Play Tracks With Lowest Track Takeouts

[Topcat]

EP and LRL has got me thinking that it makes sense to only play those tracks with a lower takeout. Some track to be played for a p3 others for a p4 etc. Like a lot of you I had always thought that my "expertise" at certain tracks was more important but that is doubtful. I hadn't looked at this lately but there is quite a range even without the EP and LRL experiment-and what is? with Sam Houston takeout on p3 vs. p4s.

While playing only those tracks with lower takeouts isn't as good as a rebate (with a rebate the money is not at risk) it does offers some advantage.

Here's a link to track takeouts-the only thing this doesn't list is if the takeout is a temporary experiment like LRL.



http://www.horseplayerdaily.com/cat/Track+Takeouts.html

[lsosa54]

Very interesting - had no idea the NY and CA tracks had the lowest WPS takeouts.

Sam Houston & Retama would be the place for Pick 3's, although the handicapping may be tougher.

[SMOO]

Very interesting - had no idea the NY and CA tracks had the lowest WPS takeouts.

On a related note, NY & Canada (Woodbine, etc.) are the only ones with ten cent breakage, which adds up on smaller payoffs. 2.40 to show becomes 2.50 about half the time for instance. :ThmbUp:

[GameTheory]

While playing only those tracks with lower takeouts isn't as good as a rebate (with a rebate the money is not at risk) it does offers some advantage.Averaged over any reasonable number of wagers, there is no difference between a rebate and the equivalent lower takeout.

[banacek]

Here's a link to track takeouts-the only thing this doesn't list is if the takeout is a temporary experiment like LRL.

http://www.horseplayerdaily.com/cat/Track+Takeouts.html

This is a good idea. Not sure how accurate it is as some are not correct. For example, Hastings WPS, is listed at 15%. It has been 15.8% for years....well until this spring when they hiked it to 17% and forgot to tell anyone.:mad:

[Cangamble]

I'm finding it difficult to find up to date takeout info. Here is one chart from Brisnet dated March of last year:
http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/static.cgi?page=trktkout&header=off

I know Woodbine dropped their Win 4 takeout to 14.75% for a couple of years but quietly moved it back up to 25%?+ last year sometime.

Brisnet's chart doesn't even acknowledge they have a Win 4, and the chart posted here previously still has the 14.75%.

Check Woodbine tri's, 28.2%.....highway robbery. The lottery only takes out around 50% I think.

[colonial]

yes lower takeout is great more money in your pocket.

what other tracks have low takeouts?:cool:

[Topcat]

Yes,

Finding the latest up to date info would be great-short of checking each track-maybe PA board could have an area on his board where we could update the horseplayer daily takeout chart-odd they have some updated see EP and others they sem to have missed.

Does anyone know of one site that post updated takeout?

[Hosshead]

On a related note, NY & Canada (Woodbine, etc.) are the only ones with ten cent breakage, ... :ThmbUp:
Actually, it's nickel breakage.
Wonder how much the tracks make every year off of dime breakage vs. nickel ?

[DanG]

There is one caveat to this IMO:

If one track in the country has a 12% takeout, it doesn’t necessarily mean ALL of us should drop the rest to play this one circuit. You still need an edge to beat the pool and certain tracks will be right in your wheel house and some will feel like playing on Neptune.

How much square money is also a consideration.

I thought Beyer made a great analogy in Bet with the Best. "If you walk into a poker room and one table has Johnny Chan and the other has a bunch of guys with convention badges….which one do you sit down at all things being equal"?

There can very well be 20% takeout tracks where you have a 30% advantage and 15% takeout tracks where you’re up against sharp players who are on very similar animals to yourself. All part of the process and of course in the big scheme of things an across the board takeout reduction only benefits all of us.

[Cangamble]

There is one caveat to this IMO:

If one track in the country has a 12% takeout, it doesn’t necessarily mean ALL of us should drop the rest to play this one circuit. You still need an edge to beat the pool and certain tracks will be right in your wheel house and some will feel like playing on Neptune.

How much square money is also a consideration.

I thought Beyer made a great analogy in Bet with the Best. "If you walk into a poker room and one table has Johnny Chan and the other has a bunch of guys with convention badges….which one do you sit down at all things being equal"?

There can very well be 20% takeout tracks where you have a 30% advantage and 15% takeout tracks where you’re up against sharp players who are on very similar animals to yourself. All part of the process and of course in the big scheme of things an across the board takeout reduction only benefits all of us.
********************************
There are too many factors to consider in whether a particular track attracts too many sharks. Track takeout is one, but another is purse structure. The smaller the purses the more prone a race is to have a predetermined winner that many in the backstretch know about. Tracks with liberal drug laws are also harder to beat because of backstretch action. And lower tracks have sorer and more erratic form horses than higher class tracks.
The bigger tracks most likely attract the bigger bettors because of pool size and familiarity. They also attract more big loser bettors as well (the general public).
Thanks to slots, the amount of less informed bettors (the stupid money) has fallen. Many have become slot players.
I don't think there is any track I can think of that gives anyone a big swing advantage as a handicapper, so all in all, I prefer lower takeouts.

[thelyingthief]

that, the larger the number of suckers the greater the cost levied by the state to get at 'em.

woodbine comes to mind.

but then, there's santa anita, where suckers are so plentiful, it actually stirs forth high velocity winds. in fact, a recent study at CalTech has detected perturbations in the lunar orbit that coincide with the SA winter meet, leading to speculation that global events yet unexplained take their origin from this same cause.

hmm.

quite a question.

tlt

[Topcat]

that, the larger the number of suckers the greater the cost levied by the state to get at 'em.

woodbine comes to mind.

but then, there's santa anita, where suckers are so plentiful, it actually stirs forth high velocity winds. in fact, a recent study at CalTech has detected perturbations in the lunar orbit that coincide with the SA winter meet, leading to speculation that global events yet unexplained take their origin from this same cause.

hmm.

quite a question.

tlt

What facts do you have that supports this? That WO or SA have more suckers-aside from high velocity winds?

What defines a track that has more suckers? Favorite win% or?

[CyberBet]

Not that I know but I would think that tracks with higher average win payouts would be the ones with the suckers as most suckers tend to wager on the "favorite" or the best jockey, trainer and so forth. Leaving the true handicapper as the one hitting the longer odds horses. It will be interesting to see others opinions.

[DanG]

What facts do you have that supports this? That WO or SA have more suckers-aside from high velocity winds?

What defines a track that has more suckers? Favorite win% or?
Not easy to determine and it takes experience to know your game well enough to judge by the available overlays…

But; a rough guide can be had by studying the ratio of simulcast money. A mid-major who has a disproportionate number of simulcast dollars can sometimes be a clue that the locals don’t have you over a barrel.

A friend told me once; “Never underestimate the impulse buys a gambler will make through simulcasting”. I sat and watched a gambler in Vegas several years ago betting $1,000 win bets using nothing but the overnight sheet the casino put out. It does happen; just not as much as we would like! :)

In closing…As I tried to convey earlier…One mans trap is another mans meal ticket. As a rule, Kentucky has frustrating me for many years. (Dirt in particular) For many, it’s all they bet. There is a much overused saying “find out who you are”…but in gambling, it certainly applies IMO.

[Topcat]

While I don't want to discount the idea that some tracks will yield better results for certain methodogies, I haven't found any proof that some tracks have more smart money then others. The nature of parimutuel wagering pretty well takes care of this. I used to think that fair meets would be easy to beat due to the high % of one time bettors who visit the fair and make a wager. These visitors tend to only bet $2,stick with the low odds horses and are dwarfed by those of us betting much more.

I was intrigued with the idea of handicapping the handicappers and I've even tested this premise using some robotic handicapping methods across multiple tracks and I could find no evidence that some tracks had more "dumb" money-yes some tracks were more profitable , e.g. NY and some were harder to beat , e.g. Kentucky, but the win% by first, second, third, and fourth favorite fell in line in any large sample.

The variance in track takeout can be much more fruitful. Just look at the difference in takeout on P4 between Hol normal takeout of 20.68 and MD at 30.0 - a whopping 9.32% difference.

Maybe selectively picking which tracks to handicap based on takeout is the poor man's rebate?

[trying2win]

There is one caveat to this IMO:

If one track in the country has a 12% takeout, it doesn’t necessarily mean ALL of us should drop the rest to play this one circuit. You still need an edge to beat the pool and certain tracks will be right in your wheel house and some will feel like playing on Neptune.

How much square money is also a consideration.

I thought Beyer made a great analogy in Bet with the Best. "If you walk into a poker room and one table has Johnny Chan and the other has a bunch of guys with convention badges….which one do you sit down at all things being equal"?

There can very well be 20% takeout tracks where you have a 30% advantage and 15% takeout tracks where you’re up against sharp players who are on very similar animals to yourself. All part of the process and of course in the big scheme of things an across the board takeout reduction only benefits all of us.


--Great post Dan...thanks! :ThmbUp:

I agree. While I would prefer to play racetracks on the lower end to the middle part of the takeout scale, the reality I've faced is that my results have been traditionally poor when I've played some tracks like BELMONT or AQUEDUCT, even with their lower-than-average takeout on straight bets. So naturally I've dropped those NYRA tracks off my betting list.

[Topcat]

Averaged over any reasonable number of wagers, there is no difference between a rebate and the equivalent lower takeout.

GameTheory,

There is some difference, is there not? With a rebate the money is not at risk.

[Robert Fischer]

in a perfect world the greatest races would with full fields and top horses would offer low takeouts.

I can't play the minor leagues just because of takeouts.

Either I have an edge at a major league race or I pass.

If you can pick any track based on takeout and still be a winner - more power to you


the way i figure the track is going to take their cut , im beating up on the bettors not the track.

If we unionized we could probably demand lower takeouts and rebates, but that is way too much work:D

[DanG]

I agree. While I would prefer to play racetracks on the lower end to the middle part of the takeout scale, the reality I've faced is that my results have been traditionally poor when I've played some tracks like BELMONT or AQUEDUCT, even with their lower-than-average takeout on straight bets. So naturally I've dropped those NYRA tracks off my betting list.
T2W…

I applaud you for your honesty and I think it’s a fundamental part of finding your sweet spot in the gambling game.

My goodness…I threw up my hands during the most recent winter meet at Aqu and yet many good players I knew were paying their mortgage. You must stay true to yourself IMO.

[Topcat]

Robert wrote:

[/QUOTE]a perfect world the greatest races would with full fields and top horses would offer low takeouts.

I can't play the minor leagues just because of takeouts.

Either I have an edge at a major league race or I pass.

If you can pick any track based on takeout and still be a winner - more power to you


the way I figure the track is going to take their cut , im beating up on the bettors not the track.

If we unionized we could probably demand lower takeouts and rebates, but that is way too much work:D[/QUOTE]

Well actually I can play most tracks after some study and still maintain my edge-now perhaps that is because it is a a small edge <G>.

Ask yourself this, why do you have an edge at one track or another?-isn't it more a matter of being familiar with the track rather than some mystical insight?

As to: "track is going to take their cut , im beating up on the bettors not the track."

Well, that is one point of view but the big name professionals I've corresponded with say your biggest competitor is the track takeout. And any time I've checked anyone's records (for the few who actually keep them) it shows repeatedly that they fare better at those tracks or at least those bets with lower takeout. You may not have the records to check but know this it would be enhnced greatly if the takeout was even 3% lower. If you can transfer some of that edge to better takeout bet you don't even need as much edge. Let's just take your statement and check it against the extreme: Let's say they increase the takeout to 80%, remember nothing has changed but the takeout-do you still think that you'll walk away a winner by "beating up on the bettors"?

Granted this is an extreme but logically if the takeout matters at 80% then it matters at 20% versus 30%.

IMHO, Part of the problem is that horseplayers spend much more time handicapping a race or track then on money management or on shopping for the best bet. They end up determined to bet what they spent time on and the tracks take advantage of it-after all why should they offer full fields, lower takeout, or rebates if horseplayers just bet whatever they offer?

[Kelso]

Well, that is one point of view but the big name professionals I've corresponded with say your biggest competitor is the track takeout.

<snip>

If you can transfer some of that edge to better takeout bet you don't even need as much edge.


I think Ernie Dahlman's situation lends strong support to your observations. His cited ROI is less than 5%. The typical track edge is upwards of 15%! If the track takes less, the winners get more.

[DeanT]

I think that is a very intelligent post Topcat. Extremely well stated :ThmbUp:

[DeanT]

I think we see a little example of this thread with the Ellis Pick 4.

They have been all over the map. From around 25K to 100K this year in pool size. They don't have super coverage due to the wagering nonsense, but it is pretty much besides the point.

Yesterday, there were stakes races and full fields. I had a tough time getting a playable ticket made. Very deep and interesting races. The pool size ended up being big. Earlier this week with some chalky shorter fields of cheap horses, it was small.

So, we have a bet that is neg $16EV if you play a $400 ticket. You can't find a bet in racing that spending $400 costs you $16 to play anywhere in the world, yet cappers still want a full field of class horses to bet, trainers and jocks they know, and horses they tend to know, so they can use the tools they are comfortable with to make tickets, and spend money.

I'd bet $400 claimers at a 4% rake, but that is me, others are different.

[melman]

Dean---Yesterday in the Philly Inquirer, Craig Donnelly the handicapper for that paper did a story on the Laurel bargain.

An example of the difference in payouts is from the sixth race at Laurel on Thursday. The payoffs on the winner were $18.40 to win $9.60 to place and $6.60 to show. The second finisher returned $18 to place and $9.20 to show. The third finisher paid $4.40 to show.

Under the old higher takeout, the returns would have been $17 to win, $9.00 to place and $6.20 to show. Thee second finisher would have paid $16.60 to place and $8.40 to show. The third finisher would have paid $4.20 to show.

Check the difference in the exotic pools. With the new take the payoffs were $$240 for the exacta, $1,137.40 for the tri and the pic3 at $1,332.20. Now the payoff's for the old take, exacta $215.60, tri $946.40 and the pic3 at $1,108.40.

[DeanT]

I will search the article. Thanks for that. I like reading this stuff.

He is preaching to the converted with me. I am there betting that. I have not done enough work on it either. I just bought files for Lrl. I hope they do it again, so I can take more advantage.

I am living it with the Ellis Park win 4. It is a lesson to me, or anyone in grinding and churn, rebating/low rake. I put $X in an account to play just that bet around Jul 15th- nothing else.

I lost 4 in a row a couple weeks ago. I was down to a fairly low amount. This is key: If I had played that bet under the old 25% rake I would have been broke at that time and would have had to reload (or just walk away). Instead, I hit one (with my cheap rake savings) and I have replayed it for about two weeks, placing about $200-$250 a day in tickets into the pool.

I will play a low rake track at any time. As I said before, I like money. If anyone wants to give me some with a low rake, I'll take it. This game is hard and I need all the help I can get.

[melman]

Dean---So few racing executives understand what you just posted. If there were just 5 or so tracks that would go to the reduced take for an extended period of time I think they would see there handle explode.

[Robert Fischer]

Ask yourself this, why do you have an edge at one track or another?-isn't it more a matter of being familiar with the track rather than some mystical insight?

As to: "track is going to take their cut , im beating up on the bettors not the track."

Well, that is one point of view but the big name professionals I've corresponded with say your biggest competitor is the track takeout. And any time I've checked anyone's records (for the few who actually keep them) it shows repeatedly that they fare better at those tracks or at least those bets with lower takeout. You may not have the records to check but know this it would be enhnced greatly if the takeout was even 3% lower. If you can transfer some of that edge to better takeout bet you don't even need as much edge. Let's just take your statement and check it against the extreme: Let's say they increase the takeout to 80%, remember nothing has changed but the takeout-do you still think that you'll walk away a winner by "beating up on the bettors"?

Granted this is an extreme but logically if the takeout matters at 80% then it matters at 20% versus 30%.

IMHO, Part of the problem is that horseplayers spend much more time handicapping a race or track then on money management or on shopping for the best bet. They end up determined to bet what they spent time on and the tracks take advantage of it-after all why should they offer full fields, lower takeout, or rebates if horseplayers just bet whatever they offer?
80%?

No. I like betting the top class horses where there is a massive amount of money into the pools. That money in the pool ends up going to me when the public is wrong and I happen to be right.
Looking at the chart I already happen to wager at some of the lowest standard takeout tracks (SAR BEL AQU CD KEE DMR HOL GP...) In a few categories at a few of the tracks I may be giving up 3 or 4 percent. I am not about to start wagering on Solano park (16.77&21.52%) or excluding say the trifecta and super at Belmont because it happens to be 25%. I consider takeout as a factor but right now it is a small factor, with the exception of things like Laurel Park's recent special.

[melman]

Robert---Let's say for the sake of arguement that five non "high class" tracks like Laurel went to the huge cut in take on a PERMANENT basis. Check the results of the exotic payout cited by Craig Donnally do you think you are good enough with your plays to overcome the differance in payout's? The best of all worlds of course would be for ALL type tracks to cut the take to the level of Laurel's. If tracks would go to the lower take on a permanent basis I think you would find the pools getting larger and larger at those tracks regardless of "high class" or not.

[Robert Fischer]

Robert---Let's say for the sake of arguement that five non "high class" tracks like Laurel went to the huge cut in take on a PERMANENT basis. Check the results of the exotic payout cited by Craig Donnally do you think you are good enough with your plays to overcome the differance in payout's? The best of all worlds of course would be for ALL type tracks to cut the take to the level of Laurel's. If tracks would go to the lower take on a permanent basis I think you would find the pools getting larger and larger at those tracks regardless of "high class" or not.

Agreed.

[Topcat]

Track take out info can also be found on the DRF site by track:

http://www.drf.com/trackinfo/woodbine.html

but surprisingly even some of these do not seem to have the latest changes.

Apart from this I searched out some of the individual track sites and some of these sites don't even list the track take which ought to tell you something about how they view bettors.

[rrbauer]

Track take out info can also be found on the DRF site by track:

http://www.drf.com/trackinfo/woodbine.html

but surprisingly even some of these do not seem to have the latest changes.

Apart from this I searched out some of the individual track sites and some of these sites don't even list the track take which ought to tell you something about how they view bettors.

Comment:
I believe the Woodbine P4 takeout has been raised and is something over 20% this meet.

Even the link to the "track information" part of the DRF site is misleading:
http://www.drf.com/entries/entries_info.html

Here is the takeout from Keeneland, the ONLY track to make a response to the NTRA recommendations from a few years ago by lowering their takeout:

Takeout Information

Win, place, and show: 16%
Pick 3, 4 and 6: 17%
All other wagers: 19%

Takeout to a horseplayer is one of the costs of doing business. Payout breakage to a horseplayer is one of the costs of being a winner.

And, as Topcat points out, getting reliable information (read: full disclosure) from the tracks borders on futility.

[Cangamble]

The Win 4 at Woodbine was secretly raised back up to 25% last year.

[rrbauer]

The Win 4 at Woodbine was secretly raised back up to 25% last year.

Thanks for the info. No thanks to Woodbine!