reduced by the take. There are no exceptions. To say that a lower payoff does not matter is only true if you do not want a higher payoff. I assume you do, so it must matter.


Personally, when I win, I want to win more. When I lose, I want to lose less or become a winner. Those things matter to me. Since that is the effect of the take, it does matter.

There must be a take. The pool operator provides a service and deserves both compensatiuon for that service and a reasonable profit. But, as with all prices, there is a proper level. I believe the takes are too high, but that is another issue.

Unfortunately for Superfecta and many other bettors and fortunately for the tracks, the effects of the take are not always apparent. But if you believe it does not matter, then you are falling for the tracks' spin. Of course they want you to believe that price increases on their part do not hurt you.


By the way Superfecta, if take does not matter as you repeatedly state, then why do you say that you wish it was lower? Take does not matter as a handicapping factor,It is a fact of life.I wish it was lower,I wish I could win more money than whats in the pool,I wish there were prettier girls at the track,but that doesn't happen enough either.Jeez, I can't make you understand,so I'm giving up,so go ahead and mathmatically prove all the stats you want,but it still won't improve your bottom line.

[LoganDimes]

Tanda, you're dead-on about take, but if there's one thing I've learned from my time in academia it's that even by the young age of 20 some people have become constitutionally incapable of logical reasoning. That in itself isn't a great bother to me, because stupid people can be good for society in the right place. But when a large % of bettors don't understand the effect of take on profits, it lowers the demand pressure for change.

[Tim]

An interesting press release about the "take".

http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/feature.asp?track=A&id=354

NYRA betters won $28 million more because of the lower take. That's real!