Why not have some races with no takeout?

[BetHorses!]

Would it hurt that bad to reward the bettors with at least one race a weekend with a zero takeout? Has this ever been done anywhere?

[PaceAdvantage]

Innovation has never been a strong suit of the industry....good idea though...

If we see a columnist in the DRF mention this idea, you'll know who to sue...LOL

[sparkywowo]

The place and show pools are small potatoes. Why not drop the take to 5% in those pools? The track loses 12%age points or so on less than 10% of its handle, overall less than a measly 1%. And, for this mere penny on the dollar the bettor can start to get tolerable payoffs in the minor spots, rather than outright confiscated.

[cj]

The place and show pools are small potatoes. Why not drop the take to 5% in those pools? The track loses 12%age points or so on less than 10% of its handle, overall less than a measly 1%. And, for this mere penny on the dollar the bettor can start to get tolerable payoffs in the minor spots, rather than outright confiscated.

If this was done, I'd bet nothing but place, and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. Those pools would no longer be small potatoes for sure.

[Valuist]

Here's two ways the racing industry could contribute to the hurricane relief:

1. A cut takeout weekend; you can still have a small takeout to go to purses but everything that was to go to the state and racetrack goes to the relief fund.

2. A no-takeout weekend in which payoffs would be the same as a normal weekend but the differential goes into the relief fund. The contributions only come from winning tickets.

[BetHorses!]

Innovation has never been a strong suit of the industry....good idea though...

If we see a columnist in the DRF mention this idea, you'll know who to sue...LOL

I promise not to sue but would like to see the race called the BET-HORSES Handicap- NO TAKEOUT :)

Seriously, why not do this? Even a reduced 5% take that goes to the horsemen would be great. I would even be willing to have an extra 1% taken out on the first 8 races if the 9th is going to be a 12 horse field with zero to 5% take only. I really hope a columnist picks this up and makes some noise with it.

[so.cal.fan]

Bethorses! I like your idea!
However....a more practical one would be a 10% takeout at every track in America on every type of bet.
Watch how other forms of gambling would decrease.....drastically.
Betting horses would be the best game in town! By far.

[toetoe]

I've always said they should have some days with zero or little takeout on the early races, then make it up on the last. They will say their 486's could never be adjusted so quickly, so it won't happen.

Another thing I propose would lead to minus pools as it's set up now. Split place and show money 50-50 without regard to totals bet. Now, if they guaranteed 1% instead of 5%, wouldn't it be okay, considering bridgejumpers would refrain from tilting the pools in one direction? A longshot would get a good payoff regardless of the other ITM finishers.

[midnight]

The younger crowd won't play the horses because of a 10% takeout. They'll just point out that the takeout is still worse than betting sports (4.5% for a -110 pointspread, less on a dime money line at baseball or at sites that offer lower than a -110 lay), dice (1.4% on the pass/come), blackjack (under 1% with optimal play and favorable rules), poker (varies), etc.

Then there's the problem with image. The public thinks that everyday racing is crooked, drugged, fixed, etc.

Then they'll go play a five team parlay that pays 19-1 instead of the correct 31-1 (37.5%).

Worse, it will be hard to get each individual state to allow it. A lower takeout means the state gets a lower percentage, too. The track might be able to see how lowering the take will increase its overall revenue, but the lawmakers will be a tougher sell.

There's also the problem with simulcasting and the percent-for-signal rates.

Also, the horsemen would have to take a temporary cut in purses until if and when the betting handle increased.

There are too many hurdles involved, too much red tape, and too many people and entities along the food chain. It's been done, but it's not easy.

[rokitman]

I don't think the "younger crowd" knows or cares what the take is now. The only thing that is going to lure them in large numbers is if horse racing shows up on TV in a manner that they can project themselves into it. Poker is a YC dream: sit on your ass, be on TV, make a lot of money and have a hot girlfriend (ever notice how many of these poker dorks have a very attractive to outright hot girlfriends? Money brings the honeys!). The fact that attaining all those aforementioned luxuries is never going to happen to 99.999% of them will only be learned the hard way.They're going to chase the dream. It's likely if I was 20 when this poker craze hit I would be right in there dreaming too. We'll see the broken poker crowd at the slot machines with a far-away stare in their eyes. They still aren't going to be at the horses races. That's too much like work. And where's the chicks? Can't say that I blame 'em.

[sparkywowo]

If this was done, I'd bet nothing but place, and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. Those pools would no longer be small potatoes for sure.

Well, if the the other pools stayed the same, and the place and show handle went up, the track wouldn't even lose the 1%. If all the win money ended up in the place pool, then the track would lose more than the 1%.

Of course, I could speculate what the actual impact would be, but who really knows???

Actually, there was another thread discussing the efficiency of the win pool. Is there any study that shows what fraction of the handle is won by bettors who consistently beat at least the take? For example, let's say the take is 17%, breakage makes it 18%, and the money siphoned off by consistent winners makes it 19% or something like that??? So, if you looked at all the consistent winners, what fraction of the handle are their bets responsible for and how much do their winnings effectively increase the take.

[BillW]

If this was done, I'd bet nothing but place, and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. Those pools would no longer be small potatoes for sure.

Hmmm - all the smart money moved to the place/show pools. That would leave me trying to beat the takeout. :lol:

Bill

[sparkywowo]

The place and show pools are small potatoes. Why not drop the take to 5% in those pools? The track loses 12%age points or so on less than 10% of its handle, overall less than a measly 1%.

OOPS, my bad!
If PS is 10% of handle, and the take drops from 17% to 5% the track loses 12/17*10% of its take, not 0.12*10% of its take. So it's more like 7% than 1%.... :mad: oh well, they'll never give up 7% in my lifetime.

[highnote]

I closed my BRISBET account. My XpressBet was closed by order of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut - simply because I am a CT resident and the AG says internet betting is illegal. Next I will close my ConnecticutOTB phone account -- in protest. I have a couple other accounts I intend to close, too, because if I don't close them, the State of CT will.

It simply is not worth the hassle to break the law for a game that takes, on average, 17% of the money I wager. Sure, my chances of getting fined are small, but it could happen. I'm not a big enough bettor that I will lose my livelihood. If I was a big bettor, I'd move to England, Costa Rica, the Islands or someplace with a more liberal attitude to wagering.

Funny, I can bet on the internet whether Crude Oil will close above or below $65 tomorrow, but I can't bet on a horse in the 10th at Mountaineer.

Who needs this kind of hassle?

Just another nail in the coffin of racing.

[AngelEyes]

Swetyejohn,

Are you allowed to bet with an offshore site such as Pinnacle ? If not, how will they know ?


AngelEyes

[AngelEyes]

Betfair has a takeout of 5% or less. Too bad US citizens not allowed to join. I have not bet 1 penny at local track since I joined in 2005/01.

[highnote]

I could bet with Pinnacle and they would probably never know. But why should I even have to worry that I'm breaking the law. I just want to bet horses and not have to worry about getting a fine.

Now, I know it's unlikely anything will happen to me. Jaywalking is illegal, but I still jaywalk.

But the point is this... about the only recourse I have is to close my accounts and write letters to politicians and newspapers and how the laws get changed. If everyone stopped betting then laws would get passed very quickly that would allow betting on horse races over the internet.

I plan on sending a few letters to editors of various newspapers expressing my disappointment with Connecticut's law. I will also CC the attorney general of CT.

So far, I've written to NTRA and DRF. I'll also write to Bloodhorse and Horseplayer. Any other suggestions for newspapers?

[falconridge]

I don't think the "younger crowd" knows or cares what the take is now. The only thing that is going to lure them in large numbers is if horse racing shows up on TV in a manner that they can project themselves into it.
I beg to differ, rokit. As we hardened horseplayers (and that includes you, of course) know, the take matters. But what even many of our die-hard fraternity might not fully appreciate is that it matters irrespective of who knows--and of how well one understands--that it matters.

The infamous "O'Dwyer Bite" (named for former New York governor Robert O'Dwyer, who in the early 1950s ordained that the mutuel takeout at such tracks as Jamaica, Belmont, and Empire City be increased from ten to fifteen percent) should have amply demonstrated the idiocy of the kind of kill-the-goose-that-lays-the-golden eggs avarice that has undermined the financial stability of our sport for the past 50 years. O'Dwyer's and others' thinking is as easy to divine as it is imbecilic: if we find a way to charge half again as much for this fixed-price indulgence, we'll make half again as much money! Guess what. State revenues from horse racing actually decreased, and all the more dramatically when one allows for inflation and for the comparative affluence enjoyed in a still-booming postwar economy. The handle dropped, purses were slashed, horsemen decamped, and for a time the sport foundered in the Big Apple.

Clearly, high rollers and inveterate bettors knew what a sorry deal they were getting, and fled the scene of the fleecing--to the Garden State, to the guy at the cigar store who booked bets on Hialeah and 'Gansett, to God knows where. Think it mattered to the two-dollar boys and girls, the numbers players, the hatpin stabbers, the I-like-that-jockey's-pretty-pink-silks pickers? You bet it mattered. No matter whose flesh gets gouged by the Albany or Sacramento or Olympia or Springfield slashers, the victims bleed. They might not understand why that $40 stake that used to keep them in show bets for a week now evaporates in four days, but they will notice that it's going faster than it did before, and they'll soon beat it hence--to the bingo parlor or the penny-pitching wall or the three-card-monte hustler or wherever.

Any number of economists have published studies that demonstrate conclusively that a lowered take would spell increased revenue in both the long and the short run. Think any state racing commission (incidentally, one Gray Davis once served on the California state racing and wagering board; his achievement in that capacity was, like that of virtually all of his colleagues and counterparts, absolute nil) will ever wise up and lobby for a lowered take? Think Ralphie Garcia will come out of retirement and knock Russell Baze off the top spot in the GGF jockey standings? Think those prize porkers in the live stock exhibit at the L.A. County Fair will ever take to the air?

[PaceAdvantage]

Betfair has a takeout of 5% or less. Too bad US citizens not allowed to join. I have not bet 1 penny at local track since I joined in 2005/01.

Please take this as a friendly warning: stop posting the same post about BetFair over and over again.

I went to their website, and couldn't find anything on the sign up form that indicates US citizens aren't allowed to join. I could be wrong, but I didn't see any such restriction.

So I am going to assume that any further posts by you about BetFair are unauthorized advertisements, and will be treated as such.

Thank you.

The management.

[sparkywowo]

I looked at BetFair and under Help and there is the following:

You may not open a Betfair account if you are resident in the USA, its territories or possessions. Placing bets on-line is currently not allowed under US Federal law and we reserve the right to ask you for additional proof of residence if we feel you may be contravening this law. It is your responsibility to ensure that you comply completely with your own local, national or state laws concerning betting, prior to opening an account with Betfair, or before placing a bet.

[falconridge]

The infamous "O'Dwyer Bite" (named for former New York governor Robert O'Dwyer, who in the early 1950s ordained that the mutuel takeout at such tracks as Jamaica, Belmont, and Empire City be increased from ten to fifteen percent) should have amply demonstrated the idiocy of the kind of kill-the-goose-that-lays-the-golden eggs avarice that has undermined the financial stability of our sport for the past 50 years.
I'd like to note and correct the factual errors that appear in my recent post ("My take on the take") in this thread. Find the mistakes within the parentheses. The "O'Dwyer Bite" was in fact named for William O'Dwyer (not Robert), who, when he increased the parimutuel takeout at New York tracks, was mayor of Gotham--not governor of New York. The year was 1946--not the "early 1950s."

It is of no small significance that it was in 1946 that O'Dwyer took his bite. In that year, virtually every U.S. track outside of New York enjoyed unprecedented--even staggering--increases in daily average attendance and handle, while the spring meetings in New York suffered enormous losses. By the time Saratoga got underway in August, horseplayers had clearly had quite enough. The handle at the Spa declined more than 50% from what it had been in 1945.

Source: William HP Robertson, The History of Thoroughbred Racing in America. New York: Bonanza Books, 1964; out of print.

[AngelEyes]

Please take this as a friendly warning: stop posting the same post about BetFair over and over again.

I went to their website, and couldn't find anything on the sign up form that indicates US citizens aren't allowed to join. I could be wrong, but I didn't see any such restriction.

So I am going to assume that any further posts by you about BetFair are unauthorized advertisements, and will be treated as such.

Thank you.

The management.


PaceAdvantage,

Sorry ... just trying to inform members here that other options exist offering better betting value (ie. betting exchanges in general have that potential due to the much lower commissions and it just happens that they are regarded as the best one when it comes to liquidity especially for US racing - someone correct me if I'm wrong). Won't mention them again....

AngelEyes